dsayers

What a fun question! I'm of so many different minds of the subject, I'm having a hard time organizing my thoughts. To me, objective simply means independent of our consciousness. Which technically, no concept is because concepts do not exist without consciousness. Even if what those concepts describe is objective. Words are all concepts. On the other hand, as you think of a concept, the chemical arrangement of your brain is objective, even if we cannot capture or interpret most of this in any meaningful way. In fact, you might even be able to argue that objective definitions of words could be subjective when you consider that you can have multiple words to describe one concept and multiple concepts that one word can indicate. Or there's interpretation. By that I mean, is a tail-wagging, four-legged, furry animal that barks a dog, a gato, or a chien? The answer is subjective while what they describe is objective. The VALUE of language is objective. I'm reminded of the part in Stef's Intro to Philosophy series when he uses the word "dangfur" as an example. That word has no objective value because no definition has been given, emanated, and accepted. Sorry if that's a mess. I was kind of eager to get all my thoughts out before they dissipated. I probably missed a couple.

I'm assuming you do not know what that word means. That's why the first time that you did this, I responded to it first and foremost, and explained that I take such an accusation very seriously. I notice you haven't actually taken the time to share what you base this on. I've re-read my every word to and about you. I see a lot of talking about your behaviors. There's only one thing I've said about YOU, which I have said twice. Which is that I think you lack self knowledge. I based this on the fact that even in this, your 3rd post, you continue to put forth standards that you yourself violate. This tells me that it is not a standard for you, that it is something that you're putting forth as a standard to ward off scrutiny, and that you're doing this for the purpose of controlling another. THAT is aggressive and the fact that you don't see these discrepancies is a lack of self-knowledge. Allow me to elucidate: Before TELLING ME to walk away and attacking my post count, you 1) drew conclusions about me left and right 2) asked me no questions 3) shared nothing about yourself 4) made no effort to find common ground 5) didn't invite me to discuss anything 6) didn't care who I was 7) were not open enough to learn WHY I'm so active on the forums You hold me to all of these standards, yet failed to meet even one of them yourself. Why, you didn't even talk to me directly about it! This means that you failed the standards test worse than you claim I did, which I actually did satisfy some of the items on your list. You don't see this discrepancy, which indicates a lack of self-knowledge. I pointed this out the other two times, which you didn't take under advisement while behaving as if we should take the advice of others under advisement. You could write that off as the heat of the moment that you've apologized for, but that wouldn't apply here. So I think there's more to it than that. What good is a list of self-knowledge credentials if you don't notice you're contradicting your advice to others even when it's being pointed out to you repeatedly? I've also challenged claims you've made which you've made no effort to address, even after it's been pointed out that you weren't addressing. I say this because I'm about to point out another. I don't see how somebody recently splitting up with their wife, going to a philosophy forum, and asserting a belief in God complete with an admission of no proof would make somebody immune to curiosity about their religious beliefs. In fact, if you study his post history, you'll find somebody who is confrontational to the point of being aggressive by his own description and avoids epistemological explorations of the same. How do you know he's not using access to this forum to mistreat others as a way of dealing with the very item you're suggesting is tantamount to tip-toeing around him? After all, he does claim formal education and makes sophisticated walls to discount the input and scrutiny of others. If you would have made any of the efforts you put forth as standards towards me, you would've found out that I understand, accept, and strive to rectify the fact that the way I come across to others isn't very warm. You wouldn't have even had to talk to me directly to establish this and I've been publicly open about at least once. You would also find that many people have found value in my input despite this lack of warmth, even when dealing with very forward observations about items that you would rightfully describe as sensitive. So please, if you wish to apologize for something, it would be more believable if you weren't perpetuating the very thing you were apologizing for while you were making the apology. I for one am not one to write people off. Despite your hostility and manipulation, I agree that I would prefer we find a common ground because I have learned from you already, in this very exchange. Because even though it was wrapped in hostility and manipulation, and even though it was telling me something I already knew, and even though you were accompanying it with bizzare, bogus interpretation about post count, the way you worded it actually enhanced my understanding of the problem AND how to better address it. I mean, if that's what your goal was, and those are the standards by which you feel it would be most effective, why not try that first and save the chest thumping for when you're dealing with somebody who would only respond to such things?

