You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Yeah, it's kinda like that...
Okay, but you also didn't answer my fairly simple questions. If all that reading can't lead to answers for simple questions like this, I have to question whether or not that reading is the best use of my time.
If I give a short answer to your simple questions, you won't understand it. We would probably be involved in a fruitless discusion like these two guys:
Stefan Molyneux thinks that Soviet Union was communism, and his guest knows that USSR was not communism, but doesn't know what communism is! Stefan asks the same simple question that can't give any answer if you don't define what are you really talking about. That is precisely why philosophical books exist and why everyone should read them. If you don't read, you are open to the manipulation of the hierarchical matrix.
Now, here is simple question for you, that you can answer with “yes” or “no”. May I assume that you support the views of Emancipated Human that you shared from Facebook?
I saw this discussion recently. I do think people should be able to articulate ideas for discussion without having to have others read entire books. I know that's difficult, but the better we understand things, the better we can communicate about them. I think people should read Thinking, Fast and Slow to understand how the brain works and Origins of Virtue to understand more about "human nature" etc. That said, I still have conversations with people who haven't read this books because it helps me better understand their views and my own.
I didn't say answers have to be "yes" or "no". You can expand all you want on them or ask clarifying questions. Some views of Emancipated Human (voluntaryism, non-aggression principle, etc) I support, and I'm sure there are some I do not. I'm not a fan of the tribalism game of aligning with tribes which only causes division. I prefer discussing specific topics. Some of my views fit with some tribes while other views might go against that tribe's opinion.