1
00:00:00,240 --> 00:00:02,720
Speaker 1: To do this on YouTube. Can you guys hear me?

2
00:00:03,000 --> 00:00:07,799
Is a sound good because I don't have all my

3
00:00:07,839 --> 00:00:10,199
equipment with me when we're on the road. So as

4
00:00:10,240 --> 00:00:15,679
you guys know, we'll be en route doing many big

5
00:00:16,039 --> 00:00:19,559
podcasts and that will be in the next few weeks.

6
00:00:19,640 --> 00:00:22,079
So we got Rouselin, we got Jamie Kennedy, we got

7
00:00:22,079 --> 00:00:28,399
whatever podcast, we got Hodge Twins, Sam Tripoli, all coming

8
00:00:28,440 --> 00:00:30,000
up in the next few weeks. And then I got

9
00:00:30,000 --> 00:00:37,840
the debate with a postate profit on Western intelligence support

10
00:00:37,920 --> 00:00:46,000
for ISIS and al Kada, and I have an extremely

11
00:00:46,039 --> 00:00:48,520
bad science infection which I think has pretty much kind

12
00:00:48,520 --> 00:00:54,679
of gone away. So I'm using my old tech. Hopefully

13
00:00:54,719 --> 00:00:59,039
this will work good. And I apologize for being a

14
00:00:59,079 --> 00:01:02,679
little a little out of it, but even being a

15
00:01:02,719 --> 00:01:04,680
little out of it, I can still, I think, manage

16
00:01:04,680 --> 00:01:07,920
a debate. And so we're going to be bringing on

17
00:01:08,159 --> 00:01:11,359
the ap debate is June second. For those that are asking,

18
00:01:12,640 --> 00:01:20,879
it'll be Jake Rattlesnake Channel and yeah, so today we're

19
00:01:20,959 --> 00:01:24,719
going to bring up Fabian Liberty, who's been discussing the

20
00:01:24,760 --> 00:01:29,719
possibility of a debate with me for many a few weeks.

21
00:01:29,719 --> 00:01:34,159
I think in terms of DMS back and forth. So

22
00:01:34,239 --> 00:01:36,719
let me bring him up and then we'll figure out

23
00:01:36,719 --> 00:01:39,840
how we want to do the parameters of this. I think,

24
00:01:41,359 --> 00:01:44,159
I mean, we can do it however he wants to do.

25
00:01:44,480 --> 00:01:46,439
I know that he's already kind of had this discussion

26
00:01:46,480 --> 00:01:49,640
with both Andrew and Jim Bob, and I know he'd

27
00:01:49,680 --> 00:01:51,640
like to talk about TAG too, So if we want

28
00:01:51,640 --> 00:01:55,439
to split it up into two different topics, libertarian rights

29
00:01:55,439 --> 00:01:59,400
philosophy and tag, we can. If he wants to move

30
00:01:59,439 --> 00:02:01,799
on to something like tag. What's up man? How you doing?

31
00:02:05,319 --> 00:02:06,719
You just got to unmute hear me?

32
00:02:08,479 --> 00:02:10,240
Speaker 2: All right, sorry every time I try and do space,

33
00:02:11,680 --> 00:02:13,520
so hopefully that doesn't.

34
00:02:15,240 --> 00:02:15,800
Speaker 1: Can you hear me?

35
00:02:17,000 --> 00:02:17,879
Speaker 2: Yeah? Can you hear me?

36
00:02:18,240 --> 00:02:18,439
Speaker 1: Yeah?

37
00:02:18,639 --> 00:02:24,080
Speaker 2: Not good? Okay, Well no I was I was just saying, yeah, sorry, yeah, No.

38
00:02:24,280 --> 00:02:28,000
I I initiated this conversation or this debate or whatever

39
00:02:28,479 --> 00:02:32,039
picked up. You know, I saw you debate many moons

40
00:02:32,039 --> 00:02:35,360
ago again slick with Zulu, and that felt like that

41
00:02:35,400 --> 00:02:39,000
debate didn't go anywhere, well because you you left after

42
00:02:39,039 --> 00:02:42,240
getting frustrated for whatever reason.

43
00:02:42,960 --> 00:02:45,680
Speaker 1: Well, the reason I the reason I love, the reason

44
00:02:45,719 --> 00:02:49,000
I left was that there was a would you rather

45
00:02:49,120 --> 00:02:53,199
try this on? If this is going to be spotty

46
00:02:53,240 --> 00:02:55,159
here connection wise. We could try to do this on

47
00:02:55,240 --> 00:02:58,280
collab cam on video. Would you rather do that or

48
00:02:58,360 --> 00:03:00,439
just go with what we got I have?

49
00:03:00,719 --> 00:03:01,680
Speaker 2: I don't even know what that is.

50
00:03:03,080 --> 00:03:06,840
Speaker 1: So basically it's just stream yard orcume me stream labs.

51
00:03:07,280 --> 00:03:10,159
It's just an in browser link that allows you to

52
00:03:10,199 --> 00:03:13,840
do video discussions. So if you're on your channel streaming

53
00:03:13,919 --> 00:03:15,680
or whatever, you can get No.

54
00:03:15,719 --> 00:03:17,840
Speaker 2: I'm not streaming. I'll be streaming later on to night.

55
00:03:17,960 --> 00:03:19,159
So it's it's fine. We can say.

56
00:03:20,360 --> 00:03:22,639
Speaker 1: It's just that it's your your sound cuts in and

57
00:03:22,639 --> 00:03:24,879
out towards the end of every sentence that you make.

58
00:03:26,039 --> 00:03:26,800
Are you on heavy hair?

59
00:03:27,199 --> 00:03:28,199
Speaker 2: I'll eat up on my mic.

60
00:03:30,319 --> 00:03:32,719
Speaker 1: Yeah. So the reason I left was because I was

61
00:03:32,759 --> 00:03:35,400
asking questions about justification and I felt like he was

62
00:03:35,439 --> 00:03:37,199
never going to answer it. So that was the reason

63
00:03:37,240 --> 00:03:38,599
I left the Zulu debate.

64
00:03:41,120 --> 00:03:44,560
Speaker 2: I would say, we obviously have different interpretations, but nevertheless

65
00:03:46,000 --> 00:03:49,479
so I yeah. So then I felt like there wasn't

66
00:03:49,479 --> 00:03:52,560
a good debate against libertarian And then I saw you

67
00:03:52,599 --> 00:03:56,159
put out a call against you know, looking for libertarians,

68
00:03:56,199 --> 00:03:58,680
and me and a bunch of other libertarians put our

69
00:03:58,800 --> 00:04:02,280
names forward, but also other people's names for it, like like, hey,

70
00:04:02,280 --> 00:04:05,360
you do rematch liquid with a better thing? You could

71
00:04:05,879 --> 00:04:08,120
me there, there are plenty of real libertarians. And then

72
00:04:08,159 --> 00:04:11,479
you debated, Wait, you're you're uh, we're only on Twitter.

73
00:04:11,280 --> 00:04:13,000
Speaker 1: Right, No, we're on you two.

74
00:04:14,280 --> 00:04:16,079
Speaker 2: Okay, all right, so I can't say the f slur,

75
00:04:16,839 --> 00:04:22,240
but uh you debated a prag f slur. Uh and

76
00:04:22,240 --> 00:04:25,240
and so yeah and and so rightfully, I think anybody

77
00:04:25,240 --> 00:04:28,000
that is an actual libertarian was upset because.

78
00:04:28,360 --> 00:04:29,800
Speaker 1: I don't know who you're talking about. First of all,

79
00:04:29,839 --> 00:04:31,160
can you just tell me who that who it is

80
00:04:31,160 --> 00:04:34,079
you're talking about?

81
00:04:33,839 --> 00:04:36,680
Speaker 2: I remember the person's name again, because they weren't. They

82
00:04:36,680 --> 00:04:39,000
weren't like a famous you mean.

83
00:04:38,920 --> 00:04:43,240
Speaker 1: Like the Yren Brooke from the Objectivist Institute that.

84
00:04:44,600 --> 00:04:48,399
Speaker 2: No, yarn Brook is not a libertarian. It's actively fights

85
00:04:48,399 --> 00:04:52,160
against libertarianism. I've interviewed You're on Brook, and I think

86
00:04:52,160 --> 00:04:55,319
it's libertarianism. It's evil and must be defeated.

87
00:04:56,720 --> 00:04:58,759
Speaker 1: Uh what you mean?

88
00:04:59,360 --> 00:05:03,199
Speaker 2: Who I said? Yarnbrook is an objectivist? You had debated

89
00:05:03,240 --> 00:05:06,160
I can't remember it's been If someone can dig up the.

90
00:05:07,639 --> 00:05:10,000
Speaker 1: Austin Peterson you you.

91
00:05:10,079 --> 00:05:20,160
Speaker 2: Debated somebody that was very clearly left leaning, not not libertarian, libertine. Again,

92
00:05:20,360 --> 00:05:23,600
I don't remember the exact name, but if you found

93
00:05:23,639 --> 00:05:27,959
the twite or whatever, then yeah, and so I was like, dude,

94
00:05:28,000 --> 00:05:30,879
what the fuck is this? Like? This is this is bullshit?

95
00:05:31,000 --> 00:05:32,600
Like you put out a call to libertarians and then

96
00:05:32,600 --> 00:05:35,879
you bring on someone that's like a small l libertine brag?

97
00:05:36,879 --> 00:05:40,000
Speaker 1: Right, do you think it's a conspiracy that I don't

98
00:05:40,000 --> 00:05:42,399
want to engage with real libertarians? Got it?

99
00:05:43,439 --> 00:05:46,439
Speaker 2: I didn't say it was a conspiracy because I'm not

100
00:05:46,560 --> 00:05:51,000
saying anyone else was involved. I'm just saying it seemed

101
00:05:51,079 --> 00:05:53,920
like you were duck in a real conversation with libertarianism

102
00:05:54,000 --> 00:05:56,240
because you had one and you ran from that one.

103
00:05:56,680 --> 00:06:00,560
Speaker 1: And that was who I run from liquid Zula. Okay,

104
00:06:00,639 --> 00:06:03,240
did he answer what I asked about justification?

105
00:06:05,000 --> 00:06:07,720
Speaker 2: I believe multiple times from multiple different perspectives, you were

106
00:06:07,800 --> 00:06:12,920
upset because he wouldn't answer your redirect because he wanted it,

107
00:06:12,959 --> 00:06:15,240
and then eventually Andrews did so he answered it.

108
00:06:15,279 --> 00:06:17,480
Speaker 1: And what do you think that you answer? What do

109
00:06:17,519 --> 00:06:18,720
you think justification is?

110
00:06:20,600 --> 00:06:22,639
Speaker 2: What do I think justifications? Do you mean that? Like

111
00:06:22,680 --> 00:06:25,720
from like the hume like question, like what do you

112
00:06:25,720 --> 00:06:26,160
mean by.

113
00:06:28,240 --> 00:06:28,439
Speaker 3: Well?

114
00:06:28,439 --> 00:06:31,240
Speaker 2: Like yeah, the human question? What justifies this like or

115
00:06:31,240 --> 00:06:31,639
do you mean?

116
00:06:31,680 --> 00:06:31,759
Speaker 4: Like?

117
00:06:31,839 --> 00:06:36,839
Speaker 2: What do you mean by what is an attempt to

118
00:06:38,079 --> 00:06:42,839
state that the statement is true? Was that a claim

119
00:06:42,920 --> 00:06:44,000
or a principle of truth?

120
00:06:44,160 --> 00:06:45,920
Speaker 1: So that has to do with truth value? But no,

121
00:06:46,120 --> 00:06:51,360
justification is much more than that in epistemology.

122
00:06:51,399 --> 00:06:55,639
Speaker 2: Nevertheless, I don't think you just like I'm how is

123
00:06:55,680 --> 00:06:58,639
that a disagreement from the historical thing?

124
00:06:58,959 --> 00:07:02,519
Speaker 1: From what you're saying isn't even the historical idea because

125
00:07:02,519 --> 00:07:06,120
even back to Plato, justification deals with justified.

126
00:07:06,600 --> 00:07:08,360
Speaker 2: What have to do about whether or not you ran

127
00:07:08,439 --> 00:07:09,000
with if you.

128
00:07:08,920 --> 00:07:13,160
Speaker 1: Asked about the historic context of justification and I'm giving

129
00:07:13,199 --> 00:07:16,079
you the context that back to Plato, it means more

130
00:07:16,120 --> 00:07:17,120
than what you described.

131
00:07:18,959 --> 00:07:23,800
Speaker 2: Okay, that that's irrelevant to whether or not my interpretation

132
00:07:24,560 --> 00:07:25,600
of events.

133
00:07:25,360 --> 00:07:29,279
Speaker 1: Is if he didn't give, if he didn't give, if

134
00:07:29,279 --> 00:07:33,160
he did not give epistemic justification, then his answers were

135
00:07:33,199 --> 00:07:34,759
irrelevant to what I'm asking for.

136
00:07:35,920 --> 00:07:39,160
Speaker 2: Okay, So what would you what would be your what

137
00:07:39,319 --> 00:07:40,279
is your bar for.

138
00:07:40,240 --> 00:07:50,560
Speaker 1: Episode justified true belief in the Getty Air problem?

139
00:07:50,600 --> 00:07:54,319
Speaker 2: Okay? So again what what what would he have to

140
00:07:54,399 --> 00:07:57,560
say about jurism for you to say that he gave

141
00:07:57,600 --> 00:08:00,720
you the the aught is the thing that you why

142
00:08:00,759 --> 00:08:04,160
he didn't believe in the audience gain right, Like why

143
00:08:04,240 --> 00:08:07,959
he believes that contradictory statements can't be true in the

144
00:08:08,000 --> 00:08:11,279
negation of a contradictory statement is at the very least

145
00:08:11,319 --> 00:08:13,279
an ought not I don't know that I necessarily follow

146
00:08:13,360 --> 00:08:18,920
his ought thing, But why is that reason for you

147
00:08:19,040 --> 00:08:21,399
to run away from the debate? That's why I'm asking, like,

148
00:08:21,480 --> 00:08:22,560
what is yours?

149
00:08:22,600 --> 00:08:26,839
Speaker 1: So, just like him, you're a debate. Just like him,

150
00:08:27,120 --> 00:08:31,800
you're both not understanding what epistemic justification is not according

151
00:08:31,839 --> 00:08:34,480
to me, but in the discipline of epistemology. This is

152
00:08:34,519 --> 00:08:38,600
not something I made up. It's what's expected in any

153
00:08:38,759 --> 00:08:42,200
public academic discourse on the topic of how do we

154
00:08:42,240 --> 00:08:45,600
have good reasons for our beliefs? So justification deals with that,

155
00:08:46,159 --> 00:08:50,039
what are the good reasons for our beliefs, what gives

156
00:08:50,120 --> 00:08:52,879
them explanatory power, and what makes them coherent in a

157
00:08:53,080 --> 00:08:56,080
worldview context. That's what justification is.

158
00:08:57,039 --> 00:09:01,440
Speaker 2: Okay, But again, you're saying that he didn't meet your standard,

159
00:09:01,480 --> 00:09:02,320
But I know.

160
00:09:02,320 --> 00:09:05,559
Speaker 1: He didn't meet these standards. These standards are They're not

161
00:09:05,679 --> 00:09:08,200
my standards. This is what would be debated in any

162
00:09:08,200 --> 00:09:11,799
epistemology class, when you make assertions.

163
00:09:13,639 --> 00:09:15,039
Speaker 2: What the fuck are you talking about?

164
00:09:15,639 --> 00:09:16,080
Speaker 1: Am I talking?

165
00:09:16,159 --> 00:09:18,679
Speaker 2: Ran away from a debate? And then you said, well,

166
00:09:18,720 --> 00:09:20,480
he didn't answer my question because he didn't.

167
00:09:20,679 --> 00:09:23,759
Speaker 1: No, I said, he didn't justification the argument that he gave.

168
00:09:23,960 --> 00:09:27,960
And again you don't even understand, you don't understand, and

169
00:09:28,000 --> 00:09:31,720
again you don't understand why that doesn't get to justification,

170
00:09:31,919 --> 00:09:33,440
which is the entire point of the whole time.

171
00:09:34,200 --> 00:09:37,039
Speaker 2: What is this code? Like, like we're not even into

172
00:09:37,039 --> 00:09:39,559
the debate and you're already like it's a code, right,

173
00:09:39,679 --> 00:09:40,679
Actually he didn't.

174
00:09:40,919 --> 00:09:42,840
Speaker 1: You're the one that said that I was a pussy

175
00:09:43,039 --> 00:09:45,240
and that I wouldn't debate anyone except him.

176
00:09:45,360 --> 00:09:48,120
Speaker 2: You were how you ran from a debate and then

177
00:09:48,159 --> 00:09:48,799
when you've then.

178
00:09:49,120 --> 00:09:52,240
Speaker 1: I left a debate that I laughed at because it

179
00:09:52,320 --> 00:09:55,799
didn't answer just like, just like in this situation, you

180
00:09:55,840 --> 00:09:58,080
can't answer or even you don't even know the basics

181
00:09:58,080 --> 00:10:00,320
of the question, and you're just already for you know,

182
00:10:00,639 --> 00:10:01,960
do you want me to explain it to you in

183
00:10:02,000 --> 00:10:03,840
an ethical example?

184
00:10:05,240 --> 00:10:07,440
Speaker 2: Sure, give me an example of what you mean by

185
00:10:07,519 --> 00:10:09,919
because I don't see how I'm failing in any means.

186
00:10:10,159 --> 00:10:13,279
Speaker 1: Well, let's let's go. Let's go to the topic of

187
00:10:14,159 --> 00:10:15,480
do you want to do tag or do you want

188
00:10:15,559 --> 00:10:17,159
do you want to do self evidence? Either one is

189
00:10:17,200 --> 00:10:17,639
fine with me.

190
00:10:19,519 --> 00:10:22,240
Speaker 2: I don't know what you mean by self evidence or

191
00:10:22,279 --> 00:10:22,759
what you're referring.

192
00:10:22,960 --> 00:10:25,360
Speaker 1: Well, most libertarians and most people who argue for your

193
00:10:25,399 --> 00:10:27,519
type of a position out of the Enlightenment, believe that

194
00:10:27,519 --> 00:10:30,440
there are self evident truths or principles, things that are axiomatic.

195
00:10:30,639 --> 00:10:31,639
And I reject that.

196
00:10:32,600 --> 00:10:34,399
Speaker 2: You reject all axioms.

197
00:10:34,240 --> 00:10:35,639
Speaker 1: All self evidence claims.

198
00:10:37,639 --> 00:10:41,240
Speaker 2: Okay, so how okay, okay? You would say, okay, we

199
00:10:41,279 --> 00:10:44,679
can go in either one. That's fine. I don't I'm

200
00:10:44,759 --> 00:10:49,960
fine going again. The question, before we get too far

201
00:10:49,960 --> 00:10:54,960
away from it, is whether or not why I believe

202
00:10:55,039 --> 00:10:58,600
that this conversation or debate or whatever was important. Was

203
00:10:58,639 --> 00:11:01,480
that I felt like you had not, let's say, completed

204
00:11:02,639 --> 00:11:05,279
with a libertarian and your claim is that it wasn't

205
00:11:05,639 --> 00:11:10,759
epsomic justification. And I don't see why what standard he

206
00:11:10,840 --> 00:11:12,240
didn't but he didn't meet.

207
00:11:12,720 --> 00:11:15,320
Speaker 1: So when you just assert things to be the case,

208
00:11:15,799 --> 00:11:19,200
you're forfeiting the very question, because that means you're being

209
00:11:19,279 --> 00:11:22,639
arbitrary at hawk and not giving epistemic justification.

210
00:11:23,799 --> 00:11:26,360
Speaker 2: Well, he didn't do that. Yes he did. He did.

211
00:11:26,759 --> 00:11:30,039
Speaker 1: You don't Again, you don't understand what. You don't understand

212
00:11:30,039 --> 00:11:33,200
what justification. So you think that my standard is some

213
00:11:33,279 --> 00:11:35,919
subjective thing of what justification is. And I'm telling you

214
00:11:35,919 --> 00:11:39,159
that any epistemology class will hold you to the same

215
00:11:39,240 --> 00:11:42,360
standards that the laws of critical thinking, the laws of thought.

216
00:11:42,840 --> 00:11:44,080
Those are not my standards.

217
00:11:44,399 --> 00:11:44,759
Speaker 2: Words.

218
00:11:45,720 --> 00:11:49,360
Speaker 1: I'm just saying. So I'm saying common terminology in this

219
00:11:49,480 --> 00:11:51,399
domain and in this field. And you think I'm just

220
00:11:51,440 --> 00:11:54,159
saying words. That's why you guys are not fit for

221
00:11:54,200 --> 00:11:57,159
this debate. You're not even in the arena. You don't

222
00:11:57,200 --> 00:11:58,879
know the topics in the subject matter.

223
00:11:58,960 --> 00:12:00,639
Speaker 2: You're just insulting a making argument.

224
00:12:00,639 --> 00:12:02,919
Speaker 1: No, I'm telling you what's happening in the debate. Let's

225
00:12:02,919 --> 00:12:04,960
get into the argument. So do you believe in the

226
00:12:04,960 --> 00:12:08,879
non aggression principle? Do you agree with the non aggression principle?

227
00:12:09,879 --> 00:12:11,799
Speaker 2: Yeah? Absolutely, of course, I'm a libertarian.

228
00:12:12,279 --> 00:12:17,279
Speaker 1: Is that a normative claim?

229
00:12:17,320 --> 00:12:22,399
Speaker 2: Well, it's it's an axiom, right, So the normative claim that.

230
00:12:22,360 --> 00:12:25,200
Speaker 1: You shouldn't aggress not yeah.

231
00:12:25,000 --> 00:12:27,240
Speaker 2: One ought not a crypt that would be the normative claim.

232
00:12:27,919 --> 00:12:30,000
Speaker 1: So it's prescriptive and not descriptive.

233
00:12:31,519 --> 00:12:35,279
Speaker 2: Yes, libertarianism is a prescriptive ideology of natural I.

234
00:12:35,240 --> 00:12:37,440
Speaker 1: Thought you were saying in the Jimbob debate that you

235
00:12:37,519 --> 00:12:40,600
don't believe in prescriptive claims. It's just descriptive.

236
00:12:41,120 --> 00:12:43,039
Speaker 2: Oh sorry, descriptive. I apologize. I mixed up.

237
00:12:44,360 --> 00:12:48,919
Speaker 1: Okay, precisely. So the non aggression principle is normative, and

238
00:12:49,000 --> 00:12:51,279
therefore it's prescriptive, and therefore you're refuted.

239
00:12:53,639 --> 00:12:54,639
Speaker 2: Can you repeat that argument.

240
00:12:54,720 --> 00:12:59,200
Speaker 1: Let me write, you made a claim that we ought

241
00:12:59,320 --> 00:13:03,480
not aggress. That's what the non aggression principle states. That

242
00:13:03,639 --> 00:13:07,519
is a claim of ethical normativity, and that refutes your

243
00:13:07,639 --> 00:13:12,919
very position that libertarianism is is not prescriptive but merely descriptive.

244
00:13:14,039 --> 00:13:18,120
Speaker 2: No, I didn't make that claim. I specifically referenced argument.

245
00:13:18,240 --> 00:13:22,080
Speaker 1: I'm talking about your debate, your Gym Bob debate.

246
00:13:23,399 --> 00:13:26,240
Speaker 2: Pop interrupted. All right, we'll get we're in the actual debate,

247
00:13:26,279 --> 00:13:28,519
so we'll get into it. So, no, that's not true,

248
00:13:28,840 --> 00:13:31,720
and I didn't say the same did not occur.

249
00:13:31,519 --> 00:13:35,720
Speaker 1: In you just said? You just said that libertarianism. I'm

250
00:13:35,720 --> 00:13:37,559
not going to let you lie and go past your

251
00:13:37,879 --> 00:13:38,840
you're lying.

252
00:13:38,919 --> 00:13:41,200
Speaker 2: I'm not interrupting. You're interrupting.

253
00:13:41,279 --> 00:13:44,320
Speaker 1: So you think interrupting is lying. Those are two different things.

254
00:13:44,360 --> 00:13:46,039
Speaker 2: No, no, no, I think you're doing both. I think

255
00:13:46,080 --> 00:13:46,679
you're interrupting.

256
00:13:47,039 --> 00:13:49,320
Speaker 1: Is the non aggression principal, prescriptive or descriptive?

257
00:13:50,559 --> 00:13:55,320
Speaker 2: The non aggression principle is a an accident? Right?

258
00:13:55,440 --> 00:13:58,720
Speaker 1: And is it a claim?

259
00:13:58,840 --> 00:14:01,919
Speaker 2: I just said right that the actual ought claim or

260
00:14:01,960 --> 00:14:05,080
the ought not claim would be the negation and in

261
00:14:05,200 --> 00:14:06,559
liquid Zula's argment from my.

262
00:14:06,840 --> 00:14:10,519
Speaker 1: I'm talking about n ap. Why are you bringing Stop

263
00:14:10,720 --> 00:14:13,440
your possession, your position.

264
00:14:13,240 --> 00:14:15,879
Speaker 2: Derail, Stop trying to be real, Stop acting.

265
00:14:15,759 --> 00:14:17,039
Speaker 1: Like a top your position.

266
00:14:17,120 --> 00:14:18,799
Speaker 2: No big words don't make you an adult.

267
00:14:18,879 --> 00:14:20,720
Speaker 1: Just hold on for he doesn't even know the basic

268
00:14:20,799 --> 00:14:21,799
terms of this whole debate.

269
00:14:22,720 --> 00:14:24,919
Speaker 2: Right, you're just going to keep interrupting, and you're just

270
00:14:24,960 --> 00:14:25,879
gonna keep making.

271
00:14:25,720 --> 00:14:28,600
Speaker 1: Because you're deflecting. Everyone can tell you did the same

272
00:14:28,679 --> 00:14:29,480
thing with Jim Bob.

273
00:14:29,799 --> 00:14:31,240
Speaker 2: Sometimes something is the.

274
00:14:31,279 --> 00:14:33,480
Speaker 1: Non aggression principal, prescriptive or description.

275
00:14:34,200 --> 00:14:36,159
Speaker 2: Will you shush for a second?

276
00:14:36,320 --> 00:14:37,440
Speaker 1: Can you answer the question?

277
00:14:38,360 --> 00:14:40,639
Speaker 2: I am trying to answer the question, and you're doing

278
00:14:40,639 --> 00:14:42,879
the same thing Jim Bob, which is saying.

279
00:14:43,159 --> 00:14:45,720
Speaker 1: No, we just don't let you yeap and deflect. Can

280
00:14:45,759 --> 00:14:48,600
you answer the questions? Go answer yeah.

281
00:14:48,639 --> 00:14:54,440
Speaker 2: So again, So the not libertarianism is script. Okay, it is,

282
00:14:54,879 --> 00:15:00,360
sorry script, he's describing natural lawyer. Now, the non Russian

283
00:15:00,360 --> 00:15:04,080
principle is an axiom. Okay, it is not, and it

284
00:15:04,120 --> 00:15:05,279
is a descriptive.

285
00:15:05,960 --> 00:15:09,120
Speaker 1: No, it's not. You just repeted yourself. You said it's normative,

286
00:15:09,240 --> 00:15:13,399
so you refuted yourself. I'm not what is normativity interrupting?

287
00:15:13,600 --> 00:15:14,639
What is normativity?

288
00:15:17,639 --> 00:15:20,960
Speaker 2: Normativity is is, as far as we're discussing in ethics,

289
00:15:21,240 --> 00:15:24,440
would be a claim that something, uh, that that is

290
00:15:24,519 --> 00:15:25,759
universalizable and that we're.

291
00:15:25,639 --> 00:15:27,720
Speaker 1: All right, So you ought not aggress people.

292
00:15:29,240 --> 00:15:30,840
Speaker 2: Yes, you ought not aggress people.

293
00:15:31,000 --> 00:15:32,960
Speaker 1: Right, So your position controversy.

294
00:15:33,279 --> 00:15:36,639
Speaker 2: You will know it doesn't if you go and act

295
00:15:36,720 --> 00:15:39,639
like an adult for a second. So it can't what

296
00:15:39,759 --> 00:15:41,720
I said, and you keep interrupting me.

297
00:15:41,720 --> 00:15:43,919
Speaker 1: So let me stop bitching and make your argument.

298
00:15:44,720 --> 00:15:47,799
Speaker 2: Well stop, well, then shut up, act like an adult.

299
00:15:47,960 --> 00:15:49,679
Speaker 1: I'm waiting for you to answer. Quit whining.

300
00:15:50,320 --> 00:15:52,679
Speaker 2: No, you keep interrupting just.

301
00:15:52,440 --> 00:15:55,039
Speaker 1: Because you're not answering. Your whining and deflecting, I.

302
00:15:54,960 --> 00:15:57,960
Speaker 2: Am trying to answer, and you will not stop interrupting

303
00:15:57,960 --> 00:16:01,200
and stop acting like a toddler like just for a second, okay,

304
00:16:01,320 --> 00:16:04,600
I can I can make an argument, make the argument,

305
00:16:04,679 --> 00:16:05,960
and then you can do the same thing.

306
00:16:06,039 --> 00:16:08,759
Speaker 1: Well, let me stop saying let me and go.

307
00:16:10,000 --> 00:16:10,759
Speaker 2: I'm trying.

308
00:16:12,320 --> 00:16:14,960
Speaker 1: You're whining and bitching about me interrupting you when you're

309
00:16:15,000 --> 00:16:16,440
being dishonest, and then.

310
00:16:16,360 --> 00:16:19,960
Speaker 2: You're conversation because you keep interrupting.

311
00:16:20,080 --> 00:16:21,320
Speaker 1: Go make the argument.

312
00:16:21,480 --> 00:16:27,200
Speaker 2: Okay, So again, what I was saying is that previously

313
00:16:27,240 --> 00:16:30,080
what I had said is that Liquid Zulu's arguments one

314
00:16:30,120 --> 00:16:33,720
that I don't necessarily believe that.

315
00:16:34,320 --> 00:16:35,480
Speaker 1: What is your argument?

316
00:16:37,480 --> 00:16:38,480
Speaker 2: Why can you?

317
00:16:38,519 --> 00:16:41,399
Speaker 1: Are you so you're gonna keep talking about liquid Zulu

318
00:16:41,440 --> 00:16:45,360
when I've asked you specifically about your position. What is

319
00:16:45,399 --> 00:16:47,120
your argument? For the tenth time?

320
00:16:48,000 --> 00:16:48,559
Speaker 2: I am true.

321
00:16:48,879 --> 00:16:50,200
Speaker 1: Nobody is buying your bullshit.

322
00:16:51,240 --> 00:16:54,360
Speaker 2: There's no bullshit here. You won't shut up. Stop acting

323
00:16:54,399 --> 00:16:55,039
like a toddler.

324
00:16:55,039 --> 00:16:56,879
Speaker 1: You keep bringing up the things that are not relevant.

325
00:16:56,879 --> 00:16:58,240
Are you going to answer the topic?

326
00:16:59,240 --> 00:17:01,480
Speaker 2: I am a timing to do that, and you are

327
00:17:01,600 --> 00:17:03,240
not giving me the space to speak.

328
00:17:03,480 --> 00:17:07,319
Speaker 1: No, you go back to the thing that is irrelevant.

