1
00:00:00,120 --> 00:00:04,160
Speaker 1: Can you hear me? Oh okay, Well no I was

2
00:00:04,200 --> 00:00:08,199
I was just saying, yeah, sorry, yeah, no, I I

3
00:00:08,240 --> 00:00:12,480
initiated this conversation or this debate or whatever because you know,

4
00:00:12,519 --> 00:00:17,039
I saw you debate many moons ago against Liquid Zulu,

5
00:00:17,280 --> 00:00:19,519
and that felt like that debate didn't go anywhere because

6
00:00:19,879 --> 00:00:25,039
well because you you you left after frustrated for whatever reason.

7
00:00:25,800 --> 00:00:28,480
Speaker 2: Well, the reason I the reason I left, The reason

8
00:00:28,519 --> 00:00:31,000
I left. Yeah, So the reason I left was because

9
00:00:31,120 --> 00:00:33,719
I was asking questions about justification and I felt like

10
00:00:33,759 --> 00:00:35,399
he was never going to answer it. So that was

11
00:00:35,439 --> 00:00:37,200
the reason I left the Zulu debate.

12
00:00:39,719 --> 00:00:43,159
Speaker 1: I would say, we obviously had different interpretations, but nevertheless,

13
00:00:44,560 --> 00:00:48,079
so I yeah, So then I felt like there wasn't

14
00:00:48,079 --> 00:00:51,000
a good debate against the libertarian. And then I saw

15
00:00:51,079 --> 00:00:54,719
you put out a call against you know, looking for libertarians,

16
00:00:54,759 --> 00:00:57,280
and me and a bunch of other libertarians put her

17
00:00:57,359 --> 00:00:59,880
names forward, but also other people's names forward, like some

18
00:01:00,079 --> 00:01:03,479
here's like, hey, you do rematch Liquid with a better thing?

19
00:01:03,640 --> 00:01:06,400
You could me there there are plenty of real libertarians.

20
00:01:06,439 --> 00:01:09,519
And then you debated, Wait you're you're uh, we're only on.

21
00:01:09,480 --> 00:01:11,560
Speaker 2: Twitter, right, No, we're on you two.

22
00:01:12,840 --> 00:01:14,640
Speaker 1: Okay, all right, So I can't say the f slur,

23
00:01:15,400 --> 00:01:20,920
but you debated a prag f slur. Uh and and

24
00:01:20,959 --> 00:01:24,000
so yeah, and and so rightfully, I think anybody that's

25
00:01:24,040 --> 00:01:26,040
an actual libertarian was upset.

26
00:01:26,120 --> 00:01:28,359
Speaker 2: Because I don't know who you're talking about. First of all,

27
00:01:28,359 --> 00:01:29,680
can you just tell me who that who it is

28
00:01:29,719 --> 00:01:30,599
you're talking about.

29
00:01:32,400 --> 00:01:35,200
Speaker 1: I remember the person's name again, because they weren't. They

30
00:01:35,239 --> 00:01:37,560
weren't like a famous you mean.

31
00:01:37,439 --> 00:01:43,280
Speaker 2: Like the yarn Brooke from the Objectivist Institute that No.

32
00:01:43,359 --> 00:01:47,959
Speaker 1: Yarn Brook is not a libertarian. It's actively fights against libertarianism.

33
00:01:48,400 --> 00:01:52,400
I've interviewed you're on Brook and I think it's libertarianism.

34
00:01:52,439 --> 00:01:53,840
It's evil and must be defeated.

35
00:01:55,239 --> 00:01:57,319
Speaker 2: Uh what you mean?

36
00:01:57,879 --> 00:02:01,319
Speaker 1: Who I said? Y'are brook as an objectivist? You had

37
00:02:01,319 --> 00:02:04,640
debated I can't remember it's been If someone can dig up.

38
00:02:04,599 --> 00:02:09,919
Speaker 2: The Austin Peterson you you debated somebody that was very

39
00:02:09,919 --> 00:02:13,719
clearly left leaning, not not libertarian.

40
00:02:15,360 --> 00:02:21,599
Speaker 1: Lie. Again, I don't remember the exact name, but if

41
00:02:21,599 --> 00:02:25,759
you found the twee or whatever, then yeah. And so

42
00:02:25,840 --> 00:02:28,000
I was like, dude, what the fuck is this? Like?

43
00:02:28,080 --> 00:02:30,120
This is this is bullshit? Like you put out a

44
00:02:30,120 --> 00:02:32,120
call to libertarians and you bring on someone that's like

45
00:02:32,120 --> 00:02:34,639
a small l libertine brag.

46
00:02:35,360 --> 00:02:38,080
Speaker 2: Right, It's all right? Do you think it's a conspiracy

47
00:02:38,080 --> 00:02:40,840
that I don't want to engage with real libertarians? Got it?

48
00:02:41,919 --> 00:02:44,879
Speaker 1: I didn't say it was a conspiracy because I'm not

49
00:02:45,039 --> 00:02:49,479
saying anyone else was involved. I'm just saying it seemed

50
00:02:49,560 --> 00:02:52,439
like you were duck in a real conversation with libertarianism

51
00:02:52,439 --> 00:02:54,319
because you had had one and you ran from that.

52
00:02:54,280 --> 00:02:57,560
Speaker 2: One, and that was who I run from.

53
00:02:57,759 --> 00:02:58,080
Speaker 1: Liquid.

54
00:02:58,719 --> 00:03:01,719
Speaker 2: Okay, did he answer what I asked about justification?

55
00:03:03,479 --> 00:03:06,159
Speaker 1: I believe multiple times from multiple different perspectives, you were

56
00:03:06,240 --> 00:03:11,360
upset because he wouldn't answer your redirect because he wanted it,

57
00:03:11,400 --> 00:03:13,680
and then eventually Andrews so he answered it.

58
00:03:13,719 --> 00:03:16,000
Speaker 2: And what do you think you answer? What do you

59
00:03:16,000 --> 00:03:17,159
think justification is?

60
00:03:19,039 --> 00:03:21,080
Speaker 1: What do I think justifications? Do you mean that? Like

61
00:03:21,120 --> 00:03:24,120
from like the Hume like question, like what do you

62
00:03:24,159 --> 00:03:29,439
mean by well, like yeah, the human question what justifies this? Like?

63
00:03:29,560 --> 00:03:31,120
Or do you mean like what do you mean by

64
00:03:31,400 --> 00:03:37,520
what is an attempt to state that the statement of

65
00:03:37,719 --> 00:03:41,479
some sort is true? Was that a claim or a

66
00:03:41,479 --> 00:03:43,199
principle of so that has.

67
00:03:43,039 --> 00:03:45,520
Speaker 2: To do with truth value? But no, justification is much

68
00:03:45,560 --> 00:03:49,759
more than that. In epistemology.

69
00:03:49,800 --> 00:03:54,039
Speaker 1: Nevertheless, I don't think you just like I'm how is

70
00:03:54,080 --> 00:03:57,719
that a disagreement from the historical thing.

71
00:03:57,360 --> 00:04:00,479
Speaker 2: From I mean, what you're saying isn't even the historical idea,

72
00:04:00,599 --> 00:04:03,960
because even back to Plato, justification deals.

73
00:04:03,759 --> 00:04:06,520
Speaker 1: With justified has to do about whether or not you

74
00:04:06,599 --> 00:04:07,240
ran with If.

75
00:04:07,159 --> 00:04:11,280
Speaker 2: You asked about the historic context of justification and I'm

76
00:04:11,280 --> 00:04:14,240
giving you that context that back to Plato, it means

77
00:04:14,280 --> 00:04:15,479
more than what you described.

78
00:04:17,360 --> 00:04:22,160
Speaker 1: Okay, that that's irrelevant to whether or not my interpretation

79
00:04:22,920 --> 00:04:24,040
of events.

80
00:04:23,720 --> 00:04:27,639
Speaker 2: Is if he didn't give, if he didn't give, if

81
00:04:27,639 --> 00:04:31,519
he did not give epistemic justification, then his answers were

82
00:04:31,560 --> 00:04:33,120
irrelevant to what I'm asking for.

83
00:04:34,240 --> 00:04:37,519
Speaker 1: Okay, So what would you what would be your what

84
00:04:37,680 --> 00:04:38,639
is your bar for.

85
00:04:38,600 --> 00:04:43,399
Speaker 2: Episode just justified? True belief in the Getty air problem?

86
00:04:43,519 --> 00:04:47,199
Speaker 1: Okay? So again, what what what would he have to

87
00:04:47,279 --> 00:04:50,439
say about jurism for you to say that he gave

88
00:04:50,480 --> 00:04:53,600
you the the aught is the stinction that you why

89
00:04:53,639 --> 00:04:57,040
he didn't believe in the audience get right, like why

90
00:04:57,120 --> 00:05:00,839
he believed that contradictory statements can't be true in the

91
00:05:00,879 --> 00:05:04,199
negation of the contradictory statement is at the very least

92
00:05:04,199 --> 00:05:06,160
an ought not I don't know that I necessarily follow

93
00:05:06,240 --> 00:05:11,439
his ought. Thing there, but why is that reason for

94
00:05:11,560 --> 00:05:14,279
you to run away from the debate. That's why I'm asking, like,

95
00:05:14,360 --> 00:05:15,439
what is yours?

96
00:05:15,480 --> 00:05:19,639
Speaker 2: So, just like him, you're a debate. Just like him,

97
00:05:20,000 --> 00:05:24,639
you're both not understanding what epistemic justification is. Not according

98
00:05:24,680 --> 00:05:27,360
to me, but in the discipline of epistemology. This is

99
00:05:27,399 --> 00:05:31,439
not something I made up. It's what's expected in any

100
00:05:31,639 --> 00:05:35,040
public academic discourse on the topic of how do we

101
00:05:35,079 --> 00:05:38,439
have good reasons for our beliefs? So justification deals with that,

102
00:05:39,000 --> 00:05:42,920
what are the good reasons for our beliefs, what gives

103
00:05:42,959 --> 00:05:45,720
them explanatory power, and what makes them coherent in a

104
00:05:45,959 --> 00:05:48,920
worldview context. That's what justification is.

105
00:05:49,879 --> 00:05:54,279
Speaker 1: Okay, But again you're saying that he didn't meet your standard.

106
00:05:54,319 --> 00:05:55,399
But I know he.

107
00:05:55,319 --> 00:05:59,160
Speaker 2: Didn't meet these standards. These standards, they're not my standards.

108
00:05:59,160 --> 00:06:02,439
This is what would be debated in any epistemology class

109
00:06:02,800 --> 00:06:04,680
when you make assertions.

110
00:06:06,480 --> 00:06:08,680
Speaker 1: What the fuck are you talking about? I am I

111
00:06:08,720 --> 00:06:11,519
talking ran away from a debate and then you said, well,

112
00:06:11,519 --> 00:06:13,279
he didn't answer my question because he didn't.

113
00:06:13,480 --> 00:06:16,240
Speaker 2: No, I said he didn't justification The argument that he

114
00:06:16,319 --> 00:06:20,279
gave and again you don't even understand. You don't understand,

115
00:06:20,680 --> 00:06:24,519
and again you don't understand why that doesn't get to justification,

116
00:06:24,720 --> 00:06:26,240
which is the entire point of the whole time.

117
00:06:27,040 --> 00:06:29,839
Speaker 1: What is this code? Like, like, we're not even into

118
00:06:29,839 --> 00:06:32,360
the debate and you're already like it's a code, right,

119
00:06:32,480 --> 00:06:33,480
Actually he didn't.

120
00:06:33,720 --> 00:06:35,639
Speaker 2: You're the one that said that I was a pussy

121
00:06:35,839 --> 00:06:38,399
and that I wouldn't debate anyone except him. You were

122
00:06:38,959 --> 00:06:39,480
how you.

123
00:06:39,560 --> 00:06:41,560
Speaker 1: Ran from a debate and then when you've.

124
00:06:41,360 --> 00:06:44,959
Speaker 2: Din I left a debate that I laughed at because

125
00:06:44,959 --> 00:06:48,279
it didn't answer just like, just like in this situation,

126
00:06:48,439 --> 00:06:50,399
you can't answer, or even you don't even know the

127
00:06:50,439 --> 00:06:53,240
basics of the question, and you're just already spurging out.

128
00:06:53,439 --> 00:06:54,720
Do you want me to explain it to you in

129
00:06:54,800 --> 00:06:56,639
an ethical example?

130
00:06:58,040 --> 00:07:00,160
Speaker 1: Sure, give me an example of what you mean. But

131
00:07:00,319 --> 00:07:03,199
because I don't see how I'm failing in any means, well.

132
00:07:03,160 --> 00:07:06,959
Speaker 2: Let's let's go. Let's go to the topic of do

133
00:07:07,000 --> 00:07:08,360
you want to do tag or do you want do

134
00:07:08,360 --> 00:07:10,399
you want to do self evidence? Either one's fine with me.

135
00:07:12,279 --> 00:07:15,000
Speaker 1: I don't know what you mean by self evidence or

136
00:07:15,040 --> 00:07:15,519
what you're referring.

137
00:07:15,720 --> 00:07:18,120
Speaker 2: Well, most libertarians and most people who argue for your

138
00:07:18,160 --> 00:07:20,240
type of a position out of the Enlightenment believe that

139
00:07:20,279 --> 00:07:23,199
there are self evident truths or principles, things that are axiomatic,

140
00:07:23,399 --> 00:07:24,399
and I reject that.

141
00:07:25,360 --> 00:07:27,160
Speaker 1: You reject all axioms.

142
00:07:27,000 --> 00:07:28,399
Speaker 2: All self evidence claims.

143
00:07:30,360 --> 00:07:34,160
Speaker 1: Okay, so how okay, Okay, you'd say, okay, we can

144
00:07:34,199 --> 00:07:37,759
go in either one. That's fine. I don't. I'm fine

145
00:07:37,800 --> 00:07:42,680
going into again. The question, before we get too far

146
00:07:42,720 --> 00:07:47,680
away from it, is whether or not why I believe

147
00:07:47,759 --> 00:07:51,319
that this conversation or debate or whatever was important. Was

148
00:07:51,360 --> 00:07:53,439
that I felt like you had not been let's say,

149
00:07:53,600 --> 00:07:57,480
completed with a libertarian. And your claim is that it

150
00:07:57,720 --> 00:08:03,120
wasn't a simic justification And I don't see why. What standard?

151
00:08:03,399 --> 00:08:04,959
He didn't but he didn't meet.

152
00:08:05,439 --> 00:08:08,000
Speaker 2: So when you just assert things to be the case,

153
00:08:08,519 --> 00:08:11,879
you're forfeiting the very question because that means you're being

154
00:08:12,000 --> 00:08:15,360
arbitrary at hawk and not giving epistemic justification.

155
00:08:16,519 --> 00:08:19,079
Speaker 1: Well he didn't do that, Yes he did. He did.

156
00:08:19,439 --> 00:08:22,759
Speaker 2: You don't again, you don't understand what. You don't understand

157
00:08:22,759 --> 00:08:25,879
what justification. So you think that my standard is some

158
00:08:26,000 --> 00:08:28,600
subjective thing of what justification is. And I'm telling you

159
00:08:28,639 --> 00:08:31,879
that any epistemology class will hold you to the same

160
00:08:31,920 --> 00:08:35,039
standards that the laws of critical thinking, the laws of thought.

161
00:08:35,519 --> 00:08:36,720
Those are not my standards.

162
00:08:37,080 --> 00:08:37,440
Speaker 1: Words.

163
00:08:38,399 --> 00:08:42,039
Speaker 2: I'm just saying. So I'm saying common criminology in this

164
00:08:42,159 --> 00:08:44,080
domain and in this field. And you think I'm just

165
00:08:44,120 --> 00:08:46,840
saying words. That's why you guys are not fit for

166
00:08:46,879 --> 00:08:49,799
this debate. You're not even in the arena. You don't

167
00:08:49,840 --> 00:08:51,519
know the topics in the subject matter.

168
00:08:51,600 --> 00:08:53,159
Speaker 1: You're in not making artu.

169
00:08:53,320 --> 00:08:55,559
Speaker 2: No, I'm telling you what's happening in the debate. Let's

170
00:08:55,600 --> 00:08:57,600
get into the argument. So do you believe in the

171
00:08:57,639 --> 00:09:01,519
non aggression principle? You agree with the non aggression principle?

172
00:09:02,519 --> 00:09:04,440
Speaker 1: Yeah? Absolutely, of course I'm a libertarian.

173
00:09:04,919 --> 00:09:09,919
Speaker 2: Is that a normative claim?

174
00:09:09,960 --> 00:09:13,919
Speaker 1: Well, it's an axiom, right, So the normative claim.

175
00:09:14,879 --> 00:09:16,120
Speaker 2: That you shouldn't aggress not.

176
00:09:17,360 --> 00:09:19,279
Speaker 1: Yeah, one ought not a grip that would be the

177
00:09:19,279 --> 00:09:19,879
normative claim.

178
00:09:20,559 --> 00:09:22,639
Speaker 2: So it's prescriptive and not descriptive.

179
00:09:24,159 --> 00:09:28,240
Speaker 1: Yes, libertarianism is a prescriptive ideology of natural I thought you.

180
00:09:28,200 --> 00:09:30,799
Speaker 2: Were saying in the Gymbob debate that you don't believe

181
00:09:30,840 --> 00:09:33,240
in prescriptive claims. It's just descriptive.

182
00:09:33,720 --> 00:09:35,679
Speaker 1: Oh sorry, descriptive. I apologiz I mixed up.

183
00:09:37,000 --> 00:09:41,559
Speaker 2: Okay, precisely. So the non aggression principle is normative and

184
00:09:41,600 --> 00:09:46,840
therefore it's prescriptive, and therefore you're reputed. Can you repeat

185
00:09:46,840 --> 00:09:51,840
that argument, write you made a claim that we ought

186
00:09:51,919 --> 00:09:56,080
not aggress. That's what the non aggression principle states. That

187
00:09:56,240 --> 00:10:00,120
is a claim of ethical normativity, and that refutes or

188
00:10:00,279 --> 00:10:05,519
very position that libertarianism is is not prescriptive but merely descriptive.

189
00:10:06,600 --> 00:10:10,679
Speaker 1: No, I didn't make that claim. I specifically Referencedutulu's argument.

190
00:10:10,799 --> 00:10:14,679
Speaker 2: I'm talking about your debate, your gym Bob debate.

191
00:10:15,960 --> 00:10:18,240
Speaker 1: Pop interrupted. All right, we'll get it. We're in the

192
00:10:18,240 --> 00:10:20,399
actual debate, so we'll get into it. So no, that's

193
00:10:20,480 --> 00:10:23,879
not true, and I didn't say the same did not.

194
00:10:23,799 --> 00:10:27,720
Speaker 2: Occur in you just said what you just said that libertarianism.

195
00:10:28,120 --> 00:10:30,159
I'm not gonna let you lie and go past your

196
00:10:30,440 --> 00:10:31,039
you're lying.

197
00:10:30,919 --> 00:10:33,759
Speaker 1: You're I'm not interrupting your your interrupting.

198
00:10:33,840 --> 00:10:36,879
Speaker 2: So you think interrupting is lying. Those are two different things.

199
00:10:36,919 --> 00:10:38,600
Speaker 1: No, No, No, I think you're doing both. I think

200
00:10:38,639 --> 00:10:39,240
you're interrupting.

201
00:10:39,600 --> 00:10:41,879
Speaker 2: Is the non aggression principal prescriptive or descriptive?

202
00:10:43,120 --> 00:10:48,360
Speaker 1: The non aggression principle is a an accident, right, and.

203
00:10:48,360 --> 00:10:51,240
Speaker 2: It's is it an hot claim?

204
00:10:51,399 --> 00:10:54,440
Speaker 1: I just said right that the actual ought claim or

205
00:10:54,480 --> 00:10:57,600
the ought not claim would be the negation and in

206
00:10:57,720 --> 00:10:59,159
liquids argment from my.

207
00:10:59,360 --> 00:11:03,480
Speaker 2: I'm talking about nap. Why are you bringing Stop your

208
00:11:03,559 --> 00:11:05,879
possession your position, you.

209
00:11:05,960 --> 00:11:08,440
Speaker 1: Rail stop trying to be real, Stop acting like.

210
00:11:08,360 --> 00:11:09,559
Speaker 2: A top your position.

211
00:11:09,679 --> 00:11:11,320
Speaker 1: No big words, don't make you an adult.

212
00:11:11,399 --> 00:11:13,240
Speaker 2: Just hold on for he doesn't even know the basic

213
00:11:13,320 --> 00:11:14,320
terms of this whole debate.

214
00:11:15,240 --> 00:11:17,440
Speaker 1: Right, You're just going to keep interrupting, and you're just

215
00:11:17,480 --> 00:11:18,080
gonna keep.

216
00:11:17,919 --> 00:11:20,919
Speaker 2: Making because you're deflecting. Everyone can tell you did the

217
00:11:20,960 --> 00:11:23,919
same thing with Jim Bob. Sometimes something is the non

218
00:11:23,960 --> 00:11:25,960
aggression principal, prescriptive or description.

219
00:11:26,720 --> 00:11:29,000
Speaker 1: Will you shush for a second.

220
00:11:28,799 --> 00:11:29,919
Speaker 2: Can you answer the question?

221
00:11:30,840 --> 00:11:33,120
Speaker 1: I am trying to answer the question, and you're doing

222
00:11:33,159 --> 00:11:35,399
the same thing Jim Bob, which is saying.

223
00:11:35,919 --> 00:11:38,320
Speaker 2: We just don't let you yap and deflect. Can you

224
00:11:38,360 --> 00:11:39,879
answer the questions? Go answer?

225
00:11:40,840 --> 00:11:46,240
Speaker 1: Yeah? So again. So the not libertarianism is scrypt Okay,

226
00:11:46,639 --> 00:11:51,519
it is. Sorry, script, he's describing natural law here. Now,

227
00:11:51,919 --> 00:11:55,759
the non aggression principle is an axiom. Okay, it is not,

228
00:11:56,120 --> 00:11:57,720
and it is a descriptive.

229
00:11:58,399 --> 00:12:01,559
Speaker 2: No, it's not. You just refuted you. You said it's normative,

230
00:12:01,720 --> 00:12:05,799
so you're refuted yourself. I'm not what is normativity, interrupt

231
00:12:06,080 --> 00:12:07,120
What is normativity?

232
00:12:10,080 --> 00:12:13,440
Speaker 1: Normativity is is, as far as we're discussing in ethics,

233
00:12:13,679 --> 00:12:16,919
would be a claim that something, uh that that is

234
00:12:17,000 --> 00:12:17,879
universalizable and.

235
00:12:17,799 --> 00:12:20,200
Speaker 2: That we're all right, so you ought not aggress people.

236
00:12:21,679 --> 00:12:23,279
Speaker 1: Yes, you ought not aggress people?

237
00:12:23,440 --> 00:12:25,399
Speaker 2: Right, So your position controversy.

238
00:12:25,720 --> 00:12:28,759
Speaker 1: You will know it doesn't if you just go and

239
00:12:28,879 --> 00:12:31,840
act like an adult for a second. So it can't

240
00:12:31,960 --> 00:12:34,159
what I said, and you keep interrupting me.

241
00:12:34,159 --> 00:12:36,360
Speaker 2: So let me stop batching and make your argument.

242
00:12:37,159 --> 00:12:40,240
Speaker 1: Well stop, well, then shut up, act like an adult.

243
00:12:40,399 --> 00:12:42,120
Speaker 2: I'm waiting for you to answer. Quit whining.

244
00:12:42,759 --> 00:12:45,440
Speaker 1: No, you keep interrupting just because.

245
00:12:45,159 --> 00:12:47,120
Speaker 2: You're not answering. Your whining and deflecting.

246
00:12:47,279 --> 00:12:49,840
Speaker 1: I am trying to answer, and you will not stop

247
00:12:49,919 --> 00:12:52,600
interrupting and stop acting like a toddler, like, just listen

248
00:12:52,679 --> 00:12:55,000
for a second, Okay, I can. I can make an

249
00:12:55,080 --> 00:12:58,399
argument with them, and then you can do the same thing.

250
00:12:58,440 --> 00:13:03,200
Speaker 2: Will let me stop saying, let me and go I'm trying.

251
00:13:03,519 --> 00:13:07,360
You're whining and bitching about me interrupting you when you're

252
00:13:07,399 --> 00:13:08,759
being dishonest, and then.

253
00:13:08,759 --> 00:13:12,360
Speaker 1: You're conversation because you keep interrupting.

254
00:13:12,480 --> 00:13:13,720
Speaker 2: Go make the argument.

255
00:13:13,879 --> 00:13:19,600
Speaker 1: Okay, So again, what I was saying is that previously

256
00:13:19,639 --> 00:13:22,480
what I had said is that Liquid Zulu's argument one

257
00:13:22,519 --> 00:13:26,080
that I don't necessarily believe that.

258
00:13:26,679 --> 00:13:27,879
Speaker 2: What is your argument?

259
00:13:29,879 --> 00:13:30,879
Speaker 1: Why can you?

260
00:13:30,919 --> 00:13:33,759
Speaker 2: Are you so you're gonna keep talking about liquid Zulu

261
00:13:33,840 --> 00:13:37,759
when I've asked you specifically about your position? What is

262
00:13:37,799 --> 00:13:41,759
your argument for the tenth time? I am sure nobody's

263
00:13:41,799 --> 00:13:42,559
buying your bullshit.

264
00:13:43,600 --> 00:13:46,759
Speaker 1: There's no bullshit here. You won't shut up. Stop acting

265
00:13:46,759 --> 00:13:47,399
like a toddler.

266
00:13:47,440 --> 00:13:49,240
Speaker 2: You keep bringing up the things that are not relevant.

267
00:13:49,240 --> 00:13:50,600
Are you going to answer the topic?

268
00:13:51,639 --> 00:13:54,159
Speaker 1: I am attempting to do that, and you are not

269
00:13:54,240 --> 00:13:55,600
giving me the space to speak.

270
00:13:55,799 --> 00:14:00,559
Speaker 2: No, you go back to the thing that is irrelevant. Dude,

271
00:14:01,000 --> 00:14:03,480
I'm asking your position. I don't care what you think

272
00:14:03,519 --> 00:14:07,480
about Liquid Zulu. Can you answer your positions on this?

273
00:14:07,600 --> 00:14:09,080
I am I don't care about Liquid Zulu?

274
00:14:09,200 --> 00:14:10,759
Speaker 1: YEA, I absolutely can't.

275
00:14:10,840 --> 00:14:11,399
Speaker 2: What does?

