1
00:00:04,839 --> 00:00:07,400
Speaker 1: This is Jay Dyer from Jay's Analysis. You're listening to

2
00:00:07,799 --> 00:00:11,679
Esoteric Hollywood. Esoteric Hollywood is where I deconstruct the biggest

3
00:00:11,679 --> 00:00:13,960
films in an unparalleled way, from the classics of the

4
00:00:14,000 --> 00:00:18,160
silver screen to today's blockbusters. Learned to watch film with

5
00:00:18,280 --> 00:00:35,479
new eyes. As we enter Esoteric Hollywood, Welcome, you're listening

6
00:00:35,479 --> 00:00:38,960
to Jay's analysis. And I want to do some reflections

7
00:00:39,000 --> 00:00:42,240
on the debate and discussion with Adam Kokesh, which was

8
00:00:42,240 --> 00:00:45,000
a lot of fun. I appreciate Kokash being willing to.

9
00:00:46,640 --> 00:00:50,399
Speaker 2: Do that. I thought that was actually, you know, he

10
00:00:50,439 --> 00:00:51,200
didn't really have to.

11
00:00:51,159 --> 00:00:53,439
Speaker 1: Do that, and he's a pretty big name guy, so

12
00:00:53,799 --> 00:00:57,240
you know, he's basically sending traffic my way, just from

13
00:00:57,320 --> 00:01:02,000
a practical standpoint, So I appreciate that, and it was

14
00:01:02,039 --> 00:01:03,880
a lot of fun, and I don't think there's no

15
00:01:04,359 --> 00:01:07,599
hostility or anything like that. We had a good conversation afterwards,

16
00:01:07,599 --> 00:01:13,799
so hopefully we can, you know, continue to have an

17
00:01:13,799 --> 00:01:17,560
open discussion on these topics, and I'm thinking I would

18
00:01:17,599 --> 00:01:20,840
like to eventually get at them on the podcast to

19
00:01:20,920 --> 00:01:27,280
discuss his experiences in war and his principle of non aggression,

20
00:01:27,319 --> 00:01:29,840
which actually I do agree with. I just think that

21
00:01:29,879 --> 00:01:35,079
it needs to be filled out in a broader philosophical

22
00:01:35,120 --> 00:01:38,799
worldview setting that it doesn't function on its own, but

23
00:01:39,079 --> 00:01:44,680
the statement itself that we shouldn't provoke or aggress others

24
00:01:45,000 --> 00:01:51,200
for the sake of stability and progress and flourishing.

25
00:01:51,480 --> 00:01:52,439
Speaker 2: I totally agree with.

26
00:01:54,400 --> 00:01:58,000
Speaker 1: A couple ideas that I also had that I think

27
00:01:58,040 --> 00:02:01,040
will be illustrative and instructive that I didn't actually get

28
00:02:01,040 --> 00:02:04,000
to in the debate. It didn't get to bring up

29
00:02:04,959 --> 00:02:11,840
was that there's interesting discussions even from various types of

30
00:02:11,879 --> 00:02:18,400
libertarians such as Hans Harmenhaupa. And this was actually a

31
00:02:18,400 --> 00:02:21,400
point that Tim Kelly made where he points out that

32
00:02:22,080 --> 00:02:27,319
in the book Democracy that God Has That Failed, basically

33
00:02:27,400 --> 00:02:33,400
overall government spending under monarchies was limited and it averaged

34
00:02:33,439 --> 00:02:38,599
around three to nine percent of GDP, whereas government spending

35
00:02:38,719 --> 00:02:45,280
under the Masonic republics of our day with the state's bite,

36
00:02:45,719 --> 00:02:52,240
hovers around thirty five to fifty percent of GDP on average,

37
00:02:52,479 --> 00:02:56,680
So that that's a big difference in I understand the

38
00:02:56,719 --> 00:03:00,759
ABS position, you know, is not interested in any state,

39
00:03:03,240 --> 00:03:07,000
But the problem is that the long march towards what

