Mole

I think you misinterpreted the title. I do not mean becoming an entrepreneur in order to have more freedom. I mean to become an entrepreneur for the cause of freedom or liberty. I have edited the title.

I don't see why we should see university like that. Why can't we see it as a way to be educated? To acquire skills.

So what road do you think was the right one for you at the end of it? Therapy? Books? Etc.

The world needs more freedom. We know that. How do we get there? Spread knowledge. How do we spread knowledge? Learn the knowledge and learn how to spread it. How? Well, what are we giving to people? Some give knowledge about economics, some philosophy, some ethics, some freedom of speech, some politics, some current affairs, some immigration, some documentaries, ect. There's a lot of components to it. It requires specialisation. Stefan has encouraged a few times for young people to become entrepreneurs for freedom. It seems like a fuzzy buzz word that makes you think of motivation and getting things done but I don't see how to translates into practice. I can understand financial entrepreneurship, starting businesses ect, but what does if have to do with philosophy? What does it mean and how is that different (if it is) than going to university? Maybe education is really going to the dump in America but in Australia, I haven't seen this degradation of education. Maybe it's not about specialisation. Is it a matter of moral courage? Just spreading the 'word'? Maybe it's a matter of spreading UPB and the idea of the false self? The words have already been spoken on this show. I don't think there's much to be courageous about at the moment other than private life matters. I can understand telling friends and family about UPB and about my insecurities but I don't think that's entrepreneurship. I know some stuff sure, but there are other people doing way better than me so I don't understand why an amateur opinion has weight in the free market of ideas. To be an entrepreneur you have to give something of value. That's why I want to go to university and become a psychologist. Perhaps I'll find myself teaching parents about child abuse. Perhaps I'll do something Jordan Peterson style. Perhaps I'll write a book about morality and psychology. Perhaps I'll find out I hate psychology and quit. Perhaps I'll start a YouTube channel. One day I might start a YouTube channel but that's definitely not something I should bet my all time on. I'm still gaining the knowledge for that and I don't know what I don't know. Therefore, I don't know how much efforts that's going to take. That's why you explore. That's why I want to learn about the mind and meet other students and network. Starting a YouTube channel is something you do when it calls to you when you've gained the knowledge required. That's how Stefan started FDR. Debt for university? Sure but why should I worry so much about money? It's the 21st century. I'll be able to afford what I need for a comfortable life. Why put all your eggs in one basket? Money isn't the eggs. Time is the eggs. If you were made out to be a YouTuber why don't both go to university and try starting a channel? Figure out what works and what doesn't. If going to university was the best thing ever you'll be happy you didn't put it off and did it while you were young and could afford to take potentially useless courses. If it was useless going to university what difference does it make? Some money which you didn't really need. Time? No. It doesn't take concentrated effort/time to figure out what makes the world go around. It takes experience and trying different things which there's plenty of time for in university. Once you've figured that out that's the point where you decide whether to stay in university or not. As for spreading knowledge? All the big voices are held up by the pillars of writers, psychologists, economists, etc. If someone is more eccentric than I am, it makes more sense to be their support than to be another voice. People have different personalities. Is everyone cut out to be an entrepreneur? I don't know. And again, there's no issue with both going to university and having a voice. In fact, I'd say it's preferable even if it's a COMPLETELY useless degree. I'm looking forward to joining freedom clubs and debating clubs and making friends with intelligent and like-minded people To summarise, TL;DR: What I'm not understanding is what does Stefan means by entrepreneur. It's ambiguous to me. Is getting a formal education not being an entrepreneur? If you are rational and willing to find what drives you, the only real loss I see in formal education in Australia is money spent that you don't need anyway. If I didn't go to university I'd probably be making a living wage and reading Atlas Shrugged for the rest of the day. I don't know what else I'd possibly want to do. Conversations on this show about being an entrepreneur and breaking the matrix and escapaing the false-self has provoked a black and white thinking inside me and sometimes I believe I must be inferior but perhaps this belief is false.

What are you trying to say?

I think this is the answer to my question, but to elaborate on that claim: A=A as a law comes from the empirical evidence that the universe is coherent. I made a mistake thinking that without that law one cannot establish whether the universe is coherent but I don't know why I thought that now. You don't need to know A=A to see that the universe is coherent. You just look at it without any presuppositions at all.

