Mole

I'm looking for the name of an amateur libertarian film. It's about an old aged man who's obssesed with the looks of a young, teenage girl. He hires a teenage private detective to follow her, and to see if her looks match her personality. The two teenagers become friends. The detective wears a shirt with Hans Hermann Hoppe on it, you'll see that in the trailer. Later on, the detective finds out the girl is an altruist, loves to get drunk, etc. The old aged man is disappointed. Film probably made between 2012-2015. Made somewhere in USA. Movie is free on youtube somewhere. Amateur film but really enjoyable. Thanks! Found it. Artifacts of idealism (2012). Enjoy!

What if there is no such thing as genetic beauty? Rather, it's a social construct. I mean, what evolutionary purpose is there for genetic beauty? Health, hormones and age are the only thing I can understand in regards to beauty which isn't usually to do with genetics. Personally, sometimes I find 'ugly' girls rather attractive, it can even be exotic. Many girls share similar facial features and that can definitely be attractive. If it really is the case that our sense of genetic beauty is a social construct, then make-up would only distort health, hormone levels and age, and that I find rather important information. Information that is important for a relationship. With age comes wisdom and experience. With health comes discipline. With hormones comes suitability and needs. It's rather obvious, for example, that make-up does make a girl look as if they are constantly horny. Sure it turns guys on, but that's beyond just aesthetics. That, I would think, would have some kind of impact on perception and morals. If genetic beauty does exist, though, then I find no problem with make-up because genetic beauty cannot be controlled so it really has no important information for a relationship. EDIT: Okay maybe not literally a social construct, but not as relevant as people think, perhaps.

It's generally agreed by Australians that, while that holiday to Canada or USA was nice, it's bloody good to be home.

I'm far more concerned with the reasons why people are voting rather than who gets in power. Politicians make a living off brainwashed people. While Trump may seem like a step in the right direction, it's useless if people are voting for him because they are ideologically right leaning. If this is the case, Trump is simply justifying a step towards a right-leaning government and not towards rational discourse and anarcho-capitalist badassery.

This is the best analogy I've ever heard, ever for anything. It's perfectly accurate, enlightening and relatable. I agree with you 100%.

I see, I misunderstood, sorry about that. I think I see what you mean now. sorry, perhaps I should say the ability to change rather than control. I'm not quite sure if I understand your third response and maybe that also the reason that I don't understand how it relates to what I said. I don't know what power means. I'm not sure if male and female attractive features are really comparable. I'm very young and not rich, and I find girls around my age attractive. Should I think that since she has 'power over me' that she doesn't find me attractive because I'm young and not rich? I don't think that's very comparable. The attractiveness metre for women cannot be applied to men, in my opinion. I can only understand you insofar that in some subcultures in society, women have a lot of power for being beautiful young prostitutes, gold diggers, 'manthers' etc and the men have power for being rich and taking all these women. Other than that I don't know what you mean by power. If you measuring sexual attraction, then again, I would say that the measurement between men and women is not comparable. Intention is a result?? Do you mean intention is the expected result? Because obviously intent exists before the action occurs. Her intention is not just the expected result, though, it is also the process. Behind all behaviour exists intention for that particular behaviour. If I steal cash from a bank, it was both my intention to steal and also my intention to have cash. But strictly within the bounds of the moral behaviour, which in this case is theft, my intention was to steal, no more no less. So, when I'm speaking about makeup as a form of lying, and talk about her not having the intention to manipulate you, I'm speaking strictly within the bounds of that behaviour, namely the behaviour being lying and the intention being the intention to lie. If she did it 'in order to get something else of out me' (assuming, that she wouldn't have gotten if she was being honest), then she must have intended to lie since she's fully conscious of why she's doing it and how she's not being honest, and why she needs to not be honest, i.e. lie. I understand that you are trying to make it as if manipulation is a means to an end, but if she has an intention to lie, within the bounds of her intention to lie, manipulation is an end, and not a means. I guess what I'm trying to say is, don't confuse what would be intention with one set of ends and means with another set of ends and means. Hopefully, I make sense, because it's actually a big mistake many thinkers make. Applying things beyond the bounds that are required for the thing to exist, so to speak.

