WEBVTT 1 00:00:00.240 --> 00:00:02.720 To do this on YouTube. Can you guys hear me? 2 00:00:03.000 --> 00:00:07.799 Is a sound good because I don't have all my 3 00:00:07.839 --> 00:00:10.199 equipment with me when we're on the road. So as 4 00:00:10.240 --> 00:00:15.679 you guys know, we'll be en route doing many big 5 00:00:16.039 --> 00:00:19.559 podcasts and that will be in the next few weeks. 6 00:00:19.640 --> 00:00:22.079 So we got Rouselin, we got Jamie Kennedy, we got 7 00:00:22.079 --> 00:00:28.399 whatever podcast, we got Hodge Twins, Sam Tripoli, all coming 8 00:00:28.440 --> 00:00:30.000 up in the next few weeks. And then I got 9 00:00:30.000 --> 00:00:37.840 the debate with a postate profit on Western intelligence support 10 00:00:37.920 --> 00:00:46.000 for ISIS and al Kada, and I have an extremely 11 00:00:46.039 --> 00:00:48.520 bad science infection which I think has pretty much kind 12 00:00:48.520 --> 00:00:54.679 of gone away. So I'm using my old tech. Hopefully 13 00:00:54.719 --> 00:00:59.039 this will work good. And I apologize for being a 14 00:00:59.079 --> 00:01:02.679 little a little out of it, but even being a 15 00:01:02.719 --> 00:01:04.680 little out of it, I can still, I think, manage 16 00:01:04.680 --> 00:01:07.920 a debate. And so we're going to be bringing on 17 00:01:08.159 --> 00:01:11.359 the ap debate is June second. For those that are asking, 18 00:01:12.640 --> 00:01:20.879 it'll be Jake Rattlesnake Channel and yeah, so today we're 19 00:01:20.959 --> 00:01:24.719 going to bring up Fabian Liberty, who's been discussing the 20 00:01:24.760 --> 00:01:29.719 possibility of a debate with me for many a few weeks. 21 00:01:29.719 --> 00:01:34.159 I think in terms of DMS back and forth. So 22 00:01:34.239 --> 00:01:36.719 let me bring him up and then we'll figure out 23 00:01:36.719 --> 00:01:39.840 how we want to do the parameters of this. I think, 24 00:01:41.359 --> 00:01:44.159 I mean, we can do it however he wants to do. 25 00:01:44.480 --> 00:01:46.439 I know that he's already kind of had this discussion 26 00:01:46.480 --> 00:01:49.640 with both Andrew and Jim Bob, and I know he'd 27 00:01:49.680 --> 00:01:51.640 like to talk about TAG too, So if we want 28 00:01:51.640 --> 00:01:55.439 to split it up into two different topics, libertarian rights 29 00:01:55.439 --> 00:01:59.400 philosophy and tag, we can. If he wants to move 30 00:01:59.439 --> 00:02:01.799 on to something like tag. What's up man? How you doing? 31 00:02:05.319 --> 00:02:06.719 You just got to unmute hear me? 32 00:02:08.479 --> 00:02:10.240 All right, sorry every time I try and do space, 33 00:02:11.680 --> 00:02:13.520 so hopefully that doesn't. 34 00:02:15.240 --> 00:02:15.800 Can you hear me? 35 00:02:17.000 --> 00:02:17.879 Yeah? Can you hear me? 36 00:02:18.240 --> 00:02:18.439 Yeah? 37 00:02:18.639 --> 00:02:24.080 Not good? Okay, Well no I was I was just saying, yeah, sorry, yeah, No. 38 00:02:24.280 --> 00:02:28.000 I I initiated this conversation or this debate or whatever 39 00:02:28.479 --> 00:02:32.039 picked up. You know, I saw you debate many moons 40 00:02:32.039 --> 00:02:35.360 ago again slick with Zulu, and that felt like that 41 00:02:35.400 --> 00:02:39.000 debate didn't go anywhere, well because you you left after 42 00:02:39.039 --> 00:02:42.240 getting frustrated for whatever reason. 43 00:02:42.960 --> 00:02:45.680 Well, the reason I the reason I love, the reason 44 00:02:45.719 --> 00:02:49.000 I left was that there was a would you rather 45 00:02:49.120 --> 00:02:53.199 try this on? If this is going to be spotty 46 00:02:53.240 --> 00:02:55.159 here connection wise. We could try to do this on 47 00:02:55.240 --> 00:02:58.280 collab cam on video. Would you rather do that or 48 00:02:58.360 --> 00:03:00.439 just go with what we got I have? 49 00:03:00.719 --> 00:03:01.680 I don't even know what that is. 50 00:03:03.080 --> 00:03:06.840 So basically it's just stream yard orcume me stream labs. 51 00:03:07.280 --> 00:03:10.159 It's just an in browser link that allows you to 52 00:03:10.199 --> 00:03:13.840 do video discussions. So if you're on your channel streaming 53 00:03:13.919 --> 00:03:15.680 or whatever, you can get No. 54 00:03:15.719 --> 00:03:17.840 I'm not streaming. I'll be streaming later on to night. 55 00:03:17.960 --> 00:03:19.159 So it's it's fine. We can say. 56 00:03:20.360 --> 00:03:22.639 It's just that it's your your sound cuts in and 57 00:03:22.639 --> 00:03:24.879 out towards the end of every sentence that you make. 58 00:03:26.039 --> 00:03:26.800 Are you on heavy hair? 59 00:03:27.199 --> 00:03:28.199 I'll eat up on my mic. 60 00:03:30.319 --> 00:03:32.719 Yeah. So the reason I left was because I was 61 00:03:32.759 --> 00:03:35.400 asking questions about justification and I felt like he was 62 00:03:35.439 --> 00:03:37.199 never going to answer it. So that was the reason 63 00:03:37.240 --> 00:03:38.599 I left the Zulu debate. 64 00:03:41.120 --> 00:03:44.560 I would say, we obviously have different interpretations, but nevertheless 65 00:03:46.000 --> 00:03:49.479 so I yeah. So then I felt like there wasn't 66 00:03:49.479 --> 00:03:52.560 a good debate against libertarian And then I saw you 67 00:03:52.599 --> 00:03:56.159 put out a call against you know, looking for libertarians, 68 00:03:56.199 --> 00:03:58.680 and me and a bunch of other libertarians put our 69 00:03:58.800 --> 00:04:02.280 names forward, but also other people's names for it, like like, hey, 70 00:04:02.280 --> 00:04:05.360 you do rematch liquid with a better thing? You could 71 00:04:05.879 --> 00:04:08.120 me there, there are plenty of real libertarians. And then 72 00:04:08.159 --> 00:04:11.479 you debated, Wait, you're you're uh, we're only on Twitter. 73 00:04:11.280 --> 00:04:13.000 Right, No, we're on you two. 74 00:04:14.280 --> 00:04:16.079 Okay, all right, so I can't say the f slur, 75 00:04:16.839 --> 00:04:22.240 but uh you debated a prag f slur. Uh and 76 00:04:22.240 --> 00:04:25.240 and so yeah and and so rightfully, I think anybody 77 00:04:25.240 --> 00:04:28.000 that is an actual libertarian was upset because. 78 00:04:28.360 --> 00:04:29.800 I don't know who you're talking about. First of all, 79 00:04:29.839 --> 00:04:31.160 can you just tell me who that who it is 80 00:04:31.160 --> 00:04:34.079 you're talking about? 81 00:04:33.839 --> 00:04:36.680 I remember the person's name again, because they weren't. They 82 00:04:36.680 --> 00:04:39.000 weren't like a famous you mean. 83 00:04:38.920 --> 00:04:43.240 Like the Yren Brooke from the Objectivist Institute that. 84 00:04:44.600 --> 00:04:48.399 No, yarn Brook is not a libertarian. It's actively fights 85 00:04:48.399 --> 00:04:52.160 against libertarianism. I've interviewed You're on Brook, and I think 86 00:04:52.160 --> 00:04:55.319 it's libertarianism. It's evil and must be defeated. 87 00:04:56.720 --> 00:04:58.759 Uh what you mean? 88 00:04:59.360 --> 00:05:03.199 Who I said? Yarnbrook is an objectivist? You had debated 89 00:05:03.240 --> 00:05:06.160 I can't remember it's been If someone can dig up the. 90 00:05:07.639 --> 00:05:10.000 Austin Peterson you you. 91 00:05:10.079 --> 00:05:20.160 Debated somebody that was very clearly left leaning, not not libertarian, libertine. Again, 92 00:05:20.360 --> 00:05:23.600 I don't remember the exact name, but if you found 93 00:05:23.639 --> 00:05:27.959 the twite or whatever, then yeah, and so I was like, dude, 94 00:05:28.000 --> 00:05:30.879 what the fuck is this? Like? This is this is bullshit? 95 00:05:31.000 --> 00:05:32.600 Like you put out a call to libertarians and then 96 00:05:32.600 --> 00:05:35.879 you bring on someone that's like a small l libertine brag? 97 00:05:36.879 --> 00:05:40.000 Right, do you think it's a conspiracy that I don't 98 00:05:40.000 --> 00:05:42.399 want to engage with real libertarians? Got it? 99 00:05:43.439 --> 00:05:46.439 I didn't say it was a conspiracy because I'm not 100 00:05:46.560 --> 00:05:51.000 saying anyone else was involved. I'm just saying it seemed 101 00:05:51.079 --> 00:05:53.920 like you were duck in a real conversation with libertarianism 102 00:05:54.000 --> 00:05:56.240 because you had one and you ran from that one. 103 00:05:56.680 --> 00:06:00.560 And that was who I run from liquid Zula. Okay, 104 00:06:00.639 --> 00:06:03.240 did he answer what I asked about justification? 105 00:06:05.000 --> 00:06:07.720 I believe multiple times from multiple different perspectives, you were 106 00:06:07.800 --> 00:06:12.920 upset because he wouldn't answer your redirect because he wanted it, 107 00:06:12.959 --> 00:06:15.240 and then eventually Andrews did so he answered it. 108 00:06:15.279 --> 00:06:17.480 And what do you think that you answer? What do 109 00:06:17.519 --> 00:06:18.720 you think justification is? 110 00:06:20.600 --> 00:06:22.639 What do I think justifications? Do you mean that? Like 111 00:06:22.680 --> 00:06:25.720 from like the hume like question, like what do you 112 00:06:25.720 --> 00:06:26.160 mean by. 113 00:06:28.240 --> 00:06:28.439 Well? 114 00:06:28.439 --> 00:06:31.240 Like yeah, the human question? What justifies this like or 115 00:06:31.240 --> 00:06:31.639 do you mean? 116 00:06:31.680 --> 00:06:31.759 Like? 117 00:06:31.839 --> 00:06:36.839 What do you mean by what is an attempt to 118 00:06:38.079 --> 00:06:42.839 state that the statement is true? Was that a claim 119 00:06:42.920 --> 00:06:44.000 or a principle of truth? 120 00:06:44.160 --> 00:06:45.920 So that has to do with truth value? But no, 121 00:06:46.120 --> 00:06:51.360 justification is much more than that in epistemology. 122 00:06:51.399 --> 00:06:55.639 Nevertheless, I don't think you just like I'm how is 123 00:06:55.680 --> 00:06:58.639 that a disagreement from the historical thing? 124 00:06:58.959 --> 00:07:02.519 From what you're saying isn't even the historical idea because 125 00:07:02.519 --> 00:07:06.120 even back to Plato, justification deals with justified. 126 00:07:06.600 --> 00:07:08.360 What have to do about whether or not you ran 127 00:07:08.439 --> 00:07:09.000 with if you. 128 00:07:08.920 --> 00:07:13.160 Asked about the historic context of justification and I'm giving 129 00:07:13.199 --> 00:07:16.079 you the context that back to Plato, it means more 130 00:07:16.120 --> 00:07:17.120 than what you described. 131 00:07:18.959 --> 00:07:23.800 Okay, that that's irrelevant to whether or not my interpretation 132 00:07:24.560 --> 00:07:25.600 of events. 133 00:07:25.360 --> 00:07:29.279 Is if he didn't give, if he didn't give, if 134 00:07:29.279 --> 00:07:33.160 he did not give epistemic justification, then his answers were 135 00:07:33.199 --> 00:07:34.759 irrelevant to what I'm asking for. 136 00:07:35.920 --> 00:07:39.160 Okay, So what would you what would be your what 137 00:07:39.319 --> 00:07:40.279 is your bar for. 138 00:07:40.240 --> 00:07:50.560 Episode justified true belief in the Getty Air problem? 139 00:07:50.600 --> 00:07:54.319 Okay? So again what what what would he have to 140 00:07:54.399 --> 00:07:57.560 say about jurism for you to say that he gave 141 00:07:57.600 --> 00:08:00.720 you the the aught is the thing that you why 142 00:08:00.759 --> 00:08:04.160 he didn't believe in the audience gain right, Like why 143 00:08:04.240 --> 00:08:07.959 he believes that contradictory statements can't be true in the 144 00:08:08.000 --> 00:08:11.279 negation of a contradictory statement is at the very least 145 00:08:11.319 --> 00:08:13.279 an ought not I don't know that I necessarily follow 146 00:08:13.360 --> 00:08:18.920 his ought thing, But why is that reason for you 147 00:08:19.040 --> 00:08:21.399 to run away from the debate? That's why I'm asking, like, 148 00:08:21.480 --> 00:08:22.560 what is yours? 149 00:08:22.600 --> 00:08:26.839 So, just like him, you're a debate. Just like him, 150 00:08:27.120 --> 00:08:31.800 you're both not understanding what epistemic justification is not according 151 00:08:31.839 --> 00:08:34.480 to me, but in the discipline of epistemology. This is 152 00:08:34.519 --> 00:08:38.600 not something I made up. It's what's expected in any 153 00:08:38.759 --> 00:08:42.200 public academic discourse on the topic of how do we 154 00:08:42.240 --> 00:08:45.600 have good reasons for our beliefs? So justification deals with that, 155 00:08:46.159 --> 00:08:50.039 what are the good reasons for our beliefs, what gives 156 00:08:50.120 --> 00:08:52.879 them explanatory power, and what makes them coherent in a 157 00:08:53.080 --> 00:08:56.080 worldview context. That's what justification is. 158 00:08:57.039 --> 00:09:01.440 Okay, But again, you're saying that he didn't meet your standard, 159 00:09:01.480 --> 00:09:02.320 But I know. 160 00:09:02.320 --> 00:09:05.559 He didn't meet these standards. These standards are They're not 161 00:09:05.679 --> 00:09:08.200 my standards. This is what would be debated in any 162 00:09:08.200 --> 00:09:11.799 epistemology class, when you make assertions. 163 00:09:13.639 --> 00:09:15.039 What the fuck are you talking about? 164 00:09:15.639 --> 00:09:16.080 Am I talking? 165 00:09:16.159 --> 00:09:18.679 Ran away from a debate? And then you said, well, 166 00:09:18.720 --> 00:09:20.480 he didn't answer my question because he didn't. 167 00:09:20.679 --> 00:09:23.759 No, I said, he didn't justification the argument that he gave. 168 00:09:23.960 --> 00:09:27.960 And again you don't even understand, you don't understand, and 169 00:09:28.000 --> 00:09:31.720 again you don't understand why that doesn't get to justification, 170 00:09:31.919 --> 00:09:33.440 which is the entire point of the whole time. 171 00:09:34.200 --> 00:09:37.039 What is this code? Like, like we're not even into 172 00:09:37.039 --> 00:09:39.559 the debate and you're already like it's a code, right, 173 00:09:39.679 --> 00:09:40.679 Actually he didn't. 174 00:09:40.919 --> 00:09:42.840 You're the one that said that I was a pussy 175 00:09:43.039 --> 00:09:45.240 and that I wouldn't debate anyone except him. 176 00:09:45.360 --> 00:09:48.120 You were how you ran from a debate and then 177 00:09:48.159 --> 00:09:48.799 when you've then. 178 00:09:49.120 --> 00:09:52.240 I left a debate that I laughed at because it 179 00:09:52.320 --> 00:09:55.799 didn't answer just like, just like in this situation, you 180 00:09:55.840 --> 00:09:58.080 can't answer or even you don't even know the basics 181 00:09:58.080 --> 00:10:00.320 of the question, and you're just already for you know, 182 00:10:00.639 --> 00:10:01.960 do you want me to explain it to you in 183 00:10:02.000 --> 00:10:03.840 an ethical example? 184 00:10:05.240 --> 00:10:07.440 Sure, give me an example of what you mean by 185 00:10:07.519 --> 00:10:09.919 because I don't see how I'm failing in any means. 186 00:10:10.159 --> 00:10:13.279 Well, let's let's go. Let's go to the topic of 187 00:10:14.159 --> 00:10:15.480 do you want to do tag or do you want 188 00:10:15.559 --> 00:10:17.159 do you want to do self evidence? Either one is 189 00:10:17.200 --> 00:10:17.639 fine with me. 190 00:10:19.519 --> 00:10:22.240 I don't know what you mean by self evidence or 191 00:10:22.279 --> 00:10:22.759 what you're referring. 192 00:10:22.960 --> 00:10:25.360 Well, most libertarians and most people who argue for your 193 00:10:25.399 --> 00:10:27.519 type of a position out of the Enlightenment, believe that 194 00:10:27.519 --> 00:10:30.440 there are self evident truths or principles, things that are axiomatic. 195 00:10:30.639 --> 00:10:31.639 And I reject that. 196 00:10:32.600 --> 00:10:34.399 You reject all axioms. 197 00:10:34.240 --> 00:10:35.639 All self evidence claims. 198 00:10:37.639 --> 00:10:41.240 Okay, so how okay, okay? You would say, okay, we 199 00:10:41.279 --> 00:10:44.679 can go in either one. That's fine. I don't I'm 200 00:10:44.759 --> 00:10:49.960 fine going again. The question, before we get too far 201 00:10:49.960 --> 00:10:54.960 away from it, is whether or not why I believe 202 00:10:55.039 --> 00:10:58.600 that this conversation or debate or whatever was important. Was 203 00:10:58.639 --> 00:11:01.480 that I felt like you had not, let's say, completed 204 00:11:02.639 --> 00:11:05.279 with a libertarian and your claim is that it wasn't 205 00:11:05.639 --> 00:11:10.759 epsomic justification. And I don't see why what standard he 206 00:11:10.840 --> 00:11:12.240 didn't but he didn't meet. 207 00:11:12.720 --> 00:11:15.320 So when you just assert things to be the case, 208 00:11:15.799 --> 00:11:19.200 you're forfeiting the very question, because that means you're being 209 00:11:19.279 --> 00:11:22.639 arbitrary at hawk and not giving epistemic justification. 210 00:11:23.799 --> 00:11:26.360 Well, he didn't do that. Yes he did. He did. 211 00:11:26.759 --> 00:11:30.039 You don't Again, you don't understand what. You don't understand 212 00:11:30.039 --> 00:11:33.200 what justification. So you think that my standard is some 213 00:11:33.279 --> 00:11:35.919 subjective thing of what justification is. And I'm telling you 214 00:11:35.919 --> 00:11:39.159 that any epistemology class will hold you to the same 215 00:11:39.240 --> 00:11:42.360 standards that the laws of critical thinking, the laws of thought. 216 00:11:42.840 --> 00:11:44.080 Those are not my standards. 217 00:11:44.399 --> 00:11:44.759 Words. 218 00:11:45.720 --> 00:11:49.360 I'm just saying. So I'm saying common terminology in this 219 00:11:49.480 --> 00:11:51.399 domain and in this field. And you think I'm just 220 00:11:51.440 --> 00:11:54.159 saying words. That's why you guys are not fit for 221 00:11:54.200 --> 00:11:57.159 this debate. You're not even in the arena. You don't 222 00:11:57.200 --> 00:11:58.879 know the topics in the subject matter. 223 00:11:58.960 --> 00:12:00.639 You're just insulting a making argument. 224 00:12:00.639 --> 00:12:02.919 No, I'm telling you what's happening in the debate. Let's 225 00:12:02.919 --> 00:12:04.960 get into the argument. So do you believe in the 226 00:12:04.960 --> 00:12:08.879 non aggression principle? Do you agree with the non aggression principle? 227 00:12:09.879 --> 00:12:11.799 Yeah? Absolutely, of course, I'm a libertarian. 228 00:12:12.279 --> 00:12:17.279 Is that a normative claim? 229 00:12:17.320 --> 00:12:22.399 Well, it's it's an axiom, right, So the normative claim that. 230 00:12:22.360 --> 00:12:25.200 You shouldn't aggress not yeah. 231 00:12:25.000 --> 00:12:27.240 One ought not a crypt that would be the normative claim. 232 00:12:27.919 --> 00:12:30.000 So it's prescriptive and not descriptive. 233 00:12:31.519 --> 00:12:35.279 Yes, libertarianism is a prescriptive ideology of natural I. 234 00:12:35.240 --> 00:12:37.440 Thought you were saying in the Jimbob debate that you 235 00:12:37.519 --> 00:12:40.600 don't believe in prescriptive claims. It's just descriptive. 236 00:12:41.120 --> 00:12:43.039 Oh sorry, descriptive. I apologize. I mixed up. 237 00:12:44.360 --> 00:12:48.919 Okay, precisely. So the non aggression principle is normative, and 238 00:12:49.000 --> 00:12:51.279 therefore it's prescriptive, and therefore you're refuted. 239 00:12:53.639 --> 00:12:54.639 Can you repeat that argument. 240 00:12:54.720 --> 00:12:59.200 Let me write, you made a claim that we ought 241 00:12:59.320 --> 00:13:03.480 not aggress. That's what the non aggression principle states. That 242 00:13:03.639 --> 00:13:07.519 is a claim of ethical normativity, and that refutes your 243 00:13:07.639 --> 00:13:12.919 very position that libertarianism is is not prescriptive but merely descriptive. 244 00:13:14.039 --> 00:13:18.120 No, I didn't make that claim. I specifically referenced argument. 245 00:13:18.240 --> 00:13:22.080 I'm talking about your debate, your Gym Bob debate. 246 00:13:23.399 --> 00:13:26.240 Pop interrupted. All right, we'll get we're in the actual debate, 247 00:13:26.279 --> 00:13:28.519 so we'll get into it. So, no, that's not true, 248 00:13:28.840 --> 00:13:31.720 and I didn't say the same did not occur. 249 00:13:31.519 --> 00:13:35.720 In you just said? You just said that libertarianism. I'm 250 00:13:35.720 --> 00:13:37.559 not going to let you lie and go past your 251 00:13:37.879 --> 00:13:38.840 you're lying. 252 00:13:38.919 --> 00:13:41.200 I'm not interrupting. You're interrupting. 253 00:13:41.279 --> 00:13:44.320 So you think interrupting is lying. Those are two different things. 254 00:13:44.360 --> 00:13:46.039 No, no, no, I think you're doing both. I think 255 00:13:46.080 --> 00:13:46.679 you're interrupting. 256 00:13:47.039 --> 00:13:49.320 Is the non aggression principal, prescriptive or descriptive? 257 00:13:50.559 --> 00:13:55.320 The non aggression principle is a an accident? Right? 258 00:13:55.440 --> 00:13:58.720 And is it a claim? 259 00:13:58.840 --> 00:14:01.919 I just said right that the actual ought claim or 260 00:14:01.960 --> 00:14:05.080 the ought not claim would be the negation and in 261 00:14:05.200 --> 00:14:06.559 liquid Zula's argment from my. 262 00:14:06.840 --> 00:14:10.519 I'm talking about n ap. Why are you bringing Stop 263 00:14:10.720 --> 00:14:13.440 your possession, your position. 264 00:14:13.240 --> 00:14:15.879 Derail, Stop trying to be real, Stop acting. 265 00:14:15.759 --> 00:14:17.039 Like a top your position. 266 00:14:17.120 --> 00:14:18.799 No big words don't make you an adult. 267 00:14:18.879 --> 00:14:20.720 Just hold on for he doesn't even know the basic 268 00:14:20.799 --> 00:14:21.799 terms of this whole debate. 269 00:14:22.720 --> 00:14:24.919 Right, you're just going to keep interrupting, and you're just 270 00:14:24.960 --> 00:14:25.879 gonna keep making. 271 00:14:25.720 --> 00:14:28.600 Because you're deflecting. Everyone can tell you did the same 272 00:14:28.679 --> 00:14:29.480 thing with Jim Bob. 273 00:14:29.799 --> 00:14:31.240 Sometimes something is the. 274 00:14:31.279 --> 00:14:33.480 Non aggression principal, prescriptive or description. 275 00:14:34.200 --> 00:14:36.159 Will you shush for a second? 276 00:14:36.320 --> 00:14:37.440 Can you answer the question? 277 00:14:38.360 --> 00:14:40.639 I am trying to answer the question, and you're doing 278 00:14:40.639 --> 00:14:42.879 the same thing Jim Bob, which is saying. 279 00:14:43.159 --> 00:14:45.720 No, we just don't let you yeap and deflect. Can 280 00:14:45.759 --> 00:14:48.600 you answer the questions? Go answer yeah. 281 00:14:48.639 --> 00:14:54.440 So again, So the not libertarianism is script. Okay, it is, 282 00:14:54.879 --> 00:15:00.360 sorry script, he's describing natural lawyer. Now, the non Russian 283 00:15:00.360 --> 00:15:04.080 principle is an axiom. Okay, it is not, and it 284 00:15:04.120 --> 00:15:05.279 is a descriptive. 285 00:15:05.960 --> 00:15:09.120 No, it's not. You just repeted yourself. You said it's normative, 286 00:15:09.240 --> 00:15:13.399 so you refuted yourself. I'm not what is normativity interrupting? 287 00:15:13.600 --> 00:15:14.639 What is normativity? 288 00:15:17.639 --> 00:15:20.960 Normativity is is, as far as we're discussing in ethics, 289 00:15:21.240 --> 00:15:24.440 would be a claim that something, uh, that that is 290 00:15:24.519 --> 00:15:25.759 universalizable and that we're. 291 00:15:25.639 --> 00:15:27.720 All right, So you ought not aggress people. 292 00:15:29.240 --> 00:15:30.840 Yes, you ought not aggress people. 293 00:15:31.000 --> 00:15:32.960 Right, So your position controversy. 294 00:15:33.279 --> 00:15:36.639 You will know it doesn't if you go and act 295 00:15:36.720 --> 00:15:39.639 like an adult for a second. So it can't what 296 00:15:39.759 --> 00:15:41.720 I said, and you keep interrupting me. 297 00:15:41.720 --> 00:15:43.919 So let me stop bitching and make your argument. 298 00:15:44.720 --> 00:15:47.799 Well stop, well, then shut up, act like an adult. 299 00:15:47.960 --> 00:15:49.679 I'm waiting for you to answer. Quit whining. 300 00:15:50.320 --> 00:15:52.679 No, you keep interrupting just. 301 00:15:52.440 --> 00:15:55.039 Because you're not answering. Your whining and deflecting, I. 302 00:15:54.960 --> 00:15:57.960 Am trying to answer, and you will not stop interrupting 303 00:15:57.960 --> 00:16:01.200 and stop acting like a toddler like just for a second, okay, 304 00:16:01.320 --> 00:16:04.600 I can I can make an argument, make the argument, 305 00:16:04.679 --> 00:16:05.960 and then you can do the same thing. 306 00:16:06.039 --> 00:16:08.759 Well, let me stop saying let me and go. 307 00:16:10.000 --> 00:16:10.759 I'm trying. 308 00:16:12.320 --> 00:16:14.960 You're whining and bitching about me interrupting you when you're 309 00:16:15.000 --> 00:16:16.440 being dishonest, and then. 310 00:16:16.360 --> 00:16:19.960 You're conversation because you keep interrupting. 311 00:16:20.080 --> 00:16:21.320 Go make the argument. 312 00:16:21.480 --> 00:16:27.200 Okay, So again, what I was saying is that previously 313 00:16:27.240 --> 00:16:30.080 what I had said is that Liquid Zulu's arguments one 314 00:16:30.120 --> 00:16:33.720 that I don't necessarily believe that. 315 00:16:34.320 --> 00:16:35.480 What is your argument? 316 00:16:37.480 --> 00:16:38.480 Why can you? 317 00:16:38.519 --> 00:16:41.399 Are you so you're gonna keep talking about liquid Zulu 318 00:16:41.440 --> 00:16:45.360 when I've asked you specifically about your position. What is 319 00:16:45.399 --> 00:16:47.120 your argument? For the tenth time? 320 00:16:48.000 --> 00:16:48.559 I am true. 321 00:16:48.879 --> 00:16:50.200 Nobody is buying your bullshit. 322 00:16:51.240 --> 00:16:54.360 There's no bullshit here. You won't shut up. Stop acting 323 00:16:54.399 --> 00:16:55.039 like a toddler. 324 00:16:55.039 --> 00:16:56.879 You keep bringing up the things that are not relevant. 325 00:16:56.879 --> 00:16:58.240 Are you going to answer the topic? 326 00:16:59.240 --> 00:17:01.480 I am a timing to do that, and you are 327 00:17:01.600 --> 00:17:03.240 not giving me the space to speak. 328 00:17:03.480 --> 00:17:07.319 No, you go back to the thing that is irrelevant. 329 00:17:08.640 --> 00:17:11.160 I'm asking your position. I don't care what you think 330 00:17:11.160 --> 00:17:15.119 about liquid Zulu. Can you answer your positions on this? 331 00:17:15.279 --> 00:17:16.759 I am I don't care about liquid Zulu. 332 00:17:16.759 --> 00:17:20.079 Again, I absolutely can't what goes and I'm bringing The 333 00:17:20.119 --> 00:17:22.839 only reason I am bringing up Liquid Zulu is because 334 00:17:22.920 --> 00:17:25.799 you called me a liar by saying that I was 335 00:17:25.839 --> 00:17:28.599 making the argument that Liquid Zulu was making no fact. 336 00:17:28.720 --> 00:17:32.200 No, I'm saying you're lying about being dishonest about that debate. 