Socrates Jones: PRO-PHILOSOPHER

[Siegfried von Walheim]

For those looking for philosophical video games (or at least a free visual novel I discovered as a parody of another visual novel game I discovered called "Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney") this is the one. It's both educational and amusing because it actually teaches the player how to make and disassemble arguments. 

I just started watching someone play it (can't be bothered to trouble myself with downloading it since others' have played it) and I have to say it's ironically educational because it three very basic tools to debate with: asking for clarification (about a given claim), asking for proof/evidence, and asking whether it's even relevant (as well as an option to use sophistry that never works). 

I doubt it'll (or has) sparked critical thinking among the general populace but it sure is a kindergartener's introduction to philosophy that's a bit more of a "demonstration" that shows how it actually works when applied similar to Stefpai's introductory videos on philosophy that ended with why the State's an immoral institution based on the creation of an artificial structure that demands obedience because sophistry. 

[Frederik]

Hey, many thanks for posting this! I knew I have played that game as soon as you described the choices one is given.

The funny thing is that the first time I played it must have been years ago before I knew about FDR and now that I have played it again it gives me some perspective.

In short, playing the game feels a bit like moving on rails because there is only one predefined way in which to attack an argument. When discussing God you cannot question its existence, when talking about the Social Contract you are not able to bring up that children cannot enter contracts, when debating the Sovereign/the State you cannot question its moral nature.

I, for once, don't have quite the IQ to quickly discover the sometimes very nuanced hints in which one can attack the argument – which the character does for oneself, in ways that may not even be anticipated (it's a whole dialogue that gets kicked off). So sometimes it came down to guesswork and ending up Game Over a few times. That was frustrating! I remember that from the first time playing.

I share your doubts about whether this game has sparked critical thinking among the general populace.

It has not been my personal experience. Nothing ever came close to Stef's rational approach and sheer consistency, which of course is absent in almost all other philosophers. Naturally, UPB is not included in the game and if it were, it would be a completely different game. (Spoiler below)

 

It is the narrative of the game that the final answer to the question of morality can likely never be found, but then... we here know why theft, rape, murder and fraud can never ever be moral, so in reality there is at least some certainty!

It is fascinating to me how philosophy that comes so close to the solution can be so useless after all. My life did not change at all when I played that game for a couple hours, but I knew my life would change completely after watching The Story of Your Enslavement with its 13 minutes in length. Isn't that amazing?

It gives me some insight into the almost magical ineffectiveness of academic philosophy. It exists only in order to give people a false sense of purpose and understanding – to turn the smart minds of our time into mere useful idiots at the cost of discrediting the one discipline that has given us the freedom to philosophize in the first place!

I would be curious to hear your thoughts, Siegfried!

[Siegfried von Walheim]

9 hours ago, Fred Black Fox said:

Hey, many thanks for posting this! I knew I have played that game as soon as you described the choices one is given.

The funny thing is that the first time I played it must have been years ago before I knew about FDR and now that I have played it again it gives me some perspective.

In short, playing the game feels a bit like moving on rails because there is only one predefined way in which to attack an argument. When discussing God you cannot question its existence, when talking about the Social Contract you are not able to bring up that children cannot enter contracts, when debating the Sovereign/the State you cannot question its moral nature.

I, for once, don't have quite the IQ to quickly discover the sometimes very nuanced hints in which one can attack the argument – which the character does for oneself, in ways that may not even be anticipated (it's a whole dialogue that gets kicked off). So sometimes it came down to guesswork and ending up Game Over a few times. That was frustrating! I remember that from the first time playing.

I know I have the IQ, but I don't have the confidence. Experience is what I'm aiming for in this regard. It seems so easy (and other times hard) watching Stefpai do it behind a microphone but in reality there's a lot that can happen to a conversation if both parties aren't fully aware and in control of it, at least from their own end.

9 hours ago, Fred Black Fox said:

I share your doubts about whether this game has sparked critical thinking among the general populace.