It's true a man likes the beauty of a woman, but I think he likes it whether it's genetic or not. That liking is instinctive. If a man truly does not like makeup, he would literally see women who wear makeup as ugly, yet it doesn't. What a man likes is out of his control. His instinctive liking and moral judgment are very different. What he likes about a woman in a moral sense or more precisely, what he admires about a woman is not her beauty, but the effort she puts into her beauty. A man cannot control his instinctive nature, likewise, a woman cannot control her genetics. I think you are conflating moral judgement and instinctive desire. When people actually go out and date, they should value the person for the things they can control, not the things they cannot. Beauty is something a woman CAN control. It doesn't matter if it's genetic or not. A moral man doesn't care about her genetics since that is out of her control. So why is it manipulation? Why is it lying if she's not pretending to have virtues she doesn't possess. Her intention is probably not to manipulate you. Her intention is to make you feel good, because you're a man, and men like pretty things, and she knows that's not in your control.

Why is it bad to use makeup to seem more attractive than you actually are? My whole argument is trying to oppose this claim. I think there is a moral difference between the workplace and dating. Imagine you are living in the 1700's aristocracy, you are expected to wear makeup, but you have the same views about makeup as you do now. I would think you would still wear makeup because the repercussions are too huge. In such a situation, not wearing makeup would be a sign of courage, while wearing makeup in the dating scene today could be a sign of cowardice. Same could be applied to the workplace. Not wearing makeup would be a sign of courage, so you can't really say that a woman wearing makeup in the workplace would be a vice. She could just be worried about repercussions. Same could be said about weddings. The peer pressure is just too huge. In addition to all this, one could argue that, especially if you are dealing with customers, the workplace is much like reality television. The workplace is not a place for dating, therefore it's not appropriate to say that you would be tricking men. People wear makeup on reality television for obvious reasons. It makes the show nicer to watch, nobody is expecting to get a date from an X Factor contestant. All of this, of course, assumes makeup is bad for a relationship or in the dating scene, which I also question. I'd like to add an insight to the conversation that I had thought about yesterday when actually asking a teenage girl for her opinion. It's very important when speaking to people, especially women about this issue to not conflate THEIR behaviour with lying. If a medieval doctor does not know his leeches are hurting his patients, he has not committed assault. Likewise, if a woman does not know the consequences of makeup, she is not lying. Indeed, it is our obligation to teach them why it is a form of lying, if we believe so, but not to accuse them of it. Unfortunately, Iv'e only realised now, when you actually talk to women about this issue, they take deep offense because they assume that you are judging their intentions, while you are actually judging the consenquences of their actions. Indeed, this is what most people think as soon as you bring up any moral topic. People generally don't know we are living in a matrix where right is wrong, so when you show them why right is wrong, they think you are insisting they are wrong. That they have nefarious aims. But that is not true. So, as I have learned, and I really wish I was more empathetic to see this earlier, I think it's important to point this out when you are talking to a woman about this topic. Desite all of this, remember that men are the other side of the same coin. If it is not virtuous for a woman to wear makeup, it must also not be virtuous for a man to fall for it, since we are talking about voluntary relationships. I still hold that makeup is not a form of lying, and while it may 'trick' a man's senses, that is not the same as actually manipulating a man's moral judgement. I still hold that makeup is morally equivalent to a man grooming his facial hair. The only moral judgement that should be made about a woman or man wearing makeup or grooming their facial hair is to appreciate that they are trying to do something nice for you. Other than that, it does not say anything about their virtues. And if a woman does not wear makeup, similarly, you can only judge her insofar as you don't appreciate the fact that she doesn't really care to make herself look good for you (unless she has some moral belief from religion or indeed, from freedomain radio), and it does not speak at all about any other virtues. To conclude, a good man does not care about the genetic aesthetics of a woman since it does not speak about her virtue, therefore makeup is not a form of lying since it does not emulate any virtues. Furthermore, it could be argued that makeup is virtuous insofar as it being a kind of self-grooming. With self-grooming being a positive thing simply because people find it aesthetically pleasing, from an evolutionary standpoint. It does not need any other reason to be a virtue. It's similar to having regular physical contact in a relationship. It is only rational because we have unchangeable instinctive desires. It has nothing to do with future planning. And perhaps some people are instinctively aromatic, and we should not judge those people for not wearing makeup. I guess makeup can then be seen as a sort of indicator of one's own instinctive drives, which is totally subjective. So perhaps we should not generally judge women for wearing makeup, which indeed most people don't. Most of the time the response I get from a woman is "They can do it if they want, I'm not them, I don't care, do you really want to date an ugly woman?". There might actually be something to it, but I was unempathetic to see it at the time.

