Great video Stef. I think we can now add mathematical reification to the list of insane irrationalities and superstitions. Relativity (magical space-time), Quantum (0d particles!, wave-packets), and String Theory (total BS through & through) — these idiots have hijacked science & physics. Just like the statists, religionists, academics, subjectivists & agnostics.
You do a good job in this video of setting up the logical fallacies people apply to the government in order to solve their own problems. You also do a good job explaining that if we put those solutions into practice anywhere else in the world, they would look completely idiotic. This is a great video.
I agree actually, society is a little bit more than just individuals as well. Society is a mechanism, however the nature of this mechanism is not sacrifice, or "caring for the poor", but rather individuals pursuing their self-interest, by mutual consent to mutual advantage.
The nature of it has to be specified, and often when people say "society", they are implying the wrong definition, so you have to do what Stef is recomending and ask: "what do you mean, society?" "how does it work?" etc
@Sam26100: Sorry for adding so late, but you all missed the point. Stefan didn't say Forests (or by extension societies) weren't real. He said they don't exist in the physical world. Forests and Society are logical groupings, how we see them in our mind, but they have no physcially rational construction. Society is a group of people, but only because we think of it as such.
I understand that society is only a concept, but not an entity
However, it does serve an important function as a concept
when Stef says: "there's no such thing as society" Im afraid I have to disagree with him
It doesn't exist as an entity, but you don't say "there's no such thing as the scientific method" Sure it's not an entity in the physical world, but it's concequences certainly make a huge difference in the physical world. Same is true for ethical princples
By recognzing that you didn't miss the point and the point was not hard to get you are making this argument about the forest metaphor irrelevant to the video. You are basically saying "hey look how smart I am".
Such irony: immediately after his exposition of the man in the volcano example, I paused the video because I smelled sage burning in another room. What I found in the other room was one of my roommate's friends burning sage. He said he was burning it because it would "invite good energy and ward away bad spirits". I do like the smell of sage and I have no problem with him burning it, but I thought the timing of it was too perfect to leave unmentioned.
Great video! Just to make one point clearer: The "government" is made up of people. PEOPLE. Same as the rest of us. You can try to create a mythology of government, but is is people all the same.
You have a great ability to sift thru the BS! Congrats on the number of viewers--you would probably have at least twice that many if you didn't over-explain your point and constantly repeat the same words ad infinitum --- it would be a great service to those, who like myself, other-wise enjoy hearing what you have to say.
You are referring to the "unborn" in reference to these upcoming taxes
I think that word may be distracting to some people considering the rabid pro-life/pro-choice distraction that the Parties use to herd the masses into the two corrals.
I think your point would be better served by the word "unconceived" since these upcoming taxes may take years and not months to hit the economy.
stimulus package???... 5 hour energy drink. feels good but no crash... hahaha. well it does have a crash if your an idiot like me. stefan if you get the comparison say hahaha if not say blah blah blah
...I think I understand what you are getting at. I believe the vast majority of people merely parrot opinions without thinking about them so that they feel validated in at least maintaining the appearance of social responsibility. Most people don't go out trying to find out how they could be wrong and that is IMO the root of the problem. Most people operate on confirmation bias, aka "going with your gut".
That is certainly part of it, but I think what Stef is trying to get at in the core is by slapping on these terms they effectively obscure what the action actually is.
Thats why he started with concept formation, because when you abuse such a thing its a lot easier obscure whats actually going on.
I was with you from the beginning but you lost me when you said that "Businesses need to be regulated to ensure the rights of workers" is the same as Zeus being accredited with bringing the rain. You can't lay out an entire argument from start to finish every time you want to express something simply for lack of time. You can, however, give a summary/conclusion of what your opinion currently is and hope that the listener will take time to think about it him/herself.
Well, you're quite right, I certainly would not say that the argument is made because I simply state it, but you might want to check out some of my free books for more details... :)
'concepts that are the opposite of thought', 'answers that are non answers, but make you stop looking' : Hearing this, I can't help thinking of free will as an explanation for human behavior. Just like asking:"who does what? break it down to me", I would say for free will as an explanation:"what molecule does what? break it down to me, like I am 3 years old". Don't let them snow you, get to the real physics of things.
Upon further examination I think you'll find that scientific conceptualization as it is generally embraced is but another illusionary pantheon to which we allow ourselves to be subject. (That being said, I do enjoy your videos. Keep up the good work!)
I respect your efforts and generally agree with many of your ideas. I have to say that your point here sucks enormously though.
Of course, "regulation of business" as a concept can be twisted and abused by opportunistic politicians. That doesn't mean that the intervention of a third party elected by citizens and with non-capitalist interests is undesirable.
we have to go beyond words and look at what agents do. But I don't think naomi klein is as tyranic as portrayed by you.
None of that matters when you consider that the third party uses force to aquire funding. It'd be great to voluntarily support a third party group to investigate corporate corruption.
You don't need to know what a concept is to be against it. If the proponents of the idea need the approval of people, and the opportunity to explain the idea and actively avoid giving a clear indication of what the idea means, you have a pretty good idea that it's bad. If the proponents of the idea think that it is less likely to be accepted if understood then it's likely that they're right to believe that and others would be right not to accept it if they understood it.
"Regulation of business" = "People with guns and uniforms telling you how you can and can't trade". Not actually meaningless but you rarely if ever hear anyone describe or even admit to the meaning.
If anyone here is the least bit interested in anarchy or just politics in general I highly recommend the book Everyday Anarchy, you can download it for free at the stefbot's website. The link's in the description box.
AWESOME video. I didn't think about thinking about society/politics/business this way. This really has changed the way I see the world. Again. Thanks Stef. :)
Slight problem: If you insist people break down the government to an individual basis, the opposing side may insist you do the same for companies. After a while, it would take a very long time to say anything.
I've done exactly what you describe in this video before when discussing gender equality rights with a friend. I successfully broke it down to:
"Men whom I have never recognized as special in any way pointing a gun at me if I decide to employ only the individuals I want. And if I continue to do so, they will shoot me and it will be seen as just."
My friend, a woman, understood the actions perfectly. However, she simply believed that it was justified as necessary. I didn't know what to say.
How come you studied Hegel and you don't see the reality of concepts?
Oh, and what would be "people doing stuff" without law and law enforcement? Yes, I agree those are organized criminal groups - that's only natural. There will always be malicious individuals in a group of people. Someone has to do the dirty work of keeping them away. And yes those guys who protect the citizens will print the currency. Do you have a better alternative?
Funny, that you yourself always use mystic figures like "the state" and demand from others to point to single persons. Which person from "the state" are you referring to? In the end, every group wants it's very own enemy superpower, responsible for all the evil in the world, be it "the state", "multi-national corporations", "islamists", "the devil", "the new world order" or "global terrorist networks".
He does use the word "state" but not the same way most people do. He doesn't treat the state as something that can be seperated from the people that make it up. He doesn't acribe moral properties to the state like most people do. The lesson that can be extracted from this whole 25 minute video is that 2+2=4. Nothing is more than the sum of its parts.
