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.

Please make a video on this worthless shit stain. The videos speak for themselves

If the definition of love is my involuntary response to virtue if I am virtuous, then what is the definition of virtue? I think we all know instinctively what actions are virtuous as compared to not, in general, but how do we know? How do we fact check? Is charity virtuous? What if charity results in enabling an existing problem rather than fixing it? Does that context make that example of charity immoral? If so then charity in general can't be virtuous. Or that example isn't charity. Someone asked how to love; someone else stated what love is; someone further state what virtue is. However while I can accept the premise that "Love is an involuntary response to virtue if I am myself virtuous" I do not know for sure what is virtue. And that's the key part that ends the pondering and allows action in pursuing love and evolution.

I have really been wondering lately if I am simply incapable of loving someone. I have been with my GF for about a year, and I am strongly considering moving to the city she lives. For me, that would mean giving up a lot where I live at the moment, but I would probably try to set up a branch of the start-up business I am involved in, so it may become a brilliant career opportunity that I might not have started had I stayed where I am. There is a problem, though. I am not sure I love her. However, this was also the case with my first girlfriend, and I always kind of thought of it as normal. It is even the case with my close family members. I don't really feel anything that strongly, except an appreciation, of course. But it is far from overwhelming. I am struggling to find out whether I should just accept this, get over with it and make love arise out of making an effort to improve myself and commit in my relationship. I had a very good childhood with a stable family. I was even possibly a little spoiled with love, in the sense that I might have learned taking it for granted. Now my father was perhaps not the best at showing affection to my mother or to me. He absolutely loved, but he would just be a little bit awkward about showing it. And so am I when I am with my GF, plus I am not good at being thoughtful and caring and all of those things. It's especially when I am not with her - my mind and soul just wanders off onto other things, and I never really feel a strong need to talk, even though we talk on the phone most days of the week. Nor does it easily strike me to do something for her, surprise her etc. When we meet after having been apart for a long time, I also don't feel anything particularly strong when I see her. It's like my happiness level is stable around 7 and then when I see her, it's like ... still pleasant. I often do have an awesome time with her, but since I am pretty much always pretty happy and satisfied about things, going to an 8 or a 9 isn't that overwhelming for me. She tells me that for her it's horrible when we're apart, and that she thinks about me all the time. I feel bad for not reciprocating the emotion, but I really don't know how to take responsibility for that because I can't will an emotion into being. Pretty much everything about her is awesome. It's like I love her to death - but logically. I am saying to myself: I should love this woman to death. But still, I really don't feel much. Now, take Stefan's definition of love: The involuntary response to virtue if you're virtuous. What does this response look like exactly? Is it a feeling/emotion? Is it something you do? Now what if the woman in question is clearly virtuous but most of the time doesn't invoke any strong involuntary response in me, does that mean I am not virtuous? I really have no idea what to make of my seeming incapability of experiencing this. I am thinking I could either stay with this girl and commit to becoming a more thoughtful person and hope that love will come out of us living at the same place, building something even stronger together. The other alternative is, I don't want to be someone who occupies her if I am having all of these doubts. I should therefore set her free, and myself free. But ... then what? If I don't have the capacity to feel love, I will have to rise to the same challenge at some point anyways and make a commitment to someone. So, if not now, when? Committing to her will give me the biggest challenge of my entire life, but it is honestly a challenge I cannot be sure I will succeed at because I don't know if I will ever be able to give her in return what she gives me. I am not sure if she deserves that. Breaking up now, however, seems easier in many respects. But I am not sure I should choose whatever is easier if all that means is that I will have to face a similar dilemma in a couple of years. Please let me know what you think of this. We have decided to give this decision until the end of August. I am in a hurry. I am looking for love within myself. But I don't know how to look for it and what standard to set within myself.

I'm sorry if I've glanced over it. There are so many podcasts. It can get messy and confusing. I'd like a concise definition and explanation. Thank you.

An attempt to capture the philosophy of one of the greatest thinkers of all time using pen, paper, and a video cam.

