ETHICS UNPACKED! Freedomain Community Conversation!

Stefan Molyneux

Friday Night Live Chat 14 June 2024  Stefan leads an interactive philosophy session, discussing applying philosophical concepts to daily life and critiquing academia's focus on status over societal change. They explore knowledge complexities, objectivist epistemology, and the significance of logic and reason in ethical theories. Stefan advocates for evidence-based propositions and introduces Universally Preferable Behavior (UPB) as a moral standard rooted in rationality. He emphasizes adhering to objective standards for ethical interactions and encourages listener support, appreciating engaging discussions on philosophical concepts and ethics.  Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!  NOW AVAILABLE FOR SUBSCRIBERS: MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING' - AND THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI AND AUDIOBOOK!  Also get the Truth About the French Revolution, the interactive multi-lingual philosophy AI trained on thousands of hours of my material, 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

Transcript

00:00:00Yeah, hi everybody, welcome June 14th to 2024. Welcome to your

00:00:08Glorious

00:00:10philosophy evening it is

00:00:12Friday night live. We're doing a voice chat and

00:00:15I am super thrilled if anybody has any questions comments issues challenges problems, whatever you like

00:00:21I'm all ears. I certainly have topics as I am want to do but I am happy to hear from you

00:00:27So if you just want to unmute if you have any questions or comments help yourself to my brain

00:00:33Like a buffet of vaguely British noises. Hey Steph. Can you hear me? Yes, sir

00:00:37okay, I just want to thank you for all of the hard work that you do and

00:00:44All of the the dedication you've really

00:00:48Allowed me to to see you know what? I mean?

00:00:51You said you mentioned that time that Helen Keller

00:00:55Before she could new words or anything like that. It was just like electronic sensations or something, right and

00:01:02you have given me so much clarity and

00:01:06Understanding in the world and about other people that I just can't imagine what it would be like to exist

00:01:14Any other way, you know?

00:01:16so

00:01:17I I'm just thrilled to be able to speak to you

00:01:21This is you're like a celebrity to me

00:01:24All these years. I've been listening to you and you had those huge YouTube channel streams and you know

00:01:32Messages flooding in and now here we are

00:01:35Just just this small group I I'm just ecstatic for this so

00:01:44Well, I really appreciate your kind words, thank you so much what do you think was

00:01:49The most important

00:01:51aspect of philosophy for you, what was there some moment where you just like Kapow and

00:01:57Things sort of came together was it some particular topic or some sometimes it's just a side phrase that happens to sink the

00:02:04Pet so to speak. What was it for you?

00:02:07well, I I

00:02:09hope I can answer your question, but I'm going to say that

00:02:13it's the Colin shows and

00:02:16It's understanding how

00:02:19Abuse and all of the turmoil and you know

00:02:23how the the parents treated the child which then became an adult and then had children of their own and

00:02:30That has given me

00:02:33You know, my glasses on so to speak so I can actually see and

00:02:38really a thing that I

00:02:41just can't get away from is UPB and

00:02:45the non-aggression principle

00:02:50That is is what really

00:02:54You know really opened up my eyes with the you know, the the

00:02:58documentaries you did sunset in the Golden State, which I've watched a couple times over and

00:03:05Anytime I have guests over I tried to I tried to at least show them a couple minutes of it and try to get

00:03:10them exposed to it and

00:03:13centralized coercion

00:03:15Understanding the nature of the state for what it is. It's just it's illegitimate. It's just force

00:03:21So I hope I'm answering your question

00:03:26No, I appreciate that and when you first listen, I mean, it's funny

00:03:30I wish I could come in from the outside, you know

00:03:33like that's kind of what philosophy is is kind of coming into to life from the outside from sort of principles and

00:03:40I you know, one of the things is wild about this show and and I take some credit for this, of course

00:03:45But it has a lot to do with the honesty and generosity to listeners, but it's a wild thing

00:03:50Because normally there are physicists and there are engineers in the world and the two are usually quite separate

00:03:56So there's there's the heavy theorists and then there's the practical

00:04:00implementers

00:04:02now the one thing that is

00:04:04Is really unique about what we do here is that

00:04:09We go from the most abstract

00:04:12Theoreticals to the most practical implementations we go from absolute theory

00:04:19To robust practice, right?

00:04:21So Einstein comes up with the theory of relativity and then the Manhattan Project creates the bomb, right?

00:04:26Which is maybe not the best. Let's talk nuclear power. I love the topic of the city flattening bomb by the way, so

00:04:32Yeah

00:04:34so the fact that

00:04:37I've got

00:04:39these big abstractions

00:04:41UPB and RTR non-aggression principle, which is not mine, of course, but to take that and

00:04:48Apply it to actual practical

00:04:52problems in the world is

00:04:56Fairly unprecedented in philosophy and in fact certainly to the degree that we do it

00:05:01it is unprecedented that a

00:05:04Philosopher is not helping people with abstract definitions of virtue and pointing out contradictions in their thinking

00:05:13But is rather saying

00:05:15How does philosophy change your life?

00:05:18While remaining strict to abstract principles. How does philosophy change your life and the call-in shows?

00:05:24are absolutely unique in the history of

00:05:28Philosophy that there are now thousands of conversations where we take the most abstract principles and

00:05:35Apply them to actual life because you know

00:05:38a lot of philosophers are into abstract principles and there are these sort of I don't know Tom to Tony Robbins self-help guru kind of

00:05:46guys who

00:05:48Try to help people with their lives and so on

00:05:51But not the two together and that's I think

00:05:54Oh

00:05:55the wildest thing about

00:05:58What's happening in these kinds of conversations that we are going from the most?

00:06:03abstract topics of the most practical

00:06:06implementations

00:06:07Because philosophy can very easily be a distraction from life

00:06:11Because it feels very sort of disconnected in sometimes almost dissociated from life and when you sort of plow through

00:06:17people like a Schopenhauer or

00:06:19even Nietzsche to some degree it's like well, that's all well and good, but

00:06:24You know, what does this do for my life how does this help me make actual decisions and

00:06:31To have morality from the greatest abstractions to the most practical implementations is

00:06:37A wild it's almost like breaking the third wall or the fourth wall

00:06:42It's like breaking the fourth wall in theater where instead of you looking at a room of actors pretending

00:06:47There's no audience

00:06:47They kind of come out and talk to you in the in the audience and and yet that's usually improv and so on

00:06:54But this is sort of very structured. So I

00:06:56think that

00:06:58When I first and it's wild because I still remember this sort of from very very early on in the show

00:07:04that

00:07:05I've always loved chatting with people and

00:07:08So I wanted to talk philosophy with people and this is sort of way back in the day skype had this

00:07:12I guess kind of like now but it was sort of a meeting room

00:07:16Situation where

00:07:18You could all join a particular meeting room. This is back in I think 2006 and so on

00:07:24You could join a meeting room. You could mute and unmute people and I was like, hey, let's talk philosophy

00:07:30And I don't know why this happened

00:07:35It's it's a very interesting question as to why this happened, but I was like, hey, let's talk philosophy

00:07:44And people

00:07:47Opened up their lives to the ether like self-surgery with a hand grenade or something they just

00:07:54Opened up because and this is almost with the call-in shows

00:07:58There's no obviously as you know

00:08:00if you've if you've filled out the form or like there's nothing but if somebody said my call-in show is I want to discuss the

00:08:06technical technicalities of UPB

00:08:08I would be happy with that. I'd be thrilled with that but

00:08:13you

00:08:15With almost no exceptions I can say functionally all of

00:08:21Talking to a philosopher is

00:08:24the personal life or

00:08:27thousands and thousands of call-in show requests

00:08:32Over, you know 1819 years and it's all about personal life. That's unprecedented in the entire history of

00:08:40Philosophy, I mean you have shows where people talk about their personal lives, but it's usually from the perspective of a psychologist not a philosopher and

00:08:49Here, I don't know what happened

00:08:52it had something to do with an

00:08:55Instinctual understanding of my skills talents abilities and preferences that I didn't even

00:09:03Know about

00:09:04Because I'm like, hey, let's talk philosophy and it's like oh come the personal stories and

00:09:11The opening up of the lid of privacy and

00:09:16I

00:09:17Kind of fell into that groove and I think did a pretty good job

00:09:21From early on and it was like the audience knew me better than I knew myself because I'm like, hey

00:09:28Abstractions are the way to go. Let's talk philosophy. I mean none of my early articles were really about

00:09:35self-knowledge

00:09:37And

00:09:39history and childhood and and all of that

00:09:43but

00:09:44there was some sort of collective Borg brain thing that happened where people were like, I'm gonna talk to him about this and

00:09:52We started this just wild journey of converting

00:09:57abstractions to practical

00:09:59implementation that really has been going on and continues to go on and

00:10:03Philosophy is the all-discipline and life is an infinity of choices. So I don't think we're gonna run out of

00:10:10These issues anytime soon and that's fine with me. I mean, I know that they call in shows are

00:10:16Very unique and you know, I enjoy doing the politics and I thought it was very interesting and so on

00:10:21But when I sort of see these shows some of them are on the left

00:10:25most of them are on the right where people are just

00:10:27Talking about some, you know a little bit of gender politics and some politics as a whole and and all of that and it's like

00:10:33Yeah, I mean that's interesting, but it just seems to me more of a distraction than anything else

00:10:37so yeah, I mean obviously I want to thank everyone who was involved in in that and

00:10:43especially the early people who reached, you know deep into their hearts with both hands and poured them out of the Internet and

00:10:50Summoned a

00:10:52Particular precision and expertise in me that I would not have laid a lot of money was

00:10:57Coiled like a snake waiting to strike in my heart. So

00:11:01That I think is a really fascinating part of the show and something that the audience found

00:11:07in me before I did and

00:11:10So I really wanted to thank everyone but that was a wild conversation that started, you know close to

00:11:1620 years ago and

00:11:18Continues to this day. So I'm just I just can't think of anyone else that I would be want to be that

00:11:25I want to be talking to you other than you

00:11:28Right, like I don't want to talk to Jordan Peterson

00:11:32You know that guy's that guy's life is a disaster with those

00:11:36Was a barbiturates whatever he was on I forgot

00:11:40but

00:11:41You you give clarity because I can I can I can see it in my daily life

00:11:47Where I try to talk to people about things just just

00:11:52just basic details of reality at work and people

00:11:56You know, they get uncomfortable. You've mentioned that before they get they tense up

00:12:01There's a there's a pause before they answer and I can just really see

00:12:06What you answered my question that time about the Milgram experiments where everyone is terrified

00:12:13They're terrified of what others think of them what their family thinks of them with a manager

00:12:19co-workers, whatever and

00:12:23You know you kind of

00:12:27How shall I say I go into a higher orbit maybe electron orbit or something an atom and

00:12:33you know the

00:12:36The community of people in those groups just kind of keeps shrinking and shrinking

00:12:40So I think one of the last calls you you and others had mentioned pruning

00:12:45getting people out of your life who

00:12:48you know are

00:12:51not contributors to

00:12:53making your life better and that's something I've been doing over the last many years and

00:13:00My circle is very small now, but I do consider

00:13:04You to be in my circle and it's it's just really

00:13:08It's it's just really an honor to be speaking with you. I

00:13:14Appreciate that. Thank you. And as far as dr. Peterson goes

00:13:17I mean obviously very interesting fellow a very highly highly brilliant brilliant intelligent fellow and so on not a philosopher

00:13:24But a psychologist which is a kind of different

00:13:26different thing

00:13:28But yeah, it was pretty wild

00:13:32It was pretty wild

00:13:34I mean the story is that Jordan Peterson's daughter ended up didn't she have a child with a Stalinist or something like that and

00:13:41That's some pretty wild stuff. And yeah, he did get addicted

00:13:44I think to barbiturates and the idea that he didn't know they were addictive

00:13:49I don't find particularly credible but a man of course is not defined by a mistake

00:13:53You know, was it a mistake to take this his wife? Of course was ill and I understand that

00:13:58But I wouldn't want to define him as

00:14:02You know foundationally flawed because he of an addiction that he got into when he was doing some very high-flying and very stressful

00:14:12Activities so I wouldn't write him off as far as all that goes and I think I've gotten some very useful things out of him

00:14:17But you know a guy has worked with the UN and he doesn't really understand the nature of the state

00:14:22Which again wouldn't be his job necessarily. He's a psychologist not a philosopher or you know

00:14:28political

00:14:29theorist and so on but yeah some useful and interesting stuff, but

00:14:33Not not the kind of principles that we need to really really save things and you know

00:14:38He doesn't talk about some of the more controversial things that I've talked about that

00:14:41He knows for sure are important and certainly part of his professional training and so on. So

00:14:46certainly some

00:14:48limitations and I

00:14:50Don't know. I mean I got it. Yeah, I don't people's marriages are very tough to judge

00:14:55so I wouldn't go very far down that road, but I have to tell you that if if if I wanted to decorate half of

00:15:04My wife and I's house with a bunch of totalitarian images from Stalinist

00:15:10Russia, okay. I think she'd say I know exactly what she would say. Well

00:15:17That's more of a cry for help than anything else. And I think that's

00:15:22That's pretty rough, I think that's pretty rough. So yeah, I mean

00:15:26I

00:15:27Try to take the good out of what I can get from people and certainly nobody has to be perfect and Lord knows

00:15:32I'm not perfect, but

00:15:34It does seem that there are some

00:15:36Limitations that would would have me go a certain distance but not others with people like that if makes any sense. So

00:15:45So

00:15:46Yeah, I mean Jordan Peterson does know all about the IQ issues and so on and he's just said he's not really gonna

00:15:52Talk about it, which is fine. But then you know, don't talk about topics while obscuring topics, right?

