1
00:00:01,080 --> 00:00:04,240
Speaker 1: One zero.

2
00:00:05,960 --> 00:00:06,599
Speaker 2: Dire wave.

3
00:00:12,640 --> 00:02:32,879
Speaker 3: So anyway, so it's against.

4
00:02:57,120 --> 00:03:00,360
Speaker 1: The scientific method, cannot justify the scientific that's it.

5
00:03:00,639 --> 00:03:03,560
Speaker 2: Therefore it is itself. It is a dogmatical as.

6
00:03:03,560 --> 00:03:24,120
Speaker 1: Subposition, a scientific men justified the science.

7
00:03:24,879 --> 00:03:47,719
Speaker 2: Therefore it is itself. It is a dogmatical assigned justified

8
00:03:49,159 --> 00:04:57,120
therefore itself. What's up?

9
00:04:58,160 --> 00:05:03,680
Speaker 4: Welcome, Welcome everybody, special guests today, mister Jimbob. As you

10
00:05:03,800 --> 00:05:05,639
all know, it's gonna be a little bit, a little

11
00:05:05,680 --> 00:05:08,079
bit different, little weird because.

12
00:05:09,399 --> 00:05:18,560
Speaker 2: Jimbob is wanting to livestream on his instagris am grinks

13
00:05:18,600 --> 00:05:21,920
the grinks the ground, and so he's over there and.

14
00:05:22,000 --> 00:05:25,519
Speaker 4: He's gonna be talking to us through the ethers to

15
00:05:25,759 --> 00:05:30,240
the ether spear. But I gotta join his little thing,

16
00:05:31,639 --> 00:05:33,639
you know, only.

17
00:05:33,519 --> 00:05:42,519
Speaker 5: Some sort of control self defense. They'd be like, what, like,

18
00:05:42,639 --> 00:05:43,600
how do you know that book?

19
00:05:44,959 --> 00:05:46,199
Speaker 3: Like m.

20
00:05:48,240 --> 00:05:51,600
Speaker 4: He's rambling, I don't know what he's talking about. I

21
00:05:51,720 --> 00:06:01,160
gotta enable my microphone, damn it. You know, I'd be like,

22
00:06:02,079 --> 00:06:14,519
you know, I'm sorry, baby, that many times in a row.

23
00:06:14,680 --> 00:06:16,480
I'm sorry, baby, I'm so sorry.

24
00:06:22,079 --> 00:06:22,480
Speaker 5: I'm here a.

25
00:06:22,519 --> 00:06:28,199
Speaker 2: Jimba waiting for je connection. Yo, Hey, I'm here. I'm sorry.

26
00:06:28,839 --> 00:06:32,600
Speaker 6: It's all right, welcome, Welcome, jay I I introduced you before,

27
00:06:33,600 --> 00:06:35,439
author of h what is it a cult?

28
00:06:35,879 --> 00:06:37,680
Speaker 5: Cult? Symbolism in Hollywood one and two.

29
00:06:38,279 --> 00:06:39,360
Speaker 2: That's so terry Hollywood.

30
00:06:39,560 --> 00:06:42,399
Speaker 5: That's so terror Sorry, that's so terry Hollywood one and two.

31
00:06:43,160 --> 00:06:50,120
Speaker 6: Uh, philosopher, legicitional, logician, master, Uh anything else you want

32
00:06:50,160 --> 00:06:57,560
to just tap your shoulder about? No, okay, well I

33
00:06:57,639 --> 00:06:58,560
only have an hour.

34
00:06:58,439 --> 00:06:59,759
Speaker 5: Or so I want to get right to it.

35
00:07:00,480 --> 00:07:04,399
Speaker 6: We talked about, Uh, we've been texting about monism and uh,

36
00:07:04,560 --> 00:07:07,120
trying to get a handled myself and a lot of

37
00:07:07,199 --> 00:07:11,199
my followers on the refutations of these things and how

38
00:07:11,240 --> 00:07:13,920
a lot of uh you said, how a lot of

39
00:07:14,079 --> 00:07:19,879
world views ultimately get reduced to dualism or monism, and

40
00:07:20,560 --> 00:07:21,160
and it's silly.

41
00:07:22,240 --> 00:07:24,560
Speaker 5: So we're gonna get into that and some natural law.

42
00:07:24,720 --> 00:07:25,439
A lot a lot of.

43
00:07:25,439 --> 00:07:28,800
Speaker 6: People in my comments are coming out of the woodworks claiming, uh,

44
00:07:29,040 --> 00:07:34,319
Mark pas Pacio has solved the problem of morality and no, no,

45
00:07:34,920 --> 00:07:36,600
no transcendental source needed.

46
00:07:37,360 --> 00:07:37,519
Speaker 3: Uh.

47
00:07:37,720 --> 00:07:40,120
Speaker 6: You just go right to what is and that will

48
00:07:40,160 --> 00:07:43,560
give us what ought to be. But first, let's look

49
00:07:43,600 --> 00:07:45,399
at this one comment today.

50
00:07:47,360 --> 00:07:48,759
Speaker 5: Let me see what this person said.

51
00:07:51,079 --> 00:07:54,920
Speaker 6: She said, the universe is representative of all consciousness is

52
00:07:55,120 --> 00:07:59,439
energy blah blah blah from the person you know, like

53
00:07:59,639 --> 00:08:04,639
she'sasically saying the universe because it's she's saying, the universe

54
00:08:04,759 --> 00:08:09,439
is is the ultimate, it is is the God. The

55
00:08:09,839 --> 00:08:12,639
universe is the God. And then in my my response

56
00:08:12,680 --> 00:08:14,399
to that, and we'll go to your response to that

57
00:08:14,759 --> 00:08:19,279
that notion. My response is if if the universe a

58
00:08:19,399 --> 00:08:26,879
material you know and object basically is the source of

59
00:08:26,959 --> 00:08:32,440
all intelligence and absolute truth, wouldn't it wouldn't wouldn't it

60
00:08:32,559 --> 00:08:35,159
have to wouldn't we have to find uh, let's say,

61
00:08:35,240 --> 00:08:41,000
laws of logic and other absolute immaterial truths in physically

62
00:08:41,200 --> 00:08:43,919
in the universe. Wouldn't they have to? Wouldn't it have

63
00:08:44,080 --> 00:08:45,120
to provide.

64
00:08:44,720 --> 00:08:45,559
Speaker 5: That to us somehow?

65
00:08:47,279 --> 00:08:49,879
Speaker 2: Yes? Uh, there's a lot of ways you could critique

66
00:08:49,960 --> 00:08:50,919
this mistake.

67
00:08:51,159 --> 00:08:55,960
Speaker 4: It's it's a version of pantheism, and pantheism is critiquable

68
00:08:56,600 --> 00:08:59,600
in many different ways. You could point out the kind

69
00:08:59,600 --> 00:09:02,159
of the now naturalism critique dangle that you're going there,

70
00:09:02,320 --> 00:09:06,559
that if the universe is quote God, then what do

71
00:09:06,679 --> 00:09:10,360
we mean when we talk about invariant immaterial types of

72
00:09:10,480 --> 00:09:14,080
things like numbers or laws of logic or any of

73
00:09:14,120 --> 00:09:17,080
those kinds of things because by their very nature they

74
00:09:17,159 --> 00:09:20,960
don't seem to be identical with matter. They can't be

75
00:09:21,919 --> 00:09:24,519
located in any single place in time, they can't be

76
00:09:25,679 --> 00:09:28,840
identified with any object. They're not found under a microscope,

77
00:09:29,080 --> 00:09:32,000
they're not found under a rock, so they're different, a

78
00:09:32,080 --> 00:09:35,879
different type of object. There's other arguments that you can make.

79
00:09:36,279 --> 00:09:39,279
Leibniz has an argument about this where he talks about

80
00:09:39,320 --> 00:09:41,799
the eternality of truth, which is basically that if you

81
00:09:41,879 --> 00:09:45,639
just think about the truthfulness of any proposition, right, say,

82
00:09:46,159 --> 00:09:49,919
Caesar crosses a rubicon, even though it's a historical event,

83
00:09:50,960 --> 00:09:54,519
even after it's occurred, it's always the case that it occurred, right,

84
00:09:54,559 --> 00:09:56,879
It will never be the case that Caesar didn't cross

85
00:09:56,919 --> 00:10:02,200
the rubicon. So the actual physical event has come and gone.

86
00:10:03,360 --> 00:10:06,919
So we can't equate the truthfulness of that proposition with

87
00:10:07,080 --> 00:10:10,960
the physical event because it's not equated to any physical

88
00:10:11,039 --> 00:10:16,679
state of matter that presently exists. So, of necessity, any proposition,

89
00:10:17,120 --> 00:10:19,279
any of them. If the proposition is going to be

90
00:10:19,360 --> 00:10:23,559
meaningful and coherent, it has to have some value that

91
00:10:23,720 --> 00:10:28,679
goes beyond identification with the material. So although that refutes

92
00:10:28,759 --> 00:10:34,000
materialism primarily, it's also applicable to any proposition about the universe,

93
00:10:34,240 --> 00:10:37,159
because if you were to say the universe is God,

94
00:10:37,759 --> 00:10:39,919
you kind of need access to what we call a

95
00:10:40,080 --> 00:10:43,679
universal or a universal state of affairs, or the ability

96
00:10:43,759 --> 00:10:46,080
to know that that universally is the case. But most

97
00:10:46,120 --> 00:10:48,200
of the time that people that make these kinds of statements,

98
00:10:48,519 --> 00:10:51,039
they don't really have a basis for how they say

99
00:10:51,120 --> 00:10:53,600
these things. It's just kind of something that they read

100
00:10:53,759 --> 00:10:55,960
like a you know, on a meme or something like

101
00:10:56,000 --> 00:10:59,200
they're just repeating something very generic and meaningless.

102
00:10:59,519 --> 00:11:05,600
Speaker 6: Yeah, Russell Brand or something, you know. And so that

103
00:11:05,960 --> 00:11:09,639
that overlaps with monism if if it brecks me, if

104
00:11:09,679 --> 00:11:13,320
I'm wrong. But that's basically like there's no distinction between

105
00:11:13,480 --> 00:11:17,960
God and everything we see in material and they're both

106
00:11:18,080 --> 00:11:22,559
equal one to one, which means we're we're essentially God too, right,

107
00:11:23,080 --> 00:11:28,799
That's what that implies. And I say we're God and

108
00:11:28,919 --> 00:11:31,639
you disagree with me, which, how do you have a

109
00:11:31,720 --> 00:11:33,879
battle of the gods? We need to make a video

110
00:11:34,000 --> 00:11:38,759
game so that God's battle and then one of us wins.

111
00:11:39,559 --> 00:11:41,799
Isn't that one of the easiest ways to just like

112
00:11:42,000 --> 00:11:45,799
that can't be true, because if I'm God and you're God,

113
00:11:46,000 --> 00:11:46,919
and we disagree.

114
00:11:47,240 --> 00:11:50,000
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean our buttholes God too, I mean, buttholes

115
00:11:50,000 --> 00:11:52,120
are part of the universe. Is a butthole God. I mean,

116
00:11:52,159 --> 00:11:56,080
it's just absurd because, as you said, any monistic position,

117
00:11:56,200 --> 00:11:59,159
which is a position that says that all of reality

118
00:11:59,279 --> 00:12:02,679
is fundamentally one or one type of thing, that all

119
00:12:02,759 --> 00:12:08,879
collapses into impossibility and it precludes knowing anything, because if

120
00:12:08,960 --> 00:12:11,320
you want to predicate knowledge, you have to be able

121
00:12:11,399 --> 00:12:14,879
to pick out particulars. You have to say that dog

122
00:12:15,279 --> 00:12:19,360
is a badass, you have to say that Bill Cosby

123
00:12:19,679 --> 00:12:22,919
is a player. Right, You can't make sentences without being

124
00:12:23,000 --> 00:12:27,200
able to pick out particular objects. But this philosophy says

125
00:12:27,360 --> 00:12:30,600
that there are no particular objects. That's illusory. Everything is

126
00:12:30,720 --> 00:12:33,159
ultimately one type of thing. And so if there's no

127
00:12:34,039 --> 00:12:37,679
real distinctions in the world, then you can't make sentences,

128
00:12:37,720 --> 00:12:42,080
you can't know things. It's a self defeating what even

129
00:12:42,120 --> 00:12:44,360
Steffan calls a self detonating kind of position.

130
00:12:45,360 --> 00:12:47,960
Speaker 6: Right, and even the starting point, I remember I was

131
00:12:48,000 --> 00:12:52,360
on your stream, we use the phrase reality is illusion, right,

132
00:12:53,159 --> 00:12:58,159
But similarly, all the truth statements start from a fundamental

133
00:12:58,200 --> 00:13:01,639
assumption that something is already true or else we can't

134
00:13:01,639 --> 00:13:06,039
even go forward. We have to assume language is true.

135
00:13:06,200 --> 00:13:08,600
We're accepting it as it is in a circular way.

136
00:13:09,080 --> 00:13:12,399
We're accepting the form of a statement, and that means

137
00:13:12,480 --> 00:13:15,399
something we're accepting meaning. So it's like, well, even when

138
00:13:15,399 --> 00:13:17,360
you say like I mean in that, in that that

139
00:13:17,480 --> 00:13:20,879
was probably the best example of reality is illusion. That

140
00:13:21,000 --> 00:13:24,919
really debunks the whole like everything's vague, man, because uh,

141
00:13:25,519 --> 00:13:28,080
you know, as you said in your your diagram, if

142
00:13:28,120 --> 00:13:32,799
you start with reality itself, you've already established a non illusion,

143
00:13:33,039 --> 00:13:37,000
so you'd have to reality itself would have to be

144
00:13:37,120 --> 00:13:39,919
not an illusion. For you to say reality is an illusion,

145
00:13:40,240 --> 00:13:42,840
you'd have to you're already you're already going against what

146
00:13:42,919 --> 00:13:43,879
you're saying.

147
00:13:43,679 --> 00:13:44,799
Speaker 2: In a way, right, Yeah.

148
00:13:44,840 --> 00:13:47,840
Speaker 4: I mean the word reality itself is a very loaded

149
00:13:48,000 --> 00:13:50,600
kind of metaphysical concept in philosophy.

150
00:13:50,720 --> 00:13:53,000
Speaker 2: So to be able to say that is.

