I agree that you have a real point. The world exists whether one perceives it or not. I also think that it's possible to oversimplify the terms of any discussion in the interests of getting a point across. I think your purpose is serious and genuine. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts referring back to the readings you've done in social constructionism and essentialist thought, and also perhaps in embodied consciousness.This would, I think, be enlightening, for me at least.
What I find interesting is some people never stop to think why do they have to follow and obey the ten comanments and God did not.I mean he does suppose to lead by example.lol
I love you Stefan you wonderful mothafucka! I see myself as a spiritual person but totally feel & respect what you are saying & I see no conflict between us man. KEEP DRPPING YOUR TRUTH BOMBS MY FRIEND! LOVE TO YOU & YOURS X
Objectivity is based on facts that are often nonexistent, what people objectively reason to be true is in many cases illusion. It was a rational fact that the sun rises and sets, but now it is not a fact. Subjective opinions may arrive at the same conclusion. To be rationally convinced in facts can be misleading, is also can be misleading to subjectively believe in opinions. These are two sides of the same coin.
If you spin acoin an INFINITE amount of times, then eventually, it will perform REPETITIVE spins, over and over and over. Why ?
Ans: because INFINITY creates CERTAINTY
So, IF you believe the universe is INFINITE, then santa, the tooth fairy and mary poppins DO exist, somewhere in the universe, because they MUST
Why :
Ans: because every time you find something different to them, there would be something behind them, a little more similar, until eventually - MARY POPPINS will exist ! (has to)
Actually, yes, I never thought of that. There MUST be hundreds (and therefore, millions, and there for trillions of billions) of mary Poppinses (hee hee), and all the rest fo the charachters, too. BILLIONS of Dick Van Dykeses, with his terrible english accent, cleaning chimneys, on planets identical to this one, and slightly different, and very different.
Trillions of stefbotses, some with more hair, some with less (if thats possible), some orange, some green.
ps - i used the same rational against some athiests, once, because they were perporting no possibility of god.
I pointed out that the "must be" factor of infinity, would mean that richard dawkins can no longer spout off at people saying "you may as well believe in the ancient god wotan, or zeus, or a giant teapot in the sky", because in actual fact there MUST be a giant teapot in the sky, somewhere.
Well, yes - they are SO fanatical about athiesm, that they MAKE it a religion, by their devotedness to it.
I suppose its how many religions start, except that they are "reverse" in their beliefs.
They are SO determined to prove that there is no God, that whenever they are confronted with the slightest possibility of his existence, they go MAAAAAD !
@PostITnoteGUY Just take one example out from my "smokescreen". John Locke is a good example.
What did John Locke postulate? Bascially, that minds are a composite of experiences. That people are born with blank minds (the tabula rasa) and that over time it is filled with experiences. There is nothing innate about the mind in Locke's philosophy. He's an empiricist.
I get this from studying people who actually discovered new principles, compared to people who pretend to have. Have you read Einstein? Have you read Kepler? Have you read Plato? Then in opposition, have you read Aristotle? Have you read Nietzsche? Have you read Locke?
Why be subscribed to a "philosophical" channel if you don't study any of the philosophers that you guys assume stefbot knows so much about?
Hey Stef, I graze your posts when I have time and find them great. One question here: how does the philosophy of Nietzsche come down on this question of reality? And do you agree? I assumed Nietzsche would say 'reality' is essentially interpretations (subjective) - those with the 'power' are able to define 'reality' to their own ends (eg. our overlords). Thus, if any argument is subjective it wouldn't matter whether one makes a claim to objectivity.
My point is, clemons, I don't have a problem with Stefan's overall beliefs about morality. I do have a problem with how he conveys Martin Luther and religious people's perspective here, which I think is wrong and unhelpful.
I feel the real solution is for the people who are wise, logical, and non manipulative to band together, and strictly ignore the irrationals for a while. It would be an amazing change of scenery that is desperately needed. The foolish and headstrong people out there only survive because the logical ones are continually keeping them afloat. Give them a little taste of life without reason, and they will come running to plead forgiveness, and we will deny it until they change.
Stef, I'm proud to say that you did a good job of convincing me at a time when I was wavering between minarchism and anarchism. But, I'd appreciate your sourcing this information on Martin Luther for me. I admit to being very skeptical of your views at this point on religion because you say things that don't match up at all with how I saw "eye for an eye" vs "turn the other cheek" when I was a fundamentalist (I am not now).
Perhaps Luther taught that, but I'd like to know where I can see it.
@xanas3712 I think you might be asking the wrong question. Who cares what Martin Luther had to say?
The whole point of rationality is to connect your reason (based on the observed/axiomatic) with your actions in a non-contradictory way. The moral is the CHOSEN not the OBEYED. It would not be 'moral' to obey a god even if it existed - because actions must be chosen independent of authority.
@clemonsx90 I have no problems with your viewpoint on rational morality, and I think what you said is internally consistent, but the parts here about "turn the other cheek" and "eye for an eye" sound like an anti-religious smear campaign which is.. frankly inconsistent with rational morality. It will only serve to irritate the religious and can't possibly lead to "converting' anyone away from that.
Your point about what would be moral regardless of what a god wants is perfectly reasonable.
I agree with you that FOR YOU reality is objective. For me it is subjective. I really like what you have to say but I think it has problems and I also think that you come over as rather arrogant/ The problem with that is that this may get in the way of people hearing your message which I think is essentially an excellent one.
@PostITnoteGUY I won't be able to explain this well in 500 characters so I'll just lay it out for you to tear into.
Epistemologically, empiricism denies that the creative principles exist in the universe. It also implicitly denies that the human mind reflects those principles.
I would like to thank you for posting this video. It may not been one of your objectives, but while I was watching, a lightbulb went off in my head. A pursuit of a knowledge of philosophy is about knowing what is right, and doing what is right! Not just being right, or getting that last word in.
I sincerely doubt that philosophy was created to subjugate anyone, sounds too conspiratorial to be accurate. Philosophy was more often used in the very early days to attempt to understand things in a deeper way--and it is no wonder that natural philosophy yielded science--by breaking things down into a unit-economy and rationalizing the perceived.
Who are you subjugating with your Ethics? All of your arguments are Ethical.
@LiberalCast Philosophy developed by the wealthy for the wealthy, i.e. the ruling class. Granted there were many poor philosophers, but by and large, those who taught it, were teaching to the powerful, not to the slaves. The market meets the demands of the consumer. Look into Aristotle's writings and you'll find, for example, that he taught his students that mixing slaves from various cultures keeps them divided and conquered.
@ostralopithicus I didn't argue against that, though I would say your argument is tantamount to an ad hominem fallacy. Philosophy wasn't some conspiracy to keep other subdued, it is a set of intellectual tools to better understand the world. Sure, early philosophers used these methods and theories to justify horrible things that were deemed acceptable at the time but that doesn't mean that is what philosophy is for.
I believe in a higher power/being/entity, however perhaps the divine creator left blueprints for us to uncover learn and at some point reach a difinitive level of comprehension, u make some interesting points of view! Presumably you are atheist/agnostic?
@zakross1987 Instead of just clearly spelling out in the clouds, "I did this and you should listen to me" If you had children and new that it meant eternal life or damnation would you leave a foggy blue print that may or may not be understood knowing that you had to power to make it perfectly clear? It's sadistically bad parenting.
I personally don't, as of yet believe in objective morality. Even though I agree with most of what you say, I don't think your arguments would be undermined if you did believe in subjective morality. Just out of curiosity though, what do you base your objective morality?
@thestonemaster A cascaded of particular hormones that caused an individual to PERCEIVE a feeling via the senses. Entirely measurable. Entirely creatable with chemicals
@thestonemaster I suppose we can't see any emotion but brain imaging studies have improved the understanding of how the human brain regulates emotions. Now, I would say that whether a person loves you is shown by action and interaction. One might be able to argue that it's all selfish. I love this person because of the way she makes me feel. I am kind and generous to this person because of the way these actions make me feel.
This is all very well but does anybody want to be free ? Unless you know how you can be free without Anarchy we should all be pushing hard for this brothers
It was not cencorship but awaweness of how damaging this kind of missinfomation can be and i would of done exactly the same so please do not try to attempt a greater position of intelligence than myself unless you are prepared to demonstrate your superior intellect by reasoning with me - lets try the subject of Liberty as this is so important to us all - Lets have a debate about Anarchy- you can tell me how it is possible to be free without Anarchy
@Stefbot - No quantum physicist worth a can of beans would tell you that what we experience with our senses is what is really out there. It should be abundantly obvious that our senses are electrical reactions, interpretations of what is actually there. Nothing relativist about it. To act as if you have any direct knowledge of the fields of energy that actually exist beyond our minds is like saying that a computer has direct knowledge of the person typing on the keyboard.
