Doubts about FDR

[Mole]

My friends, I have tried.

This show appealed to me because it worked from first principles. In this way, we can know things for certain. That is what I needed in my life - certainty. I have learned a great deal. Read the books and listened to thousands of podcasts. The next step was to apply these ideas in my own life. Well, something is not going right for me. I'm just as confused and depressed as I have been since high school. I have seem some counsellors, each one peculiar to the other. I try to be assertive but find it hard to communicate. Some ideas are perfectly clear including those about politics and UPB. Other ideas are not as polished in my mind.

Take the false self. Can this be derived from first principles? As the years have passed, I have been constantly reforming the meaning of this term and many others. So far I understand it to be a conscious or unconscious part of the personality that is dishonest about the person's true mental state, and that it is formed for the need of survival and conformity. Where should I find evidence of this? Perhaps it can be justified if we call it the irrational - as opposed to rational - part of the mind, and that rationality can be derived from first principles? Another idea is the idea of free will. After listening to so many podcasts about this topic, I still don't know why the ability to choose necessitates the ability to have chosen differently, which is the premise Stefan Molyneux keeps falling back on. Another idea is corrupt relationships. What is the standard for that? Through my own contemplation with first principles, I have had to come to risky conclusions. Such that when a person is confronted by the truth, they may choose to be either rational or irrational, and that if they are irrational even when they confront their own irrationality, then they are corrupt. Whether Stefan holds this view, I only can say I wish I knew what he thought. Obligation is also a sticky concept for me. Stefan has argued that we don't have obligations towards our parents. But he also adds that we will likely choose to give back to them if they were good, simply because we want to. But what if feelings are not so clear-cut? Why can't a person desire be arbitrary in some cases? That leads to the other idea of there being a set of true, real, identifiable emotions. Why real emotions are necessarily objective, I do not know. Stefan says these ideas are not original, however, I have never heard him reference any psychologist with regards to these critical concepts.

It is much easier for me to believe that free will does not exist so I can treat people as ignorant rather than merely evil. Morality can still exist. We can still be rational animals without being metaphysically free. It is much easier for me to believe that parents screw up without knowing they screwed up rather than being corrupt, this way I don't have the task of sifting corrupt and non-corrupt people. I have tried being honest to the best of my ability, and I expected the depression to disappear, but the only thing that disappears is the fear that I had of confronting others. That fear may have been synthesised because I was so invested in the idea that speaking honestly with people would set me free, and also I was invested into the idea that other people are corrupt. Perhaps by investing in those ideas, it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. There is little reason for me not the think that perhaps I was unlucky. Maybe it's my genes, or the way the world works, or maybe I need some medication. I have tried analysing my dreams, but my dreams end up contradicting each other, and I suspect they are merely reflections of what I had already consciously thought about, usually during the day. If pursuing the good life includes such arbitrary experiences, then maybe it's impossible to find that clarity I'm after. This is what's scary, but it may be true. The universe may not be so benevolent.

[Frederik]

I am very sorry to hear about your distress. I really am! And I believe it would not be entirely unjustified to blame some of that on those who failed their responsibility to help you in the past!

I am wondering... if FDR has you just as confused and depressed as years back, what do you believe is the actual purpose of FDR in your personal life?

I am sure you recognize this question, as in *Stef's voice* What are the secondary gains of your interest in FDR if it only makes you more miserable?

[barn]

Hi @Mole

Clearly in some aspects you've been travelling by lightspeed. I don't know from 'how far away' you started out but kudos on your achieved track.

I have read your post 2.5times and am being hesitant to answer some of the questions (from my perspective), maybe you aren't looking for answers now.

I am (in a something similar had happened to me way) sorry that you feel that way.

However, taking a glimpse and seeing if they stick, the following three questions might serve you ...

1. What if you are tired, naturally exhausted from all the effort you put into?

2. Who are you comparing yourself with and if those are realistic parameters given your past, past actions, their past, their past actions? (the number of 'I don't know's surfacing should indicate level of realism)

3. How have you been treating yourself, what's the evolution of your dedication-to-constructivity arc? (It's been a biggie for me, as self-soothing and many more I had to learn on my own not relying on support... but perhaps you didn't/don't)

Barnsley

[J.L.W]

Interesting.

I don't take Stefans point on rational thinking. When I was about 12 I was told to study global warming. Those Chloroflorocarbons. I had to force myself and felt very strongly this was not true. Same thing happened with a remote viewing book I was later told was fraudulent (unlike another remote viewer this forum might want to answer/ handle... Ingo Swann).

I was surrounded by leftists at school and home that believed in global warming and I knew it was not true. The same is true of a lot of life. Many of the greatest pieces of music have come from a very intuitive process and hit that certain spot because they are true.

 

 

[Jot]

22 hours ago, Mole said:

My friends, I have tried.

This show appealed to me because it worked from first principles. In this way, we can know things for certain. That is what I needed in my life - certainty. I have learned a great deal. Read the books and listened to thousands of podcasts. The next step was to apply these ideas in my own life. Well, something is not going right for me. I'm just as confused and depressed as I have been since high school. I have seem some counsellors, each one peculiar to the other. I try to be assertive but find it hard to communicate. Some ideas are perfectly clear including those about politics and UPB. Other ideas are not as polished in my mind.

You must have stolen this from one of my journal entries. Or the reverse.

 

[Tyler H]

I’m sad to hear of your troubles my friend. I hope maybe I can provide some help. 

 

On 1/26/2018 at 11:18 AM, Mole said:

So far I understand it to be a conscious or unconscious part of the personality that is dishonest about the person's true mental state, and that it is formed for the need of survival and conformity.

Stef has said that the false self is the part of our personality that is adapted to threats, and no longer consciously recognizes the adaptation or the threat. 