276
00:14:11,519 --> 00:14:13,679
Speaker 1: And I'm bringing The only reason I am bringing up

277
00:14:13,679 --> 00:14:17,200
Liquid Zulu is because you called me a liar by

278
00:14:17,279 --> 00:14:19,840
saying that I was making the argument that Liquid Zulu

279
00:14:19,919 --> 00:14:20,279
was making.

280
00:14:20,360 --> 00:14:23,559
Speaker 2: No fact, No, I'm saying you're lying about being dishonest

281
00:14:23,600 --> 00:14:28,279
about that debate. That's the lie that I didn't. You

282
00:14:28,320 --> 00:14:30,639
said I rage quit when I laughed at the guy,

283
00:14:30,679 --> 00:14:34,639
And no rage rage quitting is when you would have rage.

284
00:14:34,679 --> 00:14:36,919
And I laughed at that guy because I thought his

285
00:14:37,039 --> 00:14:39,720
answers were so low tier that it wasn't worthing in debate.

286
00:14:40,000 --> 00:14:42,840
And you're in the exact same situation. You're actually worse.

287
00:14:43,360 --> 00:14:46,240
You're actually worse than liquid Zulu because you can't actually

288
00:14:46,279 --> 00:14:50,559
address the arguments. So is the NAP an art claim

289
00:14:50,679 --> 00:14:53,600
or not? If it has If it has normativity, it's

290
00:14:53,639 --> 00:14:57,960
an aut claim. You already said that you already lost.

291
00:14:58,080 --> 00:15:02,200
You're so we follow Then.

292
00:15:05,080 --> 00:15:08,360
Speaker 1: If one wants to claim or justify ethics, then one

293
00:15:08,639 --> 00:15:15,000
following if the attempt. If they if they do attempt

294
00:15:15,039 --> 00:15:19,240
to justify their ethical claims and their claims violate the

295
00:15:19,279 --> 00:15:22,879
non aggression principle, then it is contradictory. Therefore the negation

296
00:15:23,519 --> 00:15:24,159
is true.

297
00:15:25,399 --> 00:15:27,440
Speaker 2: Is the n a P an ought?

298
00:15:29,320 --> 00:15:31,200
Speaker 1: The NAP is not, in and of itself an.

299
00:15:31,159 --> 00:15:34,799
Speaker 2: Ought the non aggression principle, does it retain does it

300
00:15:34,799 --> 00:15:37,799
pertain to normativity and ethics that you ought not to

301
00:15:37,840 --> 00:15:38,559
aggress people.

302
00:15:41,919 --> 00:15:44,600
Speaker 1: It is an axiom that you hold if you is

303
00:15:44,639 --> 00:15:49,480
it an ethical axiom if your ethical system, is.

304
00:15:49,200 --> 00:15:51,200
Speaker 2: That an ethical axiom that you ought not?

305
00:15:52,240 --> 00:15:52,480
Speaker 1: Dude?

306
00:15:52,480 --> 00:15:55,000
Speaker 2: Are you You just lost and that's why you're spreading out.

307
00:15:55,720 --> 00:15:56,759
Speaker 1: I'm not spurging out.

308
00:15:56,840 --> 00:16:01,519
Speaker 2: You want is it an ethical? Is it an ethical answer?

309
00:16:02,639 --> 00:16:05,279
Speaker 1: I just told you that the non aggression principle in

310
00:16:05,440 --> 00:16:08,200
and of itself is not an ethical that's false.

311
00:16:08,440 --> 00:16:13,320
Speaker 2: That's false. No, that's false. Axiom, even axioms, even axioms

312
00:16:13,320 --> 00:16:16,799
depending No, that's false. Even axioms, depending upon what they

313
00:16:16,840 --> 00:16:19,679
are or what they are about, can be ethical. Right,

314
00:16:20,360 --> 00:16:23,440
That's the point that you're missing. So when the axiom itself,

315
00:16:24,279 --> 00:16:26,440
calling it an axiom does not remove it from the

316
00:16:26,440 --> 00:16:28,440
ethical domain. That's how stupid. You can have an ethic

317
00:16:28,559 --> 00:16:30,000
you can have an ethical axiom.

318
00:16:30,080 --> 00:16:32,720
Speaker 1: You would shut the fuck up and let someone.

319
00:16:32,480 --> 00:16:35,120
Speaker 2: Finish the sentence, But your sentences are dumb and they're

320
00:16:35,159 --> 00:16:40,519
bad arguments. It's an ethical claim. It deals with what

321
00:16:41,000 --> 00:16:43,960
the claim itself is, that you ought not aggress people.

322
00:16:44,000 --> 00:16:46,799
That's an ethical normative claim. It's in the domain of ethics,

323
00:16:46,799 --> 00:16:48,759
even if you call it an axiom. Did you know

324
00:16:48,799 --> 00:16:51,399
you can have an ethical axiom?

325
00:16:51,600 --> 00:16:54,120
Speaker 1: Yes, but you you you're not listening.

326
00:16:54,799 --> 00:16:57,320
Speaker 2: No, you're just not understanding the basic distinctions.

327
00:16:58,000 --> 00:17:01,559
Speaker 1: No, you're just interrupting people midscent, interrupting me.

328
00:17:01,759 --> 00:17:05,640
Speaker 2: It's no because your answers don't address it. Your answers

329
00:17:05,680 --> 00:17:07,559
don't address it. That's why I'm interrupting you.

330
00:17:08,680 --> 00:17:11,640
Speaker 1: I I cannot believe.

331
00:17:12,039 --> 00:17:14,759
Speaker 2: How do you see that the How do you see

332
00:17:14,799 --> 00:17:18,000
that the axiom is not ethical when it's about ethics?

333
00:17:20,480 --> 00:17:22,279
Speaker 1: Will you allow me to answer this question?

334
00:17:22,279 --> 00:17:25,519
Speaker 2: How do you say that the axiom is not this question?

335
00:17:25,559 --> 00:17:26,240
Speaker 1: Without interrupting?

336
00:17:26,839 --> 00:17:28,400
Speaker 2: Answer? That's what we're waiting for.

337
00:17:28,799 --> 00:17:31,720
Speaker 1: Will you? I'm answer you a question? Will you allow

338
00:17:31,759 --> 00:17:32,160
me to answer?

339
00:17:32,279 --> 00:17:32,640
Speaker 2: Answer?

340
00:17:32,799 --> 00:17:33,799
Speaker 1: Allow me to answer anything?

341
00:17:33,839 --> 00:17:35,160
Speaker 2: The entire chat is laughing.

342
00:17:36,079 --> 00:17:39,279
Speaker 1: You mean, yes, I get it that your checks.

343
00:17:39,440 --> 00:17:42,319
Speaker 2: We're waiting. We're waiting, will you?

344
00:17:42,680 --> 00:17:43,039
Speaker 1: Will you?

345
00:17:43,640 --> 00:17:45,599
Speaker 2: If you don't answer, I'm just going to move on

346
00:17:45,680 --> 00:17:48,960
because you can't. You can't handle an So.

347
00:17:49,039 --> 00:17:51,759
Speaker 1: Are you going to allow me or not to actually answer?

348
00:17:51,799 --> 00:17:52,160
Without you?

349
00:17:52,599 --> 00:17:54,359
Speaker 2: All you wanted to do is the flag. This is

350
00:17:54,359 --> 00:17:56,200
how weak you guys are. You guys are the worst

351
00:17:56,240 --> 00:17:58,559
that you're worse than Austin Peterson.

352
00:17:59,559 --> 00:18:01,599
Speaker 1: I don't know who alsin Peterson is all I know

353
00:18:01,680 --> 00:18:05,319
is should team up? Not You're not engaging in any

354
00:18:05,319 --> 00:18:06,440
way that I could have.

355
00:18:06,640 --> 00:18:10,359
Speaker 2: I'm not engaging again. Will you answer, if the axiom

356
00:18:10,480 --> 00:18:13,559
is moral in its nature and content, how is it

357
00:18:13,640 --> 00:18:15,119
not ethical or moral?

358
00:18:16,599 --> 00:18:18,200
Speaker 1: How is it not ethical or moral?

359
00:18:18,440 --> 00:18:20,839
Speaker 2: If the content of the axiom of the nap is

360
00:18:20,880 --> 00:18:24,599
ethics and morals, how is it not moral or ethical

361
00:18:24,640 --> 00:18:27,880
or normative just because it's an axiom?

362
00:18:28,000 --> 00:18:30,519
Speaker 1: Okay, I didn't say that just because it's an axiom.

363
00:18:30,799 --> 00:18:32,880
Speaker 2: Yes you did. You said it's an it's axiom, it's

364
00:18:32,920 --> 00:18:35,119
not moral. You said it's an action, it's not moral.

365
00:18:36,000 --> 00:18:38,480
Speaker 1: I did not say, Yes you did, it's not moral.

366
00:18:38,640 --> 00:18:41,039
Speaker 2: You said it doesn't do. What do you think morals

367
00:18:41,039 --> 00:18:45,400
deals with? That's normativity, moral, ethical claims or normative claims?

368
00:18:45,440 --> 00:18:47,440
Speaker 1: Sentence, Then you can't say that you've heard.

369
00:18:47,519 --> 00:18:49,319
Speaker 2: The whole chat knows you're a filibuster ring.

370
00:18:50,200 --> 00:18:53,559
Speaker 1: I'm not shillibus ring. You won't stop and just let

371
00:18:53,640 --> 00:18:54,720
me make an argument.

372
00:18:55,960 --> 00:18:59,599
Speaker 2: We're waiting. Will you allow me to The whole chat

373
00:18:59,720 --> 00:19:00,920
knows that you said that go.

374
00:19:01,759 --> 00:19:05,359
Speaker 1: Will you allow me to go? I'm not asking you

375
00:19:05,440 --> 00:19:08,880
to say go. I'm a simple question. Will you act

376
00:19:08,960 --> 00:19:10,359
like an adult from this point on.

377
00:19:10,960 --> 00:19:14,200
Speaker 2: If you make bad arguments argument, if you make bad arguments,

378
00:19:14,200 --> 00:19:15,319
that will interrupt you correct.

379
00:19:16,559 --> 00:19:19,319
Speaker 1: Okay, so you're so you're just going to constantly interrupt

380
00:19:19,319 --> 00:19:19,799
you talk.

381
00:19:19,920 --> 00:19:21,880
Speaker 2: So if you would like so, an you want to

382
00:19:21,920 --> 00:19:25,119
talk about anything but the assertions the axiom. The axiom

383
00:19:25,240 --> 00:19:27,559
is about ethics and normativity.

384
00:19:27,759 --> 00:19:29,400
Speaker 1: If you would like to have this debate, it is

385
00:19:29,559 --> 00:19:31,759
clear that you are. Are you going to apply in

386
00:19:32,079 --> 00:19:35,559
conversation without a monator, So find a moderator and schedule

387
00:19:35,599 --> 00:19:38,160
the debate, or run like you did from liquid Zula.

388
00:19:38,319 --> 00:19:40,519
Speaker 2: I'm not running because you guys are too low to

389
00:19:40,519 --> 00:19:43,119
here to know the topics and what the categories are

390
00:19:43,160 --> 00:19:43,920
to even debate.

391
00:19:44,119 --> 00:19:45,359
Speaker 1: You have, you have insults and.

392
00:19:45,359 --> 00:19:48,640
Speaker 2: Interrupt You didn't even know what justification was. You didn't

393
00:19:48,640 --> 00:19:50,640
know what justificad. You didn't even know what it was.

394
00:19:51,640 --> 00:19:53,799
You did, No, you didn't. You had to ask me

395
00:19:53,839 --> 00:19:55,799
what it is. You had to ask me what it is.

396
00:19:56,119 --> 00:19:57,160
Speaker 1: I asked what.

397
00:19:58,640 --> 00:20:00,440
Speaker 2: You had to ask me what justifica is.

398
00:20:00,920 --> 00:20:03,720
Speaker 1: I asked you what your standard was, because there.

399
00:20:03,640 --> 00:20:06,640
Speaker 2: Is not my personal standard. It's not a subjective topic.

400
00:20:07,400 --> 00:20:11,839
Speaker 1: You're you're in. You're very clearly not honestly.

401
00:20:11,880 --> 00:20:15,440
Speaker 2: Uh huh right, So the axiom about ethics and morals

402
00:20:15,599 --> 00:20:19,519
is an axiom? And how is it not an not claim?

403
00:20:19,559 --> 00:20:20,920
Speaker 1: There's no reason the NAP?

404
00:20:21,200 --> 00:20:22,960
Speaker 2: How is the NAP not an not claim?

405
00:20:23,240 --> 00:20:23,759
Speaker 1: Interrupting?

406
00:20:23,839 --> 00:20:26,519
Speaker 2: And then no, you're just bitching about interrupting to not answer.

407
00:20:26,920 --> 00:20:29,200
You're bitching about interrupting to not answer. How is the

408
00:20:29,279 --> 00:20:30,759
NAP not ethical or moral?

409
00:20:30,839 --> 00:20:34,319
Speaker 1: So again, so again, find a moderator and we'll do.

410
00:20:34,319 --> 00:20:35,359
Speaker 2: How is the NAP?

411
00:20:35,640 --> 00:20:35,720
Speaker 1: Go?

412
00:20:35,880 --> 00:20:38,079
Speaker 2: I will give you the time. How long do you

413
00:20:38,079 --> 00:20:42,279
want to answer? You want? You want like two minutes? Now,

414
00:20:42,319 --> 00:20:44,359
you're gonna let me do you want like two minutes?

415
00:20:44,440 --> 00:20:48,359
Speaker 1: Stop? Leave you find a moderator and we'll see.

416
00:20:48,400 --> 00:20:51,119
Speaker 2: So you're running because you're rage quitting, your rage quitting.

417
00:20:52,119 --> 00:20:54,519
Speaker 1: Well, no, no, no, I'm it's not raged because I can remember.

418
00:20:54,559 --> 00:20:56,640
I can just laugh and then it magically becomes not

419
00:20:56,720 --> 00:20:57,279
rage quitting.

420
00:20:57,440 --> 00:21:00,640
Speaker 2: Yeah, but yeah, but I I asked good questions about justification.

421
00:21:00,680 --> 00:21:02,640
What you didn't know what it was? And I'm asking

422
00:21:02,680 --> 00:21:05,519
you the same questions and you can't answer. Is the

423
00:21:05,640 --> 00:21:10,759
n a P an ethical normative claim? I have answered, no,

424
00:21:10,880 --> 00:21:14,400
you didn't answer. Answer No, you didn't What is the answer.

425
00:21:15,920 --> 00:21:18,440
So the entire the entire chat sees that this guy

426
00:21:18,559 --> 00:21:20,160
is running and he won't he won't debate.

427
00:21:21,440 --> 00:21:23,319
Speaker 1: What do you mean I won't debate? You won't You.

428
00:21:23,599 --> 00:21:26,799
Speaker 2: Won't answer the question, dude, If it's a simple question,

429
00:21:27,000 --> 00:21:30,759
why can't you just answer it? So you did the

430
00:21:30,759 --> 00:21:32,920
same thing to Jim Bob because you're literally one of

431
00:21:32,960 --> 00:21:35,079
the worst debaters I've ever debated. You're worse than teet

432
00:21:35,160 --> 00:21:39,039
up at least teed up answers you know again, at

433
00:21:39,119 --> 00:21:42,079
least ted up answering people. Do you want a two

434
00:21:42,119 --> 00:21:45,319
minute Do you want a two minute pause? This is

435
00:21:46,160 --> 00:21:48,119
Do you want a two minute pause? Is the n

436
00:21:48,119 --> 00:21:50,119
a P ethical? When it's about ethics?

437
00:21:50,200 --> 00:21:51,799
Speaker 1: Is it find a moderate?

438
00:21:52,039 --> 00:21:53,880
Speaker 2: Is the n a P ethical or moral?

439
00:21:54,200 --> 00:21:55,640
Speaker 1: Or not? Find a moderate?

440
00:21:55,720 --> 00:21:58,240
Speaker 2: So you can't answer, You literally cannot answer that.

441
00:21:58,920 --> 00:22:01,240
Speaker 1: You can't up and you won't allow what is the answer?

442
00:22:01,799 --> 00:22:03,599
You said you'll give me time to interrupted.

443
00:22:04,279 --> 00:22:06,759
Speaker 2: I'll give you two minutes. I will give you two

444
00:22:06,759 --> 00:22:07,680
minutes of silence.

445
00:22:08,440 --> 00:22:10,920
Speaker 1: I don't believe you. You're a fucking liar.

446
00:22:11,519 --> 00:22:13,680
Speaker 2: So there you go, look at it, look at your rage. Quit.

447
00:22:13,799 --> 00:22:15,640
I will give you two minutes of silence, and you

448
00:22:15,680 --> 00:22:19,000
still won't do it because you can't. You can't answer.

449
00:22:20,000 --> 00:22:21,440
Speaker 1: I can't find a moderator.

450
00:22:21,519 --> 00:22:23,440
Speaker 2: I don't have to find a moderator for you. You're not

451
00:22:23,559 --> 00:22:25,880
worth a fully moderated debate. You're too low tier to

452
00:22:25,920 --> 00:22:27,960
even know how low tier you are. You don't know

453
00:22:28,000 --> 00:22:30,680
what justification is. You didn't know what the term is.

454
00:22:31,000 --> 00:22:32,160
You asked me what it meants.

455
00:22:32,920 --> 00:22:34,799
Speaker 1: You interrupt you positive.

456
00:22:34,559 --> 00:22:37,279
Speaker 2: Because your questions and answers are dumb, dude.

457
00:22:37,079 --> 00:22:39,839
Speaker 1: That's why everything's dumb, except.

458
00:22:39,759 --> 00:22:42,440
Speaker 2: Is the nap ethical or moral.

459
00:22:44,440 --> 00:22:46,319
Speaker 1: There's no reason for me to answer any of your.

460
00:22:46,319 --> 00:22:49,960
Speaker 2: Questions because you can't because you have already lost the debate.

461
00:22:49,720 --> 00:22:53,400
Speaker 1: And you're incapable of having you already lost.

462
00:22:53,720 --> 00:22:55,759
Speaker 2: You rage, quit casting me out because you don't have

463
00:22:55,799 --> 00:22:58,200
an answer to I'll give you two minutes. I'll shut

464
00:22:58,240 --> 00:22:58,799
up for two minutes.

465
00:22:58,839 --> 00:22:59,519
Speaker 1: I don't, I don't.

466
00:23:00,000 --> 00:23:01,599
Speaker 2: Why would you not believe me when I can prove

467
00:23:01,640 --> 00:23:02,200
that I'll do it.

468
00:23:02,279 --> 00:23:06,119
Speaker 1: That's stupid, because you because of your past behavior.

469
00:23:06,759 --> 00:23:08,519
Speaker 2: All right, I'm gonna be quiet right now. I'm gonna

470
00:23:08,519 --> 00:23:10,079
be quiet for two minutes and you can answer.

471
00:23:11,519 --> 00:23:15,319
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, sure, go ahead. So now you're asking me

472
00:23:15,400 --> 00:23:17,359
a loaded question, which is you know, when did you

473
00:23:17,400 --> 00:23:21,079
stop being So I'm obviously not gonna answer. But in

474
00:23:21,119 --> 00:23:24,519
regards to what is the non aggression principle, non aggression

475
00:23:24,519 --> 00:23:27,720
principle is an ought claim, but it is also an axiom.

476
00:23:27,759 --> 00:23:30,759
One can choose to follow that axiom or not follow

477
00:23:30,759 --> 00:23:33,920
that acciom in their system of ethics. But if you

478
00:23:34,039 --> 00:23:37,079
have a an ethical system that you attempt to justify,

479
00:23:37,799 --> 00:23:40,920
then that is where that that is where you must

480
00:23:40,960 --> 00:23:43,759
follow or you must your system must be commiserate with

481
00:23:43,799 --> 00:23:47,839
a non aggression principle or it falls into contradiction. That is,

482
00:23:48,000 --> 00:23:50,240
that is the claim that I mean. So you are

483
00:23:50,359 --> 00:23:53,680
correct that the NAP is a moral claim that one

484
00:23:53,799 --> 00:23:57,759
ought not aggress upon other people. But where when we're

485
00:23:57,799 --> 00:24:00,480
talking about bridging kind of the is ought app from

486
00:24:00,519 --> 00:24:06,559
descriptive to prescriptive ideology, what I'm saying is that it

487
00:24:06,599 --> 00:24:11,319
is it is a means of negating ethical justifications when

488
00:24:11,440 --> 00:24:15,400
they go against a non aggression principle. So boom, Finally.

489
00:24:16,279 --> 00:24:17,880
Speaker 2: I don't even know what that is supposed to mean.

490
00:24:17,960 --> 00:24:20,000
Means of negating what is that supposed to mean?

491
00:24:21,839 --> 00:24:26,680
Speaker 1: Right? So, libertarianism as a whole is you know, the

492
00:24:26,759 --> 00:24:32,000
NAP is axiomatic to libertarianism, But things such as like argumentation, ethics,

493
00:24:32,279 --> 00:24:36,799
and other forms of logic showcase that, you know, people

494
00:24:36,839 --> 00:24:39,720
that attempt to justify the law that jungle or are

495
00:24:39,759 --> 00:24:43,799
no longer in ethics. Right, you're if you're saying some

496
00:24:43,880 --> 00:24:47,640
people can be slaves or some property can be taken,

497
00:24:48,720 --> 00:24:52,400
then your your moral claims aren't universalizable and they fall

498
00:24:52,440 --> 00:24:53,119
into contradiction.

499
00:24:54,960 --> 00:25:01,200
Speaker 2: Are moral claims universizable? Well for it to be a

500
00:25:01,480 --> 00:25:08,519
through moral claim, so there are universals. Yeah, okay, how

501
00:25:08,519 --> 00:25:10,519
do you justify universal claims?

502
00:25:13,039 --> 00:25:16,559
Speaker 1: How do I justify the existence of universal claims? Like,

503
00:25:16,640 --> 00:25:18,039
can you give me an example of one that may

504
00:25:18,119 --> 00:25:18,559
just make.

505
00:25:19,640 --> 00:25:21,599
Speaker 2: Uh yeah, one at faulty nap.

506
00:25:25,400 --> 00:25:29,599
Speaker 1: Well, so we would start with existence exists, then we

507
00:25:29,640 --> 00:25:30,880
would move into.

508
00:25:30,759 --> 00:25:33,319
Speaker 2: Formal existence exists. What is that supposed to mean?

509
00:25:34,720 --> 00:25:38,200
Speaker 1: I've seen an unavoidable accident? Right, So one cannot argue.

510
00:25:38,240 --> 00:25:41,039
Speaker 2: I mean it's a it's a it's a self referencing

511
00:25:41,400 --> 00:25:44,680
basically version of the identity principle. But how do you

512
00:25:44,720 --> 00:25:46,400
what does that mean? Existence exists?

513
00:25:47,559 --> 00:25:50,799
Speaker 1: That means that existence exists, right, it's it's it is

514
00:25:50,839 --> 00:25:54,160
self referencing in those situation, but one cannot argue against

515
00:25:54,160 --> 00:25:55,440
the concept of existence.

516
00:25:55,519 --> 00:26:00,400
Speaker 2: Actually you can, because you can't actually pretty easily because existence.

517
00:26:00,160 --> 00:26:03,079
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, I could say cats have wings existence.

518
00:26:03,200 --> 00:26:05,640
Speaker 2: No, no, no, I mean in a different point that existence

519
00:26:05,799 --> 00:26:09,519
is a very contested, ambiguous term in the history of philosophy.

520
00:26:09,559 --> 00:26:13,279
It's a metaphysical claim. So have you justified any metaphysics yet?

521
00:26:16,079 --> 00:26:19,319
Speaker 1: I would start where we're starting with existence, and existence

522
00:26:19,319 --> 00:26:20,680
specifies itself.

523
00:26:20,319 --> 00:26:24,319
Speaker 2: By the existence justifies itself. What is your proof for

524
00:26:24,400 --> 00:26:28,240
the proposition existence justifies itself?

525
00:26:28,359 --> 00:26:32,319
Speaker 1: It is you cannot make any form of logical argument

526
00:26:32,640 --> 00:26:37,839
in any about anything without justifying without existing, Like, it's

527
00:26:37,880 --> 00:26:38,960
impossible to make.

528
00:26:38,799 --> 00:26:41,160
Speaker 2: A claim that's not even actually true. I mean, Boolean

529
00:26:41,759 --> 00:26:44,839
approaches to logic have made it deontological, so you can

530
00:26:44,880 --> 00:26:47,559
actually make onto you can actually make logical arguments without

531
00:26:47,599 --> 00:26:50,240
ontological claims. That's not you're making.

532
00:26:50,000 --> 00:26:53,039
Speaker 1: An argument the moment that you make an argument, justify yours.

533
00:26:53,359 --> 00:26:56,200
Speaker 2: No, that's not even true. That's that's a that's not

534
00:26:56,279 --> 00:26:59,200
a justification, and that's a fallacious move. So it doesn't

535
00:26:59,279 --> 00:27:04,480
get it. It doesn't prove the metaphysical notion or the

536
00:27:04,559 --> 00:27:07,400
linguistic symbols that you use for the word existence are

537
00:27:07,440 --> 00:27:09,680
correct in other words, it assumes all kinds of things

538
00:27:10,240 --> 00:27:15,599
like language, predications, language and predication. Right, so if you

539
00:27:15,599 --> 00:27:17,799
had a if you'd had a philosophy language class, you

540
00:27:17,839 --> 00:27:24,799
would know that words like existence presuppose metaphysical structures like universals,

541
00:27:24,960 --> 00:27:30,359
like predicate, predication, like uh, grammar, and none of those

542
00:27:30,359 --> 00:27:31,799
things have been demonstrated yet.

543
00:27:33,240 --> 00:27:37,839
Speaker 1: Okay, this is it's not the concept of existence. But

544
00:27:37,920 --> 00:27:40,960
we're just not the definition of the word existence. So

545
00:27:41,039 --> 00:27:42,400
everything that you just said is silly.

546
00:27:43,160 --> 00:27:47,480
Speaker 2: No, everything I said is basic philosophy, no idiot. The

547
00:27:47,519 --> 00:27:50,079
fact that you think that there's self evident action.

548
00:27:50,440 --> 00:27:53,599
Speaker 1: Other people might like, what is the definition of the

549
00:27:53,640 --> 00:27:54,599
word What do you mean?

550
00:27:54,720 --> 00:27:57,519
Speaker 2: You don't think that the word existence is? So what

551
00:27:57,599 --> 00:27:58,240
is it referring to?

