Matt D

It's true that building a million dollar business at a young age indicates high intelligence and great business skills. Those skills are to some degree earned and to some degree as inherited as breast size. Let's assume that he didn't cheat or scam his way to wealth or even that he was able to make millions voluntarily without relying on the arm of the government. Even so I don't agree that building a successful business in today's society indicates good principles or positive moral fiber. In fact, the more that the world rejects principles the more likely it is that successful entrepreneurs either lack principles completely or have suppressed their principles in order to provide a product which people who don't have principles will find valuable. A good example would be Stef. He made decent money as cofounder of a company selling software but when he wanted to bring philosophy and principles into the business world it took a long time before he could make a living at it, and he isn't rolling in dough. The empirical reality is that Candy Crush is currently more valuable to many people than living according to principles. To return to Millionaire23's chat, he juxtaposes looks ("You look stunning") with wealth ("I've made a few million"), implying a transaction of pussy for dollars. If she were to reply to him "I'm a waitress" do you honestly think this guy would turn her away because she lacked a good business sense? Selecting a reproductive partner is very different than submitting your CV because it inevitably involves the raising of children. TLDR: The ability to make money is not in itself proof of virtue.

My deep sympathies, T.F. Having never experienced a real sense of relaxation and joy in your life I know it can seem like any move you make is going to end in disaster. I would echo what bryndomus said about focusing on your feelings and talking through it with your therapist or in a journal. Are you justified? That's probably not a helpful way of phrasing the question. Certainly you don't have to confront people with a violent history in person: trust your feelings. The truth is you don't know if you will ever want contact with them again. No matter how unlikely the possibility of change is, you may not want to completely rule out the possibility in the future. You can only say whether in this moment you want contact with them. If the answer is no, then in my opinion you aren't obligated to say anything. Your letter could be as simple as, "I'm taking a break from the family. When or if I'm ready to talk I'll be in touch." Please keep us informed of your situation if you can. Cliches aside, it gets better.

By itself, it's quite impressive. But a guy leading a conversation with that is like a girl saying to a guy, "What's your bra size? Mine's a double D."

Are you getting enough hugs? In this video I talk about some of the science behind hugs and then give some thoughts on why we evolved to crave physical touch. Please enjoy and comment! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy2NBz6CgM&feature=youtu.be Sources: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/02/06/hugging.aspx http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-5756/10-Reasons-Why-We-Need-at-Least-8-Hugs-a-Day.html http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_zak_trust_morality_and_oxytocin#t-23256 http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9709/11/nfm.touch.stress/

No, I defined empathy both in terms of affect (emotion) and cognition. And I don't think it's a fair assessment to layer that interpretation on FDR as a whole. I can remember vividly the intense cognitive empathy I felt when listening to Stef once describe the life of someone living in Mexico who had little incentive to accumulate wealth or build a house since it would be taken from him by the Mexican government. There is a book I'm reading right now about empathy with some more scientific explanations. But just to warn you, it's written by a sociologist (socialist?) and is quite sympathetic with the Left. Actually, I've been meaning to write a review because this guy is clearly using empathy as a tool to advance a leftist agenda. Philosophy in the wrong hands can be very dangerous indeed.

I think what constitutes a community means different things to different people. Deep down church-goers know that they are avoiding real connection because (A) they believe in something without evidence or consistency and (B) there is an unspoken threat of attack should you express doubt in the religious doctrine. But you have to admit that church-goers are often very active people and will band together to support one of their own who is suffering and even help people outside the church. It's interesting to me that in podcast 2927 Stef mentioned that Christians are some of the nicest people out there. However, nicety can be a form of passive aggression, which I think dovetails with the quote posted here. If you think you can "out-community" religion, more power to you! I've not seen anything close to that kind of togetherness (even if you grant that it's fake or forced) among atheists. For more on the topic I made a video response to that particular call-in show: http://unraise.com/2015/03/16/pim005-an-atheist-weighs-in-on-religion/

A very important issue for me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqQ-wIBwcCo&feature=youtu.be Podcast Notes: What is dissociation? Where does it come from? How can you tell when you're dissociating? What is the cure?

Amen

Hi Andrew, My name is Matt. I have been a listener since 2013 and I also organize an FDR meetup group in Washington DC. I'd be happy to help you in whatever way I can. If you want to reach me on skype my username is mdrake88. Cheers and welcome to FDR!

The current list of meetups can be found here: http://www.freedomainradiomeetup.com/fdr-meetup-groups-worldwide.html I graduated from Cornell four years ago. However I never met an anarchist during my time there.

