Downvoting

[NumberSix]

How come you never responded to me in the thread that I linked? How am I insulting you now?

 

You response didn't make sense to me and I didn't feel ilke bothering with it (it rambles on).  Um, calling me a troll.

[MMX2010]

I talked with MMX personally through video chat it was very clear that MMX was not portrayed accurately at all by Stefan. Stefan used extreme terms and positions to categorize and characterize MMX very differently than where he is actually coming from.

 

After talking with him I realized that MMX is a lot healthier than me as far as self-knowledge, sound judgement, and physical fitness are concerned. This was not the perception I received from the phone call with Stefan. It was very eye-opening in how we can characterize a person's arguments and frame them anyway we choose.

 

One of the most important things we implicitly covered is Black/White thinking. 

 

You asked, "Are you looking to use PUA as a way to experiment or as a way to find a woman to settle down with?"  (Both!)

 

Similar questions would've included, "Are you looking to use PUA as a way to stroke your ego or to bring happiness to women?"  (Both.) 

 

"Are you looking to use PUA to create a persona by which women can like you or to allow your genuine personality to be seen?"  (Both.) 

 

"Are you looking to use PUA to attract a low-IQ or high-IQ woman?"  (Both.)

 

"Are you looking to use PUA to form a lust-filled shallow connection or a deep empathetic one?"  (Both!)

 

Many people subscribe to BlackWhite thinking, which Vox Day calls Gamma thinking.  And Gamma thinking is poisonous because it creates so many fears that you have to go into your head and plan a response to each one.  Or you just stockpile so many fears and objections that you refuse to change your situation. 

 

Worse, people with Gamma thinking tend to spread it on other people, for instance, "I know this is fallacious, but it seems like PUA exists so men can stroke their ego."  (If you know it's fallacious, can't you control yourself enough to not say it?)  Those accusations cause certain people to "defend themselves", and invites other Gammas to dogpile.

 

Once you free yourself from Gamma thinking, you realize how many opportunities exist, and you become liberated and less judgmental - therefore, happier. 

[Eternal Growth]

One of the most important things we implicitly covered is Black/White thinking. 

 

You asked, "Are you looking to use PUA as a way to experiment or as a way to find a woman to settle down with?"  (Both!)

 

Similar questions would've included, "Are you looking to use PUA as a way to stroke your ego or to bring happiness to women?"  (Both.) 

 

"Are you looking to use PUA to create a persona by which women can like you or to allow your genuine personality to be seen?"  (Both.) 

 

"Are you looking to use PUA to attract a low-IQ or high-IQ woman?"  (Both.)

 

"Are you looking to use PUA to form a lust-filled shallow connection or a deep empathetic one?"  (Both!)

 

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. This is literally straight out of Kant / Hegel / Fichte.

 

Many people subscribe to BlackWhite thinking, which Vox Day calls Gamma thinking. 

 

You've spent so long internalising the ideas of proud irrationalists that you are having great difficulties, if you are trying at all, to think in a way that is bound by logic and by reference to objective reality.

 

The problem is made worse by the repeatedly observable reality that you have psychological blocks towards accepting reasoned arguments and evidence, when these are given to you as alternatives.

 

You seem to respect Stefan Molyneux at least, so I would recommend at least reading his Master's thesis (which can be found through Google) which might serve as an introduction as to what good Philosophy is - and to what it isn't (it is about the two major opposing philosophical paradigms in Western thought). Right now, bad Philosophy is literally all over your thinking, which is okay if you've never had this pointed out to you before - which it is very easy to go through life in society never experiencing, but to continue once you have the knowledge is to be entirely responsible for it.

 

And Gamma thinking is poisonous because it creates so many fears that you have to go into your head and plan a response to each one.  Or you just stockpile so many fears and objections that you refuse to change your situation. 

 

Once you free yourself from Gamma thinking, you realize how many opportunities exist, and you become liberated and less judgmental - therefore, happier. 

 

Yes, logic is bad because it serves as a constraint on one's ability to believe in the irrational, and once you free yourself from reason, you realise how many opportunities exist because you can boundlessly believe anything at all.

[GuzzyBone]

Truth is not black and white. Truth is usually in a middle ground rather than territories of the extreme. Truth is not always simply irrational or rational, it can be relative to the environment, person, and situation. Maybe the language of philosophy teaches to have these extreme stances and dance around in circles, but real truth is often found in the middle ground, and "both" becomes not only an acceptable answer, but also a truthful and honest answer.

Perhaps our languages of Logic and Philosophy need some room to grow and a bit of overhaul. In other threads, I have already went into detail about empirical flaws in Aristotlian Logic, particularly with "the law of non-contradiction". Sure it cancels out the fun of arguing in endless circles, but often times (if not always) the truth is a little bit of "both" of two seemingly opposite extremes.

Are we so resigned to the idea that we have devolved that we won't scrutinize the faults in ancient language systems made by fallible ancient men?

Also, maybe we shouldn't talk in such abstracts, I don't think it has much practical benefit to anyone and only serves to make us seem smarter to ourselves.

On the original topic of downvoting, I find it truly interesting how MMX gets four downvotes for eloquently expressing something very truthful and in detail. How is his post not helpful exactly, or did those who downvoted just not like what they are hearing?

thebeardslastcall, I was only referring to you in the first paragraph of that post. Sorry, I should have been clearer. The rest was addressed to others who know who they are.

[MMX2010]

 

You've spent so long internalising the ideas of proud irrationalists that you are having great difficulties, if you are trying at all, to think in a way that is bound by logic and by reference to objective reality.

 

 

At least I know the difference between well-researched conclusions (PUA manuals) and not-at-all researched bluster (Stefan's negative reactions to PUA, and FDR members negative reactions to PUA - both of which stem from avoiding deep research into PUA).  And at least I'm smart enough to get the opinions of many different people, rather than just a limited number of people, all of whom have the same biases. 

 

Case in point, has any heterosexual woman voiced agreement with Stefan's criticism of the McDonald's chick?  No, of course not.  In fact, every woman I've communicated with voiced very strong disagreement with Stefan's line of thinking.  They noticed that he interrupted me four times while I was making the point, and then, concluded his argument was arrogant, elitest, presumptuous, and just plain wrong. 

 

So if anyone needs to go back to Stefan's master's thesis, it's him, it's you, and it's the people who blindly dismiss PUA without researching it. 

[MMX2010]

Truth is not black and white. Truth is usually in a middle ground rather than territories of the extreme.

 

Stefan's master's thesis goes on and on and on about the war between Plato (mysticism - which ought to (but, tragically, isn't) be translated as "I've a strong emotional reaction dictating that X is true, therefore X must be true.") and Aristotle (direct observable evidence). 

 

One of Aristotle's most important concepts is the golden mean, the ability to find the perfect position between two extremes, such as "Cowardly - Just Right - Reckless", "Too Emotional - Just Right - Too Logical", "Not Nearly Enough Sexual Experience - Just Right - Too Much Sexual Experience". 

 

So all you're describing is the Golden Mean. 

 

 

 

Also, maybe we shouldn't talk in such abstracts, I don't think it has much practical benefit to anyone and only serves to make us seem smarter to ourselves.

 

 

Some people talk in abstracts to avoid challenging their perspectives by having personal relationships with those they disagree with.  Others talk in abstracts, while constantly seeking personal relationships with those they disagree with. 