Nevertheless, "the state" is a very vague concept and the borders between state and civil-society are "blurred", to say the least. You can't demand precision at one moment and talk about "the state" the very next.
"The modern state is both separate from and connected to civil society. The nature of this connection has been the subject of considerable attention in both analyses of state development and normative theories of the state."
from wikipedia, "state", chapter "state and civil society"
Given your insistence on accurate reality I must challenge your gun to the head magical powers concerning business regulation.
A business (a corporation) is a privilege granted by government to a group of people that provides that group with limited liability. The creator of a thing (corp) is the govt, and the govt has complete rights to regulate the use of that corp.
The gun is used to enforce the contract that the owners of the corp agreed to. This is PROTECTION of property stef.
Imagine an ungoverned mob around a bonfire in an ungoverned land. A member of that group starts throwing rocks in the air, occasionally falling back in knocking people in the noggin.
Now this mob has a range of choices, from blindly attacking this person, to inquiry to WTF he is doing and why.
Suppose he is hunting birds with his rocks, and the group says fine, just adjust your trajectory (regulation) and we won't beat you to a pulp, and if you accidentally hit someone...
No, we are not the government. We are forced to follow the whims of some group of men. Yeah, me may every couple of years get to vote for some...that doesn't change the fact that you are being governed by someone else other than yourself.
-- No, we are not the government. We are forced to follow the whims of some group of men.
Ok, I am arguing the principles of govt as rightfully applied, you are pointing at reality and becoming outraged.
If there is something wrong in the implementation of principles, then we can address that. But basically the govt arises from implied consent and common law - then goes and creates from this basis, commercial contracts.
-- If a supplier of law implements the law through consent it by definition is not a government.
No, THAT is an ILLEGITIMATE government. "Consent of the governed" remember? This does not mean we "all" have to reject the govt, nor does it mean a majority do -- the revolutionaries who wrote the thing were only a fraction of the population.
-- They impose laws on me regardless of whether I consented or not.
You are obliged to accept those laws because you are a ward of the state and a pauper. And you never refute that assumed status.
Their laws are only protecting the mechanism that is protecting you. They are protecting the "Trust" established nationwide which was funded by all the real property and future earnings of everyone who did not object.
But those statuses are not choices. And you cannot refute your status again because laws are made by men, not pieces of paper. Why is this so hard to understand?
I agree that ultimately reality flows from the barrel of a gun. The problem is that it is illegal and immoral to use force back unless and until you have made every effort to solve the dispute civilly- through law.
But that's a complete conflict of interest. Trying to argue in court that I have no obligations the government is like trying to argue with a mafia guy about whether I have to pay him "protection money". It's retarded.
Juries: People are waking up, and all this discussion is really academic given our current state of decomposition. Soon the brute force of fear, hate, hunger and desperation will overtake any of the niceties of law and morality.
You think the men with guns are robotic now, just wait.
"A member of that group starts throwing rocks in the air, occasionally falling back in knocking people in the noggin."
That's not a government. All that is is just a group of people retialiating against an aggressor. A government is defined as a group of men that hold a COERCIVE MONOPOLY over the legitamite use of force within a geographic area.
...we will make sure you don't get beaten to a pulp. (limited liability)
Now how and why is the agreement invalid, uncivil, or in any way or manner 'forced' on the person?
It is merely a compromise of dangerous action and interests of safety - thats what a corporation is all about.
On the other hand, you are perfectly free to act dangerously and expose yourself totally to the liability involved. Be prepared to be placed in perpetual debt though should you put someones eye out, or kill someone
"Now how and why is the agreement invalid, uncivil, or in any way or manner 'forced' on the person?"
The corporation was not the problem. What WAS the problem was this assumption that government in a legitamite positon to be regulating anyone. The government exists through taxation. How do you not find if absurd that some group of men have the right forcibly steal while the common man can't?
-- What WAS the problem was this assumption that government in a legitamite positon to be regulating anyone.
The govt HAS a legitimate position to regulate you because you accepted this regulation in exchange for Social Security. Have you repudiated that contract?
It's not about what the law actually says....it is how it is interpretted that manners. Men with all the guns don't have to be governed by some piece of paper. Laws are made by men, not by pieces of paper.
The thing to learn is that 99.999% of what the govt does IS legitimate - IF you accept a certain premise they are using. The key is to find that premise and refute it, this is the only way to (morally/legally) release yourself from the obligations they are imposing.
The premise is economic emergency state we entered in 1933 and that YOU are in need of their protection/care. YOU use their FRN credits to survive don't you? YOU want to use these IOU's without being held responsible for actual pmt.
Let's say I'm going to a public mall. All of a sudden a man in dark clothing pops up, gets in my way and holds a gun to my head. He gives me three choices.
1)I can stay where I am and die
2)Give him all my money
3)Or refrain from entering the mall.
Why does the fact that I have the ability to leave the situation all of a sudden legitamize his coercion? Just because I have choice doesn't change the fact he is using coercion.
-- No, I use them because of coercive legal tender laws.
Legal tender laws only apply to DEBT and CONTRACTS - not exchange, you can demand any type of payment you wish for services.
--And so what if I use them to survive?
You are accepting a govt privilege, and thereby have to submit to their laws, regulations and rules
Using FRN's means no one is going to come to you one day and demand actual constitutional currency for those notes. It also means you don't OWN anything except the use of X
No you cannot use other currencies other than the FRN in fact Ron Paul's supply of liberty dollars got robbed by the Feds last year. This totally contradicts the idea that you can use other currencies other than FRN.
And even if they are compatible of putting all these regulations on me via contract law they were never in a legitamite position to be putting them on since they acquire their power through coercive taxation.
Even if I accept this conspiracist theory that the government is really a corporation...it never retrieved its property through voluntary means to begin with.
Stef what you should be saying instead of telling us that forests don't exist is that 2+2=4. Nothing is more than the sum of its parts. A forest is not anything more than trees. A 'government' is not anything more than a group of individuals.
Theoretically, everything is an abstraction. Everything can be reduced infinitely.
I think a forest is a concentration of trees with a minimum of ratio of 2 trees per 3 meters and with enough trees so that it blocks our view to other think behind the concentration of the respecting ratio.
I've watched your freewill vids, and given this video, I don't understand how it is that you cannot be a determinist. freewill is a far worse and unclear concept than gov. or state or religion. freewill means something far different than anyone who ever says it means it.
I think this was a very interesting and provoking vid, I will cont. to consider its implications.
There is no such thing as a regulator, there are only people doing things.
*Sigh*
A Regulator (in this context) IS A PERSON DOING SOMETHING (i.e. regulating).
Anyone can look the word up:
an official responsible for control and supervision of a particular activity or area of public interest
The concept may be broad or vague (giving it greater applicability, though lesser specificity), but that hardly means the concept is fantastical/mythical.
People will say that "forests don't exist." They have said that on this very thread in fact. That is not true however, because when we say "forests" (plural) or "a forest" (in specific), we are not referring to the concept "forest" (residing in our heads), we are referring to actual things (forests in general or a specific forest) which exist(s) in reality.
