ThomasDoubts

Online Chess! Sometimes it can be too distracting though and I'll have to relisten to segments. I'd also caution that chess can be a very dangerous game if you're not careful!

I don't mean to speak for Robin but maybe I can clarify. He's talking about an imaginary number. Mathematics has proved the validity of an imaginary number: i. i= the square root of negative 1. This is a contradiction of sorts because any number squared is a positive number, by definition. i squared is negative, which is a violation of the laws of algebra. You can't go find the number 2 in reality but that's not really the point, I don't think. You can't find a negative number in reality either. An imaginary number is just an extra brainfrack, in that it seems to violate basic logic, but is empirically verifiable. Did I just come full circle there? Aaahhhhh, my brain is cramping, gotta go get a coffee. Al-right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number

I would not call self defense or intervening to protect the innocent, violence. It might be a violent act, like shooting an intruder is a kind of violent act, but it's justified and therefore more appropriately called self defense. Wikipedia defines violence: "using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something." Violence can be a used to do something heroic; ie: preventing the rape of a child. In all cases though, it should only be used as a last resort. Let's not give the meddlers anything to meddle with. The constitution also says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That's been violated in an uncountable number of ways, and they didn't even need to change it. An unchangable constitution doesn't make it so that it can't be violated. It's just done outside of the law, or with irrational judicial reasoning, or executive order, or however else the bill of rights is violated daily. Look at the NSA. You're right about the constitution. I was just remarking on the "All men are created equal"(declaration, I know) not being lived up to for some time. In fact if you include children as part of mankind, it still hasn't been realized. Slavery would have been a deal breaker issue if it were in the constitution, so pragmatism left the issue for another day. The Civil War was a monsterous betrayal of states rights. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, governments always break their own laws; they wouldn't be governments if they didn't. One of my favorite quotes from Jefferson, for whom I have profound respect: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. In other words, only "Thou Shalt Not's" concerning violation of another man's rights are just. I see no reason a profit seeking entity couldn't enforce this. Should they do anything bad, I leave and they lose money. Competition regulates for effeciency and reflects the will of the consumer. Yes I want free market capitalism, but who's to say how it's best protected. You'd have to have free market capitalism to find out What I do know is that governments have never protected free market capitalism. To do so would be to allow free competition in law enforcement, in national defense, in education, etc. The government outlaws and crowds out competition in anything it does, because it sucks at everything and the goal is rarely to even do it well. If it doesn't do anything, voila, anarchism with free market solutions. At the end of the day, government is force and force is a poor substitute for reason. That's my two minute elevator pitch from a States Rights Libertarian turned Anarchist. Tell me I've won you over Apologies for thread-jacking on a tangent

I would say: Polish citizens should flee or defend themselves. They should call for aid. Law Enforcement should enforce the law and the law should be thou shalt not agress against, nor violate the rights of others. They should also be subject to competition. A problem with the constitution being written in stone is that I think women and blacks have the same rights as I do. Emminent domain, as you rightfully point out is another. Most of all, as demonstrated throughout history, political power is most attractive to people who want to exersize that power. Power corrupts. I'd rather live in a world with a minimalist Federal Government and have 50 laboratories of innovation to pick from, than live in the world as it is. But I'd also rather live in a world with unregulated, unbounded and infinite innovation, than in one with only 50 regulated laboratories to pick from.

Well I don't know that you would need to prove it every time you needed it. Isn't that the nature of mathematical truth? It's unchanging and always true, by definition. No doubt, you can empirically test pythagorean theory. How about imaginary numbers: -1 ^(1/2). There is no such thing as an imaginary number in reality, no doubt any numbers at all. Maybe they were derived from sense perception. Like I said, I wouldn't come up with them if I were born with sensory deprivation. Hmm, I see your point... I wonder about the implications though. Does accepting empiricism mean one can't accept an a priori truth? If I say something is true by definition, how do I prove it? Do I even need to? I skipped a lot of philosophy in college. My professor had a massive hard on for Descartes and within a month, erroneously confirmed my preconceptions of philosophy as entirely useless. Please forgive my piecemeal understanding. Ok that makes sense. Would these claims be equally true, whatever that means, as empirically verifiable claims? Is there a reason you can't accept both a priori claims and a posteriori claims? I know this might be kind of an annoying topic, so apologies for that.