 

I mentioned in another thread that some people in FDR have an increasingly smaller social circle the longer they spend listening to podcasts, while others get an increasingly larger social circle.  If philosophy is meant to improve the world, then how can those with an ever-increasing social-circle say they're accomplishing this mission?  (They're not, of course - but their every argument reduces to, "If I just get angry enough at everyone who is philosophically mistaken, and withdraw my presence from their life after making it clear that it's because they're philosophically mistaken, then they'll either die a painful philosophically-stupid death OR they'll become philosophically-stronger."  Not ONLY is this argument of questionable effectiveness - (because it reminds me of a mother abandoning her children, except without the child's utter need for their mother) - but it begs the question, "Why not just have relationships with philosophically-ignorant people and, over time, turn them into philosophically intelligent ones?") 

 

The contradiction is hilariously indicated through this example. 

 

(1) You know I like younger women.  So, if I date a 22 year old woman, for three years, and introduce her to philosophy, but she doesn't become philosophically intelligent, then I wasted my time.  And Stefan says, "Punch yourself in the dick!!!"

 

(2) If I date a 22 year old woman for three years, and introduce her to philosophy, but she becomes very philosophically intelligent with regard to peaceful parenting and not-at-all interested in anarchism, then I wasted my time.  And Stefan says, "You're having children with someone who believes violence is a solution for non-violent disputes!  Punch yourself in the dick!!!" 

 

(3) If I date a 22 year old woman for three years, and introduce her to philosophy, and she becomes masterfully philosophically aware in every field imaginable, what does Stefan say?  "Thank you MMX2010, for spreading philosophy to one more woman, one who is capable of teaching philosophy to her children."  Or does he say, "Punch yourself in the dick!"?

 

(4) If I'm great friends with a 22 year old woman for three years, never making a romantic move on her while introducing her to philosophy, does any outcome become "more pure" - just because I never made a romantic move on her? 

 

(5) If I wait for a woman to become philosophically aware on her own, is that path "significantly more likely to work" than deliberately introducing women to philosophy? 

 

(6) And most hilarious of all, doesn't Stefan Molyneux think of himself as among the best in the world at empathizing with someone's childhood and guiding them to the self-knowledge required to become philosophically strong?  And didn't you, and me, and Kevin Beal, and Lians, and J-William, and all of the long-time FDR listeners train under him?  So if Stefan-himself doesn't trust his long-time listeners to introduce empathy-based philosophical conversations about childhood to the women who need to have these conversations, then who does he really trust? 

 

[Eternal Growth]

Stefan's master's thesis goes on and on and on about the war between Plato (mysticism - which ought to (but, tragically, isn't) be translated as "I've a strong emotional reaction dictating that X is true, therefore X must be true.") and Aristotle (direct observable evidence). 

 

One of Aristotle's most important concepts is the golden mean, the ability to find the perfect position between two extremes, such as "Cowardly - Just Right - Reckless", "Too Emotional - Just Right - Too Logical", "Not Nearly Enough Sexual Experience - Just Right - Too Much Sexual Experience". 

 

So all you're describing is the Golden Mean. 

 

While Aristotle got a lot of things right and set the stage for rational philosophy in the West, not everything he thought was correct simply by the association of it being he who thought it. (John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged eloquently expressed this by referring to Aristotle not by name but as "the man who was - no matter what his errors - the greatest of your philosophers".) The golden mean theory is thought to be incorrect - one rationalist explanation as to why may be heard in an 11 minute segment of this podcast.

 

In any case, "both" is not the same as "a moderate position between two extremes". "Both" is have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too thinking, like a 40 year old who wishes to settle and raise children with a high-quality woman thinking he can afford "PUA as a way to experiment" as an equal value. It is an attempt to avoid the logical law of non-contradiction i.e. the failure to integrate one's ideas. It is an avoidance of the responsibility of consciousness, which is the need, when presented with a contradiction, to thoroughly examine one's premises and choose the best way forward.

 

I mentioned in another thread that some people in FDR have an increasingly smaller social circle the longer they spend listening to podcasts, while others get an increasingly larger social circle.  If philosophy is meant to improve the world, then how can those with an ever-increasing social-circle say they're accomplishing this mission?  (They're not, of course - but their every argument reduces to, "If I just get angry enough at everyone who is philosophically mistaken, and withdraw my presence from their life after making it clear that it's because they're philosophically mistaken, then they'll either die a painful philosophically-stupid death OR they'll become philosophically-stronger."  Not ONLY is this argument of questionable effectiveness - (because it reminds me of a mother abandoning her children, except without the child's utter need for their mother) - but it begs the question, "Why not just have relationships with philosophically-ignorant people and, over time, turn them into philosophically intelligent ones?") 

 

The contradiction is hilariously indicated through this example. 

 

(1) You know I like younger women.  So, if I date a 22 year old woman, for three years, and introduce her to philosophy, but she doesn't become philosophically intelligent, then I wasted my time.  And Stefan says, "Punch yourself in the dick!!!"

 

(2) If I date a 22 year old woman for three years, and introduce her to philosophy, but she becomes very philosophically intelligent with regard to peaceful parenting and not-at-all interested in anarchism, then I wasted my time.  And Stefan says, "You're having children with someone who believes violence is a solution for non-violent disputes!  Punch yourself in the dick!!!" 

 

(3) If I date a 22 year old woman for three years, and introduce her to philosophy, and she becomes masterfully philosophically aware in every field imaginable, what does Stefan say?  "Thank you MMX2010, for spreading philosophy to one more woman, one who is capable of teaching philosophy to her children."  Or does he say, "Punch yourself in the dick!"?

 

(4) If I'm great friends with a 22 year old woman for three years, never making a romantic move on her while introducing her to philosophy, does any outcome become "more pure" - just because I never made a romantic move on her? 

 

(5) If I wait for a woman to become philosophically aware on her own, is that path "significantly more likely to work" than deliberately introducing women to philosophy? 

 

It is very telling that you regard two adults who are in philosophical disagreement as an analogous situation to a child who needs his or her mother. A core idea of self-ownership and voluntaryism is that adults are capable of being responsible for their own lives, and require unsolicited paternalistic intervention from nobody.

 

Have you asked yourself why you like younger women? Do you believe that experience and psychological maturity in a woman are going to work against you? Or are you motivated by external physical attractiveness alone? (Hint: both lose philosophical virtue points)

 

A 22 year old woman is an adult. A quality adult woman does not want a partner who is going to outlive her by 20 years or more, nor is she seeking in a partner an ersatz parental figure. She certainly, unambiguously, and without a doubt does not want to enter into a relationship with somebody whose intention from the beginning is to change her into something else. This means that the only 22 year old women who will be interested in you are the lowest of low quality. And if you doubt that a young woman is a self-responsible adult, this says more about the young women and portrayals thereof which you have surrounded yourself with and internalised throughout your life than it does about young women. What is the 22 year old Isabella Molyneux going to think of a man who approaches and attempts PUA nonsense on her? "You disgust me" would be my bet.

 

If I could propose one of many hypotheses, it is that you have accepted (subconsciously if not consciously) that a high-quality woman is not going to be interested in you. As a result, you feel have to make one by turning a lump of coal into a diamond not attract a diamond by being virtuous enough yourself to deserve it. But here is the fundamental error: even if you succeed at turning a lump of coal into a diamond, which you likely won't, the diamond isn't going to be attracted to you at the end of it - for the same reason that women who are already virtuous are not.

 

(6) And most hilarious of all, doesn't Stefan Molyneux think of himself as among the best in the world at empathizing with someone's childhood and guiding them to the self-knowledge required to become philosophically strong?  And didn't you, and me, and Kevin Beal, and Lians, and J-William, and all of the long-time FDR listeners train under him?  So if Stefan-himself doesn't trust his long-time listeners to introduce empathy-based philosophical conversations about childhood to the women who need to have these conversations, then who does he really trust?