@StormCloudsGathering A bit off top I know but how does all of this quantum physics knowledge affect their behavior? Do they suddenly cut out their eyes, fill their mouths with cement and jam bananas in their ears in an effort to banish their senses? When they conceive a particle in two places at the same time do they suddenly realize that their funding is coming from a form of theft.
@StormCloudsGathering actually, quantum physicists are very clear that quantum behavior has no effect whatsoever on what we perceive through the senses
@stefbot - That's not what I meant at all. The senses are interpreting the fields that are really out there and turning them into an experience. The actual energy that we see as solid is not solid in any sense of the word. On a quantum level it can be recorded as a wave form or highly unpredictable particles depending on the testing method. Further more, the entire time / space interpretation that the human mind formulates is shown to be illusory by both general relativity and quantum physics.
@stefbot - continued - ... And by illusory, I mean that the interpretation formed by our brain in response to the actual energy fields out there does not match the mathematical and laboratory conclusions reached by physicists. A good illustration of this principle is the fact that an electron, a photo and even an entire atom have been demonstrated to be in two places at once in experiments. The universe is not what it seems to be to the senses at all.
@stefbot I just had a brainfart - 'There is no absolute subjectivity' (we perceive consistency between cause and effect)
You were wrong to tamper with someone's post - not understanding the deeper dual nature of the discussion at hand has given you wrong mindedness. Consider the Yin within the Yang or if you prefer the Infinite Nothingness, or the Non Changing Infinity.
@StormCloudsGathering Actually there is no connection between what you say and quantum physics. What you say is a sort of quasi new age Theory that quote-mines Quantum Physics. It should be abundantly obvious to you that those senses record stimuli that do come from somewhere. So what you said is actually self-contradicting since you said our senses are elextrical reactions to.... nothing. This is just another religious Trap. The senses would be exactly neuron stimulation and nothing else anyway
Stef, I do not question empiricism, and I am happy with the way you are showing this fool up, but can you indicate why you are comparing non-empiricists with counterfeiters? This has disturbing ethical implications. Also, since you edited the guy's post, why are you not to be considered a counterfeiter?
@BenettFreeman That's what I'm wondering too! Early in the video he also pointed out how government has setup a system where they can abuse their position to force all kinds of "responsibilities" upon society, yet society has no way to demand the same from the government.
When Stef started talking about editing the forum user post, thats kind of what he did too. He used his privilege as moderator of the board and edited the persons post, but the person is not in a position to do the same.
@PDzero - The Youtube servers belong to youtube. Stefan is borrowing them or purchasing services on their machines. Youtube and Stefan are entirely within their rights to set up terms of service and remove posts that violate their terms.
You have all the right in the world to set up your own server, hosting your own forums to say whatever you want. I'll bet that there are forums where bashing on Stefan or Youtube is a happily welcomed addition.
Absolutism is not something I agree with, the problem is for many it IS subjective. Its only subjective based upon what we understand and perceive.
Its about perception, if someone who is blind is told a certain colour is an absolute moral truth, how on earth are they going to understand? If I am blind, I'm not going to get it, if you are blind, you are not going to get it. Everyone has a blind spot. I wish someone would apply my philosophy back to me, because it would only be fair.
@AlterEgoTrip I am Absolutist about one thing. You own you. My assertion is that if you allow any exception in this, then that exception will become a tool to build tyranny on,
Collary, the idea that it is okay to harm the indivudal for the good of the greater whole is a violation of the individual's self-ownership - this idea - that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few is the rationalization all government is built on.
@jayphailey I agree with you on this subject. The states always find a loop hole when it comes to the majority's right to exploit the minority, and the idea of some "greater good" that the individual must sacrifice themselves to and shut up about it has always been a sticky clause when it comes to universal rights. The rights of the individual to be free should should not be feared conversely... so in the context of a disagreement over perception must allow for a belief without force.
I have the "right to be wrong" and even the right for "madness" as long as I don't injure anyone with my ideas. So the subjectivity of my perception and my own personal "blindness" for "logic" and the pragmatic should not be treated as something to be marginalized. I believe strongly in the liberty of the individual and because of that, although I may not believe within an atheistic paradigm I do respect it and do not play around trying to force my perceptions with others or attempt to convert.
I do not think that the process of the aplication of reasoned thought could of been invented by
the ruling classes but more 'hijacked' and taken away from its true meaning to justify their irrational belief that it is acceptable to rule another man - of course it is not because every man has the right to be free, the right to self ownership, the right to Anarchy, the right to rule himself.
I must admit to a mistake which i have made. In an earlyer post i said all that you said in the video was true - it should of just read all that you said about reality and the senses was true. I thought of this and came back to the page to notice that someone else had already picked you up on this which i know you would appreciate as i
detect that you are devoid of egotistical intention. Point is that philosophy is the application of reasoned thought
I enjoyed this video. I found the concept of handing the relativist back his own currency to be amusing.
I have attempted this before. When someone says taxation is fair because of society and the social contract - then I'd say "Well myself and a few other folks have taken a vote, and you're going to buy us all lunch. As three or four people, we have more right to your money than you do, especially if we sanctified the taking by voting about it.
@jayphailey Asshole! Just kidding. Now after voting and you still don't receive your free lunch do you beat them up and take their wallet only to find out that there is are only lots of IOU's?
I do like your use of 'sanctified' with voting. I equate "Mob Rule".
@JohnnyContempt - No. I figured that making a statist reflexively reach for his wallet to keep me from ganking it would a gateway to the idea of "Mine" - once someone has "Mine" down, in theory we can work towards "Not Mine" - and then "If taking mine from me feels bad to me, then taking yours from you will feel bad to you, therefore, don't steal."
I was an optmist. it reflexively goes "Mine!" and then "F--- You!"
@jayphailey I was referring to "IOU's" as the fiat currency of the corporation "mob rule"' which is masked as the apparent "voting"democracy/fascist/technocracy with mind numbing media- high voltage and all things glued together by full spectrum light wave/radio wave interference.
"THEY" rule the ignorant with deception.
All "WE" can do is admit there is no "WE"and there is only "I" in a world of "THERE"S".
So, as David Gilmore sings- keep "TALKING" - that is what each of us are- adjectives.
I enjoyed this video. I found the concept of handing the relativist back his own currency to be amusing.
I have attempted this before. When someone says taxation is fair because of society and the social contract - then I'd say "Well myself and a few other folks have taken a vote, and you're going to buy us all lunch. As three or four people, we have more right to your money than you do, especially if we sanctified the taking by voting about it.
@jayphailey How can I delete this duplicated post?
Never had a good response from this tactic of voting ourselves lunch from the statists' pockets. The results vary from incoherent counter-rationalization to pretty severe anger.
@jayphailey Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. My latest argument against government is when they say it knows what's best for everyone I ask them if they are leaving all of their money in their will to the state and if not why? Then I ask if they know anyone who has done that.
@FIRSTGLADI8R I don't LOL that often. Thanks! I have found these last 3 blogs of his very interesting from a psychological analytical point of view. I think he is caught in a paradox logic loop. This happened to me once and still does but I eventually become aware of it. It's weird to see it happening to someone else.
If you are reading this Stef I can tell you how to get out.
My prescription
-Lysergic acid diethylamide. Lots.
-Add a dash of William S. Burroughs & Timothy Leary
@JohnnyContempt What benefit is derived from hanging around a channel that you don't like at all? It's like logging in every day to tell FRED that he's gay.
@BrainInSkull I watch every vid stef puts out. I find him intriguing. But, I find some the comments and commentators to be even more interesting. I never said I don't like this channel nor do I dislike stef. Even though he doesn't reply to my comments I know he is most likely reading them based on my diagnoses.
What benefit is derived from hanging out on this channel reading all the comments?
I'm no Bible expert, but actually I'm fairly convinced by an Episcopalian Minister friend of mine's take on "eye for an eye" vs "turn the other cheek." If you actually read the quote in context, Jesus states he isn't negating the previous injunction. What he is doing is making a clarification. He's saying "eye for an eye" really was meant to mean a response *proportionate* to the original injury. If someone slaps you on the cheek, it's no big deal. If someone pokes your eye out...
@kalliste23 If a slave smokes pot, jail him for years. If a leader orders a slaughter, wave your finger at him and give him a pension. If a slave refuses to get groped in an airport cuff and fine him. If a priest molests a child wave your finger at him and tell him to say 13 hail mary's.
@BrainInSkull yes, I heard Stefbot say that in the video. So how, exactly, is this a reply to my comment? It may help you to know that I'm a, "Get your retaliation in first" kind of guy, which probably doesn't fit in either with Stefbot or the Bible.