It has not been my personal experience. Nothing ever came close to Stef's rational approach and sheer consistency, which of course is absent in almost all other philosophers. Naturally, UPB is not included in the game and if it were, it would be a completely different game. (Spoiler below)

  Reveal hidden contents

It is the narrative of the game that the final answer to the question of morality can likely never be found, but then... we here know why theft, rape, murder and fraud can never ever be moral, so in reality there is at least some certainty!

It is fascinating to me how philosophy that comes so close to the solution can be so useless after all. My life did not change at all when I played that game for a couple hours, but I knew my life would change completely after watching The Story of Your Enslavement with its 13 minutes in length. Isn't that amazing?

It gives me some insight into the almost magical ineffectiveness of academic philosophy. It exists only in order to give people a false sense of purpose and understanding – to turn the smart minds of our time into mere useful idiots at the cost of discrediting the one discipline that has given us the freedom to philosophize in the first place!

I would be curious to hear your thoughts, Siegfried!

I didn't play the game nor watch it to completion, but I do think they're beginner's level tools that are quite handy (and the "Deer Repellent" thing was hilarious lol). Unfortunately beyond God or UPB I don't think philosophers are able to discern what is moral because of how difficult it is even for institutions that have been around for thousands of years. 

I'd like to think UPB's got it but one Mishi2 has made the point that it relies on it being universally preferable by fallible men and therefore is subjective to change and manipulation. Especially if localized. However I haven't read UPB much (only read Practical Anarchy's parts of DRO's and CDA's) so I can't say for certain what the correct answer is to this dilemma--or if there's an answer! 

Philosophy came to me when someone tweeted a link to Stefpai's race and IQ videos, and I went down that rabbit hole into a whole new world. At first I thought it was going to be a boring lecture but that changed as I listened and was amazed by not only the facts but the man presenting them. Then I moved to the Truth About (biographies) section and eventually consumed hundreds of hours with Stefpai in my left ear and a video game or (back when I was in High School project work) focused with my right. Now of course I don't have as much time as I did to binge-listen (at least not without sacrificing something more than I'm willing from my schedule) but the initial red-pill overdose was definitely an initially-crippling eventually-enlightening and finally-uplifting ("The Enemy is here and they outnumber us ten to one! However they're a peasant mob and we're KNIGHTS! Deus Vult, we're gonna trounce these motha___ers!" if this train of shout makes sense) experience. 

It most noticeably helped me in two areas: #1 I chose not to go to college and waste hundreds of thousands of dollars, and instead chose to get started a novelist immediately after High School (though technically I started when I was 12, I hadn't dedicated myself to doing it as a full-time job since I first entered High School, and so I'm again treating it like a career and job as of recently).  #2: It affected my mindset and by extention the quality of my work and my work ethic. When I had extreme confidence in the Communist agenda I had a great work ethnic and confidence in myself to get X done. When I red-pilled initially I lost my confidence and was increasingly inert. Eventually, as I described above, I became enlightened and felt ever-more confident when I realized I had the power to shape my life for good and bad without having to tie myself down to either the longevity of the State nor the promise of a utopia by someone else's hands. No longer was it about my entrusting my life to someone else--I have the power!

And the effect of that was slow but exponential over time. I'm far happier now than ever and far more productive and faithful in regards to myself and my future with the realization that so long as I follow a self-decided plan and keep myself flexible for unexpected situations I'll be able to accomplish my dreams.

Ironically "The Story of Your Enslavement" wasn't much to me since I already "knew" it as a "recovering Communist" and also in between a "recovering Fascist". I don't think there's any one video that really sparked me. It was the combination of deconstructing false heroes while redeeming false villains and pointing the true heroes as well as reconciling how the past 200 years have shaped this day and age that has really had the most impact on me. I've always studied history in my free time, but there's a huge difference between studying another culture's or another race's history for enjoyment and/or inspiration and learning my own history and by extension seeing the resulting revelations. 