When people say that "forests don't exist", they sound like crazy people, and yet, that seems to be how people interpret your example.
Ok, I'll play the D4shawn. What is the specific collection of trees? Si , all those forect conceptivist says thingd like collection of tree but never identify it. It is a religions. it is retard.. bla blah blah. But they will say they are strawmaning them but they are ful of shit.
Your problem here is that "collection" is a subjective term. The way that I approach this question of "what exists and what is merely a concept?" is to return to the heap paradox. If I cannot figure out a line where removing members of a group makes the group no longer exist, then it is likely a concept, not something that exists. Trees exist, but as was pointed out earlier to you, the concept forest is too subjective to exist in objective reality...
As the adjustment of concepts to conform with objective reality is the achievement of knowledge, we can talk about concepts in terms of philosophy or science. But when people are talking about action, subjective concepts cannot be our basis of resolving conflicting actions. We must talk about objective reality, thus the metaphor of the forest not existing, rather the trees.
So what happens when you throw a fence around a bunch of trees and call the are within "Joe's forest"? Do all the trees fucking evaporate? Do they just vanish? Do they turn invisible? How exactly do the things our terms refer to cease to exist?
What about a football team? Are you trying to tell me that all those NFL players are computerized or something? Once you group people into a "team" they skip off into another dimension never to be seen again? Is it impossible to form a football team?
You didn't address my point. Any concept that is dependent on the phrase "a collection of X," where X is an objectively distinct entity in material reality, is a concept that doesn't really exist in reality. The Xes all exist in reality, but the collection cannot because it is in it's nature subjective. It can only exist within the human mind.
ALL concepts exist within the human mind. The things to which they refer can exist in reality however. BOTH a forest and a tree exist in reality as THINGS. However, BOTH concepts (words) "forest" and "tree" exist in our minds.
You need to distinguish between the concept "tree" (which exists in our heads) and the actual thing (in reality) we call a "tree".
Also, the word "tree" doesn't exist in reality either. We just made up that word. In other languages, a tree is called something else.
I agree D4Shawn, except a forest does not exist in the external realm. A forest consists of trees, brushels, and other plantlike matter. When they are all in close proximity of eachother, nothing new exists. There are the individual trees, individual brushels.
A bush can be broken down into smaller components as well (leaves, branches, cells, atoms, quarks). I understand that. However, that does not explain why a tree"exists while a forest doesn't. If your argument is that the forest "doesn't exist' because a forest is just a collection of smaller components, well then a tree doesn't exist either (if you are applying you logic consistently).
There is, however, no forest in reality as there is a "tree". I would also surmise (in perpetuity to the theme of reality). that nothing exists in the brain except for the matter itself and the electrical currents that we interpret.
If we don't clearly mark the boundaries of our forest, then the ambiguity lie in what is or isn't part of our forest. The ambiguity does not lie in what doe or doesn't exist. IF IT'S THERE, IT EXISTS. Whether or not we consider tree A or tree B to be part of our forest is another matter.
We could just as easily use an example (such as a group of cookies [instead of forest]) where there is no ambiguity in delineating the things to which our term refers.
Before governments perverted the concept of money, money was always a tangible commodity that demonstrated market demand for it for it's actual use to individuals before becoming "money". Money is a concept, yes, but the concept part only encompasses the idea of the commodity as a means of exchange or store of value above and beyond it's use. The commodity itself is still real.
Copernicus never confronted the Church out of fear for his life. He published posthumously.
Galileo showed the Church how moons orbited Jupiter, but the Clergy refused to peer into telescope.
LaPlace, astronomer, showed Napoleon his theory of galaxies, to which Napoleon asked 'Where does God come in?" And La Place said, "I have no need for that hypothesis".
I've heard Stef and others bring up the tree/forest metaphor before, but can't say I fully understand it. Isn't "tree" also a concept? I have a hard time making out the difference. Some one please explain.
If you don't set a baseline for what exists, then you're going to have to go all the way down to quarks or something and it is useless from a utilitarian point of view. If we can't even agree a tree exists, then what can we agree on in reality? Do you exist, or do your atoms? Or is it all just quarks? It's a useless worldview to break things down that far it seems to me. That's my take anyways :)
Trees exist as discrete individual entities which are (of course) comprised of atoms. People exist as discrete individual entities as well. The label 'forest' is a handy concept which can quickly convey a meaning to another person, however 'forests', unlike 'trees' do not exist in empirical reality.
The concept "forest" exists in the mind. However, if you re referring to a specific forest, then that concept is being used to indicate an actual thing (an actual are/collection of trees, etc). So "forest" (the concept) does not exist. However, forests (just like trees) do exist. "forest" is a concept, but *A* forest, is a thing (that exists).
Well, a tree actually exists in the real, objective world. You can use objective senses to observe. Take all of these real trees out of a "forest", however, and can you still point out the forests to me? The forest is simply in our minds, helping us to explain many real things, in the same way that the group "mammal" doesn't really exist but helps us to classify the animals we put within it. Hopefully that helps. :)
I have no problem with the argument that nothing ultimately exists except atoms and subatomic partials. However, if that's the approach one is taking, one wouldn't say that forests DON'T exist, but trees DO (which is what many people here are saying). They are applying the logic totally inconsistently, and they sound like crazy people who don't know what does or doesn't exist or what the hell they are saying. Unfortunately, stef's tree example is confusing the hell out of people.
Forests exist only as a concept in our minds because a tree in the forest is independent of the other trees.
They grow together in the same area due to the proper climate/living conditions in that area. This collection of trees is a concept our mind forms in order to recognize a given geographical area in which trees grow close to each other.
A tree depends upon itself in order to exist. If you take a vital/crucial part of a tree away, it isn't a whole tree anymore.
We have a scientific description for a tree and how it is bound with cells, but a forest is only a concept in our minds that means "a collection of trees in a given area."
Typed this up quick, but hopefully it makes sense.
But that collection of trees in a given area exists. It doesn't matter that it takes a concept to define it, or how scientifically specific that concept is
A forest is made up of smaller components. So is a tree, and so is everything else. If you want to argue that something does not "exist" if it's reducible to smaller components, then the only thing that exists by your own logic are quarks.
That's fine. I understand that concepts are human constructs.
However, for you to say that a trees exists, but a forests doesn't makes no sense (you're not applying your logic consistently). Both can be broken down further into smaller components/units.
I find it rather odd how you come into this discussion and politely ask Stef to rectify an issue you seem to have difficulty with, then suddenly call us retards in a rude and immature fashion. That's all I wanted to say considering the counterpoint has already been effectively made, but it was quite the disappointment when put into the context of your relatively respectful comment.
If I had meant "you guys are retarded" in any sort of serious way, I would justify the statement. However, at the time, I meant it the way a friend might say it to a friend. As such, I really don't feel the need to explain justify the statement. Even if I thought people who don't believe in trees (plural) were delusional and out of touch with realty (which could be construed as "retarded"), that's really not the spirit in which the comment was originally made.
We're empiricists; it's not that trees don't exist but a concept encompassing those trees does not exist in the empirical evidence. Also, as Stef has already said there needs to be a distinction between an entity composed of interconnected parts and a concept composed of many of these entities simply close to eachother.