552
00:27:58,759 --> 00:27:59,559
Speaker 1: It is?

553
00:28:00,240 --> 00:28:03,359
Speaker 2: Is impossible to our concepts in this case? Are they

554
00:28:03,400 --> 00:28:04,880
based on linguistic philosophy?

555
00:28:06,200 --> 00:28:07,519
Speaker 1: Can you argue against existence?

556
00:28:07,759 --> 00:28:09,920
Speaker 2: It doesn't matter because I won't get you to justification

557
00:28:10,079 --> 00:28:14,720
even if I admit that. Even if I admit, it

558
00:28:14,720 --> 00:28:17,519
doesn't matter because it doesn't achieve justification. So even if

559
00:28:17,599 --> 00:28:21,319
I admit skepticism and play the role of a skeptic

560
00:28:21,880 --> 00:28:26,279
and counter your claims about existence being existence, it doesn't

561
00:28:26,319 --> 00:28:29,079
prove anything, it doesn't get you anywhere, because I'm pointing

562
00:28:29,119 --> 00:28:31,240
out that it's not self evident if it relies on

563
00:28:31,319 --> 00:28:34,759
things like predication, linguistic philosophy, and grammar, which you haven't

564
00:28:34,799 --> 00:28:36,279
proven yet, So it's not self evident.

565
00:28:37,559 --> 00:28:40,599
Speaker 1: It does not. The concept of existence is not does.

566
00:28:40,559 --> 00:28:46,720
Speaker 2: Not the proposition existence exists, The proposition is itself relying

567
00:28:46,759 --> 00:28:51,200
on Does it rely on the law of identity? No,

568
00:28:51,839 --> 00:28:55,359
yes it does. Existence exists, is relying on the law

569
00:28:55,400 --> 00:28:55,920
of identity.

570
00:28:56,920 --> 00:28:58,279
Speaker 1: No, it would come after exists?

571
00:28:58,279 --> 00:29:02,640
Speaker 2: Oh my gosh. No, to say existence exists relies on

572
00:29:02,720 --> 00:29:05,799
the law of identity, you're predicating identity, Yes.

573
00:29:05,759 --> 00:29:08,680
Speaker 1: Ariskitilian formal logic, ray like law of identity, law of

574
00:29:08,720 --> 00:29:12,440
excluded middle and law of non contradiction. Right, are going

575
00:29:12,519 --> 00:29:15,920
to be are going to be the foundation for making

576
00:29:16,039 --> 00:29:17,880
the argument that existencies.

577
00:29:18,279 --> 00:29:20,440
Speaker 2: I'm calling in to question the argument.

578
00:29:20,240 --> 00:29:22,720
Speaker 1: Language and all those other things. But what I'm saying

579
00:29:22,839 --> 00:29:27,400
is is that by one attempting in any language, in

580
00:29:27,480 --> 00:29:30,079
any in any means anytime a.

581
00:29:31,680 --> 00:29:33,559
Speaker 2: Moral I know what you're saying. It's called retortion.

582
00:29:33,960 --> 00:29:38,599
Speaker 1: Yeah, to make a claim that that that requires existence

583
00:29:38,680 --> 00:29:40,839
for them, that it presupposes existence.

584
00:29:40,839 --> 00:29:42,799
Speaker 2: I'm aware of that, but that still doesn't get you.

585
00:29:42,920 --> 00:29:46,160
I know that, I know it's called retortion. It's called retortion,

586
00:29:46,279 --> 00:29:48,839
and it doesn't get you to justification. That's the point,

587
00:29:50,920 --> 00:29:51,319
all right.

588
00:29:51,240 --> 00:29:54,640
Speaker 1: So how are you? How are you justifying existence because

589
00:29:54,960 --> 00:29:56,359
you clearly believe that existence.

590
00:29:56,559 --> 00:29:59,119
Speaker 2: Well, I believe in the transcendental argument for God's existence,

591
00:29:59,160 --> 00:30:01,680
and that's the ground for the logical categories which make

592
00:30:01,759 --> 00:30:05,240
it possible to predicate at all. So that's my worldview account.

593
00:30:05,759 --> 00:30:08,200
But even if I admit, even if I admit to you,

594
00:30:08,559 --> 00:30:11,160
let me explain the point as to why it doesn't

595
00:30:11,160 --> 00:30:13,880
get you to justification. Right, So this comes up after

596
00:30:14,079 --> 00:30:18,039
Enlightenment philosophers raised the question about justification in this domain

597
00:30:18,119 --> 00:30:21,119
when it comes to for example, Kant says, one reason

598
00:30:21,240 --> 00:30:24,640
that just retortion alone doesn't get you to justification is

599
00:30:24,680 --> 00:30:28,799
that we don't know that the seeming impossibility of not

600
00:30:28,920 --> 00:30:32,640
being able to argue or to use logic or to

601
00:30:32,799 --> 00:30:36,119
have conceptual frameworks itself means that it's the case in

602
00:30:36,160 --> 00:30:38,920
the external world. So even if you could demonstrate that

603
00:30:39,079 --> 00:30:43,599
I can't argue or have human conceptual predication or language

604
00:30:43,680 --> 00:30:48,279
without assuming something like the law of identity or existence exists,

605
00:30:48,359 --> 00:30:51,480
or whatever. It still doesn't get you to justification because

606
00:30:51,519 --> 00:30:55,240
that even if it doesn't seem possible, it would become

607
00:30:55,240 --> 00:30:57,640
a fallacy of incredulity that I don't see how else

608
00:30:57,680 --> 00:31:00,680
you could reason, still doesn't grain your justification, and all

609
00:31:00,720 --> 00:31:03,000
you need is one defeat or to prove I'm not.

610
00:31:03,000 --> 00:31:05,759
Speaker 1: Making the argument that it doesn't seem possible. I am

611
00:31:05,799 --> 00:31:07,839
making the argument that it is not possible.

612
00:31:07,920 --> 00:31:10,079
Speaker 2: So if you're saying it's not possible, you would have

613
00:31:10,119 --> 00:31:12,480
to demonstrate exist then I know that. So then you

614
00:31:12,519 --> 00:31:15,440
would have to then you have to answer const dilemmas

615
00:31:15,480 --> 00:31:17,200
of how you know there even is an external world

616
00:31:17,240 --> 00:31:18,640
to which these categories apply.

617
00:31:19,839 --> 00:31:22,599
Speaker 1: Okay, so constanlemma in how do I know that there

618
00:31:22,640 --> 00:31:23,880
is an external world.

619
00:31:24,519 --> 00:31:28,039
Speaker 2: To where the concepts apply? Like when he critiques the

620
00:31:28,759 --> 00:31:32,119
ontological argument, he's pointing out that there's nothing about the

621
00:31:32,200 --> 00:31:35,079
term existence that contains within it the notion of perfection.

622
00:31:35,480 --> 00:31:38,319
So just proving that something exists doesn't get these other

623
00:31:38,359 --> 00:31:41,720
metaphysical qualities like perfection. So likewise, in your case, the

624
00:31:41,759 --> 00:31:42,759
same problem applied.

625
00:31:42,920 --> 00:31:45,559
Speaker 1: What is what is? What is? If you can explain

626
00:31:45,599 --> 00:31:47,799
it for me? Batter like what is like perfection or

627
00:31:48,279 --> 00:31:51,480
human like conscritique.

628
00:31:51,559 --> 00:31:54,480
Speaker 2: What I'm saying that const critique of the ontological argument

629
00:31:54,880 --> 00:31:58,279
is applicable to the argument that you're making about the

630
00:31:58,440 --> 00:32:02,720
ontological claim that exist distance exists. I'm saying that you

631
00:32:02,799 --> 00:32:05,240
need all kinds of things to be the case for

632
00:32:05,319 --> 00:32:08,400
that to hold or to be true, and those other

633
00:32:08,480 --> 00:32:10,960
things have not been proven yet, and so it's not

634
00:32:11,039 --> 00:32:13,839
self evident or axiomatic. It rests on a bunch of

635
00:32:13,880 --> 00:32:17,680
other assumptions. All the things I've listed, like language.

636
00:32:18,039 --> 00:32:24,960
Speaker 1: Space, space, time, causality currently cons correct well.

637
00:32:25,039 --> 00:32:28,519
Speaker 2: When cont critiques the cogito, he says that it assumes

638
00:32:28,519 --> 00:32:32,200
time and space. But I'm not making that argument, okay,

639
00:32:32,599 --> 00:32:35,480
but it's similar to it, Okay, So.

640
00:32:35,400 --> 00:32:38,000
Speaker 1: Your argument is is that you need I'm having a

641
00:32:38,000 --> 00:32:40,880
hard time, my mom's gone real quick.

642
00:32:42,200 --> 00:32:45,559
Speaker 2: For you to say existence exists and to say that

643
00:32:45,559 --> 00:32:49,160
that's self evident and axiomatic, because if you denied it,

644
00:32:49,200 --> 00:32:51,599
you couldn't reason about the world, You couldn't reason at all.

645
00:32:52,039 --> 00:32:54,559
I agree with that principle and that point, but that

646
00:32:54,640 --> 00:32:57,839
does not get you to epistemic justification, because it doesn't

647
00:32:57,920 --> 00:33:00,920
answer Const's dilemma that even if the position is true,

648
00:33:01,240 --> 00:33:03,359
you don't know that it applies to an external world

649
00:33:03,599 --> 00:33:06,000
without assuming an external world. And I agree with you

650
00:33:06,039 --> 00:33:07,880
that we should assume an external world. But the point

651
00:33:07,920 --> 00:33:10,319
is that you haven't demonstrated an external world yet, and

652
00:33:10,359 --> 00:33:12,400
so the propositions are not axiomatic.

653
00:33:12,759 --> 00:33:15,359
Speaker 1: Even even if we were like in the matrix or something,

654
00:33:15,559 --> 00:33:19,559
there must be an external world for existence who exists.

655
00:33:19,359 --> 00:33:21,160
Speaker 2: But you haven't proven that yet, and so that's why

656
00:33:21,200 --> 00:33:24,039
this statement is not axiomatic. So rests on other beliefs.

657
00:33:25,759 --> 00:33:27,720
Speaker 1: Well, it would sweet, I mean, I could.

658
00:33:28,319 --> 00:33:32,240
Speaker 2: If something actiomatic or Okay, no, it could be false axiom.

659
00:33:32,279 --> 00:33:36,279
But like people self evident, axiomatic beliefs can't rest on

660
00:33:36,359 --> 00:33:39,200
another belief. That's the point, or else they're no longer.

661
00:33:39,720 --> 00:33:43,680
Speaker 1: Is what is the belief that existences.

662
00:33:44,880 --> 00:33:47,160
Speaker 2: In this case, that it applies to something in an

663
00:33:47,160 --> 00:33:50,480
external world to give it meaning and content To refute

664
00:33:50,480 --> 00:33:52,920
my point about why it doesn't get you to justification,

665
00:33:53,039 --> 00:33:53,440
you need it.

666
00:33:53,480 --> 00:33:56,519
Speaker 1: To apply the existence itself.

667
00:33:57,279 --> 00:34:00,359
Speaker 2: You haven't shown that. Now you've read it. You haven't

668
00:34:00,359 --> 00:34:01,240
demonstrated that.

669
00:34:02,039 --> 00:34:05,799
Speaker 1: No existence, it's a concept there is that there is

670
00:34:05,839 --> 00:34:07,599
a material world that exists.

671
00:34:07,759 --> 00:34:10,920
Speaker 2: Now now you're adding, Now you're moving the goalpost because

672
00:34:10,960 --> 00:34:13,280
there's nothing in the word exist. There's nothing in the

673
00:34:13,280 --> 00:34:15,840
word existence that necessarily tells you that it's about an

674
00:34:15,840 --> 00:34:21,119
external world. That's what you just you just added and altered. Well,

675
00:34:21,760 --> 00:34:24,679
you know you might be existence exists, and now you're

676
00:34:24,679 --> 00:34:27,719
modifying it to say that, well that means necessarily the

677
00:34:27,760 --> 00:34:29,840
external world. Well what is there in the word existence

678
00:34:29,880 --> 00:34:32,079
that necessarily means external world?

679
00:34:32,960 --> 00:34:35,239
Speaker 1: So I think you, I think you might actually be

680
00:34:35,360 --> 00:34:40,079
right on this only because existence is this is is objective.

681
00:34:40,239 --> 00:34:43,280
It's randy and right. So you wouldn't it just wouldn't

682
00:34:43,440 --> 00:34:46,039
deny or I don't think she would support any idea

683
00:34:46,039 --> 00:34:48,800
of like the spiritual or any other type of world

684
00:34:48,840 --> 00:34:52,920
other than the material world. I think it is probably implied,

685
00:34:53,000 --> 00:34:56,519
but maybe not explicitly stated. So like, yeah, that's fine.

686
00:34:56,519 --> 00:34:59,559
If you want to critique existence exists, you know, to

687
00:34:59,719 --> 00:35:01,119
like better.

688
00:35:01,480 --> 00:35:04,880
Speaker 2: Well, I'm just giving examples of why it modern. I'm

689
00:35:04,920 --> 00:35:07,840
just giving examples or why it doesn't get you to

690
00:35:08,159 --> 00:35:11,239
self evidence or justification in an epistemic sense.

691
00:35:12,800 --> 00:35:16,400
Speaker 1: It's like, I'm you're saying it doesn't because there could

692
00:35:16,480 --> 00:35:18,719
be a spiritual.

693
00:35:18,159 --> 00:35:20,800
Speaker 2: World that I never said any of that.

694
00:35:21,719 --> 00:35:24,480
Speaker 1: Well, you're saying that it doesn't imply the material.

695
00:35:24,599 --> 00:35:26,480
Speaker 2: All I need is one defeater, and I've given you

696
00:35:26,519 --> 00:35:28,679
a couple of defeaters. It doesn't mean that I have

697
00:35:28,760 --> 00:35:32,119
to all CON's positions. So no, I don't believe.

698
00:35:32,119 --> 00:35:36,400
Speaker 1: All I'm asking. Your argument is that existence exists, doesn't

699
00:35:36,440 --> 00:35:37,199
imply the world.

700
00:35:37,840 --> 00:35:39,800
Speaker 2: Correct, that's a content.

701
00:35:40,480 --> 00:35:43,400
Speaker 1: Right, and well, this content wasn't alive to critique existence

702
00:35:44,159 --> 00:35:45,559
from the from the checktive.

703
00:35:45,639 --> 00:35:49,440
Speaker 2: He made this critique in a similar way, critiquing the

704
00:35:49,440 --> 00:35:51,159
ontological argument. That's what I'm saying.

705
00:35:53,280 --> 00:35:57,159
Speaker 1: So when I make the argument existence and you're saying, well,

706
00:35:57,199 --> 00:36:00,840
this doesn't necessarily apply to the exist since we're in,

707
00:36:02,320 --> 00:36:04,840
I guess I don't have an argument for that. Because

708
00:36:04,880 --> 00:36:07,039
we exist in the existence we're in, there is no

709
00:36:07,199 --> 00:36:07,920
other existence.

710
00:36:08,039 --> 00:36:11,239
Speaker 2: That's just starting, that's just starting the thing question.

711
00:36:13,280 --> 00:36:16,199
Speaker 1: I'm actually genuinely trying to understand your critique here. It's

712
00:36:16,239 --> 00:36:17,639
not like I'm like, I'm.

713
00:36:17,519 --> 00:36:21,719
Speaker 2: Not, well, the point so to make it in this.

714
00:36:21,760 --> 00:36:24,639
Speaker 1: World right, we we we are acting, we're behaving, we're

715
00:36:24,639 --> 00:36:28,239
attempting to justify the point is that all systems.

716
00:36:28,320 --> 00:36:32,119
Speaker 2: The point is that the point is that all beliefs,

717
00:36:32,159 --> 00:36:36,159
all propositions, all statements, true statements, et cetera, and my

718
00:36:36,280 --> 00:36:39,639
view are theory laden. And so this has been a

719
00:36:39,679 --> 00:36:41,960
long walk to get to the point to try to

720
00:36:42,000 --> 00:36:46,159
prove or demonstrate that classical foundationalism, which is the epistemology

721
00:36:46,199 --> 00:36:50,719
that the Enlightenment relies upon in most libertarians, is philosophically

722
00:36:50,760 --> 00:36:53,800
and epistemically on faulty ground. And it doesn't make me

723
00:36:53,840 --> 00:36:57,079
a content simply because I'm using his argument that there's

724
00:36:57,119 --> 00:37:01,599
nothing necessarily about the word existence that entails a material

725
00:37:01,679 --> 00:37:04,280
external world. I could be an idealist, maybe I believe

726
00:37:04,320 --> 00:37:07,119
that all the world is a Platonic ideal, and for me,

727
00:37:07,159 --> 00:37:10,400
the word existence just means ideas like Plato, right, or

728
00:37:10,400 --> 00:37:11,440
that's the highest.

729
00:37:11,159 --> 00:37:13,679
Speaker 1: Now you're now you're changing the argument.

730
00:37:14,000 --> 00:37:16,480
Speaker 2: No, I'm giving you an example of why the word

731
00:37:16,559 --> 00:37:21,159
existence does not have self evident meaning to it. It's contingent.

732
00:37:21,360 --> 00:37:24,400
Let me finish, it's contingent upon a paradigm.

733
00:37:24,559 --> 00:37:27,719
Speaker 1: So if I just start changing the meaning of words,

734
00:37:27,960 --> 00:37:30,000
right and then saying that, well.

735
00:37:30,000 --> 00:37:31,840
Speaker 2: I mean you're the one that did that where you

736
00:37:32,000 --> 00:37:35,159
modified existence to mean a material external world, But there's

737
00:37:35,159 --> 00:37:37,000
nothing necessary about the word that tells you that.

738
00:37:40,320 --> 00:37:42,880
Speaker 1: The existence exists. As an argument is a justification.

739
00:37:43,800 --> 00:37:47,039
Speaker 2: It's not a justification because it's a restatement of a

740
00:37:47,760 --> 00:37:50,679
self evident in your view, truth doesn't tell you anything

741
00:37:50,719 --> 00:37:52,920
about the world. You're assuming it does. But how do

742
00:37:52,960 --> 00:37:53,440
you know it does?

743
00:37:53,800 --> 00:37:59,320
Speaker 1: Well, it tells you that any individual cannot The reason

744
00:37:59,360 --> 00:38:00,360
is an unavoid.

745
00:38:01,079 --> 00:38:03,559
Speaker 2: Is a But you keep calling it void of all,

746
00:38:03,639 --> 00:38:05,800
resting on the assumption that it actually applies to an

747
00:38:05,800 --> 00:38:07,320
external world, which you haven't demonstrated.

748
00:38:07,320 --> 00:38:09,639
Speaker 1: But you're not making argument like that's critique.

749
00:38:09,639 --> 00:38:11,920
Speaker 2: It's an internal critique. My argument is an internal critique.

750
00:38:12,840 --> 00:38:16,679
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you're saying that there is a way that

751
00:38:16,760 --> 00:38:22,079
you can defeat existence exists argumentation by redefining words and

752
00:38:22,199 --> 00:38:22,920
concepts of what.

753
00:38:23,239 --> 00:38:24,800
Speaker 2: No, I'm simply pointing out.

754
00:38:25,239 --> 00:38:29,159
Speaker 1: I'm clarifying what existence means in the objective is framework.

755
00:38:29,480 --> 00:38:31,320
And you're saying, ah, but what if.

756
00:38:31,199 --> 00:38:33,400
Speaker 2: I whether it's a non sequitor. There's nothing about the

757
00:38:33,440 --> 00:38:37,360
word existence argument that you attempt to it's a non

758
00:38:38,000 --> 00:38:39,519
in your system.

759
00:38:39,559 --> 00:38:42,719
Speaker 1: The moment that you attempt to argue that you know

760
00:38:42,840 --> 00:38:46,239
the world is actually just like this platonic forms or.

761
00:38:46,199 --> 00:38:48,119
Speaker 2: That like I didn't say that, I just gave an

762
00:38:48,119 --> 00:38:49,519
example that wasn't my point.

763
00:38:49,760 --> 00:38:53,199
Speaker 1: I'm using I'm using yous in like the universal right,

764
00:38:53,280 --> 00:38:56,480
the one that one you know, attempts to make any

765
00:38:56,519 --> 00:39:00,000
form of justification. They do so in the world that we.

766
00:39:01,559 --> 00:39:03,519
Speaker 2: I mean again, assuming that there is an external world,

767
00:39:03,559 --> 00:39:08,960
which you haven't demonstrated yet. So the whole point is

768
00:39:09,000 --> 00:39:12,079
not because I'm you don't understand what a defeater argument is.

769
00:39:12,119 --> 00:39:13,880
It doesn't mean that I'm a skeptical like human. It

770
00:39:13,880 --> 00:39:16,079
means that I'm using the argument from human Kant to

771
00:39:16,159 --> 00:39:20,199
prove why your assertion existence exists is not self evident.

772
00:39:20,280 --> 00:39:22,079
It rests on other things. That's the point.

773
00:39:22,480 --> 00:39:24,360
Speaker 1: But you haven't shown that it rests on other things.

774
00:39:24,800 --> 00:39:28,840
Speaker 2: I gave you multiple examples. For example, it rests on

775
00:39:28,840 --> 00:39:31,000
the assumption that it applies to the external world. Have

776
00:39:31,079 --> 00:39:34,199
you demonstrated that existence exists applies to the external world

777
00:39:34,239 --> 00:39:37,639
and not just a conceptual framework? When was that justification?

778
00:39:39,199 --> 00:39:45,400
Speaker 1: Again? Who who is? Who can exist? Right without exist?

779
00:39:45,519 --> 00:39:48,960
Speaker 2: So you're answering a question to answer the question I

780
00:39:49,000 --> 00:39:52,360
asked you. I'm trying to get you to understand maybe

781
00:39:53,039 --> 00:39:57,280
maybe that maybe maybe everything is an ideal existence and

782
00:39:57,360 --> 00:39:59,760
there is no external world. I don't believe that, but

783
00:39:59,760 --> 00:40:03,920
I'm saying that your assumptions are not justified, even within

784
00:40:04,000 --> 00:40:07,039
your own system. How do I know that the word existence,

785
00:40:07,320 --> 00:40:10,519
when it has a vast array of meanings throughout the

786
00:40:10,599 --> 00:40:15,840
history of philosophy, somehow necessarily means a material, physical, external world.

787
00:40:15,840 --> 00:40:19,599
There's nothing about the word existence that necessarily means that.

788
00:40:20,159 --> 00:40:21,679
And when I ask you how you know that or

789
00:40:21,679 --> 00:40:23,360
why we should think that, you say, it just has

790
00:40:23,440 --> 00:40:26,440
to be that way. Well, that's a fallacy of incredulity.

791
00:40:28,159 --> 00:40:33,599
Speaker 1: So if there are so the necessary condition for existence

792
00:40:33,920 --> 00:40:37,639
is well, hold on, let me not go there. So

793
00:40:38,800 --> 00:40:43,039
I'm you're you're saying that the argument isn't justified because

794
00:40:43,320 --> 00:40:47,480
one could make arguments outside of reality.

795
00:40:48,039 --> 00:40:50,119
Speaker 2: I'm saying that it's a non sequitor and that it

796
00:40:50,199 --> 00:40:53,920
rests on multiple other assumptions which have not been proven,

797
00:40:54,000 --> 00:40:55,360
and so it's not self evident.

798
00:40:58,599 --> 00:41:04,440
Speaker 1: So, but some existence is self evident. I don't understand.

799
00:41:04,599 --> 00:41:07,159
Speaker 2: I mean, again, you just keep starting the position that's

800
00:41:07,199 --> 00:41:09,639
a variation on the original position. And how do we

801
00:41:09,679 --> 00:41:10,599
know that? What does that mean?

802
00:41:11,800 --> 00:41:15,559
Speaker 1: Because if one because we because we obviously exist in

803
00:41:15,559 --> 00:41:16,239
some capacity.

804
00:41:16,400 --> 00:41:18,639
Speaker 2: So your answer is that it's just the case. So

805
00:41:18,960 --> 00:41:20,880
the answer is again, that is just the case. So

806
00:41:21,400 --> 00:41:23,280
I thoasical foundations and.

807
00:41:23,280 --> 00:41:25,079
Speaker 1: It's an oblable axiom. Right.

808
00:41:25,199 --> 00:41:27,400
Speaker 2: Again, you keep asserting that, but then you've admitted that

809
00:41:27,400 --> 00:41:29,800
it relies on other things like an external world, which

810
00:41:29,840 --> 00:41:34,159
that proposition, the proposition itself does not contain within it

811
00:41:34,320 --> 00:41:37,159
a necessary existence of an ex Okay.

812
00:41:37,199 --> 00:41:40,880
Speaker 1: So so I have put forward that existence exists, and

813
00:41:41,000 --> 00:41:43,920
you've heard that argument. Need it? You say it doesn't.

814
00:41:43,920 --> 00:41:48,360
It's it's not justified because it relies on other assumptions.

815
00:41:48,840 --> 00:41:52,039
What do do you have a counter argument for our existence?

816
00:41:52,519 --> 00:41:56,679
Speaker 2: Yes, and again it's the existence of God grounds and

817
00:41:56,880 --> 00:42:01,639
justifies the transcendental categories which make possible things like predicating

818
00:42:01,679 --> 00:42:04,599
about existence in the created realm. So there's not even

819
00:42:04,639 --> 00:42:10,440
one that God no, because in Christian theology, for example,

820
00:42:11,000 --> 00:42:14,280
there's two types of existences. There's uncreated and created, and

821
00:42:14,320 --> 00:42:16,360
so there's nothing about the word existence that tells me

822
00:42:16,440 --> 00:42:18,800
necessarily which one is even being referred to. Because I

823
00:42:18,840 --> 00:42:21,599
believe in my pl I believe in my paradigm that

824
00:42:21,599 --> 00:42:25,599
there's uncreated existence, who is God himself, and there's created existence,

825
00:42:25,599 --> 00:42:27,519
which is the created world. Those are two types of

826
00:42:27,559 --> 00:42:30,960
existing things. So there's nothing self evident about the word

827
00:42:31,000 --> 00:42:33,119
existence that necessarily tells you anything.

828
00:42:33,719 --> 00:42:36,000
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, what is an uncreated existence?

829
00:42:36,360 --> 00:42:37,159
Speaker 2: God himself?

830
00:42:38,320 --> 00:42:40,079
Speaker 1: Yeah? Okay, well that's like, yeah, but what do you

831
00:42:40,119 --> 00:42:43,280
mean by like, what is an uncreated system?

