Against me

[Yeravos]

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?

[dsayers]

Let me start by thanking you for your sensitivity in this manner.

 

A lot of people talk about wanting to make big changes in the world and don't know how to go about doing it. It begins with our interpersonal relationships. People who hold religious views (which statism is) didn't arrive at that conclusion by way of logic, reason, or evidence. It is the momentum of the past, perpetuated by social comfort. The only way to stop it is to make it uncomfortable for people to use or support the use of violence to solve problems. One way to accomplish this is not allowing such people the pleasure of our friendship.

 

This doesn't mean that every relationship in your life has to be founded on this. If you work for/with somebody, there's nothing wrong with keeping conversations in the realm of the mundane so as not to threaten your livelihood. How much of this (ostracism) we choose to engage in with those around us, the important thing is to be AWARE of your decision and its specifics.

 

Just remember that association isn't passive. People you are near will imprint upon you. Others might think of you differently based on the company you keep. This can be as serious as you becoming a person of interest in a criminal investigation by the cops based on who you've associated with.

 

The last thing I'll say is just a reminder that the internet is here and much of software and technology has been based on the interconnectivity of mankind. It's never been easier to make a principled stand in your interpersonal relationships for the betterment of the species. Good luck to you with what you decide.

[Llamabean]

I have recently reached a point in my life where I feel confident enough to express my opinion. I've posted an open invitation to the people in my life (via facecbook) to start a conversation. I don't know myself or anyone around me very well but I want to learn and grow. So by starting this conversation I am learning to communicate.

 

While I have only just begun this process I do have an idea of what I'm looking for already. I know it'll be extremely difficult to find like minded people but that is not my goal. I want to know who among my friends and family are willing and able to have a civilized discussion.

I'm finding this out by being open with my opinion first, then having a conversation with anyone who desires, and then recognizing how I feel about the interaction. 

 

I have a little evidence now for the type of people I don't want to be around. Those being the ones who use a condescending or hostile tone, those who minimize my feelings or ridicule my opinion, and those who refuse to listen and contemplate before responding. I'm picking fights in a way. I'm putting myself out there for everyone to see. Those who agree with me I am happy for, but the ones who disagree are of particular interest. I do not want to be in a relationship with people who abuse me for not thinking the way that they do.

 

Is that not actual, real time violence against me?

 

I don't think that it is as simple as saying, "I'm an anarchist, and if you're not I can't talk to you." Like he says, it takes work and time! I am not completely confident in my views! I want life experiences to shape them, I want differing opinions, I want to ask questions, I want more than just logic. I want to understand how we get to that logic and I want to understand how other people come to accept their own views. 

 

So, in the few interactions I've had so far, I've been called names and called out. I simply made the other person aware that, yes, I am interested in this discussion, but, no, I will not take this abuse. Even if the conversation ends there and I don't weed out my friends list, at least, this person knows that I am open to talk in the future, whether we have opposing views or not, and perhaps they are more aware of their own actions, "against me."

 

I guess I consider this as a sort of middle ground or maybe a transition stage.. I'm no longer being passive in may associations, but I'm also not turning away from abusers (I agree that it's scary, and I'm not in a position to let all abusers go yet). I'm just starting a conversation that will hopefully lead me to a better understanding and stronger relationships. 

 

 

 

Please let me know if you found this relevant and/or helpful. Honest communication is very new for me and I would really appreciate any feedback!

--Bean

[Yeravos]

Let me start by thanking you for your sensitivity in this manner.

 

A lot of people talk about wanting to make big changes in the world and don't know how to go about doing it. It begins with our interpersonal relationships. People who hold religious views (which statism is) didn't arrive at that conclusion by way of logic, reason, or evidence. It is the momentum of the past, perpetuated by social comfort. The only way to stop it is to make it uncomfortable for people to use or support the use of violence to solve problems. One way to accomplish this is not allowing such people the pleasure of our friendship.