151
00:13:53,039 --> 00:13:55,840
Speaker 4: Already kind of assuming a lot in terms of you

152
00:13:56,080 --> 00:13:59,480
having knowledge of the external world and existence and what

153
00:13:59,600 --> 00:14:01,320
that is. I mean, there's a lot of assumptions that

154
00:14:01,399 --> 00:14:06,720
go into just that very ambiguous philosophical term reality. And

155
00:14:06,919 --> 00:14:09,240
to be able to say that, the easiest way, let

156
00:14:09,279 --> 00:14:11,320
me just rewind, because the easiest way to refute this

157
00:14:11,519 --> 00:14:15,039
kind of a statement is to say that if all

158
00:14:15,120 --> 00:14:18,080
of reality is illusion, and if I'm coming to the

159
00:14:19,399 --> 00:14:24,240
knowledge of this proposition or this truth within reality, that's

160
00:14:24,320 --> 00:14:26,759
part of reality, right, is the fact that I've come

161
00:14:26,840 --> 00:14:31,360
to this discovery supposedly this truth, then there's the discovery

162
00:14:31,519 --> 00:14:33,840
that all of reality is illusion is also part of

163
00:14:33,840 --> 00:14:34,360
the illusion.

164
00:14:34,919 --> 00:14:36,879
Speaker 2: Right, And so it's easily self refuting.

165
00:14:37,679 --> 00:14:37,840
Speaker 3: Right.

166
00:14:38,000 --> 00:14:41,919
Speaker 6: And similarly to the monistic view, like every all is one?

167
00:14:42,679 --> 00:14:46,759
Who are you to declare it? Are you temporarily standing

168
00:14:46,840 --> 00:14:50,120
outside the bar called one looking in like are you allowed?

169
00:14:50,399 --> 00:14:52,919
Like are you just you hit the eject button and

170
00:14:53,000 --> 00:14:55,399
you're just you know, you're temporarily in time out like

171
00:14:55,559 --> 00:14:58,200
in you know, like in the penalty box, and you're like, oh,

172
00:14:58,639 --> 00:14:59,240
all is one.

173
00:14:59,399 --> 00:15:02,080
Speaker 5: You have to believe even though I'm part of one.

174
00:15:02,440 --> 00:15:03,759
That doesn't make sense either, Right.

175
00:15:03,720 --> 00:15:05,679
Speaker 2: Well, let's just think about let's make it really stupid.

176
00:15:05,720 --> 00:15:08,919
Speaker 4: Also, at the level of numbers, right, to say all

177
00:15:09,080 --> 00:15:12,919
is one is to assume numerical unity. The number one, right,

178
00:15:13,000 --> 00:15:17,759
You're predicating oneness is the number two, the number one right?

179
00:15:18,120 --> 00:15:18,279
Speaker 5: Right?

180
00:15:18,720 --> 00:15:20,840
Speaker 2: I mean, so if you're going to cancel out all

181
00:15:20,960 --> 00:15:23,320
numbers by this and all numbers.

182
00:15:23,080 --> 00:15:25,879
Speaker 4: Are identical to one, then you can't have numbers because

183
00:15:25,919 --> 00:15:27,639
you can't have the number one without all the other.

184
00:15:27,600 --> 00:15:31,960
Speaker 6: Numbers, right, Yeah, and then maybe someone who's arguing that

185
00:15:32,120 --> 00:15:35,120
one is you know, if you ask someone is one

186
00:15:35,320 --> 00:15:38,080
equal to two, they'd have to say yes, yes, and

187
00:15:38,159 --> 00:15:43,440
then it would just be this endless tripling and quadrupling

188
00:15:43,480 --> 00:15:48,799
into affinity trying to like, I mean, it breaks down

189
00:15:48,879 --> 00:15:53,279
all of math and everything everything we use in logic

190
00:15:53,360 --> 00:15:58,360
and mathematics to apprehend or discern any kind of truth itself.

191
00:15:58,919 --> 00:16:01,360
Speaker 4: Yeah, but if a person is so two says to

192
00:16:01,480 --> 00:16:05,639
say that one, uh is literally the same thing as too.

193
00:16:06,000 --> 00:16:08,120
I mean, that's just, on the face of it absurd.

194
00:16:08,200 --> 00:16:10,320
And if that's the case, then you also couldn't know

195
00:16:10,399 --> 00:16:13,200
the difference between one or two, and therefore you could

196
00:16:13,240 --> 00:16:15,120
you couldn't say that that all things are one.

197
00:16:16,159 --> 00:16:20,960
Speaker 6: Right, great, well, I mean if people don't understand that

198
00:16:21,039 --> 00:16:24,440
at the fundamental level, I mean, I'm sorry, but it's

199
00:16:24,559 --> 00:16:28,279
just bizarre to me that people keep doubling down on stuff.

200
00:16:28,360 --> 00:16:32,480
But it's almost like they resist the simplest way of

201
00:16:32,639 --> 00:16:35,120
being refuted because it's too simple, and they're like, you

202
00:16:35,159 --> 00:16:40,600
can't be that simple but let's go into natural law

203
00:16:40,879 --> 00:16:43,320
in this whole concept.

204
00:16:42,919 --> 00:16:47,960
Speaker 7: At natural law, if you've listened to Mark Passio, If

205
00:16:47,960 --> 00:16:49,960
you've listened to Mark Passio, then you.

206
00:16:50,039 --> 00:16:52,200
Speaker 2: Know what the fuck law is, and you know what

207
00:16:52,360 --> 00:16:55,039
the fuck natural law is, and you know you shouldn't

208
00:16:55,080 --> 00:16:57,840
be eating animals. You son up a bitch piece of crap.

209
00:16:59,440 --> 00:17:03,279
Speaker 6: I know, I go, well, he the thing is, well,

210
00:17:03,360 --> 00:17:07,359
let's go to like someone sent me, like a quote,

211
00:17:07,359 --> 00:17:10,000
I sent it to you. If it's essentially a paraphrase,

212
00:17:10,079 --> 00:17:11,359
it's iron rand And.

213
00:17:11,440 --> 00:17:15,119
Speaker 8: She's just like well as f as the the as

214
00:17:15,160 --> 00:17:19,319
far as the aught is distinction if if the highest

215
00:17:19,440 --> 00:17:24,680
violent value, uh, the highest the possible value is existence

216
00:17:25,039 --> 00:17:29,839
and life because all out of values come from that what.

217
00:17:30,000 --> 00:17:32,680
Speaker 6: She's doing, And people don't realize if you are who

218
00:17:32,759 --> 00:17:35,720
are actually using these these kind of statements of hers,

219
00:17:36,400 --> 00:17:40,559
She's just making an assumption that life itself is a value.

220
00:17:40,680 --> 00:17:44,559
She's equating life with value, but just without a basis right,

221
00:17:44,680 --> 00:17:48,400
So she's starting from an actual assumption. But it's but

222
00:17:48,519 --> 00:17:52,000
it sneaks by people because you got she she skips

223
00:17:52,079 --> 00:17:55,480
to basically an if, but she leaves out the word if.

224
00:17:55,680 --> 00:17:59,559
So she says, uh, the highest possible value is being alive,

225
00:17:59,680 --> 00:18:03,319
because all other values are impossible without being alive. But

226
00:18:04,240 --> 00:18:09,359
she's missing the if, right because someone could That means

227
00:18:09,880 --> 00:18:13,519
Jeffrey Dahmer and what he valued is equal. It's just

228
00:18:13,640 --> 00:18:18,359
as high up there, right, his existence and what he pursued.

229
00:18:18,640 --> 00:18:18,759
Speaker 5: Right.

230
00:18:19,400 --> 00:18:21,359
Speaker 4: Yeah, there's a lot of different ways you get critique

231
00:18:21,400 --> 00:18:23,640
this system as well. I mean, let me before we

232
00:18:23,759 --> 00:18:26,839
get to the easier critiques. There's a really foundational it's

233
00:18:26,839 --> 00:18:31,839
a little obscure. But so Anne Rand is Aristotelian, so

234
00:18:31,920 --> 00:18:35,200
she's going to follow pretty loosely in the Aristotelian tradition.

235
00:18:35,359 --> 00:18:39,839
She's going to believe in the basic reliability of sense impressions,

236
00:18:39,920 --> 00:18:43,400
sense data. She's an empiricist, just like Aristotle, and just

237
00:18:43,599 --> 00:18:47,559
like the whole what's called the parapatetic tradition. So Aristotle

238
00:18:47,640 --> 00:18:50,880
has an axiom, it's called the peripatetic axiom, and it

239
00:18:50,960 --> 00:18:53,720
says there's nothing in the intellect that's not first.

240
00:18:53,559 --> 00:18:55,319
Speaker 2: In the senses or in sense data.

241
00:18:56,119 --> 00:18:58,319
Speaker 4: The problem with this is that as you can imagine,

242
00:18:58,400 --> 00:19:00,720
and when we get into the natural law issue this

243
00:19:00,799 --> 00:19:04,400
will become even clearer. Is that all of the people

244
00:19:04,480 --> 00:19:07,640
from this tradition of Aristotla the parapateetic axiom. This ranges

245
00:19:07,720 --> 00:19:11,559
from atheists to an Rand, to Mark Pasio, to Thomas

246
00:19:11,640 --> 00:19:15,000
Aquinas to natural.

247
00:19:14,799 --> 00:19:19,759
Speaker 2: Law proponents today like the guy who wrote Alistair McIntyre,

248
00:19:19,799 --> 00:19:22,759
who wrote Race on virtue ethics. I mean, the point

249
00:19:22,839 --> 00:19:23,039
is that.

250
00:19:25,160 --> 00:19:28,400
Speaker 4: When we start with the axiom that there's nothing in

251
00:19:28,480 --> 00:19:30,759
the intellect that's not first in the senses, and that

252
00:19:30,920 --> 00:19:33,079
this is the beginning point of all of the people

253
00:19:33,160 --> 00:19:37,039
in that philosophical tradition. There's all of these debates and

254
00:19:37,160 --> 00:19:39,519
problems at a very fundamental level about the fact that

255
00:19:40,240 --> 00:19:44,960
number one, the peripatetic axiom itself is not in the senses,

256
00:19:45,400 --> 00:19:47,400
and since it's not in the senses, then it falls

257
00:19:47,480 --> 00:19:50,839
prey to its own proposition that it's also not in

258
00:19:50,920 --> 00:19:53,759
the intellect. So you can't know the parapateetic axiom if

259
00:19:53,799 --> 00:19:57,279
you start with the parapateetic axiom that all knowledge is

260
00:19:57,400 --> 00:20:02,279
first in the senses. So that actually undercuts everybody from

261
00:20:03,720 --> 00:20:06,920
Aquinas up to and Rand and Mark Passio.

262
00:20:07,039 --> 00:20:09,119
Speaker 2: It doesn't matter who. So this is going to be

263
00:20:09,240 --> 00:20:11,519
the root of my critique of natural law. But to

264
00:20:11,640 --> 00:20:12,920
your point, you're correct.

265
00:20:12,960 --> 00:20:15,960
Speaker 4: You could also critique any of the other aspects within

266
00:20:16,039 --> 00:20:19,839
ann Rand's system, such as her assumptions as to what

267
00:20:20,359 --> 00:20:23,799
a flourishing, vital life is, that everybody needs to have

268
00:20:24,039 --> 00:20:28,279
the right to a flourishing life within some sort of

269
00:20:28,480 --> 00:20:32,039
social virtue that's agreed upon. Why why should I not,

270
00:20:32,200 --> 00:20:35,599
as John Galt, just stamp out everyone else? Why should

271
00:20:35,640 --> 00:20:36,720
I not buy off the state?

272
00:20:36,799 --> 00:20:38,119
Speaker 2: I remember when I had a kind of a and

273
00:20:38,240 --> 00:20:38,839
Ran phase.

274
00:20:38,880 --> 00:20:40,839
Speaker 4: I was reading her works and I was thinking, you know,

275
00:20:40,920 --> 00:20:43,759
this is pretty pretty convincing to a degree. But then

276
00:20:43,799 --> 00:20:47,480
I thought to myself, well, if I'm John Galt, there's

277
00:20:47,519 --> 00:20:52,200
not actually any objective ethical thing that should prohibit me

278
00:20:52,480 --> 00:20:56,240
from buying off the state to serve my needs. And

279
00:20:56,279 --> 00:20:59,960
that's fundamentally right, like against her an RAN's WL system,

280
00:21:00,160 --> 00:21:03,640
right right. I mean, the state itself is a kind

281
00:21:03,680 --> 00:21:08,559
of a violation of our freedom, and it's this entity

282
00:21:08,640 --> 00:21:11,559
that's always ripping everyone off, and it had had it

283
00:21:11,599 --> 00:21:17,480
shouldn't exist because the real power and motivation whenin society

284
00:21:17,599 --> 00:21:21,039
comes from the genius individuals, and the state is always

285
00:21:21,119 --> 00:21:23,880
kind of sapping off of them. That narrative is kind

286
00:21:23,920 --> 00:21:26,240
of true at times, but the but it misses the

287
00:21:26,319 --> 00:21:31,599
fact that you can't build societies or or create a

288
00:21:31,720 --> 00:21:34,799
social order on the basis of something that's completely materialistic

289
00:21:34,839 --> 00:21:35,440
and atheistic.

290
00:21:37,640 --> 00:21:43,200
Speaker 6: So I mean, on a separate, slight tangent, But about

291
00:21:43,319 --> 00:21:46,000
Iron Ran and many others, do you think they made

292
00:21:46,039 --> 00:21:47,400
their way through life?

293
00:21:48,359 --> 00:21:49,519
Speaker 5: They were they propped up?

294
00:21:49,599 --> 00:21:55,640
Speaker 6: Is there a reason these philosophies don't get adequately publicly

295
00:21:57,000 --> 00:21:59,559
challenged in a way like and I see it today

296
00:21:59,680 --> 00:22:00,640
still like all.

297
00:22:00,599 --> 00:22:03,400
Speaker 5: The fancy pants people, all the nuile.

298
00:22:03,160 --> 00:22:07,480
Speaker 6: Tyson Negrassis, they all kind of aside from maybe sam

299
00:22:07,559 --> 00:22:10,279
Arish would at least put a got into the den,

300
00:22:10,680 --> 00:22:14,240
you know, with his assertions, a lot of them kind of.

