1 00:00:27,519 --> 00:00:32,119 Welcome everybody to the first ever live Rattlesnake TV debate. Been wanting to do 2 00:00:32,159 --> 00:00:36,159 this for a very long time, and I'm absolutely thrilled to say that we 3 00:00:36,200 --> 00:00:39,840 are going to be starting off with a bang. We've got two heavyweights in 4 00:00:39,880 --> 00:00:43,479 the house with us today in the form of Yaron Brook and Jay Dyer. 5 00:00:43,880 --> 00:00:48,280 These guys are both extremely accomplished in their field, experts in their field, 6 00:00:48,679 --> 00:00:55,079 and the topic it's a light one. It's can human civilization survive on science 7 00:00:55,079 --> 00:00:58,880 and rationality alone? So just an easy Friday here if you guys don't mind 8 00:00:58,920 --> 00:01:02,479 starting with you, Jay giving a little bit of a brief introduction about yourself, 9 00:01:02,840 --> 00:01:03,920 who you are, a little bit about your work and where people can 10 00:01:03,959 --> 00:01:10,519 find you. Yeah, I'm a person that comments on a lot of different 11 00:01:10,519 --> 00:01:15,159 topics. We do discussions of geopolitics, we do a lot of film analysis, 12 00:01:15,239 --> 00:01:19,280 we do a lot of philosophical conversations and debates. We've debated some of 13 00:01:19,319 --> 00:01:26,879 the top Muslims, Atheists, other religion proponents out there. I also do 14 00:01:27,599 --> 00:01:32,040 live events, comedy, etc. And I host the fourth hour of the 15 00:01:32,079 --> 00:01:36,239 Alex Jones Show every Friday for the last four years. And I have four 16 00:01:36,280 --> 00:01:42,920 books out on philosophy and film Fantastic and your Own. Yeah. I'm the 17 00:01:42,920 --> 00:01:47,040 host of you on book show, comment on pretty much everything going on in 18 00:01:47,040 --> 00:01:55,560 the world, and from esthetics to geopolitics, to ethics and morality and how 19 00:01:55,560 --> 00:02:00,840 to live a good life. I am the former executive direct or CEO of 20 00:02:00,840 --> 00:02:02,719 the Owned Ran Institute. I'm currently the chairman of the board of the own 21 00:02:02,760 --> 00:02:09,360 Ran Institute. I am author of books on inequality and capitalism and probably best 22 00:02:09,400 --> 00:02:17,240 known for my moral Defense of capitalism Fantastic. So the structure of the debate 23 00:02:17,280 --> 00:02:21,479 today, guys, is going to be that we're going to have five minutes 24 00:02:21,520 --> 00:02:27,080 from each of these gentlemen giving their position on can human civilization survive on science 25 00:02:27,120 --> 00:02:30,120 and rationality alone? And then we're going to have ten minutes each of cross 26 00:02:30,159 --> 00:02:34,879 examination, where both gentlemen will be able to ask as many questions as they 27 00:02:34,879 --> 00:02:38,000 would like in that ten minutes to try and unpack the other person's worldview, 28 00:02:38,240 --> 00:02:40,360 and we'll see how that goes. We're also going to be reading out superchats 29 00:02:40,400 --> 00:02:45,159 at some point in the middle of the stream, and there's going to be 30 00:02:45,199 --> 00:02:46,319 a pole there as well. At the very start, we're going to have 31 00:02:46,319 --> 00:02:49,759 a poll on the question to see where you guys all sit with it, 32 00:02:50,080 --> 00:02:52,560 and then at the end we're going to have another poll as well to see 33 00:02:52,560 --> 00:02:58,319 who you guys found more convincing. So I think with that we should get 34 00:02:58,360 --> 00:03:00,639 into it. Maybe Jade, you want to kick us off with your opening 35 00:03:00,919 --> 00:03:06,400 statement of fuddlements, I don't mind. Go yes. I would answer that 36 00:03:06,520 --> 00:03:15,080 no society cannot function in a healthy way and flourish believing or acting as if 37 00:03:15,120 --> 00:03:21,080 science and reason alone is all this necessary. First of all, I would 38 00:03:21,080 --> 00:03:24,479 say that we don't exactly have, at least typically from the people who would 39 00:03:24,479 --> 00:03:29,360 be the proponents of this view, we don't usually have a pretty consistent definition 40 00:03:29,439 --> 00:03:32,080 of what science and reason are. Now I'm not saying that there is no 41 00:03:32,159 --> 00:03:36,120 science or reason. I'm saying that usually the proponents of this type of a 42 00:03:36,240 --> 00:03:40,039 view, which I would class them in the category what's called scientism, they 43 00:03:40,080 --> 00:03:44,400 will make appeals to things like quote science, quote logic, quote reason. 44 00:03:44,520 --> 00:03:46,599 But what are they? How do they exist? What is the motive of 45 00:03:46,639 --> 00:03:51,360 their existence? Where are they? So? Science is oftentimes ill defined. 46 00:03:51,360 --> 00:03:55,000 For example, one of the premiere scientist and proponents, tychnoicrat Bertrand Russell himself 47 00:03:55,719 --> 00:04:00,360 gives about thirty different statements as to what science acts is. In his famous 48 00:04:00,400 --> 00:04:05,120 book Scientific Outlook, he says that science is reasoning, Science is knowledge. 49 00:04:05,159 --> 00:04:12,280 Science is beginning with what began with Galileo sciences, technique sciences, progress sciences, 50 00:04:12,319 --> 00:04:16,120 the power manipulating nature. Science is induction and not deduction. Science is 51 00:04:16,800 --> 00:04:25,199 omnipotent sciences based on assumptions that are quote verifiable. Science is in decay. 52 00:04:25,800 --> 00:04:30,800 Unfortunately, in his day he said science is the ultimate authority. Science is 53 00:04:31,199 --> 00:04:35,240 systematic pursuit of knowing what is out there in the world, knowledge, etc. 54 00:04:35,480 --> 00:04:40,399 So we get all of these like elastic definitions as to what it actually 55 00:04:40,480 --> 00:04:44,720 is. Now, the opponent, as I understand, believes that there is 56 00:04:44,759 --> 00:04:48,199 such a thing as mind or consciousness. And he would say that we have 57 00:04:48,399 --> 00:04:51,480 minds, but what that is and how that came to be, no one 58 00:04:51,519 --> 00:04:56,120 knows. And I would just push that a little bit further and say that, 59 00:04:56,160 --> 00:04:59,920 well, if that's the case, then also there's no basis for logical 60 00:05:00,079 --> 00:05:02,959 reasoning itself, and so the very endeavor of science would be undercut by his 61 00:05:03,000 --> 00:05:05,959 own worldview if it were the case. In other words, he takes an 62 00:05:05,959 --> 00:05:11,920 anti metaphysical stance in terms of part of his worldview from what I understand of 63 00:05:11,959 --> 00:05:14,639 it. But at the same time, he wants there to be some metaphysical 64 00:05:14,959 --> 00:05:19,319 principles that he can act upon and that he can promote through his version of 65 00:05:19,360 --> 00:05:24,959 objectivism, and that would be the promotion of things like the true, the 66 00:05:25,000 --> 00:05:29,519 good, value judgments, ethics, things that he mentioned. And that's precisely 67 00:05:29,600 --> 00:05:33,639 my key point here is that science and reason cannot give us value, judgments, 68 00:05:33,720 --> 00:05:39,439 or virtue. Society needs some form of virtue ethics to actually survive, 69 00:05:39,519 --> 00:05:44,480 And in fact he himself said that living a good life that's connected to virtues. 70 00:05:44,519 --> 00:05:48,560 But virtues are not things that can be determined from states of matter or 71 00:05:48,600 --> 00:05:53,959 even states of mind. If he admits the existence of im material things like 72 00:05:54,040 --> 00:05:57,399 minds, because the way something is doesn't tell us how it ought to be. 73 00:05:57,480 --> 00:06:00,800 So I would just go back to David Hume's critique of this kind of 74 00:06:00,839 --> 00:06:06,839 almost arbitrary move that people make to where because of their presuppositions of atheism limit 75 00:06:06,920 --> 00:06:12,639 them from allowing certain things to be the case, such as aughts. We 76 00:06:12,720 --> 00:06:15,399 can't get an aught from an is. So even if he admits immaterial things 77 00:06:15,439 --> 00:06:18,879 like minds, the state the fact that minds exists or the fact that matter 78 00:06:18,879 --> 00:06:23,079 exists doesn't tell us how minds ought to be or how matter ought to be. 79 00:06:23,560 --> 00:06:27,199 Yet he wants to have I think, a lot of claims about morality 80 00:06:27,279 --> 00:06:30,560 and ethics and what should and shouldn't be done. We shouldn't have the government 81 00:06:30,639 --> 00:06:32,759 stealing our tax you know, taking our tax money, or whatever, taking 82 00:06:32,759 --> 00:06:36,439 our money in taxes. We shouldn't have collectivism, I think he would argue, 83 00:06:36,920 --> 00:06:42,519 but those are value judgments, and they're not based on any universal claim 84 00:06:42,560 --> 00:06:46,040 or universal ethic. Thus they can't actually be objective. They must ultimately be 85 00:06:46,120 --> 00:06:50,040 purely subjective or relative. And so my point is that he can't be consistent 86 00:06:50,160 --> 00:06:55,639 with his foundationalist enterprise, and so his position, I think, is going 87 00:06:55,720 --> 00:07:00,680 to devolve into some form of foundationalism. But foundationalism, again, is a 88 00:07:00,680 --> 00:07:04,120 failed enterprise when we look at the fact that there's nothing that's actually self evident. 89 00:07:04,399 --> 00:07:09,079 Even Aristotle's basic laws, categories, the law of excluded middle, law 90 00:07:09,079 --> 00:07:12,519 of non contradiction, law of identity, those things are not actually found in 91 00:07:12,639 --> 00:07:16,800 nature themselves. Their propositions or metaphysical things that we believe in universal laws, 92 00:07:16,839 --> 00:07:24,839 abstractions that don't have any scientific demonstration. And so ultimately my opponent, I 93 00:07:24,839 --> 00:07:28,319 think, would be some type of empiricists. That doesn't mean he has to 94 00:07:28,319 --> 00:07:31,040 be a complete reductionist, because he might be an empiricist who admits the existence 95 00:07:31,079 --> 00:07:34,879 of minds or even abstract concepts, but there's no basis for his belief in 96 00:07:34,920 --> 00:07:38,959 those things. So ironically, the very things that he would point to, 97 00:07:39,000 --> 00:07:43,279 like science, reason, math, universals, concepts, laws, et cetera, 98 00:07:43,720 --> 00:07:47,199 themselves if we think about something like wvo Quin's famous lecture, famous paper 99 00:07:48,000 --> 00:07:54,879 to dogmas of empiricism, they actually can't be explicated or justified. They must 100 00:07:54,959 --> 00:07:59,639 be believed in in this much the same way that the spaghetti flying spaghetti monster 101 00:07:59,680 --> 00:08:03,800 of a is positive. So his idea of meaning and concepts and reasoning is 102 00:08:03,839 --> 00:08:13,040 also just as much as flying spaghetti monster. All right, thank you very 103 00:08:13,120 --> 00:08:16,800 much. Jay. If you're opening five minutes now, turning out of a 104 00:08:16,839 --> 00:08:22,040 tier on five minutes on the clock, that is a lot. And he 105 00:08:22,120 --> 00:08:26,560 speaks fast. He doesn't get me at all, and that's fine, that 106 00:08:26,680 --> 00:08:31,560 is good. So, yes, rationality is at the basis of all human 107 00:08:31,600 --> 00:08:33,600 knowledge. It is the means by which we know the world. It is 108 00:08:33,639 --> 00:08:39,960 the only means by which we have to know the world. Reason is the 109 00:08:39,039 --> 00:08:45,720 definition of It is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's 110 00:08:45,759 --> 00:08:48,200 senses. It is a faculty of the mind. It is a faculty of 111 00:08:48,279 --> 00:08:56,000 human consciousness. Yes, consciousness does exist, and its existence is you know, 112 00:08:56,080 --> 00:09:01,399 one of the foundational metaphysical axiomatic concepts, together with the fact that there's 113 00:09:01,440 --> 00:09:07,360 something to be aware of that is existence out there. And as in reason 114 00:09:07,480 --> 00:09:11,000 and rationality, rationality, which is a commitment to reason, are the only 115 00:09:11,039 --> 00:09:16,279 ways in which we know what exists, and we know about reality, and 116 00:09:16,360 --> 00:09:22,039 from which which we can integrate into abstract concepts, including those abstract concepts that 117 00:09:22,080 --> 00:09:26,840 are necessary to figure out how to live a good life. There is no 118 00:09:26,000 --> 00:09:31,960 other way in order to discover a what is good, what is even life? 119 00:09:33,720 --> 00:09:39,159 Every every concept being used relies on the fact that we integrate the evidence 120 00:09:39,279 --> 00:09:45,799 of our senses, the facts of reality, into some conceptual understanding of the 121 00:09:45,840 --> 00:09:50,879 world. That is what rationality involves. Rationality therefore can indeed a bridge. 