 

This doesn't mean that every relationship in your life has to be founded on this. If you work for/with somebody, there's nothing wrong with keeping conversations in the realm of the mundane so as not to threaten your livelihood. How much of this (ostracism) we choose to engage in with those around us, the important thing is to be AWARE of your decision and its specifics.

 

Just remember that association isn't passive. People you are near will imprint upon you. Others might think of you differently based on the company you keep. This can be as serious as you becoming a person of interest in a criminal investigation by the cops based on who you've associated with.

 

The last thing I'll say is just a reminder that the internet is here and much of software and technology has been based on the interconnectivity of mankind. It's never been easier to make a principled stand in your interpersonal relationships for the betterment of the species. Good luck to you with what you decide.

 

Thank you dsayers.

 

I have recently reached a point in my life where I feel confident enough to express my opinion. I've posted an open invitation to the people in my life (via facecbook) to start a conversation. I don't know myself or anyone around me very well but I want to learn and grow. So by starting this conversation I am learning to communicate.

 

Hm. Interesting approach. It makes sense. When I imagine doing this myself though, I get the thought that it would be really awkward. Thinking about that makes me anxious.

 

 

 

I guess I consider this as a sort of middle ground or maybe a transition stage.. I'm no longer being passive in may associations, but I'm also not turning away from abusers (I agree that it's scary, and I'm not in a position to let all abusers go yet). I'm just starting a conversation that will hopefully lead me to a better understanding and stronger relationships. 

 

It's very scary. And what I think I find the worst, is that I think a lot of that scariness is something I have aided in creating. I have made it harder for myself, by getting myself involved with other people. By getting myself entangled in activities because they were fun, ignoring that I was engaging with people who I know I can't speak truthfully around without getting attacked. I have willingly gotten myself trapped in a spider web because hey, having fun and feeling important socially was more important than being virtuous. And now, because of that, it makes it all harder to break free from that.

Darn it again.

 

But yes, I found your input helpful, thank you Llamabean . Best of luck to you in exploring honest communication!

[Llamabean]

Thank You!

 

Something I'd like to add then, is that this has not been easy for me. I've spent most of my life (basically all of it up until a week ago) believing that my opinion was not important. I was fortunate enough to spend sometime away from home, and living somewhere else, far away from my abusers, definitely helped me realize that I'm all I've got. I'm the most important person to me. I have to do what's best for my well being. Almost everything up to the point that I had this realization was just self destructive. 

 

Like you said you've put yourself in this position. I had done the same thing. I needed that time away to step back and find out what I want for my life. Look at what I had and what changes were necessary. Um, but if you can't step back for a few weeks or a year then I would suggest journaling and trying to make sense of what you want and what you don't want.

 

I wonder if you'd like to be more specific with your experiences? If so, I'm very interested, and if not, I thank you again anyway!

--Bean

[dsayers]

I just realized I had forgotten the most important point of all. Be warned: It is a VERY uncomfortable one. If you realize that somebody is immoral, and you then continue to allow them to be in your life, you become complicit in their immorality.

 

Take my situation for example. My father is the largest, most consistent, and most current abuser in my life. I'm living under his roof despite being at an age that I should be able to provide for myself. When I started pursuing self-knowledge and studying philosophy, I tried to talk with him about his allowance for aggression and the impact its had on my life and ways of thinking, etc. He made it very clear that there would be no change and no further conversation. I've chosen to stay for financial reasons, but I understand full well that by not eliminating him from my life given his conviction towards allowing for aggression, I am complicit in his aggression towards others and reinforcing his aggression towards me. I wouldn't doubt that I'm making the wrong decision based on that alone.

 

I'm finding this out by being open with my opinion first, then having a conversation with anyone who desires, and then recognizing how I feel about the interaction. 

 

I think it might be more useful to share what you're feeling first. How much a person is your friend or worthy of being your friend can be ascertained by how much they will allow you to share your feelings openly.

