summary

The red pill is not a philosophy. It is a praxeology. It is a toolbox built to most efficiently apply to a set of empirical circumstances. It is a gun, not implying a motive for use. It is not, and cannot be a philosophy. This is a dense post about the red pill, not of the red pill.

DEFINITIONS

Morality=ethics ( what is right and wrong) we are not discussing what is right and wrong. We are discussing peoples judgements of what is right and wrong, specifically peoples judgements about the red pill.

moral judgement= a statement about ethics." (how do we know it is wrong to murder) these are what we are discussing.

wrong= you ought not to do (x)

right= you ought to do (x)

praxeology= a system or strategy based  on empirical and experiential reality, a so called toolbox to deal with a set of circumstances. (layman's definition)

predicate= a phrase that enacts on a subject, (x). Example, I close the door, (i=subject) (close the door =predicate)

philosophy= a love of wisdom, an appreciation of a certain theory on the functions of something being observed, internal, external, theoretical, concrete, or metaphysical.

logic= a bimodal system used to measure truth and falsity, in terms of the principal of noncontradiction. (we shall exclude trimodal systems and further for this discussion)

body

A philosophy is a love of wisdom, but so much more. (analytic Phil major going masters). It uses theory to explain why things are the way they are, then logic and reason to assess arguments, reducible to a few axioms such as non contradiction. The red pill rarely does a sufficient job of that, largely because the surroundings it works with involve many uncertainties. However it does an excellent job of telling you how to address what heuristics and statistics lean towards being the case

The thing to remember most is the following.

Premise 1 for any x, if x is male, x has a philosophy on how x ought to live.

Premise 2 In order to best do something (a philosophy) it is in x's best interest to find the most effective tools. (unless x's philosophy directly contradicts using external tools)

Premise 3 If x desires to do well in the sexual market, they should find tools designed for the sexual market.

Premise 4 The red pill provides the (likely best) tools for the sexual market.

Conclusion any x whose philosophy of life includes skill in the sexual market should seek the red pill.

the red pill is not moral

argument 1

Moral judgements are predicates.

Predicates are exclusively true or false, except when referring to themselves or non real things. (Chicago is a city = true or false), (unicorns are beautiful = not a predicate, as unicorns are a non real thing)

Moral judgements are true or false, except when referring to themselves.

All moral judgements are equivalent to stating an (ought to do) or (ought not to do).

argument 2

Moral judgements are not predicates, and only seem to be.

Moral judgements are statements on feelings, and are not true or false.

All moral judgements are permissible, and so don't imply an (ought to do), or, (ought not to do).

trps relation to the arguments above

Well trp itself holds no moral judgements, as a praxeology it is a subject. (a system or tool box). A subject is not a predicate.

This means you may make moral judgements about trp, but they are ultimately irrelevant, as you are doing the same as saying "you ought to use a toolbox" or "you ought not to use a toolbox" as you can see, it's a silly statement standing alone, as there is no further context. Regardless of whether you believe moral judgements true or false, any moral judgement about trp itself is of little note. However if you were to say something about how you use trp, that could be a moral judgement. For example, (you ought not to use trp for x) would be a moral judgement, either true or false. The problem within is as follows.

Making a true or false claim (a judgement) is dangerous and ultimately self destructive. The reason why is that in forming a judgement about a praxeology, your judgement now must be airtight. If someone can provide even one example where the judgement doesn't hold, your judgement is false.

Example: (using trp to game women is wrong).

Well now what you've actually said is, (using trp to game women is something you ought not to do), is true.

If someone can name even one circumstance that contradicts that, your judgement is broken or must be revised.

Ex (so you should not use trp to game a woman, even if that woman loves and enjoys being gamed, it provides her the happiest lifestyle and fulfilment?)

lessons learned

TRP is not moral

TRP is not a philosophy. You have philosophies involving the application of trp, know the difference.

Moral judgements about the application of trp are functionally impossible to hold airtight. Don't bring them here.

Any male who's personal philosophy involves sexual success, needs a toolbox for it. Trp is (almost certainly) the best toolbox.