301
00:22:14,440 --> 00:22:22,440
Speaker 5: Escape large scale spotlights of being challenged. Yes, is that purposeful?

302
00:22:22,720 --> 00:22:25,240
Speaker 2: It is? In fact, there's quite a bit of evidence.

303
00:22:25,559 --> 00:22:28,160
Speaker 4: If you look at the Rockefeller's biography, you can find

304
00:22:29,200 --> 00:22:33,759
instances where they funded certain philosophical schools and traditions. You

305
00:22:33,799 --> 00:22:36,160
could look at Quigley's works where he talks about liberal

306
00:22:36,160 --> 00:22:39,680
philosophy like Karl Popper. I mean, what is the George

307
00:22:39,680 --> 00:22:43,599
Soros Society is called the Open Society Institute after the

308
00:22:43,640 --> 00:22:47,119
philosopher Karl Popper, the liberal You could look at the

309
00:22:47,200 --> 00:22:50,519
fact that Quigley talks about liberal philosopher Isaiah Berlin. His

310
00:22:50,640 --> 00:22:55,279
philosophy was propped up by the British elite, because they

311
00:22:55,359 --> 00:22:58,000
have always had this preference, especially the Anglo elite, for

312
00:22:58,160 --> 00:23:01,160
what's called Anglo impure pragmatism.

313
00:23:01,279 --> 00:23:05,960
Speaker 2: Right, so that tradition is adopted by the Rockviller.

314
00:23:05,599 --> 00:23:08,640
Speaker 4: Family for an example, the West as a whole pretty

315
00:23:08,720 --> 00:23:13,839
much adopts the liberal pragmatic empiricist tradition from the Enlightenment on.

316
00:23:14,960 --> 00:23:18,599
And it's really it's got all the money behind it.

317
00:23:18,839 --> 00:23:22,319
It's connected to Darwinism. Obviously, those two systems work together,

318
00:23:22,920 --> 00:23:26,640
and you're absolutely right that they will not allow anyone

319
00:23:26,759 --> 00:23:31,640
to really offer any challenge to these kinds of ideologies

320
00:23:31,759 --> 00:23:33,200
because they're very flimsy.

321
00:23:33,240 --> 00:23:35,960
Speaker 2: They're more like I don't even view them as philosophies.

322
00:23:35,960 --> 00:23:41,279
Speaker 4: I view them more like like like philosophical propaganda tools.

323
00:23:41,680 --> 00:23:47,400
It's almost literally like a version of it's more like

324
00:23:47,519 --> 00:23:52,759
propping up a cult or advertising trying to keep like

325
00:23:53,400 --> 00:23:56,599
a monopoly on the exchange of ideas. And I can

326
00:23:56,680 --> 00:23:59,279
say that from being in the academic you know system,

327
00:23:59,319 --> 00:23:59,759
that that's how it.

328
00:23:59,759 --> 00:24:04,359
Speaker 5: We're right, Was there a specific moment you knew to

329
00:24:04,519 --> 00:24:07,359
leave that that world, that.

330
00:24:07,519 --> 00:24:13,319
Speaker 4: Farm I had doubts about some of the stuff when

331
00:24:13,400 --> 00:24:17,559
I was reading David Rockefeller's memoirs, because he talks about

332
00:24:17,759 --> 00:24:21,880
studying under von Jjek. And then I read von Jjek

333
00:24:22,200 --> 00:24:24,920
Wrote to Serfdom, and I noticed at the end of

334
00:24:25,039 --> 00:24:28,359
Von Hajek that he talks about the need for world

335
00:24:28,440 --> 00:24:33,680
government and how in order to have the free market system,

336
00:24:33,799 --> 00:24:37,079
there's got to be global governance. And so then it

337
00:24:37,200 --> 00:24:39,799
occurred to me that really the free market system is

338
00:24:40,039 --> 00:24:43,279
just one of the tools that's the opposite dialectic of

339
00:24:44,000 --> 00:24:49,720
the socialist Marxist system. Because my Marxist professors in college

340
00:24:49,839 --> 00:24:53,240
were from the Frankfurt School, so I was getting trained

341
00:24:53,240 --> 00:24:55,559
by guys who had had frank for school training. I mean,

342
00:24:55,559 --> 00:24:57,559
he wasn't directly from it, but he had studied under

343
00:24:57,559 --> 00:25:01,319
guy who studied under Harbermass. So I just noticed an undergrad,

344
00:25:01,480 --> 00:25:04,359
probably about age twenty one or two, that that there

345
00:25:04,480 --> 00:25:09,200
was a dialectic between the libertarians and the collectives Marxists

346
00:25:10,079 --> 00:25:14,359
because it's all based on materialism and uh sort of

347
00:25:14,799 --> 00:25:16,160
versions of process philosophy.

348
00:25:17,039 --> 00:25:19,960
Speaker 5: Gotcha, I asked you.

349
00:25:20,000 --> 00:25:22,480
Speaker 6: This before, and I haven't not to put you on

350
00:25:22,599 --> 00:25:25,200
the spot if you haven't fully gone into it. But

351
00:25:26,119 --> 00:25:32,079
someone most of the religious philosophies and texts and world views,

352
00:25:32,519 --> 00:25:37,640
like you said, reduced toism or dualism or something, and

353
00:25:37,720 --> 00:25:41,279
then they end up not having a real coherent, full

354
00:25:41,599 --> 00:25:45,440
accumulative view that all connects all of these things, right,

355
00:25:46,680 --> 00:25:53,680
And then somewhat specific to morality, they presented Seakhism, you know, like.

356
00:25:55,720 --> 00:25:59,240
Speaker 5: Sikhismism, Yeah, Sakhis, and.

357
00:25:59,799 --> 00:26:03,759
Speaker 6: They they have a similar, if not not identical, but

358
00:26:03,920 --> 00:26:14,160
similar basis for reality that that, you know, God's the basis,

359
00:26:14,240 --> 00:26:17,480
and an act against God is an act against or yeah,

360
00:26:17,480 --> 00:26:20,039
an act that's what that's what makes it moral, which

361
00:26:20,279 --> 00:26:25,079
were immoral, and and in that regard, it's coherent on

362
00:26:25,240 --> 00:26:28,920
its face, but I didn't fully get into it on

363
00:26:29,079 --> 00:26:32,680
what else might be missing from that whole the holistic.

364
00:26:33,839 --> 00:26:34,559
Speaker 5: Model that they have.

365
00:26:34,920 --> 00:26:35,079
Speaker 2: Yeah.

366
00:26:35,160 --> 00:26:37,559
Speaker 4: One of the problems with a what you might call

367
00:26:38,240 --> 00:26:43,079
a singular conception of persons in God or just just

368
00:26:43,200 --> 00:26:49,119
a soul one in terms of monotheism, is that the

369
00:26:49,640 --> 00:26:53,200
primary example of this in terms of philosophy has been Aristotle.

370
00:26:53,359 --> 00:26:55,240
So I know that there are people who had maybe

371
00:26:55,680 --> 00:26:58,680
monetistic conceptions before the time of Aristotle, but when we

372
00:26:58,839 --> 00:27:02,960
look at philosophical argumentation about a pure quote unquote monotheism.

373
00:27:03,440 --> 00:27:07,359
What happens is that he's used. This deity is usually

374
00:27:07,559 --> 00:27:13,960
understood to be something like a purely actual actualizer. That's

375
00:27:14,000 --> 00:27:18,559
how Ariosol defines him. You might call him god or

376
00:27:18,599 --> 00:27:20,839
a god, the father, or a lord or whatever. But

377
00:27:20,920 --> 00:27:23,240
the problem is that when you have those attributes that

378
00:27:23,319 --> 00:27:26,839
he has this kind of a god. If he's eternally

379
00:27:27,519 --> 00:27:31,200
the monotheistic creator, and he's eternally the Father or eternally

380
00:27:31,240 --> 00:27:36,680
the Lord, or eternally God, or an eternally pure actual,

381
00:27:36,920 --> 00:27:41,759
unactualized actualizer to use Aristotle or the unmoved first mover,

382
00:27:42,519 --> 00:27:45,319
it seems to suggest that he needs something to move

383
00:27:45,680 --> 00:27:50,960
to be lord over, to actualize, to cause, to generate, to.

384
00:27:52,720 --> 00:27:53,920
Speaker 2: Be lord of.

385
00:27:55,200 --> 00:27:57,119
Speaker 4: Because it doesn't really make sense to say that he

386
00:27:57,240 --> 00:28:01,319
has all these attributes or even the tribute creator right,

387
00:28:01,400 --> 00:28:03,000
because a lot of these religious of well, he is

388
00:28:03,119 --> 00:28:08,160
our creator in some sense, because if he's eternally a creator,

389
00:28:09,160 --> 00:28:14,279
then creation takes on a divine attribute. Now now creation

390
00:28:14,839 --> 00:28:18,680
or the order of objects or things other than him.

391
00:28:20,279 --> 00:28:22,960
According to Aersol for example, Aerosol's argument is that yes,

392
00:28:24,240 --> 00:28:24,920
the first.

393
00:28:24,720 --> 00:28:25,960
Speaker 2: Being needs.

394
00:28:27,319 --> 00:28:30,720
Speaker 4: Be some object other than himself to always move, and

395
00:28:30,880 --> 00:28:33,920
so he says there's an eternal matter, prime matter that's

396
00:28:33,960 --> 00:28:38,079
always existed for this singular moment mono being to be God.

397
00:28:39,400 --> 00:28:42,480
But as Basil says in Hexameron two, he critiques this

398
00:28:42,559 --> 00:28:45,640
and says that this is absurd because the whole goal

399
00:28:45,880 --> 00:28:49,880
of this pure monotheism was to guard that deity from

400
00:28:50,079 --> 00:28:51,880
other deities or.

401
00:28:51,880 --> 00:28:53,400
Speaker 2: Other objects being worshiped.

402
00:28:53,480 --> 00:28:56,200
Speaker 4: But now you have an object other than itself, namely

403
00:28:56,799 --> 00:29:00,880
prime matter, or an eternal creation or whatever that's other

404
00:29:01,000 --> 00:29:03,920
than God that now has one of his attributes, namely

405
00:29:03,960 --> 00:29:04,559
it's eternal.

406
00:29:04,799 --> 00:29:04,960
Speaker 5: Right.

407
00:29:06,039 --> 00:29:09,000
Speaker 4: So this is a problem for the strict monotheistic religions

408
00:29:09,039 --> 00:29:14,119
because typically they fall into what's called divine absolute, divine simplicity,

409
00:29:14,160 --> 00:29:17,279
in that they don't want to admit any distinctions because

410
00:29:17,319 --> 00:29:21,440
they think that's the way to guard the unity and

411
00:29:21,519 --> 00:29:22,480
to avoid idolatry.

412
00:29:22,640 --> 00:29:23,960
Speaker 2: Like Islam is very big on this.

413
00:29:24,160 --> 00:29:26,440
Speaker 4: And Islam has this problem that I always bring up

414
00:29:26,440 --> 00:29:30,160
to the Muslim apologists, which is, then if God is

415
00:29:30,240 --> 00:29:33,759
eternal and he's always and he's also eternally a creator,

416
00:29:34,240 --> 00:29:36,519
then now you need an eternal creation for him.

417
00:29:36,440 --> 00:29:37,680
Speaker 2: To be eternally creating.

418
00:29:38,519 --> 00:29:40,559
Speaker 4: And Muslims don't believe that because they believe that God

419
00:29:40,759 --> 00:29:43,559
freely willed creation at a beginning point in time.

420
00:29:43,960 --> 00:29:46,720
Speaker 2: So I would say that Sikhism would probably fall under that.

421
00:29:46,839 --> 00:29:49,599
Speaker 4: I've not had any like apologetic interactions with Sikhs, so

422
00:29:49,680 --> 00:29:52,559
I don't exactly know their system beyond the fact that

423
00:29:52,640 --> 00:29:55,759
it's a kind of a monotheism that's far Eastern or something.

424
00:29:56,680 --> 00:29:58,720
I'm not opposed to debating a Sikh, but they just

425
00:29:58,799 --> 00:30:01,519
never come around much. But that would be the route

426
00:30:01,559 --> 00:30:03,319
of critique I would take with a Sikh, is that

427
00:30:03,480 --> 00:30:07,079
the strict monotheistic position actually ironically ends up when we

428
00:30:07,160 --> 00:30:12,400
look at the names of this deity requiring a duality

429
00:30:12,480 --> 00:30:16,160
once again, namely an eternal creation or matter that's opposite

430
00:30:16,200 --> 00:30:20,200
of this deity. So ironically, the desire to protect the

431
00:30:20,240 --> 00:30:23,359
strict monotheism has now led to another form of dualism.

432
00:30:24,079 --> 00:30:26,640
This is why, this is why the Trinity avoids this.

433
00:30:26,759 --> 00:30:29,559
Speaker 6: By the way, Okay, so I was gonna ask, this

434
00:30:30,319 --> 00:30:33,680
is that connected to the problem of the one.

435
00:30:33,519 --> 00:30:34,000
Speaker 5: And the many?

436
00:30:34,160 --> 00:30:34,319
Speaker 3: Yes?

437
00:30:35,400 --> 00:30:36,880
Speaker 2: It is in a way, yes, yeah.

438
00:30:37,799 --> 00:30:42,240
Speaker 6: Could you give viewers a quick overview of the problem

439
00:30:42,319 --> 00:30:45,000
of the one and the many in so far as

440
00:30:45,759 --> 00:30:51,880
generally but also applied to I guess Christianity.

441
00:30:53,400 --> 00:30:55,240
Speaker 4: So we like what we talked about earlier, when we

442
00:30:55,319 --> 00:30:59,160
were talking about names and predication and making sentences and

443
00:30:59,240 --> 00:31:03,559
this kind of stuff. Any attempt to predicate. If you

444
00:31:03,680 --> 00:31:07,119
go back to I think it's the Fayeto. Plato has

445
00:31:07,160 --> 00:31:10,240
this really interesting argument where he talks about to be

446
00:31:10,279 --> 00:31:13,200
able to say that an object is one thing and

447
00:31:13,279 --> 00:31:16,480
also other things at the same time requires the ability

448
00:31:16,599 --> 00:31:20,720
to make statements that rely on the one in the mini. Right,

449
00:31:20,799 --> 00:31:22,920
So there's got to be a if you say the

450
00:31:23,000 --> 00:31:26,599
tree is green and you say the grass is green,

451
00:31:26,799 --> 00:31:31,039
you've got two objects that share a property between them, right.

