To boldly go where Stefan has gone before

[Canoe_Captain]

Hello everybody,

 

So far I listened to ca. 200 hours of FDR YouTube videos mostly from 2013, podcasts and audiobooks. I listen to ca. 2 hours of FDR a day.

 

You can label me:

 

An Ex-Catholic: As a kid I enjoyed the company of catholic kids because they were not bullying me like the kids at school. I never believed the bible to be more than a collection of anachronistic, fictionalized stories. Jesus might have had some good insights into ethics though.

 

An Ex-Utilitarian: I tried to live my life in a way, so that it has the most utility for mankind. I did this from age 17 till 27. I probably was wrong since it is already difficult to know what is best for me and it would be presumptuous to assume I know what is of utility for mankind.

 

An anarcho-capitalist: Since I listen to FDR. Before I was an advocate for a minimal state.

 

My goal is to live a happy life and do my part in making the world a better place. I think self-knowledge and spreading the truth is a good way to do this.

[dsayers]

Hello there. I am so sorry to hear that you have parents who are more interested in propaganda and mythology than reality. Have you ever had a chance to talk with them about where this might come from in terms of their own childhoods? Were you ever abused other than neglect that it sounds like you got from your mother?

 

A Star Trek - Next Generation Fan: Captain Picard was a role model to me since an early age: He tries to solve conflict by listening and arbitration and cares deeply about his subordinates and all living things. I know his job is probably funded by taxation, but he helped spark my interest in philosophy. 

 

Fear not, for you have good reason to believe that in order to achieve interstellar travel, the human race at least would almost certainly require a peaceful society where innovation could flourish. The prime directive as ST:TNG describes it certainly is not a product of the state.

 

Jesus might have had some good insights into ethics though.

 

I would disagree. For starters, thou shalt not kill while killing everybody but Noah and telling everybody to kill for just about every reason under the sun. Not to mention telling people that pacifism and humility (self-erasure) are virtuous.

 

I probably was wrong since I can only really just judge what is best for me not for everybody.

 

This has me thinking. One example I wanted to bring up was that we can eat meat or we can eat the grain and vegetables they would eat so we can eat them. If we ate less meat, there would be more food for others. When I rebuilt my PC last, I hand-picked parts that were high efficiency and low power-consumption. I did that for me since I like a silent PC and those parts are conducive to lower overall air flow and therefore noise. But I take less juice overall to accomplish the same tasks.

 

Then again, I don't know if it could be said that eating less meat or consuming less energy is in fact a good thing. Consuming fossil fuels emphasizes our need for efficient alternatives for example. So maybe you're right. Still, I'm inclined to say that there's things we can do for our own good that benefits others as well. As long as we're not forcing them upon others is all that really matters.

 

Thanks for sharing

[Canoe_Captain]

Hi dsayers, thank you for your great post and feedback. 

 

Disclaimer: I did not spent enough time on philosophy to derive my arguments from proven principles like Stefan, my arguments are really weak since they are based on hunches and feelings.

So I give you my amateurish reply as good as I can:
 
 
On my parent's childhood:
 

Have you ever had a chance to talk with them about where this might come from in terms of their own childhoods? 

I usually talk like three times a year with my mother about the things they did wrong as parents. I did not yet ask my parents what happened in their childhoods. My mother had strict parents and her father died when she was 18 years old. She also had to go to church ca. 3 times a week and she did not force me or my brother to go to church.
I am still semi-dependent on financial support from my father and I am afraid asking questions about his childhood might somehow anger him. I know that as a child he did not have much time for himself because he always had to help on the farm as a child, except when he was at school. So going to a state school was probably seen by him as a positive door opener to step up the ladder from farmer's son to medical doctor. He also was separated from a good friend at the age of ca. 5 years. The family of the friend immigrated to Canada, and they still are pen pals after ca. 60 years.
 
 
 
On abuse by my parents:
 

Were you ever abused other than neglect that it sounds like you got from your mother?