I may not be the brightest lamp in the box, but since I discovered Stefbot on you tube I have, by using some of his philosophical argument been better equiped to discover true, often hidden intentions in what people say to me and what I witness from there actions.
Leaving the subject of Liberty for a moment (I am of course a Libertarian) i have just noticed something quite amazing - everything you say in the video is true and very important for finding truth.
With all that you said being very good and accurate about reality and the senses debate you still
@godkingofthepunks If Stef does not exist, why are you wasting your time trying to convince him? If he is just a figment of your imagination why would you care?
Well- Here we have gold bug. That`s something a old barbaric style (, not very bright either!) and interpretation of contemporallity`s conceptualization (objective reality?) & its necessities and lack of emancipation and the possibility of implementing “it”.
If one has to abide to the asset accumulation and its wielding power, as it is know- Most will not make it- It’s very simple.
Brink of ecological crisis, individualism with out "proper" knowlegde is perhaps not a "good" the way
I ask the most rational mind i have encountered is it possible to be free without Anarchy ?? If you
answer yes please explain
how you can be free under authority and if you answer no why are you openly telling everyone that you are an anarchist because its not possible to be free without Anarchy
I don't think Stef proved anything, and I agree with him! Someone who believes that nothing is certain can also believe that we have no choice but to accept that and operate on the best evidence available, within those bounds of uncertainty. The poster judged that it was more likely that Stef edited his post than that his post had magically changed itself, based on his knowledge of how things work within the (to him) dubiously real reality he lives in. ...And I'm not even a subjectivist!
I think people claiming reality is subjective realize that adult brains are quite different from one another. I cannot say it's always one way or the other. I pick and choose according to the circumstances. I generally claim reality is subjective when I'm trying to understand how religion still exists. It's subjective to many human brains. Of course reality is objective in a world without humans but to ignore the over six billion who exist in a non-reality is difficult to say the least.
What if you were a worm and only had two senses to interpret reality;1) smell and 2) vibration. Can you concede that you might not be able to know that there were gray geese and white geese? Could you even believe in color at all? Could you even accept that there was a sense called "sight"? If you did I suppose all the other worms would call you a relativist and claim you were trying to enslave them.
I think a general criticism I would have of all your arguments is your adherence to empiricism. Empiricism is reliance on the five senses and instruments that send information to those five senses. Taking that as the methodology for truth, Einstein would have never figured out his theory of realitivity and many other great scientific breakthroughs would not have occured. Also, using logic based on empiricism does not new insights or creative discoveries that would increase mankind's knowledge.
consciousness is just the universe perceiving itself through the senses of the individual and forming an image of what it perceives in the human brain. visual, auditory and the other senses.
Bravo, much better than the Zen of Ass, clever and attacking th root of the issue not the branches which are indirectly related and bare little to no resemblance to the root where the problem is occuring. All this explaining though is inefficient and still might not convey the idea and it can certainly be manipulated, the message.
Although I may have a high IQ, you are a far brighter fellow. Because I am not as bright, I appreciate some of the limitations of the human brain and enjoy a simpler perspective. The human mind is fantastic, yet limited. Some folks are indeed more limited than others. We can choose to explore what is rational and exclusively, or acknowledge our limitations and seek a reality usually beyond our comprehension, that which on it's face appears irrational. Vague? It is what it is.
Respectfully I ask if you are incapable of carrying on conversations on 2 thread simultaneously?
1. Higher forms & existence being the physical senses are stepping stones to discover and document empirical evidence for the existence of God. I never said nor did I imply that the higher forms of the leaf nor DNA were God, so even taking the 2 separate threads and putting them together is absolutely philosophically sound as I never said a hoot about the existence of God.
You: Show me where I have denied the existence of "Empirical Physical Photographic Evidence"
You wrote prior: "Reeeeeeeally?" If this is not a rejection the answer is yes.
You: Show me where I've denied or rejected "a published peer reviewed scientific study by the Heart Math Institute"
You wrote prior: There are also studies performed with tin-foil hats that prove tyrpto-physical quantum senses. If this is not a denial or slander it is at a minimum useless comment.
Did the poster ever state or even imply everything is relative/subjective-or did the poster say that the 5 physical senses were limited and that there exists things outside of the realm of perception and uses Platonic Forms as a philosophical example?
Stefbot used a logically sound rebuttal of the 1st instance to rebut the unrelated 2nd instance. If anyone thinks it worked, fine, but I ask how-all is relative does not relate to existence outside the the perception of the 5 senses
Why do you make positive claims like "Religions are control systems that use mind control..." Dark forces are at work ...". Why aren't you agnostic about those?
agnostic |agˈnästik|
noun
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
What does agnosticism have to do with positive claims?
@detersbb "#2 Denial/Rejection of a published peer reviewed scientific study by the Heart Math Institute"
I tried to find this "peer reviewed scientific study" not only did I not find the study but putting the word kirlian into HeartMath Institute site's search box returns zero results. Now that you've figured out how to spell kirlian, do us a favor and point us to where we can find this peer reviewed scientific study that you speak of.
Looks like pseudoscience to me. watch?v=Yq-UBrXFNMw
1. I never said the heart math institute did anything with Kirlian Photography.
2. I I am afraid that you are right on the Phantom DNA Experiment
I can not explain the Phantom DNA Experiment's absence on the Heart Math website, despite numerous web postings to the contrary. I will agree that it is BS & I thank you for bringing this to my attention. I am sorry for posting about it. It really is a shame that people would post and discuss and misrepresent such a study.
I'm really confused about where you are taking this, stefbot. It seems like you are wandering from the point of what was my original comment.
Nevertheless, I thank you for taking this on and I will get back with you with a more complete argument once I have some time to address it. See you soon.
The argument between empiricist and relativist has continued for a long time, but i fear its just like the 'existence of god' debate. It was concluded many years ago that the only way to get closer to any kind of 'proof' is by the 'forbidden experiment' ... something all sides agreed was a step too far, except maybe in the Nazi death camps. Consider that the subjective viewpoint is always cancelled out by the act of communicating it, but that does not disprove its validity for the originater.
Wow, Stef, I cannot read your comments on your videos anymore... too many people don't get it... I have never heard you say anything I disagree with, just things that I would explain differently... not because you lack ability, just to match how I think someone like me would understand it better.
LOVE the teapot example as a way to unravel relativism.
I really resonate with what you're saying about morality - it's almost always used as a way to disempower the defenseless.
It's VERY difficult to eliminate morality from your subconscious mind. The need to RATIONALIZE your behavior to those in power cannot be consciously removed - you have to ACT contrary to the moral edict and then stand up to the shit storm you create by defying authority.
eye for an eye is not about revenge as you make it seem.
it's about fair treatment
only eye for an eye - not an eye for an eye, hand and an ear. it's not about taking eye for an eye, but about ethical limitations in fair reciprocations in only seeking a fair revenge.
@bryphi77 - better to have a tax on the value of land. In fact such a tax would provide all the income a state should need and so could be the only tax required.
How much income "should" a state need? Why is your answer right? Why would a different amount less or more be wrong? Should, would, could are not words the state respects. The state will take what they need. The state will decide what it needs. You will, as your only option, vote for the blue or red puppet who will decide for you how much you pay and how it will be spent, and how much you pay next year and children will as they grow up.
@Myrmecia Yeah, the problem with that is... I dont give a shit about what the so called "state" needs or requires. I want to live freely off of earths free resources without being forces to produce goods and services for others, or being forced to be dependent on gov and corps.
These fucking scumbags print little green pieces of paper for them and their friends... make us slave for them to get these green pieces of paper... While they buy real assets with the money they print out of thin air!
You know how you've talked about child abuse? Parents who pressure their children to pay no attention to their bodily/emotional needs: rest, injury, going to the bathroom, whatever, produce people in serious doubt of reality.
The last people who need any more torture about what is going on in their worlds, are people like that.
@MisterC0 Torture is an accurate characterization of what Stef's interlocutor experienced. I never said Stef was *doing* it. If you'd been more into compassion, rather than the cleverness of "being right", you might have noticed that, as well as refraining from the absurd "I hope you'll look into that." I hope life eventually brings you to greater health, kindness and self-awareness.
@givebirthathome Also, I'd like to point out that I was a victim of child abuse and I was wondering whether your actions in this thread toward me are the example you want Stef to follow?
Well done (AGAIN) Stef. This makes me think of people who claim to be so "spiritual" and that say they know they are a spiritual being within a physical world. They act so superior... and then someone steals their wallet. "Where's my wallet! I can't believe someone stole my wallet! People are so inconsiderate!" You seem pretty attached to the world of form now, buddy. ha! I'm looking forward to getting into the discussion on the show tomorrow!
