Demitri

While I'm not positive where the idea of determinism actually stems from originally, I do know that many religions believe God is all-knowing. Some even tout phrases like, "God has a plan for you". Religious people have a problem if they truly believe in what free will means because if you truly have free will, then that means God can't know ahead of time what choice you will make and still retain the title of being all-knowing. So either determinism is true and God is all-knowing and there is no free will (and therefore no ability to take credit for anything you or others do, as well as no responsibility for anything)... which would also mean that the very idea of salvation would also be a big fat lie too... because if there is no free will, then there aren't any choices, and so we can't be responsible for anything we do, and therefore couldn't be "sinners"... (No matter how you look at this, religious doctrine implodes.) ... or free will is true and God is not all-knowing (and therefore people are acountable for their actions, and should take responsibility for the things they say and do). It truly is a catch-22 for religions that believe in an all-knowing God and the need for salvation, since the two concepts are really mutually exclusive. There is also the scientific school of deterministic thought (aka: Laplace's Demon) which believes the universe and everything in it is like one giant machine. This idea is based on the concept that if you could know the precise position, direction of movement, speed, and quality of every atom in the universe, it would be possible to calculate exactly where every atom would be 10 minutes or 100 years later. The position is summed up in Laplace's own words: "We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes." ~ Pierre Simon Laplace This should highlight that Laplace is actually trying to use scientific words to rationalize an all-knowing God. However, in Laplace's theoretical universe, there must exist no interference beyond the strictly physical, which means consciousness could not exist in such a universe. So consciousness and Laplace's Demon are mutually exclusive - Acknowledging one is the same as saying the other is not true. Any form of determinism has this same mutual exclusivity. (In the magical religious thinking some claim consciousness and determinism both exist - but that would mean consciousness is impotent.) So because either consciousness does not exist (or is impotent) and determinism is true , or consciousness does exist and free will is true. This mutual exclusivity is why Stefan says determinism is not a topic for philosophy. No consciousness means no thought; no thought leaves no means to philosophize. As for whether or not it is a popular concept, it is popular among religious people. Many religious people don't even realize they are trying to accept both free will and determinism as both being valid until they begin having discussions about the validity of their God's all-knowing status. When it comes to this point, there are too many things which are mutually exclusive. In light of them the only way they can continue to believe in the religious views of God is to either not understand what is said or to cling to religiously taught impossibilities as truth because the personal feeling of life-long betrayal by religious organizations is too much to bear. I hope that makes sense as to who believes in determinism and why. Cheers! ~Demitri

I agree. However most issues of definition like this aren't with a word I am using, but with the definition of a word someone else is using as they attempt to explain something.Many times the problem gets worse if I ask them to explain without the word that is causing the problem, because they refuse to. As for why they refuse to, I can speculate, but I don't see how that would help the actual issue.

Darkskyabove: You just drove home the end of all doubts concerning this debate (for me) in expert fashion. Well done. I now hold no thoughts or ideas that the ban on determinism should be lifted, as the principles I thought were conflicted have now been proven not to conflict, but were instead due to a misunderstanding on my part. Oh how I wish more argued like this; actually addressing the points instead of re-hashing the same stuff over and over, hoping to throw enough out there that something sticks. STer: There are some things I agree with in what you said, but much I do not agree with. To answer your question above: No, I would not accept that reasoning, as it did not address the points I was talking about. NathanM: The injection of a deterministic statement right then was classic, and made me laugh. Thanks for that addition of humor, it was great! [Edit: Removed comment to Nate, as I made a mistake and was attributing the nonsense Joseito said to him. My mistake, sorry.]

Darkskyabove: I agree with your sentiment about explaining my position without using an otherwise controversial label. However, my problem only comes when others use a term to mean one thing, and I have a different definition from them. This causes a break in the clear communication, and can cause problems since we then have two different understandings of what is being talked about.This is especially true when I am not aware that a particular term is controversial. So when I hear a term being used in a way that does not make sense to me based on how I understand it (usually according to the dictionary definition), conversations such as this one begin.Does that make sense?