 

Opinions are conclusions and conclusions are not nearly as important as the methodology by which they were arrived upon. Sharing an opinion that you've arrived at by way of empiricism is going to be meaningless to somebody who values utility over reality for example.

 

This is why I dislike labels in general. Like, I don't go around telling people that I think that anarchy and atheism are the most accurate and consistent positions. Somebody might discount me before hearing anything I might have to say if they identified me as a libertarian or whatever. Even though their understanding of such a label might be different from what it actually means or what I might think it means. That's why the only label I'll ever self-apply is a truth-ist. I'm happy to be wrong so long as learning that I'm not accurately describing the real world helps lead me (and the person I'm talking to) to a better understanding of what would be more accurate. I find this output better solicits constructive disagreement.

[Llamabean]

Dsayer,

 

You may very well be correct with your suggestion to share your feelings first, and I completely agree with your merit for friendship.

--The reason I start with opinion instead of feeling is because identifying my feelings is something I struggle with. I have to practice identifying and experiencing them before I can move on to the next step (which might be understanding them or expressing them). 

 

Perhaps sharing an opinion too is something one should try to be mindful of.

--I guess the way I've practiced so far has consisted mostly of appealing to another persons logic and morality after having a discussion, which consists of explaining where both persons stand concerning an issue, and trying to find common ground. It's proven to be appropriate in some conversations and harmful in others.

So I understand your point and agree with it.

 

I would like to express my sympathy for your situation because I also live in undesirable conditions. Do you believe that your situation is a hindrance to your pursuit of self knowledge? I am conflicted by this notion. I am not sure if I believe that my situation is preventing me form achieving a greater understanding of myself or if it is a sensible "speed bump" to allow.

[dsayers]

--I guess the way I've practiced so far has consisted mostly of appealing to another persons logic and morality after having a discussion, which consists of explaining where both persons stand concerning an issue, and trying to find common ground. It's proven to be appropriate in some conversations and harmful in others.

 

I could be wrong, but this feels like addressing the leaves of a large tree. If you're looking for oak leaves, but the tree has pine roots, it's going to have a pine trunk, pine branches, and it won't even have leaves at all at the ends of its branches. This is why I've found so much value in Stef's Intro to Philosophy series: It taught me the enormous value of starting from first principles. Addressing step 20 of somebody's complicated path to an unsound conclusion is just a waste of time if in step 1, they're claiming that 1 = 2 for example.

 

If you've never checked out Stef's Intro to Philosophy series, I encourage everybody to check it out at least once. I revisit it from time to time for the sake of recalibration. It's long, but it starts from first principles and does an amazing job of helping sort through all the propaganda that has us all thinking incorrectly without even realizing it. It's on youtube if you prefer visuals or I chopped it up in the link in my sig for people who prefer to partake of it on the go.

 

As for identifying an error in somebody's methodology at an early stage, I recommend checking out Stef's debate with Peter Joseph. Mr. Joseph have an enormously convoluted position that he was never able to fully explain as Stef was able to repeatedly identify fundamental flaws and saved them both time by not exploring something that was built on something untrue or inconsistent.

 

Do you believe that your situation is a hindrance to your pursuit of self knowledge? I am conflicted by this notion. I am not sure if I believe that my situation is preventing me form achieving a greater understanding of myself or if it is a sensible "speed bump" to allow.

 

In the abstract, I'm inclined to say no. I do remember that when I first started learning the truth and how to think, I became so angry towards him that he could tell and ultimately tried to verbally punish me for it. Then once I tried to talk to him and he made it clear, it was surprisingly liberating. It would've been nice if somebody who's always been in my life and whom others would tell me by title alone SHOULD be in my life, could be reasoned with and choose to try and make up for all the abuse. But knowing this will not be meant there was that much more I didn't have to plan on, word towards, or have to think about in the future.

 

In fact, you could even argue that it enhances my pursuit of self-knowledge by supplying me with greater resistance in order to make those muscles stronger.

