Pepin

Epistemology is a theory in regard to the nature of reality and concept formation. Essentially, how can we know, and what the methodology in which knowledge is gained. It is at the base of all claims of knowledge, and disagreements on any argument can be traced back the epistemology trail. There are many philosophies that may disagree with the above in suggesting that nothing can be known, nothing can be known yet for your own existence, that there is limit to which epistemology in that it cannot apply to ethics, that the senses are invalid or inaccurate disallowing for certainty to be achieved, and so on. I believe that the FDR philosophy and community are in agreement that reality exists and that all knowledge is derived from sense experience. With the methodology of UPB, ethical claims are not cut off from epistemology, yet rather are based on it. With that out of the way, the purpose of this topic is to suggest that it may be most beneficial to focus on the root epistemology disagreements as opposed to the surface ones. What about the nature of reality and concept formation does the other person disagree with? How can a contradiction be addressed between two items when there is no perceived relation? The primary benefit of this is that if you are able to convince them of a rational epistemology, then it provides a basis for all claims and beliefs to be compared to. Many people do not connect the beliefs they hold to the nature reality, and making a clear case that their beliefs must be fundamentally connected to their core beliefs of reality in order to be rational strikes at the root as opposed to popping unconnected bubbles floating aimlessly in the wind. I know this suggestion is new, but I really think it ought to be a focus in the debates we have. A method I like to use is to connect any disagreement back to the foundation as opposed to the surface. If it is convincing, it not only demonstrates that it is possible for such a form of thinking to exist, but that it is valid.

After reading your posts, I don't care to convince you otherwise.

A similar question arose in my thoughts recently. If the products are the result of slavery, I don't you justify yourself morally in any sense, though I am unsure if it would be permissible to initiate force against someone who deals with slave owners. In a similar case, someone who makes a business off of theft and the good is certainly immoral, and there seem to be a justification to be made that if I buy a good off this man, the original owner of the property has full right to take back their stolen good through the use of force regardless of my knowledge as to if it was stolen or not. Though I am unsure if this true ethically as it isn't something I've analyzed rigorously, if it is true, then the use of force against those who knowingly enable slavery is justified. My instinct tells me that it is an APA matter and that it ought to be handled purely through social ostracism. Someone who chooses to do so is certainly of vile character, yet since they are not the slave owner, force cannot be used to stop their funding. I feel as though a funding of slavery is to take ownership of the slaves through the intermediary of the actual slave owner. This is similar to the hiring of a hitman in that though the hitman pulls the trigger and is fully accountable, you are responsible just as well. But a difficulty arrives in this in relation to business as the end supported is not immoral, yet it is the method used to achieve such an end. Is the business owner using slavery as a means, or are the means only a consideration of the one who is to use them? I really don't know. It is difficult to think about, partly because it confuses me as to my relation with the world. Though not slavery per se, ought I boycott Apple products for the labor practices they use? I am lead to say yes and I have no problem in saying yes, but there is a real lack of clarity in this, and it is clear to me that I don't understand enough to feel stable. I don't know if this would be a problem in an anarchist society because I don't think slave based labor could compete, and it would be clear that anyone who used such labor was doing so because it was slave based, but what confuses me so much is the intermediate steps.

Might be fun. I'm rather good at arguing the other side. Though, I dislike it because parts of me continuously respond to all of the bad arguments the moment. It on occasion introduces some ambivalence in that the argument you are making begins to convince yourself, and you have to step back and look at it what and why. A lot of times, I find really great arguments for the opposing side that are difficult to refute, though it is seldom that it holds.

Yet, you are showing a great deal of empathy for the children, which is far more fundamental and important than empathy for the one who does harm to the children. It is not just limited to that, as you are showing courage in making yourself publicly vulnerable for your empathy, and demonstrate heroism for providing reason and evidence with expectation of rejection and personal scorn. All that is being shown in your friend's claim is their capability to project.

Though I skimmed the article, I like that it is blatant and doesn't attempt the soft language which states the same uttered by politicians.

Congratulations. This may sound odd, but I find the request for congratulations very admirable.

