powder
-
Posts
478 -
Joined
Posts posted by powder
-
-
'yes' to your last question
-
Do you mean the definition of preferable that isn't about people's subjective desires? The one more synonymous with "suitable" or "apt"? Yes.
Or do I agree with TDB's characterization of UPB? It's close enough, I think. I don't think UPB is about determining hypocrisy though. Rather, that rejection is the analytical rejection that Stef talks about. At first glance, they look very similar, but technically, a person who's a hypocrite can still be right. Like a smoker who warns kids not to smoke.
The same way that there is an implicit proposition in the act of murdering a person, and how praxeology is, like, a thing, is how the way that people act exposes certain logical propositions that can be evaluated. If a person demonstrates an incapacity to act / reason from their own stated position, they aren't even wrong.
So, it's not exactly hypocrisy that is the standard even if it is the result.
Yes, TDB's one. I am thinking that UPB is a method for evaluating the validity of moral/ethical propositions. So replace hypocrite with something like 'valid' or 'rational' perhaps. It just seems overly obtuse to me with all the stuff relating to preferences and such.
I like Pepin's take on it above as well. I am just saying I would prefer something simpler and clearer.
I mean, if it is a rational methodology for replacing state and religious propaganda that has screwed our moral compass, then it would be nice if we could teach it, or at least explain it in a way that is easy to grasp for the average person. The UPB book just gave me a headache.
-
Here's my latest stab at a summary of UPB:
When someone makes a moral claim,if their proposition doesn't apply to all moral agents, everywhere, for all time (universality), then that person is a hypocrite and you can ignore their bogus claim. You can also ignore it if it has logical contradictions or practical impossibilities. If the moral claim survives those tests, we are justified in enforcing it in some way (it is binding, valid, true).
I am not sure Stef would accept this interpretation.
I really like this. I don't know if it is a good representation of UPB. I just read the book and I found it dizzing - I wasn't sure what the point of all the logical gymnastics was. I was expecting, or hoping, it to be a simpler expose on how morality, or ethics, could be universal propositions to help people turn away from the insane edicts of church and state.
Wait. No. You made a categorical error demonstrating that you in fact do not understand what UPB is. Before correcting me, please acknowledge that.
I'm not sure it makes much sense for you to continue criticizing UPB given that. Rather I would suggest slowing down, maybe do some more reading, that sort of thing. Especially considering your equivocation between both senses of "preferable" at the end there. You clearly did not understand my definition.
Kevin, do you agree with that definition?
-
Thank you, for the welcome!
That's so cool you're from Kamloops, did you first here FDR on a road trip to Vancouver by chance :-)
I really enjoyed Kamloops. We ate at a fantastic greek place downtown. Spent some time at the TRU campus where my wife was at a conference. Went to the Wildlife Park with my daughter. I was genuinely impressed by the place.
I love spending time in Vancouver, my fav Canadian city. I think I first heard Stef on RedIce Radio a few years back.
-
yup, I'm done too. I got a lot out your responses especially dsayers, just brilliant, so it wasn't a waste of time for me at least.
K, I'm done. In the abstract, the idea that a piece of paper could limit behavior is ludicrous. To make the claim amid endless empirical evidence to the contrary is proof that you're going to believe what you want to believe. I won't waste my time any further. Do you not even notice that believing a piece of paper will stop people whom you've told have superhuman powers from doing something you don't want them to is a direct contradiction to the belief that morality won't stop people who understand that we're all equals? In both cases, you believe the exact opposite of what the evidence shows IN YOUR OWN LIFE.
-
Hey, I live in Kamloops! That is one fortunate daughter I would say. Good for you Chris, what a great way to start your life with your family. Good for you.
-
Minslavery in my opinion is a safe way to a totally free society. At the moment the societies we live in have slaves and plantations growing everywhere around it. Some things are at the moment dependent on slavery, because the previous generations thought it would be a good idea to build an infrastructure that is based on the existence of the slavery. If we went immediately from the current society to the free model of society, we would risk a chaos. Many people are so used to be living as slaves that it would be impossible for them to deal in such a situation. A peaceful transaction from slavery to freedom can only be achieved by taking it slow. Starting from letting them choose their work, reducing beatings and decreasing the number of slaves owned per person. It will take many decades until we reach a point where we can safely end slavery and begin a completely free society.
well done cynicist, I thought of bringing up the parallel with slavery, but you did it in a much better way than I would have.