 

The difference is that Stefan Molyneux does not start a relationship with manipulation and other non-virtues, hoping to make virtuous (i.e. change the nature of the relationship to the opposite of its nature) later. He starts by being rational and virtuous, and lets those on whom that has no effect go their own way (to their own destruction, if Stef's are the ideas that would improve their life). Such is voluntary, honest interaction between equals.

[MMX2010]

 

 

In any case, "both" is not the same as "a moderate position between two extremes". "Both" is have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too thinking, like a 40 year old who wishes to settle and raise children with a high-quality woman thinking he can afford "PUA as a way to experiment" as an equal value. It is an attempt to avoid the logical law of non-contradiction i.e. the failure to integrate one's ideas. It is an avoidance of the responsibility of consciousness, which is the need, when presented with a contradiction, to thoroughly examine one's premises and choose the best way forward.

 

Here's what I know about Real Women.  They change their minds a lot. 

 

As in, "I thought, when we first met, that you were just this sexually-charged dumb guy with a great body, but as I got to know you, I realize that you're smart, caring, and highly sympathetic towards women's wants and needs.  So I thought you were going to be just a fling, but now I realize how much I love you." 

 

Or, as in, "I thought I could make a marriage with you based solely on your empathy and concern-for-our-children, but sexual chemistry is important, too.  And I'm no longer attracted to you." 

 

 

 

It is very telling that you regard two adults who are in philosophical disagreement as an analogous situation to a child who needs his or her mother.

 

 

Strawman, dude.  I equate FDR-member's desire to poison-the-well against people who haven't gone to therapy as analogous to a frustrated mother trying to punish a three year old.  And I also equate a MGTOW's conclusion to avoid all women as similarly analogous. 

 

 

 

Have you asked yourself why you like younger women? Do you believe that experience and psychological maturity in a woman are going to work against you? Or are you motivated by external physical attractiveness alone? (Hint: both lose philosophical virtue points)

 

 

Are those the only two possibilities?  If there are more than those two, what does it say about you that you only grabbed the worst two you could think of? 

 

 

 

 

A 22 year old woman is an adult. A quality adult woman does not want a partner who is going to outlive her by 20 years or more, nor is she seeking in a partner an ersatz parental figure. She certainly, unambiguously, and without a doubt does not want to enter into a relationship with somebody whose intention from the beginning is to change her into something else. This means that the only 22 year old women who will be interested in you are the lowest of low quality.

 

 

Strong words.  Lots of bluster.  No demographic research.   No scientific evidence.  In a word, "Not An Argument". 

 

 

 

 

What is the 22 year old Isabella Molyneux going to think of a man who approaches and attempts PUA nonsense on her? "You disgust me" would be my bet.

 

 

You don't know what PUA is.  If you knew PUA, you'd know that the PUA would be able to quickly size up 22 year-old Isabella, and know that an Aloof-Alpha-Challenge opener wouldn't work on her.  Instead, an open-ended question which allows her to talk about herself would be ideal, followed by well-timed alpha-interruptions of agreement. 

 

PUA isn't a simple collection of "brute force" maneuvers, applied mindlessly to every chick that appears.  It's a collection of multiple openers, multiple conversations threads, and multiple escalations options, tailored to each specific woman.  But, by all means, have your strawmen. 

 

 

 

If I could propose one of many hypotheses, it is that you have accepted (subconsciously if not consciously) that a high-quality woman is not going to be interested in you. As a result, you feel have to make one by turning a lump of coal into a diamond not attract a diamond by being virtuous enough yourself to deserve it. But here is the fundamental error: even if you succeed at turning a lump of coal into a diamond, which you likely won't, the diamond isn't going to be attracted to you at the end of it - for the same reason that women who are already virtuous are not.

 

 

Lots of bluster.  Lots of slander.  Lots and lots of anger.  No scientific evidence.  No personal experience from which to draw.  In other words, "Not An Argument". 

 

 

 

 

The difference is that Stefan Molyneux does not start a relationship with manipulation and other non-virtues, hoping to make virtuous (i.e. change the nature of the relationship to the opposite of its nature) later. He starts by being rational and virtuous, and lets those on whom that has no effect go their own way (to their own destruction, if Stef's are the ideas that would improve their life). Such is voluntary, honest interaction between equals.

 

 

Funny?  That describes what I do, as well. 

[NumberSix]

Truth is not black and white. Truth is usually in a middle ground rather than territories of the extreme. Truth is not always simply irrational or rational, it can be relative to the environment, person, and situation. Maybe the language of philosophy teaches to have these extreme stances and dance around in circles, but real truth is often found in the middle ground, and "both" becomes not only an acceptable answer, but also a truthful and honest answer.

 

Perhaps our languages of Logic and Philosophy need some room to grow and a bit of overhaul. In other threads, I have already went into detail about empirical flaws in Aristotlian Logic, particularly with "the law of non-contradiction". Sure it cancels out the fun of arguing in endless circles, but often times (if not always) the truth is a little bit of "both" of two seemingly opposite extremes.

 

Are we so resigned to the idea that we have devolved that we won't scrutinize the faults in ancient language systems made by fallible ancient men?

 

Also, maybe we shouldn't talk in such abstracts, I don't think it has much practical benefit to anyone and only serves to make us seem smarter to ourselves.

 

It could be “theory-induced blindness.”

 

"Once you have accepted a theory and used it as a tool in your thinking, it is extraordinarily difficult to notice its flaws."

 

“The errors of a theory are rarely to be found in what it asserts explicitly; they hide in what it ignores or tacitly assumes.”

 

Daniel Kahnema (2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, author of Thinking, Fast and Slow)

 

http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/comments/1208Kahneman.html

https://www.spauldinggrp.com/why-do-we-refuse-to-see-the-flaws-in-our-beliefs/

http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555

[Frosty]

OK so I'm listening to the show and got past the 2nd woman (the date) and feel like I should comment before I start forgetting things.

 

I think the argument can be made that being playful when it's obvious to someone who is smart (with an estimated 130 IQ) and is capable of understanding subtext and reading between the lines, is something that will help you create sexual attraction in some women and it could be reasonably considered to not be a violation of the NAP. I think in the case of someone at Mcdonalds close to 30 that's just straight out manipulation, I understand that was just practice but as Stef pointed out, the obvious disparity in intelligence there doesn't really tell you much about your own progress at PUA, it's the age old tactic of if you want to get better at something you need to practice against people who are on your level or preferably better.

 

With regards to the 2nd woman on the date, this kind of playful jousting with each other with the deliberate negging and put downs is basically just the reasonably well understood shit test and seeing if you can respond to that by maintaining frame instead of getting upset means that you're in control of your emotional response and get to choose how outwardly display your response. This gives her sense that you can provide her with a solid emotional foundation of support in a potential future relationship, this allows women to indulge in their emotional side which seems to be something they enjoy doing, having that drama roller-coaster being angry/happy and always have the man as a solid rock so the relationship doesn't fall apart quickly.

 

Or put a more simply, women giving out shit tests are testing suitability for them to continue to do that in future.

 

If you learn to pass shit tests by intellectually understanding them and moderating your response, as you said by choosing to respond one way rather than another, then all you're doing is learning to appear more attractive to women who want to use you as an emotional punching bag, these aren't very virtuous women.

 

So again while I understand a lot of the PUA tactics and theory, I still don't see that anyone has made the argument that it's useful for finding virtuous women. Being able to play games isn't virtuous, emotionally beating on others with shit tests isn't virtuous and it's certainly not virtuous on your part to implicitly lie by taking something which is rude and pretending like it doesn't bother you.

 

Virtuous women will be looking for virtuous men and virtuous traits like honesty, friendliness, acceptance, commitment, and probably most of all empathy. PUA tactics in the main fail most of these basic virtues many include manipulation especially of biological triggers, that implies a level of dishonesty.