337 00:17:32.599 --> 00:17:36.680 That's the lie that I didn't. You said I rage 338 00:17:36.720 --> 00:17:40.000 quit when I laughed at the guy, and no rage 339 00:17:40.759 --> 00:17:42.599 rage quitting is when you would have rage. And I 340 00:17:42.680 --> 00:17:45.319 laughed at that guy because I thought his answers were 341 00:17:45.359 --> 00:17:47.759 so low tier that it wasn't worthing in debate. And 342 00:17:47.799 --> 00:17:51.240 you're in the exact same situation. You're actually worse. You're 343 00:17:51.279 --> 00:17:54.319 actually worse than Liquid Zulu because you can't actually address 344 00:17:54.359 --> 00:17:58.559 the arguments. So is the nap an a claim or not? 345 00:17:58.920 --> 00:18:01.440 If it has If it has no nativity, it's an 346 00:18:01.440 --> 00:18:05.960 ought claim. You already said that, you already lost. You're 347 00:18:08.319 --> 00:18:09.720 so we follow. 348 00:18:12.799 --> 00:18:16.079 If one wants to claim or justify ethics, then one 349 00:18:16.119 --> 00:18:21.839 not following. If the attempt If they if they do 350 00:18:22.240 --> 00:18:26.880 attempt to justify their ethical claims and their claims violate 351 00:18:26.880 --> 00:18:30.119 the non aggression principle, then it is contradictory. Therefore the 352 00:18:30.200 --> 00:18:31.880 negation is true. 353 00:18:33.119 --> 00:18:35.640 Is the NAP an aught? 354 00:18:36.880 --> 00:18:39.279 Now the NAP is not, in and of itself an aught. 355 00:18:39.680 --> 00:18:42.880 The non aggression principle, does it retain does it pertain 356 00:18:42.960 --> 00:18:46.319 to normativity and ethics? That you ought not to aggress people? 357 00:18:49.640 --> 00:18:52.119 It is an axiom that you hold if. 358 00:18:51.920 --> 00:18:53.880 Your is it an ethical axiom? 359 00:18:54.960 --> 00:18:57.240 If your ethical system, is. 360 00:18:56.960 --> 00:19:00.880 That an ethical axiom? You ought not? Are you just 361 00:19:01.000 --> 00:19:02.799 lost and that's why you're spurading. 362 00:19:02.440 --> 00:19:04.640 Out, I'm not you? 363 00:19:05.160 --> 00:19:09.240 Is it an ethical at is it an ethical answer? 364 00:19:10.400 --> 00:19:13.039 I just told you that the non aggression principle in 365 00:19:13.200 --> 00:19:15.960 and of itself is not an ethical That's false. 366 00:19:16.200 --> 00:19:21.119 That's false. No, that's false. Axiom, even axioms, even axioms 367 00:19:21.119 --> 00:19:24.519 depending No, that's false. Even axioms, depending upon what they 368 00:19:24.599 --> 00:19:27.480 are or what they are about, can be ethical. Right, 369 00:19:28.160 --> 00:19:31.279 that's the point that you're missing. So when the axiom itself, 370 00:19:32.079 --> 00:19:34.200 calling it an axiom does not remove it from the 371 00:19:34.240 --> 00:19:36.440 ethical domain. That's how stupid. You can have an You 372 00:19:36.480 --> 00:19:37.799 can have an ethical axiom. 373 00:19:37.880 --> 00:19:40.559 You would shut the fuck up and let someone finish 374 00:19:40.640 --> 00:19:41.240 the sentence. 375 00:19:41.319 --> 00:19:46.480 But your sentences are dumb and they're bad arguments. It's 376 00:19:46.519 --> 00:19:50.000 an ethical claim. It deals with what the claim itself 377 00:19:50.119 --> 00:19:52.680 is that you ought not aggress people. That's an ethical 378 00:19:52.720 --> 00:19:54.920 normative claim. It's in the domain of ethics, even if 379 00:19:54.960 --> 00:19:56.839 you call it an axiom. Did you know you can 380 00:19:56.880 --> 00:19:59.200 have an ethical axiom? 381 00:19:59.400 --> 00:20:01.920 Yes? But you you're not listening. 382 00:20:02.039 --> 00:20:05.160 You're not No, you're just not understanding the basic distinctions. 383 00:20:05.799 --> 00:20:09.359 No, you're just interrupting people midscent interrupting me. 384 00:20:09.559 --> 00:20:13.440 It's no because your answers don't address it. Your answers 385 00:20:13.519 --> 00:20:15.359 don't address it. That's why I'm interrupting you. 386 00:20:16.480 --> 00:20:16.920 I I. 387 00:20:18.680 --> 00:20:19.480 Cannot believe. 388 00:20:19.880 --> 00:20:22.599 How do you see that the How do you see 389 00:20:22.640 --> 00:20:25.839 that the axiom is not ethical when it's about ethics? 390 00:20:28.359 --> 00:20:30.119 Will you allow me to answer this question? 391 00:20:30.160 --> 00:20:33.359 How do you say that the axiom is not this question? 392 00:20:33.400 --> 00:20:36.240 Without interrupting answer? That's what we're waiting for. 393 00:20:36.640 --> 00:20:39.599 Will you? I'm answer you a question. Will you allow 394 00:20:39.599 --> 00:20:41.680 me to answer answer? Allow me to answer anything? 395 00:20:41.720 --> 00:20:43.000 The entire chat? Laughing? 396 00:20:43.960 --> 00:20:47.160 You mean, yes, I get it that your checks. 397 00:20:47.319 --> 00:20:51.759 We're waiting. We're waiting, will you will you? If you 398 00:20:51.799 --> 00:20:54.240 don't answer, I'm just going to move on because you can't. 399 00:20:54.319 --> 00:20:55.559 You can't handle an. 400 00:20:56.720 --> 00:20:58.799 So are you going to allow me or not to 401 00:20:58.920 --> 00:21:01.000 actually answer? Without all you wanted? 402 00:21:01.039 --> 00:21:02.759 To do is the flag. This is how weak you 403 00:21:02.799 --> 00:21:05.000 guys are. You guys are the worst that demend You're 404 00:21:05.079 --> 00:21:06.440 worse than Austin Peterson. 405 00:21:07.480 --> 00:21:09.480 I don't know who Austin Peterson is. All I know 406 00:21:09.559 --> 00:21:12.920 is you should team up. Not you're not engaging in 407 00:21:12.960 --> 00:21:14.319 any way that I could have. 408 00:21:14.519 --> 00:21:18.240 I'm not engaging again. Will you answer? If the axiom 409 00:21:18.400 --> 00:21:21.480 is moral in its nature and content, how is it 410 00:21:21.559 --> 00:21:23.039 not ethical or moral? 411 00:21:24.480 --> 00:21:26.119 How is it not ethical or moral? 412 00:21:26.359 --> 00:21:28.759 If the content of the axiom of the NAP is 413 00:21:28.799 --> 00:21:32.480 ethics and morals, how is it not moral or ethical 414 00:21:32.559 --> 00:21:35.839 or normative just because it's an axiom? 415 00:21:35.920 --> 00:21:38.440 Okay, I didn't say that just because it's an axiom. 416 00:21:38.720 --> 00:21:40.799 Yes you did. You said it's an it's axiom, it's 417 00:21:40.839 --> 00:21:43.079 not moral. You said it's an action it's not moral. 418 00:21:43.920 --> 00:21:45.440 I did, Yes, you did. 419 00:21:45.640 --> 00:21:46.440 It's not moral. 420 00:21:46.559 --> 00:21:48.960 You said it doesn't do. What do you think morals 421 00:21:48.960 --> 00:21:53.440 deals with? That's normativity, moral, ethical claims, or normative. 422 00:21:53.039 --> 00:21:55.480 Claims sentence, Then you can't say that you've heard. 423 00:21:55.440 --> 00:21:57.240 The whole chat knows you're a filibuster ring. 424 00:21:58.119 --> 00:22:01.640 I'm not shillibuster ring. You stop and just let me 425 00:22:01.839 --> 00:22:02.640 make an argument. 426 00:22:03.920 --> 00:22:04.440 We're waiting. 427 00:22:05.960 --> 00:22:07.200 Will you allow me to whole. 428 00:22:07.279 --> 00:22:08.880 Chap knows that you said that go. 429 00:22:09.680 --> 00:22:13.359 Will you allow me to go? I'm not asking you 430 00:22:13.400 --> 00:22:16.839 to say go. I'm a simple question. Will you act 431 00:22:16.920 --> 00:22:18.400 like an adult from this point on? 432 00:22:18.920 --> 00:22:22.160 If you make bad arguments argument, If you make bad arguments, 433 00:22:22.160 --> 00:22:23.279 that will interrupt you correct? 434 00:22:24.519 --> 00:22:27.799 Okay, so you're so you're just going to constantly interrupt it. Talk. 435 00:22:27.920 --> 00:22:29.839 So if you would like so, any you want to 436 00:22:29.880 --> 00:22:33.559 talk about anything but the assertions, the axiom is about 437 00:22:33.599 --> 00:22:34.960 ethics and normativity. 438 00:22:35.759 --> 00:22:37.359 If you would like to have this debate, it is 439 00:22:37.519 --> 00:22:38.519 clear that you are. 440 00:22:38.680 --> 00:22:39.839 Are you going to reply. 441 00:22:39.680 --> 00:22:43.119 In conversation without a monator, So find a moderator and 442 00:22:43.160 --> 00:22:46.119 schedule the debate or run like you did from liquid Zulo. 443 00:22:46.319 --> 00:22:48.480 I'm not running because you guys are too low to 444 00:22:48.519 --> 00:22:51.119 here to know the topics and what the categories are. 445 00:22:51.160 --> 00:22:53.319 To eat in debate you have, you have insults and 446 00:22:53.359 --> 00:22:56.640 interrupt You didn't even know what justification was. You didn't 447 00:22:56.640 --> 00:22:59.519 know what justification. You didn't even know what it was. No, 448 00:22:59.599 --> 00:23:01.799 you guys know you didn't. You had to ask me 449 00:23:01.839 --> 00:23:03.839 what it is. You have to ask me what it is? 450 00:23:04.119 --> 00:23:05.240 I asked what. 451 00:23:06.640 --> 00:23:08.160 You had to ask me what justification? 452 00:23:08.319 --> 00:23:11.799 Is I asked you what your standard was, because there is. 453 00:23:11.759 --> 00:23:14.640 Not my personal standard. It's not a subjective topic. 454 00:23:15.440 --> 00:23:19.839 You're you're in you're very clearly not honestly. 455 00:23:19.880 --> 00:23:23.440 Uh huh, right, So the axiom about ethics and morals 456 00:23:23.640 --> 00:23:27.519 is an axiom? And how is it not an ot claim? 457 00:23:27.599 --> 00:23:29.000 There's no reason the n A P? 458 00:23:29.240 --> 00:23:30.920 How is the NAP not an not claim? 459 00:23:31.240 --> 00:23:31.640 Interrupt? 460 00:23:31.839 --> 00:23:34.480 And then no, you're just bitching about interrupting to not answer. 461 00:23:34.960 --> 00:23:37.240 You're bitching about interrupting to not answer. How is the 462 00:23:37.319 --> 00:23:38.759 NAP not ethical or moral? 463 00:23:38.839 --> 00:23:42.359 So again, so again, find a moderator and we'll do. 464 00:23:42.359 --> 00:23:43.400 How is the NAP? 465 00:23:43.680 --> 00:23:43.759 Go? 466 00:23:43.920 --> 00:23:46.119 I will give you the time. How long do you 467 00:23:46.119 --> 00:23:49.319 want to answer? You want? Do you want? Like two minutes? 468 00:23:50.119 --> 00:23:51.519 Now, you're gonna let me, do you. 469 00:23:51.480 --> 00:23:53.160 Want like two minutes? Stop? 470 00:23:53.920 --> 00:23:56.400 Leave you find a moderator and will see. 471 00:23:56.440 --> 00:23:59.160 So you're running because you're rage quitting your rage quitting? 472 00:24:00.200 --> 00:24:02.200 Well, no, no, no, I'm it's not ranged because I 473 00:24:02.200 --> 00:24:04.200 can remember, I can just laugh and then it magically 474 00:24:04.279 --> 00:24:04.960 becomes not rage. 475 00:24:05.000 --> 00:24:07.880 Put Yeah, but yeah, but I I asked good questions 476 00:24:07.880 --> 00:24:10.119 about justification. What you didn't know what it was? And 477 00:24:10.240 --> 00:24:12.440 I'm asking you the same questions and you can't answer. 478 00:24:13.400 --> 00:24:17.519 Is the n a P an ethical normative claim? 479 00:24:17.680 --> 00:24:18.319 I have answered? 480 00:24:18.359 --> 00:24:21.319 So he no, you didn't answer answer, No, you didn't. 481 00:24:21.720 --> 00:24:25.599 What is the answer? So the entire the entire chat 482 00:24:25.640 --> 00:24:27.720 sees that this guy is running and he won't he 483 00:24:27.759 --> 00:24:28.279 won't debate. 484 00:24:29.519 --> 00:24:31.400 What do you mean I won't debate? You won't You. 485 00:24:31.680 --> 00:24:34.880 Won't answer the question, dude, If it's a simple question, 486 00:24:35.079 --> 00:24:38.759 why can't you just answer it? So I you did 487 00:24:38.759 --> 00:24:40.920 the same thing to Jim Bob because you're literally one 488 00:24:40.960 --> 00:24:42.960 of the worst debaters I've ever debated. You're worse than 489 00:24:43.000 --> 00:24:46.599 teed up at least teed up answers you know again, 490 00:24:47.039 --> 00:24:50.160 at least tied up answer. Do you want a two 491 00:24:50.200 --> 00:24:52.240 minute Do you want a two minute pause? 492 00:24:53.160 --> 00:24:53.799 This is waste? 493 00:24:54.279 --> 00:24:56.240 Do you want a two minute pause? Is the n 494 00:24:56.240 --> 00:24:58.200 a P ethical when it's about ethics? 495 00:24:58.279 --> 00:25:00.000 Is it find a moderator? 496 00:25:00.160 --> 00:25:02.000 Is the NAP ethical or moral? 497 00:25:02.319 --> 00:25:02.519 Or not? 498 00:25:02.920 --> 00:25:03.720 Find a moderate? 499 00:25:03.839 --> 00:25:06.400 So you can't answer, You literally cannot answer that. 500 00:25:07.039 --> 00:25:08.880 You can't up and you won't allow. 501 00:25:08.759 --> 00:25:09.440 What is the answer? 502 00:25:09.920 --> 00:25:11.720 You said you give me time to interrupted. 503 00:25:12.400 --> 00:25:14.920 I'll give you two minutes. I will give you two 504 00:25:14.920 --> 00:25:15.799 minutes of silence. 505 00:25:16.559 --> 00:25:19.039 I don't believe you. You're a fucking liar. 506 00:25:19.680 --> 00:25:21.519 So there you go. Look at it, Look at your rage. 507 00:25:21.599 --> 00:25:21.759 Quit. 508 00:25:21.960 --> 00:25:23.759 I will give you two minutes of silence, and you 509 00:25:23.799 --> 00:25:27.079 still won't do it because you can't. You can't answer. 510 00:25:28.160 --> 00:25:29.640 I can't find a moderator. 511 00:25:29.640 --> 00:25:31.440 I don't have to find a moderator for you. You're 512 00:25:31.480 --> 00:25:33.960 not worth a fully moderated debate. You're too low tier 513 00:25:34.000 --> 00:25:36.039 to even know how low tier you are. You don't 514 00:25:36.039 --> 00:25:38.880 know what justification is. You didn't know what the term is. 515 00:25:39.160 --> 00:25:40.319 You asked me what it meants. 516 00:25:41.079 --> 00:25:41.759 You interrupt? 517 00:25:41.799 --> 00:25:45.200 You positive because your questions and answers are dumb, dude. 518 00:25:45.240 --> 00:25:48.000 That's why everything's dumb, except. 519 00:25:47.920 --> 00:25:50.279 Is the nap ethical or moral. 520 00:25:52.640 --> 00:25:54.559 There's no reason for me to answer any of your. 521 00:25:54.480 --> 00:25:57.559 Questions because you can't because you have already lost the. 522 00:25:57.519 --> 00:26:01.000 Debate, and you're incapable of having You already lost about 523 00:26:01.000 --> 00:26:02.680 this without your rage quies. 524 00:26:02.640 --> 00:26:04.480 Casting me out because you don't have an answer to 525 00:26:04.640 --> 00:26:07.000 I'll give you two minutes. I'll shut up for two minutes. 526 00:26:07.039 --> 00:26:07.680 I don't, I don't. 527 00:26:08.079 --> 00:26:09.799 Why would you not believe me when I can prove 528 00:26:09.839 --> 00:26:10.400 that I'll do it. 529 00:26:10.440 --> 00:26:15.319 That's stupid, because you, because of your past behavior, all right. 530 00:26:15.240 --> 00:26:17.079 I'm gonna be quiet right now. I'm gonna be quiet 531 00:26:17.079 --> 00:26:18.559 for two minutes and you can answer. 532 00:26:19.720 --> 00:26:23.519 Okay, yeah, sure, go ahead. So now you're asking me 533 00:26:23.599 --> 00:26:25.599 a loaded question, which is, you know, when did you 534 00:26:25.599 --> 00:26:29.160 stop being you? So I'm obviously not gonna answer. But 535 00:26:29.160 --> 00:26:32.200 in regards to what is the non aggression principle, non 536 00:26:32.279 --> 00:26:35.240 aggression principle is an ought claim, but it is also 537 00:26:35.279 --> 00:26:38.480 an axiom. One can choose to follow that axiom or 538 00:26:38.519 --> 00:26:41.079 not follow that axiom in there in the system of ethics. 539 00:26:41.119 --> 00:26:44.000 But if you have a a an ethical system that 540 00:26:44.039 --> 00:26:47.559 you attempt to justify, then that is where that that 541 00:26:47.680 --> 00:26:51.079 is where you must follow or you must your system 542 00:26:51.119 --> 00:26:53.839 must be commiserate with a non aggression principle or it 543 00:26:53.960 --> 00:26:57.160 falls into contradiction. That is, that is the claim that 544 00:26:57.200 --> 00:27:00.279 I mean. So you are correct that the next app 545 00:27:00.440 --> 00:27:03.119 is a moral claim that one ought not aggress upon 546 00:27:03.279 --> 00:27:07.039 other people. But where when we were talking about bridging 547 00:27:07.119 --> 00:27:11.519 kind of the is ought gap from descriptive to prescriptive ideology, 548 00:27:11.839 --> 00:27:15.400 what I'm saying is that it is it is a 549 00:27:15.559 --> 00:27:20.680 means of negating ethical justifications when they go against a 550 00:27:20.720 --> 00:27:24.680 non aggression principle. So boom, Finally, I. 551 00:27:24.599 --> 00:27:26.480 Don't even know what that is supposed to mean means 552 00:27:26.519 --> 00:27:28.279 of negating what is that supposed to mean? 553 00:27:30.079 --> 00:27:34.960 Right, So, libertarianism as a whole is you know, the 554 00:27:35.039 --> 00:27:40.279 nap is axiomatic to libertarianism. But things such as like argumentation, ethics, 555 00:27:40.559 --> 00:27:45.079 and other forms of logic showcase that, you know, people 556 00:27:45.119 --> 00:27:48.039 that attempt to justify the law the jungle or are 557 00:27:48.039 --> 00:27:52.079 no longer in ethics. Right, you're if you're saying some 558 00:27:52.160 --> 00:27:55.960 people can be slaves or some property can be taken, 559 00:27:57.039 --> 00:28:01.440 then your your moral claims aren't universalizable and fall into contradiction. 560 00:28:02.519 --> 00:28:04.839 H our moral claims univers sizable. 561 00:28:08.599 --> 00:28:12.039 We ford to be a pru moral claim. 562 00:28:12.400 --> 00:28:17.640 So there are universals. Yeah, okay, how do you justify 563 00:28:17.839 --> 00:28:18.799 universal claims? 564 00:28:21.359 --> 00:28:24.880 How do I justify the existence of universal claims? Like, 565 00:28:24.960 --> 00:28:26.359 can you give me an example of one that may 566 00:28:26.440 --> 00:28:26.960 just making. 567 00:28:27.960 --> 00:28:29.920 Uh yeah, one ought faulty nap. 568 00:28:33.759 --> 00:28:37.920 Well, so we would start with existence exists, then we 569 00:28:37.960 --> 00:28:39.200 would move into. 570 00:28:39.079 --> 00:28:41.680 Formal existence exists. What is that supposed to mean? 571 00:28:43.039 --> 00:28:46.759 I've seen an unavoidable accident, Right, so one cannot argue I. 572 00:28:46.680 --> 00:28:50.240 Mean it's a it's a it's a self referencing basically 573 00:28:50.319 --> 00:28:53.119 version of the identity principle. But how do you what 574 00:28:53.160 --> 00:28:54.759 does that mean? Existence exists? 575 00:28:55.920 --> 00:28:59.160 That means that existence exists, right, it's it's it is 576 00:28:59.200 --> 00:29:02.119 self referencing in uh huh situation. But one cannot argue 577 00:29:02.119 --> 00:29:03.799 against the concept of existence. 578 00:29:03.880 --> 00:29:08.799 Actually you can, because you can't actually pretty easily because existence. 579 00:29:08.400 --> 00:29:11.440 Is well, yeah, I could say cats have wings existence. 580 00:29:11.599 --> 00:29:14.000 No, no, no, I mean in a different point that existence 581 00:29:14.160 --> 00:29:17.920 is a very contested, ambiguous term in the history of philosophy. 582 00:29:17.920 --> 00:29:21.640 It's a metaphysical claim. So have you justified any metaphysics yet? 583 00:29:24.440 --> 00:29:27.720 I would start where we're starting with existence, and existence 584 00:29:27.880 --> 00:29:29.079 justifies itself. 585 00:29:28.720 --> 00:29:32.720 By the existence justifies itself. What is your proof for 586 00:29:32.799 --> 00:29:35.359 the proposition existence justifies itself? 587 00:29:36.759 --> 00:29:40.720 It is you cannot make any form of logical argument 588 00:29:41.039 --> 00:29:46.240 in any about anything without justifying without existing, Like, it's 589 00:29:46.279 --> 00:29:47.039 impossible to. 590 00:29:47.039 --> 00:29:49.039 Make a claim that's not even actually true. I mean, 591 00:29:49.119 --> 00:29:53.079 Boolean approaches to logic have made it deontological, so you 592 00:29:53.119 --> 00:29:55.680 can actually make onto you can actually make logical arguments 593 00:29:55.720 --> 00:29:57.200 without ontological claims. 594 00:29:57.680 --> 00:29:59.599 That's not you're making an argument the moment that you 595 00:29:59.599 --> 00:30:01.119 make it justify. 596 00:30:01.759 --> 00:30:04.599 No, that's not even true. That's that's a that's not 597 00:30:04.720 --> 00:30:07.640 a justification, and that's a fallacious move. So it doesn't 598 00:30:07.720 --> 00:30:12.920 keep it. It doesn't prove the metaphysical notion or the 599 00:30:13.000 --> 00:30:16.160 linguistic symbols that you use for the word existence are correct. 600 00:30:16.160 --> 00:30:22.400 In other words, it assumes all kinds of things like language, predications, language, 601 00:30:22.400 --> 00:30:24.680 and predication. Right, so if you had if you'd had 602 00:30:24.680 --> 00:30:27.920 a philosophy language class, you would know that words like 603 00:30:28.000 --> 00:30:37.519 existence presuppose metaphysical structures like universals, like predicate, predication, like grammar, 604 00:30:38.200 --> 00:30:40.240 and none of those things have been demonstrated yet. 605 00:30:41.680 --> 00:30:46.319 Okay, this is it's not the concept of existence, but 606 00:30:47.079 --> 00:30:49.920 not the definition of the word existence. So everything that 607 00:30:49.960 --> 00:30:50.839 you just said is silly. 608 00:30:51.640 --> 00:30:53.079 No, everything I said is basic. 609 00:30:52.920 --> 00:30:55.640 Philosophy, no idiot. 610 00:30:55.839 --> 00:30:58.720 The fact that you think that there's self evident action. 611 00:30:58.720 --> 00:31:01.960 Well, other people might like, what is the definition of 612 00:31:02.000 --> 00:31:03.079 the word What do you mean? 613 00:31:03.200 --> 00:31:06.160 You don't think that the word existence is? What is 614 00:31:06.160 --> 00:31:07.640 it referring to itself? 615 00:31:07.960 --> 00:31:10.039 Is impossible to our. 616 00:31:09.920 --> 00:31:13.359 Concepts in this case? Are they based on linguistic philosophy? 617 00:31:14.680 --> 00:31:16.000 Can you argue against existence? 618 00:31:16.240 --> 00:31:18.400 It doesn't matter because I won't get you to justification 619 00:31:18.559 --> 00:31:23.200 even if I admit that. Even if I admit it 620 00:31:23.240 --> 00:31:26.079 doesn't matter because it doesn't achieve justification. So even if 621 00:31:26.079 --> 00:31:29.839 I admit skepticism and play the role of a skeptic 622 00:31:30.400 --> 00:31:34.799 and counter your claims about existence being existence, it doesn't 623 00:31:34.799 --> 00:31:37.559 prove anything. It doesn't get you anywhere because I'm pointing 624 00:31:37.640 --> 00:31:39.759 out that it's not self evident if it relies on 625 00:31:39.839 --> 00:31:43.279 things like predication, linguistic philosophy, and grammar, which you haven't 626 00:31:43.319 --> 00:31:44.799 proven yet, So it's not self evident. 627 00:31:46.079 --> 00:31:50.119 It does not The concept of existence is not does not. 628 00:31:49.799 --> 00:31:55.359 The proposition existence exists, The proposition is itself relying on 629 00:31:56.000 --> 00:32:00.559 Does it rely on the law of identity? No, yes, 630 00:32:00.640 --> 00:32:04.440 it does. Existence exists is relying on the law of identity. 631 00:32:05.440 --> 00:32:06.799 No, it would come after exists? 632 00:32:06.839 --> 00:32:08.400 Oh my gosh, right like once. 633 00:32:08.400 --> 00:32:12.319 No, to say existence exists relies on the law of identity, 634 00:32:12.400 --> 00:32:14.400 you're predicating identity, Yes. 635 00:32:14.319 --> 00:32:17.240 Arisitilian formal logic ray like law of identity, law of 636 00:32:17.279 --> 00:32:21.000 excluded middle and law of non contradiction. Right, are going 637 00:32:21.079 --> 00:32:24.480 to be are going to be the foundation for making 638 00:32:24.599 --> 00:32:26.359 the argument that existency. 639 00:32:26.839 --> 00:32:29.000 I'm calling in to question the argument. 640 00:32:28.799 --> 00:32:31.279 Language and all those other things. But what I'm saying 641 00:32:31.400 --> 00:32:36.000 is is that by one attempting in any language in 642 00:32:36.039 --> 00:32:38.680 any in any means, anytime a. 643 00:32:40.240 --> 00:32:43.039 Moral I know what you're saying, it's called retortion to. 644 00:32:42.920 --> 00:32:47.720 Make a claim that that that requires existence for them 645 00:32:47.920 --> 00:32:49.319 that it presupposes exists. 646 00:32:49.440 --> 00:32:51.400 I'm aware of that. But that still doesn't get you. 647 00:32:51.519 --> 00:32:54.720 I know that, I know it's called retortion. It's called retortion, 648 00:32:54.880 --> 00:32:59.960 and it doesn't get you to justification. That's the point, right, So. 649 00:33:00.599 --> 00:33:04.960 How are you justifying because you clearly believe it existence. 650 00:33:05.160 --> 00:33:07.720 Well, I believe in the transcendental argument for God's existence, 651 00:33:07.759 --> 00:33:10.279 and that's the ground for the logical categories which make 652 00:33:10.359 --> 00:33:13.839 it possible to predicate at all. So that's my worldview account. 653 00:33:14.359 --> 00:33:16.839 But even if I admit, even if I admit to you, 654 00:33:18.079 --> 00:33:19.759 let me explain the point as to why it doesn't 655 00:33:19.799 --> 00:33:23.160 get you justification. Right. So this comes up after Enlightenment 656 00:33:23.160 --> 00:33:26.880 philosophers raised the question about justification in this domain. When 657 00:33:26.880 --> 00:33:30.039 it comes to for example, Kant says, one reason that 658 00:33:30.319 --> 00:33:33.480 just retortion alone doesn't get you to justification is that 659 00:33:33.799 --> 00:33:37.799 we don't know that the seeming impossibility of not being 660 00:33:37.839 --> 00:33:41.599 able to argue, or to use logic or to have 661 00:33:41.720 --> 00:33:44.880 conceptual frameworks itself means that it's the case in the 662 00:33:44.920 --> 00:33:47.839 external world So even if you could demonstrate that I 663 00:33:47.880 --> 00:33:52.720 can't argue or have human conceptual predication or language without 664 00:33:52.759 --> 00:33:56.920 assuming something like the law of identity or existence exists 665 00:33:57.000 --> 00:33:59.960 or whatever, it still doesn't get you to justification because 666 00:34:00.119 --> 00:34:03.440 is that that even if it doesn't seem possible, it 667 00:34:03.480 --> 00:34:05.920 would become a fallacy of incredulity that I don't see 668 00:34:05.920 --> 00:34:08.960 how else you could reason still doesn't grain into justification, 669 00:34:09.039 --> 00:34:10.880 And all you need is one defeat. 670 00:34:10.559 --> 00:34:12.920 Or to prove I'm not making the argument that it 671 00:34:12.960 --> 00:34:15.400 doesn't seem possible. I am making the argument that it 672 00:34:15.519 --> 00:34:16.519 is not possible. 673 00:34:16.599 --> 00:34:18.760 So if you're saying it's not possible, you would have 674 00:34:18.800 --> 00:34:21.199 to demonstrate exists. Then I know that. So then you 675 00:34:21.199 --> 00:34:24.119 would have to then you have to answer Const's dilemmas 676 00:34:24.159 --> 00:34:25.880 of how you know there even is an external world 677 00:34:25.920 --> 00:34:27.320 to which these categories apply. 678 00:34:28.519 --> 00:34:31.280 Okay, So constanlemma in how do I know that there 679 00:34:31.320 --> 00:34:32.719 is an external world. 