122 00:09:52,399 --> 00:09:56,879 We can't. Indeed, bridge is odd gap. Once we understand what is 123 00:09:56,039 --> 00:10:03,200 human life, we can certainly understand what ought is what is necessary for its 124 00:10:03,399 --> 00:10:09,720 sustaining for sustaining that human life. Morality is a consequence of figuring out what 125 00:10:09,759 --> 00:10:16,279 are the requirements for human beings to live. Meaning comes from an understanding of 126 00:10:18,240 --> 00:10:24,240 life and understanding of UH. You know, our own values and the values 127 00:10:24,320 --> 00:10:30,480 necessary to sustain our life and to UH to UH build a life and to 128 00:10:30,919 --> 00:10:35,879 and too and to flourish as human beings. So meaning comes from rationality and 129 00:10:35,960 --> 00:10:43,679 reason UH, as as does morality. So UH value judgments, virtues UH 130 00:10:45,639 --> 00:10:52,799 all come from a rational, rational approach to understanding human life. Figuring out 131 00:10:54,000 --> 00:11:00,799 from observation and observation of life and an integration of the fact of life and 132 00:11:00,919 --> 00:11:05,200 understanding of the kind of animal human beings are to an understanding of what works 133 00:11:05,200 --> 00:11:09,240 and what doesn't, what is good and what is not for the human animal 134 00:11:09,919 --> 00:11:20,360 as it is, you know, every single value that we require in order 135 00:11:20,399 --> 00:11:24,200 to survive, in order to live, every single value needs to be constructed, 136 00:11:24,639 --> 00:11:28,759 needs to be discovered by the use of rationality. From the most primitive 137 00:11:28,759 --> 00:11:33,039 man, from our need for tools, our need for weapons, to the 138 00:11:33,039 --> 00:11:37,799 most sophisticated science that we use today, all of those are discoveries of the 139 00:11:37,879 --> 00:11:48,480 rational mind. All of those discoveries of a mind observing reality, experimenting within 140 00:11:48,559 --> 00:11:52,159 reality, and figuring out what is, what works, what is right, 141 00:11:52,519 --> 00:11:56,600 what is true, and what is not. And consider all our achievements, 142 00:11:58,000 --> 00:12:03,919 all achievements as human beings, from from great art to the great scientific, 143 00:12:03,320 --> 00:12:09,120 the great scientific discoveries, to the amazing technology that allows us to do this 144 00:12:09,200 --> 00:12:13,279 debate right now, all products of human reason. That is, to deny 145 00:12:13,360 --> 00:12:16,639 reason, or to reject reason, or to reject the link between reason and 146 00:12:16,639 --> 00:12:22,120 civilization is absurd and ridiculous. It is self it is not self evident, 147 00:12:22,159 --> 00:12:26,720 of course, but it's pretty easy if one knows history and understands human life, 148 00:12:26,759 --> 00:12:31,120 and understands the world in which we live to see and to observe, 149 00:12:31,519 --> 00:12:37,759 and to understand that all civilizations, to the extent that they were civilized, 150 00:12:39,360 --> 00:12:45,039 relied on reason, and to the extent that they adopted reason and rationality to 151 00:12:45,080 --> 00:12:52,759 that extent they were civilized. I think that's five. Yep, that's nearly 152 00:12:52,799 --> 00:12:56,039 bang On's thank you very much, Gods. You're opening statements, and now 153 00:12:56,039 --> 00:12:58,240 we're going to get into a period of cross examination. So you guys are 154 00:12:58,240 --> 00:13:01,679 going to have ten minutes look it up, and we'll start with Jay asking 155 00:13:01,799 --> 00:13:07,840 questions to your own right, Well, yeah, thank you for the opening 156 00:13:09,120 --> 00:13:11,960 statement there. I think I have a better understanding of what your position is. 157 00:13:11,960 --> 00:13:16,919 There. You said, for example, at one point, that that 158 00:13:16,039 --> 00:13:20,720 what we do is we sort of work in the world, and we test 159 00:13:20,759 --> 00:13:24,879 and we try, and we then figure out what works versus what doesn't work, 160 00:13:24,519 --> 00:13:28,120 and that this helps us to understand that we can derive an ought from 161 00:13:28,159 --> 00:13:31,639 it is because essentially what I heard you say was some of the defect of 162 00:13:33,960 --> 00:13:37,240 this allows us to live a life, and that we should have a flourishing 163 00:13:37,279 --> 00:13:41,120 life, et cetera, something to that effect. But what I heard was 164 00:13:41,120 --> 00:13:43,840 a lot of assertions, but I didn't hear a justification as to how we 165 00:13:43,960 --> 00:13:48,039 got to an aught from the from it is. Sure, I mean, 166 00:13:48,200 --> 00:13:54,320 five minutes, these are deep philosophical discussions. You're not going to get We're 167 00:13:54,360 --> 00:13:58,759 not going to get a complete analysis of of how we get an offer from 168 00:13:58,799 --> 00:14:03,600 an issue. But I do I do recommend people who are interested in seeing 169 00:14:03,639 --> 00:14:09,320 the complete working out of this to check out Iran's essay in the Virtue of 170 00:14:09,360 --> 00:14:13,519 Selfishness first essay or the Morality of Objectives and which she laid out She lays 171 00:14:13,519 --> 00:14:16,759 out in great detail. I think how you get an offerm it is, 172 00:14:16,799 --> 00:14:22,279 but the outline of it is is this human beings face a very basic alternative, 173 00:14:22,320 --> 00:14:26,960 as all living beings face, and that is to exist and not to 174 00:14:26,000 --> 00:14:33,559 exist. And that is the fundamental, the fundamental starting point. And then 175 00:14:33,600 --> 00:14:39,519 the question is the question is once once you are get towards existence, if 176 00:14:39,519 --> 00:14:41,919 you get towards non existence, if you've chosen not to exist, then morality 177 00:14:41,919 --> 00:14:45,879 and values and all of that are irrelevant. They don't they don't matter. 178 00:14:45,919 --> 00:14:50,039 They only matter in the context of existing of life. A pursuing life. 179 00:14:50,759 --> 00:14:56,320 Plants pursue life. They therefore have values. They don't have concious values that 180 00:14:56,399 --> 00:15:01,679 let me yea, you have a question, and fine, well I mean 181 00:15:01,720 --> 00:15:05,399 that though it was a cross examination. So a cross examination typically you know, 182 00:15:05,519 --> 00:15:07,320 you have to get a thought out to be able to examine it. 183 00:15:07,320 --> 00:15:11,039 But okay, well I'm not trying to cut you off, Go ahead and 184 00:15:11,200 --> 00:15:15,120 said whatever you want. You know, plants pursuit particular values. They pursue 185 00:15:15,440 --> 00:15:18,639 what are They pursue light and you can see them pursuing that because they are 186 00:15:18,679 --> 00:15:24,960 pursuing life. Human beings face the same alternative a plant does, life or 187 00:15:24,039 --> 00:15:28,039 death. The difference is that we don't have it pre programmed. We are 188 00:15:28,039 --> 00:15:33,000 not pre programmed. We're not predestined to choose life or to know how to 189 00:15:33,080 --> 00:15:37,759 live. What is required in order to survive. Human survival is not automatic. 190 00:15:37,840 --> 00:15:41,919 Human survival requires we take certain actions, that we choose certain actions. 191 00:15:43,159 --> 00:15:48,080 We are quite capable of suicide. So we need actually to make choices about 192 00:15:48,639 --> 00:15:54,600 what we do. And now what leads to human survival is something that we 193 00:15:54,679 --> 00:16:00,799 have to learn from partially from experience. Go ahead, So, but you 194 00:16:00,879 --> 00:16:06,519 said things like we see plants striving to live. Humans typically strive to live 195 00:16:06,600 --> 00:16:11,080 versus choosing not to. Those are states statements again of things that are so 196 00:16:11,120 --> 00:16:15,759 they're not justifications for the ought that is that is the how is that a 197 00:16:15,840 --> 00:16:21,840 justification? No, the the justification is that you need to do certain things. 198 00:16:21,840 --> 00:16:25,679 That is the the ought is the need in order to live, right, 199 00:16:26,000 --> 00:16:27,879 you know, what to in order to live. That's a statement of 200 00:16:27,919 --> 00:16:33,639 how things are. But that's not that's not an epistemic justification. That's just 201 00:16:33,679 --> 00:16:37,039 another statement of how things are. Once once you once you, once you 202 00:16:38,559 --> 00:16:41,960 have to sustain life. Now, there is no justification for sustaining life. 203 00:16:42,840 --> 00:16:45,919 You don't want to sustain life, then, as I said value judgments, 204 00:16:45,919 --> 00:16:52,080 are you well of it? But once sustaining life, then you know, 205 00:16:52,120 --> 00:16:56,720 once that happens, once human beings, that is that a judge That seems 206 00:16:56,759 --> 00:17:00,799 like a metaphysical sort of value judgment that you want as kind of an axiom 207 00:17:00,840 --> 00:17:03,559 to start with. Right, No, it's not an it's not it's just 208 00:17:04,359 --> 00:17:08,640 it's a fact of reality, that living being. It's a fact that it's 209 00:17:08,720 --> 00:17:14,480 not a it's it's not an art. No, the the arts are what 210 00:17:14,759 --> 00:17:18,440 we're asking how we get the fact? How do we get to sustain life? 211 00:17:18,720 --> 00:17:21,480 Is? How do we get an art from a fact? You just 212 00:17:21,559 --> 00:17:26,160 keep stating facts. No, I'm not saying facts. I'm saying indeed, 213 00:17:26,440 --> 00:17:32,599 you just factating facts. You saidts are not divorced from facts. Arts are 214 00:17:32,680 --> 00:17:40,440 facts. A minute, the need to survive arts of facts about gentlemen just 215 00:17:40,480 --> 00:17:44,119 a second, just a second, just during just during this period of cross 216 00:17:44,160 --> 00:17:48,519 examination, whoever is doing the cross examining has the floor. So Jay, 217 00:17:48,880 --> 00:17:52,359 as you'd like to ask the questions, just cut off whenever you need and 218 00:17:52,400 --> 00:17:56,200 then yer on you'll be able to do the exact same thing. Next sounds 219 00:17:56,200 --> 00:18:00,319 good, Okay, So it seems like again to the definition of what a 220 00:18:00,440 --> 00:18:06,400 fact is is also conveniently the definition of what ought to be the case. 221 00:18:06,759 --> 00:18:11,160 But the question was apistemic justification for how we get value judgments or oughts from 222 00:18:11,279 --> 00:18:15,000 states, affair affairs or states a matter of facts. It doesn't work to 223 00:18:15,000 --> 00:18:18,680 just say that an art is just another fact, because that's a circle. 224 00:18:19,960 --> 00:18:27,200 No, it absolutely does in a sense that once life once, whence life 225 00:18:27,359 --> 00:18:30,839 is chosen, one needs aughts in order to know how to pursue that life, 226 00:18:32,319 --> 00:18:37,920 and those oughts are discovered through a process of understanding what life requiets and 227 00:18:37,960 --> 00:18:41,559 those affects right to understand that that doesn't when just to examine the world in 228 00:18:41,640 --> 00:18:47,599 order to evaluate what leads to life, what allows to survival That is the 229 00:18:47,640 --> 00:18:51,680 good, and what reject what is bad for survival That is the bad. 230 00:18:52,240 --> 00:18:53,599 But how do we know that that's the good? You can just keep sort 231 00:18:53,599 --> 00:18:57,640 of asserting that that is the case because that's some sort of self evident thing. 232 00:18:57,680 --> 00:19:02,079 And I'm questioning, well, good, there is no good outside of 233 00:19:02,119 --> 00:19:04,480 life? That is, how do you know that you're good? There? 234 00:19:04,519 --> 00:19:07,720 There is no there is no These are assertions. What's the basis for the 235 00:19:07,759 --> 00:19:14,440 assertions? Because make an assertion of what there is no the justification for the 236 00:19:14,480 --> 00:19:18,799 assertion. That's what debates are all about. Value is that which a living 237 00:19:18,839 --> 00:19:21,880 being seeks? How do we know that? You keep saying that? What's 238 00:19:21,920 --> 00:19:26,720 the just value statements? You're talking about value statements. Values are things that 239 00:19:26,920 --> 00:19:30,160 living beings seek. I don't think you understand the question. The justification for 240 00:19:30,279 --> 00:19:33,200 that assertion not just to keep asserting it, but what how do you know 241 00:19:33,240 --> 00:19:37,799 that? Why should we think certificate? Which assution? We're going on in 242 00:19:37,880 --> 00:19:41,359 circles? Which is not very I mean, this is you're not you're aware 243 00:19:41,359 --> 00:19:44,799 of the David Hume question, So you just keep asserting without giving an episode 244 00:19:44,799 --> 00:19:48,160 and given an answer to the David Kumb question, which you have an answer, 245 00:19:48,119 --> 00:19:49,480 but it's not just which is why this is the case. Fine, 246 00:19:49,799 --> 00:19:53,480 if you refuse to accept it, it's just it's not it's not an answer. 