832
00:42:43,440 --> 00:42:45,519
Speaker 2: It means that he is timeless. It means that he

833
00:42:45,599 --> 00:42:48,880
is a noncomposite, He is outside of time and space.

834
00:42:49,280 --> 00:42:52,159
He is transcendent, he is imminent, he is perfect all

835
00:42:52,199 --> 00:42:56,320
the attributes that we've ascribed to God in our system.

836
00:42:56,400 --> 00:42:58,880
Speaker 1: So when you say he's timeless, what is what is?

837
00:42:58,960 --> 00:43:01,719
What do you mean by that? It's a doesn't exist

838
00:43:01,719 --> 00:43:02,840
in reality.

839
00:43:02,920 --> 00:43:06,440
Speaker 2: No, outside of time, meaning that he's eternal. He created time,

840
00:43:06,519 --> 00:43:07,599
he's outside of time.

841
00:43:08,599 --> 00:43:11,440
Speaker 1: So like or like would a vampire be an ungreated

842
00:43:11,440 --> 00:43:12,360
existence if he's a.

843
00:43:12,400 --> 00:43:16,440
Speaker 2: Mortal anything mortal is created by definition?

844
00:43:17,679 --> 00:43:19,440
Speaker 1: Okay, so real.

845
00:43:21,320 --> 00:43:23,320
Speaker 2: Yeah, But I'm just pointing out that the word existence

846
00:43:23,360 --> 00:43:27,400
doesn't necessarily tell you anything self evident without a paradigm

847
00:43:27,480 --> 00:43:30,719
to inform the word and its meaning. Even language itself.

848
00:43:30,800 --> 00:43:33,440
Is why I mentioned earlier to you linguistic philosophy. It's

849
00:43:33,480 --> 00:43:37,199
a holistic structure. It's an epistemic wholism, which means that

850
00:43:37,480 --> 00:43:40,800
there's no words that function in an independent way. You

851
00:43:40,800 --> 00:43:43,119
could read Wickenstein on this because he talks about how

852
00:43:44,039 --> 00:43:48,679
words in terms are part of linguistic structures and systems

853
00:43:48,800 --> 00:43:51,199
because they all relate to one another. So there's no

854
00:43:51,239 --> 00:43:56,360
such thing as a word called existence or ontos or

855
00:43:56,719 --> 00:44:01,559
fusis or being or whatever that somehow has a self evident,

856
00:44:01,800 --> 00:44:06,159
necessary meaning apart from the entire paradigm or worldview that

857
00:44:06,199 --> 00:44:09,079
you have that informs it. That's why I was mentioning.

858
00:44:09,119 --> 00:44:13,039
Speaker 1: So, yeah, what like, So it is true that words,

859
00:44:13,400 --> 00:44:16,000
you know, have a have a shared meaning that we

860
00:44:16,079 --> 00:44:19,480
kind of assume people get like, you know, and we

861
00:44:19,519 --> 00:44:22,639
see language change constantly where a word has as and

862
00:44:22,639 --> 00:44:25,400
then over time the meaning of the word kind of

863
00:44:25,440 --> 00:44:28,280
changes from the cultural context, because it's because it's just

864
00:44:28,320 --> 00:44:30,599
a function, right, It's a tool. A word is just

865
00:44:30,639 --> 00:44:35,039
a tool to describe a concept. And you know, communication

866
00:44:35,199 --> 00:44:39,199
is often, more often than not imperfect. Right. But but

867
00:44:39,239 --> 00:44:43,400
what I'm trying to understand is, you know, I agree

868
00:44:43,440 --> 00:44:46,039
that that is a that is a problem in argumentation.

869
00:44:46,760 --> 00:44:49,559
You have to kind of assume that the reader understands

870
00:44:49,599 --> 00:44:52,719
the meaning of the word that has but that isn't

871
00:44:52,719 --> 00:44:57,639
always perfect. But how do you justify how do how

872
00:44:57,639 --> 00:45:01,880
does your position differ in existence? And so though far

873
00:45:01,920 --> 00:45:06,599
that it justifies, Like saying God is uncreated is like

874
00:45:06,599 --> 00:45:09,440
like you're just saying it's it's outside of the rules,

875
00:45:09,800 --> 00:45:10,960
and it exists and it doesn't.

876
00:45:11,239 --> 00:45:13,679
Speaker 2: Well, now outside of your rules? So and are I

877
00:45:13,719 --> 00:45:16,400
have a different paradigm. So I'm thinking and arguing in

878
00:45:16,480 --> 00:45:18,920
terms of paradigms or world views as a whole. The

879
00:45:18,960 --> 00:45:22,320
transcendental argument is a comparison of to world views or paradigms.

880
00:45:22,400 --> 00:45:25,960
So it involves the entire system because the Christian theistic

881
00:45:26,000 --> 00:45:29,519
system conditions what I mean by words like existence or

882
00:45:29,679 --> 00:45:33,280
time or creation or whatever, all of those things are.

883
00:45:34,320 --> 00:45:36,559
Speaker 1: How does that? How does how does the Christian How

884
00:45:36,599 --> 00:45:38,679
does Christian ethics? Like? All these things are made up

885
00:45:38,679 --> 00:45:41,880
of words? Right, So it's the same problem that that

886
00:45:42,000 --> 00:45:43,280
would occur in any Well.

887
00:45:43,320 --> 00:45:46,400
Speaker 2: I don't have the belief that words are in language

888
00:45:46,440 --> 00:45:49,480
are all purely social constructs. I believe that what the

889
00:45:49,519 --> 00:45:55,440
words refer to is conceptual and universal and objective and

890
00:45:55,480 --> 00:45:56,360
not subjective.

891
00:45:57,119 --> 00:46:01,400
Speaker 1: Yeah, were, But the words themselves are just undicating concepts

892
00:46:01,480 --> 00:46:02,760
or ideas.

893
00:46:02,519 --> 00:46:04,679
Speaker 2: Right, But that's why the words can be flexible. You

894
00:46:04,679 --> 00:46:08,119
can have Roman numeral VIII or the Arabic number seven

895
00:46:08,159 --> 00:46:12,760
that referred to the same abstract conceptual entity. But that

896
00:46:12,800 --> 00:46:13,440
has nothing to do.

897
00:46:13,440 --> 00:46:17,280
Speaker 1: It doesn't get us any justification of like how you

898
00:46:17,480 --> 00:46:21,000
solve the problem as you see that justification can't be

899
00:46:21,119 --> 00:46:25,239
met on anything unless we posit a god. But I

900
00:46:25,239 --> 00:46:26,119
don't understand how.

901
00:46:26,079 --> 00:46:30,400
Speaker 2: That does well, because the tag argument argues that any predication,

902
00:46:30,639 --> 00:46:35,320
any proposition, relies on the structures that are necessary for

903
00:46:35,400 --> 00:46:38,719
the possibility of language and predication. So, in other words,

904
00:46:38,760 --> 00:46:42,400
to say a sentence like the tree is red, a

905
00:46:42,440 --> 00:46:45,519
shout me the tree is green rests on a certain

906
00:46:45,559 --> 00:46:49,679
type of world where there are there is regularity in nature.

907
00:46:49,760 --> 00:46:55,199
It rests on the possibility of having knowledge universals, linguistic structure, grammar,

908
00:46:55,360 --> 00:46:58,280
all of those things are presupposed in the action of

909
00:46:58,360 --> 00:46:59,559
making a proposition.

910
00:47:00,800 --> 00:47:03,679
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, but that would be true for objectives philosophy

911
00:47:03,719 --> 00:47:04,119
as well.

912
00:47:04,480 --> 00:47:07,960
Speaker 2: Right, But the difference between the difference between you and

913
00:47:08,000 --> 00:47:10,760
I is how we give an account for those things,

914
00:47:10,880 --> 00:47:13,320
And that your accounts are not good accounts is what

915
00:47:13,360 --> 00:47:13,960
I've been arguing.

916
00:47:14,719 --> 00:47:17,239
Speaker 1: So what is your good account that solves this problem?

917
00:47:17,280 --> 00:47:22,519
Speaker 2: And well, there are no self evident proof positions or

918
00:47:22,519 --> 00:47:25,679
statements because they're embedded within a network or a web

919
00:47:25,719 --> 00:47:28,559
of beliefs that we all have. And thus, if my

920
00:47:28,679 --> 00:47:31,840
system or my view is holistic, if I'm an epistemic holist,

921
00:47:32,360 --> 00:47:35,519
then I have to give an account for the system

922
00:47:35,559 --> 00:47:39,559
as a whole and how those structures or how those

923
00:47:39,599 --> 00:47:47,599
preconditions are the case. So if I need the possibility, predication, universals, mathematics, logic, mathematics, logic,

924
00:47:48,119 --> 00:47:51,320
all of these categories being the true, the good, et cetera,

925
00:47:51,440 --> 00:47:53,800
to have knowledge at all, then I need to give

926
00:47:53,840 --> 00:47:58,159
some account for those things those categories that my statements

927
00:47:58,199 --> 00:48:00,760
are relying on. In the Transcendental are and argues that

928
00:48:01,199 --> 00:48:04,000
only God is the type of being who could give

929
00:48:04,039 --> 00:48:05,880
a justification or account for those things.

930
00:48:07,840 --> 00:48:10,440
Speaker 1: So you're just saying only God can do this, So

931
00:48:10,480 --> 00:48:12,519
therefore God is every saying.

932
00:48:12,559 --> 00:48:15,320
Speaker 2: I'm saying that. The argument is that the only being

933
00:48:15,360 --> 00:48:18,440
who can give given a grounding for those things is

934
00:48:18,480 --> 00:48:20,440
the being revealed in the Christian worldview.

935
00:48:22,880 --> 00:48:25,760
Speaker 1: How is it so? But but God doesn't exist in reality.

936
00:48:26,599 --> 00:48:27,760
Speaker 2: I don't even know what does that mean?

937
00:48:28,000 --> 00:48:34,920
Speaker 1: He said he's an uncreated existence in space. How is

938
00:48:34,960 --> 00:48:35,440
he doing this?

939
00:48:35,519 --> 00:48:38,400
Speaker 2: I said, he's transcendent and he's imminent. That means that

940
00:48:38,800 --> 00:48:41,000
he exists outside of time and in time.

941
00:48:42,519 --> 00:48:44,159
Speaker 1: So he does exist in reality.

942
00:48:44,840 --> 00:48:47,400
Speaker 2: Well, you keep calling reality. I would say there's two realities.

943
00:48:47,400 --> 00:48:50,480
There's created reality on created reality. So when you.

944
00:48:50,440 --> 00:48:55,639
Speaker 1: Say the outside of material reality, yeah, okay, where it was?

945
00:48:55,679 --> 00:48:57,519
So how so how do you prove that?

946
00:48:58,440 --> 00:49:01,440
Speaker 2: Well I could. I could prove it the transcendental argument

947
00:49:01,480 --> 00:49:05,679
and the impossibility of the contrary that anytime you utilize language,

948
00:49:05,840 --> 00:49:10,079
you're utilizing conceptual, abstract things that are not reducible to

949
00:49:10,320 --> 00:49:13,800
physical sense data, and that only God in the trinitarian

950
00:49:13,840 --> 00:49:15,920
sense could give a justification for how that's possible.

951
00:49:17,000 --> 00:49:20,400
Speaker 1: Well, no, I reason, reason alone explains that humans have

952
00:49:20,440 --> 00:49:21,519
the capacity for reason.

953
00:49:21,840 --> 00:49:24,519
Speaker 2: Well, that's alone. You're all humans.

954
00:49:26,400 --> 00:49:29,320
Speaker 1: Well, humans as a category.

955
00:49:29,320 --> 00:49:31,119
Speaker 2: How do you have a justification for categories?

956
00:49:34,360 --> 00:49:36,480
Speaker 1: What do you How do I have a justification that

957
00:49:36,480 --> 00:49:38,039
that that humans have the capacity know.

958
00:49:38,119 --> 00:49:40,199
Speaker 2: That there are things called quote categories like this.

959
00:49:42,800 --> 00:49:47,039
Speaker 1: I'm trying to figure out a way to answer this.

960
00:49:47,239 --> 00:49:53,000
You would accept it? So the how do I justify

961
00:49:53,119 --> 00:49:55,639
the categories exist in the mind that people?

962
00:49:57,000 --> 00:49:58,840
Speaker 2: So now they're just in the mind. They're not actual,

963
00:49:59,159 --> 00:50:01,440
they're not outside of them. One like the numbers are

964
00:50:01,559 --> 00:50:03,800
not material, they're not material.

965
00:50:04,639 --> 00:50:05,199
Speaker 1: No, of course, not.

966
00:50:05,360 --> 00:50:06,559
Speaker 2: Okay, so there's immaterial things.

967
00:50:06,800 --> 00:50:08,559
Speaker 1: There's no category three, right.

968
00:50:09,079 --> 00:50:11,519
Speaker 2: There are immaterial things that exist, immaterial things.

969
00:50:14,000 --> 00:50:18,320
Speaker 1: The mind does not create reality, Reality exists independent.

970
00:50:18,440 --> 00:50:20,480
Speaker 2: Okay, how do you know that there are two types

971
00:50:20,480 --> 00:50:22,960
of things, physical and immaterial?

972
00:50:24,920 --> 00:50:26,559
Speaker 1: Well, we have we do have sense.

973
00:50:27,360 --> 00:50:29,719
Speaker 2: How does your sense data tell you that? You mentioned Hume?

974
00:50:29,920 --> 00:50:31,880
But how does your sensative tell you that there's imterial

975
00:50:31,960 --> 00:50:33,400
things that are not based on sense data?

976
00:50:35,400 --> 00:50:37,960
Speaker 1: How does my sense data tell me that there are

977
00:50:37,960 --> 00:50:39,519
things that are not sense data?

978
00:50:39,639 --> 00:50:40,880
Speaker 2: That's what you just said a question?

979
00:50:41,239 --> 00:50:44,760
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, I said that we can see things in reality.

980
00:50:44,840 --> 00:50:47,719
Speaker 2: How does things tell you that there are immaterial things?

981
00:50:49,199 --> 00:50:51,679
Speaker 1: So theirs the first thing is that we can see

982
00:50:51,679 --> 00:50:53,519
that there are material things.

983
00:50:53,239 --> 00:50:56,440
Speaker 2: Right, Well, I would say with the myth of the given,

984
00:50:56,480 --> 00:50:58,880
you don't even know that, and you haven't demonstrated that yet.

985
00:50:58,920 --> 00:51:00,559
But if I grant you that, how does that give

986
00:51:00,639 --> 00:51:02,440
to immaterial even if even.

987
00:51:02,239 --> 00:51:04,440
Speaker 1: Even if I was like, there there has to.

988
00:51:04,400 --> 00:51:08,360
Speaker 2: Be you keep saying, and if you do philosophy, you

989
00:51:08,480 --> 00:51:10,119
know there's no has to any of this. You got

990
00:51:10,119 --> 00:51:11,719
to demonstrate that. You can't just assert that.

991
00:51:12,800 --> 00:51:17,039
Speaker 1: Well, okay, well, if you interrupt someone, you know then

992
00:51:17,079 --> 00:51:18,039
they can't make their full arge.

993
00:51:18,079 --> 00:51:21,079
Speaker 2: So empiricism won't get you to universal categories, is the point?

994
00:51:22,360 --> 00:51:25,440
Speaker 1: Yeah, No, I don't. I don't disagree that empiricism gets you, like,

995
00:51:25,440 --> 00:51:26,000
I don't disagree.

996
00:51:26,079 --> 00:51:28,280
Speaker 2: Okay, So what's the justification for the immaterial things?

997
00:51:30,159 --> 00:51:34,880
Speaker 1: Well, the justification for immaterial things is that the the

998
00:51:34,920 --> 00:51:35,760
concepts exist.

999
00:51:35,840 --> 00:51:39,039
Speaker 2: You mean, how do you know that? How do you

1000
00:51:39,079 --> 00:51:41,840
know that the concept in my head of humans as

1001
00:51:41,840 --> 00:51:44,119
a category is the same as the concept in your head?

1002
00:51:44,119 --> 00:51:45,880
How do you You can't verify?

1003
00:51:45,920 --> 00:51:48,239
Speaker 1: You don't. We've already we've already stated that you can't

1004
00:51:48,239 --> 00:51:49,400
necessarily verify that.

1005
00:51:49,480 --> 00:51:51,360
Speaker 2: Okay, if you can't verify that, then you believe in

1006
00:51:51,360 --> 00:51:54,119
immaterial things without justification that you can't verify?

1007
00:51:54,960 --> 00:51:56,480
Speaker 1: Well, so do you? You don't know?

1008
00:51:56,519 --> 00:51:58,599
Speaker 2: No, I believe in verification. I believe that I can

1009
00:51:58,719 --> 00:51:59,199
justify it.

1010
00:51:59,199 --> 00:52:01,079
Speaker 1: So you you believe you believe.

1011
00:52:00,840 --> 00:52:02,800
Speaker 2: That that's a too quo. That's a two quock way.

1012
00:52:03,159 --> 00:52:06,519
That's a two quoke way. No, but you're that's a

1013
00:52:06,519 --> 00:52:09,039
two quote way. No but you, No, but you it

1014
00:52:09,119 --> 00:52:09,880
is a two quoke way.

1015
00:52:10,679 --> 00:52:12,719
Speaker 1: No, it's not no but you because you just.

1016
00:52:12,719 --> 00:52:16,760
Speaker 2: You just said no, but you. My world view is different.

1017
00:52:16,840 --> 00:52:19,360
I have a different account. You're not understanding that I

1018
00:52:19,400 --> 00:52:21,000
have a different account than you.

1019
00:52:21,119 --> 00:52:24,000
Speaker 1: I understand that. I understand that you like to interrupt people.

1020
00:52:24,039 --> 00:52:26,960
Speaker 2: Now and then this is where once again you're deflecting

1021
00:52:27,119 --> 00:52:31,119
because I brought you to a point. You said, you

1022
00:52:31,280 --> 00:52:34,960
just see it. What's the justification? Listen when you say joke,

1023
00:52:35,039 --> 00:52:37,760
what about you? That's a two quoke way. That's you

1024
00:52:37,760 --> 00:52:38,559
know what a two quoke way.

1025
00:52:39,840 --> 00:52:42,199
Speaker 1: I asked you. I asked you if you had the

1026
00:52:42,280 --> 00:52:43,320
similar belief.

1027
00:52:43,000 --> 00:52:45,159
Speaker 2: For thing, it doesn't matter what my similar blakes are.

1028
00:52:45,159 --> 00:52:47,440
I will go into you said, I will go into that.

1029
00:52:47,519 --> 00:52:49,559
It doesn't matter if I believe I have a different

1030
00:52:49,599 --> 00:52:50,920
account of immaterial hands?

1031
00:52:51,199 --> 00:52:52,960
Speaker 1: Why why are you I have.

1032
00:52:52,880 --> 00:52:55,280
Speaker 2: A different account of material things than you.

1033
00:52:55,320 --> 00:52:58,360
Speaker 1: We were finally starting to get to talk like adults.

1034
00:52:58,400 --> 00:53:01,639
Speaker 2: And again, now that you've been pinned down, you don't

1035
00:53:01,639 --> 00:53:06,039
want to go into it. What is the justification for

1036
00:53:06,440 --> 00:53:10,239
immaterial things? What is your justification for immaterial things?

1037
00:53:12,360 --> 00:53:17,280
Speaker 1: What is my justification that immaterial immaterial things exist? So

1038
00:53:18,440 --> 00:53:20,599
first I started with existence exists, but you say that

1039
00:53:20,599 --> 00:53:22,239
that's not valid. But we'll just move on.

1040
00:53:23,280 --> 00:53:25,960
Speaker 2: So well, you kind of admitted that there's problems for that,

1041
00:53:28,519 --> 00:53:32,800
nor did you demonstrate the actually did you demonstrate the

1042
00:53:32,800 --> 00:53:34,639
external world which you said it means.

1043
00:53:37,199 --> 00:53:41,039
Speaker 1: I said that in order for us to have existence,

1044
00:53:41,039 --> 00:53:42,880
we have to exist in some type of thing.

1045
00:53:43,000 --> 00:53:46,800
Speaker 2: Have you demonstrated that you demonstrate that? We know, you

1046
00:53:46,840 --> 00:53:49,199
said an external world. What if we live in a

1047
00:53:49,280 --> 00:53:51,960
mental world. You haven't proven that it's the external, material,

1048
00:53:51,960 --> 00:53:54,480
physical world that we have necessarily, you haven't proven that.

1049
00:53:54,519 --> 00:53:55,320
You've just asserted it.

1050
00:53:55,320 --> 00:53:57,719
Speaker 1: The mind cannot the mind cannot exist without a material

1051
00:53:57,760 --> 00:53:58,360
How do you know that?

1052
00:53:58,400 --> 00:54:00,480
Speaker 2: You just assert this. What's the justification for this?

1053
00:54:02,039 --> 00:54:07,440
Speaker 1: Well, so the justification for how reason or consciousness comes

1054
00:54:07,480 --> 00:54:07,679
to be.

1055
00:54:08,800 --> 00:54:11,519
Speaker 2: You keep asserting all kinds of metaphysical claims like that

1056
00:54:11,559 --> 00:54:14,679
there's immaterial realities, and you've not justified any of these.

1057
00:54:15,440 --> 00:54:18,000
Speaker 1: We do exist in some form of existence, right, Let's

1058
00:54:18,079 --> 00:54:19,079
let's take into account.

1059
00:54:20,039 --> 00:54:24,039
Speaker 2: I mean we exist in existence is basically a meaningless phrase.

1060
00:54:24,159 --> 00:54:29,079
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I'm going through it. Right, So we exist?

1061
00:54:29,239 --> 00:54:32,719
We could exist by your your you're asserting, what if

1062
00:54:32,719 --> 00:54:36,880
we exist in the frame of the mind. We would

1063
00:54:36,920 --> 00:54:43,639
then have to note that an existence must have some

1064
00:54:43,760 --> 00:54:46,039
form of identity specific.

1065
00:54:47,119 --> 00:54:49,239
Speaker 2: How do we know that maybe it? Maybe it does.

1066
00:54:49,320 --> 00:54:52,280
Maybe we're all schizophrenic and our schema in our minds

1067
00:54:52,320 --> 00:54:53,880
don't match up to anything in the next wal world.

1068
00:54:53,920 --> 00:54:55,280
We just interpret it like it does.

1069
00:54:56,159 --> 00:54:58,880
Speaker 1: Yees. So if if you deny the law of identity,

1070
00:54:59,079 --> 00:55:01,800
then then this our conversation is meaning so but wait.

1071
00:55:01,639 --> 00:55:04,320
Speaker 2: A minute, you said that existence exists doesn't rely on

1072
00:55:04,360 --> 00:55:07,039
the law of identity earlier, Well.

1073
00:55:06,920 --> 00:55:09,840
Speaker 1: We're moving, we moved past existence. What do you mean.

1074
00:55:10,559 --> 00:55:13,440
Speaker 2: No, you're we're still talking about it. So you're saying

1075
00:55:13,480 --> 00:55:15,280
it does. It does rely on the law of the

1076
00:55:15,360 --> 00:55:16,039
law of identity.

1077
00:55:16,920 --> 00:55:19,800
Speaker 1: If if the law of identity is no, I'm saying

1078
00:55:20,000 --> 00:55:23,480
that I'm moving from existence exists and then making.

1079
00:55:23,480 --> 00:55:26,679
Speaker 2: That's a proposition that relies on the law of identity.

1080
00:55:26,760 --> 00:55:30,519
Speaker 1: Obviously I'm making a separate claim, which is essentially that

1081
00:55:30,559 --> 00:55:31,320
the law of I didn't.

1082
00:55:33,000 --> 00:55:35,280
Speaker 2: Okay, how do we know that the laws like that

1083
00:55:35,360 --> 00:55:37,719
and the classical Ristilian laws are the case and that

1084
00:55:37,760 --> 00:55:39,280
they apply and by the.

1085
00:55:39,199 --> 00:55:42,159
Speaker 1: Way we perceive we perceive existence.

1086
00:55:41,800 --> 00:55:44,920
Speaker 2: Perceiving existence, You don't understand that, you don't understand why

1087
00:55:45,000 --> 00:55:49,280
that doesn't answer that question. You're basically just saying you're

1088
00:55:49,280 --> 00:55:50,360
basically I'm.

1089
00:55:50,199 --> 00:55:53,880
Speaker 1: Sorry, ahead, no, no, you go ahead. It's fine.

1090
00:55:54,679 --> 00:55:57,760
Speaker 2: You're basically just saying that my position is the case,

1091
00:55:57,880 --> 00:56:00,519
because if you look at my position, it's that this

1092
00:56:00,679 --> 00:56:02,840
is the case, and that's what the words mean my position.

1093
00:56:05,880 --> 00:56:10,360
Speaker 1: No. No, what I'm saying is that we again premise

1094
00:56:10,400 --> 00:56:13,360
one or action one I guess would be existences we

1095
00:56:13,400 --> 00:56:16,760
exist in some that to argue for.

1096
00:56:19,480 --> 00:56:20,119
Speaker 2: How do you know that?

1097
00:56:20,320 --> 00:56:22,679
Speaker 1: Is because of the negation. You can't argue against your

1098
00:56:22,719 --> 00:56:27,800
own existence. Do so presupposes existence, It's impossible, But you

1099
00:56:27,840 --> 00:56:28,360
have to exist.

1100
00:56:28,960 --> 00:56:31,719
Speaker 2: I'm making the argument right now. And what if our

1101
00:56:31,960 --> 00:56:35,119
conceptual schema just seems to be the case in our

1102
00:56:35,199 --> 00:56:39,239
minds but doesn't apply to an actual external ontological existence.

1103
00:56:39,360 --> 00:56:41,119
How do we know? That is the question? And you

1104
00:56:41,119 --> 00:56:42,679
can you can say that because it has to be

1105
00:56:42,719 --> 00:56:45,199
that way, But that doesn't answer the objection or the defeater.

1106
00:56:45,760 --> 00:56:47,679
Speaker 1: No, I'm saying that if you make the argument that

1107
00:56:47,800 --> 00:56:50,159
existence doesn't exist, fall into contradiction.

1108
00:56:50,320 --> 00:56:53,800
Speaker 2: No, that's not the argument argument. The argument is that

1109
00:56:53,880 --> 00:56:58,400
existence exists necessarily applies to some external physical world. You

1110
00:56:58,400 --> 00:57:01,360
have not demonstrated the external world yet, and thus it's

1111
00:57:01,400 --> 00:57:04,880
not axiomatic because it relies on other positions and other beliefs.

