Matt D

Does this mean you've returned from your global odyssey?

If I was to do a second version I would probably change all 26 letters to an adjective just to solve the pesky X. Right now I just don't have the time so it will have to wait. Thanks everyone for your feedback.

Here is the article I forgot to link to earlier: http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Intimacy/8-stages-of-intimacy-intellectual.html I'm glad you clarified that, Omega. I agree with you. The way to attract women is to work on yourself, be it in spirit, mind or body. The reason I'm not on the dating market right now is because I'm not where I want to be yet to attract the kind of woman I know I want. Though I can tell you I'm a hell of a lot closer than I was a couple years ago. If that's what PUA means then I have no problem with it. I fear you may be misleading younger men into thinking they can just jump into the Game without having to do the work first to actually become confident version of themselves. I'm not saying this is your suggestion, but sleeping around or even having sex early in a relationship doesn't raise you confidence in a genuine way. Not until you achieve the first six stages of intimacy with your partner.

Are you trying to say you're not getting your needs met by Stef for understanding and acceptance? When you say "This is just false" (16:20) I suppose this is exempt from the NVC edict not to criticize? Even if you're right communicating that isn't productive because it's just going to trigger a defense in other people. With all due respect, I really can't take you seriously when you don't follow your own advice. How would you react if someone who is three hundred pounds was trying to sell you a diet book while eating a slice of cake? I don't have much to add on what Kevin posted above (well put, Kev), except to link to a video I did a while back critiquing NVC. I had not heard Stef's arguments on the subject, but I suppose I was following him blindly through osmosis of the Big Chatty Forehead. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZikmz6HR_4

I haven't seen a dictionary definition which recognizes the noun form as a word. I don't want to nitpick but if I write 'xeniality' I really don't want kids to start probing into about alien anal probing.

And you didn't answer the question, "how often do you beat your wife?" I would claim it's a trick question, but I must admit I have not read this Game book. If you'd care to enlighten us as to your answer please go ahead. --- Here's a strategy which seems to work for a lot of people. It's called "The Eight Stages of Intimacy". It's designed for couples who are dating and want a long-term fulfilling relationship. The authors claim: "Make a commitment to yourself to explore each stage in-depth with a potential mate before proceeding to the next. Most superficial relationships will fall apart during stages four through six [intellectual, spiritual, and emotional], the very stages most people skip in order to experiment in seven [sex]. Then they wonder why the relationship didn't last! When you finish this article, you may be enlightened." I fully admit that as a philosopher geek I want to jump right in to stages four through six, and I may be skipping over some very important development periods in the earliest stages of the relationship. But this problem is not solved by jumping straight into stages seven and then going backwards, with the hope you will be compatible when the sexual intoxication wears off. I think we all want the same thing on this thread. My opinion is that we are all messing up in different ways. This makes sense if we had male role models when growing up who were deficient in different ways.

I like this! The logical progression from simplest to most complex reminds me of Kohlberg's three stages of moral development. My one suggestion would be to replace "authority" with "sovereignty". After all, my dentist has authority over me because I trust his opinion. Authority could be confusing to some people. Also, I'm curious why you chose to not mention parental responsibility towards children?

Snapdragon, great suggestion! Xenial slipped by me but it's true I would need a noun to be consistent (which is a virtue, don't you know...) Urban dictionary defines xeniality as "a fetishistic fascination in sexual activity with people from another planet." Hmmm. Interesting conversation, Merri. Yeah, it's terrible the degree to which religion has corrupted the word 'faith'. It's the same thing that statists did to the word 'anarchy'. You can call me naive, point out all the evil in the world, but despite all this I have what might be called an eternal faith in humanity. For the sake of this poster, I settled for "Optimism" instead. First of all, it depends on the context. This alphabet can feel like a modern equivalent of the Ten Commandments, but I want to stress that HONESTY is not virtue in every situation, nor is EMPATHY or VALOR. If someone asks you where your wife is so he can go kill her, you aren't immoral if you lie to him! Perhaps the one exception to that rule would be WISDOM because wisdom implies the evaluation of circumstance and virtuous action thereon. To answer your second question, I'm going to be annoying and refer you to Stef's Universally Preferable Behavior. Most of these would be considered 'Ascetically Preferable Actions', which means they're somewhere between completely objective and completely subjective.

