{"title": "Please Help Me Debunk This Theory", "timestamp": 1697041514.6724498, "description": "I know that philosophy is not a science. Because it is about what we cannot know, as some smart people out there say. But I've got here a philosophical theory which I want you to debunk. The theory is something I truly believe in, and therefor I'm biased towards it. So I suppose you could be better at debunking it, since you are not me.", "author": {"avatar": "https://blenderdumbass.org/pictures/favicon.png", "bio": "Aka: J.Y. Amihud. A Jewish by blood, multifaceted artist with experience in film-making, visual effects, programming, game development, music and more. A philosopher at heart. An activist for freedom and privacy. Anti-Paternalist. A user of Libre Software. Speaking at least 3 human languages. The writer and director of the 2023 film \"Moria's Race\" and the lead developer of it's game sequel \"Dani's Race\".\r\n\r\n[My Story](/about/who_is_blender_dumbass_)\r\n\r\nMore links to me ( view page source to see how I did those ):\r\n\r\n![internetarchive](https://archive.org/search?query=creator%3A%22J.Y.Amihud%22) ![imdb](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm15214305) ![notabug](http://notabug.org/jyamihud) ![odysee](https://odysee.com/@blenderdumbass:f) ![codeberg](https://codeberg.org/blenderdumbass/)", "invited": ["AngryAlien", "Erwinjitsu", "trueauracoral", "Cricetus", "elban", "Troler", "johny", "RowdyJoe", "adgbeveridge", "doublelion", "alkyilcycloalke", "jedi66", "WanchaiMike", "Trolli123", "ddd", "ByteBlast", "dolphinana", "Madiator2011", "Uriel_Cohen", "mk-la", "TestUser", "Mr._MotherFucker", "MorsMortium", "cptbichez", "dbbs", "Xavi", "test", "Ozoned"], "invited_by": "blenderdumbass", "title": "Blender Dumbass", "website": "blenderdumbass.org", "mastodon": "@blenderdumbass@mastodon.online", "username": "blenderdumbass", "email_verified": true, "jami": "", "peertube": "https://peer.madiator.cloud/c/blender_dumbass/videos", "activity_pub": {"pub": "-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----\nMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAqzwMvWrEKQfGdoyZHn/x\n1XbAxaFagX29NlP7JVC8O7rZWB9jYMzJsn5jWC8+8aWOoBUVDTIY8CZQR+pUiIBc\nBr5XW760pgPGeVCqE50Ts9lhehjr2z+rh0sdeUrNbYyiZ9HB+Wz74M3b08Xde7lj\njzH416uxh1727m+wz04TC4pGOQq4Bzgqyid2RFG44bw150n7QhGwDBqN9vcyS8iR\nJnoUMABFHdu/AhDgoTjHIvXNieNwLKDDfp0a9aWfEEIPxo4SWm9y7azZASZY3KgC\n3JDHvGTtOnGG7nfMSsGSB1gU/vEG0HJ67dOmLt9HQlgkpJCiVYQ4ZuHUWdk1WExA\n7wIDAQAB\n-----END PUBLIC KEY-----\n", "followers": ["https://shark.madiator.com/users/a48b85shv6zk0001", "https://shark.madiator.com/users/a8nizbgfpor600c4", "https://social.dl4ax.radio/users/alexander", "https://mstdn.social/users/lefractal", "https://mitra.social/users/silverpill", "https://mastodon.online/users/blendernation", "https://freundica.de/profile/zeitverschreib", "https://swiss.social/users/rettichschnidi", "https://mastodon.world/users/lesmccann", "https://mstdn.social/users/gwendolenau", "https://sharkey.flauschbereich.de/users/aeeeefmt1fhn0007", "https://mementomori.social/users/levi", "https://mastodon.social/users/schnatterick", "https://mastodon.social/ap/users/115611070628088773", "https://mastodon.social/users/The_Escapist", "https://btfree.social/pub/actors/firesidefedi", "https://cupoftea.social/users/magnetichuman", "https://mastodon.online/users/troler", "https://btfree.social/pub/actors/ozoned", "https://mastodon.social/users/simonwood", "https://mastodon.social/users/rowdyjoe", "https://todon.nl/users/soloojos"]}, "css_posts": "", "css_personal": "", "css_user_global_priority": false, "fandomhood_gifts": {"@blenderdumbass@mastodon.online": 80, "@ozoned@btfree.social": 150, "@rowdyjoe@mastodon.social": 47}, "url": "https://blenderdumbass.org/account/blenderdumbass"}, "thumbnail": "https://blenderdumbass.org/pictures/thumbs/freedom.jpg", "views": {"amount": 87, "dates": {"2024-10-03": 