452
00:31:31,559 --> 00:31:34,279
But there are two particular distinct objects, but at the

453
00:31:34,319 --> 00:31:37,400
same time, there's something that they share in common greenness,

454
00:31:37,599 --> 00:31:42,160
Plato argued, And so in some sense there's a unity

455
00:31:42,400 --> 00:31:46,680
in the midst of these many objects. And Plato's argument

456
00:31:47,160 --> 00:31:49,000
was I'm just using Plato as an example of how

457
00:31:49,039 --> 00:31:52,920
this question came to be. Plato's argument is that there's

458
00:31:52,960 --> 00:31:54,680
a kind of a one end mini going on here

459
00:31:54,759 --> 00:31:58,240
in any object that we talk about. Similarly, if you

460
00:31:58,240 --> 00:32:00,440
remember the debate with Stepan, you could make the same

461
00:32:00,519 --> 00:32:03,200
point about numbers. Plato makes this argument, I think about

462
00:32:03,200 --> 00:32:05,880
the number seven, or numbers in general. He says, you know,

463
00:32:05,920 --> 00:32:08,519
if I've got seven coca nuts, and I've got seven dollars,

464
00:32:08,599 --> 00:32:11,319
and I write the number seven on a chalkboard, none

465
00:32:11,359 --> 00:32:14,920
of those things is identical to the number seven. Their

466
00:32:15,039 --> 00:32:19,359
instances are. They are particulars of a universal right seven.

467
00:32:20,519 --> 00:32:23,440
And we know that because anytime that I don't think

468
00:32:23,440 --> 00:32:26,000
about the number seven, or if I erase the number seven,

469
00:32:26,160 --> 00:32:28,680
or if I eat all the cocon nuts, or if

470
00:32:28,720 --> 00:32:31,839
I spend my seven dollars, we don't believe or think

471
00:32:31,920 --> 00:32:33,720
that seven no longer exists.

472
00:32:33,799 --> 00:32:35,359
Speaker 2: Right, it doesn't go out of existence.

473
00:32:35,799 --> 00:32:39,079
Speaker 4: So there's something about again, universals and these kinds of

474
00:32:40,160 --> 00:32:44,960
names that suggests a kind of immateriality and invariance that's

475
00:32:45,000 --> 00:32:48,759
not dependent on any individual mind or state of matter

476
00:32:49,319 --> 00:32:49,960
or anything like that.

477
00:32:50,839 --> 00:32:53,480
Speaker 2: So Plato basically says there's some kind of one and

478
00:32:53,599 --> 00:32:54,680
many thing going on here.

479
00:32:54,759 --> 00:32:56,880
Speaker 4: Now Plato doesn't have an adequate answer to that, but

480
00:32:57,519 --> 00:33:01,720
later Christian philosophers do take up this question, namely the Kappadocians,

481
00:33:02,599 --> 00:33:05,799
Gregory of Nazi and Zeus Basil, Grave of Nissa, and

482
00:33:05,839 --> 00:33:07,839
then later Saint Maximus, and they'd go into a lot

483
00:33:07,880 --> 00:33:09,839
of depth about the one and the many problem, and

484
00:33:09,880 --> 00:33:11,880
they say that, you know, Christianity is unique in the

485
00:33:11,960 --> 00:33:16,799
sense that we actually attribute an equal ultimacy to unity

486
00:33:16,920 --> 00:33:19,400
in God as well as to particularity or the many

487
00:33:19,440 --> 00:33:19,759
in God.

488
00:33:20,519 --> 00:33:23,079
Speaker 2: And so the many also relates to the logi.

489
00:33:23,240 --> 00:33:25,799
Speaker 4: I don't want to get too obscure here, but the

490
00:33:25,920 --> 00:33:29,319
logi are just basically the Christian version of the forms

491
00:33:29,400 --> 00:33:33,599
or the essences of things. So we don't identify created

492
00:33:33,680 --> 00:33:37,039
essences with God. But I'm just saying it's loosely what

493
00:33:37,799 --> 00:33:41,160
Plato's talking about when he talks about forms or universals.

494
00:33:41,759 --> 00:33:42,720
Speaker 2: For us, they kind of.

495
00:33:42,839 --> 00:33:46,000
Speaker 4: They're created things, but they correspond to patterns in the

496
00:33:46,079 --> 00:33:49,759
divine mind. So ultimately, for us, the one in the

497
00:33:49,839 --> 00:33:52,559
many problem is resolved in the triune God.

498
00:33:54,799 --> 00:33:58,960
Speaker 5: Gotcha any questions you guys?

499
00:33:59,119 --> 00:34:02,240
Speaker 6: I mean, I've read the comments, but any any formal

500
00:34:02,480 --> 00:34:07,039
questions through the question app that ig has made for us?

501
00:34:09,440 --> 00:34:11,599
Speaker 2: What about natural law? You know?

502
00:34:14,199 --> 00:34:17,119
Speaker 7: You know, I hear these people going around on Instagram

503
00:34:18,400 --> 00:34:22,480
talking about natural law and they have absolutely no knowledge

504
00:34:22,719 --> 00:34:25,000
of what they're talking. You know, he almost sounds like

505
00:34:25,119 --> 00:34:28,199
a like a Jersey mom, like like.

506
00:34:28,480 --> 00:34:31,159
Speaker 5: Oh yeah, he's like one of the he's like one

507
00:34:31,199 --> 00:34:32,800
of the angry nine to eleven moms.

508
00:34:33,599 --> 00:34:35,599
Speaker 7: Uh, you know, I can't talk right now, and I'm

509
00:34:35,639 --> 00:34:39,239
getting the clem because the natural law caused nine to eleven.

510
00:34:41,599 --> 00:34:45,159
Speaker 6: Someone asks, what do you think quantum language, parse syntax,

511
00:34:45,280 --> 00:34:46,679
grammar will have on loget.

512
00:34:48,559 --> 00:34:50,000
Speaker 2: I don't know that. I don't know what that means

513
00:34:50,800 --> 00:34:51,119
me either.

514
00:34:52,760 --> 00:34:55,000
Speaker 5: I want Jay to debate sam Aris. That would just

515
00:34:55,079 --> 00:34:55,599
be over.

516
00:34:55,960 --> 00:35:01,039
Speaker 6: I mean if sam Arass really h I'm almost like

517
00:35:01,440 --> 00:35:03,960
encouraging Jay to somehow.

518
00:35:03,960 --> 00:35:09,559
Speaker 5: Go even higher than sam Harris because it just starts

519
00:35:09,599 --> 00:35:10,519
from nonsense.

520
00:35:10,679 --> 00:35:13,800
Speaker 6: That's the thing is like I mean, William Lane Craig

521
00:35:14,760 --> 00:35:18,960
really demolished him and really exposed how he operates, which

522
00:35:19,079 --> 00:35:21,239
is and I said this in another stream, is that

523
00:35:21,920 --> 00:35:25,199
what sam Aras does, like Peterson does, is they just

524
00:35:25,360 --> 00:35:29,719
redefine words so that they could make new claims based

525
00:35:29,760 --> 00:35:32,360
on the new definition and then hope someone doesn't just

526
00:35:32,440 --> 00:35:34,840
go do the simplest thing and go, wait, no, that's

527
00:35:34,880 --> 00:35:37,119
not the definition of a word. That's not it, like

528
00:35:37,199 --> 00:35:40,159
you can't just skip past. But they get sold on

529
00:35:40,239 --> 00:35:43,320
it because they make us a good sounding definition. You know,

530
00:35:43,400 --> 00:35:47,599
it'd be like, you know, what's a chaos, you know, Jordan,

531
00:35:47,679 --> 00:35:50,760
and he'll be like, well, it's a cold wind blowing

532
00:35:50,880 --> 00:35:54,280
down the icy banks and it causes you know, like

533
00:35:54,519 --> 00:35:56,679
he'll just go and then people are swept away by

534
00:35:56,719 --> 00:36:01,159
the hypnotic poetry, right, and then you're lost and then

535
00:36:01,159 --> 00:36:01,519
you can't.

536
00:36:01,559 --> 00:36:03,599
Speaker 5: I always say, I don't know what your take on this.

537
00:36:03,800 --> 00:36:06,480
Speaker 6: Is, but when I look at when I look at

538
00:36:06,599 --> 00:36:12,440
logic and truth claims and argumentation, the importance that words

539
00:36:13,400 --> 00:36:17,360
hold meaning strictly is as important as you said the

540
00:36:17,440 --> 00:36:19,760
number one. Maintaining the number one so you can say

541
00:36:20,079 --> 00:36:21,599
that one plus two equals three.

542
00:36:22,239 --> 00:36:22,360
Speaker 9: Uh.

543
00:36:22,519 --> 00:36:25,159
Speaker 6: Similarly in a in a phrasing, you want the word

544
00:36:25,719 --> 00:36:30,920
to be held as it is circular and it means

545
00:36:31,000 --> 00:36:35,280
what it means, so that you then can actually string

546
00:36:35,400 --> 00:36:38,280
together statements and premises so that they can be adequately

547
00:36:39,559 --> 00:36:40,760
accepted or refute it.

548
00:36:40,880 --> 00:36:44,719
Speaker 5: And and when people I think that to me is

549
00:36:44,840 --> 00:36:46,960
the the the almost like the.

550
00:36:47,000 --> 00:36:52,880
Speaker 6: Starting point of Charlatanism is that you you redefine things, right, Like,

551
00:36:53,119 --> 00:36:55,239
that's what allows that to occur.

552
00:36:55,519 --> 00:36:59,440
Speaker 4: I think, yeah, I mean, playing slippery with words is

553
00:36:59,480 --> 00:37:03,840
a very well known kind of rhetorical trick. But anybody

554
00:37:03,880 --> 00:37:06,199
who's you know, really good at debate or really good

555
00:37:06,239 --> 00:37:09,159
at noticing and knowing tricks can really just bypass all

556
00:37:09,199 --> 00:37:09,840
that and cut to the.

557
00:37:09,840 --> 00:37:10,480
Speaker 2: Heart of the issue.

558
00:37:10,679 --> 00:37:12,840
Speaker 4: So that really only works kind of with like a

559
00:37:12,960 --> 00:37:16,440
mass audience that doesn't really know, you know, the laws

560
00:37:16,480 --> 00:37:19,239
of logic and the rules of debate. And you know,

561
00:37:19,280 --> 00:37:23,239
I've listened to multiple different instances of Sam Harris debating.

562
00:37:23,840 --> 00:37:26,079
I don't I think Sam Harris is in the category

563
00:37:26,079 --> 00:37:28,199
of the guys that you were mentioning before, like people

564
00:37:28,239 --> 00:37:30,559
who would never be put up.

565
00:37:30,519 --> 00:37:31,960
Speaker 2: Against any serious challenge.

566
00:37:32,960 --> 00:37:35,079
Speaker 4: You know, there's quite a few people who are prominent

567
00:37:35,199 --> 00:37:38,599
in you know, alternative media or the dark web or

568
00:37:38,800 --> 00:37:41,639
the internet what do they called the dark intellectual dark

569
00:37:41,639 --> 00:37:44,360
web or who would never they would never be put

570
00:37:44,440 --> 00:37:48,039
in any real position of challenge. I at least give

571
00:37:48,360 --> 00:37:51,880
Stefan credit for stepping up and being willing to be,

572
00:37:52,119 --> 00:37:54,800
you know, challenged, But I don't think any of the

573
00:37:54,920 --> 00:37:56,840
really big names of those kind of guys would ever

574
00:37:56,960 --> 00:37:59,679
really do it. There's they don't stand anything to gain

575
00:37:59,760 --> 00:38:03,079
and have everything to lose, and I think that I

576
00:38:03,159 --> 00:38:03,440
think that.

577
00:38:03,480 --> 00:38:07,400
Speaker 2: Sam Harris would. His his philosophy is pretty easy to critique.

578
00:38:07,400 --> 00:38:10,400
Speaker 4: I mean, he's got some really strict determinist views that

579
00:38:11,000 --> 00:38:15,159
I'm sure William Lane Craig adequately critiqued, but I would

580
00:38:15,199 --> 00:38:17,800
I would bring in other kind of presuppositional critiques. I mean,

581
00:38:18,159 --> 00:38:19,960
I don't think he would stand up very well to

582
00:38:20,039 --> 00:38:21,079
a transcendent argument.

583
00:38:22,639 --> 00:38:24,400
Speaker 5: Do you think there's a time and a place in

584
00:38:24,519 --> 00:38:26,079
a debate to call someone a retart?

585
00:38:27,159 --> 00:38:32,440
Speaker 4: Yes, I mean, debate has never avoided insults. It's not always,

586
00:38:32,480 --> 00:38:34,920
it's part of rhetoric is part of a debate. I

587
00:38:35,000 --> 00:38:37,519
mean it's gonna it's gonna be part of you kind

588
00:38:37,559 --> 00:38:42,280
of showing your rhetorical, your skills and your wit. So

589
00:38:42,880 --> 00:38:47,519
the idea that like when Inspiring Philosophy and Cameron Batuzzi

590
00:38:47,960 --> 00:38:51,639
set up a debate and they made me they agreed

591
00:38:51,639 --> 00:38:54,119
to the debate, and then they backtracked and said, you

592
00:38:54,239 --> 00:38:56,519
can never make any jokes or make any fun of

593
00:38:56,760 --> 00:38:59,239
your opponent, and I said, I'm not gonna agree.

594
00:38:59,239 --> 00:39:00,679
Speaker 2: I'm not going to agree to that, and then.

595
00:39:00,599 --> 00:39:02,559
Speaker 4: They backed out and they said, well, then you're a jerk.

596
00:39:02,960 --> 00:39:05,559
I was like, have you ever have you ever watched

597
00:39:05,639 --> 00:39:06,440
a famous debate?

598
00:39:06,960 --> 00:39:09,039
Speaker 6: Yeah, that's funny, because I've been trying to get you.

599
00:39:09,280 --> 00:39:10,760
I've been trying to reach out and be like, why

600
00:39:11,039 --> 00:39:12,360
why did you guys have this guy on?

601
00:39:12,480 --> 00:39:12,960
Speaker 5: What are you doing?