[*]One time my father started screaming at full volume at my mother, when she was cradling me as a baby and I shrug together in shock. So I probably was a stressed out as a fetus and baby.[ [*]I was beaten with the open hand to the cheek when I had beaten or somehow made my little brother cry from age 3 to age 12. (I apologized to my brother and I am sorry for attacking my little brother. I have still to fully understand why I let my anger out on him.) [*]Getting an unprofessional, butchered, circumcision when 6 years old for so called medical reasons. Based on my research the circumcision was not medically necessary, so I blame my circumcision on a statist healthcare system and my parents skipping due diligence. [*]Being beaten by my father for a bad grade over the knee with open hand on the buttocks for ca. 30 seconds when I was ca. 14 years old. This happened only one time but I decided to myself in that moment to consider my father as an adversary from now on. [*]Being accused by mother to try to willingly play my parents off against each other for my own benefit when I was ca. 14 years old “You always knew how to make us argue!” [*]My father put me often down verbally when I got bad grades and I was afraid of getting physically hurt because of bad grades.

 

 

On Jesus:
 

I would disagree. For starters, thou shalt not kill while killing everybody but Noah and telling everybody to kill for just about every reason under the sun. Not to mention telling people that pacifism and humility (self-erasure) are virtuous.

 

With regards to Jesus I am in a transition of feelings towards Jesus:

[*]Ca. 2011 I was a clear supporter  of Jesus: "Yes,  I am a Christian." [*]In 2015 I am probably going to say: Jesus is just a historic person who founded a religion and had really destructive influence with his teachings (ca. 2015)

So I am sometimes a slow person, and I try to not force my feelings, I know that there are many facts that put Jesus in a critical light, but I have just started to open up to those facts.
I felt more or less comfortable with being a Jesus supporter, but I understand it is fogging my own rational thinking ability and that of my possible future children so I am slowly fading out my positive feelings for Jesus.
 
So my belief in 2011 was, that god may or may not exist. I thought "son of god" was more of a title given to Jesus, since his contemporaries thought Jesus is as enlightened as god. Yes self-erasure is not a good template. Do your refer to dying at the cross? I thought of that as a positive example of having such a strong belief in his teachings, that he was ready to make his stance towards the powerful oppressors instead of renouncing. But maybe I had those suicide fantasy also because of this Jesus example? That would probably mean that it was not such a good example after all.
 
So I currently view Jesus' teachings like ethics from the Stone Age: I do not judge a Stone Age hammer by the same standards of 21st century hammers. I do use a 21st century hammer if I need one. But I go to a museum to look at the Stone Age hammer and think: this was a valuable hammer and whoever invented it, probably advanced the technological evolution.
 
So currently I think of Jesus as a more or less boring topic of my past. He was crazy to think of himself as son of god, but he spoke his thoughts, when the majority just obeyed the rulers.
As far as I know he taught his peers:

[*]to be peaceful (although not always being peaceful himself) [*]to be honest [*]to respect children [*]to respect women [*]to respect poor people [*]to voluntarily share [*]to respect that prostitutes deserve dignity [*]to first judge yourself before you judge others

It seems to me that pacifism could be considered a Stone Age version of the non-aggression principle. The right for self-defense is missing of course.
 
I guess Stefan Molyneux disagrees at this point, but, I think it is possible that without the existence of Jesus, Anarcho-Capitalism would have been developed ca. 100 years later. (I write this down to tell you about my feelings, I do not have as much knowledge of history as Stefan).
 
I have no more an opinion of Noah than of Superman, I consider those fictional characters that do not really interest me. I include "the one god"  in my list of fictional character as well, though that is still tough for me.

 

 
On Utilitarianism:
 

Still, I'm inclined to say that there's things we can do for our own good that benefits others as well. As long as we're not forcing them upon others is all that really matters.

 
I do not like Utilitarianism anymore because it embodies the thought of: "It is possible to know what is best for everybody."  ("One must always act so as to produce the greatest aggregate happiness among all sentient beings." John Stuart Mills) So a practicing Utilitarian has to be convinced to be all-knowing or at least be really smart to be able to act as an Utilitarian. My supposition is that if a Utilitarian believes to really know what is best for everybody, he has no scruple to force his/her opinion onto others. 

 

It seems to me the inventor of Utilitarianism was inspired by the idea of an all-knowing god.