40
00:03:07,039 --> 00:03:12,360
we're supposed to believe is the stateless society, the coming possible,

41
00:03:12,360 --> 00:03:18,120
hopeful stateless society one day is a long march of revolutions, right,

42
00:03:18,199 --> 00:03:20,479
and Adam admitted this when he was talking about the

43
00:03:20,479 --> 00:03:25,000
phases of history. And that's sort of sort of a

44
00:03:25,599 --> 00:03:28,879
slicing up of history that both the Libertarians and the

45
00:03:28,879 --> 00:03:32,400
Anglo Saxon liberal tradition and the Marxist share. Is this

46
00:03:32,520 --> 00:03:35,840
idea that you can cut out these phases of history

47
00:03:36,639 --> 00:03:39,240
like the Dark Ages and things like this, and that's

48
00:03:39,280 --> 00:03:42,159
not really how history. I mean, I'm not opposed to

49
00:03:42,319 --> 00:03:46,280
those kinds of classifications across the board, because you know,

50
00:03:46,319 --> 00:03:48,800
we speak of the Enlightenment, which is a phase in

51
00:03:48,840 --> 00:03:52,439
the history of the West where ideas shift and change.

52
00:03:52,759 --> 00:03:57,080
I'm not opposed to that totally speaking. But at the

53
00:03:57,080 --> 00:03:59,919
same time, it's also can be used just as a

54
00:04:00,120 --> 00:04:03,719
kind of rhetorical device that doesn't really have much meaning, like, oh,

55
00:04:03,719 --> 00:04:07,000
everyone in the Dark Ages was superstitious and domb and

56
00:04:07,120 --> 00:04:09,280
that's not actually true. When you go and read them,

57
00:04:09,599 --> 00:04:12,719
many of them are much more capable philosophers than the

58
00:04:12,840 --> 00:04:18,160
average intellectual today that inhabits academia or something like this,

59
00:04:18,439 --> 00:04:21,800
you would learn. I'm a big critic of Aquinas, for example,

60
00:04:21,879 --> 00:04:24,600
but you'd learn a lot more from the feet of

61
00:04:24,600 --> 00:04:25,959
Aquinas than you would.

62
00:04:27,279 --> 00:04:28,839
Speaker 2: Professor Richard J.

63
00:04:29,160 --> 00:04:34,639
Speaker 1: Darwin at the local university, who's just got one mythology

64
00:04:34,720 --> 00:04:38,120
to try to teach you. That tryes to encapsulate all

65
00:04:38,199 --> 00:04:44,279
reality under one unified vision of materialism. For example, So

66
00:04:44,439 --> 00:04:48,600
other points and notes I had ambiguity on nature. We

67
00:04:48,639 --> 00:04:50,879
talk a lot about nature. I don't have a problem

68
00:04:50,920 --> 00:04:54,759
talking about nature. But for me, obviously, as you know,

69
00:04:55,319 --> 00:05:01,120
nature is confined within a specific worldview. So when Paul says,

70
00:05:01,120 --> 00:05:03,879
for example, in Romans One, that nature itself testifies to

71
00:05:03,920 --> 00:05:07,639
the existence of God, he's speaking from the advantage point

72
00:05:07,680 --> 00:05:10,399
of a person who believes in creation. You know, Paul

73
00:05:10,439 --> 00:05:14,680
talks about x neulo creation more than once in his epistles.

74
00:05:15,120 --> 00:05:18,959
So for him, reality is a created reality, and it

75
00:05:19,000 --> 00:05:24,759
has its beginning, its middle period, and its terminus or

76
00:05:26,800 --> 00:05:31,439
final state telos in God. And that's of course our

77
00:05:31,720 --> 00:05:37,959
Orthodox vision of creation and the process of history. So

78
00:05:38,040 --> 00:05:43,000
when Paul uses the term nature, it's nature understood in

79
00:05:43,000 --> 00:05:48,040
that perspective with that vantage point. Right, when a person