Giggity... I had a chuckle to myself earlier about that haha. I think you're following just fine. It's pretty much true by definition. Mathematical truths, or certain principals are also often cited as a priori. The argument is that they aren't derived from sense perception, and exist outside of our experience. Another example: In a voluntary exchange, Bob values Sue's good more than his own, and Sue values Bob's good more than her own; otherwise they wouldn't exchange. All bachelors are unmarried. These things, aren't derived from sense perception, nor empirically falsifiable, as I understand it. I'm wondering how the empiricist accepts such things to be true? As I understand it, the empiricist is concerned with inductive a posteriori reasoning, whereas the rationalist is concerned with deductive a priori reasoning. I accept that if I were born and kept in sensory deprivation, I wouldn't "discover" these a priori truths, but I'm also not sure that they are derived entirely from sense perception. Maybe they are, I'm on the outskirts of my understanding. I think what I may be getting at here may be the problem of induction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction. I'm not sure. I looked for a podcast/video from Stef dealing with this longstanding problem, and couldn't find one.

Sure. From wikipedia: The terms a priori ("from the earlier") and a posteriori ("from the later") are used in philosophy (epistemology) to distinguish two types of knowledge, justification, or argument: A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience (for example "All bachelors are unmarried"). Galen Strawson has stated that an a priori argument is one in which "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science."[1] A posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence (for example "Some bachelors are very unhappy"). There are many points of view on these two types of knowledge, and their relationship is one of the oldest problems in modern philosophy... As I understand it, and roughly speaking, Emericism claims knowledge is a posteriori, while rationalism claims it is a priori. When it comes to ethics, utilitarianism, I think, is the most popular bridging of the gap.

Mises argued this was a priori knowledge? Is it not so?

What are my epistemological beliefs? I'm not sure. In my signature below, I've got a quote from Karl Popper about Rationalism. Am a rationalist? I don't think so; at least not as they're generally thought of. I don't believe in gods or souls or ghosts. I don't believe knowledge or truth is subjective, or that it originates in the mind. I don't believe my ideas can refute empirical evidence; on the contrary. I do, however, take issue with Empiricism. Perhaps my biggest disconnect with empiricism is that I accept certain things to be true, a priori. Perhaps Mises' work was not, in fact, based on a priori truths; he simply called them a priori/axiomatic/praxeological. Maybe the idea that humans act with purpose is false. I don't know. It is my understanding though, that Empiricism rejects a priori truths, in favor of a posteriori truths. It seems improbable to me that ideas like ethics, justice, or liberty could be derived from sense perception. Am I wrong about this? Had you asked me several months ago about my epistemological beliefs, I would have identified myself as a skeptical empiricist, whatever that is. Now, reevaluating my beliefs, I feel more lost. I'll mention again, Karl Popper, because he's been pretty influential to me. He developed an epistemological philosophy he called "Critical Rationalism." This is where I'd most likely plant my flag, if only hesitantly. I was watching Stef's 3 part video on epistemology, and it seemed he was making the case for empiricism. I'm wondering how one marries empiricism with a priori truths or ideas like ethics or liberty. I feel like I should know this by now, but I'm not so sure I do. Many thanks to anyone who can help me fill my gap in understanding.

