Speaker 1: Can you hear me? Oh okay, Well no I was
Speaker 1: I was just saying, yeah, sorry, yeah, no, I I
Speaker 1: initiated this conversation or this debate or whatever because you know,
Speaker 1: I saw you debate many moons ago against Liquid Zulu,
Speaker 1: and that felt like that debate didn't go anywhere because
Speaker 1: well because you you you left after frustrated for whatever reason.
Speaker 2: Well, the reason I the reason I left, The reason
Speaker 2: I left. Yeah, So the reason I left was because
Speaker 2: I was asking questions about justification and I felt like
Speaker 2: he was never going to answer it. So that was
Speaker 2: the reason I left the Zulu debate.
Speaker 1: I would say, we obviously had different interpretations, but nevertheless,
Speaker 1: so I yeah, So then I felt like there wasn't
Speaker 1: a good debate against the libertarian. And then I saw
Speaker 1: you put out a call against you know, looking for libertarians,
Speaker 1: and me and a bunch of other libertarians put her
Speaker 1: names forward, but also other people's names forward, like some
Speaker 1: here's like, hey, you do rematch Liquid with a better thing?
Speaker 1: You could me there there are plenty of real libertarians.
Speaker 1: And then you debated, Wait you're you're uh, we're only on.
Speaker 2: Twitter, right, No, we're on you two.
Speaker 1: Okay, all right, So I can't say the f slur,
Speaker 1: but you debated a prag f slur. Uh and and
Speaker 1: so yeah, and and so rightfully, I think anybody that's
Speaker 1: an actual libertarian was upset.
Speaker 2: Because I don't know who you're talking about. First of all,
Speaker 2: can you just tell me who that who it is
Speaker 2: you're talking about.
Speaker 1: I remember the person's name again, because they weren't. They
Speaker 1: weren't like a famous you mean.
Speaker 2: Like the yarn Brooke from the Objectivist Institute that No.
Speaker 1: Yarn Brook is not a libertarian. It's actively fights against libertarianism.
Speaker 1: I've interviewed you're on Brook and I think it's libertarianism.
Speaker 1: It's evil and must be defeated.
Speaker 2: Uh what you mean?
Speaker 1: Who I said? Y'are brook as an objectivist? You had
Speaker 1: debated I can't remember it's been If someone can dig up.
Speaker 2: The Austin Peterson you you debated somebody that was very
Speaker 2: clearly left leaning, not not libertarian.
Speaker 1: Lie. Again, I don't remember the exact name, but if
Speaker 1: you found the twee or whatever, then yeah. And so
Speaker 1: I was like, dude, what the fuck is this? Like?
Speaker 1: This is this is bullshit? Like you put out a
Speaker 1: call to libertarians and you bring on someone that's like
Speaker 1: a small l libertine brag.
Speaker 2: Right, It's all right? Do you think it's a conspiracy
Speaker 2: that I don't want to engage with real libertarians? Got it?
Speaker 1: I didn't say it was a conspiracy because I'm not
Speaker 1: saying anyone else was involved. I'm just saying it seemed
Speaker 1: like you were duck in a real conversation with libertarianism
Speaker 1: because you had had one and you ran from that.
Speaker 2: One, and that was who I run from.
Speaker 1: Liquid.
Speaker 2: Okay, did he answer what I asked about justification?
Speaker 1: I believe multiple times from multiple different perspectives, you were
Speaker 1: upset because he wouldn't answer your redirect because he wanted it,
Speaker 1: and then eventually Andrews so he answered it.
Speaker 2: And what do you think you answer? What do you
Speaker 2: think justification is?
Speaker 1: What do I think justifications? Do you mean that? Like
Speaker 1: from like the Hume like question, like what do you
Speaker 1: mean by well, like yeah, the human question what justifies this? Like?
Speaker 1: Or do you mean like what do you mean by
Speaker 1: what is an attempt to state that the statement of
Speaker 1: some sort is true? Was that a claim or a
Speaker 1: principle of so that has.
Speaker 2: To do with truth value? But no, justification is much
Speaker 2: more than that. In epistemology.
Speaker 1: Nevertheless, I don't think you just like I'm how is
Speaker 1: that a disagreement from the historical thing.
Speaker 2: From I mean, what you're saying isn't even the historical idea,
Speaker 2: because even back to Plato, justification deals.
Speaker 1: With justified has to do about whether or not you
Speaker 1: ran with If.
Speaker 2: You asked about the historic context of justification and I'm
Speaker 2: giving you that context that back to Plato, it means
Speaker 2: more than what you described.
Speaker 1: Okay, that that's irrelevant to whether or not my interpretation
Speaker 1: of events.
Speaker 2: Is if he didn't give, if he didn't give, if
Speaker 2: he did not give epistemic justification, then his answers were
Speaker 2: irrelevant to what I'm asking for.
Speaker 1: Okay, So what would you what would be your what
Speaker 1: is your bar for.
Speaker 2: Episode just justified? True belief in the Getty air problem?
Speaker 1: Okay? So again, what what what would he have to
Speaker 1: say about jurism for you to say that he gave
Speaker 1: you the the aught is the stinction that you why
Speaker 1: he didn't believe in the audience get right, like why
Speaker 1: he believed that contradictory statements can't be true in the
Speaker 1: negation of the contradictory statement is at the very least
Speaker 1: an ought not I don't know that I necessarily follow
Speaker 1: his ought. Thing there, but why is that reason for
Speaker 1: you to run away from the debate. That's why I'm asking, like,
Speaker 1: what is yours?
Speaker 2: So, just like him, you're a debate. Just like him,
Speaker 2: you're both not understanding what epistemic justification is. Not according
Speaker 2: to me, but in the discipline of epistemology. This is
Speaker 2: not something I made up. It's what's expected in any
Speaker 2: public academic discourse on the topic of how do we
Speaker 2: have good reasons for our beliefs? So justification deals with that,
Speaker 2: what are the good reasons for our beliefs, what gives
Speaker 2: them explanatory power, and what makes them coherent in a
Speaker 2: worldview context. That's what justification is.
Speaker 1: Okay, But again you're saying that he didn't meet your standard.
Speaker 1: But I know he.
Speaker 2: Didn't meet these standards. These standards, they're not my standards.
Speaker 2: This is what would be debated in any epistemology class
Speaker 2: when you make assertions.
Speaker 1: What the fuck are you talking about? I am I
Speaker 1: talking ran away from a debate and then you said, well,
Speaker 1: he didn't answer my question because he didn't.
Speaker 2: No, I said he didn't justification The argument that he
Speaker 2: gave and again you don't even understand. You don't understand,
Speaker 2: and again you don't understand why that doesn't get to justification,
Speaker 2: which is the entire point of the whole time.
Speaker 1: What is this code? Like, like, we're not even into
Speaker 1: the debate and you're already like it's a code, right,
Speaker 1: Actually he didn't.
Speaker 2: You're the one that said that I was a pussy
Speaker 2: and that I wouldn't debate anyone except him. You were
Speaker 2: how you.
Speaker 1: Ran from a debate and then when you've.
Speaker 2: Din I left a debate that I laughed at because
Speaker 2: it didn't answer just like, just like in this situation,
Speaker 2: you can't answer, or even you don't even know the
Speaker 2: basics of the question, and you're just already spurging out.
Speaker 2: Do you want me to explain it to you in
Speaker 2: an ethical example?
Speaker 1: Sure, give me an example of what you mean. But
Speaker 1: because I don't see how I'm failing in any means, well.
Speaker 2: Let's let's go. Let's go to the topic of do
Speaker 2: you want to do tag or do you want do
Speaker 2: you want to do self evidence? Either one's fine with me.
Speaker 1: I don't know what you mean by self evidence or
Speaker 1: what you're referring.
Speaker 2: Well, most libertarians and most people who argue for your
Speaker 2: type of a position out of the Enlightenment believe that
Speaker 2: there are self evident truths or principles, things that are axiomatic,
Speaker 2: and I reject that.
Speaker 1: You reject all axioms.
Speaker 2: All self evidence claims.
Speaker 1: Okay, so how okay, Okay, you'd say, okay, we can
Speaker 1: go in either one. That's fine. I don't. I'm fine
Speaker 1: going into again. The question, before we get too far
Speaker 1: away from it, is whether or not why I believe
Speaker 1: that this conversation or debate or whatever was important. Was
Speaker 1: that I felt like you had not been let's say,
Speaker 1: completed with a libertarian. And your claim is that it
Speaker 1: wasn't a simic justification And I don't see why. What standard?
Speaker 1: He didn't but he didn't meet.
Speaker 2: So when you just assert things to be the case,
Speaker 2: you're forfeiting the very question because that means you're being
Speaker 2: arbitrary at hawk and not giving epistemic justification.
Speaker 1: Well he didn't do that, Yes he did. He did.
Speaker 2: You don't again, you don't understand what. You don't understand
Speaker 2: what justification. So you think that my standard is some
Speaker 2: subjective thing of what justification is. And I'm telling you
Speaker 2: that any epistemology class will hold you to the same
Speaker 2: standards that the laws of critical thinking, the laws of thought.
Speaker 2: Those are not my standards.
Speaker 1: Words.
Speaker 2: I'm just saying. So I'm saying common criminology in this
Speaker 2: domain and in this field. And you think I'm just
Speaker 2: saying words. That's why you guys are not fit for
Speaker 2: this debate. You're not even in the arena. You don't
Speaker 2: know the topics in the subject matter.
Speaker 1: You're in not making artu.
Speaker 2: No, I'm telling you what's happening in the debate. Let's
Speaker 2: get into the argument. So do you believe in the
Speaker 2: non aggression principle? You agree with the non aggression principle?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Absolutely, of course I'm a libertarian.
Speaker 2: Is that a normative claim?
Speaker 1: Well, it's an axiom, right, So the normative claim.
Speaker 2: That you shouldn't aggress not.
Speaker 1: Yeah, one ought not a grip that would be the
Speaker 1: normative claim.
Speaker 2: So it's prescriptive and not descriptive.
Speaker 1: Yes, libertarianism is a prescriptive ideology of natural I thought you.
Speaker 2: Were saying in the Gymbob debate that you don't believe
Speaker 2: in prescriptive claims. It's just descriptive.
Speaker 1: Oh sorry, descriptive. I apologiz I mixed up.
Speaker 2: Okay, precisely. So the non aggression principle is normative and
Speaker 2: therefore it's prescriptive, and therefore you're reputed. Can you repeat
Speaker 2: that argument, write you made a claim that we ought
Speaker 2: not aggress. That's what the non aggression principle states. That
Speaker 2: is a claim of ethical normativity, and that refutes or
Speaker 2: very position that libertarianism is is not prescriptive but merely descriptive.
Speaker 1: No, I didn't make that claim. I specifically Referencedutulu's argument.
Speaker 2: I'm talking about your debate, your gym Bob debate.
Speaker 1: Pop interrupted. All right, we'll get it. We're in the
Speaker 1: actual debate, so we'll get into it. So no, that's
Speaker 1: not true, and I didn't say the same did not.
Speaker 2: Occur in you just said what you just said that libertarianism.
Speaker 2: I'm not gonna let you lie and go past your
Speaker 2: you're lying.
Speaker 1: You're I'm not interrupting your your interrupting.
Speaker 2: So you think interrupting is lying. Those are two different things.
Speaker 1: No, No, No, I think you're doing both. I think
Speaker 1: you're interrupting.
Speaker 2: Is the non aggression principal prescriptive or descriptive?
Speaker 1: The non aggression principle is a an accident, right, and.
Speaker 2: It's is it an hot claim?
Speaker 1: I just said right that the actual ought claim or
Speaker 1: the ought not claim would be the negation and in
Speaker 1: liquids argment from my.
Speaker 2: I'm talking about nap. Why are you bringing Stop your
Speaker 2: possession your position, you.
Speaker 1: Rail stop trying to be real, Stop acting like.
Speaker 2: A top your position.
Speaker 1: No big words, don't make you an adult.
Speaker 2: Just hold on for he doesn't even know the basic
Speaker 2: terms of this whole debate.
Speaker 1: Right, You're just going to keep interrupting, and you're just
Speaker 1: gonna keep.
Speaker 2: Making because you're deflecting. Everyone can tell you did the
Speaker 2: same thing with Jim Bob. Sometimes something is the non
Speaker 2: aggression principal, prescriptive or description.
Speaker 1: Will you shush for a second.
Speaker 2: Can you answer the question?
Speaker 1: I am trying to answer the question, and you're doing
Speaker 1: the same thing Jim Bob, which is saying.
Speaker 2: We just don't let you yap and deflect. Can you
Speaker 2: answer the questions? Go answer?
Speaker 1: Yeah? So again. So the not libertarianism is scrypt Okay,
Speaker 1: it is. Sorry, script, he's describing natural law here. Now,
Speaker 1: the non aggression principle is an axiom. Okay, it is not,
Speaker 1: and it is a descriptive.
Speaker 2: No, it's not. You just refuted you. You said it's normative,
Speaker 2: so you're refuted yourself. I'm not what is normativity, interrupt
Speaker 2: What is normativity?
Speaker 1: Normativity is is, as far as we're discussing in ethics,
Speaker 1: would be a claim that something, uh that that is
Speaker 1: universalizable and.
Speaker 2: That we're all right, so you ought not aggress people.
Speaker 1: Yes, you ought not aggress people?
Speaker 2: Right, So your position controversy.
Speaker 1: You will know it doesn't if you just go and
Speaker 1: act like an adult for a second. So it can't
Speaker 1: what I said, and you keep interrupting me.
Speaker 2: So let me stop batching and make your argument.
Speaker 1: Well stop, well, then shut up, act like an adult.
Speaker 2: I'm waiting for you to answer. Quit whining.
Speaker 1: No, you keep interrupting just because.
Speaker 2: You're not answering. Your whining and deflecting.
Speaker 1: I am trying to answer, and you will not stop
Speaker 1: interrupting and stop acting like a toddler, like, just listen
Speaker 1: for a second, Okay, I can. I can make an
Speaker 1: argument with them, and then you can do the same thing.
Speaker 2: Will let me stop saying, let me and go I'm trying.
Speaker 2: You're whining and bitching about me interrupting you when you're
Speaker 2: being dishonest, and then.
Speaker 1: You're conversation because you keep interrupting.
Speaker 2: Go make the argument.
Speaker 1: Okay, So again, what I was saying is that previously
Speaker 1: what I had said is that Liquid Zulu's argument one
Speaker 1: that I don't necessarily believe that.
Speaker 2: What is your argument?
Speaker 1: Why can you?
Speaker 2: Are you so you're gonna keep talking about liquid Zulu
Speaker 2: when I've asked you specifically about your position? What is
Speaker 2: your argument for the tenth time? I am sure nobody's
Speaker 2: buying your bullshit.
Speaker 1: There's no bullshit here. You won't shut up. Stop acting
Speaker 1: like a toddler.
Speaker 2: You keep bringing up the things that are not relevant.
Speaker 2: Are you going to answer the topic?
Speaker 1: I am attempting to do that, and you are not
Speaker 1: giving me the space to speak.
Speaker 2: No, you go back to the thing that is irrelevant. Dude,
Speaker 2: I'm asking your position. I don't care what you think
Speaker 2: about Liquid Zulu. Can you answer your positions on this?