00:15:58If I decide not to talk about something I don't talk about it as opposed to talking about it without talking about it, which seems

00:16:04you know because he's very much about honesty and so on and

00:16:08So yeah, I think there are obviously some

00:16:11some limitations well, of course having you know, I have great admiration for his wits and his debating skills and his

00:16:18His his mind is is ferociously fast, but yeah, he seems like a not particularly happy fellow and

00:16:27You know with with maybe but the great intellect comes the great burdens

00:16:30But I don't think I'm burdened to too small an intellect and I think it is quite important to find ways to be happy

00:16:36in life, so I

00:16:38Think there are some limitations there for sure and that's true with I mean a lot of public figures

00:16:42You find some good stuff and you

00:16:45Find the good that you can and you discard some of the stuff with with some skepticism. So

00:16:51So, yeah, I'm immensely proud at the way in which this community has gone from theory to practice right so if you look at

00:17:00something like Plato's

00:17:02descriptions of how Socrates was talking Socrates

00:17:07Comes across a fellow

00:17:09Who's leading a prosecution against his own father for the death of a servant

00:17:17And

00:17:18This turns into an abstract

00:17:21debate about justice and doesn't really return much to the practical questions of how to live and

00:17:30These extreme cases and I understand like extreme cases test the rule I know in law right edge cases make for bad law

00:17:39and very very few of us are going to

00:17:41Try to decide we're gonna have to try to decide whether we turn our father in for causing someone's death, right?

00:17:47That's a very very minor very minor

00:17:52Number of people very small number of people and so he's like wow, you've really got to understand justice if you're prosecuting your own father

00:18:01And then it just goes from the abstract conceptions of justice and it very much is an edge case and

00:18:09of course the

00:18:10philosophers who've avoided childhood

00:18:13Which is something I've been talking about from the very I think my second or third show was about childhood

00:18:17Maybe that's why people were talking about it with their with the call-ins and so on

00:18:22but philosophers who've avoided

00:18:24childhood are

00:18:26almost universally covering up for and siding with

00:18:30abusers and

00:18:35That is

00:18:36to their everlasting shame and

00:18:39I'm sure that there have been philosophers in the past

00:18:42who

00:18:43Maybe talked a little bit more about childhood or maybe talked more directly about childhood, but it seems they've just been

00:18:49Scrubbed and erased from history in a sense as I has been attempted with me sort of scrubbed and erased from the world as a whole

00:18:58And

00:19:00So it could be that there are philosophers who've done or tried to do what I've done

00:19:06But we don't hear about them and they won't get taught in

00:19:10University so to me the the study of philosophy is a way of taking the smart

00:19:18universal thinkers who are interested in morality and

00:19:22Giving them an off-ramp to actually change society called academia

00:19:28And I think it's really a shameful business as a whole

00:19:32Because we really really need those interested in morality and universality and who are good

00:19:37reasoners and debaters to be engaged within society at the most foundational moral level and

00:19:43so I think it's the

00:19:47Philosophy to academia utility to the people to

00:19:51parasitical irrelevance

00:19:52That's the whole purpose of it seems to me modern education these days in the realm of ethics is to continually lure people away

00:20:00but the breadcrumbs of dollars and fame and

00:20:02Lack of consequences to lead people away from actually change. Oh, are you someone who could actually change the world for the better?

00:20:08No, no, no, don't don't don't do that. That's scary and dangerous. But here we've got this lovely job for you

00:20:14I remember dr. Walter Block writing about writing in ecstasies about this some years ago

00:20:19Oh, you've only got to work maybe 10 hours a week. Maybe 15 hours a week will pay you

00:20:24200 grand and

00:20:27You get a nice little office and you get sabbaticals. Yeah. Oh, how about how does four months off in the summer sound and

00:20:34prestige and and all of this and you know, Lord knows I've met enough academics in my life to realize just

00:20:41you know, there's a movie called Shadowlands and

00:20:48One professor played by Anthony Hopkins talks to another professor and says doesn't this all just feel completely pointless and useless

00:20:55the other professor looks kind of guilty and shameful and it's like

00:20:58Yes, of course, of course

00:21:01and that is

00:21:03the whole thing and so for me

00:21:08Being able to stay with the value and utility of philosophy

00:21:13too smart wise curious and concerned people like yourself has been the greatest gift and

00:21:20it is a

00:21:22Great a great honor and you know, it's it's a it's a unique and unprecedented view

00:21:28Into the depths of human nature right these I mean these call-in shows

00:21:31I don't mean to pressure anyone but they'll be studied for hundreds of years. Maybe thousands of years in

00:21:38terms of this is a

00:21:41principled examination of

00:21:44a

00:21:45highly chaotic

00:21:47But principled place called the unconscious called history called memory called the collision between society and

00:21:54Virtue honesty and the censorship required to move through society. It's an absolutely fascinating

00:22:04View that does not exist in any other place or shape or

00:22:11Genre or milieu, it's absolutely unprecedented. We have thousands of call-in shows

00:22:18That

00:22:20show the collision between

00:22:24the

00:22:25uncertainty of principles and

00:22:28The chaotic principles of the unconscious the yearning for truth and its collision with social prejudices. I mean, it's just absolutely

00:22:36Wild and does this is an absolute treasure trove for all of humanity

00:22:43going forward for all time and

00:22:45And you know Freud wrote in quite a bit of detail about his

00:22:52patients and he was a doctor of the course and a cocaine dealer and cocaine pusher and

00:22:58Of course, this is not therapy and I'm certainly no psychologist

00:23:02but it is a pretty unique look at how philosophy can dive deep into the psyche and

00:23:09Pull the chaos apart to find all of the beautiful principles

00:23:13Attacked and suppressed by society as a whole. It's just an amazing amazing thing. So I do thank everyone for

00:23:19allowing this to exist and

00:23:22To be available to the world forever. I mean I take it enormously enormously seriously

00:23:30All right, so I'm happy to hear more if anybody else has any other questions comments or if you want to continue I'm

00:23:35Certainly happy to listen

00:23:38Maybe I'll give somebody else a chance for a moment

00:23:41If not

00:23:43I'll ask something else

00:23:53I'm sorry to ask such a silly question. But is there all preferable subject matters?

00:24:01I'm sorry. I'm joining a little late. What are the preferable subject matters you're covering here?

00:24:08Whatever you like it's your call. Oh, man

00:24:18No, sorry, I thought you had a subject matter I might

00:24:21Racking my mind because I have so many things that

00:24:25Cross it over like every day and now that I'm on the spot, like I have a great opportunity

00:24:30Trying to figure out. Um, okay, you know what?

00:24:33I

00:24:35Had a discussion recently

00:24:38epistemology and free will and

00:24:43Is a little stumped on what what would you say it means?

00:24:51Should I maybe I should elaborate I

00:24:54Come from the objectivist camp when it comes to epistemology, but somebody said that we're contextualists

00:25:00Contextualists

00:25:02Rather than fact of and I thought that was really interesting and it caused a serious dilemma for me

00:25:07I was basically told that or basically the objectivist would hold that if we

00:25:13Say we know something is true, but we find out later that it was false

00:25:19We have to hold that we knew it was

00:25:21We did have knowledge of both truth and falsehood falsehood in both instances when we were originally wrong

00:25:28And when we learned that we were correct

00:25:31But I disagree with that. I don't I don't like that idea

00:25:35because if you say you knew that was true in the first place and it

00:25:41Obviously, you know, he came out to be false and you have a contradiction. You didn't actually know it

00:25:44I guess the objectivist bite the bullet and say they didn't know it. I

00:25:49Don't know if that's very clear, but I have I guess what I'm expressing is I have a dilemma with that and I to my understanding

00:25:58That is not factive is what I was told

00:26:01Have you heard that term in reference? What does what does factive mean? That's a word. I'm not particularly familiar

00:26:08It was new to me too, essentially

00:26:10in this in a fact of epistemology, it would be that like we

00:26:16do act like we do have certainty of the truth and that like

00:26:21Your clear knowledge claim is dependent on the fact that actually maps on to reality

00:26:27So like to give an example, you know

00:26:30We would probably say yeah, I actually do know that there's no teapot orbiting Mars, right?

00:26:35Because well, I have no evidence to suggest such a thing but in the scenario where no, but you couldn't you couldn't say that

00:26:42Sorry, but you couldn't say you have certain knowledge that there's no teapot orbiting March Mars

00:26:46Okay, because it's something that could exist it's it's potentially true and if something is potentially true you can't discount it

00:26:54Unless you've scoured right? Like if you if you had some amazing scouring

00:26:59X-ray robot that could circle all of Mars and make sure that there was no teapot then you could say that

00:27:05But you and I can't say there's no teapot circling Mars

00:27:10What would you

00:27:12What would you

00:27:14We can say we can say we can say there's no square circle circling Mars for sure

00:27:20Because that's a contradictory but teapot. It's not a self-contradictory entity and could there be a teapot circling Mars?

00:27:26Yes, would I would I bet a lot of money that there is I would not right but you know that there could be I mean

00:27:32It could be some space alien that would have a cup holder that got jettisoned in some long ago flight

00:27:37I mean who knows right whatever whatever could be the case

00:27:41but it is not

00:27:43Impossible and therefore it is possible. That's almost tautological, right?

00:27:47Like it's not impossible and therefore it's possible and therefore we can't say it's impossible

00:27:52so

00:27:55I totally get that. Um, would you define like knowledge differently than the objective is to

00:28:02Well

00:28:06Well, it's been a while since I've read an introduction to objectivist epistemology, but knowledge is

00:28:16A tricky it's a tricky word, right? Because if if I have knowledge of a dream that I had last night

00:28:21I can't prove it, right?

00:28:23But that doesn't invalidate my knowledge, right? So if I dreamed about a teacup orbiting Mars last night, I

00:28:30Can't prove that

00:28:31But that doesn't invalidate my knowledge if that makes sense

00:28:35Like you you could go to a therapist if you wanted you could make up a dream every day

00:28:38If the therapist is really keen on analyzing your dreams and the therapist would have to trust you, right?

00:28:43And and if you were to say to the therapist did your client have that dream last night?

00:28:49About the polar bear and the therapist would check his notes right and would say oh, yeah

00:28:54Yeah, we just we discussed our my patients dream about the polar bear, right and

00:29:00Then you would say well

00:29:01What's the proof you have that your patient did in fact dream about a polar bear and say what's right here in my notes?

00:29:07It's like yes, but that's what the that's what the patient told you

00:29:10But you don't have proof that that's what the patient actually dreamt about does that mean so you wouldn't know for sure

00:29:15You just have to trust

00:29:16you'd have to trust the honesty of the patient and you'd also have to trust the

00:29:20Incentives that it would be rather a huge waste of time and money to go to a therapist and talk about dreams

00:29:24you never had because that would be

00:29:27That would be like, yeah

00:29:28I mean, I guess you could get a hypochondriac who would go to a doctor and complain about aches and pains that didn't really exist

00:29:33But for to make up dreams to a therapist would be a huge waste of time

00:29:37So we have to say that the probability that the patient is lying about the dream would be pretty low

00:29:43But we wouldn't so we would that would be not knowledge that it would not be impossible

00:29:47It certainly is possible to dream about a polar bear and we certainly would say that

00:29:53incentives would

00:29:56cause

00:29:57The patient to tell the truth or the client to tell the truth about the dream about the polar bear

00:30:02but we wouldn't have certain knowledge we would have to act on that as

00:30:07A

00:30:08true beyond a reasonable doubt

00:30:11right, I mean

00:30:12So true beyond a reasonable doubt. So if if I were to say

00:30:17You know if if somebody was a therapist

00:30:19and it was in the notes that the patient had a dream about

00:30:22reported having a dream about a polar bear and you spent lots of time talking about it and it turns out that

00:30:27you know it had

00:30:30It had real relevance to his life

00:30:32He'd just seen a polar bear and you know his mother his grandmother had big white snowy hair like whatever like they all

00:30:38Sort of fit together

00:30:39Then that would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Would it be absolutely certain knowledge?

00:30:44No

00:30:45It would not be absolutely

00:30:47certain knowledge

00:30:49but it would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt and we would need to

00:30:52Anticipate that right in the same way. Is it possible?

00:30:56That someone you hate

00:30:59Recognized you in a restaurant told the chef and the chef put some poison in your food. Yeah, I mean it's possible

00:31:05It's possible. You can't you can't say a hundred percent. It's impossible

00:31:09But we go to restaurants and we eat, you know, we eat the food, right?

00:31:13So there's a probability knowledge

00:31:16Which we operate on?

00:31:18Uh all the time, right? I mean, we don't know for certain we're going to get a job

00:31:21But we still apply for the job

00:31:23We don't know for certain if the girl we're going to ask out is going to go out with us

00:31:25but we ask her out anyway, so it's sort of probabilistic knowledge sort of weighing the

00:31:30Odds and we're very well designed

00:31:32For that right animals are very well designed

00:31:35to weigh the odds, right so

00:31:37Lions creep creep close enough to the zebras that they can take the zebras down

00:31:41But they're never certain that they will zebras could run they could take a hoof to the face so animals are very good at

00:31:47Figuring out probabilities and so and so are we?

00:31:51And so I I would not bet a single thin dime on there being a teacup ordering orbiting mars

00:31:57and you could of course argue

00:32:00that

00:32:02There's no way

00:32:04That a teacup could be or could be orbiting mars because again it

00:32:09Not again, but for the first time it depends on your definition of a teacup if there's something that looks like a teacup

00:32:17But is actually a toilet for the they just

00:32:20Space aliens happen to have toilets that look like teacups, right?

00:32:23Is it a teacup or a toilet?

00:32:25You know, you've probably seen there's this meme

00:32:28about some

00:32:30ancient

00:32:31Two ancient men talking about some incomprehensible

00:32:34dice mechanism or whatever and it's like

00:32:36This is a great game we should write it down and they'll be like no they'll you know

00:32:41If they find this in 5 000 years, they'll totally be able to figure out what it is

00:32:44And then archaeologists saying like we have no idea what they're doing, right?

00:32:48So is it a teacup or a toilet?

00:32:50Well for the alien it would be a toilet, but maybe it looks like a teacup to us

00:32:54So then if you say well the teacup

00:32:56is designed for the purposes of

00:32:59Uh drinking tea and therefore it has to be earthbound because tea is on earth

00:33:03If it's some other alien plant that they brew it's not tea because it's an alien plant which would have a different categorization and so on

00:33:10so you could say

00:33:12that

00:33:14A teacup like no, no, no alien. Sorry. No, no human spaceship has ever gone past

00:33:21Mars

00:33:23With a teacup because the only things that have gone past mars have been probes which have no people on them

00:33:27And therefore there are no teacups and even if there was a teacup on it

00:33:30It wouldn't have been jettisoned because there's no avenue by which a teacup even if it was stored in the

00:33:35Probe would get out of the so then you'd say okay. There's no teacup

00:33:39Around mars there may be something that looks like a teacup

00:33:41There may be something that is even used as a cup to brew some alien plant to drink

00:33:46But that's not a teacup because tea is an earth thing, right?

