If reality offends you, maybe you shouldn't be on FDR?

[Freedomain]

 

I don't quite understand why people make these types of posts. It isn't exactly trolling, I feel like it has more to do with the person getting a reaction out of themselves.

 

 

Persuing rejection.

[dsayers]

It doesn't depart from philosophy. It is part of philosophy where the plural 'philosophies' refers to the parts, even though those parts aren't necessarily discrete. This site focuses on Molyneux's philosophy. 

 

Philosophy isn't plural, it's not subjective, it's not something that can be owned. If I say to you that 2+2=4, this is not my math.

 

Also, do you not see a contradiction in first stating that this site is for not philosophy and then stating that "the philosophy of FDR" is a subset of philosophy?

[bootoo]

I recently joined the 'community' and I must say that I am EXTREMELY surprised how little rationality there is within the community.  I was under the overwhelming impression that FDR was a community of philosophers?  "Philosophy: examination of basic concepts: the branch of knowledge or academic study devoted to the systematic examination of basic concepts such as truth, existence, reality, causality, and freedom."

 

I joined with the main purpose of trying to help FDR, and the people of FDR, by applying my skill set that has come to be very useful and money saving for myself and those around me.  (unrelated to philosophy)  From a personal perspective I also hoped to gain a little sanity by interacting with people who are capable of processing reality.  Instead, I continually get badgered with emotional responses to an objective observation of reality.  I am shocked to find that the greater percentage of those I have interacted with, and the posts that I have read, have been basically the same as everyday life.  The level of confirmation bias appears to be the same as the usual sheeple I run across everyday.  Same bias, different views seems to be the norm.

 

Has anyone else had the same experience?  Anyone else get the usual 'white knight' 'your opinion' 'your views' type of regurgitated propaganda or is it something that I am personally causing?

 

PS the 'opinion' narrative is extra annoying...even kids in public schools are taught the difference between opinion and fact!?!?!?  BANG HEAD HERE!!  My favorite color is black=opinion.  Rocks fall down=fact.  I like mexican food=opinion.  Taxation is theft=fact.

 

Hi Mr Morris!

 

This is a community based around a philosophy show, its regular people in here not necessarily philosophers. Seems most of your issues and questions should be resolved upon knowing that alone. Your assumptions are very interesting. 

 

It appears you are saying that in your experience the people in here act a lot like the people you interact with offline. This says a lot about your perception of people.

 

Are you asking for a consensus on your observation as some kind of objective measure to test the quality of your opinions? I wonder what difference can it make if other people have similar opinions regarding their interactions?

 

In general i'd say its better not to expect so much without a solid reason. Thanks!

[cab21]

I post offering to save people a SUBSTANTIAL amount of money free of charge

 

go on.

[Mr. Roth]

Mr. Morris, I too am new to this community, and almost instantly recognized the same problem to which you are referring. 

 

I posed a question in the chatroom, pertaining to the moral issues in withholding information for one's own benefit, to the detriment of others, a topic discussed in Cicero's 'On Duties', and also by Demosthenes and Antipater, who each held different opinions.

 

This was instantly met by the accussation that I was being "pretentious", and I confronted the accusator to explain to me how it could be perceived as such - which was then followed by a sarcastic apology, and a "whatever". 

 

It is a petty issue, I am aware, yet I was rather in shock, or perhaps disappointingly surprised I should say, mostly because it was 4 people more or less "tribally" ganging up - bullying actually. 

 

I realized that I perhaps I set my hopes grotesquely high, and that this was the reason for my disproportionate disappointment. Hence, I retreated temporarily, upon which the chat among the rest of the users went onto the topic of "cookie enemas", which lasted about ten minutes. So I asked "Do people use this chat for philosophy?" - then I was called arrogant for my "implication". 

 

Well yes, perhaps I was implying something? I'm a newb here, but to my understanding this is a philosophy site, is it not? One person then attempts to twist my (actually very mildly expressed) frustration with the -uncalled for- initial accussations, to make it something about my childhood, in an almost mocking manner. Now, I am by no means against the idea that childhood experiences very often lies at the root of emotional reactions, however, to this particular instance it was an obvious attempt at demagogary, sophism, and bullying. 

