Philosopher Stefan Molyneux unpacks listener questions on matchmaking, vaccine deceptions, true listening, UPB's ironclad morality and virtue-forged love to arm you against societal lies for ethical sovereignty.
Questions:
How would you go about making introductions between two individuals that you believe would both massively benefit from knowing one another (whether in a business, romantic, or other scenario)?
Hey Stef, maybe a bit of a personal question but I would appreciate hearing what your thoughts are on vaccines now. Pre-COVID I was convinced about vaccines being good, but now since witnessing the COVID jab and even just how terrible the batch controls were with contaminants, I haven’t been able to bring myself to vaccinate my children. I don’t trust vaccines made by companies who participated, but even if I could find some available that weren’t, I read a book called Vax Unvax by Del Bigtree and Robert Kennedy, and it made a compelling argument for vaccine injuries being much higher than reported. Also, there is so much corruption in the industry. Yet with all of this, I still worry it’s not the right choice due to non-herd-immunity related risks, such as tetenus. Thanks if you take the time to touch on this!
Why do you think that it is so difficult for people to listen?
Stefan, you are an excellent listener, backed by countless examples. What are your top 3 to 5 tips on how to become a great listener?
Hi stef. In regard to UPB and the Coma Test; If someone in a coma is unconscious, they also have no choice. As a result they do not have the ability to prefer anything. Should someone in a coma not be excluded from any assessment for UPB? Thanks.
Hi Stef, This is a follow on from my previous question. Do you think that people resist UPB, in part because it leads to the realisation of how unloved most of us are?
?
? If there is a secular explanation for morality, and that love and morality aren't seperate from each other, then we also end up with an understanding of love centered around voluntarism, a respect for property rights (peaceful parenting), and the mutual exchange of value (freetrade).
?
? In many social relationships where people claim to love and be loved, there is no voluntarism (only social obligation), no peaceful parenting (negotiation), but instead manipulation and violence, and no mutual exchange of value (consistent positive behavior that is reciprocated), but instead exploitation. This is particularly true for parent child relationships.
?
? Is a rejection of UPB therefore a desire to hold on to the illusion of parental love being real? Even if it is centered around social obligations, emotional and physical coercion and as well as exploitation. E.g. parents expecting children to take care of them even when the parents failed to protect and nurture their own children.
?
? Is so much of the resistance to secular ethics (atleast from the masses who wield no true political power), simply a desire to escape grief?
Hi Stef, if love is our involuntary response to virtue, and virtue is caused by free will, how do we discuss free will in the psychological sense without undermining it philosophically through introducing deterministic explanations for human behaviour?
Free will is defined as our ability to compared proposed actions to ideal standards, and if we can do this consistently through moral action guided by UPB, then we can be loved. This is the philosophical explanation. But psychologically, we need to put an emphasis on peaceful parenting, because 'loving' parents make it more likely for a child to develop a conscience, which then allows them to exercise free will, be moral and thus be loved. I use the term 'loving' here in reference to familial love which doesn't appear to be an involuntary response to virtue since children are still developing a capacity for free will.
Therefore, psychologically, familial love creates a conscience, which then creates free will, which then creates moral action, which then creates love (both familial and romantic). The psychological chain thus begins with love, and ends with love. But the philosophical chain begins with free will and ends with love, since a bad childhood isn't an excuse for immoral behavior.
How do we reconcile these two seeming contradictions, especially since peaceful parenting is emphasized as one of the most important levers for helping people be more open to free trade, property rights and UPB. If we say that peaceful parenting will lead to more virtue, are we undermining free will through introducing psychological determinism?
GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!
Get Peaceful Parenting now!
Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!
Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!
You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!
See you soon!
Join us at Locals!