Jot

You said that it has a property and I asked you what property...name that property. What do you mean by our reality? Is not there only one reality? Is not this reality objective and universal?

I do not see how that "as we know it" saves you here. Reality = the state or quality of being real. Naturally, anything outside of the category of reality is not real. The laws of reality a.k.a the laws of logic do not need empirical verification to determine what can be real and what cannot.

If something is outside of reality it is not real.

I think they do not believe the concept of God is inherently contradictory.

What would be wrong about saying that we have some degree of freedom instead of some degree of slavery? Are not those equivalent?

It is important that we work under the same definition. I defined free as not being governed and not free as being governed. When you are talking about freedom as in literally being in captivity or not we are already not talking about the same thing. The definition you are using is much broader than mine. Also, even under your definition there would still differences between the state of being imprisoned or not. Did you mean that there is no difference only taking into account one single variable, that of being free? I think you are making a leap here "Posting that and not accepting the difference in freedom within the catagory of "not free" is tantamount to stateing that no preference may exist between differing states within the catagory of "not free". I do not see how the first part necessarily implies the second part of your statement.

How does this follow? Assume for a second that there are only these 2 possibilities "you are either free or you are not". To be free means to not be governed at all. We are not free in America and we are not free in North Korea. What is inaccurate about this?

I defined having a life's purpose as: "being pre-ordained somehow to having that one only thing that can make us fulfilled and truly happy" I gave the following arguments: - "there are people who always had a secret passion for writing and even though they developed their skills in completely different areas throughout their life and never put time into developing their writing skills, at some point they give up years of career and what they did up until that point and become writers." - about Stefan "He was an entrepreneur and programmer for many years and he enjoyed it and he was good at it. However, this was not the thing that could fulfil him. It turns out that the only thing he could do professionally that was truly fulfilling for him was being a philosopher broadcaster." - "However, there a lot of people out there who were exactly where Stefan was 20 years ago in terms of their professions but unlike Stefan some of them won't drop their careers and become philosophers. They will continue advancing in their careers and they will appear to be completely fulfilled with them being successful entrepreneurs for example." To me those look like they point towards people having a life purpose as I defined it. I am not sure what you are asking with "what is the null hypothesis", as far as I understand this concept the null hypothesis in this case would be "people do not have life purposes"...so this is what I was trying to disprove and I tried to do that with those examples above.

I was exploring the possibility of us being pre-ordained somehow to having that one only thing that can make us fullfiled and truly happy. We can define this as one's "life purpose". Of course, the way I am using "life purpose" here is not the same way mystics and religious people use "life purpose". I do not there is any sort of grander scheme and that we come into the world with a purpose to fulfill for some kind of bigger plan. By "pre-ordained" I mean both nature and nurture. I was wondering if people are not born being already inclined towards something (due to genetics). For example, there are people who always had a secret passion for writing and even though they developed their skills in completely different areas throughout their life and never put time into developing their writing skills, at some point they give up years of career and what they did up until that point and become writers. Where does this passion come from? Why do some people have it and others do not? Is it because due to their genes they have this urge? Or is it because of some childhood factors and experiences that led them to develop that certain passion? Or is it both? (genes and childhood) Is it due to choice? As in you choose what your values are and than the purpose is just a byproduct? Or is it none?!...meaning that certain passions that people have are just random. So to bring up Stefan's case again. He was an entrepreneur and programmer for many years and he enjoyed it and he was good at it. However, this was not the thing that could fulfil him. It turns out that the only thing he could do professionally that was truly fulfilling for him was being a philosopher broadcaster. However, there a lot of people out there who were exactly where Stefan was 20 years ago in terms of their professions but unlike Stefan some of them won't drop their careers and become philosophers. They will continue advancing in their careers and they will appear to be completely fulfilled with them being successful entrepreneurs for example. So what makes this difference? Why are there people who can be fulfilled only as long as they are singers and other philosophers? I do not think it is a function of what you are good or currently good at because we can become good at thousands of things if we choose to put the work nevertheless all but one of those things would be fulfilling for us.

