violet

Yes, you're right. I considered it immaterial because I couldn't imagine how science could ever unravel and observe such a complex thing as a mental image or concept. I suppose it's improper to talk about it as immaterial just because current science can't do it though. That's very interesting. In a world where you had a computer that was capable of recording and then displaying a thought, maybe you would have the conditions to "prove" God. It seems to me that it's much more complex than "seeing" though. A mental picture can be tied to your values, your memories, your associations, and your emotions. To understand a thought the way someone else does, you have to have all of that context.

I think it's an emotional defense mechanism. If you've built up a life on certain premises or a specific worldview, it is disorienting to have that challenged. Accepting one truth, how many others need to be challenged as well? I think it's very difficult and time-consuming to think rationally about everything, so many people follow the culture, a political group, or a religion. Whether you are open to debate depends on whether you want to pursue hard truth or happy ignorance.

To love and be loved. That's primary for me. Secondary to that is power: ability to make decisions for yourself (autonomy), knowledge, wealth/resources, social influence.

[1] When animals cooperate and help one another, my opinion is that it is simply instinct. As far as I can see, they do not have the brain power available to weigh the consequences of one action over another and make a "moral" decision. Instead, they have instincts that allow them and their communities to survive. Any animal that lives in a social group will probably have altruistic instincts. I differentiate conscious morality from instinctive altruism. [2] In my opinion, only human beings have moral agency. That is why we don't hold a dolphin accountable if they kill a human. They might be highly intelligent, but they do not have moral agency. I don't know this as an absolute fact. It is my opinion and attempt to approximate the truth based on what I know. [3] Again, I think "societies" of animals are devloped based on helping instincts. The difference between a human civilization and animal society is in the ability to move from instinct to rational thought (and ability to moralize). Humans are certainly animals, and I think they certainly have altruistic instincts, but they also go one step beyond that.

I don't think you can talk about badness/immorality in a universal way. It must be in terms of human society since, for instance, animals are incapable of this morality. On the other hand, humans have the ability to empathize, consider the future, and dwell on right versus wrong. It's true that there is an option to choose the "law of the jungle" (brute power wins), but many strive for a higher moral order because that is how a civilization is formed and how humans evolve beyond the animal world. It is immoral to break someone's leg by the "law of the human" because it is the aggressive violation of another life. The "law of the jungle" states that you are the most important being and that anything that is in your self-interest is justified. The "law of the human" is different in that it places the other (human) as an equal and denies you the right to violate their life/property.

My problem with this type of question is that God, religion, spirituality, heaven, hell, etc. are not part of the material world. Science can only explain that which exists in the physical world. That's the purpose and limit of science. To me, the immaterial world is not something magical or mystical. It's just not fully observable through science. It's like saying "show me the images that were in your dream last night." Science might observe electrical activity in your brain, but it can't show you the pink elephant that was in your dream. The pink elephant didn't exist in the material world. It only existed in thought, which doesn't have a physical form. I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself very well. Anyway, just thoughts.

This is one of the main arguments that changed my mind about abortion. If you believe that abortion is moral because the fetus is not human, you have to be clear about when it becomes a human. Does the fetus become a human when it is born? Some argue that newborns are still in the fetal stage. What if the baby is born premature? At what point is it granted the right to life? As far as women having the right to choose to keep a pregnancy or not and the man having no say, I do think it is unfair, but it is an inequality rooted in biology. Since a baby grows inside the body of the woman, I would argue that a man can't choose to keep/abort the child without initiating force. So his choice is only in whether he will have sex with the woman or not. However, I see injustice when a woman is allowed to force the man to pay for a child he does not want. She is using the force of the state to take property from the man against his will. This seems like a violation of the non-aggression principle to me. If, in theory, the woman had to keep the child and raise it, I might consider that the man had a responsibility to finance it. But the baby can, and probably should, be given to adoptive parents.

I think there's fundamental misunderstanding of what patriarchy is. It's not about men ruling over women. It's about husbands/fathers being in leadership roles within families. A random man would not have power over a random woman in a patriarchal system. The patriarchs were chosen by their wives to be husbands and typically fathers. Patriarchy is part of the Christian system, which I would consider foundational to Western civilization. I think it still exists to some degree, but it's largely been dissolved. There is active hostility towards the notion of gender roles and traditional marriage because it interferes with the liberal ideal of autonomy.