That is perfectly reasonable, but based on your ghost example, I feel like you apply this in places that it does not. In physics there was a particle theorized in the 60's called the Higg's Boson, and though we had no ability to detect it through the senses at the time, physicists were quite convinced it exists because of the very compelling arguments. A good physicists would not claim that the Higgs did not exist, nor that it does, yet rather that they have great reason to believe it exists and a methodology that will validate or invalidate its existence. At the moment, string theorists are making models of what they think would be the most fundamental particles, they have a lot of reason to support their model, but they are unsure if the theory is true and admit that its testing is at the moment outside the senses. These physicists are not prepared to say that string like particles don't exist or do exist, rather that there is reason to believe that they exist and they wish to test their model against reality to find out. These are quite valid examples of belief without sense evidence. Ghosts and god are completely invalid examples of the sort of claim.

If you accept that empiricism through sense perception is the only way to make claims about reality, then someone who says "ghosts exist" without any sense evidence cannot be right because they are making a claim about reality without sense perception. I do not believe such a claim because I cannot perceive ghosts with my senses, yet rather because the other person's belief was not perceived with their's. The focus in not on your lack of perception of the phenomenon, but rather, the other's. If the person provides sense evidence, then I can test the claims against reality. In the example of ghosts, I can evaluate the evidence in relation to the claim, and make rational arguments as to what the evidence is. For instance, these spherical orbs often found in photographs are claimed to be ghosts. I don't reject the existence of the orbs provided there is no reason to believe the photograph was manipulated, but I do weigh if this would be evidence for ghosts and attempt to provide more likely explanations if the conclusion of ghosts seems unlikely or unrelated. If I had a hypothesis as to what the orbs really are, I use the empirical testing to establish the relation of my claim to reality. If the arguments for claiming that the orbs are ghosts are beyond weak or non-nonsensical, I don't have to provide any explanation as to what the orbs are, rather I just have to show that the ghost theory is false.

I would recommend watching Stefan's Introduction to Philosophy series in its entirety. Certainly an answer can be given to this question, and I know you are entirely capable of accessing the argument through the use of reason and evidence and will accept the argument and its implications as true if it is passes the tests... Yet, without a firm foundation in philosophy, what can the answer be compared to? To be more blatant, I sense that you lack philosophical grounding. I can expand on the reasons why I think this, but I'd prefer not to. I floundered for almost all of my life knowing so much, while feeling like I knew nothing. I'd often spend long nights researching topics, and I'd come to understand them to a semi-satisfactory state... Yet a trace of doubt taunted me, consumed me, and made me unable to utter the words "I believe". It was only until the Intro to Philosophy series that made sense of what was missing.

Who really knows what reality actually is, all we can do is make statements and hypotheses in order to test them. It is not needed to have any sort of full knowledge of reality in order to describe it, just as you do not need to know anything more about a falling baseball in order to say that it is falling. Descriptions of what exists are of only of course accurate to the degree that they are verified. We only have models, models that are constructed and built upon a rational testing of senses. Newtonian physics was thought to give a complete and accurate description of everything, until ideas underpinning fell way with the advent of Einstein's theory and quantum mechanics. Unimaginable properties and behaviors were discovered and confirmed. The warping of space-time, time slowing down due to acceleration, fundamental particles having a probabilistic nature, and so on. The inaccuracies to be found in any current or future model of reality is not an invalidation of the senses, yet is a complete and utter validation of them. This might at first sound like a contradiction, yet it is vital to realize that invalidation of any model can only be achieved through the senses, and the claim of accuracy can only be made in comparison to what is being measured. The invalidation does not destroy the previous model, yet it remains as an accurate description within the now known parameters of accuracy and circumstances.

It is rather unimportant, just as unimportant as stories of atheists who fall into faith. The proclamation that someone such as Obama is capable of causing a change of heart is enough to tell you all that you need to know. If not, then what does such an admission reveal about the person, not just in the moment of change, but in regard to their life?

