AustinJames

Yeah, 'lack of moral significance' just felt too wordy. And I wanted to express the possibility of some arguable nuance regarding participation in or tolerance of an industry that is morally corrupt, i.e. meat industry/porn industry.

Great sex is like a fantastic meal; best enjoyed with the one you love most in the world. Porn is McDonalds-- but sometimes I still eat McDonald's, mostly because it's quick and convenient. I think the principle of moderation applies to McDonalds as it applies to porn; and partaking of both have similar moral significance.

If you've been in an elite ensemble in the midst of competition, you can most likely relate with the paradoxical nature of artistic improvement that is explored in this film. The controversy of the mentor/student relationship when it goes to extremes is a very real issue; one rooted in our sex drive, triggering some primitive element of our nature, to perform at our maximum potential. I enjoyed the movie very much, perhaps because I can sympathize with it so well.

I don't think it's possible to have great business relationships with people who have bad relationship skills. If I were to invest in a business, I would make sure the owner was very skilled in cultivating and maintaining relationships in general, on principle. I don't think it would be productive to "move on" before gaining some insight as to why RTR is difficult/not optimal for you. What is your aim in pursuing this endeavor? How will your life improve by it?

My initial reaction was, "why would he do a comedy show? He already does something BETTER than a comedy show." Upon further reflection, however, I came to think it would be a good idea to get a half-hour together purely for the sake of humor. If Stefan did a standup "special," it may very well expand his audience and donorship. It should be easy to compile material from existing shows. Perhaps some volunteers could submit jokes for a concentrated comedy presentation.

I responded 'too far' for the reason I don't go to comedy clubs, but the political correctness of the audience is a big factor in the overall quality of modern comedy. I recently heard Joe Rogan and Kurt Metzger talk on their respective podcasts about how today's hypersensitive audiences and social media scandals are ruining comedy. They cite other comedians that are outspoken on the issue, such as Jerry Seinfeld and Chris Rock. Things like the Daniel Tosh rape joke outrage, or the Ari Shaffir "bullying" have a strong chilling effect. I suspect (and hope) we can look forward to a backlash of radically offensive, no-holds-barred, hilarious comedy, with nothing too sacred to make fun of. If that happens, I'll be sure to frequent my local comedy club more often.

I've heard Alex Jones rave about a specific iodine product. I promise I'm not plugging Infowars; it honestly might be worth looking into. He boasts about a revolutionary and patented means of extraction or distillation or whatever the method is. I can't speak from personal experience, but I would be interested to hear about your experiences with various supplements. Iodine deficiency has historically been a problem, much like scurvy or malnourishment. That's why salt companies started to include iodine in their products some time ago. Do you suspect a conspiracy? Or is this just an example of irresponsible oversight?

The earth is flat, too, ya know... http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

Can hunting, even for sport, be considered an effective and ethical method of ecological conservation? It was difficult emotionally for me to explore this possibility, but eventually I found the idea that hunting as an optimal tool for conservation, and a boon to humanitarianism, to be irrefutable. Thoughts?

But why? Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeee??? Reading through this stuff is like eating a word salad made of recycled tires. You have not provided adequate reason to even justify redefining these terms. What could we possibly gain by accepting your definitions? What would it change in philosophy? What problems does it solve? I know, you say that there are inconsistencies inherent in the implications of the current definitions, but that's like saying that the word "up" needs to be redefined because if someone is upside-down, then up is down, or in a zero-gravity state, "up" is completely relative. In reality, these redefinition attempts are asinine. They are not at all useful, nor are they true, nor do they improve anyone's understanding of philosophy. On the contrary, your arguments work as a grand obfuscation for anyone that intends to apply philosophy in a meaningful way. I'm sorry that you've invested so much thought in this, but you're really wasting your own time, along with the time of other people who have engaged with you hoping for a reasonable discussion.

It makes me sad to hear about your struggle with this divorce, even so long after it happened. I can sympathize with this, as I have had to deal with some ambiguity in my own childhood. I have given up the notion that my parents will ever give me the truth; whether because they honestly don't know, or because they don't want me to know. With the level of dysfunction displayed by your parents, I doubt you will ever get any clear, honest answers about what happened. It may be good to talk to your parents, though I'm not sure. Doing so may give you some kind of closure, but it may only frustrate and confuse you further. I would recommend pondering what the implication of their responses may be. If your dad said it was all your mom's fault, and your mom blamed your dad, what would that change for you? What if the opposite happened and they both blamed themselves? What if they had a somewhat nihilistic viewpoint, saying something like, "who's to know what should have been? What happened has happened, it's beyond our control, what good does it do to find fault?" What would these responses mean to you? Would any of them change anything? I suspect not, but it may be something to consider when planning your next step in attaining self-knowledge in this matter. Good luck! I hope you update us here on the forum when you make progress on this.