On many occasions I have heard Stefan propose the following standard for social interactions: "Treat someone the best you can when you first meet them, after that treat them how they treat you." (or some variation of that) But I'm not sure that this is the best strategy for a person who is trying to affect positive change in the world... and I don't think it often reflects Stefan's observable approach. Perhaps I just don't understand what he is suggesting in practice. And there are specifics that probably need clarification. For instance, I'm not sure how much effort or time constitutes "the first time" you meet someone. It seems to me you would want to account for the fact that sometimes people are just having a bad day, and they need some space or some help getting through whatever is influencing their negative behavior at the time. A kind word or a thoughtful gesture can often influence the other person's behavior in a more positive direction. And even if someone is exhibiting offensive behavior (which cannot be partly explained by unusual circumstances), is the best response to mirror back their own offensive behavior? Doesn't that just tend to make an already deteriorating situation worse? Rather than allowing the negativity to determine the outcome, couldn't we be more effective at spreading truth and virtue by taking the "high road" so to speak? I've heard Stefan do this many times in his call in shows. There are times when a caller will act rather abrasively towards him. And while Stefan doesn't tolerate this behavior (he usually calls it out) he also does not typically respond with the same negative approach. And often he will succeed in bringing the entire conversation to a higher and more respectable level where true principles at least have a chance of being heard and accepted. I think the impetus for Stef's recommendation is an understandable desire for protection from potential abusers. But treating others kindly or with civility does not mean that you need to accept abuse. It is a false dichotomy to say that you can either treat offensive people how they treat you or else you must accept their abuse. If we want to lift people to a higher level of being, I think the golden rule (for all interactions--not only the initial encounter) is a much better standard to follow.

