?

Log in

No account? Create an account

[icon] Have you checked out this philosophy podcast yet? - The Free Thinkers
View:Recent Entries.
View:Archive.
View:Friends.
View:Profile.

Security:
Subject:Have you checked out this philosophy podcast yet?
Time:10:17 am
Have you had a chance to listen to Freedomain Radio yet? It's a wildly stimulating and entertaining podcast on philosophy, the most popular on the web...

http://www.freedomainradio.com

The feed is: http://feeds.feedburner.com/FreedomainRadio

Enjoy!

Stefan Molyneux, MA
Host
comments: Leave a comment Previous Entry Share Next Entry

epictetus_rex
Link:(Link)
Time:2007-12-09 08:44 pm (UTC)
It only took me three minutes to find you claiming that non-individualistic cultures are "irrational", without answering your opponent's charge that "rational" simply means "those who do not share our axioms". Given that you seem to equate "reason" mainly with "logic" in the rest of your podcasts, I'd be interested to know how you get around the problem of axioms: they're just given in logic. They're not provable or demonstrable. How could it possibly be "irrational" to take different axioms as given?
(Reply) (Thread)


freedomainradio
Subject:Thanks, great question...
Link:(Link)
Time:2007-12-09 08:53 pm (UTC)
Axioms are statements which directly mirror the behavior of matter. Aristotle's "3 laws" are directly analogous to basic scientific statements about the nature and behavior of matter and energy.

In other words, logic is valid because the universe is logical (at least at the sensual level), and logic describes the principles of material reality.

Thus axioms are valid (or not) to the degree that they accurately describe the actions of matter and energy.

Hope that helps! :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

epictetus_rex
Subject:Re: Thanks, great question...
Link:(Link)
Time:2007-12-09 08:58 pm (UTC)
Axioms are statements which directly mirror the behavior of matter.


OK, so we should not believe axioms that directly contradict the evidence of our senses. I admit, I'm at a loss to see how this principle gets us to individualism as a moral axiom as opposed to, say, collectivism. Neither of those principles is even meant to describe the motions of matter. I'm sure you have more to say here, though?

Cool website, nonetheless.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

(Anonymous)
Subject:Re: Thanks, great question...
Link:(Link)
Time:2007-12-09 11:42 pm (UTC)
Sure - well 'trees' exist, but a 'forest' does not... Concepts are mental constructs imperfectly derived from instances - and thus concepts, to be valid, must slavishly describe the characteristics of the instances they claim to aggregate.

Thus concepts cannot dominate instances, since they are derived from instances. Concepts such as 'society' thus cannot be used to dominate the individual - since 'society' does not exist, any more than a 'forest' does.

Only individuals exist.

Hope that helps! :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

epictetus_rex
Subject:Re: Thanks, great question...
Link:(Link)
Time:2007-12-09 11:54 pm (UTC)
Two problems:

1. Your first argument relies on the premise that aggregates do not exist, rather, only their simple parts do. You can see the obvious regress problem, here. Why should trees "exist" if they are made up of simpler parts? Why should human individuals "exist" if they're composed of simpler biological and even bare physical parts? In fact, why not say only subatomic waves/particles "exist" and the rest is piffle?

2. The analogy between physical parts <-> aggregates and individual people <-> society is flawed in one important respect. Physical parts are there regardless of whether wholes exist or not: a water molecule can exist perfectly well without being part of an ocean. It's even possible for a tree to grow perfectly well on its own without being surrounded by or nurtured by other trees, this is simply not true of developed human individuals, who require extensive socialization to be able to reason and use language. The concept "human individual" is thus necessarily tied to a pre-existing and reasonably functional aggregate of humans, at least a family.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

epictetus_rex
Subject:Re: Thanks, great question...
Link:(Link)
Time:2007-12-11 09:17 am (UTC)
Two problems:

1. Your first argument relies on the premise that aggregates do not exist, rather, only their simple parts do. You can see the obvious regress problem, here. Why should trees "exist" if they are made up of simpler parts? Why should human individuals "exist" if they're composed of simpler biological and even bare physical parts? In fact, why not say only subatomic waves/particles "exist" and the rest is piffle?

2. The analogy between physical parts <-> aggregates and individual people <-> society is flawed in one important respect. Physical parts are there regardless of whether wholes exist or not: a water molecule can exist perfectly well without being part of an ocean. It's even possible for a tree to grow perfectly well on its own without being surrounded by or nurtured by other trees, this is simply not true of developed human individuals, who require extensive socialization to be able to reason and use language. The concept "human individual" is thus necessarily tied to a pre-existing and reasonably functional aggregate of humans, at least a family.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

(Anonymous)
Subject:Re: Thanks, great question...
Link:(Link)
Time:2007-12-11 03:05 pm (UTC)
Trees exist because they are aggregates physically bound together by strong and weak atomic forces, in a way that 'forests' are not. The cells that make up a human being a physically bound together; a 'crowd' is not.

A human being can survive perfectly well in the absence of society, so I think your second point is incorrect. Think of the 'wolf children' who have grown up raised by animals, and so on. I don't see that the phrase 'developed' has any objective meaning. A child raised by fascists may be a violent racist - does that count as 'developed'?

Also, some trees cannot survive except in the presence of other trees, for shelter or climbing potential.

By the way, I received an email wherein you wrote the following:

"Hm. So this is how it is, eh? Book tours, hundreds upon hundreds of podcasts, and no ultimate defense for your incoherent, dogmatic individualism?"

Did you write that? I can't find it on the thread, and I don't want to be unjust.

Thanks!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


evil_genius
Link:(Link)
Time:2007-12-11 11:06 pm (UTC)
Spam.
It's what's for dinner.


Ban nomination.
(Reply) (Thread)


freedomainradio
Subject:No offense intended...
Link:(Link)
Time:2007-12-11 11:20 pm (UTC)
The podcast is totally free - no ads even, in the show or on the site - so I do apologize if it appears spam-ish. (I even send my books free to those who want them.)

If offering a free resource is considered spam, then I do apologize for any upset I have caused.

Best wishes,

Stef
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


evil_genius
Subject:Re: No offense intended...
Link:(Link)
Time:2007-12-12 12:06 am (UTC)
"The podcast is totally free - no ads even, in the show or on the site - so I do apologize if it appears spam-ish."

From wikipedia:

Spamming is the abuse of electronic messaging systems to indiscriminately send unsolicited bulk messages. While the most widely recognized form of spam is e-mail spam, the term is applied to similar abuses in other media: instant messaging spam, Usenet newsgroup spam, Web search engine spam, spam in blogs, wiki spam, mobile phone messaging spam, Internet forum spam and junk fax transmissions.

Not charging money doesn't mean your message isn't spam.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


freedomainradio
Subject:Re: No offense intended...
Link:(Link)
Time:2007-12-13 10:03 pm (UTC)
My bad then, sorry about any inconvenience - and thanks for giving me the heads up!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

[icon] Have you checked out this philosophy podcast yet? - The Free Thinkers
View:Recent Entries.
View:Archive.
View:Friends.
View:Profile.