@cjellwood There isn't room and if you did you would never come out of the infinite loop philosophy circuit. You would merely be assimilated, digested and reconstituted into another logic circuit. Stef is the Borg head.
Yes, that is one common definition. But the most important one, is the translation of the original greek word, into it's meaning & use:
"The term sophism originated from Greek σόφισμα, sophisma, from σοφίζω, sophizo "I am wise"; confer σοφιστής, sophistēs, meaning "wise-ist, one who does wisdom, one who makes a business out of wisdom" and σοφός, sophós means "wise man"."
a paid teacher of philosophy and rhetoric in ancient Greece, associated in popular thought with moral skepticism and specious reasoning.
• a person who reasons with clever but fallacious arguments.
That is the definition of sophist that I have in my dictionary. It really is upsetting that so few explanations/definitions of the word therein have been given, when different definitions vary so greatly. The meaning changed from Greek to contemporary English.
@detersbb yeah very true, we have constantine and the vatican to thank for that :P
thankfully, even this topic was covered by plato in his dialogue 'meno,' dealing largely with etymology, the perception and transliterations of language, and their hidden meanings (ie: discussed in that dialogue, are the meanings of the names of the greek gods: transforming them into a mythology, into a sophisticated way of teaching the forces of nature.. ie: zeus was metaphorical of the force of electricity, etc)
I have just been working on studying the meanings of the Hebrew letters and see now that there is a story behind the stories written in the bible as each letter has several meanings, those meanings interpretations, and what letters it follows or precedes when taking that into consideration tell an amazing sotry "encoded" into the "literal" meanings of the scriptures
Zeus=Jesus=Jew-Zeus
Zeus has more meanings, it all depends on what level one is examining, but you are right
not at all, the vast majourity of his stuff is very clear-sighted, well reasoned. i have a lot of respect for you too,i don't mean to be insulting, you have an amazing grasp of logic.
there are things i disagree with...one mustn't accept an entire philosophy as being purely true or false, parts relative to the whole can be 100% correct, but doesn't imply all deductions are irrefutable.
many things are beyond 'proof.' proving 'god' exists, or does not exist, are both difficult feats
@stefbot You misused Nietzsche. You just inserted your own bullshit in place of what he was denouncing. I find it hard to believe you even understood him. Otherwise we would be in complete agreement
@MrShittyFag With such a clever and mature screen-name like yours I find it real hard to believe YOU understood Stef, lets not even mention Nietzsche.
Maybe that's why it seems so hard for you to be in agreement with anything around here.
Me thinks someone is jealous...lol... You even had the need to mention Stefan's "inability" to see the world with your eyes and agree with you, or your ego in one of your super-professional, well scripted and intelligent videos...
@tommytalks77 Why do you say that? Based on my username? Stef is only slightly better than those he is trying to replace. Mine is the proper interpretation if you bothered to pay attention. Let's not talk about discrimination, you're fucking braindead
wow, awesome... thank you....
MrTruthUnleashed 3 weeks ago
LETS OSTRACIZE,
salo73 10 months ago
I agree that you have a real point. The world exists whether one perceives it or not. I also think that it's possible to oversimplify the terms of any discussion in the interests of getting a point across. I think your purpose is serious and genuine. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts referring back to the readings you've done in social constructionism and essentialist thought, and also perhaps in embodied consciousness.This would, I think, be enlightening, for me at least.
daniel15671 1 year ago
For the record, your singing was actually pretty good.
RockJoeMTL 1 year ago
What I find interesting is some people never stop to think why do they have to follow and obey the ten comanments and God did not.I mean he does suppose to lead by example.lol
eoo8 1 year ago
I love you Stefan you wonderful mothafucka! I see myself as a spiritual person but totally feel & respect what you are saying & I see no conflict between us man. KEEP DRPPING YOUR TRUTH BOMBS MY FRIEND! LOVE TO YOU & YOURS X
pimpdarlin 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY No, John Locke is just a famous example.
riethc 1 year ago
Objectivity is based on facts that are often nonexistent, what people objectively reason to be true is in many cases illusion. It was a rational fact that the sun rises and sets, but now it is not a fact. Subjective opinions may arrive at the same conclusion. To be rationally convinced in facts can be misleading, is also can be misleading to subjectively believe in opinions. These are two sides of the same coin.
walkertongdee 1 year ago
If you spin acoin an INFINITE amount of times, then eventually, it will perform REPETITIVE spins, over and over and over. Why ?
Ans: because INFINITY creates CERTAINTY
So, IF you believe the universe is INFINITE, then santa, the tooth fairy and mary poppins DO exist, somewhere in the universe, because they MUST
Why :
Ans: because every time you find something different to them, there would be something behind them, a little more similar, until eventually - MARY POPPINS will exist ! (has to)
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 1 year ago
If the universe is truly infinite, then the amount of mary poppins's also must be infinite.
(What's the frigging plural of mary poppins anyway?
That's what I wanna know.)
Skullchaser08 10 months ago
@Skullchaser08:
Actually, yes, I never thought of that. There MUST be hundreds (and therefore, millions, and there for trillions of billions) of mary Poppinses (hee hee), and all the rest fo the charachters, too. BILLIONS of Dick Van Dykeses, with his terrible english accent, cleaning chimneys, on planets identical to this one, and slightly different, and very different.
Trillions of stefbotses, some with more hair, some with less (if thats possible), some orange, some green.
MUST be !!
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 10 months ago
@Skullchaser08:
ps - i used the same rational against some athiests, once, because they were perporting no possibility of god.
I pointed out that the "must be" factor of infinity, would mean that richard dawkins can no longer spout off at people saying "you may as well believe in the ancient god wotan, or zeus, or a giant teapot in the sky", because in actual fact there MUST be a giant teapot in the sky, somewhere.
They soon start swearing, i can tell you.
They are religiously athiest !!
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 10 months ago
Mary Poppinses, haha.
We'll need a plural for everything!
stefbotses. :D
Yeah, these Atheists get run over by their own big bang theory.
They had it coming, these zealous religious fanatics.
Prepare for car bombs and atheist suicide bombers. :D
Skullchaser08 10 months ago
@Skullchaser08:
Well, yes - they are SO fanatical about athiesm, that they MAKE it a religion, by their devotedness to it.
I suppose its how many religions start, except that they are "reverse" in their beliefs.
They are SO determined to prove that there is no God, that whenever they are confronted with the slightest possibility of his existence, they go MAAAAAD !
Oh well, que cera, cera !
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 10 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY Just take one example out from my "smokescreen". John Locke is a good example.
What did John Locke postulate? Bascially, that minds are a composite of experiences. That people are born with blank minds (the tabula rasa) and that over time it is filled with experiences. There is nothing innate about the mind in Locke's philosophy. He's an empiricist.
riethc 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
I get this from studying people who actually discovered new principles, compared to people who pretend to have. Have you read Einstein? Have you read Kepler? Have you read Plato? Then in opposition, have you read Aristotle? Have you read Nietzsche? Have you read Locke?
Why be subscribed to a "philosophical" channel if you don't study any of the philosophers that you guys assume stefbot knows so much about?
riethc 1 year ago
Hey Stef, I graze your posts when I have time and find them great. One question here: how does the philosophy of Nietzsche come down on this question of reality? And do you agree? I assumed Nietzsche would say 'reality' is essentially interpretations (subjective) - those with the 'power' are able to define 'reality' to their own ends (eg. our overlords). Thus, if any argument is subjective it wouldn't matter whether one makes a claim to objectivity.
bobby4lee 1 year ago
My point is, clemons, I don't have a problem with Stefan's overall beliefs about morality. I do have a problem with how he conveys Martin Luther and religious people's perspective here, which I think is wrong and unhelpful.
xanas3712 1 year ago
I feel the real solution is for the people who are wise, logical, and non manipulative to band together, and strictly ignore the irrationals for a while. It would be an amazing change of scenery that is desperately needed. The foolish and headstrong people out there only survive because the logical ones are continually keeping them afloat. Give them a little taste of life without reason, and they will come running to plead forgiveness, and we will deny it until they change.
ThanksIKnowImlucky 1 year ago 6
No.
You are expecting irrationals to act rationally.
They would inevitably respond with violence.
Skullchaser08 10 months ago
Stef, I'm proud to say that you did a good job of convincing me at a time when I was wavering between minarchism and anarchism. But, I'd appreciate your sourcing this information on Martin Luther for me. I admit to being very skeptical of your views at this point on religion because you say things that don't match up at all with how I saw "eye for an eye" vs "turn the other cheek" when I was a fundamentalist (I am not now).
Perhaps Luther taught that, but I'd like to know where I can see it.
xanas3712 1 year ago
@xanas3712 I think you might be asking the wrong question. Who cares what Martin Luther had to say?