247 00:19:55,079 --> 00:20:00,680 It's another assertion that's not an attempt to justify epistemically, what the assertion 248 00:20:00,880 --> 00:20:04,880 says? What? What do you what do you think justifying systemically means well, 249 00:20:04,920 --> 00:20:08,920 it classically means justified true belief And then getting your problem and what how 250 00:20:10,000 --> 00:20:15,880 how explain that? Don't don't f don't fow terminology and uh, and explain 251 00:20:15,960 --> 00:20:18,720 what does it mean. I'm not throwing terminology. It's the classic definition of 252 00:20:18,720 --> 00:20:23,440 what really Okay, I'm asking, well, I mean you don't care you 253 00:20:23,480 --> 00:20:26,480 asked me what it is. You don't let me justification, which I think 254 00:20:26,480 --> 00:20:30,200 I'm giving, And I would like you to explain the systemic justification to the 255 00:20:30,240 --> 00:20:36,279 audience. We're explaining I understand, but I'm explaining why the answers that you 256 00:20:36,440 --> 00:20:42,720 pistemic justification. So there's not a gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen each 257 00:20:42,720 --> 00:20:47,799 other. Why should we believe that those are facts and that there's an aught 258 00:20:47,839 --> 00:20:52,079 from a fact? Because also the questions during the during the cross examination, 259 00:20:52,160 --> 00:20:56,480 guys, whoever's asking the questions is asking the questions. And then yeah, 260 00:20:56,559 --> 00:21:00,000 on you can feel free to ask you any questions you'd like after this continue. 261 00:21:00,000 --> 00:21:02,720 We've got a few more minutes on the clock. Right, So again, 262 00:21:03,039 --> 00:21:07,799 understand question, idstand examination. I don't know like you can't let me. 263 00:21:08,400 --> 00:21:11,559 You can interrupt all you want when when you're cross examining me. So 264 00:21:12,039 --> 00:21:18,960 again, this position is based on various forms of self evidence and axiomatic assertions, 265 00:21:18,519 --> 00:21:22,880 which is fine for him to say, but I'm asking a question that's 266 00:21:22,000 --> 00:21:26,039 very well known in epistemology, is the question of justification. I'm not coming 267 00:21:26,119 --> 00:21:30,240 up with any foreign, wild definition of what that means. Justify true belief 268 00:21:30,440 --> 00:21:36,759 goes back to Plato, It's been used and brought forth in epistemology ever since 269 00:21:36,839 --> 00:21:41,880 that time. So to say and just to assert that my ethic, speaking 270 00:21:41,880 --> 00:21:47,279 of his position, it just is an ethics of life and of flourishing. 271 00:21:47,640 --> 00:21:49,480 That doesn't tell me that I ought to accept that in nor does it tell 272 00:21:49,480 --> 00:21:52,400 me what the good reasons to believe that that is the case. Maybe it 273 00:21:52,480 --> 00:21:59,079 is the case I believe I'm a very pro life, pro flourishing of position 274 00:21:59,240 --> 00:22:02,880 holder as well. Well. But why oughn't we to accept that position? 275 00:22:02,960 --> 00:22:07,960 And that's the key issue, the question that comes with epistemic justification. I 276 00:22:07,960 --> 00:22:15,279 am saying that the conventional way in which people view epistemic justification is wont So 277 00:22:15,359 --> 00:22:19,440 I'm challenging, and I'm rand is challenging two thousand years of Western philosophy with 278 00:22:19,480 --> 00:22:23,640 regard to epistemic justification. Absolutely, and why aren't we accept this right? 279 00:22:23,799 --> 00:22:27,319 So we're asking a question. There is this is ought challenge that people have. 280 00:22:27,519 --> 00:22:33,279 People are presented which is a legitimate challenge from their perspective of epistemic justification, 281 00:22:33,319 --> 00:22:41,119 which is dramatically flawed because it doesn't recognize the fact that values only arise 282 00:22:41,000 --> 00:22:45,200 in the context of a living being. How do we know that? You 283 00:22:45,279 --> 00:22:47,759 keep asserting that. How do we know that that's the case? Because what 284 00:22:48,200 --> 00:22:51,519 is the meaning of value? What is the definition of value? So it's 285 00:22:51,559 --> 00:22:55,319 circular, so it's true by definition, So it's analytic. There is no 286 00:22:55,400 --> 00:22:57,319 such thing as so there is no such thing as true by definition. That 287 00:22:57,400 --> 00:23:03,640 is complete nonsense. Find it as contradict to find your terms, and you 288 00:23:03,680 --> 00:23:08,000 need to be able to reduce your terms two observations in reality. So the 289 00:23:08,119 --> 00:23:14,160 standard for truth is observation in reality a stand for truth. How do we 290 00:23:14,200 --> 00:23:15,960 know this? You just keep saying it. How do we know this? 291 00:23:17,039 --> 00:23:21,559 Okay, guys, so that's ten minutes of Jay's cross examination. Now you're 292 00:23:21,640 --> 00:23:25,960 on. You can ask Jay any questions you would like. You got ten 293 00:23:26,000 --> 00:23:29,799 minutes on the board, let's do it. So I'm curious with Jay. 294 00:23:30,240 --> 00:23:37,880 Uh, it gets any model justification or that is where where value judgments come 295 00:23:37,920 --> 00:23:44,039 from? J For j H, they're grounded ultimately in goden existence of so 296 00:23:44,480 --> 00:23:48,039 they're grounded in a fantasy and they make belief. I mean, I guess 297 00:23:48,079 --> 00:23:52,519 the same type of make believe as your is art distinction. Yeah, well, 298 00:23:52,599 --> 00:23:56,359 my is art distinction is grounded in in actual facts of reality. And 299 00:23:56,400 --> 00:24:00,240 actually it wasn't grounded observing reality. You're doing the same thing, right, 300 00:24:02,319 --> 00:24:07,039 But yours is grounded on pure emotions. So because your God, when did 301 00:24:07,039 --> 00:24:10,839 I argue by emotions? God is is whatever we want it to be. 302 00:24:10,880 --> 00:24:14,160 And did I argue by emotion? I didn't argue by emotion? As soon 303 00:24:14,160 --> 00:24:17,559 as you mentioned God, you good by emotion? That's your definition what you 304 00:24:17,559 --> 00:24:22,279 think God is? That is, you make a rational argument for God, 305 00:24:22,559 --> 00:24:26,079 the transcendental argument for God. There's no transcendental argument for God. It is 306 00:24:26,079 --> 00:24:29,880 a purely emotional there's only hold on that. You know, you're saying that 307 00:24:29,920 --> 00:24:32,480 doesn't exist as an argument. I mean you might not believe it, but 308 00:24:32,519 --> 00:24:34,480 it exists, you know, Yeah, I mean, argument exists. It's 309 00:24:34,519 --> 00:24:37,759 just it's just it's just again, it's it's a it's a it's a reduction 310 00:24:37,920 --> 00:24:42,039 to it's a reduction to emotionalism. So where in the transcendental argument, there's 311 00:24:42,079 --> 00:24:47,200 no emotion in that argument. The only justification for God is you feel like 312 00:24:47,240 --> 00:24:48,359 there's a God? Do you have faith in a God? And your eject 313 00:24:48,400 --> 00:24:55,000 reason and irrational argument? So do you want the form of the argument? 314 00:24:55,279 --> 00:25:00,559 No? Not particularly How how would emotion relate to the form? Emotion relates 315 00:25:00,559 --> 00:25:07,279 to the fact that you don't believe of the argument? There is an emotionalistic 316 00:25:07,359 --> 00:25:10,799 argument, right, it's not X is the necessary condition of why why? 317 00:25:10,839 --> 00:25:12,160 Therefore X? That's the form. There's no emotion. But I thought, 318 00:25:12,160 --> 00:25:17,720 I thought, where does logic come from? Logic itself is grounded in God 319 00:25:17,799 --> 00:25:19,440 is grounded God. So it's a circular argument and it's meaningless. Right, 320 00:25:19,640 --> 00:25:25,359 So it's argument once you have God, then you know once you once you 321 00:25:25,359 --> 00:25:30,440 have them emotionalistic belief in God, then you come up with a circular argument 322 00:25:30,480 --> 00:25:36,119 to justify it, which is a pisurd right. So, uh, the 323 00:25:36,440 --> 00:25:44,319 the whole perspective of of of value judgments as coming in because J believes in 324 00:25:44,359 --> 00:25:48,240 them or because X believes in something else is the basic objectives. But it 325 00:25:48,359 --> 00:25:52,720 is right, if you're gonna you should at least address the actual argument. 326 00:25:52,759 --> 00:25:55,839 That's not the art. That's a strong man, okay, so so so, 327 00:25:55,839 --> 00:25:59,559 so give me some example of value judgments that come from God. And 328 00:25:59,599 --> 00:26:02,000 how do they get to you from God? I'm curious how you get them 329 00:26:02,000 --> 00:26:06,599 from God? Right? We have pre subpositions that we all hold to basic 330 00:26:06,720 --> 00:26:11,079 beliefs when it comes to ethics, metaphysics that you get from and ultimately, 331 00:26:11,240 --> 00:26:15,559 ultimately those structures are grounded in the mind of God. And how do they 332 00:26:15,640 --> 00:26:18,920 how do they imprint on you? Well, I'm made in God's image, 333 00:26:18,920 --> 00:26:23,799 so I have the ability to reason after God. So the entire system is 334 00:26:23,839 --> 00:26:30,400 built in a peace of position that there is a God. Correct, Like 335 00:26:30,440 --> 00:26:34,559 your system is built on self evident presubpositions that are incoherent, no self evidence. 336 00:26:34,559 --> 00:26:40,720 All it relies on is the fact that existence exists and consciousness. I 337 00:26:40,759 --> 00:26:42,720 mean you kept saying it is self evident. Well, okay, justin exist 338 00:26:42,759 --> 00:26:48,119 it's self evident. You know you're God it self evidence? Right? You're 339 00:26:48,160 --> 00:26:52,759 making you're back and forth like every every time you're back and forth, Yeah, 340 00:26:52,799 --> 00:26:56,960 because you can't. You can't have a discussion if you don't accept that 341 00:26:57,000 --> 00:27:00,480 existence exists. Right do we are we talk? I just simply don't accept 342 00:27:00,480 --> 00:27:03,839 it. It's self evident. I don't are we talking right now? So 343 00:27:03,839 --> 00:27:06,640 how do we know we're talking about now, I just don't believe it's self 344 00:27:06,640 --> 00:27:10,519 evident. Explain to me, what does the knowledge that we talk about now 345 00:27:10,559 --> 00:27:14,920 come from. Well, that we're talking is experiential. I believe in an 346 00:27:14,920 --> 00:27:18,799 experience, Yeah, and an experience is not self evident. No, and 347 00:27:18,920 --> 00:27:21,319 where does it come from? How do how do you know it's actually happening? 348 00:27:21,799 --> 00:27:25,119 Because well, again, there's nothing that's self evident. Because I'm having 349 00:27:25,160 --> 00:27:29,119 experience, It doesn't follow that the experience or having experiences is self evident. 350 00:27:29,160 --> 00:27:33,039 That's a whole other notion in epistemology that has to do with things that don't 351 00:27:33,079 --> 00:27:41,759 require justification. Two different questions, same question. Uh, the reality is 352 00:27:41,799 --> 00:27:47,359 that the existence of everything around us is self evident and everything we are talking 353 00:27:47,400 --> 00:27:52,039 about, everything we say in the fact that existence actually exists. Well, 354 00:27:52,079 --> 00:27:56,880 again, again that's just to aert a circle, which if you want to 355 00:27:56,160 --> 00:28:03,359 know, it's not it's it's evident evidence. Every concept they use depends on 356 00:28:03,400 --> 00:28:10,039 the fact that that you know, those concepts we were, you know, 357 00:28:10,200 --> 00:28:14,559 integrated based on sensory evidence. If you if you look at a child and 358 00:28:14,599 --> 00:28:18,359 you see how a child foams concepts, They don't phone concepts by some revelation 359 00:28:18,440 --> 00:28:23,680 from God. They phone concepts by observing reality and experimenting within reality and seeing 360 00:28:23,880 --> 00:28:30,519 similarities between things in reality. They build a concepts from the ground up, 361 00:28:30,720 --> 00:28:36,279 from reality up. They don't start with God and everything. Category or the 362 00:28:36,279 --> 00:28:40,480 fact that you gart with something doesn't mean that that's the ultimate grounding for the 363 00:28:40,519 --> 00:28:42,880 thing. So that's that's a category. Well, you can't understand a thing 364 00:28:42,960 --> 00:28:48,079 without knowing where it's coming from. But I'm not I don't disagree with empirical 365 00:28:48,119 --> 00:28:52,319 sense data. I just don't think that empirical sense data is the limit, 366 00:28:52,079 --> 00:28:56,359 is all we have, and you can't justify empiricism itself. I'm not going 367 00:28:56,440 --> 00:29:00,160 to justify I piericism because the reality is that we can't abstract back from empirical 368 00:29:00,200 --> 00:29:03,039 sense data. And we do have a mind, we do have consciousness. 369 00:29:03,079 --> 00:29:08,720 But you understand those are those are your bedrock positions that you just assert and 370 00:29:08,960 --> 00:29:12,920 you won't allow those to be questioned or challenged. The existence of consciousness and 371 00:29:12,960 --> 00:29:18,279 the existence of reality cannot be questioned, and you know to question them, 372 00:29:18,599 --> 00:29:23,200 you have a dogma, so you can't your fundamental positions. In philosophy, 373 00:29:23,440 --> 00:29:27,839 it's called I don't believe it. I reject you cannot. You cannot get 374 00:29:27,839 --> 00:29:32,920 a self evidence. So if you can bring axiom, you can bring oxiom. 