Search the Community

Reason Vs. Emotion Vs. Belief Vs. Consciousness Reason, emotion, belief, and consciousness, have a fundamental place in epistemology and psychology but I have not found where they sit. I especially haven't found where they sit from first principles. My hope with this discussion is that these things can find their proper place. Emotions reflect belief and beliefs are always rational I have some ideas, each with their own arguments and evidence. From what I gather, Stefan has an implicit, specific conception of the relation between these things. The two major premises I can identify are 1) Emotions reflect belief, and 2) beliefs are always rational. Now, this second premise seems obviously false, but there is a corollary to it 3) beliefs do not necessarily reflect conscious thought. I should make it clear, by beliefs I mean what we really believe deep down and might not even be conscious of. Evidence for It's from these premises that much of the psychology in this community can be explained. We can explain the true self as rationality and the collection of beliefs. We can explain the false self as the origin of conscious thought that is not wholly informed by beliefs. We can explain free will by saying that it is a choice whether conscious thought wholly informs itself with belief. It also conforms with the evidence. It explains self-defence mechanisms where a person consciously thinks something but believes something else. It explains how personalities as a collective can be fragmented throughout history from all the evils that take place. It gives foundation to how a child protects themselves with false thoughts. It explains how psychotherapy works, by uncovering beliefs using critical thinking and self-reflection. It explains procrastination, as procrastination just reflects the belief of resentment. It would suggest we should follow our emotions as long as we identify them properly. Evidence against The issue is, there is a lot of evidence against these things. Are emotional leftist protesters simply misunderstanding their emotions? Are they masking a true self with a false self? Do people fall for propaganda because of the false self, or maybe we aren't actually innately rational? Another problem is, it seems incredibly redundant to have a true self making calculations, and then a false self making entirely different calculations about the same thing. Cognitive therapies suggest something is wrong with cognition itself. For example, schema therapy suggests that we have core beliefs that are often themselves unconscious and formed in childhood that are irrational and make us feel some ways or generate negative thoughts. It would be strange to have an extra layer to this by saying that those irrational core 'beliefs' are preceded by true beliefs. It is very hard for me to believe that emotions reflect belief and beliefs are always rational. But it also explains so much and makes life a lot easier. Argument for from first principles Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Rather than doing some kind of trial-and-error, making observations, etc, an argument from first principles would take away a lot of doubt about the psychology taught in this community. I would think that arguing for these psycho-epistemological concepts from first principles would be the most important thing, as the psycho-epistemology kind of defines what this whole community is about. I tried to find these first principles, and I found these quotes from Ayn Rand. "There can be no causeless love or any sort of causeless emotion. An emotion is a response to a fact of reality, an estimate dictated by your standards." (Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual, p. 147) All knowledge is derived from reality, so emotions follow cognition. Perhaps we could further say from this that emotions reflect cognition. And, perhaps we can assume cognition and reason that goes with it have sovereignty. Indeed, doesn't seem logical that a rational faculty would allow something like 2+2=5. It is more likely that anyone who thinks such a thing is not using their rational faculty. It would also seem strange that the rational faculty would switch off, rather than keep working at the background. In fact, I think that our very feeling of having a self and having free will sort of rest upon the idea that we have some kind of sovereignty, and that we know what is best for ourselves, and we trust our faculties to give us the most accurate information possible. Perhaps this should be self-evident. Perhaps this is self-evident to any peacefully parented individual. Argument against from first principles Ayn Rand would disagree with our second premise; that beliefs are always rational. "Your subconscious is like a computer—more complex a computer than men can build—and its main function is the integration of your ideas. Who programs it? Your conscious mind. If you default, if you don’t reach any firm convictions, your subconscious is programmed by chance—and you deliver yourself into the power of ideas you do not know you have accepted. But one way or the other, your computer gives you print-outs, daily and hourly, in the form of emotions—which are lightning-like estimates of the things around you, calculated according to your values." (Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It?, p. 5) also, "An emotion as such tells you nothing about reality, beyond the fact that something makes you feel something. Without a ruthlessly honest commitment to introspection—to the conceptual identification of your inner states—you will not discover what you feel, what arouses the feeling, and whether your feeling is an appropriate response to the facts of reality, or a mistaken response, or a vicious illusion produced by years of self-deception . . . . In the field of introspection, the two guiding questions are: “What do I feel?” and “Why do I feel it?” (Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It?, p. 17) Rand is seeming to suggest emotions can reflect irrational thoughts. It seems beliefs held in the subconscious can be 'programmed by chance'. She says that using the rational faculty is not automatic but voluntary. So it has sovereignty, but it is up to a person to use it. Her view does make a lot of sense. Our working memory is incredibly limited, so thinking rationally would be incredibly limited. Perhaps there is no 'true self' beyond our ability to reason consciously. If Rand is right, I believe it challenges the psychology of this community. Rather than listening to a true self, and to emotions and their origins, her views would suggest we should rather use reason alone to find what is the right thing to do and to create habits out of it. Perhaps one problem with her view is that there is no ought from an is. It makes a lot of sense to me that only emotions can tell us something as trivial as what flavour of ice cream to have and something as serious as whether I should really marry some person. Maybe the truth is somewhere in between. Maybe the subconscious can be 'programmed by chance', but maybe it a somewhat active system which holds our true beliefs, while our conscious thoughts themselves can differ. What do people think? Can these premises be proven from first principles? Maybe you think the premises I outlined are inaccurate? How do you think is the best way to approach and deal with emotions and choices? Have any podcasts/books to share about this stuff?