329
00:17:08,640 --> 00:17:11,160
I'm asking your position. I don't care what you think

330
00:17:11,160 --> 00:17:15,119
about liquid Zulu. Can you answer your positions on this?

331
00:17:15,279 --> 00:17:16,759
I am I don't care about liquid Zulu.

332
00:17:16,759 --> 00:17:20,079
Speaker 2: Again, I absolutely can't what goes and I'm bringing The

333
00:17:20,119 --> 00:17:22,839
only reason I am bringing up Liquid Zulu is because

334
00:17:22,920 --> 00:17:25,799
you called me a liar by saying that I was

335
00:17:25,839 --> 00:17:28,599
making the argument that Liquid Zulu was making no fact.

336
00:17:28,720 --> 00:17:32,200
Speaker 1: No, I'm saying you're lying about being dishonest about that debate.

337
00:17:32,599 --> 00:17:36,680
That's the lie that I didn't. You said I rage

338
00:17:36,720 --> 00:17:40,000
quit when I laughed at the guy, and no rage

339
00:17:40,759 --> 00:17:42,599
rage quitting is when you would have rage. And I

340
00:17:42,680 --> 00:17:45,319
laughed at that guy because I thought his answers were

341
00:17:45,359 --> 00:17:47,759
so low tier that it wasn't worthing in debate. And

342
00:17:47,799 --> 00:17:51,240
you're in the exact same situation. You're actually worse. You're

343
00:17:51,279 --> 00:17:54,319
actually worse than Liquid Zulu because you can't actually address

344
00:17:54,359 --> 00:17:58,559
the arguments. So is the nap an a claim or not?

345
00:17:58,920 --> 00:18:01,440
If it has If it has no nativity, it's an

346
00:18:01,440 --> 00:18:05,960
ought claim. You already said that, you already lost. You're

347
00:18:08,319 --> 00:18:09,720
so we follow.

348
00:18:12,799 --> 00:18:16,079
Speaker 2: If one wants to claim or justify ethics, then one

349
00:18:16,119 --> 00:18:21,839
not following. If the attempt If they if they do

350
00:18:22,240 --> 00:18:26,880
attempt to justify their ethical claims and their claims violate

351
00:18:26,880 --> 00:18:30,119
the non aggression principle, then it is contradictory. Therefore the

352
00:18:30,200 --> 00:18:31,880
negation is true.

353
00:18:33,119 --> 00:18:35,640
Speaker 1: Is the NAP an aught?

354
00:18:36,880 --> 00:18:39,279
Speaker 2: Now the NAP is not, in and of itself an aught.

355
00:18:39,680 --> 00:18:42,880
Speaker 1: The non aggression principle, does it retain does it pertain

356
00:18:42,960 --> 00:18:46,319
to normativity and ethics? That you ought not to aggress people?

357
00:18:49,640 --> 00:18:52,119
Speaker 2: It is an axiom that you hold if.

358
00:18:51,920 --> 00:18:53,880
Speaker 1: Your is it an ethical axiom?

359
00:18:54,960 --> 00:18:57,240
Speaker 2: If your ethical system, is.

360
00:18:56,960 --> 00:19:00,880
Speaker 1: That an ethical axiom? You ought not? Are you just

361
00:19:01,000 --> 00:19:02,799
lost and that's why you're spurading.

362
00:19:02,440 --> 00:19:04,640
Speaker 2: Out, I'm not you?

363
00:19:05,160 --> 00:19:09,240
Speaker 1: Is it an ethical at is it an ethical answer?

364
00:19:10,400 --> 00:19:13,039
Speaker 2: I just told you that the non aggression principle in

365
00:19:13,200 --> 00:19:15,960
and of itself is not an ethical That's false.

366
00:19:16,200 --> 00:19:21,119
Speaker 1: That's false. No, that's false. Axiom, even axioms, even axioms

367
00:19:21,119 --> 00:19:24,519
depending No, that's false. Even axioms, depending upon what they

368
00:19:24,599 --> 00:19:27,480
are or what they are about, can be ethical. Right,

369
00:19:28,160 --> 00:19:31,279
that's the point that you're missing. So when the axiom itself,

370
00:19:32,079 --> 00:19:34,200
calling it an axiom does not remove it from the

371
00:19:34,240 --> 00:19:36,440
ethical domain. That's how stupid. You can have an You

372
00:19:36,480 --> 00:19:37,799
can have an ethical axiom.

373
00:19:37,880 --> 00:19:40,559
Speaker 2: You would shut the fuck up and let someone finish

374
00:19:40,640 --> 00:19:41,240
the sentence.

375
00:19:41,319 --> 00:19:46,480
Speaker 1: But your sentences are dumb and they're bad arguments. It's

376
00:19:46,519 --> 00:19:50,000
an ethical claim. It deals with what the claim itself

377
00:19:50,119 --> 00:19:52,680
is that you ought not aggress people. That's an ethical

378
00:19:52,720 --> 00:19:54,920
normative claim. It's in the domain of ethics, even if

379
00:19:54,960 --> 00:19:56,839
you call it an axiom. Did you know you can

380
00:19:56,880 --> 00:19:59,200
have an ethical axiom?

381
00:19:59,400 --> 00:20:01,920
Speaker 2: Yes? But you you're not listening.

382
00:20:02,039 --> 00:20:05,160
Speaker 1: You're not No, you're just not understanding the basic distinctions.

383
00:20:05,799 --> 00:20:09,359
Speaker 2: No, you're just interrupting people midscent interrupting me.

384
00:20:09,559 --> 00:20:13,440
Speaker 1: It's no because your answers don't address it. Your answers

385
00:20:13,519 --> 00:20:15,359
don't address it. That's why I'm interrupting you.

386
00:20:16,480 --> 00:20:16,920
Speaker 3: I I.

387
00:20:18,680 --> 00:20:19,480
Speaker 2: Cannot believe.

388
00:20:19,880 --> 00:20:22,599
Speaker 1: How do you see that the How do you see

389
00:20:22,640 --> 00:20:25,839
that the axiom is not ethical when it's about ethics?

390
00:20:28,359 --> 00:20:30,119
Speaker 2: Will you allow me to answer this question?

391
00:20:30,160 --> 00:20:33,359
Speaker 1: How do you say that the axiom is not this question?

392
00:20:33,400 --> 00:20:36,240
Without interrupting answer? That's what we're waiting for.

393
00:20:36,640 --> 00:20:39,599
Speaker 2: Will you? I'm answer you a question. Will you allow

394
00:20:39,599 --> 00:20:41,680
me to answer answer? Allow me to answer anything?

395
00:20:41,720 --> 00:20:43,000
Speaker 1: The entire chat? Laughing?

396
00:20:43,960 --> 00:20:47,160
Speaker 2: You mean, yes, I get it that your checks.

397
00:20:47,319 --> 00:20:51,759
Speaker 1: We're waiting. We're waiting, will you will you? If you

398
00:20:51,799 --> 00:20:54,240
don't answer, I'm just going to move on because you can't.

399
00:20:54,319 --> 00:20:55,559
You can't handle an.

400
00:20:56,720 --> 00:20:58,799
Speaker 2: So are you going to allow me or not to

401
00:20:58,920 --> 00:21:01,000
actually answer? Without all you wanted?

402
00:21:01,039 --> 00:21:02,759
Speaker 1: To do is the flag. This is how weak you

403
00:21:02,799 --> 00:21:05,000
guys are. You guys are the worst that demend You're

404
00:21:05,079 --> 00:21:06,440
worse than Austin Peterson.

405
00:21:07,480 --> 00:21:09,480
Speaker 2: I don't know who Austin Peterson is. All I know

406
00:21:09,559 --> 00:21:12,920
is you should team up. Not you're not engaging in

407
00:21:12,960 --> 00:21:14,319
any way that I could have.

408
00:21:14,519 --> 00:21:18,240
Speaker 1: I'm not engaging again. Will you answer? If the axiom

409
00:21:18,400 --> 00:21:21,480
is moral in its nature and content, how is it

410
00:21:21,559 --> 00:21:23,039
not ethical or moral?

411
00:21:24,480 --> 00:21:26,119
Speaker 2: How is it not ethical or moral?

412
00:21:26,359 --> 00:21:28,759
Speaker 1: If the content of the axiom of the NAP is

413
00:21:28,799 --> 00:21:32,480
ethics and morals, how is it not moral or ethical

414
00:21:32,559 --> 00:21:35,839
or normative just because it's an axiom?

415
00:21:35,920 --> 00:21:38,440
Speaker 2: Okay, I didn't say that just because it's an axiom.

416
00:21:38,720 --> 00:21:40,799
Speaker 1: Yes you did. You said it's an it's axiom, it's

417
00:21:40,839 --> 00:21:43,079
not moral. You said it's an action it's not moral.

418
00:21:43,920 --> 00:21:45,440
I did, Yes, you did.

419
00:21:45,640 --> 00:21:46,440
Speaker 2: It's not moral.

420
00:21:46,559 --> 00:21:48,960
Speaker 1: You said it doesn't do. What do you think morals

421
00:21:48,960 --> 00:21:53,440
deals with? That's normativity, moral, ethical claims, or normative.

422
00:21:53,039 --> 00:21:55,480
Speaker 2: Claims sentence, Then you can't say that you've heard.

423
00:21:55,440 --> 00:21:57,240
Speaker 1: The whole chat knows you're a filibuster ring.

424
00:21:58,119 --> 00:22:01,640
Speaker 2: I'm not shillibuster ring. You stop and just let me

425
00:22:01,839 --> 00:22:02,640
make an argument.

426
00:22:03,920 --> 00:22:04,440
Speaker 1: We're waiting.

427
00:22:05,960 --> 00:22:07,200
Speaker 2: Will you allow me to whole.

428
00:22:07,279 --> 00:22:08,880
Speaker 1: Chap knows that you said that go.

429
00:22:09,680 --> 00:22:13,359
Speaker 2: Will you allow me to go? I'm not asking you

430
00:22:13,400 --> 00:22:16,839
to say go. I'm a simple question. Will you act

431
00:22:16,920 --> 00:22:18,400
like an adult from this point on?

432
00:22:18,920 --> 00:22:22,160
Speaker 1: If you make bad arguments argument, If you make bad arguments,

433
00:22:22,160 --> 00:22:23,279
that will interrupt you correct?

434
00:22:24,519 --> 00:22:27,799
Speaker 2: Okay, so you're so you're just going to constantly interrupt it. Talk.

435
00:22:27,920 --> 00:22:29,839
Speaker 1: So if you would like so, any you want to

436
00:22:29,880 --> 00:22:33,559
talk about anything but the assertions, the axiom is about

437
00:22:33,599 --> 00:22:34,960
ethics and normativity.

438
00:22:35,759 --> 00:22:37,359
Speaker 2: If you would like to have this debate, it is

439
00:22:37,519 --> 00:22:38,519
clear that you are.

440
00:22:38,680 --> 00:22:39,839
Speaker 1: Are you going to reply.

441
00:22:39,680 --> 00:22:43,119
Speaker 2: In conversation without a monator, So find a moderator and

442
00:22:43,160 --> 00:22:46,119
schedule the debate or run like you did from liquid Zulo.

443
00:22:46,319 --> 00:22:48,480
Speaker 1: I'm not running because you guys are too low to

444
00:22:48,519 --> 00:22:51,119
here to know the topics and what the categories are.

445
00:22:51,160 --> 00:22:53,319
To eat in debate you have, you have insults and

446
00:22:53,359 --> 00:22:56,640
interrupt You didn't even know what justification was. You didn't

447
00:22:56,640 --> 00:22:59,519
know what justification. You didn't even know what it was. No,

448
00:22:59,599 --> 00:23:01,799
you guys know you didn't. You had to ask me

449
00:23:01,839 --> 00:23:03,839
what it is. You have to ask me what it is?

450
00:23:04,119 --> 00:23:05,240
Speaker 2: I asked what.

451
00:23:06,640 --> 00:23:08,160
Speaker 1: You had to ask me what justification?

452
00:23:08,319 --> 00:23:11,799
Speaker 2: Is I asked you what your standard was, because there is.

453
00:23:11,759 --> 00:23:14,640
Speaker 1: Not my personal standard. It's not a subjective topic.

454
00:23:15,440 --> 00:23:19,839
Speaker 2: You're you're in you're very clearly not honestly.

455
00:23:19,880 --> 00:23:23,440
Speaker 1: Uh huh, right, So the axiom about ethics and morals

456
00:23:23,640 --> 00:23:27,519
is an axiom? And how is it not an ot claim?

457
00:23:27,599 --> 00:23:29,000
Speaker 2: There's no reason the n A P?

458
00:23:29,240 --> 00:23:30,920
Speaker 1: How is the NAP not an not claim?

459
00:23:31,240 --> 00:23:31,640
Speaker 2: Interrupt?

460
00:23:31,839 --> 00:23:34,480
Speaker 1: And then no, you're just bitching about interrupting to not answer.

461
00:23:34,960 --> 00:23:37,240
You're bitching about interrupting to not answer. How is the

462
00:23:37,319 --> 00:23:38,759
NAP not ethical or moral?

463
00:23:38,839 --> 00:23:42,359
Speaker 2: So again, so again, find a moderator and we'll do.

464
00:23:42,359 --> 00:23:43,400
Speaker 1: How is the NAP?

465
00:23:43,680 --> 00:23:43,759
Speaker 3: Go?

466
00:23:43,920 --> 00:23:46,119
Speaker 1: I will give you the time. How long do you

467
00:23:46,119 --> 00:23:49,319
want to answer? You want? Do you want? Like two minutes?

468
00:23:50,119 --> 00:23:51,519
Speaker 2: Now, you're gonna let me, do you.

469
00:23:51,480 --> 00:23:53,160
Speaker 1: Want like two minutes? Stop?

470
00:23:53,920 --> 00:23:56,400
Speaker 2: Leave you find a moderator and will see.

471
00:23:56,440 --> 00:23:59,160
Speaker 1: So you're running because you're rage quitting your rage quitting?

472
00:24:00,200 --> 00:24:02,200
Speaker 2: Well, no, no, no, I'm it's not ranged because I

473
00:24:02,200 --> 00:24:04,200
can remember, I can just laugh and then it magically

474
00:24:04,279 --> 00:24:04,960
becomes not rage.

475
00:24:05,000 --> 00:24:07,880
Speaker 1: Put Yeah, but yeah, but I I asked good questions

476
00:24:07,880 --> 00:24:10,119
about justification. What you didn't know what it was? And

477
00:24:10,240 --> 00:24:12,440
I'm asking you the same questions and you can't answer.

478
00:24:13,400 --> 00:24:17,519
Is the n a P an ethical normative claim?

479
00:24:17,680 --> 00:24:18,319
Speaker 2: I have answered?

480
00:24:18,359 --> 00:24:21,319
Speaker 1: So he no, you didn't answer answer, No, you didn't.

481
00:24:21,720 --> 00:24:25,599
What is the answer? So the entire the entire chat

482
00:24:25,640 --> 00:24:27,720
sees that this guy is running and he won't he

483
00:24:27,759 --> 00:24:28,279
won't debate.

484
00:24:29,519 --> 00:24:31,400
Speaker 2: What do you mean I won't debate? You won't You.

485
00:24:31,680 --> 00:24:34,880
Speaker 1: Won't answer the question, dude, If it's a simple question,

486
00:24:35,079 --> 00:24:38,759
why can't you just answer it? So I you did

487
00:24:38,759 --> 00:24:40,920
the same thing to Jim Bob because you're literally one

488
00:24:40,960 --> 00:24:42,960
of the worst debaters I've ever debated. You're worse than

489
00:24:43,000 --> 00:24:46,599
teed up at least teed up answers you know again,

490
00:24:47,039 --> 00:24:50,160
at least tied up answer. Do you want a two

491
00:24:50,200 --> 00:24:52,240
minute Do you want a two minute pause?

492
00:24:53,160 --> 00:24:53,799
Speaker 2: This is waste?

493
00:24:54,279 --> 00:24:56,240
Speaker 1: Do you want a two minute pause? Is the n

494
00:24:56,240 --> 00:24:58,200
a P ethical when it's about ethics?

495
00:24:58,279 --> 00:25:00,000
Speaker 2: Is it find a moderator?

496
00:25:00,160 --> 00:25:02,000
Speaker 1: Is the NAP ethical or moral?

497
00:25:02,319 --> 00:25:02,519
Speaker 3: Or not?

498
00:25:02,920 --> 00:25:03,720
Speaker 2: Find a moderate?

499
00:25:03,839 --> 00:25:06,400
Speaker 1: So you can't answer, You literally cannot answer that.

500
00:25:07,039 --> 00:25:08,880
Speaker 2: You can't up and you won't allow.

501
00:25:08,759 --> 00:25:09,440
Speaker 1: What is the answer?

502
00:25:09,920 --> 00:25:11,720
Speaker 2: You said you give me time to interrupted.

503
00:25:12,400 --> 00:25:14,920
Speaker 1: I'll give you two minutes. I will give you two

504
00:25:14,920 --> 00:25:15,799
minutes of silence.

505
00:25:16,559 --> 00:25:19,039
Speaker 2: I don't believe you. You're a fucking liar.

506
00:25:19,680 --> 00:25:21,519
Speaker 1: So there you go. Look at it, Look at your rage.

507
00:25:21,599 --> 00:25:21,759
Speaker 5: Quit.

508
00:25:21,960 --> 00:25:23,759
Speaker 1: I will give you two minutes of silence, and you

509
00:25:23,799 --> 00:25:27,079
still won't do it because you can't. You can't answer.

510
00:25:28,160 --> 00:25:29,640
Speaker 2: I can't find a moderator.

511
00:25:29,640 --> 00:25:31,440
Speaker 1: I don't have to find a moderator for you. You're

512
00:25:31,480 --> 00:25:33,960
not worth a fully moderated debate. You're too low tier

513
00:25:34,000 --> 00:25:36,039
to even know how low tier you are. You don't

514
00:25:36,039 --> 00:25:38,880
know what justification is. You didn't know what the term is.

515
00:25:39,160 --> 00:25:40,319
You asked me what it meants.

516
00:25:41,079 --> 00:25:41,759
Speaker 2: You interrupt?

517
00:25:41,799 --> 00:25:45,200
Speaker 1: You positive because your questions and answers are dumb, dude.

518
00:25:45,240 --> 00:25:48,000
Speaker 2: That's why everything's dumb, except.

519
00:25:47,920 --> 00:25:50,279
Speaker 1: Is the nap ethical or moral.

520
00:25:52,640 --> 00:25:54,559
Speaker 2: There's no reason for me to answer any of your.

521
00:25:54,480 --> 00:25:57,559
Speaker 1: Questions because you can't because you have already lost the.

522
00:25:57,519 --> 00:26:01,000
Speaker 2: Debate, and you're incapable of having You already lost about

523
00:26:01,000 --> 00:26:02,680
this without your rage quies.

524
00:26:02,640 --> 00:26:04,480
Speaker 1: Casting me out because you don't have an answer to

525
00:26:04,640 --> 00:26:07,000
I'll give you two minutes. I'll shut up for two minutes.

526
00:26:07,039 --> 00:26:07,680
Speaker 2: I don't, I don't.

527
00:26:08,079 --> 00:26:09,799
Speaker 1: Why would you not believe me when I can prove

528
00:26:09,839 --> 00:26:10,400
that I'll do it.

529
00:26:10,440 --> 00:26:15,319
Speaker 2: That's stupid, because you, because of your past behavior, all right.

530
00:26:15,240 --> 00:26:17,079
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be quiet right now. I'm gonna be quiet

531
00:26:17,079 --> 00:26:18,559
for two minutes and you can answer.

532
00:26:19,720 --> 00:26:23,519
Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, sure, go ahead. So now you're asking me

533
00:26:23,599 --> 00:26:25,599
a loaded question, which is, you know, when did you

534
00:26:25,599 --> 00:26:29,160
stop being you? So I'm obviously not gonna answer. But

535
00:26:29,160 --> 00:26:32,200
in regards to what is the non aggression principle, non

536
00:26:32,279 --> 00:26:35,240
aggression principle is an ought claim, but it is also

537
00:26:35,279 --> 00:26:38,480
an axiom. One can choose to follow that axiom or

538
00:26:38,519 --> 00:26:41,079
not follow that axiom in there in the system of ethics.

539
00:26:41,119 --> 00:26:44,000
But if you have a a an ethical system that

540
00:26:44,039 --> 00:26:47,559
you attempt to justify, then that is where that that

541
00:26:47,680 --> 00:26:51,079
is where you must follow or you must your system

542
00:26:51,119 --> 00:26:53,839
must be commiserate with a non aggression principle or it

543
00:26:53,960 --> 00:26:57,160
falls into contradiction. That is, that is the claim that

544
00:26:57,200 --> 00:27:00,279
I mean. So you are correct that the next app

545
00:27:00,440 --> 00:27:03,119
is a moral claim that one ought not aggress upon

546
00:27:03,279 --> 00:27:07,039
other people. But where when we were talking about bridging

547
00:27:07,119 --> 00:27:11,519
kind of the is ought gap from descriptive to prescriptive ideology,

548
00:27:11,839 --> 00:27:15,400
what I'm saying is that it is it is a

549
00:27:15,559 --> 00:27:20,680
means of negating ethical justifications when they go against a

550
00:27:20,720 --> 00:27:24,680
non aggression principle. So boom, Finally, I.

551
00:27:24,599 --> 00:27:26,480
Speaker 1: Don't even know what that is supposed to mean means

552
00:27:26,519 --> 00:27:28,279
of negating what is that supposed to mean?

553
00:27:30,079 --> 00:27:34,960
Speaker 2: Right, So, libertarianism as a whole is you know, the

554
00:27:35,039 --> 00:27:40,279
nap is axiomatic to libertarianism. But things such as like argumentation, ethics,

555
00:27:40,559 --> 00:27:45,079
and other forms of logic showcase that, you know, people

556
00:27:45,119 --> 00:27:48,039
that attempt to justify the law the jungle or are

557
00:27:48,039 --> 00:27:52,079
no longer in ethics. Right, you're if you're saying some

558
00:27:52,160 --> 00:27:55,960
people can be slaves or some property can be taken,

559
00:27:57,039 --> 00:28:01,440
then your your moral claims aren't universalizable and fall into contradiction.

560
00:28:02,519 --> 00:28:04,839
Speaker 1: H our moral claims univers sizable.

561
00:28:08,599 --> 00:28:12,039
Speaker 2: We ford to be a pru moral claim.

562
00:28:12,400 --> 00:28:17,640
Speaker 1: So there are universals. Yeah, okay, how do you justify

563
00:28:17,839 --> 00:28:18,799
universal claims?

564
00:28:21,359 --> 00:28:24,880
Speaker 2: How do I justify the existence of universal claims? Like,

565
00:28:24,960 --> 00:28:26,359
can you give me an example of one that may

566
00:28:26,440 --> 00:28:26,960
just making.

567
00:28:27,960 --> 00:28:29,920
Speaker 1: Uh yeah, one ought faulty nap.

568
00:28:33,759 --> 00:28:37,920
Speaker 2: Well, so we would start with existence exists, then we

569
00:28:37,960 --> 00:28:39,200
would move into.

570
00:28:39,079 --> 00:28:41,680
Speaker 1: Formal existence exists. What is that supposed to mean?

571
00:28:43,039 --> 00:28:46,759
Speaker 2: I've seen an unavoidable accident, Right, so one cannot argue I.

572
00:28:46,680 --> 00:28:50,240
Speaker 1: Mean it's a it's a it's a self referencing basically

573
00:28:50,319 --> 00:28:53,119
version of the identity principle. But how do you what

574
00:28:53,160 --> 00:28:54,759
does that mean? Existence exists?

575
00:28:55,920 --> 00:28:59,160
Speaker 2: That means that existence exists, right, it's it's it is

576
00:28:59,200 --> 00:29:02,119
self referencing in uh huh situation. But one cannot argue

577
00:29:02,119 --> 00:29:03,799
against the concept of existence.

578
00:29:03,880 --> 00:29:08,799
Speaker 1: Actually you can, because you can't actually pretty easily because existence.

579
00:29:08,400 --> 00:29:11,440
Speaker 2: Is well, yeah, I could say cats have wings existence.

580
00:29:11,599 --> 00:29:14,000
Speaker 1: No, no, no, I mean in a different point that existence

581
00:29:14,160 --> 00:29:17,920
is a very contested, ambiguous term in the history of philosophy.

582
00:29:17,920 --> 00:29:21,640
It's a metaphysical claim. So have you justified any metaphysics yet?

583
00:29:24,440 --> 00:29:27,720
Speaker 2: I would start where we're starting with existence, and existence

584
00:29:27,880 --> 00:29:29,079
justifies itself.

585
00:29:28,720 --> 00:29:32,720
Speaker 1: By the existence justifies itself. What is your proof for

586
00:29:32,799 --> 00:29:35,359
the proposition existence justifies itself?

587
00:29:36,759 --> 00:29:40,720
Speaker 2: It is you cannot make any form of logical argument

588
00:29:41,039 --> 00:29:46,240
in any about anything without justifying without existing, Like, it's

589
00:29:46,279 --> 00:29:47,039
impossible to.

590
00:29:47,039 --> 00:29:49,039
Speaker 1: Make a claim that's not even actually true. I mean,

591
00:29:49,119 --> 00:29:53,079
Boolean approaches to logic have made it deontological, so you

592
00:29:53,119 --> 00:29:55,680
can actually make onto you can actually make logical arguments

593
00:29:55,720 --> 00:29:57,200
without ontological claims.

594
00:29:57,680 --> 00:29:59,599
Speaker 2: That's not you're making an argument the moment that you

595
00:29:59,599 --> 00:30:01,119
make it justify.

596
00:30:01,759 --> 00:30:04,599
Speaker 1: No, that's not even true. That's that's a that's not

597
00:30:04,720 --> 00:30:07,640
a justification, and that's a fallacious move. So it doesn't

598
00:30:07,720 --> 00:30:12,920
keep it. It doesn't prove the metaphysical notion or the

599
00:30:13,000 --> 00:30:16,160
linguistic symbols that you use for the word existence are correct.

600
00:30:16,160 --> 00:30:22,400
In other words, it assumes all kinds of things like language, predications, language,

601
00:30:22,400 --> 00:30:24,680
and predication. Right, so if you had if you'd had

602
00:30:24,680 --> 00:30:27,920
a philosophy language class, you would know that words like

603
00:30:28,000 --> 00:30:37,519
existence presuppose metaphysical structures like universals, like predicate, predication, like grammar,

604
00:30:38,200 --> 00:30:40,240
and none of those things have been demonstrated yet.

605
00:30:41,680 --> 00:30:46,319
Speaker 2: Okay, this is it's not the concept of existence, but

606
00:30:47,079 --> 00:30:49,920
not the definition of the word existence. So everything that

607
00:30:49,960 --> 00:30:50,839
you just said is silly.

608
00:30:51,640 --> 00:30:53,079
Speaker 1: No, everything I said is basic.

609
00:30:52,920 --> 00:30:55,640
Speaker 2: Philosophy, no idiot.

610
00:30:55,839 --> 00:30:58,720
Speaker 1: The fact that you think that there's self evident action.

611
00:30:58,720 --> 00:31:01,960
Speaker 2: Well, other people might like, what is the definition of

612
00:31:02,000 --> 00:31:03,079
the word What do you mean?

613
00:31:03,200 --> 00:31:06,160
Speaker 1: You don't think that the word existence is? What is

614
00:31:06,160 --> 00:31:07,640
it referring to itself?

615
00:31:07,960 --> 00:31:10,039
Speaker 2: Is impossible to our.

616
00:31:09,920 --> 00:31:13,359
Speaker 1: Concepts in this case? Are they based on linguistic philosophy?

617
00:31:14,680 --> 00:31:16,000
Speaker 2: Can you argue against existence?

618
00:31:16,240 --> 00:31:18,400
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter because I won't get you to justification

619
00:31:18,559 --> 00:31:23,200
even if I admit that. Even if I admit it

620
00:31:23,240 --> 00:31:26,079
doesn't matter because it doesn't achieve justification. So even if

621
00:31:26,079 --> 00:31:29,839
I admit skepticism and play the role of a skeptic

622
00:31:30,400 --> 00:31:34,799
and counter your claims about existence being existence, it doesn't

623
00:31:34,799 --> 00:31:37,559
prove anything. It doesn't get you anywhere because I'm pointing

624
00:31:37,640 --> 00:31:39,759
out that it's not self evident if it relies on

625
00:31:39,839 --> 00:31:43,279
things like predication, linguistic philosophy, and grammar, which you haven't

626
00:31:43,319 --> 00:31:44,799
proven yet, So it's not self evident.

627
00:31:46,079 --> 00:31:50,119
Speaker 2: It does not The concept of existence is not does not.

628
00:31:49,799 --> 00:31:55,359
Speaker 1: The proposition existence exists, The proposition is itself relying on

629
00:31:56,000 --> 00:32:00,559
Does it rely on the law of identity? No, yes,

630
00:32:00,640 --> 00:32:04,440
it does. Existence exists is relying on the law of identity.

631
00:32:05,440 --> 00:32:06,799
Speaker 2: No, it would come after exists?

632
00:32:06,839 --> 00:32:08,400
Speaker 3: Oh my gosh, right like once.

633
00:32:08,400 --> 00:32:12,319
Speaker 1: No, to say existence exists relies on the law of identity,

634
00:32:12,400 --> 00:32:14,400
you're predicating identity, Yes.

635
00:32:14,319 --> 00:32:17,240
Speaker 2: Arisitilian formal logic ray like law of identity, law of

636
00:32:17,279 --> 00:32:21,000
excluded middle and law of non contradiction. Right, are going

637
00:32:21,079 --> 00:32:24,480
to be are going to be the foundation for making

638
00:32:24,599 --> 00:32:26,359
the argument that existency.

639
00:32:26,839 --> 00:32:29,000
Speaker 1: I'm calling in to question the argument.

640
00:32:28,799 --> 00:32:31,279
Speaker 2: Language and all those other things. But what I'm saying

641
00:32:31,400 --> 00:32:36,000
is is that by one attempting in any language in

642
00:32:36,039 --> 00:32:38,680
any in any means, anytime a.

643
00:32:40,240 --> 00:32:43,039
Speaker 1: Moral I know what you're saying, it's called retortion to.

644
00:32:42,920 --> 00:32:47,720
Speaker 2: Make a claim that that that requires existence for them

645
00:32:47,920 --> 00:32:49,319
that it presupposes exists.

646
00:32:49,440 --> 00:32:51,400
Speaker 1: I'm aware of that. But that still doesn't get you.

647
00:32:51,519 --> 00:32:54,720
I know that, I know it's called retortion. It's called retortion,

648
00:32:54,880 --> 00:32:59,960
and it doesn't get you to justification. That's the point, right, So.

649
00:33:00,599 --> 00:33:04,960
Speaker 2: How are you justifying because you clearly believe it existence.

650
00:33:05,160 --> 00:33:07,720
Speaker 1: Well, I believe in the transcendental argument for God's existence,

651
00:33:07,759 --> 00:33:10,279
and that's the ground for the logical categories which make

652
00:33:10,359 --> 00:33:13,839
it possible to predicate at all. So that's my worldview account.