Speaker 2: I am I don't care about Liquid Zulu?
Speaker 1: YEA, I absolutely can't.
Speaker 2: What does?
Speaker 1: And I'm bringing The only reason I am bringing up
Speaker 1: Liquid Zulu is because you called me a liar by
Speaker 1: saying that I was making the argument that Liquid Zulu
Speaker 1: was making.
Speaker 2: No fact, No, I'm saying you're lying about being dishonest
Speaker 2: about that debate. That's the lie that I didn't. You
Speaker 2: said I rage quit when I laughed at the guy,
Speaker 2: And no rage rage quitting is when you would have rage.
Speaker 2: And I laughed at that guy because I thought his
Speaker 2: answers were so low tier that it wasn't worthing in debate.
Speaker 2: And you're in the exact same situation. You're actually worse.
Speaker 2: You're actually worse than liquid Zulu because you can't actually
Speaker 2: address the arguments. So is the NAP an art claim
Speaker 2: or not? If it has If it has normativity, it's
Speaker 2: an aut claim. You already said that you already lost.
Speaker 2: You're so we follow Then.
Speaker 1: If one wants to claim or justify ethics, then one
Speaker 1: following if the attempt. If they if they do attempt
Speaker 1: to justify their ethical claims and their claims violate the
Speaker 1: non aggression principle, then it is contradictory. Therefore the negation
Speaker 1: is true.
Speaker 2: Is the n a P an ought?
Speaker 1: The NAP is not, in and of itself an.
Speaker 2: Ought the non aggression principle, does it retain does it
Speaker 2: pertain to normativity and ethics that you ought not to
Speaker 2: aggress people.
Speaker 1: It is an axiom that you hold if you is
Speaker 1: it an ethical axiom if your ethical system, is.
Speaker 2: That an ethical axiom that you ought not?
Speaker 1: Dude?
Speaker 2: Are you You just lost and that's why you're spreading out.
Speaker 1: I'm not spurging out.
Speaker 2: You want is it an ethical? Is it an ethical answer?
Speaker 1: I just told you that the non aggression principle in
Speaker 1: and of itself is not an ethical that's false.
Speaker 2: That's false. No, that's false. Axiom, even axioms, even axioms
Speaker 2: depending No, that's false. Even axioms, depending upon what they
Speaker 2: are or what they are about, can be ethical. Right,
Speaker 2: That's the point that you're missing. So when the axiom itself,
Speaker 2: calling it an axiom does not remove it from the
Speaker 2: ethical domain. That's how stupid. You can have an ethic
Speaker 2: you can have an ethical axiom.
Speaker 1: You would shut the fuck up and let someone.
Speaker 2: Finish the sentence, But your sentences are dumb and they're
Speaker 2: bad arguments. It's an ethical claim. It deals with what
Speaker 2: the claim itself is, that you ought not aggress people.
Speaker 2: That's an ethical normative claim. It's in the domain of ethics,
Speaker 2: even if you call it an axiom. Did you know
Speaker 2: you can have an ethical axiom?
Speaker 1: Yes, but you you you're not listening.
Speaker 2: No, you're just not understanding the basic distinctions.
Speaker 1: No, you're just interrupting people midscent, interrupting me.
Speaker 2: It's no because your answers don't address it. Your answers
Speaker 2: don't address it. That's why I'm interrupting you.
Speaker 1: I I cannot believe.
Speaker 2: How do you see that the How do you see
Speaker 2: that the axiom is not ethical when it's about ethics?
Speaker 1: Will you allow me to answer this question?
Speaker 2: How do you say that the axiom is not this question?
Speaker 1: Without interrupting?
Speaker 2: Answer? That's what we're waiting for.
Speaker 1: Will you? I'm answer you a question? Will you allow
Speaker 1: me to answer?
Speaker 2: Answer?
Speaker 1: Allow me to answer anything?
Speaker 2: The entire chat is laughing.
Speaker 1: You mean, yes, I get it that your checks.
Speaker 2: We're waiting. We're waiting, will you?
Speaker 1: Will you?
Speaker 2: If you don't answer, I'm just going to move on
Speaker 2: because you can't. You can't handle an So.
Speaker 1: Are you going to allow me or not to actually answer?
Speaker 1: Without you?
Speaker 2: All you wanted to do is the flag. This is
Speaker 2: how weak you guys are. You guys are the worst
Speaker 2: that you're worse than Austin Peterson.
Speaker 1: I don't know who alsin Peterson is all I know
Speaker 1: is should team up? Not You're not engaging in any
Speaker 1: way that I could have.
Speaker 2: I'm not engaging again. Will you answer, if the axiom
Speaker 2: is moral in its nature and content, how is it
Speaker 2: not ethical or moral?
Speaker 1: How is it not ethical or moral?
Speaker 2: If the content of the axiom of the nap is
Speaker 2: ethics and morals, how is it not moral or ethical
Speaker 2: or normative just because it's an axiom?
Speaker 1: Okay, I didn't say that just because it's an axiom.
Speaker 2: Yes you did. You said it's an it's axiom, it's
Speaker 2: not moral. You said it's an action, it's not moral.
Speaker 1: I did not say, Yes you did, it's not moral.
Speaker 2: You said it doesn't do. What do you think morals
Speaker 2: deals with? That's normativity, moral, ethical claims or normative claims?
Speaker 1: Sentence, Then you can't say that you've heard.
Speaker 2: The whole chat knows you're a filibuster ring.
Speaker 1: I'm not shillibus ring. You won't stop and just let
Speaker 1: me make an argument.
Speaker 2: We're waiting. Will you allow me to The whole chat
Speaker 2: knows that you said that go.
Speaker 1: Will you allow me to go? I'm not asking you
Speaker 1: to say go. I'm a simple question. Will you act
Speaker 1: like an adult from this point on.
Speaker 2: If you make bad arguments argument, if you make bad arguments,
Speaker 2: that will interrupt you correct.
Speaker 1: Okay, so you're so you're just going to constantly interrupt
Speaker 1: you talk.
Speaker 2: So if you would like so, an you want to
Speaker 2: talk about anything but the assertions the axiom. The axiom
Speaker 2: is about ethics and normativity.
Speaker 1: If you would like to have this debate, it is
Speaker 1: clear that you are. Are you going to apply in
Speaker 1: conversation without a monator, So find a moderator and schedule
Speaker 1: the debate, or run like you did from liquid Zula.
Speaker 2: I'm not running because you guys are too low to
Speaker 2: here to know the topics and what the categories are
Speaker 2: to even debate.
Speaker 1: You have, you have insults and.
Speaker 2: Interrupt You didn't even know what justification was. You didn't
Speaker 2: know what justificad. You didn't even know what it was.
Speaker 2: You did, No, you didn't. You had to ask me
Speaker 2: what it is. You had to ask me what it is.
Speaker 1: I asked what.
Speaker 2: You had to ask me what justifica is.
Speaker 1: I asked you what your standard was, because there.
Speaker 2: Is not my personal standard. It's not a subjective topic.
Speaker 1: You're you're in. You're very clearly not honestly.
Speaker 2: Uh huh right, So the axiom about ethics and morals
Speaker 2: is an axiom? And how is it not an not claim?
Speaker 1: There's no reason the NAP?
Speaker 2: How is the NAP not an not claim?
Speaker 1: Interrupting?
Speaker 2: And then no, you're just bitching about interrupting to not answer.
Speaker 2: You're bitching about interrupting to not answer. How is the
Speaker 2: NAP not ethical or moral?
Speaker 1: So again, so again, find a moderator and we'll do.
Speaker 2: How is the NAP?
Speaker 1: Go?
Speaker 2: I will give you the time. How long do you
Speaker 2: want to answer? You want? You want like two minutes? Now,
Speaker 2: you're gonna let me do you want like two minutes?
Speaker 1: Stop? Leave you find a moderator and we'll see.
Speaker 2: So you're running because you're rage quitting, your rage quitting.
Speaker 1: Well, no, no, no, I'm it's not raged because I can remember.
Speaker 1: I can just laugh and then it magically becomes not
Speaker 1: rage quitting.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but yeah, but I I asked good questions about justification.
Speaker 2: What you didn't know what it was? And I'm asking
Speaker 2: you the same questions and you can't answer. Is the
Speaker 2: n a P an ethical normative claim? I have answered, no,
Speaker 2: you didn't answer. Answer No, you didn't What is the answer.
Speaker 2: So the entire the entire chat sees that this guy
Speaker 2: is running and he won't he won't debate.
Speaker 1: What do you mean I won't debate? You won't You.
Speaker 2: Won't answer the question, dude, If it's a simple question,
Speaker 2: why can't you just answer it? So you did the
Speaker 2: same thing to Jim Bob because you're literally one of
Speaker 2: the worst debaters I've ever debated. You're worse than teet
Speaker 2: up at least teed up answers you know again, at
Speaker 2: least ted up answering people. Do you want a two
Speaker 2: minute Do you want a two minute pause? This is
Speaker 2: Do you want a two minute pause? Is the n
Speaker 2: a P ethical? When it's about ethics?
Speaker 1: Is it find a moderate?
Speaker 2: Is the n a P ethical or moral?
Speaker 1: Or not? Find a moderate?
Speaker 2: So you can't answer, You literally cannot answer that.
Speaker 1: You can't up and you won't allow what is the answer?
Speaker 1: You said you'll give me time to interrupted.
Speaker 2: I'll give you two minutes. I will give you two
Speaker 2: minutes of silence.
Speaker 1: I don't believe you. You're a fucking liar.
Speaker 2: So there you go, look at it, look at your rage. Quit.
Speaker 2: I will give you two minutes of silence, and you
Speaker 2: still won't do it because you can't. You can't answer.
Speaker 1: I can't find a moderator.
Speaker 2: I don't have to find a moderator for you. You're not
Speaker 2: worth a fully moderated debate. You're too low tier to
Speaker 2: even know how low tier you are. You don't know
Speaker 2: what justification is. You didn't know what the term is.
Speaker 2: You asked me what it meants.
Speaker 1: You interrupt you positive.
Speaker 2: Because your questions and answers are dumb, dude.
Speaker 1: That's why everything's dumb, except.
Speaker 2: Is the nap ethical or moral.
Speaker 1: There's no reason for me to answer any of your.
Speaker 2: Questions because you can't because you have already lost the debate.
Speaker 1: And you're incapable of having you already lost.
Speaker 2: You rage, quit casting me out because you don't have
Speaker 2: an answer to I'll give you two minutes. I'll shut
Speaker 2: up for two minutes.
Speaker 1: I don't, I don't.
Speaker 2: Why would you not believe me when I can prove
Speaker 2: that I'll do it.
Speaker 1: That's stupid, because you because of your past behavior.
Speaker 2: All right, I'm gonna be quiet right now. I'm gonna
Speaker 2: be quiet for two minutes and you can answer.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, sure, go ahead. So now you're asking me
Speaker 1: a loaded question, which is you know, when did you
Speaker 1: stop being So I'm obviously not gonna answer. But in
Speaker 1: regards to what is the non aggression principle, non aggression
Speaker 1: principle is an ought claim, but it is also an axiom.
Speaker 1: One can choose to follow that axiom or not follow
Speaker 1: that acciom in their system of ethics. But if you
Speaker 1: have a an ethical system that you attempt to justify,
Speaker 1: then that is where that that is where you must
Speaker 1: follow or you must your system must be commiserate with
Speaker 1: a non aggression principle or it falls into contradiction. That is,
Speaker 1: that is the claim that I mean. So you are
Speaker 1: correct that the NAP is a moral claim that one
Speaker 1: ought not aggress upon other people. But where when we're
Speaker 1: talking about bridging kind of the is ought app from
Speaker 1: descriptive to prescriptive ideology, what I'm saying is that it
Speaker 1: is it is a means of negating ethical justifications when
Speaker 1: they go against a non aggression principle. So boom, Finally.
Speaker 2: I don't even know what that is supposed to mean.
Speaker 2: Means of negating what is that supposed to mean?
Speaker 1: Right? So, libertarianism as a whole is you know, the
Speaker 1: NAP is axiomatic to libertarianism, But things such as like argumentation, ethics,
Speaker 1: and other forms of logic showcase that, you know, people
Speaker 1: that attempt to justify the law that jungle or are
Speaker 1: no longer in ethics. Right, you're if you're saying some
Speaker 1: people can be slaves or some property can be taken,
Speaker 1: then your your moral claims aren't universalizable and they fall
Speaker 1: into contradiction.
Speaker 2: Are moral claims universizable? Well for it to be a
Speaker 2: through moral claim, so there are universals. Yeah, okay, how
Speaker 2: do you justify universal claims?
Speaker 1: How do I justify the existence of universal claims? Like,
Speaker 1: can you give me an example of one that may
Speaker 1: just make.
Speaker 2: Uh yeah, one at faulty nap.
Speaker 1: Well, so we would start with existence exists, then we
Speaker 1: would move into.
Speaker 2: Formal existence exists. What is that supposed to mean?
Speaker 1: I've seen an unavoidable accident? Right, So one cannot argue.
Speaker 2: I mean it's a it's a it's a self referencing
Speaker 2: basically version of the identity principle. But how do you
Speaker 2: what does that mean? Existence exists?
Speaker 1: That means that existence exists, right, it's it's it is
Speaker 1: self referencing in those situation, but one cannot argue against
Speaker 1: the concept of existence.
Speaker 2: Actually you can, because you can't actually pretty easily because existence.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, I could say cats have wings existence.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, I mean in a different point that existence
Speaker 2: is a very contested, ambiguous term in the history of philosophy.
Speaker 2: It's a metaphysical claim. So have you justified any metaphysics yet?
Speaker 1: I would start where we're starting with existence, and existence
Speaker 1: specifies itself.
Speaker 2: By the existence justifies itself. What is your proof for
Speaker 2: the proposition existence justifies itself?
Speaker 1: It is you cannot make any form of logical argument
Speaker 1: in any about anything without justifying without existing, Like, it's
Speaker 1: impossible to make.
Speaker 2: A claim that's not even actually true. I mean, Boolean
Speaker 2: approaches to logic have made it deontological, so you can
Speaker 2: actually make onto you can actually make logical arguments without
Speaker 2: ontological claims. That's not you're making.
Speaker 1: An argument the moment that you make an argument, justify yours.
Speaker 2: No, that's not even true. That's that's a that's not
Speaker 2: a justification, and that's a fallacious move. So it doesn't
Speaker 2: get it. It doesn't prove the metaphysical notion or the
Speaker 2: linguistic symbols that you use for the word existence are
Speaker 2: correct in other words, it assumes all kinds of things
Speaker 2: like language, predications, language and predication. Right, so if you
Speaker 2: had a if you'd had a philosophy language class, you
Speaker 2: would know that words like existence presuppose metaphysical structures like universals,
Speaker 2: like predicate, predication, like uh, grammar, and none of those
Speaker 2: things have been demonstrated yet.
Speaker 1: Okay, this is it's not the concept of existence. But
Speaker 1: we're just not the definition of the word existence. So
Speaker 1: everything that you just said is silly.
Speaker 2: No, everything I said is basic philosophy, no idiot. The
Speaker 2: fact that you think that there's self evident action.