00:33:50So then we would say if that's our definition. Yeah, there's no I would be I'd be very comfortable saying there is no teacup orbiting

00:33:57Mars because teacup is a human invention and there's no human invention that has been put around

00:34:02Mars now you could say ah, yes, but you know a hundred thousand years ago

00:34:06There was an a civilization that that uh has been lost to all of us that had advanced technology and so on

00:34:12It's like yeah, but there's no there's no evidence that there was such an advanced civilization

00:34:16and

00:34:17There certainly would be evidence if you think about our civilization

00:34:21A hundred thousand years from now, there'd be tons of evidence that we were here and what we did and so on

00:34:25So, uh, yeah, so so knowledge. Yeah, certainly knowledge is

00:34:30when

00:34:32The concepts in your mind accord with the facts of reality

00:34:37And some of those facts of reality are directly observable, right?

00:34:42Is there

00:34:44a planetoid orbiting

00:34:47The earth called the moon. Yes, we see it every night

00:34:51And is it orbiting yes because the math checks out and and you know, we we go around the sun the sun goes around the

00:34:57Galaxy and so on right? So yes, we can directly observe that if it's

00:35:02Did it is my knowledge?

00:35:05that my patient

00:35:08Dreamed of a polar bear if i'm a therapist, right?

00:35:11Well, no

00:35:13because I can't prove that but

00:35:16I do have notes where my patient

00:35:18Said he dreamt of a polar bear

00:35:20So my knowledge is not that my patient dreamt of a polar bear

00:35:23We just use that as a shorthand

00:35:25My knowledge is that my patient told me he dreamed of a polar bear

00:35:29And we got amazing insights and it really helped him and moved his life forward and he ended up asking out the girl

00:35:33He thought might have a chilly heart because he understood the nature of the polar bear and his dream

00:35:37All these sort of number of things, right?

00:35:39So we use our shorthand

00:35:42for things all the time

00:35:44All the time

00:35:46And you know do I know for a simple fact that you are not a very cunning ai

00:35:53Well, it seems unlikely. Um, because we're actually having a conversation that would be beyond the realm of an ai to handle

00:35:59May I interject or ask some questions?

00:36:02Uh, yeah, go for it. So

00:36:04I like using

00:36:06The definition of knowledge that you just proposed and um, does that sound coming from you?

00:36:12Yeah, somebody's got if you're not if you're like running water and stuff, can't you just do me a solid be basically polite and just mute

00:36:22All right, i'm, sorry go ahead

00:36:24I'm, sorry. Can you hear me?

00:36:26My apologies. I got a phone call. Let me

00:36:29Tune those things out, uh, or make them not come in. All right. Um, so

00:36:33Sorry, uh, james. Can you sorry james? Is there any way you can find out who's got the squeaking and taps and

00:36:38That kind of work, sorry

00:36:40Okay, so thank you. Oh, yeah, I like uh, I like the definition of knowledge you gave. Um, that like the

00:36:49I guess concepts in our mind accord with reality. I believe that is what like the person I was talking to described as fact of

00:36:55Um, whereas I guess an objectivist epistemology. Okay, but sorry, why do why do we need I?

00:37:01You know, there's that old emerson quote beware of any enterprise that requires the purchase of new clothes

00:37:06Enterprise that requires the purchase of new clothes. Well also beware of any argument that requires the invention of new words

00:37:13Yeah, so why do we need factive?

00:37:17It seems like it seems like a specialized term when we already have knowledge accurate facts are true because um

00:37:24in this context he was

00:37:28Waiting on against objectivist epistemology, which like I said, they have the dilemma

00:37:33I view it as a dilemma that they have to bite the bullet. Sorry. No, no, no. No, sorry. Sorry to be annoying

00:37:39But if you're opposing an argument, I don't still don't see why you need to invent a new word. Uh

00:37:45I don't know. I maybe I won't defend that point in particular. I don't know. Um

00:37:50No, I just I just if the word just means knowledge. I don't know why you need the word

00:37:54I'm not accusing you of this. I know you didn't invent the word but it seems kind of pretentious. Yeah, I mean

00:37:59To to invent a new word when you're opposing an argument if the argument is false then

00:38:03Just I suppose it would be because there are different

00:38:06beliefs about epistemology, right and they're just

00:38:09contending, uh

00:38:11You should maybe there's an argument for classifying them with a particular word

00:38:16Like like he said that

00:38:18That that's not no, that's not that's not answering the objection though. The objection is why do you need a new word?

00:38:24And

00:38:25It may and like if you don't know that's fine, right if you don't know why we need a new word

00:38:29maybe there's some

00:38:30It just it seems odd that you would need to learn a new word

00:38:34in order to

00:38:36Make an argument

00:38:38and and I my my my spider sense doth tingle about that like that just seems like

00:38:44kind of

00:38:45Kind of cheaty perhaps. Um, you know, if I if I want to talk about morals and I invent the word ethic ish

00:38:51I don't think I'm I don't think I'm clarifying too much

00:38:55But so maybe we can just cast that word aside and use whatever synonym. Yeah, that's fine. Um,

00:39:01so

00:39:04In objectivist epistemology, they would say that possible means you have evidence

00:39:10uh for that particular thing and these people I was talking with, uh

00:39:16said that they they make a distinction between

00:39:19Physically possible

00:39:21Logically possible and I think they even had other ones too. And maybe that would get your spidey senses tingling too

00:39:28But um, I mean first off I should ask have you heard people make these distinctions they say well, I mean it's physically possible that uh,

00:39:35The team up's orbiting Mars. Therefore it might be the case or um, I even had someone say something really insane to me

00:39:41they said that it's um

00:39:44Not physically possible for a blue for a ball to be blue all over while also not being blue all over but that is logically

00:39:50possible and that I just I don't even

00:39:53I can't even comprehend why they were doing this. They were I guess they were arguing against sorry

00:39:57Do they mean so well, hang on but not blue could include shiny oily

00:40:01like if it did they mean not in the category or is it possible for a

00:40:05ball to be both

00:40:07Blue and red without the cheat called purple, right?

00:40:10Is it possible for a ball to be blue and red at the same time?

00:40:14Well, that would be a contradiction that would be to say that the same object has

00:40:18Two completely different wavelengths and that would not be the yeah, so I I agree so they would their

00:40:23view

00:40:25Is that this is not physically possible, but that somehow it's logically possible and they were trying to contend against

00:40:32Classical laws of logic they were using. Um, I forget the term you're probably familiar with it. Uh, uh

00:40:38But they essentially believe in true contradictions, um, which was a very weird thing to grasp. Um

00:40:48Yeah, no, I I've heard of this sorry, I mean I'm I know that this is a prejudicial term but

00:40:52I've heard of this kind of nonsense. It is nonsense. Yeah, you know, I've disproven logic

00:40:56I've you know, it's like no you can't disprove logic because you'd have to use logic to disprove logic

00:41:02and

00:41:03Logic doesn't break down like physics into quantum physics where there's all this weird shit going on like logic is logic

00:41:09and so

00:41:11The idea that you can break it into subatomic particles where things contradict each other

00:41:16In the way that you know matter seems to freak out down at the quantum level

00:41:20That's not logic logic of principles. Then it's not matter

00:41:23yeah, and

00:41:25even if we accept the the quantum physics argument that

00:41:29Matter behaves in freaky ways down at the very bottom of its essence

00:41:32It doesn't do so at any level that approaches sense perception, which is what we build logic from we build logic from sense perception

00:41:39and so

00:41:40yeah, the idea that

00:41:43You can have both three

00:41:45and

00:41:47Four coconuts at the same time

00:41:50Um that you that a pile of coconuts can be both three coconuts and four coconuts

00:41:55Maximum at the same time or that coconuts can be both

00:41:59plus three and minus three and they can be

00:42:02Fruits and vegetables and mammals and clouds at the same time. I mean, this is madness

00:42:07I would say you love you might love him, but I think you absolutely hate it, but it's funny

00:42:11Uh, I asked them for a demonstration of a true contradiction

00:42:15I've had a few conversations with these guys. They always surprise me. So they gave me um

00:42:20A quote unquote true contradiction. They said this sentence is false

00:42:25Yeah

00:42:27What does that mean they said that the sentence is false

00:42:31That

00:42:32It's also true. Sorry, bro. I mean you're trying to sorry you're trying to have a discussion with me

00:42:38Are you on a speakerphone wandering around somewhere? I'm trying to like you keep coming and going audio wise

00:42:43We're trying to have an important. I'm sorry. I'm not sure what your mic situation. You hear me well right now

00:42:47I'm, not sure why that's uh happening. I'm using airpods. Maybe I should

00:42:51Switch to speaker

00:42:54No, that's fine, uh, maybe it's just bad bad signal, sorry, I just thought maybe you were wandering around

00:43:00Speakerphone or something. Okay, but i'll step inside so as to not uh,

00:43:04Any wind maybe that's possibly

00:43:07Mudding it up. My apologies. Yeah, i'm just i'm hanging on your every word. Okay, okay

00:43:11I'm step i'm stepping inside i'll reiterate what I said shortly, uh, or briefly

00:43:17No, I think I understood. So the statement is

00:43:20This sentence is false. Yeah. Yes

00:43:23I

00:43:25But that's not a logical thought I mean it doesn't really that's not an argument

00:43:30I I hardly understand what the point is being made there. Um

00:43:35Like I asked what would make it so that the sentence is false

00:43:40But the sentence needs to have a subject a sentence itself cannot be true or false on the same thing you can't evaluate

00:43:46Yeah, you can't evaluate

00:43:49It's like saying is this person guilty it's like of what according to what standard are you what kind of guilt are you talking about criminal

00:43:55Civil moral conscience, right? Like you can't evaluate a statement with such little information

00:44:02So if somebody says this sentence is false

00:44:06Well falsehood does not refer to a sentence

00:44:10falsehood

00:44:12Refers to an assertion of truth that can be proven and this this sentence is false is not

00:44:21the proposition

00:44:23Of a truth statement that can be evaluated. So it is a meaningless sentence

00:44:28Yes, uh, I heard

00:44:30Uh harry vinswinger basically come to the same conclusion that like the fact that it's self-referential

00:44:36Doesn't denote anything. Uh, there's there's no truth or falseness to it

00:44:41it's just he said it's equivalent to just

00:44:44Making sounds with your mouth

00:44:49Yeah, so for something to be true it has to reference something other than itself

00:44:55And the sentence doesn't reference

00:44:57anything other than itself

00:45:00And so how can we evaluate whether something is true or false when it makes no true or false?

00:45:05Claim that is outside its own syntax

00:45:08Yes

00:45:09Now if you say

00:45:11It is true that the world is banana shaped. Okay

00:45:14well now we can evaluate that because you're making a truth statement that is verifiable independent of the

00:45:20syntax of the sentence

00:45:23But this this sentence is false

00:45:25A sentence cannot be true or false

00:45:28great

00:45:30It's like saying this

00:45:31This leaf is guilty

00:45:34Like a nonsense sentence a sentence itself cannot be true or false

00:45:40Qua it being a sentence it can be true or false when it makes a claim

00:45:45About a verifiable external truth of falsehood, right?

00:45:49So if you say if you point at a tree and say this is a tree

00:45:53well

00:45:54Now you can evaluate it because the sentence is pointing at something that is not just the sentence

00:45:59But if you say this sentence is false

00:46:02You are not making a true or a false

00:46:07Claim you are simply making a self-referential statement

00:46:10That is missing the criteria or standard by which you would even be able to evaluate whether something is true or false

00:46:15Which is reference to something outside itself that can be independently verified

00:46:19Either through reason or evidence or both. So yeah, it is a meaningless

00:46:25Statement and it's just one of these it's one of these sort of tragic sophistricks to make people think oh

00:46:31Oh, okay. I guess there is no such thing as reason right? It's just really it's kind of demonic. Yeah, absolutely. Um,

00:46:38You know if you're if you're smart enough to come up with that kind of

00:46:41trap

00:46:43Then you should be using your powers for good not you

00:46:45Of course, I know it's not your trap

00:46:47But yeah, you should be using your powers to educate rather than yeah, I agree

00:46:50I mean I ask like how does this apply to the real world because um, I guess this is

00:46:56This is the analytic synthetic dichotomy that like you can have statements that are not connected to reality and

00:47:02i'm, not super like

00:47:04under I don't know the like

00:47:06Like the um fine details about the analytic synthetic dichotomy, but to my understanding this is what they were doing

00:47:12um

00:47:14Okay, well, let me let me give you another statement right um klingons are prone to heart disease

00:47:22Yeah, that would be um

00:47:24Nothing because there's no such thing as a klingon

00:47:28Right, so there's no external test for a self-referential statement. Yes, that's uh,

00:47:37Uh orcs in dungeons and dragons now you could say now if you say orcs have an armor class of 12

00:47:44Well orcs don't exist in armor class as a made-up concept

00:47:46So now but so that's one thing if you were to say though in dungeons and dragons orcs have an armor class of 12

00:47:52Okay, well you can go and look it up

00:47:54And find out whether that's true or not. So if you're if you're trying to reference orcs as real

00:47:59Your statement is meaningless

00:48:02But if you're trying to reference orcs as a fictional

00:48:05Entity in dungeons and dragons that have particular statistics then sure

00:48:09Then then you can look that up and you can verify that

00:48:13Yes, um, I don't want to take up the floor too much in case anybody's interested. But uh,

00:48:18No, no, no go are you kidding me? I love epistemology. Awesome. Yeah, this is this is a thrill. Okay

00:48:23Um, so the knowledge thing

00:48:25as I said before like the objectivists have to bite the bullet that they knew

00:48:30for certain this

00:48:32X was true

00:48:34Because there was no evidence to the contrary essentially, but if they find out that they were wrong

00:48:39Well, then they now know that that wasn't the case

00:48:42But they would have to say that they knew it beforehand and knew it afterwards which

00:48:47Again, that's a contradiction and I don't know how that could

00:48:50No, but uh, sorry to interrupt

00:48:52So I know I know what the objectivists are fighting tooth and nail for here and I I sort of respect the goal

00:48:57But I don't respect the solution

00:49:00so

00:49:01Okay, so so the way that it works is something like this

00:49:05Well, you know scientists once were convinced that the world was flat and it turned out they were wrong

00:49:11Scientists were once convinced that there was such a thing as ether and it turns out they were wrong

00:49:16scientists once believed the world was 6 000 years old and it turns out scientists once believed the earth was right and this is um,

00:49:23Memorably put forward believe it or not in a sitcom called friends

00:49:29Where ross is a paleontologist

00:49:33And his friend phoebe is like a kind of hippie dippy masseuse

00:49:37Flaky is a crumbling pie

00:49:42And

00:49:46Phoebe says

00:49:48You know what? I'm just wondering if I can play this

00:49:51Maybe it's better for me to play it. I think I can

00:49:54Find this and play it. Give me just a moment because it really is while you do that

00:49:59Fascinating my uh, my friend who was in the call with me and another he was another objectivist

00:50:04He was another objectivist knows a bit more about epistemology than actually quite a bit more than me. Um,

00:50:09he basically

00:50:11Said that

00:50:12If we let go of this standard, we have to default to basically cartesian down

00:50:17And I think that's what you're saying, right? Like, all right. Hang on. Hang on. Here we go. I think we think we're there

00:50:27Okay, phoebe this is it in this briefcase I carry actual scientific facts a

00:50:33Briefcase of facts if you will

00:50:37Some of these fossils are over 200

00:50:40Million years old. Okay. Look before you even start i'm not denying evolution

00:50:45Okay, i'm just saying that it's one of the possibilities. It's the only possibility

00:50:51Okay, can you guys hear that all right

00:50:54Okay. So yeah ross is saying because he's a biologist paleontologist or whatever the heck he is

00:51:00So he's very pro science and very pro

00:51:02Evolution right and phoebe's saying no, I don't buy it right and he's like it's not for you to buy

00:51:07So hang on i'll play a bit more

00:51:11Okay now wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the earth was flat

00:51:17And up until like what 50 years ago?

