Mister Mister

I'm sorry but you have completely failed to understand, either willfully or not. First Principles are a product of man's mind, yes, they are a concept like God or Justice or Society or Mathematics, but that does not mean they are subjective. Self-Ownership, for example, is an axiomatic Truth. Whether there is a God or not, you cannot deny Self-ownership without logically contradicting yourself. So either you are ignorant about the idea of reasoning from first principles, which is fine - you've come to the right place to learn - or you are trying to confuse the issue. You say you have not claimed that morality comes from the arbitrary commandments of a deity, but in the first 15 seconds of the video you just posted, Dr. Zacharias says "If there is an absolute Law, there must be an absolute Law-Giver". Do you agree with this statement? So the fundamental question is, how do we determine this Law? If it can be reasoned out and demonstrated to all people, using the reasoning which you might consider our God-given right, then we don't have so much of a disagreement over morality. If you are willing to subject your theories of morality to reason, as am I, then we can leave the question of God to a discussion of Metaphysics, and just talk morality. If, on the other hand, you have some way of determining God's Law which is only available to those who follow some mystical process, then we are completely at odds and will never agree, and what's more you are my enemy.

That's a nice strawman of evolution, but what does it have to do with morality? It is not the job of Evolution or Atheism to define morality. Evolution is an explanation of the origins and diversity of biological organisms. Atheism is the absence of belief in a deity. Neither has any bearing on morality. Rather it is reason and philosophy, starting from first principles, which we use to determine objective morality. We start from the axiom of Self-Ownership, and the fact that people can reason, and that the human mind tends toward Universals, and all follows from there, that's at least how I understand it. The belief in God or Evolution doesn't really have a bearing on this particular reasoning process I don't think, except that if you think Morality is defined by arbitrary commandments of a deity, which we have to rely on the interpretations of a priesthood to know, then you may have significant psychological resistance to reasoning a morality from first principles.

Well I guess I am asking for the facts. I thought I have stated that pretty clearly and repeatedly this whole thread. I just want to know more, so if you or anyone else has facts or arguments or experiences that I can learn from, please provide them. But all I am getting from you and other detractors is this vague, paranoid, shame language, which I usually hear from fundamentalist Christians with regards to Masons. Freemasons are freemasons. Yes that is true. Thank you for your insight. Actually I don't think I said specifically I "want to join a lodge", only that I talked with someone at a recruiting booth at a summer fair, and found the conversation interesting and compelling, and I am asking for peoples' thoughts on groups like this. Also, what does anarchism have to do with it? It's a private organization, yes? As far as I know they don't take government money and they don't advocate for any specific policies as a group. But if I am in error please correct me.

Yea I'm not sure about that line, but it connotes the idea that your power is wasted. A constant theme in the piece is the contrast between two kinds of men: the youngest in the family vs. the oldest, the poet/painter vs. the soldier/mercenary, the doer and the thinker, etc. The idealist builds sandcastles by the sea which are washed away in the tides of war. Your sperm's in the gutter evokes the same kind of feeling of powerlessness of the Zeta Male perhaps.

How do you know? Also, aren't there a number of organizations which use the name Mason or Freemason? Aren't you lumping them all together based off of speculation and anecdotes?