The whole point of rationality is to connect your reason (based on the observed/axiomatic) with your actions in a non-contradictory way. The moral is the CHOSEN not the OBEYED. It would not be 'moral' to obey a god even if it existed - because actions must be chosen independent of authority.
clemonsx90 1 year ago
@clemonsx90 I have no problems with your viewpoint on rational morality, and I think what you said is internally consistent, but the parts here about "turn the other cheek" and "eye for an eye" sound like an anti-religious smear campaign which is.. frankly inconsistent with rational morality. It will only serve to irritate the religious and can't possibly lead to "converting' anyone away from that.
Your point about what would be moral regardless of what a god wants is perfectly reasonable.
xanas3712 1 year ago
I agree with you that FOR YOU reality is objective. For me it is subjective. I really like what you have to say but I think it has problems and I also think that you come over as rather arrogant/ The problem with that is that this may get in the way of people hearing your message which I think is essentially an excellent one.
spiritualentertainer 1 year ago
ah a wonderful argument. i have been looking for something clever to say to my subjectivist friends. thanks :p
ThisIsMissLys 1 year ago 2
@PostITnoteGUY I won't be able to explain this well in 500 characters so I'll just lay it out for you to tear into.
Epistemologically, empiricism denies that the creative principles exist in the universe. It also implicitly denies that the human mind reflects those principles.
riethc 1 year ago
I would like to thank you for posting this video. It may not been one of your objectives, but while I was watching, a lightbulb went off in my head. A pursuit of a knowledge of philosophy is about knowing what is right, and doing what is right! Not just being right, or getting that last word in.
thedamnedapostle 1 year ago
I sincerely doubt that philosophy was created to subjugate anyone, sounds too conspiratorial to be accurate. Philosophy was more often used in the very early days to attempt to understand things in a deeper way--and it is no wonder that natural philosophy yielded science--by breaking things down into a unit-economy and rationalizing the perceived.
Who are you subjugating with your Ethics? All of your arguments are Ethical.
LiberalCast 1 year ago
@LiberalCast Philosophy developed by the wealthy for the wealthy, i.e. the ruling class. Granted there were many poor philosophers, but by and large, those who taught it, were teaching to the powerful, not to the slaves. The market meets the demands of the consumer. Look into Aristotle's writings and you'll find, for example, that he taught his students that mixing slaves from various cultures keeps them divided and conquered.
ostralopithicus 1 year ago
@ostralopithicus I didn't argue against that, though I would say your argument is tantamount to an ad hominem fallacy. Philosophy wasn't some conspiracy to keep other subdued, it is a set of intellectual tools to better understand the world. Sure, early philosophers used these methods and theories to justify horrible things that were deemed acceptable at the time but that doesn't mean that is what philosophy is for.
LiberalCast 1 year ago
I believe in a higher power/being/entity, however perhaps the divine creator left blueprints for us to uncover learn and at some point reach a difinitive level of comprehension, u make some interesting points of view! Presumably you are atheist/agnostic?
zakross1987 1 year ago
@zakross1987
Yes enlightenment is exactly such a blue print and it exists and it is attainable.
colloredbrothers 1 year ago
@zakross1987 Instead of just clearly spelling out in the clouds, "I did this and you should listen to me" If you had children and new that it meant eternal life or damnation would you leave a foggy blue print that may or may not be understood knowing that you had to power to make it perfectly clear? It's sadistically bad parenting.
BrainInSkull 1 year ago
I personally don't, as of yet believe in objective morality. Even though I agree with most of what you say, I don't think your arguments would be undermined if you did believe in subjective morality. Just out of curiosity though, what do you base your objective morality?
DaveEZ2009 1 year ago
lol
whorlus 1 year ago
Nice one. Keep hammering Stef, my skull is thick, but not impenetrable :-)
ostralopithicus 1 year ago
a true hissy fit lol
twistedbydsign99 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PostITnoteGUY "What's your definition of 'empiricism'?"
Although, I have no love for the site, Wikipedia defines it well enough:
"In philosophy, empiricism is a theory of knowledge which asserts the idea that knowledge arises via sensual experience."
I imagine I'll be accussed of being a democratic relativist next. ;)
riethc 1 year ago
Comment removed
riethc 1 year ago
Everyone who watches it becomes an Anarchist - should see my inbox ! UP THE REVOLUTION !!
godkingofthepunks 1 year ago
Good point. Let me ask you about LOVE. YOu can feel love you can not see it . But how do you explain that,
thestonemaster 1 year ago
@thestonemaster A cascaded of particular hormones that caused an individual to PERCEIVE a feeling via the senses. Entirely measurable. Entirely creatable with chemicals
johnycannuk 1 year ago
@thestonemaster I suppose we can't see any emotion but brain imaging studies have improved the understanding of how the human brain regulates emotions. Now, I would say that whether a person loves you is shown by action and interaction. One might be able to argue that it's all selfish. I love this person because of the way she makes me feel. I am kind and generous to this person because of the way these actions make me feel.
BrainInSkull 1 year ago
wow this is genius... this vid really clarifies my intuitive ambiguous feeling toward philosophy , thank you!
alennna 1 year ago
Lets Liberate ourselves and ignore those who ard trying to drive this off
course - spread the video
godkingofthepunks 1 year ago
to easy to catch him out, very sly
BaKer312213 1 year ago
Its pretty much based on the story of your enslavement but i drove the point home
godkingofthepunks 1 year ago
I have condenced my argument for Anarchy into a 50 second vide. It is called "HOW CAN YOU BE
FREE WITHOUT ANARCHY" .
It has been posted to other sights with some sucess - please help to make it such on youtube
godkingofthepunks 1 year ago
This is all very well but does anybody want to be free ? Unless you know how you can be free without Anarchy we should all be pushing hard for this brothers
godkingofthepunks 1 year ago
what you resist persists :O
AriloeuLaleelae 1 year ago
It was not cencorship but awaweness of how damaging this kind of missinfomation can be and i would of done exactly the same so please do not try to attempt a greater position of intelligence than myself unless you are prepared to demonstrate your superior intellect by reasoning with me - lets try the subject of Liberty as this is so important to us all - Lets have a debate about Anarchy- you can tell me how it is possible to be free without Anarchy
godkingofthepunks 1 year ago
@Stefbot - No quantum physicist worth a can of beans would tell you that what we experience with our senses is what is really out there. It should be abundantly obvious that our senses are electrical reactions, interpretations of what is actually there. Nothing relativist about it. To act as if you have any direct knowledge of the fields of energy that actually exist beyond our minds is like saying that a computer has direct knowledge of the person typing on the keyboard.
StormCloudsGathering 1 year ago
@StormCloudsGathering A bit off top I know but how does all of this quantum physics knowledge affect their behavior? Do they suddenly cut out their eyes, fill their mouths with cement and jam bananas in their ears in an effort to banish their senses? When they conceive a particle in two places at the same time do they suddenly realize that their funding is coming from a form of theft.
BrainInSkull 1 year ago
@StormCloudsGathering actually, quantum physicists are very clear that quantum behavior has no effect whatsoever on what we perceive through the senses
stefbot 1 year ago 22
@stefbot - That's not what I meant at all. The senses are interpreting the fields that are really out there and turning them into an experience. The actual energy that we see as solid is not solid in any sense of the word. On a quantum level it can be recorded as a wave form or highly unpredictable particles depending on the testing method. Further more, the entire time / space interpretation that the human mind formulates is shown to be illusory by both general relativity and quantum physics.
StormCloudsGathering 1 year ago
@stefbot - continued - ... And by illusory, I mean that the interpretation formed by our brain in response to the actual energy fields out there does not match the mathematical and laboratory conclusions reached by physicists. A good illustration of this principle is the fact that an electron, a photo and even an entire atom have been demonstrated to be in two places at once in experiments. The universe is not what it seems to be to the senses at all.
StormCloudsGathering 1 year ago
@stefbot what is it we perceive through the senses?
puredoodle 1 year ago
@stefbot I just had a brainfart - 'There is no absolute subjectivity' (we perceive consistency between cause and effect)
You were wrong to tamper with someone's post - not understanding the deeper dual nature of the discussion at hand has given you wrong mindedness. Consider the Yin within the Yang or if you prefer the Infinite Nothingness, or the Non Changing Infinity.
If it's not all relative - Name something big
TheSkaffen 1 year ago
@StormCloudsGathering Actually there is no connection between what you say and quantum physics. What you say is a sort of quasi new age Theory that quote-mines Quantum Physics. It should be abundantly obvious to you that those senses record stimuli that do come from somewhere. So what you said is actually self-contradicting since you said our senses are elextrical reactions to.... nothing. This is just another religious Trap. The senses would be exactly neuron stimulation and nothing else anyway
graphattic 1 year ago
@StormCloudsGathering if that is true, then how can you guarantee that we are understanding what you are saying?