No one is kind, rational, sensible, empathetic, curious etc... (list any positive trait you can think of) 100% of the time, not even to the people who would deserve it. Even if you would dedicate your whole life to be absolutely kind/etc... and you will still fail. This is just an impossible standard for human beings. Did this never occur to you? Everyone who demands that you should be 100% of the time is either insane or stone evil. Why do you need to be kind with no exception? Why being kind the vast majority of the time to people who deserve it is not enough for you?

Did not read the article yet but how does it disprove that nurture does not have an impact on the development of shyness?

When analyzing problems of this sort it is always important to have a clear definition of your terms. kindness = the quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate. Now, if you are kind 100% of the time then even 1 example in which you were not kind to someone automatically disproves that you are kind 100% of the time. Also your argument is invalid because you equivocate "100% kind" with "kind (person)" - which means kind in general and in general means not 100%. I think the problem comes from you seeing 100% kindness as a virtue which prompts you to equivocate kind in general with always kind. 100% kindness is generally known as people pleaser syndrome which is a horrifically low self-esteem trait. No one should strive for such a thing. I would like to hear other examples.

1.I dont see how this answered the question... 2.I don't understand what you mean by 100% true...are you saying for example that just because you don't catastrophize all the time, only on certain ocassions this would mean it is not 100% for you? Is the premise of this list of distorted patterns of thinking that you need to think like that all the time? In order for you to be considered that you have that problem? 3.What would something 20% true look like to you?

To sum all of those 17 instances up...think rationally. I personally cannot see any deeper than this. I am curious if social anxiety could exist given that one has 100% beliefs that correspond to reality.

Confirmed...

Why do you sound so insane?

Hey, I have been looking for 2 podcasts (call-in shows) that I listened to approximatively 2 years ago. I cannot seem to be able to find them 1. A woman is talking about her relationship with her father as a child, she mentions that her father used to yell a lot. 2. A woman is talking to Stefan, I do not remember the topic but throughout the call Stefan tries to get her out of the intellectualization into accessing her feelings, and towards the end of the call Stefan says "I cannot give you what your parents didn't" Thank you.

It is the best place to meet people I think. The big advantage is that you already know what that person is about unlike people you would meet IRL for the first time.

What do these 3 friends think of you hanging out with the shallow ones?

The link does not work. Yeah, I get what you are saying with them sending PM's. They are torn apart in the inside because their true self wants to be vulnerable and expose how they are hurt but because they believe this makes them beta, objects of scorn and so forth they will not drop the tough guy persona in public. I would like to hear such a podcast too but I am afraid that it would be extremely rare that a person who is a devoted member there would have the vulnerability, humility, and capacity for reason necessary to get anything out of talking to Stefan, I foresee such calls ending quite abruptly.

Bodybuilding.com forums or in other words the place where full grown men never made it out of highschool mentality. That place is the internet version of a high school building + yard. Their concerns, the way they talk, their taunts, bullying, slurs are exactly what 15-16 old guys act like the difference is that most men on that forum are 25+. If you look at that place from this perspective everything about that forum makes sense. In high schools, the most important things are physical attractiveness, unemphatic cooky/obnoxious/bullying personality (alpha male traits for high schoolers) which translates into success with "sloots", the ultimate goal. Like any high school, there are also people with social anxiety, insecurity, and loneliness issues who seek to fix themselves by asking the more confident guys what should they do? The insights they get with the help of those guys is that "thats coz your a phaggot" and they offer top-notch advice as well "just get over it", "stop being such a little bitch", "its all in your head". Also, that place always struck me as a community of quite a low IQ average score. It does not look like most people there have a chance mentally evolving in any way so it makes sense that the most vital aspect of their life is having a nice body. However, Misc is quite a funny place at times.

Liberal's wet dream.

Generally, women are trying to avoid conflicts and are more influenced by what people in their family and social circle think of them. They are also less risk averse.