653
00:33:14,359 --> 00:33:16,839
But even if I admit, even if I admit to you,

654
00:33:18,079 --> 00:33:19,759
let me explain the point as to why it doesn't

655
00:33:19,799 --> 00:33:23,160
get you justification. Right. So this comes up after Enlightenment

656
00:33:23,160 --> 00:33:26,880
philosophers raised the question about justification in this domain. When

657
00:33:26,880 --> 00:33:30,039
it comes to for example, Kant says, one reason that

658
00:33:30,319 --> 00:33:33,480
just retortion alone doesn't get you to justification is that

659
00:33:33,799 --> 00:33:37,799
we don't know that the seeming impossibility of not being

660
00:33:37,839 --> 00:33:41,599
able to argue, or to use logic or to have

661
00:33:41,720 --> 00:33:44,880
conceptual frameworks itself means that it's the case in the

662
00:33:44,920 --> 00:33:47,839
external world So even if you could demonstrate that I

663
00:33:47,880 --> 00:33:52,720
can't argue or have human conceptual predication or language without

664
00:33:52,759 --> 00:33:56,920
assuming something like the law of identity or existence exists

665
00:33:57,000 --> 00:33:59,960
or whatever, it still doesn't get you to justification because

666
00:34:00,119 --> 00:34:03,440
is that that even if it doesn't seem possible, it

667
00:34:03,480 --> 00:34:05,920
would become a fallacy of incredulity that I don't see

668
00:34:05,920 --> 00:34:08,960
how else you could reason still doesn't grain into justification,

669
00:34:09,039 --> 00:34:10,880
And all you need is one defeat.

670
00:34:10,559 --> 00:34:12,920
Speaker 2: Or to prove I'm not making the argument that it

671
00:34:12,960 --> 00:34:15,400
doesn't seem possible. I am making the argument that it

672
00:34:15,519 --> 00:34:16,519
is not possible.

673
00:34:16,599 --> 00:34:18,760
Speaker 1: So if you're saying it's not possible, you would have

674
00:34:18,800 --> 00:34:21,199
to demonstrate exists. Then I know that. So then you

675
00:34:21,199 --> 00:34:24,119
would have to then you have to answer Const's dilemmas

676
00:34:24,159 --> 00:34:25,880
of how you know there even is an external world

677
00:34:25,920 --> 00:34:27,320
to which these categories apply.

678
00:34:28,519 --> 00:34:31,280
Speaker 2: Okay, So constanlemma in how do I know that there

679
00:34:31,320 --> 00:34:32,719
is an external world.

680
00:34:33,199 --> 00:34:36,719
Speaker 1: To where the concepts apply? Like when he critiques the

681
00:34:37,480 --> 00:34:40,800
ontological argument, he's pointing out that there's nothing about the

682
00:34:40,880 --> 00:34:43,800
term existence that contains within it the notion of perfection.

683
00:34:44,199 --> 00:34:47,000
So just proving that something exists doesn't get these other

684
00:34:47,079 --> 00:34:50,440
metaphysical qualities like perfection. So likewise, in your case, the

685
00:34:50,480 --> 00:34:51,440
same problem applies.

686
00:34:51,639 --> 00:34:54,239
Speaker 2: What is what is? What is? If you can explain

687
00:34:54,280 --> 00:34:56,559
it for me batter like what is like perfection or

688
00:34:56,599 --> 00:34:57,480
like the human.

689
00:34:57,920 --> 00:35:02,639
Speaker 1: Like cons I'm saying that const critique of the ontological

690
00:35:02,800 --> 00:35:06,679
argument is applicable to the argument that you're making about

691
00:35:06,840 --> 00:35:11,440
the ontological claim that existence exists. I'm saying that you

692
00:35:11,519 --> 00:35:14,000
need all kinds of things to be the case for

693
00:35:14,079 --> 00:35:17,159
that to hold or to be true, and those other

694
00:35:17,239 --> 00:35:19,679
things have not been proven yet, and so it's not

695
00:35:19,760 --> 00:35:22,559
self evident or axiomatic. It rests on a bunch of

696
00:35:22,599 --> 00:35:26,440
other assumptions, all the things I've listed, like language.

697
00:35:26,880 --> 00:35:29,159
Speaker 2: Space, space, time, causality.

698
00:35:30,000 --> 00:35:36,679
Speaker 1: Correct well, when cont critiques the Kogito, he says that

699
00:35:36,719 --> 00:35:40,960
it assumes time and space. But I'm not making that argument. Okay,

700
00:35:41,360 --> 00:35:42,360
but it's similar.

701
00:35:42,000 --> 00:35:46,400
Speaker 2: To Okay, so your argument is that you need I'm

702
00:35:46,440 --> 00:35:49,639
having a hard time. My mom's gone real quick.

703
00:35:50,960 --> 00:35:54,320
Speaker 1: For you to say existence exists and to say that

704
00:35:54,360 --> 00:35:57,920
that's self evident and axiomatic, because if you denied it,

705
00:35:58,000 --> 00:36:00,360
you couldn't reason about the world, you couldn't reason at all.

706
00:36:00,800 --> 00:36:03,320
I agree with that principle and that point but that

707
00:36:03,440 --> 00:36:06,639
does not get you to epistemic justification because it doesn't

708
00:36:06,679 --> 00:36:09,719
answer constant dilemma that even if the proposition is true,

709
00:36:10,000 --> 00:36:12,119
you don't know that it applies to an external world

710
00:36:12,400 --> 00:36:14,800
without assuming an external world. And I agree with you

711
00:36:14,840 --> 00:36:16,679
that we should assume an external world. But the point

712
00:36:16,719 --> 00:36:19,119
is that you haven't demonstrated an external world yet, and

713
00:36:19,159 --> 00:36:21,199
so the propositions are not axiomatic.

714
00:36:21,559 --> 00:36:24,159
Speaker 2: Even if we were like in the matrix or something,

715
00:36:24,360 --> 00:36:28,280
there must be an external world for existence who exists.

716
00:36:28,159 --> 00:36:30,000
Speaker 1: But you haven't proven that yet, and so that's why

717
00:36:30,000 --> 00:36:32,719
this statement is not axiomatic. So it rests on other beliefs.

718
00:36:34,559 --> 00:36:35,639
Speaker 2: Well, it was sweet.

719
00:36:35,719 --> 00:36:39,480
Speaker 1: I mean I could if something acxiomatic or Okay, no,

720
00:36:39,719 --> 00:36:43,159
it could be false axiom. But like people self evident,

721
00:36:43,280 --> 00:36:46,719
axiomatic beliefs can't rest on another belief. That's the point,

722
00:36:46,960 --> 00:36:47,800
or else they're no longer.

723
00:36:48,559 --> 00:36:52,159
Speaker 2: Is what is the belief that existence exists.

724
00:36:53,719 --> 00:36:55,960
Speaker 1: In this case, that it applies to something in an

725
00:36:56,000 --> 00:36:59,239
external world to give it meaning and content. To refute

726
00:36:59,320 --> 00:37:01,760
my point about why it doesn't get you to justification,

727
00:37:01,880 --> 00:37:02,480
you needed.

728
00:37:02,320 --> 00:37:05,360
Speaker 2: To apply the existence itself.

729
00:37:06,119 --> 00:37:07,119
Speaker 1: You haven't shown that.

730
00:37:07,239 --> 00:37:07,599
Speaker 2: You haven't.

731
00:37:07,800 --> 00:37:11,679
Speaker 1: Now you've read it Now you haven't demonstrated that no existence,

732
00:37:12,280 --> 00:37:13,079
that it's not a concept.

733
00:37:13,480 --> 00:37:16,440
Speaker 2: There is that there is a material world that exists.

734
00:37:16,599 --> 00:37:19,480
Speaker 1: Now now you're adding, uh, now you're moving the goalpost,

735
00:37:19,519 --> 00:37:22,119
because there's nothing in the word There's nothing in the

736
00:37:22,159 --> 00:37:24,679
word existence that necessarily tells you that it's about an

737
00:37:24,679 --> 00:37:29,960
external world. That's what you just you just added and altered. Well,

738
00:37:30,639 --> 00:37:33,559
you know you might be existence exists, and now you're

739
00:37:33,559 --> 00:37:36,599
modifying it to say that, well that means necessarily the

740
00:37:36,639 --> 00:37:38,800
external world. What is there in the word existence that

741
00:37:39,000 --> 00:37:40,960
necessarily means external world?

742
00:37:41,840 --> 00:37:44,119
Speaker 2: So I think you, I think you might actually be

743
00:37:44,239 --> 00:37:48,960
right on this only because existence is this is is objective.

744
00:37:49,119 --> 00:37:52,159
It's randy and right. So you wouldn't you just wouldn't

745
00:37:52,320 --> 00:37:54,920
deny or I don't think she would support any idea

746
00:37:54,920 --> 00:37:57,639
of like the spiritual or any other type of world

747
00:37:57,760 --> 00:38:01,840
other than the material world. I think it is probably implied,

748
00:38:01,880 --> 00:38:05,400
but maybe not explicitly stated. So like, yeah, that's fine.

749
00:38:05,400 --> 00:38:08,480
If you want to critique existence exists, you know, to

750
00:38:08,639 --> 00:38:09,960
like better.

751
00:38:10,400 --> 00:38:13,800
Speaker 1: Well, I'm just giving examples of why it modern. I'm

752
00:38:13,840 --> 00:38:16,760
just giving examples or why it doesn't get you to

753
00:38:17,079 --> 00:38:20,159
self evidence or justification in an epistemic sense.

754
00:38:21,079 --> 00:38:25,119
Speaker 2: Well, it's like I'm you're saying it doesn't because there

755
00:38:25,119 --> 00:38:27,639
could be a spiritual.

756
00:38:27,079 --> 00:38:29,719
Speaker 1: World that I never said any of that.

757
00:38:30,639 --> 00:38:33,440
Speaker 2: Well, you're saying that it doesn't imply the materials.

758
00:38:33,519 --> 00:38:35,360
Speaker 1: All I need is one defeater, and I've given you

759
00:38:35,440 --> 00:38:37,599
a couple of defeaters. It doesn't mean that I have

760
00:38:37,679 --> 00:38:41,039
to all CON's positions. So no, I don't believe.

761
00:38:41,039 --> 00:38:45,360
Speaker 2: All I'm asking Your argument is that existence exists, doesn't

762
00:38:45,360 --> 00:38:46,159
imply the world.

763
00:38:46,760 --> 00:38:50,840
Speaker 1: Correct, that's our content, right, And well, this content.

764
00:38:50,719 --> 00:38:54,559
Speaker 2: Wasn't alive to critique existence from the from the checktives.

765
00:38:54,599 --> 00:38:58,400
Speaker 1: He made this critique in a similar way critiquing the

766
00:38:58,400 --> 00:38:59,960
ontological argument. That's what I'm saying.

767
00:39:02,239 --> 00:39:06,159
Speaker 2: So when I make the argument existence exit and you're saying, well,

768
00:39:06,159 --> 00:39:11,320
this doesn't necessarily apply to the existence we're in, I

769
00:39:11,880 --> 00:39:13,920
guess I don't have an argument for that, because we

770
00:39:14,039 --> 00:39:16,920
exist in the existence we're in. There is no other existence.

771
00:39:17,039 --> 00:39:20,239
Speaker 1: That's just starting, that's just starting the thing question.

772
00:39:22,239 --> 00:39:25,199
Speaker 2: I'm actually genuinely trying to understand your critique here. It's

773
00:39:25,199 --> 00:39:28,119
not like I'm like I'm not like, how.

774
00:39:28,159 --> 00:39:30,519
Speaker 1: Well, the point so to make it very live.

775
00:39:30,400 --> 00:39:33,480
Speaker 2: In this world? Right, we we we are acting, we're behaving,

776
00:39:33,480 --> 00:39:35,159
We're attempting to justify.

777
00:39:35,159 --> 00:39:38,119
Speaker 1: The point is that all systems, the point is that

778
00:39:39,119 --> 00:39:43,840
the point is that all beliefs, all propositions, all statements,

779
00:39:43,880 --> 00:39:46,400
true statements, et cetera, and my view are theory laden.

780
00:39:46,920 --> 00:39:49,679
And so this has been a long walk to get

781
00:39:49,679 --> 00:39:52,119
to the point, to try to prove or demonstrate that

782
00:39:52,519 --> 00:39:56,360
classical foundationalism, which is the epistemology that the Enlightenment relies

783
00:39:56,440 --> 00:40:01,679
upon in most libertarians, is philosophically enough, estemically on faulty ground.

784
00:40:02,000 --> 00:40:04,480
And it doesn't make me a content simply because I'm

785
00:40:04,559 --> 00:40:07,679
using his argument that there's nothing necessarily about the word

786
00:40:07,719 --> 00:40:11,960
existence that entails a material external world. I could be

787
00:40:12,000 --> 00:40:14,159
an idealist. Maybe I believe that all the world is

788
00:40:14,199 --> 00:40:17,400
a Platonic ideal, and for me, the word existence just

789
00:40:17,519 --> 00:40:20,480
means ideas like Plato, right, or that's the highest.

790
00:40:20,199 --> 00:40:22,719
Speaker 2: Now you're changing the argument.

791
00:40:23,039 --> 00:40:25,519
Speaker 1: No, I'm giving you an example of why the word

792
00:40:25,599 --> 00:40:29,480
existence does not have self evident meaning to it.

793
00:40:28,840 --> 00:40:30,239
Speaker 2: It's contingent.

794
00:40:30,400 --> 00:40:33,480
Speaker 1: Let me finish, there's contingent upon a paradigm.

795
00:40:33,599 --> 00:40:36,760
Speaker 2: So if I just start changing the meaning of words,

796
00:40:37,039 --> 00:40:39,079
right and then saying that, well.

797
00:40:39,079 --> 00:40:40,920
Speaker 1: I mean, you're the one that did that, where you

798
00:40:40,920 --> 00:40:43,960
you modified existence to mean a material external world. But

799
00:40:44,000 --> 00:40:46,079
there's nothing necessary enough. The word that tells you that.

800
00:40:49,360 --> 00:40:51,960
Speaker 2: The existence exists as an argument is a justification.

801
00:40:52,880 --> 00:40:56,119
Speaker 1: It's not a justification because it's a restatement of a

802
00:40:56,840 --> 00:40:59,679
self evident in your view, truth doesn't tell you anything

803
00:40:59,679 --> 00:41:02,000
about the world. You're assuming it does. But how do

804
00:41:02,039 --> 00:41:02,519
you know it does?

805
00:41:02,880 --> 00:41:08,400
Speaker 2: Well, it tells you that an individual cannot the reason

806
00:41:08,480 --> 00:41:09,679
is an unavoidable accident.

807
00:41:11,000 --> 00:41:13,719
Speaker 1: But you keep calling it unavoidable, resting on the assumption

808
00:41:13,840 --> 00:41:15,679
that it actually applies to an external world, which you

809
00:41:15,719 --> 00:41:16,440
haven't demonstrated.

810
00:41:16,440 --> 00:41:18,719
Speaker 2: But you're not making argument like that's a critique.

811
00:41:18,719 --> 00:41:21,079
Speaker 1: It's an internal critique. My argument is an eternal critique.

812
00:41:21,920 --> 00:41:25,800
Speaker 2: Yeah, but you're saying that there is a way that

813
00:41:25,840 --> 00:41:31,159
you can defeat existence exists argumentation by redefining words and

814
00:41:31,280 --> 00:41:32,440
concepts of what No.

815
00:41:32,519 --> 00:41:34,760
Speaker 1: I'm simply pointing out, I'm.

816
00:41:34,559 --> 00:41:38,760
Speaker 2: Clarifying what existence means in the objective his framework. And

817
00:41:38,800 --> 00:41:40,440
you're saying, ah, but what if.

818
00:41:40,320 --> 00:41:42,960
Speaker 1: I whether it's a non sequitor. There's nothing about the word.

819
00:41:42,760 --> 00:41:46,199
Speaker 2: Existence that you attempt to it's.

820
00:41:46,039 --> 00:41:48,000
Speaker 1: A non sequitor in your system.

821
00:41:48,679 --> 00:41:51,880
Speaker 2: The moment that you attempt to argue that you know

822
00:41:51,960 --> 00:41:55,360
the world is actually just like this platonic forms, or.

823
00:41:55,320 --> 00:41:57,679
Speaker 1: That I didn't say that. I just gave an example

824
00:41:57,760 --> 00:41:59,320
that wasn't my point I'm using.

825
00:41:59,400 --> 00:42:02,679
Speaker 2: I'm using use in like the universal right, the one

826
00:42:02,719 --> 00:42:06,800
that one you know, attempts to make any form of justification.

827
00:42:06,920 --> 00:42:09,599
They do so in the world that we live in.

828
00:42:10,719 --> 00:42:12,679
Speaker 1: I mean, again, assuming that there is an external world,

829
00:42:12,679 --> 00:42:18,119
which you haven't demonstrated yet. So the whole point is

830
00:42:18,159 --> 00:42:21,239
not because I'm you don't understand what a defeater argument is.

831
00:42:21,280 --> 00:42:23,039
It doesn't mean that I'm a skeptical like human. It

832
00:42:23,039 --> 00:42:25,239
means that I'm using the argument from human Kant to

833
00:42:25,320 --> 00:42:29,320
prove why your assertion existence exists is not self evident.

834
00:42:29,440 --> 00:42:31,239
It rests on other things, That's the point.

835
00:42:31,679 --> 00:42:33,519
Speaker 2: But you haven't shown that it rests on other things.

836
00:42:33,960 --> 00:42:38,000
Speaker 1: I gave you multiple examples. For example, it rests on

837
00:42:38,039 --> 00:42:40,159
the assumption that it applies to the external world. Have

838
00:42:40,239 --> 00:42:43,360
you demonstrated that existence exists applies to the external world

839
00:42:43,400 --> 00:42:46,840
and not just a conceptual framework? When was that justification?

840
00:42:48,360 --> 00:42:54,519
Speaker 2: Again? Who who is? Who can exist? Right without exist?

841
00:42:54,719 --> 00:42:58,119
Speaker 1: So you're answering a question to answer the question I

842
00:42:58,199 --> 00:42:58,559
asked you.

843
00:42:59,360 --> 00:43:00,760
Speaker 2: I'm trying to get you don't understand.

844
00:43:01,159 --> 00:43:05,320
Speaker 1: Maybe maybe that maybe we maybe everything is an ideal

845
00:43:05,440 --> 00:43:08,880
existence and there is no external world. I don't believe that,

846
00:43:08,920 --> 00:43:12,880
But I'm saying that your assumptions are not justified, even

847
00:43:12,920 --> 00:43:15,159
within your own system. How do I know that the

848
00:43:15,199 --> 00:43:19,320
word existence, when it has a vast array of meanings

849
00:43:19,320 --> 00:43:24,280
throughout the history of philosophy, somehow necessarily means a material, physical,

850
00:43:24,320 --> 00:43:28,320
external world. There's nothing about the word existence that necessarily

851
00:43:28,360 --> 00:43:30,599
means that. And when I ask you how you know

852
00:43:30,639 --> 00:43:32,239
that or why we should think that, you say, it

853
00:43:32,280 --> 00:43:34,880
just has to be that way. Well, that's a fallacy

854
00:43:34,880 --> 00:43:35,679
of incredulity.

855
00:43:37,400 --> 00:43:44,719
Speaker 2: So if there are the necessary condition for existence is well,

856
00:43:44,840 --> 00:43:48,920
hold on, let me not go there. So I'm you're

857
00:43:49,000 --> 00:43:53,679
you're saying that the argument isn't justified because one could

858
00:43:54,039 --> 00:43:56,760
make arguments outside of reality.

859
00:43:57,280 --> 00:43:59,360
Speaker 1: I'm saying that it's a non sequitor and that it

860
00:43:59,440 --> 00:44:03,199
rests on multiple other assumptions which have not been proven,

861
00:44:03,280 --> 00:44:04,639
and so it's not self evident.

862
00:44:07,840 --> 00:44:13,760
Speaker 2: So, but some existence is self evident. I don't understand.

863
00:44:13,840 --> 00:44:16,119
Speaker 1: I mean, again, you just keep re starting the position

864
00:44:16,239 --> 00:44:18,800
that's a variation on the original position, And how do

865
00:44:18,840 --> 00:44:19,880
we know that? What does that mean?

866
00:44:21,039 --> 00:44:24,840
Speaker 2: Because if one because we because we obviously exist in

867
00:44:24,840 --> 00:44:25,559
some capacity.

868
00:44:25,679 --> 00:44:27,920
Speaker 1: So your answer is that it's just the case. So

869
00:44:28,239 --> 00:44:29,960
the answer is again, that is just the case.

870
00:44:30,039 --> 00:44:34,119
Speaker 2: So I have those classical foundations and it's antable axiom.

871
00:44:34,480 --> 00:44:36,679
Speaker 1: Again, you keep asserting that, but then you've admitted that

872
00:44:36,719 --> 00:44:39,119
it relies on other things like an external world, which

873
00:44:39,159 --> 00:44:43,440
that proposition, the proposition itself does not contain within it

874
00:44:43,599 --> 00:44:45,159
a necessary existence of an.

875
00:44:45,039 --> 00:44:50,000
Speaker 2: Ex Okay, So so I have put forward that existence exists,

876
00:44:50,039 --> 00:44:53,199
and you've heard that argument. Need it? You say it doesn't.

877
00:44:53,239 --> 00:44:57,639
It's it's not justified because it relies on other assumptions.

878
00:44:58,159 --> 00:45:01,360
What do do you have a counter argument for our existence?

879
00:45:01,840 --> 00:45:06,000
Speaker 1: Yes, and again it's the existence of God grounds and

880
00:45:06,199 --> 00:45:10,960
justifies the transcendental categories which make possible things like predicating

881
00:45:11,000 --> 00:45:13,880
about existence in the created realm. So there's not even

882
00:45:13,960 --> 00:45:20,559
one God, no, because in Christian theology, for example, there's

883
00:45:20,559 --> 00:45:23,719
two types of existences. There's uncreated and created, and so

884
00:45:23,760 --> 00:45:26,320
there's nothing about the word existence that tells me necessarily

885
00:45:26,320 --> 00:45:28,400
which one is even being referred to. Because I believe

886
00:45:28,440 --> 00:45:31,159
in my place, I believe in my paradigm that there's

887
00:45:31,280 --> 00:45:34,960
uncreated existence, who is God himself, and there's created existence,

888
00:45:34,960 --> 00:45:36,880
which is the created world. Those are two types of

889
00:45:36,920 --> 00:45:40,320
existing things. So there's nothing self evident about the word

890
00:45:40,360 --> 00:45:42,440
existence that necessarily tells you anything.

891
00:45:43,079 --> 00:45:48,280
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, what is an uncreated existence God himself? Yeah? Okay,

892
00:45:48,280 --> 00:45:50,239
well that's like, yeah, but what do you mean by like,

893
00:45:50,239 --> 00:45:52,599
what is an uncreated system?

894
00:45:52,840 --> 00:45:54,880
Speaker 1: It means that he is timeless. It means that he

895
00:45:55,000 --> 00:45:58,280
is a noncomposite, He is outside of time and space.

896
00:45:58,679 --> 00:46:01,519
He is transcendent, he is imminent, he is perfect all

897
00:46:01,559 --> 00:46:05,719
the attributes that we would ascribe to God in our system.

898
00:46:05,800 --> 00:46:08,280
Speaker 2: So when you say he's timeless, what is what is?

899
00:46:08,360 --> 00:46:11,079
What do you mean by that? It's a doesn't exist

900
00:46:11,119 --> 00:46:12,199
in reality.

901
00:46:12,320 --> 00:46:15,840
Speaker 1: No, outside of time, meaning that he's eternal. He created time,

902
00:46:15,880 --> 00:46:17,000
he's outside of time.

903
00:46:18,000 --> 00:46:20,800
Speaker 2: So like, well, like would a vampire be an ungreated

904
00:46:20,840 --> 00:46:22,119
existence if he's immortal?

905
00:46:23,559 --> 00:46:25,840
Speaker 1: Anything mortal is created by definition?

906
00:46:27,079 --> 00:46:27,559
Speaker 2: Okay, so.

907
00:46:30,719 --> 00:46:32,719
Speaker 1: Yeah, but I'm just pointing out that the word existence

908
00:46:32,760 --> 00:46:36,800
doesn't necessarily tell you anything self evident without a paradigm

909
00:46:36,880 --> 00:46:40,119
to inform the word and its meaning, even language itself.

910
00:46:40,199 --> 00:46:42,840
Is why I mentioned earlier to you linguistic philosophy, it's

911
00:46:42,880 --> 00:46:46,599
a holistic structure. It's an epistemic wholism, which means that

912
00:46:46,920 --> 00:46:50,239
there's no words that function in an independent way. You

913
00:46:50,239 --> 00:46:52,599
could read Wickenstein on this because he talks about how

914
00:46:53,440 --> 00:46:58,119
words and terms are part of linguistic structures and systems

915
00:46:58,239 --> 00:47:00,639
because they all relate to one another. So there's no

916
00:47:00,679 --> 00:47:06,440
such thing as a word called existence or ontos or food,

917
00:47:06,480 --> 00:47:11,000
sees or being or whatever that somehow has a self evident,

918
00:47:11,280 --> 00:47:15,599
necessary meaning apart from the entire paradigm or worldview that

919
00:47:15,639 --> 00:47:18,800
you have that informs it. That's why I was mentioning, Yeah, so.

920
00:47:18,880 --> 00:47:23,039
Speaker 2: Yeah, what like, So it is true that words, you know,

921
00:47:23,960 --> 00:47:25,760
have a have a shared meaning that we kind of

922
00:47:25,760 --> 00:47:29,719
assume people get like, you know, and we see language

923
00:47:29,760 --> 00:47:32,440
pain constantly where a word has are and then over

924
00:47:32,519 --> 00:47:35,440
time the meaning of the word kind of changes from

925
00:47:35,440 --> 00:47:38,719
the cultural context because it's because it's just a function, right,

926
00:47:38,880 --> 00:47:40,960
It's a tool. A word is just a tool to

927
00:47:41,079 --> 00:47:45,639
describe a concept, and you know, communication is often more

928
00:47:45,679 --> 00:47:46,760
often than not imperfect.

929
00:47:46,920 --> 00:47:47,000
Speaker 3: Right.

930
00:47:47,639 --> 00:47:51,559
Speaker 2: But but what I'm trying to understand is, you know,

931
00:47:52,360 --> 00:47:54,679
I agree that that is a that is a problem

932
00:47:54,760 --> 00:47:58,039
in argumentation. You have to kind of assume that the

933
00:47:58,079 --> 00:48:01,320
reader understands the meaning of the word has right, but

934
00:48:01,800 --> 00:48:06,760
that isn't always perfect. But how do you justify? How

935
00:48:06,800 --> 00:48:08,639
do how does your position differ?

936
00:48:08,679 --> 00:48:09,400
Speaker 3: In existence?

937
00:48:09,480 --> 00:48:13,039
Speaker 2: Exist? And so though far that it justifies? Like saying

938
00:48:13,079 --> 00:48:17,599
God is uncreated is like like you're just saying it's

939
00:48:17,639 --> 00:48:20,800
it's outside of the rules, and it exists and it doesn't.

940
00:48:20,760 --> 00:48:23,199
Speaker 1: Well, now outside of your rules? So and are I

941
00:48:23,239 --> 00:48:25,920
have a different paradigm. So I'm thinking and arguing in

942
00:48:26,000 --> 00:48:28,480
terms of paradigms or world views as a whole. The

943
00:48:28,519 --> 00:48:31,840
transcendental argument is a comparison of to world views or paradigms.

944
00:48:31,920 --> 00:48:35,480
So it involves the entire system because the Christian theistic

945
00:48:35,519 --> 00:48:39,039
system conditions what I mean by words like existence or

946
00:48:39,199 --> 00:48:42,800
time or creation or whatever all of those things are.

947
00:48:43,880 --> 00:48:46,119
Speaker 2: How does that? How does how does the Christian? How

948
00:48:46,119 --> 00:48:48,239
does christ ethics? Like? All these things are made up

949
00:48:48,239 --> 00:48:51,440
of words? Right, So it's the same problem that that

950
00:48:51,440 --> 00:48:52,840
that would occur in any well.

951
00:48:52,880 --> 00:48:55,960
Speaker 1: I don't have the belief that words are in language

952
00:48:55,960 --> 00:48:59,039
are all purely social constructs. I believe that what the

953
00:48:59,079 --> 00:49:05,000
words refer to is conceptual and universal and objective and

954
00:49:05,039 --> 00:49:05,920
not subjective.

955
00:49:06,679 --> 00:49:10,079
Speaker 2: Yeah, it work, But the words themselves are just communicating

956
00:49:10,519 --> 00:49:11,760
concepts or ideas.

957
00:49:12,079 --> 00:49:14,239
Speaker 1: Right, But that's why the words can be flexible. You

958
00:49:14,280 --> 00:49:17,039
can have Roman numeral V I I or the Arabic

959
00:49:17,119 --> 00:49:20,440
number seven that are referred to the same abstract conceptual entity.

960
00:49:22,079 --> 00:49:23,000
But that has nothing to do.

961
00:49:23,039 --> 00:49:26,639
Speaker 2: It doesn't get us any justification of like how how

962
00:49:26,719 --> 00:49:30,519
you solve the problem? As you see that justification can't

963
00:49:30,519 --> 00:49:34,039
be met on anything unless we posit a god. But

964
00:49:34,760 --> 00:49:35,760
I don't understand how.

965
00:49:35,639 --> 00:49:40,000
Speaker 1: That well, because they The tag argument argues that any predication,

966
00:49:40,199 --> 00:49:44,920
any proposition, relies on the structures that are necessary for

967
00:49:45,000 --> 00:49:48,320
the possibility of language and predication. So, in other words,

968
00:49:48,360 --> 00:49:52,039
to say, a sentence like the tree is red, a

969
00:49:52,039 --> 00:49:55,119
shout me the tree is green rests on a certain

970
00:49:55,199 --> 00:49:59,280
type of world where there are there is regularity in nature.

971
00:49:59,360 --> 00:50:04,880
It rests on the possibility of having knowledge, universals, linguistic structure, grammar.

972
00:50:05,000 --> 00:50:07,920
All of those things are presupposed in the action of

973
00:50:07,960 --> 00:50:09,199
making a proposition.

974
00:50:10,400 --> 00:50:13,559
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, that would be true for objectives philosophy as.

975
00:50:13,480 --> 00:50:17,440
Speaker 1: Well, Right, But the difference between the difference between you

976
00:50:17,480 --> 00:50:20,400
and I is how we give an account for those things,

977
00:50:20,519 --> 00:50:22,960
and that your accounts are not good accounts, is what

978
00:50:23,000 --> 00:50:23,639
I've been arguing.

979
00:50:24,360 --> 00:50:26,880
Speaker 2: So what is your good account that solves this problem?

980
00:50:26,920 --> 00:50:32,159
Speaker 1: In the well, there are no self evident positions or

981
00:50:32,199 --> 00:50:35,360
statements because they're embedded within a network or a web

982
00:50:35,360 --> 00:50:38,199
of beliefs that we all have. And thus, if my

983
00:50:38,360 --> 00:50:41,519
system or my view is holistic, if I'm an epistemic holist,

984
00:50:42,000 --> 00:50:45,199
then I have to give an account for the system

985
00:50:45,239 --> 00:50:49,239
as a whole and how those structures or how those

986
00:50:49,239 --> 00:50:57,280
preconditions are the case. So if I need the possibility, predication, universals, mathematics, logic, mathematics, logic,

987
00:50:57,800 --> 00:51:01,000
all of these categories being the true, the good, et cetera,

988
00:51:01,119 --> 00:51:03,480
to have knowledge at all, then I need to give

989
00:51:03,519 --> 00:51:07,039
some account for the those things, those categories that my

990
00:51:07,320 --> 00:51:10,440
statements are relying on. And the transcendental argument argues that

991
00:51:10,880 --> 00:51:13,679
only God is the type of being who could give

992
00:51:13,719 --> 00:51:15,559
a justification or account for those things.