00:51:19You all thought the atom was the smallest thing until you'd split it open and this like whole mess of crap came out

00:51:25Now

00:51:27Are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny tiny possibility

00:51:36That you could be wrong about this

00:51:44There might be

00:51:47A teeny

00:51:50Tiny

00:51:53Possibility

00:51:56Can't believe you cave right so she this is funny right because then she's like I can't believe you caved hang on

00:52:05What you just abandoned your whole belief system

00:52:10I mean before I I didn't agree with you, but at least I respected you

00:52:15Tell me how how how are you going to go into work tomorrow?

00:52:18How are you going to face the other science guys how how are you going to face yourself

00:52:27So he basically just gets up and and folds away, right

00:52:31So y'all y'all heard that right

00:52:34Now that was a great moment in in a you know, semi-entertaining sitcom. It was a great moment. And so what?

00:52:42What the objectivists are trying to do is to overcome

00:52:47Cartesian doubt and cartesian doubt is hey, man, you could be wrong about everything

00:52:51You you might you might be a brain in a tank. It could be a matrix like you can't be right about anything

00:52:58and from that

00:53:01You can make anyone doubt anything

00:53:04And yet to doubt everything

00:53:06Is to be insane

00:53:08So this is a brain. This is a brain worm. This is a a mind infection

00:53:14Designed to cripple you with anxiety and doubt

00:53:18Right. So she's saying oh, hey, man scientists have been wrong in the past

00:53:23So you could be wrong now people have been wrong in the past who were absolutely certain now the fact that you're absolutely certain

00:53:31When other people who were also absolutely certain turned out to be completely wrong how

00:53:38How can it be

00:53:41That you can be so certain when everybody who's been certain in the past has also often been proven to be wrong

00:53:48Now that is an absolute attack upon your brain

00:53:52On your sanity on your mental health. It is an absolute assault

00:53:57that

00:54:02Leverages our capacity for truth and uses it against us to drive us mad. I'm not i'm not kidding about any of this stuff

00:54:08It is absolutely toxic

00:54:11And of course the fact is it comes from a woman

00:54:13Towards a male is also not

00:54:17Right. So so no, I mean this is so if you're weak

00:54:22If you're weak all you can do is inflict doubt

00:54:27Right, that's all

00:54:30Like if the cavalry is coming and doing all of these

00:54:33These these things and and you know, you've got this like really violent indigenous population in say south america, right the cavalry or the

00:54:40Conquistadors and so on the coming like you can't fight them. You're weak

00:54:45But what you can do is you can instill doubt

00:54:51Those who are physically weak fight the strong with the infraction of doubt

00:54:56With the infraction of doubt

00:55:00If that makes sense now, this is not an argument this is simply an identification of the power mechanics at play so we'll get

00:55:07to the

00:55:08argument

00:55:10But that's what happens and you know

00:55:12The west is being brought down by the poison of doubt by post-modernism relativism subjectivism and so on right?

00:55:17The people who were conquered by the west couldn't fight back

00:55:21and therefore

00:55:24They have to infect with doubt and that's really what

00:55:30the uh

00:55:31government school system is for now is to

00:55:34inflict doubt

00:55:37Right. Oh, are you proud of your culture? Well slavery and and imperialism and like it's it's oh you well

00:55:45we're going to portray the natives as noble kind and wonderful and you all just infected them with syphilis because you're animals like

00:55:51so it's just

00:55:52doubt

00:55:55And so

00:55:57If you say i'm certain right and this is what ross is going to do is he's going to

00:56:04Say to phoebe here's the evolutionary markers. Here's the facts is the arguments and so on right?

00:56:11Now she

00:56:13Doesn't want to get to the facts

00:56:15Because she's female and of course i'm not characterizing all women like this

00:56:19But it tends to be an argument from physically weaker people who can't impose their will and therefore have to crack other people's will

00:56:26With caustic doubt with toxic doubt, right?

00:56:30So ross comes in and he's gone here. So here's all the evidence

00:56:34Here are all the facts, right?

00:56:40And she doesn't want to look at the facts what she does is she launches an emotional attack

00:56:47Right

00:56:50She says are you so unbelievably arrogant? Well, I don't want to be arrogant

00:56:56Right. Are you so unbelievably arrogant?

00:57:00That you're so certain

00:57:02That you're right

00:57:07That

00:57:09You're going to say 100 when scientists have been wrong in the past so she has an emotional attack

00:57:15and avoids

00:57:16Reviewing the facts

00:57:18Because she's flaky and she's weak-minded

00:57:22And so she launches an attack

00:57:25On

00:57:27Certainty based upon emotions that anybody who's certain is arrogant and mean and bad

00:57:39Now that is a fascinating attack and so

00:57:42What do the objectivists do well the objectivists say something like

00:57:48How do I respond to the argument that people have been certain in the past i'm certain now people have been certain in the past

00:57:54Have been uh have been have turned out to be wrong

00:57:59And therefore my certainty could also turn out to be wrong

00:58:02Well, they say well, even if I turn out to be wrong, i'm still absolutely certain

00:58:06And now that is not

00:58:09That is not valid

00:58:11Agreed right that is not

00:58:15That is not a valid argument

00:58:17Because it's it's you never want to give the premise away

00:58:21Right

00:58:22You never want to give the premise away

00:58:24To the other person so the premise is

00:58:27Scientists have been wrong

00:58:29Because they've been absolutely certain

00:58:34And wrong it's like well the degree to which they're absolutely certain is the degree to which they're not scientists

00:58:41Right, so scientists would say

00:58:45Well, of course the flat the flat earth has been disproven since

00:58:48ancient times right since since the egyptians put the

00:58:52Two different sticks in the ground and were actually ever able to measure the circumference circumference of the world based upon the different shadows

00:58:57In different places of the sticks on the curvature of the earth. So that's been you know

00:59:03cast aside for a long time

00:59:05And then her second example is and you know, didn't you weren't scientists absolutely certain that the smallest

00:59:13Uh aspect of matter was the atom until you opened it up and all this other goop she says came spilling out

00:59:19And I would argue or answer no

00:59:23A scientist who says i'm absolutely certain that the atom is the smallest

00:59:30Chunk of matter is false because he doesn't know that

00:59:35So certainty in the absence of evidence is in fact arrogance

00:59:41Certainty in the absence of evidence is in fact arrogance

00:59:45and so a scientist who says

00:59:48Well, i'm absolutely certain the smallest chunk of matter is an atom

00:59:53Is a bad scientist because he's making claims about

00:59:57The almost infinite regression of smaller bits within matter saying that he knows that this is the end point when he doesn't

01:00:03So yes people should not

01:00:05Say things are absolutely true without evidence and a scientist should know that most of all now what he can say

01:00:11Is the atom like prior to the quarks and and quantum physics and so on?

01:00:15He can say the atom is the smallest piece of matter we found

01:00:18It's the smallest piece of matter we know of

01:00:22Okay, well that's that's a true statement it is in fact now but if you say there's nothing smaller you can't prove that

01:00:28You don't know that you don't have the instrumentation and of course

01:00:32science still doesn't have its physics still doesn't have its unified field theory that ties together gravitation and

01:00:38Radiation and weak and strong atomic forces and gravity lets us have that right?

01:00:42So there's a lot still to learn in the realm of physics

01:00:45May I throw an example?

01:00:49What if do you think it's valid for

01:00:52uh scientists or anybody to say

01:00:54Well, we know for certain that uh matter cannot be created or destroyed

01:01:04Ah, that's an interesting question

01:01:09I think

01:01:11it is

01:01:12fair to say

01:01:13That matter cannot be created or destroyed

01:01:16Only converted back and forth to energy you can say that because if matter were destroyed

01:01:24the

01:01:26Material would have to go somewhere, right?

01:01:29Right. So, you know, everybody knows you you blow up a ship. You just get lots of little bits of ship, right?

01:01:33The ship is still there. It's just disassembled right? Like you drop the lego. You still have all the lego pieces

01:01:37They're just no longer assembled, right?

01:01:40So for matter to be destroyed

01:01:43would mean that

01:01:44it

01:01:46left

01:01:47no

01:01:48This material plane so to speak in which case it would be well, where did it go?

01:01:52The standard could be that it just no longer exists

01:01:58Uh, well then the question is where did it go

01:02:05Um

01:02:06if I was trying to take like the position that like of uncertainty here i'd say something like

01:02:11Oh, it just ceased to exist. It doesn't go anywhere because it it can't if it doesn't exist now

01:02:17This is crazy, well, no, but it has to go somewhere. No. No it something has to go somewhere

01:02:23something can't just cease to exist

01:02:27And there's no evidence in in any science or theory or or practical evidence. There's no evidence

01:02:33That something just ceases to exist now

01:02:37Maybe you could say it goes to another dimension, right?

01:02:41It winks out of our dimension and rematerializes in some other dimension

01:02:46But that would be the equivalent of saying it ceases to exist because there'd be no evidence for it in another dimension

01:02:51So saying it winks into another dimension is saying that it still exists just somewhere else

01:02:57so

01:02:58The question would be how could something that exists?

01:03:03simply

01:03:04Cease to exist. Where would it go? Like where would the atoms go?

01:03:07Where would the quarks go? Where would the electrons and where would it go? It's there

01:03:13So where would it go?

01:03:14How could it just

01:03:16cease to exist and there's so all theory all practice and just basic common sense tells us that this is not

01:03:23Not the case. It has to be somewhere

01:03:27I agree

01:03:30Because that is to say that that which is

01:03:32Can cease to be is

01:03:34In what method in what method?

01:03:36Right without like just simply winking out of out of existence on what standard?

01:03:41Yeah, I can't even like pretend to take that argument very far actually

01:03:47Well, and as somebody points out as meanwhile, even if you annihilate matter with antimatter you get radiation as a product sure

01:03:52I mean, so then it's converted into energy, right?

01:03:55antimatter, so

01:03:57I would

01:03:59if somebody were to say

01:04:01Can you be absolutely certain that matter can neither be created nor destroyed but simply converted?

01:04:06From matter to energy and or and back again

01:04:10I would say I am certain of that

01:04:12For both practical and theoretical reasons now if someone were to say, ah, yes, but

01:04:20Scientists have been certain about things in the past

01:04:23My argument would be to the degree to which they are scientists

01:04:30All claims of certainty about things which prove to be false are invalid claims

01:04:36Invalid claims

01:04:39So if some guy calling himself a scientist

01:04:43A couple of thousand years ago says the earth is flat and I know for certain and i'm 100 certain then he's not a scientist

01:04:51If somebody said the atom

01:04:54Is beyond any shadow of a doubt the very smallest component?

01:04:59of matter that could possibly exist then he would not be a scientist he would be

01:05:03Acting as a mystic he would be acting as somebody who's superstitious who is taking something on faith

01:05:08I don't even know that the quarks or whatever bits are going on beneath the atom. I don't even know that they're the smallest

01:05:14Bits of that. I don't know

01:05:15Right. I mean and any scientist who says he knows for sure I think is not following science if like, um

01:05:23And again at any point in time is that somebody else wants to talk or you want to take other questions

01:05:28No, no. No, so this is good stuff

01:05:30I'm just trying to think of these like absurd scenarios. Like what if uh, someone was to posit to you they said, uh

01:05:38And you you've seen like, uh, the the men in black movies, right

01:05:43Remember I think it's like the end of the second one where like they close the lockers and like that and it's just like all these

01:05:50Universes one thing's bigger than the other and then so on. Um

01:05:55Uh, I don't know if i'm drawing the scenario, right? Um

01:05:59What if somebody posited to you that like earth or our entire universe is just like a speck of dust and

01:06:04On top of that there's another speck of dust and it's uh, another set of universes and so on

01:06:09um

01:06:11would

01:06:12Yeah, like spider-man across the multiverse, right?