80
00:05:48,079 --> 00:05:52,720
with a reductionistic materialist view uses the term nature, they

81
00:05:52,759 --> 00:05:56,079
mean something totally different. So we have a lot of

82
00:05:56,079 --> 00:06:03,759
these ambiguities, oftentimes in appealing to ambiguous terms like law, freedom, nature,

83
00:06:04,480 --> 00:06:08,480
et cetera, et cetera, that are really conditioned and interpreted

84
00:06:08,519 --> 00:06:11,279
by our worldview as a whole. And this is the

85
00:06:11,319 --> 00:06:13,800
point that I continually try to stress, and what we're

86
00:06:13,839 --> 00:06:14,439
going to see in.

87
00:06:14,360 --> 00:06:15,360
Speaker 2: This talk is.

88
00:06:16,959 --> 00:06:20,160
Speaker 1: When we look at a couple essays, I guess, I

89
00:06:20,199 --> 00:06:22,800
guess one of them is kind of famous by the

90
00:06:22,839 --> 00:06:27,120
famous semiutitian in Berto Echo, whom I've referenced many times

91
00:06:27,120 --> 00:06:29,920
and whose books I've read many I've read many of

92
00:06:29,959 --> 00:06:34,600
his book Excuse Me of Fucoast, Pendulum and Name of

93
00:06:34,639 --> 00:06:39,759
the Rose, and even some of his philosophical and literary

94
00:06:39,759 --> 00:06:45,360
works as probably the foremost Semiutitian. Before I think he's died,

95
00:06:45,920 --> 00:06:49,519
I don't know that the Mandela effect hitting me where

96
00:06:49,519 --> 00:06:51,399
he didn't die and I thought he did. I don't know,

97
00:06:51,439 --> 00:06:54,279
but maybe I thought I saw on Drudge Report that

98
00:06:54,759 --> 00:06:56,160
Echo died a year or two ago.

99
00:06:56,240 --> 00:06:56,639
Speaker 2: I don't know.

100
00:06:56,720 --> 00:07:01,519
Speaker 1: But regardless of whether he did or didn't, he is

101
00:07:01,560 --> 00:07:03,720
an interesting thinker, and I guess you could say he

102
00:07:03,759 --> 00:07:12,360
represents maybe the modern progressive liberal academic. He's a good

103
00:07:13,079 --> 00:07:17,519
candidate for that role, and he's going to critique fascism.

104
00:07:17,560 --> 00:07:18,959
And this is the essay that we're going to look

105
00:07:19,000 --> 00:07:22,879
at that Daniel Spaulding sent to me. That's illustrative, and

106
00:07:22,920 --> 00:07:25,160
so what we're going to do after I finished discussing

107
00:07:25,199 --> 00:07:29,439
Adam's position in the debate and some of the points

108
00:07:29,480 --> 00:07:32,720
that I didn't ever get to in my notes reflections

109
00:07:32,720 --> 00:07:40,279
on the debate, we're going to dissect echoes essay, and

110
00:07:40,399 --> 00:07:44,839
we're going to use the apologetic methodology that I'm hoping

111
00:07:44,879 --> 00:07:49,480
to instill in people out there to give them the

112
00:07:49,480 --> 00:07:52,600
skills to do what I'm doing, as well as to

113
00:07:52,639 --> 00:07:56,360
hopefully better understand where I'm coming from, so that they

114
00:07:56,399 --> 00:07:59,120
can implement these kinds of ideas in their own life.