 

So my point still remains that PUA is good if you simply want to pump and dump women for sex or casual short term relationships, but for finding quality women it's not just an inappropriate tactic but it might actually hold you back in finding a long term stable relationship. If a woman who is both virtuous and also reasonably smart, she's going to understand the manipulations, PUA isn't some secret it's known well enough that women discuss it and some women actively try and avoid men who use it.

 

Stefan formalized that a lot better with the K/R type reproductive strategies, there is a lot of evolutionary biology at play here and in some sense both men and women are trying to fight those natural urges, for women to be hypergamous and as men to not stick our dicks into everything that moves, in order to have something more meaningful and longer lasting.

 

My primary issue with all this is that at least in my own anecdotal experience there isn't many virtuous women interested in philosophy and understanding their own biology and trying to be better, not just in real life with people I know at work and in my personal life, but even in the FDR community itself. I'd be interested to see if the admins of FDR can do a count of the forum database and see how many people register as Male, how many as female and how many who don't pick.

[MMX2010]

@Frosty - I've three crucial questions.

 

(1) Are you asserting that high IQ is correlated with philosophical understanding, which is correlated with virtue?

 

(2) Are you asserting that a virtuous woman doesn't shit test? 

 

(3) Are you asserting that, if a virtuous man married a frequently shit-testing woman AND if she became not nearly as shit-testy in the marriage due to his influence, then she'd become virtuous by default? 

[Frosty]

@Frosty - I've three crucial questions.

 

(1) Are you asserting that high IQ is correlated with philosophical understanding, which is correlated with virtue?

 

(2) Are you asserting that a virtuous woman doesn't shit test? 

 

(3) Are you asserting that, if a virtuous man married a frequently shit-testing woman AND if she became not nearly as shit-testy in the marriage due to his influence, then she'd become virtuous by default? 

 

What I'm trying to say is:

 

1) IQ is necessary but not sufficient to be interested in philosophical ideas, there are other factors such as you also need to be naturally curious, intrigued, or convinced by someone you trust that there's significant benefit to putting the effort into understanding philosophy. Anecdotal experience tells me it seems to bore a large percentage of people to tears and more so women than men, less so because of IQ disparity both of the average and of the standard deviation giving us more high IQ men than women, but probably some other bioloigical component too. Statistically the differences between men/women in something like FDR community is bigger than IQ differences alone can account for.

 

2) I don't like talking about virtue quite as black and white as that but I would say that you're less virtuous if you're shit testing, for 2 primary reasons, first of all you're being manipulative and rude/abrasive instead of being forthright and honest, and 2nd of all if you're shit testing the odds are that it's subconsciously because you're testing for a quality which you will likely later abuse to your own benefit at the expense of someone else.

 

3) Sure, if someone ceases behaviour which detracts from their virtues then it's fair to consider that person more virtuous, I don't think people are damned by single actions, showing growth/change is important to recognize.

[MMX2010]

1) IQ is necessary but not sufficient to be interested in philosophical ideas, there are other factors such as you also need to be naturally curious, intrigued, or convinced by someone you trust that there's significant benefit to putting the effort into understanding philosophy. Anecdotal experience tells me it seems to bore a large percentage of people to tears and more so women than men, less so because of IQ disparity both of the average and of the standard deviation giving us more high IQ men than women, but probably some other bioloigical component too. Statistically the differences between men/women in something like FDR community is bigger than IQ differences alone can account for.

 

It's interesting that you simultaneously know about the disparity in relative frequencies of high IQ men and high IQ women, and still espouse that IQ is necessary for being interested in philosophical ideas.  If Stefan advises 1000 high IQ men to seek out and marry high IQ, virtuous women, he has automatically created a situation where a significant percentage of those men will fail through no fault of their own - meaning they will fail despite having followed Stefan's advise perfectly. 

 

Does Stefan's equating of high IQ with virtuous behavior, coupled with his encouragement to ostracize those who defend low-IQ women, actually cause great harm to his audience?  Does a man's decision to go MGTOW after following Stefan's advice indicate that he was harmed by Stefan's advice?  Does a high-IQ man's lack-of-romantic-success with low-IQ women stem from lack-of-empathy and inability to trigger her hypergamous desires?  And is the question, "Should I attract a female with Virtue or Hypergamy?" a trap-question that's best answered as, "BOTH!"?

 

The revolutionary idea that FDR attempts to bring to the world is that children are fully realized human beings, equally capable of moral thought and moral decision-making.  The adult who tries to alter a child's natural moral drive to suit the culture's mandates is insane and morally corrupt.  But the revolutionary idea that I attempt to bring to FDR is that low-IQ women are fully realized human beings, equally capable of moral thought and moral decision-making.  The FDR member who tries to alter her natural moral drive to suit a one-size-fits-all perspective is lacking-in-empathy and deserves to fail with women. 

 

 

I don't like talking about virtue quite as black and white as that but I would say that you're less virtuous if you're shit testing, for 2 primary reasons, first of all you're being manipulative and rude/abrasive instead of being forthright and honest, and 2nd of all if you're shit testing the odds are that it's subconsciously because you're testing for a quality which you will likely later abuse to your own benefit at the expense of someone else.

 

 

If you don't think women who shit test are virtuous, then you don't understand women's nature.  If you don't understand women's nature, then you really want a Man With Boobs.  Except you don't really want a Man With Boobs, you want a Frosty With Boobs. 

 

Did you notice how quickly and how strongly emotive Stefan was when he accused the high IQ chick of being "rude"?  Did you notice how quickly and how strongly emotive Stefan was when he asserted that the McDonald's chick was "low-IQ", "desirous of dominance", and had "daddy issues"? 

 

Those rapid-fire assertions happen because he inserts his own experiences with his wife into every one of my flirting situations: "My wife wouldn't respond that way!", "My daughter wouldn't respond that way!"  (Well, that's great Stefan, but not every woman is your wife and daughter, you know.  And I thought you wanted us to spread philosophy to women-who-aren't-your-wife-and-daughter?) 

 

There's a crucial one-liner in an important article by The Last Psychiatrist, "Narcissus didn't love any one and so he fell in love with himself."  Projecting your own best masculine qualities onto women, and then asserting that women would be more virtuous if they behaved that way, is a perfect example of not loving them and therefore falling in love with yourself.  Stefan gets somewhat of a pass for this behavior because he's accomplished a lot and has a good marriage, but then he gets that pass removed because he's advising men to follow the same path despite the mathematical certainty that some men will fail through no fault of their own. 

 

You get no pass for that behavior because you haven't accomplished nearly as much as Stefan. 

 

 

 

Sure, if someone ceases behaviour which detracts from their virtues then it's fair to consider that person more virtuous, I don't think people are damned by single actions, showing growth/change is important to recognize.

 

 

It's amusing that you simultaneously agree that living with a virtuous man and learning to mimic his behaviors causes a woman to become more virtuous AND you lampoon my desire to flirt with low-IQ women. 

[MMX2010]

What I'm trying to say is:

 

1) IQ is necessary but not sufficient to be interested in philosophical ideas, there are other factors such as you also need to be naturally curious, intrigued, or convinced by someone you trust that there's significant benefit to putting the effort into understanding philosophy. Anecdotal experience tells me it seems to bore a large percentage of people to tears and more so women than men, less so because of IQ disparity both of the average and of the standard deviation giving us more high IQ men than women, but probably some other bioloigical component too. Statistically the differences between men/women in something like FDR community is bigger than IQ differences alone can account for.

 

If IQ is necessary but not sufficient to be interested in philosophical ideas, and if interest in philosophical ideas is necessary for virtuous behavior, then you, me and this entire community have a massive problem: the permanent imbalance in the ratio of the number of sufficiently high IQ men to the number of sufficiently high IQ women. 

