Matt D

I think one of the reasons this question is so emotionally volatile is that lurking behind this question is the question of unwanted pregnancies & abortion. I don't necessarily want to open up that topic here, but do others agree this is why there is a moral tint to the original statement made by stef, specifically that it's a "big person's game"?

I doubt you're off base about the gangster parallel. Another song that describes perfectly someone waking up in an R-selected world is Kanye West's 'All of the Lights'. The R selected species runs around constantly reacting to all the lights until it's short life comes to an end. ... If you want it you can get it for the rest of your life If you want it you can get it for the rest of your life Something wrong I hold my head M.J. gone, our nigga dead! I slapped my girl, she called the feds I did that time and spent that bread I'm heading home, I'm almost there I'm on my way, headed up the stairs To my surprise, a nigga replacing me I had to take 'em to that ghetto university (All of the lights) Cop lights, flash lights, spot lights Strobe lights, street lights (All of the lights, all of the lights) Fast life, drug life Thug life, rock life Every night (All of the lights) Turn up the lights in here, baby Extra bright, I want y'all to see this Turn up the lights in here, baby You know what I need, want you to see everything Want you to see all of the lights > See full lyrics. On the flip side, what do you think is the most K-selected song? My vote is Queen's 'We Are The Champions'.

Given the messiness, as you say, of your original post, was there a purpose to telling people you are writing a novel? I'm not trying be mean, but you didn't offer or request anything from those reading this. I feel like it was a waste of time because you didn't provide a clear call to action.

I really enjoyed reading this book. Below is the review I posted to Amazon. I give a shout-out to Stef. 'Examined Lives: From Socrates to Nietzsche' by James Miller Surely, you would not take nutrition advice from someone who was three hundred pounds overweight. An equivalent skepticism is warranted towards philosophers who, often by their own admission, did not, could not, or would not apply their principles consistently. I highly recommend reading this book before delving into the complex writings of any of these philosophers. The context of their life choices and circumstances is fundamental to evaluating the content of what each of these twelve men—or, for that matter, any man claiming to be wise—says. Did you know that Descartes bore a child out of wedlock? Or that Augustine in his adolescence was a heretical follower of the teachings of Mani? Or that Plato was placed under house arrest by the tyrant Dionysius? These anecdotes reveal the humanity in these fabled intellectual giants. Some philosophers acknowledged their own flaws, while others attempted to shield their abstract discourse from their own lives. Perhaps, a more accurate statement would be to say that they used philosophy to avoid living a philosophical life. Granted, this criticism cannot be applied to all of the well-known figureheads in the book. Montaigne, with the publication of his Essays, opened the door among modern philosophers to introspection rather than stoicism as a way of gaining enlightenment. So too, Rousseau and Emerson followed a self-reflective path in their search for truth. Interestingly, the latter two ended their lives loved and praised by many, while the norm among philosophers appears to be the opposite. Seneca, Descartes, Montaigne, Nietzsche and countless others, who had the courage to speak against the moral commandments of the rulers of the time, did not live to see their works gain wide acceptance by the rest of the world. This, I must declare, is the nature of the discipline; if you aren’t willing to go against the masses, then you are not truly a philosopher but an appeaser with a knack for stringing together pleasant sounding words. The enormous fear that thinkers like Descartes and Montaigne must have felt in the face of uncertain accusations of treason or heresy, should I think give those of us who yearn to spread philosophy today deep appreciation for the amazing opportunity we have in front of us. I cannot conclude my review without echoing Miller’s disclaimer that Nietzsche was not the last philosopher. Even at present, the same fiery spirit that ignited the minds of Socrates and Aristotle is still alive and kicking. Host of Freedomain Radio, Stefan Molyneux, is one who I am certain will be remembered as one of the great philosophers of the 21st century. If you haven’t heard of him yet, then I’ve only added to my point about the twisted relationship between philosophers and popularity. My only criticism of James Miller’s collection of biographies here is that the focus on early development of these men’s childhoods is not as fleshed out as I would have liked. Even if only speculation, one cannot ignore the heavy influence of parental attachment, trauma, and abuse on the development of the brain. We may never know what drove these enigmatic souls to cry out for the milk of philosophy’s teat, but to me that question is as worthy of scrutiny as the very topics with which these men wrestled. When they’re learning about the world, children don’t pay attention to what adults say; they pay attention to what adults do. As children ourselves, learning the ropes of the philosophical world, we are, I dare say, wasting our time if we only read the writings of philosophers long dead and do not study how they actually lived. “Sapere aude.”—A favorite motto of Montaigne, requoted by Kant two centuries later—means “Dare to know.” Nietzsche is quoted as saying that “The love of truth is terrible and mighty.” The truth about the world is not what frightens us; it’s the truth about ourselves. In the absence of religion, we still recognize, and more strongly than ever, that the spirit which we seek lies within, and is the foundation from which immovable mountains of conviction lasting as long as man remains curious are built. Dare to know; dare to speak. Matt Ryan Drake unconsciousconnection.com