I would recommend free-writing. It's kind of like journaling, but you purposefully avoid self-censorship. Just sit down with a pen and paper (or a computer, or type-writer, or whatever your preferred medium) and record thoughts as a flow of consciousness. Try not to stop writing, whatever comes out, and however sloppy it is. This is not a solution, but it is a tool that has worked for me. Good luck!

But... Do you guys even lift? Like, seriously... do you even lift, bro?

Sure! I would be interested to hear Stefan's take.

I can't speak for any women, but I agree with MMD that Sex at Dawn would be a disqualifier for me, and may also be for quality women. I agree that it is an interesting read, but placing it first on your list is risky if you intend to attract an intelligent, healthy, and emotionally-balanced partner.

I watched the series. I liked it. It was much better than the Ben Affleck movie. I also liked how they delved into the childhoods of both hero and villain. By the end I felt sympathy for both parties.

That's an interesting analysis. Perhaps I didn't describe the dream as effectively as I could have. When I asked Stefan about the placement of the plants, he doesn't "blow up" or "rage." He was smiling in the dream. The dismissive hand-waving did not seem to be passive aggressive at all. Rather, it was as though he was affirming that he trusted me to determine the placement; that he had faith in me. I do a bit of gardening myself, and I know I'm supposed to put water in the hole before I place the plant in the ground. I remember having this thought in the dream, that I should have put water in the hole, right before I felt the ants. Perhaps the order of these is significant. Thank you for your thoughts. What else do you remember about your dream in the closet with the books?

Utopian: you have addressed an interesting series of questions. What has been demonstrated in your life, as far as male/female relationships are concerned? Do you have any role models regarding this ideal? If so, what are they? I'm deeply curious about what has influenced you to ask this question.

I can sympathize with your dilemma. I'm afraid I don't have a perfect solution, as I am currently struggling in a similar way, but I can tell you this: when I refrain from giving my personal opinion in some conversations, I find I am more curious, and more capable of empathy. In my experience, it's helpful to ask lots of questions and exhibit abundant curiosity, and withhold my own viewpoint until I am convinced I am dealing with someone with equal (or at least similar) empathetic capability. Be equally curious about yourself and about those you converse with. Once you have established that there is equal interest, there is nothing wrong with talking about yourself; in fact it would be rationally inconsistent at that point to be withholding. Grow your own empathetic capabilities to sense when you are being narcissistic and when you are being self-deprecating. Practice. Talk with people who are pursuing self-knowledge. They will tell you when you are being a jerk.

