Speaker 1: To do this on YouTube. Can you guys hear me?
Is a sound good because I don't have all my
equipment with me when we're on the road. So as
you guys know, we'll be en route doing many big
podcasts and that will be in the next few weeks.
So we got Rouselin, we got Jamie Kennedy, we got
whatever podcast, we got Hodge Twins, Sam Tripoli, all coming
up in the next few weeks. And then I got
the debate with a postate profit on Western intelligence support
for ISIS and al Kada, and I have an extremely
bad science infection which I think has pretty much kind
of gone away. So I'm using my old tech. Hopefully
this will work good. And I apologize for being a
little a little out of it, but even being a
little out of it, I can still, I think, manage
a debate. And so we're going to be bringing on
the ap debate is June second. For those that are asking,
it'll be Jake Rattlesnake Channel and yeah, so today we're
going to bring up Fabian Liberty, who's been discussing the
possibility of a debate with me for many a few weeks.
I think in terms of DMS back and forth. So
let me bring him up and then we'll figure out
how we want to do the parameters of this. I think,
I mean, we can do it however he wants to do.
I know that he's already kind of had this discussion
with both Andrew and Jim Bob, and I know he'd
like to talk about TAG too, So if we want
to split it up into two different topics, libertarian rights
philosophy and tag, we can. If he wants to move
on to something like tag. What's up man? How you doing?
You just got to unmute hear me?
Speaker 2: All right, sorry every time I try and do space,
so hopefully that doesn't.
Speaker 1: Can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Not good? Okay, Well no I was I was just saying, yeah, sorry, yeah, No.
I I initiated this conversation or this debate or whatever
picked up. You know, I saw you debate many moons
ago again slick with Zulu, and that felt like that
debate didn't go anywhere, well because you you left after
getting frustrated for whatever reason.
Speaker 1: Well, the reason I the reason I love, the reason
I left was that there was a would you rather
try this on? If this is going to be spotty
here connection wise. We could try to do this on
collab cam on video. Would you rather do that or
just go with what we got I have?
Speaker 2: I don't even know what that is.
Speaker 1: So basically it's just stream yard orcume me stream labs.
It's just an in browser link that allows you to
do video discussions. So if you're on your channel streaming
or whatever, you can get No.
Speaker 2: I'm not streaming. I'll be streaming later on to night.
So it's it's fine. We can say.
Speaker 1: It's just that it's your your sound cuts in and
out towards the end of every sentence that you make.
Are you on heavy hair?
Speaker 2: I'll eat up on my mic.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So the reason I left was because I was
asking questions about justification and I felt like he was
never going to answer it. So that was the reason
I left the Zulu debate.
Speaker 2: I would say, we obviously have different interpretations, but nevertheless
so I yeah. So then I felt like there wasn't
a good debate against libertarian And then I saw you
put out a call against you know, looking for libertarians,
and me and a bunch of other libertarians put our
names forward, but also other people's names for it, like like, hey,
you do rematch liquid with a better thing? You could
me there, there are plenty of real libertarians. And then
you debated, Wait, you're you're uh, we're only on Twitter.
Speaker 1: Right, No, we're on you two.
Speaker 2: Okay, all right, so I can't say the f slur,
but uh you debated a prag f slur. Uh and
and so yeah and and so rightfully, I think anybody
that is an actual libertarian was upset because.
Speaker 1: I don't know who you're talking about. First of all,
can you just tell me who that who it is
you're talking about?
Speaker 2: I remember the person's name again, because they weren't. They
weren't like a famous you mean.
Speaker 1: Like the Yren Brooke from the Objectivist Institute that.
Speaker 2: No, yarn Brook is not a libertarian. It's actively fights
against libertarianism. I've interviewed You're on Brook, and I think
it's libertarianism. It's evil and must be defeated.
Speaker 1: Uh what you mean?
Speaker 2: Who I said? Yarnbrook is an objectivist? You had debated
I can't remember it's been If someone can dig up the.
Speaker 1: Austin Peterson you you.
Speaker 2: Debated somebody that was very clearly left leaning, not not libertarian, libertine. Again,
I don't remember the exact name, but if you found
the twite or whatever, then yeah, and so I was like, dude,
what the fuck is this? Like? This is this is bullshit?
Like you put out a call to libertarians and then
you bring on someone that's like a small l libertine brag?
Speaker 1: Right, do you think it's a conspiracy that I don't
want to engage with real libertarians? Got it?
Speaker 2: I didn't say it was a conspiracy because I'm not
saying anyone else was involved. I'm just saying it seemed
like you were duck in a real conversation with libertarianism
because you had one and you ran from that one.
Speaker 1: And that was who I run from liquid Zula. Okay,
did he answer what I asked about justification?
Speaker 2: I believe multiple times from multiple different perspectives, you were
upset because he wouldn't answer your redirect because he wanted it,
and then eventually Andrews did so he answered it.
Speaker 1: And what do you think that you answer? What do
you think justification is?
Speaker 2: What do I think justifications? Do you mean that? Like
from like the hume like question, like what do you
mean by.
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 2: Like yeah, the human question? What justifies this like or
do you mean?
Speaker 4: Like?
Speaker 2: What do you mean by what is an attempt to
state that the statement is true? Was that a claim
or a principle of truth?
Speaker 1: So that has to do with truth value? But no,
justification is much more than that in epistemology.
Speaker 2: Nevertheless, I don't think you just like I'm how is
that a disagreement from the historical thing?
Speaker 1: From what you're saying isn't even the historical idea because
even back to Plato, justification deals with justified.
Speaker 2: What have to do about whether or not you ran
with if you.
Speaker 1: Asked about the historic context of justification and I'm giving
you the context that back to Plato, it means more
than what you described.
Speaker 2: Okay, that that's irrelevant to whether or not my interpretation
of events.
Speaker 1: Is if he didn't give, if he didn't give, if
he did not give epistemic justification, then his answers were
irrelevant to what I'm asking for.
Speaker 2: Okay, So what would you what would be your what
is your bar for.
Speaker 1: Episode justified true belief in the Getty Air problem?
Speaker 2: Okay? So again what what what would he have to
say about jurism for you to say that he gave
you the the aught is the thing that you why
he didn't believe in the audience gain right, Like why
he believes that contradictory statements can't be true in the
negation of a contradictory statement is at the very least
an ought not I don't know that I necessarily follow
his ought thing, But why is that reason for you
to run away from the debate? That's why I'm asking, like,
what is yours?
Speaker 1: So, just like him, you're a debate. Just like him,
you're both not understanding what epistemic justification is not according
to me, but in the discipline of epistemology. This is
not something I made up. It's what's expected in any
public academic discourse on the topic of how do we
have good reasons for our beliefs? So justification deals with that,
what are the good reasons for our beliefs, what gives
them explanatory power, and what makes them coherent in a
worldview context. That's what justification is.
Speaker 2: Okay, But again, you're saying that he didn't meet your standard,
But I know.
Speaker 1: He didn't meet these standards. These standards are They're not
my standards. This is what would be debated in any
epistemology class, when you make assertions.
Speaker 2: What the fuck are you talking about?
Speaker 1: Am I talking?
Speaker 2: Ran away from a debate? And then you said, well,
he didn't answer my question because he didn't.
Speaker 1: No, I said, he didn't justification the argument that he gave.
And again you don't even understand, you don't understand, and
again you don't understand why that doesn't get to justification,
which is the entire point of the whole time.
Speaker 2: What is this code? Like, like we're not even into
the debate and you're already like it's a code, right,
Actually he didn't.
Speaker 1: You're the one that said that I was a pussy
and that I wouldn't debate anyone except him.
Speaker 2: You were how you ran from a debate and then
when you've then.
Speaker 1: I left a debate that I laughed at because it
didn't answer just like, just like in this situation, you
can't answer or even you don't even know the basics
of the question, and you're just already for you know,
do you want me to explain it to you in
an ethical example?
Speaker 2: Sure, give me an example of what you mean by
because I don't see how I'm failing in any means.
Speaker 1: Well, let's let's go. Let's go to the topic of
do you want to do tag or do you want
do you want to do self evidence? Either one is
fine with me.
Speaker 2: I don't know what you mean by self evidence or
what you're referring.
Speaker 1: Well, most libertarians and most people who argue for your
type of a position out of the Enlightenment, believe that
there are self evident truths or principles, things that are axiomatic.
And I reject that.
Speaker 2: You reject all axioms.
Speaker 1: All self evidence claims.
Speaker 2: Okay, so how okay, okay? You would say, okay, we
can go in either one. That's fine. I don't I'm
fine going again. The question, before we get too far
away from it, is whether or not why I believe
that this conversation or debate or whatever was important. Was
that I felt like you had not, let's say, completed
with a libertarian and your claim is that it wasn't
epsomic justification. And I don't see why what standard he
didn't but he didn't meet.
Speaker 1: So when you just assert things to be the case,
you're forfeiting the very question, because that means you're being
arbitrary at hawk and not giving epistemic justification.
Speaker 2: Well, he didn't do that. Yes he did. He did.
Speaker 1: You don't Again, you don't understand what. You don't understand
what justification. So you think that my standard is some
subjective thing of what justification is. And I'm telling you
that any epistemology class will hold you to the same
standards that the laws of critical thinking, the laws of thought.
Those are not my standards.
Speaker 2: Words.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying. So I'm saying common terminology in this
domain and in this field. And you think I'm just
saying words. That's why you guys are not fit for
this debate. You're not even in the arena. You don't
know the topics in the subject matter.
Speaker 2: You're just insulting a making argument.
Speaker 1: No, I'm telling you what's happening in the debate. Let's
get into the argument. So do you believe in the
non aggression principle? Do you agree with the non aggression principle?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Absolutely, of course, I'm a libertarian.
Speaker 1: Is that a normative claim?
Speaker 2: Well, it's it's an axiom, right, So the normative claim that.
Speaker 1: You shouldn't aggress not yeah.
Speaker 2: One ought not a crypt that would be the normative claim.
Speaker 1: So it's prescriptive and not descriptive.
Speaker 2: Yes, libertarianism is a prescriptive ideology of natural I.
Speaker 1: Thought you were saying in the Jimbob debate that you
don't believe in prescriptive claims. It's just descriptive.
Speaker 2: Oh sorry, descriptive. I apologize. I mixed up.
Speaker 1: Okay, precisely. So the non aggression principle is normative, and
therefore it's prescriptive, and therefore you're refuted.
Speaker 2: Can you repeat that argument.
Speaker 1: Let me write, you made a claim that we ought
not aggress. That's what the non aggression principle states. That
is a claim of ethical normativity, and that refutes your
very position that libertarianism is is not prescriptive but merely descriptive.
Speaker 2: No, I didn't make that claim. I specifically referenced argument.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about your debate, your Gym Bob debate.
Speaker 2: Pop interrupted. All right, we'll get we're in the actual debate,
so we'll get into it. So, no, that's not true,
and I didn't say the same did not occur.
Speaker 1: In you just said? You just said that libertarianism. I'm
not going to let you lie and go past your
you're lying.
Speaker 2: I'm not interrupting. You're interrupting.
Speaker 1: So you think interrupting is lying. Those are two different things.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, I think you're doing both. I think
you're interrupting.
Speaker 1: Is the non aggression principal, prescriptive or descriptive?
Speaker 2: The non aggression principle is a an accident? Right?
Speaker 1: And is it a claim?
Speaker 2: I just said right that the actual ought claim or
the ought not claim would be the negation and in
liquid Zula's argment from my.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about n ap. Why are you bringing Stop
your possession, your position.
Speaker 2: Derail, Stop trying to be real, Stop acting.
Speaker 1: Like a top your position.
Speaker 2: No big words don't make you an adult.
Speaker 1: Just hold on for he doesn't even know the basic
terms of this whole debate.
Speaker 2: Right, you're just going to keep interrupting, and you're just
gonna keep making.
Speaker 1: Because you're deflecting. Everyone can tell you did the same
thing with Jim Bob.
Speaker 2: Sometimes something is the.
Speaker 1: Non aggression principal, prescriptive or description.
Speaker 2: Will you shush for a second?
Speaker 1: Can you answer the question?
Speaker 2: I am trying to answer the question, and you're doing
the same thing Jim Bob, which is saying.
Speaker 1: No, we just don't let you yeap and deflect. Can
you answer the questions? Go answer yeah.
Speaker 2: So again, So the not libertarianism is script. Okay, it is,
sorry script, he's describing natural lawyer. Now, the non Russian
principle is an axiom. Okay, it is not, and it
is a descriptive.
Speaker 1: No, it's not. You just repeted yourself. You said it's normative,
so you refuted yourself. I'm not what is normativity interrupting?
What is normativity?
Speaker 2: Normativity is is, as far as we're discussing in ethics,
would be a claim that something, uh, that that is
universalizable and that we're.
Speaker 1: All right, So you ought not aggress people.
Speaker 2: Yes, you ought not aggress people.
Speaker 1: Right, So your position controversy.
Speaker 2: You will know it doesn't if you go and act
like an adult for a second. So it can't what
I said, and you keep interrupting me.
Speaker 1: So let me stop bitching and make your argument.
Speaker 2: Well stop, well, then shut up, act like an adult.
Speaker 1: I'm waiting for you to answer. Quit whining.
Speaker 2: No, you keep interrupting just.
Speaker 1: Because you're not answering. Your whining and deflecting, I.
Speaker 2: Am trying to answer, and you will not stop interrupting
and stop acting like a toddler like just for a second, okay,
I can I can make an argument, make the argument,
and then you can do the same thing.
Speaker 1: Well, let me stop saying let me and go.
Speaker 2: I'm trying.
Speaker 1: You're whining and bitching about me interrupting you when you're
being dishonest, and then.
Speaker 2: You're conversation because you keep interrupting.
Speaker 1: Go make the argument.
Speaker 2: Okay, So again, what I was saying is that previously
what I had said is that Liquid Zulu's arguments one
that I don't necessarily believe that.
Speaker 1: What is your argument?
Speaker 2: Why can you?
Speaker 1: Are you so you're gonna keep talking about liquid Zulu
when I've asked you specifically about your position. What is
your argument? For the tenth time?
Speaker 2: I am true.
Speaker 1: Nobody is buying your bullshit.
Speaker 2: There's no bullshit here. You won't shut up. Stop acting
like a toddler.
Speaker 1: You keep bringing up the things that are not relevant.
Are you going to answer the topic?
