Kevin Beal

Watch out for the sticky web of projection. You don't wanna get caught up in it. You could get poisoned and then eventually you're hollowed out. But it's hard because that web is really damn sticky. The spider hides, showing only an elaborate pattern and in a flash you get spun up and bound. "Funny how the most faithful atheists still need to resort to ad hominen attacks" "Wow, that might be oversimplifying things a bit, huh?" "how absolutely ignorant of you to pretend to know everything" These are the spider's signal lines, and when those get tripped the spider comes out to snack. But the spider doesn't just kill it's prey, it paralyzes it and corrodes it from the inside, torturing it in just about the worst way possible. If a spider can't find bugs to eat, it goes elsewhere. It's just doing what god designed it to

Exactly. You understood it correctly. I don't understand the hangup. Near universal means exactly what it sounds like. It means just short of universal. The requirement that something always be universal without any single exception is covered in the first chapters of the book. A glass of water can never be 100% pure, but that doesn't mean that sea water and bottled water are both undrinkable. What you are saying doesn't follow logically. UPB can have worked toward the success of our species without being an unimportant tweak or accepted across the board, but to that point, a very strong argument could be made that we all accept UPB, since exposing hypocrisies and debate both imply UPB. UPB doesn't include mathematics or logic, and I'm not sure about the science part, I guess that depends on what you mean. The common element is universals regarding behavior and prefered states. UPB is the methodology we apply universals to and the requirement that a scientific theory (for example) be supported by evidence, reproducible, falsifiable etc are prefered states. When we argue for them, UPB has something to say about it: that it should apply to everyone's theories, be universal etc. More like didn't notice, but yea. That's how I'm using it.

I would say it does. This whole business of seeing bullshit as quickly as possible so that we don't waste our time with the overwhelming sophistry that's out there, has been heavily aided by UPB, imho. UPB goes way passed ethics and into pretty much all debates. In fact, it baffles me how people could be really into the show, but don't subscribe to UPB. To me, they seem so intertwined. This podcast goes some way into summing up why UPB is so important: 1204 – My Major Contribution to Philosophy http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1204_My_Contribution.MP3 When you start seeing UPB in the arguments that people make, it makes things much more efficient. Before I understood UPB, there were some approaches and conclusions that Stef made that confused me. As soon as I made connection with the methodology, there was a lot that clicked for me. I'm sure that to some degree you already get it, but it's good to make it explicit.

That's not all, actually. There are also other standards that must be satisfied such as universality and the capacity for choice and for moral reasoning. If a proposition meets all of these standards then the behavior that the proposition prescribes is not immoral. And I say "not immoral" as opposed to "moral" because the only propositions that can be satisfied by these standards are "thou shalt not"'s (as described in the book). Evidence should support the theory if it's correct, but the theory itself is a priori like economics is. The basis of the theory is reasoned without reference to evidence and then evidence is found later that backs it up (assuming it's true). This is not how biology (for example) works, being that biology looks at the evidence first and then deduces it's theories that way. I think so anyway. I'm not an expert on any of those sciences. An example of evidence being applied to UPB is in the section "Five Proofs". It goes like this:

Haha. Actually I photoshopped them in. Nobody will sell me shades that cool.

Pepin, you linked in the wrong youtube playlist the on the second one. Although, perhaps unconsciously what you replaced it with may even be more apt. The intro to philosophy series is here: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLC1647D7F937DDE7A

I never use the word "energy". The word "energy" strikes me as just about the most vague word conceivable. It's as if people use it like they would "stuff" or "thing". "There is a certain energy to her" "we are, fundamentally, only made up of energy" Or "totes", short for "totally". I don't think I'm hip to the hop enough to use words like that!

I meant between me telling you I'm an libra, and me telling you I'm 26 and into philosophy, etc. Which one tells you more about me? The point I was trying to make is that categories can be very unhelpful in understanding someone. And I don't know what "gummy LSD" means. Google doesn't yield any answers on that. This forum allows for almost any topic, as long as it doesn't violate the community guidelines (which are pretty lax). It's just that if you are presenting ideas, you should expect them to be held to a high standard of reason and evidence. What psychological insights do you see being gleaned from applying these categories?

It generally makes sense to me that there would be complementary roles like you described in male and female psychology, but why is it important to you to square Taoism with psychology and the philosophy talked about in this show? Or put another way, why is taoism important to you? None of this is any kind of proof, obviously, but I do have an opinion about what you're saying. I am negatively biased against these sorts of typologies that may be more personal than logical, but people make astrology fit, make numerology fit, make all kinds of categories for who a person is. I personally don't understand the appeal of that. I think of myself (for example) as being made up of many different personalities. Which is probably why people identify with multiple horoscopes at different times or even the same time. People have sun signs and moon signs and planetary signs etc to make up for the limits of this sort of categorical approach. I can say that I identify with being a horse. Some people actually literally say that. I like to describe myself sometimes thru use of analogy, but I wonder if really it is all that helpful to do that. Rather I think being specific is the way to go. I'm a 26yr old male living in northern california who works as a web developer for an insurance company, who enjoys debating and learning about philosophy in his free time, rents a room in a house living a modest living, with aspirations to be a successful entrepreneur and fall in love. Or you could say that I'm an INTP, a libra, a rabbit and my spirit animal is an owl (all given by different typologies). Which of these do you think is more helpful in understanding who I am?