 

The real detriment is the lack of mental peace. Since he's learned of my ability to think and identify flaws and illegitimate "authority," he tends to walk softer in regards to me. And when he does flare up, it's so much more obvious that he is the one with the problem. That said, I do have to constantly wonder if he'll be set off, what will set him off, and what he will do in regards to being set off. It has more than once lead to holding the roof over my head over my head coercively. So while it may not be a direct challenge to my pursuit of self-knowledge, it can be a bit taxing to my resources overall. Which likely inhibits the healing process as well.

 

I'm constantly re-evaluating whether the money I save is worth it or not. When I first moved back in, it was out of necessity because I sort of ran out of money and employability (thanks to guess who not properly preparing me for the real world). Since then, we've sort of developed a mutually beneficial business relationship. I'm armed security by trade, so he has somebody who is home when he isn't and is awake when he's sleeping. Plus he's bought a few houses that I help him fix up an maintain. Which has improved my human capital as well as built a small rental fleet that I may inherit in part.

 

The important thing is that regardless of what I choose, that I understand the choice and make it intentionally. I have no misgiving that being useful to him might encourage him to change. And he daily has less and less misgivings that I'm going to comply just because HE says so. It could be worse. The hardest part is trying to figure out if my decision is in fact a business one, out of fear of standing on my own feet again, or even just a matter of convenience. By that I mean that living in somebody else's house, no bills are in my own name. At a time when the empire is spiraling out of control, it's kind of nice that I'm not relegated to depending on them or otherwise participating in most of their Ponzi schemes.

 

Sorry for laboring the point. What are your thoughts on your situation? What are your thoughts on my analysis of mine?

 

Oh, I should also mention that I do have one really close friend of a long time. He's elated to see the changes self-knowledge have brought in me and has talked with me about these things also. So even if I didn't have FDR and similar outlets, it's not things that I am considering in isolation.

[Llamabean]

I should brush up on my logic. Though I'm tempted to justify my method. I find that even the discussions that are a waist of time due to either side supporting an in-valid premise are still good practices for communication. Plus, it's rare to find people that believe violence and theft to be good things. But anything that can be done to improve these interactions should be explored. Thank you for the suggestion. 

 

I strongly identify with the lack of mental peace and tip toeing around someone else's disturbed behavior. I can see how it may actually be helpful too. I feel encouraged to work towards relief and independence but I also suffer from depression perhaps because I have yet to achieve it, but it's really attributed to failing to resolve my history. I am also happy to reap the benefits of free lodging and board, without which would make the path to stability and independence sufficiently more difficult.

 

I guess I am conflicted because I have yet to identify and make my feelings known to myself let alone my mother. She seems open to conversation actually, so I need to learn how to speak. I do have to plan for that conversation and her reaction but I'm afraid to find out whether she's open to change, or really, open to acknowledging me. I'm afraid that I will not be able to continue living here if she is not. Like the abuse is continuing... like how can I remain in a relationship where I feel unimportant to someone and also feel important to myself? Also, how can I experience healthy relationships with this sort of dissonance?

Maybe your understanding of your relationship with your father has made it possible for you to resolve that dissonance and move past it. Have you found yourself to be more aware of abusers and less susceptible to re-inflicting trauma? My quest is fresh and I am only recently aware of my patterns.

 

I feel like I am lowering my standards by remaining in my current situation but that I am also making my goals more achievable. I guess I'm choosing to live this way in order to see the light at the end of the tunnel, instead of throwing in the towel on this situation and starting from scratch. I suppose I should face my fears though and make it clear to myself whether I stay here out of fear of being on my own or whether it is actually a good strategy. It is both... that is easy to see suddenly. I think it's all the reasons you've stated too:

 

 The hardest part is trying to figure out if my decision is in fact a business one, out of fear of standing on my own feet again, or even just a matter of convenience. 

 

This conversation has helped me realize that I must acknowledge this fact. I stay because I am afraid and because it is strategic! I don't think I will feel so much conflict with my decision anymore. Moving past that internal conflict will make it easier to focus on the task at hand, which is figuring out whether there is hope for a real relationship with my mother, either way I am here for the time. With more work the fear can be overcome. 