Hello, folks! There may be no objective and quantifiable way to answer the question I'd like to pose to you, but I'd sincerely appreciate any thoughts and insight you can offer on the subject! I am interested in securing for myself a heterosexual monogamous relationship with an intelligent and virtuous woman. The question I'm wrestling with is: Should I work hard to find a virtuous woman to enjoy life with now at age 20, or later after I've accumulated more resources? Related subjects of interest for this discussion include: Sexual market value, how to meet new women, online dating, and life planning This is a very important question to me. I feel like I'm finally healthy enough as a man to attract and be worthy of the kind of woman I dream of. I've been to nine months of IFS therapy with an amazing therapist, have had almost a thousand hours of emotionally-connected, challenging, empathetic and rewarding conversations with my closest friends who are all Freedomain Radio listeners, and have been working diligently for a long time to understand my childhood and adolescent traumas, process them, and heal from them. I am in a remarkably unique situation which would drastically favor my odds, and I think it's appropriate to relay the reasons in my mind why I think it would be a good idea for me to begin the search now for a partner. However, as I will discuss, I am feeling hesitant to begin due to a lack of dating knowledge and experience. This has me wondering whether or not I should wait until I accumulate more resources first. I have attempted to remain impartial in the following self-assessment of my strengths. These are the reasons why I believe it is high-time for me to put myself out there. Financially, I have tens of thousands of dollars in assets saved. Beyond any doubt in my mind, I will be making enough money to fully support myself with my business plans by time I turn 21 this July. Presently, I am operating my budget at a significant loss so that I may live on my own and run my own online business promoting precious metals and preserving freedom. I have enough money to comfortably live an entire year, ALL expenses included, with no income whatsoever; however I have formulated articulate and actionable plans to generate more profit than life expenses by the end of June. This means that (if all goes according to plan) I will be 100% financially secure and independent by the age of 21 and living a richly rewarding existence doing that which I'm genuinely passionate about. Molyneux has often said that in order to attract great people into your life, one must shine the beacon of virtue bright into the sky so that all those who are in tune with the signal and able to recognize virtue on sight may find their way to the signal's origin. Basically, my hope is that by doing the work that I do and successfully making a living out of it, I will be not only living the life of my dreams, but more attractive to the woman of my dreams. Emotionally, I am in the greatest health of my life. I have worked arduously to emerge from a depressive slump, marijuana addiction, and irrational paranoia through many months of intensive work in therapy. My level of self-confidence has increased greatly since the massive blow it took from my previous dysfunctional relationship prior to exploring self-knowledge. Through practice in hundreds of hours of difficult conversations in building virtue-based friendships, I am able to empathize now like never before! My parents and I are in the process of having many difficult conversations about my upbringing - venomous verbal abuse, manipulation, and blarping were unfortunately all central to my childhood. However, I feel hope with regards to my relationship to my parents as their willingness to accept responsibility and apologize for their wrong doings is a good sign in my eye. I believe that the work I am doing will prove to be instrumental in attracting a woman of virtue. However, I have a very long road ahead of me until I have fully resolved every conceivable issue. Yet, I feel healthy enough to begin the search! I do not know if it is necessary to process 100% of one's childhood prior to looking for a partner. Hell, some people process 0% of theirs. What are your thoughts on this??? Mentally, I'm very intelligent and articulate. My verbal IQ clocks in at around 140 and I would consider myself to be a gifted communicator, both written and verbally. This will arguably serve me well in any undertaking I choose for the rest of my life. With regards to dating, I know that for myself, intelligence is a key trait I'm looking for in a lover. I'd like to marry a woman with an IQ of 120 or more (top ~10%). I am charismatic and feel that I am confident enough to engage in meaningful conversations even with woman of great beauty, which long ago would have made me too nervous. I think it's fair to say that my ideal partner would find intelligence and charisma attractive, and fair to say that I'd be able to satisfy at least those criteria. Physically, I consider myself to be quite lucky. By genetic accident, I am quite handsome. Others in my life have consistently rated me as a 9/10 on the scale of physical attractiveness, and I work out 2-3 times per week to build upon my athletic body. Let me be clear, I do not consider this to even remotely resemble a virtue, nor is matching physical attractiveness a "must" for me to feel satisfied in a virtue-based relationship. However, I know for a fact that this happens to increase my sexual market value, and my physique will only continue to improve as I continue living a healthy and active lifestyle. Personality-wise, I'm quite enjoyable to spend time with. I've got a strong sense of humor, am able to craft witty jokes, and have a great capacity for both intellectual and emotionally connected conversation. I'm a very compassionate and gentle person with a capacity for toughness and strength when the need arises. Sadly, I haven't spent much of any time with women my age over the past two years. I find that I have remarkably little in common with the "average" 18-21 year old, as I am more emotionally-matured than the vast majority of people in my age group. tl;dr? It may be a wise decision for me to begin the hunt for a fair and virtuous maiden now because I (think I) will have high dating market value, and I hold many virtues that a virtuous woman would find attractive. However, it is perhaps of even greater importance to now mention my shortcomings and why I feel hesitant to fully commit to putting myself out there on the dating market yet. These are the reasons why I think it could be better to wait until I've accumulated more resources. I lack dating experience! I've only been in one committed monogamous relationship which lasted for a year and four months. The relationship was overall very dysfunctional; we didn't share the same values, didn't share the same interests, didn't share the same level of intelligence, didn't get along 1/4th of the time, and my ex was a highly manipulative girl whom I allowed to pussy-whip me into being a little beta. Needless to say, while I now have many months and hundreds of hours of experience in having quality friendships, I don't have anything to model a quality romantic relationship off of. I lack sexual experience! In my previous relationship, despite having lost my virginity and having had sex dozens of times, I do not feel presently that I am "sexually experienced". My ex never really seemed to enjoy many of our sexual interactions, and often used sex to manipulate me into submission. This originally made me actually feel quite horrible about myself, which is just so terribly saddening to me now. I wanted so very much to explore, to try new things, and to learn how to better please a woman and for good reason! Sexual intimacy is a beautiful, wonderful part of any romantic relationship; I'd strive to please my partner like no other once the relationship got that far. Unfortunately at the time, I felt sexually rejected repeatedly which proved harmful to my self-esteem. Frankly, in retrospect I don't believe the problem was entirely me. I'm reasonably well-endowed and my partner had sexual trauma which hadn't been processed. Nonetheless, this lacking of experience may not work in my favor. I hardly know where the fuck to begin. How the hell do you guys meet women? Married gentlemen, how did you meet your wife?! I can't go to bars or clubs (not that I'd even really expect to find interesting people there [perhaps I am wrong?!]), and although I've made MANY new male friends from FDR, I've only met intelligent, captivating women who are either much older than I or live in different continents. I've created an okcupid account, and have found a few potential leads of intelligent women who are interested in philosophy living within 100 miles of me. That is, at least, a start. I'd be really curious to hear your thoughts and insight on this!!! I'm not financially secure yet. My online business will generate the revenue I need to survive from affiliate marketing of products and services which I have used and trust, in addition to selling digital information products (eBooks, online courses) and precious metals (silver, gold). Would a good woman recognize the value in the content that I am producing, the good will that I exude in my work, and look past my (temporary) financial situation in interest of my other virtues? Would she not care that I'm running at a loss while I grow a following and build my business from the ground up? Or would she scoff at the notion of what I'm doing with my life and disregard my ambition to follow my passions until their fruits could be harvested? I really hope the latter is not entirely the case. I dropped out of college pursuing a degree in Computer Engineering to become an entrepreneur instead. Some women, I would imagine, greatly prefer a man who has high income potential, and a college degree is a good indicator of that status. I'll not have one unless something drastic changes, so that may work against me too. It would seem that if I am already wealthy, as I plan to be, that I can bypass this "blemish" on my potential dating market value. Ultimately, this is a massive decision that I think I need help and perspective on. I don't know if there are things that I am overlooking, underestimating, over-exaggerating, or conflating in my analysis of the situation I'm in. Fortunately, from my perspective, I appear to be in a great starting place compared to where I imagine most 20 year old men are at. I would sincerely appreciate your thoughts, bright minds of the Freedomain Radio community. Thanks for both your time and consideration in reading this. I would be more than happy to take the time to answer any questions or provide clarifications. I greatly look forward to engaging with you in substantive discussion on this subject which I believe is likely highly relevant to many of us young men!