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, folks! Today, I'm making a firm decision to dedicate the entire month of March to re-assessing the direction I wish to take my life, defining what I want in my relationships, and re-assessing my belief system from the ground up to address areas where I am inconsistent. The idea to embark on this project came about as a result of some key realizations I've come to in journaling extensively over the past several days. -- Firstly, I've realized that I am trying to seek love in finding a new partner without first truly loving myself through and through. I wanted to be loved first (and give love later), but neither can be truly sustained according to traditional wisdom without first establishing self-love. I'm a fundamentally good person, but I've made mistakes long in my past which cause a deep sense of self-doubt and reluctance in accepting that I am worthy of a virtue-based romantic relationship.. It was mind-blowing to realize this, but I think it's a crucial first step in the solving of any problem to first identify that it exists. I am perhaps most eager to tackle this issue in therapy and whatever means you're aware of which are useful for establishing genuine self-love and respect would be greatly appreciated. Secondly, I've realized that I've put the cart before the horse regarding my online business, creating loads of valuable content at an unprecedented pace without first realizing that I am a complete beginner without a sound grasp of the fundamentals of what it takes to run a successful online business. I've been operating based upon past experience, intuition, and what little knowledge I've picked up from conversations, books, and podcasts. Some things I'll be pondering deeply are: which social media platforms are most relevant to my niche, how to conduct myself on social media, learning the fundamentals of blogging and article creation, the fundamentals of running a successful eCommerce store, and so on. I've steamed ahead at full speed prior to studying the proper ways to accomplish my goals; this means I will likely have to unlearn many bad habits and fix many problems I've created for myself. Third, I've realized that I'm completely taking the philosophical arguments of Stefan Molyneux at face value without healthy skepticism and research into alternative explanations or rebuttals. (surely I'm not alone... right?) I've gained a sense of intellectual comfort in "knowing" that the Non-Agression Principle is valid, that UPB is valid, that there's such a thing as Property Rights, and that there's no God. Regardless of the validity or truth in the conclusions I have in my mind, I've become aware that I've arrived at them through a critical methodological error: I outsourced my own thinking to the thinking of another man. I've never fully read the source materials from the original proponents of these concepts and critically analyzed them. Instead, I listened to someone who "did the job for me", and accepted his explanations as truth. This is clearly not a healthy way to arrive at any conclusion; I've decided I'm going to have the intellectual integrity to do my own reading and arrive at my own conclusions. -- Frankly, it's not fun to realize all of this in the span of less than a week. I've put about half of my eggs into the basket of my business, and need to be successful in that venture in order to sustain myself. However, I can't seem to focus much at all on business with the shift in consciousness I've experienced due to these key realizations. I liken this to a mild existential crisis, and I'm ready to face the challenges ahead of me no matter the cost. I feel sincerely that my life is accelerating and that I must rise to the challenge; it's exciting and intimidating at the same time! I have found that the community here is full of good-willed, intelligent, and experienced individuals with a willingness to offer valuable perspective to help others. Perhaps some of you have experienced something similar, and can offer some advice on what helped you through the struggle of an existential crisis where your gravest errors in thought and plan were made apparent to you. Maybe you know a couple of good books on the subject of introductory metaphysics and epistemology, and you'd like to share those. Heck, even if you've got an interesting article to share that you think could help myself or others, please share it! No matter what advice, perspective, or resources you offer, I'll sincerely appreciate them! I'm looking forward greatly to engaging you all in conversation .

I got married a year ago, and we are learning a lot about how to get along and know each other and ourselves. Things are pleasant 80% of the time or so. We think quite differently, which I always knew could be either a strength or a challenge. Okay, so I started listening to Adam Kokesh and became a believer in anarchy about 3 or 4 months ago, then found FDR a couple months ago and am very curious and attracted to his logical approach to things. My wife never read much of the stuff I read about anarchy and nowadays she doesn't really like listening to Stefan, either. I think she may be listening more because I ask her and less because she is really interested. We are LDS (AKA Mormon) and she said she feels uncomfortable challenging certain core beliefs that are part of our faith. I told her I feel doubt about our future because I fear that she may be unwilling to challenge certain beliefs that are not true and possibly causing her emotional suffering. How can I be more persuasive to her? Maybe just be an example of living UPB and explaining how it brings me peace...? Thanks!

Skeptics are naive ? Affirmative scepticism is the opposite of unconscious naiveness. The oriental phrase as large the face as large the back, is a general rule of how an extreme or evident position has a proportional and reversed one that is also part of the personality. In the case of an individual, usually member of a declared organization promoting skepticism we usually see that this person is a blind believer of a main stream belief system, usually called science. We can see, with open minds, that what some pretends being science is the use of a technology out of control by some humans whose brains and knowledge are to big for them to control. Like offering a real gun to a kid and telling him to go out and play. Recent catastrophe are clearly showing the image of the mad scientist unaware of the effects or in a hypnotic trance pushing him to go ahead with his crazy projects even if all is collapsing around. This belief system based on spectacular realizations, most of the time with short term and localized positive effects, giving the impression to those naive individuals their religion is the true one so they build temples called schools and universities to educate other naive persons. The usual answer to the actual and evident failure of their projects is that they will eventually, in a close future, bring great benefits to humanity. We saw and see they, and their financiers, got and get their profits while saying, ad nauseam, that it will bring something to others in a near future. Like a donkey running after a carrot on a stick, the future is never attained and the donkey keeps on running. We have there all the ingredients of religions, paradise that will come if you obediently follow the recipe of life the so called science promotes. You work like a slave for years in an insane middle in an unhealthy job with the promise of a golden retreat with a huge pension. The mythic Eldorado, their religious magazines and films shows as some sort of Venus project where robots will take care of everything while you’ll enjoy a life of leisure filled of joys, including sexy young nurses to change your diapers. We see that, here and now, reality is far from being a paradise, cuts in pensions, cost of life raising, chronic illness increasing and so on. It seems obvious the most ardent skeptics are naive fanatics... what do you think ?