Speaker 2: I am a timing to do that, and you are
not giving me the space to speak.
Speaker 1: No, you go back to the thing that is irrelevant.
I'm asking your position. I don't care what you think
about liquid Zulu. Can you answer your positions on this?
I am I don't care about liquid Zulu.
Speaker 2: Again, I absolutely can't what goes and I'm bringing The
only reason I am bringing up Liquid Zulu is because
you called me a liar by saying that I was
making the argument that Liquid Zulu was making no fact.
Speaker 1: No, I'm saying you're lying about being dishonest about that debate.
That's the lie that I didn't. You said I rage
quit when I laughed at the guy, and no rage
rage quitting is when you would have rage. And I
laughed at that guy because I thought his answers were
so low tier that it wasn't worthing in debate. And
you're in the exact same situation. You're actually worse. You're
actually worse than Liquid Zulu because you can't actually address
the arguments. So is the nap an a claim or not?
If it has If it has no nativity, it's an
ought claim. You already said that, you already lost. You're
so we follow.
Speaker 2: If one wants to claim or justify ethics, then one
not following. If the attempt If they if they do
attempt to justify their ethical claims and their claims violate
the non aggression principle, then it is contradictory. Therefore the
negation is true.
Speaker 1: Is the NAP an aught?
Speaker 2: Now the NAP is not, in and of itself an aught.
Speaker 1: The non aggression principle, does it retain does it pertain
to normativity and ethics? That you ought not to aggress people?
Speaker 2: It is an axiom that you hold if.
Speaker 1: Your is it an ethical axiom?
Speaker 2: If your ethical system, is.
Speaker 1: That an ethical axiom? You ought not? Are you just
lost and that's why you're spurading.
Speaker 2: Out, I'm not you?
Speaker 1: Is it an ethical at is it an ethical answer?
Speaker 2: I just told you that the non aggression principle in
and of itself is not an ethical That's false.
Speaker 1: That's false. No, that's false. Axiom, even axioms, even axioms
depending No, that's false. Even axioms, depending upon what they
are or what they are about, can be ethical. Right,
that's the point that you're missing. So when the axiom itself,
calling it an axiom does not remove it from the
ethical domain. That's how stupid. You can have an You
can have an ethical axiom.
Speaker 2: You would shut the fuck up and let someone finish
the sentence.
Speaker 1: But your sentences are dumb and they're bad arguments. It's
an ethical claim. It deals with what the claim itself
is that you ought not aggress people. That's an ethical
normative claim. It's in the domain of ethics, even if
you call it an axiom. Did you know you can
have an ethical axiom?
Speaker 2: Yes? But you you're not listening.
Speaker 1: You're not No, you're just not understanding the basic distinctions.
Speaker 2: No, you're just interrupting people midscent interrupting me.
Speaker 1: It's no because your answers don't address it. Your answers
don't address it. That's why I'm interrupting you.
Speaker 3: I I.
Speaker 2: Cannot believe.
Speaker 1: How do you see that the How do you see
that the axiom is not ethical when it's about ethics?
Speaker 2: Will you allow me to answer this question?
Speaker 1: How do you say that the axiom is not this question?
Without interrupting answer? That's what we're waiting for.
Speaker 2: Will you? I'm answer you a question. Will you allow
me to answer answer? Allow me to answer anything?
Speaker 1: The entire chat? Laughing?
Speaker 2: You mean, yes, I get it that your checks.
Speaker 1: We're waiting. We're waiting, will you will you? If you
don't answer, I'm just going to move on because you can't.
You can't handle an.
Speaker 2: So are you going to allow me or not to
actually answer? Without all you wanted?
Speaker 1: To do is the flag. This is how weak you
guys are. You guys are the worst that demend You're
worse than Austin Peterson.
Speaker 2: I don't know who Austin Peterson is. All I know
is you should team up. Not you're not engaging in
any way that I could have.
Speaker 1: I'm not engaging again. Will you answer? If the axiom
is moral in its nature and content, how is it
not ethical or moral?
Speaker 2: How is it not ethical or moral?
Speaker 1: If the content of the axiom of the NAP is
ethics and morals, how is it not moral or ethical
or normative just because it's an axiom?
Speaker 2: Okay, I didn't say that just because it's an axiom.
Speaker 1: Yes you did. You said it's an it's axiom, it's
not moral. You said it's an action it's not moral.
I did, Yes, you did.
Speaker 2: It's not moral.
Speaker 1: You said it doesn't do. What do you think morals
deals with? That's normativity, moral, ethical claims, or normative.
Speaker 2: Claims sentence, Then you can't say that you've heard.
Speaker 1: The whole chat knows you're a filibuster ring.
Speaker 2: I'm not shillibuster ring. You stop and just let me
make an argument.
Speaker 1: We're waiting.
Speaker 2: Will you allow me to whole.
Speaker 1: Chap knows that you said that go.
Speaker 2: Will you allow me to go? I'm not asking you
to say go. I'm a simple question. Will you act
like an adult from this point on?
Speaker 1: If you make bad arguments argument, If you make bad arguments,
that will interrupt you correct?
Speaker 2: Okay, so you're so you're just going to constantly interrupt it. Talk.
Speaker 1: So if you would like so, any you want to
talk about anything but the assertions, the axiom is about
ethics and normativity.
Speaker 2: If you would like to have this debate, it is
clear that you are.
Speaker 1: Are you going to reply.
Speaker 2: In conversation without a monator, So find a moderator and
schedule the debate or run like you did from liquid Zulo.
Speaker 1: I'm not running because you guys are too low to
here to know the topics and what the categories are.
To eat in debate you have, you have insults and
interrupt You didn't even know what justification was. You didn't
know what justification. You didn't even know what it was. No,
you guys know you didn't. You had to ask me
what it is. You have to ask me what it is?
Speaker 2: I asked what.
Speaker 1: You had to ask me what justification?
Speaker 2: Is I asked you what your standard was, because there is.
Speaker 1: Not my personal standard. It's not a subjective topic.
Speaker 2: You're you're in you're very clearly not honestly.
Speaker 1: Uh huh, right, So the axiom about ethics and morals
is an axiom? And how is it not an ot claim?
Speaker 2: There's no reason the n A P?
Speaker 1: How is the NAP not an not claim?
Speaker 2: Interrupt?
Speaker 1: And then no, you're just bitching about interrupting to not answer.
You're bitching about interrupting to not answer. How is the
NAP not ethical or moral?
Speaker 2: So again, so again, find a moderator and we'll do.
Speaker 1: How is the NAP?
Speaker 3: Go?
Speaker 1: I will give you the time. How long do you
want to answer? You want? Do you want? Like two minutes?
Speaker 2: Now, you're gonna let me, do you.
Speaker 1: Want like two minutes? Stop?
Speaker 2: Leave you find a moderator and will see.
Speaker 1: So you're running because you're rage quitting your rage quitting?
Speaker 2: Well, no, no, no, I'm it's not ranged because I
can remember, I can just laugh and then it magically
becomes not rage.
Speaker 1: Put Yeah, but yeah, but I I asked good questions
about justification. What you didn't know what it was? And
I'm asking you the same questions and you can't answer.
Is the n a P an ethical normative claim?
Speaker 2: I have answered?
Speaker 1: So he no, you didn't answer answer, No, you didn't.
What is the answer? So the entire the entire chat
sees that this guy is running and he won't he
won't debate.
Speaker 2: What do you mean I won't debate? You won't You.
Speaker 1: Won't answer the question, dude, If it's a simple question,
why can't you just answer it? So I you did
the same thing to Jim Bob because you're literally one
of the worst debaters I've ever debated. You're worse than
teed up at least teed up answers you know again,
at least tied up answer. Do you want a two
minute Do you want a two minute pause?
Speaker 2: This is waste?
Speaker 1: Do you want a two minute pause? Is the n
a P ethical when it's about ethics?
Speaker 2: Is it find a moderator?
Speaker 1: Is the NAP ethical or moral?
Speaker 3: Or not?
Speaker 2: Find a moderate?
Speaker 1: So you can't answer, You literally cannot answer that.
Speaker 2: You can't up and you won't allow.
Speaker 1: What is the answer?
Speaker 2: You said you give me time to interrupted.
Speaker 1: I'll give you two minutes. I will give you two
minutes of silence.
Speaker 2: I don't believe you. You're a fucking liar.
Speaker 1: So there you go. Look at it, Look at your rage.
Speaker 5: Quit.
Speaker 1: I will give you two minutes of silence, and you
still won't do it because you can't. You can't answer.
Speaker 2: I can't find a moderator.
Speaker 1: I don't have to find a moderator for you. You're
not worth a fully moderated debate. You're too low tier
to even know how low tier you are. You don't
know what justification is. You didn't know what the term is.
You asked me what it meants.
Speaker 2: You interrupt?
Speaker 1: You positive because your questions and answers are dumb, dude.
Speaker 2: That's why everything's dumb, except.
Speaker 1: Is the nap ethical or moral.
Speaker 2: There's no reason for me to answer any of your.
Speaker 1: Questions because you can't because you have already lost the.
Speaker 2: Debate, and you're incapable of having You already lost about
this without your rage quies.
Speaker 1: Casting me out because you don't have an answer to
I'll give you two minutes. I'll shut up for two minutes.
Speaker 2: I don't, I don't.
Speaker 1: Why would you not believe me when I can prove
that I'll do it.
Speaker 2: That's stupid, because you, because of your past behavior, all right.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be quiet right now. I'm gonna be quiet
for two minutes and you can answer.
Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, sure, go ahead. So now you're asking me
a loaded question, which is, you know, when did you
stop being you? So I'm obviously not gonna answer. But
in regards to what is the non aggression principle, non
aggression principle is an ought claim, but it is also
an axiom. One can choose to follow that axiom or
not follow that axiom in there in the system of ethics.
But if you have a a an ethical system that
you attempt to justify, then that is where that that
is where you must follow or you must your system
must be commiserate with a non aggression principle or it
falls into contradiction. That is, that is the claim that
I mean. So you are correct that the next app
is a moral claim that one ought not aggress upon
other people. But where when we were talking about bridging
kind of the is ought gap from descriptive to prescriptive ideology,
what I'm saying is that it is it is a
means of negating ethical justifications when they go against a
non aggression principle. So boom, Finally, I.
Speaker 1: Don't even know what that is supposed to mean means
of negating what is that supposed to mean?
Speaker 2: Right, So, libertarianism as a whole is you know, the
nap is axiomatic to libertarianism. But things such as like argumentation, ethics,
and other forms of logic showcase that, you know, people
that attempt to justify the law the jungle or are
no longer in ethics. Right, you're if you're saying some
people can be slaves or some property can be taken,
then your your moral claims aren't universalizable and fall into contradiction.
Speaker 1: H our moral claims univers sizable.
Speaker 2: We ford to be a pru moral claim.
Speaker 1: So there are universals. Yeah, okay, how do you justify
universal claims?
Speaker 2: How do I justify the existence of universal claims? Like,
can you give me an example of one that may
just making.
Speaker 1: Uh yeah, one ought faulty nap.
Speaker 2: Well, so we would start with existence exists, then we
would move into.
Speaker 1: Formal existence exists. What is that supposed to mean?
Speaker 2: I've seen an unavoidable accident, Right, so one cannot argue I.
Speaker 1: Mean it's a it's a it's a self referencing basically
version of the identity principle. But how do you what
does that mean? Existence exists?
Speaker 2: That means that existence exists, right, it's it's it is
self referencing in uh huh situation. But one cannot argue
against the concept of existence.
Speaker 1: Actually you can, because you can't actually pretty easily because existence.
Speaker 2: Is well, yeah, I could say cats have wings existence.
Speaker 1: No, no, no, I mean in a different point that existence
is a very contested, ambiguous term in the history of philosophy.
It's a metaphysical claim. So have you justified any metaphysics yet?
Speaker 2: I would start where we're starting with existence, and existence
justifies itself.
Speaker 1: By the existence justifies itself. What is your proof for
the proposition existence justifies itself?
Speaker 2: It is you cannot make any form of logical argument
in any about anything without justifying without existing, Like, it's
impossible to.
Speaker 1: Make a claim that's not even actually true. I mean,
Boolean approaches to logic have made it deontological, so you
can actually make onto you can actually make logical arguments
without ontological claims.
Speaker 2: That's not you're making an argument the moment that you
make it justify.
Speaker 1: No, that's not even true. That's that's a that's not
a justification, and that's a fallacious move. So it doesn't
keep it. It doesn't prove the metaphysical notion or the
linguistic symbols that you use for the word existence are correct.
In other words, it assumes all kinds of things like language, predications, language,
and predication. Right, so if you had if you'd had
a philosophy language class, you would know that words like
existence presuppose metaphysical structures like universals, like predicate, predication, like grammar,
and none of those things have been demonstrated yet.
Speaker 2: Okay, this is it's not the concept of existence, but
not the definition of the word existence. So everything that
you just said is silly.
Speaker 1: No, everything I said is basic.
Speaker 2: Philosophy, no idiot.
Speaker 1: The fact that you think that there's self evident action.
Speaker 2: Well, other people might like, what is the definition of
the word What do you mean?
Speaker 1: You don't think that the word existence is? What is
it referring to itself?
Speaker 2: Is impossible to our.
Speaker 1: Concepts in this case? Are they based on linguistic philosophy?
Speaker 2: Can you argue against existence?
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter because I won't get you to justification
even if I admit that. Even if I admit it
doesn't matter because it doesn't achieve justification. So even if
I admit skepticism and play the role of a skeptic
and counter your claims about existence being existence, it doesn't
prove anything. It doesn't get you anywhere because I'm pointing
out that it's not self evident if it relies on
things like predication, linguistic philosophy, and grammar, which you haven't
proven yet, So it's not self evident.
Speaker 2: It does not The concept of existence is not does not.
Speaker 1: The proposition existence exists, The proposition is itself relying on
Does it rely on the law of identity? No, yes,
it does. Existence exists is relying on the law of identity.
Speaker 2: No, it would come after exists?
Speaker 3: Oh my gosh, right like once.
Speaker 1: No, to say existence exists relies on the law of identity,
you're predicating identity, Yes.
Speaker 2: Arisitilian formal logic ray like law of identity, law of
excluded middle and law of non contradiction. Right, are going
to be are going to be the foundation for making
the argument that existency.
Speaker 1: I'm calling in to question the argument.