If our parents threaten us with hell when we are a children, we can’t tell them how immoral they are being. If we object to their threats the abuse will likely escalate; a risk we, as a children dependent upon our parents, cannot take.  During our evolution such an objection would likely result in gene death. The defensive decision we make as children is to praise our parents for their immorality in order to ameliorate the abuse. This reversal of what we naturally see as injustice must become a constant state of mind in order to limit the abuse we suffer. The defenses become part of our personality as we grow up until the knowledge we once had of the immorality we suffered is buried in our subconscious and all that lives on is the story we told ourselves to make it through each day. It’s good for us, they abuse us because they love us, we were bad children. 

To reveal the true self buried beneath our defenses we must first correct the story, then feel the original pain of being lied to and told what was evil was the good. 

 

On 1/26/2018 at 11:18 AM, Mole said:

I still don't know why the ability to choose necessitates the ability to have chosen differently

By the definition of the term. If you have a choice, then there is more than one option. If there was no possibility of performing any other action than the one performed then there was no choice. If there is a choice then you had the opportunity before making the choice to choose differently, if you couldn’t have then it wasn’t really a choice. I say this with all due sympathy, and I’m sure there is an area where this will occur (or is occurring) for me as well, but this is a fairly simple logical argument that, if you are failing to understand, may indicate an area to explore in yourself. What was your capacity to make choices like as a child? What was your experience of your parents choices? Explore your relationship with choice and you may find something to help you achieve self knowledge.

 

How would you feel about calling in? It’s been a long time since this kind of material has been discussed on the show. I think it could help you, and many other listeners as well. 

[Mole]

On 1/27/2018 at 4:35 AM, Frederik said:

What are the secondary gains of your interest in FDR if it only makes you more miserable?

It does not make me more miserable. The hope was that I would have more clarity, that itself is a secondary benefit. I have more clarity in some areas but not in the areas where it is needed. That is why I still say that I am confused. Other secondary benefits are it has made me more mature and allowed me to make better decisions and I have more knowledge of the world and a stronger moral sense. This has not led me to long-term happiness though, or given me clarity about my depression or my existing relationships.

[Mole]

On 1/28/2018 at 3:43 PM, Tyler H said:

If there was no possibility of performing any other action than the one performed then there was no choice.

The way it's put here is deeply metaphysical. But I don't think it has to be. For example, we don't say that randomness is some innate quality of nature. We understand that randomness is a mental state, dependant on our level of knowledge. Fundamentally, randomness is epistemological. Likewise, free will may also be epistemological. We don't know what our decision will be, which is the very reason we have the decision. That decision being a conscious action of any sort. We have the choice because we don't know what we were going to do. So epistemologically a decision tree exists. But metaphysically its completely determined. No contradiction here. We don't say randomness doesn't exist because of physical laws. We also don't have to say free will doesn't exist because nature is determined. That is why compatibilism is probably the most appropriate position.

 

Empirically, people are very predictable given that they have been fed so much propaganda. But the police, teachers, parents, etc are all very conscious of their actions and for them they feel that they are free even though they could not have made much of a different choice. Why not use Occam's razor to say that we are all as such, determined metaphysically. There is no contradiction with determinism and epistemological free will, so there is no contradiction with morality. Behaviour can still be universally preferable even if it is determined. Rationality which is simply fidelity to reality is not dependent on metaphysical free will. And of course, if we are going to accept metaphysical free will, then we introduce a whole slew of questions such as, what is the relationship between consciousness and nature, is dualism valid, how do we measure free will, does it have to be taken as a given or can we subject it to science, does it contradict physical laws, etc. It also seems that any attempt to define free will ends up in a loop. Free will = choice = conscious decision making = free will... etc. There is not necessarily a problem with that, it would make free will a primary axiom, much like colour cannot be defined and explained to a blind man or much like explaining the meaning of 'existence'. It is something that is supposed to be obvious to our perception and all language and abstractions build upon it, so language cannot describe it. In fact, I think this is rather valid when we are speaking epistemologically. Yes, metaphysically, consciousness exists as a primary axiom. That in itself explains choice and epistemological free will. There is our elusive primary axiom. There is no need to add an additional layer.

 

[Drew.]

21 hours ago, Mole said:

It does not make me more miserable. The hope was that I would have more clarity, that itself is a secondary benefit. I have more clarity in some areas but not in the areas where it is needed. That is why I still say that I am confused. Other secondary benefits are it has made me more mature and allowed me to make better decisions and I have more knowledge of the world and a stronger moral sense. This has not led me to long-term happiness though, or given me clarity about my depression or my existing relationships.

I have had a similar experience. No matter how hard I tried to be virtuous, I was never really happy. It wasn't until I started trying to love myself, dig into my self work, and dive in deep that I started to become really happy. Virtue flowed naturally from there, because it was a gift that I wanted to give myself.

[Frederik]

On 2/4/2018 at 5:17 AM, Mole said:

It does not make me more miserable. The hope was that I would have more clarity, that itself is a secondary benefit. I have more clarity in some areas but not in the areas where it is needed. That is why I still say that I am confused. Other secondary benefits are it has made me more mature and allowed me to make better decisions and I have more knowledge of the world and a stronger moral sense. This has not led me to long-term happiness though, or given me clarity about my depression or my existing relationships.

It sounds like your interest in FDR is not so negative after all. I got a different impression from your opening post.

I think fundamentally happiness comes down to taking action in some way that manifests one's own values.

In that, observation itself does not make happy, but it is the change in behavior is what induces happy feelings. To do that which is good for you long-term, much like Drew has outlined.

You might feel resistance towards doing whatever that would change something, in which case it would be wise to work that out.