375 00:29:33,359 --> 00:29:36,200 You understand that if you if you bring self evidence to a debate, 376 00:29:36,640 --> 00:29:37,920 I can bring self evidence to a debate and just say, God is the 377 00:29:37,960 --> 00:29:41,680 self evident axiom. That's why you but that that's silly, that's fine, 378 00:29:41,720 --> 00:29:45,599 you can't and you actually silly as yourself, and it's just it's just an 379 00:29:45,640 --> 00:29:48,440 negation of all of human experience in all of human history. But fine, 380 00:29:48,519 --> 00:29:52,559 that's just the all right, guys, we've got a few more minutes yere 381 00:29:52,640 --> 00:29:56,720 on. If you did have any more specific questions to Jay about his world 382 00:29:56,799 --> 00:29:59,079 view, or should we move into the next part, we can move into 383 00:29:59,079 --> 00:30:02,559 an expert Okay, cool, So next bit I wanted to get into was 384 00:30:02,599 --> 00:30:06,519 a little bit about the future of science and technology and how that's going to 385 00:30:06,519 --> 00:30:11,039 impact human civilization, the rise of AI, for example, and the role 386 00:30:11,119 --> 00:30:17,440 that scientific development is playing in human evolution itself. So if you guys want, 387 00:30:17,480 --> 00:30:18,359 I'll give you a few minutes on the board. You can take two, 388 00:30:18,400 --> 00:30:23,000 three, four minutes if you'd like to state your position on the future 389 00:30:23,000 --> 00:30:26,599 of technology, if it's a good thing, if it's a bad thing, 390 00:30:26,880 --> 00:30:32,279 and if human civilization will survive this on science and rationality alone. So starting 391 00:30:32,279 --> 00:30:34,440 off with Yaron for this one, you've got a few minutes on the board 392 00:30:34,519 --> 00:30:38,200 and you can do as you please with this. So I think basically whether 393 00:30:38,240 --> 00:30:41,759 we survive it or art is going to be dependent on whether we in breech 394 00:30:41,880 --> 00:30:47,480 rationality as a civilization and as a culture, and whether we approach all these 395 00:30:47,519 --> 00:30:53,319 things from the perspective of human flourishing, from a perspective of a reason of 396 00:30:53,359 --> 00:30:57,720 a reasoned approach to life. I think technology generally is amazing, wonderful. 397 00:30:59,279 --> 00:31:04,319 I think they were unities here to significantly improve human life, to expand human 398 00:31:04,359 --> 00:31:11,039 knowledge, to improve us both biologically through gene editing and editing out diseases and 399 00:31:11,079 --> 00:31:18,119 all kinds of other things, uh, And and from the perspective of tools 400 00:31:18,160 --> 00:31:22,599 that allow us to build more knowledge and future knowledge, like like what AI 401 00:31:22,839 --> 00:31:30,319 is promoting. I don't fear AI comes alive and kills us all that that 402 00:31:30,440 --> 00:31:34,240 I think is silly. But I do fear that bad actors use AI and 403 00:31:34,400 --> 00:31:40,799 use these tools uh to the detriment of humanity. So I think what we 404 00:31:40,880 --> 00:31:47,960 need is a civilization focused on individual human flourishing a civilization based on reason and 405 00:31:48,079 --> 00:32:00,480 rationality to prevent those bad actors from using tools to destroy civilization. Okay, 406 00:32:00,640 --> 00:32:01,720 thank you very much for that. Year On now, Jay, we're going 407 00:32:01,759 --> 00:32:07,759 to go to you and you'll give you a piece on this. Yeah, 408 00:32:07,799 --> 00:32:10,519 thank you. I would agree with pretty much everything he said there in his 409 00:32:12,079 --> 00:32:16,200 assessment of where we're going and what he sees for the future with Ai and 410 00:32:16,640 --> 00:32:22,160 Tach and transhumanism or whatever. I don't think transhumanism itself is any sort of 411 00:32:23,799 --> 00:32:29,720 viable worldview, and we know a lot of the power elite push this. 412 00:32:30,319 --> 00:32:35,799 I've been lecturing through their text of late, but I think that to reiterate 413 00:32:35,880 --> 00:32:39,119 kind of my point in the opening statement, is that any society that attempts 414 00:32:39,200 --> 00:32:49,480 to make its fundamental ethos centered around pure reason, I mean, we've actually 415 00:32:49,519 --> 00:32:54,400 seen this in the past. That doesn't necessarily dictate that every possible instantiation will 416 00:32:54,440 --> 00:32:59,279 be identical to the past. But if history teaches us anything about these, 417 00:33:00,200 --> 00:33:04,200 we know in the French Revolution, the Jacobins sought, for example, to 418 00:33:04,279 --> 00:33:07,519 have a society based around pure reason, and that actually led to a lot 419 00:33:07,559 --> 00:33:13,680 of bloodshed. It led to a lot of collectivism, I understand that the 420 00:33:13,720 --> 00:33:17,480 opponent here would not be a fan of collectivism, but I would actually just 421 00:33:17,599 --> 00:33:22,799 argue that there's no real if we don't have a basis for why we should 422 00:33:22,799 --> 00:33:27,359 prefer the individual, other than asserting that it just should be the case versus 423 00:33:27,400 --> 00:33:32,400 the collective, there's no reason why future societies couldn't fall back over into some 424 00:33:32,440 --> 00:33:37,880 sort of radical, technocratic collectivism, which actually I think that's the future that 425 00:33:37,920 --> 00:33:40,519 we're going into. In fact, many of the writers who wrote and planned 426 00:33:40,519 --> 00:33:44,720 out the future that we're going into actually do say that we will be going 427 00:33:44,759 --> 00:33:47,799 into a collectivist, technocratic hell whole future. I don't think we have to 428 00:33:47,799 --> 00:33:51,240 do that. We're not destined for that. I don't think tech itself is 429 00:33:51,279 --> 00:33:54,400 the problem. I think that we got to have some kind of ethics that 430 00:33:54,680 --> 00:34:01,680 we can appeal to that allow us to safeguard human dignity, to safeguard what 431 00:34:01,720 --> 00:34:06,519 it is to have life, just to have and to value life. I 432 00:34:06,559 --> 00:34:09,920 think that that only makes sense in his coherent in a position where man is 433 00:34:09,960 --> 00:34:14,960 made in the image of God and thus derives human dignity from being made in 434 00:34:15,000 --> 00:34:19,199 the image of that deity. And so when we look at writers that I've 435 00:34:19,199 --> 00:34:23,159 been lecturing through recently, right, like Jacquette Lee's book Briefitity of the Future, 436 00:34:23,559 --> 00:34:30,920 Klaus Schwab's books Fourth Industrial Revolution going back one hundred years, the books 437 00:34:30,960 --> 00:34:34,239 of H. G. Wells, you know, they all write about going 438 00:34:34,280 --> 00:34:39,559 into what Brazienski called the technocratic era, where essentially man would be merged into 439 00:34:39,599 --> 00:34:45,880 a collective hive borg of some form of you know, Skynet or whatever. 440 00:34:46,159 --> 00:34:51,880 I agree with Iran that I don't believe AI is going to become conscious or 441 00:34:51,880 --> 00:34:53,960 anything like that. I think that's silly. But I think that what we 442 00:34:54,000 --> 00:34:58,840 see is that the danger of the possibility of it repeating of a kind of 443 00:34:58,840 --> 00:35:07,159 a technocratic Jacob and Panopticon society where we actually do lose our individuality and our 444 00:35:08,119 --> 00:35:12,280 dignity being made in names of God, if we don't have a society that 445 00:35:12,360 --> 00:35:20,119 also includes the notion of mythos. Man needs more than just facts and more 446 00:35:20,159 --> 00:35:23,800 than just math, and more than beakers and test tubes. Man lives his 447 00:35:23,920 --> 00:35:28,320 life in a beginning, mental and end status. Right, So there's something 448 00:35:28,360 --> 00:35:31,840 fundamental to a story if you think about a conversation. This is an argument 449 00:35:31,920 --> 00:35:37,960 that the virtue philosopher Alistair McIntyre makes He says, if you look at the 450 00:35:37,000 --> 00:35:40,119 way a conversation is structured, has a beginning, of middle and an end. 451 00:35:40,719 --> 00:35:45,280 Movies have beginning, middles and an end. And so there's something fundamental 452 00:35:45,320 --> 00:35:50,440 to the way that humans understand and interpret the world to this triadic structure beginning, 453 00:35:50,480 --> 00:35:53,880 middle, and end, such that we need and function on the basis 454 00:35:53,920 --> 00:35:59,480 of stories more so than facts. So I'm not saying there's not facts, 455 00:35:59,480 --> 00:36:01,519 and I'm not saying it is not science and tech. But what's more fundamental 456 00:36:01,519 --> 00:36:06,519 to man is something that we would see in people like Tolkien or Lewis, 457 00:36:06,559 --> 00:36:12,639 where we have stories and stories give us meaning. And thus it's fundamental to 458 00:36:12,840 --> 00:36:17,679 man flourishing to have something like a religious story that gives his life purpose. 459 00:36:19,400 --> 00:36:23,719 Science and reason itself cannot grant you telos. Telos cannot grant you meaning or 460 00:36:23,760 --> 00:36:28,760 ethics. Okay, thank you very much, gentlemen. I just want to 461 00:36:28,800 --> 00:36:31,440 say I'm enjoying this a lot, a lot, And if anybody wants to 462 00:36:31,480 --> 00:36:37,119 find you guys, they can find you at YouTube Jadier and at YouTube Yaron 463 00:36:37,199 --> 00:36:40,159 Brook. You guys both have fantastic shows that I watch regularly. So everybody 464 00:36:40,159 --> 00:36:42,960 should go and check them out. The links are going to be in the 465 00:36:42,960 --> 00:36:46,800 bio as well. So yeron what did you think about are we headed towards 466 00:36:46,800 --> 00:36:52,400 a technocratic collectivist tell Hole. I think there's certainly a possibility of that. 467 00:36:52,840 --> 00:37:00,960 I don't put it as very high because the reality is the collectism doesn't produce 468 00:37:00,000 --> 00:37:06,119 technology. That is, the technology cannot thrive in such a society. So 469 00:37:06,159 --> 00:37:09,079 we could be heading towards a collectivisty Hellhole, but it will have pretty primitive 470 00:37:09,079 --> 00:37:14,280 technology, uh, and the technology will collapse around it. The only way 471 00:37:14,400 --> 00:37:20,400 to sustain a technologically advanced society is through individualism. That is, since only 472 00:37:20,400 --> 00:37:23,360 individuals think, collectives don't. There is no such thing as collective consciousness. 473 00:37:23,519 --> 00:37:28,280 There's no thing as a collective identity, there's no such thing as collective anything. 474 00:37:28,360 --> 00:37:35,920 Really, the only way to progress scientifically, technologically is through individual individual 475 00:37:36,039 --> 00:37:44,639 thinking and individuals initiative and individuals creativity and innovation. I think the real risk 476 00:37:44,800 --> 00:37:50,440 is is civilizational collapse and the abandonment of technology and and and what's scary I 477 00:37:50,440 --> 00:37:57,719 think is that I think Jay's view of you know, the the necessity of 478 00:37:57,800 --> 00:38:04,760 religion, necessity of God, the fact that virtue comes from comes from up 479 00:38:04,800 --> 00:38:12,079 above, from some set of beliefs of basically faith. I think that is 480 00:38:12,960 --> 00:38:17,000 set to basically hand the world over to the collectivists, because the fact is 481 00:38:17,039 --> 00:38:23,159 that if we're at the point where human liberty, human freedom, individualism relies 482 00:38:23,239 --> 00:38:29,400 on faith in order to progress, in order to survive, in order to 483 00:38:29,440 --> 00:38:34,280 hold on, then it really is hopeless. It really is hopeless. There's 484 00:38:34,360 --> 00:38:39,559 there's no It's not an accident that human liberty and human freedom, as ideas 485 00:38:39,880 --> 00:38:45,599 that manifest themselves politically, ultimately come from a period where faith is relegated to 486 00:38:45,719 --> 00:38:49,159 kind of your personal life and put it aside, and don't take it too 487 00:38:49,199 --> 00:38:52,920 seriously. It's not a consequence that the United States is a product of the 488 00:38:52,000 --> 00:38:57,039 Enlightenment, and as is the scientific revolution, and that is the industry revolution. 489 00:38:57,079 --> 00:39:02,840 They're all products of a sidelining of the issue of faith and the collectivism. 