Search the Community

I'm posting this because of how impressed I am with Rucka. The discussion starts off jokingly with Rucka claiming that he's ignorant on most things, basically just a pleb. Later on it becomes way too obvious that Sargon is out of his depth when it comes to philosophy compared to Rucka. Sargon tries to wiggle out by turning the conversation to generalities but Rucka brings it back to the personal each time. When Sargon makes a statement that is a clear counter argument Rucka demolishes it easily by making him define his terms and using his own definition against him. Rucka extracts first principles, makes the argument from ethics, even tricks Sargon into making self-defeating statements. It's great. It's unexpected. The podcast ends because Sargon is literally at a loss for words. Rucka also makes a very insightful statement I find. He comes out attacking all of these anti-SJW's saying they're no different that the SJW's. His reasoning is that before they attacked video games, these gamer-gaters (now anti-SJW's), they all were fans of The Young Turks, SJW converged gaming journalism sites, late night leftist political shows, and so on. This is I think a very important point. I afterwards recalled the conversation Sargon had with Crowder in which Sargon claimed TYT really went off the deep end but Crowder said they were always like they are now. That it's not TYT that has changed (and implicitly all other leftist outlets) but the viewer that has changed. If it is indeed the case that the viewer's values are the ones that change, because they went from left-leaning to now right-leaning we can safely imply that the pendulum will swing the other way, from right-leaning to left-leaning. And if that is the case then we are certainly not making any progress towards a more free society, we're just running in circles. If we are indeed running on a treadmill trying to get to Anarcho-Land the end effect is us just getting tired by standing in the same place. But if we aren't actually running on a treadmill how could we even tell the difference? Check out this video of Peter Thiel from 1996 whose rhetoric is indistinguishable from 2017 rhetoric. It's been more than two decades and we're still in the same situation. My question is basically, is this a feature of the matrix or is this a failure of society?

In light of Donald Trump's rise in popularity (which I support) I've noticed a lot of my politically plugged in friends on the libertarian end of things are vehemently against him for some bizarre reasons and attack him more harshly even than Hillary. I've found previously very rational people to lose their collective minds over the Trump issue and seem to almost take it personally if you question there assertions (many of which are based on the false rumours Stef dealt with). I guess my question is, from a psychological viewpoint, is this pull-back from Trump right on the cusp of his victory a sort of panic induced by actually succeeding at advancing a non-mainstream candidate and being on the verge of a non-politician, successful, intelligent guy winning a popular election without having to sell his soul to the machine? Personally I think yes. There is a weird perfectionism in Libertarianism that makes it impossible to support anyone in concrete terms (only abstractly).