I made a very strong case against the claim. It shouldn't be difficult refute if this quote here is true. Which, how could saying that a matter of opinion could not be questioned ever be described as factual? Plus I clarified my reply to your question earlier, which also went unanswered. Oh and pardon me, but fluids coming out of the head means what exactly? I'm still in the congestion phase of a head cold, have a toothache that has me taking double doses of Ibuprofen to curb the swelling, along with frequent applications of liquid maximum strength Orajel to numb the pain and discomfort, and have been averaging about 4 hours of sleep a night for a week now, including being up 24 hrs straight after only 3 hrs of sleep just yesterday. If I felt that using this as an excuse was an option, I would be engaging in manipulative behavior if I put myself out there, inviting the very conversation I was using an ailment to duck out of. That ties nicely into the strong case I made in my last post.

How incredibly insensitive. Were you talking to him about people or were you talking to him about you? Has he ever had an ex that he would rather not be in the presence of? And if you asked him to share his feelings after sharing yours, how does making a completely impotent generalization about people answer it?

Let's suppose that is the case. Wouldn't that make the criticism LESS accurate? Which would of course mean less valuable. Which would make the answer to: To be able to make use of the parts that do provide value even if part of it does not. The point I made that I was asking your thoughts about was that to summarily reject that which does have SOME value only serves to shortchange yourself. I feel this is a fair answer to your question, which is why I solicited your thoughts. As a matter of a lesser point: Isn't that first sentence a vague appeal to authority? How do you know that the claim is true? The larger point: It's not possible to tread about in somebody's mind uninvited. If you and I never encountered one another, you wouldn't be able to think or say anything about me. If we crossed paths in the same room, you would only be able to think or say something about my appearance. When I speak, it is then that you have the capability of thinking or saying something in regards to my thoughts, biases, motivations as you perceive them. If somebody asks you a question after you have presented yourself in front of them, you cannot say that the act of asking is an invasion. "Can I come in?" is not a home invasion. I would argue that its being formed as a request is an acknowledgement that they are not entitled to it and an acceptance that you are not obligated to provide it. Finally, I wanted to share that I think the viewpoint you offered is utterly unsustainable. How could we ever interact with anybody if interaction were by invitation only? For the very act of extending an invitation would be an invasion according to that paradigm.

The only claim I made in that post is that dependence upon something does not equate to being reducible to it. How do you know that a logical explanation is required? Can we explain how life is an emergent property of matter and energy? There's large debates on how humans came to be. Even if we are unable to explain it, we still exist.

Why should anybody reject accurate criticism for reasons that have no impact on personal growth? Earlier, Mr. Diehl made a post my way that was incredibly hostile. Amid it, he made a fantastic point that was a very valuable criticism of me. Something I understand even better given one of his posts here. If I used the hostility I observed as reason to reject the criticism, I'd only be hurting myself. What do you think about this?

I'm currently looking into a way to rip these and chop up the audio for personal use. For reasons I won't go into, this is going to take me a bit of time. While I wait, I wanted to talk about the source of this material. I haven't been able to find any other instance of this online and his 10 minute intro on Youtube talks about going to his site to gain access to it. Basically, I was wondering if once I get the audio chopped up, is it something I would be able to distribute for others? Or is this material that is intended to be behind a paywall?

What do you think? I've noticed there's not much input here, just a series of questions as if a position could be refuted by somebody not being able to acceptably explain it. The scenario you're describing suggests that dependence upon something means reducible to it. I reject this supposition as you have not made the connection. Therefore I ask of you: What is consciousness? Ongoing analysis of suggesting to agree to disagree.

Pretty important topic. Thank you for talking about it. I enjoyed the way you tied things to it that might not be thought of as symptoms of perfectionism. Including one I had thought of: inhibition (procrastination). I definitely come from the perfectionist model. After listening to this, I now understand it's more present in my life even today than I gave it credit for. I'm thankful for this insight. I had a question concerning it. How can somebody recovering from perfectionism still seek to improve himself while not becoming prey to perfectionistic habits? Also, do you think it is possible for somebody who is abusive to detect that somebody has perfectionistic tendencies and use this in an attempt to manipulate them? An "appeal to perfection" so to speak.

Consciousness cannot exist without matter or energy. So while you are your consciousness, this cannot exist without the atoms that make up your brain and everything connected to it that keeps it alive.

A while back, somebody had corrected me on my use of the word responsibility, substituting in the word accountability. I found it valuable at the time and have since tried to be mindful of the similarities and the differences of these concepts. So I was hoping people would share their views on these words. For example, would it be accurate to say that a 5 year old who strikes another kid is responsible for his action, but his parents are more accountable? Or would it be more accurate to say that the child is accountable, but the parents are more responsible?