DrKleiner 1 year ago
Comment removed
riethc 1 year ago
Stef, I do not question empiricism, and I am happy with the way you are showing this fool up, but can you indicate why you are comparing non-empiricists with counterfeiters? This has disturbing ethical implications. Also, since you edited the guy's post, why are you not to be considered a counterfeiter?
BenettFreeman 1 year ago
@BenettFreeman That's what I'm wondering too! Early in the video he also pointed out how government has setup a system where they can abuse their position to force all kinds of "responsibilities" upon society, yet society has no way to demand the same from the government.
When Stef started talking about editing the forum user post, thats kind of what he did too. He used his privilege as moderator of the board and edited the persons post, but the person is not in a position to do the same.
PDzero 1 year ago
@PDzero - The Youtube servers belong to youtube. Stefan is borrowing them or purchasing services on their machines. Youtube and Stefan are entirely within their rights to set up terms of service and remove posts that violate their terms.
You have all the right in the world to set up your own server, hosting your own forums to say whatever you want. I'll bet that there are forums where bashing on Stefan or Youtube is a happily welcomed addition.
jayphailey 1 year ago
Society has been designed by the ruling class or slave-masters to give you a bad name if you want to be free.
CLAIM YOUR RIGHT FOR ANARCHY !!
How can you be free without Anarchy ??
Tell me a way that you can be free without Anarchy ?
How can you be at Liberty
without Anarchy ?? Come
on, lets reason ! Tell me how you can be free under authority or fight to be free God damn it !! Talk about nothing other than Anarchy until we are
free !!
godkingofthepunks 1 year ago
I think that philosophy could be defined as the rational investigation of the truth
godkingofthepunks 1 year ago
Absolutism is not something I agree with, the problem is for many it IS subjective. Its only subjective based upon what we understand and perceive.
Its about perception, if someone who is blind is told a certain colour is an absolute moral truth, how on earth are they going to understand? If I am blind, I'm not going to get it, if you are blind, you are not going to get it. Everyone has a blind spot. I wish someone would apply my philosophy back to me, because it would only be fair.
AlterEgoTrip 1 year ago
@AlterEgoTrip I am Absolutist about one thing. You own you. My assertion is that if you allow any exception in this, then that exception will become a tool to build tyranny on,
Collary, the idea that it is okay to harm the indivudal for the good of the greater whole is a violation of the individual's self-ownership - this idea - that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few is the rationalization all government is built on.
jayphailey 1 year ago
@jayphailey I agree with you on this subject. The states always find a loop hole when it comes to the majority's right to exploit the minority, and the idea of some "greater good" that the individual must sacrifice themselves to and shut up about it has always been a sticky clause when it comes to universal rights. The rights of the individual to be free should should not be feared conversely... so in the context of a disagreement over perception must allow for a belief without force.
AlterEgoTrip 1 year ago
I have the "right to be wrong" and even the right for "madness" as long as I don't injure anyone with my ideas. So the subjectivity of my perception and my own personal "blindness" for "logic" and the pragmatic should not be treated as something to be marginalized. I believe strongly in the liberty of the individual and because of that, although I may not believe within an atheistic paradigm I do respect it and do not play around trying to force my perceptions with others or attempt to convert.
AlterEgoTrip 1 year ago
People always refer to our senses as there only being 5, but we have more than just 5 senses, e.g. balance & thermoception, etc.
TigronX 1 year ago 2
I do not think that the process of the aplication of reasoned thought could of been invented by
the ruling classes but more 'hijacked' and taken away from its true meaning to justify their irrational belief that it is acceptable to rule another man - of course it is not because every man has the right to be free, the right to self ownership, the right to Anarchy, the right to rule himself.
godkingofthepunks 1 year ago
Stefan, have you ever had experience(s) with DMT (or Ayahuasca)? If so, how was it? If not, would you want to?
matrixview 1 year ago
I must admit to a mistake which i have made. In an earlyer post i said all that you said in the video was true - it should of just read all that you said about reality and the senses was true. I thought of this and came back to the page to notice that someone else had already picked you up on this which i know you would appreciate as i
detect that you are devoid of egotistical intention. Point is that philosophy is the application of reasoned thought
godkingofthepunks 1 year ago
I enjoyed this video. I found the concept of handing the relativist back his own currency to be amusing.
I have attempted this before. When someone says taxation is fair because of society and the social contract - then I'd say "Well myself and a few other folks have taken a vote, and you're going to buy us all lunch. As three or four people, we have more right to your money than you do, especially if we sanctified the taking by voting about it.
Usually, I am called an asshole.
jayphailey 1 year ago
@jayphailey Asshole! Just kidding. Now after voting and you still don't receive your free lunch do you beat them up and take their wallet only to find out that there is are only lots of IOU's?
I do like your use of 'sanctified' with voting. I equate "Mob Rule".
JohnnyContempt 1 year ago
@JohnnyContempt - No. I figured that making a statist reflexively reach for his wallet to keep me from ganking it would a gateway to the idea of "Mine" - once someone has "Mine" down, in theory we can work towards "Not Mine" - and then "If taking mine from me feels bad to me, then taking yours from you will feel bad to you, therefore, don't steal."
I was an optmist. it reflexively goes "Mine!" and then "F--- You!"
jayphailey 1 year ago
Comment removed
JohnnyContempt 1 year ago
@jayphailey I was referring to "IOU's" as the fiat currency of the corporation "mob rule"' which is masked as the apparent "voting"democracy/fascist/technocracy with mind numbing media- high voltage and all things glued together by full spectrum light wave/radio wave interference.
"THEY" rule the ignorant with deception.
All "WE" can do is admit there is no "WE"and there is only "I" in a world of "THERE"S".
So, as David Gilmore sings- keep "TALKING" - that is what each of us are- adjectives.
JohnnyContempt 1 year ago
I enjoyed this video. I found the concept of handing the relativist back his own currency to be amusing.
I have attempted this before. When someone says taxation is fair because of society and the social contract - then I'd say "Well myself and a few other folks have taken a vote, and you're going to buy us all lunch. As three or four people, we have more right to your money than you do, especially if we sanctified the taking by voting about it.
jayphailey 1 year ago
@jayphailey How can I delete this duplicated post?
Never had a good response from this tactic of voting ourselves lunch from the statists' pockets. The results vary from incoherent counter-rationalization to pretty severe anger.
jayphailey 1 year ago
@jayphailey Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. My latest argument against government is when they say it knows what's best for everyone I ask them if they are leaving all of their money in their will to the state and if not why? Then I ask if they know anyone who has done that.
BrainInSkull 1 year ago
Someone who calls himself a philosopher thinks philosophy was invented to control the slaves. How did you reach that assertion?
FIRSTGLADI8R 1 year ago
@FIRSTGLADI8R I don't LOL that often. Thanks! I have found these last 3 blogs of his very interesting from a psychological analytical point of view. I think he is caught in a paradox logic loop. This happened to me once and still does but I eventually become aware of it. It's weird to see it happening to someone else.
If you are reading this Stef I can tell you how to get out.
My prescription
-Lysergic acid diethylamide. Lots.
-Add a dash of William S. Burroughs & Timothy Leary
-Jump in a lake
JohnnyContempt 1 year ago
@JohnnyContempt What benefit is derived from hanging around a channel that you don't like at all? It's like logging in every day to tell FRED that he's gay.
BrainInSkull 1 year ago
@BrainInSkull I watch every vid stef puts out. I find him intriguing. But, I find some the comments and commentators to be even more interesting. I never said I don't like this channel nor do I dislike stef. Even though he doesn't reply to my comments I know he is most likely reading them based on my diagnoses.
What benefit is derived from hanging out on this channel reading all the comments?
It's all good...
JohnnyContempt 1 year ago
I'm no Bible expert, but actually I'm fairly convinced by an Episcopalian Minister friend of mine's take on "eye for an eye" vs "turn the other cheek." If you actually read the quote in context, Jesus states he isn't negating the previous injunction. What he is doing is making a clarification. He's saying "eye for an eye" really was meant to mean a response *proportionate* to the original injury. If someone slaps you on the cheek, it's no big deal. If someone pokes your eye out...
kalliste23 1 year ago
@kalliste23 If a slave smokes pot, jail him for years. If a leader orders a slaughter, wave your finger at him and give him a pension. If a slave refuses to get groped in an airport cuff and fine him. If a priest molests a child wave your finger at him and tell him to say 13 hail mary's.