 

Possible solutions include: (1) Stop asserting that IQ is correlated with (or causal to) virtuous behavior.  (2) Accept that sex differences means that only men approach philosophy from a detached, impersonal perspective - (focusing on subjects like taxation, the state, anarchy, and so on).  Then present philosophy to females in a female-centered way by focusing on subjects like her own childhood, everyone else's childhood, and peaceful parenting.  Lo and behold, you'll have to interact with insufficiently high IQ women in order to introduce them to philosophy, rather than sitting around and waiting for Stefan's podcasts to become more popular. 

 

 

 

I don't like talking about virtue quite as black and white as that but I would say that you're less virtuous if you're shit testing, for 2 primary reasons, first of all you're being manipulative and rude/abrasive instead of being forthright and honest, and 2nd of all if you're shit testing the odds are that it's subconsciously because you're testing for a quality which you will likely later abuse to your own benefit at the expense of someone else.

 

 

Shit testing is the core mechanism of hypergamy.  Hypergamy is a woman's natural state of viewing the world.  To combat shit testing is to combat hypergamy, and to combat hypergamy is to combat women's nature.  To combat women's nature AND to leave women to discover philosophy without your help is to abandon women to the SJWs, cultural Marxists, feminists, entertainment industry, and unscrupulous-PUAs. 

 

MGTOW, therefore, is not a courageous stand for virtuous behavior, but rather an abandonment of women to the forces of darkness and moral corruption.  It's a fantasy wherein you don't have to work to sufficiently understand women, but women will love you anyway. 

 

 

 

Sure, if someone ceases behaviour which detracts from their virtues then it's fair to consider that person more virtuous, I don't think people are damned by single actions, showing growth/change is important to recognize.

 

 

Not only does this support my argument against MGTOW, but it reframes what you called "manipulation" in a positive light.  The McDonald's chick isn't naturally going to be interested in philosophy, so she needs someone to guide her into philosophy.  And if a certain brand of flirtation can facilitate the introduction of philosophy, then it's better to flirt with her than to abandon her. 

[GuzzyBone]

MMX is really hitting the nail here and like I said before I sided with Stefan's perspective until I actually talked with MMX about this personally.

Alot of the arguments here against PUA are completely misunderstanding PUA. My wife is a woman of virture who is dedicated to peaceful parenting, anarchism/voluntarism, and enthusiastically persues philosophy in our lives. When MMX provided examples of PUA experiences to her, she lit up instantly and said repeatedly "I would've loved that".

PUA is flirting and ice-breaking turned into an artform. You guys are turn it into some kind of manipulative con with the intent to exploit, put down, or use women for sex. As MMX explained to me "intent" is a major focus of pick-up artistry, and from his example with the McDonalds worker he lit up her day. He didn't take advantage of her, he didn't exploit her in any way, he broke the ice, brought conversation to an emotional level, and made her feel good about herself and him (WIN-WIN).

You can look too much into it, whatever, the bottomline is that pick-up artistry is just advanced flirting. I think it is safe to say that all woman enjoy flirting and playful communication, regardless of how well they are raised or how virtuous or philosophically-inclined that they are. I don't think you can very well say how someone like Isabella Molyneux would react to PUA with any kind of authority.

What was really interesting to me and my wife in particular was the potential to PUAs teachings and apply it to wider forms of ice-breaking and communication with people despite the enormous mask and projections they hide behind. I genuinely look forward what MMX discovers in his applications of PUA toward philosophy, bettering others, and self-improvement.

There an assumption that you cannot change a person, and it's true you cannot better them with force. But better understanding female psychology and biology can definitely lead to better understanding on how to help improve the character of a female regardless of where she is in life. If we accept that the majority of males and females (if not all, including us) have been abused and broken by a corrupted society and our own parents, then we should be striving to better those around us and not just simply ostracizing them for lacking the tools to do so.

[GuzzyBone]

I forgot to mention also, "Law of Non-Contradiction" is bullshit. Golden mean is closer to truth. I can provide countless examples if you wish.

Me and you, we are the same, but we are different (not the same).

Aristotle was dead wrong on that one. I can go on if you want. I wish this community could move past that empirical flaw of Aristotilian logic.

Regardless, I will listen to the podcast that was linked to arguing against the golden mean and get back to you.

[shirgall]

I forgot to mention also, "Law of Non-Contradiction" is bullshit.

 

"Contradictory statements cannot both be true" is bullshit? I think you'll have better luck arguing that the statements in a particular case are not contradictory than undermining this one.

[Frosty]

If IQ is necessary but not sufficient to be interested in philosophical ideas, and if interest in philosophical ideas is necessary for virtuous behavior, then you, me and this entire community have a massive problem: the permanent imbalance in the ratio of the number of sufficiently high IQ men to the number of sufficiently high IQ women. 

 

To be interest in, and to be able to follow more complex arguments. I don't know that philosophy is necessary to behave virtuously, you can arrive at that position through other means, you can have smart parents who raise you to behave in virtuous ways even if you don't have a grasp of why it should be the case, you might also get that behaviour in part from other dogmatic sources like the bible where some parts (certainly not all) have moral content, like thou shalt not kill/steal etc.

 

With respect to the imbalance, the standard deviation of IQ about the mean for men and women put a higher percentage of men into the above average spectrum, lets say the 120+ region, but that difference isn't what we see on something like the FDR forums, in the meet ups, in more cerebral topics like hard science, atheism, philosophy, economics and things of that nature, there's something more widening that gap.

 

The imbalance probably is permanent, there's a lot of SJWs that think the imbalance stems from hostile environments and social factors, but there's good evidence to show that the more free men and women are to pick their interests and careers the more unbalanced they become.

 

It's unfortunate when you're looking for women with similar interests or you're looking for someone who might be into anarchism and libertarianism for rational reasons, but I don't know that I'd call it a problem.

 

 

Shit testing is the core mechanism of hypergamy.  Hypergamy is a woman's natural state of viewing the world.  To combat shit testing is to combat hypergamy, and to combat hypergamy is to combat women's nature.  To combat women's nature AND to leave women to discover philosophy without your help is to abandon women to the SJWs, cultural Marxists, feminists, entertainment industry, and unscrupulous-PUAs. 

 

MGTOW, therefore, is not a courageous stand for virtuous behavior, but rather an abandonment of women to the forces of darkness and moral corruption.  It's a fantasy wherein you don't have to work to sufficiently understand women, but women will love you anyway. 

 

It's women's nature likes its man's nature to kill things to defend the tribe and sleep with as many women as possible to spread his genes about, I've seen similar arguments like this that men are capable of overcoming their nature but women aren't, I don't buy that, but certainly that in many ways men have a head start and that's just from lucky biology.

 

To abandon something is to suggest that you're taking some kind of active action or have some moral obligation and then ceasing that, I have no such moral obligation to women and so in no sense can I abandon them.

 

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that MGTOW is courageous and I certainly don't maintain that position, it's pretty much about as morally neutral as you can get. It's a personal philosophy of using rational and evidence based world view to opt out of systems which are toxic to men and to reject peer pressure to behave against your self interest, you're kind of skirting around this behaviour yourself by apply a level of social shaming by claiming how MGTOW isn't courageous - a lesser man might fold to that pressure to be seen as couageous by his peers and rush to save some damsel, but I won't.

 

I don't know in what way MGTOW is a fantasy, I live life as a MGTOW quite happily and have done for a number of years now, I'm of the belief that I have a relatively good understanding of women now, I have a decent grasp on biology and evolution and some psychology, it's very much a red pill perspective, I certainly understand why most of the PUA tactics work. Women absolutely won't "love" me, everything about their biology drives them directly away from MGTOWs, in fact most women's natural reaction to MGTOWs is very real disgust, that kind of disinterest in women and abandonment of gynocentrism is a massive threat to womens power and they recoil against it quite strongly in general.