I don't think logic is an inevitable part of the process of discovery of truth. I think empiricism precedes logic. If we see the universe as coherent, we can know it's coherent. Do we need to know A=A in this process? Yes. A=A comes from the coherence of the universe, isn't it?

Logic begins when it is discovered that A is A, however, how does one discern what is discoverable without first knowing that A is A? Empiricism is a precept to our nature. After all, we are born as little scientists. Empiricism is a given. One cannot argue against it or for it without presupposing it. But if empiricism requires an understanding of logic, then is logic also a precept? (By precepts I mean involuntary knowledge about the world that is not conceptual, no different to how animals know things. It is regulated by our neurobiology.) If logic is a precept, then is it the case that logic is not a concept. But if logic is not a concept, then does logic exist in reality after all? Embedded in the neurons of our brain, so to speak?

If I understand correctly, you seem to be suggesting that logic is incomplete so what we need is a set of axioms or 'logic grid' to explain the world and when something contradicts it we need to replace these axioms through a creative, non-logical process. I think it's true that fundamentally we are not logic ran machines. When we are born we don't know any logic. We are a blank slate with regards to conception. We do, however, have a human nature. This human nature is empiricism. When we are born we find truth via empiricism. We don't need a logical explanation as to why we ought to be empirical because we just are. Just like an ant is conscious and has precepts for its colony and for gathering, we too have precepts, but for empiricism. No explanation is required. No explanation is possible. This seems to me to be the non-logical faculty you are alluding to. If one is to suggest that there is no logical reason to be empirical, he is already being empirical so it's actually impossible to argue against it. One cannot prove it or deny it for logic itself relies upon empiricism. One may only decay if he wishes not to be a man. Since logic is the rules that constitute argumentation, and argumentation presupposes empiricism, logic too must presuppose empiricism. Since empiricism is a biological precept, logic must be a construct. It does not exist in reality. It is merely a conception. That being said, it does seem to be the case that the very start of empiricism seems to be that A is A. That the concept of A is A does not exist in reality, but that reality exists in reality. That existence exists. For if we don't at least admit that then nothing is knowable since nothing can be determined as existing. So even though the precept of empiricism is non-logical, everything that we can know is known logically. So it's an issue if we say that logic is incomplete and we have to have another way of discerning what's true. I would not agree that simply because logic does not explain the physical universe, then logic is incomplete for our understanding of it. As I have said, logic is a concept. It does not exist in reality. We should no expect it to. Logic is man's own coding. It is the rules that constitute argumentation. What logic can do, however, is give us a means of discovering the universe. Once we know A is A, it is only a matter of observation to know what is not A, what is B, etc. You may argue that observations can't be trusted, but what we observe is exactly the same as empiricism. It's the same thing. And by arguing against it, you are affirming it. It's just a fact that we have to accept that our nature is to be observers, to be empirical, and there's no platonic reason for it, it just is as we are born and we have no control over it because it created us. It's our master. We can either choose to use it or lose it but we can't change it. Basically to conclude what I'm trying to say is that logic is a result of a biological construct and doesn't exist in reality but it makes it possible to understand reality, and since it makes it possible to understand reality, there is no other way of deriving another kind of logic from reality without using the logic we already have. Finding truth is a matter of applying logic to our observations. Logic itself isn't a truth because it's what actually defines truth from non-truth. Logic itself not having any truth, it's just a given as a biological construct that we have no control of as biological animals. And when I said logic 'defines' truth, I don't mean define as we conventionally understand 'definition' as some sentence. That is a misunderstanding. In fact, definitions are not the truth. The truth is a concept in our minds that is not understood as language. A concept is a concept. Not a sentence. Not an image. A sentence itself is just another concept. When I say define I don't mean some written rules in our head but just the concepts as they are, concepts. Literally neurons in our brain interacting in a particular way to give rise to empiricism and conceptualisation. Kant and the people in the philosophy of language school of thought make that mistake by thinking that sentences are truths.

Ayyy! Well that makes some more sense.

