in

Freedomain Radio

Latest post 09-02-2008 11:26 PM by dont_mind_me. 92 replies.
Page 1 of 7 (93 items) 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last ยป
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 08-12-2008 9:36 PM

    the dodgy nihilist...

    A long convo, but very instructive - look for "compared to what?"

     


    The_Nihilist to  Leomarth:     
    i'm talking about this guy stef trying to get us to believe that his philosophical 'truths' have value.

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    as far as i can tell he hasn't presented a shred of proof that it does.

    Leomarth to The_Nihilist:     
    To people who value truth, they do in one form or another - as either actual truth, or as bad ideas that would eliminate a possibility.

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    he's a salesman of philosophy.

    Leomarth to The_Nihilist:     
    And that isn't to prove one way or another.

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    so the value could be 0?

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    worthless?

    Leomarth to The_Nihilist:     
    I'm not sure I'd categorize it like that. He made a lot more money at his full time job. So if money was the objective, he would have stayed with that.

    The_Nihilist to Citizen_Z:     
    chime in at any moment. please don't be afraid. i saw you talking last night.

    Leomarth to The_Nihilist:     
    Yes, it could be worthless. I would say it depends on what you're looking for, and how you approach it. To me, it isn't worthless.

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    how would you categorize the value of the philosophical truths here?

    Leomarth to The_Nihilist:     
    AFK a second. Wife needs me. I'll be right back.

    Citizen_Z to The_Nihilist:     
    Sorry, I attempt to refrain from conversations where terms are not clearly defined.

    The_Nihilist to Citizen_Z:     
    oh, you mean regarding truth?

    The_Nihilist to Citizen_Z:     
    how do you define truth?

    Leomarth to The_Nihilist:     
    Sorry, our new kitten was stuck in a piece of exercise equipment.

    Citizen_Z to The_Nihilist:     
    Depends on the context. In the context of verbal communication, however, it would be, "Any statement that accurately reflects reality."

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    no problem.

    Leomarth to The_Nihilist:     
    I can only tell you the value to me, not "value in general".

    The_Nihilist to Citizen_Z:     
    does abstract mathematics reflect reality?

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    then you can't prove that the value is 0.

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    er, i mean that the value isn't 0.

    Leomarth to The_Nihilist:     
    I never offered to prove the value wasn't zero. I said it has value to those who seek philosophy.

    Citizen_Z to The_Nihilist:     
    What do you mean by "abstract mathematics"?

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    so for those who don't the value is 0.

    Leomarth to The_Nihilist:     
    Air and water is zero value to the dead, right?

    The_Nihilist to Citizen_Z:     
    abstract algebra would be one example.

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    i agree with that.

    Leomarth to The_Nihilist:     
    This doesn't mean, however, that it cannot bring value to those who are uninterested.

    Citizen_Z to The_Nihilist:     
    Say more please? Like X = 135/y? That sort of thing?

    Leomarth to The_Nihilist:     
    If this philosophy makes me a better person, and I interact with my neighbor who isn't interested, my neighbor will benefit.

    The_Nihilist to Citizen_Z:     
    nope, that is not abstract algebra.

    The_Nihilist to Citizen_Z:     
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_algebra

    Citizen_Z to The_Nihilist:     
    Well, I don't have any knowledge in that area. Thus I am not able to speak as to if it is representational.

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    a better person from whose perspective?

    Leomarth to The_Nihilist:     
    I don't compare myself to others. I can only judge myself from my perspective. I value being nice to others, and if a philosophy makes me genuinely a nicer person, I have become a better person according to what I hold as values.

    Leomarth to The_Nihilist:     
    Have you done this in other philosophical boards? Or just this one?

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    would you be willing to kill for your philosophy?

    Leomarth to The_Nihilist:     
    And what gave you the impetus?

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    i have challenged many philosophers.

    Leomarth to The_Nihilist:     
    So are you like some kind of self-styled Socrates, who goes around discovering that nobody really knows what they're talking about?

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    i didn't say they don't know what they are talking about.

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    i said that they are salesmen of sorts.

    Leomarth to The_Nihilist:     
    Do you believe truth has a value?

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    when it comes to the actual value of their philosophy, they fall completely flat. all they can do is try to use emotional tricks and other advertising tactics.

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    when it comes to this area, the philosopher is reduced to a marketer.

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    some truths have subjective value to me.

    Leomarth to The_Nihilist:     
    Give me an example if you could, please.

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    the truth that no truth can be proven to have objective value, has value to me.

    Guest_2f48 joined the room.

    Leomarth to The_Nihilist:     
    But it seems like you're trying to also prove it to other people, which would make it objective.

    Leomarth to The_Nihilist:     
    ie: something outside of yourself.

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    nope.

    Jason McLaughlin joined the room.

    Leomarth to The_Nihilist:     
    But really, you have the material available to you. If you were only trying to confirm it for yourself, I don't think you'd have to come three days in a row to ask the same question and make the same arguments.