Part three in my three-part article series on the voice of reason. "We’ve already established why and how disconnected people react when in confrontation with reality, and that in order to remain in denial and disconnection one has to ignore trauma and silence reason—that of other people and in themselves. Here, I will talk about the personal and social effects of being a voice of reason." Read more here: http://blog.selfarcheology.com/2016/02/silencing-voice-of-reason-part-3-pros.html

Part two in my three-part article series on silencing the voice of reason. "Having principles carries a lot of weight. Your thoughts and emotions dictate your behavior. So if you have a certain mindset, you will act in a certain way. When you live in a highly delusional and unprincipled society as ours, having principles and applying them consistently requires enormous inner strength and courage. Your life is different than that of most people; your priorities are different than most people’s; your relationships are different; you see things that other people don’t see. And when you describe those things, people who are highly invested in staying unprincipled and irrational—that is the majority of our population—get upset and unruly." Read more here: http://blog.selfarcheology.com/2016/02/silencing-voice-of-reason-part-2-values.html

I just finished a new three-part article series on silencing the voice of reason. Here's the first part. "In this series of articles, I will talk about people’s avoidance of reality, and about personal and social outrage when encountering a voice of reason. In the first part that is this article, I will explain the origins of a person’s unreasonable reaction to describing reality and the mechanism behind this phenomenon. I will also talk about the social outcomes of openly describing the unpleasant aspects of reality, especially child mistreatment." Read more here: http://blog.selfarcheology.com/2016/02/silencing-voice-of-reason-part-1.html

Okay everyone, I am going to be brave here I believe although I have to add that at the moment I feel pretty confident I was wondering (eyelashes flutter and shoulders pushed back ) if any nice and attractive women on here would wanna...well you know...umm...get to know me? Okay I'll throw it out there! Any single ladies (to reference Mrs Knowles-Carter's vocals) want to go out with me? I believe I am virtuous and I am working on my virtue currently and...forever. Just got to say, I am ready for potential trolls and I must ask...where shall I paint the target? Lastly, this I believe is pretty darn obvious but it's best for this to be a private message thing rather than an open forum thing. Okay then.

A quick video of mine on living with integrity, estimating people, and words versus actions.

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/44086-the-virtue-alphabet/#entry402280

I made a second video. This time about gender equality. I don't think it's such the great thing that people love to say that it is, and here's my thinking on that: I'd love to hear what you think!

