Search the Community

This is my argument The reason why people have a passion is because they believe that they can change something and that it is important. In fact, all emotions are true in such a way. Emotions are simply involuntary responses to our rational observations. A child observes what he is good at and that is how a passion develops. It is very obvious to a child. Everyone as a child had figured it out, but not many people actually followed their passion. Since all passions are rational, then if society is rational, following one’s passion will lead to prosperity. However, this is not the case with our current society. If I want to become a philosopher in North Korea, my prospects are very low or I will not make enough money to survive. This would never happen in a free society because passions are always valuable. However, state intervention prevents the pursuit of an individual’s rational self-interests. It subdues free will. There was a man who did a major in philosophy but who after regretted it because he hadn’t been able to make money from it. It as at this point that people break with their passions. He concluded that passions are not necessarily good and he implicitly accepted nihilism rather than recognising that evil was done unto him. It makes it hard for him to recognise it since sophism is state sponsored in philosophy departments. The majority of people share a similar story. Whether it is coercion from the state, or their parents, or their peers, an adult or child is in some way rejected for following their passions and the adult or child concludes that he cannot trust his emotions. This is the very essence of evil. It is why people did not trust the invisible hand of the free market for tens of thousands of years. Essentially, their self-esteem was so destroyed that they did not trust their own rational faculty. It is the greatest contradiction that ever existed. A virtuous man would find a work-around. He knows that his life is meaningless without passion. He knows that if he were to look back at his life without following his passion, he would regret it and wonder what could have been. There is no alternative for him. Every action we make is motivated by emotion. A person cannot simply think and do. They must think until they feel that they can do. An artificial line has been created between emotions and thoughts. Emotions simply are an expression of our deepest and truest thoughts that we may not even be conscious of. It is analogous to the arbitrary distinction between qualia and meaning. We see red because we associate it with everything else that is red. A person void of passion then, is a robot without free will, following the instructions of others without even being consciously aware of it. So, the virtuous man has no rational choice other than to find alternatives to the best of his ability. This does not mean that the virtuous man will be unsatisfied. The passion arises only from what can be done. If man finds that his passion is unreachable, his passion will naturally change. So, the virtuous man is a force that cannot be stopped by anyone or anything. It is as clear as sunlight what his objective is. A rock cannot turn into a tree, nor can man change his neurological predispositions, particularly once he becomes aware of them. Even if a man is destroyed for following his passions, he will never be the same. He will always be at ease, because he knows what must be done so he will inevitably build himself back up. He is the man who works. But if a man does not immerse into his passions, he will always live a shallow life not knowing what he could have been. “Nothing is softer or more flexible than water, yet nothing can resist it” – Lao Tzu.

Physicalism (Materialism) Verifies Free Will Defining free will and physicalism The 'will' is the conscious experience of deciding and initiating human actions. Stefan Molyneux defines free will as the ability to compare an action to an ideal standard, but I will take a broader definition of free will which I would assume Stefan would agree with (without allowing for compatibilism): Free will is the ability to choose between possible actions independently of events that are external to a persons 'will'. That is, a person who decided to pursue action A at time X could have chosen action B under exactly the same external circumstances if he or she had 'willed' to do so. The opposite of free will is determinism which is: the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the 'will'. Another definition of determinism is that events including the 'will' are determined by previously existing causes, however, this definition will not be used because I believe it does not necessarily touch the core of the issue which is whether our 'will' can act undetermined by external causes. If we were to assume this second definition, then determinism would be compatible with free will. Physicalism (also known as materialism) is the doctrine that the real world consists only of the physical world. The contradiction between free will and physicalism In this section, I will play devil's advocate and suggest a contradiction between free will and physicalism. Stefan argues that it is self-evident that free will exists, i.e., that our will causes human actions, as anyone arguing against this is causing their human action of 'arguing'. Not only that, but they are assuming that the other person is in a sense causing their 'listening' or 'acceptance' or 'non-acceptance' of their argument, which are also human actions. An issue with free will that probably troubles the minds of others in this community is that if free will is self-evident, it is true. If it is true, then determinism is false. If determinism is false then physicalism is false. It seems if we accept free will, we must abandon physicalism and adopt mind-body dualism, that is, that the 'will' is real but is independent of the physical world. It seems that the physical world is synonymous with objective reality because all that is objective is in some way measurable and that which is measurable is physical. However, mind-body dualism would mean that reality consists of more than objective reality, which means truth is subjective. However, the statement that 'truth is subjective' demonstrates that truth is objective, which is a contradiction. We are left in a bind. Either determinism or free will is true. Determinism must be false because free will is self-evident, and free will must be false because mind-body dualism is self-contradictory. This is a contradiction. Defending free will and physicalism I believe there is an error in the above reasoning. It does not follow that "if determinism is false then physicalism is false". In fact, I will now argue that if physicalism is true, then free will is true, and hence determinism is false. The 'will', self, or consciousness exists and this is self-evident (cogito ergo sum; I think therefore I am). Therefore, physicalism would imply that the 'will' is physical. This conclusion is in line with physicalist theories of consciousness including Integrated Information Theory (IIT) which states that a system's consciousness is determined by its causal properties and is therefore an intrinsic, fundamental property of any physical system. If physicalism is true, then consciousness is a property of the causal links between neurons in a person's neural network. Then, consciousness is identical to the neural network. They are one of the same. If consciousness is the neural network, then our 'will' is also the neural network. Determinism would suggest that human actions are caused by this neural network but that human actions are caused by events external to our 'will': Determinism would suggest that the neural network itself is determined by external events such as non-conscious 'zombie' networks or neural networks connected to but external to the brain such as the peripheral nervous system. Therefore, if our brain determines actions and our brain is determined by external events, then our actions are determined by external events. However, it is not necessarily the case that external events determine our conscious neural network. According to IIT, the neural network is causally linked in such a way that the system is more akin to a positive feedback loop than a feed-forward system. That is, rather than external events causing consciousness causing action, external events play a role in consciousness (for example, I might say the reason I drank a glass of water is that I am thirsty) but that consciousness is caused by prior consciousness. Therefore, actions would be caused by consciousness, but consciousness would not be caused by external events. And because the 'will' is synonymous with our experience of consciousness, our 'will' has self-caused the action. It is not even that non-conscious processes cause our 'will'. It is that our 'will' and indeed our 'self' is composed in that integrated neural network that plays out causes and effects with itself. This is exactly what free will is, it is the freedom of the 'will' to act without being determined by external events, and because the ‘will’ is equal to the neural networks, the neural networks don’t count as external events. The best way to describe free will would be to say that it is an endogenous system. So we must conclude that physicalism actually demonstrates that free will is true and determinism is false. Looking at it from this perspective, it is completely, both ontologically and metaphysically accurate to say that 'I' convinced myself do to action A or action B. Conclusion The conception of free will I have suggested seems to dissolve much of the worries that people have about determinism. Some may worry that if determinism is true, then how can we ever be satisfied that we act rationally or are responsible for our actions? If external events determined that I would do something irrational or evil, how are we to expect any kind of integrity from ourselves. If we cannot expect integrity from ourselves, how can we say that we are really rational animals and how can we assign responsibility to ourselves and others? It seems that if determinism is true, then we are in a way doomed to a quasi-pathological life and we are fundamentally not in control of our own happiness. I believe this is the fundamental worry among free willers. The conception of free will I suggest solves this issue by suggesting that our self-integrity lies within the physical integrity (literally the integrated information) in our neural networks that retain a self-generating, endogenous system. If we look at free will with a physicalist lense, I believe we can preserve free will without compromising physicalism.