[dsayers]

 

I should brush up on my logic. Though I'm tempted to justify my method. I find that even the discussions that are a waist of time due to either side supporting an in-valid premise are still good practices for communication.

 

Are they? If you wanted to become a boxer, punching a five year old not only won't improve your ability to box, it will actually make you worse. Before my decades of abuse, I had a couple good years as a child. It helped me to be intelligent and empathetic, but then the abuse gave me the desire to punish others. It lead to me spending a lot of time out-talking people just to prove that I could. Even after I saw the error of my ways, and chose to talk about things of greater importance, I too spent time arguing against sophists to exercise my argumentation skills.

 

The problem was, that while I got really good at dissecting straw men, I wasn't exercising what really mattered, like focusing on the moral argument. I was spinning my wheels, patting myself on the back like I was winning the Indy 500. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't do this or that, but you only have so much time. If you want to spend that exploring the truth and helping others to do the same, it's better to find somebody willing to help with that rather than cling to their propaganda because it's more comfortable. Plus if you connect with more people who are curious, you'll come to better conclusions, as will they, and before you know it, the day will be here that people who cling to propaganda will no longer have the comfort of being in the majority anymore. What better way to win an argument that to wipe irrational dissent out of human consciousness once and for all?

 

As for your situation, I'll share what I feel to be a good gauge: Does the abuser commit the abuse in front of other people? If not, then it's a good indication that they are aware what they're doing is wrong AND are capable of not doing it. This was true of my father. I chose to try and talk with him anyway because I have this imperfection where I try to be blameless in front of an audience that isn't there anyway. I'm glad I did because he made it clear that it's actually worse than I thought.

 

I hope it's different with your mother. Not for your comfort, but for her to be able to triumph over this. My father always has to be right, so it's pretty fantastic how far he'll go to avoid considering that he did something wrong at all.

 

 

Maybe your understanding of your relationship with your father has made it possible for you to resolve that dissonance and move past it. Have you found yourself to be more aware of abusers and less susceptible to re-inflicting trauma? My quest is fresh and I am only recently aware of my patterns.

 

Surprisingly enough, what helped me more than anything else is this very simple question: Who owns you? Learning about self-ownership, how property rights stems from it, as does morality puts everything in a very simple light. As a result, I think clearer, sleep better, and yes, am able to identify people. It's even aided in my ability to empathize.

[Llamabean]

I've been contemplating my response for some time now only to find that I can't help my futile defensiveness. I am stuck. I appreciate your advice on gauging my relationship with my mother and I will definitely try to learn about self-ownership! However, it seems like I can't find an appropriate way to express my feelings about this topic. 

 

As for the discussions, I do find them to be useful. I don't think I'm at a point where I can call it exercising my skills. I'm developing them and I have to start somewhere. I am learning to identify people, to identify myself. I am learning to argue, to speak. This is my issue actually. I used to be someone who sat by idly just listening, never speaking. I need to learn to speak. I am not going to be able to speak my mind coherently all of a sudden because I am the five year old in the analogy. I called them "a waste of time" because to someone with confidence they likely are. But to someone just realizing what's possible they are very important I think.

 

I was and still am a person who has yet to grasp any cohesive self knowledge and I am surrounded by the like. But I have to have hope that I can change and thus so can others. It is something that needed to be brought to my attention, that the world doesn't have to be the way it is. This is not something one commonly finds in isolation and it is only true if one can change. It would be wonderful to have civil and insightful discussions exclusively, but they do not just happen in most instances. One has to find and form relationships where it is possible first.

 

I want to grow, and I want to welcome people to grow with me if I can. I am happy not to feel as helpless and I know many people would be happy with this realization. So I notice that folks are discontent with the state of things and I offer my opinion that things do not have to be so. That is what leads me into discussions, which may or may not be particularly profound, but are a starting point none-the-less. 