993
00:51:17,519 --> 00:51:20,119
Speaker 2: So you're just saying only God can do this, So

994
00:51:20,159 --> 00:51:22,199
therefore God is that every saying.

995
00:51:22,239 --> 00:51:25,039
Speaker 1: I'm saying that. The argument is that the only being

996
00:51:25,079 --> 00:51:28,119
who can give given a grounding for those things is

997
00:51:28,159 --> 00:51:30,119
the being revealed in the Christian worldview.

998
00:51:32,599 --> 00:51:35,440
Speaker 2: How is it so? But but God doesn't exist in reality.

999
00:51:36,320 --> 00:51:37,440
Speaker 1: I don't even know what does that mean?

1000
00:51:37,719 --> 00:51:45,159
Speaker 2: He said, he's an uncreated existence. How is he doing this?

1001
00:51:45,280 --> 00:51:48,119
Speaker 1: I said, he's transcendent and he's imminent. That means that

1002
00:51:48,519 --> 00:51:50,719
he exists outside of time and in time.

1003
00:51:52,239 --> 00:51:53,880
Speaker 2: So he does exist in reality.

1004
00:51:54,559 --> 00:51:57,119
Speaker 1: Well, you keep calling reality. I would say, there's two realities.

1005
00:51:57,119 --> 00:51:58,920
There's created reality on created reality.

1006
00:51:59,079 --> 00:52:04,920
Speaker 2: So you stay the reality outside of material reality. Yeah, okay,

1007
00:52:04,920 --> 00:52:07,239
where it was? So how so how do you prove that?

1008
00:52:08,159 --> 00:52:10,039
Speaker 1: Well? I could just I could prove it by the

1009
00:52:10,039 --> 00:52:13,360
transcendental argument and the impossibility of the contrary that anytime

1010
00:52:13,400 --> 00:52:18,480
you utilize language, you're utilizing conceptual, abstract things that are

1011
00:52:18,519 --> 00:52:22,760
not reducible to physical sense data, and that only God

1012
00:52:22,800 --> 00:52:25,000
in the trinitarian sense could give a justification for how

1013
00:52:25,000 --> 00:52:25,679
that's possible?

1014
00:52:26,760 --> 00:52:30,159
Speaker 2: Well, no, I reason, reason alone explains that humans have

1015
00:52:30,199 --> 00:52:31,280
the capacity for reason.

1016
00:52:31,599 --> 00:52:34,280
Speaker 1: Well that alone, you're all humans?

1017
00:52:36,159 --> 00:52:37,960
Speaker 2: Well, humans as a category.

1018
00:52:39,119 --> 00:52:40,920
Speaker 1: How do you have a justification for categories?

1019
00:52:44,159 --> 00:52:46,239
Speaker 2: What do you How do I have a justification that

1020
00:52:46,239 --> 00:52:48,199
that that humans have the capacity.

1021
00:52:47,719 --> 00:52:50,000
Speaker 1: Know that there are things called categories like this.

1022
00:52:52,559 --> 00:52:56,840
Speaker 2: I'm trying to figure out a way to answer this.

1023
00:52:57,039 --> 00:53:02,800
You would accept it? So the how do I justify

1024
00:53:02,920 --> 00:53:05,800
the categories exist in the mind that people.

1025
00:53:05,679 --> 00:53:08,679
Speaker 1: Well, so now they're just in the mind. They're not actual,

1026
00:53:08,960 --> 00:53:11,119
they're not outside the mind like the numbers.

1027
00:53:11,159 --> 00:53:11,960
Speaker 2: They're not material.

1028
00:53:12,760 --> 00:53:16,599
Speaker 1: They're not material, No, of course not. Okay, so there's immaterial.

1029
00:53:16,199 --> 00:53:17,760
Speaker 2: Things that there's no category three?

1030
00:53:17,960 --> 00:53:21,360
Speaker 1: Right, there are immaterial things that exist and material things.

1031
00:53:23,800 --> 00:53:28,559
Speaker 2: The mind does not create reality. A reality exists independent. Okay.

1032
00:53:28,559 --> 00:53:30,800
Speaker 1: How do you know that there are two types of things,

1033
00:53:31,199 --> 00:53:32,800
physical and immaterial?

1034
00:53:34,760 --> 00:53:36,400
Speaker 2: Well, we have we do have sense.

1035
00:53:37,199 --> 00:53:39,559
Speaker 1: How does your senseta tell you that? You mentioned Hume?

1036
00:53:39,719 --> 00:53:41,760
But how does your sensitive tell you that there's imterial

1037
00:53:41,800 --> 00:53:43,239
things that are not based on sense data?

1038
00:53:45,239 --> 00:53:47,800
Speaker 2: How does my sense data tell me that there are

1039
00:53:47,800 --> 00:53:49,360
things that are not sense data?

1040
00:53:49,519 --> 00:53:50,719
Speaker 1: That's what you just said a question?

1041
00:53:51,079 --> 00:53:54,639
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, I said that we can see things in reality.

1042
00:53:54,679 --> 00:53:57,559
Speaker 1: How does things tell you that there are immaterial things?

1043
00:53:59,039 --> 00:54:01,639
Speaker 2: So the first thing is that we can see that

1044
00:54:01,639 --> 00:54:03,000
there are material things?

1045
00:54:03,119 --> 00:54:06,280
Speaker 1: Right, Well, I would say with the myth of the given,

1046
00:54:06,320 --> 00:54:08,760
you don't even know that, and you haven't demonstrated that yet.

1047
00:54:08,760 --> 00:54:10,440
But if I grant you that, how does that give

1048
00:54:10,519 --> 00:54:11,920
to immaterial If.

1049
00:54:11,840 --> 00:54:14,159
Speaker 2: Even even if I was like there there has.

1050
00:54:14,079 --> 00:54:18,159
Speaker 1: To be you keep saying, and if you do philosophy,

1051
00:54:18,159 --> 00:54:19,760
you know there's no has to any of this. You

1052
00:54:19,800 --> 00:54:21,599
got to demonstrate that. You can't just assert that.

1053
00:54:22,679 --> 00:54:26,920
Speaker 2: Well okay, well, if you interrupt someone, you know, then

1054
00:54:26,960 --> 00:54:27,880
they can't make their full arge.

1055
00:54:28,000 --> 00:54:31,000
Speaker 1: So empiricism won't get you to universal categories, is the point?

1056
00:54:32,239 --> 00:54:35,360
Speaker 2: Yeah, No, I don't. I don't disagree that empiricism gets you, like,

1057
00:54:35,360 --> 00:54:35,920
I don't disagree.

1058
00:54:35,960 --> 00:54:38,159
Speaker 1: Okay, So what's the justification for the immaterial things?

1059
00:54:40,039 --> 00:54:44,599
Speaker 2: Well, the justification for immaterial things is that the that

1060
00:54:44,800 --> 00:54:47,079
concepts exist, you mean, ideas.

1061
00:54:47,239 --> 00:54:49,199
Speaker 1: How do you know that? How do you know that

1062
00:54:49,239 --> 00:54:52,400
the concept in my head of humans as a category

1063
00:54:52,480 --> 00:54:54,119
is the same as the concept in your head? How

1064
00:54:54,159 --> 00:54:55,480
do you You can't verify that?

1065
00:54:55,840 --> 00:54:58,159
Speaker 2: You don't. We've already we've already stated that you can't

1066
00:54:58,159 --> 00:54:59,320
necessarily verify that.

1067
00:54:59,360 --> 00:55:01,280
Speaker 1: Okay, if you can't verify that, then you believe in

1068
00:55:01,280 --> 00:55:04,039
immaterial things without justification that you can't verify?

1069
00:55:04,920 --> 00:55:06,400
Speaker 2: Well, so do you? You don't know?

1070
00:55:06,599 --> 00:55:09,119
Speaker 1: I believe in verification. I believe that I can justify it.

1071
00:55:09,320 --> 00:55:11,079
Speaker 2: You you believe you believe.

1072
00:55:10,760 --> 00:55:13,320
Speaker 1: That that's a too quo, that's a two way, that's

1073
00:55:13,320 --> 00:55:16,599
a two quoke way, No, but you're that's a two

1074
00:55:16,679 --> 00:55:19,199
quote way no but you, No, but you. It's a

1075
00:55:19,199 --> 00:55:19,840
two quoke way.

1076
00:55:20,639 --> 00:55:22,800
Speaker 2: No, it's not no but you because you just you.

1077
00:55:22,880 --> 00:55:26,679
Speaker 1: Just said no, but you. My world view is different.

1078
00:55:26,760 --> 00:55:29,320
I have a different account. You're not understanding that I

1079
00:55:29,320 --> 00:55:30,960
have a different account than you.

1080
00:55:31,079 --> 00:55:33,960
Speaker 2: I understand that. I understand that you like to interrupt people.

1081
00:55:33,960 --> 00:55:36,920
Speaker 1: Now and then this is where once again you're deflecting

1082
00:55:37,079 --> 00:55:41,079
because I brought you to a point. You said, you

1083
00:55:41,239 --> 00:55:44,920
just see it. What's the justification? Listen when you say joke,

1084
00:55:45,000 --> 00:55:47,719
what about you? That's a two quoke way. That's you

1085
00:55:47,760 --> 00:55:48,320
know what a two qu.

1086
00:55:49,800 --> 00:55:52,199
Speaker 2: I asked you. I asked you if you had the

1087
00:55:52,239 --> 00:55:53,280
similar belief.

1088
00:55:52,960 --> 00:55:55,159
Speaker 1: For thing, it doesn't matter what my similar breaks are.

1089
00:55:55,159 --> 00:55:57,440
I will go into you said, I will go into that.

1090
00:55:57,519 --> 00:55:59,519
It doesn't matter if I believe I have a different

1091
00:55:59,559 --> 00:56:01,039
account of immaterial things.

1092
00:56:01,159 --> 00:56:03,000
Speaker 2: Why why are you I have.

1093
00:56:02,880 --> 00:56:05,119
Speaker 1: A different account of material things than you?

1094
00:56:05,199 --> 00:56:08,800
Speaker 2: We were finally starting to get to talk like adults.

1095
00:56:08,360 --> 00:56:11,119
Speaker 1: And you and again now that you've been pinned down,

1096
00:56:11,280 --> 00:56:14,920
you don't want to go into it. What is the

1097
00:56:15,119 --> 00:56:17,280
justification for immaterial things?

1098
00:56:17,320 --> 00:56:17,360
Speaker 3: Do?

1099
00:56:18,039 --> 00:56:20,239
Speaker 1: What is your justification for immaterial things.

1100
00:56:22,360 --> 00:56:27,280
Speaker 2: What is my justification that immaterial immaterial things exist? So

1101
00:56:28,440 --> 00:56:30,599
first I start with existence exists, but you say that

1102
00:56:30,599 --> 00:56:32,280
that's not valid, but we'll just move on.

1103
00:56:33,320 --> 00:56:36,000
Speaker 1: So, well, you kind of admitted that there's problems for that.

1104
00:56:38,519 --> 00:56:42,840
Nor did you demonstrate the act. Did you demonstrate the

1105
00:56:42,840 --> 00:56:44,639
external world which you said it means?

1106
00:56:47,239 --> 00:56:51,039
Speaker 2: I said that in order for us to have existence,

1107
00:56:51,079 --> 00:56:52,800
we have to exist in some type of thing.

1108
00:56:53,000 --> 00:56:56,840
Speaker 1: Have you demonstrated that you demonstrate that? We know, you

1109
00:56:56,880 --> 00:56:59,199
said an external world. What if we live in a

1110
00:56:59,320 --> 00:57:01,960
mental world. You haven't proven that it's the external, material,

1111
00:57:02,000 --> 00:57:04,519
physical world that we have. Necessarily, you haven't proven that.

1112
00:57:04,559 --> 00:57:05,360
You've just asserted it.

1113
00:57:05,360 --> 00:57:07,719
Speaker 2: The mind cannot the mind cannot exist without a material

1114
00:57:07,800 --> 00:57:08,400
How do you know that?

1115
00:57:08,440 --> 00:57:10,519
Speaker 1: You just assert this? What's the justification for this?

1116
00:57:12,079 --> 00:57:17,480
Speaker 2: Well, so the justification for how reason or consciousness comes

1117
00:57:17,519 --> 00:57:17,719
to me.

1118
00:57:18,880 --> 00:57:21,599
Speaker 1: You keep asserting all kinds of metaphysical claims like that

1119
00:57:21,599 --> 00:57:24,760
there's immaterial realities, and you've not justified any of these.

1120
00:57:25,519 --> 00:57:28,079
Speaker 2: We do exist in some form of existence. Right, let's

1121
00:57:28,119 --> 00:57:29,199
let's take into account.

1122
00:57:30,119 --> 00:57:34,119
Speaker 1: I mean we exist in existence is basically a meaningless phrase.

1123
00:57:34,199 --> 00:57:39,159
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I'm going through it. Right, So we exist,

1124
00:57:39,320 --> 00:57:42,800
We could exist by your your you're asserting, what if

1125
00:57:42,800 --> 00:57:46,960
we exist in the frame of the mind, we would

1126
00:57:47,000 --> 00:57:53,719
then have to note that an existence must have some

1127
00:57:53,880 --> 00:57:56,119
form of identity specific.

1128
00:57:57,199 --> 00:57:59,320
Speaker 1: How do we know that maybe it? Maybe it does.

1129
00:57:59,400 --> 00:58:01,960
Maybe we're also it's aphrenic and our schema in our

1130
00:58:02,000 --> 00:58:04,000
minds don't match up to anything in the external world.

1131
00:58:04,000 --> 00:58:05,360
We just interpret it like it does.

1132
00:58:06,280 --> 00:58:09,000
Speaker 2: Yees. So if if you deny the law of identity,

1133
00:58:09,199 --> 00:58:11,320
then then this entire conversation is meaningful.

1134
00:58:11,400 --> 00:58:13,760
Speaker 1: So but wait a minute, you said that existence exists

1135
00:58:13,760 --> 00:58:15,719
doesn't rely on the law of identity earlier.

1136
00:58:16,920 --> 00:58:21,679
Speaker 2: Well, we're moving, we moved past existence. What do you mean, No, you're.

1137
00:58:21,559 --> 00:58:23,840
Speaker 1: We're still talking about it. So you're saying it does,

1138
00:58:24,119 --> 00:58:26,159
it does rely on the law of the law of identity.

1139
00:58:27,039 --> 00:58:29,920
Speaker 2: If if the law of identity is no, I'm saying

1140
00:58:30,119 --> 00:58:33,679
that I'm moving from existence exists and then making.

1141
00:58:33,599 --> 00:58:36,840
Speaker 1: That's a proposition that relies on the law of identity.

1142
00:58:36,880 --> 00:58:40,639
Speaker 2: Obviously I'm making a separate claim, which is essentially that

1143
00:58:40,719 --> 00:58:41,440
the law of I didn't.

1144
00:58:43,159 --> 00:58:45,440
Speaker 1: Okay, how do we know that the laws like that

1145
00:58:45,480 --> 00:58:47,840
and the classical Aristilian laws are the case and that

1146
00:58:47,880 --> 00:58:48,360
they apply.

1147
00:58:48,960 --> 00:58:51,519
Speaker 2: And by the way, we perceive, we perceive.

1148
00:58:51,199 --> 00:58:54,920
Speaker 1: Existence, perceiving existence. You don't understand that, you don't understand

1149
00:58:54,960 --> 00:58:59,280
why that doesn't answer that question. You're basically just saying,

1150
00:58:59,280 --> 00:59:00,519
you're basically I'm.

1151
00:59:00,360 --> 00:59:04,039
Speaker 2: Sorry ahead, No, No, you go ahead. It's fine.

1152
00:59:04,840 --> 00:59:07,920
Speaker 1: You're basically just saying that my position is the case,

1153
00:59:08,039 --> 00:59:10,559
because if you look at my position, it states that

1154
00:59:10,559 --> 00:59:12,360
this is the case. And that's what the words mean

1155
00:59:12,440 --> 00:59:13,000
my position.

1156
00:59:16,079 --> 00:59:20,519
Speaker 2: No. No, what I'm saying is that we again premise

1157
00:59:20,559 --> 00:59:23,119
one or action one I guess would be existence exist,

1158
00:59:23,440 --> 00:59:27,960
we exist in some that to argue for uh, but

1159
00:59:28,400 --> 00:59:31,039
you know, how do you know that is because of

1160
00:59:31,079 --> 00:59:34,239
the negation. You can't argue against your own existence. Do

1161
00:59:34,400 --> 00:59:37,920
so presupposes existence? It's impossible, but.

1162
00:59:37,920 --> 00:59:41,280
Speaker 1: You have I'm making the argument right now. And what

1163
00:59:41,400 --> 00:59:45,039
if our conceptual schema just seems to be the case

1164
00:59:45,039 --> 00:59:48,119
in our minds but doesn't apply to an actual external

1165
00:59:48,119 --> 00:59:51,000
ontological existence. How do we know? That is the question?

1166
00:59:51,119 --> 00:59:52,639
And you can you can say that because it has

1167
00:59:52,679 --> 00:59:54,760
to be that way, but that doesn't answer the objection

1168
00:59:54,880 --> 00:59:55,480
or the defeater.

1169
00:59:56,000 --> 00:59:57,880
Speaker 2: No, I'm saying that if you make the argument that

1170
00:59:58,000 --> 01:00:00,400
existence doesn't exist, you fall into com tradition.

1171
01:00:00,519 --> 01:00:04,000
Speaker 1: No, that's not the argument argument. The argument is that

1172
01:00:04,119 --> 01:00:08,639
existence exists necessarily applies to some external physical world. You

1173
01:00:08,639 --> 01:00:11,599
have not demonstrated the external world yet, and thus it's

1174
01:00:11,599 --> 01:00:15,119
not axiomatic because it relies on other positions and other beliefs.

1175
01:00:15,840 --> 01:00:18,920
Speaker 2: Well, it's well, the first axiom is existence exists. Once

1176
01:00:18,920 --> 01:00:22,239
we recognize that one must exist in some capacity.

1177
01:00:22,519 --> 01:00:25,320
Speaker 1: Then when you say one, you're just assuming the existence

1178
01:00:25,360 --> 01:00:27,039
of the self. Have you not read a critique of

1179
01:00:27,039 --> 01:00:27,719
the code self?

1180
01:00:27,880 --> 01:00:30,039
Speaker 2: Well, of course, of course I'm assuming the existence of this.

1181
01:00:30,280 --> 01:00:31,880
Speaker 1: Well, then thank you. Then it's not self evident. It

1182
01:00:31,920 --> 01:00:33,719
assumes other things exactly.

1183
01:00:34,119 --> 01:00:35,800
Speaker 2: No, it's the individual.

1184
01:00:36,239 --> 01:00:38,119
Speaker 1: Does it assume the existence of the self.

1185
01:00:40,000 --> 01:00:42,239
Speaker 2: It is the self that makes the argument? Is it not?

1186
01:00:42,480 --> 01:00:42,559
Speaker 3: So?

1187
01:00:42,679 --> 01:00:44,800
Speaker 1: Is it assuming it is? The proposition?

1188
01:00:46,199 --> 01:00:48,840
Speaker 2: Would you okay, we'll put another axiom before it, the

1189
01:00:49,000 --> 01:00:51,599
self exists, an existence exists.

1190
01:00:52,440 --> 01:00:54,920
Speaker 1: But you have know now you're adding the moving the

1191
01:00:54,960 --> 01:00:57,199
goalpost to add another proposition ahead.

1192
01:00:57,039 --> 01:00:59,440
Speaker 2: Adding the post. I'm saying that's fine, I'll okay.

1193
01:00:59,480 --> 01:01:02,920
Speaker 1: Then if this proposition exist, then it's no longer self

1194
01:01:02,960 --> 01:01:05,119
evident because it relies on another proposition.

1195
01:01:05,239 --> 01:01:10,320
Speaker 2: Obviously, so the self exist. Right, you just agree that

1196
01:01:10,360 --> 01:01:11,039
the self exit.

1197
01:01:11,280 --> 01:01:14,280
Speaker 1: No, I'm saying it doesn't matter how you construct it,

1198
01:01:14,280 --> 01:01:17,880
it's no longer self evident because you're adding other propping

1199
01:01:17,960 --> 01:01:20,519
up beliefs. So if you look, if you study this,

1200
01:01:20,639 --> 01:01:21,599
it's it's no, it.

1201
01:01:21,599 --> 01:01:24,239
Speaker 2: Is it's self evident because the self is the one

1202
01:01:24,239 --> 01:01:25,119
that argues.

1203
01:01:24,800 --> 01:01:28,800
Speaker 1: If someone that's a category error, that's a category error

1204
01:01:29,760 --> 01:01:32,719
talking about the self does not make it self evident.

1205
01:01:32,840 --> 01:01:34,719
That's that's amazing mistake.

1206
01:01:34,800 --> 01:01:38,480
Speaker 2: Man. No, No, it's not a category. When when I

1207
01:01:38,519 --> 01:01:41,599
say that something is the unavoidable axiom, what I'm saying

1208
01:01:41,639 --> 01:01:45,199
is that one a person that attempts to argue a self,

1209
01:01:45,239 --> 01:01:49,519
that attempts to argue against existence, is incapable of doing

1210
01:01:49,559 --> 01:01:53,679
so because they exist. They must exist in order I know.

1211
01:01:53,679 --> 01:01:57,119
Speaker 1: What says, I'm giving it the class critique of it.

1212
01:01:57,239 --> 01:02:01,280
Speaker 2: A non an entity that doesn't exists can't make an

1213
01:02:01,400 --> 01:02:02,679
argument against.

1214
01:02:02,480 --> 01:02:04,559
Speaker 1: Uh, you know, you're missing the point.

1215
01:02:04,599 --> 01:02:06,559
Speaker 2: It'sist that you're.

1216
01:02:06,360 --> 01:02:08,960
Speaker 1: You're not even getting what the point of the objection is.

1217
01:02:09,119 --> 01:02:12,920
It's not an objection about the ontological status of the

1218
01:02:13,039 --> 01:02:15,880
self or whatever you could go that route. It's more

1219
01:02:15,920 --> 01:02:20,639
fundamental than that that something axiomatic or what's called dosastic

1220
01:02:20,840 --> 01:02:28,039
or properly basic cannot rest on any other assumptions, principles,

1221
01:02:28,119 --> 01:02:30,480
or things that have not yet been proven or else.

1222
01:02:30,519 --> 01:02:35,199
It is no longer doxastically basic, is no longer self evident.

1223
01:02:35,639 --> 01:02:38,280
And so every time you tackle on these other explanations,

1224
01:02:38,480 --> 01:02:41,280
you're just proving my point that it doesn't matter whether

1225
01:02:41,320 --> 01:02:45,239
you say, uh, the cogito or whether you say existence exists,

1226
01:02:45,639 --> 01:02:48,199
It doesn't answer the objection that I'm laying out that

1227
01:02:48,840 --> 01:02:49,079
is no.

1228
01:02:49,280 --> 01:02:58,039
Speaker 2: So the argument, the argument for the for objective reality is.

1229
01:02:55,920 --> 01:03:00,519
Speaker 1: I don't care about that object You're saying one action

1230
01:03:01,039 --> 01:03:03,239
me to justify you know what the christ Let me

1231
01:03:03,280 --> 01:03:03,599
ask you this.

1232
01:03:03,960 --> 01:03:10,280
Speaker 2: You're asking me, you're asking me to justify this external reality. Okay,

1233
01:03:10,599 --> 01:03:14,840
and you were saying that an external reality comes from that,

1234
01:03:14,840 --> 01:03:19,000
that that this existence exists, you know, presupposes this external reality.

1235
01:03:19,199 --> 01:03:21,920
What I'm saying is is that existence exists is one

1236
01:03:22,199 --> 01:03:24,639
axiom of of of.

1237
01:03:24,760 --> 01:03:27,000
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter that you say that it's one that

1238
01:03:27,079 --> 01:03:31,519
doesn't It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because.

1239
01:03:30,800 --> 01:03:34,239
Speaker 2: That in order to justify objective reality, I don't think

1240
01:03:34,239 --> 01:03:37,440
you know what entity and consciousness.

1241
01:03:37,199 --> 01:03:39,360
Speaker 1: Well, you would need those things. But that's the point

1242
01:03:39,400 --> 01:03:41,400
is that you've not yet demonstrated those things.

1243
01:03:42,480 --> 01:03:45,239
Speaker 2: Yeah, so because if you say yes.

1244
01:03:45,280 --> 01:03:47,880
Speaker 1: If you say yes, then you've admitted my point that

1245
01:03:47,880 --> 01:03:50,480
it's not self evident it is.

1246
01:03:50,760 --> 01:03:52,679
Speaker 2: Existence exists is self evidence?

1247
01:03:52,800 --> 01:03:55,360
Speaker 1: No, it's it is not. Nor is the.

1248
01:03:57,199 --> 01:03:57,599
Speaker 2: Reality.

1249
01:03:57,719 --> 01:04:00,000
Speaker 1: Again, you keep saying it is that argument. You keep

1250
01:04:00,159 --> 01:04:02,320
saying it is that. But I've given you multiple reasons

1251
01:04:02,360 --> 01:04:04,840
why it doesn't get you to the justification for why

1252
01:04:04,880 --> 01:04:05,480
you say that.

1253
01:04:06,519 --> 01:04:12,280
Speaker 2: No, what it gets existence exists again is one axiom?

1254
01:04:12,880 --> 01:04:14,960
Speaker 1: Does it rely on other things? Does it rely on

1255
01:04:15,039 --> 01:04:17,039
other things? Does it rely on other things?

1256
01:04:18,480 --> 01:04:20,800
Speaker 2: Does the existence exist rely on other things? No, it

1257
01:04:20,800 --> 01:04:22,960
doesn't rely on anything it is.

1258
01:04:23,119 --> 01:04:25,639
Speaker 1: Does it rely Does the proposition rely on grammar?

1259
01:04:27,840 --> 01:04:30,840
Speaker 2: You being able to communicate that argument is not the

1260
01:04:30,880 --> 01:04:31,360
same thing.

1261
01:04:31,239 --> 01:04:33,800
Speaker 1: As the truth value of the proposition? Does it rely

1262
01:04:33,880 --> 01:04:35,920
on grammar? To say it?

1263
01:04:36,000 --> 01:04:37,079
Speaker 2: That's that's not an.

1264
01:04:37,079 --> 01:04:40,280
Speaker 1: Argument, It is an argument. It's a classic critique. Does

1265
01:04:40,320 --> 01:04:41,119
it rely on grammar?

1266
01:04:41,239 --> 01:04:44,199
Speaker 2: If you say God is real and then someone just

1267
01:04:44,280 --> 01:04:48,840
changes the definition of God, well, then then then that's

1268
01:04:48,840 --> 01:04:50,280
a failure of communication.

1269
01:04:50,559 --> 01:04:53,639
Speaker 1: No, it's not. It's a classic critique of foundationalism. If

1270
01:04:53,679 --> 01:04:55,280
you knew the if you knew what I'm talking about,

1271
01:04:55,320 --> 01:04:55,559
you know.

1272
01:04:55,519 --> 01:04:59,840
Speaker 2: That critique to say that it relies on our ability

1273
01:04:59,880 --> 01:05:00,559
to communicating.

1274
01:05:00,599 --> 01:05:02,039
Speaker 1: Oh so wait a minute, so now it relies on

1275
01:05:02,079 --> 01:05:03,079
communication skills.

1276
01:05:04,039 --> 01:05:06,880
Speaker 2: That's what you're saying, not me. You're saying that language

1277
01:05:07,320 --> 01:05:08,639
is required so that we know.

1278
01:05:08,599 --> 01:05:11,239
Speaker 1: What the word correct. Propositions that are true, that have true,

1279
01:05:11,559 --> 01:05:16,000
propositions that have truth value require language. Right, we are

1280
01:05:16,000 --> 01:05:19,639
assuming when do your propositions? Do they do they rely

1281
01:05:19,679 --> 01:05:20,320
on language?

1282
01:05:22,480 --> 01:05:24,079
Speaker 2: Yes? Of course, argument.

1283
01:05:23,880 --> 01:05:25,360
Speaker 1: Then they're not self evident. Thank you.

1284
01:05:25,880 --> 01:05:27,320
Speaker 2: That's so stupid.

1285
01:05:27,840 --> 01:05:30,559
Speaker 1: No, it's not the whole. This is like you want

1286
01:05:30,559 --> 01:05:33,639
to go read J. Jay Wood's epistemology book where he

1287
01:05:33,679 --> 01:05:35,679
makes this very argument that you think is stupid.

1288
01:05:36,320 --> 01:05:40,960
Speaker 2: I think it's absolutely how this is a word kit.

1289
01:05:41,280 --> 01:05:44,239
Speaker 1: Not No, you don't know about linguistic philosophy. I'm pointing

1290
01:05:44,280 --> 01:05:46,280
out to you what a grad student would point out

1291
01:05:46,320 --> 01:05:49,719
to somebody who's in a sophomore philosophy that you don't

1292
01:05:49,760 --> 01:05:52,639
realize the assumptions that are being made. Right, just like

1293
01:05:52,679 --> 01:05:57,760
when concrete kogie, when contique kog to listen, we.

1294
01:05:57,679 --> 01:06:01,960
Speaker 2: Both realize, we both realize that language is a tool

1295
01:06:02,000 --> 01:06:02,760
of communicating.

1296
01:06:02,920 --> 01:06:05,519
Speaker 1: You can call it. That is, how does that it

1297
01:06:05,519 --> 01:06:10,199
doesn't matter it's relying on communication and language, then it's

1298
01:06:10,280 --> 01:06:15,920
not self evident if it relies on another thing, whether

1299
01:06:15,960 --> 01:06:21,440
it's time, determination, predication, grammar, linguistic structure, all of those

1300
01:06:21,480 --> 01:06:25,599
things negate the idea that it is self evident. Because

1301
01:06:25,599 --> 01:06:28,000
it is relying on other things, it is no longer

1302
01:06:28,039 --> 01:06:29,559
properly properly can it be?

1303
01:06:29,760 --> 01:06:32,239
Speaker 2: Can it being of non existence? Green language?

1304
01:06:32,360 --> 01:06:34,559
Speaker 1: That has nothing to do with answering this critique?

1305
01:06:35,320 --> 01:06:37,440
Speaker 2: Can it being of can it? Being of non existence?

1306
01:06:37,440 --> 01:06:41,679
Speaker 1: Has nothing to doing of non language? A being of

1307
01:06:41,760 --> 01:06:46,000
non language sistence? A being of what is a being

1308
01:06:45,119 --> 01:06:48,519
of non I don't know what being a language?

1309
01:06:49,159 --> 01:06:50,920
Speaker 2: Do you know what a being of non existence is?

1310
01:06:51,559 --> 01:06:53,400
I don't you seem.

1311
01:06:53,199 --> 01:06:56,239
Speaker 1: A being of non existence is something incoherent?

1312
01:06:57,519 --> 01:06:57,719
Speaker 4: Right?

1313
01:06:57,920 --> 01:07:03,119
Speaker 2: Because existence exists? Thank you? It is incoherence to say

1314
01:07:03,199 --> 01:07:03,719
that being.

1315
01:07:03,920 --> 01:07:05,679
Speaker 1: I mean, this is I'm trying to be.

