powder

good explanation pepin. "Ghosts and god are completely invalid examples of the sort of claim." Why exactly is that the case. Articulate that argument for me please.

I agree with Marcus Clarke there FreeEach. You make a valid case I think and all you have to do is present evidence support the 'truth' as you see it, without the adjectives - 'Chumsky', 'Sheeple', 'alpha ape' are not facts or evidence or 'truth' - using terms like that only makes me feel there is a lack of integrity on your part. I know almost nothing about Chomsky and his personality or arguments and am not in a position to make a judgement on Stef's inconsistent behavior. That said, Stefan has introduced me to what is for many of us a radical social concept of ostracizing those who do not share your values. I have heard him say on several occasions that he will only hang with people of virtue that share his values, so no statists for sure. If Chomsky does not share the same philosophy as Stefan and he brings him on the show for marketing reasons, or out of ignorance of Chomsky's views, then I find that problematic. He has steered clear of the Ron Paul campaign and rightly criticized its policies, and there is a large audience for Stef's perspective over there, heck, I came to Stef by way of the RP stuff.

I understand and totally agree with the argument and the methodology. But I think it is missing the point I am trying to make, or the question I am posing. Just because I am not able to perceive something thru my senses does not mean I am prepared to say it does not exist, just that I don't know without more evidence, or that my perception may be too limited for me to make a judgement. Agreed, the onus is on bob, which is why I would ask him to present his case. I general, I would have no interest in dis-proving something that others claim that has little or no sense evidence or impact on my life. I get that, but would you say to bob, "ghosts do not exist"? my question is, how would you guys respond to bob? I really do understand now, thanks for walking me thru it, but I think those kinds of direct examples will help me articulate these concepts better.

that does make sense, well put. thanks for all the input guys, I think it is starting to sink in, I do understand what you are saying, I am going to need more time to articulate it for myself. Still, I am not sure why someone would say, " " does not exist because I cannot perceive it with my senses. Or is it just a different way of saying "it is not a logical problem that needs to be solved"? which I totally get and can get behind. how would this discussion go for you guys: Bob: "I think ghosts exist and are real." Me: "What do you define as a ghost?" Bob: "Blah, Blah = ghost" Me: "Perhaps it is possible that ghosts exist. I don't have any experience with that, I need more information, evidence, proof."

'Unreliable' is relative to the discussion at hand. Sure they are doing the job they are capable of, and designed to do, but as a gauge to assess all that exists, they are clearly unreliable, just as an ant's are. An ant's entire universe is my back yard, from the perspective of the ant, that is true and real, but it is not accurate. Is that what we are talking about here? To say, that everything that exists, the whole of reality, is what we perceive and verify thru our senses falls short for me. Unless I am mistaken, I think that is what I keep bumping into. ---That is the source of my quote about 'knowing everything' Kevin. It reminds me too much of religious dogma - here is the answer to all your questions and the simple formula for resolving all the mysteries of life and the universe kind of thing. cynicist you have said a couple of things that I think are steering me onto the right track. Perhaps I am getting hung up on the language or some definitions, which is the purpose of the thread of course. It seems to me that the scientific method requires that we say "based on the known laws of ( ), it is not possible", or "I don't know", or "it is possible, or probably, I need more proof or evidence" etc. not "I can't perceive it thru my senses so it does not exist"

thanks Mrcapitalism, I'll have a listen to that one. thanks too cynicist, this helps, I sense that I am getting close now a couple of responses and clarifications below...

Kevin, yes I did listen to several of those podcasts, and I am still stumped, ... perhaps this is good practice for you cuz I am a bit thick with this kind of discourse, but I need you to be more precise, and concise...

Kevin, saying that something exists, or is real, because we experience it with our senses is not a very useful definition to me because our brains simply receive electrical impulses sent by our senses. We are not 'seeing' the moon, our brain is simply interpreting electrical impulses and our 'senses' are not accurate. The moon looks as big or bigger than the sun according to our senses. We cannot distinguish between a dream or an illusion and a 'real' event. We can be hypnotized to process those signals differently. I watched a hypnotized guy eat an onion believing he was biting into an apple and he had all the sensory responses associated with eating an apple. Moreover, our sensory receptors that are sending the electrical impulses are quite limited. Our noses and ears for example only pick up a fraction of the vibrations that are sensed by animals with more sophisticated organs - these sounds and smells clearly exist, we just cannot 'sense' them. and thanks, I listened to a bunch of the podcasts that you linked over that last couple of days while I was painting. I like this: "objective reality is that which exists independent of our internal mental processes, or consciousness" and "reality is that which exists." Then you go on to distinguish reality from truth by saying that "Truth is that which conforms to logic or the evidence of our senses" can you elaborate on that and give specific examples of what that would look like. I know it all seems obvious and simple, I just don't know if I am prepared to accept some of the basic premises.