I like the initiative, Kotaro. I'm currently organizing meetups in Washington, DC. PM me if you need more info. https://www.facebook.com/groups/FDRWashingtonDCMeetup/

A person can only be free of depression "when self-esteem is based on the authenticity of one's own feelings and not on the possession of certain qualities." - Alice Miller, The Drama of the Gifted Child

Thanks for posting and welcome to the board! Do you want to share any more about your "overhaul ambitions"? I would love to hear. I'll try to help.

No worries. You can make up for it by coming to our meetup this Saturday in Arlington, VA. Adam Kokesh is going to be there. https://www.facebook.com/events/1609166529370789/

Our friend in liberty, Adam Kokesh, of Adam Vs. The Man and the Freedomline, will be visiting the DMV area next Saturday, July 25. FDR DC Meetup Group is delighted to host Adam for our July meetup in Crystal City. For more details and to RSVP check out our Facebook event below or send me a private message. https://www.facebook.com/events/871424142950564 Hope to see you there!

If you're like me you've probably heard of Freud's structural model of the mind, or at least the terms which describe it. The id, ego, and superego are important concepts in the lexicon of psychologists and intellectuals. But what exactly do they mean? In this three part series I give a series of metaphors to help explain what Freud was talking about with respect to the deepest parts of our mind. Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03D0C76ECtU Parts 2 and 3 found here: http://unraise.com/2015/07/15/pim050-52-freudian-structural-model-explained/

You're still putting words in my mouth. We haven't established that polyamory necessarily mean r-selected strategy. I'm saying it might be possible for polyamorous groups to be very k-selected. My perception of what healthy women want, i.e. honesty, seems to be working out for me so far.

I don't think you're listening to what I said. I never advocated a society which is one giant polyamorous orgy in which no one competes with each other... that would be disgusting. But if marriage is a team, then why can't there be more than two people on that team? All members of the team would be competing with 99.9999% of the population, but within the team there'd be cooperation. In the free market you generally cooperate with a majority of people and only compete directly with a few. I haven't heard a convincing argument for why marriage and child-rearing is fundamentally different than the free market in that you have to compete with everyone in order to achieve success. If you're an entrepreneur who wants to take on more than one client, how often does your existing client say, "No, I have to be your only client otherwise we can't work together." We would say that client is either very rich or psychotic. Look, personally I still favor monogamy because of instinct. But if I don't know the philosophy behind why I favor it then it's nothing more than prejudice!

I agree with you if you're comparing human beings to other animals. I'm more interested in using the terms to compare individual human beings to each other.

I think an important question to ask in all of this is whether polyamory is necessarily synonymous with R reproductive strategy. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that r/k strategy is mainly to do with the amount of time and resources parents invest in their children, not strictly with the number of partners they have. I understand that most people consider polyamory to be the same as sexual promiscuity, but if you decided to commit to several partners rather than one would that not be even more of a K reproductive strategy than monogamy because suddenly your children have even more parents and even more resources at their disposal? I just want to make sure that we aren't conflating two different things when using r/k strategies and poly/monogamy interchangeably.

Thanks for the input, Patrick. It is instinctual. And I've thought about your first point as well. Love, like ideas, isn't strictly divisible. But time certainly is.