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    i do not say that the truth that no truth can be proven to have objective value, has objective value. i leave it to the individual to determine the value of this truth for themselves, or even place 0 value on it.

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    what material?

    Leomarth to The_Nihilist:     
    All of the material in the podcasts, the free books, and the message board. Simply reading them will confirm to you if Stef has any real value to offer, or if he is a shyster. Have you read any of the material?

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    yes

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    i have read 'everyday anarchy.'

    Leomarth to The_Nihilist:     
    And how did it leave you feeling?

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    empty handed

    Leomarth to The_Nihilist:     
    Like you were dissapointed?
    TooThinToWin was removed from the channel due to inactivity.
    Clarke left this room.

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    yep

    Leomarth to The_Nihilist:     
    Do you recall if you had any expectations going into it?

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    no, i didn't have much expectations.
    Guest_efde was removed from the channel due to inactivity.

    Leomarth to The_Nihilist:     
    Ok, so you had some expectations then, but they weren't many. Care to elaborate on what they were?
    yurface left this room.

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    i'm a type of nihilist. i can detect bullshit from 50 billion miles out. i really didn't need a book to tell me that politics is bunk.

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    i really had no expectations at all, except that the book was going to be about anarchy.

    Leomarth to The_Nihilist:     
    That's good. I'm glad to hear that; really I am.
    Guest_bfec joined the room.

    Leomarth to The_Nihilist:     
    Do you mind telling me how old you are? If you do mind, no bother.

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    i read the book to see how good of a salesman stef is. how well can he sell his philosophy.

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    Sorry to jump in so suddenly, but do you understand that the book is for the world at large, and that they most certainly DO need to be told?

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    i am turning 25 this month.

    The_Nihilist to Jason McLaughlin:     
    why do they 'need' to be told?

    Leomarth to The_Nihilist:     
    Do you know why you turned into a nihilist?

    Citizen_Z to The_Nihilist:     
    How do you define "value"?

    TooThinToWin left this room.

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    well, for the same reason you 'need' to come in here to correct us, right?

    The_Nihilist to Citizen_Z:     
    how do you?

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    the fact that the value of truth cannot be proven.

    The_Nihilist to Jason McLaughlin:     
    i feel no need. it is an aesthetic preference of mine at this time.

    Citizen_Z to The_Nihilist:     
    No no no. Naughty naughty nihilist. You are the one asking the question, how can I discuss anything with you if you won't define what you mean?

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    But why did you read Stef's book? I'm confused.

    Leomarth to The_Nihilist:     
    but that seems like a disconnect to me. obviously you value some truth, even if it is subjective, which would tell me you have proven it to yourself. So that just doesn't seem to jive. I'd be willing to be there was some predecessor to it before that.

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    Because you thought it would be entertaining?

    The_Nihilist to Citizen_Z:     
    value is something that can be used to one's benefit. objective value is something that can be used to everyone's benefit a priori.

    Citizen_Z to The_Nihilist:     
    Thank you.

    The_Nihilist to Jason McLaughlin:     
    i said before. i was trying to find out how good of a salesman stef is, when it comes to his philosophy.

    El Duderino to The_Nihilist:     
    you need a third hand to keep up with the three-man assault.

    Citizen_Z to The_Nihilist:     
    So, by the two definitions of truth and value that we've agreed upon. You do not see the benefit to discussing reality accurately?

    Leomarth:     
    AFK a few minutes. I need to start cooking dinner.

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    Oh. Why did you want to know that?

    The_Nihilist to Citizen_Z:     
    i do as a subjective aesthetic preference at times.

    The_Nihilist to Jason McLaughlin:     
    it is a hobby of mine. determining how well certain philosophies are sold.

    Jason McLaughlin:     
    Why do you enjoy it?

    The_Nihilist to Jason McLaughlin:     
    i do not know. why does anyone enjoy anything?

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    Oh, no. I'm sorry, what I mean to say is what do you enjoy about it. About that hobby?

    Citizen_Z to The_Nihilist:     
    So accuracy in your discussions is purely subjective? (Subjective meaning pertaining only to an individual? Or is that not how you are using the word?)

    The_Nihilist to Citizen_Z:     
    accuracy of what?

    The_Nihilist to Jason McLaughlin:     
    i enjoy using what i know is true to singlehandedly reveal philosophers as salesmen.
    Leomarth:     And in turn try to sell your point of view to us? Nice.

    The_Nihilist to Leomarth:     
    that's one way to look at it. but say, in comparison to this site, my sales budget is much smaller.

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    sorry didn't mean to whisper: But you wouldn't consider your conversation here a pitch of the same sort you're talking about?

    Leomarth:     
    Really, I believe you have another issue that you haven't explored. I think it would benefit you to figure that out first. You know, do a little self-exploration.

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    But Leo covered that already.