You might be right. Though I will say that if somebody blamed me for being a victim, I would find great value in somebody who isn't invested in the situation stepping in. Especially if they had the presence of mind to examine whether or not somebody was blaming the victim rather than just assuming it.

My apologies. It was just something I heard and repeated here without making any effort to substantiate it. It was irresponsible and I apologize. You wouldn't believe the amount of conclusions that were inflicted upon me as a child. Every day it seems I'm finding a new one that I haven't re-evaluated. Yes, Ivan, your counterpoint does make sense. Robin's post made me think about Stef's recent video about the nature of addiction. Specifically, the mention of a lack of self-soothing.

I find the word aggression to be a very serious one. I'm no expert, but I do believe that providing feedback about somebody in front of them but not to them is passive-aggressive. I brought this up and you didn't own it, or apologize for it, or even acknowledge it. While talking about empathy and compassion, self-knowledge, and the benefit of walking away, and not having to post. I pointed out standards you put forth and didn't adhere to, which you've totally ignored and in fact put forth more standards while violating them, including an accusation of aggression. I explained my perspective and asked why it is less valid than yours. You didn't answer. You didn't even pretend to notice a question was asked. Instead you're telling me that when somebody puts forth a truth claim is the wrong time to acknowledge their assertion that the truth has value, that there's a number of posts that both indicates a lack of value and indicates a need to walk away, cutting a sentence off in the middle of it and saying you don't know what that phrase means when the value of a sentence is in the entire sentence. All pretty desperate attempts to attack somebody. You DID acknowledge my request for an explanation of how you know that joining the forum means deserves a warm welcome. You refused to answer it while pretending to be making the case for the value of a warm welcome! That's the real shame: I thought the point you made contrasting the spread of truth and grooming people to be open to the truth was a damn fine point. Yet you wrapped it in all of this, while scolding me for supposedly wrapping good points in all of this. I think if your motivation were so noble, it wouldn't have begun with passive-aggressively addressing it, continued by way of putting forth standards for others while violating them yourself (while claiming self-knowledge which such inconsistencies suggests a lack of), and ended with aggression and accusations of aggression. I really don't want to be the, "I know you are but what am I?" guy, but it seems as if every issue you've brought up, you've actually been the one to introduce it. Call it projection or call it displacement, I think you could benefit from pursuing self-knowledge to help remove the blind spots and disconnects. I would be interested in learning what you experience in the past that could lead to such an explosive interaction where words would've sufficed.

Welcome to the forum. I can appreciate you wanting to help your friend. Before I try to address the issue in the moment, there was something that I wanted to ask as I was reading your story: Back in the day, why didn't you either encourage your friend to socialize with others or distance yourself from him as an incentive for him to be more social? Not saying that you're responsible, and of course hindsight is 20/20. It just seems the way you told the story that back then, you understood it to be problematic. Which sort of leads into the question of why you're friends with somebody who could attract or would choose to stay with somebody that causes him emotional pain and stress. Not saying that you shouldn't. But it seems as if his problem is worth more to you than it is worth to him. Meaning ANY effort you put into it might just be throwing your time and energy away. I'm not saying do this or do that, but I think trying to answer the question will provide value for you. When you consider that the perpetuation of our race requires genetic material from a man and a woman mixing, I think THE most tragic side effect of child abuse is the way it prevents people from objectively choosing a mate. As I see it, the problem is twofold. For starters, the person is going to place more meaning into the relationship simply because they've gone decades observing a world where pairing off is normal and not having it for themselves. Secondly because I think we're generally more resilient when we're younger. There's extra value in getting dumped and/or trading up at a time when you can bounce back. At a time when making the wrong decision won't land you in court or with a lifetime of alimony payments. I admit I may be biased because I had friends that weren't very practiced with girls, so they sort of clung to what they could get and couldn't at all handle rejection or be strong enough to do the rejecting when it was called for. Have you studied Stef's Bomb in the Brain series? It does a good job of explaining how it is that we think. It would seem that your friend is engaging in an ex post facto justification to normalize his experience. "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger," is bullshit. If you break your arm, sure you can get a cast and re-set the bone, but that bone will never be as strong as an unbroken bone. I would challenge him to test his theory. Corny thought it may appear, see what he thinks about setting his butterfly free. If he can get into greater than one relationships, he'll have a clearer view of each of them, as well as which characteristics of each of them he agrees with or wishes to avoid. And if he's pursuing self-knowledge (which is probably best done BEFORE committing yourself to another person), he'll attract more healthy people and be attracted by more healthy people. I feel as if my input is kind of all over the place. Let me know what you think about it.