If I understand your concerns Markus, it looks like somehow you believe that the government will be taken down in one fell swoop by an angry mob of peaceful volunteerists or something and we will suddenly end up in a Mad Max world of chaos and random tyranny, so instead, we had better ease into freedom gradually.
-
Yes I can walk you through the conclusion. The reason why people who lead us into complete shit get elected is because the people will rather believe a beautiful lie than a sad truth. It sucks that it is so, but you can see it in every election because populists always gain popularity... So I believe that the reason the state does evil and poor decicions is that people don't undestand the consicuenses of the power they are given in a Democracy. People believe that the welfare state is the best idea and refuse to believe the pitfalls and immorality it has. People just don't care enough... And that is what bureocrats and corporation heads take advantage of. :(Markus FIN
Yes, people sometimes believe lies, but you are somehow saying that that is what makes the government evil, what is your definition of evil? What power are people given in a democracy? People don't care enough? I don't see the evidence for that, quite the opposite. You did not address my other 2 questions.
-
The reason why the state is so evil and irrational is because the people who vote are so easily fed bullshit.
Really? The state is evil because people are misled? that is not an argument, it is a conclusion. Can you walk us threw that argument?
That is not the same thing. In a KKK there are only racists so it would be impossible to change their opinion. In a Democracy all you need to do is convince the majority of the people to support your idea. In a Democracy there are all kinds of people, not just evil ones. So all you need to do is get the good people to your side and you will be on your way. The reason why the state is so evil and irrational is because the people who vote are so easily fed bullshit. We need to step forward and tell the truth. It is possible to change the state by joining it's ranks. It is like becoming the employee of an evil corporation. If you can climb up the ranks to become the president, you can fix everything.
You seem to think that the people, in a democracy, are the government... how do you figure?
Why can't you join the KKK, an evil organization, get to the top and fix everything?
-
No, but apparently you do. Feel free to tell me about it.
'Serving' is just a way of saying I 'was' in two armies. And you do actually serve, although who and what purpose you serve may not always be what you would choose. I served at a time when I didn't care whose purpose was served by my serving, all I knew and cared about was that MY purpose was served. I'm still not undecided if there was anything wrong about that.
That's not why I joined. For me it was basically thrill seeking. It was one of the ways to suck the marrow out of life. The way I see it it's mostly people living sad dreary lives, no real high points, very little real low ones. Nice and safe. That's not what life is for, IMHO. You only get to do it once, I really wanted all it had to offer, and I still do.
you joined the military for thrills? I would like to learn more about your childhood.
-
Why am I like this? CHECK WITH YOUR PARENTS
Why are a lot of people like this? CHECK WITH THEIR PARENTS
Is there any commonality? CHECK WITH THEIR PARENTS
Have any of you felt similarly in a situation like this? YES
Is it simply human instinct to want others to be responsible so you can blame them? NO
Is it a natural defence mechanism to keep from having to own up to reality and not deal with the truth? NO
Or is there some root to it that only happens with some people, that can be found through analysing your life? YES, FIND A GOOD COUNSELLOR
-
Sorry to hear about your dilemma Landof Aus, that is a tough situation. I would never presume to advise anyone on what they should do or how they should live their lives, I can only provide my own perspective of my own life and how I have lived it, perhaps that will be of some small value.
I did not have a great family life and upbringing but I did get a remarkable gift pertaining to career and life choices. I am fearless and decisive with how I live my life - relationships, well, I didn't get such good training there... When I was growing up I remember 3 specific instances when my dad found himself in situations where his job was unbearable for him, he never stayed with in a toxic situation but moved on and continued to have a rewarding work life that only got better. We were 8 children and every dollar of his weekly paycheck was gone by saturday, no unemployment insurance or any way to sustain the family for even a week without work. Still, with the encouragement of my mom he walked away and every time ended up with a better job before the end of the week. I was very impressed with that.