 

 

 

And if a certain brand of flirtation can facilitate the introduction of philosophy, then it's better to flirt with her than to abandon her. 

 

Better for who? At the expense of who?

 

I don't consider that better for me and so I'm not very motivated to take that path I'm afraid.

[Jot]

I forgot to mention also, "Law of Non-Contradiction" is bullshit. Golden mean is closer to truth. I can provide countless examples if you wish.

 

Me and you, we are the same, but we are different (not the same).

 

Aristotle was dead wrong on that one. I can go on if you want. I wish this community could move past that empirical flaw of Aristotilian logic.

 

Regardless, I will listen to the podcast that was linked to arguing against the golden mean and get back to you.

And how the hell is the law of non-contradiction bullshit?

[GuzzyBone]

The Law of Non-Contradiction (from Wikipedia):

 

It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive

 

Aristotle's contribution

The traditional source of the law of non-contradiction is Aristotle's Metaphysics where he gives three different versions.

1. ontological: "It is impossible that the same thing belong and not belong to the same thing at the same time and in the same respect." (1005b19-20)
2. psychological: "No one can believe that the same thing can (at the same time) be and not be." (1005b23-24)

3. logical: "The most certain of all basic principles is that contradictory propositions are not true simultaneously." (1011b13-14)

Aristotle attempts several proofs of this law. He first argues that every expression has a single meaning (otherwise we could not communicate with one another). This rules out the possibility that by "to be a man", "not to be a man" is meant. But "man" means "two-footed animal" (for example), and so if anything is a man, it is necessary (by virtue of the meaning of "man") that it must be a two-footed animal, and so it is impossible at the same time for it not to be a two-footed animal. Thus "it is not possible to say truly at the same time that the same thing is and is not a man" (Metaphysics 1006b 35). Another argument is that anyone who believes something cannot believe its contradiction (1008b).

The numerical distance between 1 and 2 is infinite (there are infinite numbers between 1 and 2), the space between 1 to 5 is also infinite. They are the same, but they are also not the same (both are simultaneously true).

 

A rock and a seagull are both composed entirely of matter. They are the same, but they are also different (both contradictory statements are true).

 

Me and you are the same (there are infinite similarities), but we are also not the same (infinite differences). Both contradictory statements are true.

 

Everything exists, but also nothing at all exists. This is a paradoxical and infinite universe. If every single possibility imaginable is happening simultaneously all at the same time, nothing is actually changing and therefore nothing at all exists. This is a macro scale example and I could go further with it if you wish, but quantum physics is one of the few areas of Science that actually bothers to accept a paradox. Paradox (Contradiction) is a natural law of Infinity.

 

Government is voluntary in that it can only exist if we allow it to be, however Government is completely involuntary (Both are true).

 

The Big Bang is a contradiction in itself. Nothing existed, and then suddenly everything existed. If you don't see the parallels between Big Bang Theory and the creation story of Genesis, then you are missing out on the bigger picture. Humans have already discovered emotionally and intellectually that this is an infinite and paradoxical universe where 2 things can simultaneously be, and not be.

 

God exists, and God also does not exist (Both are true, and I can very easily simultaneously accept and believe both). I can understand and prove this with multiple tools/languages of math/science/physics/religion/spirituality/logic etc... but the community was not so open to hearing this possibility and acted with hostility to the idea.

 

I could go on forever. Nature is one massive contradictory paradox, so to create such a ridiculously fallacious law as "The Law of Non-contradiction" is to condemn yourself to forever being pigeon-holed into extreme positions. Because it is emotionally taxing for some people to truly accept that every word out of their mouth is both wrong and right, true and untrue, not many bother to actually accept this ultimate truth. It also renders a lot of arguments moot when talking in abstracts or bigger picture philosophy, which can take some of the fun and learning out of argument.

 

For example: my statement that "The Law of Non-Contradiction is bullshit" is ultimately both true and untrue. Both are observable phenomena are true. Aristotle observed the effects of  non-contradiction in his work and decided it was a truth, however he also excluded many other observable phenomena that contradict his position.

 

Lastly, MMX also provided you with several seemingly contradictory examples of his perspective that are both true.

 

Can I not both Hate and Love this community at the same time? I do testify that BOTH are True.

[shirgall]

The numerical distance between 1 and 2 is infinite (there are infinite numbers between 1 and 2), the space between 1 to 5 is also infinite. They are the same, but they are also not the same (both are simultaneously true).

 

A rock and a seagull are both composed entirely of matter. They are the same, but they are also different (both contradictory statements are true).

 

Me and you are the same (there are infinite similarities), but we are also not the same (infinite differences). Both contradictory statements are true.

 

Everything exists, but also nothing at all exists. This is a paradoxical and infinite universe. If every single possibility imaginable is happening simultaneously all at the same time, nothing is actually changing and therefore nothing at all exists. This is a macro scale example and I could go further with it if you wish, but quantum physics is one of the few areas of Science that actually bothers to accept a paradox. Paradox (Contradiction) is a natural law of Infinity.

 

Government is voluntary in that it can only exist if we allow it to be, however Government is completely involuntary (Both are true).

 

The Big Bang is a contradiction in itself. Nothing existed, and then suddenly everything existed. If you don't see the parallels between Big Bang Theory and the creation story of Genesis, then you are missing out on the bigger picture. Humans have already discovered emotionally and intellectually that this is an infinite and paradoxical universe where 2 things can simultaneously be, and not be.

 

God exists, and God also does not exist (Both are true, and I can very easily simultaneously accept and believe both). I can understand and prove this with multiple tools/languages of math/science/physics/religion/spirituality/logic etc... but the community was not so open to hearing this possibility and acted with hostility to the idea.

 

I could go on forever. Nature is one massive contradictory paradox, so to create such a ridiculously fallacious law as "The Law of Non-contradiction" is to condemn yourself to forever being pigeon-holed into extreme positions. Because it is emotionally taxing for some people to truly accept that every word out of their mouth is both wrong and right, true and untrue, not many bother to actually accept this ultimate truth. It also renders a lot of arguments moot when talking in abstracts or bigger picture philosophy, which can take some of the fun and learning out of argument.

 

For example: my statement that "The Law of Non-Contradiction is bullshit" is ultimately both true and untrue. Both are observable phenomena are true. Aristotle observed the effects of  non-contradiction in his work and decided it was a truth, however he also excluded many other observable phenomena that contradict his position.

 

Lastly, MMX also provided you with several seemingly contradictory examples of his perspective that are both true.

 

Can I not both Hate and Love this community at the same time? I do testify that BOTH are True.

 

You need to show contradictory statements are simultaneously true to break noncontradiction. You are comparing different kinds of infinities that are not the same.

 

"A rock is matter" and "A seagull is matter" is not a contradiction. If you want contradictory statements, try "All matter is rock" and "All matter is seagull." These statements are not true.

 

"We are the same" is not true, and self-detonates. If "you" have to explain to "me" that "we are the same" it's obviously not true because there's already a distinction between "you" and "me".

 

The rest of your examples demonstrate sloppy usage of the English language and not contradictions. You should look into statements that are absolutes and clear to find a way into this knotty problem.

[thebeardslastcall]

The numerical distance between 1 and 2 is infinite (there are infinite numbers between 1 and 2), the space between 1 to 5 is also infinite. They are the same, but they are also not the same (both are simultaneously true).