Speaker 1: Other people might like, what is the definition of the
Speaker 1: word What do you mean?
Speaker 2: You don't think that the word existence is? So what
Speaker 2: is it referring to?
Speaker 1: It is?
Speaker 2: Is impossible to our concepts in this case? Are they
Speaker 2: based on linguistic philosophy?
Speaker 1: Can you argue against existence?
Speaker 2: It doesn't matter because I won't get you to justification
Speaker 2: even if I admit that. Even if I admit, it
Speaker 2: doesn't matter because it doesn't achieve justification. So even if
Speaker 2: I admit skepticism and play the role of a skeptic
Speaker 2: and counter your claims about existence being existence, it doesn't
Speaker 2: prove anything, it doesn't get you anywhere, because I'm pointing
Speaker 2: out that it's not self evident if it relies on
Speaker 2: things like predication, linguistic philosophy, and grammar, which you haven't
Speaker 2: proven yet, So it's not self evident.
Speaker 1: It does not. The concept of existence is not does.
Speaker 2: Not the proposition existence exists, The proposition is itself relying
Speaker 2: on Does it rely on the law of identity? No,
Speaker 2: yes it does. Existence exists, is relying on the law
Speaker 2: of identity.
Speaker 1: No, it would come after exists?
Speaker 2: Oh my gosh. No, to say existence exists relies on
Speaker 2: the law of identity, you're predicating identity, Yes.
Speaker 1: Ariskitilian formal logic, ray like law of identity, law of
Speaker 1: excluded middle and law of non contradiction. Right, are going
Speaker 1: to be are going to be the foundation for making
Speaker 1: the argument that existencies.
Speaker 2: I'm calling in to question the argument.
Speaker 1: Language and all those other things. But what I'm saying
Speaker 1: is is that by one attempting in any language, in
Speaker 1: any in any means anytime a.
Speaker 2: Moral I know what you're saying. It's called retortion.
Speaker 1: Yeah, to make a claim that that that requires existence
Speaker 1: for them, that it presupposes existence.
Speaker 2: I'm aware of that, but that still doesn't get you.
Speaker 2: I know that, I know it's called retortion. It's called retortion,
Speaker 2: and it doesn't get you to justification. That's the point,
Speaker 2: all right.
Speaker 1: So how are you? How are you justifying existence because
Speaker 1: you clearly believe that existence.
Speaker 2: Well, I believe in the transcendental argument for God's existence,
Speaker 2: and that's the ground for the logical categories which make
Speaker 2: it possible to predicate at all. So that's my worldview account.
Speaker 2: But even if I admit, even if I admit to you,
Speaker 2: let me explain the point as to why it doesn't
Speaker 2: get you to justification. Right, So this comes up after
Speaker 2: Enlightenment philosophers raised the question about justification in this domain
Speaker 2: when it comes to for example, Kant says, one reason
Speaker 2: that just retortion alone doesn't get you to justification is
Speaker 2: that we don't know that the seeming impossibility of not
Speaker 2: being able to argue or to use logic or to
Speaker 2: have conceptual frameworks itself means that it's the case in
Speaker 2: the external world. So even if you could demonstrate that
Speaker 2: I can't argue or have human conceptual predication or language
Speaker 2: without assuming something like the law of identity or existence exists,
Speaker 2: or whatever. It still doesn't get you to justification because
Speaker 2: that even if it doesn't seem possible, it would become
Speaker 2: a fallacy of incredulity that I don't see how else
Speaker 2: you could reason, still doesn't grain your justification, and all
Speaker 2: you need is one defeat or to prove I'm not.
Speaker 1: Making the argument that it doesn't seem possible. I am
Speaker 1: making the argument that it is not possible.
Speaker 2: So if you're saying it's not possible, you would have
Speaker 2: to demonstrate exist then I know that. So then you
Speaker 2: would have to then you have to answer const dilemmas
Speaker 2: of how you know there even is an external world
Speaker 2: to which these categories apply.
Speaker 1: Okay, so constanlemma in how do I know that there
Speaker 1: is an external world.
Speaker 2: To where the concepts apply? Like when he critiques the
Speaker 2: ontological argument, he's pointing out that there's nothing about the
Speaker 2: term existence that contains within it the notion of perfection.
Speaker 2: So just proving that something exists doesn't get these other
Speaker 2: metaphysical qualities like perfection. So likewise, in your case, the
Speaker 2: same problem applied.
Speaker 1: What is what is? What is? If you can explain
Speaker 1: it for me? Batter like what is like perfection or
Speaker 1: human like conscritique.
Speaker 2: What I'm saying that const critique of the ontological argument
Speaker 2: is applicable to the argument that you're making about the
Speaker 2: ontological claim that exist distance exists. I'm saying that you
Speaker 2: need all kinds of things to be the case for
Speaker 2: that to hold or to be true, and those other
Speaker 2: things have not been proven yet, and so it's not
Speaker 2: self evident or axiomatic. It rests on a bunch of
Speaker 2: other assumptions. All the things I've listed, like language.
Speaker 1: Space, space, time, causality currently cons correct well.
Speaker 2: When cont critiques the cogito, he says that it assumes
Speaker 2: time and space. But I'm not making that argument, okay,
Speaker 2: but it's similar to it, Okay, So.
Speaker 1: Your argument is is that you need I'm having a
Speaker 1: hard time, my mom's gone real quick.
Speaker 2: For you to say existence exists and to say that
Speaker 2: that's self evident and axiomatic, because if you denied it,
Speaker 2: you couldn't reason about the world, You couldn't reason at all.
Speaker 2: I agree with that principle and that point, but that
Speaker 2: does not get you to epistemic justification, because it doesn't
Speaker 2: answer Const's dilemma that even if the position is true,
Speaker 2: you don't know that it applies to an external world
Speaker 2: without assuming an external world. And I agree with you
Speaker 2: that we should assume an external world. But the point
Speaker 2: is that you haven't demonstrated an external world yet, and
Speaker 2: so the propositions are not axiomatic.
Speaker 1: Even even if we were like in the matrix or something,
Speaker 1: there must be an external world for existence who exists.
Speaker 2: But you haven't proven that yet, and so that's why
Speaker 2: this statement is not axiomatic. So rests on other beliefs.
Speaker 1: Well, it would sweet, I mean, I could.
Speaker 2: If something actiomatic or Okay, no, it could be false axiom.
Speaker 2: But like people self evident, axiomatic beliefs can't rest on
Speaker 2: another belief. That's the point, or else they're no longer.
Speaker 1: Is what is the belief that existences.
Speaker 2: In this case, that it applies to something in an
Speaker 2: external world to give it meaning and content To refute
Speaker 2: my point about why it doesn't get you to justification,
Speaker 2: you need it.
Speaker 1: To apply the existence itself.
Speaker 2: You haven't shown that. Now you've read it. You haven't
Speaker 2: demonstrated that.
Speaker 1: No existence, it's a concept there is that there is
Speaker 1: a material world that exists.
Speaker 2: Now now you're adding, Now you're moving the goalpost because
Speaker 2: there's nothing in the word exist. There's nothing in the
Speaker 2: word existence that necessarily tells you that it's about an
Speaker 2: external world. That's what you just you just added and altered. Well,
Speaker 2: you know you might be existence exists, and now you're
Speaker 2: modifying it to say that, well that means necessarily the
Speaker 2: external world. Well what is there in the word existence
Speaker 2: that necessarily means external world?
Speaker 1: So I think you, I think you might actually be
Speaker 1: right on this only because existence is this is is objective.
Speaker 1: It's randy and right. So you wouldn't it just wouldn't
Speaker 1: deny or I don't think she would support any idea
Speaker 1: of like the spiritual or any other type of world
Speaker 1: other than the material world. I think it is probably implied,
Speaker 1: but maybe not explicitly stated. So like, yeah, that's fine.
Speaker 1: If you want to critique existence exists, you know, to
Speaker 1: like better.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm just giving examples of why it modern. I'm
Speaker 2: just giving examples or why it doesn't get you to
Speaker 2: self evidence or justification in an epistemic sense.
Speaker 1: It's like, I'm you're saying it doesn't because there could
Speaker 1: be a spiritual.
Speaker 2: World that I never said any of that.
Speaker 1: Well, you're saying that it doesn't imply the material.
Speaker 2: All I need is one defeater, and I've given you
Speaker 2: a couple of defeaters. It doesn't mean that I have
Speaker 2: to all CON's positions. So no, I don't believe.
Speaker 1: All I'm asking. Your argument is that existence exists, doesn't
Speaker 1: imply the world.
Speaker 2: Correct, that's a content.
Speaker 1: Right, and well, this content wasn't alive to critique existence
Speaker 1: from the from the checktive.
Speaker 2: He made this critique in a similar way, critiquing the
Speaker 2: ontological argument. That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: So when I make the argument existence and you're saying, well,
Speaker 1: this doesn't necessarily apply to the exist since we're in,
Speaker 1: I guess I don't have an argument for that. Because
Speaker 1: we exist in the existence we're in, there is no
Speaker 1: other existence.
Speaker 2: That's just starting, that's just starting the thing question.
Speaker 1: I'm actually genuinely trying to understand your critique here. It's
Speaker 1: not like I'm like, I'm.
Speaker 2: Not, well, the point so to make it in this.
Speaker 1: World right, we we we are acting, we're behaving, we're
Speaker 1: attempting to justify the point is that all systems.
Speaker 2: The point is that the point is that all beliefs,
Speaker 2: all propositions, all statements, true statements, et cetera, and my
Speaker 2: view are theory laden. And so this has been a
Speaker 2: long walk to get to the point to try to
Speaker 2: prove or demonstrate that classical foundationalism, which is the epistemology
Speaker 2: that the Enlightenment relies upon in most libertarians, is philosophically
Speaker 2: and epistemically on faulty ground. And it doesn't make me
Speaker 2: a content simply because I'm using his argument that there's
Speaker 2: nothing necessarily about the word existence that entails a material
Speaker 2: external world. I could be an idealist, maybe I believe
Speaker 2: that all the world is a Platonic ideal, and for me,
Speaker 2: the word existence just means ideas like Plato, right, or
Speaker 2: that's the highest.
Speaker 1: Now you're now you're changing the argument.
Speaker 2: No, I'm giving you an example of why the word
Speaker 2: existence does not have self evident meaning to it. It's contingent.
Speaker 2: Let me finish, it's contingent upon a paradigm.
Speaker 1: So if I just start changing the meaning of words,
Speaker 1: right and then saying that, well.
Speaker 2: I mean you're the one that did that where you
Speaker 2: modified existence to mean a material external world, But there's
Speaker 2: nothing necessary about the word that tells you that.
Speaker 1: The existence exists. As an argument is a justification.
Speaker 2: It's not a justification because it's a restatement of a
Speaker 2: self evident in your view, truth doesn't tell you anything
Speaker 2: about the world. You're assuming it does. But how do
Speaker 2: you know it does?
Speaker 1: Well, it tells you that any individual cannot The reason
Speaker 1: is an unavoid.
Speaker 2: Is a But you keep calling it void of all,
Speaker 2: resting on the assumption that it actually applies to an
Speaker 2: external world, which you haven't demonstrated.
Speaker 1: But you're not making argument like that's critique.
Speaker 2: It's an internal critique. My argument is an internal critique.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you're saying that there is a way that
Speaker 1: you can defeat existence exists argumentation by redefining words and
Speaker 1: concepts of what.
Speaker 2: No, I'm simply pointing out.
Speaker 1: I'm clarifying what existence means in the objective is framework.
Speaker 1: And you're saying, ah, but what if.
Speaker 2: I whether it's a non sequitor. There's nothing about the
Speaker 2: word existence argument that you attempt to it's a non
Speaker 2: in your system.
Speaker 1: The moment that you attempt to argue that you know
Speaker 1: the world is actually just like this platonic forms or.
Speaker 2: That like I didn't say that, I just gave an
Speaker 2: example that wasn't my point.
Speaker 1: I'm using I'm using yous in like the universal right,
Speaker 1: the one that one you know, attempts to make any
Speaker 1: form of justification. They do so in the world that we.
Speaker 2: I mean again, assuming that there is an external world,
Speaker 2: which you haven't demonstrated yet. So the whole point is
Speaker 2: not because I'm you don't understand what a defeater argument is.
Speaker 2: It doesn't mean that I'm a skeptical like human. It
Speaker 2: means that I'm using the argument from human Kant to
Speaker 2: prove why your assertion existence exists is not self evident.
Speaker 2: It rests on other things. That's the point.
Speaker 1: But you haven't shown that it rests on other things.
Speaker 2: I gave you multiple examples. For example, it rests on
Speaker 2: the assumption that it applies to the external world. Have
Speaker 2: you demonstrated that existence exists applies to the external world
Speaker 2: and not just a conceptual framework? When was that justification?
Speaker 1: Again? Who who is? Who can exist? Right without exist?
Speaker 2: So you're answering a question to answer the question I
Speaker 2: asked you. I'm trying to get you to understand maybe
Speaker 2: maybe that maybe maybe everything is an ideal existence and
Speaker 2: there is no external world. I don't believe that, but
Speaker 2: I'm saying that your assumptions are not justified, even within
Speaker 2: your own system. How do I know that the word existence,
Speaker 2: when it has a vast array of meanings throughout the
Speaker 2: history of philosophy, somehow necessarily means a material, physical, external world.
Speaker 2: There's nothing about the word existence that necessarily means that.
Speaker 2: And when I ask you how you know that or
Speaker 2: why we should think that, you say, it just has
Speaker 2: to be that way. Well, that's a fallacy of incredulity.
Speaker 1: So if there are so the necessary condition for existence
Speaker 1: is well, hold on, let me not go there. So
Speaker 1: I'm you're you're saying that the argument isn't justified because
Speaker 1: one could make arguments outside of reality.
Speaker 2: I'm saying that it's a non sequitor and that it
Speaker 2: rests on multiple other assumptions which have not been proven,
Speaker 2: and so it's not self evident.
Speaker 1: So, but some existence is self evident. I don't understand.
Speaker 2: I mean, again, you just keep starting the position that's
Speaker 2: a variation on the original position. And how do we
Speaker 2: know that? What does that mean?
Speaker 1: Because if one because we because we obviously exist in
Speaker 1: some capacity.
Speaker 2: So your answer is that it's just the case. So
Speaker 2: the answer is again, that is just the case. So
Speaker 2: I thoasical foundations and.
Speaker 1: It's an oblable axiom. Right.
Speaker 2: Again, you keep asserting that, but then you've admitted that
Speaker 2: it relies on other things like an external world, which
Speaker 2: that proposition, the proposition itself does not contain within it
Speaker 2: a necessary existence of an ex Okay.
Speaker 1: So so I have put forward that existence exists, and
Speaker 1: you've heard that argument. Need it? You say it doesn't.
Speaker 1: It's it's not justified because it relies on other assumptions.
Speaker 1: What do do you have a counter argument for our existence?