I'm reminded of a movie quote: "I know you are taking it in the teeth out there, but the first guy through the wall... he always gets bloody... always. This is threatening not just a way of doing business... but in their minds, it's threatening the game. Really what it's threatening is their livelihood, their jobs. It's threatening the way they do things... and every time that happens, whether it's the government, a way of doing business, whatever, the people who are holding the reins - that have their hands on the switch - they go batshit crazy." It comes as no surprise to me that university professors would resist your ideas. My gut wants me to tell you, "Fuck 'em." I don't know if that's good advice or not, and you would know much better than I how to proceed. I just think crowdfunding art is a great way to go if you're not looking to please the gatekeepers. I can't offer you much help in finding a partner, but maybe it would help to really consider these two simple questions: What kind of person/partner would be most helpful/valuable to your endeavor? Where would you be most likely to find such a person? Obvious, I know, but maybe helpful.

I don't know if this is directly addressing your post, but I thought I'd share my general thoughts on fine art. I am admit though, I'm not what people would call artistic, nor have I studied it much. As we know, value is subjective. It's only worth what someone is willing to give you in exchange for it. Anytime the government enters the art market, by buying or grading or whatever, it can be assured that their bias will be towards art that promotes, or at worst, doesn't affect the government's agenda. This whole idea of doing work for the poor; is it really work for the poor if it's owned by rich individuals, or stored in bank vaults? Why would a rich person be interested in art that represents the plight of the poor man? Perhaps he was once poor himself, and became a story of rags to riches. Perhaps he has some form of "rich guilt." Perhaps he just wants it to show his peers that he also cares about the poor, as if the painting is helping the poor by being on display in his home. Perhaps he just wants it because everyone else does, and he thinks it will hold/increase in value. As you point out, for art to be very valuable, there is a tendancy to think you have to cater to the rich. I wonder if it's true that rich people must buy your art for it to be valuable. Maybe something to think about would be commissioning works of art via crowdfunding. I'm sure you've got a portfolio to demonstrate your abilities. I suppose you'd have to solve the problem of where the art would be on display, but there's no reason you can't appeal directly to the common man for compensation. For example, this project raised +$100k and was the first one I found with a google search, and I didn't look any further. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1953408692/painting-an-entire-favela-in-rio-de-janeiro This probably isn't in the scope of art you're thinking about, but it's food for thought. A lot of things can be done by going directly to your audience. Bankers, governments and the art community aren't the only ones who can evaluate the value of a piece of art, because art and value are both subjective, it's not a science. I think crowdfunding could be a great way to prove this point.

Yeah I laughed at the maggot thing, I have a hard time believing that. This isn't new either; this was going on when I was in the 6th grade, roughly 15 years ago. These kids are doing it wrong though; haven't they heard of Pixie Sticks? I think of this as a behavioral problem, in that it's pretend drug abuse, but I'd consider the health impacts as negligable.

You're very welcome. I think it deserved to be said.

existing so I can use it as it was intended to be used. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is absolutely no need to apologize, whatsoever. I am truly sorry for your loss Nathan. I don't have any advice to provide; I've not done enough work to earn the experience of a relationship like yours. I was struck by your apology though, and how unneccessary it is.