Do you think that you can't see your deceased family members again if there is no afterlife? That you can't talk to them? I would challenge you there. I'm an atheist, and although my family is not dead I have separated or defooed from them. But I talk to them regularly in my head and I see them in my dreams and in my memories. You see, if you have dig into yourself with affection and deep understanding, you don't actually have to wait until death to see your family. Could it be that hoping for an afterlife is a way of avoiding talking to your family right now? Here's a video I made responding to the call-in show you referenced. I think you might find it intriguing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU5-oh-ZbZg

I still have mixed feelings about this. I know there has been a lot of controversy on the boards around the call in show "An Atheist Apologizes to Christians" so perhaps you will find this video thought-provoking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU5-oh-ZbZg

First of all, wow. This was without a doubt an enormously challenging and moving show. Kudos to the caller and the host. I won't reiterate what I said in the previous thread except to say let's not assume that leftism and Christianity are mutually exclusive. The black protestant church and the UCC are two strong examples of this. This was, I think, the one tidbit that could have been clearer in Stef's assessment of the facts. Shirgall, do you think that teaching children religion is itself child abuse? I have found that if you try to make that case Christians are no longer open to talking about child abuse. Having said that, I think there is a case to be made for religion as a placeholder for philosophy, until the time comes when the world is ready for principles based on rational methodology. Brave Scott may have just initiated the equivalent of a Libertarian Party in religion. By that I mean, "Big L" Libertarians believe that the State can be reformed or dissolved from within, and yet empirically they have achieved the exact opposite since the party's conception. I used to think the same was true about Christianity, but this podcast has caused me to rethink that idea. The difference between religion and statism is that violence is inherently related to the latter but historically related to the latter. Maybe... maybe after generations of raising children whose only trauma is the lie of God, those children will find that they no longer need God because they can replace it with self-knowledge AND keep their traditional values around the family. I myself, and many others on the board, are evidence of this.

Let me try to summarize Stef's logic in this podcast. I am skeptical of his apology but first I want to make sure I'm on the same page: 1. The State is far worse that religion today because it uses coercion. 2. Christians are generally against the State and support family values. 3. For the sake of keeping a family together, since the alternative would be hard on the children, maybe there is a third option which is to stay in the Church and invite the community to consider philosophical "spirituality". 4. Fleeing from religion often creates a power vacuum which is filled by statist doctrine. So the question becomes "where are you going to go? Statism? Nihilism?" Let me not hide anything: this debate hits very close to home for me. I was raised in the United Church of Christ (UCC) which is an overwhelming left Protestant church. To say that Christians tend to be conservative may contradict my own personal experience, but what are the facts? Below is a chart on Christian political views. In the context of this podcast's conversation, it is true that Mormons are largely Conservative, however it would not be valid to project that onto Christianity as a whole. The UCC for instance used to be much more neutral in their political stance. My dad, who was a conservative, privately railed against the church and would make snide remarks about how ridiculous it was that our preacher asked the congregation to pray for wisdom for our leaders -- "You never heard them ask us to pray for wisdom when Clinton was in office! Humbug!" (I added the humbug as embellishment ) The question I wondered about growing up but didn't dare ask was "Dad, if the church drives you up a wall, why are you there!?! By the logic above, he was there because he didn't know where else to go. He tried in vain to bring values back to a community, and even if deep down he didn't believe in God, he did it so that he could give his family support. Yeeeah... I don't buy that. First of all, he could have easily taken his family to a more Conservative church. But let's set that aside for the moment. Even if it was a Mormon church which was strongly anti-state, would I have rather my Dad separate from my mom whose family revolved around the church, or stay together "for my sake"? Without a doubt I would have rather they separated. Because if the bond between my parents was so feeble that religion could come between them, I would rather have that fact out in the open than covered up for twenty years by a family built on falsehood. I'm aware that divorce is bad for children. However, the mind-screw of religion is also bad for them, is it not? I have never forgotten FDR70, in which Stef describes the invisible apple as a metaphor for religion. How do you talk to your child about religion when you compromised your principles in order to keep your family and your community in tact? Maybe I'll understand when I'm older. The last thing I'll say is that I don't think Stef ever retracted any of his arguments on religion. In fact, I think he has said multiple times that he still holds them to be philosophically valid. Instead, his apology to Christians was in reference to the approach that he took to leading theists to the truth. I get it. The truth is a sword that must be wielded with great responsibility. If you cut all the strings of belief holding someone up, that person is most likely going to fall. So you want to get them to gradually put some of their weight on the rope hanging right in front of them called philosophy. As they learn to trust philosophy more and more then you can begin to cut through their illusions. My point is that the rope is there -- philosophy is right in front of them. It's not Stef's or anyone else's fault that they choose to ignore it. They have free will and could grab a hold of it and never let go. Some of us, you and I, do exactly that; sadly, the percentage of people who instead fall into the state or worse into nihilism is far higher. To say that children justify staying in the Church is not your decision to make. Ripping illusion away from people is painful but it is not abuse. Staying with a spouse whose methodology is anti-rational would not exactly constitute abuse either, but it does show a lack of integrity. Is that the kind of action by which we should demonstrate courage to our children? Is there an easy answer? No. And Stef doesn't give answers. But even if he did, getting to an answer is like trying to cure cancer rather than prevent it. So how can philosophy, which is primarily around prevention, give insight to the equivalent of a surgical operation? Let me know your thoughts.

