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