@Kiman I’m responding to posts in sequence. Haven’t come to that one. But… moral philosophy? Really? The trolley problem? What good has that done you? What good has that ever done anyone?
1 Like
For my body? It sounds as if I was some entity inside this head that debated doing things “for my body”? This body I’d control, own, and depend upon for my existence. This body, somehow over there, that I’d have to take care of, however mortal it regrettably is, for it’d appear so far to be the condition of my cherished being… To the point where « not risking my life » (its life) would be by default, and on principle, the most sensible thing I can do?
Do you take me for a feeling being?
Are you perhaps projecting your inherent self-centeredness and selfishness upon this geoffrey person you’re talking to?
1 Like
I have to say I’m getting plenty of giggles from your replies @geoffrey, this one is particularly good 
@Kub933 I knew that, as a martial arts instructor, you’d get that. “Someone with a knife” does not even barely cut it as an hypothetical scenario.
I’ve had some years of practice, including knife disarming techniques, and what it has teached me is, barring the case of the knife wielder being an elderly lady with a butter knife, one is probably getting cut lol.
Granted, that was aikido hahaha. I know what MMA instructors tend to think about aikido… at least I know what Joe Rogan thinks lol.
1 Like
Damn @geoffrey I didn’t realise you were versed in Joe Rogan and MMA matters that’s cool! Yes agreed fighting anyone with a weapon is extremely difficult even for someone who has trained hand to hand combat for years. But the main thing which I completely agree with is that these situations comprise of so many unplanned variables that deciding in advance how one will respond is just not possible.
And it seems it is mostly people who have never actually been in said situations that tend to have the most ideas about what they would do or what the ‘best’ thing to do is, ideas that are imported from the outside and are not rooted in experience.
I actually have somewhat of an interesting take on these sort of things because I have always been involved in extreme sports at a pretty high level… Rock climbing, Parkour/Freerunning and now MMA. What I can say with confidence is that the level of competency in those sports (in dealing with the inherent danger) actually relates to ‘me’ not getting in the way.
In situations where I have been in life threatening danger e.g bad falls when practicing parkour, dangerous situations when climbing etc It was actually super interesting to observe that this body’s native intelligence reacted first and sometimes in really extraordinary ways, and afterwards ‘I’ came in with a rush of debilitating fear.
And this is what I suspect is the case in Actual freedom, that with ‘me’ and ‘my’ instinctual nature out of the way, this body can make full use of its intelligence to react in the most sensible/optimal way as the situation happens.
4 Likes
Let’s go about another scenario.
If you can find me 100 people who;
-
Are completely innocent of anything harmful
-
Will never be guilty of harmful acts ever
-
Are infact, incapable of being harmful (whilst being fully functioning, healthy, humans)
-
Will inherit the earth.
-
You personally will guarantee with your life points 1,2,3 & 4 (this is sorta optional, but i ain’t dying alone)
I would die for them now (hypothetically 
) ; as such a group (assuming a viable mix of genders of reproductive age) would be the humanity i would want to inherit the earth.
Of course, it’s such a silly offer, as the scenario has an answer which doesn’t involve anyone needing to actually die.
We can all be part of that 100 without anyone sacrificing anything, or guaranteeing anything.
1 Like
That’s awesome, I also do rock climbing 
. I have had the exact same experience. Biggest fall I took is as I was clipping into a bolt, I pulled the rope all the way through and was threading it in and I fell off the rock right then and there.
The entire experience of falling was simple, easy, benign, benevolent. There was the recognition I was falling. Automatically I knew where on the rock wall I would end up, and I adjusted my body so that I would have my feet out and be able to plant on the wall when I fell, and I did precisely that. It was smooth, easy, there was no feeling of fear, danger, or panic, and the fall (of maybe 15-25 feet? hard to estimate) was completely safe.
… and then a few seconds after all this happened, an intense surge of adrenaline and fear and heart rate elevated and ‘oh my god that was intense’, being shaken, etc… all of which, had it happened during the fall, would have been detrimental and caused a much less safe fall… and all of which, happening after the fall, didn’t matter at all, wasn’t useful or beneficial in any way.
So I knew then, from experience, that ‘I’ not only am ‘I’ not needed for the safety of this body, but when push comes to shove, ‘I’ get in the way!
5 Likes
@Kiman haha, also, regarding saving deck chairs ;
I would venture to say that for every actually free person, at least one deck chair has been saved.
I am basing this on my experience of regularly feeling the desire to break chairs.
Without my feelings, i think there would be at least 2 more chairs still in working order.
That’s cool @claudiu Rock Climbing is such an awesome activity, I often get the urge to get back on it. I definitely remember the experience of falling if you are a couple of clips above! But yes what you wrote perfectly describes the same sort of experiences and realisations I had.
1 Like
Richard saying in one word what I’ve been trying to say with all the above. Nice.
Ok. This allows me to get into the moral philosophy stuff.
Richard’s respondent gets into some hypothetical scenario (don’t they always? ), in which scenario Richard would definitely know (as in 100% certainty) that there would be some life trading going on (one for one). Then what would he do? Hmm?