I am pretty new to this philosophy thing and I am starting to get the idea that it is rooted in 'reality', what is real and verifiable, provable. Am I correct in that? Certainly, my philosophy classes in university never gave me that impression - it seemed we were just asked to debate about random and irrelevant 'what if' scenarios, I hated it and assumed that that was what philosophy was about. From what I am reading here and from listening to and reading some Stef's stuff, it comes across as infinitely more practical and rooted in universal 'truths' or 'objective reality'. If that is the case, I just don't know exactly what that would look like. I think someone referenced a series of pod casts on the topic in another thread, like 19 of them or something. Short of listening to all that right away, can a simple and concise definition of what constitutes reality be given? I ran into this in another thread and it seemed like I did not have an understanding of what was being assumed to be an apparent consensus of what was considered 'real' by some of the posters. I never got a definition of what that might be so I am interested to know. In that thread I was claiming that I could not consider myself an atheist because I just don't know what I don't know. What am I missing when it comes to what constitutes reality from a philosophical perspective?

I feel the same way about 'spiritual' people Kevin. I grew up with religion and have spent lots of time with both religious and spiritual people. I also spent a few years looking into the new age stuff and even ACIM, which I did not have much time for at all BTW. compared to the 'spiritual' folk, I find it easier to be around religious people because they are at least consistent and predictable in their attitudes and beliefs. And their ethical code of behavior is largely decent and consistent as well, except for the rare fanatics. I think this is an important point Mishelle. It has been my experience that people have to be ready to hear, to accept, and be able to assimilate the 'truth', whatever that might be. A nihilist, or a religious person, just like an addict, they have to be ready, open, or perhaps 'broken open' enough to let it in. That is why I don't think it is helpful to prescribe for other people. If they come to you, it certainly may be helpful to them to share your own experience of how you got to where you are, because, presumably they come to you because they see something in you that they think might help them. If you are a good therapist, then you may be able to walk them thru their own experiences to help them see the truth on their own. If they are ready. what do you guys think of this perspective?

the f#%*king elves have a church!!??? I just lost all respect for them...

-always been a restless, questioning, challenging, history (alternative) buff, what's the bottom line kind of person -brought up RC and spit out the dogma when I reached age of formal operations. -spent years studying alternative spiritual traditions and dove into the new age movement stuff. -started loosing too much $ in the financial markets and began to study economic and monetary stuff, which led me into conspiracy stuff and Ron Paul and Peter Joeseph's movies and Alex Jones, David Icke, etc. -never a fan of politics and have never participated in the voting nonsense in my life so anarchy was no stretch for me. -heard Larken Rose on Red Ice radio, I really like his approach to anarchy. -hated those philosophy classes in university where we spent all the time discussing random 'what if' stuff, so I am still trying to get used to the concept that anything practical has anything to do with philosophy so I am learning about that. -can't remember where I first heard Stef but he is as close to my own way of thinking of anyone I have ever heard. he also cured me of the conspiracy bug, not that a lot of it isn't valid, but with a single quote from a video about 911 he dismissed it all and put it into perspective... "So what? Even if the theories are true, its like giving a speeding ticket to a serial killer"

Interesting thread. Never went down the nihilist path, not my thing, but I agree that the whole angry at the world thing turns me off the Alex Jones style world view, and I think it is more than a little dangerous. I agree with Kevin, just because it was part of my path and process, I would not recommend anything of my experience to others to help them get to this place. Sharing experiences my be helpful in some situations. I have not listened to the interview you reference but I am especially curious about the quote: "You won't take up arms against the darkness!" Can you elaborate on that one for me Mishelle?

yeah, thanks FreedomPhilosophy, I used all those same arguments and that is where it ended, I got no response after that except things like, "we will never agree, so this is pointless..."