There's nothing to understand. This "tree/forest metaphor" is like an injection of poison into people's brains. It's a neuro-linguistic virus. It makes them think that groups (of any sort) don't exist (for some reason [which in itself makes no fucking sense]). On top of that, stef makes it sound like some things are groups (like forests) while others aren't (like trees). This is false of course (all things are reducible to smaller units). The result of all this is brain destruction.
Always try have the "5W + How" of the subject at hand very clearly identified inside your mind.
Who, what, where, when, how and why, or people, actions, places, dates and reasons.
advogadohistoriador 2 months ago
Great video Stef. I think we can now add mathematical reification to the list of insane irrationalities and superstitions. Relativity (magical space-time), Quantum (0d particles!, wave-packets), and String Theory (total BS through & through) — these idiots have hijacked science & physics. Just like the statists, religionists, academics, subjectivists & agnostics.
L1ber8ted 11 months ago
You do a good job in this video of setting up the logical fallacies people apply to the government in order to solve their own problems. You also do a good job explaining that if we put those solutions into practice anywhere else in the world, they would look completely idiotic. This is a great video.
drew335533 1 year ago
Axiom of Identity... kinda important.
SimonKinland 1 year ago
Well, 3.36 million views now. Well done.
drew335533 1 year ago
lol-Naomi Klein is a clueless automaton.
pretorious700 1 year ago
What is the name of the colour behind you? I want it for my bedroom. Thanks.
emmetouch 1 year ago
Such a essential point to understanding reality: good work!
ed9s 1 year ago
@ed9s Thanks!
stefbot 1 year ago
We all know its bullshit on a cracker.But how do wew convince the economists?
gary7999 1 year ago
The astronomer you are referring to in Laplace, and he was presenting his model to the King of France.
thomasnolanearnshaw 1 year ago
That's the first time i totally agree with him.
vivEnergy 2 years ago
I agree actually, society is a little bit more than just individuals as well. Society is a mechanism, however the nature of this mechanism is not sacrifice, or "caring for the poor", but rather individuals pursuing their self-interest, by mutual consent to mutual advantage.
The nature of it has to be specified, and often when people say "society", they are implying the wrong definition, so you have to do what Stef is recomending and ask: "what do you mean, society?" "how does it work?" etc
Sam26100 2 years ago
@Sam26100: Sorry for adding so late, but you all missed the point. Stefan didn't say Forests (or by extension societies) weren't real. He said they don't exist in the physical world. Forests and Society are logical groupings, how we see them in our mind, but they have no physcially rational construction. Society is a group of people, but only because we think of it as such.
DreadLaw2 1 year ago
I understand that society is only a concept, but not an entity
However, it does serve an important function as a concept
when Stef says: "there's no such thing as society" Im afraid I have to disagree with him
It doesn't exist as an entity, but you don't say "there's no such thing as the scientific method" Sure it's not an entity in the physical world, but it's concequences certainly make a huge difference in the physical world. Same is true for ethical princples
Sam26100 1 year ago
By recognzing that you didn't miss the point and the point was not hard to get you are making this argument about the forest metaphor irrelevant to the video. You are basically saying "hey look how smart I am".
blapperz 2 years ago
@savage
way to miss the point
blapperz 2 years ago 2
Such irony: immediately after his exposition of the man in the volcano example, I paused the video because I smelled sage burning in another room. What I found in the other room was one of my roommate's friends burning sage. He said he was burning it because it would "invite good energy and ward away bad spirits". I do like the smell of sage and I have no problem with him burning it, but I thought the timing of it was too perfect to leave unmentioned.
DescentToCocytus 2 years ago
way to go buddy!
tawil89 2 years ago
Great video! Just to make one point clearer: The "government" is made up of people. PEOPLE. Same as the rest of us. You can try to create a mythology of government, but is is people all the same.
rescuemay 2 years ago
stefan! keep doing your thing
ssips720 2 years ago
You have a great ability to sift thru the BS! Congrats on the number of viewers--you would probably have at least twice that many if you didn't over-explain your point and constantly repeat the same words ad infinitum --- it would be a great service to those, who like myself, other-wise enjoy hearing what you have to say.
primelimelite 2 years ago 7
Stefan,
You are referring to the "unborn" in reference to these upcoming taxes
I think that word may be distracting to some people considering the rabid pro-life/pro-choice distraction that the Parties use to herd the masses into the two corrals.
I think your point would be better served by the word "unconceived" since these upcoming taxes may take years and not months to hit the economy.
Just a thought.
Keep up the good work!
harryogre 2 years ago
Im just going to throw this out there:
If you started a cult, i'd be the wingman.
TheArcaneAvenger 2 years ago
I'll bring the cool-aid!
Someone else has to supply the Nikes and the magic underwear. I'm not into that.
Who wants to go door to door and who will play tambourine at the airport?
Sorry folks, I'm not eating any wafers that turn into flesh when you swallow them. That's just too creepy!
harryogre 2 years ago
haha
TheArcaneAvenger 2 years ago
lol
djboony 2 years ago
stimulus package???... 5 hour energy drink. feels good but no crash... hahaha. well it does have a crash if your an idiot like me. stefan if you get the comparison say hahaha if not say blah blah blah
fucitorfiteit 2 years ago
What is the "Stimulus Package"?
a) a stimulant
b) a vague reference to Obama's penis
c) a package of minty fresh bubble gum
d) your mom
e) all of the above
Want to know how to win debates on YouTube? Just ask your opponents to explain the rationales behind their conclusions / ideas.
regresseur 2 years ago
That's because everybody steals other people's ideas, even though they don't actually understand them.
ufee 2 years ago
d, the answer is d
That wasnt hard at all.
next question?
TheArcaneAvenger 2 years ago
I think Stef is going to go postal some day out of sheer frustration based on the fact that the masses
just
don't
get
it.
TedWillingham 2 years ago 2
...I think I understand what you are getting at. I believe the vast majority of people merely parrot opinions without thinking about them so that they feel validated in at least maintaining the appearance of social responsibility. Most people don't go out trying to find out how they could be wrong and that is IMO the root of the problem. Most people operate on confirmation bias, aka "going with your gut".
WallyAnti 2 years ago
That is certainly part of it, but I think what Stef is trying to get at in the core is by slapping on these terms they effectively obscure what the action actually is.
Thats why he started with concept formation, because when you abuse such a thing its a lot easier obscure whats actually going on.
TedWillingham 2 years ago
I was with you from the beginning but you lost me when you said that "Businesses need to be regulated to ensure the rights of workers" is the same as Zeus being accredited with bringing the rain. You can't lay out an entire argument from start to finish every time you want to express something simply for lack of time. You can, however, give a summary/conclusion of what your opinion currently is and hope that the listener will take time to think about it him/herself.