But the difference between make-up and say, renting a sports car is that having the wealth for a sports car describes virtues greater than just taking care of yourself. Yes, it's trickery but it's not lying because a man's instincts is not a rational judgment. Men trick themselves when they watch videos on the internet. Why should a man expect a woman to not be wearing makeup? If women really wanted to trick men, they would say they it's all natural. Think about the intent, accusing women of lying says something about their moral character which isn't true for most women, even though they wear makeup. The reason why men care about a woman's looks is because they appreciate the effort they go through so they can feel a bit better instinctually. Nothing more nothing less. That can't be said about wealth.

Shaving does not say much about a woman's virtue other than she puts effort into being aesthetically pleasing. An argument could be made that men ought to judge women insofar as they put effort into their makeup, the same way they put effort into shaving, for example. It should follow that, a man should not see makeup as manipulation, since he does not judge her on the virtue of her genetic aesthetics. Just like how a man should not judge a woman by how naturally hairy her armpits are because that is obviously out of her control. Since there's moral value in genetic aesthetics, then there should be nothing to lie about, since lying is pretending to have moral values that don't in fact exist. You might object by saying then, what's the point of makeup if all that it will do is attract bad men? Isn't it an indicator that you want to attract bad men who judge women upon their genetic aesthetics? Well, perhaps those 'bad men' are not judging her on her genetic aesthetics at all, and rather are appreciating the effort she put into her makeup. It is said that makeup can make any girl look good, and the uglier you are, the more you should do. So I would say that many men, perhaps most men even, don't appreciate to see ugly women because it shows they are not taking care of themselves. Why such a concern about makeup? Because it makes people feel good. Yes, it does make women make more fertile, and yes, that arouses men. There's not much we can do about changing our instincts so what is wrong with catering to it? Also, it's hard to think of makeup as lying since there's no rational thought in a man's mind when he sees a woman. It's all instinct. A man does not critically evaluate the appearance of a woman based on some criteria, rather he just has some kind of feelings. I guess you're tricking the instincts of a man while wearing makeup, but men do this to themselves when they lock the door and y'know and they are fully aware of it. It's not like if a man knew about this 'manipulation' that suddenly he'll see the woman as utterly disgusting. It's fundamental to art that we have this ability to trick our instincts. It's not the same as manipulating a rational agent. It could be argued that men renting sports cars is a morally different since gaining wealth requires so many more virtues like discipline and assertiveness. In that sense, a man would be lying about the virtues he possesses. But regardless, perhaps men should spend money on women simply because it makes them feel good, in small ways that wouldn't hinder on any perception on virtue. And guess what? That's exactly what men do! I.e. paying for the first date. Since these aesthetics are all evaluated subjectively, perhaps it should be left as such that people may express themselves upon how they feel about what is pleasing. That seems to be exactly the state we are in now. A man does not care to clean his room because he does not feel much about it. For a woman, it is generally Vice Versa. It has nothing to do with rational planning for some future, that itself requires some kind of motivation. Perhaps a man should date a girl who wears makeup solely if it makes him feel good. What's the limit? Perhaps the limit is the point where makeup gets in the way of her other virtues, like how the gym can get in the way of work for a man. In the future, should people be able to choose designer masks that are ultra-realistic? Perhaps. Perhaps it'll be seen like another piece of clothing. What should a good man do? Don't worry about her looks but enjoy them while you can, and only care insofar as you can appreciate the effort she puts into making you feel good. And stay away from girls who wear way too much all the time. They are really the viscous ones. I think this is what most women would think about makeup. Even if you think makeup is wrong. You must admit that most girls have been misled, they aren't trying to suck your resources. Morality is all about intention. Actually, maybe we can make that a good rule of thumb and say makeup is not because simply for the fact that women don't intent to manipulate. Maybe that rule of thumb can be used for other things too... interesting. It's all about human nature. People just like things because it's their human nature. Because of human nature, men got off the titanic last. It's far too traumatising for women to go through the experience of barely surviving. It's simply because their evolutionarily not used to a situation like that. Nothing wrong with it. You may say how can you say a man's life is not precious. Well, how can you say anyone's life is more precious? In times like that you treat every life equally, and judge upon survivability. I'd really like to hear some responses and I apologise if I haven't been clear. Feel free to ask questions.