Speaker 2: Language and all those other things. But what I'm saying
is is that by one attempting in any language in
any in any means, anytime a.
Speaker 1: Moral I know what you're saying, it's called retortion to.
Speaker 2: Make a claim that that that requires existence for them
that it presupposes exists.
Speaker 1: I'm aware of that. But that still doesn't get you.
I know that, I know it's called retortion. It's called retortion,
and it doesn't get you to justification. That's the point, right, So.
Speaker 2: How are you justifying because you clearly believe it existence.
Speaker 1: Well, I believe in the transcendental argument for God's existence,
and that's the ground for the logical categories which make
it possible to predicate at all. So that's my worldview account.
But even if I admit, even if I admit to you,
let me explain the point as to why it doesn't
get you justification. Right. So this comes up after Enlightenment
philosophers raised the question about justification in this domain. When
it comes to for example, Kant says, one reason that
just retortion alone doesn't get you to justification is that
we don't know that the seeming impossibility of not being
able to argue, or to use logic or to have
conceptual frameworks itself means that it's the case in the
external world So even if you could demonstrate that I
can't argue or have human conceptual predication or language without
assuming something like the law of identity or existence exists
or whatever, it still doesn't get you to justification because
is that that even if it doesn't seem possible, it
would become a fallacy of incredulity that I don't see
how else you could reason still doesn't grain into justification,
And all you need is one defeat.
Speaker 2: Or to prove I'm not making the argument that it
doesn't seem possible. I am making the argument that it
is not possible.
Speaker 1: So if you're saying it's not possible, you would have
to demonstrate exists. Then I know that. So then you
would have to then you have to answer Const's dilemmas
of how you know there even is an external world
to which these categories apply.
Speaker 2: Okay, So constanlemma in how do I know that there
is an external world.
Speaker 1: To where the concepts apply? Like when he critiques the
ontological argument, he's pointing out that there's nothing about the
term existence that contains within it the notion of perfection.
So just proving that something exists doesn't get these other
metaphysical qualities like perfection. So likewise, in your case, the
same problem applies.
Speaker 2: What is what is? What is? If you can explain
it for me batter like what is like perfection or
like the human.
Speaker 1: Like cons I'm saying that const critique of the ontological
argument is applicable to the argument that you're making about
the ontological claim that existence exists. I'm saying that you
need all kinds of things to be the case for
that to hold or to be true, and those other
things have not been proven yet, and so it's not
self evident or axiomatic. It rests on a bunch of
other assumptions, all the things I've listed, like language.
Speaker 2: Space, space, time, causality.
Speaker 1: Correct well, when cont critiques the Kogito, he says that
it assumes time and space. But I'm not making that argument. Okay,
but it's similar.
Speaker 2: To Okay, so your argument is that you need I'm
having a hard time. My mom's gone real quick.
Speaker 1: For you to say existence exists and to say that
that's self evident and axiomatic, because if you denied it,
you couldn't reason about the world, you couldn't reason at all.
I agree with that principle and that point but that
does not get you to epistemic justification because it doesn't
answer constant dilemma that even if the proposition is true,
you don't know that it applies to an external world
without assuming an external world. And I agree with you
that we should assume an external world. But the point
is that you haven't demonstrated an external world yet, and
so the propositions are not axiomatic.
Speaker 2: Even if we were like in the matrix or something,
there must be an external world for existence who exists.
Speaker 1: But you haven't proven that yet, and so that's why
this statement is not axiomatic. So it rests on other beliefs.
Speaker 2: Well, it was sweet.
Speaker 1: I mean I could if something acxiomatic or Okay, no,
it could be false axiom. But like people self evident,
axiomatic beliefs can't rest on another belief. That's the point,
or else they're no longer.
Speaker 2: Is what is the belief that existence exists.
Speaker 1: In this case, that it applies to something in an
external world to give it meaning and content. To refute
my point about why it doesn't get you to justification,
you needed.
Speaker 2: To apply the existence itself.
Speaker 1: You haven't shown that.
Speaker 2: You haven't.
Speaker 1: Now you've read it Now you haven't demonstrated that no existence,
that it's not a concept.
Speaker 2: There is that there is a material world that exists.
Speaker 1: Now now you're adding, uh, now you're moving the goalpost,
because there's nothing in the word There's nothing in the
word existence that necessarily tells you that it's about an
external world. That's what you just you just added and altered. Well,
you know you might be existence exists, and now you're
modifying it to say that, well that means necessarily the
external world. What is there in the word existence that
necessarily means external world?
Speaker 2: So I think you, I think you might actually be
right on this only because existence is this is is objective.
It's randy and right. So you wouldn't you just wouldn't
deny or I don't think she would support any idea
of like the spiritual or any other type of world
other than the material world. I think it is probably implied,
but maybe not explicitly stated. So like, yeah, that's fine.
If you want to critique existence exists, you know, to
like better.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm just giving examples of why it modern. I'm
just giving examples or why it doesn't get you to
self evidence or justification in an epistemic sense.
Speaker 2: Well, it's like I'm you're saying it doesn't because there
could be a spiritual.
Speaker 1: World that I never said any of that.
Speaker 2: Well, you're saying that it doesn't imply the materials.
Speaker 1: All I need is one defeater, and I've given you
a couple of defeaters. It doesn't mean that I have
to all CON's positions. So no, I don't believe.
Speaker 2: All I'm asking Your argument is that existence exists, doesn't
imply the world.
Speaker 1: Correct, that's our content, right, And well, this content.
Speaker 2: Wasn't alive to critique existence from the from the checktives.
Speaker 1: He made this critique in a similar way critiquing the
ontological argument. That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: So when I make the argument existence exit and you're saying, well,
this doesn't necessarily apply to the existence we're in, I
guess I don't have an argument for that, because we
exist in the existence we're in. There is no other existence.
Speaker 1: That's just starting, that's just starting the thing question.
Speaker 2: I'm actually genuinely trying to understand your critique here. It's
not like I'm like I'm not like, how.
Speaker 1: Well, the point so to make it very live.
Speaker 2: In this world? Right, we we we are acting, we're behaving,
We're attempting to justify.
Speaker 1: The point is that all systems, the point is that
the point is that all beliefs, all propositions, all statements,
true statements, et cetera, and my view are theory laden.
And so this has been a long walk to get
to the point, to try to prove or demonstrate that
classical foundationalism, which is the epistemology that the Enlightenment relies
upon in most libertarians, is philosophically enough, estemically on faulty ground.
And it doesn't make me a content simply because I'm
using his argument that there's nothing necessarily about the word
existence that entails a material external world. I could be
an idealist. Maybe I believe that all the world is
a Platonic ideal, and for me, the word existence just
means ideas like Plato, right, or that's the highest.
Speaker 2: Now you're changing the argument.
Speaker 1: No, I'm giving you an example of why the word
existence does not have self evident meaning to it.
Speaker 2: It's contingent.
Speaker 1: Let me finish, there's contingent upon a paradigm.
Speaker 2: So if I just start changing the meaning of words,
right and then saying that, well.
Speaker 1: I mean, you're the one that did that, where you
you modified existence to mean a material external world. But
there's nothing necessary enough. The word that tells you that.
Speaker 2: The existence exists as an argument is a justification.
Speaker 1: It's not a justification because it's a restatement of a
self evident in your view, truth doesn't tell you anything
about the world. You're assuming it does. But how do
you know it does?
Speaker 2: Well, it tells you that an individual cannot the reason
is an unavoidable accident.
Speaker 1: But you keep calling it unavoidable, resting on the assumption
that it actually applies to an external world, which you
haven't demonstrated.
Speaker 2: But you're not making argument like that's a critique.
Speaker 1: It's an internal critique. My argument is an eternal critique.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but you're saying that there is a way that
you can defeat existence exists argumentation by redefining words and
concepts of what No.
Speaker 1: I'm simply pointing out, I'm.
Speaker 2: Clarifying what existence means in the objective his framework. And
you're saying, ah, but what if.
Speaker 1: I whether it's a non sequitor. There's nothing about the word.
Speaker 2: Existence that you attempt to it's.
Speaker 1: A non sequitor in your system.
Speaker 2: The moment that you attempt to argue that you know
the world is actually just like this platonic forms, or.
Speaker 1: That I didn't say that. I just gave an example
that wasn't my point I'm using.
Speaker 2: I'm using use in like the universal right, the one
that one you know, attempts to make any form of justification.
They do so in the world that we live in.
Speaker 1: I mean, again, assuming that there is an external world,
which you haven't demonstrated yet. So the whole point is
not because I'm you don't understand what a defeater argument is.
It doesn't mean that I'm a skeptical like human. It
means that I'm using the argument from human Kant to
prove why your assertion existence exists is not self evident.
It rests on other things, That's the point.
Speaker 2: But you haven't shown that it rests on other things.
Speaker 1: I gave you multiple examples. For example, it rests on
the assumption that it applies to the external world. Have
you demonstrated that existence exists applies to the external world
and not just a conceptual framework? When was that justification?
Speaker 2: Again? Who who is? Who can exist? Right without exist?
Speaker 1: So you're answering a question to answer the question I
asked you.
Speaker 2: I'm trying to get you don't understand.
Speaker 1: Maybe maybe that maybe we maybe everything is an ideal
existence and there is no external world. I don't believe that,
But I'm saying that your assumptions are not justified, even
within your own system. How do I know that the
word existence, when it has a vast array of meanings
throughout the history of philosophy, somehow necessarily means a material, physical,
external world. There's nothing about the word existence that necessarily
means that. And when I ask you how you know
that or why we should think that, you say, it
just has to be that way. Well, that's a fallacy
of incredulity.
Speaker 2: So if there are the necessary condition for existence is well,
hold on, let me not go there. So I'm you're
you're saying that the argument isn't justified because one could
make arguments outside of reality.
Speaker 1: I'm saying that it's a non sequitor and that it
rests on multiple other assumptions which have not been proven,
and so it's not self evident.
Speaker 2: So, but some existence is self evident. I don't understand.
Speaker 1: I mean, again, you just keep re starting the position
that's a variation on the original position, And how do
we know that? What does that mean?
Speaker 2: Because if one because we because we obviously exist in
some capacity.
Speaker 1: So your answer is that it's just the case. So
the answer is again, that is just the case.
Speaker 2: So I have those classical foundations and it's antable axiom.
Speaker 1: Again, you keep asserting that, but then you've admitted that
it relies on other things like an external world, which
that proposition, the proposition itself does not contain within it
a necessary existence of an.
Speaker 2: Ex Okay, So so I have put forward that existence exists,
and you've heard that argument. Need it? You say it doesn't.
It's it's not justified because it relies on other assumptions.
What do do you have a counter argument for our existence?
Speaker 1: Yes, and again it's the existence of God grounds and
justifies the transcendental categories which make possible things like predicating
about existence in the created realm. So there's not even
one God, no, because in Christian theology, for example, there's
two types of existences. There's uncreated and created, and so
there's nothing about the word existence that tells me necessarily
which one is even being referred to. Because I believe
in my place, I believe in my paradigm that there's
uncreated existence, who is God himself, and there's created existence,
which is the created world. Those are two types of
existing things. So there's nothing self evident about the word
existence that necessarily tells you anything.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, what is an uncreated existence God himself? Yeah? Okay,
well that's like, yeah, but what do you mean by like,
what is an uncreated system?
Speaker 1: It means that he is timeless. It means that he
is a noncomposite, He is outside of time and space.
He is transcendent, he is imminent, he is perfect all
the attributes that we would ascribe to God in our system.
Speaker 2: So when you say he's timeless, what is what is?
What do you mean by that? It's a doesn't exist
in reality.
Speaker 1: No, outside of time, meaning that he's eternal. He created time,
he's outside of time.
Speaker 2: So like, well, like would a vampire be an ungreated
existence if he's immortal?
Speaker 1: Anything mortal is created by definition?
Speaker 2: Okay, so.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but I'm just pointing out that the word existence
doesn't necessarily tell you anything self evident without a paradigm
to inform the word and its meaning, even language itself.
Is why I mentioned earlier to you linguistic philosophy, it's
a holistic structure. It's an epistemic wholism, which means that
there's no words that function in an independent way. You
could read Wickenstein on this because he talks about how
words and terms are part of linguistic structures and systems
because they all relate to one another. So there's no
such thing as a word called existence or ontos or food,
sees or being or whatever that somehow has a self evident,
necessary meaning apart from the entire paradigm or worldview that
you have that informs it. That's why I was mentioning, Yeah, so.
Speaker 2: Yeah, what like, So it is true that words, you know,
have a have a shared meaning that we kind of
assume people get like, you know, and we see language
pain constantly where a word has are and then over
time the meaning of the word kind of changes from
the cultural context because it's because it's just a function, right,
It's a tool. A word is just a tool to
describe a concept, and you know, communication is often more
often than not imperfect.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: But but what I'm trying to understand is, you know,
I agree that that is a that is a problem
in argumentation. You have to kind of assume that the
reader understands the meaning of the word has right, but
that isn't always perfect. But how do you justify? How
do how does your position differ?
Speaker 3: In existence?
Speaker 2: Exist? And so though far that it justifies? Like saying
God is uncreated is like like you're just saying it's
it's outside of the rules, and it exists and it doesn't.
Speaker 1: Well, now outside of your rules? So and are I
have a different paradigm. So I'm thinking and arguing in
terms of paradigms or world views as a whole. The
transcendental argument is a comparison of to world views or paradigms.
So it involves the entire system because the Christian theistic
system conditions what I mean by words like existence or
time or creation or whatever all of those things are.
Speaker 2: How does that? How does how does the Christian? How
does christ ethics? Like? All these things are made up
of words? Right, So it's the same problem that that
that would occur in any well.
Speaker 1: I don't have the belief that words are in language
are all purely social constructs. I believe that what the
words refer to is conceptual and universal and objective and
not subjective.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it work, But the words themselves are just communicating
concepts or ideas.
Speaker 1: Right, But that's why the words can be flexible. You
can have Roman numeral V I I or the Arabic
number seven that are referred to the same abstract conceptual entity.
But that has nothing to do.
Speaker 2: It doesn't get us any justification of like how how
you solve the problem? As you see that justification can't
be met on anything unless we posit a god. But
I don't understand how.
Speaker 1: That well, because they The tag argument argues that any predication,
any proposition, relies on the structures that are necessary for
the possibility of language and predication. So, in other words,
to say, a sentence like the tree is red, a
shout me the tree is green rests on a certain
type of world where there are there is regularity in nature.