602
00:39:13,119 --> 00:39:16,440
Speaker 6: Like this is clearly you need a guy who's who's

603
00:39:16,840 --> 00:39:20,599
like Jay, who can do cultural references and impressions and

604
00:39:20,840 --> 00:39:25,840
actually make your debate, your debates more fun actually, because

605
00:39:25,880 --> 00:39:29,039
they're they are lacking in the in the arena of entertainment,

606
00:39:29,320 --> 00:39:30,760
I would say, but that's.

607
00:39:30,880 --> 00:39:32,519
Speaker 4: If you go if you go watch like if you

608
00:39:32,559 --> 00:39:35,920
go to the Oxford's Debate channel and you watch Peter

609
00:39:36,000 --> 00:39:37,719
Hitchens or any of the people who kind of do

610
00:39:37,880 --> 00:39:41,599
the classic Oxford style debates, and you'll notice they're full

611
00:39:41,679 --> 00:39:43,679
of kind of witty jabs riposts.

612
00:39:43,719 --> 00:39:44,159
Speaker 5: Oh yeah.

613
00:39:44,400 --> 00:39:46,960
Speaker 4: I mean the idea that you can never make an

614
00:39:47,000 --> 00:39:49,880
insulting joke about your opponent is just ludicrous and it's

615
00:39:49,960 --> 00:39:52,440
just pussing out. I mean, it's amazing to me that

616
00:39:52,480 --> 00:39:55,360
these people are this weak will that somebody makes one

617
00:39:55,480 --> 00:39:58,159
joke about them or implies that there's that their argument

618
00:39:58,239 --> 00:40:01,280
is to. Like you'll say, you'll say that's retarded or that's.

619
00:40:01,159 --> 00:40:04,079
Speaker 2: Silly, and they'll be like, how dare you call somebody

620
00:40:04,239 --> 00:40:07,119
It's I'm talking about his joke, right, I'm saying his argument,

621
00:40:07,280 --> 00:40:10,079
his argument was bad. Right, it's not a it's just

622
00:40:10,239 --> 00:40:11,320
it's just childishness.

623
00:40:11,960 --> 00:40:14,599
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean I would if I were ever debate Dawkins,

624
00:40:14,639 --> 00:40:16,639
I would just be like, come on, you're a baby eater,

625
00:40:17,039 --> 00:40:18,400
and then just you go.

626
00:40:19,559 --> 00:40:20,400
Speaker 5: Someone has a question.

627
00:40:21,039 --> 00:40:24,079
Speaker 6: Uh, Jay said that Islam has a problem because there's

628
00:40:24,119 --> 00:40:28,960
no eternal creation. Eternal creation is an oxymoron? Can Jay

629
00:40:29,079 --> 00:40:30,800
go further into that argument?

630
00:40:32,360 --> 00:40:32,480
Speaker 2: Right?

631
00:40:32,559 --> 00:40:32,840
Speaker 5: It is?

632
00:40:33,039 --> 00:40:38,480
Speaker 4: I mean that's why, for example, Aristotle denied that there

633
00:40:38,559 --> 00:40:41,239
is a creation. So I'm not saying that there is

634
00:40:41,360 --> 00:40:43,559
such a thing as eternal creation because it doesn't It

635
00:40:43,599 --> 00:40:46,960
doesn't make any sense. But if you say that that

636
00:40:47,199 --> 00:40:50,679
God is the equivalent of creator, and that God is

637
00:40:50,719 --> 00:40:53,519
also the equivalent of eternal, right, what are the names

638
00:40:53,559 --> 00:40:56,440
of God? He's eternal, he's omnipotent, he's creator, right, these

639
00:40:56,760 --> 00:41:00,079
these kinds of names. If you believe that, say the

640
00:41:00,199 --> 00:41:03,320
ISLAMI position, then the problem you have is how is

641
00:41:03,400 --> 00:41:04,599
he eternally a creator?

642
00:41:04,800 --> 00:41:05,440
Speaker 2: Because he's not.

643
00:41:06,400 --> 00:41:09,840
Speaker 4: Right, he takes on the attributor property of creating when

644
00:41:09,960 --> 00:41:12,559
he creates. Prior to that, he was not known as creator.

645
00:41:12,840 --> 00:41:16,039
It's the only way to avoid this dilemma. So, uh,

646
00:41:17,000 --> 00:41:22,639
that's why aerosol for example, says, Yeah, the eternal matter

647
00:41:23,079 --> 00:41:27,639
that the first mover eternally moves was never created.

648
00:41:27,920 --> 00:41:31,199
Speaker 2: It's eternal, just like the first mover is eternal. So

649
00:41:31,320 --> 00:41:33,679
there's a diad, a dualism.

650
00:41:33,519 --> 00:41:34,000
Speaker 5: A diet.

651
00:41:34,119 --> 00:41:35,639
Speaker 6: Yeah, and is there a do you know a title

652
00:41:35,679 --> 00:41:39,159
of a video? Sam who just asked that, could do

653
00:41:39,280 --> 00:41:40,760
you know one off the top of your head what

654
00:41:40,840 --> 00:41:41,400
you called it.

655
00:41:43,960 --> 00:41:45,000
Speaker 5: On your channel?

656
00:41:46,280 --> 00:41:48,400
Speaker 6: Anyway you could search the words, right, you try to

657
00:41:48,440 --> 00:41:51,599
search the words and find maybe in your debate with

658
00:41:53,280 --> 00:41:57,840
with the the Muslim guy that you did you think

659
00:41:57,880 --> 00:42:00,639
it's in there? Anyway you could search that. Maybe Jay

660
00:42:00,679 --> 00:42:02,400
will post about it in a story or something.

661
00:42:03,000 --> 00:42:06,519
Speaker 2: Yeah, the one you just made.

662
00:42:06,599 --> 00:42:07,079
Speaker 5: But more.

663
00:42:10,239 --> 00:42:13,159
Speaker 2: That's in the video that I just did on arguments.

664
00:42:13,920 --> 00:42:17,800
Speaker 6: Okay, yeah, so just look up that video. Josh Meng says,

665
00:42:17,960 --> 00:42:19,360
Peter Hitchins is the boy.

666
00:42:19,519 --> 00:42:20,559
Speaker 5: No, he's not the boy.

667
00:42:22,480 --> 00:42:27,239
Speaker 6: Peter Itchins was very uh charismatic, quick witted, well spoken.

668
00:42:27,920 --> 00:42:28,079
Speaker 1: Uh.

669
00:42:28,280 --> 00:42:32,679
Speaker 6: He definitely had that lower range British thing going on,

670
00:42:32,960 --> 00:42:35,360
where you're just like I will definitely help you in

671
00:42:35,480 --> 00:42:37,519
the brit in the in the garden today, like you

672
00:42:37,679 --> 00:42:41,880
just get swept away. But he had so many uh

673
00:42:42,320 --> 00:42:46,920
self refuting stances so many, as you said, self detonated positions.

674
00:42:47,280 --> 00:42:51,320
He would him and Dawkins, Uh, just like perpetually made

675
00:42:51,440 --> 00:42:56,760
moral claims. You know, the even the idea the well

676
00:42:56,840 --> 00:42:59,320
would be much better off if if if, if.

677
00:42:59,280 --> 00:43:02,199
Speaker 5: There was no no religion. No, and then you know,

678
00:43:02,320 --> 00:43:06,440
of course Dildo Dawkins, he's right behind him. What hates that? Oh? Yes,

679
00:43:06,639 --> 00:43:12,840
what he said? No, goodaddy, thank you daddy. Uh.

680
00:43:13,039 --> 00:43:15,639
Speaker 6: But yeah, I could see how people similar to uh,

681
00:43:15,880 --> 00:43:18,840
you know, Harris and all the other guys who I

682
00:43:19,039 --> 00:43:22,800
think are really just I always make the distinction that

683
00:43:23,039 --> 00:43:27,159
what resonates isn't necessarily what's true, even if it sounds

684
00:43:27,199 --> 00:43:28,760
good and the cadence is right.

685
00:43:29,000 --> 00:43:31,960
Speaker 5: Because you know, just look at uh read Julliers.

686
00:43:32,199 --> 00:43:33,880
Speaker 6: You know, you're like, oh, yeah, I love this song,

687
00:43:33,920 --> 00:43:36,880
and then you read and you're like, what literally it's

688
00:43:36,880 --> 00:43:42,079
just gibberish, like you're not nothing's being said. But uh

689
00:43:42,840 --> 00:43:47,639
any uh any commentary about the late Christopher agents specific.

690
00:43:47,519 --> 00:43:49,320
Speaker 2: And I'm getting Peter and Christopher mixed up.

691
00:43:49,599 --> 00:43:52,039
Speaker 5: Who's the one that one in the thing one and

692
00:43:52,199 --> 00:43:52,880
one is two?

693
00:43:54,800 --> 00:43:56,760
Speaker 2: Who is the who's the one that's still alive?

694
00:43:57,280 --> 00:44:00,199
Speaker 5: Peter, that's still talkings that that's.

695
00:44:02,119 --> 00:44:04,320
Speaker 2: No which Hitchens is still alive.

696
00:44:05,679 --> 00:44:11,480
Speaker 5: His brother I forgot his name, Peter or Christopher Peter.

697
00:44:14,000 --> 00:44:16,960
Peter is alive. Christopher is dead.

698
00:44:17,199 --> 00:44:19,559
Speaker 2: Yes, Peter is the one who you can go look

699
00:44:19,599 --> 00:44:20,960
at his debates. He's still alive.

700
00:44:21,000 --> 00:44:23,360
Speaker 4: You can go watch his debates on YouTube, and he

701
00:44:23,480 --> 00:44:26,440
makes the jokes and kind of rases people and makes

702
00:44:26,480 --> 00:44:33,159
one of his opponents and stuff. Anyway, Uh, yeah, No,

703
00:44:33,280 --> 00:44:37,000
I don't think any of the new atheists have anything defensible.

704
00:44:37,079 --> 00:44:40,440
I mean, the positions are I will grant them this, though,

705
00:44:40,440 --> 00:44:43,760
I will say this about them. So basically, most of

706
00:44:43,880 --> 00:44:48,800
the landscape of today's theist versus atheist forum of debate

707
00:44:49,519 --> 00:44:53,880
is just a repeat of the debates from the Enlightenment.

708
00:44:54,119 --> 00:44:56,639
That it's almost like these people don't think or haven't

709
00:44:56,719 --> 00:45:01,679
realized any advanced in the argumentation from the time of

710
00:45:01,719 --> 00:45:04,880
the Enlightenment until now. So, whether it's the Roman Catholics

711
00:45:04,920 --> 00:45:07,880
and the evidentialist apologists the of the Tomas who are

712
00:45:07,960 --> 00:45:11,599
arguing against the atheist, or whether it's the atheist argument

713
00:45:11,599 --> 00:45:14,400
against the Roman Catholics, they're both groups are arguing on

714
00:45:14,559 --> 00:45:16,599
the same basis of empiricism.

715
00:45:16,679 --> 00:45:20,599
Speaker 2: It's so kind of ludicrous to me that that that

716
00:45:20,840 --> 00:45:22,719
this debate has not progressed at all.

717
00:45:22,840 --> 00:45:26,039
Speaker 4: And that's why none of these groups really understand transcendental arguments.

718
00:45:26,039 --> 00:45:28,760
If you if you look at you know, Dila Hunty

719
00:45:28,800 --> 00:45:30,800
trying to deal with it. He never even grasp what

720
00:45:30,960 --> 00:45:34,079
the argument was. He thought that you can't that translill

721
00:45:34,159 --> 00:45:37,800
arguments aren't arguments. And even though I've given the form

722
00:45:37,880 --> 00:45:41,639
many times from Stanford Encyclopedia that shows what the form

723
00:45:41,719 --> 00:45:43,960
of the argument is. You may disagree with me making

724
00:45:44,000 --> 00:45:46,280
the argument for God, but the form of the argument

725
00:45:46,320 --> 00:45:48,079
itself is a valid form of argument.

726
00:45:47,920 --> 00:45:51,400
Speaker 6: Right, Yeah, No, you'd have to reject logic, which in

727
00:45:51,519 --> 00:45:54,000
your debate with him, that's what he did. I mean, eventually,

728
00:45:54,079 --> 00:45:58,079
that's what happens is you have to actually assume logic

729
00:45:58,199 --> 00:46:02,119
to make your materialist of you. And then when you

730
00:46:02,199 --> 00:46:05,280
get to the paradgmatic level, and and for the people

731
00:46:05,400 --> 00:46:08,719
following correct me if I'm wrong. There's the let's say,

732
00:46:08,760 --> 00:46:13,719
the correspondential model, the classical foundational model, which is like

733
00:46:13,800 --> 00:46:16,800
what what the what? All the modern theists are arguing

734
00:46:16,800 --> 00:46:21,800
with William Lane Craig is arguing and the anti theists together,

735
00:46:21,880 --> 00:46:25,159
they they must they they argue from the same model.

736
00:46:25,719 --> 00:46:29,400
But the bigger question is how do we even justify

737
00:46:29,800 --> 00:46:30,880
debating at all?

738
00:46:31,280 --> 00:46:34,159
Speaker 5: How do we even start with the assumptions? And then

739
00:46:34,599 --> 00:46:37,880
the dell Honeys will say at hoc they'll just say, uh,

740
00:46:38,159 --> 00:46:42,480
it is. Logic is. And that's if you accept logic,

741
00:46:42,760 --> 00:46:46,239
because you accept empiricism and you rely on logic to

742
00:46:46,440 --> 00:46:49,920
ask how logic exists and why and how do you

743
00:46:50,119 --> 00:46:50,599
justify it?

744
00:46:50,840 --> 00:46:54,719
Speaker 6: To say, to simply give logic the middle finger and say,

745
00:46:54,760 --> 00:46:56,599
you know, I'll just use a fallacy now and just

746
00:46:56,639 --> 00:46:57,320
say at hawk.

747
00:46:57,440 --> 00:47:00,480
Speaker 5: But but then they'll say, no, God is at Hawk.

748
00:47:00,559 --> 00:47:03,440
Speaker 6: Now what would you respond to if someone's saying, no,

749
00:47:03,599 --> 00:47:06,679
I presuppose logic and I don't need to justify it,

750
00:47:06,880 --> 00:47:09,679
and you're just taking it a step further and presupposing

751
00:47:09,800 --> 00:47:11,159
God to justify logic.

752
00:47:12,159 --> 00:47:15,440
Speaker 2: Well, from there, I'm holding them to their own principles.