Speaker 2: Yes, and again it's the existence of God grounds and
Speaker 2: justifies the transcendental categories which make possible things like predicating
Speaker 2: about existence in the created realm. So there's not even
Speaker 2: one that God no, because in Christian theology, for example,
Speaker 2: there's two types of existences. There's uncreated and created, and
Speaker 2: so there's nothing about the word existence that tells me
Speaker 2: necessarily which one is even being referred to. Because I
Speaker 2: believe in my pl I believe in my paradigm that
Speaker 2: there's uncreated existence, who is God himself, and there's created existence,
Speaker 2: which is the created world. Those are two types of
Speaker 2: existing things. So there's nothing self evident about the word
Speaker 2: existence that necessarily tells you anything.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, what is an uncreated existence?
Speaker 2: God himself?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Okay, well that's like, yeah, but what do you
Speaker 1: mean by like, what is an uncreated system?
Speaker 2: It means that he is timeless. It means that he
Speaker 2: is a noncomposite, He is outside of time and space.
Speaker 2: He is transcendent, he is imminent, he is perfect all
Speaker 2: the attributes that we've ascribed to God in our system.
Speaker 1: So when you say he's timeless, what is what is?
Speaker 1: What do you mean by that? It's a doesn't exist
Speaker 1: in reality.
Speaker 2: No, outside of time, meaning that he's eternal. He created time,
Speaker 2: he's outside of time.
Speaker 1: So like or like would a vampire be an ungreated
Speaker 1: existence if he's a.
Speaker 2: Mortal anything mortal is created by definition?
Speaker 1: Okay, so real.
Speaker 2: Yeah, But I'm just pointing out that the word existence
Speaker 2: doesn't necessarily tell you anything self evident without a paradigm
Speaker 2: to inform the word and its meaning. Even language itself.
Speaker 2: Is why I mentioned earlier to you linguistic philosophy. It's
Speaker 2: a holistic structure. It's an epistemic wholism, which means that
Speaker 2: there's no words that function in an independent way. You
Speaker 2: could read Wickenstein on this because he talks about how
Speaker 2: words in terms are part of linguistic structures and systems
Speaker 2: because they all relate to one another. So there's no
Speaker 2: such thing as a word called existence or ontos or
Speaker 2: fusis or being or whatever that somehow has a self evident,
Speaker 2: necessary meaning apart from the entire paradigm or worldview that
Speaker 2: you have that informs it. That's why I was mentioning.
Speaker 1: So, yeah, what like, So it is true that words,
Speaker 1: you know, have a have a shared meaning that we
Speaker 1: kind of assume people get like, you know, and we
Speaker 1: see language change constantly where a word has as and
Speaker 1: then over time the meaning of the word kind of
Speaker 1: changes from the cultural context, because it's because it's just
Speaker 1: a function, right, It's a tool. A word is just
Speaker 1: a tool to describe a concept. And you know, communication
Speaker 1: is often, more often than not imperfect. Right. But but
Speaker 1: what I'm trying to understand is, you know, I agree
Speaker 1: that that is a that is a problem in argumentation.
Speaker 1: You have to kind of assume that the reader understands
Speaker 1: the meaning of the word that has but that isn't
Speaker 1: always perfect. But how do you justify how do how
Speaker 1: does your position differ in existence? And so though far
Speaker 1: that it justifies, Like saying God is uncreated is like
Speaker 1: like you're just saying it's it's outside of the rules,
Speaker 1: and it exists and it doesn't.
Speaker 2: Well, now outside of your rules? So and are I
Speaker 2: have a different paradigm. So I'm thinking and arguing in
Speaker 2: terms of paradigms or world views as a whole. The
Speaker 2: transcendental argument is a comparison of to world views or paradigms.
Speaker 2: So it involves the entire system because the Christian theistic
Speaker 2: system conditions what I mean by words like existence or
Speaker 2: time or creation or whatever, all of those things are.
Speaker 1: How does that? How does how does the Christian How
Speaker 1: does Christian ethics? Like? All these things are made up
Speaker 1: of words? Right, So it's the same problem that that
Speaker 1: would occur in any Well.
Speaker 2: I don't have the belief that words are in language
Speaker 2: are all purely social constructs. I believe that what the
Speaker 2: words refer to is conceptual and universal and objective and
Speaker 2: not subjective.
Speaker 1: Yeah, were, But the words themselves are just undicating concepts
Speaker 1: or ideas.
Speaker 2: Right, But that's why the words can be flexible. You
Speaker 2: can have Roman numeral VIII or the Arabic number seven
Speaker 2: that referred to the same abstract conceptual entity. But that
Speaker 2: has nothing to do.
Speaker 1: It doesn't get us any justification of like how you
Speaker 1: solve the problem as you see that justification can't be
Speaker 1: met on anything unless we posit a god. But I
Speaker 1: don't understand how.
Speaker 2: That does well, because the tag argument argues that any predication,
Speaker 2: any proposition, relies on the structures that are necessary for
Speaker 2: the possibility of language and predication. So, in other words,
Speaker 2: to say a sentence like the tree is red, a
Speaker 2: shout me the tree is green rests on a certain
Speaker 2: type of world where there are there is regularity in nature.
Speaker 2: It rests on the possibility of having knowledge universals, linguistic structure, grammar,
Speaker 2: all of those things are presupposed in the action of
Speaker 2: making a proposition.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, but that would be true for objectives philosophy
Speaker 1: as well.
Speaker 2: Right, But the difference between the difference between you and
Speaker 2: I is how we give an account for those things,
Speaker 2: And that your accounts are not good accounts is what
Speaker 2: I've been arguing.
Speaker 1: So what is your good account that solves this problem?
Speaker 2: And well, there are no self evident proof positions or
Speaker 2: statements because they're embedded within a network or a web
Speaker 2: of beliefs that we all have. And thus, if my
Speaker 2: system or my view is holistic, if I'm an epistemic holist,
Speaker 2: then I have to give an account for the system
Speaker 2: as a whole and how those structures or how those
Speaker 2: preconditions are the case. So if I need the possibility, predication, universals, mathematics, logic, mathematics, logic,
Speaker 2: all of these categories being the true, the good, et cetera,
Speaker 2: to have knowledge at all, then I need to give
Speaker 2: some account for those things those categories that my statements
Speaker 2: are relying on. In the Transcendental are and argues that
Speaker 2: only God is the type of being who could give
Speaker 2: a justification or account for those things.
Speaker 1: So you're just saying only God can do this, So
Speaker 1: therefore God is every saying.
Speaker 2: I'm saying that. The argument is that the only being
Speaker 2: who can give given a grounding for those things is
Speaker 2: the being revealed in the Christian worldview.
Speaker 1: How is it so? But but God doesn't exist in reality.
Speaker 2: I don't even know what does that mean?
Speaker 1: He said he's an uncreated existence in space. How is
Speaker 1: he doing this?
Speaker 2: I said, he's transcendent and he's imminent. That means that
Speaker 2: he exists outside of time and in time.
Speaker 1: So he does exist in reality.
Speaker 2: Well, you keep calling reality. I would say there's two realities.
Speaker 2: There's created reality on created reality. So when you.
Speaker 1: Say the outside of material reality, yeah, okay, where it was?
Speaker 1: So how so how do you prove that?
Speaker 2: Well I could. I could prove it the transcendental argument
Speaker 2: and the impossibility of the contrary that anytime you utilize language,
Speaker 2: you're utilizing conceptual, abstract things that are not reducible to
Speaker 2: physical sense data, and that only God in the trinitarian
Speaker 2: sense could give a justification for how that's possible.
Speaker 1: Well, no, I reason, reason alone explains that humans have
Speaker 1: the capacity for reason.
Speaker 2: Well, that's alone. You're all humans.
Speaker 1: Well, humans as a category.
Speaker 2: How do you have a justification for categories?
Speaker 1: What do you How do I have a justification that
Speaker 1: that that humans have the capacity know.
Speaker 2: That there are things called quote categories like this.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to figure out a way to answer this.
Speaker 1: You would accept it? So the how do I justify
Speaker 1: the categories exist in the mind that people?
Speaker 2: So now they're just in the mind. They're not actual,
Speaker 2: they're not outside of them. One like the numbers are
Speaker 2: not material, they're not material.
Speaker 1: No, of course, not.
Speaker 2: Okay, so there's immaterial things.
Speaker 1: There's no category three, right.
Speaker 2: There are immaterial things that exist, immaterial things.
Speaker 1: The mind does not create reality, Reality exists independent.
Speaker 2: Okay, how do you know that there are two types
Speaker 2: of things, physical and immaterial?
Speaker 1: Well, we have we do have sense.
Speaker 2: How does your sense data tell you that? You mentioned Hume?
Speaker 2: But how does your sensative tell you that there's imterial
Speaker 2: things that are not based on sense data?
Speaker 1: How does my sense data tell me that there are
Speaker 1: things that are not sense data?
Speaker 2: That's what you just said a question?
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, I said that we can see things in reality.
Speaker 2: How does things tell you that there are immaterial things?
Speaker 1: So theirs the first thing is that we can see
Speaker 1: that there are material things.
Speaker 2: Right, Well, I would say with the myth of the given,
Speaker 2: you don't even know that, and you haven't demonstrated that yet.
Speaker 2: But if I grant you that, how does that give
Speaker 2: to immaterial even if even.
Speaker 1: Even if I was like, there there has to.
Speaker 2: Be you keep saying, and if you do philosophy, you
Speaker 2: know there's no has to any of this. You got
Speaker 2: to demonstrate that. You can't just assert that.
Speaker 1: Well, okay, well, if you interrupt someone, you know then
Speaker 1: they can't make their full arge.
Speaker 2: So empiricism won't get you to universal categories, is the point?
Speaker 1: Yeah, No, I don't. I don't disagree that empiricism gets you, like,
Speaker 1: I don't disagree.
Speaker 2: Okay, So what's the justification for the immaterial things?
Speaker 1: Well, the justification for immaterial things is that the the
Speaker 1: concepts exist.
Speaker 2: You mean, how do you know that? How do you
Speaker 2: know that the concept in my head of humans as
Speaker 2: a category is the same as the concept in your head?
Speaker 2: How do you You can't verify?
Speaker 1: You don't. We've already we've already stated that you can't
Speaker 1: necessarily verify that.
Speaker 2: Okay, if you can't verify that, then you believe in
Speaker 2: immaterial things without justification that you can't verify?
Speaker 1: Well, so do you? You don't know?
Speaker 2: No, I believe in verification. I believe that I can
Speaker 2: justify it.
Speaker 1: So you you believe you believe.
Speaker 2: That that's a too quo. That's a two quock way.
Speaker 2: That's a two quoke way. No, but you're that's a
Speaker 2: two quote way. No but you, No, but you it
Speaker 2: is a two quoke way.
Speaker 1: No, it's not no but you because you just.
Speaker 2: You just said no, but you. My world view is different.
Speaker 2: I have a different account. You're not understanding that I
Speaker 2: have a different account than you.
Speaker 1: I understand that. I understand that you like to interrupt people.
Speaker 2: Now and then this is where once again you're deflecting
Speaker 2: because I brought you to a point. You said, you
Speaker 2: just see it. What's the justification? Listen when you say joke,
Speaker 2: what about you? That's a two quoke way. That's you
Speaker 2: know what a two quoke way.
Speaker 1: I asked you. I asked you if you had the
Speaker 1: similar belief.
Speaker 2: For thing, it doesn't matter what my similar blakes are.
Speaker 2: I will go into you said, I will go into that.
Speaker 2: It doesn't matter if I believe I have a different
Speaker 2: account of immaterial hands?
Speaker 1: Why why are you I have.
Speaker 2: A different account of material things than you.
Speaker 1: We were finally starting to get to talk like adults.
Speaker 2: And again, now that you've been pinned down, you don't
Speaker 2: want to go into it. What is the justification for
Speaker 2: immaterial things? What is your justification for immaterial things?
Speaker 1: What is my justification that immaterial immaterial things exist? So
Speaker 1: first I started with existence exists, but you say that
Speaker 1: that's not valid. But we'll just move on.
Speaker 2: So well, you kind of admitted that there's problems for that,
Speaker 2: nor did you demonstrate the actually did you demonstrate the
Speaker 2: external world which you said it means.
Speaker 1: I said that in order for us to have existence,
Speaker 1: we have to exist in some type of thing.
Speaker 2: Have you demonstrated that you demonstrate that? We know, you
Speaker 2: said an external world. What if we live in a
Speaker 2: mental world. You haven't proven that it's the external, material,
Speaker 2: physical world that we have necessarily, you haven't proven that.
Speaker 2: You've just asserted it.
Speaker 1: The mind cannot the mind cannot exist without a material
Speaker 1: How do you know that?
Speaker 2: You just assert this. What's the justification for this?
Speaker 1: Well, so the justification for how reason or consciousness comes
Speaker 1: to be.
Speaker 2: You keep asserting all kinds of metaphysical claims like that
Speaker 2: there's immaterial realities, and you've not justified any of these.
Speaker 1: We do exist in some form of existence, right, Let's
Speaker 1: let's take into account.
Speaker 2: I mean we exist in existence is basically a meaningless phrase.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I'm going through it. Right, So we exist?
Speaker 1: We could exist by your your you're asserting, what if
Speaker 1: we exist in the frame of the mind. We would
Speaker 1: then have to note that an existence must have some
Speaker 1: form of identity specific.
Speaker 2: How do we know that maybe it? Maybe it does.
Speaker 2: Maybe we're all schizophrenic and our schema in our minds
Speaker 2: don't match up to anything in the next wal world.
Speaker 2: We just interpret it like it does.
Speaker 1: Yees. So if if you deny the law of identity,
Speaker 1: then then this our conversation is meaning so but wait.
Speaker 2: A minute, you said that existence exists doesn't rely on
Speaker 2: the law of identity earlier, Well.
Speaker 1: We're moving, we moved past existence. What do you mean.
Speaker 2: No, you're we're still talking about it. So you're saying
Speaker 2: it does. It does rely on the law of the
Speaker 2: law of identity.
Speaker 1: If if the law of identity is no, I'm saying
Speaker 1: that I'm moving from existence exists and then making.
Speaker 2: That's a proposition that relies on the law of identity.
Speaker 1: Obviously I'm making a separate claim, which is essentially that
Speaker 1: the law of I didn't.
Speaker 2: Okay, how do we know that the laws like that
Speaker 2: and the classical Ristilian laws are the case and that
Speaker 2: they apply and by the.
Speaker 1: Way we perceive we perceive existence.
Speaker 2: Perceiving existence, You don't understand that, you don't understand why
Speaker 2: that doesn't answer that question. You're basically just saying you're
Speaker 2: basically I'm.
Speaker 1: Sorry, ahead, no, no, you go ahead. It's fine.
Speaker 2: You're basically just saying that my position is the case,
Speaker 2: because if you look at my position, it's that this
Speaker 2: is the case, and that's what the words mean my position.
Speaker 1: No. No, what I'm saying is that we again premise
Speaker 1: one or action one I guess would be existences we
Speaker 1: exist in some that to argue for.
Speaker 2: How do you know that?
Speaker 1: Is because of the negation. You can't argue against your
Speaker 1: own existence. Do so presupposes existence, It's impossible, But you
Speaker 1: have to exist.
Speaker 2: I'm making the argument right now. And what if our
Speaker 2: conceptual schema just seems to be the case in our
Speaker 2: minds but doesn't apply to an actual external ontological existence.