490 00:39:02,920 --> 00:39:06,280 That Jay talked about in the French Revolution. And you could argue, 491 00:39:06,360 --> 00:39:08,559 I was sure he was going to bring up communism and Nazism as they always 492 00:39:08,559 --> 00:39:13,480 do is forms of reason. I mean, these are the most unreasonable people 493 00:39:13,519 --> 00:39:17,800 in all of history. They had no no respect for reason, rationality, 494 00:39:17,960 --> 00:39:22,599 facts, reality, Uh, you know, anything like that these are people 495 00:39:22,599 --> 00:39:27,519 who made stuff up. They were mystics, mystics of muscle often, but 496 00:39:27,639 --> 00:39:31,880 mystics in a sense. Uh, you know, I'm not I'm not comparing, 497 00:39:31,920 --> 00:39:35,920 but mystics and mystics. And this is the problem. The problem is 498 00:39:35,920 --> 00:39:42,239 the communism and fascism and and and the French revolutions were so attitude is much 499 00:39:42,280 --> 00:39:49,639 more similar to a mystical view of God and a make belief of God than 500 00:39:49,679 --> 00:39:53,239 it is to an actual rational approach and an approach to what does it take? 501 00:39:53,400 --> 00:39:58,000 And this is this is just a factual, logical, rational question, 502 00:39:58,079 --> 00:40:01,360 what does it take to live a good life? And and that aquis that 503 00:40:01,440 --> 00:40:08,159 aquis actually science. It requires examining, examining the world that they requires reason, 504 00:40:08,440 --> 00:40:14,280 It requais thinking, It requires evaluating, it requires judging. And by 505 00:40:14,400 --> 00:40:17,480 banning that, even though Jay doesn't want to, I think he hands it 506 00:40:17,480 --> 00:40:22,880 over to these, He hands the answer over to the collectivists. All right, 507 00:40:22,000 --> 00:40:24,920 Jerry, what would you say about that? Yeah? I understand the 508 00:40:24,960 --> 00:40:28,639 critique there, and I understand that he would say that a lot of what 509 00:40:28,800 --> 00:40:32,599 you know I'm proposing perhaps sounds like the sort of irrational sort of mysticism and 510 00:40:32,639 --> 00:40:38,719 fanaticism. And I understand the comparison that he's making between you know what, 511 00:40:38,719 --> 00:40:43,320 what he thinks. My position is with, you know, some sort of 512 00:40:43,639 --> 00:40:47,599 regime that would be tyrannical. But to bring it back home to the original 513 00:40:47,639 --> 00:40:51,440 point about the good, you know, he keeps pointing out the good of 514 00:40:51,440 --> 00:40:54,920 the individual, the good of the of the you know, the freedom of 515 00:40:54,920 --> 00:40:58,760 the individual to be creative and all that. I actually agree with that that 516 00:40:58,760 --> 00:41:02,159 that's where we get these of you know, creativity and ventions technology. It 517 00:41:02,199 --> 00:41:06,559 does begin with the individual. I'd reject the idea though that he said there 518 00:41:06,599 --> 00:41:09,159 are no collective identities. That to me makes no sense, given the fact 519 00:41:09,159 --> 00:41:15,199 that we have all kinds of collective identities that are true. Men exist as 520 00:41:15,320 --> 00:41:21,920 men, families exist as real metaphysical realities and unities. I believe. So 521 00:41:22,239 --> 00:41:27,039 the premise that he has, I think is another presupposition most of the proponents 522 00:41:27,039 --> 00:41:30,360 of Van Rand. It's the idea that there's this sort of dialectical tension between 523 00:41:30,400 --> 00:41:34,599 the individual and all collectives. There can be that, but ideally, I 524 00:41:34,639 --> 00:41:37,360 think what we want to shoot for is a balance between the one and the 525 00:41:37,360 --> 00:41:40,719 many, to have a synergy between these things and to not have the sort 526 00:41:40,719 --> 00:41:45,719 of individual versus the collective. There's always going to be collectives, there's always 527 00:41:45,719 --> 00:41:49,800 going to be individuals, and so we're never going to like figure out some 528 00:41:49,840 --> 00:41:54,400 sort of like you know, perfect either or when. Ideally what we need 529 00:41:54,440 --> 00:41:58,840 to shoot for is some sort of balance between them. But beyond that, 530 00:41:58,960 --> 00:42:01,960 more fundamental is that I think he thinks that my position is one which is 531 00:42:02,760 --> 00:42:07,679 irrational or anti rational. If you had listened to what I was arguing about 532 00:42:07,719 --> 00:42:13,000 the transcendental argument, it's actually a logical, rational argument for the existence of 533 00:42:13,039 --> 00:42:19,239 God, and it premises the premise is that all reasoning and rationality itself presupposes 534 00:42:19,320 --> 00:42:27,639 fundamental transcendental categories, and those categories themselves require some justification, some unifying power, 535 00:42:27,760 --> 00:42:32,519 some linkage, and some way to be grounded, and that is God 536 00:42:32,559 --> 00:42:37,480 itself. So God is the basis for the transcendal categories. And that what 537 00:42:37,519 --> 00:42:40,719 that means is that the position that I'm argument isn't against reason. It's not 538 00:42:40,880 --> 00:42:46,159 some far flung mysticism. It's actually much more of a stronger claim that all 539 00:42:46,199 --> 00:42:52,599 reasoning and rationality would only be possible if God existed. So I don't set 540 00:42:52,679 --> 00:42:58,800 faith in opposition to reason and his presupposition is that everything I'm arguing does set 541 00:42:58,840 --> 00:43:00,800 them in opposition. But again, to bring it back to the main point, 542 00:43:01,159 --> 00:43:05,199 if we're going to value the true and the good, those are metaphysical 543 00:43:05,239 --> 00:43:10,079 things that in some way have to be justified in a universal way. Throughout 544 00:43:10,119 --> 00:43:15,280 the conversation, Iran, for example, has made many claims about everybody does 545 00:43:15,320 --> 00:43:19,880 this, we all do that, we all know this. Those are universal 546 00:43:19,920 --> 00:43:22,760 claims, and if he's going to have any justification for universal claims, he's 547 00:43:22,800 --> 00:43:28,559 going to have to know or figure out how that's always provable or always the 548 00:43:28,639 --> 00:43:31,159 case. And you can't do that if you have an empirical approach to life 549 00:43:31,280 --> 00:43:36,079 or an empiricist approach. I'm not against empirical data, but if I'm an 550 00:43:36,119 --> 00:43:39,400 empiricist, there's no justification for all of these universal claims. And he seems 551 00:43:39,440 --> 00:43:45,440 to think his self evident universal basic axioms are the case everywhere at all times. 552 00:43:45,719 --> 00:43:49,360 But those are just assertions. And so again, to bring it back 553 00:43:49,400 --> 00:43:52,119 home what he's calling reason. If he was to read, for example, 554 00:43:52,199 --> 00:43:58,559 Quin's paper, I mean he's in the tradition Ofwvoquine as an empiricist, as 555 00:43:58,559 --> 00:44:00,960 an atheist, then he would know that Quin makes the same point that he's 556 00:44:00,960 --> 00:44:05,840 making about God, that all of the things that he believes in his position 557 00:44:05,920 --> 00:44:09,599 about reason, about self evident actions or whatever, those are just as much 558 00:44:09,679 --> 00:44:15,679 fantasies and mythologies in his worldview. So if he can bring self evident assertions, 559 00:44:15,760 --> 00:44:19,840 so can I. Okay, gentlemen, I'm enjoying this. Just quickly, 560 00:44:19,960 --> 00:44:22,440 we're going to keep this line going because I like this. This is 561 00:44:22,559 --> 00:44:27,039 what we're doing here. I want to keep it to two minutes each after 562 00:44:27,079 --> 00:44:29,039 this, So we're just going to go back and forth, back and forth 563 00:44:29,079 --> 00:44:31,199 on the points. But he was just going to quickly read out some super 564 00:44:31,280 --> 00:44:36,760 chats here. We've got a few coming in, and the first one is 565 00:44:36,840 --> 00:44:42,320 from show'sbot and it says, I understand, I don't understand the topic. 566 00:44:43,000 --> 00:44:45,480 What additional things are supposed to be needed? Air, food, Netflix, 567 00:44:45,679 --> 00:44:52,639 maybe all of them and X one. We've got chos. But again, 568 00:44:52,719 --> 00:44:55,239 says Jay, is zeus a self evident axiom? If not, why you 569 00:44:55,239 --> 00:44:59,960 know? Quickly answer that, Well, I don't believe in self evident axiom, 570 00:45:00,119 --> 00:45:02,880 so I would question the whole notion. It's based on a foundationalist of 571 00:45:02,880 --> 00:45:07,320 pistemology, which I don't believe, and I believe that we have webs of 572 00:45:07,360 --> 00:45:10,679 belief and so if you want to use the terms foundation, that's fine, 573 00:45:10,719 --> 00:45:14,840 but that's not the same thing as a foundationalist of pistemology. I think that 574 00:45:14,880 --> 00:45:19,400 we have a worldview and all of our beliefs are interconnected. So the center 575 00:45:19,440 --> 00:45:22,920 of the web of beliefs in my view would be God and so and that's 576 00:45:22,920 --> 00:45:25,519 that. You could call God a foundation, But I'm not a self evident 577 00:45:25,599 --> 00:45:30,639 foundationalist, okay. And the last one here we have got I'll just see, 578 00:45:32,360 --> 00:45:37,320 knowledge is you know, foundationalist in a sense, all ideas, all 579 00:45:37,360 --> 00:45:43,199 knowledge is hierotical. It starts from something. It starts from the self evident 580 00:45:43,280 --> 00:45:47,440 otherwise, and which is self evident, and all knowledge is built on that. 581 00:45:47,519 --> 00:45:52,519 And the self evident is the facts of reality, including the existence of 582 00:45:52,519 --> 00:45:57,800 consciousness. And how do I know that? Because I'm conscious and I just 583 00:45:57,840 --> 00:46:02,280 know I'm conscious. All of the universal claim though, and it's a universal 584 00:46:02,280 --> 00:46:06,559 claim absolutely to university, Well, how do you adjustify universals if you're an 585 00:46:06,559 --> 00:46:13,360 empiricist through you know, induction. Induction universalizes empirical claims. So, uh, 586 00:46:13,960 --> 00:46:15,760 Human's point is that you can't get is wrong. I mean, I 587 00:46:15,760 --> 00:46:21,320 I know Human's point, but human is wrong, and I'm positing. I'm 588 00:46:21,360 --> 00:46:23,519 positing, and it's not me. I'm Rand is positing. I'm just doing 589 00:46:23,519 --> 00:46:28,800 a pretty bad job of explaining who ideas. But I'm ran is positing a 590 00:46:29,039 --> 00:46:36,320 new epistemology, a different peristemology. Uh, and it's rejecting Human's claim. 591 00:46:37,280 --> 00:46:40,880 I suggest that people, you know, go go to the source and don't 592 00:46:40,920 --> 00:46:45,599 take me. Uh. But Rand's introduction to Objectives of Prismology is a great 593 00:46:45,599 --> 00:46:50,719 place to start if you're interested in whole particular epistemology. It's a it's a 594 00:46:50,719 --> 00:46:53,400 great book. Uh. And Objectives of the Philosophy of Iran, which is 595 00:46:53,440 --> 00:47:00,719 behind me by Lanta Peacock. You know, great summary uh and x explanation 596 00:47:00,800 --> 00:47:06,480 of who ideas awesome. Last few super chats here we have got Rigovich says 597 00:47:06,519 --> 00:47:09,199 watching this makes me so grateful. I finally did meaningful research into the Bible, 598 00:47:09,440 --> 00:47:14,000 Bible, et cetera, became a Christian. God. Bless you. 599 00:47:14,079 --> 00:47:17,719 Jay gord Els Snake TV fellow Ossie here who escaped, Well done and good 600 00:47:17,719 --> 00:47:22,840 one Motorsport's great to see good one in the chat. Solid work jayder I 601 00:47:22,320 --> 00:47:28,320 I appreciate the clarity of your argument. So, gents, following on from 602 00:47:28,320 --> 00:47:31,199 this, I believe yeahon you had a few things to say about Jay's previous 603 00:47:31,239 --> 00:47:34,920 statements. And if you guys want to just go back and forth here, 604 00:47:34,960 --> 00:47:37,719 we can do two minutes on, two minutes off. That's the best way 605 00:47:37,840 --> 00:47:40,320 to do it. Starting with your on Yeah, I mean, I just 606 00:47:40,400 --> 00:47:45,840 want to say I'll agree with Jay on the importance of story. I think 607 00:47:45,880 --> 00:47:52,840 story is super important. Story is a way to conquertize very abstract ideas and 608 00:47:52,880 --> 00:47:59,480 make them real for us in a in a way that's easily digestible. Again, 609 00:47:59,639 --> 00:48:04,119 I'm and wrote stories atle shrug the fountain head o stories. So I'm 610 00:48:04,159 --> 00:48:08,039 a big proponent of using art. But of course art, good art, 611 00:48:08,440 --> 00:48:13,079 art that has any kind of meaning. Who realizes heavily on reason, rationality, 612 00:48:13,559 --> 00:48:16,559 on on, on all of that, it's only it's only so called 613 00:48:16,599 --> 00:48:21,719 modern artists who think splashing paint on a canvas, uh, and and where 614 00:48:21,719 --> 00:48:27,000 you don't need to think, uh, you know, only they divove the 615 00:48:27,039 --> 00:48:32,000 aesthetic experience from from reason and rationality. So yeah, stories myths uh are 616 00:48:32,079 --> 00:48:39,400 super crucial. You know, the the myth of of of the Bible is 617 00:48:39,480 --> 00:48:45,679 survived for a very very long time in spite of its many contradictions and absurdities, 618 00:48:45,960 --> 00:48:50,960 because it provides people with some primitive explanation for what's going on in the 619 00:48:50,960 --> 00:48:55,800 world. Yeah, we have We now have science and a better understanding of 620 00:48:55,840 --> 00:49:00,239 reason. Time to outgrow it. Trying to move on, all right, 621 00:49:00,400 --> 00:49:10,519 Jake two minutes. Yeah, I mean, I I actually like an Rand's 622 00:49:10,559 --> 00:49:14,880 book on aesthetics quite a bit. I read it maybe fifteen years ago. 623 00:49:14,960 --> 00:49:16,599 I thought it was really good. It relies quite a bit on a lot 624 00:49:16,639 --> 00:49:22,360 of Aristotelian approaches to aesthetic which is fine. I'm not anti art. We 625 00:49:22,400 --> 00:49:29,400 have a lot of appreciation for Aristotle in our worldview, as well as Plato. 