2:00 Marks & Spencer
6:00 M&S Food
7:00 Laughter and normality at M&S
8:00 niqab
12:00 https://www.marksandspencer.com/3-pack-cotton-handkerchiefs/p/clp60276478?color=NAVYMIX
13:00 https://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-incoherence-of-church-of-entropy.html
14:00 Stefan Molyneux and J F Gariepy in a really pointless discussion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bYYl9XETM8&t=1147s
16:00 The incoherence and word salad of Church of Entropy [edited generously in an attempt to make it make sense]
I would be considered both the universal nihilist but a moral absolutist. You have to pick the right axioms. You really have to take a look at the question and start from the answer. What form do you want your answer to take? If we're gonna be making statements about morality we really want it to be practicable so I won't go into my proof too much. Essentially, Stefan's position is bad stuff is bad. He did to his credit make a fairly interesting argument about if hypothetically rape was a good thing. Here's here's basically the form of his argument: it's not possible to construct a situation where rape is good because as soon as rape is good that means that there's no longer implicit badness to rape. What's happening is no longer satisfying a definition of rape. Everyone is essentially seeking to manifest their own will to power ie to impose their own aesthetic preference on the external world so as to minimize the cognitive distance that they experience. This is not a statement of moral fact, this is merely a statement of observable fact. Morality comes in where you're trying to answer the question. Moral statements are always relative to your moral architecture and this is a problem if we can't even make a statement of fact about what morality is. How are you ever going to test your statements within an ethic or moral framework? I take a position and say that minimizing of suffering is the greatest morality and it then reduces to a question of what exactly it's going to minimize the suffering. It is obviously very complicated question but it's a question we could start to get answers to on a day-to-day basis simply by looking at situations on how they're dealt with and getting a general sense of how much suffering they cause. The biggest problem with Stefan's position is that essentially he's not defining the boundary between aggression and non-aggression, for example, at what point does an act become an act of aggression if what you're looking to do is minimize aggression or non-aggression principle? At what point is it aggression? Everything essentially reduces to a property crime because an aggression is an aggression on property and I've asked ancaps this before. Property are people's individual minds. Clearly, their minds don't belong to themselves because a vast majority of people don't experience it's inner thought or much inner cognition at all and so we are largely just repeating what other people are saying. Therefore it does make sense to consider the boundary of these peoples. At what point are there aggressions on people's individual beliefs? They cannot answer that. They just brush it off by saying "Well, everyone can. Just go and find whatever is the best information and make the best decision for them. You're not really taking into account the fact that people are basically automatons so clearly there has to be moral guidance. You need to have some way to manufacture benevolence because benevolence is what is going to engender the faith in the populace to continue to subscribe to the state theology. Stefan has basically wallpapered over this problem and the way so many people wallpaper over problems. God did it. It was just a random occurrence. We've got missing links in the evolutionary chain. It's really just laziness, essentially. Let's have a dispute resolution organization mediation carried out between two people who disagree as to the boundary of their property at which point a violation would have occurred. So basically they're disagreeing as to whether a violation has occurred or not and if there has been an anon-aggression principle. If there has been a violation, what is the proper restitution? That's a very complicated problem. You need some moral standard by which to judge these things. How do you know exactly if you're not actually taking the time to define the boundary between what is aggression and non-aggression for people's personal beliefs and autonomy which absolutely needs to be defined because people's beliefs dictate their behavior? You're basically wallpapering over a very important point. How do you manufacture benevolence given the subjectivity of morality? How do you manufacture sufficient benevolence as to give sufficient vision to answer these dispute resolution organization problems? How do you stop the usual suspects from coming in with their financial incentives that serve as bribes to preside over these mediations which if there's bribes in the mix, if there's a possibility for these agents to be bribed, they will be bribed, and the more they're bribed, the more of the resources will shift towards the bribers which will enable the bribers to bribe. How do you solve that now you're also going to take the position that free markets are a good thing? You need a hierarchy of authority. You need to have distributed dictatorship whereby sovereign decisions are delegated to the lowest possible level of competence depending on the field. That's going to depend largely on the field. If two people are arguing about an apple because it fell from one person's tree into another person's yard, that's a very simple resolution: right versus what to do about these chemical toxins that may have long-term effects. That's a significantly a more difficult question. It doesn't make sense for a local chieftain to be making such broad decisions in a subject matter he doesn't understand but it also doesn't make sense for a subject matter expert to be brought in on an apple dispute. The idea with the distributed dictatorship is that the individual that the local sovereign has enough autonomy to know what is. What are the questions that he or she is equipped to answer and what has to be delegated up the chain? This is why the sovereign will is so important in proper statecraft because it's all down to whether the people who have been delegated sovereign will by the people that they are governing to make difficult decisions that the people themselves can't resolve amongst themselves. It's down to how well they manage their own subject matter. There will be certain things that will come up and will be simply outside of their domain and it rests on them to know the difference. You also need to have a supreme sovereign who's going to oversee the development of the regular and prolonged development of culture because culture doesn't just self create, it has to be guided by again some type of moral framework - someone who's afforded a moral superiority stance based on their actions and their character to guide more or less the direction of civilization. This is where the importance of role models is really quite evident.
27:00 On the debate between Stefan Molyneux and J F Gariepy
28:00 The good owe it to themselves to be strong.
30:00 Noahide laws - a universal minimum moral standard
31:00 Antisemitism
33:00 The Supreme Arbiter
34:00 The truth is an orphan.
36:00 A supreme court
37:00 The antithesis of being mortal and fallible
39:00 Progressive revelation
40:00 Stefan Molyneux
41:00 Word salad https://www.thoughtco.com/word-salad-definition-1692505
https://narcissistabusesupport.com/7-signs-the-narc-is-serving-you-a-word-salad/
No comments:
Post a Comment