I was under the impression it was donations from your audience that pays for the board. Shall I change that understanding? The best response to my actual questions regarding my point has been from Nate when he mentioned the contractual agreement when joining this board. Upon consideration of this singular point (and only this point), I concede my view about banning that topic.

Well thanks for your time and effort Nate. I'll keep in mind the things you have shared, summed up as, "It's Stef's house, so shut up." At least there was some value in the talk about entering into contract and so on... Cheers!

To all of what you just said I can say only three things: 1> Thank you for taking the time to write all of that. If you didn't care, you wouldn't have done so. 2> I think you're WAY off base. I'm only talking about principles and getting a handle on where the line is drawn when it comes to the free market and the principles around it. 3> I believe you have a valid point about the contract to join, and the agreement made not to discuss a certain topic. This line of reasoning is closer to the kind of discussion I was looking to have on this matter. Perhaps we can move this forward by focusing on the actual points I'm talking about instead of resorting to various forms of repeating the mantra of, "It's Stef's house"

Please enlighten me where I have violated that contract.

Time and again I have stated I have no desire to talk about determinism. Determinism is false and I agree with Stef that it really is a load of hogwash. The very point of philosophy is to search for truth and to then live by those truths. This also means not backing down because a view about what is believed to be true is questioned, or unapproved by the majority. I did not come here because I seek to part of the cool kids gang; I came here because I respect Stef and the fact that he has made a place to discuss things exactly like this. I am well aware this is Stef's site and can do what he wishes. Was there somewhere that I was being disrespectful? Perhaps you believe that questioning a decision is disrespectful? If so, then you can you think of any decisions made by others that you wouldn't question due to not wanting to be disrespectful?

So I can do with my post whatever the hell I want, yes? So if I'm not violating anyone with my post (by forcing others to read it, or intentionally being infammatory), but I talk about things which have been deemed not allowed... Then I should be forcibly removed from the community... Is that what you are advocating?

NateForLiberty, the points you made are valid in the context you are using them, but have little to do with the context I was addressing. My standpoint really has nothing to do with the what the ban is about, or whether the free market should apply to personal property. It was only about whether or not laying down an edict (with accompanying negative consequences for disobedience) was in keeping with the principles that Stef advocates (the principles upon which the free market is based), by asking if those principles apply universally for Stef. I am against the idea of any ban here (specifically here) because this is the "home" of who I consider to be -the- main advocate of the free market and it's principles (which I fully agree with), and I believe in leading by example (as I am fairly certain Stef does). A ban here, specifically in the FDR forums, seems (to me) to run contrary to the universality of those basic principles.This is what I hope to have comment and discussion about.

I fully agree with you. I disagree with Wikipedia and with what has become the now-common use of the word altruism. I think it is a deliberate bastardization of the concept the word was meant to convey; bastardized by religions into their form of morality. This bastardized concept of altruism is where Joseito's entire argument stems from, so I agree completely with you. Since my definition of altrusim is obviously different from the bastardized religious concept used around here (as expertly demonstrated above; thank you, Joseito), I am going to leave this debate where it is. I said what I meant to say already, and have no desire to re-hash it. As Xelent mentioned, there is an on-going larger debate about the definition of altruism. To summarize my understanding: What I understand altruism to be is unselfish action which benefits others, but does not require self-sacrafice. To me, an example of true altruism would be a child giving a gift "from the goodness of their heart" to someone in the form of a picked flower. It is not self-sacraficial, demanded, coerced, or expectant of anything other than a small measure of appreciation (a smile, or "thank you", etc) in any way, but it is unselfish and done for the benefit of another. Understanding any meaning for the word 'altruism' that does not apply to this example, is part of the bastardized version. That is my view.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dysphoria What you said gender dysphoria means, is partially true. It does mean those things. However, it does not exhibit itself as ONLY those things. This is where your logic fails. You said, " I just get tired of people feigning empathy for me, Because they don't really understand it, And treat me in ways I don't like because of it." Has it occured to you that people treat you in response to how you treat them?