I've been obsessed with this song for a while, and have been analyzing the lyrics in a new light recently. It's quite an epic minstrel-folk progressive-rock opus, from genius/madman poet Ian Anderson. The music is well-executed and I think the lyrics have a lot of wonderful and imaginative and insightful philosophical content, so I wanted to share with you all. Also relevant and worth checking out is the fake newspaper article from the cover of the record. https://play.google.com/music/preview/T4rxxbkiylw4xz35sznnfrkv3vi?lyrics=1&utm_source=google&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=lyrics&pcampaignid=kp-lyrics Really don't mind if you sit this one out. My words but a whisper -- your deafness a SHOUT. I may make you feel but I can't make you think. Your sperm's in the gutter -- your love's in the sink. So you ride yourselves over the fields and You make all your animal deals and Your wise men don't know how it feels To be thick as a brick. And the sand-castle virtues are all swept away In the tidal destruction the moral melee. The elastic retreat rings the close of play As the last wave uncovers the newfangled way. But your new shoes are worn at the heels And your suntan does rapidly peel And your wise men don't know how it feels To be thick as a brick. And the love that I feel is so far away: I'm a bad dream that I just had today -- And you shake your head And say it's a shame. Spin me back down the years and the days of my youth. Draw the lace and black curtains and shut out the whole truth. Spin me down the long ages: let them sing the song. See there! A son is born -- And we pronounce him fit to fight. There are black-heads on his shoulders, And he pees himself in the night. We'll make a man of him Put him to trade Teach him to play Monopoly And not to sing in the rain. The Poet and the painter casting shadows on the water -- As the sun plays on the infantry returning from the sea. The do-er and the thinker: no allowance for the other -- As the failing light illuminates the mercenary's creed. The home fire burning: the kettle almost boiling -- But the master of the house is far away. The horses stamping -- their warm breath clouding In the sharp and frosty morning of the day. And the poet lifts his pen while the soldier sheaths his sword. And the youngest of the family Is moving with authority. Building castles by the sea, He dares the tardy tide To wash them all aside. The cattle quietly grazing at the grass down by the river Where the swelling mountain water moves onward to the sea: The builder of the castles renews the age-old purpose And contemplates the milking girl whose offer is his need. The young men of the household have all gone into service And are not to be expected for a year. The innocent young master -- thoughts moving ever faster -- Has formed the plan to change the man he seems. And the poet sheaths his pen while the soldier lifts his sword. And the oldest of the family Is moving with authority. Coming from across the sea, He challenges the son Who puts him to the run. What do you do when the old man's gone -- Do you want to be him? And your real self sings the song. Do you want to free him? No one to help you get up steam -- And the whirlpool turns you 'way off-beam. LATER. I've come down from the upper class To mend your rotten ways. My father was a man-of-power Whom everyone obeyed. So come on all you criminals! I've got to put you straight Just like I did with my old man -- Twenty years too late. Your bread and water's going cold. Your hair is too short and neat. I'll judge you all and make damn sure That no-one judges me. You curl your toes in fun as you smile at everyone -- You meet the stares. You're unaware that your doings aren't done. And you laugh most ruthlessly as you tell us what not to be. But how are we supposed to see where we should run? I see you shuffle in the courtroom with your rings upon your fingers And your downy little sidies and your silver-buckle shoes. Playing at the hard case, you follow the example Of the comic-paper idol who lets you bend the rules. So! Come on ye childhood heroes! Won't you rise up from the pages Of your comic-books your super crooks And show us all the way. Well! Make your will and testament. Won't you? Join your local government. We'll have Superman for president Let Robin save the day. You put your bet on number one and it comes up every time. The other kids have all backed down and they put you first in line. And so you finally ask yourself just how big you are -- And take your place in a wiser world of bigger motor cars. And you wonder who to call on. So! Where the hell was Biggles when you needed him last Saturday? And where were all the sportsmen who always pulled you though? They're all resting down in Cornwall -- Writing up their memoirs for a paper-back edition of the Boy Scout Manual. LATER. See there! A man born -- And we pronounce him fit for peace. There's a load lifted from his shoulders With the discovery of his disease. We'll take the child from him Put it to the test Teach it to be a wise man How to fool the rest. QUOTE We will be geared to the average rather than the exceptional God is an overwhelming responsibility We walked through the maternity ward and saw 218 babies wearing nylons It says here that cats are on the upgrade Upgrade? Hipgrave. Oh, Mac. LATER In the clear white circles of morning wonder, I take my place with the lord of the hills. And the blue-eyed soldiers stand slightly discoloured (in neat little rows) Sporting canvas frills. With their jock-straps pinching, they slouch to attention, While queueing for sarnies at the office canteen. Saying -- how's your granny and good old Ernie: He coughed up a tenner on a premium bond win. The legends (worded in the ancient tribal hymn) lie cradled in the seagull's call. And all the promises they made are ground beneath the sadist's fall. The poet and the wise man stand behind the gun, And signal for the crack of dawn. Light the sun. Do you believe in the day? Do you? Believe in the day! The Dawn Creation of the Kings has begun. Soft Venus (lonely maiden) brings the ageless one. Do you believe in the day? Do you? Believe in the day! The fading hero has returned to the night -- And fully pregnant with the day, wise men endorse the poet's sight. Do you believe in the day? Do you? Believe in the day! Let me tell you the tales of your life Of your love and the cut of the knife The tireless oppression the wisdom instilled The desire to kill or be killed. Let me sing of the losers who lie In the street as the last bus goes by. The pavements are empty: the gutters run red -- While the fool toasts his god in the sky. So come all ye young men who are building castles! Kindly state the time of the year And join your voices in a hellish chorus. Mark the precise nature of your fear. Let me help you pick up your dead As the sins of the father are fed With the blood of the fools and the thoughts of the wise And from the pan under your bed. Let me make you a present of song as The wise man breaks wind and is gone while The fool with the hour-glass is cooking his goose and The nursery rhyme winds along. So! Come all ye young men who are building castles! Kindly state the time of the year And join your voices in a hellish chorus. Mark the precise nature of your fear. See! The summer lightning casts its bolts upon you And the hour of judgement draweth near. Would you be the fool stood in his suit of armour Or the wiser man who rushes clear. So! Come on ye childhood heroes! Won't your rise up from the pages Of your comic-books your super-crooks And show us all the way. Well! Make your will and testament. Won't you? Join your local government. We'll have Superman for president Let Robin save the day. So! Where the hell was Biggles when you needed him last Saturday? And where were all the sportsmen who always pulled you through? They're all resting down in Cornwall -- writing up their memoirs For a paper-back edition of the Boy Scout Manual. OF COURSE So you ride yourselves over the fields And you make all your animal deals And your wise men don't know how it feels To be thick as a brick.