They are both infinite, but they are not the same. The numerical distance between 1 and 5 is 4, not infinite. There are infinite numbers between 1 and 5, but only some of them are the same as 1 to 2. Thus they are distinctly different with some overlap. Being similar or related doesn't make things the same. Infinite doesn't mean all possibilities, just endless possibilities, they need not be the same or even similar.

 

All you're doing for several of these examples is perverting the definition of same. You're not using the same definition for same.

 

You can call one thing by two different names and it is still the same thing. You can also call two different things by one name, but this doesn't make them the same. Your whole assertion of a contradiction hinges on this misreading of meanings. Using the same words to say two different things and then pretending you are saying the same thing is creating a false contradiction.

 

If God exists then you can't say God does not exist and be talking about the same thing, you must be talking about a different God, but using the same word to describe two things, and pretending this is a contradiction when it isn't. It's just using one symbol for two ideas and then pretending the ideas are the same or contradictory, when they aren't.

 

Partially voluntary and fully voluntary are not the same thing. You're being imprecise in your assertion and then pretending precision in your claim for contradiction. Having a foot with only 4 toes and a foot with only 5 toes isn't a contradiction, it's having two feet with different numbers of toes.

 

You haven't disproven The Law of Non-Contradiction logically. You've just argued against it with confused use of words.

[GuzzyBone]

There are no extremes is the point I am making. An absolute statement is always false and true

1+2 = Infinity, 1+5 = Infinity. That is the real truth. 1+2 can = 3 if we are talking about apples, but the mere abstract of 1+2 = Infinity. But how many apples are there really? What is an apple but an abstract word that we compare to the properties of various infinitely different objects. There is infinite space between all these numbers and they are completely abstract and without value until applied to some other concept. Math does not actually exist. It is nothing more than a pattern-recognition language that must be compared to something to have any kind of empirical value.

What is same? Is anything the same? Is anything actually different? What is a rock? It's just a word. There are many different types of rocks, are all rocks the same? Well they are all rocks. Do you insist on mindfucking yourself like this? Can you not accept a paradox?

I'm not going to argue in circles with semantics and abstracts. This community and people in general very much love to confuse themselves in this way.

If you are curious as to how I can know that God simultaneously exists AND doesn't exist I think you will educate and liberate yourself if you truly spend some time fully contemplating the implications of infinity, and do some more research into the nature of paradox in quantum physics.

The law of non-contradiction is one of those bullshit absolutes that flies in the face of language and reality. Everything is relative, even truth. If you wanna delude yourself into thinking otherwise and really invest your time into searching for that absolute truth, you will either dead end yourself in irrational extremes or you will learn to accept a paradox.

The universe is but an atom within the hairy balls of a very fat man, oh but we are so much more

[thebeardslastcall]

There are no extremes is the point I am making. An absolute statement is always false and true 

 

What is a rock? It's just a word. There are many different types of rocks, are all rocks the same? Well they are all rocks. Do you insist on mindfucking yourself like this? Can you not accept a paradox?

 

I'm not going to argue in circles with semantics and abstracts. This community and people in general very much love to confuse themselves in this way.

 

If you are curious as to how I can know that God simultaneously exists AND doesn't exist I think you will educate and liberate yourself if you truly spend some time fully contemplating the implications of infinity, and do some more research into the nature of paradox in quantum physics.

 

The law of non-contradiction is one of those bullshit absolutes that flies in the face of language and reality. Everything is relative, even truth. If you wanna delude yourself into thinking otherwise and really invest your time into searching for that absolute truth, you will either dead end yourself in irrational extremes or you will learn to accept a paradox.

I'm not "mindfucking" myself. You're calling something a paradox that isn't a paradox. This argument is about semantics. I accept that God exists and God doesn't exist. I just don't agree those are the same God and that I've just stated a paradox. I also don't get confused into thinking something a paradox when I state two things from different perspectives and imagine they are from the same perspective and thus contradictory. One person can believe "my eyes are blue" and another person can believe "my eyes are not blue", but I don't imagine this as a contradiction or paradox. All rocks being rocks doesn't mean all rocks are the same. Also in the statement "a rock is a rock is not a rock" can also be true and false, depending on how you read it, but whether or not the statement is true or false depends on the meanings of the words, not the words themselves. Meaning you can say the statement is true and false, but this isn't a paradox because it's true when read one way and false when read another way, but it's not both true and false when read or interpreted a single way. You still haven't introduced a paradox. You're just saying things can be read multiple ways and suggesting this negates the point or introduces a paradox, when it doesn't. If you don't agree to a particular understanding or meaning then you're just talking across someone and not arguing them. So you are both right and wrong, but all wrong.

[shirgall]

Reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number is infinitely more rewarding than mangling English and mathematics in the same thread.

[GuzzyBone]

Everything is relative and subject to our interpretation.

Contradiction is a: A combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.

They do not have to be implicitly referring to the exact same thing. Rock is just an abstract label that we apply to matter with similar properties. So if I am to say that a Rock is a "Rock", but it also not a Rock (it is matter or compressed dirt) are you going to say that I am just interpreting it differently or can you admit that these are contradicting statements that are both true and false simultaneously?

By saying through differing interpretation it is no longer a contradiction, to a degree you are right, because both are true and do not actually conflict, they don't actually contradict each other. However, both statements are seemingly a contradiction in the conventional meaning and understanding of the word "contradiction". Obviously I am arguing that they don't actually contradict, however at first glance and without explanation they seem to completely contradict. The "contradicting" statements are true simultaneously.

Contradiction is just an abstract term for comparison anyway, there are no tangible items or beings called "contradictions". If they are abstract, to a degree they are always illusory and relative.

[GuzzyBone]

Infinity as a broad concept does not have a quantifiable size, mass, dimension, or space as whole because if it is truly infinite in all directions simultaneously then it is not even there at all. Limitations define time, size, mass, dimension and space. We can quantify, articulate, define, and attribute characteristics to the 1900s-2000 A.D. because we have set finite limitations and boundaries to examine and articulate an area of infinity that is being described. However infinity as an abstract or tangible concept cannot be appropriately represented or quantified with anything other than limited (the opposite of infinity) abbreviations/symbols/equations. In fact the only appropriate symbol or numerical value of infinity is no symbol at all. A complete and accurate representation of infinity would be completely blank (stasis, no definable limits, no change or consistency because both values require relativity to their opposing concept in order to be defined, quantified, or perceived at all).

 

In this way math does not actually exist in any material or quantifiable form without setting limits. Whatever you are using math to measure, if you say you have 2 apples, you would also be ignoring that neither object is really the same object and that you have already defined a set limit of terms which define an object as an apple. Really there are no apples at all, because "apple" is just a word used to compare perceived limitations or observable properties of an object in relation to other things. "i have two apples" implies that the similarities between the two objects define them as the same object, when really this is only pattern recognition. If you were to examine both objects endlessly and with every means that could ever be available, there would be no limit to the indistinction and distinction of the "two" objects. We only perceive them as having distinct definable and limited properties in relation to the amount of perceivable similar properties. Both objects consist of material ("matter") reality as a whole, and their distinction is only a perception.

These are the types of philosophical subjects that can lead to greater understanding of the universe around us, and have very applicable utility in all languages of learning and fields of exploration. Unfortunately there are people who seem to have the impression that accepting these seemingly contradictory truths would somehow lead to madness, and it potentially could if not counterbalanced by the defined limitations we set with languages and words. However, my original argument still stands that two things can simultaneously be true and false, just as an apple can simultaneously "exist" (distinguishable similarities and limitations) and "not exist" (there are no apples, just "matter" being compared by perceived similarities and limitations).