How did you arrive at the conclusion that there is no such thing as a victim? To have a victim, you need a violation of property rights. To have a violation of property rights, you need to have property rights. To say there is no such thing as a victim is to say that there is no such thing as property rights. However, I think that everything you're saying demonstrates that you accept property rights. This is quite literally impossible. Government claim over you predates your existence. Escaping somebody's aggression towards you is not the same as choosing that the aggression not be present in the first place. Tying these two points together to re-assert my initial claim: If you own yourself and a government claims ownership over you, you are being victimized by them. Even if you escape their claim (see above). When I asked if you made a typo, the point I was trying to make is that: If a government claims to own you and claims to own me, and you and I voluntarily enter into a trade with one another, neither of us have engaged in an immoral act. Refusing to trade with somebody who is not immoral will actually work against the very point I think you're trying to make. When you buy a cellphone, you're not propping up a totalitarian state, even if that is a secondary effect of your purchase. You're providing value to somebody who is providing value to you. You and I are currently using this technology to exchange these ideas and (hopefully) improve the world as a result. I think it's important to be able to differentiate between trading with the immoral and trading with the victims of the immoral just because their victimizers will indirectly profit off of your trade. Oh, and you avoided the first point of my last post of competing altogether.

Like referring to a challenge of a truth claim as "internet courage"? While not addressing somebody you have feedback for while providing feedback in his presence? The downvote was because out of curiosity, I asked him what belief in God means to him, which he did not answer. Not for lack of effort either, complete with reference to "my soul" which MAY be on the line. "Believe in God just in case he's real." That's not rigorous even by religious standards. Not to mention that God would see right through such a ruse. How do you logically go from joining a philosophy forum to deserves a warm welcome? And if that is the standard by which you would judge others, why wouldn't you post in introductory threads more often? Many intro threads only have a member or two chiming in. Mine went over a week without any input, and may not have gotten any had I not bumped it. Accosted? I don't feel that you are employing the empathy or compassion that you claim often gets lost here. I am curious as to why you bring up self-knowledge in light of all these inconsistencies. For the record, I was heavily victimized by religion. I am sympathetic to the fact that religion means abuse inflicted upon somebody, even if only in the form of not encouraging critical thinking. Which is why I often engage people in an exploration of their belief, particularly in a beacon for philosophy. That said, I'm also mindful of how religion and statism (another religion) have been the excuse for the murder of millions of human beings throughout our history. And I am reserved in the presence of those who would speak of such things as if they are factual when they have no proof nor reason to believe it to be true. Why is this less valid than your perspective?

When I read the first sentence, I was inclined to say that that's the definition of reason. But I feel the second sentence supports the first. In light of this, would we then say that the definition of reason is the ability to determine the ideal standard itself and conceptualize consequences outside of ourselves and our survival?