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    Right, but how do you know what you're saying is truth? How is it separated from what is false?

    Leomarth:     
    Nihilism usually trys to make the outside world match what the inside perception is. Which, I think is what you're doing.
    Guest_a1c8 joined the room.

    Nala to Leomarth:     
    you mean like nothing has a point?

    The_Nihilist to Jason McLaughlin:     
    how do i know? i took the fact that value is subjective and applied it to truth.

    Leomarth:     
    That, or things have a bad point.

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    Right, so how do you know you're giving the truth to people when you talk to them?

    Nala to Jason McLaughlin:     
    no, just that one

    Nala to Jason McLaughlin:     
    oops

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    Also, how did you make that connection that the idea that value is subjective so truth must be too?

    The_Nihilist to Jason McLaughlin:     
    well, to explain that i would have to explain why value is subjective, which i could do, but the scope of that argument isn't really suitable for this chat room.

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    Right, and it would just be a sales pitch

    The_Nihilist to Jason McLaughlin:     
    not really.

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    Because you're right?

    The_Nihilist to Jason McLaughlin:     
    as i said, i don't care if people use what i say, or even place any value on it.

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    But you do, just based on the fact that you devote time and attention to it.

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    If you didn't care what I thought, you wouldn't participate in this conversation.

    The_Nihilist to Jason McLaughlin:     
    to some extent i enjoy having people be aware of my argument, but ultimately i don't care if they accept it or apply it to anything.

    The_Nihilist to Jason McLaughlin:     
    that would be a key difference between me and say, stef.

    Leomarth to The_Nihilist:     
    Isn't that somewhat narcissistic?

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    See, this is why I don't feel like this position is an intellectual one at all, but an emotional one.

    The_Nihilist to Nala:     
    nowhere, i have private writings.

    The_Nihilist to Jason McLaughlin:     
    so my statement is false?

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    Which one?

    Nala to The_Nihilist:     
    why are you not showing them to people

    The_Nihilist to Jason McLaughlin:     
    my statement that i have been saying this entire time, that the value of truth is entirely subjective.

    Nala to The_Nihilist:     
    oops

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    I would say that is something that has to be logically false, yes.

    The_Nihilist to Jason McLaughlin:     
    please explain your reasoning.

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    If you believed that the value of truth were actually entirely subjective, you'd have to explain why you're using English and proper grammar. Surely you use the keyboard in the way you do because you know of an objectively existent language that we will all be able to understand and reference.

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    All truth is subjective is itself a statement about the nature of truth, and is an objective statement about truth.

    The_Nihilist to Jason McLaughlin:     
    you are equating truth with truth value. they are two entirely different things.

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    How do you know they're different?

    The_Nihilist whisper Leomarth:     
    your friend messed up.

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    But please explain it without using any statements about truth.

    The_Nihilist to Jason McLaughlin:     
    an object, thing, or idea and what they are actually used for are two entirely different things.

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    I'm sorry if I'm sounding like a jerk who swooped into this conversation. That's not at all my intention. I just don't think there's any way to actually live by the position you claim to hold.

    The_Nihilist to Jason McLaughlin:     
    why am i not allowed to use statements of truth? i never attacked truth itself, i attacked the value of truth.

    Leomarth whisper The_Nihilist:     
    I'm sorry. I haven't really been paying attention. And he is an associate, not a friend.

    The_Nihilist whisper Leomarth:     
    read his arguments. they fail. very common mistake.

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    I'm not sure I understand what you mean. You're saying that truth can be objective, but that its value cannot ever be objective?

    The_Nihilist to Jason McLaughlin:     
    that is correct.
    Guest_a1c8 has renamed to Fred

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    How do you know?

    Fred to The_Nihilist:     
    is the truth that no truth value can be objective of value itself?

    Fred to The_Nihilist:     
    or objective?

    The_Nihilist to Jason McLaughlin:     
    because the benefits of an idea is entirely subjective. if i gave you a book on abstract mathematics that you do not understand at all, would that information benefit you at all?
    worger joined the room.
    Dio joined the room.

    Fred to The_Nihilist:     
    i think so

    The_Nihilist to Fred:     
    no, the value of this truth is not objective. i already stated that.

    Fred to The_Nihilist:     
    it would be something to study

    Fred to The_Nihilist:     
    and it would reveal my lack of knowledge about maths
    Dio left this room.

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    "the benefits of an idea is entirely subjective" is an objective truth statement. You assume it means something to me, just like it means something to you. You assume that what you say has value to me just by the very act of saying it.

    The_Nihilist to Fred:     
    how much time would you spend trying to learn that math?

    Fred to The_Nihilist:     
    that wasn't your question

    Fred to The_Nihilist:     
    your question was: would it benefit me at all?

    Fred to The_Nihilist:     
    i say yes, for sure

    The_Nihilist to Jason McLaughlin:     
    why do you think it implies i believe it has value to you? i say it because saying it has value to me, i don't care if it has value for you.