680 00:34:33.199 --> 00:34:36.719 To where the concepts apply? Like when he critiques the 681 00:34:37.480 --> 00:34:40.800 ontological argument, he's pointing out that there's nothing about the 682 00:34:40.880 --> 00:34:43.800 term existence that contains within it the notion of perfection. 683 00:34:44.199 --> 00:34:47.000 So just proving that something exists doesn't get these other 684 00:34:47.079 --> 00:34:50.440 metaphysical qualities like perfection. So likewise, in your case, the 685 00:34:50.480 --> 00:34:51.440 same problem applies. 686 00:34:51.639 --> 00:34:54.239 What is what is? What is? If you can explain 687 00:34:54.280 --> 00:34:56.559 it for me batter like what is like perfection or 688 00:34:56.599 --> 00:34:57.480 like the human. 689 00:34:57.920 --> 00:35:02.639 Like cons I'm saying that const critique of the ontological 690 00:35:02.800 --> 00:35:06.679 argument is applicable to the argument that you're making about 691 00:35:06.840 --> 00:35:11.440 the ontological claim that existence exists. I'm saying that you 692 00:35:11.519 --> 00:35:14.000 need all kinds of things to be the case for 693 00:35:14.079 --> 00:35:17.159 that to hold or to be true, and those other 694 00:35:17.239 --> 00:35:19.679 things have not been proven yet, and so it's not 695 00:35:19.760 --> 00:35:22.559 self evident or axiomatic. It rests on a bunch of 696 00:35:22.599 --> 00:35:26.440 other assumptions, all the things I've listed, like language. 697 00:35:26.880 --> 00:35:29.159 Space, space, time, causality. 698 00:35:30.000 --> 00:35:36.679 Correct well, when cont critiques the Kogito, he says that 699 00:35:36.719 --> 00:35:40.960 it assumes time and space. But I'm not making that argument. Okay, 700 00:35:41.360 --> 00:35:42.360 but it's similar. 701 00:35:42.000 --> 00:35:46.400 To Okay, so your argument is that you need I'm 702 00:35:46.440 --> 00:35:49.639 having a hard time. My mom's gone real quick. 703 00:35:50.960 --> 00:35:54.320 For you to say existence exists and to say that 704 00:35:54.360 --> 00:35:57.920 that's self evident and axiomatic, because if you denied it, 705 00:35:58.000 --> 00:36:00.360 you couldn't reason about the world, you couldn't reason at all. 706 00:36:00.800 --> 00:36:03.320 I agree with that principle and that point but that 707 00:36:03.440 --> 00:36:06.639 does not get you to epistemic justification because it doesn't 708 00:36:06.679 --> 00:36:09.719 answer constant dilemma that even if the proposition is true, 709 00:36:10.000 --> 00:36:12.119 you don't know that it applies to an external world 710 00:36:12.400 --> 00:36:14.800 without assuming an external world. And I agree with you 711 00:36:14.840 --> 00:36:16.679 that we should assume an external world. But the point 712 00:36:16.719 --> 00:36:19.119 is that you haven't demonstrated an external world yet, and 713 00:36:19.159 --> 00:36:21.199 so the propositions are not axiomatic. 714 00:36:21.559 --> 00:36:24.159 Even if we were like in the matrix or something, 715 00:36:24.360 --> 00:36:28.280 there must be an external world for existence who exists. 716 00:36:28.159 --> 00:36:30.000 But you haven't proven that yet, and so that's why 717 00:36:30.000 --> 00:36:32.719 this statement is not axiomatic. So it rests on other beliefs. 718 00:36:34.559 --> 00:36:35.639 Well, it was sweet. 719 00:36:35.719 --> 00:36:39.480 I mean I could if something acxiomatic or Okay, no, 720 00:36:39.719 --> 00:36:43.159 it could be false axiom. But like people self evident, 721 00:36:43.280 --> 00:36:46.719 axiomatic beliefs can't rest on another belief. That's the point, 722 00:36:46.960 --> 00:36:47.800 or else they're no longer. 723 00:36:48.559 --> 00:36:52.159 Is what is the belief that existence exists. 724 00:36:53.719 --> 00:36:55.960 In this case, that it applies to something in an 725 00:36:56.000 --> 00:36:59.239 external world to give it meaning and content. To refute 726 00:36:59.320 --> 00:37:01.760 my point about why it doesn't get you to justification, 727 00:37:01.880 --> 00:37:02.480 you needed. 728 00:37:02.320 --> 00:37:05.360 To apply the existence itself. 729 00:37:06.119 --> 00:37:07.119 You haven't shown that. 730 00:37:07.239 --> 00:37:07.599 You haven't. 731 00:37:07.800 --> 00:37:11.679 Now you've read it Now you haven't demonstrated that no existence, 732 00:37:12.280 --> 00:37:13.079 that it's not a concept. 733 00:37:13.480 --> 00:37:16.440 There is that there is a material world that exists. 734 00:37:16.599 --> 00:37:19.480 Now now you're adding, uh, now you're moving the goalpost, 735 00:37:19.519 --> 00:37:22.119 because there's nothing in the word There's nothing in the 736 00:37:22.159 --> 00:37:24.679 word existence that necessarily tells you that it's about an 737 00:37:24.679 --> 00:37:29.960 external world. That's what you just you just added and altered. Well, 738 00:37:30.639 --> 00:37:33.559 you know you might be existence exists, and now you're 739 00:37:33.559 --> 00:37:36.599 modifying it to say that, well that means necessarily the 740 00:37:36.639 --> 00:37:38.800 external world. What is there in the word existence that 741 00:37:39.000 --> 00:37:40.960 necessarily means external world? 742 00:37:41.840 --> 00:37:44.119 So I think you, I think you might actually be 743 00:37:44.239 --> 00:37:48.960 right on this only because existence is this is is objective. 744 00:37:49.119 --> 00:37:52.159 It's randy and right. So you wouldn't you just wouldn't 745 00:37:52.320 --> 00:37:54.920 deny or I don't think she would support any idea 746 00:37:54.920 --> 00:37:57.639 of like the spiritual or any other type of world 747 00:37:57.760 --> 00:38:01.840 other than the material world. I think it is probably implied, 748 00:38:01.880 --> 00:38:05.400 but maybe not explicitly stated. So like, yeah, that's fine. 749 00:38:05.400 --> 00:38:08.480 If you want to critique existence exists, you know, to 750 00:38:08.639 --> 00:38:09.960 like better. 751 00:38:10.400 --> 00:38:13.800 Well, I'm just giving examples of why it modern. I'm 752 00:38:13.840 --> 00:38:16.760 just giving examples or why it doesn't get you to 753 00:38:17.079 --> 00:38:20.159 self evidence or justification in an epistemic sense. 754 00:38:21.079 --> 00:38:25.119 Well, it's like I'm you're saying it doesn't because there 755 00:38:25.119 --> 00:38:27.639 could be a spiritual. 756 00:38:27.079 --> 00:38:29.719 World that I never said any of that. 757 00:38:30.639 --> 00:38:33.440 Well, you're saying that it doesn't imply the materials. 758 00:38:33.519 --> 00:38:35.360 All I need is one defeater, and I've given you 759 00:38:35.440 --> 00:38:37.599 a couple of defeaters. It doesn't mean that I have 760 00:38:37.679 --> 00:38:41.039 to all CON's positions. So no, I don't believe. 761 00:38:41.039 --> 00:38:45.360 All I'm asking Your argument is that existence exists, doesn't 762 00:38:45.360 --> 00:38:46.159 imply the world. 763 00:38:46.760 --> 00:38:50.840 Correct, that's our content, right, And well, this content. 764 00:38:50.719 --> 00:38:54.559 Wasn't alive to critique existence from the from the checktives. 765 00:38:54.599 --> 00:38:58.400 He made this critique in a similar way critiquing the 766 00:38:58.400 --> 00:38:59.960 ontological argument. That's what I'm saying. 767 00:39:02.239 --> 00:39:06.159 So when I make the argument existence exit and you're saying, well, 768 00:39:06.159 --> 00:39:11.320 this doesn't necessarily apply to the existence we're in, I 769 00:39:11.880 --> 00:39:13.920 guess I don't have an argument for that, because we 770 00:39:14.039 --> 00:39:16.920 exist in the existence we're in. There is no other existence. 771 00:39:17.039 --> 00:39:20.239 That's just starting, that's just starting the thing question. 772 00:39:22.239 --> 00:39:25.199 I'm actually genuinely trying to understand your critique here. It's 773 00:39:25.199 --> 00:39:28.119 not like I'm like I'm not like, how. 774 00:39:28.159 --> 00:39:30.519 Well, the point so to make it very live. 775 00:39:30.400 --> 00:39:33.480 In this world? Right, we we we are acting, we're behaving, 776 00:39:33.480 --> 00:39:35.159 We're attempting to justify. 777 00:39:35.159 --> 00:39:38.119 The point is that all systems, the point is that 778 00:39:39.119 --> 00:39:43.840 the point is that all beliefs, all propositions, all statements, 779 00:39:43.880 --> 00:39:46.400 true statements, et cetera, and my view are theory laden. 780 00:39:46.920 --> 00:39:49.679 And so this has been a long walk to get 781 00:39:49.679 --> 00:39:52.119 to the point, to try to prove or demonstrate that 782 00:39:52.519 --> 00:39:56.360 classical foundationalism, which is the epistemology that the Enlightenment relies 783 00:39:56.440 --> 00:40:01.679 upon in most libertarians, is philosophically enough, estemically on faulty ground. 784 00:40:02.000 --> 00:40:04.480 And it doesn't make me a content simply because I'm 785 00:40:04.559 --> 00:40:07.679 using his argument that there's nothing necessarily about the word 786 00:40:07.719 --> 00:40:11.960 existence that entails a material external world. I could be 787 00:40:12.000 --> 00:40:14.159 an idealist. Maybe I believe that all the world is 788 00:40:14.199 --> 00:40:17.400 a Platonic ideal, and for me, the word existence just 789 00:40:17.519 --> 00:40:20.480 means ideas like Plato, right, or that's the highest. 790 00:40:20.199 --> 00:40:22.719 Now you're changing the argument. 791 00:40:23.039 --> 00:40:25.519 No, I'm giving you an example of why the word 792 00:40:25.599 --> 00:40:29.480 existence does not have self evident meaning to it. 793 00:40:28.840 --> 00:40:30.239 It's contingent. 794 00:40:30.400 --> 00:40:33.480 Let me finish, there's contingent upon a paradigm. 795 00:40:33.599 --> 00:40:36.760 So if I just start changing the meaning of words, 796 00:40:37.039 --> 00:40:39.079 right and then saying that, well. 797 00:40:39.079 --> 00:40:40.920 I mean, you're the one that did that, where you 798 00:40:40.920 --> 00:40:43.960 you modified existence to mean a material external world. But 799 00:40:44.000 --> 00:40:46.079 there's nothing necessary enough. The word that tells you that. 800 00:40:49.360 --> 00:40:51.960 The existence exists as an argument is a justification. 801 00:40:52.880 --> 00:40:56.119 It's not a justification because it's a restatement of a 802 00:40:56.840 --> 00:40:59.679 self evident in your view, truth doesn't tell you anything 803 00:40:59.679 --> 00:41:02.000 about the world. You're assuming it does. But how do 804 00:41:02.039 --> 00:41:02.519 you know it does? 805 00:41:02.880 --> 00:41:08.400 Well, it tells you that an individual cannot the reason 806 00:41:08.480 --> 00:41:09.679 is an unavoidable accident. 807 00:41:11.000 --> 00:41:13.719 But you keep calling it unavoidable, resting on the assumption 808 00:41:13.840 --> 00:41:15.679 that it actually applies to an external world, which you 809 00:41:15.719 --> 00:41:16.440 haven't demonstrated. 810 00:41:16.440 --> 00:41:18.719 But you're not making argument like that's a critique. 811 00:41:18.719 --> 00:41:21.079 It's an internal critique. My argument is an eternal critique. 812 00:41:21.920 --> 00:41:25.800 Yeah, but you're saying that there is a way that 813 00:41:25.840 --> 00:41:31.159 you can defeat existence exists argumentation by redefining words and 814 00:41:31.280 --> 00:41:32.440 concepts of what No. 815 00:41:32.519 --> 00:41:34.760 I'm simply pointing out, I'm. 816 00:41:34.559 --> 00:41:38.760 Clarifying what existence means in the objective his framework. And 817 00:41:38.800 --> 00:41:40.440 you're saying, ah, but what if. 818 00:41:40.320 --> 00:41:42.960 I whether it's a non sequitor. There's nothing about the word. 819 00:41:42.760 --> 00:41:46.199 Existence that you attempt to it's. 820 00:41:46.039 --> 00:41:48.000 A non sequitor in your system. 821 00:41:48.679 --> 00:41:51.880 The moment that you attempt to argue that you know 822 00:41:51.960 --> 00:41:55.360 the world is actually just like this platonic forms, or. 823 00:41:55.320 --> 00:41:57.679 That I didn't say that. I just gave an example 824 00:41:57.760 --> 00:41:59.320 that wasn't my point I'm using. 825 00:41:59.400 --> 00:42:02.679 I'm using use in like the universal right, the one 826 00:42:02.719 --> 00:42:06.800 that one you know, attempts to make any form of justification. 827 00:42:06.920 --> 00:42:09.599 They do so in the world that we live in. 828 00:42:10.719 --> 00:42:12.679 I mean, again, assuming that there is an external world, 829 00:42:12.679 --> 00:42:18.119 which you haven't demonstrated yet. So the whole point is 830 00:42:18.159 --> 00:42:21.239 not because I'm you don't understand what a defeater argument is. 831 00:42:21.280 --> 00:42:23.039 It doesn't mean that I'm a skeptical like human. It 832 00:42:23.039 --> 00:42:25.239 means that I'm using the argument from human Kant to 833 00:42:25.320 --> 00:42:29.320 prove why your assertion existence exists is not self evident. 834 00:42:29.440 --> 00:42:31.239 It rests on other things, That's the point. 835 00:42:31.679 --> 00:42:33.519 But you haven't shown that it rests on other things. 836 00:42:33.960 --> 00:42:38.000 I gave you multiple examples. For example, it rests on 837 00:42:38.039 --> 00:42:40.159 the assumption that it applies to the external world. Have 838 00:42:40.239 --> 00:42:43.360 you demonstrated that existence exists applies to the external world 839 00:42:43.400 --> 00:42:46.840 and not just a conceptual framework? When was that justification? 840 00:42:48.360 --> 00:42:54.519 Again? Who who is? Who can exist? Right without exist? 841 00:42:54.719 --> 00:42:58.119 So you're answering a question to answer the question I 842 00:42:58.199 --> 00:42:58.559 asked you. 843 00:42:59.360 --> 00:43:00.760 I'm trying to get you don't understand. 844 00:43:01.159 --> 00:43:05.320 Maybe maybe that maybe we maybe everything is an ideal 845 00:43:05.440 --> 00:43:08.880 existence and there is no external world. I don't believe that, 846 00:43:08.920 --> 00:43:12.880 But I'm saying that your assumptions are not justified, even 847 00:43:12.920 --> 00:43:15.159 within your own system. How do I know that the 848 00:43:15.199 --> 00:43:19.320 word existence, when it has a vast array of meanings 849 00:43:19.320 --> 00:43:24.280 throughout the history of philosophy, somehow necessarily means a material, physical, 850 00:43:24.320 --> 00:43:28.320 external world. There's nothing about the word existence that necessarily 851 00:43:28.360 --> 00:43:30.599 means that. And when I ask you how you know 852 00:43:30.639 --> 00:43:32.239 that or why we should think that, you say, it 853 00:43:32.280 --> 00:43:34.880 just has to be that way. Well, that's a fallacy 854 00:43:34.880 --> 00:43:35.679 of incredulity. 855 00:43:37.400 --> 00:43:44.719 So if there are the necessary condition for existence is well, 856 00:43:44.840 --> 00:43:48.920 hold on, let me not go there. So I'm you're 857 00:43:49.000 --> 00:43:53.679 you're saying that the argument isn't justified because one could 858 00:43:54.039 --> 00:43:56.760 make arguments outside of reality. 859 00:43:57.280 --> 00:43:59.360 I'm saying that it's a non sequitor and that it 860 00:43:59.440 --> 00:44:03.199 rests on multiple other assumptions which have not been proven, 861 00:44:03.280 --> 00:44:04.639 and so it's not self evident. 862 00:44:07.840 --> 00:44:13.760 So, but some existence is self evident. I don't understand. 863 00:44:13.840 --> 00:44:16.119 I mean, again, you just keep re starting the position 864 00:44:16.239 --> 00:44:18.800 that's a variation on the original position, And how do 865 00:44:18.840 --> 00:44:19.880 we know that? What does that mean? 866 00:44:21.039 --> 00:44:24.840 Because if one because we because we obviously exist in 867 00:44:24.840 --> 00:44:25.559 some capacity. 868 00:44:25.679 --> 00:44:27.920 So your answer is that it's just the case. So 869 00:44:28.239 --> 00:44:29.960 the answer is again, that is just the case. 870 00:44:30.039 --> 00:44:34.119 So I have those classical foundations and it's antable axiom. 871 00:44:34.480 --> 00:44:36.679 Again, you keep asserting that, but then you've admitted that 872 00:44:36.719 --> 00:44:39.119 it relies on other things like an external world, which 873 00:44:39.159 --> 00:44:43.440 that proposition, the proposition itself does not contain within it 874 00:44:43.599 --> 00:44:45.159 a necessary existence of an. 875 00:44:45.039 --> 00:44:50.000 Ex Okay, So so I have put forward that existence exists, 876 00:44:50.039 --> 00:44:53.199 and you've heard that argument. Need it? You say it doesn't. 877 00:44:53.239 --> 00:44:57.639 It's it's not justified because it relies on other assumptions. 878 00:44:58.159 --> 00:45:01.360 What do do you have a counter argument for our existence? 879 00:45:01.840 --> 00:45:06.000 Yes, and again it's the existence of God grounds and 880 00:45:06.199 --> 00:45:10.960 justifies the transcendental categories which make possible things like predicating 881 00:45:11.000 --> 00:45:13.880 about existence in the created realm. So there's not even 882 00:45:13.960 --> 00:45:20.559 one God, no, because in Christian theology, for example, there's 883 00:45:20.559 --> 00:45:23.719 two types of existences. There's uncreated and created, and so 884 00:45:23.760 --> 00:45:26.320 there's nothing about the word existence that tells me necessarily 885 00:45:26.320 --> 00:45:28.400 which one is even being referred to. Because I believe 886 00:45:28.440 --> 00:45:31.159 in my place, I believe in my paradigm that there's 887 00:45:31.280 --> 00:45:34.960 uncreated existence, who is God himself, and there's created existence, 888 00:45:34.960 --> 00:45:36.880 which is the created world. Those are two types of 889 00:45:36.920 --> 00:45:40.320 existing things. So there's nothing self evident about the word 890 00:45:40.360 --> 00:45:42.440 existence that necessarily tells you anything. 891 00:45:43.079 --> 00:45:48.280 Yeah, yeah, what is an uncreated existence God himself? Yeah? Okay, 892 00:45:48.280 --> 00:45:50.239 well that's like, yeah, but what do you mean by like, 893 00:45:50.239 --> 00:45:52.599 what is an uncreated system? 894 00:45:52.840 --> 00:45:54.880 It means that he is timeless. It means that he 895 00:45:55.000 --> 00:45:58.280 is a noncomposite, He is outside of time and space. 896 00:45:58.679 --> 00:46:01.519 He is transcendent, he is imminent, he is perfect all 897 00:46:01.559 --> 00:46:05.719 the attributes that we would ascribe to God in our system. 898 00:46:05.800 --> 00:46:08.280 So when you say he's timeless, what is what is? 899 00:46:08.360 --> 00:46:11.079 What do you mean by that? It's a doesn't exist 900 00:46:11.119 --> 00:46:12.199 in reality. 901 00:46:12.320 --> 00:46:15.840 No, outside of time, meaning that he's eternal. He created time, 902 00:46:15.880 --> 00:46:17.000 he's outside of time. 903 00:46:18.000 --> 00:46:20.800 So like, well, like would a vampire be an ungreated 904 00:46:20.840 --> 00:46:22.119 existence if he's immortal? 905 00:46:23.559 --> 00:46:25.840 Anything mortal is created by definition? 906 00:46:27.079 --> 00:46:27.559 Okay, so. 907 00:46:30.719 --> 00:46:32.719 Yeah, but I'm just pointing out that the word existence 908 00:46:32.760 --> 00:46:36.800 doesn't necessarily tell you anything self evident without a paradigm 909 00:46:36.880 --> 00:46:40.119 to inform the word and its meaning, even language itself. 910 00:46:40.199 --> 00:46:42.840 Is why I mentioned earlier to you linguistic philosophy, it's 911 00:46:42.880 --> 00:46:46.599 a holistic structure. It's an epistemic wholism, which means that 912 00:46:46.920 --> 00:46:50.239 there's no words that function in an independent way. You 913 00:46:50.239 --> 00:46:52.599 could read Wickenstein on this because he talks about how 914 00:46:53.440 --> 00:46:58.119 words and terms are part of linguistic structures and systems 915 00:46:58.239 --> 00:47:00.639 because they all relate to one another. So there's no 916 00:47:00.679 --> 00:47:06.440 such thing as a word called existence or ontos or food, 917 00:47:06.480 --> 00:47:11.000 sees or being or whatever that somehow has a self evident, 918 00:47:11.280 --> 00:47:15.599 necessary meaning apart from the entire paradigm or worldview that 919 00:47:15.639 --> 00:47:18.800 you have that informs it. That's why I was mentioning, Yeah, so. 920 00:47:18.880 --> 00:47:23.039 Yeah, what like, So it is true that words, you know, 921 00:47:23.960 --> 00:47:25.760 have a have a shared meaning that we kind of 922 00:47:25.760 --> 00:47:29.719 assume people get like, you know, and we see language 923 00:47:29.760 --> 00:47:32.440 pain constantly where a word has are and then over 924 00:47:32.519 --> 00:47:35.440 time the meaning of the word kind of changes from 925 00:47:35.440 --> 00:47:38.719 the cultural context because it's because it's just a function, right, 926 00:47:38.880 --> 00:47:40.960 It's a tool. A word is just a tool to 927 00:47:41.079 --> 00:47:45.639 describe a concept, and you know, communication is often more 928 00:47:45.679 --> 00:47:46.760 often than not imperfect. 929 00:47:46.920 --> 00:47:47.000 Right. 930 00:47:47.639 --> 00:47:51.559 But but what I'm trying to understand is, you know, 931 00:47:52.360 --> 00:47:54.679 I agree that that is a that is a problem 932 00:47:54.760 --> 00:47:58.039 in argumentation. You have to kind of assume that the 933 00:47:58.079 --> 00:48:01.320 reader understands the meaning of the word has right, but 934 00:48:01.800 --> 00:48:06.760 that isn't always perfect. But how do you justify? How 935 00:48:06.800 --> 00:48:08.639 do how does your position differ? 936 00:48:08.679 --> 00:48:09.400 In existence? 937 00:48:09.480 --> 00:48:13.039 Exist? And so though far that it justifies? Like saying 938 00:48:13.079 --> 00:48:17.599 God is uncreated is like like you're just saying it's 939 00:48:17.639 --> 00:48:20.800 it's outside of the rules, and it exists and it doesn't. 940 00:48:20.760 --> 00:48:23.199 Well, now outside of your rules? So and are I 941 00:48:23.239 --> 00:48:25.920 have a different paradigm. So I'm thinking and arguing in 942 00:48:26.000 --> 00:48:28.480 terms of paradigms or world views as a whole. The 943 00:48:28.519 --> 00:48:31.840 transcendental argument is a comparison of to world views or paradigms. 944 00:48:31.920 --> 00:48:35.480 So it involves the entire system because the Christian theistic 945 00:48:35.519 --> 00:48:39.039 system conditions what I mean by words like existence or 946 00:48:39.199 --> 00:48:42.800 time or creation or whatever all of those things are. 947 00:48:43.880 --> 00:48:46.119 How does that? How does how does the Christian? How 948 00:48:46.119 --> 00:48:48.239 does christ ethics? Like? All these things are made up 949 00:48:48.239 --> 00:48:51.440 of words? Right, So it's the same problem that that 950 00:48:51.440 --> 00:48:52.840 that would occur in any well. 951 00:48:52.880 --> 00:48:55.960 I don't have the belief that words are in language 952 00:48:55.960 --> 00:48:59.039 are all purely social constructs. I believe that what the 953 00:48:59.079 --> 00:49:05.000 words refer to is conceptual and universal and objective and 954 00:49:05.039 --> 00:49:05.920 not subjective. 955 00:49:06.679 --> 00:49:10.079 Yeah, it work, But the words themselves are just communicating 956 00:49:10.519 --> 00:49:11.760 concepts or ideas. 957 00:49:12.079 --> 00:49:14.239 Right, But that's why the words can be flexible. You 958 00:49:14.280 --> 00:49:17.039 can have Roman numeral V I I or the Arabic 959 00:49:17.119 --> 00:49:20.440 number seven that are referred to the same abstract conceptual entity. 960 00:49:22.079 --> 00:49:23.000 But that has nothing to do. 961 00:49:23.039 --> 00:49:26.639 It doesn't get us any justification of like how how 962 00:49:26.719 --> 00:49:30.519 you solve the problem? As you see that justification can't 963 00:49:30.519 --> 00:49:34.039 be met on anything unless we posit a god. But 964 00:49:34.760 --> 00:49:35.760 I don't understand how. 965 00:49:35.639 --> 00:49:40.000 That well, because they The tag argument argues that any predication, 966 00:49:40.199 --> 00:49:44.920 any proposition, relies on the structures that are necessary for 967 00:49:45.000 --> 00:49:48.320 the possibility of language and predication. So, in other words, 968 00:49:48.360 --> 00:49:52.039 to say, a sentence like the tree is red, a 969 00:49:52.039 --> 00:49:55.119 shout me the tree is green rests on a certain 970 00:49:55.199 --> 00:49:59.280 type of world where there are there is regularity in nature. 971 00:49:59.360 --> 00:50:04.880 It rests on the possibility of having knowledge, universals, linguistic structure, grammar. 972 00:50:05.000 --> 00:50:07.920 All of those things are presupposed in the action of 973 00:50:07.960 --> 00:50:09.199 making a proposition. 974 00:50:10.400 --> 00:50:13.559 Well, yeah, that would be true for objectives philosophy as. 975 00:50:13.480 --> 00:50:17.440 Well, Right, But the difference between the difference between you 976 00:50:17.480 --> 00:50:20.400 and I is how we give an account for those things, 977 00:50:20.519 --> 00:50:22.960 and that your accounts are not good accounts, is what 978 00:50:23.000 --> 00:50:23.639 I've been arguing. 979 00:50:24.360 --> 00:50:26.880 So what is your good account that solves this problem? 980 00:50:26.920 --> 00:50:32.159 In the well, there are no self evident positions or 981 00:50:32.199 --> 00:50:35.360 statements because they're embedded within a network or a web 982 00:50:35.360 --> 00:50:38.199 of beliefs that we all have. And thus, if my 983 00:50:38.360 --> 00:50:41.519 system or my view is holistic, if I'm an epistemic holist, 984 00:50:42.000 --> 00:50:45.199 then I have to give an account for the system 985 00:50:45.239 --> 00:50:49.239 as a whole and how those structures or how those 986 00:50:49.239 --> 00:50:57.280 preconditions are the case. So if I need the possibility, predication, universals, mathematics, logic, mathematics, logic, 987 00:50:57.800 --> 00:51:01.000 all of these categories being the true, the good, et cetera, 988 00:51:01.119 --> 00:51:03.480 to have knowledge at all, then I need to give 989 00:51:03.519 --> 00:51:07.039 some account for the those things, those categories that my 990 00:51:07.320 --> 00:51:10.440 statements are relying on. And the transcendental argument argues that 991 00:51:10.880 --> 00:51:13.679 only God is the type of being who could give 992 00:51:13.719 --> 00:51:15.559 a justification or account for those things. 993 00:51:17.519 --> 00:51:20.119 So you're just saying only God can do this, So 994 00:51:20.159 --> 00:51:22.199 therefore God is that every saying. 995 00:51:22.239 --> 00:51:25.039 I'm saying that. The argument is that the only being 996 00:51:25.079 --> 00:51:28.119 who can give given a grounding for those things is 997 00:51:28.159 --> 00:51:30.119 the being revealed in the Christian worldview. 998 00:51:32.599 --> 00:51:35.440 How is it so? But but God doesn't exist in reality. 