No doubt he has a high IQ than the average Joe. I would wonder how high though. I remember one time that he said that if you listen to this show you must at least have an IQ of 130 but I'm honestly quite doubtful about that even with regards to older shows. What impresses me most about Stefan is obviously his language skills, massive lexicon, fluidity but also his clarity on issues and his social competence (although I'm not a fan of his humour). The first set there's no doubt he's born with that, but what about the second set? He says most of the ideas he presents are not original but I have heard nothing quite like them. Perhaps if I read enough Ayn Rand and Albert Ellis and do a lot of introspection I'll get a clarity of mind he seems to express and have a more joyful existence. I wish Stefan would go into more detail with regards to psychology. He gives a lot of analogies but I wish he was more analytical if you know what I mean. After shows, I'm left with a lot of unanswered questions and have to make up my own theories.

I have a hard time determining if Stefan is highly functional after years of therapy and introspection or highly intelligent.

Surely there are other reasons. For example, imagine how you would feel rockin' up to a rural bar filled with old men from Japan.

Twenty.

Thanks for your response. Since I was little. I should mention also that one point in my girlfriend's life she also was quieter a few years ago than she is now because her mood was whack at that time. So that supports my theory a bit. You're right. I think I'll become a research psychologist. I think that's one of my passions. Still, I feel overwhelmed by choice. Should I read this book or that book. Which counsellor should I go to. What makes me happy. Feel like it's almost impossible to systemise it. I sort let my curiosity lead me.

How strong is that trust?

Since I was about 13 I've been fixated on three things. Economics, Psychology, and primarily Philosophy. I find myself thinking about these things the most so I gather that my character is suitable for these disciplines in one way or another. I've just ended my teen years and I'm choosing a bachelor's degree. I'm an anarcho-capitalist, so I naturally care about creating real value in the world. Not only monetarily, but also doing something that would contribute to the goal of a free society and something in which I myself am relatively free. I could do philosophy but do I really need to a degree for that? What is the point of learning 99% fiction for %1 fact? (Aristotle, Ayn Rand vs continental philosophy, Descartes, etc). So I thought, it's better if I study that by myself and apply it to being a productive worker in my career and saving money for perhaps writing books in the future one day. I certainly wouldn't become a professor in philosophy to teach others how to become a professor in philosophy. So I figured that a philosophy degree (at least as a primary) goes off the table. Then I thought about economics. The problem with that kind of degree is that I'll probably end up working for a government. If I want to work for the private sector I'm better off doing an accounting degree. And that's exactly what I have done for the past 1 1/5 years. I've figured though that I don't really like accounting. I actually loved the economics classes. Supply and demand and all that stuff, but accounting? It just seemed really different than economics class because it's less about metaphysics/social theories and more about counting numbers really and surprisingly having good social skills in the office (which I would lack). So I took that off the table. Now I'm thinking about doing psychology. I've applied to some places and some good universities have accepted me. Now, I'm not exactly the most social person. In fact, I think I would be a terrible clinical psychologist. I'm not very empathetic. In fact, I even have social communication disorder (I'm probably slightly autistic). There is another path though, and that is becoming a research psychologist. There is a lot of risk in this. If I don't get honours and probably a PhD, I'm going to have a tough time and probably end up as a clinical psychologist. Even if I become a research psychologist, it's going to be tough because most of that field is government funded. Now I know I said economics is also government funded, but at least with psychology, I can make some value. With economics, however, my simple policy is 'hands off'. There could work in the private sector but I don't think the pay is very good. There is a risk in the public sector because a lot of what research psychologists do is completely useless, for example, I heard of someone PhD in psychology on the speed at which seahorses run on a treadmill underwater (true story). My idols are Jordan Peterson and Gad Saad. I hope one day to be doing the kind of work that they do (Hey, psychology could probably deal with another pair of balls given that the discipline is saturated with ovaries). I could try something completely new like coding. I tried that a little bit (like a week) and didn't really find it enjoyable. One could argue that I should first master the building blocks before I could judge but even if I find that I enjoy it, I still will always have my heart in philosophy. And I honestly don't think I enjoy it. I don't know how to put my finger on in but there's something very mathematical-ish about it. Something very logic-ish but without a sense of context. I guess about applying rigorous abstract concepts to simple objects. I guess I'm more of a guy who likes to draw upon past knowledge and create theories and test them. Looking at things at ways others haven't thought about. I think in such a way philosophy, economics and psychology are interrelated. It's about testing theories and drawing theories from a deep reservoir of knowledge. It's not true for hard sciences that are about concise knowledge, step by step, and it's not true about say arts which don't include much theory or coding which doesn't include drawing from multiple disciplines. Psychology is also a relatively new discipline and I think there is great room for it to grow with the right kind of minds. I guess these are my justifications for sticking to psychology. I can't think of many other disciplines that work in the way that these 3 disciplines do. As a slightly autistic, freedom fighting, critical thinker, I think my passions in these disciplines is not an illusion. Another worry, however, is that I'm projecting some hidden insecurities (however, does it really matter when I spend every day reading Ayn Rand and Carl Jung?) So right now I'm enrolling in a double major. Bachelor of arts majoring in psychology and philosophy. I know I have a grudge against philosophy, but only as a primary. I think there's value in thinking about ideas without neccesarily accepting them and coming to my own conclusions. And also the fact that I'm young and have a great opportunity to do what I love now and keep that knowledge for life is a great reason to do a jobless (in any obvious or secure sense) major, as long as it's not your primary major. So, I would love to hear from anyone who's had a similar experience. Any psychologists out there? Anyone have some ideas about what I would like? Should I try coding more? Is it a matter of learning and THEN having a passion? Am I projecting some hidden insecurities by not sticking to a typical office job? Thanks. TL; DR: I like philosophy, economics and psychology. Choosing a major. Philosophy is jobless (at least the kind that they teach. Economics is a government tool. I'm not good at socialising so thinking about becoming a research psychologist. Ambivalent about the opportunities in it and about whether it really suits my critical, introverted, slightly autistic personality or whether I'll somehow find passions somewhere else.