 

I kind of see a false notion of being really smart/ all-knowing in the legislation of the current German state:

• "we extort taxes to encourage you to invest in green energy"
• "we extort taxes to encourage you to insulate your homes"
• "we extort taxes to encourage you to stop smoking"
• "we steal 10 Billion USD a year from you for state TV/radio to inform you about important intellectual information"

I assume that at least part of the legislators base their actions on utilitarian ethics. So purely following utilitarian ethics seems misguided to me. If a utilitarian follows the non-aggression-principle I am okay with it.

It makes me happy to help my fellow human beings to flourish as well, but I do not claim that I am sure that my actions actually help them.

 

@dsayers: I understand that my explanation is no contradiction to what you wrote. I just wanted to explain my thoughts in more detail.

[dsayers]

Being accused by mother to try to willingly play my parents off against each other for my own benefit when I was ca. 14 years old “You always knew how to make us argue!”

 

Wow, that's awful. You'd think that if a 14 year old even could have that capability, that somebody in their 30s or older would have the power to overcome or defend against it. It's like spilling paint and turning to the painting, "See what you made me do?"

 

I was beaten with the open hand to the cheek when I had beaten or somehow made my little brother cry from age 3 to age 12. (I apologized to my brother and I am sorry for attacking my little brother. I have still to fully understand why I let my anger out on him.)

 

Well it sounds like it was modeled for you that might makes right and to subjugate those weaker than you. If your father aggressed against your mother, both your parents aggressed against you, and you had a younger sibling, for you to aggress against them is normal because the aggression was normalized.

 

Yes self-erasure is not a good template. Do your refer to dying at the cross?

 

I was thinking of his advice to turn the other cheek. Follow it to its logical conclusion and you belong to whomever claims ownership over you.

 

I'm not saying that Jesus isn't accredited with speaking useful words of truth. I am saying that if those words have any value, it's because they accurately describe the real world, not because Jesus said them. If you wanted to teach a child that 2+2=4, you wouldn't say "For Texas Instruments hath proclaimed that rest ye two with another two of the same and verily ye might behold that four doth describe the amount ye now have."

 

I think you might have a better grip of Utilitarianism overall than I do. I'm not a big label guy and didn't fully realize when I made my last post that you were speaking of an entire belief system rather than just a consideration.

[Canoe_Captain]

Thanks for your reply, dsayers.

 

I asked myself why I so extensively defended Jesus in my reply:

 

1. The first reason that came to my mind is: I usually like to defend the underdogs.

And where I come from, religion and Jesus are underdogs, since 50% of my friends are convinced Atheists, 45% do not care about their Christian religion and the statist mainstream media mostly talks negatively about anything related with the church. 

 

I can understand that it is not always morally right to defend the underdogs, since they might have been shunned by society for their morally wrong behavior or in the case of Jesus because his message is destructive, inconsistent and based on the irrational believe of an all-powerful god.

 

2. The second reason that came to my mind why I defended Jesus was: A part of me still clings to an imaginary scene where Jesus is sitting smiling on a cloud above beaming constantly rays of love down to me. 

 

I did not recognize before, that I am still clinging to such unicorn daydream stuff. My subconscious probably did not completely accept yet, that Jesus died 2000 years ago...

[Canoe_Captain]

I have been the first caller in the Sunday Call In Show February 9th, 2014:

 

You can stream the show online here: http://fdrpodcasts.kevinbeal.com/#/2613/sunlight-to-the-vampire-of-statism-sunday-call-in-show-february-9th-2014

 

After listening to the conversation a second time I am still not entirely sure from where I go from here. I gleaned this from what Stefan said to me:

 

1. (At 24:00) The issues I have with my parents have a lot more to do with society as a whole. If I come to conclusions about society based on the relationship with my parents then I am going to have problems going forward: My conclusions about my parents is, that they are egoistic, utilitarian and superstitious and that at the moment I do not want to have contact with my father and only sparse contact with my mother. So now I need to be careful not to continue to assume that society is egoistic, utilitarian and superstitious? Did I understand Stefan correctly?