Well... As the title states, recently (as in June 2nd) was my first time going to Church. Now, having said that, I was taken to Church by my grandparents when my mother was in the hospital a decade or so ago back when I was a single-digiter. However this was the first time I, by my own will, attended Mass. And it was an otherwordly experience... First off: my initial intent was simply to find out when Sunday Mass is--so at around 2:00pm I headed out for my local Roman Catholic Church. I knew where it was because, a year or two ago, it was a place I handed my resume to back when I was green in the work world and I remembered how beautiful the church itself was; with twin statues guarding the front entrance, a tall and proud cross high above, and stained-glass windows facing the dirty streets around it. It was like a pear among a mine full of coals. However the office where one would "sign himself up" (so to speak--I am still quite ignorant of the proper terms and procedures) was closed and I noticed Mass would be held at 4:30. I was curious about whether or not I should wait (by the time I got there, it was around 2:30) so I checked out the beautiful interior architecture; from a wreathed statue of the Virgin to the massive cross bearing Christ over a tabernacle (also the day I learned what that word meant and what it represented) to the portraits of various saints along the walls that framed the upper church (there was a lower-roofed "lower church" underneath!). A church boy told me that confession was going to be held at 3:00, so I waited and then spoke to the reverend who helped educate me about how I can properly officiate myself as a Roman Catholic as well as gave me a brief confession which is when I briefly introduced myself as someone who was seeking wisdom and virtue after having left Socialism a few years ago. I don't recall much of the moment as it wasn't all that special, as it was more an introduction and guidance to entry rather than a proper confession. I then sat an empty pew and contemplated in prayer what I was doing, what it meant, and why I was doing it all. Ultimately I was going to Church not because I believed in God but rather because I believed in the word of God and the wisdom and power behind it. Eventually, Mass was time and sadly I was perhaps the only young person in the audience. It was mostly old people, surprisingly nearly all white. The only young people were a couple converts from India or Korea, though I kept to myself and mostly just spoke to the old woman behind me to help me keep up with the Mass (like what page number the priest at the podium was reading from, or the singer was singing from). Perhaps the most meaningful part, however, was when the reverend I spoke to earlier taught about the desire for recognition. He opened rather simply; "Have you ever spoken to someone, and then they look over your shoulder as if looking for someone more interesting? Or perhaps speak 'hello' to someone only for them to look away and ignore you?..." and from there proceeded to talk about the desire some have for recognition and then tied it to Jesus; stating something like: "Jesus did not do what He did for fame, but rather so that others might learn from Him". At the time I thought little of it as... isn't that common sense? Isn't it better to focus on doing good rather than seeking recognition for it? However when I spoke to my Father later on about it, he helped me realize how relevant it actually was. You see, the 4 reasons as to why I decided to go to Church were: Wisdom, Faith, Family, and Fraternity. Basically I wanted to improve myself and perhaps make some friends from among the parishioners over time. However... I was pulling the cart before the horse. I was going not for the strictest reason of seeking God (or wisdom) but rather for the effects of this. And that's why, when I went to Mass today (Sunday), I went with the singular purpose of leaving with wisdom rather than for the secondary gains that might come with seeking out the best folks in my area. And today's mass was largely the same as yesterday's but with a younger man (perhaps the pastor) giving it and sadly without the wise sermon in between the songs and readings. I focused more on the readings this time as they were the same as yesterday's so I could absorb it more. I think they were under "Corpus Christi" or something; I know the story went something like Moses sacrificing half his livestock to an altar of God and then sprinkling some of it onto the disciples followed by Jesus sending forth a disciple to arrange for passover in another disciple's house in a city. Not sure what wisdom I ought to extract from this, other then take it as part of a larger story on both sides. Perhaps next Sunday, when I go for Mass, the story will continue and become clearer to me (I ought to mention the masses are mostly scripted a year in advance, apparently). Overall it was a very enlightening experience with few distractions. I was quite anxious for today's mass as I was thinking last night whether I was doing it for the right reasons and whether or not I was being honest with myself. To be clear: I don't know if I believe in God or not. I am tempted to say I don't, yet a part of me is inclined to believe there is either due to an instinct to believe or the logic that something must have caused the Big Bang... ...And, if I don't really believe in God, then why I am going to Church? Quite simply: for wisdom, guidance, and a place to think over my week and prepare for the next. These things I got for myself and I am happy though still hungry. Tomorrow I'll be making a call for a meeting and stuff to properly initiate myself back into my ancestral church, and I will make it a regular thing for me to attend mass on Sundays. And, to be clear on the point of sharing this, I am curious what folks think around here. Both the atheists and the Christians. Am I doing the right thing in seeking wisdom from the Church and broadening my fountains of wisdom or am I perhaps being deceitful by not being fully a believer yet going to Church?

Here's my argument: Arguments that appeal to the emotions of other people are valid arguments. Why? Because they CAN be used to convince people, which is the purpose of an argument. The problem is that Emotional Arguments often violate other clear rules of philosophy, but they can be constructed to actually point to the truth. Thank you for reading, let me know if you have any ideas or comments below.

The importance of rational ethics We are born into the world not simply to learn facts about the world but also to make choices. These choices are conscious and deliberate, therefore when we make them we are trying to base them off something we have consciously learned. Some kind of knowledge that allows for this decision making must exist, even if this knowledge is simply that we should follow our instincts. The knowledge for choices that are within our rational self-interest is called ethics. Naturally, we must find what ethics is if we are to be rational. What is essential to ethics is that it is rational, and any alternative is irrational or non-rational. If we are arguing for ethics, we are arguing that it is within peoples' rational self-interest to follow ethics. If our ethical system cannot be proven to be rational, it is not an ethical system. Indeed, people have criticised UPB for supposedly failing to prove ethics is rational (1, 2, 3). This is why when I read Universally Preferable Behaviour (UPB; 4) it was my intention to focus on why UPB is rational. It is imperative to prove that it is rational to follow ethics, as this is the only defence against nihilism. My understanding of rational ethics after reading UPB (UPeB) After reading UPB four times, I came to a specific understanding of ethics which I think makes a slightly different argument to UPB, but nevertheless works from the similar axioms. I mistakenly took 'universally preferable' to be synonymous with 'universally permissible'. A universally permissible behaviour (UPeB) is a behaviour that I can prefer and it doesn't necessarily conflict with any other person's preferences. In that sense, they are permitting my behaviour. E.g., I prefer jazz and everyone else could permit that I prefer jazz, therefore jazz is UPeB. I prefer murder but my victim necessarily does not permit the murder, therefore murder is not UPeB. My argument is laid out here in syllogistic form: 1. Preferred behaviours are deliberate. (Conscious, voluntary, etc.) 2. Deliberation requires beliefs. (Propositions, truth statements, etc.) 3. Preferred behaviours are based on beliefs. (E.g. I should listen to jazz, I should murder) 1. Preferred behaviours are based on beliefs. 2. Beliefs must be universally permissible to be true. (Reality is objective. Therefore, beliefs cannot be true for some people and false for others. Therefore, true beliefs are permissible as being true by everyone.) 3. Preferred behaviours that are not universally permissible must be based on false beliefs. 1. Preferred behaviours that are not universally permissible are based on false beliefs. 2. Falsehood is irrational. (I cannot think or deliberate without knowledge. That would be like trying to sail without a compass.) 3. Preferred behaviours that are not universally permissible are irrational. (Murder, rape, theft, fraud, lying, etc are irrational.) Stefan's understanding of ethics (UPB) When I skimmed the book recently, I realised I made a mistake. Stefan makes clear on page 51 that 'preferable' means preferences that are required for some individual to attain an end, and 'universally preferable' means required for any individual (objectively required) to attain an end. E.g., if you want to lose weight (end) it is objectively required (universally preferable) that the output of calories is greater than the input of calories. This meaning of 'universally preferable' seems to differ to my original understanding. UPB proper seems to deal with essential means to an end. My UPeB seems to deal with the objectivity of true beliefs. Is UPB rational ethics? The big question is, can UPB be proven to be rational? I.e., is someone who doesn't follow UPB being irrational? Stefan argues for why UPB exists in syllogistic form (page 55), but doesn't seem to argue for why UPB is rational in syllogistic form. However, he does mention that moral theories must be rational to be true (page 63), thus he implies that if UPB exists, it must be rational. I suspect that the proof of the rationality of UPB is similar to my argument for the rationality of UPeB. The proof of the rationality of UPB in syllogistic form would look something like this: 1. All rational beliefs have an argumentative form. (If I believe something, I should be able to argue for it.) 2. Rational preferred behaviours are based on rational beliefs. 3. All rational preferred behaviours have an argumentative form. 1. All rational preferred behaviours have an argumentative form. 2. The act of argumentation asserts UPB. (UPB are the preference for truth over falsehood, that we exist, that the best way to solve conflicts is peacefully, etc. This is similar to Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics; 5.) 3. Any preferred behaviour that conflicts with UPB is irrational. Looking at page 211 'UPB in a Nutshell', Stefan seems to be making the argument that UPB is asserted in any argument (premise 2 of syllogism 2 above). Further on page 65, moral theories are kind of theories about UPB. People who propose moral rules are proposing they are UPB, presumably because in the act of arguing for a moral rule, they are asserting UPB. This is the same as assuming the moral rule is UPB(!?). Stefan doesn't seem to make this explicit, which is why I have to do some guesswork to come up with this syllogism. I am not quite sure if Stefan would argue that ethics can be proven to be rational, ethics cannot be proven to be rational but only that ethics exists, or something else altogether. I would not be surprised by the second outcome as he says he fully accepts Hume's is-ought distinction (as do I; page 12). The differences and similarities between UPB and UPeB Argumentation asserts universally permissible beliefs. In this way, premise 2 of the second syllogism is similar premise 2 of the third syllogism in my original argument. The conclusions of my argument might be different to Stefan's. He might only mean that preferred behaviours that are in conflict with those UPB such as 'truth is better than falsehood' and 'we exist' are irrational while mine is perhaps broader but also perhaps more problematic. A problem with UPeB UPeB might be problematic because any preferred behaviour that is not universally permissible could be deemed to be so. E.g., I am not murdering you because you ought to permit me killing you, in fact you are the irrational one and not me. It begs the question, what ought a person permit? Perhaps UPB solves this by saying the preferred behaviour could not be deemed to be universally permissible because the action itself conflicts with the requisites of argumentation? UPB and consequences I believe that an ethical framework people ought to follow must be able to at least theoretically explain different consequences of unethical behaviour. UPB the book lacks in this regard. He does make some consequential arguments for UPB (page 66), but he doesn't make an explicit argument of explaining how they are causally linked. According to UPeB, irrational beliefs cannot be within one's rational self-interest. UPeB and consequences An explanation about why UPeB will lead to positive personal consequences goes like this: Having irrational beliefs (including irrational preferred behaviours) means you seize conscious control over those beliefs. These beliefs must stem from some unconscious part of your psyche which seems to be particularly resistant to rationality. That which is resistant to your conscious awareness is painful and destructive to your conscious awareness. I'd like to know if I've made a correct evaluation of UPB with the syllogism I used and my understanding of preferability and what people think about UPeB and how morality can be proven to be rational. References 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viZYL3ceh9U 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGYendXNjGg 3. https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46332-why-be-moral-answered/ 4. Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics by Stefan Molyneux Paperback 5: https://mises.org/wire/primer-hoppes-argumentation-ethics