01:06:15Yeah, I get that no and every every stoner i've ever talked to has had the thought at one time or another

01:06:21It's like hey, man

01:06:22You ever notice that the atom kind of looks like the solar system like what if you're just an atom in someone's couch, man

01:06:27you know, it's like

01:06:29Like, you know, every everybody's gonna had

01:06:32that thought

01:06:33And of course the argument against that

01:06:37Would be that ant atoms are not infinitely regressive. In other words atoms are not made up of atoms

01:06:43Like that would be a contradiction in terms

01:06:46I I would agree like a house is made up of bricks

01:06:48But a house can't be made up of a house because the house is the house

01:06:52I'm, you know, i'm made up of cells. I am not made up of myself because that's tautology

01:06:58That's saying I I am I am rather than I am made of

01:07:02a sentence is made up

01:07:03of phonemes and

01:07:05Words and and morphemes and so on but a sentence is not made up of a sentence, right? I mean, that's that's tautology. Let's

01:07:13So atoms cannot be made up of atoms. Um, I I

01:07:17Because atoms are a category of existence to do with scale

01:07:21And atoms cannot be made up with atoms and therefore we cannot be an atom in a couch somewhere because

01:07:28Atoms can't be made up of atoms. Yeah, uh, let's say I formulated it in a way that didn't require an infinite regression

01:07:34maybe I just said

01:07:36Uh, we're it is a finite universe, but we just happen to be an atom in a couch

01:07:44It is a finite universe, but we just had well then the language would be incorrect since at since atoms

01:07:51Cannot make up atoms. We cannot be a couch because that is to say that

01:07:57you know, obviously the uh, there's the solar system is untold hundreds of trillions of zillions of whatever of atoms and

01:08:05Therefore you would be saying that the atom in the couch is made up of untold trillions of atoms

01:08:10Which would be a contradiction in terms because then you couldn't refer to them as atoms, right?

01:08:14Like I can't say each brick is a house and you put enough of them together. You get a house

01:08:21Like each brick is a component of a house and you get enough bricks together

01:08:24You get a house, but the brick is not a house, right?

01:08:27Because then you're saying that the house is made up of tens of thousands of houses

01:08:32Well, then you've got a category error, right?

01:08:38If I switch the terminology would that make it any better what if I just said we're

01:08:44our

01:08:45What we experience is um

01:08:48I

01:08:50Don't know insert word x right instead of calling an atom. We're just this like tiny piece of existence on some couch

01:08:58um

01:09:00I don't know how else I could possibly formulate that

01:09:03Well, no, so so then I mean that's fine. People can say whatever they want and then I would say

01:09:09that the statement needs to be

01:09:12Provable or falsifiable in order to be evaluated

01:09:17So, how would we know that we are atoms in a couch

01:09:25And and if the person has no standard

01:09:28by which

01:09:30the proposition

01:09:31Can be proven or disproven

01:09:35Then it is bullshit stoner speak

01:09:39That's actually okay. Yeah

01:09:41Um, so what what do you take? Where do you what do you take the conversation when they say? Well

01:09:46of course, I can't like prove it but I mean it's possible right like

01:09:49No out of this. This is where we have to draw this like fine

01:09:52Well, no, no possible no possible

01:09:54So possible implies proof I agree if something can never be proven it is not in the realm of true or false. It is just

01:10:02dead-eyed stoner speak

01:10:06It it cannot be evaluated as to truth or falsehood

01:10:10So it's sort of like is it possible that the last dream that augustus caesar had before he was murdered

01:10:17Was of a seahorse

01:10:20Right

01:10:22Well, I suppose it's possible

01:10:24Can it ever be proven?

01:10:27No

01:10:29It can never be proven. So

01:10:32It is not something that a sane person spends time evaluating you see a sane person

01:10:38And now of course another so a sane person would not spend time

01:10:42Thinking about that which could never be proven in the realm of truth. Now if you were to write a story about

01:10:49Caesar and it was really important. They had a dream about a seahorse. You could make it up or whatever, but

01:10:53But would if somebody said man, i'm really obsessed about the idea

01:10:57Of did caesar dream of a seahorse before he was murdered?

01:11:01You'd say you know, there's lots of important things to talk about and think about in the world

01:11:06This is not one of them, right

01:11:10So to reference the teapot again, uh around mars

01:11:16When you say the word possible

01:11:18I don't know if you recall

01:11:21I mentioned earlier that these

01:11:23People I was uh mentioning to you. They use the word possible in different fashions

01:11:28um and an objectivist epistemology, I think already said this I don't remember but

01:11:32Uh possible means that there is evidence to suggest

01:11:36That this may be the case

01:11:38When you say the word possible, do you have the same understanding or a different one?

01:11:44Well, I did kind of modify the argument, uh as I sort of thought about it more so the first is

01:11:49Is it a contradiction in terms for there to be a teapot orbiting mars?

01:11:55No, it's not a contradiction in terms, right

01:11:58Is it a contradiction in terms?

01:12:00For a human being

01:12:02To be living comfortably unaided

01:12:05orbiting mars

01:12:07That is a contradiction

01:12:08right because there's no air and

01:12:11There's no air pressure and right your lungs would explode and like you die, you know in 10 seconds, right or less

01:12:17Does that make sense? So that's a contradiction in terms. So if somebody if somebody were to say to me

01:12:22Is uh, it's possible that there's a human being

01:12:25in his underpants

01:12:27Living comfortably floating around mars I would say no, that's not possible

01:12:33Like completely impossible because by the nature of human beings you could not survive

01:12:41We are we okay with that one right now with regards to the teapot thing

01:12:45If we and I said it depends how you define teapot

01:12:47So you could have something that looks like a teapot that is actually a toilet for space aliens

01:12:51Well, then that's not a teapot. That's just something that looks like a teapot, but it's in fact a toilet, right?

01:12:56And uh that there are no human teapots orbiting mars

01:13:00Because human beings have not left the earth and then you'd say well, but some prior civilization a million years ago

01:13:06Or maybe they left it

01:13:08Okay, but then there wasn't tea back then so it wouldn't be a teapot like almost like by definition a teapot is something

01:13:13Fairly contemporaneous using tea that is in our current ecosystem or whatever, right? So I would say yeah, there's no teapot. So

01:13:23I mean i'm going to modify it a little bit

01:13:26Let's let's say yeah

01:13:28We find out tomorrow that um, some people who were in space

01:13:34Threw a teapot out there because they wanted to

01:13:37For us to debate this hypothetical they do

01:13:41No, no, sorry, but people in space where uh, some people maybe who just like, uh,

01:13:45maybe we find out when the moon landing happened that uh

01:13:49They threw a teapot out into the space

01:13:51No

01:13:53No, but they can't because you couldn't throw a teapot hard enough to escape the gravity of the moon that's true

01:14:01Maybe we find out they launched the teapot through some sort of mechanism

01:14:08um

01:14:09and and maybe in order to

01:14:11I I like how you're narrowing these things down because this is all really important

01:14:15Maybe the the modification here is uh, the teapot is orbiting the moon per se

01:14:19Maybe we'll say that so they launched it at the moon with some mechanism. Um, not so far enough from the moon

01:14:27uh to

01:14:29Directly see it hit. I don't this is tricky. This is really tricky

01:14:33We just find out that as they were leaving the moon, they launched it with some mechanism towards them

01:14:39From there they never cared to see it again, right?

01:14:41um

01:14:42and now we're having the debate and

01:14:45I say yeah, look, it's possible. It's possible. Do you take that?

01:14:53Sorry, would I take that as possible?

01:14:57Yeah, yeah, I would I would certainly take that as more possible than orbiting mars yes, okay. Yeah. Yeah. Um,

01:15:06Although they wouldn't have any actual mechanism for doing that. No, you know what i'm going back to impossible

01:15:10They can't throw it high enough to have it orbit the moon

01:15:13And the uh, the spaceship doesn't have windows that open for obvious reasons, right?

01:15:19So there's no way for them to get the teacup around the moon

01:15:27Okay, so you're firm on no in fact is not a teapot orbiting morse

01:15:35Right

01:15:37Now what I would do then then just if we're having this debate

01:15:40I would use the argument from rank freaking cowardice. Not not to you, but to somebody making this argument, right?

01:15:47So then I would say to that person. What do you think is the worst bigotry that exists in the world?

01:15:53Right, and they would say I don't know virulent racism anti-sem like

01:15:57Homophobia like transphobic like they would say some like what is the worst form of bigotry that you can picture right?

01:16:03right

01:16:07And then I would say

01:16:10Well, isn't it true according to your logic that

01:16:17That bigotry might be good not bad if anything is possible, right?

01:16:24I happen to think bigotries are very bad

01:16:27But isn't it if you think it's possible for a teacup to be orbiting mars? Is it not also possible?

01:16:35That

01:16:37The most virulent bigotry you can think of is actually good

01:16:40right

01:16:43Now what would they say yeah, they would uh, they would repeat that

01:16:49And and also then I would say is it not true that people have had

01:16:55Very strong morals in the past that have turned out to be completely wrong

01:17:03People thought slavery was justified

01:17:06people thought women

01:17:07Were inferior and should not be allowed to own property and vote like there have been endless bigotries throughout history that people thought

01:17:15Were perfectly valid and true that turned out to be false, right?

01:17:21Are you so unbelievably arrogant

01:17:24That although there have been all these bigotries in the past that turned out to be false all the

01:17:29Anti-bigotries all the bigotries against bigotries in the present are absolutely true

01:17:33Like let's let's put some meat on these bones, right? Let's let's make it something practical now if let's say they said, uh,

01:17:40some prejudice, uh, it could be that that prejudice is false, right?

01:17:45Okay, then I would say so

01:17:47Let's go find some people and argue that

01:17:53This is uh, this is good. I like that now would they would they do that?

01:17:58Um, I don't know that they would know how to react to that actual

01:18:02No, they would know exactly how to react to that. What would they do?

01:18:06Um

01:18:08I don't think they would want to go and argue it. I think they would just like asserts that they're correct

01:18:14Right, so then I would say so then don't talk to me about uncertainties

01:18:17Uncertainties because you're absolutely certain about i've employed a similar method when debating, uh,

01:18:23Somebody uh on this because they they'll assure well, they may not know anything, but neither do you and it's like well, I mean

01:18:30How do you know that right? How do you know that you don't know anything and they have to default to an infinite regression?

01:18:37Well, then then if they if they can't be certain of anything then anybody who is certain is their enemy so they need to go

01:18:43to I don't know

01:18:46Some big rally for for some place and then they have to say that the people holding them back

01:18:50Some place and then they have to say that the people holding that rally are wrong. Yeah

01:18:55And they have to go and make a speech against the most deeply held beliefs of the people running that rally

01:18:59Will they do that? They won't they can you?

01:19:02They can even assert that they're they're having like different statements than you right like you could

01:19:08Just tell them like well, actually you're agreeing with me. You don't know that you're disagreeing with me

01:19:12You don't know that the words coming out of your mouth are even the word. No, no

01:19:14I mean I I I get that but I get that sort of intellectual trickery and I I agree with it

01:19:20But i'm just like okay. So if you can't be certain of anything then anybody who's certain of anything

01:19:27Yeah

01:19:28Should you know, I think

01:19:29right, so so tell me where you've

01:19:32taken your belief system

01:19:35and rather than

01:19:37Bullshitting about

01:19:38Fucking teacups and mars like have you gone to some big rally, right?

01:19:44Where people are chanting about like we oppose this bigotry and we oppose that bigotry and have you stood up there and said

01:19:50Y'all are wrong

01:19:52You can't be certain of this

01:19:55Well, you haven't done any of that right you just muck about

01:20:00With teacups and mars bullshit, so you don't believe any of this, you know

01:20:05It's just it's it's uh, you're you're a virus of doubt

01:20:09This is nothing you actually believe I will say unfortunately for those who

01:20:14Really take these conversations to that level about like uncertainty. I would imagine that if they care enough to do that. They probably

01:20:23um would hold the position that morality is subjective, um, and that's

01:20:28I okay fine. So, okay. So morality is subjective

01:20:32So I need to see where you've gone

01:20:35To people who say racism is bad or some phobia is bad and said you're wrong

01:20:41Yeah

01:20:43You're wrong to say that this is objective because that's their argument, right? There's no such thing as objective morality. Therefore

01:20:49You must have countless times gone to people who are pretty aggressive about their moral statements and told them that they're wrong

01:20:56But they never have

01:20:58Because they don't believe any of this crap

01:21:01yeah, I mean like

01:21:03There'd be

01:21:04um

01:21:06I mean, you know, sorry to interrupt, you know what happens when these people get pulled over by the cops

01:21:12What do they say oh, yes, sir. Oh, i'm so sorry sir. Oh, yes, I apologize

01:21:17Oh, I didn't mean to they don't sit there and say hey man speed is relative

01:21:23You don't even know if you exist

01:21:26We could be an atom in a couch and couches can't speed

01:21:30So get lost fascist, you know what I mean? Like they don't say any of that. Yeah. Yeah, I mean

01:21:36It's only it's only doubtful questioning intelligent curious people. It's never people with any actual power

01:21:49Yeah, that's that's uh you

01:21:52You got it there. So I mean hey if you really believe this stuff, why are you talking to me?

01:22:00Um

01:22:04Right, why aren't you up there with the megaphone at this local rally against x y and z

01:22:09And telling them that they're all wrong to be certain

01:22:12Oh because they might beat your ass. Oh suddenly we're back to objective

01:22:16Yeah facts, right?

01:22:18Oh and like obviously you'd see the contradiction too, right if somebody did assault them and they defended themselves

01:22:23I mean it presupposes that they ought defend themselves, right that they think that they ought

01:22:28uh defend themselves

01:22:30No, because I mean they they could they could fight club style let themselves get beaten up and you know, whatever, right?

01:22:35I mean they could I mean that that to me wouldn't be

01:22:38any particular

01:22:39objective test

01:22:41But it's like hey, man

01:22:43If all certainty is wrong

01:22:45You know the number of ideologues who are absolutely certain

01:22:49And act very brutally

01:22:52Because they're so certain

01:22:54And you're screwing around with me and teacups

01:22:57When there are actual tyrants out there oppressing their entire populations based upon the certainty of their political perspectives

01:23:03Why aren't you dealing with them? Oh, that's right because they're big and scary and can inflict negative consequences

01:23:09I just had a thought I mean

01:23:12I I want to reference that statement. I just may um

01:23:15If someone who holds these beliefs, right if they're to defend themselves

01:23:20Like I said, they're presupposing that they ought defend themselves which can be evaluated, right? Um

01:23:26If they didn't think it was objectively the case and it may not actually be objectively the case right like maybe someone's actually

01:23:32um, not assaulting you maybe

01:23:35No, but you know, it's not it's not a moral. Absolutely. No. No. Yeah, I was gonna switch this up

01:23:38I was gonna say I guess to give two examples, right if um

01:23:42There may be a justified reason where somebody hits you because maybe you hit them back, right?

