6469 How Can Philosophy HELP YOU? Listener Questions

Philosopher Stefan Molyneux shows how philosophy helps you by tying fear straight to unexpressed anger from bad parents and pushing confrontation so you finally grow into an adult with real agency. He adds that universally preferable behavior gives a clear standard for ethics and politics instead of excuses or coercion.

Questions:

If one would start their own company and fail, what is the worst possible financial demise one would face? Bankruptcy? What does that really look like as far as putting the pieces back together and starting all over? How does one calculate their risk? Example: Automotive Detailing Business. ✌🏼


I feel as though I have been controlled be fear all my life …

What are your thoughts on fear?


No questions. Thanks for your efforts over the years.


What are your thoughts on reverse mass migration / remigration?


You believe the coming matriarchy is a bad thing but you will at last get to wear nice clothes and not die in an atomic war. Why does it frighten you so much?


what are the advantages of confronting your parents and the disadvantages of not doing it?


Stef, not a question, just an observation. The show with the guy who still felt guilty because he crashed his mom’s car was so eye-opening, I didn’t want it to end.

I just wished you had recognized that he did not want to end the call, he was just too polite for his own good.


Why do the majority of people seem to express more emotion for fictional characters in tv/media than their own society, loved ones, etc.?


Are you a Christian ?


Why are blacks physically superior to whites?


Do you believe in the human soul? If not, can u explain the conscience and inner monologue? Do u believe in NPCs?


will you concede upb does not serve as 'proof' of secular ethics? what would lead you to concede?

ME: Can theft ever be universally preferable behaviour?

HIM: No, it can't. I don't dispute that.
But you provide a definition of morality that equates to universalizable behavior. And then state that things that can't be universalizable (theft) are immoral. But why? They are inconsistent, sure. But how are you 'proving' they are immoral?


UPB is actually a limited case of morality in the context where the agents can be considered equivalent, but starts to break down in cases where differences exist (such as inter species, subspecies, population or kin behaviour). Morality is more generally logic (right/wrong), which reduces to UPB in the special case of assumed agent equivalence. A more general application is that of the “golden rule” or doing (not) to another that which one would (not) expect done to oneself in the same circumstance - this takes into account differences in expectation of treatment based on similarity (e.g. g