 

Should one simply bow in the face of collective bullying, for posing a serious question about morality on a PHILOSOPHY site?

If this comes across as self-pity, then perhaps it slightly is, but it's moreso righteous confrontation with bullies, a behavior which I am against ignoring, however irrelevant it may seem, because ignoring it for the sake of harmony breeds an atmosphere of passive-aggression and pathetic little heirarchies, where people who know eachother can conquer a philosophy chat and flood it with conversations about, I quote, "enemas", "fat bitches", and "dragonball z"...

 

Since I assume we're all libertarians, I realize that nobody should dictate what the chat or forum is used for, except perhaps the owner of it, so my bottom line is - 

 

I hope you do not leave this forum yet, but instead, those (I'm starting to reckon FEW) rationals that are on here, and are actually serious, should unite within the community itself, for our own sakes, but also for the respect and obligation that is our due; to the cause of philosophy, objectivism and reason. 

 

In the name of Socrates, let us defeat the emotional manipulators, the pathos bullies and the trivia flooders and reclaim Molyneux's forum and return it to what it was intended to be. 

[Magnus]

In the name of Socrates, let us defeat the emotional manipulators, the pathos bullies and the trivia flooders and reclaim Molyneux's forum and return it to what it was intended to be. 

 

Excelsior!

[Horseradish]

Mr. Morris, I too am new to this community, and almost instantly recognized the same problem to which you are referring. 

 

I posed a question in the chatroom, pertaining to the moral issues in withholding information for one's own benefit, to the detriment of others, a topic discussed in Cicero's 'On Duties', and also by Demosthenes and Antipater, who each held different opinions.

 

This was instantly met by the accussation that I was being "pretentious", and I confronted the accusator to explain to me how it could be perceived as such - which was then followed by a sarcastic apology, and a "whatever". 

 

It is a petty issue, I am aware, yet I was rather in shock, or perhaps disappointingly surprised I should say, mostly because it was 4 people more or less "tribally" ganging up - bullying actually. 

 

I realized that I perhaps I set my hopes grotesquely high, and that this was the reason for my disproportionate disappointment. Hence, I retreated temporarily, upon which the chat among the rest of the users went onto the topic of "cookie enemas", which lasted about ten minutes. So I asked "Do people use this chat for philosophy?" - then I was called arrogant for my "implication". 

 

Well yes, perhaps I was implying something? I'm a newb here, but to my understanding this is a philosophy site, is it not? One person then attempts to twist my (actually very mildly expressed) frustration with the -uncalled for- initial accussations, to make it something about my childhood, in an almost mocking manner. Now, I am by no means against the idea that childhood experiences very often lies at the root of emotional reactions, however, to this particular instance it was an obvious attempt at demagogary, sophism, and bullying. 

 

Should one simply bow in the face of collective bullying, for posing a serious question about morality on a PHILOSOPHY site?

If this comes across as self-pity, then perhaps it slightly is, but it's moreso righteous confrontation with bullies, a behavior which I am against ignoring, however irrelevant it may seem, because ignoring it for the sake of harmony breeds an atmosphere of passive-aggression and pathetic little heirarchies, where people who know eachother can conquer a philosophy chat and flood it with conversations about, I quote, "enemas", "fat bitches", and "dragonball z"...

 

Since I assume we're all libertarians, I realize that nobody should dictate what the chat or forum is used for, except perhaps the owner of it, so my bottom line is - 

 

I hope you do not leave this forum yet, but instead, those (I'm starting to reckon FEW) rationals that are on here, and are actually serious, should unite within the community itself, for our own sakes, but also for the respect and obligation that is our due; to the cause of philosophy, objectivism and reason. 

 

In the name of Socrates, let us defeat the emotional manipulators, the pathos bullies and the trivia flooders and reclaim Molyneux's forum and return it to what it was intended to be. 

I appreciate that response, maybe ZMorris was experiencing something similar?

 

I don't go in the chat room very often, but there are definitely certain people in there who I prefer not to talk to. I think the key thing, as others have mentioned, is that this "community" is just a bunch of individuals. I don't approach the chat room like I am talking to some sort of hive mind, but I take note of what different people are saying. If one person says something irrational or non-empathetic, I take note of that person, I don't think "wow, this community is so irrational or non-empathetic."