999 00:51:36.320 --> 00:51:37.440 I don't even know what does that mean? 1000 00:51:37.719 --> 00:51:45.159 He said, he's an uncreated existence. How is he doing this? 1001 00:51:45.280 --> 00:51:48.119 I said, he's transcendent and he's imminent. That means that 1002 00:51:48.519 --> 00:51:50.719 he exists outside of time and in time. 1003 00:51:52.239 --> 00:51:53.880 So he does exist in reality. 1004 00:51:54.559 --> 00:51:57.119 Well, you keep calling reality. I would say, there's two realities. 1005 00:51:57.119 --> 00:51:58.920 There's created reality on created reality. 1006 00:51:59.079 --> 00:52:04.920 So you stay the reality outside of material reality. Yeah, okay, 1007 00:52:04.920 --> 00:52:07.239 where it was? So how so how do you prove that? 1008 00:52:08.159 --> 00:52:10.039 Well? I could just I could prove it by the 1009 00:52:10.039 --> 00:52:13.360 transcendental argument and the impossibility of the contrary that anytime 1010 00:52:13.400 --> 00:52:18.480 you utilize language, you're utilizing conceptual, abstract things that are 1011 00:52:18.519 --> 00:52:22.760 not reducible to physical sense data, and that only God 1012 00:52:22.800 --> 00:52:25.000 in the trinitarian sense could give a justification for how 1013 00:52:25.000 --> 00:52:25.679 that's possible? 1014 00:52:26.760 --> 00:52:30.159 Well, no, I reason, reason alone explains that humans have 1015 00:52:30.199 --> 00:52:31.280 the capacity for reason. 1016 00:52:31.599 --> 00:52:34.280 Well that alone, you're all humans? 1017 00:52:36.159 --> 00:52:37.960 Well, humans as a category. 1018 00:52:39.119 --> 00:52:40.920 How do you have a justification for categories? 1019 00:52:44.159 --> 00:52:46.239 What do you How do I have a justification that 1020 00:52:46.239 --> 00:52:48.199 that that humans have the capacity. 1021 00:52:47.719 --> 00:52:50.000 Know that there are things called categories like this. 1022 00:52:52.559 --> 00:52:56.840 I'm trying to figure out a way to answer this. 1023 00:52:57.039 --> 00:53:02.800 You would accept it? So the how do I justify 1024 00:53:02.920 --> 00:53:05.800 the categories exist in the mind that people. 1025 00:53:05.679 --> 00:53:08.679 Well, so now they're just in the mind. They're not actual, 1026 00:53:08.960 --> 00:53:11.119 they're not outside the mind like the numbers. 1027 00:53:11.159 --> 00:53:11.960 They're not material. 1028 00:53:12.760 --> 00:53:16.599 They're not material, No, of course not. Okay, so there's immaterial. 1029 00:53:16.199 --> 00:53:17.760 Things that there's no category three? 1030 00:53:17.960 --> 00:53:21.360 Right, there are immaterial things that exist and material things. 1031 00:53:23.800 --> 00:53:28.559 The mind does not create reality. A reality exists independent. Okay. 1032 00:53:28.559 --> 00:53:30.800 How do you know that there are two types of things, 1033 00:53:31.199 --> 00:53:32.800 physical and immaterial? 1034 00:53:34.760 --> 00:53:36.400 Well, we have we do have sense. 1035 00:53:37.199 --> 00:53:39.559 How does your senseta tell you that? You mentioned Hume? 1036 00:53:39.719 --> 00:53:41.760 But how does your sensitive tell you that there's imterial 1037 00:53:41.800 --> 00:53:43.239 things that are not based on sense data? 1038 00:53:45.239 --> 00:53:47.800 How does my sense data tell me that there are 1039 00:53:47.800 --> 00:53:49.360 things that are not sense data? 1040 00:53:49.519 --> 00:53:50.719 That's what you just said a question? 1041 00:53:51.079 --> 00:53:54.639 Yeah, no, I said that we can see things in reality. 1042 00:53:54.679 --> 00:53:57.559 How does things tell you that there are immaterial things? 1043 00:53:59.039 --> 00:54:01.639 So the first thing is that we can see that 1044 00:54:01.639 --> 00:54:03.000 there are material things? 1045 00:54:03.119 --> 00:54:06.280 Right, Well, I would say with the myth of the given, 1046 00:54:06.320 --> 00:54:08.760 you don't even know that, and you haven't demonstrated that yet. 1047 00:54:08.760 --> 00:54:10.440 But if I grant you that, how does that give 1048 00:54:10.519 --> 00:54:11.920 to immaterial If. 1049 00:54:11.840 --> 00:54:14.159 Even even if I was like there there has. 1050 00:54:14.079 --> 00:54:18.159 To be you keep saying, and if you do philosophy, 1051 00:54:18.159 --> 00:54:19.760 you know there's no has to any of this. You 1052 00:54:19.800 --> 00:54:21.599 got to demonstrate that. You can't just assert that. 1053 00:54:22.679 --> 00:54:26.920 Well okay, well, if you interrupt someone, you know, then 1054 00:54:26.960 --> 00:54:27.880 they can't make their full arge. 1055 00:54:28.000 --> 00:54:31.000 So empiricism won't get you to universal categories, is the point? 1056 00:54:32.239 --> 00:54:35.360 Yeah, No, I don't. I don't disagree that empiricism gets you, like, 1057 00:54:35.360 --> 00:54:35.920 I don't disagree. 1058 00:54:35.960 --> 00:54:38.159 Okay, So what's the justification for the immaterial things? 1059 00:54:40.039 --> 00:54:44.599 Well, the justification for immaterial things is that the that 1060 00:54:44.800 --> 00:54:47.079 concepts exist, you mean, ideas. 1061 00:54:47.239 --> 00:54:49.199 How do you know that? How do you know that 1062 00:54:49.239 --> 00:54:52.400 the concept in my head of humans as a category 1063 00:54:52.480 --> 00:54:54.119 is the same as the concept in your head? How 1064 00:54:54.159 --> 00:54:55.480 do you You can't verify that? 1065 00:54:55.840 --> 00:54:58.159 You don't. We've already we've already stated that you can't 1066 00:54:58.159 --> 00:54:59.320 necessarily verify that. 1067 00:54:59.360 --> 00:55:01.280 Okay, if you can't verify that, then you believe in 1068 00:55:01.280 --> 00:55:04.039 immaterial things without justification that you can't verify? 1069 00:55:04.920 --> 00:55:06.400 Well, so do you? You don't know? 1070 00:55:06.599 --> 00:55:09.119 I believe in verification. I believe that I can justify it. 1071 00:55:09.320 --> 00:55:11.079 You you believe you believe. 1072 00:55:10.760 --> 00:55:13.320 That that's a too quo, that's a two way, that's 1073 00:55:13.320 --> 00:55:16.599 a two quoke way, No, but you're that's a two 1074 00:55:16.679 --> 00:55:19.199 quote way no but you, No, but you. It's a 1075 00:55:19.199 --> 00:55:19.840 two quoke way. 1076 00:55:20.639 --> 00:55:22.800 No, it's not no but you because you just you. 1077 00:55:22.880 --> 00:55:26.679 Just said no, but you. My world view is different. 1078 00:55:26.760 --> 00:55:29.320 I have a different account. You're not understanding that I 1079 00:55:29.320 --> 00:55:30.960 have a different account than you. 1080 00:55:31.079 --> 00:55:33.960 I understand that. I understand that you like to interrupt people. 1081 00:55:33.960 --> 00:55:36.920 Now and then this is where once again you're deflecting 1082 00:55:37.079 --> 00:55:41.079 because I brought you to a point. You said, you 1083 00:55:41.239 --> 00:55:44.920 just see it. What's the justification? Listen when you say joke, 1084 00:55:45.000 --> 00:55:47.719 what about you? That's a two quoke way. That's you 1085 00:55:47.760 --> 00:55:48.320 know what a two qu. 1086 00:55:49.800 --> 00:55:52.199 I asked you. I asked you if you had the 1087 00:55:52.239 --> 00:55:53.280 similar belief. 1088 00:55:52.960 --> 00:55:55.159 For thing, it doesn't matter what my similar breaks are. 1089 00:55:55.159 --> 00:55:57.440 I will go into you said, I will go into that. 1090 00:55:57.519 --> 00:55:59.519 It doesn't matter if I believe I have a different 1091 00:55:59.559 --> 00:56:01.039 account of immaterial things. 1092 00:56:01.159 --> 00:56:03.000 Why why are you I have. 1093 00:56:02.880 --> 00:56:05.119 A different account of material things than you? 1094 00:56:05.199 --> 00:56:08.800 We were finally starting to get to talk like adults. 1095 00:56:08.360 --> 00:56:11.119 And you and again now that you've been pinned down, 1096 00:56:11.280 --> 00:56:14.920 you don't want to go into it. What is the 1097 00:56:15.119 --> 00:56:17.280 justification for immaterial things? 1098 00:56:17.320 --> 00:56:17.360 Do? 1099 00:56:18.039 --> 00:56:20.239 What is your justification for immaterial things. 1100 00:56:22.360 --> 00:56:27.280 What is my justification that immaterial immaterial things exist? So 1101 00:56:28.440 --> 00:56:30.599 first I start with existence exists, but you say that 1102 00:56:30.599 --> 00:56:32.280 that's not valid, but we'll just move on. 1103 00:56:33.320 --> 00:56:36.000 So, well, you kind of admitted that there's problems for that. 1104 00:56:38.519 --> 00:56:42.840 Nor did you demonstrate the act. Did you demonstrate the 1105 00:56:42.840 --> 00:56:44.639 external world which you said it means? 1106 00:56:47.239 --> 00:56:51.039 I said that in order for us to have existence, 1107 00:56:51.079 --> 00:56:52.800 we have to exist in some type of thing. 1108 00:56:53.000 --> 00:56:56.840 Have you demonstrated that you demonstrate that? We know, you 1109 00:56:56.880 --> 00:56:59.199 said an external world. What if we live in a 1110 00:56:59.320 --> 00:57:01.960 mental world. You haven't proven that it's the external, material, 1111 00:57:02.000 --> 00:57:04.519 physical world that we have. Necessarily, you haven't proven that. 1112 00:57:04.559 --> 00:57:05.360 You've just asserted it. 1113 00:57:05.360 --> 00:57:07.719 The mind cannot the mind cannot exist without a material 1114 00:57:07.800 --> 00:57:08.400 How do you know that? 1115 00:57:08.440 --> 00:57:10.519 You just assert this? What's the justification for this? 1116 00:57:12.079 --> 00:57:17.480 Well, so the justification for how reason or consciousness comes 1117 00:57:17.519 --> 00:57:17.719 to me. 1118 00:57:18.880 --> 00:57:21.599 You keep asserting all kinds of metaphysical claims like that 1119 00:57:21.599 --> 00:57:24.760 there's immaterial realities, and you've not justified any of these. 1120 00:57:25.519 --> 00:57:28.079 We do exist in some form of existence. Right, let's 1121 00:57:28.119 --> 00:57:29.199 let's take into account. 1122 00:57:30.119 --> 00:57:34.119 I mean we exist in existence is basically a meaningless phrase. 1123 00:57:34.199 --> 00:57:39.159 Yeah, yeah, I'm going through it. Right, So we exist, 1124 00:57:39.320 --> 00:57:42.800 We could exist by your your you're asserting, what if 1125 00:57:42.800 --> 00:57:46.960 we exist in the frame of the mind, we would 1126 00:57:47.000 --> 00:57:53.719 then have to note that an existence must have some 1127 00:57:53.880 --> 00:57:56.119 form of identity specific. 1128 00:57:57.199 --> 00:57:59.320 How do we know that maybe it? Maybe it does. 1129 00:57:59.400 --> 00:58:01.960 Maybe we're also it's aphrenic and our schema in our 1130 00:58:02.000 --> 00:58:04.000 minds don't match up to anything in the external world. 1131 00:58:04.000 --> 00:58:05.360 We just interpret it like it does. 1132 00:58:06.280 --> 00:58:09.000 Yees. So if if you deny the law of identity, 1133 00:58:09.199 --> 00:58:11.320 then then this entire conversation is meaningful. 1134 00:58:11.400 --> 00:58:13.760 So but wait a minute, you said that existence exists 1135 00:58:13.760 --> 00:58:15.719 doesn't rely on the law of identity earlier. 1136 00:58:16.920 --> 00:58:21.679 Well, we're moving, we moved past existence. What do you mean, No, you're. 1137 00:58:21.559 --> 00:58:23.840 We're still talking about it. So you're saying it does, 1138 00:58:24.119 --> 00:58:26.159 it does rely on the law of the law of identity. 1139 00:58:27.039 --> 00:58:29.920 If if the law of identity is no, I'm saying 1140 00:58:30.119 --> 00:58:33.679 that I'm moving from existence exists and then making. 1141 00:58:33.599 --> 00:58:36.840 That's a proposition that relies on the law of identity. 1142 00:58:36.880 --> 00:58:40.639 Obviously I'm making a separate claim, which is essentially that 1143 00:58:40.719 --> 00:58:41.440 the law of I didn't. 1144 00:58:43.159 --> 00:58:45.440 Okay, how do we know that the laws like that 1145 00:58:45.480 --> 00:58:47.840 and the classical Aristilian laws are the case and that 1146 00:58:47.880 --> 00:58:48.360 they apply. 1147 00:58:48.960 --> 00:58:51.519 And by the way, we perceive, we perceive. 1148 00:58:51.199 --> 00:58:54.920 Existence, perceiving existence. You don't understand that, you don't understand 1149 00:58:54.960 --> 00:58:59.280 why that doesn't answer that question. You're basically just saying, 1150 00:58:59.280 --> 00:59:00.519 you're basically I'm. 1151 00:59:00.360 --> 00:59:04.039 Sorry ahead, No, No, you go ahead. It's fine. 1152 00:59:04.840 --> 00:59:07.920 You're basically just saying that my position is the case, 1153 00:59:08.039 --> 00:59:10.559 because if you look at my position, it states that 1154 00:59:10.559 --> 00:59:12.360 this is the case. And that's what the words mean 1155 00:59:12.440 --> 00:59:13.000 my position. 1156 00:59:16.079 --> 00:59:20.519 No. No, what I'm saying is that we again premise 1157 00:59:20.559 --> 00:59:23.119 one or action one I guess would be existence exist, 1158 00:59:23.440 --> 00:59:27.960 we exist in some that to argue for uh, but 1159 00:59:28.400 --> 00:59:31.039 you know, how do you know that is because of 1160 00:59:31.079 --> 00:59:34.239 the negation. You can't argue against your own existence. Do 1161 00:59:34.400 --> 00:59:37.920 so presupposes existence? It's impossible, but. 1162 00:59:37.920 --> 00:59:41.280 You have I'm making the argument right now. And what 1163 00:59:41.400 --> 00:59:45.039 if our conceptual schema just seems to be the case 1164 00:59:45.039 --> 00:59:48.119 in our minds but doesn't apply to an actual external 1165 00:59:48.119 --> 00:59:51.000 ontological existence. How do we know? That is the question? 1166 00:59:51.119 --> 00:59:52.639 And you can you can say that because it has 1167 00:59:52.679 --> 00:59:54.760 to be that way, but that doesn't answer the objection 1168 00:59:54.880 --> 00:59:55.480 or the defeater. 1169 00:59:56.000 --> 00:59:57.880 No, I'm saying that if you make the argument that 1170 00:59:58.000 --> 01:00:00.400 existence doesn't exist, you fall into com tradition. 1171 01:00:00.519 --> 01:00:04.000 No, that's not the argument argument. The argument is that 1172 01:00:04.119 --> 01:00:08.639 existence exists necessarily applies to some external physical world. You 1173 01:00:08.639 --> 01:00:11.599 have not demonstrated the external world yet, and thus it's 1174 01:00:11.599 --> 01:00:15.119 not axiomatic because it relies on other positions and other beliefs. 1175 01:00:15.840 --> 01:00:18.920 Well, it's well, the first axiom is existence exists. Once 1176 01:00:18.920 --> 01:00:22.239 we recognize that one must exist in some capacity. 1177 01:00:22.519 --> 01:00:25.320 Then when you say one, you're just assuming the existence 1178 01:00:25.360 --> 01:00:27.039 of the self. Have you not read a critique of 1179 01:00:27.039 --> 01:00:27.719 the code self? 1180 01:00:27.880 --> 01:00:30.039 Well, of course, of course I'm assuming the existence of this. 1181 01:00:30.280 --> 01:00:31.880 Well, then thank you. Then it's not self evident. It 1182 01:00:31.920 --> 01:00:33.719 assumes other things exactly. 1183 01:00:34.119 --> 01:00:35.800 No, it's the individual. 1184 01:00:36.239 --> 01:00:38.119 Does it assume the existence of the self. 1185 01:00:40.000 --> 01:00:42.239 It is the self that makes the argument? Is it not? 1186 01:00:42.480 --> 01:00:42.559 So? 1187 01:00:42.679 --> 01:00:44.800 Is it assuming it is? The proposition? 1188 01:00:46.199 --> 01:00:48.840 Would you okay, we'll put another axiom before it, the 1189 01:00:49.000 --> 01:00:51.599 self exists, an existence exists. 1190 01:00:52.440 --> 01:00:54.920 But you have know now you're adding the moving the 1191 01:00:54.960 --> 01:00:57.199 goalpost to add another proposition ahead. 1192 01:00:57.039 --> 01:00:59.440 Adding the post. I'm saying that's fine, I'll okay. 1193 01:00:59.480 --> 01:01:02.920 Then if this proposition exist, then it's no longer self 1194 01:01:02.960 --> 01:01:05.119 evident because it relies on another proposition. 1195 01:01:05.239 --> 01:01:10.320 Obviously, so the self exist. Right, you just agree that 1196 01:01:10.360 --> 01:01:11.039 the self exit. 1197 01:01:11.280 --> 01:01:14.280 No, I'm saying it doesn't matter how you construct it, 1198 01:01:14.280 --> 01:01:17.880 it's no longer self evident because you're adding other propping 1199 01:01:17.960 --> 01:01:20.519 up beliefs. So if you look, if you study this, 1200 01:01:20.639 --> 01:01:21.599 it's it's no, it. 1201 01:01:21.599 --> 01:01:24.239 Is it's self evident because the self is the one 1202 01:01:24.239 --> 01:01:25.119 that argues. 1203 01:01:24.800 --> 01:01:28.800 If someone that's a category error, that's a category error 1204 01:01:29.760 --> 01:01:32.719 talking about the self does not make it self evident. 1205 01:01:32.840 --> 01:01:34.719 That's that's amazing mistake. 1206 01:01:34.800 --> 01:01:38.480 Man. No, No, it's not a category. When when I 1207 01:01:38.519 --> 01:01:41.599 say that something is the unavoidable axiom, what I'm saying 1208 01:01:41.639 --> 01:01:45.199 is that one a person that attempts to argue a self, 1209 01:01:45.239 --> 01:01:49.519 that attempts to argue against existence, is incapable of doing 1210 01:01:49.559 --> 01:01:53.679 so because they exist. They must exist in order I know. 1211 01:01:53.679 --> 01:01:57.119 What says, I'm giving it the class critique of it. 1212 01:01:57.239 --> 01:02:01.280 A non an entity that doesn't exists can't make an 1213 01:02:01.400 --> 01:02:02.679 argument against. 1214 01:02:02.480 --> 01:02:04.559 Uh, you know, you're missing the point. 1215 01:02:04.599 --> 01:02:06.559 It'sist that you're. 1216 01:02:06.360 --> 01:02:08.960 You're not even getting what the point of the objection is. 1217 01:02:09.119 --> 01:02:12.920 It's not an objection about the ontological status of the 1218 01:02:13.039 --> 01:02:15.880 self or whatever you could go that route. It's more 1219 01:02:15.920 --> 01:02:20.639 fundamental than that that something axiomatic or what's called dosastic 1220 01:02:20.840 --> 01:02:28.039 or properly basic cannot rest on any other assumptions, principles, 1221 01:02:28.119 --> 01:02:30.480 or things that have not yet been proven or else. 1222 01:02:30.519 --> 01:02:35.199 It is no longer doxastically basic, is no longer self evident. 1223 01:02:35.639 --> 01:02:38.280 And so every time you tackle on these other explanations, 1224 01:02:38.480 --> 01:02:41.280 you're just proving my point that it doesn't matter whether 1225 01:02:41.320 --> 01:02:45.239 you say, uh, the cogito or whether you say existence exists, 1226 01:02:45.639 --> 01:02:48.199 It doesn't answer the objection that I'm laying out that 1227 01:02:48.840 --> 01:02:49.079 is no. 1228 01:02:49.280 --> 01:02:58.039 So the argument, the argument for the for objective reality is. 1229 01:02:55.920 --> 01:03:00.519 I don't care about that object You're saying one action 1230 01:03:01.039 --> 01:03:03.239 me to justify you know what the christ Let me 1231 01:03:03.280 --> 01:03:03.599 ask you this. 1232 01:03:03.960 --> 01:03:10.280 You're asking me, you're asking me to justify this external reality. Okay, 1233 01:03:10.599 --> 01:03:14.840 and you were saying that an external reality comes from that, 1234 01:03:14.840 --> 01:03:19.000 that that this existence exists, you know, presupposes this external reality. 1235 01:03:19.199 --> 01:03:21.920 What I'm saying is is that existence exists is one 1236 01:03:22.199 --> 01:03:24.639 axiom of of of. 1237 01:03:24.760 --> 01:03:27.000 It doesn't matter that you say that it's one that 1238 01:03:27.079 --> 01:03:31.519 doesn't It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because. 1239 01:03:30.800 --> 01:03:34.239 That in order to justify objective reality, I don't think 1240 01:03:34.239 --> 01:03:37.440 you know what entity and consciousness. 1241 01:03:37.199 --> 01:03:39.360 Well, you would need those things. But that's the point 1242 01:03:39.400 --> 01:03:41.400 is that you've not yet demonstrated those things. 1243 01:03:42.480 --> 01:03:45.239 Yeah, so because if you say yes. 1244 01:03:45.280 --> 01:03:47.880 If you say yes, then you've admitted my point that 1245 01:03:47.880 --> 01:03:50.480 it's not self evident it is. 1246 01:03:50.760 --> 01:03:52.679 Existence exists is self evidence? 1247 01:03:52.800 --> 01:03:55.360 No, it's it is not. Nor is the. 1248 01:03:57.199 --> 01:03:57.599 Reality. 1249 01:03:57.719 --> 01:04:00.000 Again, you keep saying it is that argument. You keep 1250 01:04:00.159 --> 01:04:02.320 saying it is that. But I've given you multiple reasons 1251 01:04:02.360 --> 01:04:04.840 why it doesn't get you to the justification for why 1252 01:04:04.880 --> 01:04:05.480 you say that. 1253 01:04:06.519 --> 01:04:12.280 No, what it gets existence exists again is one axiom? 1254 01:04:12.880 --> 01:04:14.960 Does it rely on other things? Does it rely on 1255 01:04:15.039 --> 01:04:17.039 other things? Does it rely on other things? 1256 01:04:18.480 --> 01:04:20.800 Does the existence exist rely on other things? No, it 1257 01:04:20.800 --> 01:04:22.960 doesn't rely on anything it is. 1258 01:04:23.119 --> 01:04:25.639 Does it rely Does the proposition rely on grammar? 1259 01:04:27.840 --> 01:04:30.840 You being able to communicate that argument is not the 1260 01:04:30.880 --> 01:04:31.360 same thing. 1261 01:04:31.239 --> 01:04:33.800 As the truth value of the proposition? Does it rely 1262 01:04:33.880 --> 01:04:35.920 on grammar? To say it? 1263 01:04:36.000 --> 01:04:37.079 That's that's not an. 1264 01:04:37.079 --> 01:04:40.280 Argument, It is an argument. It's a classic critique. Does 1265 01:04:40.320 --> 01:04:41.119 it rely on grammar? 1266 01:04:41.239 --> 01:04:44.199 If you say God is real and then someone just 1267 01:04:44.280 --> 01:04:48.840 changes the definition of God, well, then then then that's 1268 01:04:48.840 --> 01:04:50.280 a failure of communication. 1269 01:04:50.559 --> 01:04:53.639 No, it's not. It's a classic critique of foundationalism. If 1270 01:04:53.679 --> 01:04:55.280 you knew the if you knew what I'm talking about, 1271 01:04:55.320 --> 01:04:55.559 you know. 1272 01:04:55.519 --> 01:04:59.840 That critique to say that it relies on our ability 1273 01:04:59.880 --> 01:05:00.559 to communicating. 1274 01:05:00.599 --> 01:05:02.039 Oh so wait a minute, so now it relies on 1275 01:05:02.079 --> 01:05:03.079 communication skills. 1276 01:05:04.039 --> 01:05:06.880 That's what you're saying, not me. You're saying that language 1277 01:05:07.320 --> 01:05:08.639 is required so that we know. 1278 01:05:08.599 --> 01:05:11.239 What the word correct. Propositions that are true, that have true, 1279 01:05:11.559 --> 01:05:16.000 propositions that have truth value require language. Right, we are 1280 01:05:16.000 --> 01:05:19.639 assuming when do your propositions? Do they do they rely 1281 01:05:19.679 --> 01:05:20.320 on language? 1282 01:05:22.480 --> 01:05:24.079 Yes? Of course, argument. 1283 01:05:23.880 --> 01:05:25.360 Then they're not self evident. Thank you. 1284 01:05:25.880 --> 01:05:27.320 That's so stupid. 1285 01:05:27.840 --> 01:05:30.559 No, it's not the whole. This is like you want 1286 01:05:30.559 --> 01:05:33.639 to go read J. Jay Wood's epistemology book where he 1287 01:05:33.679 --> 01:05:35.679 makes this very argument that you think is stupid. 1288 01:05:36.320 --> 01:05:40.960 I think it's absolutely how this is a word kit. 1289 01:05:41.280 --> 01:05:44.239 Not No, you don't know about linguistic philosophy. I'm pointing 1290 01:05:44.280 --> 01:05:46.280 out to you what a grad student would point out 1291 01:05:46.320 --> 01:05:49.719 to somebody who's in a sophomore philosophy that you don't 1292 01:05:49.760 --> 01:05:52.639 realize the assumptions that are being made. Right, just like 1293 01:05:52.679 --> 01:05:57.760 when concrete kogie, when contique kog to listen, we. 1294 01:05:57.679 --> 01:06:01.960 Both realize, we both realize that language is a tool 1295 01:06:02.000 --> 01:06:02.760 of communicating. 1296 01:06:02.920 --> 01:06:05.519 You can call it. That is, how does that it 1297 01:06:05.519 --> 01:06:10.199 doesn't matter it's relying on communication and language, then it's 1298 01:06:10.280 --> 01:06:15.920 not self evident if it relies on another thing, whether 1299 01:06:15.960 --> 01:06:21.440 it's time, determination, predication, grammar, linguistic structure, all of those 1300 01:06:21.480 --> 01:06:25.599 things negate the idea that it is self evident. Because 1301 01:06:25.599 --> 01:06:28.000 it is relying on other things, it is no longer 1302 01:06:28.039 --> 01:06:29.559 properly properly can it be? 1303 01:06:29.760 --> 01:06:32.239 Can it being of non existence? Green language? 1304 01:06:32.360 --> 01:06:34.559 That has nothing to do with answering this critique? 1305 01:06:35.320 --> 01:06:37.440 Can it being of can it? Being of non existence? 1306 01:06:37.440 --> 01:06:41.679 Has nothing to doing of non language? A being of 1307 01:06:41.760 --> 01:06:46.000 non language sistence? A being of what is a being 1308 01:06:45.119 --> 01:06:48.519 of non I don't know what being a language? 1309 01:06:49.159 --> 01:06:50.920 Do you know what a being of non existence is? 1310 01:06:51.559 --> 01:06:53.400 I don't you seem. 1311 01:06:53.199 --> 01:06:56.239 A being of non existence is something incoherent? 1312 01:06:57.519 --> 01:06:57.719 Right? 1313 01:06:57.920 --> 01:07:03.119 Because existence exists? Thank you? It is incoherence to say 1314 01:07:03.199 --> 01:07:03.719 that being. 1315 01:07:03.920 --> 01:07:05.679 I mean, this is I'm trying to be. 1316 01:07:06.679 --> 01:07:09.039 So finally we've gotten to the point where you were 1317 01:07:09.079 --> 01:07:10.480 accepting existence exists? 1318 01:07:11.559 --> 01:07:15.440 I have Do you understand that you're not understanding what 1319 01:07:15.480 --> 01:07:18.519 the debate is. It's different accounts of that phrase. I 1320 01:07:18.559 --> 01:07:21.039 have no problem with the truth value. 1321 01:07:21.519 --> 01:07:24.079 The debate is tag and you're just fucking. 1322 01:07:24.079 --> 01:07:27.440 Tag is about worldview apologetics. That's the whole point and 1323 01:07:27.719 --> 01:07:30.039 the thing. Do you know what I mean when I 1324 01:07:30.079 --> 01:07:32.920 say something is when I say something is theory Layden. 1325 01:07:32.960 --> 01:07:33.800 Do you know what I'm saying? 1326 01:07:36.360 --> 01:07:36.639 Uh? 1327 01:07:36.679 --> 01:07:40.199 Well, according to according in epistemology, man, he keep saying 1328 01:07:40.199 --> 01:07:42.840 according to me, just in modern epistemology. Do you know 1329 01:07:42.880 --> 01:07:45.559 what I mean when I say that that it? 1330 01:07:45.880 --> 01:07:45.960 Uh? 1331 01:07:46.119 --> 01:07:48.679 If it's theory, Laden, I would I believe it's like 1332 01:07:50.599 --> 01:07:56.280 that there are ideas that predicate the concept. No without 1333 01:07:56.280 --> 01:07:58.000 looking at its best. 1334 01:07:58.079 --> 01:08:02.199 Okay, So are you familiar with kuon and paradigm? 