    Fred to The_Nihilist:     
    for instance

    Fred to The_Nihilist:     
    if i do not read chinese

    Fred to The_Nihilist:     
    and you try to sell me a chinese book

    Fred to The_Nihilist:     
    that action has value

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    Oh. So why are you in a philosophy chatroom instead of someplace else?

    Fred to The_Nihilist:     
    even if i never try to learn chinese

    Fred to The_Nihilist:     
    because i choose the value of keeping my money

    The_Nihilist to Fred:     
    unfortunately, though, your time on this earth is limited. so inevitably there are truths that will have no value to you.
    David joined the room.

    Fred to The_Nihilist:     
    such as?
    Guest_aead left this room.

    The_Nihilist to Jason McLaughlin:     
    because being here has value to me, aesthetically anyways.
    David:     
    'ello 'ello

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    And sure, I'll probably never learn chinese, but that doesn't mean it has no objective value.
    Dio joined the room.

    The_Nihilist to Jason McLaughlin:     
    how does chinese have objective value??

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    See, that's why I say it's an emotional argument, because you've intentionally come someplace with arguments you know won't fly.

    The_Nihilist to Jason McLaughlin:     
    you realize what the word 'objective' means, right?
    Dio left this room.

    The_Nihilist to Jason McLaughlin:     
    my argument does not rely on emotion at all.

    The_Nihilist to Jason McLaughlin:     
    it is a very clear statement without any emotion whatsoever.

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    I didn't say the emotion was part of your argument.

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    I mean to say that it's the motivation for it.

    Fred to The_Nihilist:     
    do your arguments have any objective value?

    The_Nihilist to Jason McLaughlin:     
    depends on what you mean by 'emotion.' i already said i aesthetically prefer to be here.

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    What would it mean to you if truth really did turn out to have objective value? Like what would it mean in your life, and how would it change your actions?

    The_Nihilist to Fred:     
    no they do not.

    The_Nihilist to Fred:     
    they have subjective value to me.

    Fred to The_Nihilist:     
    oh so we're just talking about mere opinions

    Jason McLaughlin to The_Nihilist:     
    Are you curious about why you aesthetically prefer it, for instance?

    The_Nihilist to Jason McLaughlin:     
    you are speculating on the impossible.

    Fred:     
    i really like merle haggard

    Fred:     
    any other country fans here?

    The_Nihilist to Jason McLaughlin:     
    perhaps. but i would say i would be more curious about why people aesthetically prefer anything.

    The_Nihilist to Fred:     
    no.

    The_Nihilist to Fred:     
    i didn't say the truth itself is purely subjective, i said the value of truth is subjective.

    The_Nihilist to Fred:     
    so no, we aren't talking about opinions.

    Fred to The_Nihilist:     
    sorry, i came here to talk philosophy, not your opinions

    Fred to The_Nihilist:     my mistake
    Fred:     so has anyone here read 'practical anarchy'?

    David:     
    "the value of truth is subjective" doesn't that kinda fall apart?
    Fred:     
    i just watched the vid

    The_Nihilist to David:     
    how does it fall apart?

    David:     
    I just watched the new 10min video, really well done

    Jason McLaughlin:     
    I've read PA. Really nice to read something that addresses peoples' fears and reservations about anarchism rather than just preach answers. I'm luckily young enough to benefit from more of the same in the future. I'm not sure I would have made it as an anarchist 30 years ago or so Tough row to hoe without any understanding of why people are resistant to it all.

    Fred:     
    cool thanks

    Fred left this room.

    Jason McLaughlin:     
    David how is life, m'man?
    David:     
    it's going alright, got some holiday time coming up in 2 days
    David:     
    Jason McLaughlin:     
    Were you not dealing with girlfriend issues a while back (before I got busy and disappeared for a bit)?
    Jason McLaughlin:     
    Good news there.
    David:     
    yeah, dealt with those
    HyperSniper joined the room.

    The_Nihilist whisper Leomarth:     
    your friends on here are very poor at reasoning.

    Stefan Molyneux joined the room.
    Stefan Molyneux:     
    evenin all!

    Jason McLaughlin:     
    Hey hi Stef.

    Stefan Molyneux:     
    sup with yo fine selves?
    David:     
    Hi Stef

    Stefan Molyneux:     
    do you know

    David:     
    not much, I just picked up the book "Lip Service" from the library

    Stefan Molyneux:     
    there have been like 15,000 FDR books downloaded since they went free

    Stefan Molyneux:     
    sweet

    David:     
    w00t

    The_Nihilist:     
    hello

    Stefan Molyneux:     
    now, if everyone who downloads gives me $10

    Jason McLaughlin:     
    That's very dang good.

    Stefan Molyneux:     
    lost joined the room.

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    hello!
    Jason McLaughlin:     
    Are the PA downloads taking off recently at all?