I feel a lot of anticipation answering this, which could mean a number of things. But let's continue. Can you give me a definition of "Who Someone Really Is"? To me this sounds a lot like the terms 'identity' or 'soul' which are used by politicians and priests to give or withdraw a need that hollow people are desperate to fill. I do believe that people will behave predictably over a period of time. What I mentioned earlier was simply that how people present themselves in a given context (let's say a first date) tells you a lot of signs about how they will behave in the future. Reading these signs requires self-knowledge, I completely agree with you there. I'm not clear on why asking yourself "how do I feel about this person?" ruins your presentation with a quality date. I'm not saying I'm great at this, but I think any decent woman would respect if you process your feelings and say something like, "I'm really enjoying our conversation. I want to keep talking more." or "Sorry, I'm not enjoying this. But thanks for your time." --- Yes, domination. I know you aren't advocating rape or force. However, I don't think domination or manipulation would be a mischaracterization of your position from what I've read so far. Sex is inherently an act which puts the male in a position of dominance over a woman. You asked earlier: And did he introduce her to philosophy? Did he sleep with her first, so that she'd be more willing to listen to him, and then introduce her to philosophy? Why do you have to sleep with a woman in order to increase her willingness to listen to you about philosophy? Assuming this is true (I don't think it's necessarily and universally true, but you could be right in most cases), it works because you assert your dominance over her and her hormones send the signals to her brain that lets down her defenses. Is that a fair summary of the behind-the-scenes female biology? The idea "fake it till you make it" implies that you have to manipulate until it doesn't feel like manipulation anymore. I'm not saying you are advocating that technique, I just wanted to point out the contradiction. If you have to fake it, even if only initially, then it's manipulative. I can't seem to understand the strategy for dating which says, "I'm going to intentionally not communicate my honest emotional experience with the girl until I can get her into bed with me, and then after that we're going to flip things around and be honest with each other." I just haven't seen this work out well between couples. More sex in the short term generally means less sex in the long term.

If the Determinist argument was valid (and if they could somehow escape the contradiction Nathan mentioned above) would it change anything about human action? Would it change how you act? I would assert that thinking about something which will have no consequence on the world is to the pursuit of philosophy as masturbation is to making love.

Hey All- We will be doing a Memorial Weekend kickoff event at the Hirshhorn Museum sculpture garden in downtown dc this coming Friday May 22, beginning at 5:30pm. If you aren't already on our meetup facebook page please request to join: https://www.facebook.com/groups/FDRWashingtonDCMeetup/ Thanks for the tip, Susana. You had me at cheap.

That is a really good question, Tony. The purpose of knowledge of any kind is efficacy. We study engineering so that we can build a bridge without it falling down. At the same time you don't want to over-engineer because we it will cost way more than it should. Knowledge of physics, forces, loads are all important in order to get you close to that optimally designed bridge. If you have successfully applied your knowledge and you have demonstrated it by building 10 bridges which are still standing years after they were built then it's reasonable to say you have achieved excellence in your knowledge of structural engineering. Ah - but, people like our friend Lens will say, self knowledge is subjective because we're all different and so what's excellent for one person may not be excellent for another. However, it's the 'in order to' which is objective just like the bridge building example. If I say: "I wanted my bridge to fall down" and it falls down, then studying engineering would be counter-productive. Similarly, if I say: "I want my relationships to fall apart and be a source of misery for me in the future." then self-knowledge is also counter-productive. It's only when you want positive relationships (especially with your spouse/children) of a higher emotional, intellectual, and psychological quality that you undergo the difficult task of studying yourself. Yes there are different approaches to gaining self-knowledge. But you ultimately measure your progress by the quality of your relationships, the most important of them being the relationship with yourself. Therapy is partly introspective, but a lot of what occurs is learning to reforge a trusting relationship with an authority figure if you didn't have that growing up. Comparing yourself to other people is, I think, a necessary and healthy part of navigating the world. There's nothing wrong with taking pride in your accomplishments, as long as it's not vain or self-indulgent. My good friend Kevin Beal as done a whole series called "Am I Growing" on Youtube. It's highly relevant to this conversation and worth watching. Are you currently in or thinking of going to therapy, Tony?