1335 01:08:02.239 --> 01:08:05.440 Not? Not recently? I'm fucking I like my the last 1336 01:08:05.440 --> 01:08:08.440 time it took philosophy classes, like ten years ago, I'd 1337 01:08:08.480 --> 01:08:09.079 forgotten a lot. 1338 01:08:09.719 --> 01:08:14.679 Right. So, So the whole point of Kun's paradigm is 1339 01:08:14.679 --> 01:08:20.720 that in uh, the world, in social discourse, in philosophy, 1340 01:08:20.760 --> 01:08:23.880 people don't realize that their whole set, their whole set 1341 01:08:23.920 --> 01:08:27.239 of beliefs are actually based on a web of beliefs 1342 01:08:27.319 --> 01:08:30.159 or an entire paradigm, and that all these things are 1343 01:08:30.279 --> 01:08:35.079 interlinked and interconnected. Against the term epistemic wholeism. And it's 1344 01:08:35.239 --> 01:08:38.079 kind of it's kind of similar to coherence theory. It's 1345 01:08:38.119 --> 01:08:41.159 not identical to coherence theory. But the idea that there's 1346 01:08:41.199 --> 01:08:45.359 no self evident basic non theory laid in propositions are truths. 1347 01:08:45.359 --> 01:08:48.239 And language is another example of this because language, for example, 1348 01:08:48.239 --> 01:08:51.960 a single word usually comes with a other set of 1349 01:08:52.039 --> 01:08:55.720 words that help inform that word, and there's nothing okay, 1350 01:08:55.800 --> 01:08:57.560 so in the same way, the same thing. 1351 01:08:57.600 --> 01:08:58.640 It's kind of like the same thing. 1352 01:08:58.840 --> 01:09:04.439 There cons are Well, I'm not a postmodernist, but Dreda 1353 01:09:04.760 --> 01:09:07.319 asked some of these questions. But more so relevant is 1354 01:09:07.359 --> 01:09:10.479 Wvickenstein because when he talked about language games, he didn't 1355 01:09:10.520 --> 01:09:13.279 mean that just playing games. What he meant was that 1356 01:09:13.840 --> 01:09:17.279 language is a funny thing because the way language works 1357 01:09:17.399 --> 01:09:21.000 is that, yes, it's flexible, and yes it can be 1358 01:09:21.119 --> 01:09:23.640 you know, you can use different symbols to denote the 1359 01:09:23.680 --> 01:09:26.640 same idea. But the point is rather that it is 1360 01:09:26.760 --> 01:09:30.800 systemic and it's it's a holistic thing. So how does 1361 01:09:31.000 --> 01:09:34.439 how does this apply to Because what it shows because 1362 01:09:34.439 --> 01:09:37.199 then listen because in the history of the debate about 1363 01:09:37.319 --> 01:09:40.239 self evident axioms, like the way that Descartes, for example, 1364 01:09:40.279 --> 01:09:44.239 said you know, I think right. So if Descartes says this, 1365 01:09:44.399 --> 01:09:48.640 what happens is that later philosophy critiques it on many 1366 01:09:48.680 --> 01:09:51.840 different grounds. For example, you get Kant saying that the 1367 01:09:51.920 --> 01:09:55.359 problem with this being self evident is that it presupposes 1368 01:09:55.560 --> 01:09:59.600 time and space determination, right because to say that I exist, 1369 01:10:00.159 --> 01:10:02.199 to say that I'm existing right now, which is a 1370 01:10:02.359 --> 01:10:05.399 right now, is a time determinant at the moment, at 1371 01:10:05.399 --> 01:10:10.560 this instant. Okay, but the argument has not proven time 1372 01:10:10.840 --> 01:10:14.439 as a metaphysical concept or reality yet, And so Kant 1373 01:10:14.439 --> 01:10:19.079 had a good critique that if it's properly basic, it 1374 01:10:19.119 --> 01:10:22.439 cannot rely on another proposition or another principle or another 1375 01:10:22.439 --> 01:10:25.159 belief that has not yet been demonstrated. That's the point. 1376 01:10:25.199 --> 01:10:28.720 Then you get people saying it also is hold on. 1377 01:10:28.840 --> 01:10:32.199 There's a couple more critiques that you get bertrand Russell 1378 01:10:32.239 --> 01:10:35.640 saying it's a non sequitor. The fact that you say 1379 01:10:35.680 --> 01:10:38.000 that you're an eye does not prove that you exist 1380 01:10:38.039 --> 01:10:40.920 in some metaphysical reality. We don't know that yet. Maybe 1381 01:10:40.920 --> 01:10:43.560 you do, but how do we know that. It necessarily 1382 01:10:43.600 --> 01:10:47.560 follows that you have some sort of ontological existence in 1383 01:10:47.600 --> 01:10:51.800 this world. We don't know that yet. So we all agree, yeah, 1384 01:10:51.800 --> 01:10:53.600 we do exist in this world. I agree with you. 1385 01:10:53.640 --> 01:10:55.159 But the point is that we got to have a 1386 01:10:55.239 --> 01:10:59.119 good account of these principles. You can't just give an 1387 01:10:59.119 --> 01:11:01.560 account that is arbitrary and at hawk and that's why 1388 01:11:01.560 --> 01:11:06.279 I reject all classical foundationalists of pistemology. 1389 01:11:06.520 --> 01:11:09.880 So how does so the problem that I'm having here, 1390 01:11:10.399 --> 01:11:16.479 it's a conversation, debate or whatever, is I don't see 1391 01:11:16.880 --> 01:11:21.319 it's it seems you're saying, how do you justify existence 1392 01:11:21.359 --> 01:11:27.680 exist when it presupposes concept I guess, right, So that's. 1393 01:11:27.560 --> 01:11:29.600 Kind of not just concepts, But I mean, I don't 1394 01:11:29.600 --> 01:11:30.319 know what kind. 1395 01:11:30.159 --> 01:11:31.920 Of simplify that steel I'm trying to steal. 1396 01:11:31.960 --> 01:11:34.680 Man, it presupposes a lot of things, and I've listed 1397 01:11:34.680 --> 01:11:36.119 a bunch of them, and I mean, I don't think 1398 01:11:36.159 --> 01:11:39.000 those things are just conceptual. I think they're actual ontological 1399 01:11:39.119 --> 01:11:41.520 structures and things that exist. But if you want to 1400 01:11:41.560 --> 01:11:42.680 call them concepts. 1401 01:11:42.239 --> 01:11:49.239 Sure, right. But the issue that I have is in 1402 01:11:49.279 --> 01:11:52.279 almost all of those we we get to this position 1403 01:11:52.319 --> 01:11:56.479 where it's, well, how can those things be posited by 1404 01:11:56.840 --> 01:11:58.640 a being of non system? 1405 01:11:58.920 --> 01:12:00.359 What does that mean? I don't know what you mean 1406 01:12:00.399 --> 01:12:01.319 by about God. 1407 01:12:03.279 --> 01:12:05.439 I don't know, because you're you're the one that is 1408 01:12:05.880 --> 01:12:08.920 saying that that that there is this hole, there's this issue, 1409 01:12:08.960 --> 01:12:13.079 there's this possibility of existence not existing. 1410 01:12:12.920 --> 01:12:16.039 Or I never said that. I said uncreated existence is 1411 01:12:16.079 --> 01:12:18.399 what God is, and we are created existence. I never 1412 01:12:18.399 --> 01:12:19.279 said non existence. 1413 01:12:19.960 --> 01:12:22.159 By the virtue of arguing, I know you're doing an 1414 01:12:22.159 --> 01:12:25.399 internal critique, I'm not necessarily letting this claim down, right, 1415 01:12:25.439 --> 01:12:27.760 But what I mean is that if one is attempting 1416 01:12:27.800 --> 01:12:33.079 to argue that existence exists is false, then they must 1417 01:12:33.159 --> 01:12:33.560 believe it. 1418 01:12:33.760 --> 01:12:36.159 I didn't argue that no exist. I didn't argue it's false. 1419 01:12:37.039 --> 01:12:39.560 I argue that you have not given an account of 1420 01:12:39.600 --> 01:12:44.560 the proposition in an epistemic sense, right. 1421 01:12:44.439 --> 01:12:48.439 But this is the argument would be that if it 1422 01:12:48.520 --> 01:12:52.359 is impossible to argue against, then it must be true. 1423 01:12:53.920 --> 01:12:56.119 But you have not shown that it's impossible to argue against. 1424 01:12:56.119 --> 01:12:58.760 And that's why I gave the kantient retort, which is 1425 01:12:58.800 --> 01:13:02.239 that just because it seems impossible to me does not 1426 01:13:02.359 --> 01:13:04.119 mean that it is ontologically the case. 1427 01:13:05.520 --> 01:13:07.359 Yeah. I mean, if if we're trying to, like, if 1428 01:13:07.359 --> 01:13:09.520 we're trying to make an argument from like a pismology 1429 01:13:09.640 --> 01:13:11.920 or something, I totally agree with you, right, Like we 1430 01:13:11.960 --> 01:13:15.159 could we could go out and observe reality and make 1431 01:13:15.199 --> 01:13:17.880 a claim is this is true? And you know we 1432 01:13:17.920 --> 01:13:21.279 have imperfect knowledge, and there is at some point, you know, 1433 01:13:21.439 --> 01:13:24.039 a paradigm something, and so like it's not it's not 1434 01:13:24.159 --> 01:13:26.800 necessarily proven to be true. It's like a balance of 1435 01:13:26.880 --> 01:13:29.079 probabilities that we assume to be true so that we 1436 01:13:29.079 --> 01:13:33.560 can function. The argument isn't epistemologically saying it is. So 1437 01:13:33.960 --> 01:13:37.760 what I'm saying is that it's impossible for one to 1438 01:13:37.880 --> 01:13:41.760 argue against and that is that you against existence because 1439 01:13:42.039 --> 01:13:43.960 one must exist in order. 1440 01:13:44.279 --> 01:13:48.039 You're missing the whole, You're missing the point of the 1441 01:13:48.079 --> 01:13:50.800 retorts to things like the Kogito. The point of the 1442 01:13:50.800 --> 01:13:53.199 retorts is not to deny them. The point of the 1443 01:13:53.279 --> 01:13:55.960 retorts is to point out that you need good reasons 1444 01:13:56.119 --> 01:13:59.239 for why that's the case. I believe it is the case. 1445 01:13:59.359 --> 01:14:03.720 Right could say, you know, we I believe in the self. 1446 01:14:03.720 --> 01:14:05.800 I believe in identity over time. I believe in you know, 1447 01:14:06.039 --> 01:14:08.319 the external world. I believe in causation. I believe in 1448 01:14:08.359 --> 01:14:11.159 all these things. It's just that my account of those things, 1449 01:14:11.640 --> 01:14:15.039 and hence justification is a different account than the account 1450 01:14:15.039 --> 01:14:18.800 that you're giving. So when I use it, So let's 1451 01:14:18.840 --> 01:14:20.279 and that's what justification is about. 1452 01:14:20.399 --> 01:14:23.039 Let's let's let's let's just say we're at an impasse. 1453 01:14:23.119 --> 01:14:28.640 You don't believe that my arguments are sufficient to justify Fine, 1454 01:14:29.119 --> 01:14:30.479 I'm okay with that. I don't want to I don't 1455 01:14:30.520 --> 01:14:33.600 want to beat that for so long that everyone is 1456 01:14:33.640 --> 01:14:37.399 fucking annoyed, which they probably already are. It's fine. So, 1457 01:14:37.920 --> 01:14:41.319 and you believe that an external world exists, So moving 1458 01:14:41.359 --> 01:14:43.960 on those, Moving on to that, let's move into your 1459 01:14:44.039 --> 01:14:47.399 worldview and why you believe that you have an appropriate 1460 01:14:47.439 --> 01:14:52.560 account of those things that my uh that my grounding fails. 1461 01:14:55.319 --> 01:14:58.079 Right, So, if God exists, then we have a world 1462 01:14:58.119 --> 01:15:03.760 where there is a base of for metaphysical principles, epistemic principles, 1463 01:15:03.880 --> 01:15:08.319 laws of logic, critical thinking, moral absolutes ethical claims. Because 1464 01:15:08.359 --> 01:15:10.319 man has made the image of God, the world operates 1465 01:15:10.319 --> 01:15:13.840 on a regular fashion, and that it has divine providence 1466 01:15:13.840 --> 01:15:17.399 which assures the regularity of nature, which is the basis 1467 01:15:17.399 --> 01:15:23.079 of all science and empirical sense data. I have a 1468 01:15:23.119 --> 01:15:25.840 reasoning faculty, which I have by virtue of being made 1469 01:15:25.880 --> 01:15:28.000 in the image of God. And so I'm a little 1470 01:15:28.000 --> 01:15:29.880 g God who can reason about the world and make 1471 01:15:29.960 --> 01:15:33.439 decisions and do things, create things, right, I'm a little 1472 01:15:33.439 --> 01:15:37.279 creator because God is a creator. So for me the divine, 1473 01:15:37.600 --> 01:15:40.359 the existence of God and his self, disclosure about who 1474 01:15:40.359 --> 01:15:44.560 he is, and divine revelation is itself the basis for 1475 01:15:44.880 --> 01:15:48.760 how things like the preconditions or categories for the possibility 1476 01:15:48.800 --> 01:15:51.560 of knowledge are the case. So because God is omniscient, 1477 01:15:51.600 --> 01:15:54.640 because he has intentionality as being a person and not 1478 01:15:54.680 --> 01:15:58.840 an impersonal force, and because the world is external to 1479 01:15:58.960 --> 01:16:01.960 him and it's not identical to him, I can have 1480 01:16:02.000 --> 01:16:05.359 the ability to make these kinds of distinctions and set boundaries. 1481 01:16:05.399 --> 01:16:08.439 I can make, you know, I can do things in 1482 01:16:08.479 --> 01:16:11.720 the world because of that being made of the divine image, 1483 01:16:11.720 --> 01:16:16.840 and also the way that I go about predicating. You know, sentences, structure, 1484 01:16:17.000 --> 01:16:22.720 language structure, grammar, universals, numbers, those things exist outside of 1485 01:16:22.760 --> 01:16:27.760 the mere human empirical individual sense data examples because they 1486 01:16:27.760 --> 01:16:31.560 are grounded in a divine mind. This is called divine conceptualism, 1487 01:16:32.079 --> 01:16:40.079 which itself is omniscient, omnipresent, eternally. No, he's an idealist 1488 01:16:40.119 --> 01:16:42.680 and an empiricist idealist. I'm not arguing that at all. 1489 01:16:42.720 --> 01:16:44.479 I'm arguing the transcendental argument. 1490 01:16:46.159 --> 01:16:49.680 Okay, I thought he was. The guy said, like God, 1491 01:16:49.720 --> 01:16:52.119 it's the observers solves that problem or whatever. 1492 01:16:53.239 --> 01:16:55.800 He's an empirical idealist. He thinks that God is the 1493 01:16:55.840 --> 01:16:59.359 great mind and that the rest of us are just 1494 01:16:59.720 --> 01:17:02.800 other minds observing other ideas. 1495 01:17:02.800 --> 01:17:04.680 So he believes that, Yeah, I thought that. 1496 01:17:05.399 --> 01:17:09.079 No, No, I'm not saying that all reality is is right, Okay, 1497 01:17:09.119 --> 01:17:11.560 So no, I'm not an empirical idealist like Berkeley. I'm 1498 01:17:11.640 --> 01:17:15.960 arguing for Christian theism that there's a creator and there's 1499 01:17:16.000 --> 01:17:19.760 the created. So fundamental reality fundamentally is two different things, 1500 01:17:19.840 --> 01:17:20.920 created and uncreated. 1501 01:17:22.439 --> 01:17:29.680 Okay. So, so things exist outside of the mind, You're 1502 01:17:29.720 --> 01:17:32.680 You're not You're not like a Berkeley like we we 1503 01:17:32.680 --> 01:17:33.359 we agree. 1504 01:17:33.159 --> 01:17:37.279 That there's an external world, the substances substances of course. 1505 01:17:37.960 --> 01:17:45.720 Okay, okay, So why is it you're saying God is necessary? 1506 01:17:45.920 --> 01:17:49.000 Where where are you making that? I heard a lot 1507 01:17:49.039 --> 01:17:49.359 of God. 1508 01:17:49.600 --> 01:17:53.239 I would say God is these things. God is necessary 1509 01:17:53.319 --> 01:17:55.840 in the sense that he's the only net He's the 1510 01:17:55.880 --> 01:18:01.359 necessary justification for the transcendental categories that make knowledge possible. 1511 01:18:01.960 --> 01:18:07.039 Only that type of a being could ground things like universals. 1512 01:18:08.520 --> 01:18:11.520 So, and I'm not trying to be an assholehen I say, 1513 01:18:12.039 --> 01:18:14.359 I'm just I'm genuinely trying to get your position here. 1514 01:18:14.760 --> 01:18:17.039 How is this not like a God of the gaps art? 1515 01:18:17.439 --> 01:18:21.279 How is this not just well, well, I believe God 1516 01:18:21.319 --> 01:18:25.880 exists because only God could fix all of these problems 1517 01:18:25.920 --> 01:18:29.640 that I see in the philosophy. Therefore, you know, one 1518 01:18:29.720 --> 01:18:30.439 and done, we're good. 1519 01:18:30.640 --> 01:18:32.680 Because it's a much stronger than a claim than God 1520 01:18:32.680 --> 01:18:35.960 of the gaps. It's actually saying that any possible predication 1521 01:18:36.239 --> 01:18:40.199 assumes transcendent categories, and transcendental categories assume God, so it's 1522 01:18:40.279 --> 01:18:42.760 much strong. It's not just saying that wherever I see 1523 01:18:42.800 --> 01:18:45.199 a gap, I'm gonna stick God in. It's actually saying 1524 01:18:45.199 --> 01:18:48.319 that you couldn't make a sentence in a coherent justif 1525 01:18:48.319 --> 01:18:49.840 all the way without God's existence. 1526 01:18:50.880 --> 01:18:53.199 How so, where are you getting that? Where you're getting 1527 01:18:53.199 --> 01:18:53.520 that from? 1528 01:18:53.520 --> 01:18:54.520 That? 1529 01:18:56.359 --> 01:18:59.319 No? No, no, no, yeah, I'm saying like where, well, 1530 01:18:59.359 --> 01:19:02.840 sure like you I can, we can. All makes false? 1531 01:19:03.680 --> 01:19:06.359 So my ax, I'm saying, when you say that God 1532 01:19:06.479 --> 01:19:10.520 is necessary for any transcendental category, where are you getting 1533 01:19:10.520 --> 01:19:11.159 that from? 1534 01:19:11.520 --> 01:19:14.560 Because there is no other being that could justify the 1535 01:19:14.600 --> 01:19:17.319 transcendental categories by definition by what they are. 1536 01:19:18.159 --> 01:19:20.239 So how does God justify those trans. 1537 01:19:20.800 --> 01:19:24.439 Because He's the only being that could ground them? By 1538 01:19:24.439 --> 01:19:26.279 the hy virtue of who and what he is I 1539 01:19:26.319 --> 01:19:30.039 listed earlier, because he's omniscient, because of the omnies, because 1540 01:19:30.079 --> 01:19:34.680 he's excuse me, omnipresent, because he has personal person, not 1541 01:19:34.800 --> 01:19:37.399 an intentionality that gives us a basis for things like 1542 01:19:37.840 --> 01:19:41.319 telos in the world UH and also things like causation. 1543 01:19:41.560 --> 01:19:44.560 So without God's existence, you couldn't have a justification for 1544 01:19:45.319 --> 01:19:49.079 uh universal telos teleology, nor could you have a justification 1545 01:19:49.159 --> 01:19:49.800 for causation. 1546 01:19:53.119 --> 01:19:56.640 But I still haven't. You haven't answered my question out. 1547 01:19:57.239 --> 01:19:57.600 You haven't. 1548 01:19:57.600 --> 01:20:01.239 You've just said is because the of the rules, because 1549 01:20:01.279 --> 01:20:04.199 of the impossibility of the contrary, which is the internal 1550 01:20:04.239 --> 01:20:07.439 critique of the other world views or your world worldview, 1551 01:20:07.920 --> 01:20:10.920 and the the other argument, the other half of. 1552 01:20:10.880 --> 01:20:14.560 It is you said earlier that that's not an argument. 1553 01:20:14.680 --> 01:20:19.239 You can't just the other part of the the other correct. 1554 01:20:19.479 --> 01:20:21.960 And that's why if I only had an internal critique, 1555 01:20:21.960 --> 01:20:24.920 I would agree with you that my position wouldn't achieve justification. 1556 01:20:25.000 --> 01:20:27.560 That's why you also have to give the positive case 1557 01:20:28.039 --> 01:20:31.279 for why the trinitarian deity is the one that does 1558 01:20:31.479 --> 01:20:34.920 justifying ground though right within that paradigm, within the Christian paradigm, 1559 01:20:34.960 --> 01:20:40.199 it makes sense why there would be rationality. 1560 01:20:40.600 --> 01:20:42.359 Can you make that argument because as of right now, 1561 01:20:42.359 --> 01:20:43.760 we're kind of on equal footing. 1562 01:20:44.159 --> 01:20:47.560 The argument, right because in the Christian paradigm, right where 1563 01:20:47.600 --> 01:20:50.880 God exists, it's a trinity. He creates man in his image. 1564 01:20:50.920 --> 01:20:55.159 I'm saying that the worldview of Christianity makes a coherent 1565 01:20:55.560 --> 01:20:58.960 sense of why there would be things like universals because 1566 01:20:59.119 --> 01:21:02.199 for in this case, God is omniscient and there are 1567 01:21:02.239 --> 01:21:05.439 divine ideas, and the universals are grounded in the divine mind. 1568 01:21:05.600 --> 01:21:07.880 If you don't have a divine mind, there's no basis 1569 01:21:07.880 --> 01:21:10.279 for universals, and thus there's no basis for predication. 1570 01:21:13.039 --> 01:21:15.039 Yeah, I'm not, but I'm not actually hearing. You're just 1571 01:21:15.119 --> 01:21:17.279 saying the Christian doctrine says so. 1572 01:21:17.960 --> 01:21:21.359 No, it's a paradigm argument, and that's the argument, is 1573 01:21:21.359 --> 01:21:23.399 that it's a comparison of one paradigm versus the other. 1574 01:21:23.479 --> 01:21:26.359 If my paradigm gives an account for it and yours doesn't, 1575 01:21:26.479 --> 01:21:28.279 then this paradigm is correct. 1576 01:21:28.880 --> 01:21:31.119 Well, I'm asking for the account like you're just you're 1577 01:21:31.199 --> 01:21:32.640 just restating. 1578 01:21:32.119 --> 01:21:36.239 The account is the Christian paradigm compared to your paradigm. 1579 01:21:36.319 --> 01:21:37.079 That's the account. 1580 01:21:38.039 --> 01:21:40.399 But we can't be compared to my paradigm, because. 1581 01:21:40.399 --> 01:21:44.319 Of course the argument is the argument is comparison, like. 1582 01:21:44.279 --> 01:21:46.680 The same reason that you said that mine is is. 1583 01:21:46.560 --> 01:21:49.760 Not the argument, No, it's not. You're missing the point. 1584 01:21:49.800 --> 01:21:53.079 So you're assuming that the argument for the argumentation at 1585 01:21:53.079 --> 01:21:55.000 a paradigm level is not the same thing. It's the 1586 01:21:55.079 --> 01:21:58.199 argumentation on a mundane first order level. So this is 1587 01:21:58.239 --> 01:22:00.439 a meta level argument. So it's an argus and about 1588 01:22:00.479 --> 01:22:03.760 the possibility of arguments. So if my position can give 1589 01:22:03.760 --> 01:22:07.479 an account for within its paradigm, how it's possible to 1590 01:22:07.560 --> 01:22:11.800 have laws of logic, universals, metaphysical categories, et cetera, et cetera, 1591 01:22:11.840 --> 01:22:13.880 et cetera, all the things I've been listing, and your 1592 01:22:13.920 --> 01:22:16.399 position doesn't give an account for it, then my position 1593 01:22:16.479 --> 01:22:16.920 is correct. 1594 01:22:19.159 --> 01:22:23.000 So you're what is given an accounting, so that there 1595 01:22:23.039 --> 01:22:24.479 is one What is the argument? 1596 01:22:24.600 --> 01:22:28.079 The argument is that I need universals, I need these categories. 1597 01:22:28.159 --> 01:22:31.159 God is the only possible being in Christian revelation has 1598 01:22:31.239 --> 01:22:35.640 given that disclosure as to who God is. Divine conceptualism 1599 01:22:35.720 --> 01:22:37.560 grounds the universal categories. How's that? 1600 01:22:39.560 --> 01:22:42.319 But again it gets suspect, like the God of the gaps. 1601 01:22:42.039 --> 01:22:44.399 It's not God of the gaps. It's a God of 1602 01:22:45.319 --> 01:22:48.079 the argument is all predication, not God of the gaps. 1603 01:22:48.119 --> 01:22:49.960 That's what you're missing. So God of the gaps is 1604 01:22:49.960 --> 01:22:52.319 this idea that whenever there's a problem, I can just 1605 01:22:52.359 --> 01:22:54.720 kind of stick God in there. This is a way 1606 01:22:54.800 --> 01:22:58.720 stronger claim that all predication requires a certain type of 1607 01:22:58.840 --> 01:23:02.680 world and certain types of transit categories. And I'm saying 1608 01:23:02.680 --> 01:23:05.680 that to how the transcendal categories require some kind of 1609 01:23:06.079 --> 01:23:10.000 metaphysical justification and grounding itself. The only type of being 1610 01:23:10.079 --> 01:23:13.560 who could possibly ground those in a coherent way is 1611 01:23:13.640 --> 01:23:14.159 our God. 1612 01:23:14.479 --> 01:23:17.920 That's the argument, my argument, And I want you to 1613 01:23:18.079 --> 01:23:21.000 tell me why what I'm saying is false so that 1614 01:23:21.039 --> 01:23:26.119 I can better understand, which is this stance exists because 1615 01:23:26.119 --> 01:23:29.079 it's impossible to argue against it. Right that a being 1616 01:23:29.880 --> 01:23:34.319 being you know, making argumentation exists in some pass to 1617 01:23:34.399 --> 01:23:38.359 argue against their own existence, would would would negate it 1618 01:23:38.399 --> 01:23:40.119 would be false, like it would just be false, It 1619 01:23:40.199 --> 01:23:43.840 would be it would be like a performative contradiction minimum. 1620 01:23:44.119 --> 01:23:47.880 And then your argument is when I'm asking you, like, 1621 01:23:47.920 --> 01:23:51.479 how do you justify that God solves this problem? Is 1622 01:23:51.560 --> 01:23:54.960 that it's impossible to argue against it because you need 1623 01:23:55.000 --> 01:23:57.760 these other categories. Sounds like we're making the exist. 1624 01:23:58.239 --> 01:24:03.000 If I said again, if I only did, if I 1625 01:24:03.000 --> 01:24:05.279 only did an internal critique, I would agree with you. 1626 01:24:05.359 --> 01:24:07.840 That doesn't necessarily mean that my position is correct. But 1627 01:24:07.880 --> 01:24:11.359 if I also offer a counter worldview to you which 1628 01:24:11.479 --> 01:24:15.319 does ground and give an account for universal categories, et cetera, 1629 01:24:15.439 --> 01:24:19.039 all those things that I listed, then that's the positive side, 1630 01:24:19.039 --> 01:24:20.479 and that's where it gets a justification. 1631 01:24:22.760 --> 01:24:25.239 But but but I can do the same thing right, 1632 01:24:25.279 --> 01:24:28.159 which is what existence exists? Identity? 1633 01:24:28.680 --> 01:24:30.840 No, you didn't. You didn't give a justification. You didn't 1634 01:24:30.840 --> 01:24:31.920 give any kind of justification. 1635 01:24:32.199 --> 01:24:35.399 You just asserted, well, we we got bogged down, and 1636 01:24:35.439 --> 01:24:36.680 existence exists quite a bit. 1637 01:24:37.359 --> 01:24:39.840 I never heard a justification argument at all. 1638 01:24:40.760 --> 01:24:43.800 So existence exists would be like axium one axium two 1639 01:24:43.840 --> 01:24:45.039 would be the law. 1640 01:24:45.359 --> 01:24:48.159 You didn't prove your axioms on. 1641 01:24:49.640 --> 01:24:52.279 Well, you haven't proven yours. You're just saying God exists. 1642 01:24:52.359 --> 01:24:54.319 Yeah, but I'm not a classical foundationalist. You're trying to 1643 01:24:54.319 --> 01:24:56.399 hold me to your standards. I don't have that same system. 1644 01:24:57.560 --> 01:25:00.119 Just just God. Must God adhere to logic or can 1645 01:25:00.159 --> 01:25:00.960 God be logical? 1646 01:25:01.079 --> 01:25:02.920 God is the basis for logic? 1647 01:25:03.000 --> 01:25:06.319 Is my argument, So so can God contradict? 