WallyAnti 2 years ago
Well, you're quite right, I certainly would not say that the argument is made because I simply state it, but you might want to check out some of my free books for more details... :)
stefbot 2 years ago
thank you. my thoughts on these topics have been confirmed.
chardoc89 2 years ago
'concepts that are the opposite of thought', 'answers that are non answers, but make you stop looking' : Hearing this, I can't help thinking of free will as an explanation for human behavior. Just like asking:"who does what? break it down to me", I would say for free will as an explanation:"what molecule does what? break it down to me, like I am 3 years old". Don't let them snow you, get to the real physics of things.
modelmark 2 years ago
Upon further examination I think you'll find that scientific conceptualization as it is generally embraced is but another illusionary pantheon to which we allow ourselves to be subject. (That being said, I do enjoy your videos. Keep up the good work!)
DoctorSparklesMusic 2 years ago
Comment removed
DoctorSparklesMusic 2 years ago
Dear stef,
thank you so much for making your videos. In a world full of insanity and hypocrites they seam to me like the last bastion against a new dark age.
weirdmary 2 years ago
This is really interesting. You talk about abstract governments all the way, but you want others to specify the business spheres.
HCLivess 2 years ago
They are talking about Pinochet, Nixon and Friedman and about 500,000 dead people as the result of the business interests.
HCLivess 2 years ago
Dear Stef,
I respect your efforts and generally agree with many of your ideas. I have to say that your point here sucks enormously though.
Of course, "regulation of business" as a concept can be twisted and abused by opportunistic politicians. That doesn't mean that the intervention of a third party elected by citizens and with non-capitalist interests is undesirable.
we have to go beyond words and look at what agents do. But I don't think naomi klein is as tyranic as portrayed by you.
ganymedic 2 years ago
None of that matters when you consider that the third party uses force to aquire funding. It'd be great to voluntarily support a third party group to investigate corporate corruption.
DCLugi 2 years ago
Comment removed
fIoatmyboat 2 years ago
You don't need to know what a concept is to be against it. If the proponents of the idea need the approval of people, and the opportunity to explain the idea and actively avoid giving a clear indication of what the idea means, you have a pretty good idea that it's bad. If the proponents of the idea think that it is less likely to be accepted if understood then it's likely that they're right to believe that and others would be right not to accept it if they understood it.
newperve 2 years ago
"Regulation of business" = "People with guns and uniforms telling you how you can and can't trade". Not actually meaningless but you rarely if ever hear anyone describe or even admit to the meaning.
newperve 2 years ago
this progressive totalitarian restriction which is generally called, sadly, culture.
perfectly stated, awesome quote
atheismforthewin 2 years ago
5/5 stars!
If anyone here is the least bit interested in anarchy or just politics in general I highly recommend the book Everyday Anarchy, you can download it for free at the stefbot's website. The link's in the description box.
crazypants88 2 years ago
I agree.
Brassmouth 2 years ago
AWESOME video. I didn't think about thinking about society/politics/business this way. This really has changed the way I see the world. Again. Thanks Stef. :)
debaiona 2 years ago
A piece of paper is not going to defend you from a bullet.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
Thank you Stef for this insight.
OttoVonKonrad 2 years ago
Slight problem: If you insist people break down the government to an individual basis, the opposing side may insist you do the same for companies. After a while, it would take a very long time to say anything.
wightboy12345 2 years ago
No hair cut ever, my team lost :)
canerdc 2 years ago
haha! :)
stefbot 2 years ago
I've done exactly what you describe in this video before when discussing gender equality rights with a friend. I successfully broke it down to:
"Men whom I have never recognized as special in any way pointing a gun at me if I decide to employ only the individuals I want. And if I continue to do so, they will shoot me and it will be seen as just."
My friend, a woman, understood the actions perfectly. However, she simply believed that it was justified as necessary. I didn't know what to say.
conquesimo 2 years ago
How come you studied Hegel and you don't see the reality of concepts?
Oh, and what would be "people doing stuff" without law and law enforcement? Yes, I agree those are organized criminal groups - that's only natural. There will always be malicious individuals in a group of people. Someone has to do the dirty work of keeping them away. And yes those guys who protect the citizens will print the currency. Do you have a better alternative?
DrKaoliN 2 years ago
I certainly do, check out my free books. :)
stefbot 2 years ago
Funny, that you yourself always use mystic figures like "the state" and demand from others to point to single persons. Which person from "the state" are you referring to? In the end, every group wants it's very own enemy superpower, responsible for all the evil in the world, be it "the state", "multi-national corporations", "islamists", "the devil", "the new world order" or "global terrorist networks".
gnu11111 2 years ago
He does use the word "state" but not the same way most people do. He doesn't treat the state as something that can be seperated from the people that make it up. He doesn't acribe moral properties to the state like most people do. The lesson that can be extracted from this whole 25 minute video is that 2+2=4. Nothing is more than the sum of its parts.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
Nevertheless, "the state" is a very vague concept and the borders between state and civil-society are "blurred", to say the least. You can't demand precision at one moment and talk about "the state" the very next.
"The modern state is both separate from and connected to civil society. The nature of this connection has been the subject of considerable attention in both analyses of state development and normative theories of the state."
from wikipedia, "state", chapter "state and civil society"
gnu11111 2 years ago
Your astronomer is LePlace
Hamandchees3 2 years ago
thanks! :)
stefbot 2 years ago
Excellent video. Very important point, about "windy" conceptual fog, used by the haters of freedom
Sam26100 2 years ago
Given your insistence on accurate reality I must challenge your gun to the head magical powers concerning business regulation.
A business (a corporation) is a privilege granted by government to a group of people that provides that group with limited liability. The creator of a thing (corp) is the govt, and the govt has complete rights to regulate the use of that corp.
The gun is used to enforce the contract that the owners of the corp agreed to. This is PROTECTION of property stef.
mindprism 2 years ago
Your assuming the government is in a legitamite position to be giving out privelieges and that it can legitamitely own property.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
We are the govt.
Imagine an ungoverned mob around a bonfire in an ungoverned land. A member of that group starts throwing rocks in the air, occasionally falling back in knocking people in the noggin.
Now this mob has a range of choices, from blindly attacking this person, to inquiry to WTF he is doing and why.
Suppose he is hunting birds with his rocks, and the group says fine, just adjust your trajectory (regulation) and we won't beat you to a pulp, and if you accidentally hit someone...
mindprism 2 years ago
No, we are not the government. We are forced to follow the whims of some group of men. Yeah, me may every couple of years get to vote for some...that doesn't change the fact that you are being governed by someone else other than yourself.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
-- No, we are not the government. We are forced to follow the whims of some group of men.
Ok, I am arguing the principles of govt as rightfully applied, you are pointing at reality and becoming outraged.
If there is something wrong in the implementation of principles, then we can address that. But basically the govt arises from implied consent and common law - then goes and creates from this basis, commercial contracts.
mindprism 2 years ago
If a supplier of law implements the law through consent it by definition is not a government.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
-- If a supplier of law implements the law through consent it by definition is not a government.
No, THAT is an ILLEGITIMATE government. "Consent of the governed" remember? This does not mean we "all" have to reject the govt, nor does it mean a majority do -- the revolutionaries who wrote the thing were only a fraction of the population.
mindprism 2 years ago
Consent of the governed? Horseshit. They impose laws on me regardless of whether I consented or not.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
-- They impose laws on me regardless of whether I consented or not.