1112
00:57:05,639 --> 00:57:08,679
Speaker 1: Well, it's well, the first axiom is existence exists. Once

1113
00:57:08,719 --> 00:57:12,000
we recognize that one must exist in some capacity.

1114
00:57:12,280 --> 00:57:15,079
Speaker 2: Then when you say one, you're just assuming the existence

1115
00:57:15,119 --> 00:57:16,800
of the self. Have you not read a critique of

1116
00:57:16,800 --> 00:57:17,519
the code.

1117
00:57:17,239 --> 00:57:19,599
Speaker 1: Celf Well, of course, of course I'm assuming the existence

1118
00:57:19,639 --> 00:57:19,800
of this.

1119
00:57:20,039 --> 00:57:21,639
Speaker 2: Well, then thank you. Then it's not self evident. It

1120
00:57:21,679 --> 00:57:24,199
assumes other things exactly, No.

1121
00:57:24,119 --> 00:57:25,559
Speaker 1: It's the individual.

1122
00:57:26,000 --> 00:57:27,880
Speaker 2: Does it assume the existence of the self.

1123
00:57:29,760 --> 00:57:31,960
Speaker 1: It is the self that makes the argument? Is it not?

1124
00:57:32,199 --> 00:57:34,559
Speaker 2: So? Is it assuming it is? The proposition?

1125
00:57:34,800 --> 00:57:38,400
Speaker 1: To me? Would you okay, we'll put another axiom before it.

1126
00:57:38,519 --> 00:57:41,280
The self exists, an existence.

1127
00:57:40,800 --> 00:57:44,559
Speaker 2: Exists, but you have no Now you're adding the moving

1128
00:57:44,599 --> 00:57:46,920
the goalpost to add another proposition ahead.

1129
00:57:46,760 --> 00:57:48,800
Speaker 1: Adding the goal post. I'm saying that's fine.

1130
00:57:48,559 --> 00:57:51,920
Speaker 2: I'll okay. Then if the second proposition exists, then it's

1131
00:57:51,920 --> 00:57:55,480
no longer self evident because it relies on another proposition. Obviously,

1132
00:57:56,559 --> 00:57:56,920
so the.

1133
00:57:56,880 --> 00:58:00,760
Speaker 1: Self exists, right, you just agree that the self exit.

1134
00:58:01,000 --> 00:58:03,960
Speaker 2: No, I'm saying it doesn't matter how you construct it.

1135
00:58:03,960 --> 00:58:07,599
It's no longer self evident because you're adding other propping

1136
00:58:07,679 --> 00:58:10,239
up beliefs. So if you look, if you study this,

1137
00:58:10,360 --> 00:58:11,360
it's it's no, it.

1138
00:58:11,320 --> 00:58:13,920
Speaker 1: Is, it's self evident because the self is the one

1139
00:58:13,920 --> 00:58:14,760
that argues if.

1140
00:58:14,679 --> 00:58:19,760
Speaker 2: Someone that's a category error, that's a category error talking

1141
00:58:19,800 --> 00:58:22,760
about the self does not make it self evident. That's

1142
00:58:22,840 --> 00:58:24,599
that's amazing mistake. Man.

1143
00:58:24,719 --> 00:58:28,159
Speaker 1: No, No, it's not a category when when when I

1144
00:58:28,199 --> 00:58:31,280
say that something is the unavoidable axiom, what I'm saying

1145
00:58:31,320 --> 00:58:34,880
is that one a person that attempts to argue a self,

1146
00:58:34,920 --> 00:58:39,199
that attempts to argue against existence, is incapable of doing

1147
00:58:39,239 --> 00:58:42,599
so because they exist. They must exist in.

1148
00:58:42,639 --> 00:58:46,039
Speaker 2: Order I know what says. I'm giving it the classic

1149
00:58:46,119 --> 00:58:46,800
critique of it.

1150
00:58:46,920 --> 00:58:50,920
Speaker 1: A non an entity that doesn't exist can't make an

1151
00:58:51,039 --> 00:58:52,280
argument against.

1152
00:58:52,679 --> 00:58:54,239
Speaker 2: You know, you're missing the point.

1153
00:58:54,280 --> 00:58:56,199
Speaker 1: It's not they don't exist that you're.

1154
00:58:56,039 --> 00:58:58,639
Speaker 2: You're not even getting what the point of the objection is.

1155
00:58:58,760 --> 00:59:02,599
It's not an objection about the ontological status of the

1156
00:59:02,679 --> 00:59:05,320
self or whatever. And you could go that route. It's

1157
00:59:05,360 --> 00:59:09,280
more fundamental than that that something axiomatic or what's called

1158
00:59:09,480 --> 00:59:17,679
dosastic or properly basic, cannot rest on any other assumptions, principles,

1159
00:59:17,760 --> 00:59:20,119
or things that have not yet been proven or else.

1160
00:59:20,159 --> 00:59:24,840
It is no longer doxastically basic, is no longer self evident.

1161
00:59:25,239 --> 00:59:27,920
And so every time you tackle on these other explanations,

1162
00:59:28,119 --> 00:59:30,920
you're just proving my point that it doesn't matter whether

1163
00:59:30,920 --> 00:59:34,880
you say, uh, the cogito or whether you say existence exists,

1164
00:59:35,280 --> 00:59:37,800
It doesn't answer the objection that I'm laying out That

1165
00:59:38,440 --> 00:59:38,719
is no.

1166
00:59:38,920 --> 00:59:47,639
Speaker 1: So the argument, the argument for the for objective reality is.

1167
00:59:45,519 --> 00:59:50,079
Speaker 2: I don't care about that objective route. You're saying one action,

1168
00:59:50,239 --> 00:59:52,880
asking me to justify you know, whether Christy, let me

1169
00:59:52,880 --> 00:59:53,199
ask you this.

1170
00:59:53,599 --> 00:59:59,719
Speaker 1: You're asking me, you're asking me to justify this external reality. Okay,

1171
01:00:00,199 --> 01:00:04,400
and you were saying that an external reality comes from that,

1172
01:00:04,400 --> 01:00:08,559
that that this existence exists, you know, presupposes this external reality.

1173
01:00:08,800 --> 01:00:11,480
What I'm saying is is that existence exists is one

1174
01:00:11,760 --> 01:00:14,239
axiom of of of.

1175
01:00:14,360 --> 01:00:16,559
Speaker 2: It doesn't matter that you say that it's one that

1176
01:00:16,639 --> 01:00:21,199
doesn't It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because that.

1177
01:00:21,400 --> 01:00:23,480
Speaker 1: In order to justify object reality, I.

1178
01:00:23,440 --> 01:00:27,159
Speaker 2: Don't think you know what entity and consciousness, Well, you

1179
01:00:27,159 --> 01:00:29,119
would need those things. But that's the point is that

1180
01:00:29,159 --> 01:00:30,960
you've not yet demonstrated those things.

1181
01:00:32,039 --> 01:00:32,280
Speaker 1: Yeah.

1182
01:00:32,360 --> 01:00:35,679
Speaker 2: So because if you say yes, if you say yes,

1183
01:00:36,119 --> 01:00:39,840
then you've admitted my point that it's not self evident, it.

1184
01:00:39,880 --> 01:00:42,280
Speaker 1: Is existence exists is self evidence.

1185
01:00:42,480 --> 01:00:44,199
Speaker 2: It's no, it is not.

1186
01:00:44,440 --> 01:00:44,800
Speaker 1: Nor is.

1187
01:00:47,280 --> 01:00:49,880
Speaker 2: Again. You keep saying it is that. You keep saying

1188
01:00:49,920 --> 01:00:52,119
it is that. But I've given you multiple reasons why

1189
01:00:52,159 --> 01:00:54,519
it doesn't get you to the justification for why you

1190
01:00:54,559 --> 01:00:55,039
say that.

1191
01:00:56,039 --> 01:01:01,840
Speaker 1: No, what it gets existence exists again is one axiom?

1192
01:01:02,400 --> 01:01:04,519
Speaker 2: Does it rely on other things? Does it rely on

1193
01:01:04,559 --> 01:01:06,559
other things? Does it rely on other things?

1194
01:01:08,000 --> 01:01:10,320
Speaker 1: Does the existence exist rely on other things? No, it

1195
01:01:10,320 --> 01:01:12,480
doesn't rely on anything it is?

1196
01:01:12,639 --> 01:01:15,159
Speaker 2: Does it rely Does the proposition rely on grammar?

1197
01:01:17,360 --> 01:01:20,800
Speaker 1: You being able to communicate? That argument is not the same.

1198
01:01:20,639 --> 01:01:23,079
Speaker 2: Thing as the truth value of the proposition. Does it

1199
01:01:23,119 --> 01:01:25,440
rely on grammar? To say it?

1200
01:01:25,519 --> 01:01:27,880
Speaker 1: That's that's not an argument, It is an argument.

1201
01:01:27,920 --> 01:01:30,639
Speaker 2: It's a classic critique. Does it rely on grammar?

1202
01:01:30,719 --> 01:01:33,679
Speaker 1: If you say God is real and then someone just

1203
01:01:33,800 --> 01:01:38,320
changes the definition of God, well then then then that's

1204
01:01:38,360 --> 01:01:39,800
a failure of communication.

1205
01:01:40,039 --> 01:01:43,159
Speaker 2: No, it's not. It's a classic critique of foundationalism. If

1206
01:01:43,159 --> 01:01:44,760
you knew the if you knew what I'm talking about,

1207
01:01:44,800 --> 01:01:45,079
you know that.

1208
01:01:45,360 --> 01:01:50,039
Speaker 1: Critique to say that it relies on our ability to communicate.

1209
01:01:50,119 --> 01:01:51,519
Speaker 2: Oh so wait a minute, so now it relies on

1210
01:01:51,559 --> 01:01:52,559
communication skills.

1211
01:01:53,519 --> 01:01:56,280
Speaker 1: That's what you're saying, not me you're saying that language

1212
01:01:56,800 --> 01:01:58,039
is required so that we.

1213
01:01:57,960 --> 01:02:00,679
Speaker 2: Know what the word correct. Propositions that are that have true,

1214
01:02:01,039 --> 01:02:06,239
propositions that have truth value require language. Right, assuming do

1215
01:02:06,280 --> 01:02:09,760
your propositions do they do they rely on language?

1216
01:02:11,960 --> 01:02:12,159
Speaker 1: Yes?

1217
01:02:12,280 --> 01:02:14,840
Speaker 2: Of course, argument, then they're not self evident. Thank you.

1218
01:02:15,320 --> 01:02:16,800
Speaker 1: That's so stupid.

1219
01:02:17,280 --> 01:02:20,039
Speaker 2: No, it's not the whole This is like you want

1220
01:02:20,039 --> 01:02:23,119
to go read J. Jay Wood's epistemology book where he

1221
01:02:23,119 --> 01:02:25,079
makes this very argument that you think is stupid.

1222
01:02:25,760 --> 01:02:29,599
Speaker 1: I think it's absolutely How is it that this is

1223
01:02:29,639 --> 01:02:30,159
a word.

1224
01:02:31,079 --> 01:02:33,920
Speaker 2: No, you don't know about linguistic philosophy. I'm pointing out

1225
01:02:33,960 --> 01:02:35,840
to you what a grad student would point out to

1226
01:02:35,880 --> 01:02:39,559
somebody who's in a sophomore philosophy that you don't realize

1227
01:02:39,599 --> 01:02:42,320
the assumptions that are being made. Right, just like when

1228
01:02:42,320 --> 01:02:47,079
Concretius Koge, when Concritique to Kog to listen.

1229
01:02:46,920 --> 01:02:51,039
Speaker 1: We both realize, we both realize that language is a

1230
01:02:51,079 --> 01:02:52,199
tool of communicating.

1231
01:02:52,320 --> 01:02:54,920
Speaker 2: You can call it that is, how does that? It

1232
01:02:54,960 --> 01:02:59,639
doesn't matter it's relying on communication and language, then it's

1233
01:02:59,639 --> 01:03:05,320
not off evidence if it relies on another thing, whether

1234
01:03:05,360 --> 01:03:10,840
it's time, determination, predication, grammar, linguistic structure, all of those

1235
01:03:10,880 --> 01:03:15,000
things negate the idea that it is self evident. Because

1236
01:03:15,000 --> 01:03:17,400
it is relying on other things, it is no longer

1237
01:03:17,400 --> 01:03:18,119
properly proper?

1238
01:03:18,559 --> 01:03:21,639
Speaker 1: Can it be? Can it? Being of non existence? Green language?

1239
01:03:21,760 --> 01:03:23,920
Speaker 2: That has nothing to do with answering this critique?

1240
01:03:24,719 --> 01:03:26,800
Speaker 1: Can a being of can it? Being of non existence?

1241
01:03:26,840 --> 01:03:30,039
Has nothing to do being of non language?

1242
01:03:30,480 --> 01:03:35,039
Speaker 2: A being of none existence, a being of a being

1243
01:03:34,480 --> 01:03:38,039
of non I don't know what language.

1244
01:03:38,519 --> 01:03:40,280
Speaker 1: Do you know what a being of non existence is?

1245
01:03:40,920 --> 01:03:41,360
I don't know.

1246
01:03:42,079 --> 01:03:46,199
Speaker 2: You seem a being of non existence is something incoherent.

1247
01:03:46,920 --> 01:03:53,119
Speaker 1: Right because existence exists? Thank you? It is incoherent to being.

1248
01:03:53,280 --> 01:03:55,039
Speaker 2: I mean, this is I'm trying to be.

1249
01:03:56,039 --> 01:03:58,880
Speaker 1: So finally we've gotten to the point where you're accepting

1250
01:03:58,920 --> 01:04:00,280
existence exists.

1251
01:04:00,880 --> 01:04:04,800
Speaker 2: I have Do you understand that you're not understanding what

1252
01:04:04,840 --> 01:04:07,840
the debate is? It's different accounts of that phrase. I

1253
01:04:07,880 --> 01:04:10,440
have no problem with the truth value.

1254
01:04:10,880 --> 01:04:13,719
Speaker 1: The debate is tag and you're just fucking tag.

1255
01:04:13,880 --> 01:04:17,320
Speaker 2: Is about worldview apologetics. That's the whole point and the thing.

1256
01:04:17,639 --> 01:04:19,639
Do you know what I mean? Look, when I say

1257
01:04:19,679 --> 01:04:22,360
something is when I say something is theory? Layden? Do

1258
01:04:22,360 --> 01:04:25,960
you know what I'm saying? Uh?

1259
01:04:26,000 --> 01:04:29,000
Speaker 1: Well, according to according in epistemology.

1260
01:04:29,039 --> 01:04:31,840
Speaker 2: Man, you keep saying, according to me, just in modern epistemology.

1261
01:04:31,960 --> 01:04:33,079
Do you know what I mean when I say that

1262
01:04:34,639 --> 01:04:35,280
that it uh?

1263
01:04:35,440 --> 01:04:38,000
Speaker 1: If it's theory laden, I would I believe it's like

1264
01:04:39,920 --> 01:04:45,000
that there are ideas that predicate the concept. No, I'm

1265
01:04:45,039 --> 01:04:46,719
not without looking at it.

1266
01:04:46,719 --> 01:04:49,480
Speaker 2: It's best, okay. So are you familiar with Kuon and paradigms?

1267
01:04:51,559 --> 01:04:54,719
Speaker 1: Not? Not recently? I'm fucking I like my the last

1268
01:04:54,719 --> 01:04:57,920
time I took philosophy classes, like ten years ago, I've.

1269
01:04:57,760 --> 01:05:01,719
Speaker 2: Forgotten a lot, right, So plain it's so. The whole

1270
01:05:01,719 --> 01:05:07,320
point of Kuhn's paradigm is that in the world, in

1271
01:05:07,400 --> 01:05:12,360
social discourse, in philosophy, people don't realize that their whole set,

1272
01:05:12,519 --> 01:05:15,800
their whole set of beliefs are actually based on a

1273
01:05:15,800 --> 01:05:18,760
web of beliefs or an entire paradigm, and that all

1274
01:05:18,840 --> 01:05:23,480
these things are interlinked and interconnected. Against the term epistemic wholeism,

1275
01:05:23,960 --> 01:05:27,199
And it's kind of it's kind of similar to coherence theory.

1276
01:05:27,239 --> 01:05:29,719
It's not identical to coherence theory, but it's the idea

1277
01:05:29,760 --> 01:05:33,519
that there's no self evident basic non theory laid in

1278
01:05:33,599 --> 01:05:36,119
propositions are truths, and language is another example of this

1279
01:05:36,239 --> 01:05:39,519
because language, for example, a single word usually comes with

1280
01:05:39,639 --> 01:05:43,079
a other set of words that help inform that word,

1281
01:05:43,519 --> 01:05:46,800
and there's nothing okay, so in the same way, same thing.

1282
01:05:46,840 --> 01:05:47,880
Speaker 1: It's kind of like the same thing.

1283
01:05:48,119 --> 01:05:53,719
Speaker 2: Deed constantly are well, I'm not a postmodernist, but Dereda

1284
01:05:54,000 --> 01:05:56,559
asked some of these questions. But more so relevant is

1285
01:05:56,599 --> 01:05:59,679
Wickenstein because when he talked about language games, he didn't

1286
01:05:59,719 --> 01:06:02,519
mean that just playing games. What he meant was that

1287
01:06:03,079 --> 01:06:06,519
language is a funny thing because the way language works

1288
01:06:06,599 --> 01:06:10,239
is that, yes, it's flexible, and yes it can be

1289
01:06:10,360 --> 01:06:12,880
you know, you can use different symbols to denote the

1290
01:06:12,880 --> 01:06:15,840
same idea. But the point is rather that it is

1291
01:06:15,960 --> 01:06:19,400
systemic and it's it's a holistic thing.

1292
01:06:19,519 --> 01:06:21,199
Speaker 1: So how does how does this apply to?

1293
01:06:21,840 --> 01:06:24,800
Speaker 2: Because what it shows because then listen because in the

1294
01:06:24,840 --> 01:06:28,079
history of the debate about self evident axioms, like the

1295
01:06:28,119 --> 01:06:31,960
way that Descartes, for example, said you know, I think right.

1296
01:06:32,039 --> 01:06:35,480
So if Descartes says this, what happens is that later

1297
01:06:35,599 --> 01:06:39,360
philosophy critiques it on many different grounds. For example, you

1298
01:06:39,400 --> 01:06:42,239
get cont saying that the problem with this being self

1299
01:06:42,280 --> 01:06:46,639
evident is that it presupposes time and space determination. Right,

1300
01:06:46,719 --> 01:06:49,679
because to say that I exist is to say that

1301
01:06:49,719 --> 01:06:52,159
I'm existing right now, which is a right now, is

1302
01:06:52,199 --> 01:06:56,079
a time determinant at the moment, at this instant. Okay,

1303
01:06:56,159 --> 01:07:00,360
but but the argument has not proven time as a

1304
01:07:00,400 --> 01:07:03,880
metaphysical concept or reality yet. And so Kant had a

1305
01:07:03,920 --> 01:07:09,000
good critique that if it's properly basic, it cannot rely

1306
01:07:09,159 --> 01:07:12,000
on another proposition or another principle or another belief that

1307
01:07:12,039 --> 01:07:14,679
has not yet been demonstrated. That's the point. Then you

1308
01:07:14,760 --> 01:07:18,719
get people saying it also is hold on. There's a

1309
01:07:18,280 --> 01:07:21,760
couple more critiques that you get bertrand Russell saying it's

1310
01:07:21,760 --> 01:07:25,119
a non sequitor. The fact that you say that you're

1311
01:07:25,159 --> 01:07:27,559
an eye does not prove that you exist in some

1312
01:07:27,760 --> 01:07:30,280
metaphysical reality. We don't know that yet. Maybe you do,

1313
01:07:30,440 --> 01:07:33,480
but how do we know that. It necessarily follows that

1314
01:07:33,719 --> 01:07:37,320
you have some sort of ontological existence in this world.

1315
01:07:37,760 --> 01:07:40,880
We don't know that yet. So we all agree, yeah,

1316
01:07:40,960 --> 01:07:42,719
we do exist in this world, and I agree with you.

1317
01:07:42,800 --> 01:07:44,280
But the point is that we got to have a

1318
01:07:44,360 --> 01:07:48,239
good account of these principles. You can't just give an

1319
01:07:48,239 --> 01:07:50,679
account that is arbitrary and at hawk. And that's why

1320
01:07:50,719 --> 01:07:54,880
I reject all classical foundationalists of pistemology.

1321
01:07:55,639 --> 01:07:58,719
Speaker 1: So how do is so the problem that I'm having

1322
01:07:58,800 --> 01:08:06,679
here or whatever is I don't see it's it seems

1323
01:08:06,760 --> 01:08:12,599
you're saying, how do you justify existence exist when it

1324
01:08:12,639 --> 01:08:16,880
presupposes concept I guess, right, So that's.

1325
01:08:16,680 --> 01:08:18,720
Speaker 2: Kind of not just concepts, But I mean, I don't

1326
01:08:18,720 --> 01:08:19,399
know what kind.

1327
01:08:19,239 --> 01:08:21,239
Speaker 1: Of simplify that steel I'm trying to steal. Man.

1328
01:08:21,439 --> 01:08:23,880
Speaker 2: It presupposes a lot of things, and I've listened a

1329
01:08:23,880 --> 01:08:25,359
bunch of them, and I mean, I don't think those

1330
01:08:25,399 --> 01:08:28,840
things are just conceptual. I think they're actual ontological structures

1331
01:08:28,840 --> 01:08:30,720
and things that exist. But if you want to call

1332
01:08:30,760 --> 01:08:31,720
them concepts.

1333
01:08:31,319 --> 01:08:38,279
Speaker 1: Sure, right. But the issue that I have is in

1334
01:08:38,359 --> 01:08:41,359
almost all of those we we get to this position

1335
01:08:41,399 --> 01:08:45,560
where it's, well, how can those things be posited by

1336
01:08:45,880 --> 01:08:47,359
a being of non existence?

1337
01:08:48,000 --> 01:08:49,479
Speaker 2: What does that mean? I don't know what you mean

1338
01:08:49,479 --> 01:08:50,880
by you about God.

1339
01:08:52,359 --> 01:08:54,520
Speaker 1: I don't know, because you're you're the one that is

1340
01:08:54,960 --> 01:08:58,000
saying that that that there is this hole, there's this issue,

1341
01:08:58,000 --> 01:09:00,680
there's this possibility of exist since.

1342
01:09:00,640 --> 01:09:04,399
Speaker 2: Not existing or I never said that. I said uncreated

1343
01:09:04,439 --> 01:09:07,159
existence is what God is and we are created existence.

1344
01:09:07,199 --> 01:09:08,760
I never said non existence.

1345
01:09:09,000 --> 01:09:11,199
Speaker 1: By the virtue of arguing I know you're doing an

1346
01:09:11,239 --> 01:09:14,439
internal critique. I'm not necessarily leaking this claim down, right,

1347
01:09:14,479 --> 01:09:16,800
But what I mean is that if one is attempting

1348
01:09:16,840 --> 01:09:22,159
to argue that existence exists is false, then they must

1349
01:09:22,199 --> 01:09:22,600
believe it.

1350
01:09:22,800 --> 01:09:25,159
Speaker 2: I didn't argue that no exist. I didn't argue it's false.

1351
01:09:26,079 --> 01:09:28,560
I argued that you have not given an account of

1352
01:09:28,600 --> 01:09:33,520
the proposition in an epistemic sense, right.

1353
01:09:33,439 --> 01:09:37,479
Speaker 1: But this is the argument would be that if it

1354
01:09:37,520 --> 01:09:41,399
is impossible to argue against, then it must be true.

1355
01:09:42,920 --> 01:09:45,119
Speaker 2: But you have not shown that it's impossible to argue against.

1356
01:09:45,119 --> 01:09:47,800
And that's why I gave the kantient retort, which is

1357
01:09:47,840 --> 01:09:51,239
that just because it seems impossible to me does not

1358
01:09:51,359 --> 01:09:53,119
mean that it is ontologically the case.

1359
01:09:54,520 --> 01:09:56,520
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, if we're trying to, like, if we're

1360
01:09:56,520 --> 01:09:59,079
trying to make an argument from like a asmology or something,

1361
01:09:59,119 --> 01:10:01,840
I totally agree, right, Like we could we could go

1362
01:10:01,880 --> 01:10:05,000
out and observe reality and make a claim, is this

1363
01:10:05,119 --> 01:10:08,279
is true? And you know, we have imperfect knowledge and

1364
01:10:08,359 --> 01:10:11,720
there is at some point, you know, a paradigm something,

1365
01:10:11,920 --> 01:10:14,359
so like it's not it's not necessarily proven to be true.

1366
01:10:14,359 --> 01:10:17,319
It's like a balance of probabilities that we assume to

1367
01:10:17,359 --> 01:10:20,439
be true so that we can function. The argument isn't

1368
01:10:20,800 --> 01:10:23,920
a pistemologically saying. So what I'm saying is that it's

1369
01:10:23,960 --> 01:10:28,840
impossible for one to argue against and that is you

1370
01:10:28,880 --> 01:10:32,920
against existence, because one must exist in order.

1371
01:10:33,239 --> 01:10:36,399
Speaker 2: You're missing the whole of what you're missing. The point

1372
01:10:36,479 --> 01:10:39,600
of the retorts to things like the Kogito, the point

1373
01:10:39,600 --> 01:10:42,079
of the retorts is not to deny them. The point

1374
01:10:42,079 --> 01:10:43,840
of the retorts is to point out that you need

1375
01:10:43,920 --> 01:10:47,600
good reasons for why that's the case. I believe it

1376
01:10:47,640 --> 01:10:51,359
is the case. Right, You could say, you know, we

1377
01:10:51,760 --> 01:10:53,920
I believe in the self. I believe in identity over time.

1378
01:10:53,960 --> 01:10:56,039
I believe in you know, the external world. I believe

1379
01:10:56,079 --> 01:10:58,439
in causation. I believe in all these things. It's just

1380
01:10:58,479 --> 01:11:01,880
that my account of those things, and hence justification is

1381
01:11:01,920 --> 01:11:04,880
a different account than the account that you're giving. So

1382
01:11:04,920 --> 01:11:08,800
when I use it, So let's and that's what justification

1383
01:11:08,880 --> 01:11:09,239
is about.

1384
01:11:09,319 --> 01:11:11,960
Speaker 1: Let's let's let's let's just say we're at an impasse.