So you're saying logic is wrong? Relativists like you are the problem in the world.

that's a very compelling group of words, it doesn't really have anything to do with my question. I am interested in weeding out all the esoterica and getting to what the Masons actually do and whether it would be worthwhile to join them or a similar group. If you have facts or arguments or personal experiences to bring to bear, great! But I'm not sure what you're getting at otherwise. Thanks Pat.

No you see, he can fix the deficit by making the rich pay their fair share, all while ending global warming with regulations, and giving free healthcare and PhD's to everyone

Another thing about monogamy that's occurred to me, is that it allows, for better or for worse, for more individuation of culture within families than a tribal situation. If you want to raise your children with values which are contrary to those of the families around you, it is nearly impossible in a tribal setting, but more possible as a nuclear family if you and your spouse are on the same page. However, as someone pointed out, this isolation can also create the grounds for abuse and neglect.

That's really awful. I don't want to politicize your loss, but just want to point out that the most dangerous work is done by men like fishermen, loggers, and farmers. Everyone always thanks cops and soldiers for their "service", but not these guys, who bust their asses and risk their lives to feed and house us. So sorry that your husband suffered death doing his job.

Hi I am curious if anyone here has thoughts or experiences with groups like the Masons. I spoke to a guy at a recruiting booth last weekend, and was a little interested. I was especially compelled by the quote on their tent, "Carpenters build houses. Masons build men." Years ago I did a lot of research on groups like this, from the perspective of conspiracy theories, alternative history, esoteric symbolism, geometry, and so on. I'm not so interested in any of that stuff anymore, but I like the idea of a social group where I might meet more like-minded people. What do you guys think?

