dsayers

I'm sorry. I'm still recovering from decades of euphemisms and vague language. The phrase "come to blows" just means it crossed the line into a physical altercation. I apologize for my ambiguity. I too am mentally tortured by my father to this day. Once I started pursuing self-knowledge, my contempt for him grew while my desire to be avenged diminished rapidly. This is anecdotal and not meant to be an absolute guide, just explaining how it is that I don't understand why it came to a physical altercation. Like let's say you were abused way worse than I was, which is entirely possible. If the person upsets you to the point you could assault him, I would think it would be better to avoid him altogether. So while you may have in fact summed it up, I have no frame of reference in your situation. It remains unclear to me.

Don't republic, constitution, a flag, and governance all violate self-ownership?

Well, the jury couldn't be out if your argument is that there's no data over which they could deliberate If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that since by way of science, humans cannot create life (presumably you mean beyond their inherent capability to do so), which we understand is an emergent property of matter, then it could mean that something that has no matter and cannot effect matter created it?

Here is one and here is one that picked back up since I posted that. To be clear, it's not an excuse any more than 4 is an excuse for 2+2. If somebody told you to kill me or else they're going to hack into your PayPal account and steal $1, then of course it would be immoral for you to kill me. You would much rather be out the $1 than have to live with the horror of killing another person. Just as if somebody pointed a candy bar at you and told you that if you don't kill me, they're going to shoot, it would be immoral for you to kill me. You have no reason to believe the threat is valid. Suppose the threat was real though. Maybe the threat was "only" that they'd cut your legs off if you didn't kill somebody. Can you imagine the emotional state you'd be in? Suppose it wasn't your legs, but just one leg. Or just a foot. Just a toe. If you honestly believe that the person would cut your toe off just because you didn't kill somebody, there's no way you could rationally expect them to not kill the person themselves, to stop at just your toe, etc. The bottom line is, the moral component has been taken from you. Whichever way you choose, you are not responsible for that decision because it was coerced. Just as somebody somewhere was murdered with a bullet that I was forced to pay for by the government that claims ownership over me. I am not responsible for this since that money was taken by way of coercion.

Nobody ruins their own happiness. Happiness is the one thing we achieve for it's own sake. If we accept that reason = virtue = happiness, then sabotage of happiness would come from sabotage of reason or virtue. You did not come into this world able to reason. Your parents modeled reason for you, however (in)accurately, as well as left you in the care of people that modeled reason for you. If you are incapable of reason or are irrational in your use of reason, the source for this was external to you. This is why self-knowledge is so important. It allows you to process the damage that was done to you and replace it with actual reason where appropriate. It takes work, and it can be very upsetting to learn that the people who were supposed to care for you damaged you. But that can be as much in the past as you're willing to work for.

Just as I wouldn't call schooling education, I wouldn't call getting bullied, being ostracized for not participating in a fashion show, etc socializing. What little social interaction is allowed for in government schools is just the abused abusing one another. There is no pro. If a parent negotiated with a child in an egalitarian manner... Seriously, what else is needed? You avoid immoral, coercive people and you work peaceably with people who are not immoral to achieve win-win solutions. You can still take them to the playground, to the park, etc. Which is nice because then the children of coercive parents can see a difference and you and your child will touch their lives as well.

Because we live in a world where assaulting children is widely accepted when you call it discipline. Despite the fact that it is the root cause of psychopathy. Despite the fact that every immoral act literally requires abuse early in childhood. Yet rather than looking at assaulting children, they're talking about people stuck on a flagpole breaking a window to survive, which never happens. This is an assumption and an erroneous one. You can feel free to comb my post history. You'll find that I never talk about the NAP unless others already are and then, only to speak to them in terms they've established they understand/accept. In my mind, NAP is a generality. An effect. It comes from the universalization of self-ownership, which is predicated on both self-ownership and the axiom that people are fundamentally not different. As such, I prefer to look at things such as self-ownership because if we can sort that out, NAP is a given. You can see here and here that most of my time in this community has been an examination of self-ownership. I don't know if I've applied the Socratic method per se as it's a concept I wasn't introduced to until Stef's recent interview of Peter Boghossian on the Peter Schiff Show. I'd like to think I've been consistent in exploring a rational, consistent case for self-ownership's validity. Which I totally admit comes from confirmation bias. The concept of self-ownership clicked with me from the moment I saw it put into words. It has been the source of all of my intellectual awakening. I've heard many strong cases for it. You could say that I need for it to be valid or that I feel that it is valid. However, I cannot consistently make the case for it, which could just as easily be the confirmation bias of others refusing to accept it. Either way, it is clear that I am not eligible for the accusation of "why do you use it to get around applying the Socratic method to the NAP?"