Anywhere around the city is fine. That includes the suburbs, but as you go further out things start to become quite foreign. I think it depends on where you go. Some places in the outback have a high population of redback spiders, some others of snakes. Go to the Northern Territory and you might see dingos. Plenty kangaroos in the outback, jumping around golf courses. But I have been to places as a child where I could freely roam around in the bush never encountering any snakes or dangerous spiders. The only problem there was bull ants. I think if anyone comes to Australia, they should be fine in the city. I mean, it literally does not affect you in any way in and around the city. But if you go to the outback, or even some further away suburbs, you probably want to check online or with the council about any dangers in the area. I've been fenced off from these dangers almost my whole life, so I don't know much about it in all honesty. The only things that I encounter in my backyard are pigeons, snails, cockroaches, mice, preying mantis, meat flies, worms, earwigs, daddy long legs, small ants, seagulls, small lizards, the neighbours' cats, the usual lot. Once in a while some native birds. Nothing that could harm you. As for the beach, sometimes there are actually sharks. Funny story, my auntie came down under and she hadn't seen the Aussie beach her whole life. As soon as she started going there, she saw a shark in the water and it went on local news. This is right next to the city, an extremely rare event. I certainly have seen nothing like it. I've been stung by a jellyfish once, but that's it.

I live in Melbourne, Australia, which is deemed the most livable country in the world. I guess that means we are the best city in the world, right? Well, things do run very smoothly here and people are normal, but it really depends who you are. Anywhere can be hell or heaven.

I guess the problem with praxeology is that it fails to recognise that every action is subject to some kind of expected gratification. We could even go as far to say that with gratification is something that we cannot transcend. While I'd like to save my money at the moment, I save it, not to defer my gratification, but because I actually feel a sense of gratification for saving my money. That particular kind of gratification which exists without any materialistic benefit could have two causes. Either it is evolutionary, meaning our brain rewards us for saving as a built-in evolutionary instinct. Or it could be due to something we teach ourselves through our rational faculty. That is, examining the world through our senses and teaching ourselves what is good for us. As I mentioned earlier, if it is true that we necessarily act out of gratification, it would mean that acting out of some principle you give yourself, through your rational faculty, would require practise and would have to become a habit. This makes intuitive sense. We know the brain creates neural networks which can strengthen over time, and we also know how hard it is for addicts to quit. However, the line between evolutionary instinct and rational faculty may not be distinct. Indeed, the rational faculty itself is a product of evolution. Most likely our rational faculty is limited to our knowledge, and the more we learn, and practise, the easier it is to take courses of human action that follow a principle we have given ourselves. It's probably impossible to ever imagine a scenario in which all our actions are thought out, carefully planned, rationalised. The rational faculty was designed to recognise patterns in objective reality and never to define man's ends. Rather than seeing the rational faculty as an artier of man's action, we should see it as a means itself. The rational faculty does not recognise principle. It is actually the unconscious that recognises principle. The rational faculty just recognise the patterns to enable us to make our own principles. So it is not the rational faculty that defines a man. It is more the aggregation of his habits, both in his principle and in his human nature. 1. Human action is employing a means 2. Attaining an end is a human action. 3. Therefore attaining an end is employing a means. Would it be fair to say that every end is an intermediate end, being employed for the attainment of one ultimate end? Mises has mentioned this ultimate end so I'm not making this up. This is irrational on couple levels. First of all, why would man attempt to attain an end he cannot attain? For as long as humans act, this ultimate end should exist. Mises describes means in this way; "A thing becomes a means when human reason plans to employ it for the attainment of some end." It should follow then, that every end is a means, and means are planned to be employed, and so every human action (which is the actual employment of means) to employ an 'end' should be rational. Secondly, since humans start acting at the time they start existing, by this logic, we would have rationalised this ultimate end while we were infants in our mother's womb. There may be some truth in this; that man is an end in himself, and perhaps we all unconsciously know this. But even if an infant holds this as an instinct, it's not something that they rationalised from their senses. Thirdly, if attaining an end is employing a means, then employing a means is attaining an end. This reduces our human action to spontaneous accomplishment. Most likely, I think Mises was wrong about this ultimate end. I don't think attaining an end is a human action. To describe any action, there exists a given end and a given means. If I walk to my car, my end is being at my car; my means is opening a door and walking. So my human action is, exclusively opening a door and walking. Being at my car isn't neccesarily a human action!! Because being at my car is just one step in my means to get to work. And a means can only be described fully. Walking half way to my car is not my means, it is the full thing. Likewise, just being at my car is not the full human action, rather driving to work is the full human action. In this way, once an end is attained, it does not mean that the end is employing a mean because the end is usually just a small part of employing a greater means. This allows for future ends to be constantly changing, also remember that ends are ultimited while means are scarse. I really thing there isn't an ultimate end and Mises was wrong about that.