^I'm glad you guys came to this conclusion, as I did. Kenshi, I strongly suspect you want to frame the discussion as if your theories are perfectly logically sound, moreover they are obvious to anyone of a certain intelligence. This way, when people inevitably reject them, you can tell yourself it's because they lack the intelligence or rationality to understand what is so perfectly obvious and true to you, not because of any deficiency in your communication style, which is confusing and often insulting, or any deficiency in the theory itself. This leads me to believe that you don't actually want to change anyone's minds, as, if that were the case, you would show some degree of self-reflection, some doubt in your style of communication, but rather I think you want to reinforce some emotional belief that no one can understand you because you are smarter than everyone. Even if you are right and we are wrong, you have not learned nor show the desire to learn the humility, the tact, the diplomacy, the empathy, necessary to communicate why your ideas are true and why they are important for us to accept. Rather than show the vulnerability of loneliness and frustration of having core beliefs at odds with everyone else, with which most of us can sympathize, you want to invite us into this world where if we will just accept one more change of definition in some fundamental concept, watch one more video, process one more confusing abstract argument, THEN we will understand you, and if we don't, it's completely our fault and not yours. So I think it would be cruel for us to continue to enable this emotional drug of self-superiority, to continue to play your game of chess based on rules only you understand, to pretend that it is productive and useful to "debate" your theories, rather than get to the core issue of why you want to play this game.

Hah that's funny I didn't think of that. But I wouldn't exactly characterize someone who is clearly insecure and abusive as "strong".

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/05/entertainment/miss-piggy-feminism-award-feat/ She's a fat, self-obsessed, entitled, spoiled, narcissistic, physically and verbally abusive pig. Also apparently an icon of feminism in the arts.

More traditional improvisation is a good example of anarchy however

To be clear, I wasn't arguing for any one of the methods I mentioned. I was just pointing out the distinction between methodology and conclusion. NAP is a conclusion, but not everyone who accepts this conclusion uses the same methodology. For example, someone who accepts UPB may accept NAP as a consequence, but another person may accept NAP because Jesus said "turn the other cheek". It seems to me you are equating acceptance of the NAP with lack of reasoning from first principles, but this is a non sequitur. One man may accept 2 + 2 = 4 because he follows the math from the ground up, another man may accept it because Nuns would hit him with rulers if he didn't properly memorize it. But 2 + 2 = 4 is either valid or not, and the NAP is either valid or not, regardless of whether a person's method of determining it are entirely rational or not. Does that make sense? All ethics must pertain to objectives and rationale? Can you clarify? Why is this so? I don't see why objectives matter. What are ethics?

NAP is a conclusion of ethics, not a methodology. there are various methodologies such as UPB, the axiom of self-ownership, argumentation ethics, the golden rule, Kant's categorical imperative, or the commandment of god himself which might be used to come to this conclusion. Does this make sense? Why is this important to you? What conclusions would it have on society? Do you consider this the most important issue in Libertarian philosophy, moreso than promoting peaceful parenting, alternative currency, free markets, entrepeneurship, equality under the law, opposing child abuse and war and national debts and inflation and hyper-regulation? Is pointing out that many people might violate the NAP in some disaster-scenario really all that important?

Why look into the actual causes of a particular crime, and the unique lived experiences of the people involved, when you could use that crime to promote hysterical ideologically based conflict between various groups of people? Arthur Chu is a former Jeopardy contestant turned SJW, well versed in Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. He is a dangerous person.

ya I think it's a good idea. not quite philosophy but very important to living a happy life. especially in the US where within a generation you won't want to have anything to do with the medical profession.

yes, one criminal stealing from another is hardly just

You aren't interested in all 3000 podcasts? This is unacceptable...I will have to report you, and recommend that you be banned.

Hrrrmmm that's a very interesting and emotionally compelling argument, thanks J.D., I'll have to think about it.

This is good advice