Vile crud of the first order. I have no patience for this kind of pissforbrain, pretendingtocareaboutthechildren pomposity. If this so-called philosopher is really worried about the gap in advantages between good parenting and bad parenting why is it that he only criticizes the good parents? Why do we always have to bring down the high achievers to some lowest common denominator? What's wrong with saying: "Billy's parents are reading to him and giving him lots of attention and care and don't want him corrupted by state education so they've chosen to homeschool or hire a tutor. Suzy's parents are divorced and she's being raised by a single mom who is constantly working all the time and wasting her life away through drugs and alcohol and letting dangerous people around Suzy. Good job Billy's parents, you're providing opportunity and love for your kids. Suzy's parents.... shame on you!" Is it because Suzy's parents might be offended? WHO FUCKING CARES IF BAD PEOPLE ARE OFFENDED! They had a chance to make things right, or at least to suck it up and admit that they screwed up. But instead they expect every goddamn person to bow down before them any time they get upset. Hogwash. There's one tiny bit of truth hidden deep in this article. And that's that society is of the opinion that parents own their children. Let me admit, it's better than thinking that the state owns the children. But here's an idea: how about we set our children free! Until we change this slave-like mind set around -- if ownership has to be involved, then the child should own the parents -- we're going to keep dividing the upper and lower class families. As a rule of thumb, the ones at the bottom always have the most potential for mobility. If you put unilateral downward pressure, they will fall faster than those at the top, who will also fall. If you get the state out of the raising of children, they will rise faster than those at the top, who will also rise. Which is more "fair"?

In response to Stef's "The Truth About Makeup" video I've published a video on the male equivalent of makeup. Hope you enjoy! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqsjnLvd62Y&feature=youtu.be

I haven't heard of it until now but you've pricked my curiosity.

Hi again. I know I dropped a bomb of an article and then disappeared. I swear, the responses I think will get comments never do and the ones I don't... it's called Murphey's Law, right? Can you really tell how good the sex will be just from talking to the person? I think the purpose of examining a person's character isn't so you can have a better orgasm, it's so you can figure out if you'd potentially spend the rest of your life with the person. Otherwise I agree with you, Eh Steve. But I would add it's also a social responsibility to make sure your friends are hooking up for the right reasons. The argument isn't that you will never have sex, but that you will defer sexual gratification for the sake of reproduction. This is the "K reproductive strategy". If you don't want to have kids then you are definitely not contributing to the reproductive goal of the species. Yes, women produce more oxytocin, sometimes called the empathy hormone, than men who produce more testosterone. I have heard the opposite, that men get more attached to their sexual partners than women. I don't have the biological explanation to prove my case, however. Look up Paul Zac on TED, who has a great talk on oxytocin. I'll challenge you on this MMX because I like to do that whenever someone uses the words "It just objectively is". I'll put forth that you can tell quite a lot about Who A Person Is just from body language, context, and instinct. Even if the other person is presenting themselves falsely, that too is something you can pick up on. "We're all geniuses" is a phrase I've heard thrown around from this one philosopher guy on the internet. -- You missed a third myth, which is "This girl is rejecting me because I'm bad with women". The reason it's a myth is because it doesn't focus on how the guy feels about her, other than horny. Confidence doesn't come out of domination, it comes out of trusting your own feelings, which has a lot to do with my point above. I agree with you about self-knowledge, Kathryn. It's true, sex feels really good. I like this poem: Nymph! Why didst thou tempt me so? And pray tell why thou tempst me still! Though sense bid I let thy mem'ry go, my heart keep'th thee against my will. I struggle with what to say to people who just got out of a divorce. I don't think sympathy is necessarily due because you obviously played a part in it. Let me just say, that really sucks... And not in the oral way.