    Stefan Molyneux to Jason McLaughlin:     
    they ramped up yesterday

    The_Nihilist to Stefan Molyneux:     
    we were just talking about this site before you got here.

    Stefan Molyneux to Jason McLaughlin:     
    i spend a couple hours today posting the video on various boards and forums

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    this site?

    The_Nihilist to Stefan Molyneux:     
    yes

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    u mean the stunningly lovely design?

    David:     
    do we ever not talk about THIS site?

    The_Nihilist to Stefan Molyneux:     
    no, unfortunately not.

    The_Nihilist to Stefan Molyneux:     
    actually, i was just discussing nihilism. and i was talking about this site as an example.

    Jason McLaughlin to Stefan Molyneux:     
    Wonderful! I'll get myself to posting the vid around too. Saw that recently when I poked my head through the fog of moving apartments and transitioning jobs

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    FDR as an example of nihilism

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    excellent!

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    how so?

    Nala to Stefan Molyneux:     
    when was the last videocast you did?

    David:     
    how is the new job going anyways?

    Stefan Molyneux to Nala:     
    the promo for PA

    Nala to Stefan Molyneux:     
    well, do more

    Nala to Stefan Molyneux:     
    lol

    The_Nihilist to Stefan Molyneux:     
    no, i made the point that philosophy has ignored a key challenge.

    Jason McLaughlin to David:     
    It's OK, but pretty clearly not anything I want to make a career of. But I knew that going in. I was desperate for lots more money, I now have lots more money.

    The_Nihilist to Stefan Molyneux:     
    and the challenge is proving that truth has value. and i mentioned this site in that context, because it appears that not much time is spent on proving that anarchism has any value as a truth.

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    and is it *true* that philosophy should prove that truth has value?

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    and would such a proof have value?

    The_Nihilist to Stefan Molyneux:     
    the proof would have value as soon as it was proved that truth has objective value.

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    but you are asking for it ahead of time

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    begging the question i think

    The_Nihilist to Stefan Molyneux:     
    my point is that when it comes to the value of the 'truths' in philosophy, the philosopher is an advertiser.

    The_Nihilist to Stefan Molyneux:     
    a marketer

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    um

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    sorry, i typed ahead

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    i'll wait

    The_Nihilist to Stefan Molyneux:     
    oh, no go ahead.
    lost left this room.
    Guest_bfec left this room.

    The_Nihilist to Stefan Molyneux:     
    are you still there?

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    i wrote that you are asking for truth and value ahead of time

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    thus accepting them while asking for the proof of their value

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    thus begging the question i think

    The_Nihilist to Stefan Molyneux:     
    you mean i implicitly accept the value of truth by merely asking for it?

    The_Nihilist to Stefan Molyneux:     
    i accept it subjectively sure.

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    no

    The_Nihilist to Stefan Molyneux:     
    i'm talking about the value of truth, objectively.

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    you said that well philosophy was deficient

    The_Nihilist to Stefan Molyneux:     
    right.

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    compared to what?

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    compared to your opinions?

    The_Nihilist to Stefan Molyneux:     
    you said economics is deficient. what was that compared to?

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    we're not talking about me

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    but rather your assertions above

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    by what standard is philosophy deficient?

    The_Nihilist to Stefan Molyneux:     
    philosophy is deficient in relation to itself.

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    sorry, that makes no sense

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    that is like saying "blue is deficient relative to blue"

    The_Nihilist to Stefan Molyneux:     
    why not? you said the social contract refutes itself.

    The_Nihilist to Stefan Molyneux:     
    i claim philosophy does as well.

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    well sure

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    self-contradictory arguments self-refute

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    because logical consistency is an objective value

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    so

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    by what external and objective standard is philosophy deficient?

    The_Nihilist to Stefan Molyneux:     
    i'm putting up a roadblock to philosophy, or rather a philosophical question, that if it cannot be sufficiently answered, renders it dead.

    Leomarth whisper Stefan Molyneux:     
    This guy admitted earlier that he was a nihilist when he found out truth had no value. Don't know if that information about him helps at all.

    The_Nihilist to Stefan Molyneux:     
    the fact that truth value is purely subjective.

    Leomarth whisper Stefan Molyneux:     
    He's also come in for the past three days asking the same questions.

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    well sorry, i am not enjoying this conversation

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    you do not answer my questions

    The_Nihilist to Stefan Molyneux:     
    a philosopher is reduced to a traveling salesmen when it comes to the value of his philosophy, even if it is true.

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    if you like, you can check out my intro to philosophy series

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    it's on the videos

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    page

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    it answers all these questions i think

    The_Nihilist to Stefan Molyneux:     
    which video proves that your philosophy is valuable?
    HyperSniper left this room.

    The_Nihilist to Stefan Molyneux:     
    please link me to it.