No rules against posting videos. You may even embed them with: [media]http://www.youtube.com/unique_id[/media] By the sound of it, what Mikey T is proposing is something along the lines of anarcho-communism which has very similar moral positions around coercion and the state, but actually diametrically opposed solutions. Often these left anarchists clash with the right anarchists. I've personally never seen a productive debate betwixt the two, but neither am I seasoned or an expert. Stef talks to a caller about anarcho-communism around the 22min mark of this podcast: 1451 – Sunday Show 6 Sep 2009 http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1451_Sunday_Show_6_Sep_2009.mp3 And around 23mins in this one: Sympathy for Communism - Freedomain Radio Sunday Philosophy Show, November 25 2012 http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_2266_Freedomain_Radio_Sunday_Show_Nov_25_2012.mp3

Steven Jay Gould didn't fundamentally disagree with Darwin. He just thought that changes in environment played a larger role than changes in individual mutation with his theory of punctuated equilibrium. Same with Niles Eldridge. Never heard of David Raup so I can't comment. But Darwin's theory extends way beyond mutation into all different kinds of selection and gradual changes in response to environment. In fact Gould's work is an extension of Darwin's. It's the same for philosophy, and for the exact same reasons. (Somebody beat me to it! I should really read threads before posting, haha.)

No, actually. Developing these features takes time and effort that's better spent elsewhere. You can very easily un-hide it. As for what's productive or not, I don't know. I don't see how it's just a given that it's unproductive. Unproductive as compared to what?

That's the seen cost, but the unseen benefit is to those who wish not to read that sort of stuff. I almost never read hidden content. It's actually really helpful to me. If it's been deemed to be so negative as to be hidden, then that tells me all I need to know.

Sorry to be annoying, but actually it means that morality wouldn't be binding on anyone else. The objective part is that it's true (or not) regardless of what people say about it and that's how it's binding on you. Binding because it's objectively true and not because somebody said it or wants it to be true. It's actually conceivable that you could have an objective morality that applies not universally, but as is demonstrated in UPB, that leads to some logical issues to say the least. The place where people no longer have choice is not that hard. Can they do this immoral deed without feeling like they will be killed? Having a gun to your back is having no choice. Feeling a strong pressure to go to college because we think we won't be able to find a job otherwise is having a choice, but feeling pressured. There is strong evidence that suggests that a great many children literally suspect their parents will murder them (see "origins of war in child abuse"). And that's one reason I don't hold children to be nearly as responsible. In addition, children may not understand the moral reasoning that shows how something is immoral (but they pick that up quick). In addition, anyone who makes moral argument is logically bound by them since morality applies to anyone with the capacity for moral reasoning and they demonstrate that they understand it well enough to pose an argument. Also, obviously because it would be hypocritical if they weren't held to that same standard they put out. Hypocrisy is anti-UPB.

Can you show how it was simple disagreement or skepticism that caused the downvote? To say that so confidently makes no sense to me (especially since you immediately change your story). How do you know the reason people downvote? I could just as easily assert that you are making accusations about people simply because you are a jerk. Telling people what their motivations are is not honest. You don't know that. And also, I said that it could very well be the case that Stef said that thing about parenting on drugs, but that wasn't my memory of what he said and I asked you to provide a quote or some kind of reference and you basically said "no" and then told everyone (literally) that they could go fuck themselves. You are portraying this discussion we had in a misleading way. Why don't you show people how it actually went down? (You're the one who brought it up)

That's an interesting perspective. I don't think I've ever drawn a distinction like that before. This is obviously my interpretation and emotional experience and whether or not it truly helped me hasn't been measured in any way, but I experienced a lot of envy in my teens around people who played guitar better than me. I felt a mild resentment about how much more skilled they were, and in my vanity just accepted that "well, I could do that too, and better!" and because I wanted it to be the case. I practiced the hell out of the guitar and became, I don't know, better than most I suppose. Good enough for my own satisfaction, anyway. When I first started out in web development I felt inadequate compared to all the people who could actually make forms, knew how to do things cross-browser and this sort of thing. I thought I could never get a good job doing it unless I got infinitely better than I was. I would listen and see all the people in this community, Stef and people generally in the industry that were doing software and how cool that must be for them. I didn't have the same resentment, but I was definitely envious and so I started practicing every day and now I'm at the point where I'm pretty impressed with myself. I don't know if the envy in both these cases was what would qualify as good envy or not, or it could be that there were other more important motivators I'm not considering, but I'm inclined to believe that it was envy generally that motivated me to achieve the little successes that I have.