[dsayers]

Mr. Roth, if you'll look around the forums, you'll see that it's NOT only populated by the philosophically minded. It also attracts people who so desperately need the trauma of their past to be normal that they'll attack anything that says otherwise. Those with truth on their side needn't lift a finger to respond to somebody who doesn't accept it. Meanwhile, the propagandized need to threaten with eternal hellfire or have had that response modeled for them.

 

Instead of relying on the chatroom, why not pose your questions in the form of threads? Then you can get thoughtful replies, which remain a matter of record. This helps the sophists get weeded out, whether that's by downvotes or by banning.

[Mr. Roth]

I'm of course reserving judgment (it would be reckless and foolish not to) and was not referring to the community at large, yet it can't be denied that first impressions always make a significant impact. The reason I was trying the chat was because it is real-time - the best philosophy was always produced in conversation rather than in correspondence, is it not?

 

 

However, the humble and well-phrased responses from the above gentlemen have restored my optimism as to the mien of this community - especially thanks for the reminder concerning the 'traumatized', must somewhat shamefully admit I had not taken that into consideration.

[cynicist]

I'm of course reserving judgment (it would be reckless and foolish not to) and was not referring to the community at large, yet it can't be denied that first impressions always make a significant impact. The reason I was trying the chat was because it is real-time - the best philosophy was always produced in conversation rather than in correspondence, is it not?

 

I think that's true in person, but much harder for the chatroom. With the forum there is time inbetween posts to think about how you are forming your statement, and in person you have the obvious cues. The chatroom can escalate quickly without context and because of the instant nature of it I don't like trying to talk about very complex ideas in that format. It's hard enough on the forums.

 

As Kristi said I think the key is not to judge the whole community based on a bad interaction with one member. 

[n25an]

to be honest, I feel the same that this forum does not meet my expectations... but then again fantasy rarely matches reality... the trick is to understand, learn and adapt...  wisdom rarely comes as a cake... it usually looks like shit... just like opportunity...

[AustinJames]

I suggest you interact with people in real time, so you can develop elasticity in your expectations.  If you find yourself consistently disappointed, it doesn't say anything about the reality of the outcomes; it only says something about your method of expectation.  When I have gone into the chat room in the past, I first observe what is being said, and then seek to contribute.  More often than not, I have nothing to contribute.  I don't seek to superimpose my expectations upon the ideas being presented.  If I don't find any topics I'm interested in, that's just another way of saying I don't have anything meaningful to contribute.

 

Curiosity is the key to avoiding disappointment in human interactions.  Premature assertions are the antithesis of curiosity.

[dsayers]

it can't be denied that first impressions always make a significant impact.

 

For sure. And I'm sorry your guys' was such that you could entertain for a moment that the forums were of lesser value.

 

the best philosophy was always produced in conversation rather than in correspondence, is it not?

 

It is not. Humans have two ways of thinking: the intuitive and the analytical. In the moment, you're more likely to get somebody's intuition. That is, their emotional response, the result of habit, propaganda, history. With time to deliberate, we are able to deliver a more analytical approach. That is, a rational, reasoned, formulaic, or methodical response.

 

This isn't to say that such a response will always be valuable or that an emotional response is never valuable.

[Mr. Roth]

I suggest you interact with people in real time, so you can develop elasticity in your expectations.  If you find yourself consistently disappointed, it doesn't say anything about the reality of the outcomes; it only says something about your method of expectation.  When I have gone into the chat room in the past, I first observe what is being said, and then seek to contribute.  More often than not, I have nothing to contribute.  I don't seek to superimpose my expectations upon the ideas being presented.  If I don't find any topics I'm interested in, that's just another way of saying I don't have anything meaningful to contribute.

 

Curiosity is the key to avoiding disappointment in human interactions.  Premature assertions are the antithesis of curiosity.

Not sure if you're making a general statement or referring to my post Austin, but as for superimposing, that is hardly what I would term the raising of questions about moral dilemmas in a public chatroom on this type of site. 

 

As far as elasticity of expectations, I hope that any thinking person here would feel obliged to raise the ongoing conversation to a certain standard (conceited as that may sound), when the topic being discussed was shit (I use this word because it was literally the topic).

