dsayers

Awesome news! When she said she saw you change over the years, was this meant to be in a good way? If so, does this mean that she too has pursued self-knowledge?

How so? If you reject Christianity, you're going to view your friend as somebody who uses irrationale to arrive at violent conclusions. I can't think of a better reason to not be friends with somebody. That's not to say that you wouldn't make an effort to preserve the relationship. But if the friend decides that their culture has more value than rationality plus your friendship, then it's out of your hands.

On what basis? This belief is in opposition with self-ownership. Let's say we live in a world without X where X is something people would want and assign value to. A VCR, a microwave, a smartphone, whatever it is. How are you going to profit off of this idea? You're going to go to people who have wealth, provide them with a business plan that will demonstrate that you can grow their money for them, and they will provide you with the startup capital you need. To say "better starting platform in life than I do" is to aspire to be more like them. Which cannot happen without them. While maligning them. It's inconsistent and not at all rational. Not to mention that a lot of charity comes from the wealthy. Your tainted view of the wealthy are through the lens of statism, which artificially preserves and grows wealth through coercive means.

Well people don't last forever, so the things they share couldn't. But no, the duration of a friendship is entirely up to the people who share it. If two people are Christians, they have that common thread AND the belief that such a thing is necessary. Were one to reject Christianity, it could very easily be used as a reason by either person to end the friendship.

I've taken the exact opposite of the approach of the opening post. Thanks to Lians's recommendation, I've starting watching the Philosopher's Toolkit series. As I watch, I notice that sometimes my mind begins to wander. In the past, I'd try to stay focused on what I was choosing to do at the time. In this example though, I simply pause the video and explore what I'm thinking about. The video will still be there when I'm done. Ironically, it's this series that has taught me that I should be more aware of ALL of my mind and not discard certain parts of it. I've taken to using a voice recorder and notepad for the purpose of not dropping any balls when I'm juggling too many. This isn't meant to invalidate what the opening post's point was. I certainly grasp that this indulgence can lead to wasted time. I remember when I first moved back into my father's house, he would make digs that I'd focus on and it would literally ruin my entire day. Later I realized that him dropping a grenade into my mind is only damaging if I don't see it for what it really is.

I haven't lost interest altogether. In fact, since studying philosophy and pursuing self-knowledge, I seem to binge on knowledge and then turn to light abnegation of movies and games while I process it all. Now what TYPES of movies I go for have changed dramatically. I was never one for gore, but didn't mind stylized violence too much. Now I tend to be put off even by violent titles. Anything that glorifies the state or puts forth common misconceptions as factual givens put me off. Anything that normalizes childhood abuse I turn off immediately. I've also found that movies/shows that I can stand, I see in a whole new light. I wonder how much interest there'd be in a list of movies/shows that were philosophically consistent.

I can't speak for Xelent, but the first thing I noticed is that they just pose questions with no personal investment, information, or context. It's like when somebody just tosses up a video or link with no text. It's as if you want others to be more invested in your topic than you are. Not saying that's a bad thing, but adding some content yourself is a great way to get others talking with you about it.

This is the clarification I seek. Conservative as a political description is still referring to somebody able to bypass the moral consideration of rejecting the self-ownership of others. They are no better than "leftists" in this regard.

My first job was at a Wendy's and I went dressed in a butterfly collar and slacks. I don't recall if I wore a tie also, though I'm inclined to say I did not because I don't think I owned a tie back then. You're not going to get points off for "over-dressing." For all you know, you could be applicant 100 after a string of 99 people who go in with the attitude of, "It's 'just' McDonald's, so they can't turn me down." At which point you'd win simply for demonstrating that you take yourself, their time in the moment, and the potential continued exchange of goods and services seriously. Unless the person that interviews you is blind, your appearance WILL have an effect on their decision and it's the first and easiest part of the interviewing process.

Schooling and education are two different things. Let us look at your original question. You're posting to a forum on the internet to ask what alternative education is available. That is to say that you took it upon yourself to consult on the internet to learn more about ways we can learn more.

A friend is somebody you mutually care for beyond the generic "human life." Sadly, the word has been undervalued by social media.

Do you mean from a "I was denied it, so I'm concerned about others being denied it due to an antiquated, statist bloodlust"?

What do you mean by "conservative society"?

The blind man owns himself which means he can dispose of himself if he so desires. Therefore his action is not the initiation of the use of force, a requisite before counteracting force can be described as defensive. In this scenario, coercion takes choice out of the equation. Choice is a requisite for morality. Your rape is amoral, with the debt it creates accruing to the person holding the gun to your head.