1648 01:25:06.760 --> 01:25:06.960 No? 1649 01:25:08.159 --> 01:25:11.479 Okay, So if God can't contradict, then we agree regardless 1650 01:25:11.479 --> 01:25:12.479 of whatever. 1651 01:25:12.119 --> 01:25:15.960 What that doesn't mean the account is so again you 1652 01:25:16.039 --> 01:25:19.439 keep confusing agreement with account of the agreement. I have 1653 01:25:19.479 --> 01:25:21.159 a different agreement. 1654 01:25:21.319 --> 01:25:23.039 So we can move forward in the argument. 1655 01:25:23.159 --> 01:25:26.199 But it doesn't work because you're missing. But the reason 1656 01:25:26.279 --> 01:25:29.000 that doesn't work to move forward is that you're not understanding. 1657 01:25:29.000 --> 01:25:31.800 It's two rival paradigms trying to give an account for 1658 01:25:31.920 --> 01:25:34.800 the same types of things. And my argument is that 1659 01:25:35.159 --> 01:25:38.119 my paradigm can give an account and your paradigm cannot. 1660 01:25:38.319 --> 01:25:40.800 And not only can your paradigm not, your paradigm cannot 1661 01:25:40.840 --> 01:25:43.600 make knowledge possible. It's even stronger than God of the gaps. 1662 01:25:44.840 --> 01:25:47.600 How the fuck? How is knowledge impossible under my. 1663 01:25:47.560 --> 01:25:51.279 Paradigm because you cannot give a justification for the assertions. 1664 01:25:51.479 --> 01:25:54.920 That's the point. If you don't get the justification, then 1665 01:25:54.920 --> 01:25:57.760 you don't get the assertions given to you. That's what 1666 01:25:57.760 --> 01:25:58.640 philosophy does. 1667 01:25:59.680 --> 01:26:02.720 Okay, So it's imp I mean obviously knowledge, it says. 1668 01:26:03.079 --> 01:26:06.000 So again you keep saying obviously, And I don't grant 1669 01:26:06.000 --> 01:26:08.279 you any of those things you have not you have 1670 01:26:08.399 --> 01:26:10.760 not yet proven that anything is self evident, you just 1671 01:26:10.800 --> 01:26:11.279 assert it. 1672 01:26:12.880 --> 01:26:15.520 This is what happens when you interrupt people you start. 1673 01:26:16.399 --> 01:26:19.520 That's because the whole argument was continually based on you 1674 01:26:19.760 --> 01:26:22.520 just asserting and believing in self evident principles. And I mean, 1675 01:26:22.560 --> 01:26:25.159 I can give you. You want to go into another with. 1676 01:26:25.199 --> 01:26:27.760 Your own argument of tag, your own argument of tag. 1677 01:26:28.479 --> 01:26:30.439 It's not a classical foundational. 1678 01:26:30.279 --> 01:26:32.560 Necessary conditions, right, So. 1679 01:26:32.520 --> 01:26:37.600 That's not what self evidence is. That's not what by okay, brother, 1680 01:26:38.359 --> 01:26:40.840 that's not what self evidence is. So you're trying to 1681 01:26:40.880 --> 01:26:44.239 hold me to a criteria external to my world viewer system. 1682 01:26:44.279 --> 01:26:45.000 And it doesn't work. 1683 01:26:46.119 --> 01:26:48.640 I said, knowledge exists, and then you jump down my throat. 1684 01:26:48.760 --> 01:26:51.119 I don't grant you that. So again, what is that 1685 01:26:51.760 --> 01:26:55.399 you don't understand that it doesn't that doesn't apply to 1686 01:26:55.439 --> 01:26:55.640 the men. 1687 01:26:56.319 --> 01:26:58.119 You won't even agree with your own argument. 1688 01:26:58.239 --> 01:27:01.399 No, I have a different account. It's a different account. 1689 01:27:01.399 --> 01:27:04.079 I'm actually it's a different account. 1690 01:27:04.079 --> 01:27:08.880 Man, does or does not your argument hinge upon the 1691 01:27:08.920 --> 01:27:12.760 fact that there are that knowledge, all these. 1692 01:27:12.680 --> 01:27:16.479 Things, but those all of those words, these are necessary, 1693 01:27:16.560 --> 01:27:20.640 All of those words are conditioned by my paradigm, your career. 1694 01:27:20.720 --> 01:27:23.119 How am I? How am I supposed to have a conversation. 1695 01:27:23.520 --> 01:27:26.000 The point is that you can't have. It's not it's 1696 01:27:26.039 --> 01:27:28.199 a debate, and that's why you're being held to the 1697 01:27:28.239 --> 01:27:30.840 standards of critical thinking and logic and you don't get 1698 01:27:30.840 --> 01:27:31.640 to assert things. 1699 01:27:31.840 --> 01:27:35.079 Hold on, hold on, relax. How am I supposed to 1700 01:27:35.079 --> 01:27:39.600 have any meaningful debate if you if I make a 1701 01:27:39.640 --> 01:27:43.079 statement and you immediately interrupt said statement, and that statement 1702 01:27:43.159 --> 01:27:44.840 is even part of your own. 1703 01:27:44.840 --> 01:27:49.520 Argument, because come on, because it's not getting to an 1704 01:27:49.600 --> 01:27:52.159 understanding the point of what the debate is. You don't 1705 01:27:52.239 --> 01:27:55.720 understand the difference between like I. 1706 01:27:55.720 --> 01:27:59.199 Said, obviously knowledge exists. I said three words. 1707 01:27:58.920 --> 01:28:03.199 I don't agree, I don't gain. You don't understand. It 1708 01:28:03.239 --> 01:28:05.880 doesn't matter because I have a different account. So understand 1709 01:28:05.880 --> 01:28:07.359 that this is like the word. Remember when we're talking 1710 01:28:07.359 --> 01:28:11.800 about the words account. A different account. It's it doesn't 1711 01:28:11.800 --> 01:28:14.960 matter how many words it is, it's a totally different account, 1712 01:28:15.079 --> 01:28:21.039 no matter what, no matter what, yes, everything in the paradigm. 1713 01:28:20.880 --> 01:28:24.760 I said that you haven't given a justification, which I 1714 01:28:24.760 --> 01:28:27.079 don't think you understand what the word means. Still for 1715 01:28:27.199 --> 01:28:35.319 the assertions of self evidence, and my position does not 1716 01:28:35.359 --> 01:28:38.560 believe in self evidence or ad hoc assertions, So you 1717 01:28:38.680 --> 01:28:42.000 have the burden of proof on you if you start 1718 01:28:42.039 --> 01:28:44.720 your position and your system with that, with self evidence 1719 01:28:44.760 --> 01:28:46.720 and things being properly basic. 1720 01:28:47.479 --> 01:28:50.399 We I'm not allowed to apparently make. 1721 01:28:51.840 --> 01:28:53.720 What you We've been talking, tinying for the last hour. 1722 01:28:53.760 --> 01:28:54.199 What do you mean? 1723 01:28:55.520 --> 01:28:57.560 I keep trying to get through it, and you keep 1724 01:28:57.720 --> 01:29:00.960 just going back to existence, exist it over to yours, 1725 01:29:01.000 --> 01:29:07.760 but you never just I'm trying again, So I'm shifting 1726 01:29:07.800 --> 01:29:10.159 over to yours. We can do an internal critique of yours, 1727 01:29:10.159 --> 01:29:10.800 and I'm trying. 1728 01:29:11.560 --> 01:29:16.640 But your internal critique is not internal. It's your system. Brother, 1729 01:29:16.880 --> 01:29:22.039 you're asking me, You're you're critiquing me from classical foundationalism, 1730 01:29:22.039 --> 01:29:23.880 and that's not my system. It doesn't work. 1731 01:29:24.720 --> 01:29:31.279 Oh listen, I'm trying to I'm I'm I'm here genuinely 1732 01:29:31.359 --> 01:29:34.680 listening to you as you lay out large arguments trying 1733 01:29:34.720 --> 01:29:37.439 to steal men your you're not giving me the same 1734 01:29:37.520 --> 01:29:40.399 grace it's making just being able to even have a 1735 01:29:40.439 --> 01:29:44.279 debate or okay, you go right. So I'm trying to 1736 01:29:44.399 --> 01:29:49.119 understand right where it is that why it is that 1737 01:29:50.439 --> 01:29:54.960 when you plug God into the equat all, that fixes not. 1738 01:29:54.840 --> 01:29:58.439 Just plugging God in, it's pointing out that the paradigm 1739 01:29:58.479 --> 01:30:02.039 itself is coherent system, has explanatory power, and gives a 1740 01:30:02.119 --> 01:30:05.840 justification for human knowledge. Because it's a paradigm level argument, 1741 01:30:06.399 --> 01:30:09.239 I am not plugging in. This is why I can 1742 01:30:09.279 --> 01:30:12.680 already tell where the error is and what you're assessing. 1743 01:30:12.760 --> 01:30:15.720 You're assessing that my position is God of gaps, And 1744 01:30:15.800 --> 01:30:18.720 for the third time, it's a much stronger argument than 1745 01:30:18.720 --> 01:30:21.680 God of the gaps, which is that all predication and 1746 01:30:21.760 --> 01:30:26.000 knowledge requires the transcendental categories my position. I know you 1747 01:30:26.000 --> 01:30:28.199 don't accept the argument or believe that what I'm saying 1748 01:30:28.279 --> 01:30:31.960 is necessarily the case, But the argument is that in 1749 01:30:32.000 --> 01:30:37.239 my worldview or paradigm, there is a coherent, sensible account 1750 01:30:37.399 --> 01:30:40.760 of why there would be the self, the external world logic, 1751 01:30:40.760 --> 01:30:45.920 et cetera. That is contrasted to your entire worldview and 1752 01:30:46.359 --> 01:30:49.720 system in paradigm, which cannot give an account for even 1753 01:30:49.920 --> 01:30:54.479 the transcendental categories themselves. That's the force of the argument. 1754 01:30:55.199 --> 01:30:57.119 I'm genuinely not trying to accuse you of. 1755 01:30:57.239 --> 01:31:00.479 It's a it's a meta level argument. You're trying to 1756 01:31:00.560 --> 01:31:02.760 argue on a non meta level. That's the point. That's 1757 01:31:02.760 --> 01:31:03.439 the problem we're having. 1758 01:31:04.680 --> 01:31:07.720 My problem is is that and you say that it's 1759 01:31:07.720 --> 01:31:11.199 somehow false to say you plug gotten, but I'm maybe 1760 01:31:11.239 --> 01:31:12.479 maybe I'm just dumb. 1761 01:31:12.520 --> 01:31:14.720 Like you know, what a meta level argument versus a 1762 01:31:14.920 --> 01:31:16.000 first order argument is. 1763 01:31:18.199 --> 01:31:21.720 I mean, like meta would be the the meta would 1764 01:31:21.760 --> 01:31:25.000 be like the thing of itself, as opposed to like 1765 01:31:25.039 --> 01:31:25.760 the minute ship. 1766 01:31:27.079 --> 01:31:29.239 Right. So, in other word, like logic itself, how is 1767 01:31:29.279 --> 01:31:32.520 logic itself logical? Or how do we know that it works? Right, 1768 01:31:32.640 --> 01:31:36.520 versus you know, a more mundane claim like and you're correct, 1769 01:31:36.560 --> 01:31:38.600 I agree? Right? So like if I said, well, you know, 1770 01:31:38.640 --> 01:31:40.560 does Bill Cosby live next door to me? I don't know. 1771 01:31:40.600 --> 01:31:42.880 I'll have to go, you know, empirically investigate it, right, 1772 01:31:45.000 --> 01:31:48.720 Debating the status of logic itself is way more devastating 1773 01:31:48.800 --> 01:31:51.479 and important and more fundamental to my worldview. 1774 01:31:51.640 --> 01:31:53.159 No, I agree, I okay. 1775 01:31:53.239 --> 01:31:56.560 So that's why this debate is a meta level worldview 1776 01:31:56.600 --> 01:31:57.199 level debate. 1777 01:31:57.439 --> 01:32:00.720 I didn't, I didn't. I didn't disagree with you on that, okay. 1778 01:32:00.760 --> 01:32:04.039 So then the retorts that you're giving are not understanding 1779 01:32:04.079 --> 01:32:07.920 that in my system, God is the justification for the 1780 01:32:07.960 --> 01:32:11.039 transcenal categories, because he's the only possible being who could 1781 01:32:11.079 --> 01:32:13.079 ground them. And you're saying, how do we know that 1782 01:32:13.119 --> 01:32:16.520 what's the justification the system itself in terms of revealed 1783 01:32:16.520 --> 01:32:20.239 theism is the justification in my paradigm. So you could say, well, 1784 01:32:20.239 --> 01:32:23.199 I don't accept that. That's fine, but yeah, I just. 1785 01:32:23.119 --> 01:32:25.560 Like I just I'm trying to see I'm trying. So 1786 01:32:25.720 --> 01:32:29.079 I said, if you plug God in and you took. 1787 01:32:28.960 --> 01:32:33.840 Them, it's not plugging God in. It's stronger than for 1788 01:32:33.880 --> 01:32:36.920 the third time, the reason you said God of the 1789 01:32:36.920 --> 01:32:39.720 gaps twice, and I'm pointing out that it's way stronger 1790 01:32:39.800 --> 01:32:42.560 argument or claim than God of the gaps. God of 1791 01:32:42.560 --> 01:32:44.640 the Gap says, where I see a problem, I stick 1792 01:32:44.680 --> 01:32:46.199 God in there to try to make sense of it. 1793 01:32:46.680 --> 01:32:49.399 This is more fundamental than that. This is saying all 1794 01:32:49.640 --> 01:32:53.920 human knowledge and predication requires the existence of our God, 1795 01:32:54.119 --> 01:32:55.680 who grounds the transfer the category. 1796 01:32:56.560 --> 01:33:01.199 How are we justifying that it must necessary. 1797 01:33:00.800 --> 01:33:03.720 By the impossibility of the opposing worldview not even being 1798 01:33:03.760 --> 01:33:06.760 able to give an account for anything. It's a disjunctive argument, 1799 01:33:08.399 --> 01:33:09.319 but the only. 1800 01:33:09.119 --> 01:33:11.399 Way that so, the way that you're you're able to 1801 01:33:11.399 --> 01:33:16.760 say knowledge exists because and I had I don't have 1802 01:33:16.840 --> 01:33:17.880 this God to to. 1803 01:33:18.239 --> 01:33:22.000 Solve that, to solve the basis for the transcenal categories. 1804 01:33:22.720 --> 01:33:26.079 So you appeal to things like being is being, existence 1805 01:33:26.119 --> 01:33:28.359 is existence, things that are just supposed to be self evident. 1806 01:33:28.760 --> 01:33:31.399 And that's why I went through deconstructing how that's not 1807 01:33:31.399 --> 01:33:32.000 self evident. 1808 01:33:34.319 --> 01:33:37.520 Well, I don't, I disagree. I'm trying to. I'm I'm 1809 01:33:37.520 --> 01:33:39.079 trying to get to a point where we can where 1810 01:33:39.119 --> 01:33:40.920 we can have this conversation. But I feel like we're 1811 01:33:41.000 --> 01:33:43.239 kind of just at a point where we just both disagreements. 1812 01:33:43.600 --> 01:33:46.439 I mean, this is this is God solves. 1813 01:33:47.319 --> 01:33:51.960 I disagree that, like just plugging in this concept that like, oh, 1814 01:33:52.000 --> 01:33:55.159 well God justifies everything and therefore you know if there 1815 01:33:55.199 --> 01:33:55.960 are any issues there. 1816 01:33:56.159 --> 01:34:00.479 So your answer is just existence exists. Yeah, I mean 1817 01:34:00.560 --> 01:34:04.039 like that would be the fundamental So can I say so? 1818 01:34:04.119 --> 01:34:07.680 Could I say so? If I come to it, No, 1819 01:34:07.720 --> 01:34:13.039 it's not your argument. Your argument was My. 1820 01:34:13.079 --> 01:34:17.039 Argument is existence exists. And we're going, well, you can't 1821 01:34:17.119 --> 01:34:19.840 justify that, and I say, well, it's impossible to arguement. 1822 01:34:20.439 --> 01:34:24.760 And then your argument is God exists. Can I say, well, 1823 01:34:24.760 --> 01:34:28.000 can you justify that? And say, well, you can't argue against. 1824 01:34:27.720 --> 01:34:30.680 That because all of the things I said twice, I 1825 01:34:30.720 --> 01:34:33.680 said twice, you're not listening. I said twice that if 1826 01:34:33.720 --> 01:34:36.239 I only gave it in, if I only gave an 1827 01:34:36.279 --> 01:34:38.680 internal critique, you would be correct. I already said this twice. 1828 01:34:38.800 --> 01:34:44.319 That's why you also counter with the positive case explaining 1829 01:34:44.359 --> 01:34:47.720 the paradigm in the worldview, because you're debating, we're debating 1830 01:34:47.760 --> 01:34:50.399 things like logic and existence in this language and this 1831 01:34:50.479 --> 01:34:53.720 kind of stuff that are within the paradigm, within the system, 1832 01:34:53.800 --> 01:34:56.520 so they're going to be conditioned by the systems. That's 1833 01:34:56.560 --> 01:35:01.279 why the transcendental argument is literally saying that all argumentation 1834 01:35:01.479 --> 01:35:04.279 at this level, at this fundamental level, is a paradigm 1835 01:35:04.359 --> 01:35:07.560 level argument because there is no self evident principle. So 1836 01:35:07.600 --> 01:35:10.079 every time you try to critique me on your classical 1837 01:35:10.119 --> 01:35:14.359 foundationalist basis, you're proving my point and not understanding that 1838 01:35:14.399 --> 01:35:19.159 within the paradigm justification makes sense because God literally is 1839 01:35:19.199 --> 01:35:22.199 the only being who could ground those things. For example, 1840 01:35:22.239 --> 01:35:25.079 let's let's let's make it let's make it clear. How 1841 01:35:25.079 --> 01:35:29.359 could I put this into an either or either the 1842 01:35:29.399 --> 01:35:36.079 world is at a universal sense disteleological, or there is tellos, 1843 01:35:36.119 --> 01:35:40.439 there is purpose, there is teleology operant in the world. 1844 01:35:40.920 --> 01:35:43.600 And maybe you could come up with some mixed third 1845 01:35:43.600 --> 01:35:45.399 position where it's a little bit of both or something 1846 01:35:45.439 --> 01:35:48.800 if you had. But in this disjunctive there's only two 1847 01:35:49.079 --> 01:35:53.319 and perhaps three options for an entire worldview if you 1848 01:35:53.760 --> 01:35:56.479 if you answer either way on this, you're going to 1849 01:35:56.520 --> 01:35:59.000 be led to my position. And that's the that's the 1850 01:35:59.039 --> 01:36:04.359 force of the transit an argument. You can take anything causation, teleology, pencils, 1851 01:36:04.399 --> 01:36:07.159 predication and make the transcendental argument. 1852 01:36:10.039 --> 01:36:12.600 How am I so, Well, then let's walk through it. 1853 01:36:12.680 --> 01:36:15.439 Let's make it super simple. Either blue T shirts exist 1854 01:36:15.520 --> 01:36:16.840 or blue T shirts don't exend. 1855 01:36:17.039 --> 01:36:20.199 You know, I gave it this theological versus a teleological 1856 01:36:20.239 --> 01:36:24.119 world right, that was my grass. 1857 01:36:24.520 --> 01:36:26.880 So either meaning exists or meaning doesn't exist. 1858 01:36:27.079 --> 01:36:29.359 Well, it's purpose in the world at a at a 1859 01:36:29.399 --> 01:36:32.279 grand scale, or there is no purpose in a grand scale. 1860 01:36:33.199 --> 01:36:37.960 Okay, I was using meaning and purpose, you know, simplify 1861 01:36:38.000 --> 01:36:41.399 the argument, right like, So, either meaning exists or meaning 1862 01:36:41.479 --> 01:36:43.199 doesn't exitt and you're saying that. 1863 01:36:43.159 --> 01:36:46.600 It's at at a universal level, not at a subjective level. 1864 01:36:48.079 --> 01:36:51.439 Okay, So that yees, so I would so meaning at 1865 01:36:51.439 --> 01:36:55.359 a universal level doesn't exit. We'll take that. We'll take that. 1866 01:36:55.960 --> 01:37:00.079 My argument would be meaning does not exist at a 1867 01:37:00.199 --> 01:37:02.840 universal level for for all all beings. 1868 01:37:02.920 --> 01:37:07.760 Thank you. Then then if that's the universal status of 1869 01:37:08.000 --> 01:37:11.079 that proposition or claim. If that is the case, then 1870 01:37:11.159 --> 01:37:14.359 every particular case or status of so called meaning is 1871 01:37:14.399 --> 01:37:18.000 also encapsulated under the ultimate non meaning. So every argument 1872 01:37:18.079 --> 01:37:20.199 you make is based on meaninglessness. 1873 01:37:23.840 --> 01:37:25.840 And how does God? How does? How does? How does 1874 01:37:25.880 --> 01:37:29.439 the existence of a non or uncreated existence? 1875 01:37:29.920 --> 01:37:34.000 Because God is because God is personal and intentional, and 1876 01:37:34.079 --> 01:37:37.800 intentionality means that there is a meaningful world at a universal, 1877 01:37:37.840 --> 01:37:38.560 grand scale. 1878 01:37:40.119 --> 01:37:42.960 Okay, So so essentially where it's like a. 1879 01:37:45.439 --> 01:37:48.439 No, it's not at all, It's not, it's not. It's 1880 01:37:48.479 --> 01:37:51.199 a transcendental argument for teleology. 1881 01:37:52.039 --> 01:37:55.119 Why do you know? I was saying, So it's it's 1882 01:37:55.239 --> 01:37:58.680 it's similar to like if God doesn't exist and everything 1883 01:37:58.800 --> 01:37:59.319 is permitted. 1884 01:38:01.840 --> 01:38:04.439 I mean, that's a boil down ethical version of it. 1885 01:38:04.520 --> 01:38:06.840 But I'm making another. I'm making more of a metaphysical 1886 01:38:06.920 --> 01:38:10.239 argument about purpose and teleology and intentionality that the universe 1887 01:38:10.279 --> 01:38:13.920 does not at a grand scale have that then than 1888 01:38:13.960 --> 01:38:16.640 what we're The only other option is what's called accidentalism 1889 01:38:16.800 --> 01:38:20.479 or dysteleology. And if that's the case, then hold on. 1890 01:38:20.520 --> 01:38:23.119 If that's the case, then knowledge is no longer possible. 1891 01:38:24.239 --> 01:38:27.600 Why is knowledge because let's. 1892 01:38:26.760 --> 01:38:31.279 Because now everything is accidental. Now everything is accidental. I'm 1893 01:38:31.279 --> 01:38:34.079 going to answer question. Because everything is now accidental, including 1894 01:38:34.159 --> 01:38:37.520 every action of knowledge, is an accident. And thus there's 1895 01:38:37.520 --> 01:38:41.560 no laws of thought or laws of reasoning which are 1896 01:38:41.640 --> 01:38:46.079 necessary for the possibility of meaningful discourse. You would negate 1897 01:38:46.119 --> 01:38:47.239 the possibility laws you. 1898 01:38:47.199 --> 01:38:49.159 Don't mean, you don't need it. You don't need a 1899 01:38:49.199 --> 01:38:50.560 god for that exist. 1900 01:38:50.640 --> 01:38:54.439 There are no immaterial laws. You keep saying that, But 1901 01:38:54.479 --> 01:38:58.880 there's what's the justification for immaterial laws if everything is 1902 01:38:58.920 --> 01:38:59.560 an accident? 1903 01:39:00.680 --> 01:39:04.359 I so first, let's let's go buy this piece. So 1904 01:39:04.840 --> 01:39:08.680 I recognize that people want to discover meaning in their life. 1905 01:39:09.399 --> 01:39:15.199 But why okay, hold on, why is it that meaning 1906 01:39:15.960 --> 01:39:20.199 is a necessary condition for the universe? Why must the 1907 01:39:20.279 --> 01:39:21.279 universe have meaning? 1908 01:39:21.439 --> 01:39:28.079 Because to have justified knowledge you need intentionality, purpose and 1909 01:39:28.399 --> 01:39:32.159 laws of thought and grammar, and those things cannot exist 1910 01:39:32.199 --> 01:39:35.760 in a world that is ultimately, purely and totally accidental. 1911 01:39:37.319 --> 01:39:44.720 So well, yeah, well okay, So if if if, if 1912 01:39:44.760 --> 01:39:48.159 things have identities right, like a like a like a 1913 01:39:48.239 --> 01:39:51.560 rabbiting system, and that is you know, rabbit names, that 1914 01:39:51.600 --> 01:39:54.319 thing has it's we can describe what it is. 1915 01:39:55.159 --> 01:40:00.600 Why is God a necessary element or a conscious being. 1916 01:40:01.000 --> 01:40:04.680 Able because if the totality of existence is because I 1917 01:40:05.399 --> 01:40:08.039 because it's not justified. That's why, let me. 1918 01:40:08.000 --> 01:40:10.640 Finish, let me find it. So why is it that 1919 01:40:10.840 --> 01:40:13.960 I can see, like why is God a necessary element 1920 01:40:14.359 --> 01:40:17.560 for me to see a rabbit that is named Steve 1921 01:40:18.119 --> 01:40:22.399 and perceive the behaviors that the rabbit again, the things 1922 01:40:22.479 --> 01:40:23.159 the rabbit does. 1923 01:40:24.439 --> 01:40:27.199 The fact that you have the knowledge does not equate 1924 01:40:27.239 --> 01:40:30.079 to you justifying the knowledge. That's what this whole debate 1925 01:40:30.119 --> 01:40:33.720 has been about. Justification is not pragmatism. It's not you 1926 01:40:33.880 --> 01:40:35.800 just having it. It's not you asserting it. It's not 1927 01:40:35.840 --> 01:40:39.119 you believing in self evident assertions. It's you giving an 1928 01:40:39.159 --> 01:40:42.439 account for the things that make it possible. So you 1929 01:40:42.520 --> 01:40:46.600 can say, well, I have so it wouldn't be able 1930 01:40:46.640 --> 01:40:49.479 to justify them. That's so if you say, well, I 1931 01:40:49.600 --> 01:40:53.199 believe that I've found meaning and predicating about my pet rabbits, 1932 01:40:53.319 --> 01:40:56.159 and it gives me the solace I get warm feelies 1933 01:40:56.159 --> 01:40:59.880 over it. In the grand scheme, In the Grand scheme, 1934 01:41:00.039 --> 01:41:02.960 when you die and you go into the nothingness, that 1935 01:41:03.520 --> 01:41:07.119 is gone, and so it has no relevance or reference 1936 01:41:07.279 --> 01:41:10.359 to the universe as a whole and so ultimately, even 1937 01:41:10.399 --> 01:41:13.159 though you might have subjectively felt like there was meaning there, 1938 01:41:13.439 --> 01:41:17.319 there is no meaning beyond your own personal subjective creating 1939 01:41:17.399 --> 01:41:19.520 of meaning. So there is no te lose in your position. 1940 01:41:19.720 --> 01:41:19.840 Right? 1941 01:41:19.880 --> 01:41:20.800 But why does that matter? 1942 01:41:21.640 --> 01:41:25.720 Because knowledge can no longer be epistemically justified if the 1943 01:41:25.800 --> 01:41:30.119 universe is accidental on disteleological. If I live a life, 1944 01:41:30.560 --> 01:41:32.199 and how does that get you justification? 1945 01:41:32.520 --> 01:41:36.159 Hold on, if I live a life and I die, right, 1946 01:41:36.199 --> 01:41:38.439 and then the world moves on without me for a 1947 01:41:38.479 --> 01:41:43.039 million years? Right, whatever my actions are had some effect. 1948 01:41:42.640 --> 01:41:43.159 On the world. 1949 01:41:43.239 --> 01:41:46.640 But why does like why? What? What is this you're 1950 01:41:46.680 --> 01:41:50.960 you're positing that a grand vision or meaning is necessary. 1951 01:41:51.000 --> 01:41:53.399 It's called accidentalism, just disteleological. 1952 01:41:53.439 --> 01:41:53.560 Right. 1953 01:41:53.760 --> 01:41:59.199 This is actually a fair famous argument. Right. If the 1954 01:41:59.319 --> 01:42:04.359 universe had a grand scale is accidental and distillological, then 1955 01:42:04.399 --> 01:42:08.800 by necessity, every particular person, object, event, and thing within 1956 01:42:09.560 --> 01:42:13.119 is also accidental, and thus there is no basis for 1957 01:42:13.880 --> 01:42:17.880 logic knowledge in a justi victory sense, because there are 1958 01:42:17.880 --> 01:42:21.399 no laws of thought because they are also accidental and 1959 01:42:21.479 --> 01:42:30.119 distiological and with no purpose. Okay, So, if the grand 1960 01:42:30.119 --> 01:42:34.840 scale universal is purposeless, all the particular parts are purposeless. 1961 01:42:38.760 --> 01:42:41.520 But it doesn't. It doesn't actually answer the question. You're 1962 01:42:41.560 --> 01:42:44.199 just saying because it doesn't have propose like we can 1963 01:42:44.239 --> 01:42:44.600 we can. 1964 01:42:44.520 --> 01:42:46.720 Look at again for the third time to have the 1965 01:42:46.800 --> 01:42:49.119 laws of no hold on for the laws of thought. No, 1966 01:42:49.560 --> 01:42:51.800 I'm not interrupting for having the laws of thought. 