 

"Curiosity is key to avoiding disappointment in human interactions"; I certainly agree, but one's curiosity really... really has to stop way before detailed discussions on fecal-matter (again, literally). I feel vulgarized for even relaying this information.

 

_______________________

 

- Agreed dsayers, with respect, but if a person's intuition tells them that another person is being 'pretentious' just by asking a question, isn't it more constructive and fair to tell that person in private, rather than making it a public statement followed by schoolyard ridicule? Perhaps sharing this is pointless since you'd have to take my word for it.

[JamesP]

The chat isn't a good place for philosophy, nor is the board. Philosophy can really only happen in a real-time conversation which contains emotional input. Text completely strips that from the conversation.

 

It's also the case in chat and forums that anyone can come in and torpedo the conversation, whether it be by name-calling, or trivialities, or whatever.I'm guessing that whoever called you pretentious and arrogant might be less likely to do so if they were actually talking to you.

 

In any case, the major rule of the chat is that empathy is required to use it. That includes a recognition that emotional content is very difficult to discern and often needs to be communicated directly, and that name-calling without evidence or explanation is very much discouraged. I don't have the full story, of course, but people shouldn't be acting like that in the chat.

 

Some people also use the chat as a way to avoid doing self-knowledge work. A consistent pattern of this will sometimes result in a loss of chat privileges.

 

If you could contact me privately with further details so I could look into this, I'd appreciate it.

[Magnus]

I suggest you interact with people in real time, so you can develop elasticity in your expectations.  If you find yourself consistently disappointed, it doesn't say anything about the reality of the outcomes; it only says something about your method of expectation.  When I have gone into the chat room in the past, I first observe what is being said, and then seek to contribute.  More often than not, I have nothing to contribute.  I don't seek to superimpose my expectations upon the ideas being presented.  If I don't find any topics I'm interested in, that's just another way of saying I don't have anything meaningful to contribute.

 

Curiosity is the key to avoiding disappointment in human interactions.  Premature assertions are the antithesis of curiosity.

 

Very well said.

[AustinJames]

Not sure if you're making a general statement or referring to my post Austin, but as for superimposing, that is hardly what I would term the raising of questions about moral dilemmas in a public chatroom on this type of site. 

 

As far as elasticity of expectations, I hope that any thinking person here would feel obliged to raise the ongoing conversation to a certain standard (conceited as that may sound), when the topic being discussed was shit (I use this word because it was literally the topic).

 

"Curiosity is key to avoiding disappointment in human interactions"; I certainly agree, but one's curiosity really... really has to stop way before detailed discussions on fecal-matter (again, literally). I feel vulgarized for even relaying this information.

 

_______________________

 

- Agreed dsayers, with respect, but if a person's intuition tells them that another person is being 'pretentious' just by asking a question, isn't it more constructive and fair to tell that person in private, rather than making it a public statement followed by schoolyard ridicule? Perhaps sharing this is pointless since you'd have to take my word for it.

 

I was making a general statement in reference to the original post, but I think it pertains to your disappointment as well.  Questioning moral dilemmas is fine, and attempting to "raise the ongoing conversation" to your standard is fine.  When you are accused of conceit or dismissed as arrogant, however, to be surprised is evidence that you may be setting yourself up for disappointment.  If I were to enter the chat room and see a non-philosophical conversation about shit, I might try to elevate the conversation; but if I failed to elicit a positive response, I would hardly be disappointed or surprised, considering these are people talking about feces on a philosophy site to begin with.  I'm not saying you should be curious about shit, I'm saying you should be curious about yourself.

 

In the same way, I sometimes debate with theists and statists whom I know are very unlikely to change their position, or even recognize mine as valid or even cogent.  When I fail to convert them, I am not overwhelmed with disappointment and I do not waste time condemning them or shaming them into submission.  Rather, I look with curiosity at my own approach, and attempt to see what might be improved to have greater success inspiring others.

 

This was not always the case with me.  Because of the way I was raised, I consistently sought dismissal, marginalization, and rejection in my discourse, as these were the ends with which I was most familiar in my upbringing.  It took me a long time to realize what I was doing, and change to seek healthy interactions.  For this reason, these comments may not pertain to you; I'm open to the idea that they are a projection on my part.  It may be worth considering if you experience feelings of disappointment or hopelessness.