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    just watch the first few

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    it's on the videos page of the main site

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    the whole series

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    i'm going to bump you from here, send me an email when you've had a look and let me know what you think

    The_Nihilist to Stefan Molyneux:     
    i have watched your videos. when it comes to the value of your philosophy you refer to entirely subjective concepts.

    Stefan Molyneux to The_Nihilist:     
    best wishes!

    Stefan Molyneux:     
    whew
    Leomarth to Stefan Molyneux:     
    Yeah, for three days he's been asking the same questions.

    Nala to Stefan Molyneux:     
    the day i have patience for that i will be proud

    Leomarth to Stefan Molyneux:     
    I finally dug into his past today and he admitted he was a nihilist, but wouldn't say why.

    Stefan Molyneux:     
    the questions are great
    Stefan Molyneux:     
    the evasions are pathetic

    Jason McLaughlin:     
    Oh goodness. I had no idea he was coming around for days.

    Nala to Jason McLaughlin:     
    i tried warning ya

    Leomarth to Jason McLaughlin:     
    Yeah, at least three in a row that I'm aware of. Asking the exact same question.

    Stefan Molyneux:     
    he's not mentally well
    Stefan Molyneux:     
    at all
    Stefan Molyneux:     
    he makes my heart pound a little
    Stefan Molyneux:     
    a little scary

    Leomarth to Stefan Molyneux:     
    I got that idea too, and stopped discussing with him.

    Stefan Molyneux:     
    comes on really strong, then starts evading like crazy
    Stefan Molyneux:     
    i give people 3-4 chances to answer a straight question
    Stefan Molyneux:     
    then kick them
    Leomarth to Stefan Molyneux:     
    He said he's challenged "many philosophers and found them all to be salesmen." but then, didn't really admit that he was trying to sell his "product".
    Stefan Molyneux to Leomarth:     
    well he'
    Stefan Molyneux to Leomarth:     
    he's a coward
    Stefan Molyneux to Leomarth:     
    i asked him repeatedly
    Stefan Molyneux to Leomarth:     
    "compared to what?"
    Stefan Molyneux to Leomarth:     
    Stefan Molyneux to Leomarth:     
    no reply
    Stefan Molyneux to Leomarth:     
    just
    Stefan Molyneux to Leomarth:     
    "well my point is..."
    Leomarth to Stefan Molyneux:     
    compared to itself.
    Stefan Molyneux:     
    life
    Stefan Molyneux:     
    too
    Stefan Molyneux:     
    short
    Jason McLaughlin:     
    I need to keep the main ideas of argumentation in my head "compared to what" etc. Because otherwise I just wander straight into their fog, after all this practice
    Leomarth to Jason McLaughlin:     
    Right. I honestly forgot the "compared to what" too.
    Stefan Molyneux:     
    "79% is deficient compared to 79%"
    Stefan Molyneux:     
    riiiiiiight
    Nala to Stefan Molyneux:     
    he told me he doesnt show people his writings about his ideas
    Leomarth to Stefan Molyneux:     
    I asked him if he had availed himself of all the material here... he asked "What material?" So, I referenced the podcasts, the articles, the videos, the free books... and he said the only thing he had read was "Everyday Anarchy."
    David:     
    I heard one where you completely dissected his argument and showed him where it was wrong, then 1 minute later he was back on his horse
    Nala:     
    the scot on Sunday had anxiety issues
    Stefan Molyneux to Nala:     
    yes i agree
    Nala:     
    i wonder why he didnt talk about it
    Stefan Molyneux:     
    no ego left, just defenses
    Stefan Molyneux:     
    and attacks
    Stefan Molyneux:     
    empty
    Stefan Molyneux:     
    no observing ego
    Stefan Molyneux:     
    just the manipulation of the moment


    All Free! - Audio, PDF. Print starting @ $9.99+
    Freedomain Radio Needs Your Support! Easily send podcasts, videos, books and feeds to your friends with FDR Referrals.

     


     

    Filed under:
  • 08-12-2008 10:23 PM In reply to

    Re: the dodgy nihilist...

    Why is the "compared to what" so hard to remember sometimes? I have a feeling that even though I was on the right track by beginning to dig into his past, I could have taken a much shorter route by remembering that.

  • 08-12-2008 10:41 PM In reply to

    Re: the dodgy nihilist...

    It is so volatile, since it clears most fogs, revealing an ignorance and manipulation that is hard to bear...


    All Free! - Audio, PDF. Print starting @ $9.99+
    Freedomain Radio Needs Your Support! Easily send podcasts, videos, books and feeds to your friends with FDR Referrals.

     


     

  • 08-13-2008 12:55 AM In reply to

    Re: the dodgy nihilist...

    Stef, I'm sure you've had your fair share of run-ins with nihilists. This "traveling salesman" accusation is pretty prevalent among them. They think that philosophers and their ilk are just trying to tell the most convincing lies: "There's no such thign as truth. It all just amtters whoc an tell the ebst lies. You know?"