 

2. (At 62:00) Society does not have empathy with the victims. To be aware to have an empathy deficiency is a good first step. Ergo achieving empathy for victims might be a goal. I hope when I achieve empathy for victims I might have even more motivation to achieve something like for example help spreading the information on concepts of the non-aggression principle, anarchy and atheism.

 

 

As a side note: My girlfriend listened to the call by using the live stream in the next room. I did not know this during the call. I was open about my call-in to her. But since she finds Stefan not sympathetic and since she describes FDR philosophy as being “gaga” I did not expect she would listen.

The next day I became aware of this and she told me she was shocked about the amount of problems I have in my life. I can understand her to a degree since I was more open to Stefan about my life and problems than I was to her. But I am not sure if the relationship with my girlfriend might possibly be beyond repair in general?

[Mark Carolus]

A Star Trek - Next Generation Fan: Captain Picard was a role model for me since at an early age: He tries to solve conflict by listening and arbitration and cares deeply about his subordinates and all living things. I know his job is probably funded by taxation, but he helped to spark my interest in philosophy and hope for humanity. 

 

Actually, there is no money in captain Picard's Star Trek (The next Generation).

In fact, you probably couldn't find a more communistic show than Star Trek, this is why some people refer to Zeitgeist as the Star Trek economy sometimes.

[quickstine]

 

After listening to the conversation a second time I am still not entirely sure from where I go from here. 

Well, for a start, you can keep listening and keep asking good questions. Your questions are beginning to form, so the answers will take a bit longer ;-)  It's not because Jesus lived 2,000 years ago that the advice he gives is not very helpful. Ask someone a question about what Jesus thought and you will likely get statements that reflect what they themselves think Jesus said, what the gospel writers thought he said (as reported in the Bible), a combination of these, or some contradictory statements that keep you guessing what the real message is. (I think you have figured that out, if I read you right.)

 

We are told that Jesus died for our sins, for example; he is referred to as, symbolically, the Lamb of God. That is a notion based on a concept of sacrifice. Keeping the sacrificial system in place is very useful to those who benefit from it and not so useful to the rest of us who are encouraged to support sacrifice through continued sacrifice of our own well being. Ask yourself, am I willing to die for someone's sins?

 

Oh, then you arrive at what a sin is. Is it a sin to hit or kill a defenceless child? Geez, even Abraham had second thoughts and realized he had to keep the fact that he had been asked to do it a secret. On some level there is an admission or a notion that it is not right since people hide the abuses they commit (I think Kierkegaard wrote an essay on Abraham -- I read it a long time ago, but it makes you think about what goes through someone's mind to engage in the sacrifice of one's son).

 

With thinking like that, you can work through concepts and come to something clear and simple that gives you confidence to go further.  Know that you are surely right to ask questions and to seek real answers. You realized that you like to defend underdogs. So you can ask yourself questions: Is that not perhaps engaging in a form of sacrifice, especially if when it can't be done with a clear sense of who you are defending and why? Is Jesus an underdog? What do you gain by defending him as an underdog? The same as what Jesus gained by "dying for our sins?" These would all be good questions that make you work back to answers that will help. It's important to keep the discourse going here, in your own thinking and in your own actions, etc. It's the people who accept a system and never question it, even if it hurts others, that one really has to wonder about ...

[Canoe_Captain]

@Quickstine:

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I guess I defended underdogs because I dislike oppressors. Now, that I reflect on it: I probably spent too much time of my life on this arbitrary defending, instead I should work on fulfilling my own needs and my self-development. Eventually I hopefully will be able to help to spread philosophy to the world.

 

As long as I remember, I never accepted completely the "sacrifice" of Jesus on the cross. There were too many illogical things going on in that story: Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost are a Trinity but Jesus needs to kill himself to make God more kind towards humans. The people in this Trinity relationship seem to have serious issues. 

 

Actually the whole Old Testament (where children are killed for god) is to me just a story of how people behaved and what they believed in the ancient times. The Old Testament seemed to have almost no morally teachable moment for me. For me the Old Testament were just some entertaining stories (Moses and the Pharaoh) and some screwed up, sick stories (brothers trying to kill each other).