Sorry for a bit of a delay in my response. I think what you're doing here is great, and thank you for sharing your experiences. I've really appreciated reading about them and feeling like I'm not alone in having these kinds of problems. Let me start by saying, I think it's pretty important that you weren't constantly evaluating her during the 4 years you were dating. Could it be that it is, or was, more important to not be alone than it was to be in healthy relationships? I get not wanting to be alone, I feel the same way. I don't have many friends, nor anyone I feel free to talk to without censoring myself, at least to a degree. You did say though, that conversation with your ex was really difficult, that she listened to respond rather than understand, and that there was no emotional connection. To regain any form of relationship with her would not address your needs for meaningful conversation and emotional connection. Maybe a thought experiment would be useful: If you were all powerful and could control the future, how might your future look, and would she be part of it? What do you want out of life, and what kinds of people do you want to spend it with? I've become really interested in observing who people pick as partners in a relationship. I think it kind of gives you a window into who they are. This is an over-generalization but I found it to be true about myself, so maybe you'll find it true in yourself as well. When I'm attracted to (or attract) women who are intellectually inferior, who are not well versed in reasoning, who come from abusive backrounds, who don't pursue self knowledge, who are easily manipulated, who lack self esteem, etc. I don't have to worry about being challenged. I become the authority figure, and am able to exercize the power of authority over my partner that was exercized over me as a child. The fact that I've attracted, or been attracted to these types of women, is a manifestation of my desire to rule, as I was ruled over. I'd never be able to do that with women who had high self esteem, who stood up for themselves, who were comfortable with leaving at any time, who were immune to manipulation, who were financially independent, etc. I may, with all good intention, try to "fix" such a person, but it doesn't work. There is a bit of irony here, in that by methodically revealing their abusers, you often reveal yourself to be among them. This is because someone who doesn't desire control or unjust authority doesn't select as a partner, someone who was indoctrinated by unjust authorities, and has normalized the behavior. Someone who has never been abused, or manipulated, doesn't select nor tolerate as a partner, an abuser or manipulator. If I were you, I would take a look at all of the women you've attracted, or been attracted to as an adult, and try to identify common traits. I'd then look at what those traits show me about myself, for better and for worse. I'd then take what I've learned, and trace it back to my childhood. As for the porn modelling relationships: Yeah, I got into porn around 10-12 and it's always been a bigger part of my life than it ought to be. In fact, I'm going to add this to the Future FDR Presentation thread. I hesitate to say much on this topic, except that it seems intuitively not ideal, and probably destructive. I agree with dsayers in regard to the incident with your father. I think he's pretty much spot on; I don't have much to add to that except to say that prisons provide food, clothing, and shelter. Let me know what you think. I know it's not easy to talk about talk about these kinds of things, but it's really great that you're doing it.

It's not his by right if inheritance is universally wrong. Could you precisely define enormous wealth? Of course not, nobody can; any value you pick would be subjective. How about the family house, and a vacation home? How about your father's 2 workshops? How about whatever a "small" piece of land is, plus 12 square meters? Either there are principals or there are not. Your arguments, definitions, and proposals are either subjective or untilitarian. Quit it, it's makes principaled argumentation impossible.

