RichardY

Of course, the only way that the wildlife might "care" about Property Rights would be through scent (marking of territory). Though perhaps dogs also have some implicit understanding of Property Rights as well. Though if a person was to wake up tomorrow in a world where they were the only one alive, could Property Rights exist as an Ideal in their mind(a memory of what was and might be again), or would it be something more indirect that they were Idolising/Idealising(?). Could a concept be both an Ideal as well as a concept?

Is it even possible to make an argument for or against voting, is the whole issue just a case of strategy. Should probably get some person to change their name to "none of the above" might do quite well at elections.

I'm not entirely sure how Government can own you, as most Anarchists seem to say Government does not exist, Parliament or Congress is just a building etc. Maybe Hillary Clinton could own me or you, be decked out in black leather in a sadomasochistic kind of way. Trump though seems more interested in "owning" "Miss Universe" or at least retaining ownership, but who knows maybe in the middle of the night as President he wakes up and decides to "Press the Button!!!!", besides he sometimes wears a baseball construction cap like the President on The Deadzone. Hillary on the other hand hey no problem The Middle East was "probably" pretty shitty anyway, now after most semblances of civilization have now been blown away on her watch I'm sure she'll "Fix it" now. "I'm with her" (Not really) "Yes we can". Could be renting my soul from God I guess, some direct terms from the man might be nice though. I do feel though that kind of like off the movie Armageddon there is some Truth in Anarchists sitting on their butts "its time to embrace the horror", force does seem to obliterate truth.

Going from the basis of self-ownership as an affirmation of Property Rights, I agree that Property Rights presently exist as a concept. However I'm unsure how they could exist in the absence of other sentient beings, perhaps they do not? It is also generally accepted that Property Right extend to objects not directly in contact with the individual at all times and often to subjective ideas such as patents. If it is possible to relinquish control over Property not directly controlled/attached then why is an exception made for a persons body on the basis of Property Rights. Excluding purely a focus on slavery, what if someone was to demand "a pound of flesh" as payment, ignoring or circumventing the technicality of taking blood as well, organ donation is generally accepted as fine. (at least among the non religious) Can Property Rights be thought of as an Ideal? The defence of Property of Rights sounds Idealistic. If property rights can be seen as an extension or the same as Ethics, is Ethics therefore a concept? If Ethics is only a concept this would seem to put its potential universal achievement on the back-foot at times, by those with Ideals that would destroy it or everyone.

Yes Government as related to no ethics. Though Anarchism just means the possibility of Ethics. I think both Government and Anarchism can be thought of as both Collective and Individual ideals. Anarchism in the Collective sense as No Ethics, through no property rights, not necessarily Evil or "bad" though.

Newtonian: As far as Government can be seen as a choice it is Hobson's Choice, which is no choice at all. Feels like getting at an idea similar to Platonic forms, Government in itself can be said to not exist, what exists is the "shadow" cast by those who wield power through deception and force. Same way as a perfect triangle might be said to not exist, due to the nature of "gravity" bending matter. Einsteinian: While Newtonian mathematics might be used to measure the shadow of what was, the fact that Einsteinian physics can be used to predict and explain the existence of blackholes? Could be said to be a better description of what is. Perhaps the consideration instead of "Government or Anarchism" should be ethics or no ethics. Though if someone chooses no ethics it kind of seems to obliterate Aesthetic ideas such as waste, ugliness, health, love, truth and beauty. But hey whatever, go nuts GTA style. (Not endorsed literally).

Yeah sounds good, I think of the Native Americans killing buffalo for food. Don't get me wrong though money and the Internet are great. Way too many people crammed into cities and not enough local self sufficiency IMO.

I remember a video when Stefan was talking about Immigration that absent a welfare state, he wouldn't care less where people moved in general "come live in my basement" was the phrase I remember. The people in the video IMO more of a left wing nature, acting together for the "good of the community", probably not too into property rights and the free market, more of a self-sufficient commune focus. To that extent they kind of govern themselves, however the fact that people who identify with the commune sometimes have need of medical care or other needs leaves them dependent on the commune. Stefan IMO a Centred nature Libertarian, would probably say voluntary associations like the Earthship community are fine, but the free market and property rights provide a more stable and inclusive community. Myself a Right wing Libertarian, I think Earthships can be pretty awesome. There are places in Portugal, Spain and Norway, and probably elsewhere around Europe that are virtually abandoned with no one there. But with no or poor homesteading rights a lot of the land doesn't get used for anything or is only commercially profitable to farm with subsides. Dam a few rivers cut down some trees, great fun from experience, but without acquired property rights or cash for helpers lacking in incentive to work for everyone IMO.