I felt the story was told out of order. If I'm contextualizing rightly, you had a face to face meeting with a father who has tormented you, you slapped him twice and pushed him, he kicked your ass for about 10 minutes (which you have no recollection of), and there is now a court case where you are being charged with assault. Is that right? First of all, I'm sorry you had been abused to the point of violence feeling like the only option in a situation. I couldn't see any threat in the moment, but this could just be a missing piece of the story. I remember when I first started studying philosophy and pursuing self-knowledge, I had such contempt for my father. He ended up manufacturing a (verbal) fight to manage his anxiety over this by misusing the phrase "second-class citizen" repeatedly. During that fight I was able to talk with him enough about philosophy, violence, the violence he has enacted upon me over the course of my life, etc. It ended with him making it very clear he did not care and was actually offended at the possibility of making any effort to repair any of it or anything within him that might have led to it all. It's not the outcome I would've preferred, but it left me with a HUGE burden off my back. Because if he had taken responsibility and began to work towards repairing himself and our relationship, it would've been a lot of work for me also, primarily for his benefit. I don't mean to appear to be hijacking your thread. Just sharing that I personally don't quite understand how it came to blows in the first place. Perhaps you could elucidate?

The other problem is that our parents are the only people in any of our lives that are SUPPOSED to unconditionally love and provide for us. I am embarrassed at how much of my life was wasted in pursuit of that one special somebody who would come along and just make everything all better. It simply can't happen. Thank goodness I came across the concept of self-knowledge and can now process all of that. I look forward to future relationships that won't just entail me trying to leech something I can never have from somebody willing to put up with it temporarily. I wonder if this is what the Nine Inch Nails song Something I Can Never Have was about.l

Take out the "supposed" and "you have decided" and my answer is: Of course! We don't call a dog that catches a frisbee a physics student. We don't say that a man that measures a piece of wood he's cutting to conform with municipal refuse regulations is studying carpentry. Even if people who were truly exploring these disciplines would engage in these behaviors. If I guess a coin you flip in the air, it doesn't make me psychic or telekinetic, even if I chanced my way into mimicking what behaviors of those people might look like.

I finally got around to sharing this with a buddy of mine that I'm discussing such things with. He's sort of past the basics, but it's expressed so clearly in this video, I find it to be a valuable refresher. So I thought I'd bump this thread while I was at it.

The purpose of philosophy is to determine truth values in objective claims. True philosophy has nothing to do with personal incentives and preconceived preferences.

Entropy doesn't have a particularly important relationship with life. Did you mean the chaos theory? The chaos theory doesn't fundamentally oppose life. It only states that you cannot make long term predictions in regards to it. Either way, life doesn't defy this, it survives it. Bugs of a coloration that make them obvious to predators do not survive to pass on their genes, so the species becomes predominantly of a color that promotes its survival. Humans that live in higher altitudes end up with larger hearts and lungs. This takes place within the same generation. Adaptation is an inherent characteristic of life. To say something is a matter of faith is to not seek the truth in regards to it, or to reject the truths others have established.