Do you mean value or benefit? Benefit = value - cost. How can dV < 0 if dV describes a change in a value? It's like saying negative time or negative length. If I have 100, then 50. The change is 50. If I have 100 then 150, the change is still 50. dVt cannot < 0.

Praxeology would say yes. Evil is purposeful behaviour. Purposeful behaviour is human action. Human action, as opposed to reaction, is always rational.

"Let us look at three actions, to help us further distinguish between ethics and aesthetics. The first action is irrationality; the second is lying; the third is murder." - UPB p. 48. This sentence implies action can be irrational. "every human action – including making philosophical statements – is chosen in preference to every other possible action" - UPB p. 33 If every human action is chosen in preference, then every human action is purposeful. According to praxeology, human action, as opposed to reaction, is purposeful behaviour. Praxeology differentiates action from reaction because it also states that human action is always rational. But that contradicts with p. 48 of UPB which states that action can be irrational. The only way to defend both uses of the word 'action' would be to believe that purposeful behaviour can be irrational, and praxeology is wrong in this regard. But isn't purpose the product of the rational faculty? I would think that irrational behaviour would be a product of external forces such as human instinct, emotion or the environment all of which can't recognise universal principles and logic. Does page 48 include reactions in its sense of action while page 33 doesn't? Also if you could help me understand the difference between behaviour and action that would be great. Thanks!

Wow! What a great post! Thank you so much. Being a young guy this will definitely help me out. I can respect that you have had some experience in your years. You have pretty much answered my worries. I can see this topic from a much clearer and grounded perspective now. Yes, we can learn to understand each other. Love grows over time, and also can understanding. I mean even at a superficial level you won't come to understand things about a person unless they tell you such as occupation, etc. But what you come to understand are things that you can really appreciate and which are real. I would also like to say that I think many people, especially young, follow cultural practices rather than philosophy. So that can be a barrier to communication which would need to be studied to be understood. I heard Stef say on a show that in Japan yellow umbrella people follow others in order to shame them. I doubt something like this would occur in a philosophically mature society. So, it's not like we can understand people straight away but it's not inevitable that we won't or will never understand them. In life things are progressive. Everything takes labour and labour takes time. I think if I want to understand others around me I should be more patient, go step by step and have starting places and as I get older I will have a solid foundation for my relationships. Again, thank you so much. I wish I could upvote this but I'm not exactly sure how.

I guess I'm just a bit worried about it. I mean could the Japanese person come to change their perspective about Americans in your example? If we all learn these expressions from others, how can we actually completely ever understand others? Is intimacy just sharing a similar history? A huge amount of the time I don't find others funny. I don't know what's behind that. Is it my personality or is it my understanding of the world.

Great response. I did quite a lot of mental gymnastics in my post but your post is consistent. Thanks.