There's a lot I can say about the great Stefpai. Once I am making more money than is needed for rent I'm definitely making up for the 2 years of freeloading and donating to him a good chunk of regular money. Easily saved me millions and perhaps in the long run helped me to earn millions. 

[Frederik]

On 1/6/2018 at 9:36 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I know I have the IQ, but I don't have the confidence. Experience is what I'm aiming for in this regard. It seems so easy (and other times hard) watching Stefpai do it behind a microphone but in reality there's a lot that can happen to a conversation if both parties aren't fully aware and in control of it, at least from their own end.

Yeah, once one tries to make great arguments oneself I believe it's pretty easy to experience an increase in the amount of admiration for what Stefpai does

On 1/6/2018 at 9:36 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I didn't play the game nor watch it to completion, but I do think they're beginner's level tools that are quite handy (and the "Deer Repellent" thing was hilarious lol). Unfortunately beyond God or UPB I don't think philosophers are able to discern what is moral because of how difficult it is even for institutions that have been around for thousands of years. 

I'd like to think UPB's got it but one Mishi2 has made the point that it relies on it being universally preferable by fallible men and therefore is subjective to change and manipulation. Especially if localized. However I haven't read UPB much (only read Practical Anarchy's parts of DRO's and CDA's) so I can't say for certain what the correct answer is to this dilemma--or if there's an answer!

Mmmh, I may be missing something here, but I am not sure how UPB relies on humans? That would be like saying we cannot ever be sure that two and two apples makes four because we are fallible, but two and two apples in nature will always be four apples, regardless of humans. In the same way, "Theft is moral" is an impossible moral guideline because once theft is seen as moral, one cannot morally "not want to be stolen from" anymore and thus theft ceases to exist.

Where is it that you would say man's falliability would make this fact subjective to change and manipulation, if you think that?

I'm not trying to be critical here, it's just that UPB is very important to me and if your argument were true, that would pretty much destroy the U in the UPB

[Siegfried von Walheim]

15 hours ago, Frederik said:

Yeah, once one tries to make great arguments oneself I believe it's pretty easy to experience an increase in the amount of admiration for what Stefpai does

Whenever I try to generalize something now, I often find myself realizing there's a hole in the argument. So it does have a lot of self-corrective benefits. 

15 hours ago, Frederik said:

Mmmh, I may be missing something here, but I am not sure how UPB relies on humans? That would be like saying we cannot ever be sure that two and two apples makes four because we are fallible, but two and two apples in nature will always be four apples, regardless of humans. In the same way, "Theft is moral" is an impossible moral guideline because once theft is seen as moral, one cannot morally "not want to be stolen from" anymore and thus theft ceases to exist.

Theft is defined as taking something from someone when the someone doesn't want it taken, therefore it can be called UPB to not steal. However the question isn't in preference but morality. Why is it immoral to steal? Why is it immoral to violate someone else's property rights? I can't answer that. Just that it's impractical society-wise to not have a concept of property rights. 

15 hours ago, Frederik said:

Where is it that you would say man's falliability would make this fact subjective to change and manipulation, if you think that?

Facts are facts, they can be misinterpreted but they remain ever true. The problem is, for instance, if a group decides universally that another group is toxic and must be exterminated and squares the circle by stating basically "if we become toxic we want to be exterminated too". Yet mass-murder is obviously immoral. However murder is defined as immoral killing. Like self-defense isn't considered moral by anyone who recognizes the NAP because the breaker of morality absolves himself from any moral protections.

However the problem remains; fallible men can make problematic conclusions and universalize them. Also UPB from what little I know uses the word "moral" a lot but doesn't answer how something is determined to be moral. Morality is objective therefore there is only one truth to it. Meanwhile "preference" is "subjective morality" (so to speak). Therefore while UPB makes sense from the "preferable" perspective or the practical perspective it doesn't hold moral weight because problematic concepts like genocide can be universalized (i.e. if any group does A genocide is valid, extending to both the proclaimer's group and the targeted group) and while one might stop the train and say "it wouldn't because murder requires the other party to not want to be killed" I'd remind the person that murder is defined as (to the best of my knowledge) "immoral killing". I refer to @Mishi2  since he was the one who brought up this potential hole. I am having a hard time filling it.