1967 01:42:51.880 --> 01:42:52.680 Let me explain it. 1968 01:42:52.760 --> 01:42:56.800 Let me explain it for having You can't have language 1969 01:42:56.840 --> 01:42:58.039 without the laws of thought. 1970 01:42:58.159 --> 01:43:02.279 Oh my god, Oh my god, my god. Brother, I'm 1971 01:43:02.359 --> 01:43:06.000 letting you make your full argument and then taking that argument. 1972 01:43:06.279 --> 01:43:11.479 You can't have language. It is very come on, man. 1973 01:43:14.840 --> 01:43:19.720 Okay, So I'm trying to like, I'm not like, I'm not. 1974 01:43:20.319 --> 01:43:22.720 I'm asking you a question and I'm not getting an answer. 1975 01:43:23.000 --> 01:43:27.119 What I'm getting is that what I'm getting is you're 1976 01:43:27.279 --> 01:43:34.000 appealing to the people's desire for purpose and meaning. I'm 1977 01:43:34.039 --> 01:43:36.520 asking where did I ever say? 1978 01:43:36.720 --> 01:43:38.520 Where did I ever say that that's totally not true? 1979 01:43:38.920 --> 01:43:40.239 I said, you're not, but you're not. 1980 01:43:40.560 --> 01:43:43.760 I said, you're doing by not actually answering the question, 1981 01:43:44.079 --> 01:43:45.119 which is why. 1982 01:43:44.960 --> 01:43:47.640 The very beginning point was about the universe as a 1983 01:43:47.640 --> 01:43:53.680 whole having either a teleological intentionality purpose behind it or 1984 01:43:53.760 --> 01:43:56.680 it's purely accidental at a grand scale. That was what 1985 01:43:56.720 --> 01:43:58.840 I said very clear, and there's only two options here, 1986 01:43:58.920 --> 01:44:00.159 or if you want to say there's a mix, you 1987 01:44:00.159 --> 01:44:02.600 could have a third option. And you said, well, but 1988 01:44:02.640 --> 01:44:05.319 how does that mean I can't justify knowledge? And I said, 1989 01:44:05.399 --> 01:44:09.319 because if the universe is purely accidental, all the so 1990 01:44:09.520 --> 01:44:13.000 called laws within it, including the laws of thought, the 1991 01:44:13.119 --> 01:44:19.359 laws of logic, mathematical laws, are also thus accidental and 1992 01:44:19.439 --> 01:44:24.239 have no purpose. And so your arguments right now have 1993 01:44:24.439 --> 01:44:26.840 no purpose by your own admission. 1994 01:44:33.159 --> 01:44:38.600 If so, you're saying that purpose and meaning is required 1995 01:44:38.640 --> 01:44:39.399 for let's saying. 1996 01:44:40.920 --> 01:44:44.439 A world with no purpose and no meaning cannot give 1997 01:44:44.560 --> 01:44:46.760 rise to universal. 1998 01:44:47.239 --> 01:44:49.600 Maybe I need a better definition of what you mean 1999 01:44:50.720 --> 01:44:55.279 when you're making the arguments like teleology, meaning, et cetera. 2000 01:44:55.399 --> 01:44:56.960 Like what you mean in this regards. 2001 01:44:57.479 --> 01:44:59.159 The universe as a whole in all of its parts 2002 01:44:59.399 --> 01:45:03.039 have a directed, intentional purpose or they do not. 2003 01:45:04.960 --> 01:45:07.680 Okay, Well, like a heart pumps blut, the purpose of 2004 01:45:07.720 --> 01:45:11.720 the heart is why is God necessary for the for 2005 01:45:11.760 --> 01:45:12.920 the heart to pump blood? 2006 01:45:17.319 --> 01:45:22.359 The justification for tilos in a universal sense requires some 2007 01:45:22.680 --> 01:45:25.600 universal being or thing to ground it and justify it. 2008 01:45:25.680 --> 01:45:26.439 That's the argument. 2009 01:45:26.600 --> 01:45:29.119 So okay, well, why is God necessary for that? 2010 01:45:29.760 --> 01:45:32.079 God is the only being who could give an account 2011 01:45:32.079 --> 01:45:35.039 for that. 2012 01:45:35.039 --> 01:45:36.199 That's not answering my question. 2013 01:45:36.239 --> 01:45:38.359 It is just you don't like to answer what other 2014 01:45:38.439 --> 01:45:38.840 being could? 2015 01:45:38.960 --> 01:45:41.720 Why is God necessary. 2016 01:45:41.199 --> 01:45:44.039 Because he's the only type of being who could give 2017 01:45:44.039 --> 01:45:45.039 an account of heart? 2018 01:45:45.079 --> 01:45:47.760 Pump, I can give it a I can give an 2019 01:45:47.760 --> 01:45:48.760 account of. 2020 01:45:49.039 --> 01:45:52.840 But you already admit it because your account. Your account 2021 01:45:52.960 --> 01:45:56.399 is not purpose, Your account is not universally Your accounts 2022 01:45:56.359 --> 01:46:00.439 are subjective. Your account is subjective and not universally true. 2023 01:46:00.439 --> 01:46:01.119 That's the point. 2024 01:46:03.239 --> 01:46:06.079 So you're saying that another person could have an interpretation 2025 01:46:06.199 --> 01:46:06.560 of the heart. 2026 01:46:06.680 --> 01:46:10.840 No, I'm asking about your assertion of universals now, and 2027 01:46:10.880 --> 01:46:13.239 you don't have a justification for how there's universals. 2028 01:46:20.119 --> 01:46:21.640 I would depend on It would depend upon what we 2029 01:46:21.680 --> 01:46:24.439 mean when we're talking about like the purpose of inanimate objects. 2030 01:46:24.479 --> 01:46:27.880 Right now, you said that this is Is it true? 2031 01:46:28.039 --> 01:46:29.159 Is it universally true? 2032 01:46:30.720 --> 01:46:34.239 That that the if we're talking about the specific identity, Yes, 2033 01:46:34.279 --> 01:46:35.319 it is universally true. 2034 01:46:35.359 --> 01:46:38.279 Okay, how do you have knowledge of the universal? How 2035 01:46:38.279 --> 01:46:41.880 do you have knowledge of universals? As a individual, finite 2036 01:46:42.439 --> 01:46:43.359 empirical being. 2037 01:46:44.239 --> 01:46:46.640 I have consciousness. Consciousness gives me. 2038 01:46:46.720 --> 01:46:49.800 How does having consciousness prove the existence of universals. 2039 01:46:51.239 --> 01:46:56.439 Well, consciousness is alitional, is what? It's volitional, it's intentional, 2040 01:46:56.560 --> 01:46:58.960 it's like it's it's like the consciousness. 2041 01:46:59.079 --> 01:47:01.680 Okay, you keep starting a certainly, what is the proof 2042 01:47:01.680 --> 01:47:03.680 of the justification that you have these things? You keep 2043 01:47:03.680 --> 01:47:09.199 asserting it? We can I come to the debate and 2044 01:47:09.239 --> 01:47:12.159 just say, Can I come to the debate and say, 2045 01:47:12.239 --> 01:47:12.760 God just is? 2046 01:47:13.840 --> 01:47:15.199 I feel like that's kind of what you're doing. 2047 01:47:15.239 --> 01:47:15.279 No. 2048 01:47:15.359 --> 01:47:17.479 I made a transcendent argument which you just don't understand, 2049 01:47:17.479 --> 01:47:19.399 and you're coming to debate and saying what existence just is? 2050 01:47:19.520 --> 01:47:20.560 And it just is? 2051 01:47:22.279 --> 01:47:26.640 Well, you're I fail to see the distinction between I 2052 01:47:26.680 --> 01:47:29.399 really do, but you'll just say that it's like I'm 2053 01:47:29.439 --> 01:47:30.640 dumb or something. It's fine. 2054 01:47:31.199 --> 01:47:33.960 Again, the distinction is that you're not justifying all of 2055 01:47:34.000 --> 01:47:36.399 these assertions and beliefs, and you have a bunch of 2056 01:47:36.439 --> 01:47:42.760 dogmas that you've not justified. You on your paradigm, on 2057 01:47:42.840 --> 01:47:47.399 your paradigm. Okay, well, so is everything? You said, everything 2058 01:47:47.479 --> 01:47:50.760 is an accident, everything is without purpose. And you said, 2059 01:47:50.760 --> 01:47:52.359 but in my personal life, I can say that the 2060 01:47:52.399 --> 01:47:54.960 heart beats. Okay, and then you said that that's universe. 2061 01:47:55.000 --> 01:47:57.279 That's you said, that's universally true. You don't have a 2062 01:47:57.359 --> 01:48:02.000 justification for universals because universal No, it's not. You can 2063 01:48:02.079 --> 01:48:04.560 say that, but you've contradicted it by saying that the 2064 01:48:04.640 --> 01:48:07.279 universe as a whole is also purposeless. That means that 2065 01:48:07.319 --> 01:48:09.239 your universal claims are also purposeless. 2066 01:48:10.239 --> 01:48:12.800 Again, this is why I asked you to clarify on 2067 01:48:12.920 --> 01:48:15.760 your meanings of like purposeless purposefulness. 2068 01:48:15.960 --> 01:48:20.119 There's no purpose he los to anything. That means your 2069 01:48:20.319 --> 01:48:21.920 arguments are no have no. 2070 01:48:21.880 --> 01:48:25.479 Purpose when we take you're so frustrated. 2071 01:48:25.880 --> 01:48:28.880 Because you're losing at this point, it's a very obvious points. 2072 01:48:29.680 --> 01:48:33.399 If everything is meaninglessness, then your arguments are meaningless. 2073 01:48:33.439 --> 01:48:36.560 Brother, brother for the loss up whining? 2074 01:48:36.640 --> 01:48:38.319 Do we don't care about your whining? 2075 01:48:39.399 --> 01:48:41.039 I know that you don't care about my learning. It's 2076 01:48:41.039 --> 01:48:42.640 because you're a rude that's not right. 2077 01:48:43.079 --> 01:48:47.720 Regardless, So everything is purposelessness, everything is meaningless, purposelesslessness. But 2078 01:48:47.880 --> 01:48:50.479 your universal truth You said that, yes, you did. You 2079 01:48:50.520 --> 01:48:53.960 said the universe was purposeless. You said that you are 2080 01:48:54.479 --> 01:48:55.920 you said at a grand scale, it. 2081 01:48:55.960 --> 01:48:59.640 Was you gave. You gave an argument that's said the 2082 01:49:00.000 --> 01:49:02.439 option a option be potentially a mixed You said that 2083 01:49:02.479 --> 01:49:05.880 the two I said, and you said that these will 2084 01:49:06.000 --> 01:49:09.119 necessitate God when we follow them through. So I said, sure, 2085 01:49:09.359 --> 01:49:12.560 I said, and not meaning that I am saying the 2086 01:49:12.680 --> 01:49:15.640 universe's purposeful, it's meaningless or whatever. 2087 01:49:15.720 --> 01:49:18.359 Right, Like, but there's only two options on this question, 2088 01:49:29.960 --> 01:49:32.079 bad faith, dude, nobody is buying your bullshit. 2089 01:49:32.159 --> 01:49:33.880 I'm not being I'm not being bad faith. 2090 01:49:33.880 --> 01:49:36.439 When you say, if there's only two options, then that 2091 01:49:36.520 --> 01:49:38.760 must be your positions, right, I say. 2092 01:49:38.680 --> 01:49:41.479 Let's all right, let's pick one and let's follow your logic. 2093 01:49:41.800 --> 01:49:44.239 Is that not your positions? Is it not your position? 2094 01:49:44.399 --> 01:49:46.239 I don't know that. I don't I would, I would 2095 01:49:46.399 --> 01:49:48.960 genuinely and honestly have to think about it. 2096 01:49:49.239 --> 01:49:51.000 Okay, then you're not in a position to give a 2097 01:49:51.079 --> 01:49:53.319 justification for universal claims by that admission. 2098 01:49:55.960 --> 01:49:59.680 I'm not in a position to give universal claims because 2099 01:49:59.680 --> 01:50:02.159 I don't know whether or not one specific claim. 2100 01:50:02.600 --> 01:50:06.880 No, because of the because of intentionality and tilos. If 2101 01:50:06.920 --> 01:50:11.199 the universe is universally purposeless and meaningless, and now you're saying, well, 2102 01:50:11.159 --> 01:50:13.560 I don't actually believe that, then you are arguing in 2103 01:50:13.600 --> 01:50:14.079 bad faith. 2104 01:50:15.119 --> 01:50:17.560 How am I arguing in bad faiths? Because I don't 2105 01:50:17.760 --> 01:50:18.600 like I would say. 2106 01:50:18.439 --> 01:50:20.960 Like, because there's only two options in this question. For 2107 01:50:21.880 --> 01:50:24.880 there's only two options for anyone. The whole chat is. 2108 01:50:26.560 --> 01:50:26.880 You're over. 2109 01:50:27.039 --> 01:50:34.000 You are, this is, this is I'm not gonna sho you. 2110 01:50:34.159 --> 01:50:37.920 Nobody's buying the bullshit man, and I'm not lying. You 2111 01:50:38.039 --> 01:50:39.680 literally contradicted yourself again. 2112 01:50:39.800 --> 01:50:43.439 No, listen again. Your claim now is that it is 2113 01:50:43.880 --> 01:50:45.039 talk about medical. 2114 01:50:45.319 --> 01:50:48.000 You said the universe is purposelessness, and now you're walking 2115 01:50:48.000 --> 01:50:50.520 it back because you got repeated. You're walking it back 2116 01:50:50.600 --> 01:50:52.039 because you got repeated again. 2117 01:50:53.199 --> 01:50:57.399 No, I can't two options. I said, let's explore this option. 2118 01:50:57.920 --> 01:50:58.800 It is not bad. 2119 01:50:59.119 --> 01:51:05.960 There's only two. There's your cook You're done, You're melting down, 2120 01:51:05.960 --> 01:51:06.800 you're spurging out. 2121 01:51:07.920 --> 01:51:13.439 Oh my gosh, Oh. 2122 01:51:13.239 --> 01:51:15.000 My gosh, dude. 2123 01:51:15.399 --> 01:51:20.560 Brother. Yeah, I'm just I'm I'm I will I guess 2124 01:51:20.560 --> 01:51:23.600 I will finish with this. The idea that you call 2125 01:51:23.720 --> 01:51:26.119 someone bad faith because. 2126 01:51:25.960 --> 01:51:27.800 You're the one who bitched about me being bad face 2127 01:51:27.840 --> 01:51:28.520 the entire time. 2128 01:51:32.000 --> 01:51:34.840 Okay, so we're starting the idea that you would call 2129 01:51:34.920 --> 01:51:39.640 someone bad faith because you present an argument and the 2130 01:51:39.720 --> 01:51:43.159 person listens to it, takes notes on it. 2131 01:51:43.399 --> 01:51:46.279 And then walks it back when they see a problem. Correct, 2132 01:51:46.279 --> 01:51:51.279 that's bad faith. Yeah, you affirmed, you affirmed universal meaninglessness. 2133 01:51:51.279 --> 01:51:54.920 We can, we can, we can do this where you 2134 01:51:55.039 --> 01:51:56.399 eventually act like an adult. 2135 01:51:57.079 --> 01:52:01.119 You affirmed universal meaninglessness on apostle and position that only 2136 01:52:01.119 --> 01:52:04.119 has two options, and now you're saying I don't necessarily 2137 01:52:04.159 --> 01:52:06.359 agree with that, Well, then do you accept that there 2138 01:52:06.399 --> 01:52:09.640 is universal memis? No, I'm not lying. I don't have 2139 01:52:09.720 --> 01:52:12.520 to lie in a person who has bombed an entire 2140 01:52:12.520 --> 01:52:14.680 debate for two hours. Why would I have to lie? 2141 01:52:15.039 --> 01:52:18.680 You have crashed and burned, dude, I'm not lying about you. 2142 01:52:18.680 --> 01:52:19.800 You're a terrible debater. 2143 01:52:19.880 --> 01:52:24.920 Objectively, I getting that this is a debate game for you. 2144 01:52:25.000 --> 01:52:28.199 No, it's not a game. You crashed and burned miserably. 2145 01:52:29.239 --> 01:52:32.479 But I entertained the entire discussion because I'm happy to 2146 01:52:32.520 --> 01:52:36.800 explain the arguments to you. Oh my gosh, Oh my gosh, 2147 01:52:36.840 --> 01:52:40.600 Oh my gosh. Can you just make your arguments without whiny? 2148 01:52:40.760 --> 01:52:42.159 You whining bitch this whole time? 2149 01:52:43.399 --> 01:52:45.920 Yes, that is that is true. I have complained quite 2150 01:52:45.960 --> 01:52:46.279 a lot. 2151 01:52:46.359 --> 01:52:50.039 Yes, whining and bitching because you can't deal with the arguments. 2152 01:52:50.039 --> 01:52:51.960 You would rather whine and bitch about actually deal with 2153 01:52:51.960 --> 01:52:52.479 the arguments. 2154 01:52:57.520 --> 01:53:03.239 No, it's just because you're just so and it's so 2155 01:53:03.279 --> 01:53:04.319 difficult to have a conversation. 2156 01:53:04.520 --> 01:53:06.239 You're in a feminist man. So I'm gonna be I'm 2157 01:53:06.239 --> 01:53:08.439 gonna be childish with you. So how's that? 2158 01:53:10.079 --> 01:53:20.479 I'm I'm sure, brother, Uh whatever whatever makes okay? I am. Yeah. 2159 01:53:20.520 --> 01:53:24.960 So again I did not say any Again, I will reaffirm, 2160 01:53:25.359 --> 01:53:27.239 you know, I don't know. I'd have to think about 2161 01:53:28.199 --> 01:53:29.880 many of the concept. 2162 01:53:30.239 --> 01:53:32.439 Maybe in a debate to say that I don't know. 2163 01:53:33.119 --> 01:53:33.640 I don't know. 2164 01:53:35.119 --> 01:53:36.880 Is that a good sign in a debate, to be like, 2165 01:53:37.840 --> 01:53:39.680 I don't know, Let me walk it back. I don't know. 2166 01:53:40.560 --> 01:53:42.439 Actually, I think I think that's a really good sign 2167 01:53:42.439 --> 01:53:45.680 of someone that's actually being good faith as opposed to you. Oh, 2168 01:53:46.319 --> 01:53:48.359 you're you're searching for a dub as opposed to So. 2169 01:53:48.399 --> 01:53:51.039 I don't know. Let me debate a topic. Let me 2170 01:53:51.079 --> 01:53:52.800 walk it back and admit that I don't know. 2171 01:53:53.159 --> 01:53:54.840 I won't walk it back anything. 2172 01:53:55.079 --> 01:53:58.840 You affirm that. You affirmed that the universe is purposeless. 2173 01:53:59.239 --> 01:54:00.039 Everybody heard you. 2174 01:54:00.359 --> 01:54:03.000 I asked. I did an internal critique. I said, why 2175 01:54:03.079 --> 01:54:04.039 must there be purposes? 2176 01:54:04.079 --> 01:54:04.119 No? 2177 01:54:04.560 --> 01:54:06.760 No, no, Now, now you're alive because you did explicitly 2178 01:54:06.840 --> 01:54:09.039 verbally say fine, as purposes. I'll go with that. 2179 01:54:10.199 --> 01:54:13.039 Yes, fine, I'll go with that. Yes, that is saying 2180 01:54:13.119 --> 01:54:15.800 for the meaning for the for the sake of continuing 2181 01:54:15.880 --> 01:54:16.880 the argument for it. 2182 01:54:16.880 --> 01:54:18.640 It doesn't matter that you walk it back and say 2183 01:54:18.640 --> 01:54:20.359 that it's not your position, which would mean it's in 2184 01:54:20.439 --> 01:54:23.800 bad faith. If there's only two options, Dude, I I I. 2185 01:54:26.079 --> 01:54:26.720 Who chat? 2186 01:54:27.000 --> 01:54:36.159 You lost? You're done walking back. Everyone heard you affirm discileology. 2187 01:54:36.279 --> 01:54:43.720 Everyone heard you affirm it. I don't. 2188 01:54:43.800 --> 01:54:46.119 I don't know how to continue this conversation. 2189 01:54:45.720 --> 01:54:47.720 Right, because you exactly. 2190 01:54:48.560 --> 01:54:50.720 It's not a matter of crashing and burning. I made 2191 01:54:50.760 --> 01:54:54.680 the mistake. I find it engaged honestly with a piece with. 2192 01:54:54.680 --> 01:54:57.079 A piece, right, So now it's all personal. When I 2193 01:54:57.159 --> 01:54:59.199 keep it on the topic, you make it personal. All 2194 01:54:59.199 --> 01:55:00.880 you do this whole time was wine until the land. 2195 01:55:00.920 --> 01:55:03.840 I said, you're a soy man. You talk NonStop shit 2196 01:55:03.920 --> 01:55:06.439 about me, calling me a pussy. I bring you on here. 2197 01:55:06.520 --> 01:55:08.840 You crash and burn and have a melt down because 2198 01:55:08.880 --> 01:55:11.000 you can't answer basic philosophical questions. 2199 01:55:11.000 --> 01:55:16.439 Man, I agree that that is your interpretation. 2200 01:55:16.800 --> 01:55:19.560 No, that's just everyone's interpretation, because that's what happened. 2201 01:55:20.880 --> 01:55:22.640 Fair enough. You know, you win some, you lose some. 2202 01:55:22.840 --> 01:55:25.560 Maybe one day I can, you know, learn more about 2203 01:55:25.560 --> 01:55:28.119 the more, learn more about these arguments and debate it 2204 01:55:28.199 --> 01:55:29.239 with somebody that's interestly. 2205 01:55:29.279 --> 01:55:31.479 So you're admitting that you don't know the topic. That's 2206 01:55:31.479 --> 01:55:32.800 a good admission. I appreciate that. 2207 01:55:34.319 --> 01:55:36.920 Well. I well, obviously I would admit that there are 2208 01:55:36.960 --> 01:55:40.079 aspects of any argumentation from other people that you don't know, 2209 01:55:40.199 --> 01:55:41.640 like what kind of narcissism? 2210 01:55:41.800 --> 01:55:44.760 No, I mean actual, I mean basically, I mean basically, 2211 01:55:44.880 --> 01:55:47.840 you've had three debates now with people on our side 2212 01:55:47.840 --> 01:55:51.760 of this, and you've not done any work to understand epistemology. 2213 01:55:51.840 --> 01:55:56.239 You've done nothing, so you're not the typical lazy libertarian 2214 01:55:56.840 --> 01:56:01.119 komer man who doesn't actually study the positions. You haven't 2215 01:56:01.159 --> 01:56:05.479 progressed against. After Andrew, after Jim, Bob and me, you've 2216 01:56:05.479 --> 01:56:07.920 made no progress at all in this topic. 2217 01:56:08.439 --> 01:56:12.399 This is so silly. I attempted my ability, you know, 2218 01:56:12.520 --> 01:56:13.680 to to bring for the argument. 2219 01:56:13.760 --> 01:56:16.640 All you have is to call names. You've had no 2220 01:56:17.079 --> 01:56:19.800 I let you talk for hours on end here today, 2221 01:56:21.560 --> 01:56:24.359 fair enough, and you made a bunch of bad arguments, 2222 01:56:24.399 --> 01:56:27.199 and you're whining and melting down because your arguments are 2223 01:56:27.319 --> 01:56:30.920 piss poor. They're sophomore level I have. 2224 01:56:31.239 --> 01:56:33.880 I think that that is silly for you to say 2225 01:56:33.880 --> 01:56:36.439 that I'm whining because my arguments are bad. 2226 01:56:36.560 --> 01:56:40.079 It's a reflection technique, and when a person's crashing that 2227 01:56:40.079 --> 01:56:42.560 they start whining and bitching about the other person. 2228 01:56:43.680 --> 01:56:46.439 No, I'm just I'm I just can't get my arguments 2229 01:56:46.439 --> 01:56:47.479 out like it took me. 2230 01:56:47.600 --> 01:56:50.119 You got tons of bull you got a lot of 2231 01:56:50.119 --> 01:56:52.239 bullshit out. We heard all, we heard your stuff, and 2232 01:56:52.279 --> 01:56:53.960 we know after two hours is not going to get 2233 01:56:54.000 --> 01:56:54.399 much better. 2234 01:56:55.439 --> 01:56:58.399 Fair enough, fair enough, Well, I appreciate the opportunity to 2235 01:56:58.560 --> 01:57:01.840 come here. Regardless of whether not I will, I will 2236 01:57:01.880 --> 01:57:06.800 recant my position that you are fully and holy you know, 2237 01:57:06.880 --> 01:57:10.439 a pussy or a coward in terms of debating, which 2238 01:57:10.439 --> 01:57:14.840 I had said earlier, because it felt very fucked up 2239 01:57:15.000 --> 01:57:18.920 that you have not brought on actual libertarians and only discussed. 2240 01:57:20.039 --> 01:57:22.399 Nobody cares what you think an actual libertarian is or 2241 01:57:22.439 --> 01:57:25.319 no true scotsman. So we don't care about that. Well, 2242 01:57:25.359 --> 01:57:27.439 I mean, at least I don't know who you I 2243 01:57:27.479 --> 01:57:29.039 don't care who you think is real. 2244 01:57:29.479 --> 01:57:31.479 I know, I know, I know, without God, words have 2245 01:57:31.560 --> 01:57:32.000 no meaning. 2246 01:57:32.479 --> 01:57:34.479 No, I just don't care what you think the real 2247 01:57:34.520 --> 01:57:36.119 libertarian is. Who's the lorilla libertarian? 2248 01:57:36.199 --> 01:57:41.199 You anyone, anyone that legitimately and fully follows through on 2249 01:57:41.239 --> 01:57:43.880 the non aggression principles. 2250 01:57:43.319 --> 01:57:46.600 Which is not an aught, even though it is all right, 2251 01:57:46.600 --> 01:57:48.399 which is ant, but it's not an not because it's 2252 01:57:48.399 --> 01:57:52.399 an axiom, but it's also an a right exactly you 2253 01:57:52.399 --> 01:57:53.680 want to do super chats or not? 2254 01:57:55.079 --> 01:57:58.039 No, no, I'm good, but I again, like I said, 2255 01:57:58.239 --> 01:57:59.800 I'll about out now, but I just wanted to say 2256 01:58:00.079 --> 01:58:02.239 thank you for bringing me on and again, if you'll 2257 01:58:02.319 --> 01:58:04.760 let me get it out, I do recance my position 2258 01:58:04.800 --> 01:58:08.920 that you were adyss here, that you had pissed me off, 2259 01:58:08.960 --> 01:58:14.000 but not bringing on really obviously you do. So there's that. 2260 01:58:14.159 --> 01:58:14.439 Okay. 2261 01:58:14.680 --> 01:58:16.800 I'm a Fabian liberty. You can find me pretty much. 2262 01:58:17.119 --> 01:58:19.319 And I've got his channel linked in the chat in 2263 01:58:19.359 --> 01:58:22.479 the show description. If anybody wants to check out his material, 2264 01:58:23.319 --> 01:58:25.600 even if we have a heated disagreement and debate, I'm 2265 01:58:25.600 --> 01:58:27.560 gonna give you the links to the people so you 2266 01:58:27.560 --> 01:58:29.960 can follow him. Mister Kool eight five dollars, have a 2267 01:58:29.960 --> 01:58:31.840 blessed day. I appreciate your work. Now I'm going to 2268 01:58:31.880 --> 01:58:33.479 open it up to people who want to call in. 2269 01:58:33.880 --> 01:58:36.960 People want to make points, they want to make some objections. 2270 01:58:38.000 --> 01:58:40.439 We got some super chats here I'm gonna go to 2271 01:58:41.399 --> 01:58:43.399 but before we do that, I'm gonna have to go 2272 01:58:43.560 --> 01:58:46.880 to get another coffee and I'm gonna have to get 2273 01:58:46.880 --> 01:58:50.439 some water. So let me remind you that we have 2274 01:58:50.479 --> 01:58:57.199 a show sponsor, and that sponsor is right here, and 2275 01:58:57.520 --> 01:59:01.079 I will be right back. So people on ex Twitter, 2276 01:59:01.279 --> 01:59:05.680 you won't be able to hear the ad, but I 2277 01:59:05.720 --> 01:59:07.600 will be right back. So don't go anywhere. 2278 01:59:09.199 --> 01:59:11.920 I'm going to put you on something crazy real quick. 2279 01:59:12.359 --> 01:59:16.119 Most of these zoomer Jimbros are consuming macro guzzling synthetic 2280 01:59:16.199 --> 01:59:19.800 dyes and synthetic sweeteners on the daily. They don't even 2281 01:59:19.880 --> 01:59:23.119 know it. Goofy af. There's nothing great about that. Do 2282 01:59:23.199 --> 01:59:25.720 not listen any further unless you are an Alpha or 2283 01:59:25.760 --> 01:59:29.079 Sigma male. This is important and there could be consequences. 2284 01:59:29.319 --> 01:59:32.399 There's a new certified Sigma male pre workout powder for 2285 01:59:32.479 --> 01:59:36.000 sigmas only. It is guaranteed to empower you to dominate 2286 01:59:36.079 --> 01:59:40.520 your co workers, fire your boss, aggressively, gamble, or invade 2287 01:59:40.560 --> 01:59:43.960 a small village. Chad mode stands out from the crowd 2288 01:59:44.000 --> 01:59:49.159 by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners, and dyes. We've even 2289 01:59:49.199 --> 01:59:53.279 avoided so called natural flavors, which are actually not natural 2290 01:59:53.319 --> 01:59:56.960 at all, ensuring a clean and effective formula. Experience the 2291 01:59:57.000 --> 02:00:00.399 pure goodness of chad Mode colored with organic blue spy 2292 02:00:00.520 --> 02:00:05.560 rolina extract, organic lemon cherry, and organic maple crystals. Forget 2293 02:00:05.600 --> 02:00:09.199 synthetic caffeine made in a sketchy Chinese lab. Embrace the 2294 02:00:09.279 --> 02:00:12.960 natural power of organic green coffee bean extract which will 2295 02:00:13.000 --> 02:00:15.880 get your mind going and pump you up to the max. 2296 02:00:16.720 --> 02:00:20.039 Chad Mode is made in America with all clean ingredients, 2297 02:00:20.439 --> 02:00:23.680 the first clean pre workout of its kind. Why are 2298 02:00:23.680 --> 02:00:27.399 these people adding synthetic sweeteners to every single pre workout 2299 02:00:27.439 --> 02:00:31.319 when there are many studied downsides to consuming nasty fake sucralose. 