It rests on the possibility of having knowledge, universals, linguistic structure, grammar.
All of those things are presupposed in the action of
making a proposition.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, that would be true for objectives philosophy as.
Speaker 1: Well, Right, But the difference between the difference between you
and I is how we give an account for those things,
and that your accounts are not good accounts, is what
I've been arguing.
Speaker 2: So what is your good account that solves this problem?
Speaker 1: In the well, there are no self evident positions or
statements because they're embedded within a network or a web
of beliefs that we all have. And thus, if my
system or my view is holistic, if I'm an epistemic holist,
then I have to give an account for the system
as a whole and how those structures or how those
preconditions are the case. So if I need the possibility, predication, universals, mathematics, logic, mathematics, logic,
all of these categories being the true, the good, et cetera,
to have knowledge at all, then I need to give
some account for the those things, those categories that my
statements are relying on. And the transcendental argument argues that
only God is the type of being who could give
a justification or account for those things.
Speaker 2: So you're just saying only God can do this, So
therefore God is that every saying.
Speaker 1: I'm saying that. The argument is that the only being
who can give given a grounding for those things is
the being revealed in the Christian worldview.
Speaker 2: How is it so? But but God doesn't exist in reality.
Speaker 1: I don't even know what does that mean?
Speaker 2: He said, he's an uncreated existence. How is he doing this?
Speaker 1: I said, he's transcendent and he's imminent. That means that
he exists outside of time and in time.
Speaker 2: So he does exist in reality.
Speaker 1: Well, you keep calling reality. I would say, there's two realities.
There's created reality on created reality.
Speaker 2: So you stay the reality outside of material reality. Yeah, okay,
where it was? So how so how do you prove that?
Speaker 1: Well? I could just I could prove it by the
transcendental argument and the impossibility of the contrary that anytime
you utilize language, you're utilizing conceptual, abstract things that are
not reducible to physical sense data, and that only God
in the trinitarian sense could give a justification for how
that's possible?
Speaker 2: Well, no, I reason, reason alone explains that humans have
the capacity for reason.
Speaker 1: Well that alone, you're all humans?
Speaker 2: Well, humans as a category.
Speaker 1: How do you have a justification for categories?
Speaker 2: What do you How do I have a justification that
that that humans have the capacity.
Speaker 1: Know that there are things called categories like this.
Speaker 2: I'm trying to figure out a way to answer this.
You would accept it? So the how do I justify
the categories exist in the mind that people.
Speaker 1: Well, so now they're just in the mind. They're not actual,
they're not outside the mind like the numbers.
Speaker 2: They're not material.
Speaker 1: They're not material, No, of course not. Okay, so there's immaterial.
Speaker 2: Things that there's no category three?
Speaker 1: Right, there are immaterial things that exist and material things.
Speaker 2: The mind does not create reality. A reality exists independent. Okay.
Speaker 1: How do you know that there are two types of things,
physical and immaterial?
Speaker 2: Well, we have we do have sense.
Speaker 1: How does your senseta tell you that? You mentioned Hume?
But how does your sensitive tell you that there's imterial
things that are not based on sense data?
Speaker 2: How does my sense data tell me that there are
things that are not sense data?
Speaker 1: That's what you just said a question?
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, I said that we can see things in reality.
Speaker 1: How does things tell you that there are immaterial things?
Speaker 2: So the first thing is that we can see that
there are material things?
Speaker 1: Right, Well, I would say with the myth of the given,
you don't even know that, and you haven't demonstrated that yet.
But if I grant you that, how does that give
to immaterial If.
Speaker 2: Even even if I was like there there has.
Speaker 1: To be you keep saying, and if you do philosophy,
you know there's no has to any of this. You
got to demonstrate that. You can't just assert that.
Speaker 2: Well okay, well, if you interrupt someone, you know, then
they can't make their full arge.
Speaker 1: So empiricism won't get you to universal categories, is the point?
Speaker 2: Yeah, No, I don't. I don't disagree that empiricism gets you, like,
I don't disagree.
Speaker 1: Okay, So what's the justification for the immaterial things?
Speaker 2: Well, the justification for immaterial things is that the that
concepts exist, you mean, ideas.
Speaker 1: How do you know that? How do you know that
the concept in my head of humans as a category
is the same as the concept in your head? How
do you You can't verify that?
Speaker 2: You don't. We've already we've already stated that you can't
necessarily verify that.
Speaker 1: Okay, if you can't verify that, then you believe in
immaterial things without justification that you can't verify?
Speaker 2: Well, so do you? You don't know?
Speaker 1: I believe in verification. I believe that I can justify it.
Speaker 2: You you believe you believe.
Speaker 1: That that's a too quo, that's a two way, that's
a two quoke way, No, but you're that's a two
quote way no but you, No, but you. It's a
two quoke way.
Speaker 2: No, it's not no but you because you just you.
Speaker 1: Just said no, but you. My world view is different.
I have a different account. You're not understanding that I
have a different account than you.
Speaker 2: I understand that. I understand that you like to interrupt people.
Speaker 1: Now and then this is where once again you're deflecting
because I brought you to a point. You said, you
just see it. What's the justification? Listen when you say joke,
what about you? That's a two quoke way. That's you
know what a two qu.
Speaker 2: I asked you. I asked you if you had the
similar belief.
Speaker 1: For thing, it doesn't matter what my similar breaks are.
I will go into you said, I will go into that.
It doesn't matter if I believe I have a different
account of immaterial things.
Speaker 2: Why why are you I have.
Speaker 1: A different account of material things than you?
Speaker 2: We were finally starting to get to talk like adults.
Speaker 1: And you and again now that you've been pinned down,
you don't want to go into it. What is the
justification for immaterial things?
Speaker 3: Do?
Speaker 1: What is your justification for immaterial things.
Speaker 2: What is my justification that immaterial immaterial things exist? So
first I start with existence exists, but you say that
that's not valid, but we'll just move on.
Speaker 1: So, well, you kind of admitted that there's problems for that.
Nor did you demonstrate the act. Did you demonstrate the
external world which you said it means?
Speaker 2: I said that in order for us to have existence,
we have to exist in some type of thing.
Speaker 1: Have you demonstrated that you demonstrate that? We know, you
said an external world. What if we live in a
mental world. You haven't proven that it's the external, material,
physical world that we have. Necessarily, you haven't proven that.
You've just asserted it.
Speaker 2: The mind cannot the mind cannot exist without a material
How do you know that?
Speaker 1: You just assert this? What's the justification for this?
Speaker 2: Well, so the justification for how reason or consciousness comes
to me.
Speaker 1: You keep asserting all kinds of metaphysical claims like that
there's immaterial realities, and you've not justified any of these.
Speaker 2: We do exist in some form of existence. Right, let's
let's take into account.
Speaker 1: I mean we exist in existence is basically a meaningless phrase.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I'm going through it. Right, So we exist,
We could exist by your your you're asserting, what if
we exist in the frame of the mind, we would
then have to note that an existence must have some
form of identity specific.
Speaker 1: How do we know that maybe it? Maybe it does.
Maybe we're also it's aphrenic and our schema in our
minds don't match up to anything in the external world.
We just interpret it like it does.
Speaker 2: Yees. So if if you deny the law of identity,
then then this entire conversation is meaningful.
Speaker 1: So but wait a minute, you said that existence exists
doesn't rely on the law of identity earlier.
Speaker 2: Well, we're moving, we moved past existence. What do you mean, No, you're.
Speaker 1: We're still talking about it. So you're saying it does,
it does rely on the law of the law of identity.
Speaker 2: If if the law of identity is no, I'm saying
that I'm moving from existence exists and then making.
Speaker 1: That's a proposition that relies on the law of identity.
Speaker 2: Obviously I'm making a separate claim, which is essentially that
the law of I didn't.
Speaker 1: Okay, how do we know that the laws like that
and the classical Aristilian laws are the case and that
they apply.
Speaker 2: And by the way, we perceive, we perceive.
Speaker 1: Existence, perceiving existence. You don't understand that, you don't understand
why that doesn't answer that question. You're basically just saying,
you're basically I'm.
Speaker 2: Sorry ahead, No, No, you go ahead. It's fine.
Speaker 1: You're basically just saying that my position is the case,
because if you look at my position, it states that
this is the case. And that's what the words mean
my position.
Speaker 2: No. No, what I'm saying is that we again premise
one or action one I guess would be existence exist,
we exist in some that to argue for uh, but
you know, how do you know that is because of
the negation. You can't argue against your own existence. Do
so presupposes existence? It's impossible, but.
Speaker 1: You have I'm making the argument right now. And what
if our conceptual schema just seems to be the case
in our minds but doesn't apply to an actual external
ontological existence. How do we know? That is the question?
And you can you can say that because it has
to be that way, but that doesn't answer the objection
or the defeater.
Speaker 2: No, I'm saying that if you make the argument that
existence doesn't exist, you fall into com tradition.
Speaker 1: No, that's not the argument argument. The argument is that
existence exists necessarily applies to some external physical world. You
have not demonstrated the external world yet, and thus it's
not axiomatic because it relies on other positions and other beliefs.
Speaker 2: Well, it's well, the first axiom is existence exists. Once
we recognize that one must exist in some capacity.
Speaker 1: Then when you say one, you're just assuming the existence
of the self. Have you not read a critique of
the code self?
Speaker 2: Well, of course, of course I'm assuming the existence of this.
Speaker 1: Well, then thank you. Then it's not self evident. It
assumes other things exactly.
Speaker 2: No, it's the individual.
Speaker 1: Does it assume the existence of the self.
Speaker 2: It is the self that makes the argument? Is it not?
Speaker 3: So?
Speaker 1: Is it assuming it is? The proposition?
Speaker 2: Would you okay, we'll put another axiom before it, the
self exists, an existence exists.
Speaker 1: But you have know now you're adding the moving the
goalpost to add another proposition ahead.
Speaker 2: Adding the post. I'm saying that's fine, I'll okay.
Speaker 1: Then if this proposition exist, then it's no longer self
evident because it relies on another proposition.
Speaker 2: Obviously, so the self exist. Right, you just agree that
the self exit.
Speaker 1: No, I'm saying it doesn't matter how you construct it,
it's no longer self evident because you're adding other propping
up beliefs. So if you look, if you study this,
it's it's no, it.
Speaker 2: Is it's self evident because the self is the one
that argues.
Speaker 1: If someone that's a category error, that's a category error
talking about the self does not make it self evident.
That's that's amazing mistake.
Speaker 2: Man. No, No, it's not a category. When when I
say that something is the unavoidable axiom, what I'm saying
is that one a person that attempts to argue a self,
that attempts to argue against existence, is incapable of doing
so because they exist. They must exist in order I know.
Speaker 1: What says, I'm giving it the class critique of it.
Speaker 2: A non an entity that doesn't exists can't make an
argument against.
Speaker 1: Uh, you know, you're missing the point.
Speaker 2: It'sist that you're.
Speaker 1: You're not even getting what the point of the objection is.
It's not an objection about the ontological status of the
self or whatever you could go that route. It's more
fundamental than that that something axiomatic or what's called dosastic
or properly basic cannot rest on any other assumptions, principles,
or things that have not yet been proven or else.
It is no longer doxastically basic, is no longer self evident.
And so every time you tackle on these other explanations,
you're just proving my point that it doesn't matter whether
you say, uh, the cogito or whether you say existence exists,
It doesn't answer the objection that I'm laying out that
is no.
Speaker 2: So the argument, the argument for the for objective reality is.
Speaker 1: I don't care about that object You're saying one action
me to justify you know what the christ Let me
ask you this.
Speaker 2: You're asking me, you're asking me to justify this external reality. Okay,
and you were saying that an external reality comes from that,
that that this existence exists, you know, presupposes this external reality.
What I'm saying is is that existence exists is one
axiom of of of.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter that you say that it's one that
doesn't It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because.
Speaker 2: That in order to justify objective reality, I don't think
you know what entity and consciousness.
Speaker 1: Well, you would need those things. But that's the point
is that you've not yet demonstrated those things.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so because if you say yes.
Speaker 1: If you say yes, then you've admitted my point that
it's not self evident it is.
Speaker 2: Existence exists is self evidence?
Speaker 1: No, it's it is not. Nor is the.
Speaker 2: Reality.
Speaker 1: Again, you keep saying it is that argument. You keep
saying it is that. But I've given you multiple reasons
why it doesn't get you to the justification for why
you say that.
Speaker 2: No, what it gets existence exists again is one axiom?
Speaker 1: Does it rely on other things? Does it rely on
other things? Does it rely on other things?
Speaker 2: Does the existence exist rely on other things? No, it
doesn't rely on anything it is.
Speaker 1: Does it rely Does the proposition rely on grammar?
Speaker 2: You being able to communicate that argument is not the
same thing.
Speaker 1: As the truth value of the proposition? Does it rely
on grammar? To say it?
Speaker 2: That's that's not an.
Speaker 1: Argument, It is an argument. It's a classic critique. Does
it rely on grammar?
Speaker 2: If you say God is real and then someone just
changes the definition of God, well, then then then that's
a failure of communication.
Speaker 1: No, it's not. It's a classic critique of foundationalism. If
you knew the if you knew what I'm talking about,
you know.
Speaker 2: That critique to say that it relies on our ability
to communicating.
Speaker 1: Oh so wait a minute, so now it relies on
communication skills.
Speaker 2: That's what you're saying, not me. You're saying that language
is required so that we know.
Speaker 1: What the word correct. Propositions that are true, that have true,
propositions that have truth value require language. Right, we are
assuming when do your propositions? Do they do they rely
on language?
Speaker 2: Yes? Of course, argument.
Speaker 1: Then they're not self evident. Thank you.
Speaker 2: That's so stupid.
Speaker 1: No, it's not the whole. This is like you want
to go read J. Jay Wood's epistemology book where he
makes this very argument that you think is stupid.
Speaker 2: I think it's absolutely how this is a word kit.
Speaker 1: Not No, you don't know about linguistic philosophy. I'm pointing
out to you what a grad student would point out
to somebody who's in a sophomore philosophy that you don't
realize the assumptions that are being made. Right, just like
when concrete kogie, when contique kog to listen, we.
Speaker 2: Both realize, we both realize that language is a tool
of communicating.