BrainInSkull 1 year ago
@BrainInSkull yes, I heard Stefbot say that in the video. So how, exactly, is this a reply to my comment? It may help you to know that I'm a, "Get your retaliation in first" kind of guy, which probably doesn't fit in either with Stefbot or the Bible.
kalliste23 1 year ago
Very clever :)
WASDsweden 1 year ago
@ professoranton
"i usually enjoy your videos"
Why do you find it hard to imagine yourself ?? I laugh openly - you profess stupidity
godkingofthepunks 1 year ago
Brilliant as always.
TheJacolyte 1 year ago
I usually like your stuff. But here you are a little tea bot
Hard to imagine the people who find your dichotomous thinking intelligible.
Professoranton 1 year ago
Intelligence is there to be enjoyed - pollution of intelligence must be removed
godkingofthepunks 1 year ago
wow, i cant believe you deleted my post.
datafork 1 year ago
socratic humility... if not plato.. understand Godel.. watch?v=oldUAw2Aux0
65nom 1 year ago
Prove to me that you exist dummy
godkingofthepunks 1 year ago
I may not be the brightest lamp in the box, but since I discovered Stefbot on you tube I have, by using some of his philosophical argument been better equiped to discover true, often hidden intentions in what people say to me and what I witness from there actions.
Keep up the postings. they're good for me.
georgealexander 1 year ago 13
Funny do you think there's an eternity somewhere under tha rainbow?
dogma478 1 year ago
Leaving the subject of Liberty for a moment (I am of course a Libertarian) i have just noticed something quite amazing - everything you say in the video is true and very important for finding truth.
With all that you said being very good and accurate about reality and the senses debate you still
cant prove to me that you exist ;) !
godkingofthepunks 1 year ago
@godkingofthepunks If Stef does not exist, why are you wasting your time trying to convince him? If he is just a figment of your imagination why would you care?
inibo 1 year ago
Well- Here we have gold bug. That`s something a old barbaric style (, not very bright either!) and interpretation of contemporallity`s conceptualization (objective reality?) & its necessities and lack of emancipation and the possibility of implementing “it”.
If one has to abide to the asset accumulation and its wielding power, as it is know- Most will not make it- It’s very simple.
Brink of ecological crisis, individualism with out "proper" knowlegde is perhaps not a "good" the way
subentry 1 year ago
Can you be at Liberty without Anarchy ? (-A-)
godkingofthepunks 1 year ago
This video had so much win.
drew335533 1 year ago
I ask the most rational mind i have encountered is it possible to be free without Anarchy ?? If you
answer yes please explain
how you can be free under authority and if you answer no why are you openly telling everyone that you are an anarchist because its not possible to be free without Anarchy
godkingofthepunks 1 year ago
lordthawkeye sent me.
He said this is a good video.
He wasn't kidding. :)
vspqbd 1 year ago
very entertaining. tx.
andthereisntone 1 year ago
I don't think Stef proved anything, and I agree with him! Someone who believes that nothing is certain can also believe that we have no choice but to accept that and operate on the best evidence available, within those bounds of uncertainty. The poster judged that it was more likely that Stef edited his post than that his post had magically changed itself, based on his knowledge of how things work within the (to him) dubiously real reality he lives in. ...And I'm not even a subjectivist!
jevinski 1 year ago
I think people claiming reality is subjective realize that adult brains are quite different from one another. I cannot say it's always one way or the other. I pick and choose according to the circumstances. I generally claim reality is subjective when I'm trying to understand how religion still exists. It's subjective to many human brains. Of course reality is objective in a world without humans but to ignore the over six billion who exist in a non-reality is difficult to say the least.
jasonlajoie 1 year ago
What if you were a worm and only had two senses to interpret reality;1) smell and 2) vibration. Can you concede that you might not be able to know that there were gray geese and white geese? Could you even believe in color at all? Could you even accept that there was a sense called "sight"? If you did I suppose all the other worms would call you a relativist and claim you were trying to enslave them.
kennyvii 1 year ago
I think a general criticism I would have of all your arguments is your adherence to empiricism. Empiricism is reliance on the five senses and instruments that send information to those five senses. Taking that as the methodology for truth, Einstein would have never figured out his theory of realitivity and many other great scientific breakthroughs would not have occured. Also, using logic based on empiricism does not new insights or creative discoveries that would increase mankind's knowledge.
riethc 1 year ago
Comment removed
riethc 1 year ago
Just to keep this argument alive, I'm going to repost the original comment so people can see what stefbot is refering to in this video.
riethc 1 year ago
consciousness is just the universe perceiving itself through the senses of the individual and forming an image of what it perceives in the human brain. visual, auditory and the other senses.
rebelq1 1 year ago 24
Bravo, much better than the Zen of Ass, clever and attacking th root of the issue not the branches which are indirectly related and bare little to no resemblance to the root where the problem is occuring. All this explaining though is inefficient and still might not convey the idea and it can certainly be manipulated, the message.
Rcwatson83 1 year ago
Although I may have a high IQ, you are a far brighter fellow. Because I am not as bright, I appreciate some of the limitations of the human brain and enjoy a simpler perspective. The human mind is fantastic, yet limited. Some folks are indeed more limited than others. We can choose to explore what is rational and exclusively, or acknowledge our limitations and seek a reality usually beyond our comprehension, that which on it's face appears irrational. Vague? It is what it is.
InTheSticks0001 1 year ago
Comment removed
adorianvlad 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
Congratulations you got me on material phenomena. I admit when I am wrong.
detersbb 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
Very well if you do not reject any of my post there is no point to continue on in that conversation thread.
detersbb 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
Respectfully I ask if you are incapable of carrying on conversations on 2 thread simultaneously?
1. Higher forms & existence being the physical senses are stepping stones to discover and document empirical evidence for the existence of God. I never said nor did I imply that the higher forms of the leaf nor DNA were God, so even taking the 2 separate threads and putting them together is absolutely philosophically sound as I never said a hoot about the existence of God.
detersbb 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
You: Show me where I have denied the existence of "Empirical Physical Photographic Evidence"
You wrote prior: "Reeeeeeeally?" If this is not a rejection the answer is yes.
You: Show me where I've denied or rejected "a published peer reviewed scientific study by the Heart Math Institute"
You wrote prior: There are also studies performed with tin-foil hats that prove tyrpto-physical quantum senses. If this is not a denial or slander it is at a minimum useless comment.
detersbb 1 year ago
I thought the teapot example was one of the best things i've heard. I was wondering it it worked on the poster?
tubeymcdee 1 year ago
@tubeymcdee
Did the poster ever state or even imply everything is relative/subjective-or did the poster say that the 5 physical senses were limited and that there exists things outside of the realm of perception and uses Platonic Forms as a philosophical example?
Stefbot used a logically sound rebuttal of the 1st instance to rebut the unrelated 2nd instance. If anyone thinks it worked, fine, but I ask how-all is relative does not relate to existence outside the the perception of the 5 senses
detersbb 1 year ago
@detersbb I don't really know what happened with the poster, that's what I was asking about.
tubeymcdee 1 year ago
I agree with Stef about the historical nature of philosophy and morality
because with democracy you don't need morality. Only the greater force in society behind you.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
Why do you make positive claims like "Religions are control systems that use mind control..." Dark forces are at work ...". Why aren't you agnostic about those?
agnostic |agˈnästik|
noun
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
What does agnosticism have to do with positive claims?
detersbb 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
Your Rebuttal:
#1 Spelling Error
#2 Denial of Empirical Physical Photographic Evidence
#3 Denial/Rejection of a published peer reviewed scientific study by the Heart Math Institute
Your Results: EPIC FAIL!
But do not worry I will now re-post with the correct spelling in the hopes that you will only be able to:
#1 Denial of Empirical Physical Photographic Evidence
#2 Denial/Rejection of a published peer reviewed scientific study by the Heart Math Institute
#3 EPIC FAIL AGAIN
detersbb 1 year ago
@detersbb "#2 Denial/Rejection of a published peer reviewed scientific study by the Heart Math Institute"
I tried to find this "peer reviewed scientific study" not only did I not find the study but putting the word kirlian into HeartMath Institute site's search box returns zero results. Now that you've figured out how to spell kirlian, do us a favor and point us to where we can find this peer reviewed scientific study that you speak of.
Looks like pseudoscience to me. watch?v=Yq-UBrXFNMw
justintempler 1 year ago
@justintempler
1. I never said the heart math institute did anything with Kirlian Photography.
2. I I am afraid that you are right on the Phantom DNA Experiment
I can not explain the Phantom DNA Experiment's absence on the Heart Math website, despite numerous web postings to the contrary. I will agree that it is BS & I thank you for bringing this to my attention. I am sorry for posting about it. It really is a shame that people would post and discuss and misrepresent such a study.
detersbb 1 year ago
I'm really confused about where you are taking this, stefbot. It seems like you are wandering from the point of what was my original comment.