Lastly there is the problem of subjective individuals attempting (and succeeding at least as far as their personal circles go) to universalize things that are either immoral or not a moral question (i.e. subjective things like preferred hair color or whatnot) and there not being a church-like structure to determine what is good and what is evil for the general populace who cannot be expected to either have the time or the will (or even the intelligence) to decipher what is moral and immoral on their own.

I think I can sum up my objections as such: P=Preferable therefore not "moral"; If something is "preferable" then it is like having a favored video game or anime versus some other unimportant thing; and the general public and/or sophists can create some really bad "universalizable principles" (like exterminating toxic groups for example). 

15 hours ago, Frederik said:

I'm not trying to be critical here, it's just that UPB is very important to me and if your argument were true, that would pretty much destroy the U in the UPB

I'd HOPE you are trying to be critical :-P I mean, in the sense of trying to determine what I mean and figure out whether it's valid or wrong. After all I struggle to give a good argument to myself why anything is moral without resorting to pragmatism (which isn't moral reasoning) or appeals to authority (which is an extension of pragmatism).

Murder is murder (i.e. murder exists) because it's problematic is not the same as saying murder is wrong because it is (by definition) immoral.

Meaning remove morality and there is no such thing as murder, unless it is re-defined as "undesired killing" but then killers can claim they don't want to be killed therefore killing killers is murder and not self-defense (or both, but then that defangs the moral authority of what "murder" means, doesn't it?)

[Frederik]

I see you have multiple criticisms of UPB, which is fine, of course.

I am just wondering since that is the case, how come you are not reading UPB?

[barn]

32 minutes ago, Frederik said:

I see you have multiple criticisms of UPB, which is fine, of course.

I am just wondering since that is the case, how come you are not reading UPB?

Thanks. I was going to ask too.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

8 hours ago, Frederik said:

I see you have multiple criticisms of UPB, which is fine, of course.

I am just wondering since that is the case, how come you are not reading UPB?

At first I thought I understood it well enough from hearing it being argued over hundreds of podcasts. However Mishi brought up an excellent point and since no one really responded to it it must either not be a good point at all (i.e. a sign he missed something obvious) or it was a very good point and hard to refute.

Since I'm inclined to think the former I decided to put some time to actually listen to the audiobook of UPB because although I think I know the basic argument the more I poke at it the less I actually know, therefore I ought to learn it and see if I understand it afterwards.

In other words, until recently, laziness. As of recently, business (in that I haven't finished it yet). 

EDIT: I didn't mention it in this thread but I wanted to avoid arguing UPB until I've actually read it. However clearly I didn't hold to my own declaration as I attempted above to argue something I, perhaps clearly, only have a foggy idea about. I thought it was as simple as "can I justify this to all situations without changing the definition?" If yes, it's moral. If I can never justify it then it is immoral. Obviously I'm missing something. I apologize for possibly wasting your time since, as I have only read a little of it, I have only a foggy idea of UPB based on Stefpai's podcast debates on the call-in-show, which clearly isn't enough to actually know it.

I'll try to resist the temptation to speak of something I am ignorant of in the future since that's obviously a bad thing to do and well... Arrogance isn't something I want to allow myself to have, so for now I'm going to avoid the subject till I've finished the 5 hours and 45 minutes or so the audiobook goes for.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

Update: past 1:22:00 ish of the 5 and a half hour youtube audiobook of UPB I have found my point; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZvTXFxPwb0

Here Stefpai states that it is illogical for a gunman to use violence as his "argument", i.e. it is UPB to reason not use force. UPB has been defined as being universally preferable behavior by everyone. Honest debate is subjective. To the gunman in question, he may prefer all debates be resolved through force because he knows he will usually win because he has a gun. He may even state a preference to being shot by a superior gunman to changing his ways (i.e. he's truly consistent and not a mere brute).