Hello! I have been listening to the show for a while now, more or less at times. Always thought provoking. I'm currently facing the "right and duty" of conscription, not going to the army that's for sure. I have decided to work for a non profit for a year to get that sorted. Anyone else from here? Looking forward to contributing more to this community! Thanks for reading!

This is a "debate" between Peter Joseph and Stefan Molyneux over the merits of an Anacap stateless society and a RBE (resource based economy). Both agree on the glaring flaws of the current system. Where they diverge is on the solution. Molyneux argues that the removal of the State and the initiation of the use of force is the way we begin to work towards a more prosperous and peaceful society. Joseph argues that even without a State, the free market would still have plutocratic overlords who would continue to oppress humanity through absolute control. He also argues that because we have so much technology at the moment and that because it will only continue to expand, there is no need for anyone to be entrepreneurial anymore. Basically we can just hand out free stuff due to our abundance. This view is fundamentally wrong for a number of reasons that are easily explained with basic economics. A foundational concept of economics is the idea that humans have near infinite desires or needs, but we have noticeably scarce resources. In other words, scarcity is a constant of the human condition. No amount of "technology" is ever going to erase this reality unless someone creates a machine that can make food and water out of anti-matter. Until such a time, we are constrained by what the Earth can provide to us. Peter wants for there to be free access to the world's resources so that anyone can fulfill whatever need they have at the push of a button. I like to draw a comparison between Star Trek or Wall-E whenever I hear this argument. The problem with this is again human desires are near infinite. If you tired to institute this there would be massive demand with the same fixed amount of supply. People would want to have fleets of Mercedes, Lamborghinis, maybe a few estates, and all other kinds of stuff. Joseph argues that at some point people would realize that they need not steal from others because there is plenty to go around. The major problem with this is that it is a vague timeframe, when exactly will people realize this? 1 year? 3 years? 10 years? Also, if you are not using price signals to allocate resources, how is it done? Might makes right? Genetic superiority? It will never work because eventually you get old and people who are younger than you assume the mantle and reverse everything you worked to build. Similar to ritual of exchanging the "One Ring To Rule Them All" every four years in America, the problem with central planning is there is always the possibility that somebody you don't like will be granted the prerogative to determine how your life will play out. There is also the issue of who will build all of these machines that will do all the work for us. If this is indeed the goal behind the RBE then people who are engineers and scientists are going to have to forgo quite a large portion of their lives in service of building this future society. These people are not going to undergo such a huge project without compensation. I probably sound like a broken record at this point but this idea is essential: There is no such thing as a free lunch. Lets assume these scientists are not going to be paid with money. If that is the case how will they be compensated for their efforts? I would imagine they would demand ownership rights, after all it was their intellectual rigor that brought about the transforming of society. The idea that people are just going to do this out of the kindness of their hearts is simply delusory. Even non-profits and charities have to solicit donations or some other form of currency in exchange for their services. Nothing is for free, there is always a cost. This debate can sort of serve as an intelligence test. If one truly believes that anything can be free, I would invite you to open up a health clinic or any other kind of business and not charge anybody for your services period. You may notice that people will begin to overconsume whatever it is you have to offer to point of there being dangerous shortages. I mean just look at what happens when someone goes onto a college campus with "free" anything. So in conclusion, a RBE sounds really nice on paper and within the realm of abstractions, but when put into practice it hauntingly resembles Communism. RBE advocates argue that the only way this can ever work is if everyone is on board. A series of questions I would ask them is this: " How do you get people on board with this? With force and coercion? Or through voluntary exchange and a respect for property rights? If people do not sign on to this, what is your reaction? And finally, if these ideas are so wonderful and superior to the current system why are you still debating the merits? What is stopping you from building this paradise?"

For those looking for philosophical video games (or at least a free visual novel I discovered as a parody of another visual novel game I discovered called "Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney") this is the one. It's both educational and amusing because it actually teaches the player how to make and disassemble arguments. I just started watching someone play it (can't be bothered to trouble myself with downloading it since others' have played it) and I have to say it's ironically educational because it three very basic tools to debate with: asking for clarification (about a given claim), asking for proof/evidence, and asking whether it's even relevant (as well as an option to use sophistry that never works). I doubt it'll (or has) sparked critical thinking among the general populace but it sure is a kindergartener's introduction to philosophy that's a bit more of a "demonstration" that shows how it actually works when applied similar to Stefpai's introductory videos on philosophy that ended with why the State's an immoral institution based on the creation of an artificial structure that demands obedience because sophistry.