A review of prior postings might reveal that the gun is held by the "determinists". The so-called ban against determinism is a straw man. Numerous threads have been created to broach the topic. AFAIK, every one of them has degenerated, with little useful discussion. What I have read can be summarized as "You've banned determinism, therefore, determinism must be right." Not once have I read a "determinist" answering a direct question. I've even put forth the apples and oranges position: that determinism, though possibly applicable to chemistry and physics, does not leap into the arena of the human mind. No response. I do understand the frustration of seeing that a "certain" topic is banned from a philosophy forum, but I will counter with this: It's good to have an open mind, just not so open that your brain falls out. Not sure what to make of all this. I'm not even close to being a determinist, nor do I want the topic unbanned so I can talk about it. Also, I'm not frustrated by the ban either. My argument is purely about principles and staying true to them. If the free market is valid (which I believe it is), then a business that provides no value to anyone cannot, and will not, survive. The market itself will shut it down instead of governance. Likewise, if a topic provides no value to anyone it cannot, and will not, continue being discussed; also without the need for governance. Whether or not a business in the free market has value, is not determined by one person, or even a governance of persons. It is likewise not determined by the validity of the product. The value of a business in the free market is determined only by the market that continues it. I am against this ban because it is consistent with belief in the validity of the free market to be against it.

If I wish to discuss determinism here (which I really don't, since determinism is completely incorrect - thus, I'm only talking principle), would I meet with negative consequences for doing so? Somehow I find it difficult too equate "No, I don't want to go out with you" with "Dont talk about this, or else".Had I not used the line about the gun in the forum room, would your response have been blank? It was the most provacative part of what I said, for certain; but it was the least important part of everything I said. Does nothing else deserve comment?

I like it! I have tried (and failed) to find a label that adequtely applies to me. So far, the best one I have found is "Polymath". Of course that's not a political stance label; I haven't even begun to look for a label in that mess of jargon. I guess with as difficult as it has been to find "polymath" as a label for what I know and do, I dont think I'll endeavor to find a label that works for me when it comes to my philosophical ideas. Guess I'll just have to keep being me, and having my own thoughts about stuff. I think it is good to help inform people where they have been misled. This also extends to understanding the proper use of words. Language has power, and if (as politicians, and religious doctrine are well versed at doing) the language can be twisted it to suit particular goals, then they can be used as a weapon. Understanding the proper meaning of the words then becomes the shield against a weapon of language. If we do not discuss distinctions, what then, is there to discuss?

Altruism is a choice you have whether you practice the NAP or not. People who don't practice the NAP like to be altruistic a lot because it gives them a "justification" for aggression, especially passive aggression. Your associating altruism with the NAP sounds to me like you view anarchy the way anarcho-socialists do? The NAP is altruistic in itself. However, I agree in that it does not mean that one who practices NAP must default to choosing to be altruistic in other areas of life. This "People who don't practice the NAP like to be altruistic a lot because it gives them a "justification" for aggression," makes no sense, as aggression toward another is -by definition- not altruistic at all. Choosing to be altruistic can't logically be used as proper "justification" for not being altruistic at another time. If so, then the initial altruism was not "unselfish", it was an attempt to "bank good points"... Whether or not someone claims to be altruistic, if they act in this way they are not altruistic. Therefore one cannot "be altruistic a lot". Either you are altruistic, or you are not. This, "[...] especially passive aggression." only makes sense if you believe that self-sacraficial BS = altruism. You made me do some research just to figure out how the hell 'anarcho-socialists' view anarchy. I only got over being allergic to political terms a short time ago, so bear with me if I don't know all the fancy-shmancy politico-lingo. When I searched for the term 'anarcho-socialist', I kept finding my way to "Libertarian socialism". I'm not sure if that's what you're talking about, but if so, I agree with some of what I read of them and disagree with other parts... So I don't really know if I view anarchy as a anarcho-socialist or not. I would appreciate some clarification, if you'd be so kind as to help with that. Thanks for the comments! Cheers! ~Demitri