It depends on the thought. I might think that it's a useless thought to feel guilt around the way I handled something or whatever along those lines. The implication if I'm wrong is that I'm suppressing something important. To say it's useless is to have a standard that says that you know what is useless and what isn't in some kind of principled way. You didn't really share how you are coming to this conclusion about whatever thoughts in any kind of explicit way. My default is to think that people are un-principled until they demonstrate otherwise (but maybe I'm too cynical). I've asked myself a ton of times whether or not the criticisms I have of myself are valid or not, and I found it to be one of the most difficult things I've done. So to think that someone could do it so casually it makes me very skeptical. If you're trained to suppress something and you don't approach it principally then you just aren't going to have any success truly processing it. It would be like expecting someone who didn't know any english to suddenly start speaking it fluently. It's not a language you know unless you learned it.

Would you say that such comparisons are basically always tied to evaluating your own self worth? Like in order to be comparing in the first place we must hold whatever we are comparing as a value, and so someone whoever has had more success in that area would logically be more valuable in that area? And so we are by comparison less valuable. Something like that? Not to say that you are right or wrong, mostly because I don't know, right (it's the first time I've considered what you said), but I wonder how avoidable this really is. From reading different things about human and primate psychology it seems that we make these comparisons pretty much all day long unconsciously. How handsome or strong or rich or whatever other status indicators all processed in the blink of an eye and conditioning how we respond in certain situations and even the roles we adopt in those circles. Assuming that I know what I'm talking about, it would seem to me that the best thing would to make these comparisons conscious so that we have an opportunity to weigh them against principles, and if we're doing it anyway, then it's more that we are just learning about ourselves. And possibly even an aversion to comparing yourself could result in suppression / repression. Does that make sense? I don't know. I gather that you've had some negative results from comparing yourself to other people, but I wonder if it's really the comparing that was the problem. I mean, I think a very strong argument could be made that your unschooling (versus their college / full-time work) was actually the wisest choice. The comparison could have been that you were doing important work that they weren't even conscious enough to consider, if you looked at it from a different perspective. I'll just be honest that I have a strong bias. Specifically that I've considered envy to be a strong motivator in my life. I credit envy with my above average guitar playing and singing, my decent logical rigor, the minor successes I've had in my web development career. The things I identify with most. I'm not very aware of what the potential problems are beyond what I've already mentioned in my previous post, so I'd be interested to hear you elaborate on things to look out for

*apologies

I'm not sure if this is a criticism or if you are trying to present a case, or really even what the message is Could you form your message as an argument? I'm inclined to think more in terms of propositions, premises and conclusions, which is probably why I spend so much time on a forum dedicated to philosophy. I'm assuming that you are saying something along the lines of: "if we act in accordance with god's wishes we will find ourselves to be free, even if we're atheists". Did I get that right?

I appreciate that. I'm not particularly bothered by snarkiness. I would be a hypocrite, actually, if I criticized someone on those grounds. My response was meant actually to see what I missed, not to call you on snarkiness. I assumed your comment was saying that I had missed something obvious, like maybe some reasoning as to why the OP was addressing humans and not hamsters or something. I was literally thinking in my head "why doesn't TDB just tell me what silly thing I said?" Also, I didn't downvote your post in case you thought I did. (In fact I cancelled the downvote out since your correction).

They left the boards long before there was a rating system on the boards (this is actually somewhat new). A great many posts in that thread would likely have been voted down if it were the present day (including some of my own). Also, can you be very explicit about this "hostility"? What specifically is hostile? Ideally, it shouldn't matter how something is communicated, but rather the ideas themselves judged on their merits. Typically, I don't care much about how rude or polite a person is as long as they actually have something meaningful to say. That seems to me the philosophical attitude. What is true is what matters. Some ideas are worthy of ridicule. Many of the things that have come out of my mouth (and fingers?) have been laughably false. One example of an idea that's laughable is the idea that one could come into a discussion and hostilely condemn others for being hostile. Haha Assuming it is really that far from true, it would seem to me that the best response would be to accept that fact and take it with good humor that they said something so foolish. This idea that people on the boards should be more [fill in the blank] may be entirely true for all I know, but it seems like anybody who actually cared enough to honestly correct people should model the behavior themselves that they want to see in others, first and foremost. If it's really the case that people are not being free thinking, or skeptical, or open minded, or whatever enough, then it makes no sense to me that you would condemn them in order to correct them. What would a close minded, slave to doctrine type person do with that? Obviously they wouldn't be receptive. Conversely, how would a person who is being unjustly condemned react? Well, probably not too receptive either. None of this is directed at you, necessarily. I just felt like ranting and you gave me a good jumping off point.

An ad hominem fallacy is only a fallacy insofar as it doesn't constitute proof (not fit for a syllogism). It's not proof, but it is evidence absolutely. On top of that, some definitions of the ad hominem fallacy even limit itself strictly to those facts which are irrelevant. The facts presented regarding hypocrisy are not irrelevant and the whole intro to the video explains why that is. 531 – Logical Fallacies Part 1 http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_531_Logical_Fallacies_Part_1.mp3

How are you distinguishing agreement from slavish obedience to doctrine?

This is a recent one that was audio only, and since I'm typically getting new content thru youtube I almost missed it. Maybe you're the same way. Anyway, this is a great podcast. FDR#2577 – Are Women Held Morally Responsible? http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_2577_Female_Responsibility.mp3