626 00:49:29,639 --> 00:49:32,960 So but again, I think maybe what's being missed is that, you 627 00:49:34,000 --> 00:49:37,480 know, if we think about something like the universal claims that are being made, 628 00:49:38,360 --> 00:49:40,199 and I understand he would say, well, you need to look at 629 00:49:40,199 --> 00:49:46,519 Anan Rand's you know, reassessment of Epistemology or whatever. That's that's fine, 630 00:49:46,519 --> 00:49:50,800 But I mean, you know, Hume makes this point because if we are 631 00:49:50,840 --> 00:49:55,000 empiricist, if we're approaching things from an empirical vantage point, then we might 632 00:49:55,039 --> 00:49:59,599 want to go back to Aristotle or something like that, to try to justify 633 00:50:00,360 --> 00:50:04,559 the existence of substances or essences in the world. Perhaps, But the question 634 00:50:04,679 --> 00:50:08,840 is not ought we do that, but can we justify doing that? And 635 00:50:08,960 --> 00:50:14,880 if we only have our individual experiences, because of course his philosophy begins with 636 00:50:15,360 --> 00:50:19,679 and ultimately ends with the individual, then I can never get to a universal 637 00:50:19,760 --> 00:50:23,360 state of affairs from a bunch of particulars. So even if I have one 638 00:50:23,400 --> 00:50:29,400 thousand experiences of you know, this or that phenomena, it still doesn't grant 639 00:50:29,440 --> 00:50:34,559 me the justification that that's a universal state of affairs. So, in other 640 00:50:34,599 --> 00:50:38,639 words, it's another type of religious commitment. And that's why I believe all 641 00:50:38,719 --> 00:50:43,960 of us have religious commitments. Even if we think that we're completely and purely 642 00:50:44,119 --> 00:50:51,039 rational, ultimately we're believing in things that are unjustifiable all up yere on. 643 00:50:52,000 --> 00:50:55,719 Yeah, I mean, the reality is that every child does this and knows 644 00:50:55,840 --> 00:51:00,800 this and experiences this. Universalized is constantly. You know, if you have 645 00:51:00,920 --> 00:51:06,079 if you have a kid and you watch them interact with the world, they 646 00:51:06,079 --> 00:51:12,960 are constantly experimenting and generalizing. They're constantly forming new concepts that are universal. 647 00:51:13,880 --> 00:51:16,960 You know, they'll drop they'll drop their spoon on the floor over and over 648 00:51:17,000 --> 00:51:22,920 and over again until they get gravity. They get it, and it's now 649 00:51:23,039 --> 00:51:30,039 universal and they don't have to they don't have to won the next time when 650 00:51:30,039 --> 00:51:32,360 they're dropping something. You know, after a while, they you know, 651 00:51:32,440 --> 00:51:38,519 they universalize it over They form universal concepts of chairs, furniture, lots of 652 00:51:38,559 --> 00:51:45,000 things. Indeed, that's what the human mind does. It takes the concrete 653 00:51:45,039 --> 00:51:51,159 experiences, it forms concepts. Concepts are in a sense universal. That's how 654 00:51:51,360 --> 00:51:57,840 the human mind works through experience generalization. Again, if you redine Rand, 655 00:51:58,360 --> 00:52:02,119 you know, the forming of const is crucial to all epistemology. And yet 656 00:52:02,320 --> 00:52:08,079 it is a process that philosophers beforehood did not understand well and and now we 657 00:52:08,119 --> 00:52:12,800 have an understanding of it. So but it is a form of generalization that 658 00:52:13,079 --> 00:52:19,800 again children do when they're very young, not because they're inspired by some structure 659 00:52:19,840 --> 00:52:24,320 that God is embedded in them, but because they observe reality. And this 660 00:52:24,400 --> 00:52:30,559 is how a reason, this is the way human reason works. So, 661 00:52:30,039 --> 00:52:37,960 you know, philosophers like to, you know, philosophize if you will. 662 00:52:37,960 --> 00:52:40,960 They like to come up with objections to all all kinds of things. But 663 00:52:42,039 --> 00:52:45,639 all you have to do is observe reality and observe human beings and you can 664 00:52:45,760 --> 00:52:49,159 see what is actually going on. You can observe what is actually going on, 665 00:52:49,679 --> 00:52:52,960 and to question ability to generalize. Okay, I'll jump this time. 666 00:52:53,079 --> 00:52:58,400 Maybe gravity won't work this time, because God forbid, I can't universalize, 667 00:52:58,559 --> 00:53:00,719 really, and I have to be a religionist. I have to believe in 668 00:53:00,800 --> 00:53:07,519 God not to jump off the building a right if I do. Yeah, 669 00:53:07,559 --> 00:53:12,280 So I think that a couple of things going on here. So the fact 670 00:53:12,280 --> 00:53:15,639 that that's the way that it works, that doesn't tell us of the modality 671 00:53:15,679 --> 00:53:20,679 of it, of the metaphysical status of it, the ontological status of these 672 00:53:20,719 --> 00:53:23,039 things. And that's the question that I'm asking, the ontological status and the 673 00:53:23,239 --> 00:53:28,039 justification for believing in universals. And you keep replying with, well, that's 674 00:53:28,079 --> 00:53:30,880 just what we do. Well, you said something like kids have always done 675 00:53:30,960 --> 00:53:37,119 this. They you know, drop a toy and then they universalize from that. 676 00:53:37,280 --> 00:53:40,079 I don't deny that that's what we do. But that's a fallacy. 677 00:53:40,159 --> 00:53:44,199 That's the appeal to tradition fallacy. The fact that we've always done something has 678 00:53:44,239 --> 00:53:46,079 nothing to do with whether it could be done, whether it is true, 679 00:53:46,280 --> 00:53:50,360 or whether we can give an account for that. So there's a difference between 680 00:53:50,360 --> 00:53:52,840 giving an account for something and telling a story about the fact that we did 681 00:53:52,840 --> 00:53:59,079 it. So that's the point of epistemology is epistemology is always concerned with epistemic 682 00:53:59,199 --> 00:54:02,760 justification. And to say that, well, these are of truth questions if 683 00:54:02,760 --> 00:54:07,400 philosophers ask, and we shouldn't really be that worried about it. Well, 684 00:54:07,559 --> 00:54:12,079 now these are the questions that are asked in debates because you and your worldview 685 00:54:12,079 --> 00:54:15,880 would like to have certain self evident axiom from which to build your system, 686 00:54:15,360 --> 00:54:19,840 and you seem to not want those to be questioned. Which I don't mind 687 00:54:19,880 --> 00:54:22,000 having God question. I'm happy to debate and defend the existence of God. 688 00:54:22,039 --> 00:54:25,920 But what that suggests to me is that the self evident axioms that you have 689 00:54:25,960 --> 00:54:30,840 as the foundation of your position are dogmas for you. When I ask you 690 00:54:30,880 --> 00:54:35,000 for the dessercation for them, you say that, well, the you can't 691 00:54:35,039 --> 00:54:37,480 justify the whole point of an acxiom is that it is indeed self evident, 692 00:54:37,800 --> 00:54:44,239 and trying to refute it in its refutation, that's the nature of actionioms, 693 00:54:45,519 --> 00:54:49,760 okay, then God exists a definition of the variation of God for you, 694 00:54:49,800 --> 00:54:52,159 as an acxiom. I get that. I get that. It's an Actually 695 00:54:52,280 --> 00:54:53,719 you understand that. That's why it doesn't work in a debate to just say 696 00:54:53,760 --> 00:55:00,800 self evident. One, it's it's obviously not self evident. And b knowing 697 00:55:00,840 --> 00:55:04,880 God, you know this is not a self refutation. I can I can 698 00:55:05,000 --> 00:55:09,760 deal with the world with your position is self evident, ignoring the existence of 699 00:55:09,800 --> 00:55:14,639 reality. I can't deal with the world by gnoing my consciousness. Those uh 700 00:55:14,880 --> 00:55:19,480 you know, they they they it's yourself. You're refuting them by trying to 701 00:55:19,519 --> 00:55:22,079 deny them with God. That doesn't work that way. I can easily deny 702 00:55:22,119 --> 00:55:29,000 God. Well, but what you did was just keep reasserting your position as 703 00:55:29,039 --> 00:55:31,599 self evident and understanding a debate. I can do the same thing. And 704 00:55:31,639 --> 00:55:35,599 that's why that doesn't work in a debate. No, by the way, 705 00:55:36,079 --> 00:55:40,159 asserting things that debate is if we don't have a even a basic agreement on 706 00:55:40,199 --> 00:55:45,000 what constitutes knowledge, it's very difficult to debate. I agree, And so 707 00:55:45,119 --> 00:55:49,119 I'm looking at you don't have that understand But I mean, you appeal to 708 00:55:49,239 --> 00:55:52,960 universals. You've appealed to universals. They're just something that we do. Okay, 709 00:55:52,000 --> 00:55:55,239 Well, then God is just something that we do. Fine, is 710 00:55:55,239 --> 00:55:59,679 something that we do That why it's a bad argument is and then I don't 711 00:55:59,679 --> 00:56:05,880 do, and many people don't do and don't have to do anybody illustrating just 712 00:56:06,000 --> 00:56:08,400 quickly, Guys, it appears as though we're at a bit of a loggerheads 713 00:56:08,679 --> 00:56:14,599 because we we can't quite get past this one, because this would take a 714 00:56:14,639 --> 00:56:17,000 whole another rabbit hole. So I mean, I think that this is probably 715 00:56:17,000 --> 00:56:22,960 a good place to wrap it up. This has been extremely entertaining. Perhaps 716 00:56:22,960 --> 00:56:27,039 if we'd like to give a final statement just a few minutes, going back 717 00:56:27,039 --> 00:56:31,880 to the original question of can human civilization survive on science and rationality alone? 718 00:56:31,920 --> 00:56:37,800 Sticking to the question can we survive? Will we not survive on this science 719 00:56:37,840 --> 00:56:42,239 and rationality alone? Starting off with you j two minutes on the clock. 720 00:56:43,119 --> 00:56:45,440 Yeah, a little bit longer than in the course of this discussion. I 721 00:56:45,519 --> 00:56:50,960 think what we've seen is that every world, the every position is going to 722 00:56:51,039 --> 00:56:53,480 have to rely on some sort of starting point. For me, those starting 723 00:56:53,480 --> 00:56:58,559 points are not self evident. They're part of a larger worldview or web of 724 00:56:58,639 --> 00:57:02,400 beliefs, and so well as an epistemic holest I would say that all of 725 00:57:02,400 --> 00:57:06,599 my beliefs are kind of interconnected, and at the center of that web would 726 00:57:06,639 --> 00:57:08,519 be the existence of God. And so God is the foundation if we want 727 00:57:08,559 --> 00:57:14,280 to use that terminology for the transcendental categories, or the preconditions of knowledge which 728 00:57:14,320 --> 00:57:17,599 make knowledge possible. The preconditions of knowledge are not physical, they're not material, 729 00:57:17,639 --> 00:57:22,800 they're not under a microscope. They're prior to the doing of science. 730 00:57:22,800 --> 00:57:28,639 They're prior to the doing of mathematics and reasoning and so forth. They ground 731 00:57:28,679 --> 00:57:31,360 the possibility of knowledge at all. And if we ask a further question, 732 00:57:31,480 --> 00:57:36,280 where do we get those things from those transcendental preconditions, those categories? How 733 00:57:36,280 --> 00:57:38,400 do they come to be? Where are they? Right? Aristotolists these categories 734 00:57:38,440 --> 00:57:43,639 at the beginning of his book categories. Well, they have to be the 735 00:57:43,679 --> 00:57:47,440 structures of the world, really in the world, and man's mind can really 736 00:57:47,480 --> 00:57:52,599 tap into them, or else knowledge is not impossible. Do we have knowledge? 