    It is a fallback argument that they reiterate (in my experience) when they have nothing left to counter with.

  • 08-13-2008 12:59 AM In reply to

    Re: the dodgy nihilist...

    I am curious as to what The Nihilist thinks after he reads the convo over. I see he is here.

    If success or failure of the planet and of human beings depended on how I am and what I do ...
    How would I be? What would I do?" — R. Buckminster Fuller

  • 08-13-2008 1:49 PM In reply to

    Re: the dodgy nihilist...

    I will share my thoughts. Stef has done nothing to refute my claims, and the fact that he has posted this conversation here has provided me with a wonderful opportunity in a public arena to once again challenge this philosophy.

    Stef claims that a disclipline can be internally inconsistent but it cannot be internally deficient and he uses the idea that an idea in terms of consistency can be judged by an objective standard that is independent of the idea itself, namely logic. I claim the same is true of deficiency, however. A discipline can be judged by an objective standard in terms of deficiency that is independent of the current state of the discipline: namely a theoretical state of the discipline that is objectively better.

    For instance, medicine as it is practice is internally deficient because it cannot cure aging. All patients of medicine will eventually die. Computer science was internally deficient before it could eliminate the 'goto' statement. After it was able to eliminate the 'goto' statement using loops, it was clear that the previous state of computer science was quite deficient. Mathematics was and is currently deficient because there were and are theorems that can be proven but have not been. We can imagine a state of mathematics where there are more proofs solved than there are currently.

    So why is philosophy currently deficient? Because it cannot elevate itself above the same value status of fiction. The value of truth is purely subjective, as well as the value of fiction. And for any given individual we can even imagine a case where the value of certain fictions for that individual are far more valuable than certain truths. An example of this would be someone who was engrossed fantasy novels and simply ignored disciplines involving objective truth.

    Until philosophy can give us an objective reason to study it, rather than pick up a fantasy novel, it will forever be relegated to the same value status of fiction/fantasy. This is why I say philosophers are salesmen. They will use emotional tricks to get you to sell you on the value of their truths (assuming what they say is even true). A philosopher may make a statement X, and X may be true, but when it comes to the value of X for any particular individual the philosopher is immediately relegated to salesman status, appealing to non-objectively established concepts.

    Stef talks about a time in the distant future when anarchy will be the established means of human interaction, and political philosophy will be dead. I claim he is not looking far enough into the future when people could very well live inside of purely virtual environments, creating whatever fantasy they desire, and ignoring the truth in the real world altogether. At that point philosophy will be dead because no one will care about truth, its value will for the vast majority of people become 0.

  • 08-13-2008 2:29 PM In reply to

    Re: the dodgy nihilist...

    Stefan Molyneux:
    Stefan Molyneux:     
    no ego left, just defenses
    Stefan Molyneux:     
    and attacks
    Stefan Molyneux:     
    empty
    Stefan Molyneux:     
    no observing ego
    Stefan Molyneux:     
    just the manipulation of the moment

    when I read this I feel sad. All the empty shells stranded on the beach. This is so sad. There are so many of them.

    I realized a lot people I meet and also people who have been close to me are shells and have always been. As I possibly have been too at times.

    Life is so rich and worth living. I wish all the shells would have just one moment of doubt. Just a little moment of downtime were the world freezes. One moment to take a break without fear.

    blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog

    blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog

    blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog

  • 08-13-2008 4:54 PM In reply to

    Re: the dodgy nihilist...

    TheNihilist:

    I will share my thoughts. Stef has done nothing to refute my claims, and the fact that he has posted this conversation here has provided me with a wonderful opportunity in a public arena to once again challenge this philosophy.

    Stef claims that a disclipline can be internally inconsistent but it cannot be internally deficient and he uses the idea that an idea in terms of consistency can be judged by an objective standard that is independent of the idea itself, namely logic. I claim the same is true of deficiency, however. A discipline can be judged by an objective standard in terms of deficiency that is independent of the current state of the discipline: namely a theoretical state of the discipline that is objectively better.

    For instance, medicine as it is practice is internally deficient because it cannot cure aging. All patients of medicine will eventually die. Computer science was internally deficient before it could eliminate the 'goto' statement. After it was able to eliminate the 'goto' statement using loops, it was clear that the previous state of computer science was quite deficient. Mathematics was and is currently deficient because there were and are theorems that can be proven but have not been. We can imagine a state of mathematics where there are more proofs solved than there are currently.

    So why is philosophy currently deficient? Because it cannot elevate itself above the same value status of fiction. The value of truth is purely subjective, as well as the value of fiction. And for any given individual we can even imagine a case where the value of certain fictions for that individual are far more valuable than certain truths. An example of this would be someone who was engrossed fantasy novels and simply ignored disciplines involving objective truth.