Is expression objective? This is a personal question for me. Living in Melbourne, Australia the demographics are extremely multicultural. I always knew that I find it hard to express myself to others. I have never gotten along very well with people. But I didn't know exactly what was interrupting me. I thought more about what it means to communicate, and what it means, to be honest, yourself, and how to have friendships and not just classmates. Recently I've been reading articles and watching video on social constructionism and I guess that's what sparks my question. I definitely don't agree with social constructionism but as this question is rather personal, it's more of a priority that I understand the true reality of my situation. There are two perspectives to this question that I can think of... 1. Our expressions are interpreted as a subjective reality depending on earlier experiences. In one culture the colour pink is masculine, so when using pink to express yourself, misunderstanding is inevitable. This same inevitability is true with all communication since we all have different past experiences. Therefore, it's impossible to make judgements about people and their virtues as what is virtuous in their reality is different to our own. 2. Expressions are learned from objective reality and so they are universal. While the colour pink may be a masculine colour in another culture, that is appreciated and understood by members of different cultures. While the colour pink being a masculine colour is a social construct, masculinity is not. Fundamentally, our understanding of our reality must be objective for there to be some kind of standard set between people when they communicate. While cultures, personalities and sexes are different, their differences are understood objectively. For example, Australians can be described as more cynical of authority than Americans, but Americans can be described as being more cynical to authority than the Japanese. Just because Australians don't see Americans as cynical but the Japanese do, that doesn't mean that there are separate realities that exist in which one reality Americans are cynical and in the other they aren't. Both the Japanese and Australian perspective is factual. Their cognitive interpretations are the same even though they use different language to define Americans. They are both observing objective reality and understand it for what it really is if they are rational. The difference in languages might be pointed to as a proof that expression is a social construct. The purpose of an expression is an action of making known one's thoughts or feelings. This must have some medium in reality to exist. The medium is different between cultures, but that does not mean that if people use different mediums they will misinterpret each other. If I speak Mandarin to an Englishman, we will still understand the same reality being that he cannot understand what I'm saying. Honesty is what is important and thankfully it a universal value. As long as both parties hold honesty as a value, they will be able to communicate without misinterpreting. Their communication will be simple, hand gestures, the tone of voice, handshake, etc. But they still understand each other completely and so a real relationship that exists objectively can be formed. People's sense of humour is different, although the humour is the same artefact for everyone. A curry is still a curry. While I might not find another person very funny I have not misunderstood their joke. Since animals are also capable of communication, they also understand our expressions objectively. They may not be capable of virtue or responsibility but they can understand a humans affections and pains and empathise with it to a degree. Dogs are arguably best at empathising with humans. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The second proposition sounds nice. But it leaves us with the problem of why are situations awkward? An awkward conversation implies a failure to communicate. The only possible answer I can give is that it's the same reason why people become 'aromantic' or 'gender-fluid'. It's a form of anxiety control and it is dishonest. Cultures can hold forms of communication that can never be understood by outsiders in the same way that violence as a form of communication can never be understood by people who weren't subjected to it at an early age. Expressions are a mix of objectivity, honesty, and subjectivity, trauma. Don't get me wrong. I've had many friends from ethnicities and cultures other than my own. In fact, I'd say it is the majority of my friends. I'm really thankful for being their friends. But sometimes I have trouble meeting people from other ethnicities. A certain ethnicity more than others, but I won't mention it here. Sometimes I wonder what is it that I'm doing wrong? How can I have a meaningful conversation with this person? Of course, I could be doing something wrong, but why do I have problems only with this particular group? I've come to a thought that some cultures traumatise more than others, and as a result, they have anxiety control built into their culture. And I perhaps some people, especially sociologists, see this aspect of cultures and believe that it is the whole of cultures. A person of a specific culture might have a nihilistic attitude towards the world which he can express within his own culture but cannot express in other cultures since nihilism is not a universal value but a result of trauma. Only boxers box. Another example is in group preferences. The caste system in India. While honesty is objective, the kind of trauma and way of dealing with it is subjective. It's just that the people in a certain group were subjected to a similar form of trauma and therefore can communicate through that trauma to a definitive extent. They only understand each other to an extent but far more to an extent than those who were never subjected to it. Since the human connection is based upon understanding, it makes them much happier in the short term to be with other traumatised people than to be with those who have really no relation to them. In the long term, of course, it is best to confront the trauma and start communicating to people in an honest way. Going back to animals, perhaps we love them so much because they are generally not subject to trauma the way humans are. When I look at my cat I see something real. I feel empathetic towards the cat. I see an essence about her, not as a cat, there are many different kinds of cats, but as an individual. I think many pet owners can agree. Humanity has a dysfunctional history. Empires were built and destroyed. Infant mortality was extremely high in the past. It is only really before the state that dysfunction didn't systematically exist. Can an animal's history be called dysfunctional? Rarely ever in the wild, even though they are subject to predators. It's just a thought, I mean there could be very happy people within those groups that really do express in a way I can't relate to. I always try to work on myself and not just blame others and try to see what I'm doing wrong. But what do you think? What's the best way to deal with the world when it gives you awkwardness and dullness? Thanks.

