bit of a short answer on the last one that didn't quite seem to answer the question fully, but my answer would be something like this: if UPB is true, it doesn't NEED more than one proof to establish that fact, it just needs one correct proof. Similarly, Jesus doesn't NEED four gospels, one is enough. The reason there are four of them is because they were written with different audiences in mind (Matthew for the Jews, Mark for the gentiles, John for the Greeks, and Luke for those wanting a longer version). Similarly, I suppose there COULD be different versions of UPB for people who find the existing proof to be somewhat inaccessible or difficult to comprehend — but I suppose those people could also try listening to some of the debates you had about it, perhaps they will find those more convincing.

While it's certainly not necessary to have more than one proof for UPB to establish its truth value, I suppose it could in fact help convince some people who are still stuck so deeply in unreality that they find the existing proof difficult to process. Some mathematical theorems also have several different proofs for them, even though one would completely suffice. I don't think it's impossible that someone might find a different proof for UPB that's more convincing or accessible to people who are having trouble wrapping their minds around the original one, but that person would likely not be Stefan. And of course, finding such a proof wouldn't make UPB MORE true, but it might help convince more people.


So I wonder if Depression is a kind of moral exhaustion , soul fatigue .


Hi Stef, can you share some insights about the subject of judgment. For example in doing deep shadow work, we are told to take a clear look at our judgments and identify them and their roots causes so we can confront repressed fears, emotions and desires and eventually integrate and accept these aspects of ourselves... I had a thought that judgment evolved to help us protect ourselves and our loved ones, so the question is, how to discern between it serving us or being a destructive force or limitation in our lives?


Hi Stefan. It occurs to me that until very recently women were married early and then constantly pregnant, suffering or recovering from miscarriage, or recovering from birth and breastfeeding. I wonder if this is why previously women were considered very delicate, fainting at the drop of a hat and needing looked after. Is it possible there wasn’t a giant conspiracy by men to keep women down but that it was simply true? I’ve been pregnant or recovering nearly constantly for the last 5 years and it’s very different to being on birth control. I’ve really started appreciating things I never cared about before such as having heavy things carried for me or being given a seat on public transport. So many of the women complaining about the patriarchy have never been pregnant and I wonder if they just don’t realise how different it is and that we as a society have never experienced this before?


Good question. I have 4 children so I’ve been pregnant, breastfeeding, recovering, and holding babies for almost 10 years now. I don’t think childless women realize how debilitating it can be. I always appreciate when a man helps me with my stroller or carries something to my car.


I became interested in the topic of spanking children after listening to Stef for a while, so I decided to look around and find out what people think about it. In scouring forums and discussion boards, I was honestly taken aback by the sheer numbers of people that believe hitting their kids is normal and healthy when there is overwhelming evidence that says otherwise. I thought by now societies especially in the West would have awaken to this. Even among those who don't spank they still use their position to threaten and withhold children's property as a form of punishment. I guess reasoning with their children is off the table.


it seems to me that you have basically just avoided answering the question by making reference to the larger political climate and the fact that the pervasive power of the state makes it difficult for people to have any sort of rational discussion about politics. I recall that in the past, you have advocated for simply not having any people in your life that supported the "against me" argument, i.e. people who are willing to involve the government in order to settle any arguments or disputes. It seems to me that such people would be able to recognize the fact that the government equals violence and that all politics is simply a struggle for power (i.e. "grabbing the gun in the room", as you've previously put it), and would consequently also be uninterested in discussing it.

If you have such people in your life, why was that not the answer?

GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND AUDIOBOOK!

https://peacefulparenting.com/

Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!

Also get the Truth About the French Revolution, multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material, as well as targeted AIs for Real-Time Relationships, BitCoin, Peaceful Parenting, and over 100 Call-Ins. Don't miss the private livestreams, premium call in shows, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!

See you soon!

https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2022