I'm a full-time student. I don't find much value in the idea of earning more money so I prefer to read and listen to podcasts and 'sort myself out' and spending time with my girlfriend unless of course, I find out that those things require me getting a job. I have worked a little bit for family friends and some other things but never had a proper job. Although, I'll probably be getting a job since I have to start paying for my counselling sessions at the moment. I'm also transferring universities at the moment and I want to get familiar with the course (timetables, workload, travel, etc). I mean guidance as meaning knowing what decisions are good and bad for you. I feel like I have too many options available. I don't have a dad so I kind of have this romantic idea that people with dads have an easier life as they have good habits ingrained into them from a young age. And if you asked those people when they're older, they may not even consciously understand the importance of that. I could be wrong but that's just a feeling I get. Some examples are, am I studying the right course? What are my passions? How is my mood affected by everyday life? Which friends should I keep? This stuff doesn't seem to come intuitively to me and I actually have quite a low self-esteem because of it. How do those relate together? I'm not sure. I mean, self-esteem should depend upon free will and if there are too many options and it's truly too hard to choose between them, that is not free will but I still feel bad about it anyway. I think that guidance would create a sense of meaning and I think as soon as I get a sense of meaning, maybe the joy from that could 'override' my mood swings to make them seem petty. Sort of like how playing games could override your hunger.

Is it not true that we should be careful about what we say?

I am not really sure if it is mood, but if it is, it's probably subconscious. In fact, whatever this thing is it must be subconscious because I can't tangibly point to a cause. I just guess that it's mood because I do have mood swings from stress, to depression to joy (not bipolar) and I know they are responsible for a lot of other things such as motivation and energy. So I wouldn't be surprised it they sort of taint the atmosphere. Usually, however, I will become depressed and stressed after I see them because of a disappointing encounter rather than the other way around. These mood swings come and go quite suddenly and unexpectantly. I have some degree of control. I realised it helps if I just go outside a bit. Perhaps getting a job would get rid of these petty mood swings. Maybe that's all I need. Some more guidance.

That's true. I get that and I think that has happened to some degree because I find myself talking about things to other people I've already talked about to my SO. But I think the greater problem is that this tends to happen with everyone more or less. It also depends on the time and context. It's sort of hard to predict. Some days I'll have a lot to say with people and other days barely anything at all. I'm really having difficulty figuring out why that is. If I were to bet on it, I would say it's my mood. Getting stuck in some mindset that's hard to see out of. I should probably edit the OP because by relationships I mean in the greater sense of the term. Friends, SO, etc.