Speaker 1: You can call it. That is, how does that it
doesn't matter it's relying on communication and language, then it's
not self evident if it relies on another thing, whether
it's time, determination, predication, grammar, linguistic structure, all of those
things negate the idea that it is self evident. Because
it is relying on other things, it is no longer
properly properly can it be?
Speaker 2: Can it being of non existence? Green language?
Speaker 1: That has nothing to do with answering this critique?
Speaker 2: Can it being of can it? Being of non existence?
Speaker 1: Has nothing to doing of non language? A being of
non language sistence? A being of what is a being
of non I don't know what being a language?
Speaker 2: Do you know what a being of non existence is?
I don't you seem.
Speaker 1: A being of non existence is something incoherent?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 2: Because existence exists? Thank you? It is incoherence to say
that being.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is I'm trying to be.
Speaker 2: So finally we've gotten to the point where you were
accepting existence exists?
Speaker 1: I have Do you understand that you're not understanding what
the debate is. It's different accounts of that phrase. I
have no problem with the truth value.
Speaker 2: The debate is tag and you're just fucking.
Speaker 1: Tag is about worldview apologetics. That's the whole point and
the thing. Do you know what I mean when I
say something is when I say something is theory Layden.
Do you know what I'm saying?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 1: Well, according to according in epistemology, man, he keep saying
according to me, just in modern epistemology. Do you know
what I mean when I say that that it?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 2: If it's theory, Laden, I would I believe it's like
that there are ideas that predicate the concept. No without
looking at its best.
Speaker 1: Okay, So are you familiar with kuon and paradigm?
Speaker 2: Not? Not recently? I'm fucking I like my the last
time it took philosophy classes, like ten years ago, I'd
forgotten a lot.
Speaker 1: Right. So, So the whole point of Kun's paradigm is
that in uh, the world, in social discourse, in philosophy,
people don't realize that their whole set, their whole set
of beliefs are actually based on a web of beliefs
or an entire paradigm, and that all these things are
interlinked and interconnected. Against the term epistemic wholeism. And it's
kind of it's kind of similar to coherence theory. It's
not identical to coherence theory. But the idea that there's
no self evident basic non theory laid in propositions are truths.
And language is another example of this because language, for example,
a single word usually comes with a other set of
words that help inform that word, and there's nothing okay,
so in the same way, the same thing.
Speaker 2: It's kind of like the same thing.
Speaker 1: There cons are Well, I'm not a postmodernist, but Dreda
asked some of these questions. But more so relevant is
Wvickenstein because when he talked about language games, he didn't
mean that just playing games. What he meant was that
language is a funny thing because the way language works
is that, yes, it's flexible, and yes it can be
you know, you can use different symbols to denote the
same idea. But the point is rather that it is
systemic and it's it's a holistic thing. So how does
how does this apply to Because what it shows because
then listen because in the history of the debate about
self evident axioms, like the way that Descartes, for example,
said you know, I think right. So if Descartes says this,
what happens is that later philosophy critiques it on many
different grounds. For example, you get Kant saying that the
problem with this being self evident is that it presupposes
time and space determination, right because to say that I exist,
to say that I'm existing right now, which is a
right now, is a time determinant at the moment, at
this instant. Okay, but the argument has not proven time
as a metaphysical concept or reality yet, And so Kant
had a good critique that if it's properly basic, it
cannot rely on another proposition or another principle or another
belief that has not yet been demonstrated. That's the point.
Then you get people saying it also is hold on.
There's a couple more critiques that you get bertrand Russell
saying it's a non sequitor. The fact that you say
that you're an eye does not prove that you exist
in some metaphysical reality. We don't know that yet. Maybe
you do, but how do we know that. It necessarily
follows that you have some sort of ontological existence in
this world. We don't know that yet. So we all agree, yeah,
we do exist in this world. I agree with you.
But the point is that we got to have a
good account of these principles. You can't just give an
account that is arbitrary and at hawk and that's why
I reject all classical foundationalists of pistemology.
Speaker 2: So how does so the problem that I'm having here,
it's a conversation, debate or whatever, is I don't see
it's it seems you're saying, how do you justify existence
exist when it presupposes concept I guess, right, So that's.
Speaker 1: Kind of not just concepts, But I mean, I don't
know what kind.
Speaker 2: Of simplify that steel I'm trying to steal.
Speaker 1: Man, it presupposes a lot of things, and I've listed
a bunch of them, and I mean, I don't think
those things are just conceptual. I think they're actual ontological
structures and things that exist. But if you want to
call them concepts.
Speaker 2: Sure, right. But the issue that I have is in
almost all of those we we get to this position
where it's, well, how can those things be posited by
a being of non system?
Speaker 1: What does that mean? I don't know what you mean
by about God.
Speaker 2: I don't know, because you're you're the one that is
saying that that that there is this hole, there's this issue,
there's this possibility of existence not existing.
Speaker 1: Or I never said that. I said uncreated existence is
what God is, and we are created existence. I never
said non existence.
Speaker 2: By the virtue of arguing, I know you're doing an
internal critique, I'm not necessarily letting this claim down, right,
But what I mean is that if one is attempting
to argue that existence exists is false, then they must
believe it.
Speaker 1: I didn't argue that no exist. I didn't argue it's false.
I argue that you have not given an account of
the proposition in an epistemic sense, right.
Speaker 2: But this is the argument would be that if it
is impossible to argue against, then it must be true.
Speaker 1: But you have not shown that it's impossible to argue against.
And that's why I gave the kantient retort, which is
that just because it seems impossible to me does not
mean that it is ontologically the case.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, if if we're trying to, like, if
we're trying to make an argument from like a pismology
or something, I totally agree with you, right, Like we
could we could go out and observe reality and make
a claim is this is true? And you know we
have imperfect knowledge, and there is at some point, you know,
a paradigm something, and so like it's not it's not
necessarily proven to be true. It's like a balance of
probabilities that we assume to be true so that we
can function. The argument isn't epistemologically saying it is. So
what I'm saying is that it's impossible for one to
argue against and that is that you against existence because
one must exist in order.
Speaker 1: You're missing the whole, You're missing the point of the
retorts to things like the Kogito. The point of the
retorts is not to deny them. The point of the
retorts is to point out that you need good reasons
for why that's the case. I believe it is the case.
Right could say, you know, we I believe in the self.
I believe in identity over time. I believe in you know,
the external world. I believe in causation. I believe in
all these things. It's just that my account of those things,
and hence justification is a different account than the account
that you're giving. So when I use it, So let's
and that's what justification is about.
Speaker 2: Let's let's let's let's just say we're at an impasse.
You don't believe that my arguments are sufficient to justify Fine,
I'm okay with that. I don't want to I don't
want to beat that for so long that everyone is
fucking annoyed, which they probably already are. It's fine. So,
and you believe that an external world exists, So moving
on those, Moving on to that, let's move into your
worldview and why you believe that you have an appropriate
account of those things that my uh that my grounding fails.
Speaker 1: Right, So, if God exists, then we have a world
where there is a base of for metaphysical principles, epistemic principles,
laws of logic, critical thinking, moral absolutes ethical claims. Because
man has made the image of God, the world operates
on a regular fashion, and that it has divine providence
which assures the regularity of nature, which is the basis
of all science and empirical sense data. I have a
reasoning faculty, which I have by virtue of being made
in the image of God. And so I'm a little
g God who can reason about the world and make
decisions and do things, create things, right, I'm a little
creator because God is a creator. So for me the divine,
the existence of God and his self, disclosure about who
he is, and divine revelation is itself the basis for
how things like the preconditions or categories for the possibility
of knowledge are the case. So because God is omniscient,
because he has intentionality as being a person and not
an impersonal force, and because the world is external to
him and it's not identical to him, I can have
the ability to make these kinds of distinctions and set boundaries.
I can make, you know, I can do things in
the world because of that being made of the divine image,
and also the way that I go about predicating. You know, sentences, structure,
language structure, grammar, universals, numbers, those things exist outside of
the mere human empirical individual sense data examples because they
are grounded in a divine mind. This is called divine conceptualism,
which itself is omniscient, omnipresent, eternally. No, he's an idealist
and an empiricist idealist. I'm not arguing that at all.
I'm arguing the transcendental argument.
Speaker 2: Okay, I thought he was. The guy said, like God,
it's the observers solves that problem or whatever.
Speaker 1: He's an empirical idealist. He thinks that God is the
great mind and that the rest of us are just
other minds observing other ideas.
Speaker 2: So he believes that, Yeah, I thought that.
Speaker 1: No, No, I'm not saying that all reality is is right, Okay,
So no, I'm not an empirical idealist like Berkeley. I'm
arguing for Christian theism that there's a creator and there's
the created. So fundamental reality fundamentally is two different things,
created and uncreated.
Speaker 2: Okay. So, so things exist outside of the mind, You're
You're not You're not like a Berkeley like we we
we agree.
Speaker 1: That there's an external world, the substances substances of course.
Speaker 2: Okay, okay, So why is it you're saying God is necessary?
Where where are you making that? I heard a lot
of God.
Speaker 1: I would say God is these things. God is necessary
in the sense that he's the only net He's the
necessary justification for the transcendental categories that make knowledge possible.
Only that type of a being could ground things like universals.
Speaker 2: So, and I'm not trying to be an assholehen I say,
I'm just I'm genuinely trying to get your position here.
How is this not like a God of the gaps art?
How is this not just well, well, I believe God
exists because only God could fix all of these problems
that I see in the philosophy. Therefore, you know, one
and done, we're good.
Speaker 1: Because it's a much stronger than a claim than God
of the gaps. It's actually saying that any possible predication
assumes transcendent categories, and transcendental categories assume God, so it's
much strong. It's not just saying that wherever I see
a gap, I'm gonna stick God in. It's actually saying
that you couldn't make a sentence in a coherent justif
all the way without God's existence.
Speaker 2: How so, where are you getting that? Where you're getting
that from?
Speaker 1: That?
Speaker 2: No? No, no, no, yeah, I'm saying like where, well,
sure like you I can, we can. All makes false?
So my ax, I'm saying, when you say that God
is necessary for any transcendental category, where are you getting
that from?
Speaker 1: Because there is no other being that could justify the
transcendental categories by definition by what they are.
Speaker 2: So how does God justify those trans.
Speaker 1: Because He's the only being that could ground them? By
the hy virtue of who and what he is I
listed earlier, because he's omniscient, because of the omnies, because
he's excuse me, omnipresent, because he has personal person, not
an intentionality that gives us a basis for things like
telos in the world UH and also things like causation.
So without God's existence, you couldn't have a justification for
uh universal telos teleology, nor could you have a justification
for causation.
Speaker 2: But I still haven't. You haven't answered my question out.
You haven't.
Speaker 1: You've just said is because the of the rules, because
of the impossibility of the contrary, which is the internal
critique of the other world views or your world worldview,
and the the other argument, the other half of.
Speaker 2: It is you said earlier that that's not an argument.
Speaker 1: You can't just the other part of the the other correct.
And that's why if I only had an internal critique,
I would agree with you that my position wouldn't achieve justification.
That's why you also have to give the positive case
for why the trinitarian deity is the one that does
justifying ground though right within that paradigm, within the Christian paradigm,
it makes sense why there would be rationality.
Speaker 2: Can you make that argument because as of right now,
we're kind of on equal footing.
Speaker 1: The argument, right because in the Christian paradigm, right where
God exists, it's a trinity. He creates man in his image.
I'm saying that the worldview of Christianity makes a coherent
sense of why there would be things like universals because
for in this case, God is omniscient and there are
divine ideas, and the universals are grounded in the divine mind.
If you don't have a divine mind, there's no basis
for universals, and thus there's no basis for predication.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm not, but I'm not actually hearing. You're just
saying the Christian doctrine says so.
Speaker 1: No, it's a paradigm argument, and that's the argument, is
that it's a comparison of one paradigm versus the other.
If my paradigm gives an account for it and yours doesn't,
then this paradigm is correct.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm asking for the account like you're just you're
just restating.
Speaker 1: The account is the Christian paradigm compared to your paradigm.
That's the account.
Speaker 2: But we can't be compared to my paradigm, because.
Speaker 1: Of course the argument is the argument is comparison, like.
Speaker 2: The same reason that you said that mine is is.
Speaker 1: Not the argument, No, it's not. You're missing the point.
So you're assuming that the argument for the argumentation at
a paradigm level is not the same thing. It's the
argumentation on a mundane first order level. So this is
a meta level argument. So it's an argus and about
the possibility of arguments. So if my position can give
an account for within its paradigm, how it's possible to
have laws of logic, universals, metaphysical categories, et cetera, et cetera,
et cetera, all the things I've been listing, and your
position doesn't give an account for it, then my position
is correct.
Speaker 2: So you're what is given an accounting, so that there
is one What is the argument?
Speaker 1: The argument is that I need universals, I need these categories.
God is the only possible being in Christian revelation has
given that disclosure as to who God is. Divine conceptualism
grounds the universal categories. How's that?
Speaker 2: But again it gets suspect, like the God of the gaps.
Speaker 1: It's not God of the gaps. It's a God of
the argument is all predication, not God of the gaps.
That's what you're missing. So God of the gaps is
this idea that whenever there's a problem, I can just
kind of stick God in there. This is a way
stronger claim that all predication requires a certain type of
world and certain types of transit categories. And I'm saying
that to how the transcendal categories require some kind of
metaphysical justification and grounding itself. The only type of being
who could possibly ground those in a coherent way is
our God.
Speaker 2: That's the argument, my argument, And I want you to
tell me why what I'm saying is false so that
I can better understand, which is this stance exists because
it's impossible to argue against it. Right that a being
being you know, making argumentation exists in some pass to
argue against their own existence, would would would negate it
would be false, like it would just be false, It
would be it would be like a performative contradiction minimum.
And then your argument is when I'm asking you, like,
how do you justify that God solves this problem? Is
that it's impossible to argue against it because you need
these other categories. Sounds like we're making the exist.
Speaker 1: If I said again, if I only did, if I
only did an internal critique, I would agree with you.
That doesn't necessarily mean that my position is correct. But
if I also offer a counter worldview to you which
does ground and give an account for universal categories, et cetera,
all those things that I listed, then that's the positive side,
and that's where it gets a justification.
Speaker 2: But but but I can do the same thing right,
which is what existence exists? Identity?
Speaker 1: No, you didn't. You didn't give a justification. You didn't
give any kind of justification.
Speaker 2: You just asserted, well, we we got bogged down, and
existence exists quite a bit.