Joy (2015). Jennifer Lawrence, Robert De Niro, Bradley Cooper. I saw this movie recently. It is good. There are fantastic philosophical topics raised but not addressed. If you have someone in your life with whom you discuss (or would like to introduce to) RTR, peaceful parenting, ethics, feminism, or capitalism watch it together. Joy provides a firm context for conversation, but because it is a fictional setting it provides a safe context for talking about principles. The editing is a great melange of styles with the story context the only guide. The person I saw the film with didn't notice this, you might not either. For me it doesn't detract it adds greatly. I won't go into it more. The story is about Joy and her family. Joy is inventive and brilliant, brave, and highly productive woman in her mid thirties. She is surrounded by what initially appear to be eccentric extended family members all living under one roof in the late 1980's Pennsylvania. The film focus is on the invention, manufacture, marketing, and security of a labor saving device invented by Joy. It is very loosely based on the life of Joy Mangano. Despite a few misplaced and confused metaphors the movie is quite good and well worth your time and money. Beyond this paragraph I will be writing about a few specifics of the movie. Spoilers. The opening is all about establishing Joy and the extended family she permits around her. It opens with a scene from a fictional soap opera, a thematic element that will be used throughout Act 1 and 2. Danica says to Clarinda, "When someone sees a weakness in me I turn that weakness into a strength." This one minute scene is a summary of the entire movie. Clarinda is an analogue for Joy, Danica for Jackie, Ridge as her ex-husband Tony, Bartholomew for the yet unrevealed villain, yet who resembles Joy's father (more on that later). Throughout this movie the gun is used as a blunt obviation for assertiveness and determination. I really wish they'd deleted all the firearm scenes due to superfluity. Also not needed is the young Joy stating "this is my special power, that I don't need a prince" while the camera stays on an origami bird. This, despite clearly stating seconds before that her value was based on "the things that she make". Since this theme only returns in the final minutes of the movie and only by inference (the origami bird is again shown in context) it is a forgivable nod to Feminists. That Joy's family is dysfunctional is clear. What isn't is for how long. Joy is the candle, whose light is concealed by the bushel of her family oppressive needs. Or as put forth in the exposition of the gift of the cicada book by Jackie to Joy's daughter: a cicada nymph who has been living underground for 17 years and is about to emerge in noisy cacophony. Joy becomes irrationally upset and angry because of the book. Again unstated is for how long Jackie had been trying to rekindle the spark of Joy's drive. How many conversations met by equivocations, gifts not understood. It is possible Jackie had almost given up on Joy and was working to enrich the daughter instead. Jackie is a philosophical preparer, an assistant. She isn't a primary. She lacks the ability, but recognizes, appreciates, and craves the ability of others. Unlike the members of Joy's family she desperately wants Joy to succeed. It is unknown why Joy and Tony divorced after perhaps a decade of marriage. Likely the reason is Joy not consciously understanding the stressors she accepted by not living a lifestyle consistent with her philosophy. And Tony is rather one dimensional, but that dimension is virtue. Joy's mother and father are... evil. Her mother hobbles Joy with psychological powerlessness and projection of her fantasy and non-acknowledgement of reality. Her father is a serial monogamist who secretly hates Joy. Triggered by the cicada book Joy emerges. Her noise is to inconvenience her family by asserting her values and needs. She makes prototype drawings of her invention. Her family can't or claim not to understand. The invention doesn't exist in the crude drawings it exists in the mind - and they haven't any. Instead of being able to procure investment from her family on the basis of the virtue of the idea she has to resort to a distasteful guilt trip. That being the language understood should say a lot. Her family doesn't understand virtue but does understand manipulation. From this moment she is in a fight to produce her product. At first it seems that her family is nominally helping her. In reality they are using it as a leash. Her fathers girlfriend, and her mostly nonsense four questions. But in the practical things all they do is hinder her and isolate her from those who are share her philosophical values. In the guise of helping her they just continue doing what they have been doing for the last two decades of her life. But now, she is indebted to them in money not just by way of an unjust morality of family loyalty. They want her to try - and fail. Her failure indicating the death of her virtue and her productiveness forever bridled to the reins of familial control. Her efforts and persistence alarm them and when she is devastated by the death of her beloved grandmother they pounce. In immediate and purposeful countermanding her they treat with Joy's business enemies and try to forge a deal that would both kill the business but also Joy's spirit. In the end, Joy wins. But does she? She never pays her treacherous family in the coin they deserve, instead letting them maintain as dead weight, hangers on, jealous of her productiveness and acuity, seeking ever her downfall. Thematically the movie treats them as the tempering required to forge the strength in Joy. But this is actually never the case. Their actions in fact annealed her consistently, making obvious things obscure. This ultimately is what saves them: she is weakened just enough that they may parasitically feed off her, secure that she will never cast them off. Thanks for reading.

Hello FreeDomainRadio members, I recently came across a Youtube video of Stefan's about free will. I am aware of the ban on free will discussion on these boards and that is not the subject matter of this post. If I reference that video, it is only in reference to non-free will centered theses. In this video "Free Will Part 2" at around 20:52 Stefan mentions the unique ability of human beings to form "abstract, rational, consistent, objective, definitions." Perhaps I am missing some video but it seems like this sums up Molyneux's views on how language works. More precisely I take this to outline Stefan's working theory of meaning. My position is this, meaning of language is how it is used (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations#Language.2C_meaning.2C_and_use). As such, the notion that meaning necessarily is rational, consistent, objective, or that definitions like those in a dictionary are how meaning in language works is wrong. It's overly broad in that there are aspects of meaning that don't require those conditions and simultaneously overly narrow in that there are many other ways that meaning can arise (all of them consisting of usage). "Abstract" won't do the work here unless you can formulate some version of "abstraction" that doesn't contradict "definite," "consistent," and "logical." Mic drop.