When I read this, I see blaming the victim. I don't think I'm alone since that post had a -3 vote within a couple hours. Instead of assuming I'm right, I asked you questions to see if your question has any validity outside of blaming the victim. Observe: I'm batting 1.000 at offering you the chance to demonstrate that your question is NOT blaming the victim rather than just assuming it is. Rather than addressing this, you've been editorializing the procedure of the discussion and hurling various adjective accusations. With the exception of rare brain defects, abuse is a requisite for aggression. This is a universal summary, so since Ted Bundy was a human being born on Earth, it applies to him. It's not uncommon for people to label abuse as not abuse due to erroneous, antiquated societal norms. You brought Ted Bundy in as an exception to disprove a rule, but your introduction of him was dishonest. Because either he suffered from a brain defect, which takes environment out of the equation altogether, or he was abused, making the claim that his parents provided a good environment false. Why on earth would you waste time offering proof that the offspring is responsible, but not to a severity that would justify kicking them out of the house when 1) the example you gave was full on holes and 2) it doesn't apply to the topic, which is kicking the offspring out of the house for something they are responsible for that the parent is not? 1) The first few years are formative. 2) Psychopaths lack empathy, not a sense of responsibility. 3) Responsible and fully responsible are different things. A quick apology. I realize now that accountable would be more accurate than "fully responsible." In the formative years, an abused child can internalize the abuse, normalize the abuse, or repress the abuse*. This can lead to thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that do not accurately describe/correspond with the real world. Just as uncalibrated instruments of measurements will not accurately describe the real world. In terms of my own experience, I emotionally and psychologically hurt people that I didn't want to hurt at all. Even once I realized this, I was powerless to stop it because I had no idea what the damage looked like or how it was coming out through me. This is why self-knowledge and honesty about our histories is paramount: It can literally skew the entire world around us. *Yes, they can also proceed as if the abuse never happened. I point this out not because it's relevant to the topic, but because it addresses free will. I never spoke as if abuse is causal, but it is requisite outside the exception of certain brain defects. Look, this is very simple. If I walked up to a burning building and asked some guy on the sidewalk why he didn't leap up to the 10th floor to rescue the people inside, you would understand that my question is provocative because it's simply not possible. Similarly, the question your originally asked is provocative because it's simply not possible for the offspring to do something that would justify being kicked out of the house that the offspring would be more responsible for than the parent. Just as water is no more responsible for its shape than its container and environment are. I enjoy discussing these sorts of things. But I will not be wasting any more time on tangents or minutia until you either demonstrate how your question is valid or admit that it is blaming the victim. Let's focus on the important point first.

My understanding was that it is harmful to deprive the brain of all sensory input. Didn't original testing of such things result in accelerated dementia in otherwise healthy individuals?

Could a society with limited legitimized coercion be described as free? Could a society with theft as a feature be described as free? I reject this position, but would like to point out that your claim is still false. In the US, government operations ran without income or property taxes originally. I feel this is manipulative language. There's nothing that violence can do that voluntary interaction cannot, except for theft, assault, rape, and murder. To claim the services you're referring to could be privated is not a temptation. It is an accurate description of the real world. Forms of them exist even amid the statist paradigm. This isn't true. Before a service is nationalized, providers of services have historically offered discounted and free services to those in need. This is the opposite of true. With a government, services are extremely biased towards those who exist at the expense of those yet to be born. With a government, services are extremely biased towards those who help keep politicians in power and grow their power. With a government, services are extremely biased towards people who can afford to bribe. You mention police, but with a government, police don't have to provide any service at all. You mention armed forces, but with a government, armed forces are amassed and employed for offensive purposes, at significant expense and damage to the environment, massively endebting the unborn. You mention courts, but with a government, courts can do whatever they want, regardless of the law, precedent, or even the facts. You cannot achieve neutrality while claiming that humans that are fundamentally not different exist in two or more fundamentally different classifications. Whether that's the rulers and the ruled or the dependent/worker/enforcer/ruler categorization.

I've never heard this argument. I won't address the claim directly. I post only to say that coercive restriction/regulation/bans puts a negative into the economy in general. The quote is a bad argument primarily because it make a utilitarian claim instead of focusing on the more important moral consideration.

I don't know that yet. In order for your question to be valid, there would have to be a scenario where kicking an offspring out of the house was justifiable, AND that what motivated the decision was something the offspring was responsible for and the parent was not. Otherwise, the question only serves to blame the victim. It is unclear as to why you tried to exclude me, apologized for it, and then went on to defend it. However, I will say that IF your question sought to blame the victim, wanting to do it without outside scrutiny would be even more abusive. Sorry, in the context of the positive obligation created by choosing to have kids, "child" is not the proper word. Offspring is. When the offspring transitions into being FULLY responsible could be when they're a child, adolescent, or even adult. I was 36 when I finally had the self-knowledge to be fully responsible for my behavior. Because my parents enjoyed their power disparity, taught me that proximity is virtue, inflicted religion on me, left me with abusive sitters, subjected me to government schooling, complete with the peer on peer abuse that usually entails. They went out of their way to isolate me and society mostly supported all of it. I'm not familiar with the specifics of Ted Bundy. Unless he was one of the teeny percentage of people who have a brain defect that renders them incapable of reason, then we know that what he did requires to be a false statement. I did. You were trying to prove how an offspring could do something that would be worthy of being kicked out of the house. You did this by citing a scenario where the offspring slips on some ice and injures themselves. Either you're comparing apples to oranges, or you're actually saying that an offspring slipping and falling on ice justifies kicking them out of the house. Which one is it?

I have no frame of reference. What is an isolation chamber?