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 FDR358 (Stef's wager) Stefan argued that it is better to believe in free will when lacking information to its existence. He calls this argument Stef’s wager. If you believe in free will but determinism is true then you were determined to believe in free will so you lost nothing. If you believe in determinism but free will is true then you lost your ability for personal responsibility which is worse. In this post, I will argue against the wager and utilise my argument against the wager to provide a case for, and to defend determinism. I will not cite all my paraphrases of Stefan for obvious reasons, but that is not a problem given that others may correct me if they believe I have misrepresented Stefan. Also, phrases with single quotation marks are quoting Stefan. Free will is defined as that which any person who possesses it could have chosen differently in a circumstance given that the circumstance is unchanged, hence choices being uncaused by any physical effect. Decisions may be caused by something non-material like a soul. Or they may be self-caused, as Stefan has favoured. This definition of free will is the same definition Stefan has used. No sane determinist truly believes that beliefs cannot be changed or that choice does not exist. No sane determinist truly believes people cannot be rational or cannot debate. So naturally, a determinist will probably not find Stef’s wager convincing given that the determinist had probably considered the ability to choose when they adopted their belief in determinism. A determinist will not believe that beliefs cannot be influenced. Therefore, I argue that a better wager would be to show the pragmatic consequences of a determinist morality vs. a free will morality. This is more in line with the original Descartes wager. Descartes did not argue that if you believe in God but God does not exist then you cannot have lost anything because then morality does not exist anyway and so free will doesn't exist and you could not have changed your mind. Rather, he weighed up the consequences of the belief without changing epistemological postulates. He said if you believe in God but there is no God then you have not changed much in your life. If you believe in no God but there is a God then you will go to hell. Nowhere in this argument are one’s epistemological beliefs challenged. The wager is a pragmatic rather than a philosophical argument. Speaking in pragmatic terms, the wager favours neither position particularly strongly. There are many changes that a person makes if they are committed to determinism, for which it would be costly if they didn't make if determinism is true. Firstly, you stop evaluating people based on the decisions they make and start evaluating them on their behaviour. This makes life much simpler because you stop judging your own desires about people. You don't try to convince yourself someone is worth your time because they are trying their best to be a good person. You don't feel guilty for being selfish with regards to your relationships. According to a study, 44% of trait conscientiousness is heritable. This study supports the claim that virtue is predetermined. Secondly, you become compassionate towards others. You understand anger does not appeal to their rationality. Given that you evaluate them on their behaviour, you can infer that they are not worthy of your time if they don't change their behaviour. You may call them stubborn without any need to grant them free will. Thirdly, you have a richer understanding of human nature. How anger could change someone even if free will is true is difficult to imagine. A much simpler approach is to understand our emotions do not necessarily have any moral content. Anger may be a fight or flight mechanism. Shame may be a way of keeping the integrity of a tribe. Hatred depends on subjective values. There is not necessarily an unconscious 'true self' that 'knows everything' and then the extra component of free will. Rather, we can understand how people think by analysing their biology and experiences. According to free will, brain damage may affect a person’s emotions or unconscious motives, but it should not be able to affect a person’s virtue or moral worth, which should be solely determined by free will, and free will not being determined by physical effect. However, a study found that brain damage can casually make changes in the way that people reason which can causally change moral beliefs. Fourthly, you become compassionate towards yourself. A meta-analysis found a large effect size for the negative relationship between self-compassion and psychopathology, r = − 0.54 (95% CI = − 0.57 to − 0.51; Z = − 34.02; p < .0001). We can come to understand that when we say ‘sorry’, we don’t really mean we are worthy of shame, but rather that we understand that we should change how we behave in the future compared to the past. We also stop comparing ourselves to others. Under the dictum that reason equals virtue equals happiness, we may feel compelled to compare our levels of happiness to others, or to compare our virtue to that of others. This is not a good approach. We can accept that we are not all dealt the same hand, and there may as well be things that determine our virtue for which are difficult to control. It is not to say that we ought not to strive for virtue, but that virtue should not necessarily be the determinant of self-esteem. What is more appropriate is to compare oneself in the present to oneself in the past. Stefan has argued that determinism is paradoxical because it presupposes that a person is capable of choice, that is, changing their beliefs, while at the same time asserting that choice is impossible. Determinism is the opposite of free will. So, determinism is defined as not being able to have chosen differently in a circumstance given that the circumstance is unchanged, hence choices being caused by physical effects. According to this definition, whether a person has actually made a choice remains untouched. So, the ability to choose and the fact that a person could not have chosen differently are compatible. Choice itself does not require free will. Choice is the ability to change behaviour in virtue of being rational. Rationality is simply conceptual ‘fidelity to reality’. This does not entail free will. Rationality distinguishes us from animals. Animals cannot think conceptually, and we can. Free will then is not required to distinguish human and animal thought. Stefan has argued that if a determinist attempts to debate because they believe others are 'inputs and outputs', then it explains why other people debate, but it would also mean the determinist is also an input-output machine. And therefore, a determinist has not chosen to debate with others and cannot attempt to debate in the first place which is a performative contradiction. To this argument I rebut. If free will does exist and we are watching two others debate, we can explain their behaviour without appealing to free will by labelling them as inputs and outputs much like philosophical zombies. A determinist simply takes that further to say that this is also a characteristic of the observer. We can still choose to debate even if it was determined. I am yet to have heard a philosophical argument from Stefan against determinism without him appealing to the argument of performative contradiction. If there is no contradiction with the belief of free will, we should look at the evidence and the simplest explanation. Stefan has acknowledged that determinism should be accepted only if it is non-contradictory given that it is simpler. The evidence overwhelmingly supports that determinism is simpler to free will for the following reasons. Firstly, everything else seems to be determined by all effects acting as also as all causes. Stefan has argued that we should not be surprised to find that the human mind possesses free will given that it is only the brain that possesses consciousness. However, I am not sure whether it's correct to assume that only the brain possesses consciousness. Consciousness cannot be objectively observed. If it were not for what we have observed in the physical human body and comparing it to our subjective experience, there would have been no way to know that consciousness resides in the brain. In fact, we still don't really know whether animals are conscious. In that regard, a rock could even be conscious in some manner, a position known as panpsychism. If a computer was capable of conceptual processing, it is likely that the computer would be conscious at a level similar to our own. Consciousness may have to do more with complexity and feedback loops than it has to do with the brain. I had a dream a while ago in which I saw consciousness and life itself arising from feedback loops, weird dream. Secondly, I do not know what it means to feel free. At least from my perspective, I see my thoughts as constant dialectics. I have said sorry enough times to my girlfriend where I really feel like I don't have much control as I thought I had. Do any men concur? Split-brain patients will often have opposing preferences in separate hemispheres. For example, one hemisphere may have atheistic leanings while the other has theistic leanings. Whether the person is actually theistic may have to do with what ever preference dominates consciousness as a unitary experience, but it does go to show the power of causality in the brain. Also, in my experience the biggest changes in my behaviour have arisen from changes in my environment rather than changes in my attitude. Thirdly, morality requires rationality but it does not require free will. Nowhere in the UPB framework is there a requirement for free will. If a person is rational, they will be moral by adopting universal preferences. Whether a person is rational may be predetermined. Fourthly, it is difficult to articulate what free will actually is. If you were asked to pick a random grass leaf from a field, it is difficult to claim you could have chosen differently. Every choice must depend on knowledge. Picking a grass leaf from a field is not an informative decision. You cannot for example say to have free will about whether to steer a ship east or west while in the middle of an unknown ocean at least without some scientific acuity. Likely, you will pick based solely upon gut feelings, or some kind of patterns of thinking or heuristics. Indeed, this is why neuroscientists can predict such behaviour before the person is aware of their decision. But even if a decision were to be more informative, like for example whether to watch this movie or that movie, there is nothing in your environment which informs you about what you ought to do. It is not intrinsically more rational to watch either movie. There is no ought from an is. Now, we can still say that morality exists. We can say it’s rational to be moral, for your behaviour to be universally preferable. However, choosing to watch a movie is not a moral decision. Subjective taste would largely determine which movie to watch, which arises from unconscious processes. If you are rational, unconscious motives will drive your specific behaviours. If you are irrational, unconscious motives will still drive your specific behaviours. Then, free will might not exist in the behavioural decisions per se, but rather in the choice about whether one acts rationally or irrationally regardless of what behaviour that entails. This is certainly what Ayn Rand believed. The point here is that free will how it is typically conceptualised as existing in every choice we make is unnecessary, and creates the problem of supposing some open system where we get inspiration or information from something that is neither in our environment or biology. To conclude, whether or not a person believes in determinism has significant effects on their life regardless of whether determinism is true. Determinism is not incompatible with the ability to choose. Therefore, it does not contradict how we act. Given that determinism is the simplest explanation, determinism is true. Determinism is defined as a lack of the ability have chosen differently. Free willers would argue the corollary to determinism is that choice does not exist. Conventionally then, determinism is also defined as the lack of choice. But I would argue that this belief is the idea of fatalism and not determinism. Given that morality exists and free will is an important concept in moral reasoning, I am in favour of compatibilism which states that free will does not contradict determinism if we define free will conventionally as the ability to choose and determinism as not having been able to have chosen differently. A person who is a compatibilist is still a determinist. I also wish not to do a disservice to free willers by abandoning the term known as free will used to describe the position of believing in the ability to have chosen differently, so I think it is appropriate to call that position free will while separating it from conventional free will.