753
00:47:15,800 --> 00:47:19,079
Speaker 4: For example, Dilla Hunty said in pre the two or

754
00:47:19,119 --> 00:47:21,960
three debates before our debate, he said, you shouldn't believe.

755
00:47:21,719 --> 00:47:25,000
Speaker 2: In anything that you can't empirically demonstrate. So all I

756
00:47:25,119 --> 00:47:27,159
had to do was turn around and point out that

757
00:47:27,239 --> 00:47:29,880
he's believing in all these things that by his own

758
00:47:29,880 --> 00:47:33,159
admission he can't empirically demonstrate and so therefore he shouldn't

759
00:47:33,159 --> 00:47:34,679
believe in it. And he said, well, I just do.

760
00:47:36,119 --> 00:47:38,639
I'm sorry, but that's not giving an account of why

761
00:47:38,760 --> 00:47:40,880
you believe or how you believe in something on his

762
00:47:41,000 --> 00:47:42,760
own grounds, like that was his criteria.

763
00:47:42,880 --> 00:47:45,519
Speaker 4: Right now, Look, let's we can cut through all of

764
00:47:45,599 --> 00:47:49,239
these people, whether it's the Tomas, or whether it's the

765
00:47:49,480 --> 00:47:53,559
Roman Catholics, or whether it's the natural law natural law proponents,

766
00:47:53,679 --> 00:47:56,199
or whether it's the Hitchens and all these people.

767
00:47:57,000 --> 00:47:58,800
Speaker 5: Okay, let the Dawkins respond.

768
00:47:58,840 --> 00:48:02,360
Speaker 6: To respond to this, Nate says, debating needs to be

769
00:48:02,480 --> 00:48:05,599
backed by empiricism, or there's no point of debating.

770
00:48:05,800 --> 00:48:08,599
Speaker 5: Evidence is the best thing we have for discovering truth.

771
00:48:08,760 --> 00:48:11,599
Can you prove that? Isn't that an example?

772
00:48:11,760 --> 00:48:14,800
Speaker 4: Again, already I've already disproven this by the fact that

773
00:48:15,760 --> 00:48:20,119
the parapatetic axiom cannot be demonstrated to be true. Right,

774
00:48:20,239 --> 00:48:23,199
So what's the parapatetic axiom. There's nothing in the intellect

775
00:48:23,239 --> 00:48:26,960
that's not first in the senses. The parapatetic axiom itself

776
00:48:27,079 --> 00:48:30,599
admittedly is not an object of sense data, and so therefore,

777
00:48:30,800 --> 00:48:33,599
on its own grounds, the parapatetic axiom cannot be known,

778
00:48:33,719 --> 00:48:39,000
so it's self refuting. So this what this objection ignores,

779
00:48:39,119 --> 00:48:41,719
by the way, is not just that critique, which is devastating,

780
00:48:41,800 --> 00:48:44,280
but there's a whole bunch of other critiques that modern

781
00:48:44,360 --> 00:48:49,000
empiricism has kind of boxed itself into, such as ideas

782
00:48:49,039 --> 00:48:52,039
of like, you don't know you can't prove induction, you

783
00:48:52,119 --> 00:48:54,760
don't know that objects in the external world.

784
00:48:54,679 --> 00:48:56,920
Speaker 2: Actually match up to the ideas that you have of them.

785
00:48:57,360 --> 00:48:58,599
There's the myth of the given.

786
00:48:58,719 --> 00:49:03,159
Speaker 4: These are all very well known problems in epistemology that

787
00:49:03,800 --> 00:49:07,960
anyone committed to naive empiricism cannot explain or answer by

788
00:49:08,000 --> 00:49:10,239
the nature of the pre commitments of empiricism.

789
00:49:10,920 --> 00:49:13,320
Speaker 5: Right, yeah, so Nate, fine seven to one six.

790
00:49:13,760 --> 00:49:17,280
Speaker 6: Your claim itself can't be proven by the thing you're

791
00:49:17,360 --> 00:49:20,559
saying needs to happen, first of all, so you can't

792
00:49:20,719 --> 00:49:25,239
use empiricism to prove what you just said to be true. Second,

793
00:49:25,960 --> 00:49:30,239
empiricism starts from the assumption of things that empiricism can't

794
00:49:30,320 --> 00:49:33,400
prove to exist. So you just have to assume all

795
00:49:33,440 --> 00:49:35,480
these things. You have to assume there's a truth. I mean,

796
00:49:35,760 --> 00:49:38,480
people take the morality approach and that's a fun argument.

797
00:49:38,599 --> 00:49:42,480
But really the truth itself as a concept, the fact

798
00:49:42,519 --> 00:49:46,039
that we all buy into it basically, you know blindly.

799
00:49:46,239 --> 00:49:49,400
Speaker 5: We don't buy blindly into material, material truth.

800
00:49:49,480 --> 00:49:55,039
Speaker 6: But the concept of truth itself seems to escape people

801
00:49:55,159 --> 00:49:58,480
that they're actually assuming it, that it's there, that there's

802
00:49:58,519 --> 00:50:03,119
something there to abide by or to pursue it to

803
00:50:03,239 --> 00:50:03,599
begin with.

804
00:50:03,840 --> 00:50:04,880
Speaker 5: And see, you.

805
00:50:06,800 --> 00:50:10,000
Speaker 6: You can't get you can't get some empirical truth without

806
00:50:10,280 --> 00:50:12,519
doing a completely opposite of what you just said we

807
00:50:12,639 --> 00:50:13,000
ought to do.

808
00:50:14,039 --> 00:50:15,719
Speaker 2: Yeah, if you go to the stepf on debate.

809
00:50:15,840 --> 00:50:18,360
Speaker 4: At the top my top comment, I list four or

810
00:50:18,440 --> 00:50:22,719
five of the kind of irre impossible dilemmas for anybody

811
00:50:22,760 --> 00:50:25,920
who's an empiricist. I list the myth of the given,

812
00:50:26,079 --> 00:50:28,000
which is the idea that if you're going to start

813
00:50:28,039 --> 00:50:32,000
with empiricism. Another problem with this view is that you

814
00:50:32,119 --> 00:50:36,760
don't actually know which sense data point to start with,

815
00:50:37,159 --> 00:50:39,199
as if the sense data point that you start with

816
00:50:39,400 --> 00:50:42,599
is somehow a brute fact. For example, let's say I'm going, oh,

817
00:50:42,719 --> 00:50:46,119
I'm going to start with my sense data facts about

818
00:50:46,679 --> 00:50:50,280
studying the lifespan of the earthworm in the lab to

819
00:50:50,440 --> 00:50:54,000
prove evolution. Well, the problem is that the sense data

820
00:50:54,079 --> 00:50:56,679
fact of any at any point when you go and

821
00:50:56,760 --> 00:51:00,000
study the earth worm or whatever you're studying. It's impossible

822
00:51:00,280 --> 00:51:03,239
to have that as a privileged what's called an epistemically

823
00:51:03,360 --> 00:51:06,400
privileged starting point outside of the rest of your beliefs.

824
00:51:07,000 --> 00:51:12,599
So you can't divorce that impression of an earthworm from

825
00:51:12,639 --> 00:51:15,360
the rest of your life and your experiences and your

826
00:51:16,239 --> 00:51:19,280
lexicon or web of beliefs. It's impossible to do that.

827
00:51:20,000 --> 00:51:24,119
And so inherent within the whole history of empiricism and

828
00:51:24,440 --> 00:51:27,039
the classical project as a whole, has always been this

829
00:51:27,119 --> 00:51:31,519
assumption that there's some neutral place that you could pick something,

830
00:51:31,960 --> 00:51:34,239
and that the object, the earthworm or whatever it is,

831
00:51:34,440 --> 00:51:38,239
is just sort of like by osmosis, you get the

832
00:51:38,280 --> 00:51:42,400
proper interpretation and meaning of the object as if it

833
00:51:42,519 --> 00:51:46,519
isn't part of your whole history of experiencing earthworms and

834
00:51:46,599 --> 00:51:49,280
everything that you learned as a as a kid in

835
00:51:49,360 --> 00:51:49,920
grade school.

836
00:51:50,320 --> 00:51:52,480
Speaker 2: You know, So it's part of a lexicon, and that's

837
00:51:52,519 --> 00:51:53,559
called the myth of the given.

838
00:51:53,639 --> 00:51:58,679
Speaker 4: This isn't one of the many really destructive problems to empiricism.

839
00:51:59,039 --> 00:52:02,920
Other problems would be the problem of induction or the

840
00:52:03,159 --> 00:52:07,280
immateriality of universals and abstract objects.

841
00:52:08,599 --> 00:52:09,159
Speaker 5: Nate said.

842
00:52:09,280 --> 00:52:12,239
Speaker 6: The guy who just gave you that previous objection, he said,

843
00:52:12,559 --> 00:52:14,920
but we use math and science to do that. I

844
00:52:15,000 --> 00:52:17,800
am assume he's saying, we use math and science to

845
00:52:18,400 --> 00:52:20,280
prove math and science exact.

846
00:52:20,320 --> 00:52:23,920
Speaker 4: What using something is not a justification for why you

847
00:52:24,039 --> 00:52:27,199
believe in the coherence and rationality of that thing.

848
00:52:28,119 --> 00:52:30,400
Speaker 2: So this person needs to go read.

849
00:52:30,280 --> 00:52:33,280
Speaker 4: David Hume and realize that nobody has answered or solved

850
00:52:33,280 --> 00:52:35,360
all the problems that David Hume has raised. In fact,

851
00:52:35,800 --> 00:52:41,800
the most prominent twentieth century Humian wvo Quine, the famous logician,

852
00:52:41,880 --> 00:52:45,519
he basically just reiterated David Hume and said that, look,

853
00:52:45,599 --> 00:52:49,519
we can't do epistemology anymore. It's just psychology. We're going

854
00:52:49,559 --> 00:52:52,920
to have to give up on justifying our beliefs. So

855
00:52:53,400 --> 00:52:58,159
the modern day descendants of the empiricist school don't even

856
00:52:58,239 --> 00:53:00,880
do this anymore. They say, there's no such is justifying

857
00:53:00,920 --> 00:53:02,360
your beliefs. It's not even possible.

858
00:53:02,880 --> 00:53:08,119
Speaker 2: And yet Hitchens, Dilla, Hunty, Dawkins, Harris, they're all still

859
00:53:08,159 --> 00:53:11,800
living and acting like it's the year seventeen hundred or something,

860
00:53:11,840 --> 00:53:15,639
and they're David Hume debating Bishop Butler or Thomas Aquinas.

861
00:53:16,360 --> 00:53:19,239
Speaker 6: Right, the guy says, so what do you sup propose

862
00:53:19,360 --> 00:53:21,360
for finding truth? Do you have an alternative way of

863
00:53:21,400 --> 00:53:22,000
finding truth?

864
00:53:22,760 --> 00:53:27,679
Speaker 4: Yes, Transcendental arguments are arguments concerned with higher order questions.

865
00:53:27,800 --> 00:53:30,360
Speaker 2: Right. So if you look at logic, there's different orders.

866
00:53:30,360 --> 00:53:34,800
There's lower order, higher order, second order logic. So propositions

867
00:53:35,039 --> 00:53:35,760
that would.

868
00:53:35,559 --> 00:53:38,679
Speaker 4: Be in the empirical domain, those are like lower order logic, right,

869
00:53:38,920 --> 00:53:42,679
Like things like X is y or X is not

870
00:53:42,840 --> 00:53:46,320
why or all X are y. Those are kinds of

871
00:53:46,880 --> 00:53:52,480
those are logical forms of simple sentences, simple predication.

872
00:53:53,280 --> 00:53:56,159
Speaker 2: And when we do logic, we have what's called higher

873
00:53:56,280 --> 00:53:58,760
order logic or a meta level, where we move it

874
00:53:58,800 --> 00:54:00,639
a step up and we say, well, what has to

875
00:54:00,719 --> 00:54:04,360
be the case for anything like that? And when we

876
00:54:04,440 --> 00:54:07,000
do that we move into transcendental argumentation.

877
00:54:07,159 --> 00:54:09,679
Speaker 4: That's where we start to look at the preconditions for

878
00:54:09,800 --> 00:54:15,719
the possibility of logic, knowledge, ethics, et cetera. So that's

879
00:54:15,800 --> 00:54:18,199
where I would if you want to quote starting point,

880
00:54:18,280 --> 00:54:19,679
I don't have any I don't have a problem with

881
00:54:19,760 --> 00:54:23,000
saying there is a starting point. Sure, but just because

882
00:54:23,039 --> 00:54:26,559
we start an argument somewhere doesn't mean that that necessarily

883
00:54:26,719 --> 00:54:30,800
is more true or more certain than anything else, because

884
00:54:31,480 --> 00:54:35,400
in philosophy there's a distinction called when you distinguish the

885
00:54:35,519 --> 00:54:38,920
logical order from the metaphysical order or the epistemic order.

886
00:54:39,239 --> 00:54:40,960
So in other words, I might I might make an

887
00:54:41,039 --> 00:54:44,920
argument for God on the basis of pencils. I could

888
00:54:44,960 --> 00:54:48,280
start my argument from predication about pencils and knowledge of pencils,

889
00:54:48,519 --> 00:54:50,480
But that doesn't mean that I think pencils are somehow

890
00:54:50,519 --> 00:54:52,800
ahead of God. Right, So there's a difference between the

891
00:54:52,960 --> 00:54:56,039
logical order and the metaphysical or epistemical order.

892
00:54:57,000 --> 00:55:01,039
Speaker 6: Right, And Nate, you're probably so someone who thinks you

893
00:55:01,119 --> 00:55:06,440
know science empiricism, that's the only way to obtain knowledge

894
00:55:06,519 --> 00:55:09,599
and truth, right. I mean, if someone makes that claim,

895
00:55:10,400 --> 00:55:13,480
the very common a common claim, more common that I

896
00:55:13,840 --> 00:55:18,960
than I expect, but it's still common. The simple way

897
00:55:19,039 --> 00:55:23,599
to critique that is that that claim all knowledge comes

898
00:55:23,639 --> 00:55:27,119
from science is not a claim you can use science

899
00:55:27,199 --> 00:55:30,159
to prove. So you know from there that not all

900
00:55:30,280 --> 00:55:33,519
knowledge comes from science. What other kinds of knowledge are

901
00:55:33,639 --> 00:55:36,880
there and why are they important? If you're if you're

902
00:55:37,000 --> 00:55:42,280
saying truth is important, then metaphysical truth is important. Coherency

903
00:55:42,480 --> 00:55:47,280
is as important as correspondence, and you can't even do

904
00:55:47,440 --> 00:55:53,159
correspondence work without coherency. And so if you're really interested

905
00:55:53,440 --> 00:55:55,840
in discovering truth and getting to the core of it,

906
00:55:56,239 --> 00:55:58,960
there's no other way to go than up the order.