So far no one that I know has been able to poke a hole in UPB. It's probably because in order to do so you would have to use UPB! Wouldn't it be great if we had a logical framework to look to for ethics rather than God or state rulers, the latter of whom will twist the former any chance they get? But UPB is not exactly new, either. One of my favorite quotes comes out of Christian theology in St. Augustine's City of God: "Remove justice, and what are kingdoms but gangs of criminals on a large scale? What are criminal gangs but petty kingdoms? A gang is a group of men under the command of a leader, bound by a compact of association, in which the plunder is divided according to an agreed convention. If this villainy wins so many recruits from the ranks of the demoralized that it acquires territory, establishes a base, captures cities and subdues peoples, it then openly arrogates to itself the title of kingdom, which is conferred on it in the eyes of the world, not by the renouncing of aggression but by the attainment of impunity. For it was a witty and truthful rejoinder which was given by a captured pirate to Alexander the Great. The king asked the fellow, “What is your idea, in infesting the sea?” And the pirate answered, with uninhibited insolence, “The same as yours, in infesting the earth! But because I do it with a tiny craft, I’m called a pirate; because you have a mighty navy, you’re called an emperor.” St. Augustine, Concerning the City of God Against the Pagans (H. Bettenson, Tr.), Book IV, Ch. 4.

Thanks for the correction. Yes, I've seen some books which have replaced "copyright" with "Please copy away!"

I've linked to this thread in my youtube video addressing the question "Is Psychology A Science?" https://youtu.be/q2IMF1meJoM Thanks, Joel, for compiling this very important research.

It's so cool that you are looking into a peaceful approach for parenting. I'm not a father but I just want to commend you for what you're doing. I think your child is lucky to have a dad like you. "FDR 1110 - A Philosopher as Parent" is an earlier podcast geared more towards infants but I think it's still relevant to the topics of negotiation. Just remember that you and your son both want the same thing - for his experiences in childhood to be happy, healthy, and positive. He can give you the best feedback on your parenting because he knows his own experience better than anyone. Communicating this shared goal will help explain why you want him to behave in a certain way and also build trust in the future. Cheers!

Thanks! Great talk by Amy Cuddy. "Fake it til you become it" may work with body language. However, there are a lot of people who fake virtue and never become virtuous. Nevertheless, a fun exercise: what does integrity, self-discipline, bravery, etc. look like?

It's just a habit. You can copy it if you'd like - I promise not to sue you Stef: "Today's call-in show is brought to you by the letter D. The letter D stands for... donate!"

I wanted to emphasize actionable philosophy. Those things are important but they aren't virtues I can have as a person. The closest might be 'consistency' with truth, objectivity and facts. Absolutely. I think it would be cool to hang as a poster as well.

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/44086-the-virtue-alphabet/#entry402280

That statement is not false..... But it's kind of depressing and immature (by that I don't mean you). "I lost because the game is rigged!" My question would be why do philosophers bother playing a politically or culturally based game? You're right, I glossed over the word "usually". Not to mention the fact that this poster doesn't give advice but merely a statement. As you say we have no way of knowing if the author is a selfish, ignorant hipster who knows nothing about life or this was done for the sake of humor. Speaking of which, I believe we've destroyed the joke utterly and to the point where life support would only be rubbing salt in the wound. Darth Vador, Mr. T, and Gollum walk into a bar. All three cry out, "Who's looking for trouble?!?" An unsuspecting hipster turns around and says "Me-me!"