I think you raise another interesting point, something I have thought about. To elaborate further what I think you are getting at are instances of "true", to use an example of my own, is logic "true" to an electronic computer, I would say no, something is present/exists or it does not, i.e an electrical charge is there or it is not. My answer is no, not in that form. An important concept? perhaps experience? World Spirit? Holy Spirit? Will to Power? Mysticism? Transcendence? Nihilism? Astrology? to me, but I think to everybody in someway. As a potentiality, actuality or both? Or something else.... maybe in the only way that really matters.

Collective, the mental I picture I get is a green laser beam coming out of a borg cube, also kind of think of Communists charging into Finland. But why not just say people instead of collective? Government, George Bush screwing Bin laden or visa versa can't really remember from a joke Internet Picture I saw 15 years ago or so at Xmas or new years eve party. But also a smiling Tony Blair moving his hand, also think of houses of parliament. Other pictures also come to mind. A spear or toothpick I could see as being potentially different to other people depending on perspective. The image is kind of the same though except the spear could be iron tipped as a preference. If a concept is associated with a mental picture I wonder if God is a concept? The mental picture I used to think of was moving stars, but also kind of a void like a black hole.

Situation normal all fine under-control, just some more well done state media reporting and all will be well.

I wonder if for something to be a concept it must be transcended by the individual. For example, take the concept knife or spear. To borrow from a movie Crocodile Dundee "Thats not a knife, thats a knife". To a 20 foot giant a spear would more appropriately be a toothpick to him. Where as something like a forest, collective or government is not transcended, but neither are they a platonic form that are real but do not exist. Interesting distinctions. Watched some Youtube videos on Hegel by a guy called Gregory Sadler, seemed quite a grind to become familiar with Hegel's work, but hey maybe there's something there to it despite the horror shows of Communism and National Socialism.

If only they could make the age tests 99.99% accurate all would be fine...... and dam those greedy professors making money from the tests. Start off the report with "asylum" seekers from Afghanistan, despite the fact, if they followed the law but also common sense they can't possibly based on logic, claim to be asylum seekers anyway. The report is very well done? Man the report was rubbish, total whitewash. The fact it was focused on are the rapists 17 years and 355 days or 18 years is disgusting, where was the conviction(passion) of anybody in the report? "Confronted"? The reporter was quite amicable with "Migration Minister". Stefan has done far superior reporting about Sweden on Youtube. The people who matter already understand what is happening in Sweden, Sweden has some of the highest IQ people in the World despite what is occurring. I'm a bit of a gamer and Sweden has IMO the best Grand Strategy Games developers around. What's lacking is willpower, community and justice. The side note of the 24 year old girl Helena being gang raped, maybe her life being totally destroyed being described as "almost" sadistic. What would someone even have to do to be sadistic in Sweden? "There comes the time when man will no longer give birth to any star. Alas! There comes the time of the most despicable man, who can no longer despise himself." Friedrich Nietzsche Welcome to the forum, not trying to be rude just a few thoughts. Incidentally I've been to Fjällbacka in Sweden on a campervan trip from Hvisten in Norway. Not seen any of the big cities in Sweden, though heard there was a car bombing in Malmo whilst I was there plus the occasional grenade being thrown from stories on the Internet. Probably will visit Norway again sometime have some cash leftover from backpacking there.