Speaker 1: I never heard a justification argument at all.
Speaker 2: So existence exists would be like axium one axium two
would be the law.
Speaker 1: You didn't prove your axioms on.
Speaker 2: Well, you haven't proven yours. You're just saying God exists.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but I'm not a classical foundationalist. You're trying to
hold me to your standards. I don't have that same system.
Speaker 2: Just just God. Must God adhere to logic or can
God be logical?
Speaker 1: God is the basis for logic?
Speaker 2: Is my argument, So so can God contradict?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 2: Okay, So if God can't contradict, then we agree regardless
of whatever.
Speaker 1: What that doesn't mean the account is so again you
keep confusing agreement with account of the agreement. I have
a different agreement.
Speaker 2: So we can move forward in the argument.
Speaker 1: But it doesn't work because you're missing. But the reason
that doesn't work to move forward is that you're not understanding.
It's two rival paradigms trying to give an account for
the same types of things. And my argument is that
my paradigm can give an account and your paradigm cannot.
And not only can your paradigm not, your paradigm cannot
make knowledge possible. It's even stronger than God of the gaps.
Speaker 2: How the fuck? How is knowledge impossible under my.
Speaker 1: Paradigm because you cannot give a justification for the assertions.
That's the point. If you don't get the justification, then
you don't get the assertions given to you. That's what
philosophy does.
Speaker 2: Okay, So it's imp I mean obviously knowledge, it says.
Speaker 1: So again you keep saying obviously, And I don't grant
you any of those things you have not you have
not yet proven that anything is self evident, you just
assert it.
Speaker 2: This is what happens when you interrupt people you start.
Speaker 1: That's because the whole argument was continually based on you
just asserting and believing in self evident principles. And I mean,
I can give you. You want to go into another with.
Speaker 2: Your own argument of tag, your own argument of tag.
Speaker 1: It's not a classical foundational.
Speaker 2: Necessary conditions, right, So.
Speaker 1: That's not what self evidence is. That's not what by okay, brother,
that's not what self evidence is. So you're trying to
hold me to a criteria external to my world viewer system.
And it doesn't work.
Speaker 2: I said, knowledge exists, and then you jump down my throat.
Speaker 1: I don't grant you that. So again, what is that
you don't understand that it doesn't that doesn't apply to
the men.
Speaker 2: You won't even agree with your own argument.
Speaker 1: No, I have a different account. It's a different account.
I'm actually it's a different account.
Speaker 2: Man, does or does not your argument hinge upon the
fact that there are that knowledge, all these.
Speaker 1: Things, but those all of those words, these are necessary,
All of those words are conditioned by my paradigm, your career.
Speaker 2: How am I? How am I supposed to have a conversation.
Speaker 1: The point is that you can't have. It's not it's
a debate, and that's why you're being held to the
standards of critical thinking and logic and you don't get
to assert things.
Speaker 2: Hold on, hold on, relax. How am I supposed to
have any meaningful debate if you if I make a
statement and you immediately interrupt said statement, and that statement
is even part of your own.
Speaker 1: Argument, because come on, because it's not getting to an
understanding the point of what the debate is. You don't
understand the difference between like I.
Speaker 2: Said, obviously knowledge exists. I said three words.
Speaker 1: I don't agree, I don't gain. You don't understand. It
doesn't matter because I have a different account. So understand
that this is like the word. Remember when we're talking
about the words account. A different account. It's it doesn't
matter how many words it is, it's a totally different account,
no matter what, no matter what, yes, everything in the paradigm.
I said that you haven't given a justification, which I
don't think you understand what the word means. Still for
the assertions of self evidence, and my position does not
believe in self evidence or ad hoc assertions, So you
have the burden of proof on you if you start
your position and your system with that, with self evidence
and things being properly basic.
Speaker 2: We I'm not allowed to apparently make.
Speaker 1: What you We've been talking, tinying for the last hour.
What do you mean?
Speaker 2: I keep trying to get through it, and you keep
just going back to existence, exist it over to yours,
but you never just I'm trying again, So I'm shifting
over to yours. We can do an internal critique of yours,
and I'm trying.
Speaker 1: But your internal critique is not internal. It's your system. Brother,
you're asking me, You're you're critiquing me from classical foundationalism,
and that's not my system. It doesn't work.
Speaker 2: Oh listen, I'm trying to I'm I'm I'm here genuinely
listening to you as you lay out large arguments trying
to steal men your you're not giving me the same
grace it's making just being able to even have a
debate or okay, you go right. So I'm trying to
understand right where it is that why it is that
when you plug God into the equat all, that fixes not.
Speaker 1: Just plugging God in, it's pointing out that the paradigm
itself is coherent system, has explanatory power, and gives a
justification for human knowledge. Because it's a paradigm level argument,
I am not plugging in. This is why I can
already tell where the error is and what you're assessing.
You're assessing that my position is God of gaps, And
for the third time, it's a much stronger argument than
God of the gaps, which is that all predication and
knowledge requires the transcendental categories my position. I know you
don't accept the argument or believe that what I'm saying
is necessarily the case, But the argument is that in
my worldview or paradigm, there is a coherent, sensible account
of why there would be the self, the external world logic,
et cetera. That is contrasted to your entire worldview and
system in paradigm, which cannot give an account for even
the transcendental categories themselves. That's the force of the argument.
Speaker 2: I'm genuinely not trying to accuse you of.
Speaker 1: It's a it's a meta level argument. You're trying to
argue on a non meta level. That's the point. That's
the problem we're having.
Speaker 2: My problem is is that and you say that it's
somehow false to say you plug gotten, but I'm maybe
maybe I'm just dumb.
Speaker 1: Like you know, what a meta level argument versus a
first order argument is.
Speaker 2: I mean, like meta would be the the meta would
be like the thing of itself, as opposed to like
the minute ship.
Speaker 1: Right. So, in other word, like logic itself, how is
logic itself logical? Or how do we know that it works? Right,
versus you know, a more mundane claim like and you're correct,
I agree? Right? So like if I said, well, you know,
does Bill Cosby live next door to me? I don't know.
I'll have to go, you know, empirically investigate it, right,
Debating the status of logic itself is way more devastating
and important and more fundamental to my worldview.
Speaker 2: No, I agree, I okay.
Speaker 1: So that's why this debate is a meta level worldview
level debate.
Speaker 2: I didn't, I didn't. I didn't disagree with you on that, okay.
Speaker 1: So then the retorts that you're giving are not understanding
that in my system, God is the justification for the
transcenal categories, because he's the only possible being who could
ground them. And you're saying, how do we know that
what's the justification the system itself in terms of revealed
theism is the justification in my paradigm. So you could say, well,
I don't accept that. That's fine, but yeah, I just.
Speaker 2: Like I just I'm trying to see I'm trying. So
I said, if you plug God in and you took.
Speaker 1: Them, it's not plugging God in. It's stronger than for
the third time, the reason you said God of the
gaps twice, and I'm pointing out that it's way stronger
argument or claim than God of the gaps. God of
the Gap says, where I see a problem, I stick
God in there to try to make sense of it.
This is more fundamental than that. This is saying all
human knowledge and predication requires the existence of our God,
who grounds the transfer the category.
Speaker 2: How are we justifying that it must necessary.
Speaker 1: By the impossibility of the opposing worldview not even being
able to give an account for anything. It's a disjunctive argument,
but the only.
Speaker 2: Way that so, the way that you're you're able to
say knowledge exists because and I had I don't have
this God to to.
Speaker 1: Solve that, to solve the basis for the transcenal categories.
So you appeal to things like being is being, existence
is existence, things that are just supposed to be self evident.
And that's why I went through deconstructing how that's not
self evident.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't, I disagree. I'm trying to. I'm I'm
trying to get to a point where we can where
we can have this conversation. But I feel like we're
kind of just at a point where we just both disagreements.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is this is God solves.
Speaker 2: I disagree that, like just plugging in this concept that like, oh,
well God justifies everything and therefore you know if there
are any issues there.
Speaker 1: So your answer is just existence exists. Yeah, I mean
like that would be the fundamental So can I say so?
Could I say so? If I come to it, No,
it's not your argument. Your argument was My.
Speaker 2: Argument is existence exists. And we're going, well, you can't
justify that, and I say, well, it's impossible to arguement.
And then your argument is God exists. Can I say, well,
can you justify that? And say, well, you can't argue against.
Speaker 1: That because all of the things I said twice, I
said twice, you're not listening. I said twice that if
I only gave it in, if I only gave an
internal critique, you would be correct. I already said this twice.
That's why you also counter with the positive case explaining
the paradigm in the worldview, because you're debating, we're debating
things like logic and existence in this language and this
kind of stuff that are within the paradigm, within the system,
so they're going to be conditioned by the systems. That's
why the transcendental argument is literally saying that all argumentation
at this level, at this fundamental level, is a paradigm
level argument because there is no self evident principle. So
every time you try to critique me on your classical
foundationalist basis, you're proving my point and not understanding that
within the paradigm justification makes sense because God literally is
the only being who could ground those things. For example,
let's let's let's make it let's make it clear. How
could I put this into an either or either the
world is at a universal sense disteleological, or there is tellos,
there is purpose, there is teleology operant in the world.
And maybe you could come up with some mixed third
position where it's a little bit of both or something
if you had. But in this disjunctive there's only two
and perhaps three options for an entire worldview if you
if you answer either way on this, you're going to
be led to my position. And that's the that's the
force of the transit an argument. You can take anything causation, teleology, pencils,
predication and make the transcendental argument.
Speaker 2: How am I so, Well, then let's walk through it.
Let's make it super simple. Either blue T shirts exist
or blue T shirts don't exend.
Speaker 1: You know, I gave it this theological versus a teleological
world right, that was my grass.
Speaker 2: So either meaning exists or meaning doesn't exist.
Speaker 1: Well, it's purpose in the world at a at a
grand scale, or there is no purpose in a grand scale.
Speaker 2: Okay, I was using meaning and purpose, you know, simplify
the argument, right like, So, either meaning exists or meaning
doesn't exitt and you're saying that.
Speaker 1: It's at at a universal level, not at a subjective level.
Speaker 2: Okay, So that yees, so I would so meaning at
a universal level doesn't exit. We'll take that. We'll take that.
My argument would be meaning does not exist at a
universal level for for all all beings.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Then then if that's the universal status of
that proposition or claim. If that is the case, then
every particular case or status of so called meaning is
also encapsulated under the ultimate non meaning. So every argument
you make is based on meaninglessness.
Speaker 2: And how does God? How does? How does? How does
the existence of a non or uncreated existence?
Speaker 1: Because God is because God is personal and intentional, and
intentionality means that there is a meaningful world at a universal,
grand scale.
Speaker 2: Okay, So so essentially where it's like a.
Speaker 1: No, it's not at all, It's not, it's not. It's
a transcendental argument for teleology.
Speaker 2: Why do you know? I was saying, So it's it's
it's similar to like if God doesn't exist and everything
is permitted.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's a boil down ethical version of it.
But I'm making another. I'm making more of a metaphysical
argument about purpose and teleology and intentionality that the universe
does not at a grand scale have that then than
what we're The only other option is what's called accidentalism
or dysteleology. And if that's the case, then hold on.
If that's the case, then knowledge is no longer possible.
Speaker 2: Why is knowledge because let's.
Speaker 1: Because now everything is accidental. Now everything is accidental. I'm
going to answer question. Because everything is now accidental, including
every action of knowledge, is an accident. And thus there's
no laws of thought or laws of reasoning which are
necessary for the possibility of meaningful discourse. You would negate
the possibility laws you.
Speaker 2: Don't mean, you don't need it. You don't need a
god for that exist.
Speaker 1: There are no immaterial laws. You keep saying that, But
there's what's the justification for immaterial laws if everything is
an accident?
Speaker 2: I so first, let's let's go buy this piece. So
I recognize that people want to discover meaning in their life.
But why okay, hold on, why is it that meaning
is a necessary condition for the universe? Why must the
universe have meaning?
Speaker 1: Because to have justified knowledge you need intentionality, purpose and
laws of thought and grammar, and those things cannot exist
in a world that is ultimately, purely and totally accidental.
Speaker 6: So well, yeah, well okay, So if if if, if
things have identities right, like a like a like a
rabbiting system, and that is you know, rabbit names, that
thing has it's we can describe what it is.
Speaker 2: Why is God a necessary element or a conscious being.
Speaker 1: Able because if the totality of existence is because I
because it's not justified. That's why, let me.
Speaker 2: Finish, let me find it. So why is it that
I can see, like why is God a necessary element
for me to see a rabbit that is named Steve
and perceive the behaviors that the rabbit again, the things
the rabbit does.
Speaker 1: The fact that you have the knowledge does not equate
to you justifying the knowledge. That's what this whole debate
has been about. Justification is not pragmatism. It's not you
just having it. It's not you asserting it. It's not
you believing in self evident assertions. It's you giving an
account for the things that make it possible. So you
can say, well, I have so it wouldn't be able
to justify them. That's so if you say, well, I
believe that I've found meaning and predicating about my pet rabbits,
and it gives me the solace I get warm feelies
over it. In the grand scheme, In the Grand scheme,
when you die and you go into the nothingness, that
is gone, and so it has no relevance or reference
to the universe as a whole and so ultimately, even
though you might have subjectively felt like there was meaning there,
there is no meaning beyond your own personal subjective creating
of meaning. So there is no te lose in your position.
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 2: But why does that matter?
Speaker 1: Because knowledge can no longer be epistemically justified if the
universe is accidental on disteleological. If I live a life,
and how does that get you justification?
Speaker 2: Hold on, if I live a life and I die, right,
and then the world moves on without me for a
million years? Right, whatever my actions are had some effect.
Speaker 3: On the world.
Speaker 2: But why does like why? What? What is this you're
you're positing that a grand vision or meaning is necessary.
Speaker 1: It's called accidentalism, just disteleological.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: This is actually a fair famous argument. Right. If the
universe had a grand scale is accidental and distillological, then
by necessity, every particular person, object, event, and thing within
is also accidental, and thus there is no basis for
logic knowledge in a justi victory sense, because there are
no laws of thought because they are also accidental and
distiological and with no purpose. Okay, So, if the grand
scale universal is purposeless, all the particular parts are purposeless.
Speaker 2: But it doesn't. It doesn't actually answer the question. You're
just saying because it doesn't have propose like we can
we can.
