entropyanndroid

By some definitions, virtue is its own reward. In the case of egoistic consideration, one might say it is an expression of sincere Ownness, and as such reinforces the phenomenon of self-ownership subjectively. Consequentially, virtue in oneself reinforces and encourages the virtue of others, by demonstrating the rewards endemic to it. This relationship can be extended further if you're into Idealism or other schools prone to Universal/Absolute thought. The real question is not why one should be virtuous, but how best to be. This requires a coherent theory of virtue: its origin, role and evolution. I myself primarily abide by an Aristotelian understanding of virtue. Each human being is predisposed to strength in some areas of virtue, while being predisposed to weakness in others. The cultivation of any particular virtue at the expense of others invariably leads to the inversion of the virtue thus cultivated. In other words, there can be an excess of particular virtues in particular individuals, which necessarily expresses itself in imbalance in society and other conduct external to the individual.

I would suggest starting with "The Genealogy of Morals", which is one of his earliest and most coherent works. He analyzes Master and Slave moralities as stratified concepts, also exploring various historical accounts and precedents, including the Law of Manu which codified the early caste system in India. From there, I would recommend "Twilight of the Idols", which includes his critique of the effect of Socrates on philosophy, Greece and beyond. If you harbor beliefs similar to Molyneux's you will likely disagree with his assertions but you may find them important for founding a coherent opinion of your own.

I had a similar response in mind. I am reminded of where Hegel touches on "Absolute Freedom and Absolute Terror" in his Phenomenology of Mind/Spirit. Hegel (as he often does) spends a lot more time in this chapter specifying his terms than making any actual arguments. One particular sentence in this section seems to define the thrust of the argument he is getting at, however. Para. 589: Universal freedom can thus produce neither a positive achievement nor a deed; there is left for it only negative action; it is merely the rage and fury of destruction. (Baillie translation, courtesy of Marxists.org) Granted that this is an unflattering view of the phenomenon of universal suffrage as a disjointed appeal to Being-for-Itself (egoistic existence). This is also one of Hegel's earlier works, however, and strongly informed by the subversion of hopes he'd harbored previously regarding the French Revolution. Stirner develops this stream of consciousness a bit further in the second part of The Ego and its Own. What a difference between freedom and ownness! One can get rid of a great many things, one yet does not get rid of all; one becomes free from much, not from everything. (Byington translation, courtesy of TheAnarchistLibrary.org) Here we see the development of Hegel's thoughts on Being, Freedom and other phenomena taken down a more plainly Egoist path towards the distinction between Freedom and Ownness. Freedom as comprehended by the subjective individual (Being-for-Itself) is as difficult to define and realize as Equality and other lofty, absolute ideals. Freedom from what? Freedom of what? Freedom for what or for whom? Some individuals will find their freedom enhanced by binding up the options of others, namely those who more readily identify with the herd. From an Egoist standpoint, at least, we can observe that the only path that leads away from the gordian knot of Leviathan as State is to specify that we wish for that encourages Ownness; that is, the opportunity to be unique individuals, rather than simply members conforming to herds. It can be argued, as might a Nihilist, that life at its core essence is a form of slavery. That life which is least slavish is the one in which there is the best opportunity to exist, contented, as a unique entity, however.

You are not morally obligated to help an injured person, to injure a person, or to abstain from injuring a person. What you do is based off your own personal choice, informed by strategies both conscious and unconscious. The choice to help the injured person indicates a tendency towards cooperative efforts, and the intent to reaffirm a desire for such an arrangement with those with whom you socialize.

Gives new meaning to the phrase "Breathe to please"; similar horror stories are well published in the environ of the Siberian Gulag system. While other prisoners starved slowly by the thousands, some participated in hunger strikes. In a fit of sadistic unlogic, these prisoners were force fed with tubes, much as they are now. Only the State would be allowed to decide who would live, who would die, when and why.

@dsayers It's transmitted to humans from primates. Some quick browsing indicates its treatable in primates even when symptomatic. Most of the classical killers of human beings, such a measles, mumps, rubella, smallpox, etc, have been spread by poor hygiene and close proximity to their food supply at multiple stages of it's lifecycle. Given the state of dire poverty in Africa, the effects of the equatorial climate, and the effects this has on the food available to many that live there, that Ebola can have such a pronounced impact on regional towns and villages is sad but unsurprising.