01:23:45but in the case of self-defense the

01:23:48Sorry, sorry. Hang on. Hang on

01:23:50There's a justified reason why someone hits you because you hit them back. Did I say back? I'm sorry

01:23:55My yeah, you said back. Yeah

01:23:57Uh, no problem. That's fine. I just want to make sure I understand

01:24:02I'm not i'm not gonna pick on little slips here and there lord knows. I mean, yeah, so

01:24:05That would be like a justified situation

01:24:07But in the situation where they're being assaulted and they defend themselves

01:24:10The fact that they defend themselves in that moment presupposes that they at least believe they ought to do it and

01:24:17Could you not make the argument again? This is just being formulated

01:24:20No, not that they ought to do it that they have the right to do it

01:24:23Well, do you not do not hold that? Uh, anything you do presupposes that you

01:24:28Think you ought to do it

01:24:31No, I don't think so

01:24:33Oh, so the other person ought not initiate violence against you, but you are not

01:24:39Obligated to defend yourself

01:24:44Because that is to say that the initiation of violence and the response to violence

01:24:49Are under the same moral category of compulsion like you are you are compelled to not initiate force

01:24:54But you can't be compelled to defend yourself because if you're compelled to defend yourself

01:24:58It means violence must be used against you

01:25:01Because violence is being used against you because if you don't defend yourself then violence is being used against you twice

01:25:06Which means double the violence that can't be a good outcome, right?

01:25:09Because you'd have to be violently aggressed against for not defending yourself because it's an obligation

01:25:13To do it. Yeah, let me

01:25:16I want to make sure there's a I have a good understanding of this

01:25:19Let's say take it out of this violent situation. Do you think that?

01:25:24Me having this conversation with you right now. I because i'm doing it. There's the presupposition that I believe I ought to it

01:25:34Well, no, no, but what is different from a compulsion

01:25:39From from that which can be compelled

01:25:42so

01:25:43I mean you wanted to do it

01:25:45But clearly if you were to hang up like in the middle of this conversation

01:25:49I would have no violent recourse. Of course, you haven't violated the non-aggression principle, right might be a little annoying

01:25:55Might be a little rude. Yeah, but it wouldn't be a violation of the non-aggression principle. So you want to do it

01:26:02Now, I think that we ought to you know

01:26:04Respect each other and and try to reach a reasonable accommodation and not lie and not misrepresent

01:26:09There's a sort of standards of behavior sort of aesthetically preferable actions. We should tell the truth and all of that

01:26:15But these are not compelled

01:26:20So for instance, uh if a man is being

01:26:23assaulted

01:26:25He can use violence

01:26:27to defend himself, but he is not

01:26:30He cannot be compelled to use violence to defend himself. It is not

01:26:34an absolute requirement that he use violence because

01:26:39It's his choice and for many people they don't fight back when a guy sticks a gun in their ribs. They just hand over their wallet

01:26:49I I wouldn't compel something they don't have to

01:26:54They have the right to but they don't have to

01:26:57Like a woman who's being sexually assaulted. She has the right

01:27:00to blow the guy's head off

01:27:04But she doesn't I wouldn't throw her in jail if she didn't it's not an absolute obligation

01:27:08I'd throw the guy in jail for sexually assaulting the woman, but I wouldn't if the woman chose

01:27:13Not to defend herself for whatever reason

01:27:17I would not

01:27:19Consider that a violation of

01:27:22An absolute ought it's you know, you have the right to but that doesn't mean you have to like if somebody uh steals a garden gnome

01:27:29from my front yard

01:27:31Am I absolutely obligated to use force to get it back? No, I can just shrug it off and say, ah, you know, whatever

01:27:37I didn't like that garden gnome that much anyway, or it doesn't matter to me or whatever, right?

01:27:41So you don't have to enforce your rights, but you certainly have

01:27:44Just to be clear. I'm I want to make sure i'm being understood

01:27:48So i'm saying any action you take I could be eating a banana. I'm presupposing that I at least think I ought to it

01:27:56You would disagree with that

01:27:58Now ought but to know so ought is is is a tricky word, right?

01:28:03So you prefer to

01:28:05What does it mean ought this ought implies obligation if somebody lends you money you ought to pay it back?

01:28:12If you

01:28:13Want to eat a banana if you're eating a banana clearly you want to but what does it mean to say you ought to?

01:28:18That's an obligation. That's a requirement

01:28:20If you borrow a library book you ought to bring it back

01:28:25Right, if you put a dent in someone's car you ought to pay for it to get repaired

01:28:32But if you're just eating a banana because you like bananas, where's the ought that there is a different category here, right maybe

01:28:38Maybe the word okay the way I was thinking of the word

01:28:42Is like synonymous with the word should but maybe that's

01:28:48Okay, so should you now let's let's talk about the word should

01:28:54Let's say that you okay. Let's go to the banana thing. So let's say you have an illness the potassium treats

01:29:01You have a pad potassium deficiency

01:29:03now if you want to

01:29:06Get more potassium you ought to eat a banana. Does that make sense?

01:29:17Are you with me there? Yes. Sorry. Somebody was trying to call me and I had to forward them. I I heard that though

01:29:24Okay, so

01:29:25You ought to eat a banana if you're low on potassium and want to solve it, right?

01:29:30One of the ways to do that is to eat bananas, right?

01:29:32Banana is a potassium rich or something like that, right? Whatever the case is, right?

01:29:36So you ought to if you have a particular goal if you just like the taste of bananas. What does that mean?

01:29:41You ought to do that which

01:29:44Gives you pleasure. Well, the pleasure is enough, right?

01:29:46You don't need an obligation to let's say you hate bananas

01:29:49And that's why you're potassium deficient and your doctor says just eat some bananas. Oh, I don't like them

01:29:53Well, you know, whatever

01:29:55Maybe take a potassium supplement, but the easiest way to get them is through bananas

01:29:58Then he's like, oh you hold your nose and you eat your banana, right?

01:30:01So then you ought to do it. But if you just like really like bananas, but where does the odd come in?

01:30:07Or it has something to do with a resistance, right?

01:30:11It's an obligation that's supposed to overcome a resistance, right? Yeah, okay

01:30:16If I say if I say, you know, when you're having really great sex, you ought to have an orgasm

01:30:21What would that even mean if you want to have an orgasm as part of the great sex thing, right? So

01:30:26So I don't know about the ought but what has something to do with reluctance and overcoming?

01:30:31A desire not to like if somebody lends you money

01:30:34In some ways it's more pleasurable to keep the money and not give it back, right?

01:30:38Do you?

01:30:39So you ought to because you don't in particular want to as a pleasure-based organism, right?

01:30:45Yeah, I okay. Do you

01:30:49Hmm do you believe that there are any presuppositions in human action anything we do?

01:30:58Sorry, what do you mean presuppositions there's a new term for us. Um

01:31:04That's but I like the cunning way you're inserting new terms

01:31:08That's very very cool because we went from should to ought to presuppositions. Yeah, so

01:31:15I'm trying to think of how I would

01:31:18Describe this. I I mean

01:31:25Are there any positive obligations

01:31:29No, no i'm saying that like I I

01:31:34A presupposition would mean that um, there is a belief held and um, that is uh

01:31:42In relation to the action i'm committing

01:31:45So

01:31:48Sorry if that's a little too abstract for me, I don't quite follow

01:31:50yeah, so like

01:31:52if

01:31:54I drink water and eat healthy and I maybe go to the gym

01:31:59um

01:32:00I I would argue that i'm

01:32:02Presupposing or that I I hold the belief

01:32:05um, and which is reflected in my actions that

01:32:08I want to be physically fit

01:32:12uh and healthy

01:32:15Does that make sense

01:32:19Yeah, so this is the if then right

01:32:23Right, are you obligated

01:32:26To eat less food is no you can eat less food

01:32:29You cannot eat less food if you want to lose weight, then you need to eat less food

01:32:33Right to take like if we take all the variables out, right? So if you want to lose weight, then you need to eat

01:32:40Less food, right?

01:32:42Yes, yes

01:32:45Okay, if you use language you have to accept that language has the capacity for meaning

01:32:51Because you can't say you can't make an argument that language has no meaning because you're using language to convey

01:32:56With meaning that language has no capacity to convey meaning which is a contradiction

01:33:00Yes

01:33:01So if you want to debate you have to accept that language has the capacity for meaning

01:33:06And I would call that a presupposition. I mean like even if I wasn't debating right? Let's say I was just

01:33:11Saying hi to you or something right anything I utter well, it's no it's it's an it's an it's a um

01:33:18It's a self-proving proposition

01:33:21Or to deny it would be

01:33:22Self-contradictory, right? So if I say

01:33:26Human beings have no capacity to hear language

01:33:30That would be a self-detonating statement because i'm using your ears to tell you that your ears never work

01:33:36So my argument can be discarded does that make sense? Yes, it does. I have an example i'd like to present to you as well

01:33:43Um, but somebody has their hand raised. Okay, we're we're I feel like i'm not being allowed to build an argument here

01:33:48But okay because I mean there's a lot that comes out of what I just said

01:33:51But if you want to give me another thing, that's fine

01:33:53That's fine

01:34:03I don't mean to interrupt you but go ahead

01:34:06I well i'm

01:34:08I'm trying to process mentally. What is the best path of conversation now?

01:34:12Because maybe it is best the way you're you're no i'm making an argument and you're telling me you agree else

01:34:18I'm trying i'm like a like a halfway through making an argument and you're like, let's do something else and i'm like

01:34:23I'm, sorry, you're right

01:34:25I'm, sorry if you want to

01:34:27continue that um

01:34:30Okay, so a number of things are embedded in the act of conversation, right?

01:34:35So clearly there has to be a self and an other right?

01:34:39You can't say to someone you don't exist

01:34:43Because if you don't believe the other person exists then you wouldn't talk to them, right?

01:34:47So

01:34:49You have to accept a self and another you have to accept an independent consciousness you have to accept an objective reality

01:34:56Between you two you have to accept the validity of the senses you have to accept

01:35:00That language is better than violence

01:35:03Because you're using your words not your fists. You have to accept that language has meaning right? There is an enormous amount

01:35:11That you have to accept as absolute fact

01:35:17to

01:35:19Engage in a conversation

01:35:23Do we do we accept yeah

01:35:26So none of these things that I said and there's more but none of these things can be denied

01:35:31Agreed. Yeah

01:35:32By simply the very act of having a conversation. Does that there's some are we okay on that, right?

01:35:38Okay now

01:35:41In a conversation where you are debating

01:35:45You also have to accept that truth

01:35:48and accuracy

01:35:50Are infinitely preferable to lies

01:35:53inaccuracy and falsehood

01:35:56So if you and I are debating whether the earth is round or flat

01:36:01Implicit in that debate is that having a true

01:36:07Belief about the shape of the world

01:36:10Is infinitely better not just a little better. It's not like 10 better

01:36:14Because the earth being a sphere

01:36:18Is true the earth being flat is false and it's not 10% more true

01:36:24It's infinitely more true

01:36:27Because what is true is infinitely preferable

01:36:30To what is false and so by that I don't mean we say well one out of ten times

01:36:34We'll just let the false thing be be the best

01:36:36It's always infinitely better. It's not a little better

01:36:40So when you have a debate and you correct someone you are saying

01:36:44That truth is infinitely preferable to error

01:36:49And that the means by which truth is ascertained is reason and evidence

01:36:55Because that's what we've been doing, right? We've been using reason analogies evidence facts science, whatever right to to establish our positions, right?

01:37:01so all of the above things about other people existing and

01:37:06Language having meaning and sound existing and the sense organs are valid and so on, right?

01:37:11Right because if I said to you if we were having a big disagreement and I said no no you agreed with me and you said

01:37:15No, I didn't and I said no, that's what I heard

01:37:17You'd say well you heard wrong, right?

01:37:18So you have to accept that language has meaning and the senses operate and are valid right now

01:37:25When you have a debate with someone you are saying

01:37:30Truth is infinitely preferable to falsehood

01:37:36And the means by which truth is established is reason and evidence

01:37:40Because you're not just shooting the guy

01:37:44And you're not saying well

01:37:47Okay, i'll i'll give you this one about the earth being flat but you give me the next one

01:37:52About the sun being bigger than the moon, right? No, you say like it's got to be accurate. It's got to be true

01:37:59And you also are saying that reason and evidence are objective and empirical and you have to say that because

01:38:07You're using language to convey reason using the evidence of the senses which requires an objective medium called reality the air and sound waves and

01:38:15the cochlear

01:38:17Hairs or whatever's going on in the bowels of your ear or something like that, right?

01:38:21So all of these things are implicit. So the ought is

01:38:27Implicit in the very nature of debate, which is why you can't use upb to overthrow upb

01:38:32This is sort of a short short approach to the upb

01:38:37I to be clear. I don't disagree with anything

01:38:40You just said I the only thing is um a lot of those things that like where i'm like if then you said

01:38:45I would have called those

01:38:47presuppositions do you

01:38:49Is there?

01:38:53Do you how do I put this you just

01:38:55Well, you could say conditional statements. You could say presuppositions, but yeah if then

01:39:00But the if then is implicit in the conversation. Yeah, and and uh

01:39:05I would carry this through to like actions, too

01:39:09um

01:39:11I like I said, it could be that I was eating a banana, but maybe I presuppose that I

01:39:16Should eat it. Otherwise, I wouldn't have ate it

01:39:20No, but then we're back to should should has an obligate obligatory

01:39:24Attitude to it. Okay. Okay. Okay

01:39:27Right. You should eat your vegetables, right? But if your kid loves candy, you wouldn't say

01:39:32You should eat your candy right because the kid wants to eat the candy, right? Yeah, so

01:39:45Can I present you another example

01:39:49Sure, um, so there is a uh

01:39:56Way of grounding the nep that i'm not going to go over in its entirety

01:39:59I'm not going to go over in its entirety. There's just like some things that uh

01:40:03Are tied to this exact conversation then I I really like this grounding of the nap. Um, but uh

01:40:10In this argument we we highlight that um, like the

01:40:15Law of the jungle. Um, you're familiar with that phrase or term, right?