Life and parenting were winning themes in this year's Hampton Beach sandsculpting contest. For more photos click here. Third Place: Carl Jara, "Role Play" First Place: Karen Fralich, "Life" There was even a guy getting sucker punched by the IRS. Yep, it hurts. Fourth Place: Abe Waterman, "Sucker Punch"

Hi Russ, Welcome, first of all. You may have dodged a bullet not getting to join the military. From what I hear those experiences really change a person in ways that are hard to recover from. Good luck with the residency and starting your business. I think it's a good sign, for what it's worth, that you're aware of your defensiveness towards your parents. There's a lot more you could explore there, I'm sure. I'm curious how your parents made sure you "owned your faith". Surely they told you something about their religious views. When you were a child, did they present the idea of God as if it was an opinion or as if it was true and obvious?

JD, I appreciate your concern. I would probably say the same thing to someone in my position. I'm aware that these poly parties exist. I can confidently say my girlfriend wouldn't be found within ten miles of one. She also isn't a feminist and eschews labels on the whole. I'm not defending the behaviors of most polyamorists because there are a lot of things I don't approve of... but that itself doesn't mean responsible polyamory couldn't work. This is something I have been thinking about a lot. (No, not the FDR sex party) ...Which is that the only way I could ever possibly approve of polyamory is if the third wheel is just as into self knowledge and peaceful parenting as my partner and I are. Obviously finding one partner who meets these criteria is hard enough, let alone multiple partners. But if the third wheel was my best friend, someone I loved and cherished and trusted enough to help in the raising of my child and I of his, would it not only strength the relationship between my partner and I? And would the love that my child experienced be diminished by having three parents instead of two?

The girl I'm dating is interested in polyamory. It's been a real struggle for me because I've always assumed the nuclear two-parent family is best for adults and for children but I don't honestly have the arguments or data to back up that claim with certainty. Her basic premise is that religion and government are impositions by society on individual freedoms and monogamy is the same thing. Besides the fact that both of us would be jealous if the other person wanted another sexual partner is there a moral, rational, or philosophical case against open, consensual polyamory? I've ordered a copy of 'Sex at Dawn' after which I plan to read 'Sex at Dusk'.

Hello community, I'm happy to share with you my speech at Porcfest from this past week which is on design thinking, anarchy and philosophy. Please enjoy and share your thoughts below. Matt D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doAwCeQL_Is

I do not vote on the principle that Statism is immoral. I would not condemn someone who wants to petition and beg their master for fewer lashes since they are in a state of nature. Abstaining for the ballot box is my way of saying, "I will not pretend that I am being given a choice when I am in a system which denies my possibility to voluntarily choose freedom." You're right, it might mean that my masters give me more lashes, but it also means my pride will be unbroken. If you're going to take the purely pragmatic approach, you have to make the case that not voting leads to authoritarianism and that there are enough anarchists who don't vote based on moral principle that even if all of them were to suddenly vote for Libertarian candidates it would actually change our course. Last time I checked, (*whispers) there aren't that many of us. I too would not end the government tomorrow if I was given the capacity by snapping my fingers. Without philosophy you would create a power vacuum which the corrupt would rush to fill, and it's not likely we could avoid some bloodshed in the process. That having been said, there is no perfect transition to a free society. Some people are going to lose out. It's unfortunate and in many ways those people are not responsible for the system they were born into. Nevertheless, for every winner (in this case those who advocate living consistent with moral principles) there's always at least one loser (those who profit from irrationality and enslavement).

Was there a question or criticism here or were you just continuing off my thoughts?

An acquaintance of mine is building an app to connect people based on personality. What's unique about his project is that it scours facebook then using an algorithm matches people based on similar traits. PM me if you'd like me to connect you.

Because sex has nothing to do with virtue. It's not opposite to virtue, it's just neutral. "You can do anything. You can get away with anything just find a different way of framing it." Fuck that. If you set this as a standard for your relationship (that's what dating is, setting standards for the future) then you're guaranteeing that it's okay for her to lie, cheat on you, manipulate you in the future. Call me a prude, white knight or whatever nonsense you want, but the fact that Julien thinks using child abuse to get access to a women's vagina is funny or cool I find absolutely revolting.

FYI, I stumbled across this organization/blog led by Dr. Mark Brady who translates social neuroscience into digestible information for parents. What he says strongly corroborates the peaceful parenting message promoted at FDR. ...Future guest? The Three Primary Practices: http://www.committedparent.com/IntroFirstPrimaryPractices.html Committed Parent Blog: https://committedparent.wordpress.com/