737 00:57:52,599 --> 00:57:55,239 It appears that we do, and so therefore this must be the structure 738 00:57:55,280 --> 00:57:59,719 of the world. To have predication, to have meaning, to have sentences, 739 00:57:59,760 --> 00:58:02,119 to have reasoning at all, and so for those things to be the 740 00:58:02,159 --> 00:58:06,039 case, there's nothing that prevents me from asking a further question, Well, 741 00:58:06,280 --> 00:58:12,000 what grounds and structures the categories of the world, the universals, et cetera, 742 00:58:13,039 --> 00:58:15,239 What holds them together? Well, the only thing that could work to 743 00:58:15,320 --> 00:58:21,480 do that would be an omniscient mind, a personal God who gives intentionality and 744 00:58:21,519 --> 00:58:24,760 telos to all of reality, and so all of reality has purpose, it 745 00:58:24,800 --> 00:58:29,480 has meaning, it has regularity due to the existence of God. In a 746 00:58:29,519 --> 00:58:31,840 position where you don't have that, we essentially just have man's mind as an 747 00:58:31,880 --> 00:58:39,239 individual, atomized unit trying to sort of put together these pieces from finite details 748 00:58:39,239 --> 00:58:45,880 of experience, with no universal justification or no universality at all. And what 749 00:58:45,000 --> 00:58:51,000 happens then is that man gets lost in a sea of infinitude and nothingness and 750 00:58:51,079 --> 00:58:55,480 meaninglessness, and so really his desires, his beliefs about the world, his 751 00:58:55,639 --> 00:59:00,760 myths, his constructs, et cetera, they're all relativized. Ultimately we end 752 00:59:00,800 --> 00:59:04,559 up in some form of nihilism, because all there is is really my own 753 00:59:04,920 --> 00:59:07,880 raging against the dying of the light or whatever the poem says. And so 754 00:59:08,519 --> 00:59:14,920 that worldview can't give an account for the very things that presuppose that science and 755 00:59:15,000 --> 00:59:20,920 tech presuppose science of tech presupposed mathematics, universals, laws of logic, et 756 00:59:21,000 --> 00:59:23,159 cetera, structure and meaning in the world. Think about something like Mandel broad 757 00:59:23,159 --> 00:59:27,760 sets as a great example. There's a great lecture by doctor Jason Lyle on 758 00:59:27,800 --> 00:59:31,159 Mantel broad sets and he explains how these are actually mathematical discoveries, they're not 759 00:59:31,199 --> 00:59:35,880 creations of the human mind. So well, I agree that the human mind 760 00:59:35,920 --> 00:59:38,920 has a lot of potentiality and power to work in the world, to do 761 00:59:39,079 --> 00:59:44,440 tech and to do excuse me, to create technologies and to create societies that 762 00:59:44,519 --> 00:59:51,760 hopefully will flourish. We also need objective ethics, metaphysics, and objective justified 763 00:59:51,840 --> 00:59:55,440 knowledge in order to say how we have a good life versus bad life, 764 00:59:55,639 --> 00:59:59,920 how we have true versus false, how we have the good versus the evil. 765 01:00:00,119 --> 01:00:07,320 Those are metaphysical claims and an empiricist, sort of reductionist type of worldview. 766 01:00:07,639 --> 01:00:10,719 A scientistic type of worldview can't actually tell us what the good is. 767 01:00:12,960 --> 01:00:21,039 Thank you very much, Jay, You're on So I think Jay's argument is 768 01:00:21,519 --> 01:00:27,519 basically a circular argument that makes no sense. It relies on the existence of 769 01:00:27,559 --> 01:00:32,039 God in order to have logic to prove that that God exists, and everything 770 01:00:32,039 --> 01:00:37,199 else kind of flows from this starting point, which is an arbitrary assertion. 771 01:00:37,840 --> 01:00:42,199 The reality is that good versus evil is not a metaphysical claim. It is 772 01:00:42,199 --> 01:00:45,239 an a mall claim, so one has to it is an ethical claim, 773 01:00:45,280 --> 01:00:50,840 not a metaphysical claim. God and good and evil don't exist as entities out 774 01:00:50,920 --> 01:00:54,159 there in the world as metaphysical beings. They are in the context of human 775 01:00:54,199 --> 01:00:59,400 life. They're in the context of what is good for what, for whom, 776 01:00:59,679 --> 01:01:04,039 for what purpose? There is no good beyond a good for something for 777 01:01:04,159 --> 01:01:12,719 somebody in some particular context. So what good is universal? It is only 778 01:01:12,840 --> 01:01:16,679 universal within that context of human life. It is there is no good beyond 779 01:01:16,719 --> 01:01:22,760 human life. There is no good outside of human life. So if we 780 01:01:22,760 --> 01:01:28,000 care about civilization, if we care about life, then what we need is 781 01:01:28,039 --> 01:01:32,280 absolutely we need an objective universal ethics. We need an objective universal ethics. 782 01:01:32,320 --> 01:01:38,559 And the only way to discover a objective universal ethics is to look at reality, 783 01:01:38,599 --> 01:01:40,880 to look at reality, and to look at the nature of man. 784 01:01:42,480 --> 01:01:45,559 What is it that makes it possible for human beings to survive? We are 785 01:01:45,559 --> 01:01:51,119 out there in nature. We don't have the genetic code in order to tell 786 01:01:51,199 --> 01:01:53,920 us how to live and how not to live. We don't have an innate 787 01:01:54,000 --> 01:02:00,719 ability to discover, to discover how to survive, what ones do is we 788 01:02:01,159 --> 01:02:06,079 must engage our rational mind, We must engage our reason. This is an 789 01:02:06,119 --> 01:02:10,679 active process, a process that requires free will. It requires volitional activation of 790 01:02:10,719 --> 01:02:15,440 our mind. And we need to discover the means by which we survive human 791 01:02:15,480 --> 01:02:21,760 survival, individual life. And surviving is the good. That which threatens human 792 01:02:21,760 --> 01:02:27,199 life, that which destroys human life is evil. That is the definition of 793 01:02:27,199 --> 01:02:30,000 good and evil. These are not metaphysical concepts. They're in the context of 794 01:02:30,039 --> 01:02:36,559 human life. So objective morality is that morality that takes into account the fact 795 01:02:37,119 --> 01:02:42,599 the fact that human beings are rational animal that in order to survive they must 796 01:02:42,800 --> 01:02:47,360 think, they must observe reality, integrate the knowledge from reality, and and 797 01:02:47,360 --> 01:02:52,960 and you know, manipulate the world. That they manipulate the atoms in the 798 01:02:52,960 --> 01:02:57,400 world out there in order to produce the things necessary for their own survival, 799 01:02:57,400 --> 01:03:00,360 for their own existence, and ultimately for their own uh flourishing. The only 800 01:03:00,440 --> 01:03:06,480 way to come up with an objective reality is through observation, is through study 801 01:03:06,519 --> 01:03:10,480 of man, study of reality. You know, engaging in the study of 802 01:03:10,519 --> 01:03:16,000 God does not lead you to morality. Christian morality is not morality. It 803 01:03:16,679 --> 01:03:21,360 is not helpful, it is not useful, and it doesn't actually produce a 804 01:03:21,480 --> 01:03:25,119 human flourishing, a human success. What we need is to reconceive morality. 805 01:03:25,119 --> 01:03:30,320 What we need is to universal life morality based on the facts of reality and 806 01:03:30,320 --> 01:03:35,960 the facts of the nature of man as a rational being. Rationality is at 807 01:03:35,960 --> 01:03:40,880 the corn at the center of any progress that we make towards civilization and towards 808 01:03:40,960 --> 01:03:46,639 maintaining whatever civilization we still have left. Okay, brilliant. I want to 809 01:03:46,679 --> 01:03:52,320 remind everybody to make sure you check out Yaron and Jay down below. I'm 810 01:03:52,320 --> 01:03:53,400 going to quickly read out a few super chats. I think we've got a 811 01:03:53,440 --> 01:03:59,079 few questions from the audience here. The first one is from Justin Henley, 812 01:03:59,079 --> 01:04:01,679 who says, fier, how would you feel if you didn't have breakfast this 813 01:04:01,760 --> 01:04:11,920 morning? Hungry? Very good. Next one is from just another Canadian says 814 01:04:12,000 --> 01:04:14,599 great stream more like this please, thank you very much. We'll get as 815 01:04:14,639 --> 01:04:18,000 many as we can going. Next one is from Spartan up North says grade 816 01:04:18,000 --> 01:04:23,440 a prattle from Brooks, but we're still waiting for a justification for his assertions. 817 01:04:23,480 --> 01:04:28,159 Do you want to respond to that? If you're looking for anything beyond 818 01:04:28,800 --> 01:04:33,800 reality exists and you have the ability to know it through your consciousness, and 819 01:04:34,239 --> 01:04:38,880 reason is the faculty that allows you to be aware of it. That is 820 01:04:38,880 --> 01:04:43,239 the justification. If you need more than that, then you're seeking something that 821 01:04:43,280 --> 01:04:45,400 doesn't exist, and you're in the realm of mysticism, not in the realm 822 01:04:45,440 --> 01:04:48,840 of reason and rationality. All right, and guys, just quickly, we're 823 01:04:48,880 --> 01:04:55,039 going to be also running a poll on the YouTube live chat to see who 824 01:04:55,159 --> 01:04:57,920 you, guys found more convincing, whose arguments you found more convincing. So 825 01:04:57,960 --> 01:05:01,719 the next super chat we've got here is from Justin again says for yeronn Can 826 01:05:01,760 --> 01:05:08,760 science tell me a painting is a painting is beautiful and if it be immoral 827 01:05:08,840 --> 01:05:12,480 to destroy a beautiful painting? No, science cannot tell you any of that. 828 01:05:13,239 --> 01:05:15,079 I'm not a scientist. I don't believe science can tell you everything, 829 01:05:15,239 --> 01:05:21,159 but reason can't. That is, if you a reason allows you to study 830 01:05:21,639 --> 01:05:28,760 aesthetics, it allows you to evaluate pieces of art, to differentiate between what 831 01:05:28,880 --> 01:05:31,480 is good art and what is bad, to gain an understanding of what is 832 01:05:31,519 --> 01:05:35,519 beautiful and what is not uh. And it is only through reason that we 833 01:05:35,519 --> 01:05:40,480 can discover what is moral and what is not? The ending of his question 834 01:05:40,519 --> 01:05:45,519 I think related to morality. So what is beautiful is discoverable through reason? 835 01:05:45,719 --> 01:05:50,239 And is uh what is good? What is moral? Is discoverable through reason? 836 01:05:51,559 --> 01:05:56,559 Can we discover what is category? Jay? Can we discover what is 837 01:05:56,559 --> 01:06:02,360 beautiful through reason? I would say that there's a lot of ambiguity about reason 838 01:06:03,199 --> 01:06:08,360 when we've had this conversation. The whole history of philosophy is one of the 839 01:06:08,360 --> 01:06:14,079 most debated and sort of ambiguous terms. I would agree with his initial definition 840 01:06:14,480 --> 01:06:17,960 at the beginning that usually what we mean is a faculty that man possesses to 841 01:06:18,159 --> 01:06:24,400 understand the world. So reasoning as a faculty is one thing. Reason as 842 01:06:24,920 --> 01:06:29,880 a reason quhah reason asking the question of what reason itself is, or the 843 01:06:29,920 --> 01:06:33,440 power of reasoning, or the what we're appealing to the laws of logic, 844 01:06:33,599 --> 01:06:36,639 the laws of thought, et cetera. That's another type of question, that's 845 01:06:36,679 --> 01:06:42,280 the metaphysical question about the ontological status of those things. That's a lot of 846 01:06:42,320 --> 01:06:45,400 what I was asking in this debate. And I would say that while reason 847 01:06:45,480 --> 01:06:50,519 can help us assess things, it itself is limited in what it can tell 848 01:06:50,599 --> 01:06:58,559 us about the ultimate things like the good, the true, the beautiful and 849 01:06:58,599 --> 01:07:01,079 so, and I would agree. Earlier he was talking about I would agree 850 01:07:01,079 --> 01:07:05,039 and disagree. He said that the good is in a human life, but 851 01:07:05,119 --> 01:07:09,719 it's also universal, but it's not a metaphysical thing. Well, if you 852 01:07:09,760 --> 01:07:13,360 say that the good is part of life and it's universal, you've already made 853 01:07:13,400 --> 01:07:16,840 two metaphysical claims about what it is, and it's where it exists. So 854 01:07:16,880 --> 01:07:23,519 it is a metaphysical thing. Okay, And moving on, We've got Maximus 855 01:07:23,519 --> 01:07:27,679 for five dollars, says, if a society repeats evil and evil, then 856 01:07:27,679 --> 01:07:31,559 evil becomes universal. Do you have universal experience of all those particular evils? 857 01:07:31,639 --> 01:07:39,000 You're on no idea what he's asking. If a society of repeats evil and 858 01:07:39,119 --> 01:07:42,920 it becomes universal, then that's a very sad state of affairs, and a 859 01:07:42,920 --> 01:07:45,480 lot of us die. You know. I don't know what to do beyond 860 01:07:45,519 --> 01:07:48,920 that, And and those of us who believe in the good should fight against 861 01:07:48,920 --> 01:07:55,519 that evil. Can I respond to that too or not? I think the 862 01:07:55,679 --> 01:08:01,199 question is getting at the heart of he's asking a hypothetical addressing the earlier critique, 863 01:08:01,239 --> 01:08:05,880 which is that if with what makes something attained the status of a universal 864 01:08:06,119 --> 01:08:13,039 is repeated individual experience then, by that argument, repeated individual experience of doing 865 01:08:13,079 --> 01:08:15,800 evil would then make doing evil universal, So it's a defeater for the earlier 866 01:08:15,880 --> 01:08:20,840 claim. All right, fantastic, Well, gentlemen, I'll let you go 867 01:08:20,920 --> 01:08:24,600 for now. Whoever's watching this, if you guys want to stick around after, 868 01:08:24,680 --> 01:08:26,680 I'm going to have a little bit of a chat with you guys, 869 01:08:26,680 --> 01:08:29,359 and you guys can throw some chats my way and we'll talk about the debate 870 01:08:29,399 --> 01:08:31,319 a little bit. But Jay, Yeah, I want to thank you guys 871 01:08:31,319 --> 01:08:34,119 so much for your time today. Appreciate you being a part of the first 872 01:08:34,159 --> 01:08:38,159 ever live debate on this channel, and I'd love to get you both back 873 01:08:38,159 --> 01:08:42,800 sometime. It was a great discussion. Appreciate you. Sure, take care 874 01:08:42,880 --> 01:09:36,000 guys. Alrighty, So it's nearly midnight over here in Bali, guys, 875 01:09:36,279 --> 01:09:42,479 so I mean probably past midnight by now. Actually, first ever Rattlesnake TV 876 01:09:42,840 --> 01:09:45,159 live debate. I cannot tell you how excited I've been to do these. 