I want to try something. I want to assimilate a “Ten Commandments” type list of the most basic UPB principles (Rape, Murder, Theft, Fraud, etc) and attempt to get the major religions of the world to all agree to the basic premises. It’s all fine and dandy to expect everyone to become objective, secular humanists, but the truth is that people cling to their religions for multiple reasons. Rather than trying to “convert” them, why don’t we try to gain traction for UPBs from within? Let’s infect their theology with the virtue of UPB! I have many Muslim friends who clearly are outraged by Islamic fundamentalist shenanigans. I have Christian friends who want to denounce the Westboro Baptist shenanigans. They will go to their graves clinging to their religion, but if we can get them to subscribe to the basic tenants, and actively shun the bad behaviors (even though they are tacitly vindicated in the Quran and Bible), I think it will produce virtue. What say ye? We could call it something like the “World Morality Project.” We could go to high ranking members of all faiths and get photos of them signing off. Let’s get Mormons and Baptists and Muslims and Sikhs and Buddhists to all sign off on this stuff, so maybe the neighbor of an extremist can be infected with virtue and say “hey, before you go blow up that _____, look at these morals we all apparently subscribe to. Maybe your extremism is out of whack with your core beliefs.”

What better to do on New Year's Eve than to philosophize, am I right? So I am reading "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikoff and I want to share with you how I came to accept the axioms of Objectivism because this was a big struggle for me. Maybe this can be of help to others and perhaps I can have any potential mistakes corrected. My understanding is that there are no contradictions between the metaphysics of Objectivism and UPB. However, the approaches are distinct in that Objectivism has a focus on establishing its theoretical framework in a more formal way as can normally be found in philosophical works while UPB focuses on establishing its tenets through looking at what people do in conversation. In other words, UPB does not really contain axioms in the traditional sense other than what is self-evident when people argue. I.e., UPB takes a shortcut and I assume this is done due to it being more effective and practical in everyday life. Objectivist metaphysics, on the other hand, goes deeper in that it uses axioms that refer to our first sensation of the world. The three Objectivist axioms are Existence, Consciousness, and Identity. My error in grasping them was that I am used to evaluating concepts through the method of how one establishes arguments: Through evidence plus deductive or inductive reasoning. The challenge here is that the validation of the Objectivist axioms require no deductive or inductive reason. It is not something that is grasped through analysis. Rather, what I needed to do was to dilute my focus on the abstractions and simply look at the world around me with its various objects, actions and properties. When I focus on just looking around I have to accept that something (identity) exists (existence) of which I am aware (consciousness). This is self-evident just by perceiving the world. I am not sure whether identity are a function of existence, of consciousness, or of both, but I think that it does not fundamentally matter because without accepting this axiom I contradict myself. This because I have to implicitly rely on identity when I use concepts which I evidently do since I am writing this forum post. Another interesting thing about Objectivist metaphysics is that identity is an implicit of existence rather than something that refers to an essence that are in the things. The latter is what Aristotle stated in one of his principal works: "Metaphysics." In other words, in Objectivism existents do not have identity. They are identity. I am not sure what to make of that but I really find that fascinating. Hope that helps and please point out any errors. Happy 2015!

Hi friends, Approx 12-13 years ago, before I got introduced to philosophy and logic (which was not part of my country's school-system), I started a website/forum about paranormal phenomenas, ghosts, ufos, and the like. I thought it was interesting and wanted to learn more. As you may know, in this kind of pseudo-science milieu, everyone can have "their own truth". Horrible. Today I see this as an incredible dangerous way of thinking, and I'm glad to say it is "something of my past". I got introduced to philosophy 6-7 years ago via a podcast about trivium, quadrivium and logical fallacies. After that, I totally left the paranormal stuff. Meanwhile, the site was still running. Here is the big deal; During all these years, my website have grown to hold near 20000 registered members (registration has always been free). Now I am about to close down the website, because I cannot defend hosting a discussion forum where people every day grows "their own reality", in galaxies far away from the objective truth. What do you think I should do with the website? Should I remove all pages, posting a link to freedomainradio maybe? Could I use it to help others in the best direction for discovering that there is something called objective truth? Or would that be rude for those who actually signed up because of their interest in paranormal-stuff? There is this saying, "when the student is ready the teacher will appear", so I'm in doubt if I can help at all.. but then again, a podcast-show helped me and introduced me to logical fallacies. It saved me, sort of.. What you think? 20000 brains.. last time I watched Iron Maiden live, 20000 was hell of a lot of people (Note: I wrote this question to Stefan earlier, but I guess I should post it here instead and not bother him with this. At the time I sent the message to Stefan, I thought there was 18k users on my form. Actually, it is closer to 20k, so .. Maybe, if I somehow could introduce even 1, 2 or 3 of them to philosophy, I would be so happy, and the website wouldn't be the waste-of-time I think it is)