This is a potential loophole, depending on the definition of murder. After all the gunman in question consents to being shot whenever he argues therefore he would not be murdered--because he "asked for it" by universalizing the principle that "might makes right". 

While it is not immoral for the gunman if he makes it abundantly clear and contractually binding that arguing with him involves the high likelihood of death, it is a problematic potential oversight. In other words this aspect of applied UPB is not a moral question, therefore UPB (in this context) is not a moral tool.

However I admit this is one case. I don't know if I can confidently argue UPB is absolutely not a moral tool because I haven't finished yet. He may have something prepared for the objection I just made. 

However again, if he hasn't, that doesn't necessarily disprove UPB as a moral tool because it does reveal that which is a moral question versus a preference question. I.e. shooting someone in a debate can be made "amoral" if both participants agree to resolve their dispute with violence rather than arguments. It also means honest debate is NOT UPB. Because someone has a different idea of what constitutes an "honest debate". However the preference for an honest debate of some form could be UPB because even the morally consistent gunman prefers all debates to be resolved by force--which he considers "honest debate". 

That could however create some terrible hypothetical scenarios. I'll hold off on that because for now this is all I've heard and could reasonably debate about--and my above point could be disproven further in the book. I'll put up further updates as I find something that I am either skeptical of or functions as a disproof to my potential objection (I phrase it that way because I haven't read UPB therefore I cannot object to it, however Mishi2 has and this was originally his objection--namely where's the moral compass that determines whether something is moral/immoral and prevents these kinds of scenarios).

[barn]

On 01/14/2018 at 6:28 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

At first I thought I understood it well enough from hearing it being argued over hundreds of podcasts. However Mishi brought up an excellent point and since no one really responded to it it must either not be a good point at all (i.e. a sign he missed something obvious) or it was a very good point and hard to refute.

Since I'm inclined to think the former I decided to put some time to actually listen to the audiobook of UPB because although I think I know the basic argument the more I poke at it the less I actually know, therefore I ought to learn it and see if I understand it afterwards.

In other words, until recently, laziness. As of recently, business (in that I haven't finished it yet). 

EDIT: I didn't mention it in this thread but I wanted to avoid arguing UPB until I've actually read it. However clearly I didn't hold to my own declaration as I attempted above to argue something I, perhaps clearly, only have a foggy idea about. I thought it was as simple as "can I justify this to all situations without changing the definition?" If yes, it's moral. If I can never justify it then it is immoral. Obviously I'm missing something. I apologize for possibly wasting your time since, as I have only read a little of it, I have only a foggy idea of UPB based on Stefpai's podcast debates on the call-in-show, which clearly isn't enough to actually know it.

I'll try to resist the temptation to speak of something I am ignorant of in the future since that's obviously a bad thing to do and well... Arrogance isn't something I want to allow myself to have, so for now I'm going to avoid the subject till I've finished the 5 hours and 45 minutes or so the audiobook goes for.

Nice. Praise worthy imo.

[barn]

On 01/14/2018 at 8:56 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Honest debate is subjective.

Hi @Siegfried von Walheim

/Nice new avatar./

Could you help me understand what do you mean under the quoted phrase?

I mean, we can be dedicated to truth aside from saying things that are wrong but we believe to be valid. (If we are corrected, find out... no longer a problem, or it IS but we are malicious and that breaks universality [i.e. you can't see a black cat in a pitch dark room] )

Edited January 23, 2018 by barn
nuggets in shape of a cat

[Siegfried von Walheim]

10 minutes ago, barn said:

Hi @Siegfried von Walheim

/Nice new avatar./

Christmas and the season around it is now over, so I decided to stop using Christmas-y themed stuff. (The avatar itself technically isn't but the game came out around Christmas some years ago and that's when I played and had fun with it, plus the color scheme worked).