I'm not sure I've ever come across your definition of altruism before. Which isn't to say it's not true, just that it's very new for me. I've always understood altruism as one of those impossible virtues of 'self-sacrifice' and 'selflessness' that can never be reached in the purest sense, because of the rather obvious detriment to ones own life. Which of course is ideal for most collectivist ideaologies, like religion and statism that seek to control and modify peoples behaviours, by re-asserting our failure to ever reach such a standard. If I understand you correctly you see individuals adherence to the NAP alone as being essentially altruistic. According to the World English Dictionary, this is the definition of altrusim: 1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for the welfare of others 2. the philosophical doctrine that right action is that which produces the greatest benefit to others First, I would say this does not exclude concern for one's own welfare. The idea that altruism = self-sacrafice is a religious "spin" on the concept stemming from the idea of 'turning the other cheek'. Self-sacrafice is abhorrent as a virtue of living, and can only be a positive thing when it is literal (such as performing an act that takes your own life, but saves the lives of others.) Alas, such literal actions can only be done once, and thus, are a post-mordem virtue only. Second, I would say that upholding the NAP is a "right action which produces the geatest benefit to others". It also has the benefit of producing great benefit to ourselves. Is there disagreement about this? Upholding the NAP does not automatically mean that one is altruistic. However, a society where the NAP is the 'norm' would be an altruistic one because of the repercussions of upholding the NAP. In the absence of those who would initiate violence, it is far more profitable to cooperate with others for mutual benefit than it is to do otherwise. Again, altruism does not mean self-sacrafice; it does mean following an course of action which benefits others.

I am dismayed that the topic of determinism is a closed topic. I understand what trolls are, and how heated people can get when being trolled. I think anyone that supports free market would be remiss in banning any topic of conversation which holds the potential to help someone find clarity; and therefore disagree with the banning from that point of view. In a free market, a business can't survive without customers that want what the business supplies. This principle should apply universally if the free market concept is valid. In the same way, a discussion can't survive if no one wants to talk about it. This is one of the principles that brings me to my request below. However, if the topic itself is troll-like, then I can understand why it would not belong on a themed forum. Likewise, I would not expect to find a discussion on recipes of human cannibalism on a children's themed forum either, and could understand why such a topic might likewise be banned; and therefore agree with the banning from that point of view. I have yet to hear a single solid argument from a determinist; but I understand many people believe in determinism. In this way, the pursuit of truth (that truth being the falsity of determinism) is what those who believe in determinism need to discuss. I believe it is in the best interest for everyone to allow discussion for those trying to work thru the claims of determinism and thereby find clarity. Many intelligent people feel a need to discuss thoughts and ideas in order to find clarity concerning them (this is the basis of why philosophy has value). In a world with so much deciet, it can be difficult to find clarity (this is why there is a distinct need for philosophy discussion today). Therefore, so long as there are those who seek clarity on the topic and would like to voice their own words about it, it would be better to allow discussion rather than to forbid it. So I ask: Please remove the gun in the room of the fourm by removing the ban from the topic of determinism.

It is my understanding that transgender is one type of gender dysphoria. It is also my understanding that cross dressing is another form of gender dysphoria. While I understand that you were asking specifically about transgender, and not about other forms of gender dysphoria, don't you think your reply to Rose was a bit elitist? I certainly think so. Specially since you say the two are, "in no way related to" each other, and yet both are forms of gender dysphoria. This would be like asking about left feet and having a right foot come up and say, "I'm a right foot", and then claiming right feet and left feet are in no way related to each other. I find your response to Rose to be a reflection of how you view yourself. I wish you well, and hope you find that which you seek. Cheers! ~Demitri

