Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List:

Welcome to Freedomain Radio Message Board

If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible spam accounts.

Tyler H

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Tyler H last won the day on July 22

Tyler H had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

129 Awesome!

About Tyler H

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Philosophy of course!

Recent Profile Visitors

653 profile views
  1. This is what I came up with, let me know what you think: any quality that allows you to overcome an obstacle in order to achieve a desired end.
  2. When did "big" become a necessary adjective?
  3. Yes it certainly is, thank you for the clarification. While I agree with your definitions, the one about philosophers was not a component in my post. I think this may be the source of some of the confusion. When I quoted Stef saying that the world needed philosophy more than a programmer, the context I left out is that when he said that he meant real philosophy, not the sophistry so prevalent in today's society. Philosophy as in the search for, and more importantly the love of, truth. Where no matter what idols fall in its path we continue on. Where self knowledge and empathy are as important as reason and empiricism. I think you're right; we need far more true selves than what passes for a philosopher these days. However, I think we get more true selves when there's less hero worship and politics, and more deep conversations about personal relationships and self knowledge. I was glad to hear topics broached in the last call-in that had been left unexplored for quite some time. This is what I think will lead to more true selves.
  4. Your proposition is put forward as if it were mutually exclusive when it isn't, so I'm not sure how to respond. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something.
  5. In what way?
  6. What I meant was that there is a difference in degree, not classification, and that is an important distinction about which we, those who work to see the initiation of violence abolished from human interaction, should remain vocal. If you're forced to pick a side that contradicts your moral convictions then you need to continuously remind people why you are supporting that stance and why, otherwise what's to distinguish support under protest and sincere advocation?
  7. Given the current state of politics, what is the difference? Taxation instead of theft, quantitative easing instead of counterfeiting, education instead of indoctrination, politics instead of coercive enforcement of the will of the majority....
  8. No problem! It's been sitting on my bookshelf, I think I'll crack it open this weekend. I found the first one really, really helpful so I'm sure I'll enjoy it. Thanks for the recommendation.
  9. In a world filled with anti-philosophical lemmings the popularity of a philosophy show has an inverse relationship to it's quality. The show grew because it rode the Trump wave and put a pause on offending people's sensibilities. More conservative pandering and less philosophical exposure of the state, the family, and the church. The people who like the show before and the people who like the show after are not going to be the same people. I think there has been a slow reemergence of prior content to slowly introduce conservative listeners to the original principles without losing them, but we'll see if we're actually headed back to the car or if we're having too much fun at the gas station (reference to the we got a flat tire[immigration/leftism] and we have to detour[push Trump, court Christians] to fix it analogy). Yes, there are plenty of people to defend Trump and rail against the decline of society, but when Stef left the "Ivory Tower" who was left to speak true philosophy? He often would posit prior to his shift to full time podcasting "does the world need another software programmer or does it need philosophy"; well tell me, does the world need another conservative pundit, or do they need someone to show the way to a free society through truth and reason? This is a thought I sometimes have, but I hope I'm wrong about that and right about the detour - i.e. we buy time and gain some eyeballs to try and convince later.
  10. Anyone who thinks a young guy is romantically interested in some old bag-o-bones... I have some land to sell them.
  11. For those who don't check the link it's The Psychology of Self Esteem. Nathaniel Branden also wrote The Six Pillars of Self Esteem which I have not yet read but I imagine is also worth a look.
  12. You'd be interested in the older shows, I would wager.
  13. I was curious why it is that when Trump hires someone to collect information on what issues the republican base is concerned about he's interested in solving the problems and when Macron does it he is just collecting information to tell people what they want to hear...
  14. Circling back to see if we're still gonna get this going. Also, does anyone remember the zombie suppository podcast? I figure maybe someone who has recently started from the beginning may have come across it, I'm pretty sure it was fairly early on.
  15. Sure there is, remove its social support. Thank you for pointing that out, that last B should have been C. I've made the appropriate edit. But A is not an inanimate object, it is a person (or persons) we would treat as moral actor(s). And the use of A also effects more than just B and C which was why I included D-Z, the main reason for my objection. Using force in defense against A and B is completely justified. Involving D-Z if not absolutely necessary is of questionable ethics to say the least. Yes, I'm solely arguing against the morality of using the government to create an ethnostate. It's imposing your views through the force of the state rather than the power of your reason. It's the fundamental reason we oppose the state in the first place. And how does this not justify the welfare state to ensure the survival of genes that would otherwise perish in a free society? It invalidates your case against the state. You're falling into A's trap of getting B and C to endlessly attack each other while A profits from the conflict.