I don't think it's useful to ostracize people. Maybe they don't have enough spare money to donate. Maybe they are still considering whether they want to help financially. The way I see it, the more open and accepting this place is, the more it will attract users (potential donors) and encourage them to stay.

I disagree with the notion that such images cause anorexia. The media often presents idealized beauty, just as they present idealized love, finances, homes, careers, children, etc. They are shown because it's what people want to see and emulate. And there's nothing wrong with ideal beauty in and of itself. It's can be nice to see beautiful things and beautiful people. (Personally, I like seeing imperfect people, but I might be a minority in that.) In my opinion, the problem with anorexics is perfectionism. They see the perfect standard of beauty and want to reach it. The average person understands it as an unattainable ideal and prioritizes appropriately. Anorexia comes from the inside, not the outside. It's easier to just demand that skinny people be censored, but I don't think that will solve a thing. It's way more complicated.

I don't have a clear point of view one way or another concerning laws, but I also don't buy "breasts/breastfeeding are natural, so deal." Sex is also natural. Should there be laws prohibiting public sex? If you hold that sex and sexuality are intimate, private, exclusive things then I think it follows that public sexuality is undesirable. Women that campaign for nudity seem to ignore the reality that naked bodies are sexually-charged things for the majority of people. "Teach men not to view women as sex objects" doesn't seem like a complete solution to me. Only my opinion though.

I was largely raised in the leftist paradigm too. There are a lot of ingrained beliefs from a time when rational thought was not possible. Children just have to believe what they're told. They're highly emotional and not very rational yet. So I think what you're experiencing is your learned "leftist" scripts. Ayn Rand said that the emotiional mechanism is like a computer that is programmed by values. Therefore, you have emotional reactions based on what your your core values are. These values are either programmed into you as a child or chosen by you as an adult. Emotions are just a shortcut to your value system. It's important to look at the values underlying them because they could be wrong.

I think it's good to consider why you want friends. A lot of people have acquaintances that they calls friends, but they're really just interchangeable people required for certain social situations. And that's fine if that's your goal. Lots of people are looking for this type of low-maintenance friend, so I think you just have to be open to it. I don't think it's possible to have a lot of "real" friends. Those relationships require some effort to build and maintain. Again, I think you just have to pay attention to people around you and be open to attempting friendships with the ones you like. It doesn't mean they'll like you, but some will.

Absolutely. This is how I lived for a long time. I'm awake to it now, but I'm still struggling to get out from under those emotional burdens.

I'm very happy to have found this site and Stefan's podcasts. I think I orginally found a link to one of the Youtube posts. I enjoyed the style and the seemingly politically-incorrect nature of it, i.e. honesty and rational thought. Over several weeks, I watched more of the FDR content. I agreed with a lot of it and found some stimulating ideas among the podcasts. I like the way FDR takes fundamental concepts and applies them to real life. There's a good mixture of critique of culture and news, relationship advice, general philosophical principles, and interviews with experts. I'm interested in so many of the topics covered and have been pursuing knowledge about such things for several years now. I've only just discovered the forum part of this community, and upon initial inspection, it looks like an interesting place. I like the way people talk to each other here: rational discussions, no name-calling, open-mindedness. I'm always looking for ways to learn about and/or debate "deep" topics, but it's so hard to find. I've been involved with both Red Pill and Christian communities online, and while I agree with them on some things, it's never quite a match. For context, I am a woman in my early 30s. I grew up in a fairly liberal family, and went through the Canadian public school system. My father was a public servant and what I would consider controlling and emotionally abusive. I was an extremely shy and awkward young person, and still am to some degree. I did well in school and got a technical degree at university under pressure from my parents. Upon leaving school, I had my first taste of real life and what amounted to a crisis of identity/values. I felt very lost at that time, but have since gained some clarity. It is an ongoing process. I would consider myself a libertarian now and anti-feminist. The degree to which I'm surrounded by liberal/left-wing thought sometimes makes me feel that I'm the only person in the world with these views. It's a relief to see other people with similar ideas. I truly believe in taking responsibility for your values and actions as an adult. I'm trying to change my life for the better and grow into a healthier person. I see a lot of value in the ideas that are presented here. It's inspiring to see other people bettering themselves. Hopefully I'll find useful things to contribute. In the meantime, I'll keep working my way through the FDR podcasts and browsing this forum. Keep up the great work!