I have had an incredibly successful and fulfilling work life and I have walked away from some wonderful jobs (and pension plans and benefits) when I knew it was time to move on, never hesitating, no fear. I never did what I was told was 'sensible' but I always listened to my gut, it is never wrong. I have been self employed for over 20 years with an amazingly fulfilling occupation (artist).
Whatever you decide to do, I hope you can have that feeling, I think it turns us into good fortune magnets. All the best.
-
Nothing, having more stuff than you need is great, you dont want to be living on the edge of not having enough, but do you want more stuff than you want?
I'm pretty sure that sentence is not right.
Still not clear on how any of this would eliminate trade or capitalism, which has yet to be defined by the OP.
-
I don't get what you are trying to say. What do you mean "no need for capitalism"? Do you mean no need for trading good and services? Do you mean that instead of 'captialism' some central technocratic governing body ala Venus Project would somehow produce all the stuff we need/want? What is wrong with wanting lots more stuff than I need?
-
I listened to this discussion on Anarchy with James Corbett. I heard a podcast of James and Stefan from a couple of years ago in which Stefan was arguing for the merits of Anarchy and James was not convinced but remained open minded. In this panel discussion James argues for the ethical position of anarchy and does a good job of it. I think this is great, I like James who has done some really good stuff over the years I think.
-
Powder, I think your last point is the most powerful - who indeed gets to decide what is and what isn't rational.
As far as chemical imbalance in the brain, last time I looked, they didn't even know what "normal" was. How can you say there's an imbalance without knowing what it's supposed to be in the first place?
As far as the possibility that a cure could be found, it may not. I feel that if someone is in pain and there is nothing on the radar it would be irrational to think something would come along in a timely manner.
Right, good points cobra.
what I can say about finding relief is that it is not always the case that treatments have not been created yet but perhaps the search has not exhausted all possible options. Still, I understand that it is more about choosing to act freely with regards to your own life and body.
-
Some interesting and challenging points here. cynicist, I'm glad you decided to contribute to the discussion.
I have a couple of questions:
-why is not irrational to think that a cure or treatment could not be found for a chronic physical pain, just as it is irrational to think that things will not get better (emotionally)?
-considering the idea of drugs influencing someone's mental state and behavior, what about people who are suffering from an imbalance of chemicals in their system that promote irrational thoughts and behavior? We treat people all the time for this stuff.
-who gets to decide who is acting rational?
-
can't help but notice how dark, evil, and decadent some show's plots, and characters are getting in recent years. Breaking Bad, True Detective, House of Cards, Game of Thrones, Vikings - I have only seen one show, or less, of each of these and I could not continue. I am amazed that these are all so highly rated. I must be somehow different but I cannot tolerate such wickedness.
That said, the production, sets, directing, and esp the acting are stellar. Still, I just don't have the stomach for what they are portraying and getting us accustomed to taking in with this stuff.
-
So I have stopped at a red light. No cars in front, none behind. None to the left or right either. I look around for the police, then look for a red light camera. I drive straight through. My passengers looks at me in horror. "I can't believe you just did that." I laugh at them, but feel a great deal of pity. Traffic lights have the computational ability of a toaster. I am a human, my senses serve me well. The power of my brain is unmatched by the worlds fastest supercomputer. I have had the ability to determine when it is safe to cross a road since I was 5.Damn right I won't take orders from a toaster.
Although I really get this perspective, I have changed my attitude in more recent years. I used to be more defiant and challenging of stupid laws and their enforcers. Now I have come to the place in my life where I understand that we live in a tyrannical authoritarian culture run by psychos, some of them in funny uniforms with guns and the ability to mess with my life and physical well-being. Now I do what I am told, keep my head down, and say "yes sir." There are other ways to work towards freedom that I prefer to look into.
-
I have always said that the "against me" argument is optional, and I can't imagine why I would want to deny benefits of exposure to philosophy to almost any audience, anywhere, anytime...
Ok, I listened to the 'against me' video and I certainly understand that who one chooses to associate with is optional, there is no gun to anyone's head in that way. But I am not sure what 'optional' means in this context. And sure, benefits of exposing more people to philo, I get it. But there is nothing in that video about making exceptions for the purpose of exposing philosophy, or virtuous behavior, to a wider audience. Lots of talk about integrity and courage and so on when it comes to making those kinds of choices though.
