Kevin Beal

Peter Gray and Allison Gopnik are both talked about in the article, and both have been guests on the show Very interesting article.

Sure. I have a painful sense of longing that I experience on occasion. A longing for connection. I've become more social, accepting party invitations, making more of an effort to make conversation with people, turning the conversations I have to things I genuinely care about. People have commented that I've become much more outgoing in the last couple years, but that longing only ever gets stronger. I feel a bit hesitant sharing that, in case it reveals too much about me. But I wonder if it's no projection at all, and most people also feel as I do. That I'm right when I look around and see everyone is in pain. The darkest and most body shaking feelings I've had in therapy are around the issue of isolation and indifference. I almost don't see them as anything but two sides of the same coin. The fact that my longing doesn't go away, and that the pain doesn't go away either, it makes me feel like something is missing. Like there's a big hole in my chest. When I first started therapy, I would say to my therapist "I don't know what it is, but I know that something is terribly wrong". And that was this. And thank you guys for the responses.

I was halfway expecting the article to be broken

You (Stef) asked if it is not the case that I (the viewer) was treated with cold indifference, isolation and never asked with real curiosity what my own internal life was like, my dreams, what I like and don't like about things etc. I'm not actually an exception. This was definitely the case for me and reflecting on it actually triggers powerful feelings of rage and sadness. I think, like you suggested, that this is near universal and that you and I are not at all unique in that way. I'm really just posting this to bring more attention to it and possibly getting other people's thoughts on it. I've shared it in social media and sent it to a friend, but I think it's worthy of special consideration, even within this community which already mostly shares the values presented in the video. One part that was especially powerful an idea for me was in how you don't really know just how much the indifference and isolation effects you until you've had a truly loving relationship with someone. As I have never been in love, I wonder how much I'm not getting. I've done a lot of work with isolation, felt some pretty awful, agonizing experiences on the couch, got some good moral clarity and still, I get it's a deeper well than I even know. The timing of the video is actually pretty serendipitous in that way. Did anyone else listen and get a profound sense of something missing?

Unfortunately, Aughra is totally real

I believe the intro and outro were donated. I don't think Stef has any graphic design experience.

Don't know and don't care about what? I asked you before, but you never responded. Don't care and don't know about Hercules? Don't know and don't care about Shiva? Or do you not care and don't know about something eternal, involved in the creation of the universe with some incorporeal consciousness (some variation of the square circle)? No agnostic that I have ever met was agnostic with regard to anything except that last one. You can talk about Ra and Quetzalcoatl, but it's only for the purposes of creating exceptions to a rule you (in all likelihood) accept as much as I do. I can guarantee you that if we were talking about norse gods you would not be challenging atheists to say how they couldn't exist. It's a particular kind of god, the one you refuse to define, what started this whole conversation and is the subject of the book you are asking people about. I'm going to tell you what you are talking about, since you wont. You are talking about the kind of god that modern people believe in. The sort of god that people are going to attack you for criticizing, the kind of god that people only still believe because it's put into the place that people cannot measure: another universe, non existence, before the universe etc. So you are an agnostic? Agnostic about what god in particular? And be honest, santa claus is checking his list! You don't want a lump of coal for christmas do you? This is an argument from ignorance. It's another logical error you've made.

That doesn't follow logically.

A definition doesn't have to be unchanging and invariable (which is redundant btw ) for it to be specific enough as to exclude things from it which are unlike, and not unlike like Yahweh and Zeus are unlike, but unlike in the sense that what it is that makes X a "god" is unlike. Yahweh is a god because he's eternal, incorporeal, omniscient etc, and a tomato is a god because it's a red veggie (or fruit or whatever). You get that the definition becomes completely useless at this point. It's really as simple as saying that magic tricks aren't real magic. Unless I'm just missing something totally obvious, it's really not that complicated.

But they were wrong that it was a god. It's because it is what it is and not what people think it is, that is my point. If they were mistaken, then they were wrong. Let's say they thought that my magic trick was real magic. Once I reveal that it's just an illusion, we don't change the definition of "magic" to include illusions. It was in fact not magic.

The central computer will ponder all these questions and sit and think and reflect and bounce ideas back and forth and get to know all of the people who want these goods, and it will figure out the best way. It's much smarter than all the economists because it has like quantum chips and stuff. It will not only have solved the problem of artificial intelligence itself, but it will be able to predict like a weather machine what everybody's wants and needs are, based on surveys, an understanding of human psychology and being really super smart. We don't need price calculation or a science of economics because we've got iPhones now, and all that economics is is a way for evil rich corporations to steal the souls of the poor turning them into amoral consumers. Price calculation? Isn't there an app for that?

Even if the only therapeutic value of dream interpretation were that the symbolism was interesting and provoked thought about our lives causing us to introspect / reflect, then that's value enough I think.

Zeus is eternal and occasionally incorporeal if I remember correctly. The problem with Flake's objection is that these people who believed in these ancient gods didn't think that the god was a powerful alien. They worshiped these gods because they were thought to be specifically supernatural. If they were wrong and the being they worshiped was just really advanced technologically then that's not a problem with what I'm saying, that's them being incorrect.

Nah, just setup the debate, or debate him yourself. Call in to the show. Test this "real" philosophy and ethics! You are guaranteed not to get anywhere in a forum thread. Have an actual conversation with the man himself. Call into the show and illustrate these supposed logical errors.

Well, that sounds like an awesome opportunity to test it out. Contact Matt or any other "analytic philosopher" you think has a superior understanding of ethics and get this debate going! I downvoted because your response was a snarky, "win by technicality" kind of response that was insulting to people's intelligence, implying that no one here knows anything about "real" philosophy or ethics. It was just sort of irritating and unproductive.