Speaker 1: Look at again for the third time to have the
laws of no hold on for the laws of thought. No,
I'm not interrupting for having the laws of thought.
Speaker 2: Let me explain it.
Speaker 1: Let me explain it for having You can't have language
without the laws of thought.
Speaker 2: Oh my god, Oh my god, my god. Brother, I'm
letting you make your full argument and then taking that argument.
Speaker 1: You can't have language. It is very come on, man.
Speaker 2: Okay, So I'm trying to like, I'm not like, I'm not.
I'm asking you a question and I'm not getting an answer.
What I'm getting is that what I'm getting is you're
appealing to the people's desire for purpose and meaning. I'm
asking where did I ever say?
Speaker 1: Where did I ever say that that's totally not true?
I said, you're not, but you're not.
Speaker 2: I said, you're doing by not actually answering the question,
which is why.
Speaker 1: The very beginning point was about the universe as a
whole having either a teleological intentionality purpose behind it or
it's purely accidental at a grand scale. That was what
I said very clear, and there's only two options here,
or if you want to say there's a mix, you
could have a third option. And you said, well, but
how does that mean I can't justify knowledge? And I said,
because if the universe is purely accidental, all the so
called laws within it, including the laws of thought, the
laws of logic, mathematical laws, are also thus accidental and
have no purpose. And so your arguments right now have
no purpose by your own admission.
Speaker 2: If so, you're saying that purpose and meaning is required
for let's saying.
Speaker 1: A world with no purpose and no meaning cannot give
rise to universal.
Speaker 2: Maybe I need a better definition of what you mean
when you're making the arguments like teleology, meaning, et cetera.
Like what you mean in this regards.
Speaker 1: The universe as a whole in all of its parts
have a directed, intentional purpose or they do not.
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, like a heart pumps blut, the purpose of
the heart is why is God necessary for the for
the heart to pump blood?
Speaker 1: The justification for tilos in a universal sense requires some
universal being or thing to ground it and justify it.
That's the argument.
Speaker 2: So okay, well, why is God necessary for that?
Speaker 1: God is the only being who could give an account
for that.
Speaker 2: That's not answering my question.
Speaker 1: It is just you don't like to answer what other
being could?
Speaker 2: Why is God necessary.
Speaker 1: Because he's the only type of being who could give
an account of heart?
Speaker 2: Pump, I can give it a I can give an
account of.
Speaker 1: But you already admit it because your account. Your account
is not purpose, Your account is not universally Your accounts
are subjective. Your account is subjective and not universally true.
That's the point.
Speaker 2: So you're saying that another person could have an interpretation
of the heart.
Speaker 1: No, I'm asking about your assertion of universals now, and
you don't have a justification for how there's universals.
Speaker 2: I would depend on It would depend upon what we
mean when we're talking about like the purpose of inanimate objects.
Speaker 1: Right now, you said that this is Is it true?
Is it universally true?
Speaker 2: That that the if we're talking about the specific identity, Yes,
it is universally true.
Speaker 1: Okay, how do you have knowledge of the universal? How
do you have knowledge of universals? As a individual, finite
empirical being.
Speaker 2: I have consciousness. Consciousness gives me.
Speaker 1: How does having consciousness prove the existence of universals.
Speaker 2: Well, consciousness is alitional, is what? It's volitional, it's intentional,
it's like it's it's like the consciousness.
Speaker 1: Okay, you keep starting a certainly, what is the proof
of the justification that you have these things? You keep
asserting it? We can I come to the debate and
just say, Can I come to the debate and say,
God just is?
Speaker 2: I feel like that's kind of what you're doing.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: I made a transcendent argument which you just don't understand,
and you're coming to debate and saying what existence just is?
And it just is?
Speaker 2: Well, you're I fail to see the distinction between I
really do, but you'll just say that it's like I'm
dumb or something. It's fine.
Speaker 1: Again, the distinction is that you're not justifying all of
these assertions and beliefs, and you have a bunch of
dogmas that you've not justified. You on your paradigm, on
your paradigm. Okay, well, so is everything? You said, everything
is an accident, everything is without purpose. And you said,
but in my personal life, I can say that the
heart beats. Okay, and then you said that that's universe.
That's you said, that's universally true. You don't have a
justification for universals because universal No, it's not. You can
say that, but you've contradicted it by saying that the
universe as a whole is also purposeless. That means that
your universal claims are also purposeless.
Speaker 2: Again, this is why I asked you to clarify on
your meanings of like purposeless purposefulness.
Speaker 1: There's no purpose he los to anything. That means your
arguments are no have no.
Speaker 2: Purpose when we take you're so frustrated.
Speaker 1: Because you're losing at this point, it's a very obvious points.
If everything is meaninglessness, then your arguments are meaningless.
Speaker 2: Brother, brother for the loss up whining?
Speaker 1: Do we don't care about your whining?
Speaker 2: I know that you don't care about my learning. It's
because you're a rude that's not right.
Speaker 1: Regardless, So everything is purposelessness, everything is meaningless, purposelesslessness. But
your universal truth You said that, yes, you did. You
said the universe was purposeless. You said that you are
you said at a grand scale, it.
Speaker 2: Was you gave. You gave an argument that's said the
option a option be potentially a mixed You said that
the two I said, and you said that these will
necessitate God when we follow them through. So I said, sure,
I said, and not meaning that I am saying the
universe's purposeful, it's meaningless or whatever.
Speaker 1: Right, Like, but there's only two options on this question,
bad faith, dude, nobody is buying your bullshit.
Speaker 2: I'm not being I'm not being bad faith.
Speaker 1: When you say, if there's only two options, then that
must be your positions, right, I say.
Speaker 2: Let's all right, let's pick one and let's follow your logic.
Speaker 1: Is that not your positions? Is it not your position?
Speaker 2: I don't know that. I don't I would, I would
genuinely and honestly have to think about it.
Speaker 1: Okay, then you're not in a position to give a
justification for universal claims by that admission.
Speaker 2: I'm not in a position to give universal claims because
I don't know whether or not one specific claim.
Speaker 1: No, because of the because of intentionality and tilos. If
the universe is universally purposeless and meaningless, and now you're saying, well,
I don't actually believe that, then you are arguing in
bad faith.
Speaker 2: How am I arguing in bad faiths? Because I don't
like I would say.
Speaker 1: Like, because there's only two options in this question. For
there's only two options for anyone. The whole chat is.
Speaker 2: You're over.
Speaker 7: You are, this is, this is I'm not gonna sho you.
Nobody's buying the bullshit man, and I'm not lying. You
literally contradicted yourself again.
Speaker 2: No, listen again. Your claim now is that it is
talk about medical.
Speaker 1: You said the universe is purposelessness, and now you're walking
it back because you got repeated. You're walking it back
because you got repeated again.
Speaker 2: No, I can't two options. I said, let's explore this option.
It is not bad.
Speaker 1: There's only two. There's your cook You're done, You're melting down,
you're spurging out.
Speaker 2: Oh my gosh, Oh.
Speaker 1: My gosh, dude.
Speaker 2: Brother. Yeah, I'm just I'm I'm I will I guess
I will finish with this. The idea that you call
someone bad faith because.
Speaker 1: You're the one who bitched about me being bad face
the entire time.
Speaker 2: Okay, so we're starting the idea that you would call
someone bad faith because you present an argument and the
person listens to it, takes notes on it.
Speaker 1: And then walks it back when they see a problem. Correct,
that's bad faith. Yeah, you affirmed, you affirmed universal meaninglessness.
Speaker 2: We can, we can, we can do this where you
eventually act like an adult.
Speaker 1: You affirmed universal meaninglessness on apostle and position that only
has two options, and now you're saying I don't necessarily
agree with that, Well, then do you accept that there
is universal memis? No, I'm not lying. I don't have
to lie in a person who has bombed an entire
debate for two hours. Why would I have to lie?
You have crashed and burned, dude, I'm not lying about you.
You're a terrible debater.
Speaker 2: Objectively, I getting that this is a debate game for you.
Speaker 1: No, it's not a game. You crashed and burned miserably.
But I entertained the entire discussion because I'm happy to
explain the arguments to you. Oh my gosh, Oh my gosh,
Oh my gosh. Can you just make your arguments without whiny?
You whining bitch this whole time?
Speaker 2: Yes, that is that is true. I have complained quite
a lot.
Speaker 1: Yes, whining and bitching because you can't deal with the arguments.
You would rather whine and bitch about actually deal with
the arguments.
Speaker 2: No, it's just because you're just so and it's so
difficult to have a conversation.
Speaker 1: You're in a feminist man. So I'm gonna be I'm
gonna be childish with you. So how's that?
Speaker 2: I'm I'm sure, brother, Uh whatever whatever makes okay? I am. Yeah.
So again I did not say any Again, I will reaffirm,
you know, I don't know. I'd have to think about
many of the concept.
Speaker 1: Maybe in a debate to say that I don't know.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: Is that a good sign in a debate, to be like,
I don't know, Let me walk it back. I don't know.
Speaker 2: Actually, I think I think that's a really good sign
of someone that's actually being good faith as opposed to you. Oh,
you're you're searching for a dub as opposed to So.
Speaker 1: I don't know. Let me debate a topic. Let me
walk it back and admit that I don't know.
Speaker 2: I won't walk it back anything.
Speaker 1: You affirm that. You affirmed that the universe is purposeless.
Everybody heard you.
Speaker 2: I asked. I did an internal critique. I said, why
must there be purposes?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 1: No, no, Now, now you're alive because you did explicitly
verbally say fine, as purposes. I'll go with that.
Speaker 2: Yes, fine, I'll go with that. Yes, that is saying
for the meaning for the for the sake of continuing
the argument for it.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter that you walk it back and say
that it's not your position, which would mean it's in
bad faith. If there's only two options, Dude, I I I.
Speaker 2: Who chat?
Speaker 1: You lost? You're done walking back. Everyone heard you affirm discileology.
Everyone heard you affirm it. I don't.
Speaker 2: I don't know how to continue this conversation.
Speaker 1: Right, because you exactly.
Speaker 2: It's not a matter of crashing and burning. I made
the mistake. I find it engaged honestly with a piece with.
Speaker 1: A piece, right, So now it's all personal. When I
keep it on the topic, you make it personal. All
you do this whole time was wine until the land.
I said, you're a soy man. You talk NonStop shit
about me, calling me a pussy. I bring you on here.
You crash and burn and have a melt down because
you can't answer basic philosophical questions.
Speaker 2: Man, I agree that that is your interpretation.
Speaker 1: No, that's just everyone's interpretation, because that's what happened.
Speaker 2: Fair enough. You know, you win some, you lose some.
Maybe one day I can, you know, learn more about
the more, learn more about these arguments and debate it
with somebody that's interestly.
Speaker 1: So you're admitting that you don't know the topic. That's
a good admission. I appreciate that.
Speaker 2: Well. I well, obviously I would admit that there are
aspects of any argumentation from other people that you don't know,
like what kind of narcissism?
Speaker 1: No, I mean actual, I mean basically, I mean basically,
you've had three debates now with people on our side
of this, and you've not done any work to understand epistemology.
You've done nothing, so you're not the typical lazy libertarian
komer man who doesn't actually study the positions. You haven't
progressed against. After Andrew, after Jim, Bob and me, you've
made no progress at all in this topic.
Speaker 2: This is so silly. I attempted my ability, you know,
to to bring for the argument.
Speaker 1: All you have is to call names. You've had no
I let you talk for hours on end here today,
fair enough, and you made a bunch of bad arguments,
and you're whining and melting down because your arguments are
piss poor. They're sophomore level I have.
Speaker 2: I think that that is silly for you to say
that I'm whining because my arguments are bad.
Speaker 1: It's a reflection technique, and when a person's crashing that
they start whining and bitching about the other person.
Speaker 2: No, I'm just I'm I just can't get my arguments
out like it took me.
Speaker 1: You got tons of bull you got a lot of
bullshit out. We heard all, we heard your stuff, and
we know after two hours is not going to get
much better.
Speaker 2: Fair enough, fair enough, Well, I appreciate the opportunity to
come here. Regardless of whether not I will, I will
recant my position that you are fully and holy you know,
a pussy or a coward in terms of debating, which
I had said earlier, because it felt very fucked up
that you have not brought on actual libertarians and only discussed.
Speaker 1: Nobody cares what you think an actual libertarian is or
no true scotsman. So we don't care about that. Well,
I mean, at least I don't know who you I
don't care who you think is real.
Speaker 2: I know, I know, I know, without God, words have
no meaning.
Speaker 1: No, I just don't care what you think the real
libertarian is. Who's the lorilla libertarian?
Speaker 2: You anyone, anyone that legitimately and fully follows through on
the non aggression principles.
Speaker 1: Which is not an aught, even though it is all right,
which is ant, but it's not an not because it's
an axiom, but it's also an a right exactly you
want to do super chats or not?
Speaker 2: No, no, I'm good, but I again, like I said,
I'll about out now, but I just wanted to say
thank you for bringing me on and again, if you'll
let me get it out, I do recance my position
that you were adyss here, that you had pissed me off,
but not bringing on really obviously you do. So there's that.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: I'm a Fabian liberty. You can find me pretty much.
Speaker 1: And I've got his channel linked in the chat in
the show description. If anybody wants to check out his material,
even if we have a heated disagreement and debate, I'm
gonna give you the links to the people so you
can follow him. Mister Kool eight five dollars, have a
blessed day. I appreciate your work. Now I'm going to
open it up to people who want to call in.
People want to make points, they want to make some objections.
We got some super chats here I'm gonna go to
but before we do that, I'm gonna have to go
to get another coffee and I'm gonna have to get
some water. So let me remind you that we have
a show sponsor, and that sponsor is right here, and
I will be right back. So people on ex Twitter,
you won't be able to hear the ad, but I
will be right back. So don't go anywhere.
Speaker 4: I'm going to put you on something crazy real quick.
Most of these zoomer Jimbros are consuming macro guzzling synthetic
dyes and synthetic sweeteners on the daily. They don't even
know it. Goofy af. There's nothing great about that. Do
not listen any further unless you are an Alpha or
Sigma male. This is important and there could be consequences.