Hello! So, I recently bought a book on anarcho-capitalism, called The New Libertarianism: ANARCHO-CAPTALISM by J. Michael Oliver. It's an attempt to reconcile objectivism with anarcho-capitalism, and as such it explains the basics of objectivist metaphysics. I'm at the very beginning of the book, where he talks about the existence axiom, but the problem is that I don't get it. The basic argument is that we are conscious, and if we're conscious there has to be something objective (outside of our minds) that we're conscious of, but is that really true? Can't I be conscious of my own fantasies? Thank you! /Sebastian

Greetings to all who read these words, My personal evolution in brief: Started reading Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth fantasy novels around the age of 13, absorbed a good deal of his objectivism as it was imbedded in the characters... I had no idea that there was any measure of philosophy in these novels, only that the characters were the most amazing and interesting individuals I had ever encountered. Experimented with LSD and other drugs starting around 16. These altered stated of consciousness were very helpful for me personally, in that the experience of them was proof that the nature of reality in general and social structures specifically had been carefully constructed... and that the ways that most adults said things were was not accurate. Escaped school at 17, took GED tests without any preparation and passed above 98th percentile with "honors." Tried to go to college... but my heart wasn't in it. It wasn't what I wanted to do, it was what I was supposed to do. Burnt the small scholarship I received for my high GED test marks... didn't go back. Moved away to a major metro (where I was born, not entirely unfamiliar), pursued my dream of becoming a professional club/rave DJ for a few years... satisfied my emotional need, decided that attaining and maintaining my financial goals as an artist would likely make achieving my relationship goals (wife, family) exceedingly difficult or impossible... got sick of the superficial and discriminatory nature of most people I met in that area... Moved back "home" around 21. At some point, I realized the connection that my still-favorite author's books had to Ayn Rand's philosophy. Read Atlas Shrugged. Took a job I was qualified for that I didn't hate. Had a lot of time for introspection on the job... focused on making money and thinking for a few years while becoming increasingly frustrated with "reality." Reconnected with a female friend from high school, started dating her, moved in with her. Started going to college part time, because I wanted to this time, and excelled. Finished my general associates. Got married. One magical day, the conservative AM talk station I was fond of was airing an episode of Free Talk Live... started listening to the show's previous episodes constantly... reprogrammed myself from an unprincipled amalgamation of conservative and liberal ideologies into something more closely resembling a human being. Quit my job at some point to focus on university full time. Discovered Brett Veinotte through FTL. Shifted from FTL to School Sucks as my main source of though-provoking analysis. Discovered Stefan Molyneux through School Sucks... shifted from School Sucks to FDR. Had a child. FTL guys did a lot of branch and leaf pruning... School Sucks seemed to be chopping at the trunk... FDR started to get at the root... I am about to graduate from university Magna Cum Laude... my degrees will be: "BS in Social Science with a concentration in Human Service and a minor in Psychology" and "BS is Anthropology with a concentration in Applied Cultural Anthropology." Fitting that they both begin with BS... because I have encountered a lot of BS along the way. I will not be continuing in academia on any level regardless of how many professors, friends, etc. tell me that it "would be a waste" if I don't go to graduate school... Right now: My wife is pregnant with #2, we are working through a lot of stuff with her family in particular, and a lot of heavy stuff is coming down the pipe... many decisions must be made and acted upon... and I felt like this board was my best shot for support as I move forward. Thanks for reading, and I hope this is the beginning of a fruitful relationship. -LTA

Some of you are probably familiar with this article, it's an objectivist perspective on why anarchism is wrong and can't work: http://mol.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/RobertBidinotto/ContradictionInAnarchism.htmlDoes anyone know if Stefan has made a rebuttal to this? I wish anarcho-capitalism to be possible, and these are the best arguments I've heard against it, so it would be cool if Stefan (or some of you guys) could rebutt these arguments.