907
00:56:00,159 --> 00:56:01,800
Otherwise you're just going to be a dill on you

908
00:56:01,880 --> 00:56:05,280
and be like, no, logic just is no the unity

909
00:56:05,400 --> 00:56:09,519
between the mind, immaterial absolutes, and the physical world is

910
00:56:09,679 --> 00:56:11,880
just happened, like it just is.

911
00:56:12,280 --> 00:56:15,280
Speaker 5: Guys that you have no there's no place to go.

912
00:56:15,480 --> 00:56:19,960
Speaker 6: You can't even continue philosophy, you can't ground anything else

913
00:56:20,039 --> 00:56:23,360
that comes your way in so far as knowledge. It's

914
00:56:23,480 --> 00:56:27,960
just always going to be trapped in materialism. Yeah, anything

915
00:56:28,039 --> 00:56:30,599
to add to that Jay before we wrap up.

916
00:56:31,199 --> 00:56:32,719
Speaker 2: No, no, No, I think that's a good point.

917
00:56:33,119 --> 00:56:34,559
Speaker 4: One thing I did want to touch on before we

918
00:56:34,679 --> 00:56:37,000
left was just that you'll notice, by the way that

919
00:56:37,119 --> 00:56:40,519
the argument you gave that's a variation on the argument

920
00:56:40,559 --> 00:56:42,480
from earlier about the parapaateetic axiom.

921
00:56:42,559 --> 00:56:44,559
Speaker 2: Right, what was the parapetic axiom? Nothing is in the

922
00:56:44,679 --> 00:56:46,760
end like that, that's not first in the senses or

923
00:56:46,800 --> 00:56:47,400
in sense data.

924
00:56:47,840 --> 00:56:51,119
Speaker 4: And you can just apply that to scientism because scientism

925
00:56:51,239 --> 00:56:55,360
is just naive empiricism, par excellence. Right, we only know

926
00:56:55,480 --> 00:56:59,360
what we can study and proved through scientific testing and whatnot,

927
00:56:59,800 --> 00:57:03,280
But that doesn't really prove anything, and it's operating on

928
00:57:03,320 --> 00:57:07,159
all these assumptions and presuppositions that cannot be empirically demonstrated.

929
00:57:07,519 --> 00:57:11,920
This is just a really simple, devastating critique of those systems.

930
00:57:12,440 --> 00:57:14,760
But people aren't used to thinking in a systemic way,

931
00:57:14,840 --> 00:57:16,280
and that's part of the reason that they that they

932
00:57:16,679 --> 00:57:19,800
are slow to grasp this, these beautiful slow boys that

933
00:57:19,960 --> 00:57:22,679
can't seem to grasp this. The last thing I would

934
00:57:22,679 --> 00:57:24,440
say is we did want to touch on natural law,

935
00:57:24,559 --> 00:57:27,280
and you know, I would make the point that you know,

936
00:57:27,320 --> 00:57:28,800
when we look at it, whether it's.

937
00:57:30,199 --> 00:57:33,400
Speaker 2: You know, Dawkins who conceives of natural.

938
00:57:33,239 --> 00:57:37,119
Speaker 4: Law as a purely sort of irrational, determined process of

939
00:57:37,480 --> 00:57:42,199
a giant machine called quote nature, or whether it's Thomas

940
00:57:42,239 --> 00:57:45,519
Aquinas who conceives of natural law to be this generic

941
00:57:45,719 --> 00:57:49,639
theism principle, like there's this this this generic supreme principle

942
00:57:50,199 --> 00:57:54,000
that's kind of governing all things, or whether it's Mark

943
00:57:54,039 --> 00:57:57,880
Pasio who somehow believes that natural law equates to you

944
00:57:58,039 --> 00:57:58,440
have to be.

945
00:57:58,559 --> 00:58:00,760
Speaker 2: Vegan or else you're a serial killer.

946
00:58:01,079 --> 00:58:03,519
Speaker 4: What we see is that this whole position of natural

947
00:58:03,599 --> 00:58:06,679
law was built on it supposedly being self evident and

948
00:58:06,880 --> 00:58:10,840
very clear and obvious. But it's not that obvious. It's

949
00:58:11,239 --> 00:58:14,480
all over the place. It's everybody, from theists to atheists,

950
00:58:14,559 --> 00:58:17,039
to all different kinds of religions.

951
00:58:16,639 --> 00:58:17,760
Speaker 2: To vegan cults.

952
00:58:18,519 --> 00:58:22,400
Speaker 4: So natural law is just based on presuppositions about what

953
00:58:22,559 --> 00:58:26,159
one thinks is nature. And in fact, there's one of

954
00:58:26,199 --> 00:58:29,199
the fallacies, it's called the naturalist fallacy, right where you

955
00:58:29,360 --> 00:58:32,880
just say, well, that's nature, that's natural, when this is

956
00:58:32,960 --> 00:58:36,760
a disputed, very ambiguous term in the history philosophy, just

957
00:58:36,880 --> 00:58:40,360
like terms like reality or existence or reason. These are

958
00:58:40,559 --> 00:58:45,320
very ambiguous, disputed terms. So to commit the naturalist fallacy,

959
00:58:45,400 --> 00:58:48,519
which is what the natural law argument is based on,

960
00:58:49,079 --> 00:58:51,239
is also pretty devastating to that position, because when I

961
00:58:51,320 --> 00:58:51,800
look out at.

962
00:58:51,840 --> 00:58:54,800
Speaker 2: Nature, I see predator and prey. So I don't see

963
00:58:54,800 --> 00:58:58,079
how that doesn't like vindicate some sort of radical Nietzscheanism.

964
00:58:58,880 --> 00:59:01,639
Speaker 6: Yeah, exactly, And under natural law, how could you say

965
00:59:01,760 --> 00:59:05,280
it's wrong for give them to just have to pick

966
00:59:05,320 --> 00:59:05,719
a pot a.

967
00:59:05,719 --> 00:59:08,760
Speaker 5: Little baby and it dip is his arms and fies arms,

968
00:59:08,800 --> 00:59:12,039
and it is and it is it's the bone marrow.

969
00:59:12,360 --> 00:59:16,199
Speaker 6: You couldn't actually say that's wrong under natural under that law,

970
00:59:16,239 --> 00:59:17,480
because it's seen in nature.

971
00:59:18,159 --> 00:59:20,079
Speaker 5: You could you could, you know, I mean you could.

972
00:59:20,599 --> 00:59:22,400
It's just law, it's just cause and effect.

973
00:59:22,519 --> 00:59:26,960
Speaker 6: It's just he's just following what he's valuing to stay alive,

974
00:59:27,400 --> 00:59:29,199
to feed his appetite.

975
00:59:29,639 --> 00:59:33,159
Speaker 5: And you can't really argue there's in other words, there's there's.

976
00:59:33,159 --> 00:59:38,280
Speaker 6: Zero basis to claim anything's immoral or wrong under under the.

977
00:59:39,400 --> 00:59:42,480
Speaker 2: Sen I've seen a dog, you know, humping a corpse,

978
00:59:42,639 --> 00:59:44,760
like a corpse of a dead animal. Is that Is

979
00:59:44,840 --> 00:59:48,440
that natural? It's like, okay, so natural?

980
00:59:50,920 --> 00:59:51,079
Speaker 10: Right.

981
00:59:51,400 --> 00:59:54,239
Speaker 6: The guy who said he's having trouble following, do you

982
00:59:54,320 --> 00:59:56,679
have an author that will plug the gaps he's missing

983
00:59:56,760 --> 01:00:00,280
in the art in the difference between you know what

984
01:00:00,400 --> 01:00:03,880
you just said, the assumptions of uh, you know of

985
01:00:04,679 --> 01:00:06,519
immaterial absolutes.

986
01:00:06,000 --> 01:00:08,679
Speaker 5: That are often not justified by empiricism.

987
01:00:09,480 --> 01:00:12,880
Speaker 6: Uh, there's someone you know, because I mean in including

988
01:00:12,920 --> 01:00:15,079
yourself obviously if there's video.

989
01:00:15,199 --> 01:00:18,840
Speaker 5: But the person who made the objection is now asking

990
01:00:19,360 --> 01:00:20,079
for further.

991
01:00:21,639 --> 01:00:23,079
Speaker 4: I mean they've been there have been a host of

992
01:00:23,159 --> 01:00:29,000
philosophers in the German continental tradition. Everybody from like Hegel

993
01:00:29,119 --> 01:00:34,360
Frega HUSSERL. There have been countless philosophers who've critiqued naturalism

994
01:00:34,440 --> 01:00:37,559
and psychologism to be just completely absurd. I mean, and

995
01:00:37,639 --> 01:00:39,760
the irony is that these philosophers come from all over

996
01:00:39,880 --> 01:00:42,239
the all over the spectrum in terms of their views,

997
01:00:42,800 --> 01:00:45,519
and they're just critiquing it on its own grounds. But

998
01:00:46,199 --> 01:00:48,519
I mean, really, the best philosopher to read again, it's

999
01:00:48,559 --> 01:00:51,679
just David Hume, because I mean, Hume is just a

1000
01:00:51,840 --> 01:00:55,400
consistent empiricist. He's he's the one who basically just says, look, guys,

1001
01:00:55,440 --> 01:00:57,880
if we're going to really be empiricists, then we have

1002
01:00:57,960 --> 01:01:00,639
to admit we can't justify all of these things that

1003
01:01:00,719 --> 01:01:01,880
we base empiricism on.

1004
01:01:03,239 --> 01:01:05,840
Speaker 5: Right, Yeah, read David Hume. Is there a specific book

1005
01:01:06,639 --> 01:01:07,239
or essay?

1006
01:01:08,440 --> 01:01:10,440
Speaker 2: Uh, what do they call the discourse? It's been ten

1007
01:01:10,519 --> 01:01:11,679
years since I read Hume's.

1008
01:01:12,280 --> 01:01:14,079
Speaker 5: Yeah, just look up cum and all that stuff.

1009
01:01:14,639 --> 01:01:17,320
Speaker 6: Read them, yeah, and then you'll you'll get an honest

1010
01:01:17,360 --> 01:01:19,639
approach because it's not from a theist or.

1011
01:01:21,280 --> 01:01:23,440
Speaker 2: Treat us of Treatise of Human Nature I think was

1012
01:01:23,599 --> 01:01:27,440
the one where he talks about this. Cool.

1013
01:01:27,559 --> 01:01:29,519
Speaker 5: All right, I got to wrap this up. Thank you,

1014
01:01:29,719 --> 01:01:32,519
Jay and everybody who showed up. Jay, you said you

1015
01:01:32,599 --> 01:01:36,480
might have been able to document this in audio or

1016
01:01:36,679 --> 01:01:37,800
half video half audio.

1017
01:01:38,079 --> 01:01:40,239
Speaker 2: You've been live streaming on my channel this whole time.

1018
01:01:41,000 --> 01:01:43,280
Speaker 6: Okay, great, cool, So that's up on We'll be up

1019
01:01:43,320 --> 01:01:46,480
on Jay's channel and I'll figure out how to share

1020
01:01:46,559 --> 01:01:47,039
that as well.

1021
01:01:47,360 --> 01:01:49,719
Speaker 2: Awesome, dude, thank you for having me on your live stream.

1022
01:01:49,920 --> 01:01:50,519
I appreciate it.

1023
01:01:50,559 --> 01:01:52,920
Speaker 4: And I'll have links to Jimbob for everybody in the chat.

1024
01:01:53,000 --> 01:01:54,440
You can go follow his Instagram.

1025
01:01:55,400 --> 01:01:57,440
Speaker 5: Awesome. Thanks, have a good day, you guys.

1026
01:02:02,320 --> 01:02:03,960
Speaker 2: All right, we've got a few super chats. That was

1027
01:02:04,039 --> 01:02:07,159
fun for those who were wondering what was going on.

1028
01:02:07,599 --> 01:02:11,519
Speaker 4: So Jimbob wanted to stream on his Instagram, so he

1029
01:02:11,639 --> 01:02:16,480
does a lot of IG streams, and he wanted that

1030
01:02:16,719 --> 01:02:19,559
to be recorded, and I don't think he nor I

1031
01:02:19,679 --> 01:02:23,239
have figured out like how to archive Instagram stuff, so.

1032
01:02:23,360 --> 01:02:27,599
Speaker 2: He we didn't want to waste a whole hour of chat.

1033
01:02:28,920 --> 01:02:38,079
Speaker 4: To the infinite gulog of Instagram deletion, so we did

1034
01:02:38,119 --> 01:02:41,320
it on my channel. But he also wanted to live

1035
01:02:41,360 --> 01:02:44,599
screen to do the instcause he has a big Instagram.

1036
01:02:44,639 --> 01:02:47,639
He's got I don't know, sixty seventy thousand Instagram followers,

1037
01:02:47,679 --> 01:02:50,360
So he wanted to utilize the audience. So that's why

1038
01:02:50,400 --> 01:02:52,719
we did it boomer style. If you're wondering it wasn't,

1039
01:02:54,119 --> 01:02:58,320
it wasn't because we don't know this tech. Where is

1040
01:02:58,599 --> 01:03:00,480
Primo edge health. I'm gonna call that dude out.

1041
01:03:01,320 --> 01:03:02,639
Speaker 5: You know, you know.

1042
01:03:04,320 --> 01:03:07,719
Speaker 11: Mark Passio when I was, when I was, when I

1043
01:03:07,840 --> 01:03:09,079
used to be a serial killer.

1044
01:03:09,920 --> 01:03:15,360
Speaker 4: Now see I keep falling into the verklemped jersey mom.

1045
01:03:17,199 --> 01:03:22,880
I'm mixing up pozsio with like carmelo soprano. So Tristan

1046
01:03:23,000 --> 01:03:28,639
was playing some hilarious passio clips and Tristan has I

1047
01:03:28,800 --> 01:03:33,440
have to say, Tristan has a awesome passio.