1316
01:07:06,679 --> 01:07:09,039
Speaker 2: So finally we've gotten to the point where you were

1317
01:07:09,079 --> 01:07:10,480
accepting existence exists?

1318
01:07:11,559 --> 01:07:15,440
Speaker 1: I have Do you understand that you're not understanding what

1319
01:07:15,480 --> 01:07:18,519
the debate is. It's different accounts of that phrase. I

1320
01:07:18,559 --> 01:07:21,039
have no problem with the truth value.

1321
01:07:21,519 --> 01:07:24,079
Speaker 2: The debate is tag and you're just fucking.

1322
01:07:24,079 --> 01:07:27,440
Speaker 1: Tag is about worldview apologetics. That's the whole point and

1323
01:07:27,719 --> 01:07:30,039
the thing. Do you know what I mean when I

1324
01:07:30,079 --> 01:07:32,920
say something is when I say something is theory Layden.

1325
01:07:32,960 --> 01:07:33,800
Do you know what I'm saying?

1326
01:07:36,360 --> 01:07:36,639
Speaker 2: Uh?

1327
01:07:36,679 --> 01:07:40,199
Speaker 1: Well, according to according in epistemology, man, he keep saying

1328
01:07:40,199 --> 01:07:42,840
according to me, just in modern epistemology. Do you know

1329
01:07:42,880 --> 01:07:45,559
what I mean when I say that that it?

1330
01:07:45,880 --> 01:07:45,960
Speaker 3: Uh?

1331
01:07:46,119 --> 01:07:48,679
Speaker 2: If it's theory, Laden, I would I believe it's like

1332
01:07:50,599 --> 01:07:56,280
that there are ideas that predicate the concept. No without

1333
01:07:56,280 --> 01:07:58,000
looking at its best.

1334
01:07:58,079 --> 01:08:02,199
Speaker 1: Okay, So are you familiar with kuon and paradigm?

1335
01:08:02,239 --> 01:08:05,440
Speaker 2: Not? Not recently? I'm fucking I like my the last

1336
01:08:05,440 --> 01:08:08,440
time it took philosophy classes, like ten years ago, I'd

1337
01:08:08,480 --> 01:08:09,079
forgotten a lot.

1338
01:08:09,719 --> 01:08:14,679
Speaker 1: Right. So, So the whole point of Kun's paradigm is

1339
01:08:14,679 --> 01:08:20,720
that in uh, the world, in social discourse, in philosophy,

1340
01:08:20,760 --> 01:08:23,880
people don't realize that their whole set, their whole set

1341
01:08:23,920 --> 01:08:27,239
of beliefs are actually based on a web of beliefs

1342
01:08:27,319 --> 01:08:30,159
or an entire paradigm, and that all these things are

1343
01:08:30,279 --> 01:08:35,079
interlinked and interconnected. Against the term epistemic wholeism. And it's

1344
01:08:35,239 --> 01:08:38,079
kind of it's kind of similar to coherence theory. It's

1345
01:08:38,119 --> 01:08:41,159
not identical to coherence theory. But the idea that there's

1346
01:08:41,199 --> 01:08:45,359
no self evident basic non theory laid in propositions are truths.

1347
01:08:45,359 --> 01:08:48,239
And language is another example of this because language, for example,

1348
01:08:48,239 --> 01:08:51,960
a single word usually comes with a other set of

1349
01:08:52,039 --> 01:08:55,720
words that help inform that word, and there's nothing okay,

1350
01:08:55,800 --> 01:08:57,560
so in the same way, the same thing.

1351
01:08:57,600 --> 01:08:58,640
Speaker 2: It's kind of like the same thing.

1352
01:08:58,840 --> 01:09:04,439
Speaker 1: There cons are Well, I'm not a postmodernist, but Dreda

1353
01:09:04,760 --> 01:09:07,319
asked some of these questions. But more so relevant is

1354
01:09:07,359 --> 01:09:10,479
Wvickenstein because when he talked about language games, he didn't

1355
01:09:10,520 --> 01:09:13,279
mean that just playing games. What he meant was that

1356
01:09:13,840 --> 01:09:17,279
language is a funny thing because the way language works

1357
01:09:17,399 --> 01:09:21,000
is that, yes, it's flexible, and yes it can be

1358
01:09:21,119 --> 01:09:23,640
you know, you can use different symbols to denote the

1359
01:09:23,680 --> 01:09:26,640
same idea. But the point is rather that it is

1360
01:09:26,760 --> 01:09:30,800
systemic and it's it's a holistic thing. So how does

1361
01:09:31,000 --> 01:09:34,439
how does this apply to Because what it shows because

1362
01:09:34,439 --> 01:09:37,199
then listen because in the history of the debate about

1363
01:09:37,319 --> 01:09:40,239
self evident axioms, like the way that Descartes, for example,

1364
01:09:40,279 --> 01:09:44,239
said you know, I think right. So if Descartes says this,

1365
01:09:44,399 --> 01:09:48,640
what happens is that later philosophy critiques it on many

1366
01:09:48,680 --> 01:09:51,840
different grounds. For example, you get Kant saying that the

1367
01:09:51,920 --> 01:09:55,359
problem with this being self evident is that it presupposes

1368
01:09:55,560 --> 01:09:59,600
time and space determination, right because to say that I exist,

1369
01:10:00,159 --> 01:10:02,199
to say that I'm existing right now, which is a

1370
01:10:02,359 --> 01:10:05,399
right now, is a time determinant at the moment, at

1371
01:10:05,399 --> 01:10:10,560
this instant. Okay, but the argument has not proven time

1372
01:10:10,840 --> 01:10:14,439
as a metaphysical concept or reality yet, And so Kant

1373
01:10:14,439 --> 01:10:19,079
had a good critique that if it's properly basic, it

1374
01:10:19,119 --> 01:10:22,439
cannot rely on another proposition or another principle or another

1375
01:10:22,439 --> 01:10:25,159
belief that has not yet been demonstrated. That's the point.

1376
01:10:25,199 --> 01:10:28,720
Then you get people saying it also is hold on.

1377
01:10:28,840 --> 01:10:32,199
There's a couple more critiques that you get bertrand Russell

1378
01:10:32,239 --> 01:10:35,640
saying it's a non sequitor. The fact that you say

1379
01:10:35,680 --> 01:10:38,000
that you're an eye does not prove that you exist

1380
01:10:38,039 --> 01:10:40,920
in some metaphysical reality. We don't know that yet. Maybe

1381
01:10:40,920 --> 01:10:43,560
you do, but how do we know that. It necessarily

1382
01:10:43,600 --> 01:10:47,560
follows that you have some sort of ontological existence in

1383
01:10:47,600 --> 01:10:51,800
this world. We don't know that yet. So we all agree, yeah,

1384
01:10:51,800 --> 01:10:53,600
we do exist in this world. I agree with you.

1385
01:10:53,640 --> 01:10:55,159
But the point is that we got to have a

1386
01:10:55,239 --> 01:10:59,119
good account of these principles. You can't just give an

1387
01:10:59,119 --> 01:11:01,560
account that is arbitrary and at hawk and that's why

1388
01:11:01,560 --> 01:11:06,279
I reject all classical foundationalists of pistemology.

1389
01:11:06,520 --> 01:11:09,880
Speaker 2: So how does so the problem that I'm having here,

1390
01:11:10,399 --> 01:11:16,479
it's a conversation, debate or whatever, is I don't see

1391
01:11:16,880 --> 01:11:21,319
it's it seems you're saying, how do you justify existence

1392
01:11:21,359 --> 01:11:27,680
exist when it presupposes concept I guess, right, So that's.

1393
01:11:27,560 --> 01:11:29,600
Speaker 1: Kind of not just concepts, But I mean, I don't

1394
01:11:29,600 --> 01:11:30,319
know what kind.

1395
01:11:30,159 --> 01:11:31,920
Speaker 2: Of simplify that steel I'm trying to steal.

1396
01:11:31,960 --> 01:11:34,680
Speaker 1: Man, it presupposes a lot of things, and I've listed

1397
01:11:34,680 --> 01:11:36,119
a bunch of them, and I mean, I don't think

1398
01:11:36,159 --> 01:11:39,000
those things are just conceptual. I think they're actual ontological

1399
01:11:39,119 --> 01:11:41,520
structures and things that exist. But if you want to

1400
01:11:41,560 --> 01:11:42,680
call them concepts.

1401
01:11:42,239 --> 01:11:49,239
Speaker 2: Sure, right. But the issue that I have is in

1402
01:11:49,279 --> 01:11:52,279
almost all of those we we get to this position

1403
01:11:52,319 --> 01:11:56,479
where it's, well, how can those things be posited by

1404
01:11:56,840 --> 01:11:58,640
a being of non system?

1405
01:11:58,920 --> 01:12:00,359
Speaker 1: What does that mean? I don't know what you mean

1406
01:12:00,399 --> 01:12:01,319
by about God.

1407
01:12:03,279 --> 01:12:05,439
Speaker 2: I don't know, because you're you're the one that is

1408
01:12:05,880 --> 01:12:08,920
saying that that that there is this hole, there's this issue,

1409
01:12:08,960 --> 01:12:13,079
there's this possibility of existence not existing.

1410
01:12:12,920 --> 01:12:16,039
Speaker 1: Or I never said that. I said uncreated existence is

1411
01:12:16,079 --> 01:12:18,399
what God is, and we are created existence. I never

1412
01:12:18,399 --> 01:12:19,279
said non existence.

1413
01:12:19,960 --> 01:12:22,159
Speaker 2: By the virtue of arguing, I know you're doing an

1414
01:12:22,159 --> 01:12:25,399
internal critique, I'm not necessarily letting this claim down, right,

1415
01:12:25,439 --> 01:12:27,760
But what I mean is that if one is attempting

1416
01:12:27,800 --> 01:12:33,079
to argue that existence exists is false, then they must

1417
01:12:33,159 --> 01:12:33,560
believe it.

1418
01:12:33,760 --> 01:12:36,159
Speaker 1: I didn't argue that no exist. I didn't argue it's false.

1419
01:12:37,039 --> 01:12:39,560
I argue that you have not given an account of

1420
01:12:39,600 --> 01:12:44,560
the proposition in an epistemic sense, right.

1421
01:12:44,439 --> 01:12:48,439
Speaker 2: But this is the argument would be that if it

1422
01:12:48,520 --> 01:12:52,359
is impossible to argue against, then it must be true.

1423
01:12:53,920 --> 01:12:56,119
Speaker 1: But you have not shown that it's impossible to argue against.

1424
01:12:56,119 --> 01:12:58,760
And that's why I gave the kantient retort, which is

1425
01:12:58,800 --> 01:13:02,239
that just because it seems impossible to me does not

1426
01:13:02,359 --> 01:13:04,119
mean that it is ontologically the case.

1427
01:13:05,520 --> 01:13:07,359
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, if if we're trying to, like, if

1428
01:13:07,359 --> 01:13:09,520
we're trying to make an argument from like a pismology

1429
01:13:09,640 --> 01:13:11,920
or something, I totally agree with you, right, Like we

1430
01:13:11,960 --> 01:13:15,159
could we could go out and observe reality and make

1431
01:13:15,199 --> 01:13:17,880
a claim is this is true? And you know we

1432
01:13:17,920 --> 01:13:21,279
have imperfect knowledge, and there is at some point, you know,

1433
01:13:21,439 --> 01:13:24,039
a paradigm something, and so like it's not it's not

1434
01:13:24,159 --> 01:13:26,800
necessarily proven to be true. It's like a balance of

1435
01:13:26,880 --> 01:13:29,079
probabilities that we assume to be true so that we

1436
01:13:29,079 --> 01:13:33,560
can function. The argument isn't epistemologically saying it is. So

1437
01:13:33,960 --> 01:13:37,760
what I'm saying is that it's impossible for one to

1438
01:13:37,880 --> 01:13:41,760
argue against and that is that you against existence because

1439
01:13:42,039 --> 01:13:43,960
one must exist in order.

1440
01:13:44,279 --> 01:13:48,039
Speaker 1: You're missing the whole, You're missing the point of the

1441
01:13:48,079 --> 01:13:50,800
retorts to things like the Kogito. The point of the

1442
01:13:50,800 --> 01:13:53,199
retorts is not to deny them. The point of the

1443
01:13:53,279 --> 01:13:55,960
retorts is to point out that you need good reasons

1444
01:13:56,119 --> 01:13:59,239
for why that's the case. I believe it is the case.

1445
01:13:59,359 --> 01:14:03,720
Right could say, you know, we I believe in the self.

1446
01:14:03,720 --> 01:14:05,800
I believe in identity over time. I believe in you know,

1447
01:14:06,039 --> 01:14:08,319
the external world. I believe in causation. I believe in

1448
01:14:08,359 --> 01:14:11,159
all these things. It's just that my account of those things,

1449
01:14:11,640 --> 01:14:15,039
and hence justification is a different account than the account

1450
01:14:15,039 --> 01:14:18,800
that you're giving. So when I use it, So let's

1451
01:14:18,840 --> 01:14:20,279
and that's what justification is about.

1452
01:14:20,399 --> 01:14:23,039
Speaker 2: Let's let's let's let's just say we're at an impasse.

1453
01:14:23,119 --> 01:14:28,640
You don't believe that my arguments are sufficient to justify Fine,

1454
01:14:29,119 --> 01:14:30,479
I'm okay with that. I don't want to I don't

1455
01:14:30,520 --> 01:14:33,600
want to beat that for so long that everyone is

1456
01:14:33,640 --> 01:14:37,399
fucking annoyed, which they probably already are. It's fine. So,

1457
01:14:37,920 --> 01:14:41,319
and you believe that an external world exists, So moving

1458
01:14:41,359 --> 01:14:43,960
on those, Moving on to that, let's move into your

1459
01:14:44,039 --> 01:14:47,399
worldview and why you believe that you have an appropriate

1460
01:14:47,439 --> 01:14:52,560
account of those things that my uh that my grounding fails.

1461
01:14:55,319 --> 01:14:58,079
Speaker 1: Right, So, if God exists, then we have a world

1462
01:14:58,119 --> 01:15:03,760
where there is a base of for metaphysical principles, epistemic principles,

1463
01:15:03,880 --> 01:15:08,319
laws of logic, critical thinking, moral absolutes ethical claims. Because

1464
01:15:08,359 --> 01:15:10,319
man has made the image of God, the world operates

1465
01:15:10,319 --> 01:15:13,840
on a regular fashion, and that it has divine providence

1466
01:15:13,840 --> 01:15:17,399
which assures the regularity of nature, which is the basis

1467
01:15:17,399 --> 01:15:23,079
of all science and empirical sense data. I have a

1468
01:15:23,119 --> 01:15:25,840
reasoning faculty, which I have by virtue of being made

1469
01:15:25,880 --> 01:15:28,000
in the image of God. And so I'm a little

1470
01:15:28,000 --> 01:15:29,880
g God who can reason about the world and make

1471
01:15:29,960 --> 01:15:33,439
decisions and do things, create things, right, I'm a little

1472
01:15:33,439 --> 01:15:37,279
creator because God is a creator. So for me the divine,

1473
01:15:37,600 --> 01:15:40,359
the existence of God and his self, disclosure about who

1474
01:15:40,359 --> 01:15:44,560
he is, and divine revelation is itself the basis for

1475
01:15:44,880 --> 01:15:48,760
how things like the preconditions or categories for the possibility

1476
01:15:48,800 --> 01:15:51,560
of knowledge are the case. So because God is omniscient,

1477
01:15:51,600 --> 01:15:54,640
because he has intentionality as being a person and not

1478
01:15:54,680 --> 01:15:58,840
an impersonal force, and because the world is external to

1479
01:15:58,960 --> 01:16:01,960
him and it's not identical to him, I can have

1480
01:16:02,000 --> 01:16:05,359
the ability to make these kinds of distinctions and set boundaries.

1481
01:16:05,399 --> 01:16:08,439
I can make, you know, I can do things in

1482
01:16:08,479 --> 01:16:11,720
the world because of that being made of the divine image,

1483
01:16:11,720 --> 01:16:16,840
and also the way that I go about predicating. You know, sentences, structure,

1484
01:16:17,000 --> 01:16:22,720
language structure, grammar, universals, numbers, those things exist outside of

1485
01:16:22,760 --> 01:16:27,760
the mere human empirical individual sense data examples because they

1486
01:16:27,760 --> 01:16:31,560
are grounded in a divine mind. This is called divine conceptualism,

1487
01:16:32,079 --> 01:16:40,079
which itself is omniscient, omnipresent, eternally. No, he's an idealist

1488
01:16:40,119 --> 01:16:42,680
and an empiricist idealist. I'm not arguing that at all.

1489
01:16:42,720 --> 01:16:44,479
I'm arguing the transcendental argument.

1490
01:16:46,159 --> 01:16:49,680
Speaker 2: Okay, I thought he was. The guy said, like God,

1491
01:16:49,720 --> 01:16:52,119
it's the observers solves that problem or whatever.

1492
01:16:53,239 --> 01:16:55,800
Speaker 1: He's an empirical idealist. He thinks that God is the

1493
01:16:55,840 --> 01:16:59,359
great mind and that the rest of us are just

1494
01:16:59,720 --> 01:17:02,800
other minds observing other ideas.

1495
01:17:02,800 --> 01:17:04,680
Speaker 2: So he believes that, Yeah, I thought that.

1496
01:17:05,399 --> 01:17:09,079
Speaker 1: No, No, I'm not saying that all reality is is right, Okay,

1497
01:17:09,119 --> 01:17:11,560
So no, I'm not an empirical idealist like Berkeley. I'm

1498
01:17:11,640 --> 01:17:15,960
arguing for Christian theism that there's a creator and there's

1499
01:17:16,000 --> 01:17:19,760
the created. So fundamental reality fundamentally is two different things,

1500
01:17:19,840 --> 01:17:20,920
created and uncreated.

1501
01:17:22,439 --> 01:17:29,680
Speaker 2: Okay. So, so things exist outside of the mind, You're

1502
01:17:29,720 --> 01:17:32,680
You're not You're not like a Berkeley like we we

1503
01:17:32,680 --> 01:17:33,359
we agree.

1504
01:17:33,159 --> 01:17:37,279
Speaker 1: That there's an external world, the substances substances of course.

1505
01:17:37,960 --> 01:17:45,720
Speaker 2: Okay, okay, So why is it you're saying God is necessary?

1506
01:17:45,920 --> 01:17:49,000
Where where are you making that? I heard a lot

1507
01:17:49,039 --> 01:17:49,359
of God.

1508
01:17:49,600 --> 01:17:53,239
Speaker 1: I would say God is these things. God is necessary

1509
01:17:53,319 --> 01:17:55,840
in the sense that he's the only net He's the

1510
01:17:55,880 --> 01:18:01,359
necessary justification for the transcendental categories that make knowledge possible.

1511
01:18:01,960 --> 01:18:07,039
Only that type of a being could ground things like universals.

1512
01:18:08,520 --> 01:18:11,520
Speaker 2: So, and I'm not trying to be an assholehen I say,

1513
01:18:12,039 --> 01:18:14,359
I'm just I'm genuinely trying to get your position here.

1514
01:18:14,760 --> 01:18:17,039
How is this not like a God of the gaps art?

1515
01:18:17,439 --> 01:18:21,279
How is this not just well, well, I believe God

1516
01:18:21,319 --> 01:18:25,880
exists because only God could fix all of these problems

1517
01:18:25,920 --> 01:18:29,640
that I see in the philosophy. Therefore, you know, one

1518
01:18:29,720 --> 01:18:30,439
and done, we're good.

1519
01:18:30,640 --> 01:18:32,680
Speaker 1: Because it's a much stronger than a claim than God

1520
01:18:32,680 --> 01:18:35,960
of the gaps. It's actually saying that any possible predication

1521
01:18:36,239 --> 01:18:40,199
assumes transcendent categories, and transcendental categories assume God, so it's

1522
01:18:40,279 --> 01:18:42,760
much strong. It's not just saying that wherever I see

1523
01:18:42,800 --> 01:18:45,199
a gap, I'm gonna stick God in. It's actually saying

1524
01:18:45,199 --> 01:18:48,319
that you couldn't make a sentence in a coherent justif

1525
01:18:48,319 --> 01:18:49,840
all the way without God's existence.

1526
01:18:50,880 --> 01:18:53,199
Speaker 2: How so, where are you getting that? Where you're getting

1527
01:18:53,199 --> 01:18:53,520
that from?

1528
01:18:53,520 --> 01:18:54,520
Speaker 1: That?

1529
01:18:56,359 --> 01:18:59,319
Speaker 2: No? No, no, no, yeah, I'm saying like where, well,

1530
01:18:59,359 --> 01:19:02,840
sure like you I can, we can. All makes false?

1531
01:19:03,680 --> 01:19:06,359
So my ax, I'm saying, when you say that God

1532
01:19:06,479 --> 01:19:10,520
is necessary for any transcendental category, where are you getting

1533
01:19:10,520 --> 01:19:11,159
that from?

1534
01:19:11,520 --> 01:19:14,560
Speaker 1: Because there is no other being that could justify the

1535
01:19:14,600 --> 01:19:17,319
transcendental categories by definition by what they are.

1536
01:19:18,159 --> 01:19:20,239
Speaker 2: So how does God justify those trans.

1537
01:19:20,800 --> 01:19:24,439
Speaker 1: Because He's the only being that could ground them? By

1538
01:19:24,439 --> 01:19:26,279
the hy virtue of who and what he is I

1539
01:19:26,319 --> 01:19:30,039
listed earlier, because he's omniscient, because of the omnies, because

1540
01:19:30,079 --> 01:19:34,680
he's excuse me, omnipresent, because he has personal person, not

1541
01:19:34,800 --> 01:19:37,399
an intentionality that gives us a basis for things like

1542
01:19:37,840 --> 01:19:41,319
telos in the world UH and also things like causation.

1543
01:19:41,560 --> 01:19:44,560
So without God's existence, you couldn't have a justification for

1544
01:19:45,319 --> 01:19:49,079
uh universal telos teleology, nor could you have a justification

1545
01:19:49,159 --> 01:19:49,800
for causation.

1546
01:19:53,119 --> 01:19:56,640
Speaker 2: But I still haven't. You haven't answered my question out.

1547
01:19:57,239 --> 01:19:57,600
You haven't.

1548
01:19:57,600 --> 01:20:01,239
Speaker 1: You've just said is because the of the rules, because

1549
01:20:01,279 --> 01:20:04,199
of the impossibility of the contrary, which is the internal

1550
01:20:04,239 --> 01:20:07,439
critique of the other world views or your world worldview,

1551
01:20:07,920 --> 01:20:10,920
and the the other argument, the other half of.

1552
01:20:10,880 --> 01:20:14,560
Speaker 2: It is you said earlier that that's not an argument.

1553
01:20:14,680 --> 01:20:19,239
Speaker 1: You can't just the other part of the the other correct.

1554
01:20:19,479 --> 01:20:21,960
And that's why if I only had an internal critique,

1555
01:20:21,960 --> 01:20:24,920
I would agree with you that my position wouldn't achieve justification.

1556
01:20:25,000 --> 01:20:27,560
That's why you also have to give the positive case

1557
01:20:28,039 --> 01:20:31,279
for why the trinitarian deity is the one that does

1558
01:20:31,479 --> 01:20:34,920
justifying ground though right within that paradigm, within the Christian paradigm,

1559
01:20:34,960 --> 01:20:40,199
it makes sense why there would be rationality.

1560
01:20:40,600 --> 01:20:42,359
Speaker 2: Can you make that argument because as of right now,

1561
01:20:42,359 --> 01:20:43,760
we're kind of on equal footing.

1562
01:20:44,159 --> 01:20:47,560
Speaker 1: The argument, right because in the Christian paradigm, right where

1563
01:20:47,600 --> 01:20:50,880
God exists, it's a trinity. He creates man in his image.

1564
01:20:50,920 --> 01:20:55,159
I'm saying that the worldview of Christianity makes a coherent

1565
01:20:55,560 --> 01:20:58,960
sense of why there would be things like universals because

1566
01:20:59,119 --> 01:21:02,199
for in this case, God is omniscient and there are

1567
01:21:02,239 --> 01:21:05,439
divine ideas, and the universals are grounded in the divine mind.

1568
01:21:05,600 --> 01:21:07,880
If you don't have a divine mind, there's no basis

1569
01:21:07,880 --> 01:21:10,279
for universals, and thus there's no basis for predication.

1570
01:21:13,039 --> 01:21:15,039
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm not, but I'm not actually hearing. You're just

1571
01:21:15,119 --> 01:21:17,279
saying the Christian doctrine says so.

1572
01:21:17,960 --> 01:21:21,359
Speaker 1: No, it's a paradigm argument, and that's the argument, is

1573
01:21:21,359 --> 01:21:23,399
that it's a comparison of one paradigm versus the other.

1574
01:21:23,479 --> 01:21:26,359
If my paradigm gives an account for it and yours doesn't,

1575
01:21:26,479 --> 01:21:28,279
then this paradigm is correct.

1576
01:21:28,880 --> 01:21:31,119
Speaker 2: Well, I'm asking for the account like you're just you're

1577
01:21:31,199 --> 01:21:32,640
just restating.

1578
01:21:32,119 --> 01:21:36,239
Speaker 1: The account is the Christian paradigm compared to your paradigm.

1579
01:21:36,319 --> 01:21:37,079
That's the account.

1580
01:21:38,039 --> 01:21:40,399
Speaker 2: But we can't be compared to my paradigm, because.

1581
01:21:40,399 --> 01:21:44,319
Speaker 1: Of course the argument is the argument is comparison, like.

1582
01:21:44,279 --> 01:21:46,680
Speaker 2: The same reason that you said that mine is is.

1583
01:21:46,560 --> 01:21:49,760
Speaker 1: Not the argument, No, it's not. You're missing the point.

1584
01:21:49,800 --> 01:21:53,079
So you're assuming that the argument for the argumentation at

1585
01:21:53,079 --> 01:21:55,000
a paradigm level is not the same thing. It's the

1586
01:21:55,079 --> 01:21:58,199
argumentation on a mundane first order level. So this is

1587
01:21:58,239 --> 01:22:00,439
a meta level argument. So it's an argus and about

1588
01:22:00,479 --> 01:22:03,760
the possibility of arguments. So if my position can give

1589
01:22:03,760 --> 01:22:07,479
an account for within its paradigm, how it's possible to

1590
01:22:07,560 --> 01:22:11,800
have laws of logic, universals, metaphysical categories, et cetera, et cetera,

1591
01:22:11,840 --> 01:22:13,880
et cetera, all the things I've been listing, and your

1592
01:22:13,920 --> 01:22:16,399
position doesn't give an account for it, then my position

1593
01:22:16,479 --> 01:22:16,920
is correct.

1594
01:22:19,159 --> 01:22:23,000
Speaker 2: So you're what is given an accounting, so that there

1595
01:22:23,039 --> 01:22:24,479
is one What is the argument?

1596
01:22:24,600 --> 01:22:28,079
Speaker 1: The argument is that I need universals, I need these categories.

1597
01:22:28,159 --> 01:22:31,159
God is the only possible being in Christian revelation has

1598
01:22:31,239 --> 01:22:35,640
given that disclosure as to who God is. Divine conceptualism

1599
01:22:35,720 --> 01:22:37,560
grounds the universal categories. How's that?

1600
01:22:39,560 --> 01:22:42,319
Speaker 2: But again it gets suspect, like the God of the gaps.

1601
01:22:42,039 --> 01:22:44,399
Speaker 1: It's not God of the gaps. It's a God of

1602
01:22:45,319 --> 01:22:48,079
the argument is all predication, not God of the gaps.

1603
01:22:48,119 --> 01:22:49,960
That's what you're missing. So God of the gaps is

1604
01:22:49,960 --> 01:22:52,319
this idea that whenever there's a problem, I can just

1605
01:22:52,359 --> 01:22:54,720
kind of stick God in there. This is a way

1606
01:22:54,800 --> 01:22:58,720
stronger claim that all predication requires a certain type of

1607
01:22:58,840 --> 01:23:02,680
world and certain types of transit categories. And I'm saying

1608
01:23:02,680 --> 01:23:05,680
that to how the transcendal categories require some kind of

1609
01:23:06,079 --> 01:23:10,000
metaphysical justification and grounding itself. The only type of being

1610
01:23:10,079 --> 01:23:13,560
who could possibly ground those in a coherent way is

1611
01:23:13,640 --> 01:23:14,159
our God.

1612
01:23:14,479 --> 01:23:17,920
Speaker 2: That's the argument, my argument, And I want you to

1613
01:23:18,079 --> 01:23:21,000
tell me why what I'm saying is false so that

1614
01:23:21,039 --> 01:23:26,119
I can better understand, which is this stance exists because

1615
01:23:26,119 --> 01:23:29,079
it's impossible to argue against it. Right that a being

1616
01:23:29,880 --> 01:23:34,319
being you know, making argumentation exists in some pass to

1617
01:23:34,399 --> 01:23:38,359
argue against their own existence, would would would negate it

1618
01:23:38,399 --> 01:23:40,119
would be false, like it would just be false, It

1619
01:23:40,199 --> 01:23:43,840
would be it would be like a performative contradiction minimum.

1620
01:23:44,119 --> 01:23:47,880
And then your argument is when I'm asking you, like,

1621
01:23:47,920 --> 01:23:51,479
how do you justify that God solves this problem? Is

1622
01:23:51,560 --> 01:23:54,960
that it's impossible to argue against it because you need

1623
01:23:55,000 --> 01:23:57,760
these other categories. Sounds like we're making the exist.

1624
01:23:58,239 --> 01:24:03,000
Speaker 1: If I said again, if I only did, if I

1625
01:24:03,000 --> 01:24:05,279
only did an internal critique, I would agree with you.

1626
01:24:05,359 --> 01:24:07,840
That doesn't necessarily mean that my position is correct. But

1627
01:24:07,880 --> 01:24:11,359
if I also offer a counter worldview to you which

1628
01:24:11,479 --> 01:24:15,319
does ground and give an account for universal categories, et cetera,

1629
01:24:15,439 --> 01:24:19,039
all those things that I listed, then that's the positive side,

1630
01:24:19,039 --> 01:24:20,479
and that's where it gets a justification.

1631
01:24:22,760 --> 01:24:25,239
Speaker 2: But but but I can do the same thing right,

1632
01:24:25,279 --> 01:24:28,159
which is what existence exists? Identity?

1633
01:24:28,680 --> 01:24:30,840
Speaker 1: No, you didn't. You didn't give a justification. You didn't

1634
01:24:30,840 --> 01:24:31,920
give any kind of justification.

1635
01:24:32,199 --> 01:24:35,399
Speaker 2: You just asserted, well, we we got bogged down, and

1636
01:24:35,439 --> 01:24:36,680
existence exists quite a bit.

1637
01:24:37,359 --> 01:24:39,840
Speaker 1: I never heard a justification argument at all.

1638
01:24:40,760 --> 01:24:43,800
Speaker 2: So existence exists would be like axium one axium two

1639
01:24:43,840 --> 01:24:45,039
would be the law.

1640
01:24:45,359 --> 01:24:48,159
Speaker 1: You didn't prove your axioms on.

1641
01:24:49,640 --> 01:24:52,279
Speaker 2: Well, you haven't proven yours. You're just saying God exists.

1642
01:24:52,359 --> 01:24:54,319
Speaker 1: Yeah, but I'm not a classical foundationalist. You're trying to

1643
01:24:54,319 --> 01:24:56,399
hold me to your standards. I don't have that same system.