1385
01:11:12,039 --> 01:11:17,560
You don't believe that my arguments are sustasion justify. Its fine,

1386
01:11:18,039 --> 01:11:19,399
I'm okay with that. I don't want to I don't

1387
01:11:19,439 --> 01:11:22,520
want to beat that for so long that everyone is

1388
01:11:22,560 --> 01:11:26,319
fucking annoyed, which they probably already are. It's fine. So

1389
01:11:26,840 --> 01:11:30,239
and you believe that an external world exists, So moving

1390
01:11:30,279 --> 01:11:32,840
on those moving on to that, let's move into your

1391
01:11:32,920 --> 01:11:36,279
worldview and why you believe that you have an appropriate

1392
01:11:36,319 --> 01:11:41,479
account of those things that my uh that my grounding fails.

1393
01:11:44,199 --> 01:11:46,960
Speaker 2: Right. So, if God exists, then we have a world

1394
01:11:47,000 --> 01:11:52,680
where there is a basis for metaphysical principles, epistemic principles,

1395
01:11:52,760 --> 01:11:57,199
laws of logic, critical thinking, moral absolute, ethical claims. Because

1396
01:11:57,239 --> 01:11:59,199
man has made the image of God, the world operates

1397
01:11:59,199 --> 01:12:02,720
on a regular fact and that it has divine providence

1398
01:12:02,720 --> 01:12:05,800
which assures the you know, regularity of nature, which is

1399
01:12:05,800 --> 01:12:11,640
the basis of all science and empirical sense data. I

1400
01:12:11,680 --> 01:12:14,399
have a reasoning faculty, which I have by virtue of

1401
01:12:14,399 --> 01:12:16,359
being made in the image of God. And so I'm

1402
01:12:16,399 --> 01:12:18,479
a little g God who can reason about the world

1403
01:12:18,479 --> 01:12:21,960
and make decisions and do things, create things. Right, I'm

1404
01:12:21,960 --> 01:12:24,960
a little creator because God is a creator. So for me,

1405
01:12:25,239 --> 01:12:28,720
the divine the existence of God and his self, disclosure

1406
01:12:28,760 --> 01:12:32,359
about who he is, and divine revelation is itself the

1407
01:12:32,399 --> 01:12:37,039
basis for how things like the preconditions or categories for

1408
01:12:37,079 --> 01:12:39,760
the possibility of knowledge are the case. So because God

1409
01:12:39,800 --> 01:12:43,239
is omniscient, because he has intentionality as being a person

1410
01:12:43,279 --> 01:12:47,079
and not an impersonal force, and because the world is

1411
01:12:47,119 --> 01:12:50,359
external to him and it's not identical to him, I

1412
01:12:50,399 --> 01:12:53,000
can have the ability to make these kinds of distinctions

1413
01:12:53,039 --> 01:12:56,680
and set boundaries. I can make, you know, I can

1414
01:12:56,720 --> 01:12:59,800
do things in the world because of that being made

1415
01:13:00,039 --> 01:13:04,039
bind image and also the way that I go about predicating. Uh,

1416
01:13:04,079 --> 01:13:10,000
you know, sentences, structure, language structure, grammar, universals, numbers, those

1417
01:13:10,039 --> 01:13:14,640
things exist outside of the mere human empirical individual sense

1418
01:13:14,760 --> 01:13:18,600
data examples because they are grounded in a divine mind.

1419
01:13:18,720 --> 01:13:27,399
This is called divine conceptualism, which itself is omniscient, omnipresent, eternally. No,

1420
01:13:27,560 --> 01:13:31,119
he's an idealist and an empiricist idealist. I'm not arguing

1421
01:13:31,119 --> 01:13:33,239
that at all. I'm arguing the transcendental argument.

1422
01:13:34,960 --> 01:13:38,640
Speaker 1: Okay, I thought he was the guy like God. It's

1423
01:13:38,680 --> 01:13:40,880
the observers, so it's that problem or whatever.

1424
01:13:42,000 --> 01:13:44,560
Speaker 2: He's an empirical idealist. He thinks that God is the

1425
01:13:44,600 --> 01:13:48,159
great mind and that the rest of us are just

1426
01:13:48,520 --> 01:13:51,560
other minds observing other ideas.

1427
01:13:51,560 --> 01:13:53,319
Speaker 1: So he believes thought that, Yeah, I thought.

1428
01:13:54,119 --> 01:13:55,920
Speaker 2: No, No, I'm not saying that all reality is that it

1429
01:13:56,119 --> 01:13:56,760
is right.

1430
01:13:57,439 --> 01:13:57,720
Speaker 1: Okay.

1431
01:13:57,880 --> 01:14:00,319
Speaker 2: So now I'm not an empirical idealist like Berkeley. I'm

1432
01:14:00,399 --> 01:14:04,720
arguing for Christian theism that there's a creator and there's

1433
01:14:04,760 --> 01:14:08,560
the creative. So fundamental reality fundamentally is two different things,

1434
01:14:08,600 --> 01:14:09,640
created and uncreated.

1435
01:14:11,199 --> 01:14:18,399
Speaker 1: Okay, So, so things exist outside of the mind. You're

1436
01:14:18,439 --> 01:14:21,159
You're not You're not like a Berkeley like you we

1437
01:14:21,159 --> 01:14:22,119
we we agree.

1438
01:14:21,880 --> 01:14:26,000
Speaker 2: That there's an external world substances, substances of course.

1439
01:14:26,680 --> 01:14:34,439
Speaker 1: Okay, okay, So why is it you're saying God is necessary?

1440
01:14:34,640 --> 01:14:37,720
Where where are you making that? I heard a lot

1441
01:14:37,760 --> 01:14:38,319
of God. God.

1442
01:14:38,319 --> 01:14:41,960
Speaker 2: I would say God is these things. God is necessary

1443
01:14:42,039 --> 01:14:45,199
in the sense that he's the only He's the necessary

1444
01:14:45,399 --> 01:14:51,000
justification for the transcendental categories that make knowledge possible. Only

1445
01:14:51,039 --> 01:14:55,760
that type of a being could ground things like universals.

1446
01:14:57,239 --> 01:15:00,039
Speaker 1: So, and I'm not trying to be an asshole. I

1447
01:15:00,720 --> 01:15:03,079
I'm just I'm genuinely trying to get your position here.

1448
01:15:03,479 --> 01:15:05,640
How is this not like a God of the gaps ar?

1449
01:15:06,119 --> 01:15:07,239
How is this not just?

1450
01:15:07,960 --> 01:15:08,640
Speaker 2: Well?

1451
01:15:08,840 --> 01:15:13,279
Speaker 1: I believe God exists because only God could fix all

1452
01:15:13,319 --> 01:15:16,960
of these problems that I see in the philosophy. Therefore

1453
01:15:17,680 --> 01:15:18,840
you know, one and done.

1454
01:15:18,720 --> 01:15:21,000
Speaker 2: We're good. Because it's a much stronger than a claim

1455
01:15:21,039 --> 01:15:23,239
than God of the gaps. It's actually saying that any

1456
01:15:23,439 --> 01:15:28,600
possible predication assumes transcendental categories, and transcendental categories assume God,

1457
01:15:28,640 --> 01:15:30,960
so it's much strong. It's not just saying that wherever

1458
01:15:31,000 --> 01:15:33,239
I see a gap, I'm gonna stick God in. It's

1459
01:15:33,279 --> 01:15:36,119
actually saying that you couldn't make a sentence in a

1460
01:15:36,199 --> 01:15:38,479
coherent justph all the way without God's existence.

1461
01:15:39,520 --> 01:15:41,840
Speaker 1: How so where are you getting that? Where you're getting

1462
01:15:41,840 --> 01:15:42,159
that from?

1463
01:15:42,199 --> 01:15:43,159
Speaker 2: That?

1464
01:15:45,000 --> 01:15:48,319
Speaker 1: No? No, no, no, yeah, I'm saying like where, well, sure,

1465
01:15:48,359 --> 01:15:50,279
like you know, I can, we can all make verguments

1466
01:15:50,880 --> 01:15:54,439
true false. So my ax, I'm saying, when you say

1467
01:15:54,479 --> 01:15:58,800
that God is necessary for any transcendental category, where are

1468
01:15:58,800 --> 01:15:59,800
you getting that from?

1469
01:16:00,159 --> 01:16:03,199
Speaker 2: Because there is no other being that could justify the

1470
01:16:03,239 --> 01:16:06,000
transcendental categories by definition by what they are.

1471
01:16:06,760 --> 01:16:08,359
Speaker 1: So how does God justify those?

1472
01:16:09,399 --> 01:16:13,039
Speaker 2: Because He's the only being that could ground them by

1473
01:16:13,079 --> 01:16:14,880
the y virtue of who and what he is I

1474
01:16:14,920 --> 01:16:18,640
listed earlier, Because he's omniscient, because of the omnies, because

1475
01:16:18,680 --> 01:16:23,279
he's excuse me, omnipresent, because he has personal person, not

1476
01:16:23,399 --> 01:16:26,000
an intentionality that gives us a basis for things like

1477
01:16:26,439 --> 01:16:29,920
tilos in the world uh, and also things like causation.

1478
01:16:30,159 --> 01:16:33,159
So without God's existence, you couldn't have a justification for

1479
01:16:33,920 --> 01:16:38,399
universal telos teleology, nor could you have a justification for causation.

1480
01:16:41,720 --> 01:16:45,119
Speaker 1: But I still haven't. You haven't answered my question out.

1481
01:16:45,800 --> 01:16:46,159
You haven't.

1482
01:16:46,199 --> 01:16:50,840
Speaker 2: You've just said is because of because of the impossibility

1483
01:16:50,840 --> 01:16:53,760
of the contrary, which is the internal critique of the

1484
01:16:53,840 --> 01:16:56,960
other world views or your world worldview, and the other

1485
01:16:57,359 --> 01:17:01,159
the other argument, the other half of it is earlier on.

1486
01:17:01,279 --> 01:17:03,119
Speaker 1: You said earlier that that's not an argument.

1487
01:17:03,239 --> 01:17:07,800
Speaker 2: You can't just the other part of the the other correct.

1488
01:17:08,039 --> 01:17:10,520
And that's why if I only had an internal critique,

1489
01:17:10,520 --> 01:17:13,479
I would agree with you that my position wouldn't achieve justification.

1490
01:17:13,600 --> 01:17:16,119
That's why you also have to give the positive case

1491
01:17:16,600 --> 01:17:19,840
for why the trinitarian deity is the one that does

1492
01:17:20,039 --> 01:17:23,479
justifying ground them right within that paradigm, within the Christian paradigm,

1493
01:17:23,520 --> 01:17:28,399
it makes sense why there would be rationality like that.

1494
01:17:29,159 --> 01:17:30,880
Speaker 1: Can you make that argument because as of right now

1495
01:17:30,920 --> 01:17:31,920
we're kind of on equal.

1496
01:17:31,680 --> 01:17:35,840
Speaker 2: Footing the argument right because in the Christian paradigm, right

1497
01:17:35,920 --> 01:17:38,880
where God exists, it's a trinity. He creates man in

1498
01:17:38,920 --> 01:17:41,600
his image. I'm saying that the world view of Christianity

1499
01:17:42,399 --> 01:17:46,119
makes a coherent sense of why there would be things

1500
01:17:46,159 --> 01:17:50,159
like universals, because for in this case, God is omniscient

1501
01:17:50,319 --> 01:17:53,159
and there are divine ideas, and the universals are grounded

1502
01:17:53,159 --> 01:17:55,439
in the divine mind. If you don't have a divine mind,

1503
01:17:55,640 --> 01:17:58,159
there's no basis for universals, and thus there's no basis

1504
01:17:58,159 --> 01:17:58,800
for predication.

1505
01:18:01,560 --> 01:18:03,600
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm not, but I'm not actually hearing. You're just

1506
01:18:03,600 --> 01:18:05,760
saying the Christian doctrine says so.

1507
01:18:06,479 --> 01:18:09,840
Speaker 2: No, it's a paradigm argument, and that's the argument, is

1508
01:18:09,880 --> 01:18:11,920
that it's a comparison of one paradigm versus the other.

1509
01:18:12,000 --> 01:18:14,880
If my paradigm gives an account for it and yours doesn't,

1510
01:18:15,000 --> 01:18:16,800
then this paradigm is correct.

1511
01:18:17,359 --> 01:18:19,640
Speaker 1: Well, I'm asking for the account like you're just you're

1512
01:18:19,680 --> 01:18:21,479
just restating the account.

1513
01:18:21,800 --> 01:18:25,560
Speaker 2: Is the Christian paradigm compared to your paradigm, that's the account.

1514
01:18:26,560 --> 01:18:28,840
Speaker 1: But we can't be compared to my paradigm.

1515
01:18:28,439 --> 01:18:32,159
Speaker 2: Because of course the argument is the argument is comparison.

1516
01:18:32,640 --> 01:18:35,199
Speaker 1: Like the same reason that you said that mine is.

1517
01:18:35,039 --> 01:18:38,239
Speaker 2: Not the argument. No, it's not you're missing the point.

1518
01:18:38,279 --> 01:18:41,560
So you're assuming that the argument for the argumentation at

1519
01:18:41,560 --> 01:18:43,479
a paradigm level is not the same thing. It's the

1520
01:18:43,560 --> 01:18:46,680
argumentation on a mundane first order level. So this is

1521
01:18:46,720 --> 01:18:49,000
a meta level argument. So it's an argument about the

1522
01:18:49,039 --> 01:18:52,319
possibility of arguments. So if my position can give an

1523
01:18:52,359 --> 01:18:56,239
account for within its paradigm, how it's possible to have

1524
01:18:56,560 --> 01:19:00,800
laws of logic, universals, metaphysical categories, et cetera, all the

1525
01:19:00,800 --> 01:19:03,279
things I've been listing, and your position doesn't give an

1526
01:19:03,279 --> 01:19:05,399
account for it, then my position is correct.

1527
01:19:07,600 --> 01:19:11,439
Speaker 1: So you're what is given an accounting, so that there

1528
01:19:11,520 --> 01:19:12,920
is one? What is the argument?

1529
01:19:13,039 --> 01:19:16,520
Speaker 2: The argument is that I need universals, I need these categories.

1530
01:19:16,600 --> 01:19:19,560
God is the only possible being in Christian revelation has

1531
01:19:19,680 --> 01:19:24,079
given that disclosure as to who God is. Divine conceptualism

1532
01:19:24,119 --> 01:19:26,000
grounds the universal categories. How's that?

1533
01:19:27,960 --> 01:19:30,359
Speaker 1: But again it gets suspected, like the God of the gaps.

1534
01:19:30,439 --> 01:19:32,800
Speaker 2: It's not God of the gaps. It's a God of

1535
01:19:33,760 --> 01:19:36,479
The argument is all predication, not God of the gaps.

1536
01:19:36,520 --> 01:19:38,359
That's what you're missing. So God of the gaps is

1537
01:19:38,399 --> 01:19:40,720
this idea that whenever there's a problem, I can just

1538
01:19:40,760 --> 01:19:43,159
kind of stick God in there. This is a way

1539
01:19:43,199 --> 01:19:47,119
stronger claim that all predication requires a certain type of

1540
01:19:47,239 --> 01:19:51,079
world and certain types of transcendental categories. And I'm saying

1541
01:19:51,079 --> 01:19:54,079
that to have the transcendental categories requires some kind of

1542
01:19:54,479 --> 01:19:58,399
metaphysical justification and grounding itself. The only type of being

1543
01:19:58,479 --> 01:20:01,960
who could possibly ground those in a coherent way is

1544
01:20:02,039 --> 01:20:02,560
our God.

1545
01:20:02,880 --> 01:20:06,119
Speaker 1: That's the argument, my my argument, And I want you

1546
01:20:06,199 --> 01:20:09,239
to tell me why what I'm saying is false so

1547
01:20:09,279 --> 01:20:13,880
that I can better understand, which is this sence exists

1548
01:20:14,199 --> 01:20:17,479
because it's impossible to argue against it. Right that a being,

1549
01:20:18,079 --> 01:20:22,079
a being you know, making argumentation, exists in some pass

1550
01:20:22,600 --> 01:20:26,680
to argue against their own existence, would would would negate,

1551
01:20:26,720 --> 01:20:28,399
it would be false, like it would just be false,

1552
01:20:28,479 --> 01:20:32,199
it would be it would be like a performative contradiction minimum.

1553
01:20:32,479 --> 01:20:36,239
And then your argument is when I'm asking you, like,

1554
01:20:36,279 --> 01:20:39,840
how do you justify that God solves this problem? Is

1555
01:20:39,920 --> 01:20:43,319
that it's impossible to argue against it because you need

1556
01:20:43,359 --> 01:20:46,119
these other categories. Sounds like we're making the exist.

1557
01:20:46,159 --> 01:20:51,600
Speaker 2: If I again, if I only did, if I only

1558
01:20:51,640 --> 01:20:53,760
did an internal critique, I would agree with you. That

1559
01:20:53,800 --> 01:20:56,359
doesn't necessarily mean that my position is correct, but if

1560
01:20:56,359 --> 01:20:59,960
I also offer a counter worldview to you which does

1561
01:21:00,159 --> 01:21:03,640
ground and give an account for universal categories, et cetera,

1562
01:21:03,760 --> 01:21:07,359
all those things that I listed, then that's the positive side,

1563
01:21:07,359 --> 01:21:08,800
and that's where it gets a justification.

1564
01:21:11,079 --> 01:21:13,560
Speaker 1: But but but I can do the same thing, right,

1565
01:21:13,640 --> 01:21:16,479
which is what if existence exists identity?

1566
01:21:17,000 --> 01:21:19,159
Speaker 2: No, you didn't. You didn't give a justification. You didn't

1567
01:21:19,159 --> 01:21:20,199
give any kind of justification.

1568
01:21:20,520 --> 01:21:23,720
Speaker 1: You just asserted, well, we we got bogged down, and

1569
01:21:23,760 --> 01:21:25,000
existence exists quite a bit.

1570
01:21:25,640 --> 01:21:28,119
Speaker 2: I never heard a justification argument at all.

1571
01:21:28,279 --> 01:21:32,039
Speaker 1: So existence exists would be like axiom one, axiom two

1572
01:21:32,119 --> 01:21:33,359
would be the law.

1573
01:21:33,640 --> 01:21:36,199
Speaker 2: You didn't prove your axioms on.

1574
01:21:37,920 --> 01:21:40,600
Speaker 1: Oh, you haven't proven yours. You're just saying God exists.

1575
01:21:40,640 --> 01:21:42,600
Speaker 2: Yeah, but I'm not a classical foundationalist. You're trying to

1576
01:21:42,600 --> 01:21:44,720
hold me to your standards. I don't have that same system.

1577
01:21:45,840 --> 01:21:48,399
Speaker 1: Just just God. Must God adhere to logic? Or can

1578
01:21:48,439 --> 01:21:49,239
God be logical?

1579
01:21:49,359 --> 01:21:52,239
Speaker 2: God is the basis for logic, is my argument.

1580
01:21:52,800 --> 01:21:54,600
Speaker 1: So so can God contradict?

1581
01:21:55,039 --> 01:21:55,239
Speaker 2: No?

1582
01:21:56,439 --> 01:21:59,720
Speaker 1: Okay, so if God can't contradict, then we agree regardless

1583
01:21:59,720 --> 01:22:01,399
of what Ever, that.

1584
01:22:01,359 --> 01:22:04,960
Speaker 2: Doesn't mean the account is so Again, you keep confusing

1585
01:22:05,039 --> 01:22:10,279
agreement with account of the agreement. I have a different agreement.

1586
01:22:09,560 --> 01:22:11,319
Speaker 1: So we can move forward in the argument.

1587
01:22:11,399 --> 01:22:14,479
Speaker 2: But it doesn't work because you're missing. But the reason

1588
01:22:14,520 --> 01:22:17,239
that doesn't work to move forward is that you're not understanding.

1589
01:22:17,239 --> 01:22:20,079
It's two rival paradigms trying to give an account for

1590
01:22:20,159 --> 01:22:23,039
the same types of things. And my argument is that

1591
01:22:23,399 --> 01:22:26,399
my paradigm can give an account and your paradigm cannot.

1592
01:22:26,560 --> 01:22:29,079
And not only can your paradigm, not your paradigm cannot

1593
01:22:29,119 --> 01:22:31,840
make knowledge possible. It's even stronger than God of the Gaps.

1594
01:22:33,079 --> 01:22:35,840
Speaker 1: How the fuck? How is knowledge impossible under my.

1595
01:22:35,800 --> 01:22:39,520
Speaker 2: Paradigm because you cannot give a justification for the assertions.

1596
01:22:39,720 --> 01:22:43,159
That's the point. If you don't get the justification, then

1597
01:22:43,159 --> 01:22:45,960
you don't get the assertions given to you. That's what

1598
01:22:46,000 --> 01:22:46,840
philosophy does.

1599
01:22:47,960 --> 01:22:50,640
Speaker 1: Okay, so it's import well, I mean obviously knowledge.

1600
01:22:50,640 --> 01:22:54,199
Speaker 2: It's again you keep saying obviously, and I don't grant

1601
01:22:54,239 --> 01:22:56,720
you any of those things. You have not you've not

1602
01:22:56,800 --> 01:23:00,039
yet proven that anything is self evident. You just asserted, Okay.

1603
01:23:01,079 --> 01:23:03,119
Speaker 1: This is what happens when you interrupt people, so that

1604
01:23:03,279 --> 01:23:04,039
you start.

1605
01:23:03,800 --> 01:23:07,279
Speaker 2: To start That's because the whole argument was continually based

1606
01:23:07,319 --> 01:23:10,319
on you just asserting and believing in self evident principles,

1607
01:23:10,359 --> 01:23:12,079
and I mean I can give you. Do you want

1608
01:23:12,079 --> 01:23:12,960
to go into another.

1609
01:23:13,279 --> 01:23:15,960
Speaker 1: With your own argument of tag? Your own argument of tag.

1610
01:23:16,680 --> 01:23:18,640
Speaker 2: It's not a classical foundational.

1611
01:23:18,479 --> 01:23:21,119
Speaker 1: Necessary conditions, right, So that's.

1612
01:23:20,960 --> 01:23:26,319
Speaker 2: Not what self evidence is. That's not what you even by. Okay, brother,

1613
01:23:26,560 --> 01:23:29,039
that's not what self evidence is. So you're trying to

1614
01:23:29,039 --> 01:23:32,439
hold me to a criteria external to my worldviewer system.

1615
01:23:32,479 --> 01:23:33,159
And it doesn't work.

1616
01:23:34,319 --> 01:23:36,840
Speaker 1: I said knowledge exists, and then you jump down my throat.

1617
01:23:36,960 --> 01:23:39,319
Speaker 2: I don't grant you that. So again, what is that

1618
01:23:39,960 --> 01:23:43,600
you don't understand that it doesn't that doesn't apply to

1619
01:23:43,600 --> 01:23:43,880
the men.

1620
01:23:44,479 --> 01:23:46,279
Speaker 1: You won't even agree with your own argument.

1621
01:23:46,399 --> 01:23:50,000
Speaker 2: No, I have a different account. It's a different account. Actually,

1622
01:23:51,039 --> 01:23:52,239
it's a different account.

1623
01:23:52,239 --> 01:23:57,039
Speaker 1: Man, does or does not your argument hinge upon the

1624
01:23:57,079 --> 01:24:01,000
fact that there are that knowledge, all these.

1625
01:24:00,840 --> 01:24:04,640
Speaker 2: Things, but those all of those words, these are necessary,

1626
01:24:04,720 --> 01:24:08,079
All of those words are conditioned by my paradigm and

1627
01:24:08,199 --> 01:24:08,840
not your parents.

1628
01:24:09,359 --> 01:24:11,279
Speaker 1: How am I supposed to have a conversation?

1629
01:24:11,680 --> 01:24:14,159
Speaker 2: The point is that you can't have It's not it's

1630
01:24:14,159 --> 01:24:16,319
a debate, and that's why you're being held to the

1631
01:24:16,359 --> 01:24:18,960
standards of critical things on logic, and you don't get

1632
01:24:19,000 --> 01:24:19,800
to assert things.

1633
01:24:20,000 --> 01:24:23,199
Speaker 1: Hold on, Hold on, relax. How am I supposed to

1634
01:24:23,239 --> 01:24:27,720
have any meaningful debate if you if I make a

1635
01:24:27,760 --> 01:24:31,199
statement and you immediately interrupt said statement, and that statement

1636
01:24:31,279 --> 01:24:32,960
is even part of your own.

1637
01:24:32,960 --> 01:24:37,640
Speaker 2: Argument, because come on, because it's not getting to an

1638
01:24:37,720 --> 01:24:40,279
understanding the point of what the debate is. You don't

1639
01:24:40,359 --> 01:24:43,840
understand the difference between Like I.

1640
01:24:43,840 --> 01:24:46,960
Speaker 1: Said, obviously knowledge exists. I said three words.

1641
01:24:47,000 --> 01:24:50,000
Speaker 2: I don't agree. Again, you don't understand part of your

1642
01:24:50,000 --> 01:24:53,119
own argos. It doesn't matter because I have a different account.

1643
01:24:53,399 --> 01:24:55,119
So understand that this is like the word. Remember when

1644
01:24:55,159 --> 01:24:56,000
we're talking about the words.

1645
01:24:56,039 --> 01:24:58,680
Speaker 1: You mean a different account, a different account.

1646
01:24:59,159 --> 01:25:01,039
Speaker 2: It's it doesn't matter matter how many words it is,

1647
01:25:01,479 --> 01:25:05,039
it's a totally different account, no matter what, no matter what, yes,

1648
01:25:05,239 --> 01:25:11,279
everything in the paradigm. I said that you haven't given

1649
01:25:11,319 --> 01:25:13,760
a justification, which I don't think you understand what the

1650
01:25:13,800 --> 01:25:22,199
word means. Still for the assertions of self evidence, and

1651
01:25:22,279 --> 01:25:25,359
my position does not believe in self evidence or ad

1652
01:25:25,399 --> 01:25:28,359
hoc assertions. So you have the burden of proof on

1653
01:25:28,439 --> 01:25:31,880
you if you start your position and your system with that,

1654
01:25:31,920 --> 01:25:34,840
with self evidence and things being properly basic.

1655
01:25:35,560 --> 01:25:38,399
Speaker 1: We I'm not allowed to apparently make my.

1656
01:25:38,520 --> 01:25:41,760
Speaker 2: Arg what you We've been talking fine for the last hour.

1657
01:25:41,800 --> 01:25:42,239
What do you mean?