[Jeff W.]

This topic should be pinned. I didn't read through the entire thing but, based on the OP, it is clear that the thread creator seems to narcissitically mix up "his" version of philosophy with actual philosophy--meaning that anyone that may disagree with anything he has to say or doesn't add to his way of saying something is somehow offensive to him. He's projecting. There is zero empathy in his approach.

[greekredemption]

/facepalm

 

So at best you are advising this guy on a site that you don't know anything about. 

I've been here, and elsewhere, long enough to form a reasonably well-informed opinion.

 

Philosophy isn't plural, it's not subjective, it's not something that can be owned. If I say to you that 2+2=4, this is not my math.

 

Also, do you not see a contradiction in first stating that this site is for not philosophy and then stating that "the philosophy of FDR" is a subset of philosophy?

I qualified my statement by saying that this site is not one for philosophy in general. I'm not sure if you know that philosophy is a very wide field with a great deal of history behind it. It is hardly surprising that many people choose to specialise in certain subsets of 'philosophy' as a whole.

 

Empirically speaking it is a fact that there are many types and sub-types of philosophy. You may think that they are all invalid - fine, they probably think the same of FDR and each other - but I find it baffling that I've attracted so many downvotes for stating such a mundane fact.

 

Perhaps the denizens of FDR would have preferred if my phrasing were along the lines of: "FDR is for real philosophy; everything else is pseudo-philosophical bunk."

[Jagsfan82]

I could not read all the posts.I just wanted to drop by to say a couple short things.The person whose beliefs are perfect may appear to have a strong confirmation bias, when in fact they are actually just correct and not explaining themselves in a manner that convinces the other party. The english language has a lot of words which people use differently.  People get mad at me often for asking what people mean over even mostly basic vocabulary.  I do this because before I respond I like to make sure I know exactly what that person was really trying to say.  I can look up every word via a dictionary to figure out what someone meant, but that would only be valid if the person who made the statement did the same and made appropriate notes where confusion might occur.  This does not happen.  People think they say what they mean, and the person receiving the message thinks they received it correctly, but in reality both parties are in fact wrong.  The person meant A, said B, which was interpreted as C.  Long story short, I saw a lot of that in the early parts of this thread, and its a common problem among forums and internet communication in general.  Something to keep in mind before making negative assumptions about what a person said. Assume innocence until evidence mounts otherwise, or accept the risks and consequences of miscommunication.  Maybe the second one was not so short.

[JamesP]

Language is not nearly that subjective. It is also incumbent on the person doing the communicating that he communicate clearly and unambiguously, and with empathy for his audience.

[GRosado]

I've been here, and elsewhere, long enough to form a reasonably well-informed opinion.I qualified my statement by saying that this site is not one for philosophy in general. I'm not sure if you know that philosophy is a very wide field with a great deal of history behind it. It is hardly surprising that many people choose to specialise in certain subsets of 'philosophy' as a whole.Empirically speaking it is a fact that there are many types and sub-types of philosophy. You may think that they are all invalid - fine, they probably think the same of FDR and each other - but I find it baffling that I've attracted so many downvotes for stating such a mundane fact.Perhaps the denizens of FDR would have preferred if my phrasing were along the lines of: "FDR is for real philosophy; everything else is pseudo-philosophical bunk."

I get what your sayingIt's like the People I've encountered on other forums or here who have said they are knowledgeable or have an interest in economics & when I talk to them about economics they only know what the Austrian School says, it kind of saddens me.

[cynicist]

Something to keep in mind before making negative assumptions about what a person said. Assume innocence until evidence mounts otherwise, or accept the risks and consequences of miscommunication.  

 

I completely agree.

[Jagsfan82]

Language is not nearly that subjective. It is also incumbent on the person doing the communicating that he communicate clearly and unambiguously, and with empathy for his audience.