1644
01:24:57,560 --> 01:25:00,119
Speaker 2: Just just God. Must God adhere to logic or can

1645
01:25:00,159 --> 01:25:00,960
God be logical?

1646
01:25:01,079 --> 01:25:02,920
Speaker 1: God is the basis for logic?

1647
01:25:03,000 --> 01:25:06,319
Speaker 2: Is my argument, So so can God contradict?

1648
01:25:06,760 --> 01:25:06,960
Speaker 1: No?

1649
01:25:08,159 --> 01:25:11,479
Speaker 2: Okay, So if God can't contradict, then we agree regardless

1650
01:25:11,479 --> 01:25:12,479
of whatever.

1651
01:25:12,119 --> 01:25:15,960
Speaker 1: What that doesn't mean the account is so again you

1652
01:25:16,039 --> 01:25:19,439
keep confusing agreement with account of the agreement. I have

1653
01:25:19,479 --> 01:25:21,159
a different agreement.

1654
01:25:21,319 --> 01:25:23,039
Speaker 2: So we can move forward in the argument.

1655
01:25:23,159 --> 01:25:26,199
Speaker 1: But it doesn't work because you're missing. But the reason

1656
01:25:26,279 --> 01:25:29,000
that doesn't work to move forward is that you're not understanding.

1657
01:25:29,000 --> 01:25:31,800
It's two rival paradigms trying to give an account for

1658
01:25:31,920 --> 01:25:34,800
the same types of things. And my argument is that

1659
01:25:35,159 --> 01:25:38,119
my paradigm can give an account and your paradigm cannot.

1660
01:25:38,319 --> 01:25:40,800
And not only can your paradigm not, your paradigm cannot

1661
01:25:40,840 --> 01:25:43,600
make knowledge possible. It's even stronger than God of the gaps.

1662
01:25:44,840 --> 01:25:47,600
Speaker 2: How the fuck? How is knowledge impossible under my.

1663
01:25:47,560 --> 01:25:51,279
Speaker 1: Paradigm because you cannot give a justification for the assertions.

1664
01:25:51,479 --> 01:25:54,920
That's the point. If you don't get the justification, then

1665
01:25:54,920 --> 01:25:57,760
you don't get the assertions given to you. That's what

1666
01:25:57,760 --> 01:25:58,640
philosophy does.

1667
01:25:59,680 --> 01:26:02,720
Speaker 2: Okay, So it's imp I mean obviously knowledge, it says.

1668
01:26:03,079 --> 01:26:06,000
Speaker 1: So again you keep saying obviously, And I don't grant

1669
01:26:06,000 --> 01:26:08,279
you any of those things you have not you have

1670
01:26:08,399 --> 01:26:10,760
not yet proven that anything is self evident, you just

1671
01:26:10,800 --> 01:26:11,279
assert it.

1672
01:26:12,880 --> 01:26:15,520
Speaker 2: This is what happens when you interrupt people you start.

1673
01:26:16,399 --> 01:26:19,520
Speaker 1: That's because the whole argument was continually based on you

1674
01:26:19,760 --> 01:26:22,520
just asserting and believing in self evident principles. And I mean,

1675
01:26:22,560 --> 01:26:25,159
I can give you. You want to go into another with.

1676
01:26:25,199 --> 01:26:27,760
Speaker 2: Your own argument of tag, your own argument of tag.

1677
01:26:28,479 --> 01:26:30,439
Speaker 1: It's not a classical foundational.

1678
01:26:30,279 --> 01:26:32,560
Speaker 2: Necessary conditions, right, So.

1679
01:26:32,520 --> 01:26:37,600
Speaker 1: That's not what self evidence is. That's not what by okay, brother,

1680
01:26:38,359 --> 01:26:40,840
that's not what self evidence is. So you're trying to

1681
01:26:40,880 --> 01:26:44,239
hold me to a criteria external to my world viewer system.

1682
01:26:44,279 --> 01:26:45,000
And it doesn't work.

1683
01:26:46,119 --> 01:26:48,640
Speaker 2: I said, knowledge exists, and then you jump down my throat.

1684
01:26:48,760 --> 01:26:51,119
Speaker 1: I don't grant you that. So again, what is that

1685
01:26:51,760 --> 01:26:55,399
you don't understand that it doesn't that doesn't apply to

1686
01:26:55,439 --> 01:26:55,640
the men.

1687
01:26:56,319 --> 01:26:58,119
Speaker 2: You won't even agree with your own argument.

1688
01:26:58,239 --> 01:27:01,399
Speaker 1: No, I have a different account. It's a different account.

1689
01:27:01,399 --> 01:27:04,079
I'm actually it's a different account.

1690
01:27:04,079 --> 01:27:08,880
Speaker 2: Man, does or does not your argument hinge upon the

1691
01:27:08,920 --> 01:27:12,760
fact that there are that knowledge, all these.

1692
01:27:12,680 --> 01:27:16,479
Speaker 1: Things, but those all of those words, these are necessary,

1693
01:27:16,560 --> 01:27:20,640
All of those words are conditioned by my paradigm, your career.

1694
01:27:20,720 --> 01:27:23,119
Speaker 2: How am I? How am I supposed to have a conversation.

1695
01:27:23,520 --> 01:27:26,000
Speaker 1: The point is that you can't have. It's not it's

1696
01:27:26,039 --> 01:27:28,199
a debate, and that's why you're being held to the

1697
01:27:28,239 --> 01:27:30,840
standards of critical thinking and logic and you don't get

1698
01:27:30,840 --> 01:27:31,640
to assert things.

1699
01:27:31,840 --> 01:27:35,079
Speaker 2: Hold on, hold on, relax. How am I supposed to

1700
01:27:35,079 --> 01:27:39,600
have any meaningful debate if you if I make a

1701
01:27:39,640 --> 01:27:43,079
statement and you immediately interrupt said statement, and that statement

1702
01:27:43,159 --> 01:27:44,840
is even part of your own.

1703
01:27:44,840 --> 01:27:49,520
Speaker 1: Argument, because come on, because it's not getting to an

1704
01:27:49,600 --> 01:27:52,159
understanding the point of what the debate is. You don't

1705
01:27:52,239 --> 01:27:55,720
understand the difference between like I.

1706
01:27:55,720 --> 01:27:59,199
Speaker 2: Said, obviously knowledge exists. I said three words.

1707
01:27:58,920 --> 01:28:03,199
Speaker 1: I don't agree, I don't gain. You don't understand. It

1708
01:28:03,239 --> 01:28:05,880
doesn't matter because I have a different account. So understand

1709
01:28:05,880 --> 01:28:07,359
that this is like the word. Remember when we're talking

1710
01:28:07,359 --> 01:28:11,800
about the words account. A different account. It's it doesn't

1711
01:28:11,800 --> 01:28:14,960
matter how many words it is, it's a totally different account,

1712
01:28:15,079 --> 01:28:21,039
no matter what, no matter what, yes, everything in the paradigm.

1713
01:28:20,880 --> 01:28:24,760
I said that you haven't given a justification, which I

1714
01:28:24,760 --> 01:28:27,079
don't think you understand what the word means. Still for

1715
01:28:27,199 --> 01:28:35,319
the assertions of self evidence, and my position does not

1716
01:28:35,359 --> 01:28:38,560
believe in self evidence or ad hoc assertions, So you

1717
01:28:38,680 --> 01:28:42,000
have the burden of proof on you if you start

1718
01:28:42,039 --> 01:28:44,720
your position and your system with that, with self evidence

1719
01:28:44,760 --> 01:28:46,720
and things being properly basic.

1720
01:28:47,479 --> 01:28:50,399
Speaker 2: We I'm not allowed to apparently make.

1721
01:28:51,840 --> 01:28:53,720
Speaker 1: What you We've been talking, tinying for the last hour.

1722
01:28:53,760 --> 01:28:54,199
What do you mean?

1723
01:28:55,520 --> 01:28:57,560
Speaker 2: I keep trying to get through it, and you keep

1724
01:28:57,720 --> 01:29:00,960
just going back to existence, exist it over to yours,

1725
01:29:01,000 --> 01:29:07,760
but you never just I'm trying again, So I'm shifting

1726
01:29:07,800 --> 01:29:10,159
over to yours. We can do an internal critique of yours,

1727
01:29:10,159 --> 01:29:10,800
and I'm trying.

1728
01:29:11,560 --> 01:29:16,640
Speaker 1: But your internal critique is not internal. It's your system. Brother,

1729
01:29:16,880 --> 01:29:22,039
you're asking me, You're you're critiquing me from classical foundationalism,

1730
01:29:22,039 --> 01:29:23,880
and that's not my system. It doesn't work.

1731
01:29:24,720 --> 01:29:31,279
Speaker 2: Oh listen, I'm trying to I'm I'm I'm here genuinely

1732
01:29:31,359 --> 01:29:34,680
listening to you as you lay out large arguments trying

1733
01:29:34,720 --> 01:29:37,439
to steal men your you're not giving me the same

1734
01:29:37,520 --> 01:29:40,399
grace it's making just being able to even have a

1735
01:29:40,439 --> 01:29:44,279
debate or okay, you go right. So I'm trying to

1736
01:29:44,399 --> 01:29:49,119
understand right where it is that why it is that

1737
01:29:50,439 --> 01:29:54,960
when you plug God into the equat all, that fixes not.

1738
01:29:54,840 --> 01:29:58,439
Speaker 1: Just plugging God in, it's pointing out that the paradigm

1739
01:29:58,479 --> 01:30:02,039
itself is coherent system, has explanatory power, and gives a

1740
01:30:02,119 --> 01:30:05,840
justification for human knowledge. Because it's a paradigm level argument,

1741
01:30:06,399 --> 01:30:09,239
I am not plugging in. This is why I can

1742
01:30:09,279 --> 01:30:12,680
already tell where the error is and what you're assessing.

1743
01:30:12,760 --> 01:30:15,720
You're assessing that my position is God of gaps, And

1744
01:30:15,800 --> 01:30:18,720
for the third time, it's a much stronger argument than

1745
01:30:18,720 --> 01:30:21,680
God of the gaps, which is that all predication and

1746
01:30:21,760 --> 01:30:26,000
knowledge requires the transcendental categories my position. I know you

1747
01:30:26,000 --> 01:30:28,199
don't accept the argument or believe that what I'm saying

1748
01:30:28,279 --> 01:30:31,960
is necessarily the case, But the argument is that in

1749
01:30:32,000 --> 01:30:37,239
my worldview or paradigm, there is a coherent, sensible account

1750
01:30:37,399 --> 01:30:40,760
of why there would be the self, the external world logic,

1751
01:30:40,760 --> 01:30:45,920
et cetera. That is contrasted to your entire worldview and

1752
01:30:46,359 --> 01:30:49,720
system in paradigm, which cannot give an account for even

1753
01:30:49,920 --> 01:30:54,479
the transcendental categories themselves. That's the force of the argument.

1754
01:30:55,199 --> 01:30:57,119
Speaker 2: I'm genuinely not trying to accuse you of.

1755
01:30:57,239 --> 01:31:00,479
Speaker 1: It's a it's a meta level argument. You're trying to

1756
01:31:00,560 --> 01:31:02,760
argue on a non meta level. That's the point. That's

1757
01:31:02,760 --> 01:31:03,439
the problem we're having.

1758
01:31:04,680 --> 01:31:07,720
Speaker 2: My problem is is that and you say that it's

1759
01:31:07,720 --> 01:31:11,199
somehow false to say you plug gotten, but I'm maybe

1760
01:31:11,239 --> 01:31:12,479
maybe I'm just dumb.

1761
01:31:12,520 --> 01:31:14,720
Speaker 1: Like you know, what a meta level argument versus a

1762
01:31:14,920 --> 01:31:16,000
first order argument is.

1763
01:31:18,199 --> 01:31:21,720
Speaker 2: I mean, like meta would be the the meta would

1764
01:31:21,760 --> 01:31:25,000
be like the thing of itself, as opposed to like

1765
01:31:25,039 --> 01:31:25,760
the minute ship.

1766
01:31:27,079 --> 01:31:29,239
Speaker 1: Right. So, in other word, like logic itself, how is

1767
01:31:29,279 --> 01:31:32,520
logic itself logical? Or how do we know that it works? Right,

1768
01:31:32,640 --> 01:31:36,520
versus you know, a more mundane claim like and you're correct,

1769
01:31:36,560 --> 01:31:38,600
I agree? Right? So like if I said, well, you know,

1770
01:31:38,640 --> 01:31:40,560
does Bill Cosby live next door to me? I don't know.

1771
01:31:40,600 --> 01:31:42,880
I'll have to go, you know, empirically investigate it, right,

1772
01:31:45,000 --> 01:31:48,720
Debating the status of logic itself is way more devastating

1773
01:31:48,800 --> 01:31:51,479
and important and more fundamental to my worldview.

1774
01:31:51,640 --> 01:31:53,159
Speaker 2: No, I agree, I okay.

1775
01:31:53,239 --> 01:31:56,560
Speaker 1: So that's why this debate is a meta level worldview

1776
01:31:56,600 --> 01:31:57,199
level debate.

1777
01:31:57,439 --> 01:32:00,720
Speaker 2: I didn't, I didn't. I didn't disagree with you on that, okay.

1778
01:32:00,760 --> 01:32:04,039
Speaker 1: So then the retorts that you're giving are not understanding

1779
01:32:04,079 --> 01:32:07,920
that in my system, God is the justification for the

1780
01:32:07,960 --> 01:32:11,039
transcenal categories, because he's the only possible being who could

1781
01:32:11,079 --> 01:32:13,079
ground them. And you're saying, how do we know that

1782
01:32:13,119 --> 01:32:16,520
what's the justification the system itself in terms of revealed

1783
01:32:16,520 --> 01:32:20,239
theism is the justification in my paradigm. So you could say, well,

1784
01:32:20,239 --> 01:32:23,199
I don't accept that. That's fine, but yeah, I just.

1785
01:32:23,119 --> 01:32:25,560
Speaker 2: Like I just I'm trying to see I'm trying. So

1786
01:32:25,720 --> 01:32:29,079
I said, if you plug God in and you took.

1787
01:32:28,960 --> 01:32:33,840
Speaker 1: Them, it's not plugging God in. It's stronger than for

1788
01:32:33,880 --> 01:32:36,920
the third time, the reason you said God of the

1789
01:32:36,920 --> 01:32:39,720
gaps twice, and I'm pointing out that it's way stronger

1790
01:32:39,800 --> 01:32:42,560
argument or claim than God of the gaps. God of

1791
01:32:42,560 --> 01:32:44,640
the Gap says, where I see a problem, I stick

1792
01:32:44,680 --> 01:32:46,199
God in there to try to make sense of it.

1793
01:32:46,680 --> 01:32:49,399
This is more fundamental than that. This is saying all

1794
01:32:49,640 --> 01:32:53,920
human knowledge and predication requires the existence of our God,

1795
01:32:54,119 --> 01:32:55,680
who grounds the transfer the category.

1796
01:32:56,560 --> 01:33:01,199
Speaker 2: How are we justifying that it must necessary.

1797
01:33:00,800 --> 01:33:03,720
Speaker 1: By the impossibility of the opposing worldview not even being

1798
01:33:03,760 --> 01:33:06,760
able to give an account for anything. It's a disjunctive argument,

1799
01:33:08,399 --> 01:33:09,319
but the only.

1800
01:33:09,119 --> 01:33:11,399
Speaker 2: Way that so, the way that you're you're able to

1801
01:33:11,399 --> 01:33:16,760
say knowledge exists because and I had I don't have

1802
01:33:16,840 --> 01:33:17,880
this God to to.

1803
01:33:18,239 --> 01:33:22,000
Speaker 1: Solve that, to solve the basis for the transcenal categories.

1804
01:33:22,720 --> 01:33:26,079
So you appeal to things like being is being, existence

1805
01:33:26,119 --> 01:33:28,359
is existence, things that are just supposed to be self evident.

1806
01:33:28,760 --> 01:33:31,399
And that's why I went through deconstructing how that's not

1807
01:33:31,399 --> 01:33:32,000
self evident.

1808
01:33:34,319 --> 01:33:37,520
Speaker 2: Well, I don't, I disagree. I'm trying to. I'm I'm

1809
01:33:37,520 --> 01:33:39,079
trying to get to a point where we can where

1810
01:33:39,119 --> 01:33:40,920
we can have this conversation. But I feel like we're

1811
01:33:41,000 --> 01:33:43,239
kind of just at a point where we just both disagreements.

1812
01:33:43,600 --> 01:33:46,439
Speaker 1: I mean, this is this is God solves.

1813
01:33:47,319 --> 01:33:51,960
Speaker 2: I disagree that, like just plugging in this concept that like, oh,

1814
01:33:52,000 --> 01:33:55,159
well God justifies everything and therefore you know if there

1815
01:33:55,199 --> 01:33:55,960
are any issues there.

1816
01:33:56,159 --> 01:34:00,479
Speaker 1: So your answer is just existence exists. Yeah, I mean

1817
01:34:00,560 --> 01:34:04,039
like that would be the fundamental So can I say so?

1818
01:34:04,119 --> 01:34:07,680
Could I say so? If I come to it, No,

1819
01:34:07,720 --> 01:34:13,039
it's not your argument. Your argument was My.

1820
01:34:13,079 --> 01:34:17,039
Speaker 2: Argument is existence exists. And we're going, well, you can't

1821
01:34:17,119 --> 01:34:19,840
justify that, and I say, well, it's impossible to arguement.

1822
01:34:20,439 --> 01:34:24,760
And then your argument is God exists. Can I say, well,

1823
01:34:24,760 --> 01:34:28,000
can you justify that? And say, well, you can't argue against.

1824
01:34:27,720 --> 01:34:30,680
Speaker 1: That because all of the things I said twice, I

1825
01:34:30,720 --> 01:34:33,680
said twice, you're not listening. I said twice that if

1826
01:34:33,720 --> 01:34:36,239
I only gave it in, if I only gave an

1827
01:34:36,279 --> 01:34:38,680
internal critique, you would be correct. I already said this twice.

1828
01:34:38,800 --> 01:34:44,319
That's why you also counter with the positive case explaining

1829
01:34:44,359 --> 01:34:47,720
the paradigm in the worldview, because you're debating, we're debating

1830
01:34:47,760 --> 01:34:50,399
things like logic and existence in this language and this

1831
01:34:50,479 --> 01:34:53,720
kind of stuff that are within the paradigm, within the system,

1832
01:34:53,800 --> 01:34:56,520
so they're going to be conditioned by the systems. That's

1833
01:34:56,560 --> 01:35:01,279
why the transcendental argument is literally saying that all argumentation

1834
01:35:01,479 --> 01:35:04,279
at this level, at this fundamental level, is a paradigm

1835
01:35:04,359 --> 01:35:07,560
level argument because there is no self evident principle. So

1836
01:35:07,600 --> 01:35:10,079
every time you try to critique me on your classical

1837
01:35:10,119 --> 01:35:14,359
foundationalist basis, you're proving my point and not understanding that

1838
01:35:14,399 --> 01:35:19,159
within the paradigm justification makes sense because God literally is

1839
01:35:19,199 --> 01:35:22,199
the only being who could ground those things. For example,

1840
01:35:22,239 --> 01:35:25,079
let's let's let's make it let's make it clear. How

1841
01:35:25,079 --> 01:35:29,359
could I put this into an either or either the

1842
01:35:29,399 --> 01:35:36,079
world is at a universal sense disteleological, or there is tellos,

1843
01:35:36,119 --> 01:35:40,439
there is purpose, there is teleology operant in the world.

1844
01:35:40,920 --> 01:35:43,600
And maybe you could come up with some mixed third

1845
01:35:43,600 --> 01:35:45,399
position where it's a little bit of both or something

1846
01:35:45,439 --> 01:35:48,800
if you had. But in this disjunctive there's only two

1847
01:35:49,079 --> 01:35:53,319
and perhaps three options for an entire worldview if you

1848
01:35:53,760 --> 01:35:56,479
if you answer either way on this, you're going to

1849
01:35:56,520 --> 01:35:59,000
be led to my position. And that's the that's the

1850
01:35:59,039 --> 01:36:04,359
force of the transit an argument. You can take anything causation, teleology, pencils,

1851
01:36:04,399 --> 01:36:07,159
predication and make the transcendental argument.

1852
01:36:10,039 --> 01:36:12,600
Speaker 2: How am I so, Well, then let's walk through it.

1853
01:36:12,680 --> 01:36:15,439
Let's make it super simple. Either blue T shirts exist

1854
01:36:15,520 --> 01:36:16,840
or blue T shirts don't exend.

1855
01:36:17,039 --> 01:36:20,199
Speaker 1: You know, I gave it this theological versus a teleological

1856
01:36:20,239 --> 01:36:24,119
world right, that was my grass.

1857
01:36:24,520 --> 01:36:26,880
Speaker 2: So either meaning exists or meaning doesn't exist.

1858
01:36:27,079 --> 01:36:29,359
Speaker 1: Well, it's purpose in the world at a at a

1859
01:36:29,399 --> 01:36:32,279
grand scale, or there is no purpose in a grand scale.

1860
01:36:33,199 --> 01:36:37,960
Speaker 2: Okay, I was using meaning and purpose, you know, simplify

1861
01:36:38,000 --> 01:36:41,399
the argument, right like, So, either meaning exists or meaning

1862
01:36:41,479 --> 01:36:43,199
doesn't exitt and you're saying that.

1863
01:36:43,159 --> 01:36:46,600
Speaker 1: It's at at a universal level, not at a subjective level.

1864
01:36:48,079 --> 01:36:51,439
Speaker 2: Okay, So that yees, so I would so meaning at

1865
01:36:51,439 --> 01:36:55,359
a universal level doesn't exit. We'll take that. We'll take that.

1866
01:36:55,960 --> 01:37:00,079
My argument would be meaning does not exist at a

1867
01:37:00,199 --> 01:37:02,840
universal level for for all all beings.

1868
01:37:02,920 --> 01:37:07,760
Speaker 1: Thank you. Then then if that's the universal status of

1869
01:37:08,000 --> 01:37:11,079
that proposition or claim. If that is the case, then

1870
01:37:11,159 --> 01:37:14,359
every particular case or status of so called meaning is

1871
01:37:14,399 --> 01:37:18,000
also encapsulated under the ultimate non meaning. So every argument

1872
01:37:18,079 --> 01:37:20,199
you make is based on meaninglessness.

1873
01:37:23,840 --> 01:37:25,840
Speaker 2: And how does God? How does? How does? How does

1874
01:37:25,880 --> 01:37:29,439
the existence of a non or uncreated existence?

1875
01:37:29,920 --> 01:37:34,000
Speaker 1: Because God is because God is personal and intentional, and

1876
01:37:34,079 --> 01:37:37,800
intentionality means that there is a meaningful world at a universal,

1877
01:37:37,840 --> 01:37:38,560
grand scale.

1878
01:37:40,119 --> 01:37:42,960
Speaker 2: Okay, So so essentially where it's like a.

1879
01:37:45,439 --> 01:37:48,439
Speaker 1: No, it's not at all, It's not, it's not. It's

1880
01:37:48,479 --> 01:37:51,199
a transcendental argument for teleology.

1881
01:37:52,039 --> 01:37:55,119
Speaker 2: Why do you know? I was saying, So it's it's

1882
01:37:55,239 --> 01:37:58,680
it's similar to like if God doesn't exist and everything

1883
01:37:58,800 --> 01:37:59,319
is permitted.

1884
01:38:01,840 --> 01:38:04,439
Speaker 1: I mean, that's a boil down ethical version of it.

1885
01:38:04,520 --> 01:38:06,840
But I'm making another. I'm making more of a metaphysical

1886
01:38:06,920 --> 01:38:10,239
argument about purpose and teleology and intentionality that the universe

1887
01:38:10,279 --> 01:38:13,920
does not at a grand scale have that then than

1888
01:38:13,960 --> 01:38:16,640
what we're The only other option is what's called accidentalism

1889
01:38:16,800 --> 01:38:20,479
or dysteleology. And if that's the case, then hold on.

1890
01:38:20,520 --> 01:38:23,119
If that's the case, then knowledge is no longer possible.

1891
01:38:24,239 --> 01:38:27,600
Speaker 2: Why is knowledge because let's.

1892
01:38:26,760 --> 01:38:31,279
Speaker 1: Because now everything is accidental. Now everything is accidental. I'm

1893
01:38:31,279 --> 01:38:34,079
going to answer question. Because everything is now accidental, including

1894
01:38:34,159 --> 01:38:37,520
every action of knowledge, is an accident. And thus there's

1895
01:38:37,520 --> 01:38:41,560
no laws of thought or laws of reasoning which are

1896
01:38:41,640 --> 01:38:46,079
necessary for the possibility of meaningful discourse. You would negate

1897
01:38:46,119 --> 01:38:47,239
the possibility laws you.

1898
01:38:47,199 --> 01:38:49,159
Speaker 2: Don't mean, you don't need it. You don't need a

1899
01:38:49,199 --> 01:38:50,560
god for that exist.

1900
01:38:50,640 --> 01:38:54,439
Speaker 1: There are no immaterial laws. You keep saying that, But

1901
01:38:54,479 --> 01:38:58,880
there's what's the justification for immaterial laws if everything is

1902
01:38:58,920 --> 01:38:59,560
an accident?

1903
01:39:00,680 --> 01:39:04,359
Speaker 2: I so first, let's let's go buy this piece. So

1904
01:39:04,840 --> 01:39:08,680
I recognize that people want to discover meaning in their life.

1905
01:39:09,399 --> 01:39:15,199
But why okay, hold on, why is it that meaning

1906
01:39:15,960 --> 01:39:20,199
is a necessary condition for the universe? Why must the

1907
01:39:20,279 --> 01:39:21,279
universe have meaning?

1908
01:39:21,439 --> 01:39:28,079
Speaker 1: Because to have justified knowledge you need intentionality, purpose and

1909
01:39:28,399 --> 01:39:32,159
laws of thought and grammar, and those things cannot exist

1910
01:39:32,199 --> 01:39:35,760
in a world that is ultimately, purely and totally accidental.

1911
01:39:37,319 --> 01:39:44,720
Speaker 6: So well, yeah, well okay, So if if if, if

1912
01:39:44,760 --> 01:39:48,159
things have identities right, like a like a like a

1913
01:39:48,239 --> 01:39:51,560
rabbiting system, and that is you know, rabbit names, that

1914
01:39:51,600 --> 01:39:54,319
thing has it's we can describe what it is.

1915
01:39:55,159 --> 01:40:00,600
Speaker 2: Why is God a necessary element or a conscious being.

1916
01:40:01,000 --> 01:40:04,680
Speaker 1: Able because if the totality of existence is because I

1917
01:40:05,399 --> 01:40:08,039
because it's not justified. That's why, let me.

1918
01:40:08,000 --> 01:40:10,640
Speaker 2: Finish, let me find it. So why is it that

1919
01:40:10,840 --> 01:40:13,960
I can see, like why is God a necessary element

1920
01:40:14,359 --> 01:40:17,560
for me to see a rabbit that is named Steve

1921
01:40:18,119 --> 01:40:22,399
and perceive the behaviors that the rabbit again, the things

1922
01:40:22,479 --> 01:40:23,159
the rabbit does.

1923
01:40:24,439 --> 01:40:27,199
Speaker 1: The fact that you have the knowledge does not equate

1924
01:40:27,239 --> 01:40:30,079
to you justifying the knowledge. That's what this whole debate

1925
01:40:30,119 --> 01:40:33,720
has been about. Justification is not pragmatism. It's not you

1926
01:40:33,880 --> 01:40:35,800
just having it. It's not you asserting it. It's not

1927
01:40:35,840 --> 01:40:39,119
you believing in self evident assertions. It's you giving an

1928
01:40:39,159 --> 01:40:42,439
account for the things that make it possible. So you

1929
01:40:42,520 --> 01:40:46,600
can say, well, I have so it wouldn't be able

1930
01:40:46,640 --> 01:40:49,479
to justify them. That's so if you say, well, I

1931
01:40:49,600 --> 01:40:53,199
believe that I've found meaning and predicating about my pet rabbits,

1932
01:40:53,319 --> 01:40:56,159
and it gives me the solace I get warm feelies

1933
01:40:56,159 --> 01:40:59,880
over it. In the grand scheme, In the Grand scheme,

1934
01:41:00,039 --> 01:41:02,960
when you die and you go into the nothingness, that

1935
01:41:03,520 --> 01:41:07,119
is gone, and so it has no relevance or reference

1936
01:41:07,279 --> 01:41:10,359
to the universe as a whole and so ultimately, even

1937
01:41:10,399 --> 01:41:13,159
though you might have subjectively felt like there was meaning there,

1938
01:41:13,439 --> 01:41:17,319
there is no meaning beyond your own personal subjective creating

1939
01:41:17,399 --> 01:41:19,520
of meaning. So there is no te lose in your position.

1940
01:41:19,720 --> 01:41:19,840
Speaker 4: Right?

1941
01:41:19,880 --> 01:41:20,800
Speaker 2: But why does that matter?

1942
01:41:21,640 --> 01:41:25,720
Speaker 1: Because knowledge can no longer be epistemically justified if the

1943
01:41:25,800 --> 01:41:30,119
universe is accidental on disteleological. If I live a life,

1944
01:41:30,560 --> 01:41:32,199
and how does that get you justification?

1945
01:41:32,520 --> 01:41:36,159
Speaker 2: Hold on, if I live a life and I die, right,

1946
01:41:36,199 --> 01:41:38,439
and then the world moves on without me for a

1947
01:41:38,479 --> 01:41:43,039
million years? Right, whatever my actions are had some effect.

1948
01:41:42,640 --> 01:41:43,159
Speaker 3: On the world.

1949
01:41:43,239 --> 01:41:46,640
Speaker 2: But why does like why? What? What is this you're

1950
01:41:46,680 --> 01:41:50,960
you're positing that a grand vision or meaning is necessary.

1951
01:41:51,000 --> 01:41:53,399
Speaker 1: It's called accidentalism, just disteleological.

1952
01:41:53,439 --> 01:41:53,560
Speaker 2: Right.

1953
01:41:53,760 --> 01:41:59,199
Speaker 1: This is actually a fair famous argument. Right. If the

1954
01:41:59,319 --> 01:42:04,359
universe had a grand scale is accidental and distillological, then

1955
01:42:04,399 --> 01:42:08,800
by necessity, every particular person, object, event, and thing within

1956
01:42:09,560 --> 01:42:13,119
is also accidental, and thus there is no basis for

1957
01:42:13,880 --> 01:42:17,880
logic knowledge in a justi victory sense, because there are

1958
01:42:17,880 --> 01:42:21,399
no laws of thought because they are also accidental and

1959
01:42:21,479 --> 01:42:30,119
distiological and with no purpose. Okay, So, if the grand

1960
01:42:30,119 --> 01:42:34,840
scale universal is purposeless, all the particular parts are purposeless.

1961
01:42:38,760 --> 01:42:41,520
Speaker 2: But it doesn't. It doesn't actually answer the question. You're

1962
01:42:41,560 --> 01:42:44,199
just saying because it doesn't have propose like we can

1963
01:42:44,239 --> 01:42:44,600
we can.

1964
01:42:44,520 --> 01:42:46,720
Speaker 1: Look at again for the third time to have the

1965
01:42:46,800 --> 01:42:49,119
laws of no hold on for the laws of thought. No,

1966
01:42:49,560 --> 01:42:51,800
I'm not interrupting for having the laws of thought.