Hi thinkers and alike, What are the MORAL pros and cons when it comes to 'clickbait'? If some proportions are to be provably moral, what are good approximations/guidelines that could be put forward? Are there any important long term consequences? (due to the argument of the thread, was the title chosen as such, all for the intended constructive purpose of pure demonstration itself) - - - - I have done a search on the forum but haven't found any thread with this topic. - - - - Here's a Wikipedia definition Here's a(n) Urban dictionary definition Here's what Merriam-Webster 'says' - - - - my stance: I have no problem with it, unless I forgot to put on my 'thinking cap'. Though definitely have been always drawn to content where the claim (even if hyperbolic) have been greatly justified throughout the content and falls after overall consideration into the 'soft-clickbait' category. - - - - other, similar terms: 'link bait' 'sensational titles' 'SEO-d titles' (churnalism?) ... - - - - Have a good one, Barnsley

Rebuttal to FDR802: On the subject of Buddhism, Stefan makes a number of claims that come from his lack of understanding of Buddhism. I would like to address these claims and would also like to request a response from Stefan himself although all responses are welcome. Disclaimer: I am not a Buddhist. I have my own philosophy, but I do use some of their methodologies as discussed below, and have a very good understanding of the philosophy. First claim: Buddhists are hypocrites: If a Buddhist invalidates someone’s argument rather than the person, they are not guilty of hypocrisy since they are addressing the argument and not the character of the individual. Stefan is falsely accusing them of ad hominem. An attack on someone’s argument says nothing about their character. Next, I disagree with the statement you read from “John the Buddhist” about Buddhism. The mythology is relevant and many people interpret it literally. There is a standard of determining whether something is true or false in Buddhism but it is introspective rather than extrospective and thus results in subjective proof rather than objective proof. In other words, you prove it to yourself. Some Buddhists are now willing rely on the scientific method in order to prove it to other people. I also disagree that the ideas have been distorted. Rather, you spoke to individuals that have a very poor take on Buddhism and they do not represent Buddhism as a whole. Now, when “John the Buddhist” started accusing you of not understanding and being non compassionate he did cross the line into hyprocrisy. To judge Buddhism by the actions of one man who claims to be a Buddhist is collectivism, and a hasty generalization which is irrational. Next, you said that you did not understand what “the craving of things causes one to be reborn” means. Let me explain that statement to you. They mean it quite literally. The action of having expectations and craving things is commonly referred to as “grasping the web [of karma]” Buddhists believe that such grasping creates karmic bonds that hold you to this existence so that when you die, you are reincarnated again. They refer to this process as the wheel of life and death. However, if one were to completely sever all karmic bonds, then one would be able to ascend to a higher plane of existence with the Gods. It is the Buddhist version of going to heaven. However, it can be interpreted in many ways. Have you ever watched the Stargate SG-1 television series? In that series, they portray ascendance as becoming a consciousness that is made out of pure energy that exists on another plane. That is one of many interpretations of ascension that could be applied to Buddhism. Toothache scenario: According to both Buddhist philosophy and Chinese Medicine, which is based on Buddhist philosophy, the toothache is caused by a blockage in your Qi energy through one of your chakras or meridians. That blockage is in turn caused by your grasping to the web. In theory, if you did not ever grasp the web then you would never have any blockage and be in perfect health so long as you ate a clean, natural, healthy vegetarian diet and ate in moderation. There are several ways to treat a chakra or meridian blockage, one of the most well known being acupuncture which has been proven effective at reducing or eliminating pain at the hands of a skilled acupuncturist. Qi gong is an example of a less well known method. Kundalini and Reiki are somewhere in the middle between those two in terms of general public recognition. Refrain from killing anything living: You are taking this too literally. What is meant by this is to not kill anything living unnecessarily. Remember, this is a moral rule, so it is subject to UPB. Let’s evaluate it using the UPB framework: The proposition is “You should only kill that which you have to in order to subsist naturally on this planet.” Is there choice or personal responsibility involved with not killing anything more than you require to subsist? Yes, one can choose to kill the exact number of organisms required to subsist or they could choose not to. No person or circumstance dictates that they must do it or that they must do otherwise. Avoidance: Can one avoid being responsible for killing more organisms than necessary to subsist? Yes, but only by practicing the moral rule, and by not practicing the moral rule you are subjecting more organisms to untimely death. We can argue over whether that matters or not as they are a different species, but the fact remains that the situation is unavoidable for them just like rape and murder are unavoidable for the victims. The organisms may have a chance to get away in some scenarios which is why I would consider hunting more moral than buying meat that came from a slaughterhouse. Initiation: Do the organisms you are killing consent to being killed to help you subsist? No. Can two men in a room together only kill that which is necessary for them to subsist? Yes. Does initiating force against lower life forms in order for you to subsist violate the non initiation of force rule? Yes, so long as we consider initiating force against lower life forms to be an NAP violation. Do lifeboat scenarios apply? Yes, you need to kill some organisms simply in order to subsist and killing microbes is unintentional. That is why killing that level of organisms is considered moral whereas killing more than you need to subsist is considered immoral. You have no control over the fact that you need to kill other organisms to subsist nor any control over accidental killing of organisms. Interestingly, there is a sect of Hinduism (which is incredibly similar to Buddhism philosophically) called Jainism and Jainists go as far as to wear respirators so as not to accidentally inhale microbes and kill them with their immune systems. However, I would argue that they are not drinking the water because it cannot be perfectly pure. Should you still accept punishment for killing organisms that you are compelled to kill in order to subsist? Yes. We must accept that we are imperfect beings and know that there may be a karmic thread attached to our actions even if we are compelled to perform those actions in order to survive. This is why asceticism used to be popular during the time of Shakyamuni or “Siddhartha Gautama.” It is still practiced by many Hindus to this day. Can it be applied at all times in all places by all men universally? Yes, and as a matter of fact it would have the side benefit of conserving resources like crazy if practiced by all men simultaneously. Can you not kill anything more than is necessary for your subsistence in a coma? Yes, as a matter of fact, you would be doing this by default in a coma. Is the opposite of the moral rule a vice rather than a virtue? Yes, and the opposite is killing organisms in excess of what one needs to subsist. Are we able to determine an objective standard for the amount of organisms one needs to kill to subsist? Yes, there are science based means of determining one’s minimum nutritional needs. Do insurmountable logical problems arise from the opposite propositon? Yes. Killing organisms in excess of what one needs to subsist is universally preferable leads to contradictions because it is a positive requirement. Do all men have the capacity to follow this moral rule? Yes, as long as they have the minimal amount of brain function necessary to make a rational determination of what the minimum nutritional intake one needs in order to flourish and subsist. Okay, valid moral rule. Anyone disagree? Next up, why do Buddhists not use logic, reasoning, and evidence to prove their moral rules? Two reasons: 1. They are unaware that a methodology exists to do so like I have just done above. 2. They prove it to themselves subjectively via various specialized methodologies of introspection. Claim: The law of karma is based on mysticism. Rebuttal: Only if you consider gleaning wisdom from the universe via specialized methodologies of introspection to be mystical. I don’t believe it is. Let’s take meditation for example. How do you glean wisdom from meditation? You still the mind and thoughts and in doing so can perceive things that would otherwise be unable to be perceived with all the background noise going on in your head. In other words, you allow the universe itself to talk to you, but it only whispers very quietly so you have to tame your mind in order to hear it. Buddhists make the analogy of a muddy river where the current keeps churning up mud. If we still the water, then the mud settles and the water is now clear and one can see all the way to the bottom of the river, whereas before one could only see the surface of the muddy water. Claim: You can’t describe the essence of Buddhism in three pages or less. Rebuttal: I just did (total length 2.5 pages) and addressed your arguments against it at the same time. Not everyone has the same natural ability of articulation. I happen to be one of the people who does have that. Claim: There are no hidden gems of wisdom in Buddhism. Rebuttal: Yes there are, but they are hidden; therefore, you can’t see them. You can find them by practicing specialized introspective methodologies and it takes a fairly good bit of practice to master. There is a famous saying in Buddhism and eastern thought that goes something like “He who speaks knows not.” The meaning of this statement is that the deep wisdoms revealed only through introspection cannot be communicated because they are entirely subjective in nature. That principle is one of the main reasons why Buddhists are unwilling to engage you in rational debate on these issues. It literally goes against what used to be, and for many still is, a main principle of Buddhism, but it rightly should no longer be considered such due to the inventions of both the scientific method and UPB. Luckily, I am not a Buddhist, so I am not hindered by their limitations. I do use some Buddhist specialized introspective methodologies though, so I know what they are talking about.

