So you are saying that 2+2 doesn’t actually equal 4?
So you think that it is false that man does not need to drink water in order to sustain himself? If man does want to survive, he values his life, then it is true that he should drink in order to sustain himself.
but what about changing apple for ‘countable thing’
There are like 6 different major cans of philosophical worms all open at once in this thread, each of which would take careful and patient presentation to reach agreement on.
To see how controversial just one of these is, see How to Convince Me that 2+2=3. (BTW I completely disagree with the author in the link; my comment is at the very bottom)
Math is only reliable when used in the past tense. It is not predictive. You know this, right? Put two people in a room, and another two people in the room, and the chances are that they will equal any number of people when you come back several years from now. Math cannot predict.
In the past tense, it can account. We just add in every kid they had. Overall, math is highly reliable. But is is just a human constructed schema.
No, a man needs water. But the assumption that you are taking for granted is that his desire to survive is a rule you must accept. Reason dictates that he should want to drink if he wants to live, but it does not dictate that he should live in the first place.
When has 2+2 not equaled 4? When will 2+2 not equal 4? Mathematics is based on logic and if you think that math is only reliable in the past tense then you are inferring on some level that logic can only be analyzed through history and is bound to a certain epoch since it cannot be objective. If logic is objective meaning that it is true regardless of time or place then so too is mathematics and therefore 2+2 always equaled four and will always continue to equal four.
If that is the case then the beginnings of human life is based on what you called ‘base desires’ or emotion something you should not act upon therefore I’m left to wonder why you are still alive and how you came to retain such a life.
Andrew and Nir,
Are there no actions which you would condemn, but not ban?
You suppose that moral statements have authority. That’s called normative morality. And you suppose moral statements are true. Those are descriptive. the problem is that you mistake descriptive with objectively normative. I subjectively want things, so I pursue them. Your invest those desires, or needs, with moral authority and you end up endorsing the man’s desire to survive, and the conclusion that he should drink water. But you also end up endorsing all desires. If desire makes rules, then my desire to rape and kill also makes rules, and now you get to endorse my shooting somebody and raping somebody because you posited the desires as constitutive of moral rules.
It’s 1AM here in Japan and I gotta hit the hay. See ya’ll tomorrow.
Well I did make reference at the entrance to my posting to a ‘non-forceful’ preference. I’m a thick libertarian so I oppose things like racism and sexism but I wouldn’t use force to oppose non-force. It’s counter-intuitive. To answer your question, yes there are actions I would condemn, however I wouldn’t pass off my as being objectively better. Like Nir and I were saying, they are just aesthetic preferences.
No it would be normative if I thought that moral statements ought to have authority, not actually have it. If it already has it then it is descriptive.
This coming from someone who just recently said that the state can rightfully kill me because it wishes to do so.
You completely avoided my math comment and my question as to how you retain your life since you don’t act on base emotions yet postulate that emotion is the only thing that maintains our lives [ the desire to live ]
Let’s say a salesman had a collection of ziplock bags full of different kinds of white powder. Some of the white powders are vitamin mixtures, some are ground-up cereals, and some are addictive drugs; the salesman doesn’t know which bags have which substance (just as Molyneux doesn’t know which deFOOs will be salutary, which innocuous, and which utterly disastrous). Would you condemn such a salesman for passing of all the ziplock bags as assuredly being something (although he doesn’t specify exactly what the powder is, so he doesn’t pass off one material as though it is another material) conducive to good health?
what notion of condemn are we playing with?. if it is the uttering of displeasure, then I condemn as much as I please. is it something else?
It seems like the structure of what you’re saying is (taking out the mystification): can anything that has some amount of risk be considered good? (for instance, cars, meeting someone, leaving the house, eating what someone else has prepared, etc.).
But it seems be beside the point as Molyneux has never said that deFOO is necessary for good health.
Someone PM me when an actual argument is made.
Molyneux invented the term “DeFoo”
Express disapproval, especially with regard to irresponsible and likely harmful conduct.
Definitely worth following/reading.
Wrong. With both the powder salesman and Molyneux’s deFOO, it’s not a matter of “some amount of risk”; it’s a matter of obviously egregious irresponsibility.
Neither does the powder salesman. Both simply say the effects of what they’re promoting will be salutary (not necessary), when they really have no idea that it won’t be disastrous.
Thank you for holding your own admirably alone against 3 opponents (although I think both sides could do with a little less edge in our “voices”). I hope you will continue to be active in the forums, as I think you have a refreshing perspective.
You should break with serious emotional and/or emotional abuse. But those people who really should break are not Molyneux’s target market. He wants intelligent, passionate and emotionally vulnerable yound adults who are at the exactly right time in life and who are going through the right sequence of events that will make them receptive to his well packaged ideas. Those suffering from real abuse, aren’t likley donators to FDR. However, if Molyneux’s views on abuse and corruption matched up even remotely with your opinion of such, the argument you make would be valid. But they aren’t. For only a few examples of how thoroughly out there he is:
If you take your child to church…abusive
If you tell your child to seek out a policeman if they are lost, you are supporting the authority of the state… abusive
If you discipline your child in public or in private in any way shape or form, you are destroying their self esteem and as such you are … abusive
If your parents are ever improperly angry with you for anything, they are… abusive.
The parents can be typical, loving, supportive, etc. Doesn’t matter. if they did anything that violates Molyneux’s definitions, there is to be no therapy, no communciation. You are to leave them without warning. This is the only way to find true freedom.
Molyneux will likley carry on about his public pronoucements of approving therapy and open communications, but in maybe 2000 podcasts, there are zero examples of Molyneux suggesting the end of defoo, or reconnecting with the family. I think it is because he risks losing a donator. There seem to be documented examples of Molyneux actively and aggressively recommeding a defoo to member of the chat room, or on his call in show, etc. In reality, therapy is his enemy. Real therapy could lead to a donator finding their way back to their loved ones and away from FDR.