1967
01:42:51,880 --> 01:42:52,680
Speaker 2: Let me explain it.

1968
01:42:52,760 --> 01:42:56,800
Speaker 1: Let me explain it for having You can't have language

1969
01:42:56,840 --> 01:42:58,039
without the laws of thought.

1970
01:42:58,159 --> 01:43:02,279
Speaker 2: Oh my god, Oh my god, my god. Brother, I'm

1971
01:43:02,359 --> 01:43:06,000
letting you make your full argument and then taking that argument.

1972
01:43:06,279 --> 01:43:11,479
Speaker 1: You can't have language. It is very come on, man.

1973
01:43:14,840 --> 01:43:19,720
Speaker 2: Okay, So I'm trying to like, I'm not like, I'm not.

1974
01:43:20,319 --> 01:43:22,720
I'm asking you a question and I'm not getting an answer.

1975
01:43:23,000 --> 01:43:27,119
What I'm getting is that what I'm getting is you're

1976
01:43:27,279 --> 01:43:34,000
appealing to the people's desire for purpose and meaning. I'm

1977
01:43:34,039 --> 01:43:36,520
asking where did I ever say?

1978
01:43:36,720 --> 01:43:38,520
Speaker 1: Where did I ever say that that's totally not true?

1979
01:43:38,920 --> 01:43:40,239
I said, you're not, but you're not.

1980
01:43:40,560 --> 01:43:43,760
Speaker 2: I said, you're doing by not actually answering the question,

1981
01:43:44,079 --> 01:43:45,119
which is why.

1982
01:43:44,960 --> 01:43:47,640
Speaker 1: The very beginning point was about the universe as a

1983
01:43:47,640 --> 01:43:53,680
whole having either a teleological intentionality purpose behind it or

1984
01:43:53,760 --> 01:43:56,680
it's purely accidental at a grand scale. That was what

1985
01:43:56,720 --> 01:43:58,840
I said very clear, and there's only two options here,

1986
01:43:58,920 --> 01:44:00,159
or if you want to say there's a mix, you

1987
01:44:00,159 --> 01:44:02,600
could have a third option. And you said, well, but

1988
01:44:02,640 --> 01:44:05,319
how does that mean I can't justify knowledge? And I said,

1989
01:44:05,399 --> 01:44:09,319
because if the universe is purely accidental, all the so

1990
01:44:09,520 --> 01:44:13,000
called laws within it, including the laws of thought, the

1991
01:44:13,119 --> 01:44:19,359
laws of logic, mathematical laws, are also thus accidental and

1992
01:44:19,439 --> 01:44:24,239
have no purpose. And so your arguments right now have

1993
01:44:24,439 --> 01:44:26,840
no purpose by your own admission.

1994
01:44:33,159 --> 01:44:38,600
Speaker 2: If so, you're saying that purpose and meaning is required

1995
01:44:38,640 --> 01:44:39,399
for let's saying.

1996
01:44:40,920 --> 01:44:44,439
Speaker 1: A world with no purpose and no meaning cannot give

1997
01:44:44,560 --> 01:44:46,760
rise to universal.

1998
01:44:47,239 --> 01:44:49,600
Speaker 2: Maybe I need a better definition of what you mean

1999
01:44:50,720 --> 01:44:55,279
when you're making the arguments like teleology, meaning, et cetera.

2000
01:44:55,399 --> 01:44:56,960
Like what you mean in this regards.

2001
01:44:57,479 --> 01:44:59,159
Speaker 1: The universe as a whole in all of its parts

2002
01:44:59,399 --> 01:45:03,039
have a directed, intentional purpose or they do not.

2003
01:45:04,960 --> 01:45:07,680
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, like a heart pumps blut, the purpose of

2004
01:45:07,720 --> 01:45:11,720
the heart is why is God necessary for the for

2005
01:45:11,760 --> 01:45:12,920
the heart to pump blood?

2006
01:45:17,319 --> 01:45:22,359
Speaker 1: The justification for tilos in a universal sense requires some

2007
01:45:22,680 --> 01:45:25,600
universal being or thing to ground it and justify it.

2008
01:45:25,680 --> 01:45:26,439
That's the argument.

2009
01:45:26,600 --> 01:45:29,119
Speaker 2: So okay, well, why is God necessary for that?

2010
01:45:29,760 --> 01:45:32,079
Speaker 1: God is the only being who could give an account

2011
01:45:32,079 --> 01:45:35,039
for that.

2012
01:45:35,039 --> 01:45:36,199
Speaker 2: That's not answering my question.

2013
01:45:36,239 --> 01:45:38,359
Speaker 1: It is just you don't like to answer what other

2014
01:45:38,439 --> 01:45:38,840
being could?

2015
01:45:38,960 --> 01:45:41,720
Speaker 2: Why is God necessary.

2016
01:45:41,199 --> 01:45:44,039
Speaker 1: Because he's the only type of being who could give

2017
01:45:44,039 --> 01:45:45,039
an account of heart?

2018
01:45:45,079 --> 01:45:47,760
Speaker 2: Pump, I can give it a I can give an

2019
01:45:47,760 --> 01:45:48,760
account of.

2020
01:45:49,039 --> 01:45:52,840
Speaker 1: But you already admit it because your account. Your account

2021
01:45:52,960 --> 01:45:56,399
is not purpose, Your account is not universally Your accounts

2022
01:45:56,359 --> 01:46:00,439
are subjective. Your account is subjective and not universally true.

2023
01:46:00,439 --> 01:46:01,119
That's the point.

2024
01:46:03,239 --> 01:46:06,079
Speaker 2: So you're saying that another person could have an interpretation

2025
01:46:06,199 --> 01:46:06,560
of the heart.

2026
01:46:06,680 --> 01:46:10,840
Speaker 1: No, I'm asking about your assertion of universals now, and

2027
01:46:10,880 --> 01:46:13,239
you don't have a justification for how there's universals.

2028
01:46:20,119 --> 01:46:21,640
Speaker 2: I would depend on It would depend upon what we

2029
01:46:21,680 --> 01:46:24,439
mean when we're talking about like the purpose of inanimate objects.

2030
01:46:24,479 --> 01:46:27,880
Speaker 1: Right now, you said that this is Is it true?

2031
01:46:28,039 --> 01:46:29,159
Is it universally true?

2032
01:46:30,720 --> 01:46:34,239
Speaker 2: That that the if we're talking about the specific identity, Yes,

2033
01:46:34,279 --> 01:46:35,319
it is universally true.

2034
01:46:35,359 --> 01:46:38,279
Speaker 1: Okay, how do you have knowledge of the universal? How

2035
01:46:38,279 --> 01:46:41,880
do you have knowledge of universals? As a individual, finite

2036
01:46:42,439 --> 01:46:43,359
empirical being.

2037
01:46:44,239 --> 01:46:46,640
Speaker 2: I have consciousness. Consciousness gives me.

2038
01:46:46,720 --> 01:46:49,800
Speaker 1: How does having consciousness prove the existence of universals.

2039
01:46:51,239 --> 01:46:56,439
Speaker 2: Well, consciousness is alitional, is what? It's volitional, it's intentional,

2040
01:46:56,560 --> 01:46:58,960
it's like it's it's like the consciousness.

2041
01:46:59,079 --> 01:47:01,680
Speaker 1: Okay, you keep starting a certainly, what is the proof

2042
01:47:01,680 --> 01:47:03,680
of the justification that you have these things? You keep

2043
01:47:03,680 --> 01:47:09,199
asserting it? We can I come to the debate and

2044
01:47:09,239 --> 01:47:12,159
just say, Can I come to the debate and say,

2045
01:47:12,239 --> 01:47:12,760
God just is?

2046
01:47:13,840 --> 01:47:15,199
Speaker 2: I feel like that's kind of what you're doing.

2047
01:47:15,239 --> 01:47:15,279
Speaker 3: No.

2048
01:47:15,359 --> 01:47:17,479
Speaker 1: I made a transcendent argument which you just don't understand,

2049
01:47:17,479 --> 01:47:19,399
and you're coming to debate and saying what existence just is?

2050
01:47:19,520 --> 01:47:20,560
And it just is?

2051
01:47:22,279 --> 01:47:26,640
Speaker 2: Well, you're I fail to see the distinction between I

2052
01:47:26,680 --> 01:47:29,399
really do, but you'll just say that it's like I'm

2053
01:47:29,439 --> 01:47:30,640
dumb or something. It's fine.

2054
01:47:31,199 --> 01:47:33,960
Speaker 1: Again, the distinction is that you're not justifying all of

2055
01:47:34,000 --> 01:47:36,399
these assertions and beliefs, and you have a bunch of

2056
01:47:36,439 --> 01:47:42,760
dogmas that you've not justified. You on your paradigm, on

2057
01:47:42,840 --> 01:47:47,399
your paradigm. Okay, well, so is everything? You said, everything

2058
01:47:47,479 --> 01:47:50,760
is an accident, everything is without purpose. And you said,

2059
01:47:50,760 --> 01:47:52,359
but in my personal life, I can say that the

2060
01:47:52,399 --> 01:47:54,960
heart beats. Okay, and then you said that that's universe.

2061
01:47:55,000 --> 01:47:57,279
That's you said, that's universally true. You don't have a

2062
01:47:57,359 --> 01:48:02,000
justification for universals because universal No, it's not. You can

2063
01:48:02,079 --> 01:48:04,560
say that, but you've contradicted it by saying that the

2064
01:48:04,640 --> 01:48:07,279
universe as a whole is also purposeless. That means that

2065
01:48:07,319 --> 01:48:09,239
your universal claims are also purposeless.

2066
01:48:10,239 --> 01:48:12,800
Speaker 2: Again, this is why I asked you to clarify on

2067
01:48:12,920 --> 01:48:15,760
your meanings of like purposeless purposefulness.

2068
01:48:15,960 --> 01:48:20,119
Speaker 1: There's no purpose he los to anything. That means your

2069
01:48:20,319 --> 01:48:21,920
arguments are no have no.

2070
01:48:21,880 --> 01:48:25,479
Speaker 2: Purpose when we take you're so frustrated.

2071
01:48:25,880 --> 01:48:28,880
Speaker 1: Because you're losing at this point, it's a very obvious points.

2072
01:48:29,680 --> 01:48:33,399
If everything is meaninglessness, then your arguments are meaningless.

2073
01:48:33,439 --> 01:48:36,560
Speaker 2: Brother, brother for the loss up whining?

2074
01:48:36,640 --> 01:48:38,319
Speaker 1: Do we don't care about your whining?

2075
01:48:39,399 --> 01:48:41,039
Speaker 2: I know that you don't care about my learning. It's

2076
01:48:41,039 --> 01:48:42,640
because you're a rude that's not right.

2077
01:48:43,079 --> 01:48:47,720
Speaker 1: Regardless, So everything is purposelessness, everything is meaningless, purposelesslessness. But

2078
01:48:47,880 --> 01:48:50,479
your universal truth You said that, yes, you did. You

2079
01:48:50,520 --> 01:48:53,960
said the universe was purposeless. You said that you are

2080
01:48:54,479 --> 01:48:55,920
you said at a grand scale, it.

2081
01:48:55,960 --> 01:48:59,640
Speaker 2: Was you gave. You gave an argument that's said the

2082
01:49:00,000 --> 01:49:02,439
option a option be potentially a mixed You said that

2083
01:49:02,479 --> 01:49:05,880
the two I said, and you said that these will

2084
01:49:06,000 --> 01:49:09,119
necessitate God when we follow them through. So I said, sure,

2085
01:49:09,359 --> 01:49:12,560
I said, and not meaning that I am saying the

2086
01:49:12,680 --> 01:49:15,640
universe's purposeful, it's meaningless or whatever.

2087
01:49:15,720 --> 01:49:18,359
Speaker 1: Right, Like, but there's only two options on this question,

2088
01:49:29,960 --> 01:49:32,079
bad faith, dude, nobody is buying your bullshit.

2089
01:49:32,159 --> 01:49:33,880
Speaker 2: I'm not being I'm not being bad faith.

2090
01:49:33,880 --> 01:49:36,439
Speaker 1: When you say, if there's only two options, then that

2091
01:49:36,520 --> 01:49:38,760
must be your positions, right, I say.

2092
01:49:38,680 --> 01:49:41,479
Speaker 2: Let's all right, let's pick one and let's follow your logic.

2093
01:49:41,800 --> 01:49:44,239
Speaker 1: Is that not your positions? Is it not your position?

2094
01:49:44,399 --> 01:49:46,239
Speaker 2: I don't know that. I don't I would, I would

2095
01:49:46,399 --> 01:49:48,960
genuinely and honestly have to think about it.

2096
01:49:49,239 --> 01:49:51,000
Speaker 1: Okay, then you're not in a position to give a

2097
01:49:51,079 --> 01:49:53,319
justification for universal claims by that admission.

2098
01:49:55,960 --> 01:49:59,680
Speaker 2: I'm not in a position to give universal claims because

2099
01:49:59,680 --> 01:50:02,159
I don't know whether or not one specific claim.

2100
01:50:02,600 --> 01:50:06,880
Speaker 1: No, because of the because of intentionality and tilos. If

2101
01:50:06,920 --> 01:50:11,199
the universe is universally purposeless and meaningless, and now you're saying, well,

2102
01:50:11,159 --> 01:50:13,560
I don't actually believe that, then you are arguing in

2103
01:50:13,600 --> 01:50:14,079
bad faith.

2104
01:50:15,119 --> 01:50:17,560
Speaker 2: How am I arguing in bad faiths? Because I don't

2105
01:50:17,760 --> 01:50:18,600
like I would say.

2106
01:50:18,439 --> 01:50:20,960
Speaker 1: Like, because there's only two options in this question. For

2107
01:50:21,880 --> 01:50:24,880
there's only two options for anyone. The whole chat is.

2108
01:50:26,560 --> 01:50:26,880
Speaker 2: You're over.

2109
01:50:27,039 --> 01:50:34,000
Speaker 7: You are, this is, this is I'm not gonna sho you.

2110
01:50:34,159 --> 01:50:37,920
Nobody's buying the bullshit man, and I'm not lying. You

2111
01:50:38,039 --> 01:50:39,680
literally contradicted yourself again.

2112
01:50:39,800 --> 01:50:43,439
Speaker 2: No, listen again. Your claim now is that it is

2113
01:50:43,880 --> 01:50:45,039
talk about medical.

2114
01:50:45,319 --> 01:50:48,000
Speaker 1: You said the universe is purposelessness, and now you're walking

2115
01:50:48,000 --> 01:50:50,520
it back because you got repeated. You're walking it back

2116
01:50:50,600 --> 01:50:52,039
because you got repeated again.

2117
01:50:53,199 --> 01:50:57,399
Speaker 2: No, I can't two options. I said, let's explore this option.

2118
01:50:57,920 --> 01:50:58,800
It is not bad.

2119
01:50:59,119 --> 01:51:05,960
Speaker 1: There's only two. There's your cook You're done, You're melting down,

2120
01:51:05,960 --> 01:51:06,800
you're spurging out.

2121
01:51:07,920 --> 01:51:13,439
Speaker 2: Oh my gosh, Oh.

2122
01:51:13,239 --> 01:51:15,000
Speaker 1: My gosh, dude.

2123
01:51:15,399 --> 01:51:20,560
Speaker 2: Brother. Yeah, I'm just I'm I'm I will I guess

2124
01:51:20,560 --> 01:51:23,600
I will finish with this. The idea that you call

2125
01:51:23,720 --> 01:51:26,119
someone bad faith because.

2126
01:51:25,960 --> 01:51:27,800
Speaker 1: You're the one who bitched about me being bad face

2127
01:51:27,840 --> 01:51:28,520
the entire time.

2128
01:51:32,000 --> 01:51:34,840
Speaker 2: Okay, so we're starting the idea that you would call

2129
01:51:34,920 --> 01:51:39,640
someone bad faith because you present an argument and the

2130
01:51:39,720 --> 01:51:43,159
person listens to it, takes notes on it.

2131
01:51:43,399 --> 01:51:46,279
Speaker 1: And then walks it back when they see a problem. Correct,

2132
01:51:46,279 --> 01:51:51,279
that's bad faith. Yeah, you affirmed, you affirmed universal meaninglessness.

2133
01:51:51,279 --> 01:51:54,920
Speaker 2: We can, we can, we can do this where you

2134
01:51:55,039 --> 01:51:56,399
eventually act like an adult.

2135
01:51:57,079 --> 01:52:01,119
Speaker 1: You affirmed universal meaninglessness on apostle and position that only

2136
01:52:01,119 --> 01:52:04,119
has two options, and now you're saying I don't necessarily

2137
01:52:04,159 --> 01:52:06,359
agree with that, Well, then do you accept that there

2138
01:52:06,399 --> 01:52:09,640
is universal memis? No, I'm not lying. I don't have

2139
01:52:09,720 --> 01:52:12,520
to lie in a person who has bombed an entire

2140
01:52:12,520 --> 01:52:14,680
debate for two hours. Why would I have to lie?

2141
01:52:15,039 --> 01:52:18,680
You have crashed and burned, dude, I'm not lying about you.

2142
01:52:18,680 --> 01:52:19,800
You're a terrible debater.

2143
01:52:19,880 --> 01:52:24,920
Speaker 2: Objectively, I getting that this is a debate game for you.

2144
01:52:25,000 --> 01:52:28,199
Speaker 1: No, it's not a game. You crashed and burned miserably.

2145
01:52:29,239 --> 01:52:32,479
But I entertained the entire discussion because I'm happy to

2146
01:52:32,520 --> 01:52:36,800
explain the arguments to you. Oh my gosh, Oh my gosh,

2147
01:52:36,840 --> 01:52:40,600
Oh my gosh. Can you just make your arguments without whiny?

2148
01:52:40,760 --> 01:52:42,159
You whining bitch this whole time?

2149
01:52:43,399 --> 01:52:45,920
Speaker 2: Yes, that is that is true. I have complained quite

2150
01:52:45,960 --> 01:52:46,279
a lot.

2151
01:52:46,359 --> 01:52:50,039
Speaker 1: Yes, whining and bitching because you can't deal with the arguments.

2152
01:52:50,039 --> 01:52:51,960
You would rather whine and bitch about actually deal with

2153
01:52:51,960 --> 01:52:52,479
the arguments.

2154
01:52:57,520 --> 01:53:03,239
Speaker 2: No, it's just because you're just so and it's so

2155
01:53:03,279 --> 01:53:04,319
difficult to have a conversation.

2156
01:53:04,520 --> 01:53:06,239
Speaker 1: You're in a feminist man. So I'm gonna be I'm

2157
01:53:06,239 --> 01:53:08,439
gonna be childish with you. So how's that?

2158
01:53:10,079 --> 01:53:20,479
Speaker 2: I'm I'm sure, brother, Uh whatever whatever makes okay? I am. Yeah.

2159
01:53:20,520 --> 01:53:24,960
So again I did not say any Again, I will reaffirm,

2160
01:53:25,359 --> 01:53:27,239
you know, I don't know. I'd have to think about

2161
01:53:28,199 --> 01:53:29,880
many of the concept.

2162
01:53:30,239 --> 01:53:32,439
Speaker 1: Maybe in a debate to say that I don't know.

2163
01:53:33,119 --> 01:53:33,640
Speaker 2: I don't know.

2164
01:53:35,119 --> 01:53:36,880
Speaker 1: Is that a good sign in a debate, to be like,

2165
01:53:37,840 --> 01:53:39,680
I don't know, Let me walk it back. I don't know.

2166
01:53:40,560 --> 01:53:42,439
Speaker 2: Actually, I think I think that's a really good sign

2167
01:53:42,439 --> 01:53:45,680
of someone that's actually being good faith as opposed to you. Oh,

2168
01:53:46,319 --> 01:53:48,359
you're you're searching for a dub as opposed to So.

2169
01:53:48,399 --> 01:53:51,039
Speaker 1: I don't know. Let me debate a topic. Let me

2170
01:53:51,079 --> 01:53:52,800
walk it back and admit that I don't know.

2171
01:53:53,159 --> 01:53:54,840
Speaker 2: I won't walk it back anything.

2172
01:53:55,079 --> 01:53:58,840
Speaker 1: You affirm that. You affirmed that the universe is purposeless.

2173
01:53:59,239 --> 01:54:00,039
Everybody heard you.

2174
01:54:00,359 --> 01:54:03,000
Speaker 2: I asked. I did an internal critique. I said, why

2175
01:54:03,079 --> 01:54:04,039
must there be purposes?

2176
01:54:04,079 --> 01:54:04,119
Speaker 3: No?

2177
01:54:04,560 --> 01:54:06,760
Speaker 1: No, no, Now, now you're alive because you did explicitly

2178
01:54:06,840 --> 01:54:09,039
verbally say fine, as purposes. I'll go with that.

2179
01:54:10,199 --> 01:54:13,039
Speaker 2: Yes, fine, I'll go with that. Yes, that is saying

2180
01:54:13,119 --> 01:54:15,800
for the meaning for the for the sake of continuing

2181
01:54:15,880 --> 01:54:16,880
the argument for it.

2182
01:54:16,880 --> 01:54:18,640
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter that you walk it back and say

2183
01:54:18,640 --> 01:54:20,359
that it's not your position, which would mean it's in

2184
01:54:20,439 --> 01:54:23,800
bad faith. If there's only two options, Dude, I I I.

2185
01:54:26,079 --> 01:54:26,720
Speaker 2: Who chat?

2186
01:54:27,000 --> 01:54:36,159
Speaker 1: You lost? You're done walking back. Everyone heard you affirm discileology.

2187
01:54:36,279 --> 01:54:43,720
Everyone heard you affirm it. I don't.

2188
01:54:43,800 --> 01:54:46,119
Speaker 2: I don't know how to continue this conversation.

2189
01:54:45,720 --> 01:54:47,720
Speaker 1: Right, because you exactly.

2190
01:54:48,560 --> 01:54:50,720
Speaker 2: It's not a matter of crashing and burning. I made

2191
01:54:50,760 --> 01:54:54,680
the mistake. I find it engaged honestly with a piece with.

2192
01:54:54,680 --> 01:54:57,079
Speaker 1: A piece, right, So now it's all personal. When I

2193
01:54:57,159 --> 01:54:59,199
keep it on the topic, you make it personal. All

2194
01:54:59,199 --> 01:55:00,880
you do this whole time was wine until the land.

2195
01:55:00,920 --> 01:55:03,840
I said, you're a soy man. You talk NonStop shit

2196
01:55:03,920 --> 01:55:06,439
about me, calling me a pussy. I bring you on here.

2197
01:55:06,520 --> 01:55:08,840
You crash and burn and have a melt down because

2198
01:55:08,880 --> 01:55:11,000
you can't answer basic philosophical questions.

2199
01:55:11,000 --> 01:55:16,439
Speaker 2: Man, I agree that that is your interpretation.

2200
01:55:16,800 --> 01:55:19,560
Speaker 1: No, that's just everyone's interpretation, because that's what happened.

2201
01:55:20,880 --> 01:55:22,640
Speaker 2: Fair enough. You know, you win some, you lose some.

2202
01:55:22,840 --> 01:55:25,560
Maybe one day I can, you know, learn more about

2203
01:55:25,560 --> 01:55:28,119
the more, learn more about these arguments and debate it

2204
01:55:28,199 --> 01:55:29,239
with somebody that's interestly.

2205
01:55:29,279 --> 01:55:31,479
Speaker 1: So you're admitting that you don't know the topic. That's

2206
01:55:31,479 --> 01:55:32,800
a good admission. I appreciate that.

2207
01:55:34,319 --> 01:55:36,920
Speaker 2: Well. I well, obviously I would admit that there are

2208
01:55:36,960 --> 01:55:40,079
aspects of any argumentation from other people that you don't know,

2209
01:55:40,199 --> 01:55:41,640
like what kind of narcissism?

2210
01:55:41,800 --> 01:55:44,760
Speaker 1: No, I mean actual, I mean basically, I mean basically,

2211
01:55:44,880 --> 01:55:47,840
you've had three debates now with people on our side

2212
01:55:47,840 --> 01:55:51,760
of this, and you've not done any work to understand epistemology.

2213
01:55:51,840 --> 01:55:56,239
You've done nothing, so you're not the typical lazy libertarian

2214
01:55:56,840 --> 01:56:01,119
komer man who doesn't actually study the positions. You haven't

2215
01:56:01,159 --> 01:56:05,479
progressed against. After Andrew, after Jim, Bob and me, you've

2216
01:56:05,479 --> 01:56:07,920
made no progress at all in this topic.

2217
01:56:08,439 --> 01:56:12,399
Speaker 2: This is so silly. I attempted my ability, you know,

2218
01:56:12,520 --> 01:56:13,680
to to bring for the argument.

2219
01:56:13,760 --> 01:56:16,640
Speaker 1: All you have is to call names. You've had no

2220
01:56:17,079 --> 01:56:19,800
I let you talk for hours on end here today,

2221
01:56:21,560 --> 01:56:24,359
fair enough, and you made a bunch of bad arguments,

2222
01:56:24,399 --> 01:56:27,199
and you're whining and melting down because your arguments are

2223
01:56:27,319 --> 01:56:30,920
piss poor. They're sophomore level I have.

2224
01:56:31,239 --> 01:56:33,880
Speaker 2: I think that that is silly for you to say

2225
01:56:33,880 --> 01:56:36,439
that I'm whining because my arguments are bad.

2226
01:56:36,560 --> 01:56:40,079
Speaker 1: It's a reflection technique, and when a person's crashing that

2227
01:56:40,079 --> 01:56:42,560
they start whining and bitching about the other person.

2228
01:56:43,680 --> 01:56:46,439
Speaker 2: No, I'm just I'm I just can't get my arguments

2229
01:56:46,439 --> 01:56:47,479
out like it took me.

2230
01:56:47,600 --> 01:56:50,119
Speaker 1: You got tons of bull you got a lot of

2231
01:56:50,119 --> 01:56:52,239
bullshit out. We heard all, we heard your stuff, and

2232
01:56:52,279 --> 01:56:53,960
we know after two hours is not going to get

2233
01:56:54,000 --> 01:56:54,399
much better.

2234
01:56:55,439 --> 01:56:58,399
Speaker 2: Fair enough, fair enough, Well, I appreciate the opportunity to

2235
01:56:58,560 --> 01:57:01,840
come here. Regardless of whether not I will, I will

2236
01:57:01,880 --> 01:57:06,800
recant my position that you are fully and holy you know,

2237
01:57:06,880 --> 01:57:10,439
a pussy or a coward in terms of debating, which

2238
01:57:10,439 --> 01:57:14,840
I had said earlier, because it felt very fucked up

2239
01:57:15,000 --> 01:57:18,920
that you have not brought on actual libertarians and only discussed.

2240
01:57:20,039 --> 01:57:22,399
Speaker 1: Nobody cares what you think an actual libertarian is or

2241
01:57:22,439 --> 01:57:25,319
no true scotsman. So we don't care about that. Well,

2242
01:57:25,359 --> 01:57:27,439
I mean, at least I don't know who you I

2243
01:57:27,479 --> 01:57:29,039
don't care who you think is real.

2244
01:57:29,479 --> 01:57:31,479
Speaker 2: I know, I know, I know, without God, words have

2245
01:57:31,560 --> 01:57:32,000
no meaning.

2246
01:57:32,479 --> 01:57:34,479
Speaker 1: No, I just don't care what you think the real

2247
01:57:34,520 --> 01:57:36,119
libertarian is. Who's the lorilla libertarian?

2248
01:57:36,199 --> 01:57:41,199
Speaker 2: You anyone, anyone that legitimately and fully follows through on

2249
01:57:41,239 --> 01:57:43,880
the non aggression principles.

2250
01:57:43,319 --> 01:57:46,600
Speaker 1: Which is not an aught, even though it is all right,

2251
01:57:46,600 --> 01:57:48,399
which is ant, but it's not an not because it's

2252
01:57:48,399 --> 01:57:52,399
an axiom, but it's also an a right exactly you

2253
01:57:52,399 --> 01:57:53,680
want to do super chats or not?

2254
01:57:55,079 --> 01:57:58,039
Speaker 2: No, no, I'm good, but I again, like I said,

2255
01:57:58,239 --> 01:57:59,800
I'll about out now, but I just wanted to say

2256
01:58:00,079 --> 01:58:02,239
thank you for bringing me on and again, if you'll

2257
01:58:02,319 --> 01:58:04,760
let me get it out, I do recance my position

2258
01:58:04,800 --> 01:58:08,920
that you were adyss here, that you had pissed me off,

2259
01:58:08,960 --> 01:58:14,000
but not bringing on really obviously you do. So there's that.

2260
01:58:14,159 --> 01:58:14,439
Speaker 1: Okay.

2261
01:58:14,680 --> 01:58:16,800
Speaker 2: I'm a Fabian liberty. You can find me pretty much.

2262
01:58:17,119 --> 01:58:19,319
Speaker 1: And I've got his channel linked in the chat in

2263
01:58:19,359 --> 01:58:22,479
the show description. If anybody wants to check out his material,

2264
01:58:23,319 --> 01:58:25,600
even if we have a heated disagreement and debate, I'm

2265
01:58:25,600 --> 01:58:27,560
gonna give you the links to the people so you

2266
01:58:27,560 --> 01:58:29,960
can follow him. Mister Kool eight five dollars, have a

2267
01:58:29,960 --> 01:58:31,840
blessed day. I appreciate your work. Now I'm going to

2268
01:58:31,880 --> 01:58:33,479
open it up to people who want to call in.

2269
01:58:33,880 --> 01:58:36,960
People want to make points, they want to make some objections.

2270
01:58:38,000 --> 01:58:40,439
We got some super chats here I'm gonna go to

2271
01:58:41,399 --> 01:58:43,399
but before we do that, I'm gonna have to go

2272
01:58:43,560 --> 01:58:46,880
to get another coffee and I'm gonna have to get

2273
01:58:46,880 --> 01:58:50,439
some water. So let me remind you that we have

2274
01:58:50,479 --> 01:58:57,199
a show sponsor, and that sponsor is right here, and

2275
01:58:57,520 --> 01:59:01,079
I will be right back. So people on ex Twitter,

2276
01:59:01,279 --> 01:59:05,680
you won't be able to hear the ad, but I

2277
01:59:05,720 --> 01:59:07,600
will be right back. So don't go anywhere.

2278
01:59:09,199 --> 01:59:11,920
Speaker 4: I'm going to put you on something crazy real quick.

2279
01:59:12,359 --> 01:59:16,119
Most of these zoomer Jimbros are consuming macro guzzling synthetic

2280
01:59:16,199 --> 01:59:19,800
dyes and synthetic sweeteners on the daily. They don't even

2281
01:59:19,880 --> 01:59:23,119
know it. Goofy af. There's nothing great about that. Do

2282
01:59:23,199 --> 01:59:25,720
not listen any further unless you are an Alpha or

2283
01:59:25,760 --> 01:59:29,079
Sigma male. This is important and there could be consequences.