I'm sure you have good reason to be angry. Pm me if you want to skype about this.

No, I don't mean understanding his feeling at the time. As was mentioned in the paragraph I quoted from above, imagining how you felt when you were the child and empathizing with that child today, like he is in the room beside you, activate differently in our brains. You indicate that you can do the former but you short circuit when thinking about the latter. Which means, I think, that's where you need to go. You say there is no one in your life who cares to hear it -- so be that person who does care to hear it! If you can get your hands on John Bradshaw's 'Homecoming' audio recording meditation, that would be where I would start. Going to therapy is rarely a bad idea in these cases, but if you can get in touch with your emotions for yourself as a child that will save a lot of time should you eventually, as I hope you will, find the right therapist to help when you're ready to empathize with others.

Hey there! I wanted to alert you to my new youtube channel in which I talk philosophy on my morning neighborhood walk. My first video is now uploaded. It's 1080p so you can see my nosehairs up close and personal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNAER4rN0-U Please subscribe if you like what you see. And let me know what could I do better.

I appreciate that in this season we are getting hints of the main characters' upbringings, especially with the author tasked to write a propaganda piece about Frank.

The following is information from the book 'Empathy' by Roman Krznaric. Simon Baron-Cohen, a Cambridge psychologist, says: "Some people are quick to assume that mirror neurons alone can be equated with empathy, but in reality the mirror neuron system may simply be the building blocks for empathy." Neuroscientists at the University of Washington have extended our understanding of the circuit. They have found core brain areas closely associated with cognitive or perspective-taking empathy, which stimulate activity in regions known as the posterior cingulate/precuneus and the right temporoparietal junction. In practice this means, for example, that particular parts of the brain are active when we think about getting one of our fingers pinched in a door, but when we think about this happening to another person, alongside some of the same pain-processing regions being active, there are other cognitive empathy hotspots that are switched on. According to the researchers, these distinctive ways in which our brains respond to our own and other people's pain reveals that "empathy does not involve a complete Self-Other merging," and may be "what allows us to distinguish empathic responses to others versus our own personal distress." (Empathy, 25) People with boderline personality disorder have developed smaller than average amygdalas and experience less neural activity in the frontal and temporal cortex. In cases of extreme damage it can be difficult for the person to recognize emotions like fear in others' faces. Krznaric analogizes empathic skill to musical ability. The younger you are exposed to it the easier it is to pick up. But a fifty year old can still learn to play piano. Your parents may not have exhibited this towards you but perhaps you had another teacher or caregiver who demonstrated empathy. Children, like seeds, can take root even with precious little nourishment. My first guess would not be that you lack the ability to empathize with others. My instinct says that you have an internal block where a part of you doesn't want to feel what other's feel. Let me ask you: do you find that you can empathize with yourself as a child?

I for one am glad to see this. It's not on the front page of the PT website but at least the idea that choosing estrangement can be a necessary first step to personal growth is gaining some acceptance.

Interesting question. Allow me to play devil's advocate. Is it possible for a group to have needs? And what are future needs? Couldn't you argue that a group of nazis meets this definition? I'm not sure Stef has said the family is an involuntary response to virtue. Love, yes. The family has so much propaganda crusted over it currently that it's hard to excavate a meaningful definition. Traditionally it was a way of delineating who is going to raise children. I would claim that's the main difference between family and tribe.

Followed by Obligatory Seinfeld reference:

Converts? The truth does not win converts. Politicians and preachers win converts. A scientist or a philosopher isn't worried about how many people believe his research. "Fuck the numbers." http://youtu.be/q_-18agQNwk?t=1m54s Approach people with curiosity and positivity. If they continue to advocate your enslavement, then I think moral outrage is healthy. Kokesh and Buddhists are right in one thing: personal happiness and empathy is the ultimate 'fuck you' to those who do evil.

I just watched this episode. I thought it was very well done. I can't help but be awed by the creativity of evil people. Underwood knows that people expect politicians to lie and so he throws in a nugget of truth, i.e. you are not entitled to anything, to really surprise people and separate himself from the typical gangster who only worries about being elected. Of course, this is the exact opposite of his real ambitions. No matter how bad things get there will always be those who believe in a savior... a golden gun, as Stef puts it. Until we raise the standard of parenting, that is. Speaking of which, what did people think of the opening scene when Frank pees on his father's grave?

^ I agree but I would say it's not always conscious. I hadn't thought about the similarity to historic revolutions. Neo's declaration at the end of the film has that revolutionary feeling. Thanks, D. Your positive feedback is encouraging! People will say there is a mind/body dichotomy but we "think" with our gut all the time. When Morpheus says "the body cannot live without the mind" he's right. However the opposite is true too. The mind cannot live without the body. I would argue this explains why humans rejected the original utopian Matrix - they were stimulated to be happy but their caged bodies knew the truth. We also see this with religious people who claim to have found joy when they came to Jesus. You cannot derive happiness from falseness, even if your mind is conditioned to do so.