I don't claim to be an expert, so by all means, let me know where I'm off base. I'm just sharing my thoughts. I think important to really soak up the idea that she's not your responsiblity to fix. I think it great that you realize that, but you've got to know it in your bones. If she wanted you to fix her, she'd be with you, without doubts, be working really hard on her problems, pursuing self knowledge, and all those things but she's not. You're doing that hard work I would assume, and she's not. I hope it's not insensitive to you, but I read this paragraph and each sentence seemed more familiar to me than the last. I felt like I was reading my life story, or a description of my ex from 3-4 years ago... I know your life experiences are completely different than mine, but I'm having to make a real effort to seperate the two, which speaks to my shortcomings. I guess the first thing that comes to my mind is this: You dated this woman for 4 years, yet your desciptions of her shortcomings seem to be mostly made in the context of the break up. I definately get that, the break up is what's on your right mind right? I would be suprised though if these shortcomings weren't there most or all of the time you spent together as a couple. I think a few reasonable questions to start with would be why you wanted to be with someone that bends to the will of anyone she cares about? Someone who doesn't know how to say no, and will censor herself to avoid hurting feelings. Someone who was trained to be manipulated? Someone with no self-esteem? I dated someone I would describe as very similar, and I played the role of the White Knight. Eventually my efforts came to be taken for granted, and she wasn't willing to leave her abusive FOO. I'd get so frustrated, and tell her "I'm not dealing with your problems, if you won't deal with them yourself." I tried to drive a wedge between her and her abusers and she chose the abusers. I became an abuser, and a pretty dispicable person for a while before the break-up, but eventually it came, as I'd known it would. I never really accepted the finality the breakup, and that I was better off because of it, till probably 2 years afterwards. Everytime she broke up with a new boyfriend, she'd come to me for an ego boost rebound that lasted a day or two, and then head right back out looking for someone new. Fuck her for that, it would be nice to have those two years back... I feel uncomfortable saying this, but why would he want to hang out with his girlfriend and her ex? Unless she's inviting you over and he's taking you off to the side to make these threats, or something along those lines, I would say he's not being completely unreasonable. You'd have to explain the context, but if you're repeatedly showing up unannounced, not invited, or unwelcome, neither your ex, nor her boyfriend have to put up with that. If he was just threatening you out of the blue to "put you on notice" or something, then yeah, he's probably just an over agressive dick. I'm not sure what to make of that, you'd have to explain more of the context. It is interesting that you want him to feel the same emotional pain you're are feeling. Why do you think that is? I wouldn't think it's because he threatened you. That's interesting... I've only really just started working on my own dream analysis so maybe someone else have some thoughts on it too. I'm not really sure what to make of it. Sexuality seems like an obvious theme. This did bring up a thought for me; I believe the highest compliment you've paid this woman so far was when you said "The sex was great." That in itself is interesting to me. So far, in my life, my penis has been pretty good at picking vaginas, but pretty bad at picking partners. Another thing I might pick out as important; the three of you are sitting in a group, yet you don't seem to be engaged, or interact in any way with your ex and her boyfriend. You only listen passively, feeling anger, but neither notices it, nor acknowledges it. I wonder if this occurred to you, and if you think it's meaningful. I'm not sure what to make of the bisexuality bit. If I were to hazard a guess, with little confidence, I would say it might reflect a fear/insecurity of her new boyfriend having more knowledge of her sexuality than you do. Take that with a grain of salt unless it resonates; but I know I've felt that way. Again, a disclaimer that I'm no expert at this but I'll ask some of the things that come to my mind. What was your parents relationship like growing up? What kind of example was set for you in romantic relationships? How do you feel about your childhood? What were the main events or themes? Basically, if you had to describe your childhood in a few paragraphs, what would you say about it? How important were your preferences to your parents? How were you disciplined? Was there any violence, and if so, how much and in what way?

Hey Atticus, how's it going? I've got some incomplete thoughts, and experiences I'd like to share, but first, I want to let you know that what you're going through is no easy thing to deal with, and I'm sorry you have to deal with it at all. Reading your story really resonated with me on many levels. I've had some pretty similar experiences and I really feel your pain on a pretty personal level. Fair warning though, because of the similarity I feel, this might just be a massive projection. Anyhow, I dated a woman for just under 5 years and our break-up (a few years ago) was much the same as yours. Your first paragraph would have described this woman, and our relationship quite well. I wasted a ton of time and emotional energy on someone I knew I wouldn't be happy with, and who no longer wanted to be with me. I'll be blunt with you because I wish I had people in my life who would have been blunt with me, or cared enough to really figure out what was going on in my head. She doesn't (didn't) need time to herself, as I think you're aware; she started dating someone else days after you broke up, if not before, and quickly began living together. What she wanted was time away from you. She didn't want to be with you anymore. Instead of telling you this directly, she strung you along and left the door cracked. Maybe you're the fallback option, maybe something else is going on, I'm not sure. I could talk for days about my experience but I'm not sure that would be of any use to you (more than willing to share if you'd like). It took a long time for me and it was a struggle to be sure, but I went through a pretty simple process detailed below. This could all be bullshit, but I'm going to show how your post demonstrates possibly going through a similar process. Denial-- She wants time to herself, but is dating and living with another man. You ended relationship after she said she wanted a break Anger-- Writing a letter about how horrible she is Bargaining-- Blackmail Depression-- Is this where you are now? Acceptance-- Understand, I'm not absolving her of any wrongdoing; she's not faultless, by any means. By your own admission though, you wouldn't be happy together, and that's not suprising. Who would want to be with someone that lies to them? Who would want to be with someone that they didn't connect with emotionally? I'm supremely aware of how bizarre it is to rationalize all of the emotional energy, mixed feelings, etc. regarding a failed relationship you rationally know wouldn't be fulfilling. I did it for a long time, and I can't quite put my finger on the reason for it, but I know it's insane. I don't go to a restaraunt and get upset because they've run out of brussel sprouts. I don't complain to the manager, or threaten to publicize a poor review of his restaraunt. I don't get depressed about it. I wouldn't even like brussel sprouts, so I look for something on the menu I would like. It's not up to you to fix her. I'd love to hear about your childhood experiences, and your dream. I think both might be helpful in figuring out why you are struggling with this problem. The examination of both were very helpful for me. I'm also curious how you feel about what I've written.