2300 02:00:31.520 --> 02:00:34.199 Each dose of chad Mode contains the kick of a 2301 02:00:34.239 --> 02:00:37.640 cup and a half of coffee, delivering a surge of energy, 2302 02:00:37.680 --> 02:00:43.239 alongside essential vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and herbal extracts. Chad 2303 02:00:43.279 --> 02:00:46.000 Mode will allow you to fire your boss and dominate 2304 02:00:46.079 --> 02:00:49.680 anyone who opposes you. Chad Mode will make you more 2305 02:00:49.680 --> 02:00:53.640 dominant in your daily life, so proceed with caution. It's 2306 02:00:53.680 --> 02:00:56.319 as simple as mixing one or two scoops of our 2307 02:00:56.479 --> 02:01:00.479 fine powder into water or juice, providing you with a delicious, 2308 02:01:00.720 --> 02:01:04.560 energizing beverage. Featuring a burst of sweet organic fruit flavor. 2309 02:01:05.199 --> 02:01:08.159 Chad Mode will give you the extra edge you desperately crave. 2310 02:01:08.439 --> 02:01:09.000 Don't miss out. 2311 02:01:09.039 --> 02:01:11.800 Secure your supply of chad Mode on TikTok shop with 2312 02:01:11.880 --> 02:01:16.079 a limited time, massive discount. Elevate your workouts and supercharge 2313 02:01:16.079 --> 02:01:19.640 your days. Chad Mode not for your average jimbrozoomer who 2314 02:01:19.680 --> 02:01:22.520 consumes synthetic blue dyes on the daily. Buy on the 2315 02:01:22.560 --> 02:01:26.199 TikTok shop now with a massive discount provided by TikTok 2316 02:01:26.600 --> 02:01:29.760 for a very limited time. Buy now while this is 2317 02:01:29.800 --> 02:01:32.920 still available, or go to chalk dot com and use 2318 02:01:32.960 --> 02:01:35.720 code in caption. Chad Mode has been flying off the 2319 02:01:35.720 --> 02:01:38.640 shelves because it's the first of its kind, certified for 2320 02:01:38.760 --> 02:01:41.920 Alpha males only. Do not buy if you are a Beta, 2321 02:01:42.119 --> 02:01:44.319 We will refund your money. I'm gonna put you on 2322 02:01:44.399 --> 02:01:48.359 something crazy real quick. Most of these Zoomer Jimbros are 2323 02:01:48.399 --> 02:01:53.079 consuming macro guzzling synthetic dyes and synthetic sweeteners on the daily. 2324 02:01:53.319 --> 02:01:56.600 They don't even know it. Goofy af. There's nothing great 2325 02:01:56.640 --> 02:01:59.359 about that. Do not listen any further unless you are 2326 02:01:59.359 --> 02:02:02.199 an Alpha or Sigma male. This is important and there 2327 02:02:02.199 --> 02:02:05.640 could be consequences there's a new certified Sigma Male pre 2328 02:02:05.760 --> 02:02:09.520 workout powder for Sigmas only. It is guaranteed to empower 2329 02:02:09.560 --> 02:02:13.880 you to dominate your co workers, fire your boss, aggressively, gamble, 2330 02:02:14.199 --> 02:02:17.760 or invade a small village. Chad Mode stands out from 2331 02:02:17.800 --> 02:02:22.560 the crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners, and dyes. 2332 02:02:23.000 --> 02:02:26.680 We've even avoided so called natural flavors which are actually 2333 02:02:26.840 --> 02:02:30.039 not natural at all, ensuring a clean and effective formula. 2334 02:02:30.439 --> 02:02:34.119 Experience the pure goodness of chad Mode colored with organic 2335 02:02:34.159 --> 02:02:39.159 blue spirolina extract, organic lemon cherry, and organic maple crystals. 2336 02:02:39.439 --> 02:02:43.319 Forget synthetic caffeine made in a sketchy Chinese lab. Embrace 2337 02:02:43.399 --> 02:02:47.039 the natural power of organic green coffee bean extract, which 2338 02:02:47.079 --> 02:02:49.560 will get your mind going and pump you up to 2339 02:02:49.640 --> 02:02:53.279 the max. Chad Mode is made in America with all 2340 02:02:53.359 --> 02:02:57.079 clean ingredients, the first clean pre workout of its kind. 2341 02:02:57.600 --> 02:03:00.960 Why are these people adding synthetic sweetness to every single 2342 02:03:01.000 --> 02:03:04.039 pre workout when there are many studied downsides to consume. 2343 02:03:06.159 --> 02:03:10.640 All Right, fresh coffee, got me some purple soaurus rex. 2344 02:03:10.720 --> 02:03:14.079 I'm gonna put you on something crazy, real quick. Most 2345 02:03:14.119 --> 02:03:17.039 of these Zuma jimbros are consuming macro guzzling. 2346 02:03:17.840 --> 02:03:20.399 Got me a little bit of pure. Now, some of 2347 02:03:20.479 --> 02:03:22.960 y'all might think this is kool aid. This isn't actually 2348 02:03:23.039 --> 02:03:29.960 kol aid. This is pure Red number five, right, Mambo 2349 02:03:30.159 --> 02:03:32.840 number five. No, no, no, lou bega, I'm talking about 2350 02:03:33.039 --> 02:03:38.319 Red number five right now. Before RFK Junior violates all 2351 02:03:38.319 --> 02:03:41.079 of our libertarian freedoms by getting rid of Red number five, 2352 02:03:41.600 --> 02:03:51.560 I'm celebrating by drinking pure concentrate Red number five. Mambo 2353 02:03:51.720 --> 02:03:54.479 number five, No, no, Red number five, lu bega. 2354 02:03:56.319 --> 02:03:59.760 A little bit of cancer in my life, a little 2355 02:03:59.760 --> 02:04:03.960 bit Tina by my side, a little bit of tumors 2356 02:04:04.079 --> 02:04:07.359 in my head, A little bit of. 2357 02:04:07.319 --> 02:04:21.600 You makes libertarians dead. Now, that was a fun debate. 2358 02:04:22.479 --> 02:04:25.399 I actually want to say that, although we got very 2359 02:04:25.720 --> 02:04:31.560 heated and feisty sassy in that, I actually do appreciate 2360 02:04:31.600 --> 02:04:36.000 Fabian Liberty coming to debate and sticking it out. And 2361 02:04:36.079 --> 02:04:39.840 I think that the majority of the time we were 2362 02:04:39.880 --> 02:04:43.439 actually having good exchange, good good questions, good back and forth. 2363 02:04:43.479 --> 02:04:46.119 So I do appreciate him doing it, and he was 2364 02:04:46.159 --> 02:04:48.000 a good sport about it. He had looked pretty good, 2365 02:04:48.680 --> 02:04:51.359 and so I don't have any personal issues with him. 2366 02:04:51.439 --> 02:04:54.720 And that was a fun debate. I don't think he 2367 02:04:55.159 --> 02:04:57.960 did well in the debate, but I do appreciate him 2368 02:04:58.000 --> 02:05:02.199 doing what he did and coming and having that conversation. 2369 02:05:03.680 --> 02:05:06.800 So I hope this microphone had to dig out a storage, 2370 02:05:06.840 --> 02:05:10.239 an old, crappy microphone, So I don't know how well 2371 02:05:10.720 --> 02:05:12.960 it's working. People saying that there was. If there's like 2372 02:05:13.039 --> 02:05:18.399 audio issues, you might have to refresh the YouTube stream sometimes. 2373 02:05:18.880 --> 02:05:21.439 But a couple of notes that I just jotted down 2374 02:05:21.479 --> 02:05:23.239 before the debate that we didn't actually get to, I 2375 02:05:23.239 --> 02:05:24.800 want to touch on real quick, and then we'll open 2376 02:05:24.840 --> 02:05:29.359 it up just in summary. You know, libertarians have these axioms, 2377 02:05:29.399 --> 02:05:34.680 you could say, these principles like taxation is theft. You know, 2378 02:05:34.800 --> 02:05:39.079 they're not not aggress other people. And we heard at 2379 02:05:39.079 --> 02:05:41.399 the beginning of the debate he said, you know, well, yeah, 2380 02:05:41.560 --> 02:05:47.920 the NAP is a prescriptive position, but it's also just 2381 02:05:47.960 --> 02:05:51.119 an axiom. Yeah, but if the content and the meaning 2382 02:05:51.159 --> 02:05:56.359 of the axiom is something moral or ethical, then immediately 2383 02:05:56.600 --> 02:06:03.399 libertarianism is necessarily pre screw right. It's normative. And so 2384 02:06:03.640 --> 02:06:06.439 I think from the outset, you know, when I first 2385 02:06:06.520 --> 02:06:08.680 brought that up, it was kind of downhill from there. 2386 02:06:09.399 --> 02:06:10.840 And keep in mind too, that if you start to 2387 02:06:10.880 --> 02:06:14.439 talk about the true versus the false, or the true 2388 02:06:14.479 --> 02:06:17.159 and the good, then you're already kind of in the 2389 02:06:17.199 --> 02:06:19.840 domain of aughts, even though you think that you're only 2390 02:06:20.119 --> 02:06:23.960 dealing with something metaphysical or something you know not connected 2391 02:06:24.000 --> 02:06:28.560 to the metaphysical. If you're arguing in debating, then you're 2392 02:06:28.600 --> 02:06:34.079 assuming that the audience ought to follow your position. Otherwise 2393 02:06:34.399 --> 02:06:37.199 there would be no point in debating if there's no moral, 2394 02:06:37.279 --> 02:06:42.880 logical ought force behind truth statements as opposed to false statements. So, 2395 02:06:43.119 --> 02:06:45.600 and this is a very common popular thing. I've been 2396 02:06:45.760 --> 02:06:47.960 arguing with libertarians back to when I was in college. 2397 02:06:47.960 --> 02:06:51.319 I had an argument with a libertarian dude in my class, 2398 02:06:52.720 --> 02:06:54.640 this fat dude who we actually almost got into a 2399 02:06:54.680 --> 02:06:56.520 fight one time at a gas station. Believe or not. 2400 02:06:56.520 --> 02:07:00.119 But there's this fat libertarian dude, look like Jerry Garcia, 2401 02:06:59.760 --> 02:07:01.840 and he was always talking smack to me in class, 2402 02:07:01.960 --> 02:07:04.680 and because we had this debating class. And then I 2403 02:07:04.720 --> 02:07:06.640 saw him at a gas station and he said, let's 2404 02:07:06.680 --> 02:07:08.880 go at it, and he chickened out by the way 2405 02:07:08.920 --> 02:07:11.359 he left the gas station. He didn't want to fight. I 2406 02:07:11.359 --> 02:07:13.199 don't think I mean, I'm not some badass, but I 2407 02:07:13.199 --> 02:07:15.439 don't think a big, fat libertarian dude is going to 2408 02:07:15.520 --> 02:07:18.680 do too well in a fight. And I mean I understand, yeah, 2409 02:07:18.680 --> 02:07:21.000 there's some big dudes that are fat dudes that could fight. 2410 02:07:21.239 --> 02:07:23.079 You know, this was not Tank Abbott. This was your 2411 02:07:23.119 --> 02:07:30.640 average fat, you know, coumer libertarian man. So in my view, 2412 02:07:30.760 --> 02:07:34.119 the Libertarians have not shared well in debates all the 2413 02:07:34.159 --> 02:07:38.720 way back to my college days. And the reason for 2414 02:07:38.800 --> 02:07:41.239 that is that even in the case of that guy, 2415 02:07:41.239 --> 02:07:44.560 I remember that that guy in undergrad, he never took 2416 02:07:44.680 --> 02:07:48.520 a pistemology class, right, And if you don't take an 2417 02:07:48.520 --> 02:07:51.000 a pistomology class, you're not going to do well in debates. 2418 02:07:51.000 --> 02:07:53.800 I don't understand why these guys don't just go go 2419 02:07:53.920 --> 02:07:57.640 watch a course on YouTube. There's plenty of YouTube professors 2420 02:07:57.760 --> 02:08:00.199 at you know, just teaching you basically a pistel. You 2421 02:08:00.199 --> 02:08:02.279 could go to Father degon an NISS course and take it, 2422 02:08:02.760 --> 02:08:04.039 and then you would at least kind of be in 2423 02:08:04.079 --> 02:08:07.479 the ballgame of kind of you know, giving some challenge 2424 02:08:07.560 --> 02:08:11.319 or some pushback. That isn't you know, like philosophy won 2425 02:08:11.399 --> 02:08:14.840 a one tier pushback. So that would be my recommendation 2426 02:08:14.920 --> 02:08:17.560 for the people who wants to engage us in this 2427 02:08:17.640 --> 02:08:19.880 type of debate, but they don't ever really seem to 2428 02:08:19.880 --> 02:08:24.000 be interested in doing that. Maybe Fabian liberty will go 2429 02:08:24.039 --> 02:08:26.640 do that, let's see. But the other thing I wanted 2430 02:08:26.640 --> 02:08:30.119 to get to was that, you know, for example, debate 2431 02:08:30.199 --> 02:08:34.199 assumes the true, and thus the debate itself assumes that 2432 02:08:34.239 --> 02:08:37.760 we ought to not violate the laws of logic and 2433 02:08:37.840 --> 02:08:43.159 to follow the true versus the false. And then I 2434 02:08:43.159 --> 02:08:44.399 think we went through a lot of the things that 2435 02:08:44.439 --> 02:08:46.880 I wanted to get to about properly basic beliefs that 2436 02:08:47.119 --> 02:08:49.760 by definition they can't rely on another belief or another 2437 02:08:49.800 --> 02:08:54.760 position or another thing. And it doesn't matter if you 2438 02:08:54.840 --> 02:08:58.399 assume your existence or that you like, you can't just 2439 02:08:58.439 --> 02:09:00.960 tack on a bunch of other self evident things to 2440 02:09:01.079 --> 02:09:04.119 prop up the first self evident thing, right, that's that's 2441 02:09:04.199 --> 02:09:09.000 not self evident. And so if something is axiomatic like 2442 02:09:09.039 --> 02:09:13.239 A equals A, or something is incorrigible like I exist, 2443 02:09:13.800 --> 02:09:16.159 or something is evident to the senses. In the case 2444 02:09:16.159 --> 02:09:19.239 of John Locke, those are the classic statements, these three 2445 02:09:19.680 --> 02:09:23.960 statements from classical foundation. That's going back to the Enlightenment. 2446 02:09:24.000 --> 02:09:26.680 That's how they typically speak of something being quote, properly 2447 02:09:26.720 --> 02:09:30.359 basic or self evident. And in the case of this 2448 02:09:30.359 --> 02:09:33.520 this discussion, I thought, I think we solve very clearly 2449 02:09:34.279 --> 02:09:38.479 whether it is the criterion problem, whether it is first 2450 02:09:38.560 --> 02:09:43.600 order second order beliefs, whether it is being at hawk, 2451 02:09:44.279 --> 02:09:47.800 whether it is the self evident axioms relying on other 2452 02:09:47.840 --> 02:09:52.439 metaphysical principles and axioms. At no point did we hear 2453 02:09:52.520 --> 02:10:00.560 any kind of anything approaching an epistemic justification for those things. 2454 02:10:00.560 --> 02:10:02.319 So that was only notes that I wanted to get 2455 02:10:02.319 --> 02:10:05.880 to throughout that discussion. And we'll open it up to 2456 02:10:05.880 --> 02:10:16.880 people who want to call in Eric, what's up man, God. 2457 02:10:16.760 --> 02:10:31.920 I'm mute, Eric, I'm mute. 2458 02:10:30.239 --> 02:10:41.359 Ophelias, what's up man? Father Deacon. 2459 02:10:41.399 --> 02:10:43.600 By the way, I know this is your field, so 2460 02:10:43.680 --> 02:10:46.399 feel free to speak arms. What's up? 2461 02:10:46.439 --> 02:10:46.600 Man? 2462 02:10:52.279 --> 02:10:58.680 There's no one can you hear me? No one else 2463 02:10:58.760 --> 02:11:01.079 uses spaces. I don't understand. I see like thousands of 2464 02:11:01.079 --> 02:11:04.720 people on Twitter spaces, and then when I do a 2465 02:11:04.760 --> 02:11:06.560 Twitter space, no one knows what's going on. 2466 02:11:08.159 --> 02:11:08.840 Thanks for for sire. 2467 02:11:09.319 --> 02:11:11.039 Yeah, is there anything you'd like to say or comment 2468 02:11:11.119 --> 02:11:16.359 about self evidence and you know, theory laden beliefs or 2469 02:11:16.640 --> 02:11:18.439 any of those criterion. 2470 02:11:20.399 --> 02:11:25.479 Yeah. So sometimes I feel that people even. 2471 02:11:25.319 --> 02:11:30.520 Referencing self evidence, don't know what self evidence is. The 2472 02:11:30.600 --> 02:11:36.199 self evident principles are not self evidently presented to themselves. 2473 02:11:36.680 --> 02:11:41.760 It's kindly right, yeah, I mean you and I have 2474 02:11:41.800 --> 02:11:43.319 made this argument before that. 2475 02:11:44.600 --> 02:11:49.600 So if you have multiple. 2476 02:11:50.560 --> 02:11:54.920 Propositions or things that are claimed to be self evident, 2477 02:11:55.000 --> 02:11:57.920 the question becomes, well, how do we know these are 2478 02:11:57.960 --> 02:12:01.560 the ones that constitute a self ev it's not something else. 2479 02:12:02.840 --> 02:12:06.880 If you give an answer to that, then it means 2480 02:12:07.239 --> 02:12:10.960 it's depending on its justification, that it qualified as self 2481 02:12:11.000 --> 02:12:13.239 evidence on something else, In. 2482 02:12:13.159 --> 02:12:15.760 Other words, not self evidence. Number two. 2483 02:12:17.279 --> 02:12:21.239 Self evidence is defined as if the terms of the 2484 02:12:21.279 --> 02:12:28.239 proposition are clearly understood their meanings, and it's true, then 2485 02:12:28.279 --> 02:12:34.000 it's justified as right, not outside of itself, but in 2486 02:12:34.039 --> 02:12:35.159 itself kind. 2487 02:12:35.000 --> 02:12:37.479 Of all pre or right. But the problem is that 2488 02:12:37.520 --> 02:12:46.560 already begs ways, well, first of all, why is that 2489 02:12:46.600 --> 02:12:50.520 who said that was a justification? I mean, where we're 2490 02:12:50.520 --> 02:12:52.800 going to get where we're going to get that? That's 2491 02:12:52.840 --> 02:12:55.199 just arbitrarily assumed that that would need to be shown. 2492 02:12:56.039 --> 02:13:01.479 Number two begging the question is how do we even 2493 02:13:01.520 --> 02:13:04.199 say that if none of these people have even been 2494 02:13:04.239 --> 02:13:08.319 able to establish that knowledge is possible or exist, So 2495 02:13:08.479 --> 02:13:13.199 it's got some serious problems. And number three arguments that 2496 02:13:13.239 --> 02:13:19.640 I've made is the argument from arbitrariness. 2497 02:13:20.079 --> 02:13:23.119 That basically I could have a self. 2498 02:13:23.920 --> 02:13:30.880 Evident proposition that denies the other self evident proposition, So 2499 02:13:30.920 --> 02:13:34.079 there's something kind of contradictory about it too. And then 2500 02:13:34.840 --> 02:13:38.399 since there is no further reasons, because that's the definition 2501 02:13:38.439 --> 02:13:42.880 of self evidence to pick one of two contraries, then 2502 02:13:42.920 --> 02:13:47.600 it's arbitrary what I pick, and self defeating the sense 2503 02:13:47.600 --> 02:13:50.079 of a justification. If it's arbitrary, it's like you have 2504 02:13:50.119 --> 02:13:52.680 two dc what I'm saying, I have two propositions that 2505 02:13:52.720 --> 02:13:54.640 are defining antithesis to one another. 2506 02:13:55.159 --> 02:13:59.119 They both claim to be self evident. 2507 02:13:59.279 --> 02:14:01.920 Yeah, like when you dipped out. But at one point 2508 02:14:02.000 --> 02:14:04.520 I said to that guy, I said, well, if you 2509 02:14:04.560 --> 02:14:08.720 can come in and just say existence exists, and that's 2510 02:14:08.800 --> 02:14:11.359 allowable for you in a debate, I can come in 2511 02:14:11.399 --> 02:14:14.600 and say God just exists, and that's allowable for me 2512 02:14:14.600 --> 02:14:16.600 in a debate. That's why you can't just have this 2513 02:14:16.640 --> 02:14:17.880 sort of ad hoc assertion. 2514 02:14:19.439 --> 02:14:19.800 I said. 2515 02:14:19.800 --> 02:14:23.439 Somebody made an interesting point. I don't know if they 2516 02:14:23.479 --> 02:14:29.960 realized it was something that caught himself and the critique 2517 02:14:29.960 --> 02:14:34.880 of pure reason points out, but you do you know 2518 02:14:34.920 --> 02:14:38.199 that you can't even formally represent that literally, even in. 2519 02:14:38.119 --> 02:14:40.359 A sentence, existence exists. 2520 02:14:40.800 --> 02:14:46.000 It's not even a coherent grammatical sentence, let alone formally 2521 02:14:46.119 --> 02:14:48.439 even representing what that is. 2522 02:14:48.479 --> 02:14:51.199 And I think Kant obviously has a more sophisticated argument. 2523 02:14:51.279 --> 02:14:54.399 We wait, that wouldn't just be a restatement of the 2524 02:14:54.479 --> 02:14:59.119 law of identity. Well no, wait a minute. To be 2525 02:14:59.119 --> 02:15:03.159 the law of identity have to say existence is existence, 2526 02:15:03.680 --> 02:15:06.880 but it's actually saying existence exists. So it's actually a 2527 02:15:06.920 --> 02:15:08.279 different claim, isn't it. 2528 02:15:08.319 --> 02:15:13.399 Yeah, it's not even formally constructed or grammatically structured correctly, 2529 02:15:14.079 --> 02:15:16.960 which is why when people say, like, well, logic just is. 2530 02:15:17.000 --> 02:15:20.439 It's like, that's not even a sentence, right, just yeah. 2531 02:15:20.479 --> 02:15:25.640 You know, some things are wrong, and really terribly wrong sometimes, 2532 02:15:25.720 --> 02:15:29.199 but some things are so retarded they don't even get 2533 02:15:29.239 --> 02:15:31.199 to the level of being a sentence where they can 2534 02:15:31.239 --> 02:15:33.640 be wrong. That's when you know you're in serious trouble. Right, 2535 02:15:34.399 --> 02:15:36.760 people make all kinds of statements that are false. It's like, 2536 02:15:37.199 --> 02:15:40.319 but what if you don't even get what if you 2537 02:15:40.319 --> 02:15:42.279 you don't even get off the ground where it's like 2538 02:15:42.399 --> 02:15:42.840 it can. 2539 02:15:42.720 --> 02:15:43.840 Even be for or false. 2540 02:15:43.920 --> 02:15:45.560 Yeah, I mean this is like what this was t 2541 02:15:45.760 --> 02:15:50.199 Dump's reality is reality? Right, I mean it's like they 2542 02:15:50.319 --> 02:15:54.039 they it's so dumb that it's almost hard to combat 2543 02:15:54.159 --> 02:15:57.760 or oppose because it's like, why are we supposed to 2544 02:15:57.800 --> 02:16:00.640 think that that has any meaning as a starting point 2545 02:16:00.680 --> 02:16:05.560 for a worldview? What does that even mean? Reality is reality? 2546 02:16:07.560 --> 02:16:11.079 And as you pro badly pointed out, what you never 2547 02:16:11.119 --> 02:16:12.119 want to do now. 2548 02:16:12.159 --> 02:16:15.039 Of course, we believe in the law of identity. 2549 02:16:16.199 --> 02:16:20.640 We believe the teutologies you know, at a lower level 2550 02:16:22.560 --> 02:16:26.119 aren't necessary to established semantics, you know, semantic meaning and 2551 02:16:26.119 --> 02:16:30.760 stuff like that, and then also to develop propositions that 2552 02:16:30.840 --> 02:16:32.399 could have possible truth values. 2553 02:16:32.719 --> 02:16:35.879 We agree with that. What we don't do is just 2554 02:16:35.879 --> 02:16:37.159 simply start there. 2555 02:16:37.840 --> 02:16:45.280 And furthermore, as you'd said, it's so metaphysically loaded and controversial. 2556 02:16:44.600 --> 02:16:48.639 In the history of philosophy. 2557 02:16:47.120 --> 02:16:49.520 That why would anybody go, you know what, if we're 2558 02:16:49.520 --> 02:16:52.440 having a difficult time with something, let's go to the 2559 02:16:52.479 --> 02:16:53.879 most obsecure and. 2560 02:16:54.000 --> 02:16:57.799 The most secure statement being or existence exists. 2561 02:16:57.920 --> 02:16:58.159 Right. 2562 02:16:58.559 --> 02:17:04.079 Yeah, it's it's too Yeah, it's amazing actually as an 2563 02:17:04.120 --> 02:17:04.879 amazing move. 2564 02:17:06.719 --> 02:17:19.040 Uh, Anthony, what's up man, Anthony? You want to arm you? 2565 02:17:26.559 --> 02:17:27.000 JERD on. 2566 02:17:33.000 --> 02:17:36.760 How you don't can hear me? Ye, so you and 2567 02:17:36.840 --> 02:17:39.440 like finally begin an eye have like pretty much clearly 2568 02:17:39.479 --> 02:17:42.719 demonstrated like how this stuff doesn't work. But like as 2569 02:17:42.719 --> 02:17:43.920 a toy two year old, he's. 2570 02:17:43.760 --> 02:17:46.520 Like freshly inquiring and it was at oxy and like 2571 02:17:46.760 --> 02:17:49.559 navigating the system that I've like been doctrinated in, doctrinated 2572 02:17:49.600 --> 02:17:51.959 into with like libertarianism and socism and all these things. 2573 02:17:52.479 --> 02:17:55.040 How do we like actually functionally look at the world 2574 02:17:55.879 --> 02:17:59.239 and politics and these systems in a way that like 2575 02:17:59.399 --> 02:18:02.399 kind of truly goes to its orthodoxy and not deeper 2576 02:18:02.440 --> 02:18:05.200 into the system and like these ideals that clearly don't work. 2577 02:18:05.840 --> 02:18:06.440 That's my question. 2578 02:18:06.600 --> 02:18:08.559 I mean, I think you just keep spending your time 2579 02:18:08.680 --> 02:18:10.799 in the church and the liturgy and in the you know, 2580 02:18:11.079 --> 02:18:14.719 life and mind of the theology of the saints, and 2581 02:18:14.760 --> 02:18:18.520 they'll get fixated on political activism, right. I mean, political 2582 02:18:18.520 --> 02:18:21.840 activism can be a an idol. It's not bad. You 2583 02:18:21.920 --> 02:18:23.479 can do that kind of stuff, and a lot of 2584 02:18:24.079 --> 02:18:30.239 people do it. But I mean I think just basically 2585 02:18:30.600 --> 02:18:33.440 not stopping going to church as the easiest way to 2586 02:18:33.520 --> 02:18:35.799 do that. Mister kool aid five dollars have a blesseday. 2587 02:18:35.799 --> 02:18:37.879 Appreciate your work. H Browsey five dollars. Low tier of 2588 02:18:37.920 --> 02:18:46.360 Boomer Americanism incoming cards two dollars. A fallacy, flame flame 2589 02:18:46.479 --> 02:18:50.520 mess five dollars. Reality is reality appeal to the boomer fallacy. 2590 02:18:50.559 --> 02:18:51.719 It is kind of a boomer phrase. 2591 02:18:51.840 --> 02:18:52.600 It is what it is. 2592 02:18:53.200 --> 02:18:55.319 That's a classic boomer you know, boomerism. 2593 02:18:55.520 --> 02:18:56.680 Well, it is what it is. 2594 02:18:58.280 --> 02:19:01.920 Zammox has five dollars. This guy got BTFO literally chapter 2595 02:19:02.040 --> 02:19:04.079 two and three of the bon Seour textbook. This was 2596 02:19:04.120 --> 02:19:09.200 a masterclass from Jay. Thank you, Yeah, exactly. It's funny 2597 02:19:09.239 --> 02:19:11.440 because like if you get the Bonjeour book, even if 2598 02:19:11.440 --> 02:19:13.280 you don't read the whole book, like you get into 2599 02:19:14.200 --> 02:19:16.440 the very things we were debating, like right away. So 2600 02:19:16.719 --> 02:19:18.719 v Scott two dollars. And by the way, I actually 2601 02:19:18.760 --> 02:19:23.000 think if you're not in a grad student or advanced 2602 02:19:23.360 --> 02:19:25.559 read the Wood book. It's a lot more readable. It's 2603 02:19:25.559 --> 02:19:28.520 a lot more excitible, yeah, than the Wood which the 2604 02:19:28.520 --> 02:19:30.280 Wood I mean, the bon book is good, but it's 2605 02:19:30.319 --> 02:19:34.280 more like a you know, college textbook. So v Scott 2606 02:19:34.280 --> 02:19:36.520 two dollars. Think it so much? Lumbago five dollars. Fabian 2607 02:19:37.440 --> 02:19:40.680 Liberty violated the nap because when he spoke the average 2608 02:19:40.719 --> 02:19:43.840 iq in the room dropped tenfold, so he aggressed on 2609 02:19:44.079 --> 02:19:44.200 us