01:40:20Okay. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean you could say this is a date you read in tooth and claw

01:40:24Yeah, they're like the sterner right belief that

01:40:27Might makes right

01:40:29okay, so

01:40:30we argue that it's a contradictory position because

01:40:34When the sterner right takes it they're pre when they try to take something from you

01:40:39Uh, they presuppose that they should be the one to control it

01:40:43and um

01:40:46No, I don't know that they do I don't know that that's the might make right argument

01:40:50I think the might makes right argument is I can and I want to therefore i'm going to that should

01:40:56Is a word used by weak people who can't defend their property

01:41:00In the hopes of paralyzing the strong people who want to take it with guilt or shame or like this sort of will to power

01:41:05Argument from nichi, right?

01:41:07So the strong people say hey, man, i'm the viking and you're like the twig armed irish farmer

01:41:13I'm just going to take your shit and I don't have to justify it other than I can and i'm going to

01:41:18But there's no there's no ought I just can't

01:41:21Hmm

01:41:24And you know you resist me if you want and you know, whoever wins wins but uh,

01:41:28yeah, i'm not going to pretend that there is any ought it's just

01:41:32You know, did you say to the lion you ought not to eat the zebra?

01:41:36It's like well if i'm hungry i'm gonna eat the zebra

01:41:38If you want to stop me, you can try and stop me, but that's what's going to happen

01:41:42This is interesting. Um

01:41:44I

01:41:47I will

01:41:49You know, this is the old argument from the ancient general, right? I think it was a roman guy

01:41:53He said stop quoting words to men with swords

01:41:59I i'm going to call upon your memory

01:42:01This is going to be if you can't remember this. It's totally okay. Do you remember a long time ago when uh,

01:42:09david gordon tried

01:42:10Issue, uh giving a rebuttal to upv. I think he did it twice actually if i'm not mistaken

01:42:16Oh, it's terrible. It was really really. Yeah

01:42:19Yeah, that was like embarrassing. He's not really good on ethics. Uh,

01:42:23but um

01:42:25Oh on so many levels. Yeah. Okay, and one of his rebuttals he

01:42:30Referenced something you had said about when a thief takes something

01:42:35There's like a contradiction

01:42:37Um because they're like rejecting property rights by while also trying to affirm them. Do you recall something like that?

01:42:45Oh, I remembered that argument precisely so the argument very briefly is that

01:42:50one of the contradictions involved in stealing something is

01:42:53A thief would not bother stealing

01:42:55something if he knew

01:42:57That another thief was going to steal it from him right away

01:43:01Like why would you borrow?

01:43:02Why would you bother borrowing like spending two weeks to borrow into a bank vault to steal a couple of bars of gold?

01:43:07If you knew for certain that some well-armed mafia gang was going to steal the gold

01:43:13When you came out of the vault, right?

01:43:15Like you wouldn't bother so the thief wishes to both deny and affirm property rights because he wants to take other people's property

01:43:22While retaining control over that property himself, so he wants property rights for himself because he'll be very upset if people steal from him

01:43:28So he both is denying and affirming property rights in the act of stealing now

01:43:33This doesn't mean he's not going to steal but it does mean that there's a logical contradiction in his approach to owner

01:43:38so

01:43:39Yes, i'm fully in agreement with that. Now the thing i'm giving you I would say it's like identical

01:43:46um

01:43:48I guess the issue would be in that like the the presupposition thing. Um,

01:43:53Because this argument about the law of the jungle

01:43:56I'll just read to you a few sentences here is that if there's a dispute between like two individuals, right?

01:44:02Over who should be the one to control property then both those individuals

01:44:06Must presuppose this to be the case that one is asserting that

01:44:10Even though the other can actually control it

01:44:14It should be or it's the case that the one, uh, we'll call people a and b, right?

01:44:19Uh a is saying that even though b could obtain control it

01:44:24A should control it and similarly on the other end b is asserting that even though a might be able to obtain control

01:44:32That he should be the one to control it

01:44:35Is this is this not parallel to what you're saying?

01:44:40No, I don't think there's a contradiction there, right so if

01:44:44Two people both see a chunk of gold. Actually. No, no, go ahead. That wasn't the full argument but uh,

01:44:51That's that's okay. No, it's not innately self-contradictory

01:44:54So let's say you and I are in a stream in alaska

01:44:58And we both see a chunk of gold at the same time and we both reach for it and grapple for it, right?

01:45:04Well, we both believe that we and what a lot of kids always say I saw it first, right

01:45:08Or or sometimes people men in bars. I saw her first or whatever, right?

01:45:12so

01:45:13You and I are both wrestling over this piece of gold, right?

01:45:15Now I think that I should own it you think that you should own it

01:45:19But there's no cont we're not we're not

01:45:22self-contradicting

01:45:23property rights well

01:45:26But if I if if you if you have the gold you found it and it's yours

01:45:30And then I steal it from you then i'm saying

01:45:34You should not have control over your own property

01:45:39But I should retain control over your property that i've stolen

01:45:43So i'm saying that you should not have control over property

01:45:47But I should have control over property. Well, we're both human beings. So we have I have opposite

01:45:52rules

01:45:54for the same class of species

01:45:57Right, which is like saying mammals should be both warm-blooded and cold-blooded at the same time

01:46:00It's like well, you're gonna have to pick a lane there buddy because you know, you can't have both

01:46:05and so if you're gonna say

01:46:07Property rights should be violated for you

01:46:11But property rights should be respected for me

01:46:14That's a contradiction

01:46:15So if I steal the chunk of gold from you and it's legitimately yours

01:46:19I steal the chunk of gold from you and then I wake up the next morning and someone's stolen it from me

01:46:22I'd be outraged

01:46:25Especially if I went through considerable risk and danger to steal the chunk of gold i'd be outraged

01:46:31because

01:46:32I'm saying i'm saying that I want to keep what i've taken from you. Oh

01:46:36That I want to violate your property rights while maintaining my own control of property the property i've stolen

01:46:43So that's a contradiction, right?

01:46:45Property rights should be both violated and affirmed is a contradiction. I agree and this is

01:46:50That argument goes I guess again, like like I said, I think it's very similar to what you're saying

01:46:55it goes a little further and says

01:46:57Part of the contradiction that's occurring is when when they defend that property from somebody else, right? They're

01:47:03Affirming and uh also denying property rights, but also there's the issue that they're conflating possession and ownership

01:47:11um

01:47:12Which are necessarily two distinct things

01:47:15um

01:47:17But anytime while they're controlling the property which

01:47:21um

01:47:22They're defending right? They're both we would I would argue that they're both presupposing a distinction between ownership and possession

01:47:30Yes, they contradict. Well, the thief would the thief would say the thief would say I want to keep what I stole

01:47:35In fact, i'm only stealing it because I want to keep it, right?

01:47:41So you think of a drug addict who steals

01:47:44Something to pay for his drug addiction. Well, what does he do? He takes I don't know a cell phone

01:47:49He steals a cell phone and then he takes it to a fence and sells it, right?

01:47:56Right, so he he knows that he stole it

01:47:59He might lie about it, but no, no, he knows that he stole it

01:48:02But he's and and the thief sorry the fence the guy he's selling the cell phone to also knows he stole it

01:48:08Now he may lie about it, but I mean they know right because he's coming to him not some legitimate place, right?

01:48:13So yeah

01:48:15Both the thief and the drug addict know

01:48:18That the drug addict does not have the right

01:48:21to dispose of the cell phone

01:48:24So they all know that the property right is invalid

01:48:27And they're fine

01:48:29but the fence if he

01:48:31The fence if he

01:48:33Buys the cell phone for a hundred dollars from the drug addict and then somebody steals a hundred dollars from him the fence

01:48:39He'd be outraged right because he he wants to keep that contradiction. So again, just to be clear

01:48:45Yeah, you want to deny and affirm property rights deny it for your victim and affirm it for yourself. Okay. Well, that's just a contradiction

01:48:50It's not going to stop you from stealing but it is a logical contradiction. Yes. Okay. I mean

01:48:56I'm

01:48:57Fully in line with all of this. Um, they they believe that I stole from you. How dare someone steal from me?

01:49:03Yes, they they assert they have a right to your property

01:49:07uh, but then also try to deny the existence of

01:49:11Rights, uh when they when they defend it, um, which is insane and it's a contradiction. Okay. This is this is great. This is

01:49:19um

01:49:21This is great. I

01:49:23Will mention this I um

01:49:26Not to be a pester to you I I really

01:49:29No, it's not a pest this philosophy man. Okay

01:49:32Because i'm going to mention something I mentioned to you before and I would really love if you're you know

01:49:37Interested in this, uh that you you know can send me a follow-up or something

01:49:41But I sent you a friend's paper on his grounding in the n-8p and he ties it all the way down to epistemology

01:49:48um

01:49:48And the the mixed law or not the mixed law

01:49:51Mixed law, i'm sorry the uh law of the jungle arguments that we kind of just went over is featured in that paper and it's uh,

01:49:58It's an argument. Uh, what did they call it again? Like arguments are given to him. Uh e contrario

01:50:04So basically he finds the contradictions in the other

01:50:07uh theories of law like law of the jungle mixed law and then you know, he evaluates those and

01:50:14Proves that they they contradict themselves. Well, so yeah the thief the thief prefers

01:50:19That his victim not defend his property, right?

01:50:23So the thief prefers that his victim not defend his property, but then the thief wants to defend his own property

01:50:30So the thief will you know steal from you while you're sleeping so that you can't defend yourself or attack him or protect your property

01:50:36but then

01:50:37The thief will use aggression to defend his own

01:50:41What he's stolen, right? So the thief wants

01:50:44There to be no defense of property and then the thief wants to enact violent defense of property, right?

01:50:51yes, this

01:50:53pretty much tears down both like

01:50:55Law of the jungle and mixed law though mixed law can be a little more complicated to find these uh contradictions in but it still

01:51:03Necessarily arrives at it, but upb uh, and and upb bypasses all of this

01:51:07I mean, I think these are interesting arguments and I think they're worth worth making but upb bypasses all of this and upb simply says

01:51:14That stealing can never be universally preferable behavior. It's impossible

01:51:18Not only is it impossible. No, not only is it impossible to enact in that everyone can't be stealing from everyone else all the time

01:51:25Right, it can't be you know, but it's logically impossible. It doesn't even need to be empirically impossible, which it is, but it's logically impossible

01:51:33because if we say

01:51:35that theft

01:51:36Stealing is universally preferable behavior

01:51:40Stealing is the good stealing is moral

01:51:44Then we have a logical contradiction

01:51:46which is that

01:51:48stealing

01:51:49Is the unwanted removal of property?

01:51:52But if stealing is universally preferable behavior

01:51:55Then everyone must want to steal and be stolen from at the same time, which is all time

01:52:02but

01:52:03If you want to be stolen from it's not theft

01:52:06If you want to have your property removed from you

01:52:09It's not theft like I don't hire some

01:52:12Junk place to come and get rid of the junk in my basement

01:52:15And then call up the cops and say they stole from me and then they say, you know, here's the contract

01:52:19He paid us to take this stuff away

01:52:20No, he's the cop would say look you can't you can't accuse someone of stealing from me when you paid them to take the stuff

01:52:25away or at least

01:52:27Gabe wrote a contract or signed a contract saying they could take the stuff, right?

01:52:31I mean if I leave a couch on on my front yard saying take me I can't take the stuff

01:52:35Saying take me I can't then film someone taking it and go to the cops and say he stole, right?

01:52:41so

01:52:42UPB

01:52:44Utterly wrecks destroys invalidates

01:52:48and

01:52:50Removes the possibility that stealing can be universally preferable behavior because if stealing is universally preferable behavior

01:52:56There's no such thing as stealing and therefore you have a contradiction

01:52:59You're saying that which does not exist must be universally preferable. Well, that's crazy

01:53:04Like that that's that's that would be madness right and so and it does the same thing for rape

01:53:11Right rape can never be universally preferable behavior

01:53:14because rape is

01:53:16Desperately unwanted sexual contact, but if we say everyone should

01:53:20Rape and be raped at the same time. Then if you accept that then you want to be raped in which case it's not rape

01:53:27If you want the sexual contact it's not rape and murder assault, right

01:53:31So UPB bypasses all of this stuff and says

01:53:35Can the proposed action be universalized?

01:53:38If the proposed action cannot be universalized

01:53:41Then it cannot be moral. It cannot be universally preferable behavior. Now

01:53:45What about respect for property rights? What about not stealing? Can that be universalized? Yes

01:53:51There is no logical or empirical contradiction

01:53:54For the respect for property rights everyone can

01:53:58not steal

01:53:59Now there are still people who will steal so but that's fine

01:54:03so that I mean that this is a this is a

01:54:07Logical construct for morality which accepts free will which means that some people will act against morality

01:54:13But the most dangerous predator is not a thief but false moral theories

01:54:18Because it's the false moral theories

01:54:21that has

01:54:22People steal half your property through the power of the state and run up massive debts for your children

01:54:26It's the false moral theories that are the real predators. I don't care that much about individual thieves. So it's dealing with

01:54:34The big issue the big issues of where the gen where the real theft occurs

01:54:39In the world. So yeah, UPB just bypasses all of this and says

01:54:44Okay. Um

01:54:46So you're saying that theft is universally preferable behavior. Well, let's play that out. It's impossible

01:54:52It's asymmetrical right for someone to steal

01:54:55The other person must desperately not want to have that property taken

01:54:59And so it's asymmetrical in other words one person can enact

01:55:03Stealing but the other person has to oppose it

01:55:05But it can't be universal if one person is pro it and the other one is very much anti it then it's asymmetrical

01:55:10Therefore, it can't be universal. So anyway, that's that's the elegance of you

01:55:14do you remember in your

01:55:15debate with um fashionality rules

01:55:18um one of his final criticisms he was

01:55:22issuing to you and i'm

01:55:23Starting to believe this might not

01:55:25Really even matter when it comes to ethics. Uh, he's one of his final criticisms in that debate is

01:55:30Well, you haven't arrived at an art statement

01:55:33um

01:55:35And if I recall correctly your response is like it's embedded in the argument, but I think what he wanted was for you to formulate some sort of

01:55:43I don't know if it'd be a syllogism or even just lady. No, but he he was formulating the odd argument

01:55:49He was so he's saying your argument fails because you haven't

01:55:54Established an art argument. So he's saying that you ought to establish an art argument, which means he's accepting. I agree

01:56:01I agree

01:56:02And he's criticizing me for failing to manifest the ought

01:56:06so he's manifesting the ought saying I haven't proven the ought and it's like

01:56:11But you can't contradict me without reference to an yes. Yes

01:56:15If he were to say steph i'm just personally

01:56:18It meant your argument makes me very emotional and that's why it's false

01:56:22well, nobody would accept that as a valid argument it might be emotionally honest probably would be but

01:56:26Old our good buddy stephen woodward if but if he says steph your argument objectively fails because you haven't established an ought

01:56:34It's like well, you just said objectively fails, which means there's an it my my statement ought to create an ought

01:56:40But you've already established the ought by criticizing my state my argument

01:56:44So yeah, you you can't correct someone without reference. So I agree like I don't even believe in the is our gap

01:56:50I think it's rather silly. Um

01:56:54Well, no, it's true in that oughts don't exist

01:56:57in nature

01:56:58Oughts don't exist at the atomic level. I mean I get that oughts don't exist

01:57:04So what? Yeah

01:57:06Concepts don't exist in the world. That doesn't mean they're not valid. It doesn't mean they're not a brave

01:57:11and

01:57:12if you

01:57:14Are debating you are accepting oughts?