It is nice to have so many critical thinkers in one spot. It is my hope that being actual critical thinkers, it is not the habit of those in this forum to simply dismiss an issue without first placing it under scrutiny. It is with this assumption that I bring up this topic. I read the book "The Lost Book of Enki" by Zecharia Sitchin, and found it to be very interesting from a critical thinking viewpoint. For those who have not read this book (or know who the author is), the book is a translation of a Sumarian text which tells a story about the Annunaki, with some stuff about Nibiru. This is usually the point I encounter one of two problems when trying to dicuss this topic with people: 1> I come across a fanatic that is pumped full of misinformation. This person tends to talk about whatever hype they heard: the end of the world, or how they once saw Nibiru, or other such garbage. None of which has anything to do with the Sumarian texts and what they say about the Annunaki. -OR- 2> I come across those who have only heard the fanatics, and therefore disgard the entire "Annnunaki/Nibiru bullshit" without another thought, believing they have heard enough to know it's all crap. I must admit that I was one of the second type of person myself for quite a long while. I did a small bit of looking around when I first heard the words "Nibiru" and "Annunaki", and only found fanatic websites and You Tube videos all full of obvious crap (and in my opinion they truly are crap, and should rightfully be regarded as such). Then... I came across this book. It isn't exactly the easiest thing I've found to read, but I read it all. The first thing I realized was the fanatics really are as full of shit as I first thought they were; and they had aboslutely no idea what the Sumarian texts actually said about the Annunaki and Nibiru. Afterwards, I came across a couple of talks by Zecharia Sitchin where he rants about his frustrations concerning the misinformation which has resulted in obscuring the hard work he has done translating the texts. I can empathize with his sentiments. If anyone has read The Lost Book of Enki, I would love to hear what your thoughts are. In the mean time, I will begin paraphrasing specific parts of the Sumarian story for discussion. I will post them in another post in this thread. Cheers! ~Demtiri

From a political point of view I quite agree with you. However, the irony is that socialism tends to take on those very same christian virtues and values of alturism and collectivism. At least from the new teatament perspective. I find myself wondering what definition of "altruism" you are using. I wonder this because it is my understanding that everyone here subscribes to the non-aggression principle (I do), and we believe that everyone should do the same. A resulting society where the non-aggression principle was practiced as the "norm" would be -by the definition I understand- an altruistic society. Religions generally try to parade their version of altruism as some form of self-sacrafice, and that has been giving altruism a bad rap in much the same way as "anarchy means absolute chaos" gives anarchism a bad rap. So are you talking about the twisted religious idea of altruism then?

Welcome Jay, I look forward to hearing the rest of your story. I can relate easily to about 90% of what you wrote already, and may have some suggestions to offer. I'll hold off on that until after I have heard everything you are willing to tell first. Cheers! ~Demitri

Welcome Sam! I'm ex-Navy myself. I was part of Special Projects (not to be confused with Special Forces), so there's not a whole lot I talk about when it comes to the military. When I was in, I had no clue my views were anarcistic, so when I talked with others that never even came up. I think you're on the right track to talk about the ideas and leave the hot terms out of it. I find it goes over much easier that way. I never had any issues worse than apathy when it comes to responses. The term "voluntarism" is a new one for me. First heard that when I started listening to Stefan's podcasts. I seem to be behind on tons of terminology, but not on the philosophy itself. The ideas are ones I have had for most of my life. To answer the obvious question of why I joined the Navy if I have held these views for so long: Three reasons: 1> I love travel and wanted to get off the continent 2> I wanted to learn electronics 3> I wanted to stop being a player I rationalized my joining as not (personally) being the one to pick up a weapon and initiate violence. In hindsight, I would've taken all that back if given the opportunity. Live and learn. Again, welcome! I look forward to your participation! Cheers! ~Demitri

You're quite welcome. I truly hope you are able to find a way to express the things that matter to you without causing too many problems. It seems you have a positive relationship with your family and would like to keep it that way while allowing them to get to know you more. I think that's awesome, and I believe you'll figure out a way to do that if you want to. In my opinion, your family being used to your view as "way out there" actually works in your favor. It allows you the freedom to say some things that might not otherwise be said without much confrontation. Subtlety has a strength all it's own. This world (and especially the US, where I live) is steeped in the idea that confrontation is a good way (some think it's the best way) to deal with things. I think there's a time and a place for outright confrontation, but that most things are best dealt with thru subtlety. Gauging from what you said above, I think you would be very good at using subtlety; especially if you practice it. I think medieval history is pretty awesome. What's your favorite part? Cheers! ~Demitri