 

Just a side note: I visited a Baptist church 3 or 4 times in 2010 with a Baptist friend out of curiosity (my own little research on society and religion). In comparison the Baptists were much more into the Bible and its literally derived moral teachings. In the catholic community where I grew up, we had a much more (watered down) interpretation of the bible based on historical criticism. The catholic historical criticism made it more appealing to a critical thinking person like me, while the Baptist teachings seemed adjusted to an even more susceptible and gullible audience. Furthermore the Baptists were complaining on all the things the pope is doing wrong to convince me to join them, but since I dislike this marketing which is solely founded on bashing the competitor, I quickly got tired of going there.

 

 

An update on my life: I am most likely going to quit my studies to become a self-employed photographer. I am also probably going to move to the most economically healthy region of Germany: Bavaria.

I assume Bavaria is more economically healthy because it is the region with the least fertile ground for socialist ideas. I guess they are more relying on old traditions and from that tradition derive some identity based on culture, but the bottom line is: they created more prosperity for the average person. I guess I am replacing one evil with another (socialism with tradition). Is this a reasonable swap? I guess traditions and culture develop on a somewhat free market during the centuries so it might not be as destructive as socialism? 

 

I have lived intermittently for 10 month in Bavaria and I felt more comfortable than in northern Germany.

On average the atmosphere in the southern regions is more industrious and the houses, streets and gardens look cleaner and nicer. I like that. I hope I am not too superficial?

 

BTW: If it was possible to immigrate to Switzerland, Canada or New Zealand, I would attempt to do that, but as far as I know it is almost impossible for an unexperienced, self-employed photographer.

[Canoe_Captain]

My first memories and a trip to the prison in kindergarten

 

A kindergarten trip to prison. Who does that? My kindergarten did that.

 

The prison was as clean as a 1st world prison in 1991 could be:

All the cells were without prisoners, but the cells were already furnished with mattresses and nothing else. It seemed freshly renovated, the walls were all white. It was like the prison guards were saying, we just made room for you.

 

Might there be a connection to my current life, since I like to furnish my room white and spartan?

 

There was not much fun in my kindergarten time. My kindergarten time was as ugly as the school I went later on

It was a kindergarten where I fought with other boys in daily sand box wars 50% of the time.

 

My first memory of my life is me washing the sand out of my hair at home after the daily kindergarten sand war. And the other early memory is me visiting the prison with the thoughts of “I do not like this place, what do I have to do to never end up here?"

 

It is probably one of the early events where I learned to fear the police and state.

 

What do average people in Germany or the USA think of prisons? Do they think it is a place that helps them protect them from evil doers?

 

I guess since the age of five I construed prisons as a threat by the state to make me behave, like my parents beating me, screaming and locking me for hours in rooms as well as threatening boarding school and future unemployment in case of misbehaviour. 

[dsayers]

What do average people in Germany or the USA think of prisons?

 

Prisons are predicated on two assumptions: The people inside are violently actionable and merely keeping them away from folks is a valid way to address their transgression. I rather like the Hannibal Lecter quote from Red Dragon: "We live in a primitive time, don't we? Neither savage nor wise. ...any rational society would either kill me or put me to some use." Rotting in a cell might give their victims peace of mind, but does nothing towards restitution.

 

Back to the first requisite: That those inside are violently actionable. That's a tall claim. I'm sure there are those there who fit this description. Unless it's 100% though, the requisite is window dressing at best. There are probably even people there who ARE violently actionable, but were never properly vetted. Tamper with evidence to make a charge stick, bargain bullying to discourage any effort to resist or clarify. The people who put people there deserve to be there more themselves in these cases, which are all too commonplace.

 

I think a prison is an admission of defeat. "We don't know the answer and are too lazy to figure it out." At least that's the admission of its inception. Present day, it's more like, "We believe that those before us knew what they were doing."

 

What a horrible thing to expose a five year old to. It's bizarre the way some people will go out of their way to pretend that everything's about saving the children, yet they'll actually approve of something like this as if its anything short of traumatic. Aggression of any kind is not age-appropriate for five year old exposure. I'm really sorry that is a fact about your childhood.