@LovePrevails Understandable that you would object to his stance on corporal punishment, but considered in the context of the lesson he was teaching in that particular book, it makes a lot more sense. We can talk all day about the limited utility of violence, the moral superiority of voluntary interaction, and the efficacy of consensus, but the story of Starship Troopers is as he sums it up through the mouth of the teacher character, Dubois: "Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst." Starship Troopers is a work of art, with this sentence comprising the heart of it. As an artist, Heinlein works not only with the explicit statement, though, but with what is implied through it. Violence has been the tool used to settle a great many memorable disputes, which is natural given how thoroughly hardwired it is into the more animalistic part of us. What is the result? Even with such amazing knowledge and technology as we and our ancestors have acquired, we remain mired in a set of illusions that continue to inform much of our behavior. Consider, for instance, the story of Starship Troopers; a corrupt, fascistic government rules humanity's interstellar civilization, sending foot soldiers to fight the "arachnids", the height of martial folly. Heinlein was no fool, he was well read in rocket and nuclear science, and would have known that the better way of fighting an interplanetary and interstellar conflict is to use torchships and unmanned missile-buses to eliminate the threat. If you have the opportunity, I'd recommend sifting through RHO Project's "Atomic Rockets" section, which credits Heinlein specifically with inspiring the owner to provide a resource to writers wishing to turn the clock of Science Fiction back to the days when authors more or less understood the science they wished to use as a touchstone. So with Starship Troopers as Heinlein's subtle horror story, we are presented with the opportunity to turn fresh eyes on "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"; the characters of "Starship Troopers" struggle to learn the hard way of having failed to overcome violence with their own strategies, becoming mired in it. The characters of "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" are in a better position, with the would-be revolutionaries taking advantage of existing technologies (as well as their limitations) to foment a revolution on their own terms. Heinlein was a criticalist (among other things), so the world, the protagonists, their actions, and the resulting consequences are all imperfect. Nevertheless, the characters do pretty well for themselves by figuring out what they want, taking a risk, and getting it...and they accomplish it largely through the application of soft power.

>Be disease >Try to spread far and wide, quickly >Over do it, kill hosts in process, quickly >Outbreak fails, I die out >MFW Common Cold flourishes >MFW I have no face Seriously though, being a killer or permanently disabling disease is a terrible evolutionary strategy. A "smart" germ presents a minor, occasional nuisance, or no symptoms at all, like colds, flu, athletes foot and gut flora. Ebola is not a very smart disease.

I mostly came to my conclusions on my own, though I can't say I didn't have my influences. Some of Molyneux's videos certainly informed my opinions, as did my reading of various works, expressly philosophical and not. My own childhood household was better than most, though still touched with the same psychosis that has tinged the larger society since the beginning. I don't mind labels, I simply choose to give them no or little power over me. As far as anarchism and atheism, while they do indeed affirm the normality of the psychoses they seek to negate, they more connote little more than this negation. This is not to say that negation is of no value; far from it, as the primary order of business in examining any phenomenon is to negate it, then observe what emerges seemingly ex nihlio. Atheism and anarchism can only ever be popularized as components of a positive ideology (such as Agorism), then, as what matters is less the negation but what emerges from it.

Greetings. I've long been a listener of Molyneux's shows, but have handily avoided posting on these boards until now. As is the case with many of you, I am an avid fan of philosophy, psychology and economics. I have a strong grounding in the Austrian School and related traditions, as well as having read most of the better English translations of Friedrich Nietzsche's works. Most recently, I read and enjoyed the work of Max Stirner, which prompted me to eschew the opinions Schopenhauer, Mises and Rothbard had of the much maligned G.W.F. Hegel and read some of his work for myself. I am an anarchist, as most here are, as well as an atheist. I find such self descriptions rather impractical, however, as they merely describe those concepts which I have negated for myself. More important is what one affirms, and for me that would be a form of Egoism. I enjoy philosophical discourse, though beyond that I am also a fan of video-games, some literature, and various scientific subjects.