01:57:18So then right I mean because and the problem with most debates and i'm not including you and I this is a great conversation

01:57:24But the problem with most debates is the level of fraud involved is staggering

01:57:29Because if someone said to me ahead of time listen, man

01:57:33It doesn't matter what you say

01:57:35I'm, just going to deny everything you say

01:57:37Like i'm i'm going to pretend to be rational, but i'm not going to be rational, right?

01:57:42Now I remember in the debate with rationality rules

01:57:46Stephen fully accepted that rape theft assault and murder can never be universally preferable behavior

01:57:53He fully accepted that

01:57:54So then we're done

01:57:56Okay, then he's accepted that rape now. He'll he'll go back and say but there's no such thing as universally preferable behavior

01:58:02It's like okay

01:58:03So then you're saying it's universally preferable behavior to say things that are true

01:58:06And if you're going to say that it's universally preferable behavior

01:58:10To say

01:58:11That things are true

01:58:13But there's no such thing as universally preferable behavior. You've just contradicted yourself

01:58:16You said that something is valid universally preferable behavior and also invalid

01:58:20At the same time and that's just not valid. It's just not that's not true. It's self-contradictory statements can't be valid

01:58:26so

01:58:27I guess

01:58:30I think this answers my question, but uh, I do want to get a clear answer when it comes to

01:58:36um

01:58:40Talking about ethics and saying

01:58:42um

01:58:44I don't know if it's yeah if we're talking about ethics

01:58:47we don't need to arrive at an odd statement essentially as long as you can find contradictions in the

01:58:53um

01:58:54The opposing theory I suppose right like you don't think you need to say so

01:58:58Sorry, we don't we don't need to arrive at an odd statement. What is that? Well, that's an odd statement

01:59:04You just made an odd statement saying we don't need to arrive at an odd statement, it's not necessary. Okay, so

01:59:09It's not required which means you don't have to it's not a requirement

01:59:13So it ought not be a requirement like you you can't get away from all agree if you're debating if you're conversing

01:59:18like I said, I don't really

01:59:20The is our gap to me isn't too important. I I get what you're saying though

01:59:24like you obviously there's no embedded in a tree or something, but um, I guess

01:59:29To

01:59:31Propose upb you don't need to say you ought follow upb. It's just a matter of fact that because you're already

01:59:40Engaging in the conversation you're saying it's it's embedded there it is

01:59:44It's the thought already is already there. I believe that's the way you've said it in the past

01:59:47I think it's kind of what you were just saying now, right?

01:59:50No, no

01:59:52All i'm saying is that rape theft assault and murder can never be upb

01:59:57and it's

01:59:59I think I need to chew on the thing because I was just about to repeat myself

02:00:02But like I think I need to chew on what you just said

02:00:05No, no, so suddenly you're saying oh steph. Are you saying that you ought to follow upb?

02:00:10Yeah

02:00:11Yeah, I guess I was what I was asking you. Do you need to arrive at that to I guess have a valid theory of ethics?

02:00:19Do I need to arrive at what uh a statement saying you ought to follow upb

02:00:25Okay

02:00:27Well upb is valid

02:00:33Now if you say

02:00:36I'm interested

02:00:37In truth facts reason evidence and morality then you have to accept upb now accepting upb

02:00:42Of course means that you should follow upb. Of course, right?

02:00:45You can't say I fully accept the scientific method as the only means to truth and I want to really want to get to the truth

02:00:51And then of course you're obligated to follow the scientific method, right if you say

02:00:55I want the truth. The scientific method is the only way to ascertain the truth

02:00:58So i'm not going to follow the scientific method. That would be a contradiction, right?

02:01:04Yeah, yeah it does

02:01:07Right mathematics is the only way to get numerical accuracy. I desperately want numerical accuracy then therefore you have to follow

02:01:14Mathematics, right that's embedded in the preferences. Does that make sense? Yes. Yes it does

02:01:20Okay, so if you say

02:01:23I want to follow reason evidence and truth

02:01:27Then upb is rational

02:01:29It's evidence based in that societies that violate upb do very badly

02:01:34right, I mean

02:01:36The free market affirms upb in property rights and does much better

02:01:41Than a communist or socialist or fascist society that violate upb in terms of well both life

02:01:47Liberty property and so on right if you look at most of human history most of human history has been massive

02:01:52violations of upb

02:01:54in terms of slavery and the subjugation of women and

02:01:57the draft and and and so on right so

02:01:59if you look at when society has respected upb more which is

02:02:04small government and and free markets and so on then

02:02:10Society does much better

02:02:12I mean, so there's empirical evidence as well. If you look at the things that are successful in society

02:02:17They tend to be those where upb is respected the most

02:02:21So things that fail are the things the governments do because it's a violation of upb

02:02:25Things that succeed tend to be more in the free market, which is where upb is more respected. So there's reason

02:02:33And evidence

02:02:35And it is true

02:02:36That rape theft assault and murder can never be universally preferable behavior now

02:02:40You can reject universally preferable behavior, but then I don't want to hear a word out of your mouth about debating anyone

02:02:46Because the moment you debate someone

02:02:48You're saying there's a universal standard called truth and you you should follow it and you're not doing it that

02:02:54So the moment you debate someone you're accepting upb

02:02:57Then the only question is okay

02:02:59Since you already accept upb by having a conversation with me

02:03:03The only question is what behaviors are upb and it turns out respect for persons and property

02:03:09Are the only behaviors that follow upb?

02:03:13So, I mean, do you have to follow upb? No

02:03:16It's a choice because we have free will

02:03:18I mean you have to follow gravity. That's not a choice, right? Yeah

02:03:22Right. You can open your eyes if they're functional you can't open your eyes and not see you can close your eyes

02:03:27Open them and you can't open them and not see

02:03:29So you have a choice to not follow upb for sure

02:03:32You have a choice to reject upb as of course a lot of people have done

02:03:36But you're wrong

02:03:37And you've given up the right to say that you're interested in truth rationality objectivity and morality

02:03:43Because you are both affirming upb and denying upb

02:03:48Right, so you're saying that uh, upb is false and therefore we should reject it

02:03:53Okay, so it's universally preferable behavior to reject things that are false

02:03:56So then you can't say there's no such thing as universally preferable behavior

02:03:59So I would not command people to follow upb. I would just say it's an inevitable result

02:04:04Like you can't you can't order people at gunpoint to follow the scientific method, right?

02:04:08I mean, it's not a violation of upb to be a mystic

02:04:11You can lie to yourself you can falsify things you as long as it's not like outright fraud or something like that

02:04:17You can bullshit yourself all you want. So i'm going to force you. Oh, you have to follow upb

02:04:22But it is true

02:04:25And you can't get ethics without it. You can't get ethics from gods. You can't get ethics from governments

02:04:29You can't get ethics from your ancestors. You can't get ethics from chicken entrails or witch doctors. You can only get ethics from upb

02:04:38So if you want to be ethical

02:04:41You have to follow upb

02:04:42Now people can say well, I don't want to it's like well, then okay, you don't

02:04:46then then

02:04:48Don't debate anyone don't otherwise you're a bottomless hypocrite because then you're saying there is upb

02:04:52But I just don't want to follow this one. It would be

02:04:55Or the ones that are actually valid. It would be contradictory, right?

02:04:57I mean the moment like to to give I guess more of a concrete if you had a moral particularist

02:05:03Who was rejecting upb you would say he's just simply living in contradiction because every action

02:05:10I'm, so I so I want to use the word presuppose, but um

02:05:14How do I formulate this every time he engages in debate?

02:05:17um

02:05:20Or

02:05:22Maybe even just thinks to himself about the truth, right? He's

02:05:25Adhering to upb

02:05:27Well, I don't yeah. Yeah thinking is unverifiable. So I can only I can only verify empirically what people

02:05:35Uh, I can only verify I can only verify what people actually do because anyone can say anything about what they think right

02:05:39It's not not objective of it. Gotcha

02:05:41But so long as they even ever make an argument about something

02:05:44Or try to correct somebody if they correct me then they're saying if they correct me they're saying there's a universal standard

02:05:50To determine truth from falsehood and you're falling short and it's infinitely preferable that you be correct not false

02:05:57Right and honestly, this is not I hate to say this is not complicated because it sounds like it's tricky in our minds

02:06:02I get that but

02:06:05We we you're in you're in kindergarten and you say two and two make five what does the teacher say

02:06:12Sorry, you said two and two makes five I didn't hear you too well

02:06:15Yeah, if you if you're a kid, right, you're five or six years old

02:06:18You're in kindergarten and you confidently say that two and two make five and they correct you and say

02:06:23Yeah, they say you're you're wrong like you're making a statement about reality

02:06:30Which is false and i'm here to correct you

02:06:32And it's not personal it's not like i'm offended by you saying that or

02:06:36You know a genie in a dream told me that you're wrong. It's like no you you it's a fact that you're wrong

02:06:41So we we have universally preferable behavior

02:06:45From the very beginning of our lives and we accept it

02:06:48At all times, right? I mean somebody like david gordon says there's no such thing as universally preferable behavior

02:06:55While making arguments in well-formed sentences, right?

02:07:00Which to rebut points that I make

02:07:03Right. I mean it's like it's like saying to somebody

02:07:05There's no such thing as self-ownership

02:07:08and then

02:07:10Making an argument which is yours to oppose an argument they made which is theirs

02:07:14Well, that's self-ownership owning yourself and owning the effects of your action

02:07:19So, I mean

02:07:20so this one of the big things that I brought to philosophy is forget about the content look at the form of the argument first

02:07:25And that will answer most of your questions like most most philosophical

02:07:31Arguments can be resolved by looking at the form of the argument rather than the content everyone wants to rush to the content of the argument

02:07:38No, I do exist. No, there is such a thing as objective reality

02:07:41No, the senses are valid and it's like no, but you don't have to do any of that

02:07:46because the simple act

02:07:48Of using the senses means you have to accept that the senses are valid

02:07:52Mm-hmm

02:07:53Right the simple act of having a debate having a debate requires using the senses because we can't vulcan mind meld link, right?

02:08:00so having

02:08:02A debate having an argument requires about six

02:08:06thousand implicit

02:08:08facts to be accepted

02:08:11Senses are valid language has meaning you and I exist

02:08:13There's an objective medium between us reason is better than violence rationality and evidence

02:08:18Determines truth from falsehood truth is is a value that is infinitely greater than falsehood

02:08:22Like all of these things are absolutely completely and totally accepted in order to have even a conversation let alone a debate

02:08:29So it's all solved

02:08:31But everybody wants to rush

02:08:33Into you know, it's like if somebody sends you a mr. Sarky before because if I send you a letter

02:08:41That says my argument is letters never get delivered

02:08:45Right, what would you say would you saw arguing would you write me back? No, I think that letters do get delivered and I said

02:08:51No, I really don't think that they do and here's my like, what would you say?

02:08:54You wouldn't look at the you wouldn't look at the letters on the letter. You'd look at the envelope, right?

02:09:01You wouldn't look at the content

02:09:03of the letter

02:09:05You would look at the form of the letter

02:09:08And you'd say well Steph come on

02:09:10And you'd say well Steph come on

02:09:13You can't send me a letter saying that letters never get delivered because if you genuinely believe that

02:09:19You wouldn't send me a letter because it would never get delivered

02:09:21So the fact that you sent me a letter means, you know that letters get delivered

02:09:26So let's not like the argument is in the letterhead it's it's on the stamp it's on the envelope not in the content

02:09:32Does that make sense? Yeah

02:09:35Absolutely

02:09:41You know, I always

02:09:43Always tell myself there's still something I need to learn about upv but um

02:09:49And then I go and investigate it and i'm like maybe I do understand it well enough and this is this is one of those moments

02:09:54Um, although i've had a bit cleared up for me for sure. No, tell me tell me what what doesn't make sense

02:09:59I'm now and and the reason the reason is not because upv is complicated. It's because we've all been lied to so much

02:10:06but sorry, I mean

02:10:08I think I get it now, but what I was confused about for the longest time is that like if we were to

02:10:13give an ethical theory that uh

02:10:17We should

02:10:18if I guess if you're proposing an argument or

02:10:21Whether it be just casually or so logistically. I thought you'd have to end it with like therefore you ought

02:10:27Um, you know in this case you therefore you ought adhere to upv

02:10:32but um

02:10:35But I

02:10:36I believe after this conversation i'm i'm of the belief. That's uh

02:10:40You don't need to arrive to that statement

02:10:43No, it's the question is not do you the question isn't ought you follow upv the question is

02:10:50Do you accept upv by correcting me do you accept upv?

02:10:58By having a conversation with me do you accept upv?

02:11:02By debating with me according to objective standards one of which is that truth is infinitely preferable to error

02:11:08Truth is upv. So you can't argue

02:11:11Against upv by saying we should accept that which is true because that's upv

02:11:17And I believe

02:11:19So in in terms of the it's not it's not

02:11:23Ought you to follow upv it's have you already accepted upv by having a debate with me?

02:11:29Right, so if if you and I are having this debate in fluent japanese

02:11:35Right, would you say to me steph? You ought to learn japanese

02:11:40Uh, if we're having it in the japanese that we said

02:11:44Oh, yeah, you and I were debating back pure pure japanese native speaking 100

02:11:49We're having a big rigorous back and forth and pure japanese. Would you ever?

Category

Transcript

Recommended