Speaker 2: How do we know? That is the question? And you
Speaker 2: can you can say that because it has to be
Speaker 2: that way, But that doesn't answer the objection or the defeater.
Speaker 1: No, I'm saying that if you make the argument that
Speaker 1: existence doesn't exist, fall into contradiction.
Speaker 2: No, that's not the argument argument. The argument is that
Speaker 2: existence exists necessarily applies to some external physical world. You
Speaker 2: have not demonstrated the external world yet, and thus it's
Speaker 2: not axiomatic because it relies on other positions and other beliefs.
Speaker 1: Well, it's well, the first axiom is existence exists. Once
Speaker 1: we recognize that one must exist in some capacity.
Speaker 2: Then when you say one, you're just assuming the existence
Speaker 2: of the self. Have you not read a critique of
Speaker 2: the code.
Speaker 1: Celf Well, of course, of course I'm assuming the existence
Speaker 1: of this.
Speaker 2: Well, then thank you. Then it's not self evident. It
Speaker 2: assumes other things exactly, No.
Speaker 1: It's the individual.
Speaker 2: Does it assume the existence of the self.
Speaker 1: It is the self that makes the argument? Is it not?
Speaker 2: So? Is it assuming it is? The proposition?
Speaker 1: To me? Would you okay, we'll put another axiom before it.
Speaker 1: The self exists, an existence.
Speaker 2: Exists, but you have no Now you're adding the moving
Speaker 2: the goalpost to add another proposition ahead.
Speaker 1: Adding the goal post. I'm saying that's fine.
Speaker 2: I'll okay. Then if the second proposition exists, then it's
Speaker 2: no longer self evident because it relies on another proposition. Obviously,
Speaker 2: so the.
Speaker 1: Self exists, right, you just agree that the self exit.
Speaker 2: No, I'm saying it doesn't matter how you construct it.
Speaker 2: It's no longer self evident because you're adding other propping
Speaker 2: up beliefs. So if you look, if you study this,
Speaker 2: it's it's no, it.
Speaker 1: Is, it's self evident because the self is the one
Speaker 1: that argues if.
Speaker 2: Someone that's a category error, that's a category error talking
Speaker 2: about the self does not make it self evident. That's
Speaker 2: that's amazing mistake. Man.
Speaker 1: No, No, it's not a category when when when I
Speaker 1: say that something is the unavoidable axiom, what I'm saying
Speaker 1: is that one a person that attempts to argue a self,
Speaker 1: that attempts to argue against existence, is incapable of doing
Speaker 1: so because they exist. They must exist in.
Speaker 2: Order I know what says. I'm giving it the classic
Speaker 2: critique of it.
Speaker 1: A non an entity that doesn't exist can't make an
Speaker 1: argument against.
Speaker 2: You know, you're missing the point.
Speaker 1: It's not they don't exist that you're.
Speaker 2: You're not even getting what the point of the objection is.
Speaker 2: It's not an objection about the ontological status of the
Speaker 2: self or whatever. And you could go that route. It's
Speaker 2: more fundamental than that that something axiomatic or what's called
Speaker 2: dosastic or properly basic, cannot rest on any other assumptions, principles,
Speaker 2: or things that have not yet been proven or else.
Speaker 2: It is no longer doxastically basic, is no longer self evident.
Speaker 2: And so every time you tackle on these other explanations,
Speaker 2: you're just proving my point that it doesn't matter whether
Speaker 2: you say, uh, the cogito or whether you say existence exists,
Speaker 2: It doesn't answer the objection that I'm laying out That
Speaker 2: is no.
Speaker 1: So the argument, the argument for the for objective reality is.
Speaker 2: I don't care about that objective route. You're saying one action,
Speaker 2: asking me to justify you know, whether Christy, let me
Speaker 2: ask you this.
Speaker 1: You're asking me, you're asking me to justify this external reality. Okay,
Speaker 1: and you were saying that an external reality comes from that,
Speaker 1: that that this existence exists, you know, presupposes this external reality.
Speaker 1: What I'm saying is is that existence exists is one
Speaker 1: axiom of of of.
Speaker 2: It doesn't matter that you say that it's one that
Speaker 2: doesn't It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because that.
Speaker 1: In order to justify object reality, I.
Speaker 2: Don't think you know what entity and consciousness, Well, you
Speaker 2: would need those things. But that's the point is that
Speaker 2: you've not yet demonstrated those things.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So because if you say yes, if you say yes,
Speaker 2: then you've admitted my point that it's not self evident, it.
Speaker 1: Is existence exists is self evidence.
Speaker 2: It's no, it is not.
Speaker 1: Nor is.
Speaker 2: Again. You keep saying it is that. You keep saying
Speaker 2: it is that. But I've given you multiple reasons why
Speaker 2: it doesn't get you to the justification for why you
Speaker 2: say that.
Speaker 1: No, what it gets existence exists again is one axiom?
Speaker 2: Does it rely on other things? Does it rely on
Speaker 2: other things? Does it rely on other things?
Speaker 1: Does the existence exist rely on other things? No, it
Speaker 1: doesn't rely on anything it is?
Speaker 2: Does it rely Does the proposition rely on grammar?
Speaker 1: You being able to communicate? That argument is not the same.
Speaker 2: Thing as the truth value of the proposition. Does it
Speaker 2: rely on grammar? To say it?
Speaker 1: That's that's not an argument, It is an argument.
Speaker 2: It's a classic critique. Does it rely on grammar?
Speaker 1: If you say God is real and then someone just
Speaker 1: changes the definition of God, well then then then that's
Speaker 1: a failure of communication.
Speaker 2: No, it's not. It's a classic critique of foundationalism. If
Speaker 2: you knew the if you knew what I'm talking about,
Speaker 2: you know that.
Speaker 1: Critique to say that it relies on our ability to communicate.
Speaker 2: Oh so wait a minute, so now it relies on
Speaker 2: communication skills.
Speaker 1: That's what you're saying, not me you're saying that language
Speaker 1: is required so that we.
Speaker 2: Know what the word correct. Propositions that are that have true,
Speaker 2: propositions that have truth value require language. Right, assuming do
Speaker 2: your propositions do they do they rely on language?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 2: Of course, argument, then they're not self evident. Thank you.
Speaker 1: That's so stupid.
Speaker 2: No, it's not the whole This is like you want
Speaker 2: to go read J. Jay Wood's epistemology book where he
Speaker 2: makes this very argument that you think is stupid.
Speaker 1: I think it's absolutely How is it that this is
Speaker 1: a word.
Speaker 2: No, you don't know about linguistic philosophy. I'm pointing out
Speaker 2: to you what a grad student would point out to
Speaker 2: somebody who's in a sophomore philosophy that you don't realize
Speaker 2: the assumptions that are being made. Right, just like when
Speaker 2: Concretius Koge, when Concritique to Kog to listen.
Speaker 1: We both realize, we both realize that language is a
Speaker 1: tool of communicating.
Speaker 2: You can call it that is, how does that? It
Speaker 2: doesn't matter it's relying on communication and language, then it's
Speaker 2: not off evidence if it relies on another thing, whether
Speaker 2: it's time, determination, predication, grammar, linguistic structure, all of those
Speaker 2: things negate the idea that it is self evident. Because
Speaker 2: it is relying on other things, it is no longer
Speaker 2: properly proper?
Speaker 1: Can it be? Can it? Being of non existence? Green language?
Speaker 2: That has nothing to do with answering this critique?
Speaker 1: Can a being of can it? Being of non existence?
Speaker 1: Has nothing to do being of non language?
Speaker 2: A being of none existence, a being of a being
Speaker 2: of non I don't know what language.
Speaker 1: Do you know what a being of non existence is?
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: You seem a being of non existence is something incoherent.
Speaker 1: Right because existence exists? Thank you? It is incoherent to being.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is I'm trying to be.
Speaker 1: So finally we've gotten to the point where you're accepting
Speaker 1: existence exists.
Speaker 2: I have Do you understand that you're not understanding what
Speaker 2: the debate is? It's different accounts of that phrase. I
Speaker 2: have no problem with the truth value.
Speaker 1: The debate is tag and you're just fucking tag.
Speaker 2: Is about worldview apologetics. That's the whole point and the thing.
Speaker 2: Do you know what I mean? Look, when I say
Speaker 2: something is when I say something is theory? Layden? Do
Speaker 2: you know what I'm saying? Uh?
Speaker 1: Well, according to according in epistemology.
Speaker 2: Man, you keep saying, according to me, just in modern epistemology.
Speaker 2: Do you know what I mean when I say that
Speaker 2: that it uh?
Speaker 1: If it's theory laden, I would I believe it's like
Speaker 1: that there are ideas that predicate the concept. No, I'm
Speaker 1: not without looking at it.
Speaker 2: It's best, okay. So are you familiar with Kuon and paradigms?
Speaker 1: Not? Not recently? I'm fucking I like my the last
Speaker 1: time I took philosophy classes, like ten years ago, I've.
Speaker 2: Forgotten a lot, right, So plain it's so. The whole
Speaker 2: point of Kuhn's paradigm is that in the world, in
Speaker 2: social discourse, in philosophy, people don't realize that their whole set,
Speaker 2: their whole set of beliefs are actually based on a
Speaker 2: web of beliefs or an entire paradigm, and that all
Speaker 2: these things are interlinked and interconnected. Against the term epistemic wholeism,
Speaker 2: And it's kind of it's kind of similar to coherence theory.
Speaker 2: It's not identical to coherence theory, but it's the idea
Speaker 2: that there's no self evident basic non theory laid in
Speaker 2: propositions are truths, and language is another example of this
Speaker 2: because language, for example, a single word usually comes with
Speaker 2: a other set of words that help inform that word,
Speaker 2: and there's nothing okay, so in the same way, same thing.
Speaker 1: It's kind of like the same thing.
Speaker 2: Deed constantly are well, I'm not a postmodernist, but Dereda
Speaker 2: asked some of these questions. But more so relevant is
Speaker 2: Wickenstein because when he talked about language games, he didn't
Speaker 2: mean that just playing games. What he meant was that
Speaker 2: language is a funny thing because the way language works
Speaker 2: is that, yes, it's flexible, and yes it can be
Speaker 2: you know, you can use different symbols to denote the
Speaker 2: same idea. But the point is rather that it is
Speaker 2: systemic and it's it's a holistic thing.
Speaker 1: So how does how does this apply to?
Speaker 2: Because what it shows because then listen because in the
Speaker 2: history of the debate about self evident axioms, like the
Speaker 2: way that Descartes, for example, said you know, I think right.
Speaker 2: So if Descartes says this, what happens is that later
Speaker 2: philosophy critiques it on many different grounds. For example, you
Speaker 2: get cont saying that the problem with this being self
Speaker 2: evident is that it presupposes time and space determination. Right,
Speaker 2: because to say that I exist is to say that
Speaker 2: I'm existing right now, which is a right now, is
Speaker 2: a time determinant at the moment, at this instant. Okay,
Speaker 2: but but the argument has not proven time as a
Speaker 2: metaphysical concept or reality yet. And so Kant had a
Speaker 2: good critique that if it's properly basic, it cannot rely
Speaker 2: on another proposition or another principle or another belief that
Speaker 2: has not yet been demonstrated. That's the point. Then you
Speaker 2: get people saying it also is hold on. There's a
Speaker 2: couple more critiques that you get bertrand Russell saying it's
Speaker 2: a non sequitor. The fact that you say that you're
Speaker 2: an eye does not prove that you exist in some
Speaker 2: metaphysical reality. We don't know that yet. Maybe you do,
Speaker 2: but how do we know that. It necessarily follows that
Speaker 2: you have some sort of ontological existence in this world.
Speaker 2: We don't know that yet. So we all agree, yeah,
Speaker 2: we do exist in this world, and I agree with you.
Speaker 2: But the point is that we got to have a
Speaker 2: good account of these principles. You can't just give an
Speaker 2: account that is arbitrary and at hawk. And that's why
Speaker 2: I reject all classical foundationalists of pistemology.
Speaker 1: So how do is so the problem that I'm having
Speaker 1: here or whatever is I don't see it's it seems
Speaker 1: you're saying, how do you justify existence exist when it
Speaker 1: presupposes concept I guess, right, So that's.
Speaker 2: Kind of not just concepts, But I mean, I don't
Speaker 2: know what kind.
Speaker 1: Of simplify that steel I'm trying to steal. Man.
Speaker 2: It presupposes a lot of things, and I've listened a
Speaker 2: bunch of them, and I mean, I don't think those
Speaker 2: things are just conceptual. I think they're actual ontological structures
Speaker 2: and things that exist. But if you want to call
Speaker 2: them concepts.
Speaker 1: Sure, right. But the issue that I have is in
Speaker 1: almost all of those we we get to this position
Speaker 1: where it's, well, how can those things be posited by
Speaker 1: a being of non existence?
Speaker 2: What does that mean? I don't know what you mean
Speaker 2: by you about God.
Speaker 1: I don't know, because you're you're the one that is
Speaker 1: saying that that that there is this hole, there's this issue,
Speaker 1: there's this possibility of exist since.
Speaker 2: Not existing or I never said that. I said uncreated
Speaker 2: existence is what God is and we are created existence.
Speaker 2: I never said non existence.
Speaker 1: By the virtue of arguing I know you're doing an
Speaker 1: internal critique. I'm not necessarily leaking this claim down, right,
Speaker 1: But what I mean is that if one is attempting
Speaker 1: to argue that existence exists is false, then they must
Speaker 1: believe it.
Speaker 2: I didn't argue that no exist. I didn't argue it's false.
Speaker 2: I argued that you have not given an account of
Speaker 2: the proposition in an epistemic sense, right.
Speaker 1: But this is the argument would be that if it
Speaker 1: is impossible to argue against, then it must be true.
Speaker 2: But you have not shown that it's impossible to argue against.
Speaker 2: And that's why I gave the kantient retort, which is
Speaker 2: that just because it seems impossible to me does not
Speaker 2: mean that it is ontologically the case.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, if we're trying to, like, if we're
Speaker 1: trying to make an argument from like a asmology or something,
Speaker 1: I totally agree, right, Like we could we could go
Speaker 1: out and observe reality and make a claim, is this
Speaker 1: is true? And you know, we have imperfect knowledge and
Speaker 1: there is at some point, you know, a paradigm something,
Speaker 1: so like it's not it's not necessarily proven to be true.
Speaker 1: It's like a balance of probabilities that we assume to
Speaker 1: be true so that we can function. The argument isn't
Speaker 1: a pistemologically saying. So what I'm saying is that it's
Speaker 1: impossible for one to argue against and that is you
Speaker 1: against existence, because one must exist in order.
Speaker 2: You're missing the whole of what you're missing. The point
Speaker 2: of the retorts to things like the Kogito, the point
Speaker 2: of the retorts is not to deny them. The point
Speaker 2: of the retorts is to point out that you need
Speaker 2: good reasons for why that's the case. I believe it
Speaker 2: is the case. Right, You could say, you know, we
Speaker 2: I believe in the self. I believe in identity over time.
Speaker 2: I believe in you know, the external world. I believe
Speaker 2: in causation. I believe in all these things. It's just
Speaker 2: that my account of those things, and hence justification is
Speaker 2: a different account than the account that you're giving. So
Speaker 2: when I use it, So let's and that's what justification
Speaker 2: is about.