You are not voluntarily going to give back what is mine, and what my ancestors had built and saved for centuries That sure looks like a claim of ownership to me.

I understand it's a hypothetical situation. That doesn't change anything about how you said you would react to the hypothetical situation you created. Your grandfather has nothing to do with this. By your argument, if he were for inheritance, he's part of the problem. You would have no right to any inheritance he left you. You told me you would find me, and that absolutely nothing could save me from you. You told me you would use violence to reticfy a situation whereby property was stolen, but to which you, by your argument, never had any rightful claim to begin with. Do you not see the hypocrisy of arguing to abolish inheritance and simultaneously claiming a right to your ancestors property?

And you know this to be true about me? Let me get this straight: In a thread you created titled "Should Inheritance be Abolished?," you are now claiming as rightfully yours, the property of your ancestors? Is that right?

I do repetitive dangerous work. Granted, I'm not sifting through landfills for food, if that's the kind of thing you're talking about. I find the repetitive dangerous work I do to be much easier than intellectual work. I have to do minimal thinking or interacting. I can be alone with my thoughts while doing my work. If I were doing the "intellectual work" (white collar?) to which I'd be best suited, I'd be constantly worrying about x,y, and z, and finding it generally more difficult. Among other reasons, that's why I don't do it. Physical labor, for me, is second nature. Wearing a suit and tie every day is completely foreign to me, and not something I have any desire to do. Being a salesman, for example; I can't think of a job I'd hate more, unless I was selling something I really believed in, and such things are hard to come by. Sports are silly but the fact is, because sports are a business, not everybody has the same earning potential . Roughly 20% of the 7 footers on the planet between the ages of 20-40 play in the NBA. The minimum annual salary is (I'm guessing) somewhere around a million dollars a year. If you're 7 feet tall, you've got about a one and five chance of earning at least a million dollars a year. If you are a big burly man-bear you've got greater potential as a physical laborer than a tiny, skinny, physically weak man. The point I'm trying to make is that when you say everyone has the same potential, it begs the question; potential for what? Beyond that, how would you even measure potential?

If the victim of the crime is dead, and the perpetrator of the crime is dead, how exactly can justice be done? The victim can't be made whole; he's dead. The perpetrator cannot be punished, nor rehabilitated; he's dead. It seems to me that you're implying I should be punished for things my father did. I think you should be punished for everything I've ever done. I'm concerned only with respecting property rights and the non-aggression principal. Do you not have a right to your property? Do you not have a right to be free of violent aggression against you? Big houses, expensive cars, etc. are manifestations of wealth. I don't respect people because they are wealthy, but I don't think I have a right to steal from them either; just as they have no right to steal from me. I have great respect for people who became fantastically wealthy by making the world a better place. I have no such respect for people who became wealthy through fraud, coercion, or violence. Personally, I'd prefer 25.5 square meters. How much should I be punished for living on an extra half of a square meter? I don't have any experience with having a small penis. I can't comment on what that may or may not have to do with libertarianism.

: Taking another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. Using violence, or the threat thereof, to accomplish the same. Repossessing stolen property is fine, but one shouldn't project the sins of the father onto the son. If a black man walks up to me and demands payment from me for my ancestors sins against his ancestors, I wouldn't know what to do but laugh. I had nothing to do with slavery.

Stealing is wrong, no matter who does it.