A key point is that we know a lot about reality, but most all of what we know is derived through imperfect models. The best example of this is Newtonian physics and how it at first seemed to be able to describe all of reality, until Einstein came along and showed that under certain circumstances the Newtonian model of reality is not accurate, hence special and general relativity came to replace the previous model. There is an idea in physics of an equation that is capable of describing all physical phenomenon, and is often called the theory of everything. If this is even possible to do is not known, but if it is, then reality is a consequent of the laws provided in the theory. Reality is of course not the theory, nor the laws, yet what the laws describe.

I feel divided on the subject because I don't think I agree with the hero's journey as it is. It reminds me too much of Stefan's video on heroism, which I am strong agreement with. Why I am divided because I do believe such a journey exists, but not in what it is at the moment. I am currently making my way through The Fountainhead for the first time, and though I am hardly finished, I feel it gives a real sense of what a hero's journey ought to be as well as what a hero actually is... Well I suppose if we disregard . Carl Jung also had a lot of interesting thoughts on this matter, and though I forget the specifics I believed it involved what he called individuation, which is a process in which all of the parts of the person becomes whole through self-knowledge work. If anyone is interested in this, I recommend reading Man and His Symbols which covers the concept and a lot of the reason and evidence for it. Even if you don't come away convinced, it still will shift how you view society. Personally the concept of the hero's journey quite appealing to me at the moment because I really feel like breaking free and becoming a hero. I really wish to live philosophy to its fullest, not just for myself, but to show others what is possible. What I find most difficult is the admission of this, as if it is a form of naive grandiosity, yet I feel that is society talking.

Glad I could help. I felt rather good about the first one and was somewhat impressed I made such a connection. It is good to hear that you were not medicated as a child, though I will point out that public school is kind of seen as a medication in that children are naturally bad, uncivilized, and need to be molded before being released into the world. I realize this is just an attempt to keep myself from being wrong about that part, but I'll keep it anyway The second one I didn't really have much confidence in. Like you said, it makes sense and everything, but it doesn't really resonate with me either. If it is important to you, I'd recommend writing out a goal to figure it out and to do some journaling, not necessarily all on that fantasy, but more generally. What I like to do when I can't quite figure something out about myself is to coax my unconscious to work on it, and it usually works, not always though. It might also help to write about it from the perspective of someone else and to really step into the fantasy and to include as much detail as possible, and then to read it a week later.

I really empathize with your situation. I think it is important to admit is that you can't fix people, you can't make people better, you can't make people want to be better, you have absolutely no control over people. Imagine you are a doctor and your patient is one who is an glutinous chain smoker. You want the patient to get better, you tell them the objective facts about smoking and obesity, and you invest a great deal of time and energy to ensure they'll follow your advice. But if the patient makes no effort to get better, disregards all of your arguments and advice, and throws your finite time to the wind and continues on their self destructive path: you must give up on the patient, not just because you can't make them better, but because they are making you worse. I do not mean to say that you are unable to help him as perhaps you will be able to do so, but it is important to face the reality that you may not be able to help. I know this doesn't sound like advice, but it is vital to know that even the best plan executed perfectly may have no real affect. If you are going to attempt this, go in knowing you may fail, and that you are likely to fail. Again, this likely doesn't sound like advice and may strike you poorly, but if you are going to help someone it is something you need to have in the front of your mind.

Feel free to throw out my ideas as I'm no expert and am just saying what I think. The first fantasy isn't a fantasy, yet rather a description of what happened to you in the past. Though I am guessing, you likely were imprisoned into the madhouse of public schools and forced to stay still while boring teachers were injecting you with dangerous propaganda. You may have also been put on various medication during this time to treat with your imaginary disorders. As a result of this, you become "unstable, angry and emotionally distant". The last part is about philosophy, which is often characterized as a woman, nursing you back to health. Therapy could also be a factor. The second one feels like an imagined fear that is meant to prevent future harm. It is common for people to come up with unrealistic worst case scenarios, and they are really rather paralyzing. Though I really don't know, I'd guess that it is partly influenced by something in your past, partly by your imagination. I doubt you had a girlfriend when you had these fantasies, and that these fantasies were somewhat designed to keep you single. It is kind of like if I were to constantly imagine asking a girl out, and it always involved her replying with a humiliating rejection and her telling everyone at school how grossed out she was, it'd be unlikely that I'd even attempt asking a girl out.