Its not subjective as much as people have wrong ideas of what some words or phrases mean via ignorance, which is a perfect example. Many people say ignorant when they mean rude or a host of other options. Also sometimes people speak way to vaguely in an effort to save words and time.Certainly its on the speaker to make themselves clear, but the speaker may full well think they are making themselves clear while actually being ignorant to the real definition of some of his word choices. That may put the speaker in the wrong, but placing blame doesn't help the problem that regardless of who is at fault, there is often huge levels of miscommunication. Stefan actually mentions this in his "debating UPB" and why he doesn't participate in the message boards much

[JamesP]

http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/23092-debating-upb/

 

Not sure I read what you're talking about in that post...

[AustinJames]

I've been here, and elsewhere, long enough to form a reasonably well-informed opinion.

 

I qualified my statement by saying that this site is not one for philosophy in general. I'm not sure if you know that philosophy is a very wide field with a great deal of history behind it. It is hardly surprising that many people choose to specialise in certain subsets of 'philosophy' as a whole.

 

Empirically speaking it is a fact that there are many types and sub-types of philosophy. You may think that they are all invalid - fine, they probably think the same of FDR and each other - but I find it baffling that I've attracted so many downvotes for stating such a mundane fact.

 

Perhaps the denizens of FDR would have preferred if my phrasing were along the lines of: "FDR is for real philosophy; everything else is pseudo-philosophical bunk."

 

Philosophy is the application of the scientific method as it pertains to human thought.  If I refer to 'Nietzche's philosophy,' I am referencing Nietzsche's propositions, theories, and proofs within the system of philosophy.  Nietzche does not have his own system of philosophy.  For this reason, I avoid saying things like 'Nietzsche's philosophy' altogether.  Instead, it is more accurate to say, 'Nietzsche's theorem,' or 'Nietzsche's proof,' or 'Nietzche's conclusion.' Within the system of philosophy, there are sets and subsets of ideas, but there are not different types, or systems, of philosophy.  Similarly, in mathematics, there are different approaches to solutions, different applications, different scopes, and different assumed parameters; but there is only one system of mathematics.

 

As you say, a philosopher may specialize in certain 'subsets [in the system] of philosophy,' as an engineer specializes in certain subsets [in the system] of mathematics.  There are not, however, types and sub-types of philosophy any more than there are types and sub-types of mathematics.  If you say that this site focuses on "Molyneuxism," you need to prove that the discourse is confined to theorems, proofs, or principles that are solely and directly attributable to Stefan.  The moment the conversation exceeds this description, the site is no longer constrained to the descriptor "Molyneuxism." Such a proof would be impossible.  Therefore, a philosophy forum such as this is a platform for philosophy in general.

 

You unwittingly reveal your ignorance while attempting condescension.  This is why you have been down-voted.

[greekredemption]

Philosophy is the application of the scientific method as it pertains to human thought.

This is manifestly and empirically untrue. Many theories reject the use of the scientific method outside of the hard sciences. And you must consider that the scientific method is a philosophical construct in itself. 

 

What you've done is given the description of FDR philosophy, or at least one of its central tenets. This doesn't necessarily apply to all philosophers and philosophies. Having apparently read Nietzsche, this at least you should know.

 

You unwittingly reveal your ignorance while attempting condescension.  This is why you have been down-voted.

 

I've been downvoted for daring to imply that FDR is not necessarily The One True Approach To Philosophy and that there are other approaches out there with varying degrees of validity.

[dsayers]

Philosophy is the method by which to test the truth value of objective claims. There is nothing wrong with likening it to the scientific method. Science after all is a branch of philosophy. Originally know as natural philosophy.

[Jagsfan82]

http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/23092-debating-upb/Not sure I read what you're talking about in that post...

"I also find message board debates to be rather fruitless when it comes to complex and ambivalent topics like ethics and determinism, because definitions keep changing, and you have to keep circling back, which is far easier to do in a verbal conversation."

[AustinJames]

This is manifestly and empirically untrue. Many theories reject the use of the scientific method outside of the hard sciences. And you must consider that the scientific method is a philosophical construct in itself. 

 

And how do those theorists reject the use of the scientific method?  By applying it, and subsequently dismissing the results based on their implications.  Therefore, they rely upon the scientific method in order to dismiss it (as is often the case with UPB).  If reason and evidence are tools of truth, then the scientific method is inevitably the vehicle for distinguishing truth from falsehood.