1, "2024-11-21": 1, "2023-12-28": 1, "2023-10-13": 1, "2024-11-19": 1, "2024-11-11": 4, "2023-10-12": 4, "2024-11-14": 3, "2023-10-16": 1, "2024-11-08": 1, "2024-11-07": 1, "2024-08-09": 1, "2024-11-20": 1, "2023-12-26": 1, "2024-11-18": 1, "2023-10-11": 20, "2023-10-15": 1, "2023-10-28": 1, "2023-10-21": 11, "2023-12-06": 1, "2023-10-23": 1, "2024-11-12": 1, "2023-10-22": 1, "2024-11-17": 1, "2023-10-30": 1, "2024-11-29": 1, "2024-12-08": 1, "2024-12-11": 1, "2024-12-16": 2, "2025-01-01": 1, "2025-02-02": 1, "2025-02-27": 1, "2025-03-05": 1, "2025-03-15": 1, "2025-03-21": 1, "2025-04-01": 1, "2025-04-18": 1, "2025-04-20": 1, "2025-06-11": 1, "2025-07-23": 1, "2025-08-15": 1, "2025-09-30": 1, "2025-10-01": 1, "2025-11-02": 1, "2025-11-24": 1, "2025-12-23": 1, "2026-04-03": 1, "2026-04-07": 1}}, "recording": "", "comments": {"comments": [{"username": "Anonymous Guest", "text": "Hi. I'm the guy from Mastodon with the philosophy background who talked with you :)\r\n\r\nAs I was saying, philosophy does have a different set of tools than science. But it is a discipline with established ways of getting at the truth.\r\n\r\nThere's two ways philosophy can \"debunk a theory.\" The first would be to show that there is some internal contradiction in the theory, so the theory can't possibly be true. I don't think I can do that here, which is good, since I largely agree with your thesis.\r\n\r\nThe other way would be to show that there's something wrong with the argument that supports the theory. The argument might have an invalid form, it might equivocate on a term, or one of the premises is false. This wouldn't be enough to disprove the theory, it would only show that we don't know the theory is true yet.\r\n\r\nAt this point, I would say that your reasoning isn't precisely formulated enough yet for this kind of \"debunking\" to work. But I think the argument could be improved. \r\n\r\nIn order for an argument to work, the terms of it need to link together in a certain way. For example, you should consider how \"problem\" and \"freedom\" are defined, and how those definitions reveal connections between them.\r\n\r\nYou provide a definition of freedom, and it's a common one. But in order to better link up with \"problem\" (and also because I think it's a better account of freedom), I would suggest Phillip Pettit's non-domination account of freedom: you're free just to the extent you aren't dominated, and you're dominated just if somebody is able to interfere with you and you aren't able to interfere *back*.\r\n\r\nI would suggest that what you mean by \"problem\" are cases where people are being dominated. And that's why the Mars case isn't a \"interesting problem,\" since nobody is being dominated there.\r\n\r\nI have more to say, but I'll wait for a response."}, {"username": "blenderdumbass", "text": "Phillip Pettit's definition gives for way more Freedom Collision cases. Since what if somebody want to dominate somebody else and being interfered with? In this case you propose that his freedom was violated. And he had a freedom to violate other people's freedom. Which makes everything way more imbalanced.\r\n\r\nWith the definition I use I make sure that violation of other people's freedoms it's not freedom already. It's power instead. And this is very important for almost everything I talk about on this website. So that's why I use this definition of freedom.\r\n\r\nThe definition of \"problem\" is an interesting one. And it seem like it is: Any unpleasantry caused by a lack of freedom. But it is kind of what the theory is about. "}, {"username": "Anonymous Guest", "text": "Hi. I'm the guy from Mastodon with the philosophy background who talked with you :)\r\n\r\nAs I was saying, philosophy does have a different set of tools than science. But it is a discipline with established ways of getting at the truth.