You are obliged to accept those laws because you are a ward of the state and a pauper. And you never refute that assumed status.
Their laws are only protecting the mechanism that is protecting you. They are protecting the "Trust" established nationwide which was funded by all the real property and future earnings of everyone who did not object.
mindprism 2 years ago
But those statuses are not choices. And you cannot refute your status again because laws are made by men, not pieces of paper. Why is this so hard to understand?
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
--laws are made by men, not pieces of paper
I agree that ultimately reality flows from the barrel of a gun. The problem is that it is illegal and immoral to use force back unless and until you have made every effort to solve the dispute civilly- through law.
mindprism 2 years ago
But that's a complete conflict of interest. Trying to argue in court that I have no obligations the government is like trying to argue with a mafia guy about whether I have to pay him "protection money". It's retarded.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
-- Trying to argue in court
Courts are made of juries my friend. Your issue is with them.
mindprism 2 years ago
The juries are selected by the government. Clearly, they would not pick people that were anti-statist.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
Juries: People are waking up, and all this discussion is really academic given our current state of decomposition. Soon the brute force of fear, hate, hunger and desperation will overtake any of the niceties of law and morality.
You think the men with guns are robotic now, just wait.
mindprism 2 years ago
No, they are not robotic but the bureaucratic nature of the institution of government makes them act robotic.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
"A member of that group starts throwing rocks in the air, occasionally falling back in knocking people in the noggin."
That's not a government. All that is is just a group of people retialiating against an aggressor. A government is defined as a group of men that hold a COERCIVE MONOPOLY over the legitamite use of force within a geographic area.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
...we will make sure you don't get beaten to a pulp. (limited liability)
Now how and why is the agreement invalid, uncivil, or in any way or manner 'forced' on the person?
It is merely a compromise of dangerous action and interests of safety - thats what a corporation is all about.
On the other hand, you are perfectly free to act dangerously and expose yourself totally to the liability involved. Be prepared to be placed in perpetual debt though should you put someones eye out, or kill someone
mindprism 2 years ago
"Now how and why is the agreement invalid, uncivil, or in any way or manner 'forced' on the person?"
The corporation was not the problem. What WAS the problem was this assumption that government in a legitamite positon to be regulating anyone. The government exists through taxation. How do you not find if absurd that some group of men have the right forcibly steal while the common man can't?
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
-- What WAS the problem was this assumption that government in a legitamite positon to be regulating anyone.
The govt HAS a legitimate position to regulate you because you accepted this regulation in exchange for Social Security. Have you repudiated that contract?
mindprism 2 years ago
No, I didn't. Social Security is not a choice. I can't choose to not pay for the social security tax.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
-- I can't choose to not pay for the social security tax.
So you are saying that someone can force you to contract. Think law, not the reality they want you to believe.
mindprism 2 years ago
Not morally. But this is what happens in reality.
It's not about what the law actually says....it is how it is interpretted that manners. Men with all the guns don't have to be governed by some piece of paper. Laws are made by men, not by pieces of paper.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
Voluntary government is an oxymoron.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
The thing to learn is that 99.999% of what the govt does IS legitimate - IF you accept a certain premise they are using. The key is to find that premise and refute it, this is the only way to (morally/legally) release yourself from the obligations they are imposing.
The premise is economic emergency state we entered in 1933 and that YOU are in need of their protection/care. YOU use their FRN credits to survive don't you? YOU want to use these IOU's without being held responsible for actual pmt.
mindprism 2 years ago
"YOU use their FRN credits to survive don't you?"
No, I use them because of coercive legal tender laws. And so what if I use them to survive? (cont)>>>>>>>
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
Let's say I'm going to a public mall. All of a sudden a man in dark clothing pops up, gets in my way and holds a gun to my head. He gives me three choices.
1)I can stay where I am and die
2)Give him all my money
3)Or refrain from entering the mall.
Why does the fact that I have the ability to leave the situation all of a sudden legitamize his coercion? Just because I have choice doesn't change the fact he is using coercion.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
-- No, I use them because of coercive legal tender laws.
Legal tender laws only apply to DEBT and CONTRACTS - not exchange, you can demand any type of payment you wish for services.
--And so what if I use them to survive?
You are accepting a govt privilege, and thereby have to submit to their laws, regulations and rules
Using FRN's means no one is going to come to you one day and demand actual constitutional currency for those notes. It also means you don't OWN anything except the use of X
mindprism 2 years ago
No you cannot use other currencies other than the FRN in fact Ron Paul's supply of liberty dollars got robbed by the Feds last year. This totally contradicts the idea that you can use other currencies other than FRN.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
-- This totally contradicts the idea that you can use other currencies other than FRN
Look at it as ammunition in the argument against their legitimacy. They keep us in control by making us think we are helpless and weak.
This is reflected in how you interpreted that fact - another excuse for being helpless instead of an asset to those fighting for freedom.
Like I said the key is the economic emergency and the suspension of the constitution due to that.
mindprism 2 years ago
I do not desire to control evil. I want to obliterate it. I don't want to control the government....I want to abolish it.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
--I don't want to control the government....I want to abolish it.
Try Mexico, they are pretty abolished.
mindprism 2 years ago
And even if they are compatible of putting all these regulations on me via contract law they were never in a legitamite position to be putting them on since they acquire their power through coercive taxation.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
-- The corporation was not the problem
The United States is a corporation.
Google Clearfield Doctorine.
"Governments descend to the Level of a mere private corporation,and take on the
characteristics of a mere private citizen...where private corporate commercial
paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and securities [checks] is concerned. ... For
purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities
entirely separate from government.
mindprism 2 years ago
Even if I accept this conspiracist theory that the government is really a corporation...it never retrieved its property through voluntary means to begin with.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
Stef what you should be saying instead of telling us that forests don't exist is that 2+2=4. Nothing is more than the sum of its parts. A forest is not anything more than trees. A 'government' is not anything more than a group of individuals.
Theoretically, everything is an abstraction. Everything can be reduced infinitely.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
You're right. The question then, is: Why isn't he?
Why is he leading people to believe that trees exist while forests don't.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
I think, to use a horrible metaphor, a lot of commenters here are missing the forest for the trees ;)
MisterC0 2 years ago
Yes, they are missing the forest because they are confused by the trees. ;)
aarythmic 2 years ago
I think a forest is a concentration of trees with a minimum of ratio of 2 trees per 3 meters and with enough trees so that it blocks our view to other think behind the concentration of the respecting ratio.
neutrinoide 2 years ago
I've watched your freewill vids, and given this video, I don't understand how it is that you cannot be a determinist. freewill is a far worse and unclear concept than gov. or state or religion. freewill means something far different than anyone who ever says it means it.
I think this was a very interesting and provoking vid, I will cont. to consider its implications.
existence is a concept, that doesn't exist?
empiricism is a concept, that doesn't exist?
Deconstruction is a wierd road
nathanjonessr 2 years ago
fucking awesome stef, we love what your doing;p
eternalwargod 2 years ago
Coercion is a tool used in the regulation of people (the same way a spigot regulates the flow of water).