877 01:09:45,239 --> 01:09:48,840 This has literally been the goal of the channel since day one, to get 878 01:09:48,840 --> 01:09:54,720 some podcasts going and to eventually have people come on and debate live so we 879 01:09:54,720 --> 01:09:58,560 can create our own exclusive content. So I just wanted to read out a 880 01:09:58,560 --> 01:10:02,840 few of your chats here guys and whoever's in here discussing things and also put 881 01:10:02,880 --> 01:10:05,520 it in the chat. If you guys have any topics you'd like to see 882 01:10:05,560 --> 01:10:11,239 discussed, If you guys have any debaters or interlocutors you'd like to see appear 883 01:10:11,279 --> 01:10:13,880 on the channel, people who have maybe been on the podcast before. Would 884 01:10:13,880 --> 01:10:16,680 you like to see religion discussed? Would you like to see some woke he's 885 01:10:16,760 --> 01:10:20,680 on here? Would you like to see some BLM debates? What would we 886 01:10:20,840 --> 01:10:25,479 like to see? Absolutely anything? And also, Binny, did we get 887 01:10:25,520 --> 01:10:30,479 a read on the poll about who we thought won the debate? Ninety four 888 01:10:30,520 --> 01:10:35,399 percent thought Jay Dyer on the debate. That is pretty resounding. I mean, 889 01:10:35,399 --> 01:10:39,000 I'm not sure if this is just a lot of Jay's audience in here, 890 01:10:39,079 --> 01:10:44,600 but ninety four percent, guys, that's that's pretty significant. So yeah, 891 01:10:44,640 --> 01:10:45,520 guys, let me know in the comments, what have we got in 892 01:10:45,560 --> 01:10:50,720 any good comments coming in? All right, the rain is coming. It's 893 01:10:50,720 --> 01:10:55,199 self evident that you're on lost. I'm interested to know what you got Why 894 01:10:55,239 --> 01:10:58,640 you guys thought that you are on lost because there appeared to be a real 895 01:10:58,680 --> 01:11:04,359 conflict there and obviously being a Christian myself. I believe that the fundamental presupposition 896 01:11:04,479 --> 01:11:09,800 of Jay's worldview, in the sense that God is the creator of the universe 897 01:11:09,800 --> 01:11:12,359 and that's where we get our reason, that's where we get our rationality, 898 01:11:12,359 --> 01:11:17,479 that's where we get our morality, is correct, and that I obviously disagree 899 01:11:17,479 --> 01:11:21,079 with yeron that everything is just self evident and that there is no cause, 900 01:11:21,119 --> 01:11:27,399 there is no ought for that truth. So I would probably agree with Jay 901 01:11:27,640 --> 01:11:30,720 myself in that regard, but I'd be interested to know why you guys thought 902 01:11:30,319 --> 01:11:35,000 that someone's saying this. Jacob the Orthodox the Briar Wolfe says, that was 903 01:11:35,079 --> 01:11:39,199 your first. Dang good job man, Thank you very much, Bria Wilf, 904 01:11:39,199 --> 01:11:41,920 I appreciate that it was the first, but to be honest, guys, 905 01:11:41,920 --> 01:11:44,840 this has been in the making for months and months, and obviously I 906 01:11:44,840 --> 01:11:46,640 can only do this if you guys are in the live chat. We had 907 01:11:46,720 --> 01:11:50,000 up to six hundred of you at one point. I'm super super grateful for 908 01:11:50,039 --> 01:11:54,199 that. If we don't get people in the live chat and interacting and sending 909 01:11:54,199 --> 01:11:58,439 in super chats and everything, then it becomes impossible. So I really appreciate 910 01:11:58,479 --> 01:12:03,600 that. Darth Reevens says radlsneak TV try and get a woke one to argue 911 01:12:03,640 --> 01:12:09,119 with a reasonable person, so there are no jump cuts like with the videos. 912 01:12:09,600 --> 01:12:13,760 Yes, yes, well, I mean, unfortunately it's a bit hard 913 01:12:13,760 --> 01:12:15,439 to get the wokies sometimes, guys, they're not that open to debate. 914 01:12:15,800 --> 01:12:19,800 I don't I don't really know why that is. Maybe the worldview isn't isn't 915 01:12:19,840 --> 01:12:24,199 that easy to defend, But yeah, a little bit difficult to get some 916 01:12:24,840 --> 01:12:28,600 wokis on them. Hi says, Nah, there were a lot of atheists 917 01:12:28,640 --> 01:12:30,840 in the chat debating with people. So there were a lot of atheists and 918 01:12:30,840 --> 01:12:33,439 they're interesting. So with the poll, obviously ninety four percent in favor for 919 01:12:33,560 --> 01:12:39,640 Jadier and then six percent in favor for your on Brook after that, but 920 01:12:39,680 --> 01:12:42,279 there are still a lot of atheists in there arguing with people. So it 921 01:12:42,359 --> 01:12:45,600 looks like the chat was absolutely lit and and we're happy to see it. 922 01:12:45,840 --> 01:12:49,640 Helper of Men says he assumes his reasoning is better than someone else's when it 923 01:12:49,680 --> 01:12:55,159 comes to good and evil. Lull. Yeah. I mean, like I 924 01:12:55,159 --> 01:12:57,840 said, guys, obviously I'm as a moderator, I don't want to be 925 01:12:57,920 --> 01:13:00,920 biased during the debate, but now that we're it's a little bit more so 926 01:13:00,960 --> 01:13:04,439 of casual and free flowing. I can say that I also would agree with 927 01:13:04,520 --> 01:13:10,000 Jay in that sense that you know, I'd agree with you as well in 928 01:13:10,039 --> 01:13:14,000 terms of good and evil. That can't just be yes. We can experience 929 01:13:14,159 --> 01:13:15,880 and we can intuit good and evil in the world, But then where does 930 01:13:15,920 --> 01:13:20,680 that good and evil come from? C says even atheists would admit. J 931 01:13:20,840 --> 01:13:27,840 One, this isn't a bias of home court advantage. Kirol Well, kirol 932 01:13:28,199 --> 01:13:30,760 Let the name Dustin says best to let them speak as much as possible. 933 01:13:30,800 --> 01:13:34,640 Sorry, I thought you, I thought you was done and left. I 934 01:13:34,720 --> 01:13:38,319 think we let them speak as much as possible. I'm interested to know guys 935 01:13:38,640 --> 01:13:42,640 leave it in the chat. Now. Do you think that the opening statements 936 01:13:42,840 --> 01:13:45,319 were the best part. Do you think the cross examination was the best part, 937 01:13:45,520 --> 01:13:47,720 or do you think that it was best when they were just going back 938 01:13:47,760 --> 01:13:50,920 and forth and having two minutes each on the clock. Because the problem with 939 01:13:50,960 --> 01:13:56,199 these debates is that it can my first time moderating, obviously, but with 940 01:13:57,479 --> 01:13:59,880 these debates, obviously they can talk over each other a lot, like we 941 01:14:00,239 --> 01:14:02,279 in the cross examination. If it's not in person and it tends to lag 942 01:14:02,319 --> 01:14:05,640 a little bit, then you don't really know what anybody's saying, So perhaps 943 01:14:05,840 --> 01:14:11,920 the two minute might be the best, But I'd be interested to know what 944 01:14:12,600 --> 01:14:16,399 people are saying more cross examination. People are saying, no, two minutes 945 01:14:16,399 --> 01:14:21,319 should have been a blood bath. Two minutes was good cross examination. Yeah, 946 01:14:21,319 --> 01:14:23,960 that's I think. I think that it's good to have a mix of 947 01:14:23,960 --> 01:14:26,960 stuff in there. Anyway, Xavier says, all of his arguments so I 948 01:14:27,000 --> 01:14:29,800 can't read tonight, guys, I'm like literally retarded. I got to say 949 01:14:29,840 --> 01:14:32,640 light in my face and it's late at night. But Xavier says all of 950 01:14:32,640 --> 01:14:38,000 his arguments are circular, baseless claims about human experience, proposes the rationality on 951 01:14:38,039 --> 01:14:44,840 the basis of universals while simultaneously denying its metaphysical entailments. Yeron failed hard. 952 01:14:45,439 --> 01:14:50,279 Well, Yeah, I mean I wouldn't agree that. I think that Yeron 953 01:14:50,319 --> 01:14:54,159 did pretty well. To be honest, he has his worldview, and his 954 01:14:54,319 --> 01:14:59,319 worldview is essentially an objectivist worldview. And you know, the point of a 955 01:14:59,359 --> 01:15:01,239 debate is not exactly to change the other person's mind. The point of the 956 01:15:01,239 --> 01:15:04,399 debate is to convince the audience as much as possible, and obviously Jay did 957 01:15:04,439 --> 01:15:08,960 a good job of that. So yeah, I would agree with some of 958 01:15:09,000 --> 01:15:11,359 you guys are saying that both of them did well as well. I would 959 01:15:11,399 --> 01:15:14,960 agree with that. I think that both gentlemen were fantastic. Aero says, 960 01:15:14,960 --> 01:15:17,640 No, two minutes should have been a No. Two minutes should have been 961 01:15:17,680 --> 01:15:21,920 a blood bath. Two minutes should have been a blood bath. No, 962 01:15:23,000 --> 01:15:26,560 two minutes not really hundredent sure what you mean by that, Hi, says 963 01:15:26,640 --> 01:15:30,720 Jake. I thought you did a very good innovative move there by asking their 964 01:15:30,760 --> 01:15:32,680 opinions on what the topic means for the future and having them each give their 965 01:15:32,720 --> 01:15:36,079 take on it before resuming the debate. Thank you very much. I appreciate 966 01:15:36,119 --> 01:15:41,000 that, And we were actually going to get into the idea of transhumanism a 967 01:15:41,000 --> 01:15:45,880 little bit. But Yarn is not a somebody who supports the ideology of transhumanism. 968 01:15:46,399 --> 01:15:49,760 Jay is actually very well versed in transhumanism. But if you're not following, 969 01:15:49,840 --> 01:15:56,199 Jadey's YouTube page might be one of the one of my favorite YouTube channels 970 01:15:56,239 --> 01:16:00,840 in the whole world. The other day I watched a three our video that 971 01:16:00,920 --> 01:16:05,199 he did on Marx's dialectical materialism and fascinating. I was like, it's the 972 01:16:05,239 --> 01:16:10,760 only YouTube channel that I ever watch where I feel my retarded brain just getting 973 01:16:11,119 --> 01:16:14,359 bigger, and I feel all of the box all of the brain cells that 974 01:16:14,399 --> 01:16:15,920 I lost from getting punched in the head all those years with boxing, just 975 01:16:15,920 --> 01:16:20,079 coming back coming back into my brain. So it's good. I've got my 976 01:16:20,119 --> 01:16:25,920 notepad out. Make sure you're following Jay Chow's bott Thanks for the super chat 977 01:16:25,920 --> 01:16:29,439 before shows. But I appreciate that, says at Justin. The point is 978 01:16:29,840 --> 01:16:33,640 that in ancient times people needed to invent explanations for reality. Knowledge was extremely 979 01:16:34,399 --> 01:16:41,119 limited. I think that's to do with the atheist questions in it. In 980 01:16:41,840 --> 01:16:45,399 Yeah, okay, Justin Hanley says, for five dollars, thank you very 981 01:16:45,479 --> 01:16:48,560 much. Don't make me donate more money. I want to hear about BALI. 982 01:16:48,640 --> 01:16:51,000 I miss it. Love the culture there. Yes, so, I 983 01:16:51,000 --> 01:16:54,640 don't know if you guys following the channel, you might see that I've got 984 01:16:54,680 --> 01:16:58,800 a different set every month or so. That's because my brother Vinnie and I 985 01:16:58,840 --> 01:17:01,560 who's just right now to me here. He does all the producing and all 986 01:17:01,600 --> 01:17:04,880 the editing, and he manages all the team in that regard. He does 987 01:17:04,880 --> 01:17:12,760 all the smart stuff. We move around every single Jay Diyes in the chat 988 01:17:12,800 --> 01:17:15,720 there says thanks man, thank you, Jay. Appreciate you man. Yeah, 989 01:17:15,760 --> 01:17:18,279 we move around a lot, so we're in a new set every single 990 01:17:18,319 --> 01:17:23,800 month, and yeah it's great. So we're in Bali at the moment. 991 01:17:23,880 --> 01:17:26,520 We're going to be traveling a little bit of Europe in the next few months. 992 01:17:26,560 --> 01:17:29,399 Towards the end of the year, we are going to be going to 993 01:17:29,560 --> 01:17:32,199 South America doing Columbia. We met up with Lord Miles, if you guys 994 01:17:32,199 --> 01:17:36,600 know Lord Miles, the adventure of the guy who got imprisoned in Afghanistan for 995 01:17:36,640 --> 01:17:41,520 eight months. We met up with him in London. So there could be 996 01:17:41,560 --> 01:17:45,560 a few collaborations coming there on the Rattlesnake Travel channel as well, So keep 997 01:17:45,600 --> 01:17:48,159 your eye out for that, guys. We might be doing some danger tourism 998 01:17:48,640 --> 01:17:54,479 before the end of the year. Okay, So with that, guys, 999 01:17:54,560 --> 01:17:58,279 appreciate you all so much. Thank you for joining. Make sure to go 1000 01:17:58,319 --> 01:18:00,680 and check out the other guy's channels. They're going to be link below, 1001 01:18:00,960 --> 01:18:04,359 and also leave a comment on this video and just say who you'd like to 1002 01:18:04,359 --> 01:18:09,279 see on here, what topics you'd like to see discussed, and all of 1003 01:18:09,359 --> 01:18:13,600 the rest. So, guys, with that from Jake, this reddles Nativty 1004 01:18:13,840 --> 01:18:16,960 keeping you armed and dangerous. Take care guys,