This post is in response to Stefan's 'Fuck Evil' elevator pitch for being good as well as podcast 2839 Death by Incentives: What Makes The World Go Round. For the people on this board, "Fuck Evil" is what makes us get out of bed in the morning. Yet, the rest of humanity is content to say "I don't really want to fight evil". Just like Freedomain Radio has done over the course of its near decade-long history, we have to get better at incentivizing good in the world; we have to figure out what will make others want to be good if we want to win them over the the side of true ethics. What I've been wondering for the past month is two-fold: 1) What examples are there currently in the world where being good is profitable? and 2) What are the barriers to making true ethics profitable (be they currencies of economic, social or physiological nature), besides the obvious gun of the government? I have my own thoughts but I want to hear from people on the board. More specifically, I'm wondering why we have credit scores but no one has invented a 'virtue score'. What if everyone involved in a community was given a score which could go up or down depending on the objective measure of virtue in their actions? We have the scientific framework to assess people on a moral level -- universally preferable behavior -- so what is stopping us from taking the assessment outside of theory and putting it into concrete measurements? As we know from physics and engineering, if you can't measure something it doesn't exist. For me this is inevitable in the course of achieving freedom, and we do it in our personal relationships without even thinking about it. Perhaps the expansion of incentives into the public domain has not happened yet because the world is not ready for it. But we have proved that at least a small portion of the world is ready for it. I've experienced FDR as very similar to a DRO. I'm much more likely to want to buy goods from people in this community than from everyone outside of the community. Any entrepreneurs out there looking for a really difficult but rewarding project?

A while back I had the idea to compile a playlist of songs with a philosophical bent and that had meaning to me. As the list grew I divided it into four parts: 1) Anarchy; 2) Atheism; 3) Defoo; 4) Virtue. Below is the first part, and I'll be posting the others before the year's end. I hope this music brings a tiny bit of joy into your day. https://8tracks.com/mdrake88/philosophy-playlist-part-1-of-4-anarchy "I started this playlist series because sometimes music can speak louder than arguments. The first part contains songs relating to power and anarchy. The progression from beginning to end is one that mirrors my own journey from self-described conservative to political libertarian to philosophical anarcho-capitalist."

I'm currently working on a tragic novel and need some help on how best to demonstrate the virtue of the lead. To give a brief synopsis the novel is a tragedy set in modern day Paris about a sculptor, Anton Duarte, a black man from Tunisia who turns to stone. The fantastical device of turning to stone is used to demonstrate his fall from virtue and fame into lies, deceit, and madness. The idea for the motif of lies turning you into stone comes from Pinnochio's nose; but as a whole my two main inspirations are the play Othello and the novel The Picture of Dorian Grey. Tragedy to be effective as a genre must have the right structure. To use Stefan's phrase, "art is an emotional argument for virtue". Tragedy in particular shows what happens when a good person is corrupted and the work acts as a kind of warning sign "don't do this", and is empathetic to people who make mistakes and get drawn into evil deeds by showing the whole context. Othello for example, at the beginning of the play is virtuous and strong (according to Shakespeare's statist values), and it is Iago's manipulation of him into thinking his wife is having an affair that turns him mad. I'm struggling with how to demonstrate Duarte's goodness according to anarchist values in the first half. I like the idea of him being a bootstrapper, building his career as a sculptor of marble from humble origins as a plasterer at the age of 18 on on Parisian building sites. But here's the thing. I've also been playing around with the idea of making him a Muslim (does not drink, is an ascetic bachelor, prays five times a day etc.). From the viewpoint of the structure of tragedy, this would seem to say that Islam is somehow virtuous and represents truth (in counterpoint to his lies turning him into stone), yet I just can't imagine Duarte being an atheist. Anyone have any thoughts or ideas about how to demonstrate his goodness according to anarchist values before the tragic downfall? Any fans of Ayn Rand welcome! **Don't know whether this topic is in the right category but there doesn't seem to be a folder for art on the boards yet.

Hello. My name is Brian. I've been listening for several months and am a donor. I love philosophy and love the things that are going on here. I am new to the forum as well. I have a situation that I was going to try to talk to Steph about but I'm not sure how interesting it is, yada, yada. So I'll make a long story short. If you're married and have stepchildren (huge mistake right there) and things aren't working in the family (wife doesn't like my child, I don't like her children, they don't like each other etc.) is it better to try to work it out or just leave. Which one do you think would cause less damage and limit the damage that already has been caused? There obviously are alot of extenuating circumstances (mormonism, death of a biological parent, and more) but I think it's pretty safe to say that my wife and I get along pretty well most of the time, but all of the other relationships in the "family" are damaged. I've asked two different therapists this question while explaining the whole situation and I got two different answers. a. You should leave. You won't hurt the kids, they don't like you anyway and you don't like them. So as far as you limiting the damage to the children, the damage would be minimal anyway. b. You only have to deal with the kids for another 10 years. If you love your wife, suck it up, do your best and wait out the storm....to paraphrase. I wish I had never gotten myself into this situation, but I did and now I need to figure out the best way to fix this for all involved. Any thoughts on this are welcome. Even if your thought is that I'm a moron...