1658
01:25:43,600 --> 01:25:45,600
Speaker 1: I keep trying to get through it and you keep

1659
01:25:45,760 --> 01:25:49,000
just going back to existence exists. We've hifted over to yours,

1660
01:25:49,039 --> 01:25:55,800
but you never just I'm trying again, So I'm shifting

1661
01:25:55,840 --> 01:25:58,279
over to yours. We can do an internal critique of yours, and.

1662
01:25:58,279 --> 01:26:01,800
Speaker 2: I'm trying, but you're in eternal partique is not internal.

1663
01:26:01,880 --> 01:26:08,439
It's your system. Brother, You're asking me, you're you're critiquing

1664
01:26:08,439 --> 01:26:11,359
me from classical foundationalism, and that's not my system. It

1665
01:26:11,359 --> 01:26:11,920
doesn't work.

1666
01:26:12,720 --> 01:26:17,880
Speaker 1: Oh listen, I'm trying to I'm I am. I am

1667
01:26:17,920 --> 01:26:21,680
here genuinely listening to you as you lay out large

1668
01:26:21,800 --> 01:26:25,079
arguments trying to steal man your You're not giving me

1669
01:26:25,119 --> 01:26:28,399
the same grace it's making just being able to even have.

1670
01:26:28,319 --> 01:26:29,680
Speaker 2: A debate or okay, there you go.

1671
01:26:30,960 --> 01:26:35,000
Speaker 1: Right. So I'm trying to understand right where it is

1672
01:26:35,039 --> 01:26:39,840
that why it is that when you plug God into

1673
01:26:39,920 --> 01:26:42,520
the equator, all that sticks.

1674
01:26:42,279 --> 01:26:45,359
Speaker 2: Is not just plugging God in, it's pointing out that

1675
01:26:45,640 --> 01:26:49,680
the paradigm itself is coherent, consistent, has explanatory power, and

1676
01:26:49,720 --> 01:26:53,000
gives a justification for human knowledge, because it's a paradigm

1677
01:26:53,079 --> 01:26:56,720
level argument. I am not plugging in. This is why

1678
01:26:56,960 --> 01:26:59,720
I can already tell where the error is and what

1679
01:26:59,720 --> 01:27:03,039
you're assessing. You're assessing that my position is God of gaps,

1680
01:27:03,600 --> 01:27:06,479
And for the third time, it's a much stronger argument

1681
01:27:06,520 --> 01:27:09,439
than God of the gaps, which is that all predication

1682
01:27:09,560 --> 01:27:13,840
and knowledge requires the transcendental categories my position. I know

1683
01:27:13,880 --> 01:27:15,960
you don't accept the argument or believe that what I'm

1684
01:27:15,960 --> 01:27:18,840
saying is necessarily the case, but the argument is that

1685
01:27:19,760 --> 01:27:24,119
in my worldview or paradigm, there is a coherent, sensible

1686
01:27:24,640 --> 01:27:27,800
account of why there would be the self, the external

1687
01:27:27,880 --> 01:27:32,840
world logic, et cetera. That is contrasted to your entire

1688
01:27:33,000 --> 01:27:36,840
worldview and system in paradigm, which cannot give an account

1689
01:27:37,079 --> 01:27:41,439
for even the transcendental categories themselves. That's the force of

1690
01:27:41,479 --> 01:27:42,000
the argument.

1691
01:27:43,159 --> 01:27:44,920
Speaker 1: I'm genuinely not trying to accuse you.

1692
01:27:45,279 --> 01:27:48,319
Speaker 2: It's a it's a meta level argument, and you're trying

1693
01:27:48,319 --> 01:27:50,479
to argue on a non meta level. That's the point.

1694
01:27:50,520 --> 01:27:51,359
That's the problem we're having.

1695
01:27:52,600 --> 01:27:56,000
Speaker 1: My problem is that and you say that it's somehow

1696
01:27:56,039 --> 01:27:59,760
false to say you plug gotten, But maybe I'm.

1697
01:27:59,560 --> 01:28:02,079
Speaker 2: Just dumb, like you know what a meta level argument

1698
01:28:02,199 --> 01:28:03,720
versus a first order argument.

1699
01:28:03,800 --> 01:28:09,640
Speaker 1: Is I mean, like meta would be the meta would

1700
01:28:09,640 --> 01:28:12,880
be like the thing of itself, as opposed to like

1701
01:28:12,960 --> 01:28:13,680
the minute ship.

1702
01:28:15,000 --> 01:28:17,159
Speaker 2: Right, So, in other word, like logic itself, how is

1703
01:28:17,199 --> 01:28:20,159
logic itself logical? Or how do we know that it works?

1704
01:28:20,239 --> 01:28:20,399
Speaker 1: Right?

1705
01:28:20,520 --> 01:28:24,399
Speaker 2: Versus you know, a more mundane claim like and you're correct?

1706
01:28:24,439 --> 01:28:24,760
I agree?

1707
01:28:24,840 --> 01:28:24,960
Speaker 1: Right?

1708
01:28:25,000 --> 01:28:26,880
Speaker 2: So, like if I said, well, you know, does Bill

1709
01:28:26,920 --> 01:28:28,640
Cosby live next door to me? I don't know. I'll

1710
01:28:28,640 --> 01:28:33,279
have to go, you know, empirically investigate it, right, Debating

1711
01:28:33,319 --> 01:28:36,760
the status of logic itself is way more devastating and

1712
01:28:36,800 --> 01:28:41,079
important and more fundamental to my worldview. No, I agree, okay,

1713
01:28:41,079 --> 01:28:44,399
So that's why this debate is a meta level worldview

1714
01:28:44,479 --> 01:28:45,079
level debate.

1715
01:28:45,319 --> 01:28:48,279
Speaker 1: I didn't, I didn't. I didn't disagree with you on that.

1716
01:28:48,359 --> 01:28:50,960
Speaker 2: Okay. So then the torchs that you're giving are not

1717
01:28:51,199 --> 01:28:55,640
understanding that in my system, God is the justification for

1718
01:28:55,720 --> 01:28:58,680
the transceital categories, because he's the only possible being who

1719
01:28:58,680 --> 01:29:00,960
could ground them. And you're saying, how do we know that?

1720
01:29:00,960 --> 01:29:04,359
What's the justification? The system itself in terms of revealed

1721
01:29:04,399 --> 01:29:08,079
theism is the justification in my paradigm, so you could say, well,

1722
01:29:08,079 --> 01:29:09,840
I don't accept that. That's fine, but.

1723
01:29:10,359 --> 01:29:12,439
Speaker 1: Yeah, I just like I just I'm trying to see

1724
01:29:12,640 --> 01:29:15,920
I'm trying. So I said, if you plug God in,

1725
01:29:16,119 --> 01:29:16,920
and you took.

1726
01:29:17,600 --> 01:29:21,800
Speaker 2: It's not plugging God in. It's stronger than for the

1727
01:29:21,840 --> 01:29:25,359
third time, the reason you said God of the gaps twice,

1728
01:29:25,439 --> 01:29:28,119
and I'm pointing out that it's way stronger argument or

1729
01:29:28,159 --> 01:29:30,960
claim than God of the gaps. God of the Gap says,

1730
01:29:30,960 --> 01:29:32,920
where I see a problem, I stick God in there

1731
01:29:32,960 --> 01:29:34,960
to try to make sense of it. This is more

1732
01:29:34,960 --> 01:29:38,199
fundamental than that. This is saying all human knowledge and

1733
01:29:38,199 --> 01:29:42,640
predication requires the existence of our God, who grounds the

1734
01:29:42,680 --> 01:29:43,560
transl categories.

1735
01:29:44,359 --> 01:29:46,239
Speaker 1: How are we justifying that.

1736
01:29:48,000 --> 01:29:51,319
Speaker 2: Necessary by the impossibility of the opposing worldview not even

1737
01:29:51,359 --> 01:29:53,479
being able to give an account for anything. It's a

1738
01:29:53,520 --> 01:29:56,359
disjunctive argument, but.

1739
01:29:56,439 --> 01:29:58,840
Speaker 1: The only way that so the way that you're you're

1740
01:29:58,880 --> 01:30:04,079
able to say knowledge to exist because and I had

1741
01:30:04,159 --> 01:30:05,279
I don't have this God to.

1742
01:30:06,039 --> 01:30:09,800
Speaker 2: Solve that, to solve the basis for the transcentional categories.

1743
01:30:10,520 --> 01:30:13,840
So you appeal to things like being is being, existence

1744
01:30:13,880 --> 01:30:16,119
is existence, things that are just supposed to be self evident.

1745
01:30:16,560 --> 01:30:19,159
And that's why I went through deconstructing how that's not

1746
01:30:19,199 --> 01:30:19,800
self evident?

1747
01:30:22,079 --> 01:30:25,279
Speaker 1: Well, I don't, I disagree. I'm trying to. I'm I'm

1748
01:30:25,279 --> 01:30:26,880
trying to get to a point where we can where

1749
01:30:26,880 --> 01:30:28,720
we can have this conversation. But I feel like we're

1750
01:30:28,760 --> 01:30:31,199
kind of just at a point where we just disagree versions.

1751
01:30:31,359 --> 01:30:37,000
I mean, this is so I disagree that like just

1752
01:30:37,079 --> 01:30:40,720
plugging in this concept that like, oh, well God justifies

1753
01:30:40,760 --> 01:30:44,039
everything and therefore you know if there are any issues, so.

1754
01:30:44,039 --> 01:30:46,600
Speaker 2: Your answer is just existence exists.

1755
01:30:47,560 --> 01:30:49,680
Speaker 1: My yeah, I mean like that would be the fundamentals.

1756
01:30:50,279 --> 01:30:53,520
Speaker 2: So can I say, could I say so if I

1757
01:30:53,560 --> 01:30:54,479
come to it's.

1758
01:30:54,159 --> 01:30:55,239
Speaker 1: The exact same argument.

1759
01:30:55,279 --> 01:30:59,520
Speaker 2: No, it's not my argument. Your argument is your argument was.

1760
01:30:59,680 --> 01:31:04,239
Speaker 1: On on My argument is existence exists. And we go, well,

1761
01:31:04,319 --> 01:31:07,079
you can't justify that, and I say, well, it's impossible

1762
01:31:07,079 --> 01:31:11,920
to arguement. And then your argument is God exists, and

1763
01:31:12,000 --> 01:31:14,279
I say, well can you justify that? And say, well,

1764
01:31:14,319 --> 01:31:16,479
you can't argue against that because all of the.

1765
01:31:16,399 --> 01:31:20,000
Speaker 2: Things I said twice, I said twice, you're not listening.

1766
01:31:20,000 --> 01:31:22,199
I said twice that if I only gave an in,

1767
01:31:23,039 --> 01:31:25,399
if I only gave an internal critique, you would be correct.

1768
01:31:25,399 --> 01:31:28,720
I already said this twice. That's why you also counter

1769
01:31:29,039 --> 01:31:33,399
with the positive case explaining the paradigm in the worldview,

1770
01:31:33,800 --> 01:31:37,119
because you're debating, we're debating things like logic and existence

1771
01:31:37,159 --> 01:31:39,319
in this language and this kind of stuff that are

1772
01:31:39,479 --> 01:31:42,000
within the paradigm, within the system, so they're going to

1773
01:31:42,000 --> 01:31:46,000
be conditioned by the systems. That's why the transcendental argument

1774
01:31:46,159 --> 01:31:50,079
is literally saying that all argumentation at this level, at

1775
01:31:50,119 --> 01:31:53,520
this fundamental level, is a paradigm level argument because there

1776
01:31:53,600 --> 01:31:56,000
is no self evident principle. So every time you try

1777
01:31:56,000 --> 01:31:59,840
to critique me on your classical foundationalist basis, you're proving

1778
01:31:59,840 --> 01:32:04,319
my point and not understanding that within the paradigm justification

1779
01:32:04,520 --> 01:32:07,840
makes sense because God literally is the only being who

1780
01:32:07,840 --> 01:32:11,000
could ground those things. For example, let's let's make it

1781
01:32:11,079 --> 01:32:13,680
let's make it clear. How could I put this into

1782
01:32:13,720 --> 01:32:17,800
an either or either the world Either the world is

1783
01:32:17,960 --> 01:32:23,920
at a universal sense disteleological, or there is tellos, there

1784
01:32:23,960 --> 01:32:28,760
is purpose, there is teleology operant in the world. And

1785
01:32:29,279 --> 01:32:31,600
maybe you could come up with some mixed third position

1786
01:32:31,640 --> 01:32:33,199
where it's a little bit of both or something if

1787
01:32:33,199 --> 01:32:36,960
you had. But in this disjunctive there's only two and

1788
01:32:37,000 --> 01:32:41,560
perhaps three options for an entire worldview. If you if

1789
01:32:41,600 --> 01:32:44,439
you answer either way on this, you're gonna be led

1790
01:32:44,479 --> 01:32:47,119
to my position. And that's the that's the force of

1791
01:32:47,159 --> 01:32:51,960
the transcendental argument. You can take anything causation, teleology, pencils,

1792
01:32:52,000 --> 01:32:54,760
predication and make the transcendental argument.

1793
01:32:57,680 --> 01:33:00,640
Speaker 1: How am I so, well, then let's walk Mut's make

1794
01:33:00,680 --> 01:33:03,439
it super simple. Either blue T shirts exist or blue

1795
01:33:03,439 --> 01:33:04,439
T shirts don't exend.

1796
01:33:04,640 --> 01:33:09,079
Speaker 2: You know, I gave it this theological versus a teleological world, right,

1797
01:33:10,760 --> 01:33:11,560
that was my exams.

1798
01:33:12,119 --> 01:33:14,479
Speaker 1: So either meaning exists or meaning doesn't exist.

1799
01:33:14,680 --> 01:33:16,960
Speaker 2: Well, it's purpose in the world at a at a

1800
01:33:17,000 --> 01:33:19,880
grand scale, or there is no purpose in a grand scale.

1801
01:33:20,760 --> 01:33:25,520
Speaker 1: Okay, I was using meaning and purpose, you know, simplify

1802
01:33:25,600 --> 01:33:29,000
the argument, right, like, so either meaning exists or meaning

1803
01:33:29,039 --> 01:33:30,800
doesn't exit. And you're saying that.

1804
01:33:30,760 --> 01:33:33,279
Speaker 2: If at a at a universal level, not at a

1805
01:33:33,319 --> 01:33:34,199
subjective level.

1806
01:33:35,640 --> 01:33:39,000
Speaker 1: Okay, So then yes, so I would so meaning at

1807
01:33:39,000 --> 01:33:42,920
a universal level doesn't exit. We'll take that. We'll take that.

1808
01:33:43,520 --> 01:33:47,560
My argument would be meaning does not exist at a

1809
01:33:47,720 --> 01:33:50,479
universal level for for all all beings.

1810
01:33:50,479 --> 01:33:53,119
Speaker 2: Thank you. Then how do I then if that's the

1811
01:33:53,239 --> 01:33:57,600
universal status of that proposition or claim. If that is

1812
01:33:57,640 --> 01:34:00,960
the case, then every particular case her status of so

1813
01:34:01,000 --> 01:34:04,720
called meaning is also encapsulated under the ultimate non meaning.

1814
01:34:04,800 --> 01:34:07,760
So every argument you make is based on meaninglessness.

1815
01:34:11,359 --> 01:34:13,359
Speaker 1: And how does God? How does? How does how does

1816
01:34:13,399 --> 01:34:17,000
the existence of a non or uncreated existence?

1817
01:34:17,479 --> 01:34:21,520
Speaker 2: Because God is because God is personal and intentional, and

1818
01:34:21,640 --> 01:34:25,279
intentionality means that there is a meaningful world at a universal,

1819
01:34:25,359 --> 01:34:26,079
grand scale.

1820
01:34:27,680 --> 01:34:33,119
Speaker 1: Okay, So so essentially where it's like a sart No.

1821
01:34:33,119 --> 01:34:36,079
Speaker 2: It's not at all, it's not. It's not. It's a

1822
01:34:36,119 --> 01:34:38,680
transcendental argument for teleology.

1823
01:34:39,520 --> 01:34:42,640
Speaker 1: Why do you know I was saying, So it's it's

1824
01:34:42,760 --> 01:34:46,720
it's similar to like if God doesn't exist in everything's permitted.

1825
01:34:49,319 --> 01:34:51,960
Speaker 2: I mean, that's a boil down ethical version of it.

1826
01:34:52,000 --> 01:34:54,319
But I'm making another. I'm making more of a metaphysical

1827
01:34:54,399 --> 01:34:57,720
argument about purpose and teleology and intentionality that the universe

1828
01:34:57,760 --> 01:35:01,399
does not at a grand scale have that then than

1829
01:35:01,439 --> 01:35:04,119
what we're The only other option is what's called accidentalism

1830
01:35:04,319 --> 01:35:07,920
or dysteleology. And if that's the case, then hold on.

1831
01:35:08,000 --> 01:35:10,600
If that's the case, then knowledge is no longer possible.

1832
01:35:11,720 --> 01:35:13,840
Speaker 1: Why is knowledge? Because let's stick to me.

1833
01:35:14,239 --> 01:35:18,760
Speaker 2: Because now everything is accidental. Now everything is accidental. I'm

1834
01:35:18,760 --> 01:35:21,560
going to answer question. Because everything is now accidental, including

1835
01:35:21,640 --> 01:35:24,920
every action of knowledge is an accident. And thus there's

1836
01:35:25,000 --> 01:35:29,039
no laws of thought or laws of reasoning which are

1837
01:35:29,079 --> 01:35:33,560
necessary for the possibility of meaningful discourse. You would negate

1838
01:35:33,600 --> 01:35:34,760
the possibility laws you.

1839
01:35:34,680 --> 01:35:36,640
Speaker 1: Don't need you don't need it. You don't need a

1840
01:35:36,680 --> 01:35:38,039
god for that exist.

1841
01:35:38,079 --> 01:35:41,920
Speaker 2: There are no immaterial laws. You keep saying that, But

1842
01:35:41,960 --> 01:35:46,319
there's what's the justification for immaterial laws? If everything is

1843
01:35:46,359 --> 01:35:47,000
an accident?

1844
01:35:48,119 --> 01:35:51,039
Speaker 1: I So first, let's let's go buy this piece PIPI.

1845
01:35:51,640 --> 01:35:55,680
So I recognize that people want to discover meaning in

1846
01:35:55,720 --> 01:35:56,119
their life.

1847
01:35:56,840 --> 01:36:00,159
Speaker 2: But okay, hold.

1848
01:36:00,079 --> 01:36:05,199
Speaker 1: On, why is it that meaning is a necessary condition

1849
01:36:05,399 --> 01:36:08,720
for the universe? Why must the universe have meaning?

1850
01:36:08,880 --> 01:36:15,520
Speaker 2: Because to have justified knowledge you need intentionality, purpose and

1851
01:36:15,840 --> 01:36:19,560
laws of thought and grammar, and those things cannot exist

1852
01:36:19,640 --> 01:36:23,159
in a world that is ultimately, purely and totally accidental.

1853
01:36:24,720 --> 01:36:32,119
Speaker 1: So well yeah, well okay, so if if if if

1854
01:36:32,159 --> 01:36:35,560
things have identities right, like a like a like a

1855
01:36:35,640 --> 01:36:38,960
rabbiting system, and that is, you know, rabbit naings, that

1856
01:36:39,000 --> 01:36:42,840
thing has it's we can describe what it is. Why

1857
01:36:43,000 --> 01:36:48,640
is God a necessary element or conscious being able?

1858
01:36:48,840 --> 01:36:53,479
Speaker 2: Because if the total existence is because because it's not

1859
01:36:53,840 --> 01:36:55,399
justified that's why let me.

1860
01:36:55,399 --> 01:36:58,600
Speaker 1: Finished, let me finds. So why is it that I

1861
01:36:58,680 --> 01:37:01,800
can see, like, why is God a necessary element for

1862
01:37:02,000 --> 01:37:05,640
me to see a rabbit that is named Steve and

1863
01:37:05,880 --> 01:37:09,720
perceive the behaviors that the rabbit. Again, it's the things

1864
01:37:09,840 --> 01:37:10,520
the rabbit does.

1865
01:37:11,800 --> 01:37:14,560
Speaker 2: The fact that you have the knowledge does not equate

1866
01:37:14,600 --> 01:37:17,439
to you justifying the knowledge. That's what this whole debate

1867
01:37:17,479 --> 01:37:21,079
has been about. Justification is not pragmatism. It's not you

1868
01:37:21,239 --> 01:37:23,159
just having it. It's not you asserting it. It's not

1869
01:37:23,199 --> 01:37:26,479
you believing in self evident assertions. It's you giving an

1870
01:37:26,520 --> 01:37:29,800
account for the things that make it possible. So you

1871
01:37:29,840 --> 01:37:31,439
can say, well, I have.

1872
01:37:33,119 --> 01:37:34,760
Speaker 1: So it wouldn't be able to justify them.

1873
01:37:34,760 --> 01:37:37,359
Speaker 2: That's correct. So if you say, well, I believe that

1874
01:37:37,399 --> 01:37:40,840
I've found meaning and predicating about my pet rabbits, and

1875
01:37:40,880 --> 01:37:43,960
it gives me the solace I get warm feelies over it.

1876
01:37:44,479 --> 01:37:47,640
In the grand scheme, In the grand scheme, when you

1877
01:37:47,720 --> 01:37:51,319
die and you go into the nothingness, that is gone,

1878
01:37:51,479 --> 01:37:55,000
and so it has no relevance or reference to the

1879
01:37:55,079 --> 01:37:57,920
universe as a whole. And so ultimately, even though you

1880
01:37:58,000 --> 01:38:00,920
might have subjectively felt like there was me, there there

1881
01:38:00,960 --> 01:38:05,079
is no meaning beyond your own personal subjective creating of meaning.

1882
01:38:05,119 --> 01:38:06,800
So there is no Tels in your position?

1883
01:38:07,000 --> 01:38:08,119
Speaker 1: Right, But why does that matter?

1884
01:38:08,920 --> 01:38:13,000
Speaker 2: Because knowledge can no longer be epistemically justified if the

1885
01:38:13,119 --> 01:38:15,600
universe is accidental and disteleological.

1886
01:38:16,199 --> 01:38:18,800
Speaker 1: If I live a life, and how does that get

1887
01:38:18,800 --> 01:38:23,439
you justification? Hold on, if I live a life and right,

1888
01:38:23,479 --> 01:38:25,720
and then the world moves on without me for a

1889
01:38:25,760 --> 01:38:29,920
million years? Right, whatever my actions are had some effect

1890
01:38:29,920 --> 01:38:33,239
on the world. But why does like why what? What

1891
01:38:33,359 --> 01:38:37,159
is this you're you're positing that a grand vision or

1892
01:38:37,239 --> 01:38:38,239
meaning is necessary.

1893
01:38:38,279 --> 01:38:41,720
Speaker 2: It's called accidentalism disteleological. Right, this is actually a fa

1894
01:38:42,279 --> 01:38:47,600
a famous argument. Right, If the universe at a grand

1895
01:38:47,640 --> 01:38:54,960
scale is accidental and distillological, then by necessity, every particular person, object,

1896
01:38:55,279 --> 01:38:59,439
and thing within is also accidental, and thus there is

1897
01:38:59,520 --> 01:39:04,319
no base this for logic knowledge in a just victory sense,

1898
01:39:04,479 --> 01:39:07,199
because there are no laws of thought because they are

1899
01:39:07,239 --> 01:39:10,399
also accidental and dissiological and with no purpose.

1900
01:39:13,520 --> 01:39:14,159
Speaker 1: Okay, So.

1901
01:39:16,159 --> 01:39:21,039
Speaker 2: If the grand scale universal is purposeless, all the particular

1902
01:39:21,039 --> 01:39:22,119
parts are purposeless.

1903
01:39:26,000 --> 01:39:28,760
Speaker 1: But it doesn't it doesn't actually answer the question you're

1904
01:39:28,800 --> 01:39:31,439
just saying, because it doesn't have propose like we can

1905
01:39:31,479 --> 01:39:31,840
we can.

1906
01:39:31,760 --> 01:39:33,920
Speaker 2: Look at again for the third time, to have the

1907
01:39:34,039 --> 01:39:36,359
laws of no hold on for the laws of thought. No,

1908
01:39:36,760 --> 01:39:39,279
I'm not interrupting for having the laws of thought. Let

1909
01:39:39,279 --> 01:39:42,159
me explain it. Let me explain it. For having You

1910
01:39:42,199 --> 01:39:45,279
can't have language without the laws of thought.

1911
01:39:45,359 --> 01:39:48,199
Speaker 1: Oh my god, Oh my god, oh my god. Brother,

1912
01:39:49,199 --> 01:39:52,239
I'm letting you make your full argument and then taking

1913
01:39:52,239 --> 01:39:53,199
that argument.

1914
01:39:53,479 --> 01:40:02,399
Speaker 2: You can't have language is very law. Come on, man, Okay.

1915
01:40:02,439 --> 01:40:06,920
Speaker 1: So I'm trying to like, I'm not like, I'm not.

1916
01:40:07,479 --> 01:40:09,920
I'm asking you a question and I'm not getting an answer.

1917
01:40:10,159 --> 01:40:14,319
What I'm getting is that what I'm getting is you're

1918
01:40:14,479 --> 01:40:20,079
appealing to the people's desire. No, I didn't for purpose

1919
01:40:20,119 --> 01:40:24,000
and meaning, I'm asking.

1920
01:40:22,600 --> 01:40:24,880
Speaker 2: Where did I ever say where did I ever say that?

1921
01:40:24,880 --> 01:40:27,319
That's totally not true? I said, you're not You're not.

1922
01:40:27,760 --> 01:40:29,399
I said, you're doing.

1923
01:40:29,479 --> 01:40:32,279
Speaker 1: By not actually answering the question, which is why.

1924
01:40:32,119 --> 01:40:34,800
Speaker 2: The very beginning point was about the universe as a

1925
01:40:34,800 --> 01:40:40,840
whole having either a teleological intentionality purpose behind it or

1926
01:40:40,920 --> 01:40:43,800
it's purely accidental at a grand scale. That was what

1927
01:40:43,880 --> 01:40:45,960
I said, very clear, And there's only two options here,

1928
01:40:46,079 --> 01:40:47,319
Or if you want to say there's a mix, you

1929
01:40:47,319 --> 01:40:49,760
could have a third option. And you said, well, but

1930
01:40:49,800 --> 01:40:52,479
how does that mean I can't justify knowledge? And I said,

1931
01:40:52,520 --> 01:40:56,439
because if the universe is purely accidental, all the so

1932
01:40:56,680 --> 01:41:00,159
called laws within it, including the laws of thought, the

1933
01:41:00,239 --> 01:41:06,479
laws of logic, mathematical laws, are also thus accidental and

1934
01:41:06,600 --> 01:41:11,359
have no purpose. And so your arguments right now have

1935
01:41:11,600 --> 01:41:13,920
no purpose by your own admission.