2284
01:59:29,319 --> 01:59:32,399
There's a new certified Sigma male pre workout powder for

2285
01:59:32,479 --> 01:59:36,000
sigmas only. It is guaranteed to empower you to dominate

2286
01:59:36,079 --> 01:59:40,520
your co workers, fire your boss, aggressively, gamble, or invade

2287
01:59:40,560 --> 01:59:43,960
a small village. Chad mode stands out from the crowd

2288
01:59:44,000 --> 01:59:49,159
by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners, and dyes. We've even

2289
01:59:49,199 --> 01:59:53,279
avoided so called natural flavors, which are actually not natural

2290
01:59:53,319 --> 01:59:56,960
at all, ensuring a clean and effective formula. Experience the

2291
01:59:57,000 --> 02:00:00,399
pure goodness of chad Mode colored with organic blue spy

2292
02:00:00,520 --> 02:00:05,560
rolina extract, organic lemon cherry, and organic maple crystals. Forget

2293
02:00:05,600 --> 02:00:09,199
synthetic caffeine made in a sketchy Chinese lab. Embrace the

2294
02:00:09,279 --> 02:00:12,960
natural power of organic green coffee bean extract which will

2295
02:00:13,000 --> 02:00:15,880
get your mind going and pump you up to the max.

2296
02:00:16,720 --> 02:00:20,039
Chad Mode is made in America with all clean ingredients,

2297
02:00:20,439 --> 02:00:23,680
the first clean pre workout of its kind. Why are

2298
02:00:23,680 --> 02:00:27,399
these people adding synthetic sweeteners to every single pre workout

2299
02:00:27,439 --> 02:00:31,319
when there are many studied downsides to consuming nasty fake sucralose.

2300
02:00:31,520 --> 02:00:34,199
Each dose of chad Mode contains the kick of a

2301
02:00:34,239 --> 02:00:37,640
cup and a half of coffee, delivering a surge of energy,

2302
02:00:37,680 --> 02:00:43,239
alongside essential vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and herbal extracts. Chad

2303
02:00:43,279 --> 02:00:46,000
Mode will allow you to fire your boss and dominate

2304
02:00:46,079 --> 02:00:49,680
anyone who opposes you. Chad Mode will make you more

2305
02:00:49,680 --> 02:00:53,640
dominant in your daily life, so proceed with caution. It's

2306
02:00:53,680 --> 02:00:56,319
as simple as mixing one or two scoops of our

2307
02:00:56,479 --> 02:01:00,479
fine powder into water or juice, providing you with a delicious,

2308
02:01:00,720 --> 02:01:04,560
energizing beverage. Featuring a burst of sweet organic fruit flavor.

2309
02:01:05,199 --> 02:01:08,159
Chad Mode will give you the extra edge you desperately crave.

2310
02:01:08,439 --> 02:01:09,000
Speaker 1: Don't miss out.

2311
02:01:09,039 --> 02:01:11,800
Speaker 4: Secure your supply of chad Mode on TikTok shop with

2312
02:01:11,880 --> 02:01:16,079
a limited time, massive discount. Elevate your workouts and supercharge

2313
02:01:16,079 --> 02:01:19,640
your days. Chad Mode not for your average jimbrozoomer who

2314
02:01:19,680 --> 02:01:22,520
consumes synthetic blue dyes on the daily. Buy on the

2315
02:01:22,560 --> 02:01:26,199
TikTok shop now with a massive discount provided by TikTok

2316
02:01:26,600 --> 02:01:29,760
for a very limited time. Buy now while this is

2317
02:01:29,800 --> 02:01:32,920
still available, or go to chalk dot com and use

2318
02:01:32,960 --> 02:01:35,720
code in caption. Chad Mode has been flying off the

2319
02:01:35,720 --> 02:01:38,640
shelves because it's the first of its kind, certified for

2320
02:01:38,760 --> 02:01:41,920
Alpha males only. Do not buy if you are a Beta,

2321
02:01:42,119 --> 02:01:44,319
We will refund your money. I'm gonna put you on

2322
02:01:44,399 --> 02:01:48,359
something crazy real quick. Most of these Zoomer Jimbros are

2323
02:01:48,399 --> 02:01:53,079
consuming macro guzzling synthetic dyes and synthetic sweeteners on the daily.

2324
02:01:53,319 --> 02:01:56,600
They don't even know it. Goofy af. There's nothing great

2325
02:01:56,640 --> 02:01:59,359
about that. Do not listen any further unless you are

2326
02:01:59,359 --> 02:02:02,199
an Alpha or Sigma male. This is important and there

2327
02:02:02,199 --> 02:02:05,640
could be consequences there's a new certified Sigma Male pre

2328
02:02:05,760 --> 02:02:09,520
workout powder for Sigmas only. It is guaranteed to empower

2329
02:02:09,560 --> 02:02:13,880
you to dominate your co workers, fire your boss, aggressively, gamble,

2330
02:02:14,199 --> 02:02:17,760
or invade a small village. Chad Mode stands out from

2331
02:02:17,800 --> 02:02:22,560
the crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners, and dyes.

2332
02:02:23,000 --> 02:02:26,680
We've even avoided so called natural flavors which are actually

2333
02:02:26,840 --> 02:02:30,039
not natural at all, ensuring a clean and effective formula.

2334
02:02:30,439 --> 02:02:34,119
Experience the pure goodness of chad Mode colored with organic

2335
02:02:34,159 --> 02:02:39,159
blue spirolina extract, organic lemon cherry, and organic maple crystals.

2336
02:02:39,439 --> 02:02:43,319
Forget synthetic caffeine made in a sketchy Chinese lab. Embrace

2337
02:02:43,399 --> 02:02:47,039
the natural power of organic green coffee bean extract, which

2338
02:02:47,079 --> 02:02:49,560
will get your mind going and pump you up to

2339
02:02:49,640 --> 02:02:53,279
the max. Chad Mode is made in America with all

2340
02:02:53,359 --> 02:02:57,079
clean ingredients, the first clean pre workout of its kind.

2341
02:02:57,600 --> 02:03:00,960
Why are these people adding synthetic sweetness to every single

2342
02:03:01,000 --> 02:03:04,039
pre workout when there are many studied downsides to consume.

2343
02:03:06,159 --> 02:03:10,640
Speaker 1: All Right, fresh coffee, got me some purple soaurus rex.

2344
02:03:10,720 --> 02:03:14,079
Speaker 4: I'm gonna put you on something crazy, real quick. Most

2345
02:03:14,119 --> 02:03:17,039
of these Zuma jimbros are consuming macro guzzling.

2346
02:03:17,840 --> 02:03:20,399
Speaker 1: Got me a little bit of pure. Now, some of

2347
02:03:20,479 --> 02:03:22,960
y'all might think this is kool aid. This isn't actually

2348
02:03:23,039 --> 02:03:29,960
kol aid. This is pure Red number five, right, Mambo

2349
02:03:30,159 --> 02:03:32,840
number five. No, no, no, lou bega, I'm talking about

2350
02:03:33,039 --> 02:03:38,319
Red number five right now. Before RFK Junior violates all

2351
02:03:38,319 --> 02:03:41,079
of our libertarian freedoms by getting rid of Red number five,

2352
02:03:41,600 --> 02:03:51,560
I'm celebrating by drinking pure concentrate Red number five. Mambo

2353
02:03:51,720 --> 02:03:54,479
number five, No, no, Red number five, lu bega.

2354
02:03:56,319 --> 02:03:59,760
Speaker 8: A little bit of cancer in my life, a little

2355
02:03:59,760 --> 02:04:03,960
bit Tina by my side, a little bit of tumors

2356
02:04:04,079 --> 02:04:07,359
in my head, A little bit of.

2357
02:04:07,319 --> 02:04:21,600
Speaker 1: You makes libertarians dead. Now, that was a fun debate.

2358
02:04:22,479 --> 02:04:25,399
I actually want to say that, although we got very

2359
02:04:25,720 --> 02:04:31,560
heated and feisty sassy in that, I actually do appreciate

2360
02:04:31,600 --> 02:04:36,000
Fabian Liberty coming to debate and sticking it out. And

2361
02:04:36,079 --> 02:04:39,840
I think that the majority of the time we were

2362
02:04:39,880 --> 02:04:43,439
actually having good exchange, good good questions, good back and forth.

2363
02:04:43,479 --> 02:04:46,119
So I do appreciate him doing it, and he was

2364
02:04:46,159 --> 02:04:48,000
a good sport about it. He had looked pretty good,

2365
02:04:48,680 --> 02:04:51,359
and so I don't have any personal issues with him.

2366
02:04:51,439 --> 02:04:54,720
And that was a fun debate. I don't think he

2367
02:04:55,159 --> 02:04:57,960
did well in the debate, but I do appreciate him

2368
02:04:58,000 --> 02:05:02,199
doing what he did and coming and having that conversation.

2369
02:05:03,680 --> 02:05:06,800
So I hope this microphone had to dig out a storage,

2370
02:05:06,840 --> 02:05:10,239
an old, crappy microphone, So I don't know how well

2371
02:05:10,720 --> 02:05:12,960
it's working. People saying that there was. If there's like

2372
02:05:13,039 --> 02:05:18,399
audio issues, you might have to refresh the YouTube stream sometimes.

2373
02:05:18,880 --> 02:05:21,439
But a couple of notes that I just jotted down

2374
02:05:21,479 --> 02:05:23,239
before the debate that we didn't actually get to, I

2375
02:05:23,239 --> 02:05:24,800
want to touch on real quick, and then we'll open

2376
02:05:24,840 --> 02:05:29,359
it up just in summary. You know, libertarians have these axioms,

2377
02:05:29,399 --> 02:05:34,680
you could say, these principles like taxation is theft. You know,

2378
02:05:34,800 --> 02:05:39,079
they're not not aggress other people. And we heard at

2379
02:05:39,079 --> 02:05:41,399
the beginning of the debate he said, you know, well, yeah,

2380
02:05:41,560 --> 02:05:47,920
the NAP is a prescriptive position, but it's also just

2381
02:05:47,960 --> 02:05:51,119
an axiom. Yeah, but if the content and the meaning

2382
02:05:51,159 --> 02:05:56,359
of the axiom is something moral or ethical, then immediately

2383
02:05:56,600 --> 02:06:03,399
libertarianism is necessarily pre screw right. It's normative. And so

2384
02:06:03,640 --> 02:06:06,439
I think from the outset, you know, when I first

2385
02:06:06,520 --> 02:06:08,680
brought that up, it was kind of downhill from there.

2386
02:06:09,399 --> 02:06:10,840
And keep in mind too, that if you start to

2387
02:06:10,880 --> 02:06:14,439
talk about the true versus the false, or the true

2388
02:06:14,479 --> 02:06:17,159
and the good, then you're already kind of in the

2389
02:06:17,199 --> 02:06:19,840
domain of aughts, even though you think that you're only

2390
02:06:20,119 --> 02:06:23,960
dealing with something metaphysical or something you know not connected

2391
02:06:24,000 --> 02:06:28,560
to the metaphysical. If you're arguing in debating, then you're

2392
02:06:28,600 --> 02:06:34,079
assuming that the audience ought to follow your position. Otherwise

2393
02:06:34,399 --> 02:06:37,199
there would be no point in debating if there's no moral,

2394
02:06:37,279 --> 02:06:42,880
logical ought force behind truth statements as opposed to false statements. So,

2395
02:06:43,119 --> 02:06:45,600
and this is a very common popular thing. I've been

2396
02:06:45,760 --> 02:06:47,960
arguing with libertarians back to when I was in college.

2397
02:06:47,960 --> 02:06:51,319
I had an argument with a libertarian dude in my class,

2398
02:06:52,720 --> 02:06:54,640
this fat dude who we actually almost got into a

2399
02:06:54,680 --> 02:06:56,520
fight one time at a gas station. Believe or not.

2400
02:06:56,520 --> 02:07:00,119
But there's this fat libertarian dude, look like Jerry Garcia,

2401
02:06:59,760 --> 02:07:01,840
and he was always talking smack to me in class,

2402
02:07:01,960 --> 02:07:04,680
and because we had this debating class. And then I

2403
02:07:04,720 --> 02:07:06,640
saw him at a gas station and he said, let's

2404
02:07:06,680 --> 02:07:08,880
go at it, and he chickened out by the way

2405
02:07:08,920 --> 02:07:11,359
he left the gas station. He didn't want to fight. I

2406
02:07:11,359 --> 02:07:13,199
don't think I mean, I'm not some badass, but I

2407
02:07:13,199 --> 02:07:15,439
don't think a big, fat libertarian dude is going to

2408
02:07:15,520 --> 02:07:18,680
do too well in a fight. And I mean I understand, yeah,

2409
02:07:18,680 --> 02:07:21,000
there's some big dudes that are fat dudes that could fight.

2410
02:07:21,239 --> 02:07:23,079
You know, this was not Tank Abbott. This was your

2411
02:07:23,119 --> 02:07:30,640
average fat, you know, coumer libertarian man. So in my view,

2412
02:07:30,760 --> 02:07:34,119
the Libertarians have not shared well in debates all the

2413
02:07:34,159 --> 02:07:38,720
way back to my college days. And the reason for

2414
02:07:38,800 --> 02:07:41,239
that is that even in the case of that guy,

2415
02:07:41,239 --> 02:07:44,560
I remember that that guy in undergrad, he never took

2416
02:07:44,680 --> 02:07:48,520
a pistemology class, right, And if you don't take an

2417
02:07:48,520 --> 02:07:51,000
a pistomology class, you're not going to do well in debates.

2418
02:07:51,000 --> 02:07:53,800
I don't understand why these guys don't just go go

2419
02:07:53,920 --> 02:07:57,640
watch a course on YouTube. There's plenty of YouTube professors

2420
02:07:57,760 --> 02:08:00,199
at you know, just teaching you basically a pistel. You

2421
02:08:00,199 --> 02:08:02,279
could go to Father degon an NISS course and take it,

2422
02:08:02,760 --> 02:08:04,039
and then you would at least kind of be in

2423
02:08:04,079 --> 02:08:07,479
the ballgame of kind of you know, giving some challenge

2424
02:08:07,560 --> 02:08:11,319
or some pushback. That isn't you know, like philosophy won

2425
02:08:11,399 --> 02:08:14,840
a one tier pushback. So that would be my recommendation

2426
02:08:14,920 --> 02:08:17,560
for the people who wants to engage us in this

2427
02:08:17,640 --> 02:08:19,880
type of debate, but they don't ever really seem to

2428
02:08:19,880 --> 02:08:24,000
be interested in doing that. Maybe Fabian liberty will go

2429
02:08:24,039 --> 02:08:26,640
do that, let's see. But the other thing I wanted

2430
02:08:26,640 --> 02:08:30,119
to get to was that, you know, for example, debate

2431
02:08:30,199 --> 02:08:34,199
assumes the true, and thus the debate itself assumes that

2432
02:08:34,239 --> 02:08:37,760
we ought to not violate the laws of logic and

2433
02:08:37,840 --> 02:08:43,159
to follow the true versus the false. And then I

2434
02:08:43,159 --> 02:08:44,399
think we went through a lot of the things that

2435
02:08:44,439 --> 02:08:46,880
I wanted to get to about properly basic beliefs that

2436
02:08:47,119 --> 02:08:49,760
by definition they can't rely on another belief or another

2437
02:08:49,800 --> 02:08:54,760
position or another thing. And it doesn't matter if you

2438
02:08:54,840 --> 02:08:58,399
assume your existence or that you like, you can't just

2439
02:08:58,439 --> 02:09:00,960
tack on a bunch of other self evident things to

2440
02:09:01,079 --> 02:09:04,119
prop up the first self evident thing, right, that's that's

2441
02:09:04,199 --> 02:09:09,000
not self evident. And so if something is axiomatic like

2442
02:09:09,039 --> 02:09:13,239
A equals A, or something is incorrigible like I exist,

2443
02:09:13,800 --> 02:09:16,159
or something is evident to the senses. In the case

2444
02:09:16,159 --> 02:09:19,239
of John Locke, those are the classic statements, these three

2445
02:09:19,680 --> 02:09:23,960
statements from classical foundation. That's going back to the Enlightenment.

2446
02:09:24,000 --> 02:09:26,680
That's how they typically speak of something being quote, properly

2447
02:09:26,720 --> 02:09:30,359
basic or self evident. And in the case of this

2448
02:09:30,359 --> 02:09:33,520
this discussion, I thought, I think we solve very clearly

2449
02:09:34,279 --> 02:09:38,479
whether it is the criterion problem, whether it is first

2450
02:09:38,560 --> 02:09:43,600
order second order beliefs, whether it is being at hawk,

2451
02:09:44,279 --> 02:09:47,800
whether it is the self evident axioms relying on other

2452
02:09:47,840 --> 02:09:52,439
metaphysical principles and axioms. At no point did we hear

2453
02:09:52,520 --> 02:10:00,560
any kind of anything approaching an epistemic justification for those things.

2454
02:10:00,560 --> 02:10:02,319
So that was only notes that I wanted to get

2455
02:10:02,319 --> 02:10:05,880
to throughout that discussion. And we'll open it up to

2456
02:10:05,880 --> 02:10:16,880
people who want to call in Eric, what's up man, God.

2457
02:10:16,760 --> 02:10:31,920
Speaker 5: I'm mute, Eric, I'm mute.

2458
02:10:30,239 --> 02:10:41,359
Speaker 9: Ophelias, what's up man? Father Deacon.

2459
02:10:41,399 --> 02:10:43,600
Speaker 1: By the way, I know this is your field, so

2460
02:10:43,680 --> 02:10:46,399
feel free to speak arms. What's up?

2461
02:10:46,439 --> 02:10:46,600
Speaker 4: Man?

2462
02:10:52,279 --> 02:10:58,680
Speaker 1: There's no one can you hear me? No one else

2463
02:10:58,760 --> 02:11:01,079
uses spaces. I don't understand. I see like thousands of

2464
02:11:01,079 --> 02:11:04,720
people on Twitter spaces, and then when I do a

2465
02:11:04,760 --> 02:11:06,560
Twitter space, no one knows what's going on.

2466
02:11:08,159 --> 02:11:08,840
Speaker 3: Thanks for for sire.

2467
02:11:09,319 --> 02:11:11,039
Speaker 1: Yeah, is there anything you'd like to say or comment

2468
02:11:11,119 --> 02:11:16,359
about self evidence and you know, theory laden beliefs or

2469
02:11:16,640 --> 02:11:18,439
any of those criterion.

2470
02:11:20,399 --> 02:11:25,479
Speaker 2: Yeah. So sometimes I feel that people even.

2471
02:11:25,319 --> 02:11:30,520
Speaker 10: Referencing self evidence, don't know what self evidence is. The

2472
02:11:30,600 --> 02:11:36,199
self evident principles are not self evidently presented to themselves.

2473
02:11:36,680 --> 02:11:41,760
It's kindly right, yeah, I mean you and I have

2474
02:11:41,800 --> 02:11:43,319
made this argument before that.

2475
02:11:44,600 --> 02:11:49,600
Speaker 3: So if you have multiple.

2476
02:11:50,560 --> 02:11:54,920
Speaker 10: Propositions or things that are claimed to be self evident,

2477
02:11:55,000 --> 02:11:57,920
the question becomes, well, how do we know these are

2478
02:11:57,960 --> 02:12:01,560
the ones that constitute a self ev it's not something else.

2479
02:12:02,840 --> 02:12:06,880
If you give an answer to that, then it means

2480
02:12:07,239 --> 02:12:10,960
it's depending on its justification, that it qualified as self

2481
02:12:11,000 --> 02:12:13,239
evidence on something else, In.

2482
02:12:13,159 --> 02:12:15,760
Speaker 3: Other words, not self evidence. Number two.

2483
02:12:17,279 --> 02:12:21,239
Speaker 10: Self evidence is defined as if the terms of the

2484
02:12:21,279 --> 02:12:28,239
proposition are clearly understood their meanings, and it's true, then

2485
02:12:28,279 --> 02:12:34,000
it's justified as right, not outside of itself, but in

2486
02:12:34,039 --> 02:12:35,159
itself kind.

2487
02:12:35,000 --> 02:12:37,479
Speaker 3: Of all pre or right. But the problem is that

2488
02:12:37,520 --> 02:12:46,560
already begs ways, well, first of all, why is that

2489
02:12:46,600 --> 02:12:50,520
who said that was a justification? I mean, where we're

2490
02:12:50,520 --> 02:12:52,800
going to get where we're going to get that? That's

2491
02:12:52,840 --> 02:12:55,199
just arbitrarily assumed that that would need to be shown.

2492
02:12:56,039 --> 02:13:01,479
Speaker 10: Number two begging the question is how do we even

2493
02:13:01,520 --> 02:13:04,199
say that if none of these people have even been

2494
02:13:04,239 --> 02:13:08,319
able to establish that knowledge is possible or exist, So

2495
02:13:08,479 --> 02:13:13,199
it's got some serious problems. And number three arguments that

2496
02:13:13,239 --> 02:13:19,640
I've made is the argument from arbitrariness.

2497
02:13:20,079 --> 02:13:23,119
Speaker 3: That basically I could have a self.

2498
02:13:23,920 --> 02:13:30,880
Speaker 10: Evident proposition that denies the other self evident proposition, So

2499
02:13:30,920 --> 02:13:34,079
there's something kind of contradictory about it too. And then

2500
02:13:34,840 --> 02:13:38,399
since there is no further reasons, because that's the definition

2501
02:13:38,439 --> 02:13:42,880
of self evidence to pick one of two contraries, then

2502
02:13:42,920 --> 02:13:47,600
it's arbitrary what I pick, and self defeating the sense

2503
02:13:47,600 --> 02:13:50,079
of a justification. If it's arbitrary, it's like you have

2504
02:13:50,119 --> 02:13:52,680
two dc what I'm saying, I have two propositions that

2505
02:13:52,720 --> 02:13:54,640
are defining antithesis to one another.

2506
02:13:55,159 --> 02:13:59,119
Speaker 3: They both claim to be self evident.

2507
02:13:59,279 --> 02:14:01,920
Speaker 1: Yeah, like when you dipped out. But at one point

2508
02:14:02,000 --> 02:14:04,520
I said to that guy, I said, well, if you

2509
02:14:04,560 --> 02:14:08,720
can come in and just say existence exists, and that's

2510
02:14:08,800 --> 02:14:11,359
allowable for you in a debate, I can come in

2511
02:14:11,399 --> 02:14:14,600
and say God just exists, and that's allowable for me

2512
02:14:14,600 --> 02:14:16,600
in a debate. That's why you can't just have this

2513
02:14:16,640 --> 02:14:17,880
sort of ad hoc assertion.

2514
02:14:19,439 --> 02:14:19,800
Speaker 3: I said.

2515
02:14:19,800 --> 02:14:23,439
Speaker 10: Somebody made an interesting point. I don't know if they

2516
02:14:23,479 --> 02:14:29,960
realized it was something that caught himself and the critique

2517
02:14:29,960 --> 02:14:34,880
of pure reason points out, but you do you know

2518
02:14:34,920 --> 02:14:38,199
that you can't even formally represent that literally, even in.

2519
02:14:38,119 --> 02:14:40,359
Speaker 3: A sentence, existence exists.

2520
02:14:40,800 --> 02:14:46,000
Speaker 10: It's not even a coherent grammatical sentence, let alone formally

2521
02:14:46,119 --> 02:14:48,439
even representing what that is.

2522
02:14:48,479 --> 02:14:51,199
Speaker 3: And I think Kant obviously has a more sophisticated argument.

2523
02:14:51,279 --> 02:14:54,399
Speaker 1: We wait, that wouldn't just be a restatement of the

2524
02:14:54,479 --> 02:14:59,119
law of identity. Well no, wait a minute. To be

2525
02:14:59,119 --> 02:15:03,159
the law of identity have to say existence is existence,

2526
02:15:03,680 --> 02:15:06,880
but it's actually saying existence exists. So it's actually a

2527
02:15:06,920 --> 02:15:08,279
different claim, isn't it.

2528
02:15:08,319 --> 02:15:13,399
Speaker 10: Yeah, it's not even formally constructed or grammatically structured correctly,

2529
02:15:14,079 --> 02:15:16,960
which is why when people say, like, well, logic just is.

2530
02:15:17,000 --> 02:15:20,439
Speaker 3: It's like, that's not even a sentence, right, just yeah.

2531
02:15:20,479 --> 02:15:25,640
Speaker 10: You know, some things are wrong, and really terribly wrong sometimes,

2532
02:15:25,720 --> 02:15:29,199
but some things are so retarded they don't even get

2533
02:15:29,239 --> 02:15:31,199
to the level of being a sentence where they can

2534
02:15:31,239 --> 02:15:33,640
be wrong. That's when you know you're in serious trouble. Right,

2535
02:15:34,399 --> 02:15:36,760
people make all kinds of statements that are false. It's like,

2536
02:15:37,199 --> 02:15:40,319
but what if you don't even get what if you

2537
02:15:40,319 --> 02:15:42,279
you don't even get off the ground where it's like

2538
02:15:42,399 --> 02:15:42,840
it can.

2539
02:15:42,720 --> 02:15:43,840
Speaker 3: Even be for or false.

2540
02:15:43,920 --> 02:15:45,560
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean this is like what this was t

2541
02:15:45,760 --> 02:15:50,199
Dump's reality is reality? Right, I mean it's like they

2542
02:15:50,319 --> 02:15:54,039
they it's so dumb that it's almost hard to combat

2543
02:15:54,159 --> 02:15:57,760
or oppose because it's like, why are we supposed to

2544
02:15:57,800 --> 02:16:00,640
think that that has any meaning as a starting point

2545
02:16:00,680 --> 02:16:05,560
for a worldview? What does that even mean? Reality is reality?

2546
02:16:07,560 --> 02:16:11,079
Speaker 10: And as you pro badly pointed out, what you never

2547
02:16:11,119 --> 02:16:12,119
want to do now.

2548
02:16:12,159 --> 02:16:15,039
Speaker 3: Of course, we believe in the law of identity.

2549
02:16:16,199 --> 02:16:20,640
Speaker 10: We believe the teutologies you know, at a lower level

2550
02:16:22,560 --> 02:16:26,119
aren't necessary to established semantics, you know, semantic meaning and

2551
02:16:26,119 --> 02:16:30,760
stuff like that, and then also to develop propositions that

2552
02:16:30,840 --> 02:16:32,399
could have possible truth values.

2553
02:16:32,719 --> 02:16:35,879
Speaker 3: We agree with that. What we don't do is just

2554
02:16:35,879 --> 02:16:37,159
simply start there.

2555
02:16:37,840 --> 02:16:45,280
Speaker 10: And furthermore, as you'd said, it's so metaphysically loaded and controversial.

2556
02:16:44,600 --> 02:16:48,639
Speaker 3: In the history of philosophy.

2557
02:16:47,120 --> 02:16:49,520
Speaker 10: That why would anybody go, you know what, if we're

2558
02:16:49,520 --> 02:16:52,440
having a difficult time with something, let's go to the

2559
02:16:52,479 --> 02:16:53,879
most obsecure and.

2560
02:16:54,000 --> 02:16:57,799
Speaker 1: The most secure statement being or existence exists.

2561
02:16:57,920 --> 02:16:58,159
Speaker 2: Right.

2562
02:16:58,559 --> 02:17:04,079
Speaker 10: Yeah, it's it's too Yeah, it's amazing actually as an

2563
02:17:04,120 --> 02:17:04,879
amazing move.

2564
02:17:06,719 --> 02:17:19,040
Speaker 1: Uh, Anthony, what's up man, Anthony? You want to arm you?

2565
02:17:26,559 --> 02:17:27,000
JERD on.

2566
02:17:33,000 --> 02:17:36,760
Speaker 2: How you don't can hear me? Ye, so you and

2567
02:17:36,840 --> 02:17:39,440
like finally begin an eye have like pretty much clearly

2568
02:17:39,479 --> 02:17:42,719
demonstrated like how this stuff doesn't work. But like as

2569
02:17:42,719 --> 02:17:43,920
a toy two year old, he's.

2570
02:17:43,760 --> 02:17:46,520
Speaker 6: Like freshly inquiring and it was at oxy and like

2571
02:17:46,760 --> 02:17:49,559
navigating the system that I've like been doctrinated in, doctrinated

2572
02:17:49,600 --> 02:17:51,959
into with like libertarianism and socism and all these things.

2573
02:17:52,479 --> 02:17:55,040
Speaker 2: How do we like actually functionally look at the world

2574
02:17:55,879 --> 02:17:59,239
and politics and these systems in a way that like

2575
02:17:59,399 --> 02:18:02,399
kind of truly goes to its orthodoxy and not deeper

2576
02:18:02,440 --> 02:18:05,200
into the system and like these ideals that clearly don't work.

2577
02:18:05,840 --> 02:18:06,440
That's my question.

2578
02:18:06,600 --> 02:18:08,559
Speaker 1: I mean, I think you just keep spending your time

2579
02:18:08,680 --> 02:18:10,799
in the church and the liturgy and in the you know,

2580
02:18:11,079 --> 02:18:14,719
life and mind of the theology of the saints, and

2581
02:18:14,760 --> 02:18:18,520
they'll get fixated on political activism, right. I mean, political

2582
02:18:18,520 --> 02:18:21,840
activism can be a an idol. It's not bad. You

2583
02:18:21,920 --> 02:18:23,479
can do that kind of stuff, and a lot of

2584
02:18:24,079 --> 02:18:30,239
people do it. But I mean I think just basically

2585
02:18:30,600 --> 02:18:33,440
not stopping going to church as the easiest way to

2586
02:18:33,520 --> 02:18:35,799
do that. Mister kool aid five dollars have a blesseday.

2587
02:18:35,799 --> 02:18:37,879
Appreciate your work. H Browsey five dollars. Low tier of

2588
02:18:37,920 --> 02:18:46,360
Boomer Americanism incoming cards two dollars. A fallacy, flame flame

2589
02:18:46,479 --> 02:18:50,520
mess five dollars. Reality is reality appeal to the boomer fallacy.

2590
02:18:50,559 --> 02:18:51,719
It is kind of a boomer phrase.

2591
02:18:51,840 --> 02:18:52,600
Speaker 2: It is what it is.

2592
02:18:53,200 --> 02:18:55,319
Speaker 1: That's a classic boomer you know, boomerism.

2593
02:18:55,520 --> 02:18:56,680
Speaker 2: Well, it is what it is.

2594
02:18:58,280 --> 02:19:01,920
Speaker 1: Zammox has five dollars. This guy got BTFO literally chapter

2595
02:19:02,040 --> 02:19:04,079
two and three of the bon Seour textbook. This was

2596
02:19:04,120 --> 02:19:09,200
a masterclass from Jay. Thank you, Yeah, exactly. It's funny

2597
02:19:09,239 --> 02:19:11,440
because like if you get the Bonjeour book, even if

2598
02:19:11,440 --> 02:19:13,280
you don't read the whole book, like you get into

2599
02:19:14,200 --> 02:19:16,440
the very things we were debating, like right away. So

2600
02:19:16,719 --> 02:19:18,719
v Scott two dollars. And by the way, I actually

2601
02:19:18,760 --> 02:19:23,000
think if you're not in a grad student or advanced

2602
02:19:23,360 --> 02:19:25,559
read the Wood book. It's a lot more readable. It's

2603
02:19:25,559 --> 02:19:28,520
a lot more excitible, yeah, than the Wood which the

2604
02:19:28,520 --> 02:19:30,280
Wood I mean, the bon book is good, but it's

2605
02:19:30,319 --> 02:19:34,280
more like a you know, college textbook. So v Scott

2606
02:19:34,280 --> 02:19:36,520
two dollars. Think it so much? Lumbago five dollars. Fabian

2607
02:19:37,440 --> 02:19:40,680
Liberty violated the nap because when he spoke the average

2608
02:19:40,719 --> 02:19:43,840
iq in the room dropped tenfold, so he aggressed on

2609
02:19:44,079 --> 02:19:44,200
us