For me, I touched base on one aspect: that I thought it would be more complex. Advanced thought when I'm still in thought 101 as it were. The other thing is that his Intro to Philosophy series has done so much for me that I don't really feel a lacking. I do see things as universal or not, false or not, objective or not, and so forth. Hearing the way some smarter people than me can struggle with UPB, and hearing Stef's acknowledgement that it's complex and in need of revision/clarification, I figured I would continue working on my 36 year deficiency of thinking only in terms of propaganda and conclusions inflicted upon me. It's benefited me immensely and I don't know if most of the people I debate would be capable of a concept as esoteric as UPB. I mean, I still wrestle with where does self-ownership come from? I accept it, almost every argument I make stems from it, but the minutia loses me easily. Part of me feels as if I'm speaking out of turn BECAUSE I argue from it so readily yet don't fully understand it myself. I have a hard time telling the difference between engaging in slower absorption for the sake of integration and procrastination. If you think tackling UPB would add clarity or be of benefit despite all this, I will certain give it a go. I recently did a Windows reinstall, so my process of chopping up An Intro to Philosophy for re-consumption in the car was put on hold. And I'm pacing myself through the Philosopher's Toolkit, But I will put UPB on my list after those if you think it would be a valuable next step.

I'm very sorry to hear about the extent to which you were abused. I'm very happy for you that you've found an invitation to be yourself. It is pretty incredible how much children can communicate even without words. Hell, I live with a CAT that just adores me because of how well I understand her efforts to communicate. I think you were correct in observing a power struggle. I don't know if before they're able to speak is a good time to ween them from erasing others around them. I think expressing your disapproval can be helpful, but "no," "don't do that again," and "is disrespectful" aren't. They inflict an absolute without explanation or consideration as to the validity of the absolute. A facial expression of disapproval would've been enough. Plus, when a creature of free will comes to comfort you, it feels a lot better when it's voluntary. Of course once they can speak, you can negotiate with them and you can explore together what it is for two people to coexist without erasing one another or interacting in win-lose fashions. I'll end with a word of caution if I may. It might be totally unnecessary, but I couldn't tell for sure from your post. That first step can feel amazing. So much so that subsequent steps seem lackluster by comparison. I just wanted to caution you that what you've experienced isn't the end of the story, but rather the beginning. I hope you choose to see it through and I hope the community will be there to help you however you need.

I watched the meaning of life series for the first time, so I'm glad it was linked. I think a believer would in fact benefit more from An Introduction to Philosophy first simply because in the Meaning of Life series, Stef talks about a few things as a given that An Intro to Philosophy makes the case for starting from first principles.

Beware the sophists! Pepin nailed it when he pointed out that it's good that such things are entering more mainstream evaluation. I just think it's critical that those of us who are on the front line so to speak don't allow ourselves to be compromised by propaganda that dilutes the truth. George Carlin was actually the first exposure I had to the possibility that God might not exist. It was a long process for me, but I can actually credit him for its beginning.

I feel pretty similarly. Just last night, I was listening to the call in show with a title about NASA and Tang. In it, a guy was talking about LSD and how it's been shown to counteract the physiology of chemical withdrawal. Anyways, before Stef was able to walk him through articulating this, he was speaking in vague statements, during which he used the word "fear" as if it inherently bad. I realize that some people can be crippled by fear, that some people have irrational fears, that some fears are disproportionate, etc. However, most people's experience of fear is natural, healthy, and necessary for survival. I'm afraid that if we use one drug to blank it out, then we're going to have to add another drug to compensate the danger in somebody operating without fear, etc. I don't see a drug being superior to talk therapy except in the rare, emergency, extreme cases where an instantaneous muting of fear is necessary for the person to survive long enough to partake of safer alternatives.

A very interesting point. Upon consideration, I reject it on account of the different personalities you refer to are all owned by the same person. I will continue to maintain that ethics requires choice and other people.

In a word, yes. If you own yourself, you have the ability to choose to end your life. The end of your life that you face when a gun is pointed at you is not by your choice. Objectively, no. There's been a couple good discussions about this in the past week IIRC. I've heard Stef gloss over UPB and I grasp the basics of what he's saying. However, I'm only about a year into studying philosophy and pursuing self-knowledge. As such, I'm saving UPB for when I have a better grasp of the basics and/or a better potential for grasping it. I'll let you share with me if you feel that UPB might actually make the process more effective.

Academics typically do not have to compete in the free market. As such, they are going to be pro- that which forcibly eliminates competition: the big gun in the room known as government.