[dsayers]

I want to grow, and I want to welcome people to grow with me if I can. I am happy not to feel as helpless and I know many people would be happy with this realization. So I notice that folks are discontent with the state of things and I offer my opinion that things do not have to be so. That is what leads me into discussions, which may or may not be particularly profound, but are a starting point none-the-less. 

 

I admire this approach. I hope to help be a part of that. You've challenged me and this is one of the greatest gifts a person could give me.

[aya]

Hi guys, I think to live by this philosophy the 1st & only question one would have to ask ones self is, do I pay tax?

[dsayers]

Hi guys, I think to live by this philosophy the 1st & only question one would have to ask ones self is, do I pay tax?

 

What is taxation? It's theft under threat of greater theft, up to and including your life. I point this out since the coercion present means that what you're deciding isn't whether to pay tax or not, it's whether to risk your life or not. Or your freedom. Or even just the ire of the most dangerous creatures on the planet.

 

Furthermore, I just wanted to point out that you cannot wholly decide to not pay tax anyways. Your paycheck has taxes removed without your consent. When you guy gasoline, there are taxes built in that you cannot escape. So not only is the decision whether to risk your life or not, the risk would come with a scenario that is functionally no different from the scenario where you didn't undertake that risk.

 

I try to shy away from anecdotal evidence, but I used to be the type that believed in political action and "getting in the man's face." This understanding is a very valuable one to me. I equate it to going camping and finding a bear eating your packed lunch. Sure, it's YOUR lunch, but for the sake of self-preservation, you're best not to provoke the thing. Especially since if you just let the beast smash your sandwich, the rest of your life won't really change.

[aya]

you can choose, you can choose not to drive, or to refuse to pay taxes, you can choose to risk your freedom and life.

thats what i don't see here but thats okay.

personally I do not pay tax and don't have a job, though I work.

I know I wont be judged here for saying I work & refuse to pay taxes, I made the decision 5 years ago to refuse and run the risk of losing my freedom and it cost me my family within the 1st 6 months and looking back I'd do it again, because there is only karma

there is always a choice.

[cynicist]

you can choose, you can choose not to drive, or to refuse to pay taxes, you can choose to risk your freedom and life.

thats what i don't see here but thats okay.

personally I do not pay tax and don't have a job, though I work.

I know I wont be judged here for saying I work & refuse to pay taxes, I made the decision 5 years ago to refuse and run the risk of losing my freedom and it cost me my family within the 1st 6 months and looking back I'd do it again, because there is only karma

there is always a choice.

 

Holy shit that's messed up. The truth is that when someone puts a gun to your head you are not free. Whether you choose to comply with his demands or risk being shot through refusal, I don't think particularly matters. Self-preservation takes precedence because dead men make no choices and being in prison is less freedom than simply paying taxes. You can always make more money if you aren't locked in a cage. Anyway even though I disagree with you I can respect your integrity, that's a really serious loss.

[aya]

Anyway even though I disagree with you I can respect your integrity, that's a really serious loss.

Thanks but I don't understand what it is you disagree with ? =)

[cynicist]

Thanks but I don't understand what it is you disagree with ? =)

 

Well with respect to this quote:

 

Hi guys, I think to live by this philosophy the 1st & only question one would have to ask ones self is, do I pay tax?

 

I don't believe that following the principle of non-aggression or supporting the against me argument requires that you refuse to pay taxes. In fact I don't really think taxes has much to do with it. Once you have a situation where aggression is being used philosophy isn't really going to help you, at that point it's more about self-preservation and limiting the damage done to you.

 

A concrete example is that if I'm in the process of being mugged by someone with a knife or gun I'm not going to try and reason with them or appeal to principle, but do what I need to in order to escape the situation as unharmed as possible. Afterwards I can focus on spreading the message of non-violence. In the situation of taxes I try to pay what is necessary to avoid risking imprisonment but I see that as an act of self-preservation that does not contradict the values of non-aggression or any moral values that I possess.