I agree, but in contrast the Koran isn't exactly coherent and Islam is spreading. I remember sitting next to a twitchy ethnic Iranian guy on a plane in Norway, strangely got into a conversation in which he said he thought Islam was garbage and said there was some passage about "preying with the beard of a goat" (go figure ). On the surface though "There is "One" God but Allah and Muhammed is his Messenger" IMO beats "Holy Trinity" or Demi-God Jesus. There is only one Moral Will that of Allah and submission to his Will is Just. Kind of a moral abdication of responsibility. What inbred middle easterner is even going to learn the Koran on the whole. A much abridged version of the Bible perhaps cutting out the chronology of events would be interesting but not so much as to be a children's version. I kind of think your getting at the "concept" of Transcendence. Don't think I'd go as far as hauling up corpses and canon but if you know any expeditions I'm game. The explosion of alt-right media on Youtube is pretty interesting whether Clinton or some other candidate might censor it is yet to be fully realised. But even with alt-right media or more neutrally less biased media. Islam beats Communism, Cultural Marxism, British Free Trade ideology, and Nihilistic Hedonism hands down. Whether Christianity is going to make a come back in Europe I doubt it. Nationalism I think is going to struggle simply because to an "R" predominant population there's not the ancestor reverence of the "K".

So would 2 trees suffice as a forest because I say so? What if someone/s in the Government or in the past feudal Aristocracy said this piece of land next to Nottingham shall be called "Sherwood forest" and none but the kings men shall hunt there. In the past when more of Europe was covered with trees, forest was just the wilderness surrounding the settlements. As you say the fact "forest" has different meanings to different people underscores it as a concept, does this mean that universality is not necessary in concepts? My point being that in order for a concept to exist, is a Nietzschean Will to Power sufficient to "persuade" through incentives. "Kind of like how many lights do you see?" but instead of that, "2 Trees are a forest, (with an electric shock for a reply of "no")(N Korea style) If every useful concept relates back to world, are there un-useful concepts that don't? "Cultural" is interpersonal experience, "Visual" is experience, "association" inclined to say concept, relating it back to the world as a whole though not so sure, more of an internal process. Having a "concept" dependent on culture, does that not subtract from the purpose of philosophy? Whether you go with Ethics as stated by Stefan, or not so much of a purpose, but a Will to Causa Prima by Nietzsche. Or perhaps some other purpose.

Except the original poster never said that a philosopher should never or not focus on universals. What if, the original poster had said "Philosophers should (only) focus on things that are universal." Would that not be something more similar to Maths or Science? Focus, would also be implying some sort of weighted value system. Headshot failed on the performative contradiction.

I disagree, a forest is NOT a concept. A forest is a cultural visual association. For example, if I plant 3 trees in my garden, calling it a forest would not suffice. If I plant a 100 trees on a field "maybe", some people would call it a forest. In Australia I think they use the term bush rather than forest to refer to an area of land culturally suggested. Both Bush and Forest also have a Naturist as opposed to Naturistic meaning, again a cultural visual association. I kind of think concepts do exist in physical reality, just in your head, are they constructed the same for everybody no. Perhaps as a thought experiment constructed the same way as a water-coloured painting, something analog rather than digital, you can still listen to and understand, radio or TV on analog if the signal gets disturbed, but with digital its there or it's not. Or perhaps its like having multiple digital backups running concurrently like a Web Browser? in any case wouldn't there be an analog interpretation of memories? perhaps it's possible to alter memory through environmental pressure like the movie The Manchurian Candidate.

Argument against the idea that philosophers should focus on universals. Like Plato's allegory of the Cave? A similar example IMO would be Stefan's Youtube videos vs the MSM leading people further down into the Cave. should: As an assertion of one's Will and also an implication of choice. There must be another option/s real or imagined with some aesthetic(preference) element included. In terms of health Stefan has used an example of a Medical Doctor and the absurdity of not making a distinction between sickness and health. The should IMO is fine, but I think an aesthetic case would be reasonable. If "Brian Dean is Evil" then there is something about Brian's Will that is Evil. "Brian Dean is Evil" is also tautological, while giving an Objective definition of Evil, kind of like in the movie "Time Bandits".

What isn't a concept? Extremism, Radicalism, God, Ghost, Collectivism, Society, The State, Atheism, Belief. Anything that is an end and not a means, or anything that does not integrate with existing knowledge(Analytic–synthetic distinction). I think sometimes referred to as anti-concepts or beliefs. Then a separate category for senses that aren't beliefs, but aren't exactly concepts either; Vision, touch, sound, taste and smell. Maybe emotion could be included. Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology goes into the theory on concepts.

What is Empathy?