Choice is a requisite of morality. Where no choice is present, the behavior is amoral. If the behavior would be immoral if it were chosen, then the immorality accrues to whomever removed the choice from the actor engaging in that behavior. By this same standard, I must reject your claim that use of government schools is immoral as children do not have this choice. While not as clear, I do not have a choice in using the roads. It is true I could simply refuse to commute, but I cannot choose to use privately owned roads anyways. Plus, even if I were to refrain from making use of government roads, I would still have money taken from me for their use, creation, and maintenance. If I am not partaking of any government programs, I am not relying on the robbing of other people. You mention survival, but the only part of a statist paradigm that is integral to survival is allowing ourselves to be robbed. I pay them their protection money so that I may otherwise live my life. This is different from tying survival to the theft of others. An accusation that would be more accurate in describing people who vote or who engage in activism for the purpose of altering HOW the theft takes place. If you're interested in being even more precise, check out my propaganda to honesty dictionary.

10 years of persistent internet access would be cheaper for them, more beneficial to you, and is compatible with everything else you might choose to do in the meantime. Sorry, I'm not trying to be flippant with your topic. I noticed you approached the subject as if it's a given, so I wanted to make light in an attempt to encourage you to explore the possibilities. Maybe doing so, you'll find out it's not for you. Or maybe it'll help you better figure out what you're looking for. Just as you shouldn't get married to somebody you don't know (including if you do not know yourself), spending money when you don't know what it's for is irresponsible. More so if it's somebody else's money. So ask yourself why you want to go to college and work from there would be my advice.

The question remains, "How do you know?" Anything objective will do. This is the problem when people who believe faith is virtue transcend that paradigm by trying to coexist with the real world. You're saying that God did not stop the millions of people who have been killed by people because a cautionary tale was sufficient, but conflicts that are considered and not carried out are God intervening beyond said cautionary tale. You understand that this does not escape my previous accusation that this is monstrous as God is culpable. Not to mention that almost all of those millions of people killed by people were carried out in accordance with their belief in a specific god. I don't mean to be rude, but I was raised Christian. I've heard all of the propaganda. The post you were replying to but did not answer asked how do you know and pointed out were there a god, he'd be the single most sadistic figure in human history.

I was put off immediately just from the title. "defiance from your child" is arrogant in that it presumes the parent is correct. Using your relationship with somebody as motivation is the definition of ostracism. This is fine when it comes to strangers, friends, etc. It's not so good in the parent child relationship because... A parent should ALWAYS take it personally for they are responsible for that child. An article that pretends to have the goal of helping the parent-child relationship is approaching children as if they're subservient. This frames the conversation as if negotiation and rational thought are not options. There is no solution in the moment. If you did not prepare for the eventuality of having a flat tire, thinking about how great it would be to have a spare and the tools and know how to fix it will be of no help to you. This failure to prepare is the driver's fault, not the car. Odd that she more or less addresses this in point 5. Point 4 failed in that it's referring to negotiation as a way to manage damage after it's been done and not as a tool to avoid damage in the first place. This doesn't address what led to them wanting to hit or yell. Nor does it address that "putting boundaries on words" is wrong because it's controlling another human being. If you don't want a child to say the word broccoli, don't ever say broccoli in front of them. Translation: engage the underpowered in a battle of wills. This conflicts with her earlier advice of not letting the child run the show. If the child is negotiated with as if they're a human being, then the times that you have to go somewhere together due to a deadline doesn't have to lead to the parent allowing the child to erase them. Which is damaging to the child who needs to learn that there are other people in the world who have competing needs. Again, this is a failure of the parent to prepare by letting the child know a deadline is coming up. Building the parent-child relationship by normalizing aggression and playing teammates so the child will aim the aggression away from the parent. I'm all for fantasy play, but in this article, this is a dangerous piece of advice. This sounds like a good thing to work on BEFORE making the decision of bringing a child into the world. At which point, the parent's lack of control will lead to perpetuating the cycle of violence. This article was by the abused to cajole the abused to assist them in managing the effects of their abuse in ways other than owning it, apologizing for it, and working to correct it IN THEMSELVES. Only a very small portion of the article is dedicated to self-knowledge and only by accident.