If I say, "that bike is purple," this is different from saying, "that bike needs to be purple." If you own yourself and people are not fundamentally different from one another, then everybody owns themselves. If everybody owns themselves, then theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral as they require exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else. In other words, if you own yourself, then murder IS immoral. An argument from effect in regards to murder would look something like, "If you do not murder somebody, they can contribute to society in a way you can benefit from." Stef has been very clear that the immorality of assault is paramount. However, he understands that despite logic, reason, and evidence being overwhelming that to assault children is entirely destructive, people still do it. They do it because the moral component doesn't stop them and/or doesn't inspire people who are witness to it to intervene. So he also argues from effect to reach people who do not think about assaulting children as if it's abnormal or at all destructive.

What value would the NAP have if it were not absolute? If a blind man is about to cross the street in the path of a runaway bus and you grab his shoulder to save his life, I'm sure he'll be thankful. I'm sure nobody would dare suggest or support that you be punished for your action. This does not change the fact that you initiated the use of force against him. This doesn't mean don't do it, but first principles start with a = a.

If they had sufficient evidence to support that, they wouldn't use the word "believe." Besides, lack of proof is where they believe virtue is found. To prove that which requires faith would invalidate the whole thing. Also, whether most people believe something or not doesn't alter the truth.

"Culture" opposes philosophy as it is subjective. Also, if philosophy is the method to determine the truth value of an objective claim, I'm not sure what is meant by "a philosophy." People have the necessities of life can reject philosophy. It's not conditional or dependent. I don't know what Hegel is referring to, but in Aristotle's time, "passions" referred to emotions. Emotions are not the enemy of philosophy. A philosopher who embraces both the empathetic and logical portions of his brain can arrive at answer more efficiently and apply them more convincingly. People who are right-handed to not bind their left hand for being inferior. They make use of both to accomplish more together than the sum of the two alone.

How do you know? Could it only be one purpose? You mention Stef, but apparently he's been really good at a lot of things. None of which came naturally, but required work. What about "God works in mysterious ways" and "the will of God"? Neither seem to follow such a simplistic cause and effect. If it did, it would actually serve as proof of a deity, and most everybody would be doing it for the reward.

If being alone consumes you, this could be an indication that you're not aware of your own identity or otherwise have what you perceive to be a warped identity that you feel the need to escape. Do you do any kind of exercising, dancing, skating, jogging, or anything else that could help put you mind in touch with your body? How in touch are you with your feelings and emotions? How much exploration do you put into your feelings and emotions? When it comes to problem solving, how much of it do you do by thinking alone and how much of it do you also make use of visualization such as drawing a diagram, writing down pros/cons, and other activities that can help you manage the information without having to juggle it all at once? These are just some of the ways I can think of to help round your identity and/or help your mind feel more at home when it's "alone."

Welcome to FDR! You're certainly free to voluntarily interact with whomever you choose for whatever reason you choose. That said, I wouldn't look at it in this light. You're exchanging a service for money, which is to your benefit. If she benefits from it too, that has nothing to do with you. If you withhold your service from her, she will likely find it elsewhere, so you're not going to stop her from artificially patting herself on the back for others to view her as successful. I'd take the money and enjoy knowing that she's basically admitting she was wrong. I laughed when I read the part about an art teacher dismissing a student as a dreamer. Is that not the basis for art?

I don't see "touched" as being significant. You can initiate the use of force to steal my car without touching me, but this would not make the stealing of my car any less forceful or immoral. I will re-examine my use of the word violence. I believe it stems from two things. The first being that people are so complacent or oblivious to the gun in the room that calling it violence helps to shock them into the possibility that maybe it's not a lullaby they're listening to. The second being that many people see "initiation of the use of force" and interpret it as "force" despite "initiation" being the key term.

I don't understand the question. "Weird" is subjective. So anything can be described as weird. Therefore the question feels like, "Why do people like anything?" I think one useful classification would be dysfunctional. Since I've begun to work on self-knowledge and developing empathy, I've noticed that my tolerance for things like violence, nationalism, religion, etc has gone way down. Contrast this to my abusive father, who even by my step-mom's description has "gotten worse recently." He spends ALL his free time watching things like UFC, gory movies, war documentaries, and reading similar, human-conflict-esque material that isn't examining the conflict as fundamentally problematic. I think if somebody has a propensity for dysfunctional material, it would almost have to be a result of unresolved trauma, likely from childhood. I remember when I first noticed the shift in my tastes. A large portion of my pastimes were suddenly uninteresting. It felt like a curse at first. However now, I spend most of that time doing things that are more productive and responsible and it's been a wonderful, welcome transition. Hope that helps.

If "rigged dice" were causal, then nobody would be able to "win" with them. Appealing to emotion won't change this.

That's very kind of you to say. I appreciate the feedback. Joining the boards was sort of a next step in my development. People in my life let me know that it is VERY clear that I have changed. But I wanted a higher level of challenge in terms of holding me to consistency.