\r\n\r\nThere's two ways philosophy can \"debunk a theory.\" The first would be to show that there is some internal contradiction in the theory, so the theory can't possibly be true. I don't think I can do that here, which is good, since I largely agree with your thesis.\r\n\r\nThe other way would be to show that there's something wrong with the argument that supports the theory. The argument might have an invalid form, it might equivocate on a term, or one of the premises is false. This wouldn't be enough to disprove the theory, it would only show that we don't know the theory is true yet.\r\n\r\nAt this point, I would say that your reasoning isn't precisely formulated enough yet for this kind of \"debunking\" to work. But I think the argument could be improved. \r\n\r\nIn order for an argument to work, the terms of it need to link together in a certain way. For example, you should consider how \"problem\" and \"freedom\" are defined, and how those definitions reveal connections between them.\r\n\r\nYou provide a definition of freedom, and it's a common one. But in order to better link up with \"problem\" (and also because I think it's a better account of freedom), I would suggest Phillip Pettit's non-domination account of freedom: you're free just to the extent you aren't dominated, and you're dominated just if somebody is able to interfere with you and you aren't able to interfere *back*.\r\n\r\nI would suggest that what you mean by \"problem\" are cases where people are being dominated. And that's why the Mars case isn't a \"interesting problem,\" since nobody is being dominated there.\r\n\r\nI have more to say, but I'll wait for a response."}, {"username": "Anonymous Guest", "text": "Even on the \"liberal\" non-interference account of freedom (the account you're using), it's said that your freedom ends at the other person's nose. The \"republican\" non-domination account does set the stage for more collisions, since you can dominate somebody without actually interfering with them. It just has to be the case that you *could* interfere with them and there's nothing they could do about it. \r\n\r\nAnd Pettit proposes that governments are legitimate just to the extent that they promote freedom. When governments act \"constitutionally,\" they take the \"interests and ideas\" of their citizens into account before they act. Pettit suggests that this kind of \"interference\" does not reduce freedom. When they act \"arbitrarily,\" and don't take the interests and ideas of citizens into account, that does reduce freedom.\r\n\r\nSo, what I am saying is, intervening on an individual to prevent them from dominating others could be one way to increase freedom for everybody else. If the \"interests and ideas\" of the dominator were taken into account first, this would at least reduce the unfreedom of the dominator. But it would presumably still involve *some* loss of freedom on their part.\r\n\r\nAnd Pettit says, in essence, that he'll be a consequentialist about freedom until given a good reason not to be. (With a nod to Rawls' reflective equilibrium.) \r\n\r\nThis approach is sort of a counter-example to your thesis. What you seem to be proposing is finding ways to enable people to interfere *back* with people who now dominate them, rather than reducing the ability of people to interfere with others."}, {"username": "blenderdumbass", "text": "This requires a lot of links. You can use markdown, if you want to to link stuff. Because half of the words here would benefit from having at least a wikipedia type thing.\r\n\r\nI'm really hooked. \r\n\r\nI see something like Police as a minimum allowable power to make freedom more sustainable. Otherwise you have [this paradox](/articles/The_Ultimate_Paradox_Of_Freedom.md). In which case freedom is literally very unstable."}]}, "tab": "articles", "url": "https://blenderdumbass.org/articles/Please_Help_Me_Debunk_This_Theory"}