I completely agree with everything you are saying, I just wince when I hear phrases like 'we need to..." It sounds so statist to me. Like we can somehow control governments or that we can or should collectively enforce some sort of social policies. Ok, here are some of the responses that I got to similar statements like yours:

wow that bigfoot video is cool, certainly looks like a dude in a suit. the Obama anti-christ thing, well, I don't even know what to think of that.

I think it is amazing that 14% of voters believe in bigfoot, that is a lot. conversely, it is certainly verifiable and obvious that the psychiatric profession can only prescribe drugs for behavioral conditions that are officially categorized as 'diseases' and they add new things to the list every year, including stuff like 'road rage', and yet, the same % of people don't see that one and its written right on the bottle! Much less than 15% of the people I know have ever seen a bigfoot and I live at sasquatch ground zero.

having a debate with some members over at another forum over the remembrance day (veteran's day) - "honoring the heroic soldiers who died for our freedoms" kind of thing. the bottom line used by the defenders of war and the military always comes down to how would you stop genocide - WWII and Hitler is the trump card example that is always played. as well as crazy muslims terrorists. what do you say to these people?

Good for you Sven, congrats! All the best. Man, I would love to go to those gigs with all that vegan raw food...

I don't think I would say decadence is responsible for creating the state. Most of the decadence we see is because of the state and certainly if you remove the state people will look to replace it with something similar because that is what they know and understand. In the same way that a child who is raised in an abusing family setting will behave as if violence is normal (maybe that is Chris' problem). Is it not the case that the underlying problem that the state, or any authoritarian structure is a symptom of, is the illusion or myth of authority, or the legitimacy of authority and a ruling class, the millennial old brainwashing of the 'divine right of kings'? Without that, people would simply walk away from bullies (the state) and ignore them.

I understand Ster. I too was confused and curious about the term and how it was used and not at all clearly defined. Still, I am pretty sure PJ used the prostitution example, as well as the one of a man abusing his family because he was down and out in the work situation, and the personal example of his own work related difficulties as directly caused by 'structural violence'. Have I got that wrong? Would the 'hoarding' thing be based on the idea that PJ raised about amassing resources at the expense of others because of scarcity - he seemed to suggest that it was a psychological imperative of some sort, but never really made much of a case for that either. I would be interested to hear the case you would make for the 'hoarding' thing.

STer, can you provide examples of structural violence in society that are not symptomatic of state influence? Or has that been done and I missed it. I remember PJ mentioning how a woman was forced into prostitution because she could not get by, and that this was an example of structural violence, yet it was easily explained away by other factors.

good call bootoo. I did go over a bunch of reviews and none of them were very convincing or well researched or substantiated. That guy did an ok job but a lot of his logical assumptions about why things could not have been are just that, no evidence or historical references provided to back up his claims. this guy does a better job of dubunking Atwill's claims I think.

Has anyone read Joeseph Atwill's book or seen the documentary? It is called "Caesar's Messiah, the roman conspiracy to invent Jesus" where he goes over the evidence that points to the idea that the Flavian Caesars created the character of Jesus and the christian religion as a political tool to subjugate and pacify the flock, and esp the messianic movements of the time that were a threat to the empire. You can do a search and find a couple very good interviews he did for Redice radio. It is a fascinating and novel historical perspective and worth considering if you like that sort of thing. I do. I also believe that religion and politics, or the state, are two sides of the same coin of control used by the ruling elite. They are both, at their foundation, systems of control where the 'subjects' are brainwashed into bowing to authority.

When I first heard Peter Joseph talk about structural violence in the video debate with Stef I was curious to learn exactly what he meant by that and wanted to understand if it was different from the kind of human misery that is simply caused by the virus of state intervention in society. PJ never defined it specifically in the debate and Stef never asked him to do that directly so I started to ask around here. My desire to understand was genuine even though some members here questioned my motives. It looks like friendlyhacker dude has been bucked off this debate and I am having trouble understanding his motives for sure. As for the whole structural violence thing, I posted a video link in the other thread where Stef does address it directly and together with subsequent posts on the forum and in this thread I can really see no evidence of how it is anything but a bunch of nasty stuff caused by state intervention.