Speaker 1: Let's let's let's let's just say we're at an impasse.
Speaker 1: You don't believe that my arguments are sustasion justify. Its fine,
Speaker 1: I'm okay with that. I don't want to I don't
Speaker 1: want to beat that for so long that everyone is
Speaker 1: fucking annoyed, which they probably already are. It's fine. So
Speaker 1: and you believe that an external world exists, So moving
Speaker 1: on those moving on to that, let's move into your
Speaker 1: worldview and why you believe that you have an appropriate
Speaker 1: account of those things that my uh that my grounding fails.
Speaker 2: Right. So, if God exists, then we have a world
Speaker 2: where there is a basis for metaphysical principles, epistemic principles,
Speaker 2: laws of logic, critical thinking, moral absolute, ethical claims. Because
Speaker 2: man has made the image of God, the world operates
Speaker 2: on a regular fact and that it has divine providence
Speaker 2: which assures the you know, regularity of nature, which is
Speaker 2: the basis of all science and empirical sense data. I
Speaker 2: have a reasoning faculty, which I have by virtue of
Speaker 2: being made in the image of God. And so I'm
Speaker 2: a little g God who can reason about the world
Speaker 2: and make decisions and do things, create things. Right, I'm
Speaker 2: a little creator because God is a creator. So for me,
Speaker 2: the divine the existence of God and his self, disclosure
Speaker 2: about who he is, and divine revelation is itself the
Speaker 2: basis for how things like the preconditions or categories for
Speaker 2: the possibility of knowledge are the case. So because God
Speaker 2: is omniscient, because he has intentionality as being a person
Speaker 2: and not an impersonal force, and because the world is
Speaker 2: external to him and it's not identical to him, I
Speaker 2: can have the ability to make these kinds of distinctions
Speaker 2: and set boundaries. I can make, you know, I can
Speaker 2: do things in the world because of that being made
Speaker 2: bind image and also the way that I go about predicating. Uh,
Speaker 2: you know, sentences, structure, language structure, grammar, universals, numbers, those
Speaker 2: things exist outside of the mere human empirical individual sense
Speaker 2: data examples because they are grounded in a divine mind.
Speaker 2: This is called divine conceptualism, which itself is omniscient, omnipresent, eternally. No,
Speaker 2: he's an idealist and an empiricist idealist. I'm not arguing
Speaker 2: that at all. I'm arguing the transcendental argument.
Speaker 1: Okay, I thought he was the guy like God. It's
Speaker 1: the observers, so it's that problem or whatever.
Speaker 2: He's an empirical idealist. He thinks that God is the
Speaker 2: great mind and that the rest of us are just
Speaker 2: other minds observing other ideas.
Speaker 1: So he believes thought that, Yeah, I thought.
Speaker 2: No, No, I'm not saying that all reality is that it
Speaker 2: is right.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: So now I'm not an empirical idealist like Berkeley. I'm
Speaker 2: arguing for Christian theism that there's a creator and there's
Speaker 2: the creative. So fundamental reality fundamentally is two different things,
Speaker 2: created and uncreated.
Speaker 1: Okay, So, so things exist outside of the mind. You're
Speaker 1: You're not You're not like a Berkeley like you we
Speaker 1: we we agree.
Speaker 2: That there's an external world substances, substances of course.
Speaker 1: Okay, okay, So why is it you're saying God is necessary?
Speaker 1: Where where are you making that? I heard a lot
Speaker 1: of God. God.
Speaker 2: I would say God is these things. God is necessary
Speaker 2: in the sense that he's the only He's the necessary
Speaker 2: justification for the transcendental categories that make knowledge possible. Only
Speaker 2: that type of a being could ground things like universals.
Speaker 1: So, and I'm not trying to be an asshole. I
Speaker 1: I'm just I'm genuinely trying to get your position here.
Speaker 1: How is this not like a God of the gaps ar?
Speaker 1: How is this not just?
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 1: I believe God exists because only God could fix all
Speaker 1: of these problems that I see in the philosophy. Therefore
Speaker 1: you know, one and done.
Speaker 2: We're good. Because it's a much stronger than a claim
Speaker 2: than God of the gaps. It's actually saying that any
Speaker 2: possible predication assumes transcendental categories, and transcendental categories assume God,
Speaker 2: so it's much strong. It's not just saying that wherever
Speaker 2: I see a gap, I'm gonna stick God in. It's
Speaker 2: actually saying that you couldn't make a sentence in a
Speaker 2: coherent justph all the way without God's existence.
Speaker 1: How so where are you getting that? Where you're getting
Speaker 1: that from?
Speaker 2: That?
Speaker 1: No? No, no, no, yeah, I'm saying like where, well, sure,
Speaker 1: like you know, I can, we can all make verguments
Speaker 1: true false. So my ax, I'm saying, when you say
Speaker 1: that God is necessary for any transcendental category, where are
Speaker 1: you getting that from?
Speaker 2: Because there is no other being that could justify the
Speaker 2: transcendental categories by definition by what they are.
Speaker 1: So how does God justify those?
Speaker 2: Because He's the only being that could ground them by
Speaker 2: the y virtue of who and what he is I
Speaker 2: listed earlier, Because he's omniscient, because of the omnies, because
Speaker 2: he's excuse me, omnipresent, because he has personal person, not
Speaker 2: an intentionality that gives us a basis for things like
Speaker 2: tilos in the world uh, and also things like causation.
Speaker 2: So without God's existence, you couldn't have a justification for
Speaker 2: universal telos teleology, nor could you have a justification for causation.
Speaker 1: But I still haven't. You haven't answered my question out.
Speaker 1: You haven't.
Speaker 2: You've just said is because of because of the impossibility
Speaker 2: of the contrary, which is the internal critique of the
Speaker 2: other world views or your world worldview, and the other
Speaker 2: the other argument, the other half of it is earlier on.
Speaker 1: You said earlier that that's not an argument.
Speaker 2: You can't just the other part of the the other correct.
Speaker 2: And that's why if I only had an internal critique,
Speaker 2: I would agree with you that my position wouldn't achieve justification.
Speaker 2: That's why you also have to give the positive case
Speaker 2: for why the trinitarian deity is the one that does
Speaker 2: justifying ground them right within that paradigm, within the Christian paradigm,
Speaker 2: it makes sense why there would be rationality like that.
Speaker 1: Can you make that argument because as of right now
Speaker 1: we're kind of on equal.
Speaker 2: Footing the argument right because in the Christian paradigm, right
Speaker 2: where God exists, it's a trinity. He creates man in
Speaker 2: his image. I'm saying that the world view of Christianity
Speaker 2: makes a coherent sense of why there would be things
Speaker 2: like universals, because for in this case, God is omniscient
Speaker 2: and there are divine ideas, and the universals are grounded
Speaker 2: in the divine mind. If you don't have a divine mind,
Speaker 2: there's no basis for universals, and thus there's no basis
Speaker 2: for predication.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm not, but I'm not actually hearing. You're just
Speaker 1: saying the Christian doctrine says so.
Speaker 2: No, it's a paradigm argument, and that's the argument, is
Speaker 2: that it's a comparison of one paradigm versus the other.
Speaker 2: If my paradigm gives an account for it and yours doesn't,
Speaker 2: then this paradigm is correct.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm asking for the account like you're just you're
Speaker 1: just restating the account.
Speaker 2: Is the Christian paradigm compared to your paradigm, that's the account.
Speaker 1: But we can't be compared to my paradigm.
Speaker 2: Because of course the argument is the argument is comparison.
Speaker 1: Like the same reason that you said that mine is.
Speaker 2: Not the argument. No, it's not you're missing the point.
Speaker 2: So you're assuming that the argument for the argumentation at
Speaker 2: a paradigm level is not the same thing. It's the
Speaker 2: argumentation on a mundane first order level. So this is
Speaker 2: a meta level argument. So it's an argument about the
Speaker 2: possibility of arguments. So if my position can give an
Speaker 2: account for within its paradigm, how it's possible to have
Speaker 2: laws of logic, universals, metaphysical categories, et cetera, all the
Speaker 2: things I've been listing, and your position doesn't give an
Speaker 2: account for it, then my position is correct.
Speaker 1: So you're what is given an accounting, so that there
Speaker 1: is one? What is the argument?
Speaker 2: The argument is that I need universals, I need these categories.
Speaker 2: God is the only possible being in Christian revelation has
Speaker 2: given that disclosure as to who God is. Divine conceptualism
Speaker 2: grounds the universal categories. How's that?
Speaker 1: But again it gets suspected, like the God of the gaps.
Speaker 2: It's not God of the gaps. It's a God of
Speaker 2: The argument is all predication, not God of the gaps.
Speaker 2: That's what you're missing. So God of the gaps is
Speaker 2: this idea that whenever there's a problem, I can just
Speaker 2: kind of stick God in there. This is a way
Speaker 2: stronger claim that all predication requires a certain type of
Speaker 2: world and certain types of transcendental categories. And I'm saying
Speaker 2: that to have the transcendental categories requires some kind of
Speaker 2: metaphysical justification and grounding itself. The only type of being
Speaker 2: who could possibly ground those in a coherent way is
Speaker 2: our God.
Speaker 1: That's the argument, my my argument, And I want you
Speaker 1: to tell me why what I'm saying is false so
Speaker 1: that I can better understand, which is this sence exists
Speaker 1: because it's impossible to argue against it. Right that a being,
Speaker 1: a being you know, making argumentation, exists in some pass
Speaker 1: to argue against their own existence, would would would negate,
Speaker 1: it would be false, like it would just be false,
Speaker 1: it would be it would be like a performative contradiction minimum.
Speaker 1: And then your argument is when I'm asking you, like,
Speaker 1: how do you justify that God solves this problem? Is
Speaker 1: that it's impossible to argue against it because you need
Speaker 1: these other categories. Sounds like we're making the exist.
Speaker 2: If I again, if I only did, if I only
Speaker 2: did an internal critique, I would agree with you. That
Speaker 2: doesn't necessarily mean that my position is correct, but if
Speaker 2: I also offer a counter worldview to you which does
Speaker 2: ground and give an account for universal categories, et cetera,
Speaker 2: all those things that I listed, then that's the positive side,
Speaker 2: and that's where it gets a justification.
Speaker 1: But but but I can do the same thing, right,
Speaker 1: which is what if existence exists identity?
Speaker 2: No, you didn't. You didn't give a justification. You didn't
Speaker 2: give any kind of justification.
Speaker 1: You just asserted, well, we we got bogged down, and
Speaker 1: existence exists quite a bit.
Speaker 2: I never heard a justification argument at all.
Speaker 1: So existence exists would be like axiom one, axiom two
Speaker 1: would be the law.
Speaker 2: You didn't prove your axioms on.
Speaker 1: Oh, you haven't proven yours. You're just saying God exists.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but I'm not a classical foundationalist. You're trying to
Speaker 2: hold me to your standards. I don't have that same system.
Speaker 1: Just just God. Must God adhere to logic? Or can
Speaker 1: God be logical?
Speaker 2: God is the basis for logic, is my argument.
Speaker 1: So so can God contradict?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: Okay, so if God can't contradict, then we agree regardless
Speaker 1: of what Ever, that.
Speaker 2: Doesn't mean the account is so Again, you keep confusing
Speaker 2: agreement with account of the agreement. I have a different agreement.
Speaker 1: So we can move forward in the argument.
Speaker 2: But it doesn't work because you're missing. But the reason
Speaker 2: that doesn't work to move forward is that you're not understanding.
Speaker 2: It's two rival paradigms trying to give an account for
Speaker 2: the same types of things. And my argument is that
Speaker 2: my paradigm can give an account and your paradigm cannot.
Speaker 2: And not only can your paradigm, not your paradigm cannot
Speaker 2: make knowledge possible. It's even stronger than God of the Gaps.
Speaker 1: How the fuck? How is knowledge impossible under my.
Speaker 2: Paradigm because you cannot give a justification for the assertions.
Speaker 2: That's the point. If you don't get the justification, then
Speaker 2: you don't get the assertions given to you. That's what
Speaker 2: philosophy does.
Speaker 1: Okay, so it's import well, I mean obviously knowledge.
Speaker 2: It's again you keep saying obviously, and I don't grant
Speaker 2: you any of those things. You have not you've not
Speaker 2: yet proven that anything is self evident. You just asserted, Okay.
Speaker 1: This is what happens when you interrupt people, so that
Speaker 1: you start.
Speaker 2: To start That's because the whole argument was continually based
Speaker 2: on you just asserting and believing in self evident principles,
Speaker 2: and I mean I can give you. Do you want
Speaker 2: to go into another.
Speaker 1: With your own argument of tag? Your own argument of tag.
Speaker 2: It's not a classical foundational.
Speaker 1: Necessary conditions, right, So that's.
Speaker 2: Not what self evidence is. That's not what you even by. Okay, brother,
Speaker 2: that's not what self evidence is. So you're trying to
Speaker 2: hold me to a criteria external to my worldviewer system.
Speaker 2: And it doesn't work.
Speaker 1: I said knowledge exists, and then you jump down my throat.
Speaker 2: I don't grant you that. So again, what is that
Speaker 2: you don't understand that it doesn't that doesn't apply to
Speaker 2: the men.
Speaker 1: You won't even agree with your own argument.
Speaker 2: No, I have a different account. It's a different account. Actually,
Speaker 2: it's a different account.
Speaker 1: Man, does or does not your argument hinge upon the
Speaker 1: fact that there are that knowledge, all these.
Speaker 2: Things, but those all of those words, these are necessary,
Speaker 2: All of those words are conditioned by my paradigm and
Speaker 2: not your parents.
Speaker 1: How am I supposed to have a conversation?
Speaker 2: The point is that you can't have It's not it's
Speaker 2: a debate, and that's why you're being held to the
Speaker 2: standards of critical things on logic, and you don't get
Speaker 2: to assert things.
Speaker 1: Hold on, Hold on, relax. How am I supposed to
Speaker 1: have any meaningful debate if you if I make a
Speaker 1: statement and you immediately interrupt said statement, and that statement
Speaker 1: is even part of your own.
Speaker 2: Argument, because come on, because it's not getting to an
Speaker 2: understanding the point of what the debate is. You don't
Speaker 2: understand the difference between Like I.
Speaker 1: Said, obviously knowledge exists. I said three words.
Speaker 2: I don't agree. Again, you don't understand part of your
Speaker 2: own argos. It doesn't matter because I have a different account.
Speaker 2: So understand that this is like the word. Remember when
Speaker 2: we're talking about the words.
Speaker 1: You mean a different account, a different account.
Speaker 2: It's it doesn't matter matter how many words it is,
Speaker 2: it's a totally different account, no matter what, no matter what, yes,
Speaker 2: everything in the paradigm. I said that you haven't given
Speaker 2: a justification, which I don't think you understand what the
Speaker 2: word means. Still for the assertions of self evidence, and
Speaker 2: my position does not believe in self evidence or ad
Speaker 2: hoc assertions. So you have the burden of proof on
Speaker 2: you if you start your position and your system with that,
Speaker 2: with self evidence and things being properly basic.