There's a new certified Sigma male pre workout powder for
sigmas only. It is guaranteed to empower you to dominate
your co workers, fire your boss, aggressively, gamble, or invade
a small village. Chad mode stands out from the crowd
by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners, and dyes. We've even
avoided so called natural flavors, which are actually not natural
at all, ensuring a clean and effective formula. Experience the
pure goodness of chad Mode colored with organic blue spy
rolina extract, organic lemon cherry, and organic maple crystals. Forget
synthetic caffeine made in a sketchy Chinese lab. Embrace the
natural power of organic green coffee bean extract which will
get your mind going and pump you up to the max.
Chad Mode is made in America with all clean ingredients,
the first clean pre workout of its kind. Why are
these people adding synthetic sweeteners to every single pre workout
when there are many studied downsides to consuming nasty fake sucralose.
Each dose of chad Mode contains the kick of a
cup and a half of coffee, delivering a surge of energy,
alongside essential vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and herbal extracts. Chad
Mode will allow you to fire your boss and dominate
anyone who opposes you. Chad Mode will make you more
dominant in your daily life, so proceed with caution. It's
as simple as mixing one or two scoops of our
fine powder into water or juice, providing you with a delicious,
energizing beverage. Featuring a burst of sweet organic fruit flavor.
Chad Mode will give you the extra edge you desperately crave.
Speaker 1: Don't miss out.
Speaker 4: Secure your supply of chad Mode on TikTok shop with
a limited time, massive discount. Elevate your workouts and supercharge
your days. Chad Mode not for your average jimbrozoomer who
consumes synthetic blue dyes on the daily. Buy on the
TikTok shop now with a massive discount provided by TikTok
for a very limited time. Buy now while this is
still available, or go to chalk dot com and use
code in caption. Chad Mode has been flying off the
shelves because it's the first of its kind, certified for
Alpha males only. Do not buy if you are a Beta,
We will refund your money. I'm gonna put you on
something crazy real quick. Most of these Zoomer Jimbros are
consuming macro guzzling synthetic dyes and synthetic sweeteners on the daily.
They don't even know it. Goofy af. There's nothing great
about that. Do not listen any further unless you are
an Alpha or Sigma male. This is important and there
could be consequences there's a new certified Sigma Male pre
workout powder for Sigmas only. It is guaranteed to empower
you to dominate your co workers, fire your boss, aggressively, gamble,
or invade a small village. Chad Mode stands out from
the crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners, and dyes.
We've even avoided so called natural flavors which are actually
not natural at all, ensuring a clean and effective formula.
Experience the pure goodness of chad Mode colored with organic
blue spirolina extract, organic lemon cherry, and organic maple crystals.
Forget synthetic caffeine made in a sketchy Chinese lab. Embrace
the natural power of organic green coffee bean extract, which
will get your mind going and pump you up to
the max. Chad Mode is made in America with all
clean ingredients, the first clean pre workout of its kind.
Why are these people adding synthetic sweetness to every single
pre workout when there are many studied downsides to consume.
Speaker 1: All Right, fresh coffee, got me some purple soaurus rex.
Speaker 4: I'm gonna put you on something crazy, real quick. Most
of these Zuma jimbros are consuming macro guzzling.
Speaker 1: Got me a little bit of pure. Now, some of
y'all might think this is kool aid. This isn't actually
kol aid. This is pure Red number five, right, Mambo
number five. No, no, no, lou bega, I'm talking about
Red number five right now. Before RFK Junior violates all
of our libertarian freedoms by getting rid of Red number five,
I'm celebrating by drinking pure concentrate Red number five. Mambo
number five, No, no, Red number five, lu bega.
Speaker 8: A little bit of cancer in my life, a little
bit Tina by my side, a little bit of tumors
in my head, A little bit of.
Speaker 1: You makes libertarians dead. Now, that was a fun debate.
I actually want to say that, although we got very
heated and feisty sassy in that, I actually do appreciate
Fabian Liberty coming to debate and sticking it out. And
I think that the majority of the time we were
actually having good exchange, good good questions, good back and forth.
So I do appreciate him doing it, and he was
a good sport about it. He had looked pretty good,
and so I don't have any personal issues with him.
And that was a fun debate. I don't think he
did well in the debate, but I do appreciate him
doing what he did and coming and having that conversation.
So I hope this microphone had to dig out a storage,
an old, crappy microphone, So I don't know how well
it's working. People saying that there was. If there's like
audio issues, you might have to refresh the YouTube stream sometimes.
But a couple of notes that I just jotted down
before the debate that we didn't actually get to, I
want to touch on real quick, and then we'll open
it up just in summary. You know, libertarians have these axioms,
you could say, these principles like taxation is theft. You know,
they're not not aggress other people. And we heard at
the beginning of the debate he said, you know, well, yeah,
the NAP is a prescriptive position, but it's also just
an axiom. Yeah, but if the content and the meaning
of the axiom is something moral or ethical, then immediately
libertarianism is necessarily pre screw right. It's normative. And so
I think from the outset, you know, when I first
brought that up, it was kind of downhill from there.
And keep in mind too, that if you start to
talk about the true versus the false, or the true
and the good, then you're already kind of in the
domain of aughts, even though you think that you're only
dealing with something metaphysical or something you know not connected
to the metaphysical. If you're arguing in debating, then you're
assuming that the audience ought to follow your position. Otherwise
there would be no point in debating if there's no moral,
logical ought force behind truth statements as opposed to false statements. So,
and this is a very common popular thing. I've been
arguing with libertarians back to when I was in college.
I had an argument with a libertarian dude in my class,
this fat dude who we actually almost got into a
fight one time at a gas station. Believe or not.
But there's this fat libertarian dude, look like Jerry Garcia,
and he was always talking smack to me in class,
and because we had this debating class. And then I
saw him at a gas station and he said, let's
go at it, and he chickened out by the way
he left the gas station. He didn't want to fight. I
don't think I mean, I'm not some badass, but I
don't think a big, fat libertarian dude is going to
do too well in a fight. And I mean I understand, yeah,
there's some big dudes that are fat dudes that could fight.
You know, this was not Tank Abbott. This was your
average fat, you know, coumer libertarian man. So in my view,
the Libertarians have not shared well in debates all the
way back to my college days. And the reason for
that is that even in the case of that guy,
I remember that that guy in undergrad, he never took
a pistemology class, right, And if you don't take an
a pistomology class, you're not going to do well in debates.
I don't understand why these guys don't just go go
watch a course on YouTube. There's plenty of YouTube professors
at you know, just teaching you basically a pistel. You
could go to Father degon an NISS course and take it,
and then you would at least kind of be in
the ballgame of kind of you know, giving some challenge
or some pushback. That isn't you know, like philosophy won
a one tier pushback. So that would be my recommendation
for the people who wants to engage us in this
type of debate, but they don't ever really seem to
be interested in doing that. Maybe Fabian liberty will go
do that, let's see. But the other thing I wanted
to get to was that, you know, for example, debate
assumes the true, and thus the debate itself assumes that
we ought to not violate the laws of logic and
to follow the true versus the false. And then I
think we went through a lot of the things that
I wanted to get to about properly basic beliefs that
by definition they can't rely on another belief or another
position or another thing. And it doesn't matter if you
assume your existence or that you like, you can't just
tack on a bunch of other self evident things to
prop up the first self evident thing, right, that's that's
not self evident. And so if something is axiomatic like
A equals A, or something is incorrigible like I exist,
or something is evident to the senses. In the case
of John Locke, those are the classic statements, these three
statements from classical foundation. That's going back to the Enlightenment.
That's how they typically speak of something being quote, properly
basic or self evident. And in the case of this
this discussion, I thought, I think we solve very clearly
whether it is the criterion problem, whether it is first
order second order beliefs, whether it is being at hawk,
whether it is the self evident axioms relying on other
metaphysical principles and axioms. At no point did we hear
any kind of anything approaching an epistemic justification for those things.
So that was only notes that I wanted to get
to throughout that discussion. And we'll open it up to
people who want to call in Eric, what's up man, God.
Speaker 5: I'm mute, Eric, I'm mute.
Speaker 9: Ophelias, what's up man? Father Deacon.
Speaker 1: By the way, I know this is your field, so
feel free to speak arms. What's up?
Speaker 4: Man?
Speaker 1: There's no one can you hear me? No one else
uses spaces. I don't understand. I see like thousands of
people on Twitter spaces, and then when I do a
Twitter space, no one knows what's going on.
Speaker 3: Thanks for for sire.
Speaker 1: Yeah, is there anything you'd like to say or comment
about self evidence and you know, theory laden beliefs or
any of those criterion.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So sometimes I feel that people even.
Speaker 10: Referencing self evidence, don't know what self evidence is. The
self evident principles are not self evidently presented to themselves.
It's kindly right, yeah, I mean you and I have
made this argument before that.
Speaker 3: So if you have multiple.
Speaker 10: Propositions or things that are claimed to be self evident,
the question becomes, well, how do we know these are
the ones that constitute a self ev it's not something else.
If you give an answer to that, then it means
it's depending on its justification, that it qualified as self
evidence on something else, In.
Speaker 3: Other words, not self evidence. Number two.
Speaker 10: Self evidence is defined as if the terms of the
proposition are clearly understood their meanings, and it's true, then
it's justified as right, not outside of itself, but in
itself kind.
Speaker 3: Of all pre or right. But the problem is that
already begs ways, well, first of all, why is that
who said that was a justification? I mean, where we're
going to get where we're going to get that? That's
just arbitrarily assumed that that would need to be shown.
Speaker 10: Number two begging the question is how do we even
say that if none of these people have even been
able to establish that knowledge is possible or exist, So
it's got some serious problems. And number three arguments that
I've made is the argument from arbitrariness.
Speaker 3: That basically I could have a self.
Speaker 10: Evident proposition that denies the other self evident proposition, So
there's something kind of contradictory about it too. And then
since there is no further reasons, because that's the definition
of self evidence to pick one of two contraries, then
it's arbitrary what I pick, and self defeating the sense
of a justification. If it's arbitrary, it's like you have
two dc what I'm saying, I have two propositions that
are defining antithesis to one another.
Speaker 3: They both claim to be self evident.
Speaker 1: Yeah, like when you dipped out. But at one point
I said to that guy, I said, well, if you
can come in and just say existence exists, and that's
allowable for you in a debate, I can come in
and say God just exists, and that's allowable for me
in a debate. That's why you can't just have this
sort of ad hoc assertion.
Speaker 3: I said.
Speaker 10: Somebody made an interesting point. I don't know if they
realized it was something that caught himself and the critique
of pure reason points out, but you do you know
that you can't even formally represent that literally, even in.
Speaker 3: A sentence, existence exists.
Speaker 10: It's not even a coherent grammatical sentence, let alone formally
even representing what that is.
Speaker 3: And I think Kant obviously has a more sophisticated argument.
Speaker 1: We wait, that wouldn't just be a restatement of the
law of identity. Well no, wait a minute. To be
the law of identity have to say existence is existence,
but it's actually saying existence exists. So it's actually a
different claim, isn't it.
Speaker 10: Yeah, it's not even formally constructed or grammatically structured correctly,
which is why when people say, like, well, logic just is.
Speaker 3: It's like, that's not even a sentence, right, just yeah.
Speaker 10: You know, some things are wrong, and really terribly wrong sometimes,
but some things are so retarded they don't even get
to the level of being a sentence where they can
be wrong. That's when you know you're in serious trouble. Right,
people make all kinds of statements that are false. It's like,
but what if you don't even get what if you
you don't even get off the ground where it's like
it can.
Speaker 3: Even be for or false.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean this is like what this was t
Dump's reality is reality? Right, I mean it's like they
they it's so dumb that it's almost hard to combat
or oppose because it's like, why are we supposed to
think that that has any meaning as a starting point
for a worldview? What does that even mean? Reality is reality?
Speaker 10: And as you pro badly pointed out, what you never
want to do now.
Speaker 3: Of course, we believe in the law of identity.
Speaker 10: We believe the teutologies you know, at a lower level
aren't necessary to established semantics, you know, semantic meaning and
stuff like that, and then also to develop propositions that
could have possible truth values.
Speaker 3: We agree with that. What we don't do is just
simply start there.
Speaker 10: And furthermore, as you'd said, it's so metaphysically loaded and controversial.
Speaker 3: In the history of philosophy.
Speaker 10: That why would anybody go, you know what, if we're
having a difficult time with something, let's go to the
most obsecure and.
Speaker 1: The most secure statement being or existence exists.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 10: Yeah, it's it's too Yeah, it's amazing actually as an
amazing move.
Speaker 1: Uh, Anthony, what's up man, Anthony? You want to arm you?
JERD on.
Speaker 2: How you don't can hear me? Ye, so you and
like finally begin an eye have like pretty much clearly
demonstrated like how this stuff doesn't work. But like as
a toy two year old, he's.
Speaker 6: Like freshly inquiring and it was at oxy and like
navigating the system that I've like been doctrinated in, doctrinated
into with like libertarianism and socism and all these things.
Speaker 2: How do we like actually functionally look at the world
and politics and these systems in a way that like
kind of truly goes to its orthodoxy and not deeper
into the system and like these ideals that clearly don't work.
That's my question.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think you just keep spending your time
in the church and the liturgy and in the you know,
life and mind of the theology of the saints, and
they'll get fixated on political activism, right. I mean, political
activism can be a an idol. It's not bad. You
can do that kind of stuff, and a lot of
people do it. But I mean I think just basically
not stopping going to church as the easiest way to
do that. Mister kool aid five dollars have a blesseday.
Appreciate your work. H Browsey five dollars. Low tier of
Boomer Americanism incoming cards two dollars. A fallacy, flame flame
mess five dollars. Reality is reality appeal to the boomer fallacy.
It is kind of a boomer phrase.
Speaker 2: It is what it is.
Speaker 1: That's a classic boomer you know, boomerism.
Speaker 2: Well, it is what it is.
Speaker 1: Zammox has five dollars. This guy got BTFO literally chapter
two and three of the bon Seour textbook. This was
a masterclass from Jay. Thank you, Yeah, exactly. It's funny
because like if you get the Bonjeour book, even if
you don't read the whole book, like you get into
the very things we were debating, like right away. So
v Scott two dollars. And by the way, I actually
think if you're not in a grad student or advanced
read the Wood book. It's a lot more readable. It's
a lot more excitible, yeah, than the Wood which the
Wood I mean, the bon book is good, but it's
more like a you know, college textbook. So v Scott
two dollars. Think it so much? Lumbago five dollars. Fabian
Liberty violated the nap because when he spoke the average
iq in the room dropped tenfold, so he aggressed on
us