"Regulate" means:
"determine: shape or influence; give direction to"
"bring into conformity with rules or principles or usage"
To call a government body a regulatory arm, or to refer to individual government agents as "regulators" is not incorrect usage of said terms.
D4Shawn 2 years ago 2
Have no fear, philosophy clarifier is here!
"It's all bullshit."
Tune back in next week for another clarifying episode.
FoodFromYards 2 years ago
Stef, the problem you are identifying is the problem of people being vague so as to sugar coat (or "spin") what they are saying.
That is NOT a problem with the concepts themselves.
There really is such a thing as a "regulator" (a person who regulates something).
For you to say there's not is just crazy. You are misidentifying the issue.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
Kline is being vague (not referring to the specific type of regulators/regulation she means). That does not mean that regulation doesn't exist.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
There is no such thing as a regulator, there are only people doing things.
*Sigh*
A Regulator (in this context) IS A PERSON DOING SOMETHING (i.e. regulating).
Anyone can look the word up:
an official responsible for control and supervision of a particular activity or area of public interest
The concept may be broad or vague (giving it greater applicability, though lesser specificity), but that hardly means the concept is fantastical/mythical.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
It was Copernicus.
Great vid as always.
DeeperBlueX16 2 years ago
People will say that "forests don't exist." They have said that on this very thread in fact. That is not true however, because when we say "forests" (plural) or "a forest" (in specific), we are not referring to the concept "forest" (residing in our heads), we are referring to actual things (forests in general or a specific forest) which exist(s) in reality.
When people say that "forests don't exist", they sound like crazy people, and yet, that seems to be how people interpret your example.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
This is a great one Stefan, thank you so much.
Anon1696 2 years ago
Stef, I think a lot of people are getting confused by your "forest" example (unless I'm the one who's confused... but I don't think so).
Firstly, "forest" is a word (collection of letters).
That word can refer to either
a) A concept (in our minds), or
b) An actual (existing), specific collection of trees (to which the concept refers).
The word then, can refer to either a concept *or* to a thing.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
Ok, I'll play the D4shawn. What is the specific collection of trees? Si , all those forect conceptivist says thingd like collection of tree but never identify it. It is a religions. it is retard.. bla blah blah. But they will say they are strawmaning them but they are ful of shit.
neutrinoide 2 years ago
If we define "forest" as "a collection of trees", then any collection of trees we designate, qualifies as a "forest".
I really don't understand what everybody is so confused about.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
Confused? Don`t try to play dumb with me Sir.
neutrinoide 2 years ago
Your problem here is that "collection" is a subjective term. The way that I approach this question of "what exists and what is merely a concept?" is to return to the heap paradox. If I cannot figure out a line where removing members of a group makes the group no longer exist, then it is likely a concept, not something that exists. Trees exist, but as was pointed out earlier to you, the concept forest is too subjective to exist in objective reality...
nexalacer 2 years ago
As the adjustment of concepts to conform with objective reality is the achievement of knowledge, we can talk about concepts in terms of philosophy or science. But when people are talking about action, subjective concepts cannot be our basis of resolving conflicting actions. We must talk about objective reality, thus the metaphor of the forest not existing, rather the trees.
nexalacer 2 years ago
So what happens when you throw a fence around a bunch of trees and call the are within "Joe's forest"? Do all the trees fucking evaporate? Do they just vanish? Do they turn invisible? How exactly do the things our terms refer to cease to exist?
What about a football team? Are you trying to tell me that all those NFL players are computerized or something? Once you group people into a "team" they skip off into another dimension never to be seen again? Is it impossible to form a football team?
D4Shawn 2 years ago
You didn't address my point. Any concept that is dependent on the phrase "a collection of X," where X is an objectively distinct entity in material reality, is a concept that doesn't really exist in reality. The Xes all exist in reality, but the collection cannot because it is in it's nature subjective. It can only exist within the human mind.
nexalacer 2 years ago
ALL concepts exist within the human mind. The things to which they refer can exist in reality however. BOTH a forest and a tree exist in reality as THINGS. However, BOTH concepts (words) "forest" and "tree" exist in our minds.
You need to distinguish between the concept "tree" (which exists in our heads) and the actual thing (in reality) we call a "tree".
Also, the word "tree" doesn't exist in reality either. We just made up that word. In other languages, a tree is called something else.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
I agree D4Shawn, except a forest does not exist in the external realm. A forest consists of trees, brushels, and other plantlike matter. When they are all in close proximity of eachother, nothing new exists. There are the individual trees, individual brushels.
gn0m1k 2 years ago
A bush can be broken down into smaller components as well (leaves, branches, cells, atoms, quarks). I understand that. However, that does not explain why a tree"exists while a forest doesn't. If your argument is that the forest "doesn't exist' because a forest is just a collection of smaller components, well then a tree doesn't exist either (if you are applying you logic consistently).
D4Shawn 2 years ago
if you isolate the tree from a forest, it can continue to take in carbon dioxide and excrete oxygen.
If you cut the tree into tiny bits, it cannot continue to function as a tree would.
My collection of smaller components argument was wrong, thanks for correcting.
If you have a problem with the above assumption I just made, reply.
gn0m1k 2 years ago 2
There is, however, no forest in reality as there is a "tree". I would also surmise (in perpetuity to the theme of reality). that nothing exists in the brain except for the matter itself and the electrical currents that we interpret.
Colilace1 2 years ago
If we don't clearly mark the boundaries of our forest, then the ambiguity lie in what is or isn't part of our forest. The ambiguity does not lie in what doe or doesn't exist. IF IT'S THERE, IT EXISTS. Whether or not we consider tree A or tree B to be part of our forest is another matter.
We could just as easily use an example (such as a group of cookies [instead of forest]) where there is no ambiguity in delineating the things to which our term refers.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
I run around in the World of Warcraft, but I recognize what condition it will put my cardiovascular system into.
:)
Anon1696 2 years ago
um, what?
stefbot 2 years ago
Sorry, we let him out of the cage.
neutrinoide 2 years ago
Loved the video. Seems to make sense to me, but what the hell do I know...
Deathinmusic 2 years ago
Keynes, "In the end we all end up dead." Ludwig Von Mises, "Treatise on Human Action."
And political thieves and elitists subscribe to the first. Keynes was the ultimate bullshit artist.
teewillis1981 2 years ago
"not going to run around the world of Warcraft and think I am working on my cardiovascular"
I loled :P
SuperAtheistBrothers 2 years ago 2
stefbot rocks!
wordsofthegods 2 years ago
thank you
spenseravery 2 years ago
Shock doctrine is not about people being ready - it is about socialism.
utubehayter 2 years ago
Isn't all money and its value just a concept?
minteko 2 years ago
yes
vidsofgargator 2 years ago
Then I bet that's one concept Stef does understand..lol
minteko 2 years ago
The only real 'Money' is energy. It is the currency of life. Everything else is a placeholder. Time limits the 'Money' you can accumulate.