I'd like to start a new topic even though I found one with the wrong order of the three words that I think matters because of the meaning of the equal sign here. http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/33098-reason-happiness-virtue/?hl=%2Breason+%2Bvirtue+%2Bhappiness I think I heard in one podcast Stef saying a different version "Reason + Virtue = Happiness", but I can't find it. How do you understand this? Reason leads to virtue which leads to happiness. Is this a more accurate version? Is it possible to use reason for vice? What are the definitions of reason, virtue or happiness? Is it possible to prove any part of this statement? Here are my thoughts on why reason (or truth) is at least necessary (may be not sufficient) for happiness. A person who has a valid theory describing the surrounding physical reality is happier than the person who doesn't have such theory or has an invalid theory. The reason for this is that if your theory is invalid (or you don't have one) then your expectations on how the reality behaves are inaccurate. You don't know what to expect or the reality regularly produces not what you expect. Uncertainty could be dangerous and also leads to frustration making you less happy. For example, people not knowing the theory of weather may pray and offer sacrifices and still have gods sending them bad weather. People having an invalid theory of government may often get upset about the political process and poor economic outcomes.

I was trying to pin this down in another thread but didn't want to derail the conversation, hoping to explore this with the group.If the baseline for morality is the man in a coma -- he's not evil, at all, because he doesn't act -- what is *positive* virtue? I've got some ideas to throw out there, perhaps others can illustrate this more clearly with other examples or at least confirm/rebut my idea.Let's say the man in a coma is evil=0 and virtue=0, he's morally null. If this is a correct interpretation, then what action can one perform to increase virtue above the baseline?The only thing that springs to mind is helping people to do things that aren't evil...i.e. all of Stef's work on FDR, honestly answering posts on this board, etc.Also, am I correct in my interpretation that only non-actions (not murdering/raping/stealing/assaulting) are UPB? If the man in the coma must be able to do a thing for it to be UPB, and the only thing he can do is not act...that's what I'm getting from that.Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

So, sitting on my bed in my room writing this, since I can't fall asleep, coughing out my lungs. No, no that bad, just a virus or something messing with me Anyway, there is a topic that I have thought of (and still am thinking about), that bugs me. A lot. It's the ''Against me'' argument (is it correct to call it an argument?) that Stef presents. In case you aren't familiar to this argument, heres a video with Stef laying it out: Anyways, what is bugging me is that I understand what Stef is saying. I agree with what he is saying. And there is a part of me, that would like to live that argument. I think. But, there is also (I think) a part of me that wants to keep the social life I have. That doesn't want to ask this simple question. Having the social circles I have today, engaging in social communities, just keep rolling along. Then again, I am a fairly certain, that a BIG, part of me, wants to find people with virtue to hang out with. I think those are rare. And, having people in my life that are lacking virtue, will most certainly keep me from meeting people with virtue. Let alone finding myself a virtuous woman to spend my life with. THEN AGAIN... It's scary to make the decision. To get people that endorse violence against you, out of your life. Darn it. I guess I don't have much of a question to ask. It's just a choice I have to make. Have any of you chosen the philosophical path, i.e. ''I minimize the amount of people in my life that are against me''? If yes, what's it like? If not, why not? Is there a third alternative?

An interesting perspective on 'virtue'. I'll be straight up and honest, that I'm not entirely sure of his perspective. But I like that he sees virtue as being attached to material reality. Be great to hear other peoples thoughts on this talk.

Apologies if this has been dealt with before, I did a search but couldn't find anything in the archives. I listened to 'An Introduction to Virtue' series and I'm unsure about something. Stef says that in most cases it's cowardice to hold ourselves to higher values than those we interact with, that it's a form of exploitation. Why is that? I'm thinking it's because we can't claim to be virtuous if we interact with people who are not? For example, if I say I'm against violence but still see my parents, then in effect I'm not against violence as I'm accepting their behaviour. But why is it exploitation? I would very much appreciate any clarification.