I wanted to give and get a few thoughts on Objectivism and post-Objectivist/Neo-Objectivist etc. philosophical work. To give a background, my first exposure to Objectivism was through an audio book version of Atlas Shrugged I had torrented (take that, Objectivist IP nerds!) I was already familiar with radical liberalism and market anarchism through various lectures and articles on Mises.org, Anti-state.com and similar websites. I think I first heard about libertarianism via a Yahoo political party search (I liked the LP platform), and had started reading economics articles on Lew Rockwell. Pretty soon I was emailing socialist parties asking them why they had such crazy ideas about international trade, but it wasn't for a while after that that I seriously investigated Ayn Rand. I think I might have heard a few of her views on metaphysics and God when researching atheism in my teens, but I didn't distinguish her in particular until I decided to give Atlas Shrugged a listen. I have a taste for pulp literature and hard boiled detective novels, both of which influenced Ayn Rand, so I generally enjoyed the story. I found it a bit weird and slow at times, but some of the dialogue was really great, and funny (Rand wouldn't appreciate that - she believed laughter was for destructive purposes!) I especially liked Hank Rearden, who's more charming as an uptight but straightforward sexy Rockefeller than the New Capitalist Man John Galt. I agreed or sympathized with many views Rand expressed in the book, but I was not especially taken in by her philosophy - probably because I had already felt many of the same influenced she had, and had already radicalized into libertarianism and egoism a bit further than she did. I am not an intensive student of Objectivism in general or Rand, but I have put some effort into reading works by Objectivists or those strongly influenced by its ideas; and as I said, I have read some of the source material that influenced Ayn Rand's own development such as Aristotle, Nietzsche and Mises. The best place to start would probably be standing on one leg. The first seems entirely reasonable to me. Although certain metaphysical theories and religious belief systems would deny or qualify this, I suspect that most Objectivists had the same experience of George H. Smith of loudly proclaiming the existence of the external world and futiley waiting for someone to argue with you. That is not to say there isn't merit in pointing this out: after all, academic philosophy and pop mysticism are rife with bizarre and contradictory standards that contrive to allow them a pretended solipsism, and following through the implications of a realist metaphysic will help us understand the relationship between ontological coherence and logical consistency: Rand, like Aristotle, wants to make metaphysics prove logic. Her arguments in favor of this are not particularly detailed. Peikoff has made more elaborate discussions, but probably the best Objectivist-Aristotilian metaphysic and ontology I have seen is in the work of George H. Smith such as Atheism: The Case Against God. I am not sure if I agree with Ayn Rand's epistemology, though it does not strike me as a crazy epistemology what I have read by her and Peikoff hasn't convinced me. In fact, it hasn't entirely stuck with me, which is why I'd like comments from others. My own epistemic views are similar to those of Roderick Long, himself an Aristotilian, and it would perhaps to be worthwhile to see what he has to say about Rand's epistemology. I know that David Gordon has a lecture on this available online, too, which I'll try to listen and pay attention to. In some literal sense every man is his own end in that only particular persons have ends or ideas about means. Rand's moral views, as I understand it ala David Kelley, is that when persons understand their nature they use their reason to assess facts and assign a value and disvalue according to some standard of life or flourishing. If that is what Rand means by 'morality' I suppose I would agree, but I have always had trouble with how she goes from this very general proposition to presuming an broad swathe of classical liberal legal virtues. I wouldn't even say that law and morality are the same thing. It reminds me of the very abstract arguments of theologians for the existence of a Benevolent Prime Mover which conclude with, "therefore Jesus." While I do believe there are plausible supports to be made for libertarian law, eudaemonian reasoning, virtue ethics, egoism, and the general advantages of an individualist, rationalist and capitalistic society I don't know that you could make any straightforward deduction of them from the fact that men must use reason in their pursuit of ends. I mean, certainly thugs do use reason.They are not 'faking reality', because the 'long run' contribution to the damage of society they make is miniscule and the benefits are rapid and direct. Arguments that being a thug leads to a poor disposition and shallow life, that you risk retaliation, etc. are all perfectly reasonable, but MAN'S NATURE just isn't going to cut it. I am a Mises U. disciple of the Austrian Priesthood, generally favoring Rothbard, Mises and Menger. I am also fond of certain elements of Joseph T. Salerno's formulations, particularly on causal realism and economic calculation. Given that, and my overall views on civil society and law, I am a firm endorser of laissez-faire capitalism and I believe that Rand had a reasonably good grasp on economics from her writings in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. It's not clear if she understood the Austrian theory of the trade cycle, but capital theory is obscurantist by its nature.