10 minutes ago, barn said:

Could you help me understand what do you mean under the quoted phrase?

I mean, we can be dedicated to truth aside from saying things that are wrong but we believe to be valid. (If we are corrected, find out... no longer a problem)

Simple. "Honest debate" doesn't require a commitment to the truth, rather to whatever standards the participants consider valid. Therefore if I, a stupid person with a club, value the objectivity of "might makes right" over argumentation then I will universalize this principle by submitting to whoever beats me with their club, and vice versa. Of course not everyone follows "might makes right" but neither does everyone follow "by-definition honest debate". Therefore what an honest debate is depends on who is saying it and what they think it means. 

By-definition honest debate, as far as I understand it, isn't subjective since it requires both sides to (literally) be honest and open to being wrong, and therefore requires that level of humility and functional intelligence the retarded barbarian might lack and therefore shun.

[barn]

I see, you were referring to not

2 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Simple. "Honest debate"

but instead to

2 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

By-definition honest debate

A bit confusing but I think I got the gist of it. I mean... the other way around.

So then a "By-definition honest debate" isn't subjective and can be used to reach universally preferable assumptions?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

7 minutes ago, barn said:

I see, you were referring to not

but instead to

A bit confusing but I think I got the gist of it. I mean... the other way around.

So then a "By-definition honest debate" isn't subjective and can be used to reach universally preferable assumptions?

Not sure. Depends on what you mean.

A truly honest debate (i.e. one aimed at the truth not a "personal victory") is objective--at least as objective as the participants can be. Humans being fallible, "total 100% objectivity" is impossible but functionally we can get pretty damn close and therefore have a pretty small margin of error (which is of course significant when the subject is significant).

I don't think it's possible to determine what is universally (if this means EVERYONE including sociopaths, the retarded, the comatose, any human being with a pulse) preferable but I do think it's possible to determine what most people of either a given area, society, religion, race, ethnicity, etc. consider (within) universally preferable.

I'd replace "universally" with another adjective like "nationally", "culturally", etc. to fit that context. 

The problem however is, if I am correct with the premise that it is impossible to determine what EVERYONE prefers on something, that even if it is possible to determine what a group prefers it is by no means a stable ground for morality because morality is objective while all individuals are fallible and, by virtue of being limited to only their own minds and mental/biological tools, subjective. Therefore is my logic chain is valid, the conclusion is that it is impossible for mortals to truly capture morality BUT possible to reach an approximation and dance around the truth over time. The problem, practically speaking, is who will do to moral deductions and with what measures? 

I HAVE NOT finished UPB therefore I won't attempt to refute what I am still ignorant in. I am half-way through but honestly I know barely more than when I started (either because I am not paying enough attention, I already understood the argument, or the argument is written/described in an intellectually convoluted way that is too great for my mind) therefore I can't argue UPB but rather my assumption of what UPB is as of being half-way there and the responses of those that claim to know UPB where it is relevant to what I'm talking about.

In other words the only thing I understand is that UPB's measure for if something is moral or not is based on whether it is ALWAYS moral/immoral. I.e. murder is always immoral by definition. Stealing too. On the other hand charity is not always moral because immoral examples can be conceived of. However charity to the good is always moral because it helps the good--no bad scenario can be come up with. It's by definition. 

However I might be wrong about what I THINK UPB is, and that's why I waver (perhaps even weasel out) of debating UPB because I don't want to argue something I do not understand. However still, I might understand but assume I don't because.... Well I don't know. Perhaps because I assume Stefpai, being far wiser than me, is right and I am wrong therefore if I am coming up with problematic conclusions it's because I am wrong in my use (and understanding) of the methodology---the measure. 

[barn]

Sure @Siegfried von Walheim , no rush. I'm not trying to catch you on anything or pretend that I understand it better... I know I don't.

(I mean it)

Good reading.