Lori, I quite enjoyed your post, and it has me thinking about various ways to modify behavior. To a degree, I think like emotional reactions to arguments and statements are just a way of your brain telling you to defer judgement while it sorts, finds, or processes information. It is kind of like when someone says something that doesn't sound wrong, but doesn't' feel right, and with time an answer usually comes up as to what it was. A good example of this is the detective cliche where something doesn't feel right about the witness's testimony, but they just know what, and eventually they remember some detail that makes sense of the feeling. I'm sure we've all had the feeling that we are missing something, and then all of sudden it pops up in our head. Since different parts of the brain have different processing times, it would make sense for "wait" signals to exist and for the signals to be more involuntary for survival reasons. I'm not arguing that these signals are right in what they convey, but that a large role they play is to cause deferment of decision in the moment until the reason for the emotion can be unearthed. I know I've had plenty of times where I've had a feeling something was going to go wrong, but no reason came to mind so I decide to do it anyway, and of course it goes quite wrong that I so totally should have been able to prevent through a little bit of thinking or remembering. This sort of inclination, especially in tribal days, has a good likelihood of resulting in death. Personally I almost always find that there is a reason for the emotion, but that it is often something that wouldn't really change my action. There is usually something to figure out, but it isn't something that usually matters. In some cases though I discover pretty important flaws in arguments, have those "aha" moments, or realize what I thought was wrong and why it isn't actually wrong.

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/fleeing_eden.mp3 Eh, having trouble finding more. There is a podcast where he talks about communism as being a movement that was largely pushed for by Jewish intellectuals. There is another podcast where he talks about the story of Abraham and Isaac. The focus tends to be a little more on Christianity, though a large part of Christianity is from the Torah.

Vaccination is generally safe and empirically verified. Getting your child vaccinated is future protection through prevention and is logically no different than putting rubbing alcohol on a child's wound to prevent infection. There are risks and potential negative effects, but these are generally minimal. It isn't uncommon for there to be side effects from a vaccination, and in very rare cases a vaccination can cause major complications which could result in death if not treated. There are a lot of resources on the web that go into the risks and benefits in quite real terms. A lot of these sites have come up to combat that anti-vaccination movement and are quite well done. If you want, look at the anti-vaccination sites, though you aren't likely to get much value out of them. The primary point I'd like to stress is to compare the unseen benefits with the seen costs.

I find this topic strange as I just started listening to The Fountainhead and architecture seems to be the central theme. From my point of view, I have a difficult time understanding the importance or significance and equate with the styles of dressing on a cake. There might be a lot I don't know or understand.

One of these days I need to finish the production of my parody Holiday album. Here are the lyrics to Frosty the Snowman. Yes, the whole album just makes Christmas songs about drugs.

That is really quite silly. I really don't understand how other people understand these sorts of actions.