Here's the kind of thing you read when you look up what Stef's education was:

If a guy creates a hologram of himself and projects it into the clouds, comes up with an elaborate story about how he created the universe and when prompted to answer any omniscient challenge refers to the google app on his smart phone, then he's not a god. It doesn't matter what people think about a particular entity, it has to fit a definition regardless of what people think. They thought he was a god, but they were wrong. Likewise, a super powerful alien may be "god-like", but he is not a god. To create a definition of a god that includes super powerful aliens in with the gods that people actually believe in (which are square circles) is to create a meaningless definition that is far too broad and not at all useful as it includes mutually exclusive completely unlike things. Gods aren't real by their very definitions like you said, and you can call it "narrow" or whatever you want, but it's the most consistent and valuable definition and best describes what is actually going on for people. If your christian neighbor learned that Yahweh is really just a powerful alien with some really awesome 3D printer and a smart phone, then they would not continue to worship it, because he is not a god.

Starting 5 minutes into the first video of the debate Stef makes some points about what the hell we are talking about when we say a "god". First he's gotta be incorporeal or else we are just talking about a dude, a super powerful alien or something like that, and not a god. And second is that it's eternal (before and after the universe). And some form of superhuman kind of intelligence: all-knowing. If we don't accept these things, we're just talking about some super powerful alien and not a god. And those things are necessarily self contradictory. A cup is not a god, this computer screen is not a god, my pinky toe is not a god. "God" has an actual definition as vague as some people like to make their gods. It's not like it's something we can't comment on without putting forward a bunch of definitions. If you say that a god could exist, or that your god exists, then you are wrong, or you are using the word wrong. The debate is actually very enlightening if you haven't watched it yet. Please do that.

As far as I understand it, there is no distinction made within the context of UPB. They are treated synonymously. Stef was asked once in a sunday show if he would make a distinction, and he said that he doesn't.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. All being critical means is putting forward criticisms. That was the point of this thread, I thought. She said that what she was doing wasn't working, so rejecting people for saying that she could have handled it better at best makes no sense. To criticize the way she handled it is to take her at face value. If you are going to look critically at yourself and find ways of being the best parent you can be, then you need to have some thick skin. It's infinitely more important than "what will people think of me?" or "what if I'm a bad parent?" or any other insecurities you may have. Being a philosophical parent is going to mean bumping up against the kinds of people she mentioned in the OP and she is going to need the confidence to stick to her guns and put her child first before any insecurities, doubt or peer pressure she may come up against. She's an adult and she can handle some criticism. This is just a reminder.

Because, intuitively, it's completely insane. You are giving people reasons (although technically may be in fact true) have only ever served the purpose of the "god of the gaps" ex post facto rationalizing. Nobody is served by "well, we may learn that something works differently than we thought in the future" with regard to this conversation. No, there are no gods, no ghosts, no gremlins.

The logical conclusion of your statement then is that Santa Claus might exist somewhere out there, and you can't tell me otherwise. For as long as there have been people believing in gods, they have always put it just beyond our understanding. This is just another god of the gaps. Please stop enabling delusional thinking. Gods do not exist, nor santa, nor ghosts, nor gelflings.

God, I'm so sorry! What a terrible situation. I'm feeling overwhelmed just reading this, so I can imagine that you must be pretty upset about it. I do hear you though when you say that it felt good to let it all out, and I can totally appreciate that. I don't know of any specific things that you should do, but I think that the more you RTR in your coming conversations the more confident you can be about what you are saying, and the less your parents can dismiss what you are saying. Your mom can flat out deny that things happened, but she cannot say that you aren't upset or resentful and wanting to talk about your childhood. The more you can stick with the facts of your experience, the more you can be sure that her hostility has nothing to do with anything you did wrong, and it will highlight the irrationality and defensiveness that much more. And if she responds to your experience with curiosity and empathy then you can see how to move forward with it and get her help with your journey to find closure. If however she doubles down, attacks you for being honest and resist all your attempts to have an actually meaningful conversation about some very difficult and painful things, then that is some very important information right there. Here are some relevant podcasts on the subject: FDR1222 Preparing for THE Conversation With Your Father. http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1222_Preparing_For_The_Conversation_With_Father.mp3 978 DeFOO Decision (listener convo) http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_978_DeFOO_Decision.mp3

Well, I don't think that's very fair. It's not like if a mom accidentally slips in a dirty word in conversation around her child that Stef will get a "negative tone" with her. I don't mean to put you on the defensive or anything, it's just that the implication here is that Stef demands perfection out of parents, like he's got ridiculously high standards that can never be met. And if I'm not mistaken, the goal of this thread is to have better ways of negotiating and working with your son, because right now (if only on occasion) there are times when things aren't working for either of you. So what if people are critical (or even overly critical) of the way you handled it? Is there something to what they are saying or not? If people are being jerks offering nothing to the conversation, then that's what the downvote button is for. Not to be a jerk or anything, but it's not about your feelings. I'm sorry you felt judged harshly, but that seems (at least to me) entirely beside the point. There is a lot of value to seeing things from the child's perspective, and if it's true that you could have done more of that, then that's important and you really ought to work on that for both you and your child's sake. It may be the case, despite you feeling offended, that there is an appeal to that perspective being made because it's true and important, and not because you are like the most horrible mother in the world or something. Don't let some offense get between improving your relationship with your son.

You didn't by chance watch the debate I linked, did you? Stef actually comments on this and makes a compelling case that in fact it is necessarily self contradictory, and that you don't have to pose any definition of a "god" in order to conclude this. The very fact that you are talking about gods is sufficient enough to dismiss it outright. I know that might seem like quite the statement, but just watch the debate.