    Until philosophy can give us an objective reason to study it, rather than pick up a fantasy novel, it will forever be relegated to the same value status of fiction/fantasy. This is why I say philosophers are salesmen. They will use emotional tricks to get you to sell you on the value of their truths (assuming what they say is even true). A philosopher may make a statement X, and X may be true, but when it comes to the value of X for any particular individual the philosopher is immediately relegated to salesman status, appealing to non-objectively established concepts.

    Stef talks about a time in the distant future when anarchy will be the established means of human interaction, and political philosophy will be dead. I claim he is not looking far enough into the future when people could very well live inside of purely virtual environments, creating whatever fantasy they desire, and ignoring the truth in the real world altogether. At that point philosophy will be dead because no one will care about truth, its value will for the vast majority of people become 0.

     

     I have to say that you have lost me with most of this. But at the core it seems you are asking for evidence to support the value of truth. In other words you are asking for evidence for evidence. Is this correct?

    Now I assume that you don't debate that eating is necessary for life. And obviously you are alive. If this is true than certainly you accept the value inherent in the simple truth that eating is important. If you truly don't believe this then I fear our debate will be short lived. Do you reject this sort of truth?

     

     

     

    “Champagne for my real friends and real pain for my sham friends.” - Tom Waits.

  • 08-13-2008 5:50 PM In reply to

    Re: the dodgy nihilist...

    James,

    I fear that while well-intentioned, you've just given this lost soul another dose of his own personal heroin.

    "As a vivid, living value, the nation-state as an object of worship and a source of practical and moral solutions is as dead as King Tutankhamun."-- S. Molyneux

  • 08-13-2008 5:52 PM In reply to

    Re: the dodgy nihilist...

     I think you are right. I don't think I'm gonna continue with this one.

    “Champagne for my real friends and real pain for my sham friends.” - Tom Waits.

  • 08-13-2008 8:19 PM In reply to

    • thirdear
    • Top 75 Contributor
    • Joined on 04-14-2008
    • Cleveland, Ohio
    • Posts 393

    Re: the dodgy nihilist...

    medicine as it is practice is internally deficient because it cannot cure aging

    This Implies that medical technology that could "cure" aging is objectively better, which in turn would imply that immortality itself is objectively better than growing old and dying, which leads to all kinds of problems for me because I personally don't want to grow old and die while my friends live on and on, nor would I want to live on and on while people around me choose to grow old and die because evenntually I think my perception of time would be utterly meaningless, which of course must be better, too.

    It also implies that aging should be "cured", but whether medicine would be objectively better were it to "cure" aging is purely subjective . Isn't it?

    Computer science was internally deficient before it could eliminate the 'goto' statement. After it was able to eliminate the 'goto' statement using loops, it was clear that the previous state of computer science was quite deficient.

    Loops were used concurrently with the goto statement. Today, in many languages goto statements are made by implication and reference to other subroutine and function name calls, but that doesn't mean the goto statement has been eliminated. It has merely been depreciated. Most languages still allow its use and there are some scenarios in some languages where goto is not only available, but required for exception handling or breaking out of nested loops. Does this make such languages deficient? I would argue that such "deficiencies" are "purely subjective" to the applications they're used for. FORTRAN is great for number crunching, but I dare you to use it for graphics!

    The value of truth is purely subjective

    What is the truth value of the above statement?

    ... philosophers are salesmen. They will use emotional tricks to get you to sell you on the value of their truths (assuming what they say is even true).

    ... this conversation here has provided me with a wonderful opportunity in a public arena to once again challenge this philosophy.

    I think the salesmanship here is obvious.

    "Everything in this book may be wrong." -- The Master's Handbook [From "Illusions" by Richard Bach] Wink

     

     

     

     

     

    There are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

  • 08-13-2008 8:26 PM In reply to

    Re: the dodgy nihilist...

    TheNihilist:
    The value of truth is purely subjective, as well as the value of fiction.

    In a perfect healthy world, the value of philosophical truth is objective, because it's based on empirical reality, and acknowledging the "obvious" can be of a pretty great value, and those who already know "it", can only agree that it's useful to be aware of the truth.

    Fog doesn't make the value of clear sight subjective. Mythologies = fog. Truth = clear sight.

  • 08-14-2008 9:10 AM In reply to

    Re: the dodgy nihilist...

    thirdear:
    The value of truth is purely subjective

     

    What is the truth value of the above statement?

    What makes this discussion confusing  is the fact that expressions such as "truth value" and "value of the truth" are used in two different ways. Let's take a random fact from Wikipedia: "only one horse in the International Special horse races  was born outside the United States." The truth value of that statement is probably 1 in the sense that it is true. However, that fact probably has little value or use to you. 

    TheNihilist isn't contradicting himself here, he isn't saying that the statement "the value of truth is purely subjective"  has any objective value. He admits that it may be a useless piece of information to the individual. He claims however that it is indeed objectively true that the VALUE/USEFULNESS of truth is subjective.

  • 08-14-2008 9:28 AM In reply to