I know what Wikipedia says. Didn't help. Is it a person who doesn't physically show emotion but feels it inside him? Is it a person who controls the emotion?

In arguments, I have noticed a sort of algorithmic pattern of behavior from leftists. We've been analyzing the ideas and environmental factors associated with the modern left, but we need a deeper understanding. It has been one of my greatest intellectual challenges to unravel the most fundamental emotions and motivations of their ideology. Disclaimer: I will be broadly generalizing in my descriptions. 'Leftist' is a broad term with variability in its definitions which is used to describe millions of people who are all different. Existential Anxiety and Fear: There are a great many threats in the world, and most people are aware of more than a few of these threats. Our fear and anxiety comes from an ancient part of our mind, one equipped for immediate threats and unfamiliar situations. Human beings are in a unique position of feeling our 'primitive' fear and anxiety in response to every threat imaginable. And, we can imagine so many existential threats to our lives, and to our well-being. We can also imagine threats to our ideology and mental continuity, which is an important element in this description. You may have observed someone become absurdly upset in response to an idea. New ideas can be perceived as an existential threat; a threat that was not anticipated and is not fully understood. The idea is not just a group of words, it is a gateway to an abyss. It is an implication that one is misguided, ignorant, stupid, poorly equipped for life, and/or doomed to suffer and die. The Abdication of Personal Responsibility: It can be a great relief to reject personal responsibility. It dispels anxiety, guilt, and shame. It means not having to work harder or to improve oneself. It means not having to change or to annihilate parts of oneself in order to become better. Determinism: Perhaps determinism is rational, even scientific, but that is not the main reason the modern left favors it. The modern left favors determinism because it allows them to abdicate personal responsibility, something they value far more than scientific rationality. Scientific rationality could not be their highest value because they reject the scientific claims that conflict with their ideology. Unhappiness: Let's face it: most people are unhappy most of the time. Happiness is not a common or sustainable state. "Life is suffering." We live in an era of unprecedented affluence and luxury, but people are still unhappy. The modern left has a specific response to suffering in life. Because they abdicate personal responsibility, the modern left must blame environmental factors for their suffering. Therefore, to diminish suffering, the environment must be altered. It is the only real conclusion that can be drawn from these elements. Of course, altering the environment usually means using state power. Faith in Government: It is a common response to fear and anxiety to put faith in a 'higher power' in hopes of receiving some protection from the existential threats. Just considering potential corruption in the government is frightening. Not only that, the idea of government corruption could return the onus of responsibility to the individual. To them, government is the most powerful tool we have to alter society in order to reduce suffering and make people happier. Faith in government reduces fear and anxiety, relieves personal responsibility, and it can be used to alter society and environmental factors. Idealizing Society: Instead of idealizing potential characteristics of individuals, the modern left must idealize potential characteristics of society. This too, is caused by the abdication of personal responsibility. Because suffering and inequality cannot be the result of individual inadequacy, suffering and inequality must be caused by environmental factors. Therefore, environmental factors must be changed. They pursue utopia. With these elements in mind, the political beliefs of the modern left don't just make sense. These factors make their political beliefs inevitable.

Have we got any FDR folks/members in New Zealand!? Looking for interesting folks to hangout/meetup with and also looking to date!

While I'm on the topic of spanking children and how it is a violation of the NAP, allow me to make an analogy. First of all, philosophy is not democratic and science is not consensus without rigorous inquiry into an academic question or issue. It is reason and evidence that matters. Who cares what the majority thinks? At one point in time people thought the Earth was flat, or that serfdom and slavery were moral. Just because people believed it for centuries doesn't make it correct. ‍♂ Come on people, this is pathetic. I'm really not trying to belittle or demean but this is just historical bigotry and intransigent inertia. For those people who spank their children, how do you know that choosing not to do that and instead use negotiation and diplomacy won't work? Saying that children are not old enough to understand complex moral rules is not a valid argument. All that says is that you're lazy and haven't bothered to ever question anything a so called "authority" has told you. If violence against children is a legitimate way of teaching responsibility and that there are consequences for recalcitrance then why don't we raise our kids under a radical interpretation of Sharia Law? Heretics and blasphemers of Sharia are struck or whipped for disobedience. Women who are raped have to have multiple male witness testimony to exonerate HER of wrongdoing. This a valid comparison because violence is violence is violence. Ex post facto justifications do not change this fact. To take another example, we all know that at some point the balance of power shifts away from the parents and to the now grown child. If using violence to teach there are consequences for mistakes is a valid form of discipline, then what happens when your geriatric ass forgets the keys in the refrigerator or something else. Do your children or other caretakers get to hit you? Of course not, everyone considers this abuse. So why is it ok to use these tactics on children. Remember, individual anecdotes and personal testimony do not negate statistical trends. In the spirit of putting my money where my mouth is, these are four studies that corroborate my claims: http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/04/spanking.aspx https://news.utexas.edu/…/risks-of-harm-from-spanking-confi… https://www.psychologytoday.com/…/research-spanking-it-s-ba… http://www.iflscience.com/…/spanking-leads-angrier-and-mor…/ I welcome anyone to offer counter arguments, but please stick to actual arguments. Personal incredulousness and anecdotes are not arguments.

Hey fellas! Just wanted let you guys know that Steven Franssen is doing fantastic livestreams @ https://www.youtube.com/user/RedRightHunter/featured Steven talks about current events, eviscerates leftism and purges the cuck out of those who watches his streams and reads his books! We have a lot of fun over here, why don't you join us?