I thought I'd share a dream I had last night. I'd be open to any analysis you might provide. I was wandering through a suburban neighborhood with tools in my hands. Something like a shovel in my left hand, and a power tool of some kind in my right. The power tool was not a real brand; it had CAD written on it. I stopped at a corner, and saw a team of laborers preparing to do some yard work. Then I saw Stefan come out of the house and walk to the corner of the lot, in my direction. He was priming a weed whacker. Glancing at my tools, he said, "Going to do some yard work?" I realized I didn't actually know what I was doing with the tools. "Just looking for some work to do," I replied. "It looks like you've got quite the project started. Need an extra hand?" He gestured for me to join him. He led me to a line of potted plants on a plot of bare, dry soil. I asked him some question about what he wanted planted where. He interrupted me with a wave of his hand and said, "I don't care, just put them all in the ground. I trust you to know just as well as I could tell you." A few times throughout the dream, I asked him about whether the plants were placed correctly, to which he again waved his hands and told me to just get it done; it was fine. Once all the plants were submerged in the dry soil, it occurred to me they would die if there was not enough moisture. As I was asking if he had a hose to water them, I felt a stabbing, burning sensation all over my back. Then I looked down and saw a stream of red ants coming from the place I had disturbed the soil, and on up my legs. I asked Stefan (and someone next to me, who I never really saw) to get them off of me. Then I woke up. While some of the implications of this dream seem obvious to me, a casual observer may have a better angle on it. As I attain more self-knowledge, I've noticed my dreams have become more vivid, and their meaning more overt. It seemed to me that "the work" was both the work of self-knowledge, and of spreading philosophy in the world. I had some 'tools' associated with philosophy before, but I didn't know what I was doing with them. I don't know what the implications of "CAD" might be, but I suspect it is not random. Stefan in the dream saw that I had tools associated with his own endeavors, and asked about them. This seems pretty straightforward; when I first heard Stefan's work in real life, I noticed for the first time the tools that I carried, and saw how they might be of use. Stef's garden in the dream was the place I could best put my skills to use. In real life, it is in the endeavor of spreading philosophy and attaining self-knowledge, which I share with Stef, that I can achieve the greatest fulfillment. I'm not quite sure what the implications of the planting process are. I can only relate it with Stefan's insistence that shouldn't be looked at as someone to follow or obey, but rather someone to listen to, and then make decisions according to principles. Maybe his dismissiveness with the specifics of the planting has to do with an eagerness to move the work along, and not get caught up on details. The red ants seem to me to be the worldly consequences of engaging in this work. Just like one must accept the possibility, even likelihood of things like biting insects while gardening, one must equally anticipate the sting of social ostracism and rejection when engaging with self-knowledge and living by principles. Just thought I would share, in case any find this interesting. Upon further consideration, it was surprising to me, after three years listening to Stefan, that this was the first dream I can recall with him.

I live in Utah, so the answer is quite clear to me. There is no point in taking part in national elections, even if I believed the outcome makes a difference. Moreover, it would be immoral of me to use the power of the state to implement anything, even if it was a moral ideal, because the use of state power is not moral. In other words, there's no way for me to vote morally, even if I agree with the supposed outcome. It is still an unjust use of force based on the NAP.

I started Khan Academy's computer programming course about a year ago. I haven't gone full-bore in pursuit of these skills, but I've decided it's a skill I'd like to acquire, and I'm willing to put in the time. I don't know if it will lead to a career change, but I don't want my lack of knowledge in this area to prevent any doors from opening in the future. I recently got a Raspberry Pi computer to apply my knowledge and experiment with. I love the concept of the Raspberry Pi; the person that came up with the idea intended for the computers to be used to learn programming. They are simple, cheap, and suitable for a multitude of applications.

A friend of mine recently shared this infographic on my FB page: http://www.upworthy.com/the-science-of-spanking-what-happen… He commented, "Do you remember when we discussed this? After reading this I went and read the abstract and conclusion from the study referenced. I've changed my position on the topic." I was ecstatic to hear this from him. Not just because I felt vindicated, of course. My friend is an American History/Political Science double major, and is a big fan of Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and our current President, to give you an idea of his party politics. The discussion to which he refers was concerning the merits of spanking. After having the "against me" discussion with this friend, I distanced myself from him for some time, in order to reflect upon his response. I chose to reconnect with him after a while, and I'm glad I did. I feel invigorated knowing that I may have been some small part of this change in him. I can only imagine the high that the producers of Freedomain Radio feel, knowing they have influenced thousands of similar responses. Just a bit of good news! I was feeling distraught and pessimistic, and this really brightened my outlook. This may serve a reminder that you never know who you may influence by your words and actions, no matter how far gone they may seem! Reason and evidence FTW!!! One other small consideration... I responded with, "I remember it well! Thanks for sharing!" I was simply lost for words, and didn't want to come off overbearing or vindictive. I didn't communicate the depth of my emotional response, however. Should I? How would you respond to this?

What if I said "It would be good if the POTUS were assassinated." (Hello NSA) Is that immoral? What if I tell you that you can dissolve styrofoam into gasoline in order to make napalm? Am I immoral now? What if I tell you that people can be killed by constricting the carotid artery? Am I immoral now? Information is not immoral. Intention is not immoral. Only actions can be immoral.

Stefan's references on this topic have bothered me as well. Of course, extended practice with any academic concept will result in higher mastery. The problem is the type of homework that is assigned: it is often useless busy work. I understand his point that eight hours out of a child's day should be enough for any sort of proper education, but that says nothing for the possible benefits of homework. The problem is that it's impossible to effectively measure. You can't separate parental influence. That is, it's impossible to distinguish between students that do well because they have a good home environment, and students that succeed due to homework, independent of other factors.