Welcome to The Conversation of Our Generation

Welcome to the new website for the Conversation of Our Generation! Here, I will discuss a wide range of ideas in hope that people join the dialogue with me. I want to grow and learn, and hopefully teach some people along the way. Follow my blog and share it. Comment to join the dialogue. Most importantly, get you and your friends involved in the conversation here or on social media.

18 thoughts on “Welcome to The Conversation of Our Generation

Add yours

    1. I appreciate it! I’m just trying to get people talking about topics that are actually important, and dive below the surface. It’s about educating with reference to history and age-old ideas, so we can better understand the current dialogue

  1. Great, what ideas are important to you? I am open to change and would like to learn about your point of view please.

    I believe in Justificationism, a philosophy that I made up! And I believe that everyone justifies their behaviour and perspective by preference! Do you have any suggestions how I can change my philosophy to make it even simpler?

    1. I basically believe in Classical Liberalism as it is described in the Declaration of Independence. Today, I would be a conservative libertarian. I believe in pushing back the power of government in a way that preserves the institutions that protect liberty and provides more liberty to more people. My core beliefs would be a voluntaryist position, but knowing that the unraveling of the state would take time, I take the conservative stance on dismantling the state powers so that the baby is not thrown out with the bath water.

      1. But the reason for this blog is to put my thoughts on topics out there in more than 140 characters and spark discussion, debates and conversations that lead to fruitful solutions to problems. I think there are solutions besides the state and finding and enacting these is the key to reclaiming liberty.

    2. To learn about that, I would look to the Greek philosophers. The pre-Socratics talk a lot about perception and how it should be understood in relation to truth. Socrates, Aristotle and Plato have a lot to say on that too. Then, look at Jordan Pederson’s stuff. He really dives into the inter-workings of psychology and philosophy and how philosophies can affect the physiology of people through their psyche.

      But for anything about learning how to make the assumption and use a line of reason to a logical conclusion, Greek thoughts and methods are the best.

  2. I accept your point of view, and thank you for sharing it with me!

    I have read your comments several times and it may take me some time to think of interesting things to say because in my opinion, government and politics can be very complicated!

    However, I can easily relate to the idea of liberty! I love liberty!

    And I would like to add to the conversation by saying, there is a difference between liberty and freedom, and those definitions can be a grey area that some people debate!

    Thank you for sharing with me!

    1. I’m always willing to share! I’m glad you took the time to share your thoughts with me. Hopefully, you keep adding to this because I enjoy the engaging conversation!

      I agree that they are different. I think that freedom is derived from your ability to do so due to a lack of interference of any sort, and liberty is a lack of interference by the state. That is why American ideas of liberty are different: the founders believed that both were important in their own regard.

  3. I love the great books! I love western and eastern thought! I also think that it may be possible that our philosophies relate to our psychology! I love discourse!

    You are doing a great job! Thank you for providing this service!

    1. Hi,

      I just wanted to let you know that I got your message. I will look through it, and let you know what I think! Sorry I didn’t reply earlier, but I had gone to bed.

      A couple questions:

      Do you believe that their is an objective truth?

      Do you believe there should be lawful recourse for injury?

      I would dive into the thought behind the first amendment when discussing your first point. It basically restates the freedoms enumerated there.

    1. There can only be objective or subjective truth, but they cannot both exist. Subjective truth is often confused with the inability to express the complete objective truth, or an inability to know the entire objective truth. Either way, the truth is true. Human perceptions distort their view of it, but that does not make it less true. For instance, 2+2=4, which is obviously objectively true. The truth is not so easy to decide in a murder trial. Either the defendant did the crime or he didn’t and it happened a certain way, but people’s perceptions, evidence and preconceived notions can interfere with their ability to decipher the truth since it isn’t as simple.

      I don’t think justice can coincide with the third point the way it is written. This is because everyone being able to decide correlation and causation of consequences would interfere with the idea that actions have certain consequences. There is, in my opinion, cosmological justice that we can’t escape, and our ideas of justice are mechanisms we’ve found that fall in line with the cosmological justice that existed before us.

  4. Sure! I can accept your point of view. I can see your position and I like it.

    1. In regards to truth following your murder trial example, a grey area can be the issue of contributory negligence, or conspiracy.

    Here’s an example of a subjective truth:
    I like ice cream. That is true for me, but not everyone else.

    Here’s an example of an objective truth:
    Everybody poops.

    2. In regards to justice, I’m also of the position that there is both subjective and objective justice.

    Here’s an example of subjective justice:

    It seems whether we like it or not, the notions of justice are always contested. And I think a jury is a bunch of random people who get together to decide on correlation and causation of consequences. Plus, there’s different styles of jurisprudence around the world.

    Here’s an example of objective justice:
    In line with your mathematical example, 4/2 = 2
    Or any idea for that matter! Any idea in itself is an object, subject to our interpretations of what it is.

    What do you think, am I expressing myself clearly enough, and questions?

    I’ve updated justificationism.com again to new levels of clarity, can you help me tear it apart so I can rebuild it?

    1. I would say hat whether or not ice cream tastes good is subjective, but whether or not an individual enjoys it is objective. It’s yes or no.

      Also, I think that the inability of an individual or group to decipher the truth does not make it subjective. Different forms of justice do exist, but there is a true form of justice and it must be applied to the individual. As imperfect beings, we cannot attain perfect truth or justice, but that does not mean it doesn’t exist. We can only get closer to it

  5. So to summarize, this is what I think, can you confirm?:

    objective truth: all foods have calories

    subjective truth: i like oranges but not apples


    objective truth: any idea in itself, the idea of truth, or freedom, or justice, is objective in itself

    subjective truth: everyone’s interpretations of any ideas

    Hey, I streamlined my philosophy and was wondering if you can constructively criticize it:

    # 1.Everyone Is Free To Interact.
    However, the causes, consequences, and morality of any interaction can be black, white, and grey areas.

    # 2.Everyone Is Free To Change Their Mind.
    Everyone is free to agree, disagree, and change their mind as a matter of choice.

    # 3.Everyone Justifies Their Behavior And Perspective By Choice.
    Everyone should have as much freedom as justice allows.

    1. I think that’s better for sure. I definitely think your third point is better worded. It’s about doing what justice will allow, which I assume means doing what you can without harming others basically.

      If you want to, you could write an article about justificationism for me to feature on the blog. I will be glad to have a post on there from you! I think it will be an interesting addition to the conversation. I think if you put your three points, and explain what they mean to you, it would be a good read. I

      Just contact me and put your personal email in the message, and I will give you my email so we can figure it out. If you want to, that is.

  6. hah, sorry, between the time I made the previous post and this one, I had some help from a friend and already edited it one more, time.

    Justificationism is a philosophy
    for the pursuit of wisdom with 3 points:

    # 1.
    Everyone Is Free To Interact.

    However, the causes, consequences, and morality of any interaction can be black, white, and grey areas.

    # 2.
    Everyone Is Free To Change Their Mind.

    Everyone is free to agree, disagree, and change their mind as a matter of choice.

    # 3.
    Everyone Is Free To JustifyTheir Perspectives and Behaviors.

    Everyone should have as much freedom as justice allows.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