Speaker 1: We I'm not allowed to apparently make my.
Speaker 2: Arg what you We've been talking fine for the last hour.
Speaker 2: What do you mean?
Speaker 1: I keep trying to get through it and you keep
Speaker 1: just going back to existence exists. We've hifted over to yours,
Speaker 1: but you never just I'm trying again, So I'm shifting
Speaker 1: over to yours. We can do an internal critique of yours, and.
Speaker 2: I'm trying, but you're in eternal partique is not internal.
Speaker 2: It's your system. Brother, You're asking me, you're you're critiquing
Speaker 2: me from classical foundationalism, and that's not my system. It
Speaker 2: doesn't work.
Speaker 1: Oh listen, I'm trying to I'm I am. I am
Speaker 1: here genuinely listening to you as you lay out large
Speaker 1: arguments trying to steal man your You're not giving me
Speaker 1: the same grace it's making just being able to even have.
Speaker 2: A debate or okay, there you go.
Speaker 1: Right. So I'm trying to understand right where it is
Speaker 1: that why it is that when you plug God into
Speaker 1: the equator, all that sticks.
Speaker 2: Is not just plugging God in, it's pointing out that
Speaker 2: the paradigm itself is coherent, consistent, has explanatory power, and
Speaker 2: gives a justification for human knowledge, because it's a paradigm
Speaker 2: level argument. I am not plugging in. This is why
Speaker 2: I can already tell where the error is and what
Speaker 2: you're assessing. You're assessing that my position is God of gaps,
Speaker 2: And for the third time, it's a much stronger argument
Speaker 2: than God of the gaps, which is that all predication
Speaker 2: and knowledge requires the transcendental categories my position. I know
Speaker 2: you don't accept the argument or believe that what I'm
Speaker 2: saying is necessarily the case, but the argument is that
Speaker 2: in my worldview or paradigm, there is a coherent, sensible
Speaker 2: account of why there would be the self, the external
Speaker 2: world logic, et cetera. That is contrasted to your entire
Speaker 2: worldview and system in paradigm, which cannot give an account
Speaker 2: for even the transcendental categories themselves. That's the force of
Speaker 2: the argument.
Speaker 1: I'm genuinely not trying to accuse you.
Speaker 2: It's a it's a meta level argument, and you're trying
Speaker 2: to argue on a non meta level. That's the point.
Speaker 2: That's the problem we're having.
Speaker 1: My problem is that and you say that it's somehow
Speaker 1: false to say you plug gotten, But maybe I'm.
Speaker 2: Just dumb, like you know what a meta level argument
Speaker 2: versus a first order argument.
Speaker 1: Is I mean, like meta would be the meta would
Speaker 1: be like the thing of itself, as opposed to like
Speaker 1: the minute ship.
Speaker 2: Right, So, in other word, like logic itself, how is
Speaker 2: logic itself logical? Or how do we know that it works?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: Versus you know, a more mundane claim like and you're correct?
Speaker 2: I agree?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: So, like if I said, well, you know, does Bill
Speaker 2: Cosby live next door to me? I don't know. I'll
Speaker 2: have to go, you know, empirically investigate it, right, Debating
Speaker 2: the status of logic itself is way more devastating and
Speaker 2: important and more fundamental to my worldview. No, I agree, okay,
Speaker 2: So that's why this debate is a meta level worldview
Speaker 2: level debate.
Speaker 1: I didn't, I didn't. I didn't disagree with you on that.
Speaker 2: Okay. So then the torchs that you're giving are not
Speaker 2: understanding that in my system, God is the justification for
Speaker 2: the transceital categories, because he's the only possible being who
Speaker 2: could ground them. And you're saying, how do we know that?
Speaker 2: What's the justification? The system itself in terms of revealed
Speaker 2: theism is the justification in my paradigm, so you could say, well,
Speaker 2: I don't accept that. That's fine, but.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I just like I just I'm trying to see
Speaker 1: I'm trying. So I said, if you plug God in,
Speaker 1: and you took.
Speaker 2: It's not plugging God in. It's stronger than for the
Speaker 2: third time, the reason you said God of the gaps twice,
Speaker 2: and I'm pointing out that it's way stronger argument or
Speaker 2: claim than God of the gaps. God of the Gap says,
Speaker 2: where I see a problem, I stick God in there
Speaker 2: to try to make sense of it. This is more
Speaker 2: fundamental than that. This is saying all human knowledge and
Speaker 2: predication requires the existence of our God, who grounds the
Speaker 2: transl categories.
Speaker 1: How are we justifying that.
Speaker 2: Necessary by the impossibility of the opposing worldview not even
Speaker 2: being able to give an account for anything. It's a
Speaker 2: disjunctive argument, but.
Speaker 1: The only way that so the way that you're you're
Speaker 1: able to say knowledge to exist because and I had
Speaker 1: I don't have this God to.
Speaker 2: Solve that, to solve the basis for the transcentional categories.
Speaker 2: So you appeal to things like being is being, existence
Speaker 2: is existence, things that are just supposed to be self evident.
Speaker 2: And that's why I went through deconstructing how that's not
Speaker 2: self evident?
Speaker 1: Well, I don't, I disagree. I'm trying to. I'm I'm
Speaker 1: trying to get to a point where we can where
Speaker 1: we can have this conversation. But I feel like we're
Speaker 1: kind of just at a point where we just disagree versions.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is so I disagree that like just
Speaker 1: plugging in this concept that like, oh, well God justifies
Speaker 1: everything and therefore you know if there are any issues, so.
Speaker 2: Your answer is just existence exists.
Speaker 1: My yeah, I mean like that would be the fundamentals.
Speaker 2: So can I say, could I say so if I
Speaker 2: come to it's.
Speaker 1: The exact same argument.
Speaker 2: No, it's not my argument. Your argument is your argument was.
Speaker 1: On on My argument is existence exists. And we go, well,
Speaker 1: you can't justify that, and I say, well, it's impossible
Speaker 1: to arguement. And then your argument is God exists, and
Speaker 1: I say, well can you justify that? And say, well,
Speaker 1: you can't argue against that because all of the.
Speaker 2: Things I said twice, I said twice, you're not listening.
Speaker 2: I said twice that if I only gave an in,
Speaker 2: if I only gave an internal critique, you would be correct.
Speaker 2: I already said this twice. That's why you also counter
Speaker 2: with the positive case explaining the paradigm in the worldview,
Speaker 2: because you're debating, we're debating things like logic and existence
Speaker 2: in this language and this kind of stuff that are
Speaker 2: within the paradigm, within the system, so they're going to
Speaker 2: be conditioned by the systems. That's why the transcendental argument
Speaker 2: is literally saying that all argumentation at this level, at
Speaker 2: this fundamental level, is a paradigm level argument because there
Speaker 2: is no self evident principle. So every time you try
Speaker 2: to critique me on your classical foundationalist basis, you're proving
Speaker 2: my point and not understanding that within the paradigm justification
Speaker 2: makes sense because God literally is the only being who
Speaker 2: could ground those things. For example, let's let's make it
Speaker 2: let's make it clear. How could I put this into
Speaker 2: an either or either the world Either the world is
Speaker 2: at a universal sense disteleological, or there is tellos, there
Speaker 2: is purpose, there is teleology operant in the world. And
Speaker 2: maybe you could come up with some mixed third position
Speaker 2: where it's a little bit of both or something if
Speaker 2: you had. But in this disjunctive there's only two and
Speaker 2: perhaps three options for an entire worldview. If you if
Speaker 2: you answer either way on this, you're gonna be led
Speaker 2: to my position. And that's the that's the force of
Speaker 2: the transcendental argument. You can take anything causation, teleology, pencils,
Speaker 2: predication and make the transcendental argument.
Speaker 1: How am I so, well, then let's walk Mut's make
Speaker 1: it super simple. Either blue T shirts exist or blue
Speaker 1: T shirts don't exend.
Speaker 2: You know, I gave it this theological versus a teleological world, right,
Speaker 2: that was my exams.
Speaker 1: So either meaning exists or meaning doesn't exist.
Speaker 2: Well, it's purpose in the world at a at a
Speaker 2: grand scale, or there is no purpose in a grand scale.
Speaker 1: Okay, I was using meaning and purpose, you know, simplify
Speaker 1: the argument, right, like, so either meaning exists or meaning
Speaker 1: doesn't exit. And you're saying that.
Speaker 2: If at a at a universal level, not at a
Speaker 2: subjective level.
Speaker 1: Okay, So then yes, so I would so meaning at
Speaker 1: a universal level doesn't exit. We'll take that. We'll take that.
Speaker 1: My argument would be meaning does not exist at a
Speaker 1: universal level for for all all beings.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Then how do I then if that's the
Speaker 2: universal status of that proposition or claim. If that is
Speaker 2: the case, then every particular case her status of so
Speaker 2: called meaning is also encapsulated under the ultimate non meaning.
Speaker 2: So every argument you make is based on meaninglessness.
Speaker 1: And how does God? How does? How does how does
Speaker 1: the existence of a non or uncreated existence?
Speaker 2: Because God is because God is personal and intentional, and
Speaker 2: intentionality means that there is a meaningful world at a universal,
Speaker 2: grand scale.
Speaker 1: Okay, So so essentially where it's like a sart No.
Speaker 2: It's not at all, it's not. It's not. It's a
Speaker 2: transcendental argument for teleology.
Speaker 1: Why do you know I was saying, So it's it's
Speaker 1: it's similar to like if God doesn't exist in everything's permitted.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's a boil down ethical version of it.
Speaker 2: But I'm making another. I'm making more of a metaphysical
Speaker 2: argument about purpose and teleology and intentionality that the universe
Speaker 2: does not at a grand scale have that then than
Speaker 2: what we're The only other option is what's called accidentalism
Speaker 2: or dysteleology. And if that's the case, then hold on.
Speaker 2: If that's the case, then knowledge is no longer possible.
Speaker 1: Why is knowledge? Because let's stick to me.
Speaker 2: Because now everything is accidental. Now everything is accidental. I'm
Speaker 2: going to answer question. Because everything is now accidental, including
Speaker 2: every action of knowledge is an accident. And thus there's
Speaker 2: no laws of thought or laws of reasoning which are
Speaker 2: necessary for the possibility of meaningful discourse. You would negate
Speaker 2: the possibility laws you.
Speaker 1: Don't need you don't need it. You don't need a
Speaker 1: god for that exist.
Speaker 2: There are no immaterial laws. You keep saying that, But
Speaker 2: there's what's the justification for immaterial laws? If everything is
Speaker 2: an accident?
Speaker 1: I So first, let's let's go buy this piece PIPI.
Speaker 1: So I recognize that people want to discover meaning in
Speaker 1: their life.
Speaker 2: But okay, hold.
Speaker 1: On, why is it that meaning is a necessary condition
Speaker 1: for the universe? Why must the universe have meaning?
Speaker 2: Because to have justified knowledge you need intentionality, purpose and
Speaker 2: laws of thought and grammar, and those things cannot exist
Speaker 2: in a world that is ultimately, purely and totally accidental.
Speaker 1: So well yeah, well okay, so if if if if
Speaker 1: things have identities right, like a like a like a
Speaker 1: rabbiting system, and that is, you know, rabbit naings, that
Speaker 1: thing has it's we can describe what it is. Why
Speaker 1: is God a necessary element or conscious being able?
Speaker 2: Because if the total existence is because because it's not
Speaker 2: justified that's why let me.
Speaker 1: Finished, let me finds. So why is it that I
Speaker 1: can see, like, why is God a necessary element for
Speaker 1: me to see a rabbit that is named Steve and
Speaker 1: perceive the behaviors that the rabbit. Again, it's the things
Speaker 1: the rabbit does.
Speaker 2: The fact that you have the knowledge does not equate
Speaker 2: to you justifying the knowledge. That's what this whole debate
Speaker 2: has been about. Justification is not pragmatism. It's not you
Speaker 2: just having it. It's not you asserting it. It's not
Speaker 2: you believing in self evident assertions. It's you giving an
Speaker 2: account for the things that make it possible. So you
Speaker 2: can say, well, I have.
Speaker 1: So it wouldn't be able to justify them.
Speaker 2: That's correct. So if you say, well, I believe that
Speaker 2: I've found meaning and predicating about my pet rabbits, and
Speaker 2: it gives me the solace I get warm feelies over it.
Speaker 2: In the grand scheme, In the grand scheme, when you
Speaker 2: die and you go into the nothingness, that is gone,
Speaker 2: and so it has no relevance or reference to the
Speaker 2: universe as a whole. And so ultimately, even though you
Speaker 2: might have subjectively felt like there was me, there there
Speaker 2: is no meaning beyond your own personal subjective creating of meaning.
Speaker 2: So there is no Tels in your position?
Speaker 1: Right, But why does that matter?
Speaker 2: Because knowledge can no longer be epistemically justified if the
Speaker 2: universe is accidental and disteleological.
Speaker 1: If I live a life, and how does that get
Speaker 1: you justification? Hold on, if I live a life and right,
Speaker 1: and then the world moves on without me for a
Speaker 1: million years? Right, whatever my actions are had some effect
Speaker 1: on the world. But why does like why what? What
Speaker 1: is this you're you're positing that a grand vision or
Speaker 1: meaning is necessary.
Speaker 2: It's called accidentalism disteleological. Right, this is actually a fa
Speaker 2: a famous argument. Right, If the universe at a grand
Speaker 2: scale is accidental and distillological, then by necessity, every particular person, object,
Speaker 2: and thing within is also accidental, and thus there is
Speaker 2: no base this for logic knowledge in a just victory sense,
Speaker 2: because there are no laws of thought because they are
Speaker 2: also accidental and dissiological and with no purpose.
Speaker 1: Okay, So.
Speaker 2: If the grand scale universal is purposeless, all the particular
Speaker 2: parts are purposeless.
Speaker 1: But it doesn't it doesn't actually answer the question you're
Speaker 1: just saying, because it doesn't have propose like we can
Speaker 1: we can.
Speaker 2: Look at again for the third time, to have the
Speaker 2: laws of no hold on for the laws of thought. No,
Speaker 2: I'm not interrupting for having the laws of thought. Let
Speaker 2: me explain it. Let me explain it. For having You
Speaker 2: can't have language without the laws of thought.
Speaker 1: Oh my god, Oh my god, oh my god. Brother,
Speaker 1: I'm letting you make your full argument and then taking
Speaker 1: that argument.
Speaker 2: You can't have language is very law. Come on, man, Okay.
Speaker 1: So I'm trying to like, I'm not like, I'm not.
Speaker 1: I'm asking you a question and I'm not getting an answer.
Speaker 1: What I'm getting is that what I'm getting is you're
Speaker 1: appealing to the people's desire. No, I didn't for purpose
Speaker 1: and meaning, I'm asking.
Speaker 2: Where did I ever say where did I ever say that?
Speaker 2: That's totally not true? I said, you're not You're not.
Speaker 2: I said, you're doing.
Speaker 1: By not actually answering the question, which is why.