With the ascension of Donald Trump, there also arose a new right-wing movement. This movement was the equal and opposite reaction not just to the culture of hysterical verbal abuse from the left that has descended like a storm from hell upon any attempts at rational discourse, but also to the left’s treacherous enablers within the mainstream conservative movement that would rather virtue signal their ideological purity than actually conserve our freedoms. This group, which championed Western civilization and sought to preserve its most precious treasures from the rapid advancement of corrosive leftist ideals, quickly became an alternative to the spineless Republican establishment’s brand of in-name-only “conservatism” that has been exemplified by the likes of globalist cronies such as the Bushes and Paul Ryan. Realizing the real threat this movement posed to their chances of winning the 2016 election once Donald Trump secured the Republican nomination, the Clinton Campaign quickly came up with a new strategy to besmirch their opponents. This strategy was to cojoin the Trump movement with a separate group called the Alt-right due the the Alt-right’s inclination towards exploring controversial topics. Ever since, there has been a misconception that the Alt-right is the new-right movement that’s emerged as an alternative to the Republican/cuckservative establishment. These are the Milos, Paul Joseph Watsons, Gavin Mclnnes’, and the Lauren Southerns of the alternative media. These people champion nationalism over globalism and promote western values like free speech, while understanding the threat that massive third world immigration, particularly from Islamic countries, poses to the existence of these values. And while there are many areas of overlap between the New-Right and Alt-right, there are a few crucial distinctions. The purpose of this piece is to highlight these key distinctions and share material for those who are interested in taking a journey through taboo. Race First and foremost is the issue of race. The Alt-right recognizes that race is a reality and a very important one. The Alt-right at its core is about promoting racial consciousness among Europeans. They are unabashedly pro-white (not to be confused with white-supremacism, which advocates for domination over groups deemed inferior.) Whatever issues those within the Alt-right disagree about, this is the issue that unites them. The New-right, while they are quick to point out anti-white racism and see the reality of racial differences, do not advocate for white’s issues. They see western civilization as the result of certain values. On the other hand, the Alt-right would explicitly say that there are differences between the races and thus, different races build different civilizations. Furthermore, there’s no reason to think non-whites can maintain civilizations built by whites. This is an unavoidable issue for the Alt-right. The Jewish Question Given how explosive this topic is, it’s no wonder why the Hillary campaign wanted to associate the Trump movement with a group that flirts with such a taboo even though there isn’t unanimous agreement among those within the Alt-right about the importance of this subject. Western society has gone through a rapid decline throughout the past hundred years. Any analysis that seeks to understand why we are in the mess we’re in has to take a number of variables into consideration. The Alt-right, as a group that is concerned about the advancement of white’s interests and the protection of their heritage, is very concerned with figuring out white’s missteps which have contributed to this decline. At the same time, the Alt-right rejects historical narratives devoid of any nuance which are designed to provoke white guilt. So, just as it is important to understand the role Europeans have played in the societal decline we are witnessing today, it is equally important to understand the role Jews have played. Thus, the Jewish question is not a single question, but rather an umbrella term which covers a wide-ranging debate about the positive and negative aspects which Jewish influence has had on the Western world. WW2 Revisionism World War 2 was one of the most horrific events ever to occur in human history. It’s estimated that over 60 million people, mostly European, died as a result of this catastrophe. Because of the profound and permanent impact this war has had, it is critical to understand what really happened and why. What makes the Alt-right different from the Alt-light in this respect is what exactly they are willing to question. Like many significant historical events, WW2 is shrouded in propaganda. Details and nuances are left out of the versions of this event that most people are taught about in government schools throughout the world. It is in fact illegal in many countries to question certain details of the official narratives of the Second World War. Truth does not fear investigation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5zr0LcAtbA Post Script: The videos shared here do not necessarily represent my views as this material is new to me and so I'm still in the studying phase. So, I'm not interested in having long debates on the message board with people who might disagree with something in the content videos shared.

Currently I am enrolled in a Business Ethics course while pursuing my Bachelors Of Business Administration. I must say, Stefan and Michael's podcasts have been invaluable references for me to call on while completing the course work. I just finished the chapter on Normative Theory of Ethics which featured a critique of Adam Smith that I had not initially considered and also had Immanuel Kant with the concepts that he coined such as "categorical imperative" and "universal acceptability" which reminded me an awful lot of Stefan's "Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof Of Secular ethics. I love Western philosophy so much. #TheWestIsTheBest No if you will excuse me I am going to go pull an all nighter reading Atlas Shrugged.

People of the Conservative or Libertarian persuasion are being persecuted for tweeting and updating our Facebook statues from our bedrooms and other areas of our homes. Helloooooo! Leftists! Marginalized African American over here. Don't make me use the race card. I swear it's like you try to debate with Leftists and the SJW trifecta talking points come out immediately: Racist, Misogynist/Sexist, Homophobic. Or some other variant of that. RMH. From now on the moment I see the RMH I'm done. Nothing of value can be had by trying to engage with these people. At one time these terms may have held some weight but now they are as empty and meaningless as the KKK or Nazi's whom are also not prevalent whatsoever in modern society. Ironically by forcing Milo to cancel his event, the Leftists are giving him the platform and press they so badly want to deny him. If people's lives weren't in jeopardy this would be comical. Do these people even have brains to think? Trying to reveal hypocrisy to an SJW is like trying to push two magnets together. You think you've got it and then they deflect and bounce off of your points. So I have to wonder, are all of these students going to be held liable for the damage they caused to a university campus? After all they did voluntarily agree to thousands of dollars of debt to receive their "education." Or are mommy and daddy going to be picking up the tab in this instance? Is anyone really shocked at this point though? I mean honestly let's be real here, they're a whole bunch of Regressives. Why this is continuing to be tolerated on the campuses of reputable and elite schools I have no idea but I would hope that it comes to a decisive end post haste. I should not be in fear for my life simply because I am a Conservative or Libertarian. Personally I am a Libertarian and currently a college student in Alaska so it is nowhere near this level of insanity and hysteria on my campus. However, the rest of my peers in my generation and for generations to come who happen to find themselves not agreeing with the Left on some or everything they stand for should not fear for their lives every time they step foot on campus. There is only so much time before there is a major backlash that could potentially be violent. Please, Leftists let's keep it civil. So in conclusion, Progressives are continuing to show their unwavering dedication to diversity and inclusion by setting fires at a Milo Yiannopoulos talk. I wonder if the Left is even redeemable at this point. It's going to take a hell of a lot more Dave Rubin's in this world before I begin taking the Left seriously again. #UCBerkeleyRiots

It is quite unfortunate that this message to this day has to continue to be repeated Ad Infinitum, but I will go to my grave pontificating it if I have to. Just today there was a terrorist attack at a Christmas market in Berlin, Germany and the Russian ambassador to Turkey was assassinated by a gunmen shouting "Alluha Akbar" . I imagine the response from the sanctimonious Left is going to be to continue to try and flood Europe with refugees. If these event does not strengthen and firmly solidify the Nationalist uprising that has been occurring in the West for the past year, I do not know what will. Say what you want about religion, but this is why not only Christianity but freedom of religion as an idea exists and is celebrated in the West, and why Radical Islam will simply never be compatible with Western Ideals. However, this is not only an indictment of Radical Islam but also of massive national Western governments and the continued, relentless initiation of the use of force against innocent civilians. I believe these events present a very compelling case for why the West should stop being involved in destabilization of the Middle East via arming terrorist factions. Violence only begets further violence as is the case with parenting and the cycle of abuse. Can we please just put the fucking guns and bombs away for once and try freedom and peace for a change instead? #RestoreTheWest #RejectRadicalIslam #NonInterventionism #TheNAP