1936
01:41:20,279 --> 01:41:25,720
Speaker 1: If so, you're saying that purpose and meaning is required

1937
01:41:25,720 --> 01:41:26,239
for let's.

1938
01:41:26,039 --> 01:41:31,359
Speaker 2: Saying a world with no purpose and no meaning cannot

1939
01:41:31,359 --> 01:41:34,000
give rise to universal.

1940
01:41:34,319 --> 01:41:36,720
Speaker 1: Maybe I need a better definition of what you mean

1941
01:41:37,840 --> 01:41:42,359
when you're making the arguments like teleology, purpose meaning, et cetera.

1942
01:41:42,520 --> 01:41:45,159
Speaker 2: Like what you mean in this regards the universe as

1943
01:41:45,159 --> 01:41:47,960
a whole in all of its parts have a directed,

1944
01:41:48,079 --> 01:41:50,119
intentional purpose or they do not.

1945
01:41:52,039 --> 01:41:54,760
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, like a heart pumps blood. The purpose of

1946
01:41:54,800 --> 01:41:57,920
the heart is to pump blood. Why is God necessary

1947
01:41:58,239 --> 01:42:00,000
for the For the heart to pump blood?

1948
01:42:04,359 --> 01:42:09,399
Speaker 2: The justification for tilos in a universal sense requires some

1949
01:42:09,760 --> 01:42:12,680
universal being or thing to ground it and justify it.

1950
01:42:12,720 --> 01:42:13,479
That's the argument.

1951
01:42:13,640 --> 01:42:16,159
Speaker 1: So okay, well, why is God necessary for that?

1952
01:42:16,840 --> 01:42:19,119
Speaker 2: God is the only being who could give an account

1953
01:42:19,159 --> 01:42:22,079
for that.

1954
01:42:22,079 --> 01:42:23,239
Speaker 1: That's not answering my question.

1955
01:42:23,319 --> 01:42:25,199
Speaker 2: It is just you don't like to answer. But what

1956
01:42:25,239 --> 01:42:25,920
other being could?

1957
01:42:26,000 --> 01:42:27,840
Speaker 1: Why is God necessary?

1958
01:42:28,239 --> 01:42:31,079
Speaker 2: Because he's the only type of being who could give

1959
01:42:31,079 --> 01:42:32,079
an account?

1960
01:42:33,159 --> 01:42:35,800
Speaker 1: I can give it a I can give an account of.

1961
01:42:36,079 --> 01:42:39,880
Speaker 2: But you already admit it because your account, your account

1962
01:42:40,000 --> 01:42:44,159
is not Your account is not universally Your accounts is subjective.

1963
01:42:44,840 --> 01:42:48,560
Your account is subjective and not universally true. That's the point.

1964
01:42:50,279 --> 01:42:53,119
Speaker 1: So you're saying that another person could have an interpretation

1965
01:42:53,199 --> 01:42:53,600
of the heart.

1966
01:42:53,720 --> 01:42:57,880
Speaker 2: No, I'm asking about your assertion of universals now, and

1967
01:42:57,920 --> 01:42:59,880
you don't have a justification for how there's universe.

1968
01:43:07,119 --> 01:43:08,840
Speaker 1: I would depend it would depend upon what we mean

1969
01:43:08,880 --> 01:43:11,439
when we're talking about like the purpose of inanimate objects?

1970
01:43:11,479 --> 01:43:14,840
Speaker 2: Right, No, you said that this is Is it true?

1971
01:43:15,039 --> 01:43:16,159
Is it universally true?

1972
01:43:17,720 --> 01:43:21,239
Speaker 1: That that the if we're talking about the specific identity? Yes,

1973
01:43:21,279 --> 01:43:22,319
it is universally true.

1974
01:43:22,640 --> 01:43:25,359
Speaker 2: How do you have knowledge of the universal? How do

1975
01:43:25,399 --> 01:43:30,359
you have knowledge of universals as a individual, finite empirical being.

1976
01:43:31,199 --> 01:43:33,600
Speaker 1: I have consciousness. Consciousness gives me.

1977
01:43:33,680 --> 01:43:36,840
Speaker 2: How does having consciousness prove the existence of universals?

1978
01:43:38,199 --> 01:43:43,399
Speaker 1: Well, consciousness is alitional. It's not what it's volitional, it's intentional.

1979
01:43:43,520 --> 01:43:46,000
It's like it's it's like the consciousness.

1980
01:43:46,039 --> 01:43:49,479
Speaker 2: Okay, you keep what is the proof of the justification

1981
01:43:49,520 --> 01:43:53,560
that you have these things? You keep asserting it. We

1982
01:43:54,920 --> 01:43:56,279
have to Can I come to the debate and just

1983
01:43:56,319 --> 01:43:58,960
say God just Can I come to the debate and

1984
01:43:58,960 --> 01:43:59,720
say God just is?

1985
01:44:00,800 --> 01:44:02,239
Speaker 1: I feel like that's kind of what you're doing. No.

1986
01:44:02,319 --> 01:44:04,439
Speaker 2: I made a transcend in argument which you just don't understand,

1987
01:44:04,439 --> 01:44:06,359
and you're coming to bet and saying what existence just is?

1988
01:44:06,479 --> 01:44:07,520
And it just is?

1989
01:44:09,199 --> 01:44:13,600
Speaker 1: Well, you're I fail to see the distinction between I

1990
01:44:13,640 --> 01:44:16,359
really do, but you'll just say that it's like I'm

1991
01:44:16,399 --> 01:44:17,600
dumb or something. It's fine.

1992
01:44:18,159 --> 01:44:20,880
Speaker 2: Again, the distinction is that you're not justifying all of

1993
01:44:20,920 --> 01:44:23,239
these assertions and beliefs and dog you have a bunch

1994
01:44:23,239 --> 01:44:28,600
of dogmas that you've not justified. You on your paradigm,

1995
01:44:29,600 --> 01:44:33,920
on your paradigm. That okay, well, so is everything. You said,

1996
01:44:33,960 --> 01:44:37,680
everything is an accident, everything is without purpose. And you said,

1997
01:44:37,680 --> 01:44:39,279
but in my personal life, I can say that the

1998
01:44:39,319 --> 01:44:41,880
heart beats, okay, And then you said that that's universe.

1999
01:44:41,920 --> 01:44:44,159
That's you said, that's universally true. You don't have a

2000
01:44:44,279 --> 01:44:48,720
justification for universals because universals are No, it's not you

2001
01:44:48,760 --> 01:44:51,319
can say that, but you've contradicted it by saying that

2002
01:44:51,359 --> 01:44:54,079
the universe as a whole is also purposeless. That means

2003
01:44:54,079 --> 01:44:56,119
that your universal claims are also purposeless.

2004
01:44:57,159 --> 01:44:59,680
Speaker 1: Again, this is why I asked you to clarify on

2005
01:44:59,760 --> 01:45:02,720
your meanings of like purposeless purposefulness.

2006
01:45:02,840 --> 01:45:07,039
Speaker 2: There's no purpose he lows to anything. That means your

2007
01:45:07,199 --> 01:45:08,800
arguments are no have no.

2008
01:45:08,760 --> 01:45:12,359
Speaker 1: Purpose when we take you're so frustrated.

2009
01:45:12,760 --> 01:45:15,760
Speaker 2: Because you're losing at this point, it's a very obvious points.

2010
01:45:16,560 --> 01:45:20,279
If everything is meaninglessness, then your arguments are meaningless.

2011
01:45:20,319 --> 01:45:23,399
Speaker 1: Brother, brother, for the loves God whining?

2012
01:45:23,479 --> 01:45:25,199
Speaker 2: Do we don't care about your whining?

2013
01:45:26,279 --> 01:45:27,920
Speaker 1: I know that you don't care about my learning. It's

2014
01:45:27,920 --> 01:45:30,560
because you're a rude right regardless.

2015
01:45:30,600 --> 01:45:34,960
Speaker 2: So everything is purposelessness, everything is meaningless, purposelesslessness, but your

2016
01:45:35,159 --> 01:45:37,560
universal truth. You said that, Yes, you did. You said

2017
01:45:37,600 --> 01:45:41,439
the universe was purposeless. You said that you are. You

2018
01:45:41,479 --> 01:45:44,079
said at a grand scale, it was you gave.

2019
01:45:44,399 --> 01:45:47,720
Speaker 1: You gave an argument that said there's optional option, be

2020
01:45:48,000 --> 01:45:50,279
potentially a mixed You said that too, I said, And

2021
01:45:50,399 --> 01:45:54,680
you said that these will necessitate God when we follow

2022
01:45:54,720 --> 01:45:55,119
them through.

2023
01:45:55,199 --> 01:45:57,960
Speaker 2: So I said, sure, I said you right, And you

2024
01:45:58,079 --> 01:45:58,720
said that.

2025
01:45:58,720 --> 01:46:02,479
Speaker 1: I'm saying the universe purposefuls, it's meaningless or whatever.

2026
01:46:02,560 --> 01:46:17,640
Speaker 2: Right, but there's only two options on this question. Bad faith, dude,

2027
01:46:17,680 --> 01:46:18,640
nobody's buying.

2028
01:46:18,439 --> 01:46:20,680
Speaker 1: Your bullshit bad faith.

2029
01:46:20,720 --> 01:46:23,239
Speaker 2: When you say, if there's only two options, then that

2030
01:46:23,319 --> 01:46:25,880
must be your positions, right, I say, let's all.

2031
01:46:25,880 --> 01:46:28,279
Speaker 1: Right, let's pick one and let's follow your logic.

2032
01:46:28,600 --> 01:46:31,039
Speaker 2: Is that not your positions? Is it not your position?

2033
01:46:31,199 --> 01:46:33,039
Speaker 1: I don't know that. I don't I would, I would

2034
01:46:33,199 --> 01:46:35,760
genuinely and honestly have to think about it.

2035
01:46:36,039 --> 01:46:37,800
Speaker 2: Okay, then you're not in a position to give a

2036
01:46:37,880 --> 01:46:40,119
justification for universal claims by that admission.

2037
01:46:42,760 --> 01:46:46,479
Speaker 1: I'm not in a position to give universal claims because

2038
01:46:46,520 --> 01:46:49,000
I don't know whether or not one specific claim.

2039
01:46:49,079 --> 01:46:53,159
Speaker 2: Something because of the no, because of intentionality and tilos.

2040
01:46:53,520 --> 01:46:57,479
If the universe is universally purposeless and meaningless, and now

2041
01:46:57,479 --> 01:46:59,680
you're saying, well, I don't actually believe that, then you

2042
01:46:59,720 --> 01:47:00,880
are arguing in bad faith.

2043
01:47:01,880 --> 01:47:04,039
Speaker 1: How am I arguing in bad faith just because I

2044
01:47:04,039 --> 01:47:04,600
don't like?

2045
01:47:04,640 --> 01:47:07,159
Speaker 2: I would say like, because there's only two options in

2046
01:47:07,159 --> 01:47:09,880
this question, for there's only two options for anyone.

2047
01:47:09,880 --> 01:47:10,119
Speaker 1: No, No.

2048
01:47:10,800 --> 01:47:15,119
Speaker 2: The whole chat is you're over, you are this is

2049
01:47:15,800 --> 01:47:21,640
shush me, this is I'm gonna know you. Nobody's buying

2050
01:47:21,640 --> 01:47:25,159
the bullshit man, and you're I'm not lying. You literally

2051
01:47:25,159 --> 01:47:26,399
contradicted yourself again.

2052
01:47:26,560 --> 01:47:30,199
Speaker 1: No, listen again. Your claim now is that it is

2053
01:47:30,600 --> 01:47:31,560
talk about meta car.

2054
01:47:32,079 --> 01:47:34,439
Speaker 2: You said the universe's purpose. Listen, nest, and now you're

2055
01:47:34,439 --> 01:47:37,039
walking it back because you got repeated. You're walking it

2056
01:47:37,079 --> 01:47:38,760
back because you got repeated again.

2057
01:47:39,920 --> 01:47:43,000
Speaker 1: No, I can't. Who is the two options? I said,

2058
01:47:43,079 --> 01:47:45,560
let's explore this option. It is not bad.

2059
01:47:45,840 --> 01:47:47,119
Speaker 2: There's only two options.

2060
01:47:48,079 --> 01:47:48,840
Speaker 1: There's only time.

2061
01:47:50,439 --> 01:47:53,479
Speaker 2: You're cooked, You're done, you're melting down, your spurging out.

2062
01:47:54,640 --> 01:48:05,079
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, s dude, brother, Yeah, I'm just I'm

2063
01:48:05,199 --> 01:48:08,279
I'm I will I guess I will finish with this.

2064
01:48:09,000 --> 01:48:12,840
The idea that you call someone bad faith because.

2065
01:48:12,680 --> 01:48:14,479
Speaker 2: You're the one who bitched about me being bad face

2066
01:48:14,560 --> 01:48:15,239
the entire time.

2067
01:48:18,720 --> 01:48:21,560
Speaker 1: Okay, so we're starting the idea that you would call

2068
01:48:21,640 --> 01:48:26,359
someone bad fake because you present an argument and the

2069
01:48:26,439 --> 01:48:29,800
person listens to it, takes notes.

2070
01:48:29,520 --> 01:48:31,680
Speaker 2: On it, and then walks it back when they see

2071
01:48:31,680 --> 01:48:36,279
a problem. Correct, that's bad faith. Yeah, you affirmed, you

2072
01:48:36,319 --> 01:48:39,199
affirmed universal meaninglessness. We can, we can, we can do

2073
01:48:39,239 --> 01:48:41,680
this where.

2074
01:48:41,520 --> 01:48:43,159
Speaker 1: You eventually act like an adult.

2075
01:48:43,760 --> 01:48:47,199
Speaker 2: You affirmed universal meaninglessness on a possible in a position

2076
01:48:47,279 --> 01:48:49,960
that only has two options. And now you're saying I

2077
01:48:49,960 --> 01:48:52,800
don't necessarily agree with that, Well, then do you accept

2078
01:48:52,800 --> 01:48:55,479
that there is universal meetings? We're No, I'm not lying.

2079
01:48:55,840 --> 01:48:58,199
I don't have to lie in a person who has

2080
01:48:58,319 --> 01:49:00,760
bombed an entire debate for two hours. Why would I

2081
01:49:00,800 --> 01:49:04,119
have to lie? You have crashed and burned, dude, I'm

2082
01:49:04,119 --> 01:49:07,159
not lying about you. You're a terrible debater objectively.

2083
01:49:08,760 --> 01:49:11,560
Speaker 1: I get it that this is a debate game for you.

2084
01:49:11,640 --> 01:49:14,840
Speaker 2: No, it's not a game. You crashed and burned miserably.

2085
01:49:15,880 --> 01:49:19,119
But I entertained the entire discussion because I'm happy to

2086
01:49:19,159 --> 01:49:23,119
explain the arguments to you. Oh my gosh, Oh my gosh,

2087
01:49:23,439 --> 01:49:27,199
Oh my gosh. Can you just make your arguments without whiny,

2088
01:49:27,399 --> 01:49:28,800
you whining bitch this whole time?

2089
01:49:30,039 --> 01:49:32,520
Speaker 1: Yes, that is that is true. I have complained quite

2090
01:49:32,560 --> 01:49:32,760
a lot.

2091
01:49:33,000 --> 01:49:36,640
Speaker 2: Yes, whining and bitching because you can't deal with the arguments.

2092
01:49:36,680 --> 01:49:39,079
You would rather whine and bitch about actually deal arguments.

2093
01:49:44,119 --> 01:49:50,359
Speaker 1: No, it's just because and it's so difficult to.

2094
01:49:50,319 --> 01:49:52,159
Speaker 2: Have a conversation while you're in a feminist swine man.

2095
01:49:52,199 --> 01:49:53,880
So I'm gonna be I'm gonna be childish with you.

2096
01:49:54,359 --> 01:49:55,000
So how's that.

2097
01:49:56,680 --> 01:50:07,039
Speaker 1: I'm I'm sure, brother, whatever, whatever, okay, ok I am yeah.

2098
01:50:07,079 --> 01:50:11,520
So again I did not say any. Again, I will reaffirm,

2099
01:50:11,960 --> 01:50:13,840
you know, I don't know. I'd have to think about

2100
01:50:14,760 --> 01:50:16,399
many of the concept.

2101
01:50:16,840 --> 01:50:19,000
Speaker 2: Maybe in a debate to say that I don't know.

2102
01:50:19,680 --> 01:50:23,000
I don't know. Is that a good sign in the debate,

2103
01:50:23,079 --> 01:50:25,720
to be like, I don't know, let me walk it back,

2104
01:50:25,760 --> 01:50:26,239
I don't know.

2105
01:50:27,119 --> 01:50:29,000
Speaker 1: Actually, I think I think that's a really good sign

2106
01:50:29,000 --> 01:50:32,319
of someone that's actually being good faith as opposed to you, oh,

2107
01:50:32,720 --> 01:50:34,920
that you're you're searching for a dub as opposed to so.

2108
01:50:34,960 --> 01:50:37,560
Speaker 2: I don't know. Let me debate a topic. Let me

2109
01:50:37,640 --> 01:50:39,319
walk it back and admit that I don't know.

2110
01:50:39,720 --> 01:50:41,399
Speaker 1: I'll walk back anything.

2111
01:50:41,640 --> 01:50:45,359
Speaker 2: You affirmed that, you affirmed that the universe is purposeless.

2112
01:50:45,800 --> 01:50:47,319
Everybody heard you, So I asked.

2113
01:50:47,359 --> 01:50:50,000
Speaker 1: I did an internal critique. I said, why must there

2114
01:50:50,079 --> 01:50:50,560
be purposes?

2115
01:50:50,640 --> 01:50:53,279
Speaker 2: No? No, no, Now you're alive because you did explicitly

2116
01:50:53,359 --> 01:50:55,560
verbally say fine, as purposeless. I'll go with that.

2117
01:50:56,720 --> 01:50:59,560
Speaker 1: Yes, fine, I'll go with that. Yes, that is saying

2118
01:50:59,640 --> 01:51:02,560
for the any for the for the sake of continuing the.

2119
01:51:02,640 --> 01:51:04,680
Speaker 2: Argument for it it doesn't matter that you walk it

2120
01:51:04,680 --> 01:51:06,520
back and say that it's not your position, which would

2121
01:51:06,520 --> 01:51:08,640
mean it's in bad faith. If there's only two options.

2122
01:51:08,720 --> 01:51:10,319
Speaker 1: Dude, I I I.

2123
01:51:12,520 --> 01:51:19,000
Speaker 2: The whole chat you lost. I I you're done walking back.

2124
01:51:20,760 --> 01:51:24,039
Everyone heard you affirm discilology. Everyone heard you affirm it.

2125
01:51:29,479 --> 01:51:32,359
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't know how to continue this conversation right,

2126
01:51:32,359 --> 01:51:36,079
because you crash exactly. It's not a matter of crashing

2127
01:51:36,119 --> 01:51:38,800
and burning. I made the mistake. I find it engaged

2128
01:51:38,840 --> 01:51:41,720
honestly with a piece with a piece of right.

2129
01:51:41,800 --> 01:51:44,119
Speaker 2: So now it's all personally. When I keep it on

2130
01:51:44,159 --> 01:51:46,000
the topic, you make it personal. All you do this

2131
01:51:46,000 --> 01:51:47,680
whole time was wine until at the end I said,

2132
01:51:47,680 --> 01:51:50,720
you're a soy man. You talk non stop ship about me,

2133
01:51:50,760 --> 01:51:53,119
calling me a pussy. I bring you on here. You

2134
01:51:53,159 --> 01:51:55,760
crash and burn and have a meltdown because you can't

2135
01:51:55,760 --> 01:52:02,159
answer basic philosophical questions. Man, I agree that that is

2136
01:52:02,159 --> 01:52:05,439
your interpretation of No, that's just everyone's interpretation, because that's

2137
01:52:05,479 --> 01:52:06,039
what happened.

2138
01:52:07,359 --> 01:52:09,079
Speaker 1: Fair enough. You know, you win some, you lose some.

2139
01:52:09,279 --> 01:52:12,000
Maybe one day I can, you know, learn more about

2140
01:52:12,039 --> 01:52:14,760
the more, learn more about these arguments and debated with

2141
01:52:14,760 --> 01:52:15,640
somebody that's interest.

2142
01:52:15,760 --> 01:52:17,920
Speaker 2: So you're admitting that you don't know the topic. That's

2143
01:52:17,920 --> 01:52:19,319
a good admission. I appreciate that.

2144
01:52:20,760 --> 01:52:23,399
Speaker 1: Well. I well, obviously I would admit that there are

2145
01:52:23,399 --> 01:52:26,560
aspects of any argumentation from other people that you don't know,

2146
01:52:26,680 --> 01:52:28,079
Like what kind of narcissism?

2147
01:52:28,239 --> 01:52:31,199
Speaker 2: No, I mean actual, I mean basically, I mean basically,

2148
01:52:31,319 --> 01:52:34,279
you've had three debates now with people on our side

2149
01:52:34,279 --> 01:52:38,239
of this, and you've not done any work to understand epistemology.

2150
01:52:38,279 --> 01:52:42,680
You've done nothing, So you're not the typical lazy libertarian

2151
01:52:43,279 --> 01:52:47,560
kumer man who doesn't actually study the positions. You haven't

2152
01:52:47,600 --> 01:52:51,880
progressed against. After Andrew, after Jim, Bob and me, you've

2153
01:52:51,920 --> 01:52:54,359
made no progress at all in this topic.

2154
01:52:54,880 --> 01:52:57,920
Speaker 1: This is so silly. I attempt to know my ability,

2155
01:52:58,600 --> 01:52:59,960
you know, to to bring for the argument.

2156
01:53:00,119 --> 01:53:03,880
Speaker 2: All you have is to call name. No. I let

2157
01:53:03,880 --> 01:53:08,399
you talk for hours on end here today fair enough,

2158
01:53:08,800 --> 01:53:11,119
And you made a bunch of bad arguments, and you're

2159
01:53:11,159 --> 01:53:14,359
whining and melting down because your arguments are piss poor.

2160
01:53:15,000 --> 01:53:17,319
They're sophomore level I have.

2161
01:53:17,600 --> 01:53:20,279
Speaker 1: I think that that is silly for you to say

2162
01:53:20,279 --> 01:53:22,840
that I'm whining because my arguments are bad.

2163
01:53:22,960 --> 01:53:26,920
Speaker 2: It's a reflection technique and a person's crashing that they

2164
01:53:27,000 --> 01:53:28,920
start whining and bitching about the other person.

2165
01:53:30,079 --> 01:53:32,800
Speaker 1: No, I'm just I'm I just can't get my arguments

2166
01:53:32,840 --> 01:53:33,880
out like it took me.

2167
01:53:34,000 --> 01:53:37,159
Speaker 2: You got, you got a lot of bullshit out. We

2168
01:53:37,199 --> 01:53:39,199
heard all, we heard your stuff, and we know after

2169
01:53:39,239 --> 01:53:40,800
two hours is not going to get much better.

2170
01:53:41,800 --> 01:53:44,760
Speaker 1: Fair enough, fair enough, Well, I appreciate the opportunity to

2171
01:53:44,920 --> 01:53:47,960
come here. Regardless of whether or not I will, I

2172
01:53:48,000 --> 01:53:52,399
will recant my position that you are fully and holy

2173
01:53:52,960 --> 01:53:55,960
you know, a pussy or a coward in terms of debating,

2174
01:53:56,560 --> 01:54:00,960
which I had said earlier, because it felt very fucked

2175
01:54:01,039 --> 01:54:03,760
up that you have not brought on actual libertarians and

2176
01:54:03,960 --> 01:54:05,279
only discussed.

2177
01:54:06,399 --> 01:54:08,720
Speaker 2: Nobody cares what you think an actual libertarian is and

2178
01:54:08,800 --> 01:54:11,680
no true scotsman, so we don't care about that. Well,

2179
01:54:11,720 --> 01:54:13,439
I mean you at very least, I don't know who

2180
01:54:13,520 --> 01:54:15,399
you I don't care who you think is real.

2181
01:54:15,800 --> 01:54:17,840
Speaker 1: I know, I know, I know without God, words have

2182
01:54:17,920 --> 01:54:18,359
no meaning.

2183
01:54:18,800 --> 01:54:20,840
Speaker 2: No, I just don't care what you think a real

2184
01:54:20,840 --> 01:54:22,520
libertarian is. Who's the lorilla libertarian?

2185
01:54:22,520 --> 01:54:27,520
Speaker 1: You? Anyone anyone that legitimately and fully follows through on

2186
01:54:27,560 --> 01:54:30,199
the non aggression principles.

2187
01:54:29,640 --> 01:54:31,720
Speaker 2: Which is not an at claim to be even though

2188
01:54:31,760 --> 01:54:33,560
it is an all to be right, which is an AT,

2189
01:54:33,600 --> 01:54:35,319
but it's not an not because it's an axiom, but

2190
01:54:35,359 --> 01:54:39,039
it's also an a right exactly you want to do

2191
01:54:39,119 --> 01:54:39,960
super chats or not.

2192
01:54:41,399 --> 01:54:44,319
Speaker 1: No, No, I'm good, but I again, like I said,

2193
01:54:44,399 --> 01:54:46,119
I'll about out now, but I just wanted to say

2194
01:54:46,359 --> 01:54:48,520
thank you for bringing me on and again, if you'll

2195
01:54:48,600 --> 01:54:51,039
let me get it out, I do recant my position

2196
01:54:51,119 --> 01:54:54,039
that you were able to see it and that yeah,

2197
01:54:54,119 --> 01:54:57,680
you had pissed me off, but not bringing on. Obviously

2198
01:54:58,039 --> 01:55:01,880
you do. So they're is that I'm Fambi in Liberty.

2199
01:55:01,960 --> 01:55:04,000
Speaker 2: You can find me pretty much, and I've got his

2200
01:55:04,079 --> 01:55:06,479
channel linked in the chat in the show description. If

2201
01:55:06,479 --> 01:55:10,079
anybody wants to check out his material, even if we

2202
01:55:10,159 --> 01:55:12,479
have a heated disagreement in debate, I'm gonna give you

2203
01:55:12,640 --> 01:55:14,560
the links to the people so you can follow him