I have just woken up to a really fascinating dream and I think there's potentially a lot to it. There's a lot of interesting elements that complete it as it delves into the nature of political power. Perhaps people can help me about what it means? I had woken up when the sun was out and had a dream about losing my bag with my phone at a market with my school mates before this dream. I fell back asleep. I was sitting on the first row of white pews for the lack of a better word, similar to the rows of seats you would see at a stadium but not as many seats and they weren't retractable. Only about 4 rows or so each towering above the one in front. We were inside a massive hall so big that the roof seemed non-existent. The place was completely lit up except for the details of the halls architecture as it was unimportant. I didn't care for the source of light. I was with my high school class peers but I distinctly remember only two being of my class friends being present (I am finishing year 12 right now and we have finished our last classes so I won't be seeing them at school ever again except for the one friend who I talk to in the dream when we do our chemistry exam). We were wearing casual clothes. I think I was wearing shorts. Opposite of the pews was another set of pews facing towards us. Between us laid a 10 metre wide green carpet than ran down the lane of pews to somewhere which I had not seen. In those pews were famous names. Right opposite of me was the royal family. Queen Elizabeth, Prince Phillip, etc. I assume Kate Middleton was there too. Next to them further down were politicians, intellectuals and powerful men. They all had light colourful clothes. Light blue shirts, light green shirts, etc. The men wore trousers. Some of them were making a fuss and having conversations but the royal family were silent and unified. We were located in some place in Melbourne, Australia which is my home city. Someone was making an announcement into a microphone at the end of the carpet which I never glanced towards. I didn't hear exactly what they were speaking about but I knew to stand up as everyone else was. There was slow patriotic music playing over the speaker. Everyone held their heart with their right hand and took a bow then made a flourishing gesture with both hands. I played along to fit in but I had no idea what we were making allegiance to. To me it didn't exist and it felt a little uncomfortable. We sat back down and I looked right down the pews and saw Ronald Reagan standing up making a fuss. A minute or two later my class stood up because we were about to leave the hall. My friend stood beside me and I mentioned the famous people and said, "You know, I know the names of all those people who were sitting opposite to us". He was bewildered and said "Oh reallllly?". It seemed to me that he had no idea who any one of those people were, even the queen! Then I left the hall and saw my other friend running around the place but I had no conversation with him. There were no girls, It's an all boys school. I exited the hall through the mist of the crowd not paying attention to any faces and walked to the outside to the side of the hall where there was a simple concrete building with glass panels that ran down one side above the waist and a glass door next to those glass panels. I entered inside and inside was a lounge. Simply a square room with a round table with chairs in the middle slightly off to the top right corner and I assume there was a coffee maker and snacks on the other table in the corner. There were also black couches for leisure. The room was pretty busy, many people were having conversations. In the room were many of the famous people whom were mostly chatting with us mortals having interviews and so forth. The atmosphere was very casual but busy. I entered and looked around eagerly. To my left was a couch a metre away from the wall with the glass panels and it was left to the door facing roughly towards the centre of the room. On it was an unoccupied black man (I'm european) turned away from me sitting on one of the cushions closest to me. He wore a fine business suit. I walked around and glimpsed at him and looked at the clip board which had the name "BEN CARSON" and it had extra sheets of paper for writing. I didn't need it, I put it on the other cushion and sat down next to him. I said "Hey! Ben Carson?". He smiled and calmly said "Hello". He spoke very calmly and clearly throughout. I asked him how his career was going to grease up the wheels. I can't remember exactly what he said as it was of little importance to me. We then went on and then came the moment. I said, "What do you think about libertarianism, you know neoliberalism. I know it's rather popular in the United States". He said, "Well, what does it have to do with politics?". It sounded to me that he was asserting that we need a robust political system to keep integrity and that libertarianism is loosey goosey and could never be established. Perhaps that's not what he really meant. Perhaps he was saying that all he cares about is power so he does what he can to attain power. I too was assertive. I closed my eyes in concentration and said, "Politics is a branch of philosophy concerned with the way that human behaviour is organised. Libertarian theory simply is that human behaviour is organised such that all relations are voluntary". I gulped on that last word. During the time I had said that I was trying to keep my eyes open but I just couldn't open them. I forced them open with my fingers but they only stayed open for a second and I made no eye contact with him during these two sentences. After I had said that my eyes opened and a girl about the same age as me (18) sat down on the other cushion so now all the cushions were occupied and I was in the middle. Ben Carson went on talking but I was distracted because the girl was pushing on my legs and sat strangely close. I never made eye contact with her. I saw Ben leaving with a friendly expression on his face that I should follow him so I did follow him and left the girl to sit alone. I followed Ben outside and he then turned to me and made a joke. I couldn't register it but he mentioned "Atlas Shagged" at the end and so we both laughed. We walked side by side and I mentioned Atlas Shrugged and told him it's a book he MUST read and that it is pinnacle to libertarianism. I said this despite never reading the book myself but I knew it was the most popular of Ayn Rand's books. I had just read some of The Fountainhead. We walked down the main street which I was familiar with. The sun was setting, it was about 7pm. The sky was turning orange and the restaurants had their fire lamps on. He mumbled "What are we going to do?" and I said "don't worry, we will be best friends". We both laughed. I took out a skate board. The footpaths were empty so he pushed me while I was on my skate board and I went super fast. Faster than I could go just by pushing with my legs. I stopped and skated back towards him. I only saw one pedestrian. At first I thought it was my friend whom I had not spoken to but as I got closer and he got closer I realised it was a short, skinny brown guy with dreadlocks. His eyes were wide open and he wore a colourful singlet. He pace was fast and he had an abnormal walk. It wasn't aggressive but just abnormal. He walked past us. I skated back and forth a couple times and then we passed an small anglican church that was amongst the shops and restaurants. He said "hold on" and I saw him enter the church assuming he's going in for the prayer. I waited patiently outside. Then I woke up. So I thought this dream was really fascinating as it delved into the nature of a politician and it had a little to do about me as well. I think what he said about libertarianism is very interesting. It is to do with fatherlessness? What do you think about it?