Thanks for your response. I can agree that sometimes it is fear of disapproval but not in the way you think it would be! A subtle but important distinction can be made between "fear of disapproval because what you are thinking about saying is true but you have a false self that doesn't like disapproval" OR "fear of disapproval because you don't know what you are thinking about is true or false and you don't want to be naive and say something false that will end up hurting your relationships". I guess the second one is fear of being dishonest more than fear of disapproval, but if people start disapproving you, it's likely that you said something stupid. Now for me, I'd say that I haven't really experienced fear of disapproval in the conventional sense. I think we have to be very careful here because that kind of fear between the conventional sense and unconventional sense is the same kind of emotion. After all, isn't is true that you will start rationalising why something you're going to say is stupid if you have a false self? So they overlap but sometimes it's really true that you should be careful about what you say. But I would say this overlapping thing doesn't really apply to me because I've just gone ahead and said screw it and said stupid things. It took courage but guess what. I find out that what I said was stupid and I get nothing out of it. No relief, no revelations, nothing. In my humble experience, I think not being able to say much is more to do with anhedonia (unable to feel pleasure in things people usually find pleasure in) and the brain's reward system. If I'm not enjoying someone, I feel like no matter what I say, whether it's true or false, personal or not, is wrong. Like it's something I shouldn't have said because it's not meaningful and I got no insight from it and I got no kick or emotion out of it. My theory is that due to false beliefs people create a structure of values and the brain adapts to this structure by rewarding you (with dopamine) when you fulfil them, and even if your beliefs and 'values' in a conceptual sense change, your kind of habitual values embedded in the brain are still the same and you don't feel rewarded for getting what you think should be truly noble and virtuous things. So probably due to a number of things from my childhood or due to the fact that I have been diagnosed with social communication disorder (which means I could be slightly autistic) I've learned to not find joy in relationships. I know what the right thing is to say because I get ideas but I don't feel good about expressing them and I don't understand if they want to hear it. I'm missing that emotional feedback. Now, such an explanation may sound very unphilosophical or deterministic. Like we are robots that can be programmed into finding happiness in certain things just like some kind of drug. But I think it's perfectly compatible with free will and virtue and all those things. As Ayn Rand said, paraphrasing here, valuing unsustainable (anti-UPB, anti-empirical) things will lead to incompatibilities in your value hierarchy which means, in the long run, you won't find joy since you will have conflicting interests. For example, I shouldn't learn to love eating cake every day because I also want to be healthy. If I don't stay healthy I'm going to die and no organism wants to die. I hear Stefan say that the 'true self' knows everything but the 'false self' blocks that information but I just don't find this the case in my experience as I have explained. For me, mental health problems fall into the category of holding true beliefs but have some self-defense mechanism or a lack of courage (which is best dealt with in psychodynamic therapy) or holding false beliefs that lead to unjustified and unsustainable emotions (which is best dealt with in CBT. Client-based therapy. And evidence suggests that CBT is very helpful for the short term, which should be expected if you have a bunch of false beliefs to get out of the way to get to the true insecurities). I think underlying problems leads us to start making these false beliefs like starting to love cake and that leads to extra unnecessary problems such as gaining weight for example, and we should first get rid of the false belief of loving cake, and then we can deal with self-defense mechanisms like my parents didn't feed me as a child so now I overeat or some psychoanalytical thing like that. So I would say that for me not being able to speak is just like loving cake and getting fat. I got to start appreciating people more perhaps and rewire my brain, and then I can deal with being lonely as a child which is something else completely and not really to do with not being able to speak to people (i.e. that the self-defense mechanism triggered the development of the belief, but doesn't actually manifest in the belief itself). If I knew exactly how all this worked I wouldn't have asked the question but hopefully, something I said is meaningful in your perspective.

Before we get to free will, can you even give evidence of consciousness through science?

In relationships (Friends, special other, etc) specifically. Is there some defence mechanism?

Will the content be released? It's not a silly question because many of us want to hear the premium content but haven't been willing to make the investment yet for some reason, and if it won't be released it means some of us will get a premium membership now and download everything. If not we'll donate later.