Saving Western Civilization: If I'm going to be honest, it baffles me that I, a 1st Generation Kenyan immigrant with not a drop of European blood or strand of European DNA, has to explain the dangers of demographic and cultural suicide of Europe to people with Dutch, Irish, German, British, French, Austrian, Norwegian, Polish, Swedish and every other type of European ancestry. Have no fear my European brothers and sisters in philosophy. I will continue to pontificate and proselytize for Western civilization until I am six feet under. You can be assured of that. Still, can somebody explain this paradox to me? I don't understand... Europe may actually fall within this century. It sure would be real nice if Europeans could MAN THE FUCK UP AND NOT SUBMIT TO THE MALIGNANT CANCER THAT IS RADICAL ISLAM. I'm not a European, nor do I have European ancestry. However, as a grateful, red pilled 1st Generation immigrant I understand that if Europe collapses, the foundational buttress that holds up the glittering and beautiful monasteries and cathedrals of Western Civilization will crumble and wither away to nothing. The rest of the world will soon follow suit. America will then become the sole bastion of Western ideals on the planet. Don't get it twisted, America is formidable and steadfast but even we cannot endure a 21st Century Crusade coming from all sides indefinitely without support. Europe, you MUST PRESERVE YOUR INHERITANCE. Most people in Europe today either did nothing or very little to earn the freedoms you take for granted. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PUT YOUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE AT RISK FOR THE SAKE OF NOT BEING CALLED RACIST OR ISLAMAPHOBIC. THESE ARE WORDS THAT CAN BE IGNORED. SWORDS BEING PLUNGED INTO YOUR HEARTS, NOT AS EASY TO IGNORE. If you cannot withstand the social ostracism and disapproval from people who were never really your friends to begin with then what the FUCK ARE YOU EVEN FIGHTING FOR AT ALL? Your time grows short, it's time to make a decision. Submit you and your children's wellbeing to the whims of foreign invaders or grow a set of balls and tell your women to FUCK OFF and let the MEN do the danger forecasting decision making. I trust you will make the correct choice for there is only one choice to be made. Just like in the 20th Century when our parents and grandparents faced a battle of economic ideas between a choice of Communism vs. Capitalism, in the 21st Century we now face a cultural battle of ideas between the West and Radical Islam. Will we submit and allow our children's futures to be Hell on Earth? Or will we fight to preserve the one civilization that has stood the test of time and has consistently come out at number 1 in virtually every regard? What risk do we actually face today? Being called mean names? Having pejoratives attached to our positions as if they were actual arguments? People who questioned cultural hegemony in Medieval times were subject to crucifixion and being burned at the stake. We face no such threats in the modern world. My fellow Alpha males, we just survived the biggest shitstorm of an election cycle with relentless attacks from the mainstream establishment. Trump withstood the screeching hyenas of the Leftist echo chamber press and WON DECISIVELY. It is time to leverage this momentum for all that it is worth. If we are going to shrink away from pathetic attacks like the Cuckservative establishment has done after all of the shit we have just been through, what the hell is our purpose in this world anyways? I ask all of you to remember why the West Is The Best this upcoming year. The war for the preservation of the West has been ongoing for centuries but this is a critical juncture. If we fail to proselytize through words now, we will be proselytizing with bullets and bombs later. I am stepping up to the plate, the real question is will YOU? #TheWestIsTheBest Please share this far a wide. It is long past time the West woke up from this open borders, multicultural, Kafkaesque madness and delusion.

I think that Stefan should do a movie review on the documentary 13th to clarify what BLM really stands for. In previous videos he has discussed Nixon and people within his administration admitting to destroying the black community with racist "tough on crime" rhetoric. I think it would really help to clear the air on this whole "BLM is completely racist" narrative being spread around. Of course I don't hold you to this just a suggestion and feedback. I also cannot force anyone who reads this post to critically analyze the documentary without all of the prejudice and bigotry that most have regarding BLM. I just want it to be abundantly clear that I believe racism in all of its forms is completely disgusting and regressive. I am an anti-racist which means I do NOT condone what happened in Chicago before anybody jumps to that conclusion. That is exactly the same type of bigotry and prejudice that the radial fringe of BLM associates with Whites. I want a world where no innocent civilians get caught in the crossfire and targeted by radical extremists in both BLM and in the Alt-Right. It is irrelevant whether the victims are Black or White or any skin color for that matter. Lets just stop the irrational hate. Is that really so much to ask for?

Hello everyone, I've been trying to figure out my own self-study program to learn philosophy and it got me thinking about how much fluff is added into your average university major. It seems that much of what is taught could be distilled into half a dozen or so courses that strike at the core of any given subject. For instance, I attempted to condense the UC San Diego philosophy degree and ended up with the following courses. (Feel free to post your own condensed versions of your university major program.) Introduction to Logic Symbolic Logic I History of Philosophy: Ancient History of Philosophy: Early Modern History of Philosophy: Late Modern Metaphysics Epistemology Philosophy of Science Which brings me to the question on the thread. Q: If a Bachelors Degree in Freedomain Radio existed, what would the course load look like and how would it be structured? Would a Freedomain Radio degree be strictly focused on philosophy? Should it be a (B.S.) degree or a (B.A.) degree? Would the course load consist of just reading Stephan's books, or would the course work also need to teach elements of statistical analysis, computer science, and history? What do you all think?

Here's something that has fascinated me for quite a while now. I speak for myself when I say this. It's interesting that people on both the Left and the Right can be opposed to and decry monopolies in the private sector but at the same time support the government. If anything, the government is the largest monopoly ever to exist in human history. Take a moment and think about why that is. Here are a few reasons why the government is the single largest monopoly: 1. Control of Money: National governments in most countries have the authority, indirectly through the proxy of their central banks, to issue currency and determine its value. When governments control the printing of money they also have to control the interest rates. Interest is referred to as the "time cost of money." For example, whenever somebody takes out a loan from a bank the borrower is expected to pay back principal plus extra money accrued over the life of the loan which is the interest. Depending on the interest rate a central banks decides to set, borrowing money can either be very costly or very cheap. This give governments pretty much an exclusive monopoly over all economic activity within a country. Those who control the money supply ultimately determine the economic decisions of the citizens. 2.The Rules of the Game: The legislative branch of the federal government has the prerogative to draft rules and regulations that govern the activities of the general population. I would urge people to not take me out of context here: I do not believe there should be NO rules whatsoever. I do believe, however, that bureaucrats and politicians within government are just as ill equipped to write rules as Joey the plumber who lives down the street. Politicians are not autonomous, artificial intelligence robots that can plan for decades into the future for what a modern economy will look like. For crying out loud we can barely predict what the stock price of Apple will be in 10 minutes. Never mind planning for the intricacies and complexities of a 21st Century economy, that is just ridiculous. Often I get accused of not knowing everything. Exactly! That's the point, I don't know the best way to run society. But if I don't know then neither do these sleazy, corrupt politicians being voted into office year after year. You cannot just say that I don't know everything and then say "But yeah man those politicians they know everything, we just have to get the right guy/women into office." To do so would be to set up an arbitrary category of people in society, call it government, and the acquiesce all of our rights to this entity. If we wish to remain morally/philosophical consistent and universal, this contradiction cannot be allowed to stand. This notion is simply delusory as there is no "anointed" man or women or group of men or women. There are simply human beings trying to make the best decisions on how to efficiently distribute resources in society. The idea that any one person would be able to know exactly what everyone in a country wants done and then be able to deliver on that promise would be to pretend that we have infinite resources on a finite planet like money, natural resources, time etc. it's just we aren't trying hard enough. Is it any wonder then that despite all of the new regulations being imposed on say the financial sector the lobbyists and special interest groups continue to find ways around it? As a learned man once said and I paraphrase here: "If you make corruption the source of someone's income, don't be surprised when they become really good at being corrupt." 3. Declaration of War: At the drop of a hat, at any moment, governments can commit citizens to war that can last 15 years. These protracted wars of attrition accomplish nothing and only lead to continued feelings of resentment between countries. The idea that we can solve violence with more violence is one thing that baffles me about discourse in this country. Make no mistake, I am grateful for American veterans who have themselves. What I question is why the strategy of preemptively initiating force and aggression in countries that pose no threat needs to continue? We've tried that regime replacing method for the last 15 years, basically for as long as I have been alive, and the Middle East is not a shinning beacon of Western ideals yet. How many more Hellfire missiles and drone strikes is it going to take before Iran or Afghanistan is a Constitutional Republic? Is there really no other way? Also it's quite easy for politicians to sign off other people's lives to war they are too old to participate and their children are exempt from the Draft. Similar to the moral hazard that happened in 2008 with the housing crisis, it is very easy to make decisions that do not appear to directly affect you. It is other people who must pay for the consequences of your actions whether you are the person voting for the war or the politician who sponsored the legislation. It's all immoral and just plain misanthropic. To conclude, these are just three reasons why governments are not fit to literally shape the course of human history. Perhaps I have proselytized a few of you out there in the inter-web. If I have, feel free to share this essay with as many people as possible. The truth must be spoken at all costs. If you don't see me posting within the next couple of days, I have probably been arrested and sent to room 101 for my re-education. Live long and prosper my fellow human beings. May the light of philosophy finally shine bright in this age of delusion and darkness.