This is the epitome of mathematical abstraction. The wet dream of moral philosophers, who fancy themselves turning morality into a hard science, with axioms, imperatives, etc. founded in ‘pure reason’. Since it’s math, it’s 100% certainty. And you can add stuff. Now there’s 5 people against one… Now there’s 100!!! What you gonna do? 100 people! HA!
Richard answers on the grounds of the respondent’s question. Mathematical grounds.
IF there is 100% certainty that it’s one life for one life, then indeed, why bother. That’s Richard’s answer.
The reason why I probably wouldn’t have made this answer which makes people go 
, is that the problem is skewed. Not only is there, in real life, nothing like 100% certainty of any outcome in any situation, but it’s not really one life for one life in this case. It’s your life for a child’s life.
And then, bam, we’re not in the abstract and rational realm that moral philosophy fancies itself belonging to, where such problems as the trolley problem make sense, we’re in real moral territory. And real moral territory is about social and cultural norms, and is about instinctual passions and feelings… is about the entirety of the feeling-being’s identity.
To such a question, for an actually free person, there is only the answer I already gave (although I get that from a feeling-being’s moral point of view, it’s not the answer they want).
2 Likes
I started having a walk on this sunny afternoon, witnessing with amazement the cows beginning to go out of their winter shelter, all clean and resplendent, when an answer @Kiman might like a bit better came to me.
To draw an effective comparison between feeling being and actually free in such a situation, which is the point of all this, right?, let’s totally ignore one parameter, which is the person-trying-to-save-their-child-from-the-agressor’s-knife ability to resolve the situation, or to simplify and only consider the physical confrontation hypothesis (which you seem to be interested in, since this is about potentially sacrificing one’s life; excluding negotiation, psychology, etc.)… let’s ignore then the ‘good guy’'s fighting ability - their age, physical condition, martial arts competency, experience with such situations, etc. i.e. their ability to effectively save the child in a physical confrontation, through disarming/neutralizing/whatever the aggressor… vs. not stupidly dying by throwing themselves on the knife. You would admit that such ability vary widely amongst people, on a range say from Stephen Hawking to Jason Bourne, and has not to do with one’s condition of actual freedom or not. So let’s ignore that.
It is then clear that, everything else being equal, and considering what I said before on feeling-beings in such a situation (vs. facts and native intelligence), the highest chance of a favorable outcome to the situation is for the child’s father to be actually free. The highest chance of the child being saved, the aggressor neutralized, and the father not sacrificing himself. And it’s not even close.
Another clear case of self-immolation being indeed for this body and everybody. 
3 Likes
I also think that this type of question, one of ultimate sacrifice, has its source in the heart of the human condition.
For millennia countless humans have sacrificed their lives for ‘society’. For the human condition of ‘being’.
It’s not about whether a person cares about a child at all, but a way to manipulate humans into staying exactly as they are.
I just read the novel “1984” and one of the main themes was that the system that surrounds “big brother” didn’t ultimately care about winning wars, but rather winning minds. Even if that mind had to be utterly destroyed, it cared only that it won that mind. The whole apparatus of the thought police, spying and torture was not about money, or individual power, but winning by any means the mental compliance of every person. It would then shot that person. That was it’s entire goal. Win them completely then kill them.
2 Likes
“big brother” didn’t even necessarily exist. It was the idea of power itself sustaining itself. The idea.
The question, “would you die for your child” is a tool of manipulation.
@Kiman, do you have children? Do you have 100 friends you would die for?
1 Like
@Kiman so i can humanise this conversation (was it you i had a phone convo with last year?)
This weekend i firmly decided, that i would quit my well paid job, go back on the tools and take my youngest son on as an apprentice. I decided this absolutely.
I have previously sacrificed over $200,000 equity along with $70000 in hard earned money to ensure my sons enjoyed 4 more years in the house i built for them.
I was close to bankruptcy for 4 of the last 8 years. Dying in some hypothetical scenario and going into oblivion would most certainly been far easier.
So it’s not whether you will die for your children, but whether you will live for them that counts.
I thank you for your question. It’s come at the perfect time actually, along wirh so many spectacular posts from others.
The very best i can do for everyone is to live fully for them and this body.
2 Likes
And to further humanise it; none of that sacrifice was necessary had i been able to follow Richard’s advice all those years ago. It was my fault all along, and my continued selfishness as a self that has sustained the needless drama.
3 Likes
One might respond to this, “no no, the best thing would be to go take hand-to-hand combat courses! Buy a glock and open carry it on the subway!”
The last thing we need is more feeling-beings with weapons. Do you really trust yourself to use your talents and weapons for ‘good’ in all situations? Have you never lost control of yourself before? I know I have.
That is why prioritizing becoming free is more useful than more violence-for-violence.
In the land of feeling-revolutions, we all become Fidel Castro.
1 Like
I love salsa dancing, the tropics, army green, 1950s cars and cigars. I’m not seeing the downside… 
2 Likes
Haha this is reminding me of an old Chris Rock Michael Jackson joke ‘WTF another fuckin kid Michael?!!’ Our poor families have endured all sorts of horrible torture scenarios like those Westworld androids 
If I have to throw myself at my child attacker I vote soccer mom rather than some Uzi wielding Navy Seal who looks like Thanatos
Loved Cuba. Couldn’t get into those cigars though, try as I did. Cough, cough
1 Like
It’s more the aroma.
I’m with you on this one Andrew 