It is our own relative sensory limitations that give us the ability to define, recognize patterns, and process sensory input. For example, say you had no limitations to what you could "experience", you would not be experiencing anything at all, because always experiencing everything at one time would never have any kind of alternative experience to compare it to. Just as we cannot actually define "happiness" without comparing it to "sadness".

[shirgall]

Contradiction is a: A combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.

 

If we are going to be more precise with our statements, then the law of noncontradiction also requires that both statements be in the "same sense". In the beginning this was all about a statement about an object being something, and another statement about an object not being something, and because of Heraclitus, we had to make sure both statements had to be at the same time. And, of course, this is limited to two-value logic anyway.

[thebeardslastcall]

Yes, kind of hard to discuss or argue anything if someone is just going to obscure and devalue everything said into some meaningless relativity of interpretations. We can either use some clear and precise logic and interpretations of statements and have a chance of getting somewhere or you can just multi-interpret everything into irrelevance. And if you're going to do this there is no sense in calling some sound form of logic or worthwhile fallacy "bullshit" as that's just being dishonest. If you can't argue against something from a coherent and relevant perspective then you're not making any sound case against it.

[Kevin Beal]

Contradictions are: the sense in which it is true is the sense in which is it not-true.

 

A contradiction is not a paradox or two opposing perspectives on an issue which both have some merit. A contradiction is asserting the thing you reject (simultaneously and in the same respect as shirgall rightly points out).

 

If you say that A is B and also, in the same respect that it is not B, that is a contradiction. If particular statements include multiple simultaneous assertions that require a contradiction to be true, then you are simultaneously asserting and rejecting something. In other words, you yourself are the one who is saying that what you are saying is true – is not true.

 

If I require that in order for gods to exist that this god be both all-knowing and all-powerful, the sense in which something is all-powerful is that this god can literally do anything, without restriction. The sense in which this god is all-knowing is that it knows literally everything, including what actions this conscious agent will take in the future. There is a contradiction here as both assertions require the other to be not-true in order to be true. Put plainly, if this god knows what she will do next and can change it, then she's not all-knowing because she was wrong about what action she would take next. If she can't change that action, then she is not all powerful because there is something which she cannot do.

 

It's hard to draw an analogy for exactly how insane saying that the law of non-contradiction is "bullshit" is. It's more asinine than saying that the atomic theory of matter is false to a physicist. It's more psychotic than saying that life does not exist to a biologist. If we accept that the law of non-contradiction were "bullshit" then this entire debate means absolutely nothing because there is no standard by which conflicts in philosophy can be resolved. It is saying that philosophy itself is "bullshit". Philosophy becomes mysticism. True is false, up is down, shit is ice cream.

 

If the law of non-contradiction is bullshit, then so is science, objectivity, philosophy, everything which is true and real. It's staggeringly just how wrong that statement is, that it can hardly be put in words.

[PatrickC]

It's staggeringly just how wrong that statement is, that it can hardly be put in words.

 

Don't encourage him into further contradictions Kevin.

[GuzzyBone]

Philosophy is "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence"

It is to ponder the greater questions and attempt to perceive, contemplate, or understand the bigger picture in all aspects of life.

If you have no interest in full ramifications and implications of an infinite and paradoxical universe, as is confirmed and implied in some the most fascinating, enlightening, and revelatory scientific experiments and theories of the modern age, then respectfully I have to ask, what the hell are you doing on a philosophy forum?

Are we trying to learn deeper truths and achieve wisdom or simply bask in our own arrogance and construct our own reality? It's staggering why I even have to ask this, it can hardly be put into words...

 

If you have no interest in contemplating the nature of reality and existence, why are you here?

Abstracts concepts (which are essentially allegory) like omniscience and omnipotence are just symbolic terms that relate our perception of human consciousness on a larger scale (the infinite) and we use these symbols to imply something greater than ourselves that can hardly be understood. You are trying to say that because it doesn't make sense to you than it can hardly exist at all, but yet here you are. Reality itself doesn't make comprehensible sense, but it's all we remember and it's all we've ever known. Do you have no interest in understanding how this impossible situation of existing at all can "be", how anything can "be"? You are supposed to be philosophers. If you look at everything that seems impossible and deem it that it must certainly "not be" at all, you have no business being a Philosopher. If an Atheist thinks that not existing at all after death makes perfect sense, then they admit that the concept of not-existing at all "makes sense" to them, and yet reality and consciousness exist despite all impossibility.

If you intellectually or emotionally can never admit that 2 items can be infinitely different and infinitely identical at the same time, or how this same paradox applies to the entire universe, then you are purposely excluding yourself from ever understanding the greatest and most profound scientific discoveries and philosophical discussions of our time.

And for the record, Up is Down. There is no up or down, these are labels we created to understand where we are in relation to things. The guy on the other side of the world thinks that he is looking up but he is looking in completely the opposite direction. This is a living example of "The Law of Non-Contradiction" being broken. It is true that you are looking up, but you are also NOT looking up, but instead looking down, left, right, diagonally, etc... all in relation to your perspective. There is no up or down. They are just abstract comparison terms. Has anyone started shitting ice cream yet?

[Three]

Everything is relative and subject to our interpretation.

So, would it be wrong for me to say that everything is not relative and subject to our interpretation?

[GuzzyBone]

Considering that everything we experience and do is limited and effected by our perspective and filtered by the natural limitations of senses, ego and emotions... Yes.

Considering advancements in Science like the double slit test and observer effect that indicate something does not actually even exist until someone is there to even perceive it... Yes.

Considering that the Theory of relativity itself refers to:

• Measurements of various quantities are relative to the velocities of observers. In particular, space contracts and time dilates.
• Spacetime: space and time should be considered together and in relation to each other.

Without comparison and relation, there is nothing to even perceive at all, and all is seemingly in flux. Without relativity we would not even be able to see light (compared to dark), blue (compared to red), and all the other infinite spectrums of sensory data.

 

Yes. The most profound and game-changing scientific research has all indicated that it would be wrong for you to say that. It may not SEEM like it is wrong, but again, that is perception itself and compared to how right vs. wrong it seems.

Everything is relative and subject to our interpretation, just as the Apple is not actually an Apple and is ultimately just a part of the MATTERial fabric of space and time that we compare to other parts, and perceive it as what we call an "Apple". The findings of the Observer effect and Double Slit test and other similar studies and theories have been repeatedly empirical confirmed throughout my life. Two people can experience the exact same event from a different perspective and observe completely contradictory laws of physics. I have experienced empirical phenomena that most people could never imagine, and those that have less emotional interest in accepting it's possibility, will ultimately start to forget major details or search deeply for a way to explain these phenomena away. Phsyics and scientific laws are all subject to degrees and waves and are not universally constant anymore than we perceive them to be constant in comparison to our tools of measurement. Lacking the capability to measure these deviations and fluctuations does not in any way change that one some level they are in flux, and that is our perception that gives them what we call "consistency".

[Lingum]

You are using scientific theories to undermine the foundation of science; the notion that there exists an objective reality independent of our perception. That could be fine because you don't believe in an objective reality and think contradictions can be true, but then why are you using science to make the case? It's the antithesis to your thesis. Why are you even debating this if there's no objective reality beyond our perception?

 

Do you not notice how much you're spinning to regain a claim? You're in a debate, but you've rejected the foundation for language and communication. Apples don't exist because words aren't tangible. I'm sure the scientists whose works you're using had the same standard for the word exist. "Star don't exist. Can't write that. Instead, I have to accurately describe everything down to its atoms for it to be referenced, but even then it's meaningless because language is meaningless." I don't understand why you immediately jump to "there's no objective reality, only perception" instead of "huh, maybe we are operating on different defintions of the word exist." As it stands now, you've put your arguments in the category of insanity.

 

This is not a matter of philosophy or science, but linguistics and communication.