I also remember you arguing against the Ron Paul campaign after it was explained how it opened so many people's minds to, well, stuff like yours, and you said "yes but..." RP had a very large audience to spread alternative thinking to the masses, what is wrong with that then if the end justifies the means so to speak. I found my way here thru the RP road.
Not trying to be contrary, I really just want to learn and understand. I am getting so much out of this site and the shows.
-
The more the anarchist in me grows, the more I notice how ridiculous violence and statist ideas are in fiction.
It's not surprising that literature and games, the whole entertainment category, is full of random violence and extreme hierarchies. It is a notable part of our history, after all.
What bothers me is the lack of game worlds and stories that do not require random violence to be adventurous, nor be extremely hierarchical as reasoning for story progression. An anarchic society does not have to be a society without challenge or conflict. There can be battle without nonsensical kings. A villain can do many vicious things, other than conquering or destroying a nation.
I wonder just how important entertainment is to the moral perspective of people.
Such an excellent point Phuein. I recently watched one of my favorite movies again after 12 years, the Lord of the Rings, and although I really enjoy the characters, the plot and the special effects, I do find my mind focusing on the insane precepts that the story dwells on; conquer and control, blood-line royals and such... ugh.
-
I have always said that the "against me" argument is optional, and I can't imagine why I would want to deny benefits of exposure to philosophy to almost any audience, anywhere, anytime...
I would like to learn more about the 'against me' argument. Optional eh? (yes, I am in Canada), I would like to know what that looks like exactly.
I think you are mixing up business and personal relationships. If I could only do business with people who I was personally comfortable with then I would go hungry. Because that's just the nature of the world at this point in time. FDR is a business. I think it's easy for people to forget that. It is a business with a mission statement, not just a vehicle Stef is using to make friends, although I'm sure he has made many in the process. If Stef only interviewed and was interviewed by people he felt completely comfortable with, the show would be a lot smaller at this point in time.
The idea of FDR is to bring philosophy to those who "don't" have it, not just talk to the tiny percentage of the population who do. That's why you interview with the AJ's of this world.
OK, I do get that, thanks Mike.
-
Only by those who struggle to think for themselves. The rational person will understand that you can go on other people's shows and not have to agree with everything that that person agrees with. In fact, if you only did interviews with people who mostly agree with you then you would be doing very few interviews at all. By going on AJ's show, Stef is not saying he agrees with AJ's views any more than if he were to go on CNN that he agrees with their views. It's just about getting ideas out there.
With regards to AJ in particular, there is a certain amount of crossover between AJ and Stef and it is a good opportunity to talk to the people who have just started to break out of the matrix, and have come across someone such as AJ, to introduce the real truth and philosophy to them. To give them an opportunity to learn the real truth. It's a good thing that Stef takes every invitation AJ offers in my view.
Of course I understand all that Mike and it is perfectly reasonable. But it does not address my main question and I am not too clear on the whole 'against me' argument and 'don't hang with people who don't share your values' thing so I really I don't know how this fits, I am just asking.
Yeah Stef has a certain amount of crossover in his views with AJ, and Ron Paul, and Peter Joseph, and many others who he would not sit down to dinner with. The interview process is different because?...
-
It looks to me like there may be an exception to the position that you don't engage people who do not share your values ('against me' thing) - which seems to be a prominent feature of Stefan's philosophy, which I really find admirable - and the interview mandate for the radio show, which is quite different from the debate format as Stef pointed out. I would be interested to know how he would sort that one out.
He appears on the Alex Jones show as well. I am not a fan of AJ and his perspectives and ideals and AJ is a Fundy Christian and a statist, and big supported of Ron Paul - not at all in Stef's camp it would seem, yet there it is.
The problem with this 'inconsistency', if it can in fact be termed as such, is that Stef and his philo will be lumped it with those of the people he associates with, esp the high profile ones - I certainly would not want to be lumped in with AJ if I were in his place.
Voting?
in Current Events
Posted
I think, rather, what he says... dsayers, I just have to keep voting the thumbs up on your posts, well done.
its about being morally consistent, period. the statist mind always want to make it into a practical matter.