1048
01:03:35,199 --> 01:03:38,000
Speaker 2: Impression. I mean his was pretty based. I'm gonna have

1049
01:03:38,119 --> 01:03:44,679
to try to perfect mine because now I got to

1050
01:03:44,719 --> 01:03:48,840
compete with little aides. So let's go to that one

1051
01:03:48,920 --> 01:03:52,960
that Tristan was playing where Mark Pezzi was like screaming,

1052
01:03:53,440 --> 01:04:00,280
like sounding like a a rereadom Man, if.

1053
01:04:00,159 --> 01:04:03,039
Speaker 10: You haven't listened to all of the material, If you

1054
01:04:03,159 --> 01:04:11,400
haven't listened, think you do, but you don't ego tripping person,

1055
01:04:12,119 --> 01:04:18,280
you don't person. Okay, war here and let me tell

1056
01:04:18,320 --> 01:04:22,360
you something the best amount of information and let.

1057
01:04:22,360 --> 01:04:29,800
Speaker 11: Me tell you something. Tristan natural war can disprove all

1058
01:04:29,960 --> 01:04:32,519
of Christianity.

1059
01:04:33,519 --> 01:04:40,000
Speaker 9: I've covered here is absolutely nothing taken in what I know.

1060
01:04:40,400 --> 01:04:46,800
What I know what I've studied, my personal archive here

1061
01:04:46,880 --> 01:04:47,599
in this building.

1062
01:04:48,480 --> 01:04:49,559
Speaker 11: Christopher, you don't know.

1063
01:04:51,320 --> 01:04:58,679
Speaker 9: No, okay, I think you know any on your part.

1064
01:05:00,039 --> 01:05:03,519
Assume that you know it, all right, you don't know.

1065
01:05:03,880 --> 01:05:04,400
Speaker 2: You don't know.

1066
01:05:06,239 --> 01:05:09,320
Speaker 9: I can tell when somebody hasn't been through the material.

1067
01:05:09,719 --> 01:05:11,239
I can tell, right, I can.

1068
01:05:11,239 --> 01:05:14,159
Speaker 11: Tell right now that you don't know what you're talking about.

1069
01:05:14,920 --> 01:05:15,119
Speaker 5: Mark.

1070
01:05:15,679 --> 01:05:20,119
Speaker 10: Someone starts spouting something, spouting something talked about almost endlessly.

1071
01:05:20,559 --> 01:05:20,840
You know what.

1072
01:05:20,960 --> 01:05:25,360
Speaker 4: He reminds me of the SNL when remember the I'm

1073
01:05:25,440 --> 01:05:28,719
getting the klemped did coffee talk?

1074
01:05:29,440 --> 01:05:33,840
Speaker 2: The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman? Discuss

1075
01:05:33,880 --> 01:05:35,440
amongst yourselves.

1076
01:05:35,000 --> 01:05:42,239
Speaker 4: Remember that Saturn skit. That's what he sounds like. And man,

1077
01:05:42,480 --> 01:05:45,880
this dude's screams. I mean, I can when I hear

1078
01:05:46,119 --> 01:05:52,159
Jones screaming, it doesn't bother me. But Mark Pasios screaming,

1079
01:05:52,199 --> 01:05:57,599
it's like it's it's erky, you know what I mean.

1080
01:05:57,639 --> 01:06:00,559
It's like, dude, what are you screaming about?

1081
01:06:03,559 --> 01:06:12,000
Speaker 2: Animals? The great work and animals the Great work natural lore.

1082
01:06:13,960 --> 01:06:15,880
I want to say, first of all, to Tristan.

1083
01:06:17,039 --> 01:06:21,519
Speaker 11: Tristan, if you want to come on my talk show,

1084
01:06:22,360 --> 01:06:28,199
Coffee Talk, Coffee Talk with Mark Pasio, I'm gonna make

1085
01:06:28,280 --> 01:06:32,679
you crawl before me on your feet for all of

1086
01:06:32,760 --> 01:06:36,000
that serial killing that you've done, because I'm getting the

1087
01:06:36,039 --> 01:06:42,159
clymp right now, talk amongst yourself, Talk amongst yourself. And

1088
01:06:42,280 --> 01:06:44,559
I'm gonna hire Tony Soprano and the rest of the

1089
01:06:44,599 --> 01:06:49,920
boys the fly down the Ecuador and they're gonna exercise

1090
01:06:50,039 --> 01:06:59,519
some natural law on you, your freaking boomer child. You

1091
01:06:59,760 --> 01:07:11,760
are an unnatural law Tristan Primal Cringe Health Starring starring

1092
01:07:11,880 --> 01:07:17,440
Tristan Haggard, rri p Okay, you haven't been through the material.

1093
01:07:18,039 --> 01:07:22,519
Speaker 4: I'm gonna make you part of my great work. Oh

1094
01:07:22,599 --> 01:07:26,760
my gosh, doing Mark Pasio is destroying my voice.

1095
01:07:26,760 --> 01:07:27,079
Speaker 6: I'm glad.

1096
01:07:27,079 --> 01:07:30,159
Speaker 2: I gotta stop. I won't be able to do any

1097
01:07:30,599 --> 01:07:36,159
live streams if I continue doing it. I can't read

1098
01:07:36,880 --> 01:07:37,519
what this is.

1099
01:07:39,159 --> 01:07:42,239
Speaker 4: All right, We got a few super chats from today's

1100
01:07:42,519 --> 01:07:45,400
Bays show. By the way, uh, I gotta go do

1101
01:07:45,480 --> 01:07:48,719
another show. If you want to hop on over to

1102
01:07:49,000 --> 01:07:54,960
Matt Chats. Remember Matt Chats that Bay's young fellow who

1103
01:07:55,119 --> 01:07:57,480
is a fast boy. He's not a slow boy, he's

1104
01:07:57,519 --> 01:08:02,239
a based young fast boy, and he's doing a live

1105
01:08:02,320 --> 01:08:04,320
stream to talk about I don't know what. I don't

1106
01:08:04,320 --> 01:08:07,440
remember what our topics were. But you can go over

1107
01:08:07,519 --> 01:08:13,360
to Matt Chats directly after this and we will be

1108
01:08:13,440 --> 01:08:21,600
talking about stuff. So he's had Milo, he's had Goavon,

1109
01:08:21,880 --> 01:08:29,039
mckayas whoever Govon mckainas is and Milo. If you've heard

1110
01:08:29,039 --> 01:08:32,920
of these figures, you can hop on over there, and

1111
01:08:33,039 --> 01:08:36,319
in twenty minutes I will be joining mister Matt Chats.

1112
01:08:36,479 --> 01:08:40,039
But for the meantime, we will look at these super chats.

1113
01:08:45,199 --> 01:08:49,079
Philip Edenhorn for ten bucks, He says, I just want

1114
01:08:49,199 --> 01:08:52,680
to thank you for bringing me closer to orthodoxy, to Christ.

1115
01:08:52,920 --> 01:08:55,199
You have the best channel on YouTube. Wow, thank you.

1116
01:08:56,680 --> 01:08:57,880
Speaker 2: I don't know if I had the best channel.

1117
01:08:57,920 --> 01:09:00,520
Speaker 4: There's a lot of good ones out there, and I

1118
01:09:00,560 --> 01:09:02,600
always feel like mine is subpar, you know what I mean.

1119
01:09:02,640 --> 01:09:06,920
Speaker 2: I can never get Mike good grief, this freaking table, dude.

1120
01:09:06,960 --> 01:09:19,600
It's like it's like it sounds like Beyonce so crazy

1121
01:09:19,680 --> 01:09:20,000
and love.

1122
01:09:20,600 --> 01:09:22,039
Speaker 4: I did that last night. Nobody knew what I was

1123
01:09:22,079 --> 01:09:26,560
talking about. You never heard Crazy in Love? You ever

1124
01:09:26,640 --> 01:09:29,680
heard of jay Z and Beyonce? Ooh, you just got burnt?

1125
01:09:31,439 --> 01:09:32,000
Where you been?

1126
01:09:33,600 --> 01:09:36,319
Speaker 2: What were we talking about? Tristan? Trist you boy, Tristan.

1127
01:09:37,960 --> 01:09:39,199
Tristan's got a great channel.

1128
01:09:39,439 --> 01:09:39,840
Speaker 5: We know that.

1129
01:09:41,279 --> 01:09:43,640
Speaker 4: Shout out to Tristan. Everybody, go follow prim Edge Health.

1130
01:09:45,399 --> 01:09:47,239
A lot of great channels, a lot of great channels.

1131
01:09:47,520 --> 01:09:48,319
Speaker 2: But thank you for that.

1132
01:09:50,439 --> 01:09:53,880
Speaker 4: Beautiful fast boy comment. Philip Edenhorn is not a slow boy.

1133
01:09:53,920 --> 01:09:57,239
He is a beautiful fast boy. Family Planned five dollars.

1134
01:09:57,840 --> 01:10:02,960
Samuel Harris is the quasi intellectual for the masses, but

1135
01:10:03,239 --> 01:10:07,479
considerably less charming than Richard Tolkiens. Jim Bob is spot

1136
01:10:07,600 --> 01:10:12,039
on with the red pepper, red hot chili peppers being gibberish.

1137
01:10:12,079 --> 01:10:14,279
You keep up the content, guys.

1138
01:10:14,359 --> 01:10:19,319
Speaker 2: Under the bridge downtown, you will. I do some cunner

1139
01:10:19,359 --> 01:10:20,520
the bridge down town.

1140
01:10:21,720 --> 01:10:25,600
Speaker 11: I could not get enough under the bridge, un ton,

1141
01:10:26,800 --> 01:10:28,439
I through my lafe away.

1142
01:10:34,640 --> 01:10:42,439
Speaker 2: I was sperging, sperging out, not Primal Edge Health. So

1143
01:10:42,560 --> 01:10:44,039
we know that this is not Tristan.

1144
01:10:44,399 --> 01:10:50,760
Speaker 4: For ten dollars, says sick hat Jay digging that boomer esthetic, Well,

1145
01:10:50,800 --> 01:10:56,680
you digging that boomer assesthetic? Ooh, probably goes well with

1146
01:10:56,880 --> 01:10:59,560
your white New Balanced sneakers. Yes, I got those from

1147
01:10:59,600 --> 01:11:03,439
the Bill Factories free of charge. I get every month

1148
01:11:03,600 --> 01:11:08,239
I get Bill Gates. I'm in the New Balance Club,

1149
01:11:08,600 --> 01:11:11,199
so I get every month like the Dollar Shave Club,

1150
01:11:11,520 --> 01:11:14,560
I get every month New Balance delivered to my door.

1151
01:11:15,720 --> 01:11:22,239
But you wouldn't know about that down in Equador. Don't

1152
01:11:22,279 --> 01:11:23,800
let the Equad door hit your.

1153
01:11:23,760 --> 01:11:31,199
Speaker 2: Ass on the way out, Tristan oh Burn, did you

1154
01:11:31,239 --> 01:11:34,039
get a discount on your Consumer Report subscription when you

1155
01:11:34,079 --> 01:11:34,359
bought it?

1156
01:11:34,479 --> 01:11:34,520
Speaker 5: No?

1157
01:11:34,720 --> 01:11:37,800
Speaker 4: Like I said, it's part of the Bill Gates, New

1158
01:11:37,880 --> 01:11:40,760
Balance Club, Lone Star, twenty Bucks.

1159
01:11:41,359 --> 01:11:46,039
Speaker 2: Jay, what's your go to cutting meat on Carnivore? It's

1160
01:11:46,119 --> 01:11:50,920
always Prime Rebi or New York Strip.

1161
01:11:51,079 --> 01:11:53,159
Speaker 4: Basically, I just eat any steak I don't. I'm not

1162
01:11:53,399 --> 01:11:56,399
super picky about it. I like the fatty cuts. Now,

1163
01:11:57,520 --> 01:11:59,920
that's usually what happens, you know, Carnivore. After a while,

1164
01:12:00,000 --> 01:12:01,560
you get used to the fatty cuts, and then you

1165
01:12:01,680 --> 01:12:08,439
prefer that. That's pretty much every day. So, oh, Tristan,

1166
01:12:08,600 --> 01:12:11,479
he's still He's still here giving me shit.

1167
01:12:12,640 --> 01:12:18,039
Speaker 11: All right, Mark Passio Natural Lore, the red hot chili peppers.

1168
01:12:19,239 --> 01:12:22,760
You know, when I was trying to stop eating serial

1169
01:12:22,880 --> 01:12:26,560
killer diet. The first thing I did is I went

1170
01:12:26,680 --> 01:12:31,359
on an all chili pepper diet for six months, just

1171
01:12:31,520 --> 01:12:32,600
like the Banana Girl.

1172
01:12:33,239 --> 01:12:34,600
Speaker 2: I went six.

1173
01:12:34,479 --> 01:12:39,359
Speaker 11: Months living on hot chili peppers. That's why I'm so

1174
01:12:39,960 --> 01:12:47,279
fricking mad all the time. Literally chili pepper demonic furor

1175
01:12:49,000 --> 01:12:51,319
oozing out of my pores.

1176
01:12:55,079 --> 01:13:01,760
Speaker 2: How's that I can't do Mark Passio. He's like.

1177
01:13:03,920 --> 01:13:08,000
Speaker 4: He's an unnatural law for your vocal cords if you

1178
01:13:08,119 --> 01:13:12,640
do the Mark Pazio voice. So anyway, thank you lone

1179
01:13:12,640 --> 01:13:13,840
Star for that twenty dollars.

1180
01:13:14,640 --> 01:13:16,520
Speaker 2: That's my go to diet. All right, We're gonna head

1181
01:13:16,560 --> 01:13:20,319
on out of here, head over to the Matt Chats channel.

1182
01:13:21,560 --> 01:13:24,239
Speaker 4: If I have a voice left, Matt and I will

1183
01:13:24,279 --> 01:13:26,720
be discussing something. I don't know what, but going over

1184
01:13:26,760 --> 01:13:29,600
there to your boy. He's a beautiful fast boy. His

1185
01:13:29,760 --> 01:13:30,640
name's Matt Chats.

1186
01:13:31,279 --> 01:13:34,600
Speaker 2: But thank you everybody, and be sure and go ascribe

1187
01:13:34,800 --> 01:13:38,319
to Jimbob on Instagrams