They might be unempathetic towards others, but if they have their future self in mind, I would say that have some degree of empathy if perhaps limited for themselves. If someone does not have their future self in mind then why would someone not do whatever feels good in the moment and if they have zero empathy how are they even sane, how does a person establish self interest without empathy? I think ever being your present self is difficult I think the nature of the mind is to be forward thinking and anticipating, like those pictures on the Internet usually chequered circles that appear to move but stay the same. Empathy involves an element of projection into the future, delayal of gratification, but also an aesthetic element to it. A person may not decide to eat certain foods if they are on a diet, perhaps trying to improve fitness. The conception of time also brings up an important point I think emotions seem to be more analogue from something insignificant and barely noticeable to perhaps overpowering. It is possible to have empathy for another living thing, which is a separate entity and involves emphasising for their future state. For example not leaving a dog in a car on a hot day, would be implying empathy through compassion. The question becomes if it is possible to have empathy for another entities future state, then why not for your own future state. I can imagine Empathy being a difficult topic to define thoroughly or identify what it might be dependant on. So I started another thread on Empathy in the General discussion.

I think the word "subject" rather than action would be correct. Could be a mistake IMO. That "Human Action is (Necessarily) always rational", I think is a reference to the axiom that the laws of physics are consistent. The next sentence from Human Action says that: "The term 'rational action' is therefore pleonastic (redundant). Could you elaborate further? ---------------------------------- Is the emphasis on expected here? I think Human Action refers to this on Pg 13,14 & 15 on Google Books. Human Action, The Scholar's Edition. The sentence Praxeology: it is a science of means, not of ends." (Pg 15) This is irrational on couple levels, yeah looks that way, but not necessarily a "bad" thing. To remain alive or keep going despite almost certain death in cases (thinking of the guy who got stuck in canyon and cut his arm off with a penknife),"He who has a why to live can bear almost any how." Nietzsche. Importantly though I think it might be better for the person to be unaware if they are to attempt some end "Never tell me the odds." Han Solo , others deem to be unobtainable or unlikely. "If you think you can, or think you can't your right." Henry Ford. A quote on a recent Youtube video: Why Donald Trump is Winning. The Ultimate end(purpose?, Determinism, Freedom, God, Truth.... take your pick) question seems like a very interesting question to me. I have a few thoughts on it, even if there is no purpose as such, perhaps there is a way of synthetic purpose through religion or something else. Just a few thoughts, including loops like found in computer programs, expressing irrational numbers like Pi, symbolism like in Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, the Wheel and the Swastika, A Total Recall Scenario "You blew my cover!" . Aesthetics might be worth exploring as a guide in "self-knowledge" or determining the ultimate end or at least some ideal.

It is also Irrational to talk rationally with rational people. Seemed like a very good video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsH17taSBzo was expecting it to be all about Trump from the beginning, but was surprised when Stefan and Scott started talking about a systems vs goal approach to life, Irrationality and Capitalism. Just listened to the first 20 minutes, but will definitely listen to the rest.

You can have empathy for your future self, I don't think there is a situation where you could act in your own self interest and not have empathy for your future self. Perhaps an example of someone acting in their own self interest without empathy for themselves? Yeah I guess Ideologies/Religions (Absolute Idealism) that "may" appear to have no null hypothesis ie "Its not even wrong".For example you may have a Christian who believes it better to die for their faith ("Life Everlasting") than convert and be spared. Or the Islamic Terrorist who thinks he maybe rewarded in heaven. Or an Invasion of the Body Snatchers scenario. All irrational, but not necessarily incorrect beliefs. Though if a person is acting rationally they are still following an irrational belief. Perhaps the most sane thing a person could do is follow an irrational belief but one that has no end or endures the longest. Perhaps Insane as might be applied to a religious fanatic is not an entirely appropriate word, maybe not-sane/not-present/oblivion is more accurate. To further elaborate the inverse of truth(sanity?) could be; not-present/oblivion, rather than something identified as false(insanity?), which could apply to anything within a rational system.

If someone is unempathetic, they can't act in their own self interest, they just act. There is no self. With my original definition including mosquitoes as sane, improvement seems to be in order. I think the addition of the word "concern", would be more accurate. So, "Sane as concern for self, family or kin preservation." "Preservation" is not specific enough, originally I was thinking along the lines of survival, but now I'm not so sure.