SaintCog 2 years ago
Before governments perverted the concept of money, money was always a tangible commodity that demonstrated market demand for it for it's actual use to individuals before becoming "money". Money is a concept, yes, but the concept part only encompasses the idea of the commodity as a means of exchange or store of value above and beyond it's use. The commodity itself is still real.
odigity 2 years ago
Excellent comment my friend!! The dollar itself is a derivative. An I.O.U. nothing.
teewillis1981 2 years ago
Copernicus never confronted the Church out of fear for his life. He published posthumously.
Galileo showed the Church how moons orbited Jupiter, but the Clergy refused to peer into telescope.
LaPlace, astronomer, showed Napoleon his theory of galaxies, to which Napoleon asked 'Where does God come in?" And La Place said, "I have no need for that hypothesis".
Adipatus 2 years ago
Thanks for the clarification! :)
newjoiseyboy 2 years ago
great video, one of the best!
ukkonoa 2 years ago
0:03
erdal0 2 years ago
9999999999999999999999999 stars
NaturalLogorithm 2 years ago
Wrote and performed a song last night, simply put, called, "might aint right"! I dedicate that to you, I dedicate that to truth, Thanks Stef!
jakster72 2 years ago
stimulus package= the economical rape of the unborn
stimulus package= counterfeit ring, given money to people they like
Yes that is hard to sell lol
LastReplaySC 2 years ago
I've heard Stef and others bring up the tree/forest metaphor before, but can't say I fully understand it. Isn't "tree" also a concept? I have a hard time making out the difference. Some one please explain.
iorbit 2 years ago
Comment removed
LastReplaySC 2 years ago
Was it your intent to answer my question so I could get some grasp of this? In any case, you didn't. :/
iorbit 2 years ago
that why i removed it, i was attempting a joke but it didn't work after reading it :-)
get off you high horse of self importance
LastReplaySC 2 years ago
Why do you think I'm on a high horse? Your first comment just didn't make much sense to me. No harm intended.
I would still appreciate some help understanding the tree/forest metaphor. Can you give me a hand? :)
iorbit 2 years ago
If you don't set a baseline for what exists, then you're going to have to go all the way down to quarks or something and it is useless from a utilitarian point of view. If we can't even agree a tree exists, then what can we agree on in reality? Do you exist, or do your atoms? Or is it all just quarks? It's a useless worldview to break things down that far it seems to me. That's my take anyways :)
NaturalLogorithm 2 years ago
Trees exist as discrete individual entities which are (of course) comprised of atoms. People exist as discrete individual entities as well. The label 'forest' is a handy concept which can quickly convey a meaning to another person, however 'forests', unlike 'trees' do not exist in empirical reality.
bunabayashi 2 years ago
The concept "forest" exists in the mind. However, if you re referring to a specific forest, then that concept is being used to indicate an actual thing (an actual are/collection of trees, etc). So "forest" (the concept) does not exist. However, forests (just like trees) do exist. "forest" is a concept, but *A* forest, is a thing (that exists).
D4Shawn 2 years ago 2
Well, a tree actually exists in the real, objective world. You can use objective senses to observe. Take all of these real trees out of a "forest", however, and can you still point out the forests to me? The forest is simply in our minds, helping us to explain many real things, in the same way that the group "mammal" doesn't really exist but helps us to classify the animals we put within it. Hopefully that helps. :)
Colilace1 2 years ago
You guys are retarded. By definition, a "forest' is a collection of trees, so OF COURSE, if you take away the trees, there's no more forest.
lol
It's like saying, "A jar is made of glass, but if you take away the glass, there's no more jar. Therefore, jars don't exist."
Forests exist.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
But if you take away the atoms in your body, you don't exist, so you couldn't have really typed that argument. Thus forests don't exist
FoodFromYards 2 years ago
I have no problem with the argument that nothing ultimately exists except atoms and subatomic partials. However, if that's the approach one is taking, one wouldn't say that forests DON'T exist, but trees DO (which is what many people here are saying). They are applying the logic totally inconsistently, and they sound like crazy people who don't know what does or doesn't exist or what the hell they are saying. Unfortunately, stef's tree example is confusing the hell out of people.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
Forests exist only as a concept in our minds because a tree in the forest is independent of the other trees.
They grow together in the same area due to the proper climate/living conditions in that area. This collection of trees is a concept our mind forms in order to recognize a given geographical area in which trees grow close to each other.
A tree depends upon itself in order to exist. If you take a vital/crucial part of a tree away, it isn't a whole tree anymore.
How many trees make a...
Anon1696 2 years ago
...forest?
2, because then there are more than one?
100?
We have a scientific description for a tree and how it is bound with cells, but a forest is only a concept in our minds that means "a collection of trees in a given area."
Typed this up quick, but hopefully it makes sense.
Anon1696 2 years ago
But that collection of trees in a given area exists. It doesn't matter that it takes a concept to define it, or how scientifically specific that concept is
FoodFromYards 2 years ago
unless ofcourse, the forest was one organism, like mangroves (i think)
a person has hands, legs, torso, etc. There is a relationship between my parts, and its more than a concept.
Is grass a collective or individual?
Just some mind candy ;)
DeeperBlueX16 2 years ago
You can actually go visit a fucking forest. You can walk through it. They are not imaginary. You people are crazy.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
A forest is made up of smaller components. So is a tree, and so is everything else. If you want to argue that something does not "exist" if it's reducible to smaller components, then the only thing that exists by your own logic are quarks.
That's fine. I understand that concepts are human constructs.
However, for you to say that a trees exists, but a forests doesn't makes no sense (you're not applying your logic consistently). Both can be broken down further into smaller components/units.
D4Shawn 2 years ago 2
Not just quarks. Quarks and leptons. But then these are also concepts that help us make sense of observations. Just like forests and trees.
ldpauls 2 years ago
I find it rather odd how you come into this discussion and politely ask Stef to rectify an issue you seem to have difficulty with, then suddenly call us retards in a rude and immature fashion. That's all I wanted to say considering the counterpoint has already been effectively made, but it was quite the disappointment when put into the context of your relatively respectful comment.
Colilace1 2 years ago
If I had meant "you guys are retarded" in any sort of serious way, I would justify the statement. However, at the time, I meant it the way a friend might say it to a friend. As such, I really don't feel the need to explain justify the statement. Even if I thought people who don't believe in trees (plural) were delusional and out of touch with realty (which could be construed as "retarded"), that's really not the spirit in which the comment was originally made.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
We're empiricists; it's not that trees don't exist but a concept encompassing those trees does not exist in the empirical evidence. Also, as Stef has already said there needs to be a distinction between an entity composed of interconnected parts and a concept composed of many of these entities simply close to eachother.
Colilace1 2 years ago
There's nothing to understand. This "tree/forest metaphor" is like an injection of poison into people's brains. It's a neuro-linguistic virus. It makes them think that groups (of any sort) don't exist (for some reason [which in itself makes no fucking sense]). On top of that, stef makes it sound like some things are groups (like forests) while others aren't (like trees). This is false of course (all things are reducible to smaller units). The result of all this is brain destruction.
D4Shawn 2 years ago