I was in a semi-dream state, like one of those times where you are kind of sleeping and kind of awake and have some control of your thought. I was driving on the road near a shopping mall. The passenger was a girl with curly blond hair and has no connection to anybody in the real world. It is odd because I remember her face pretty clearly, particularly the structure, and this is so strange because I tend not to interact with people I don't know in dreams, and I tend not be able to remember pictures so vividly, especially faces. In the dream we were friends, though the details of the friendship were not expounded on. I was talking to her about something, not sure what. I then started to really hear my internal thoughts, like the ones at a deeper level. If you've ever done some deep meditation or drugs, you know what I'm talking about. If not, imagine what it'd be like to access thoughts before they get to the conscious mind, like the thought that precedes a self attack. I found that when a thought was expressed, a voice in the tone of one of my brothers would respond and shoot down whatever I was going to say. They would kind of appear in the car during these moments, kind of like you'd expect in a movie, and they of course weren't actually there. I'm not so sure about the content of these thoughts, but anything I wanted to talk about and bring up with the passenger seemed to be cut off as I would watch myself say other things. The responses didn't have to be thoughtful or make much sense in order to negate my thought. I tried really hard to just express my thoughts as they were in spite of the response of the voices, but I continually just kept watching myself say other things. I am starting to get really angry, and somehow realized that I am dreaming and attempt to wake up. What ends up happening is some stuff that is awfully hard to explain, but essentially whenever I figure out I am dreaming and or try to wake up from a dream, the dream will do anything it can to convince me that I am awake. So I think I am awake and in my room, and I am thinking about the implications of the dream I just had. I consider posting about it. I then wonder why my parents weren't in the dream, and also why they are never in my dreams. My reasoning was that "sure my brothers have an impact on my thought, but my parents ought to have a far greater impact". The dream jump cuts to me driving again, though this time I am by myself and don't have the issue of the voices, and I am trying to get to my house in order to confront my parents or to find something, it isn't exactly clear. I then begin to realize that the way I am driving to get to my house doesn’t make much sense and eventually figure out I am dreaming. I say, "fuck it, it's a dream and this is important for self-development" and decide to continue to the house, and for some reason I am then driving across the vacant lawn of the neighboring house and through the bushes and around trees to get to my house as opposed to the just pulling in the drive way. I never get to the house, rather I have another fake-up. So I again think I am in my room, and after a few moments I realize I am dreaming and decide that I might as well take advantage have some sort of awesome sexual fantasy play out. I find that I unfortunately can't make this happen, I get frustrated, and I try to wake up and finally actually wake up. There are a lot of portions of the dream that makes sense to me and that I figured out while writing this, primarily the brother portion. Both of my brothers really restricted what I could say or do in my childhood because of how they'd react. For instance, my grandmother was against almost non-Christian and would hit me and give hour long lectures if she found I expressed even curiosity, and my younger brother was constantly looking for anything to report to her. The case with the older brother I haven't really found words to describe what it was exactly, but it is a similar concept/outcome. I can see me trying to get to my house being both a metaphor for going back to childhood and going internal. I am quite confused about not being able to get there, not being able to see my parents. Driving I think might be a metaphor for taking control of my life and moving forward. I am very confused about the girl in the dream, and driving across the lawn. I am also confused about why I can't really access these internal thoughts that originate from my parents. Hope this made sense. My dreams can be rather confusing with all of the fake wake-ups, but this really isn't even that bad, I mean I can at least describe it. Every once in a while I start getting dreams that are like abstract art. Thanks for any help and insights.

The fact that the bus will kill you does not make the "ought" valid. It may be implied in that the person prefers to live, but it has to be stated explicitly in this argument for it to work. Ought statements relate goals and values to action. Saying: "You ought not to stand in front a bus moving at 60mph because you prefer not to die and the crash will cause death" is a valid use of an ought because the claim is clearly connected to the preference of the person. If the person wants to die, it would be valid to see "you ought to stand in front of a bus moving at 60mph if you want to die", or you could describe any other action that will certainly bring death. If someone believes in Christianity and prefers to go to heaven, then you can say "since you believe Christianity is true and you want to go to heaven, then you ought to follow the tenants of Christianity". The validity of the statement simply hinges on the believe and preference of the person, and how it relates to the ought. Certainly this example objectively is false for so many reasons such as the inability to follow contradictory rules, but at face value this is a valid use of an ought argument. The statement "people universally prefer living to dying" I think is difficult to substantiate. A retort I can see is "if you prefer death, then why are you dead right now?", to which I'd respond "if you want to buy a new house, then why don't you have a house right now?". There is a temporal component to decisions, and the preference for death may also involve a component of preference of time and place. It isn't like a preference for truth, which has no temporal component due to being universal by definition. I think you already pretty much understand and agree with the first two paragraphs, so provided I'm right, I think I'm just helping in clarifying a few points. My main point of contention is that the preference for living is not UPB related and preferences cannot be implied because the validity of the ought is inseparable from the preference.