Speaker 2: The very beginning point was about the universe as a
Speaker 2: whole having either a teleological intentionality purpose behind it or
Speaker 2: it's purely accidental at a grand scale. That was what
Speaker 2: I said, very clear, And there's only two options here,
Speaker 2: Or if you want to say there's a mix, you
Speaker 2: could have a third option. And you said, well, but
Speaker 2: how does that mean I can't justify knowledge? And I said,
Speaker 2: because if the universe is purely accidental, all the so
Speaker 2: called laws within it, including the laws of thought, the
Speaker 2: laws of logic, mathematical laws, are also thus accidental and
Speaker 2: have no purpose. And so your arguments right now have
Speaker 2: no purpose by your own admission.
Speaker 1: If so, you're saying that purpose and meaning is required
Speaker 1: for let's.
Speaker 2: Saying a world with no purpose and no meaning cannot
Speaker 2: give rise to universal.
Speaker 1: Maybe I need a better definition of what you mean
Speaker 1: when you're making the arguments like teleology, purpose meaning, et cetera.
Speaker 2: Like what you mean in this regards the universe as
Speaker 2: a whole in all of its parts have a directed,
Speaker 2: intentional purpose or they do not.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, like a heart pumps blood. The purpose of
Speaker 1: the heart is to pump blood. Why is God necessary
Speaker 1: for the For the heart to pump blood?
Speaker 2: The justification for tilos in a universal sense requires some
Speaker 2: universal being or thing to ground it and justify it.
Speaker 2: That's the argument.
Speaker 1: So okay, well, why is God necessary for that?
Speaker 2: God is the only being who could give an account
Speaker 2: for that.
Speaker 1: That's not answering my question.
Speaker 2: It is just you don't like to answer. But what
Speaker 2: other being could?
Speaker 1: Why is God necessary?
Speaker 2: Because he's the only type of being who could give
Speaker 2: an account?
Speaker 1: I can give it a I can give an account of.
Speaker 2: But you already admit it because your account, your account
Speaker 2: is not Your account is not universally Your accounts is subjective.
Speaker 2: Your account is subjective and not universally true. That's the point.
Speaker 1: So you're saying that another person could have an interpretation
Speaker 1: of the heart.
Speaker 2: No, I'm asking about your assertion of universals now, and
Speaker 2: you don't have a justification for how there's universe.
Speaker 1: I would depend it would depend upon what we mean
Speaker 1: when we're talking about like the purpose of inanimate objects?
Speaker 2: Right, No, you said that this is Is it true?
Speaker 2: Is it universally true?
Speaker 1: That that the if we're talking about the specific identity? Yes,
Speaker 1: it is universally true.
Speaker 2: How do you have knowledge of the universal? How do
Speaker 2: you have knowledge of universals as a individual, finite empirical being.
Speaker 1: I have consciousness. Consciousness gives me.
Speaker 2: How does having consciousness prove the existence of universals?
Speaker 1: Well, consciousness is alitional. It's not what it's volitional, it's intentional.
Speaker 1: It's like it's it's like the consciousness.
Speaker 2: Okay, you keep what is the proof of the justification
Speaker 2: that you have these things? You keep asserting it. We
Speaker 2: have to Can I come to the debate and just
Speaker 2: say God just Can I come to the debate and
Speaker 2: say God just is?
Speaker 1: I feel like that's kind of what you're doing. No.
Speaker 2: I made a transcend in argument which you just don't understand,
Speaker 2: and you're coming to bet and saying what existence just is?
Speaker 2: And it just is?
Speaker 1: Well, you're I fail to see the distinction between I
Speaker 1: really do, but you'll just say that it's like I'm
Speaker 1: dumb or something. It's fine.
Speaker 2: Again, the distinction is that you're not justifying all of
Speaker 2: these assertions and beliefs and dog you have a bunch
Speaker 2: of dogmas that you've not justified. You on your paradigm,
Speaker 2: on your paradigm. That okay, well, so is everything. You said,
Speaker 2: everything is an accident, everything is without purpose. And you said,
Speaker 2: but in my personal life, I can say that the
Speaker 2: heart beats, okay, And then you said that that's universe.
Speaker 2: That's you said, that's universally true. You don't have a
Speaker 2: justification for universals because universals are No, it's not you
Speaker 2: can say that, but you've contradicted it by saying that
Speaker 2: the universe as a whole is also purposeless. That means
Speaker 2: that your universal claims are also purposeless.
Speaker 1: Again, this is why I asked you to clarify on
Speaker 1: your meanings of like purposeless purposefulness.
Speaker 2: There's no purpose he lows to anything. That means your
Speaker 2: arguments are no have no.
Speaker 1: Purpose when we take you're so frustrated.
Speaker 2: Because you're losing at this point, it's a very obvious points.
Speaker 2: If everything is meaninglessness, then your arguments are meaningless.
Speaker 1: Brother, brother, for the loves God whining?
Speaker 2: Do we don't care about your whining?
Speaker 1: I know that you don't care about my learning. It's
Speaker 1: because you're a rude right regardless.
Speaker 2: So everything is purposelessness, everything is meaningless, purposelesslessness, but your
Speaker 2: universal truth. You said that, Yes, you did. You said
Speaker 2: the universe was purposeless. You said that you are. You
Speaker 2: said at a grand scale, it was you gave.
Speaker 1: You gave an argument that said there's optional option, be
Speaker 1: potentially a mixed You said that too, I said, And
Speaker 1: you said that these will necessitate God when we follow
Speaker 1: them through.
Speaker 2: So I said, sure, I said you right, And you
Speaker 2: said that.
Speaker 1: I'm saying the universe purposefuls, it's meaningless or whatever.
Speaker 2: Right, but there's only two options on this question. Bad faith, dude,
Speaker 2: nobody's buying.
Speaker 1: Your bullshit bad faith.
Speaker 2: When you say, if there's only two options, then that
Speaker 2: must be your positions, right, I say, let's all.
Speaker 1: Right, let's pick one and let's follow your logic.
Speaker 2: Is that not your positions? Is it not your position?
Speaker 1: I don't know that. I don't I would, I would
Speaker 1: genuinely and honestly have to think about it.
Speaker 2: Okay, then you're not in a position to give a
Speaker 2: justification for universal claims by that admission.
Speaker 1: I'm not in a position to give universal claims because
Speaker 1: I don't know whether or not one specific claim.
Speaker 2: Something because of the no, because of intentionality and tilos.
Speaker 2: If the universe is universally purposeless and meaningless, and now
Speaker 2: you're saying, well, I don't actually believe that, then you
Speaker 2: are arguing in bad faith.
Speaker 1: How am I arguing in bad faith just because I
Speaker 1: don't like?
Speaker 2: I would say like, because there's only two options in
Speaker 2: this question, for there's only two options for anyone.
Speaker 1: No, No.
Speaker 2: The whole chat is you're over, you are this is
Speaker 2: shush me, this is I'm gonna know you. Nobody's buying
Speaker 2: the bullshit man, and you're I'm not lying. You literally
Speaker 2: contradicted yourself again.
Speaker 1: No, listen again. Your claim now is that it is
Speaker 1: talk about meta car.
Speaker 2: You said the universe's purpose. Listen, nest, and now you're
Speaker 2: walking it back because you got repeated. You're walking it
Speaker 2: back because you got repeated again.
Speaker 1: No, I can't. Who is the two options? I said,
Speaker 1: let's explore this option. It is not bad.
Speaker 2: There's only two options.
Speaker 1: There's only time.
Speaker 2: You're cooked, You're done, you're melting down, your spurging out.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, s dude, brother, Yeah, I'm just I'm
Speaker 1: I'm I will I guess I will finish with this.
Speaker 1: The idea that you call someone bad faith because.
Speaker 2: You're the one who bitched about me being bad face
Speaker 2: the entire time.
Speaker 1: Okay, so we're starting the idea that you would call
Speaker 1: someone bad fake because you present an argument and the
Speaker 1: person listens to it, takes notes.
Speaker 2: On it, and then walks it back when they see
Speaker 2: a problem. Correct, that's bad faith. Yeah, you affirmed, you
Speaker 2: affirmed universal meaninglessness. We can, we can, we can do
Speaker 2: this where.
Speaker 1: You eventually act like an adult.
Speaker 2: You affirmed universal meaninglessness on a possible in a position
Speaker 2: that only has two options. And now you're saying I
Speaker 2: don't necessarily agree with that, Well, then do you accept
Speaker 2: that there is universal meetings? We're No, I'm not lying.
Speaker 2: I don't have to lie in a person who has
Speaker 2: bombed an entire debate for two hours. Why would I
Speaker 2: have to lie? You have crashed and burned, dude, I'm
Speaker 2: not lying about you. You're a terrible debater objectively.
Speaker 1: I get it that this is a debate game for you.
Speaker 2: No, it's not a game. You crashed and burned miserably.
Speaker 2: But I entertained the entire discussion because I'm happy to
Speaker 2: explain the arguments to you. Oh my gosh, Oh my gosh,
Speaker 2: Oh my gosh. Can you just make your arguments without whiny,
Speaker 2: you whining bitch this whole time?
Speaker 1: Yes, that is that is true. I have complained quite
Speaker 1: a lot.
Speaker 2: Yes, whining and bitching because you can't deal with the arguments.
Speaker 2: You would rather whine and bitch about actually deal arguments.
Speaker 1: No, it's just because and it's so difficult to.
Speaker 2: Have a conversation while you're in a feminist swine man.
Speaker 2: So I'm gonna be I'm gonna be childish with you.
Speaker 2: So how's that.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm sure, brother, whatever, whatever, okay, ok I am yeah.
Speaker 1: So again I did not say any. Again, I will reaffirm,
Speaker 1: you know, I don't know. I'd have to think about
Speaker 1: many of the concept.
Speaker 2: Maybe in a debate to say that I don't know.
Speaker 2: I don't know. Is that a good sign in the debate,
Speaker 2: to be like, I don't know, let me walk it back,
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: Actually, I think I think that's a really good sign
Speaker 1: of someone that's actually being good faith as opposed to you, oh,
Speaker 1: that you're you're searching for a dub as opposed to so.
Speaker 2: I don't know. Let me debate a topic. Let me
Speaker 2: walk it back and admit that I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'll walk back anything.
Speaker 2: You affirmed that, you affirmed that the universe is purposeless.
Speaker 2: Everybody heard you, So I asked.
Speaker 1: I did an internal critique. I said, why must there
Speaker 1: be purposes?
Speaker 2: No? No, no, Now you're alive because you did explicitly
Speaker 2: verbally say fine, as purposeless. I'll go with that.
Speaker 1: Yes, fine, I'll go with that. Yes, that is saying
Speaker 1: for the any for the for the sake of continuing the.
Speaker 2: Argument for it it doesn't matter that you walk it
Speaker 2: back and say that it's not your position, which would
Speaker 2: mean it's in bad faith. If there's only two options.
Speaker 1: Dude, I I I.
Speaker 2: The whole chat you lost. I I you're done walking back.
Speaker 2: Everyone heard you affirm discilology. Everyone heard you affirm it.
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't know how to continue this conversation right,
Speaker 1: because you crash exactly. It's not a matter of crashing
Speaker 1: and burning. I made the mistake. I find it engaged
Speaker 1: honestly with a piece with a piece of right.
Speaker 2: So now it's all personally. When I keep it on
Speaker 2: the topic, you make it personal. All you do this
Speaker 2: whole time was wine until at the end I said,
Speaker 2: you're a soy man. You talk non stop ship about me,
Speaker 2: calling me a pussy. I bring you on here. You
Speaker 2: crash and burn and have a meltdown because you can't
Speaker 2: answer basic philosophical questions. Man, I agree that that is
Speaker 2: your interpretation of No, that's just everyone's interpretation, because that's
Speaker 2: what happened.
Speaker 1: Fair enough. You know, you win some, you lose some.
Speaker 1: Maybe one day I can, you know, learn more about
Speaker 1: the more, learn more about these arguments and debated with
Speaker 1: somebody that's interest.
Speaker 2: So you're admitting that you don't know the topic. That's
Speaker 2: a good admission. I appreciate that.
Speaker 1: Well. I well, obviously I would admit that there are
Speaker 1: aspects of any argumentation from other people that you don't know,
Speaker 1: Like what kind of narcissism?
Speaker 2: No, I mean actual, I mean basically, I mean basically,
Speaker 2: you've had three debates now with people on our side
Speaker 2: of this, and you've not done any work to understand epistemology.
Speaker 2: You've done nothing, So you're not the typical lazy libertarian
Speaker 2: kumer man who doesn't actually study the positions. You haven't
Speaker 2: progressed against. After Andrew, after Jim, Bob and me, you've
Speaker 2: made no progress at all in this topic.
Speaker 1: This is so silly. I attempt to know my ability,
Speaker 1: you know, to to bring for the argument.
Speaker 2: All you have is to call name. No. I let
Speaker 2: you talk for hours on end here today fair enough,
Speaker 2: And you made a bunch of bad arguments, and you're
Speaker 2: whining and melting down because your arguments are piss poor.
Speaker 2: They're sophomore level I have.
Speaker 1: I think that that is silly for you to say
Speaker 1: that I'm whining because my arguments are bad.
Speaker 2: It's a reflection technique and a person's crashing that they
Speaker 2: start whining and bitching about the other person.
Speaker 1: No, I'm just I'm I just can't get my arguments
Speaker 1: out like it took me.
Speaker 2: You got, you got a lot of bullshit out. We
Speaker 2: heard all, we heard your stuff, and we know after
Speaker 2: two hours is not going to get much better.
Speaker 1: Fair enough, fair enough, Well, I appreciate the opportunity to
Speaker 1: come here. Regardless of whether or not I will, I
Speaker 1: will recant my position that you are fully and holy
Speaker 1: you know, a pussy or a coward in terms of debating,
Speaker 1: which I had said earlier, because it felt very fucked
Speaker 1: up that you have not brought on actual libertarians and
Speaker 1: only discussed.
Speaker 2: Nobody cares what you think an actual libertarian is and
Speaker 2: no true scotsman, so we don't care about that. Well,
Speaker 2: I mean you at very least, I don't know who
Speaker 2: you I don't care who you think is real.
Speaker 1: I know, I know, I know without God, words have
Speaker 1: no meaning.
Speaker 2: No, I just don't care what you think a real
Speaker 2: libertarian is. Who's the lorilla libertarian?
Speaker 1: You? Anyone anyone that legitimately and fully follows through on
Speaker 1: the non aggression principles.
Speaker 2: Which is not an at claim to be even though
Speaker 2: it is an all to be right, which is an AT,
Speaker 2: but it's not an not because it's an axiom, but
Speaker 2: it's also an a right exactly you want to do
Speaker 2: super chats or not.
Speaker 1: No, No, I'm good, but I again, like I said,
Speaker 1: I'll about out now, but I just wanted to say
Speaker 1: thank you for bringing me on and again, if you'll
Speaker 1: let me get it out, I do recant my position
Speaker 1: that you were able to see it and that yeah,
Speaker 1: you had pissed me off, but not bringing on. Obviously
Speaker 1: you do. So they're is that I'm Fambi in Liberty.
Speaker 2: You can find me pretty much, and I've got his
Speaker 2: channel linked in the chat in the show description. If
Speaker 2: anybody wants to check out his material, even if we
Speaker 2: have a heated disagreement in debate, I'm gonna give you
Speaker 2: the links to the people so you can follow him