Nevertheless, I thank you for taking this on and I will get back with you with a more complete argument once I have some time to address it. See you soon.
riethc 1 year ago
Aristotle spoke of this in depth.
Mahoivlich 1 year ago
The argument between empiricist and relativist has continued for a long time, but i fear its just like the 'existence of god' debate. It was concluded many years ago that the only way to get closer to any kind of 'proof' is by the 'forbidden experiment' ... something all sides agreed was a step too far, except maybe in the Nazi death camps. Consider that the subjective viewpoint is always cancelled out by the act of communicating it, but that does not disprove its validity for the originater.
HairyCookieMunster 1 year ago
Wow, Stef, I cannot read your comments on your videos anymore... too many people don't get it... I have never heard you say anything I disagree with, just things that I would explain differently... not because you lack ability, just to match how I think someone like me would understand it better.
l1xx3r 1 year ago
LOVE the teapot example as a way to unravel relativism.
I really resonate with what you're saying about morality - it's almost always used as a way to disempower the defenseless.
It's VERY difficult to eliminate morality from your subconscious mind. The need to RATIONALIZE your behavior to those in power cannot be consciously removed - you have to ACT contrary to the moral edict and then stand up to the shit storm you create by defying authority.
It takes balls to act on UPB.
soapyshoe 1 year ago
eye for an eye is not about revenge as you make it seem.
it's about fair treatment
only eye for an eye - not an eye for an eye, hand and an ear. it's not about taking eye for an eye, but about ethical limitations in fair reciprocations in only seeking a fair revenge.
but good work stef.
grozlz 1 year ago
Comment removed
F250badgirl 1 year ago
No such thing as capitalism until we have equal tax free land... until then we have forced participation in a oligarchy.
bryphi77 1 year ago
@bryphi77 - better to have a tax on the value of land. In fact such a tax would provide all the income a state should need and so could be the only tax required.
Myrmecia 1 year ago
@Myrmecia
How much income "should" a state need? Why is your answer right? Why would a different amount less or more be wrong? Should, would, could are not words the state respects. The state will take what they need. The state will decide what it needs. You will, as your only option, vote for the blue or red puppet who will decide for you how much you pay and how it will be spent, and how much you pay next year and children will as they grow up.
detersbb 1 year ago
@Myrmecia Yeah, the problem with that is... I dont give a shit about what the so called "state" needs or requires. I want to live freely off of earths free resources without being forces to produce goods and services for others, or being forced to be dependent on gov and corps.
These fucking scumbags print little green pieces of paper for them and their friends... make us slave for them to get these green pieces of paper... While they buy real assets with the money they print out of thin air!
bryphi77 1 year ago
@bryphi77 Thats a good start. I would add; and equal access to all information and technology. Well said.
Bezz80 1 year ago
Ooo Stef, bad example, and bad thing to do!
You know how you've talked about child abuse? Parents who pressure their children to pay no attention to their bodily/emotional needs: rest, injury, going to the bathroom, whatever, produce people in serious doubt of reality.
The last people who need any more torture about what is going on in their worlds, are people like that.
givebirthathome 1 year ago
@givebirthathome Torture is a pretty insane characterization of what Stef is doing. I hope you'll look into that.
MisterC0 1 year ago
@MisterC0 Torture is an accurate characterization of what Stef's interlocutor experienced. I never said Stef was *doing* it. If you'd been more into compassion, rather than the cleverness of "being right", you might have noticed that, as well as refraining from the absurd "I hope you'll look into that." I hope life eventually brings you to greater health, kindness and self-awareness.
givebirthathome 1 year ago
@givebirthathome If you're well-versed in these things, what would you say I'm experiencing right now?
MisterC0 1 year ago
Comment removed
MisterC0 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@givebirthathome Also, I'd like to point out that I was a victim of child abuse and I was wondering whether your actions in this thread toward me are the example you want Stef to follow?
MisterC0 1 year ago
Alll USA dollar are Counterfeiter
SteveXnycperformance 1 year ago
Stef, I love your videos. I always enjoy watching them. Unfortunately this particular one totally turned me off on philosophy.
MrHeiwa07 1 year ago
Well done (AGAIN) Stef. This makes me think of people who claim to be so "spiritual" and that say they know they are a spiritual being within a physical world. They act so superior... and then someone steals their wallet. "Where's my wallet! I can't believe someone stole my wallet! People are so inconsiderate!" You seem pretty attached to the world of form now, buddy. ha! I'm looking forward to getting into the discussion on the show tomorrow!
southalgent 1 year ago 2
NIce work Stef. Thanks as always for the clarity.
AcupunctureEdu 1 year ago
I would like to spend the day in this guys head
cjellwood 1 year ago
@cjellwood There isn't room and if you did you would never come out of the infinite loop philosophy circuit. You would merely be assimilated, digested and reconstituted into another logic circuit. Stef is the Borg head.
JohnnyContempt 1 year ago
you're mixing concepts again. i've never heard anything so ignorant as "philosophy" was invented to 'manage' the slaves.
you're blinding yourself with your own arrogance.
the knowledge of philosophy, has been used, for that purpose yes. religions have hijacked morality, to enslave people, yes.
and how about defining philosophy? love for knowledge/wisdom.
what is sophism? just 'wisdom.' typically meant to deceive (ie:what a professional teacher practices, what stefan is regurgitating.)
TekkGnostic 1 year ago 3
@TekkGnostic
sophism |ˈsäfizəm|
noun
a fallacious argument, esp. one used deliberately to deceive.
detersbb 1 year ago
@detersbb
Yes, that is one common definition. But the most important one, is the translation of the original greek word, into it's meaning & use:
"The term sophism originated from Greek σόφισμα, sophisma, from σοφίζω, sophizo "I am wise"; confer σοφιστής, sophistēs, meaning "wise-ist, one who does wisdom, one who makes a business out of wisdom" and σοφός, sophós means "wise man"."
TekkGnostic 1 year ago
@TekkGnostic
sophist |ˈsäfist|
noun
a paid teacher of philosophy and rhetoric in ancient Greece, associated in popular thought with moral skepticism and specious reasoning.
• a person who reasons with clever but fallacious arguments.
That is the definition of sophist that I have in my dictionary. It really is upsetting that so few explanations/definitions of the word therein have been given, when different definitions vary so greatly. The meaning changed from Greek to contemporary English.
detersbb 1 year ago
@detersbb yeah very true, we have constantine and the vatican to thank for that :P
thankfully, even this topic was covered by plato in his dialogue 'meno,' dealing largely with etymology, the perception and transliterations of language, and their hidden meanings (ie: discussed in that dialogue, are the meanings of the names of the greek gods: transforming them into a mythology, into a sophisticated way of teaching the forces of nature.. ie: zeus was metaphorical of the force of electricity, etc)
CountCrackulous 1 year ago 3
@CountCrackulous
I have just been working on studying the meanings of the Hebrew letters and see now that there is a story behind the stories written in the bible as each letter has several meanings, those meanings interpretations, and what letters it follows or precedes when taking that into consideration tell an amazing sotry "encoded" into the "literal" meanings of the scriptures
Zeus=Jesus=Jew-Zeus
Zeus has more meanings, it all depends on what level one is examining, but you are right
detersbb 1 year ago
@TekkGnostic You must then consider Nietzsche a very bad philosopher...
stefbot 1 year ago 4
@stefbot
not at all, the vast majourity of his stuff is very clear-sighted, well reasoned. i have a lot of respect for you too,i don't mean to be insulting, you have an amazing grasp of logic.
there are things i disagree with...one mustn't accept an entire philosophy as being purely true or false, parts relative to the whole can be 100% correct, but doesn't imply all deductions are irrefutable.
many things are beyond 'proof.' proving 'god' exists, or does not exist, are both difficult feats
TekkGnostic 1 year ago
@stefbot You misused Nietzsche. You just inserted your own bullshit in place of what he was denouncing. I find it hard to believe you even understood him. Otherwise we would be in complete agreement
MrShittyFag 1 year ago
@MrShittyFag With such a clever and mature screen-name like yours I find it real hard to believe YOU understood Stef, lets not even mention Nietzsche.
Maybe that's why it seems so hard for you to be in agreement with anything around here.
Me thinks someone is jealous...lol... You even had the need to mention Stefan's "inability" to see the world with your eyes and agree with you, or your ego in one of your super-professional, well scripted and intelligent videos...
Just a thought...
tommytalks77 1 year ago
@tommytalks77 Why do you say that? Based on my username? Stef is only slightly better than those he is trying to replace. Mine is the proper interpretation if you bothered to pay attention. Let's not talk about discrimination, you're fucking braindead
MrShittyFag 1 year ago