I watched the video cost vs benifits and I understood how ideologies that tell people what to do rather than what not to do should not be introduced into. The government seems like the only thing that must exist for violence to exist at a constant, for political power is the capacity to initiate violence. In realm of virtue we should tell ourselves what to do, not only what not to do otherwise there is no virtue. I'm finding it tough to say force which is pointing guns at people is the axis of immorality. So we know how to be morally neutral. It begs the question, how do we be moral? Of course we can give ourselves principles in life to follow which follow reason, it would be nice to think the rest is love, but as defined by Stefan, love is the involuntary reaction to virtue so this is circular. The benefits are completely subjective. I guess religion, politics etc are semantic to subconsciousness and violence. I don't think objectivism can be used in any way with virtue and we have to go with costs vs benifits which are subjective. Philosophy in a free society would only needed to be used to have principles to follow in your own life to be as honest as you possibly can. What is the honest truth?

Remember I'm only 17 years old. I go to an all boys school, I'm also rather socially inept for my age. I don't want to have sex with her, I'm a virgin. I'm far from an alpha male. I met two girls yesterday for the first time with my friend, in fact it's the first time Iv'e had a friend who's a girl since primary school. She didn't cry but she was having mood swings within the day and she just shared with us some of her family history. She's been to therapists but says they are bad, I'm really just trying to help her because Iv'e heard these really great statistics and theories of relationships from well, about everything from this podcast I guess. Perhaps I'm raising the wrong question.

So I met a girl yesterday, I'm 17 and she's 18. She's had an abusive family background and now she's depressed. She says that she can't find a good therapist so I thought it would be helpful to share some self knowledge material with her. These situations are a massive test to your own empathy because you need to be careful that you don't offend them or worse naively say something disrespectful. She said to me she doesn't want to talk about her past because it causes bad emotions and shes perfectly fine going on by herself, assuming that I have nothing particularly valuable to share with her. There isn't much you can do when someone denies you. Such situations are the worse when someone says "Ignorance is bliss", which is the pinnacle of denialism (I'm strictly talking about people who use it as an excuse for not taking responsibility, as the statement could be true in other cases) . Not only is it self defeating but even worse their denying its own proof of its self defeat to themselves. My question is what is a strategy plan we can use to show people we have something of value when they are denying communication?

My thoughts are that it is the job of parents to shape the identity of there children and if that is the case then the family truly is the biggest influence on a persons identity. If a carer is not active in the persons childhood then culture and peers will shape the persons identity. Culture is a constant, so if parents decide to not be active then generally depending on where they are situated they will be blended into that. What are some ideas? I am doing an essay tomorrow for English about this. Some of my ideas and questions: Is identity formed only in childhood? If the parents are not active and culture creates the identity of the child is family still the biggest influence because it was there decision to not be active? Without relationships, identity doesn't exist What is learned from family? Such as empathy etc... Are factors like language and knowledge from the outside world for work or whatever important concerning our identity? Thank you so much! Sorry, is it possible to move this to self knowledge?