 

How is the scientific method a "philosophical construct in itself?"  I don't understand what you mean by the word 'construct.'  The scientific method by itself has nothing to do with virtue or happiness, and those are the ultimate aims of philosophy.  I can't live my life by the tenets of the scientific method; I can only apply it.

 

 

Whatever definition you choose for philosophy (so long as it is rational), the remainder of my proof is valid, as it is a question of set theory.  What is your definition of "general" philosophy?

 

 

 

Having apparently read Nietzsche, this at least you should know.

 

I've been downvoted for daring to imply that FDR is not necessarily The One True Approach To Philosophy and that there are other approaches out there with varying degrees of validity.

 

If you care about the dialogue going on here, you should avoid phrase like, "this at least you should know," or "varying degrees of validity."  The first because it implies that I should already know what you're attempting to prove (which is ridiculous and condescending) and the second because a proposition in philosophy is either valid or it is not.  I down-voted two of your comments because you made inaccurate and defamatory generalizations about the community here in an attempt to cast yourself as the victim.  Behavior like this is often called "poisoning the well," because it discourages others from engaging in the conversation at all.

[greekredemption]

Philosophy is the method by which to test the truth value of objective claims. There is nothing wrong with likening it to the scientific method. Science after all is a branch of philosophy. Originally know as natural philosophy.

Philosophy needn't be that. FDR philosophy (and science, as you point out) is like that. But not all philosophy is.

 

And how do those theorists reject the use of the scientific method?  By applying it, and subsequently dismissing the results based on their implications.  Therefore, they rely upon the scientific method in order to dismiss it (as is often the case with UPB).  If reason and evidence are tools of truth, then the scientific method is inevitably the vehicle for distinguishing truth from falsehood.

Well some theories reject empiricism entirely, for instance. They may even question the role of 'truth'. And so on. This isn't to say they are correct or deserving of equal consideration. It may even be, as you suggest, that Stefan Molyneux has solved all the old ethical questions and therefore the UPB methodology should be considered foundational to all further research. But this does not stop there being other ideas out there.

[dsayers]

Philosophy needn't be that. FDR philosophy (and science, as you point out) is like that. But not all philosophy is.

 

Are you talking about when people misuse the word philosophy when they mean policy or values? I feel you've just contradicted me without providing any substance to back it up with.

[AustinJames]

Well some theories reject empiricism entirely, for instance. They may even question the role of 'truth'. And so on. This isn't to say they are correct or deserving of equal consideration. It may even be, as you suggest, that Stefan Molyneux has solved all the old ethical questions and therefore the UPB methodology should be considered foundational to all further research. But this does not stop there being other ideas out there.

 

Non sequitur.

 

A rejection of empiricism requires a philosophical analysis of empiricism, which inevitably applies the scientific method.  The scientific method is apparent in this because the philosopher first asks a question, "what will follow if [x] is true?" Any proposition that follows is a hypothesis, and any action that follows is an experiment, with the conclusion being a theory measured against objective values and existing evidence. Questioning the role of truth is a prime example of this, not an exception.

 

There are no "other ideas out there" in this regard.  There may be insane self-contradictory proclamations floating around, but I can't submit that these are 'ideas.'  A proposition is either logical or illogical. An idea must be logical, or it cannot be called an idea.  A square circle cannot be considered an idea, because it cannot be rendered in the mind.  A square circle (and any self-contradictory concept) consists of several independent ideas, but is not an idea.  A proof is either valid or invalid, based on logic. The alternatives are, "a proof may be both valid and invalid simultaneously.  A proposition may be both logical and illogical simultaneously.  Ideas can be both rendered in the mind and impossible to render in the mind, simultaneously."  These alternative propositions are not philosophical, they are simply insane.

 

I do not suggest that Stefan has "solved all the old ethical questions."  He has submitted proofs, and you or any philosopher (of which I am aware) have not been able to find flaw in these.

 

 

It is not that UPB should be considered foundational; it merely is.  Anyone who says "UPB should not be foundational to all further research," is demonstrating UPB.  This is inevitable.

 

You still have not told me your definition of philosophy.  Neither have you acquiesced to my proof.  Before you attempt further to criticize my proposition, submit your alternative proposition.