[aya]

Well with respect to this quote:

 

 

I don't believe that following the principle of non-aggression or supporting the against me argument requires that you refuse to pay taxes. In fact I don't really think taxes has much to do with it. Once you have a situation where aggression is being used philosophy isn't really going to help you, at that point it's more about self-preservation and limiting the damage done to you.

 

A concrete example is that if I'm in the process of being mugged by someone with a knife or gun I'm not going to try and reason with them or appeal to principle, but do what I need to in order to escape the situation as unharmed as possible. Afterwards I can focus on spreading the message of non-violence. In the situation of taxes I try to pay what is necessary to avoid risking imprisonment but I see that as an act of self-preservation that does not contradict the values of non-aggression or any moral values that I possess.

I'm not saying we are required, but we are morally obligated.if we have a gun to our heads its the easy thing to say 'it's now out of our hands & were relieved of responsibility'.

Philosophy means truth, and it's a great thing to be a truth seeker, but it's another thing to act upon that truth.

may be it's a personal thing for me, but the second I learned my council tax £ was being used to burn the skin from women & babies it wasn't even a question I would die before I funded the war machine.

I suppose if I had let it go then I would be in a great job right now, with a nice car & a large screen TV instead of struggling

but I have something more.

 

What is the point in seeking the truth if we do not act upon it?

only when we break the mindset of self-preservation'' & start to help each other will things really change.

 

 

[TheRobin]

There can't be a universal principle that says that other people's lifes should be safed from aggression but not your own. If someone threatens you and tells you you can chose between being shot and them shooting somone else, there's no moral content for you in that question. 

 

A corpse can't act upon truth. If we accepted and acted upon the principle that self-preservation is something we shouldn't care about, then all human beings would be dead pretty soon. But then of course no one would be around to make the case for anything (uncluding that we shouldn't care about self-preservation). So it's even impossible to act on that principle and convince other to act upon it (as you do now), cause that would mean you have to actually preserve yourself long enough to convince other to not preserve themselves.

 

So, if we are in an impossible situation. What that usually implies is, we're looking at childhood trauma and the philosphy is just there as an anesthetic.

[cynicist]

I'm not saying we are required, but we are morally obligated.if we have a gun to our heads its the easy thing to say 'it's now out of our hands & were relieved of responsibility'.

Philosophy means truth, and it's a great thing to be a truth seeker, but it's another thing to act upon that truth.

may be it's a personal thing for me, but the second I learned my council tax £ was being used to burn the skin from women & babies it wasn't even a question I would die before I funded the war machine.

 

'Morally obligated' and 'required to be a good person' (and we all want to be good) are just different ways of saying the same thing. So let me get this straight, paying taxes at all is considered by you to be morally equivalent to choosing to fund the war machine? The very nature of taxes means this is not true, as being forced to pay is not the same as voluntarily supporting something. Honestly even if you believe that I'm not sure how you can live without inadvertently supporting the state. How do you avoid sales tax? Income tax? Using roads paid for by taxes? Utility taxes? Using any service subsidized by taxes? The state is too intricately linked to everything people do. There is no way to avoid that short of living some isolated existence in the woods, feeding off of squirrels. (And even then the land is likely owned or controlled or subsidized by the state in some way)

 

 

What is the point in seeking the truth if we do not act upon it?

only when we break the mindset of self-preservation'' & start to help each other will things really change.

 

And if we are dead, imprisoned or maimed, how can we be free to act upon any principles we hold? Without life principles are just abstractions, words on paper slowly fading away.

 

 

I enjoyed the story in that video. In it, he gave the mugger exactly what he wanted in the moment to avoid danger and then only when there was no longer a knife pressed into his back did he try to make a positive difference. That's exactly what I mean.

[aya]

Yeah the vids inspirational =)he empathized with the kid then listened to him

 

"And if we are dead, imprisoned or maimed, how can we be free to act upon any principles we hold?"we're immortal.