115
00:08:00,120 --> 00:08:02,959
Because I think they're beneficial, I think they're healthy. I

116
00:08:02,959 --> 00:08:07,959
think that they will help you to flourish, at least

117
00:08:08,000 --> 00:08:12,800
intellectually in this life and then hopefully into the life

118
00:08:13,040 --> 00:08:18,120
beyond this life. So that's what we're going to look at,

119
00:08:18,160 --> 00:08:19,959
probably in the second half of the talk. I don't

120
00:08:20,000 --> 00:08:22,519
know how much of the I don't really have it

121
00:08:23,360 --> 00:08:26,560
planned out time wise, how much you know what's going

122
00:08:26,639 --> 00:08:30,000
to take care of what, But in terms of looking

123
00:08:30,000 --> 00:08:32,559
at the debate and then looking at echoes essay. But

124
00:08:32,879 --> 00:08:35,840
a couple other points that I did want to touch

125
00:08:35,840 --> 00:08:37,600
on briefly is that I got a couple of hit

126
00:08:37,679 --> 00:08:41,080
pieces written on me this week, one from this Jason

127
00:08:41,080 --> 00:08:44,840
Calavito character that Chris at Hoasbusters has had on the show,

128
00:08:45,039 --> 00:08:49,159
and Calveto is in the I guess you could say

129
00:08:49,200 --> 00:08:54,440
the Snopes Shechrmer nexus of pathological skepticism, as the Colins

130
00:08:54,480 --> 00:08:56,600
Brothers called it, which that was a good way to

131
00:08:56,639 --> 00:09:01,039
put it. And this is just really the naive scientism

132
00:09:01,200 --> 00:09:07,759
slash empiricism perspective. And I've done countless critiques of naive empiricism.

133
00:09:08,600 --> 00:09:11,120
Speaker 2: It's very easy to refute. It's been refuted many times.

134
00:09:11,720 --> 00:09:14,879
Speaker 1: Of course, the people in those positions don't really get

135
00:09:14,919 --> 00:09:18,679
it and don't have the motivation, I don't think to

136
00:09:18,799 --> 00:09:25,120
want to question their presubpositions of native scientism and naive

137
00:09:25,120 --> 00:09:30,519
empiricism because it would obviously fall apart very quick, you know,

138
00:09:30,519 --> 00:09:33,200
the whole house of cards comes down. And really this

139
00:09:33,320 --> 00:09:37,000
is characteristic of all modernity. So there's a lot of

140
00:09:37,840 --> 00:09:40,720
scare tactics, straw men, false statements in.

141
00:09:40,720 --> 00:09:41,480
Speaker 2: His hit piece.

142
00:09:42,600 --> 00:09:46,879
Speaker 1: And since he sent a whopping four people my way,

143
00:09:47,000 --> 00:09:49,799
four hits from his hit piece. I'm not even going

144
00:09:49,879 --> 00:09:53,679
to spend that much time on it. I mean, just

145
00:09:53,799 --> 00:09:56,639
at my website, I'm getting over one hundred thousand views

146
00:09:57,279 --> 00:10:00,919
a month, and I don't think four hits from Jason

147
00:10:00,919 --> 00:10:03,120
Calvito's kind of do too much damage.

148
00:10:03,759 --> 00:10:04,440
Speaker 2: But that's okay.

149
00:10:05,919 --> 00:10:10,919
Speaker 1: There's a his article was more of a hip piece

150
00:10:11,200 --> 00:10:15,120
than any kind of actual argumentation. I will give him

151
00:10:15,120 --> 00:10:17,639
credit that he does seem to have listened to some

152
00:10:17,720 --> 00:10:20,799
of my talks, and so that I appreciate that he

153
00:10:20,879 --> 00:10:23,320
says that there's nothing worth listening to in my talks,

154
00:10:23,639 --> 00:10:28,639
which is interesting that he went to the trouble to

155
00:10:29,320 --> 00:10:33,200
write a hip piece, given I'm not that interesting. So

156
00:10:34,399 --> 00:10:37,000
thank you for all the liberal gatekeepers who are out

157
00:10:37,039 --> 00:10:42,919
there to protect everybody nobly in their actions, the noble

158
00:10:43,000 --> 00:10:50,240
protectors of the common men, right who You're you're stupid

159
00:10:50,320 --> 00:10:54,639
enough to fall for listening to my podcast, but you're

160
00:10:54,679 --> 00:10:58,200
smart enough to figure out if you listen to Jason

161
00:10:58,200 --> 00:11:03,600
calveto his argumentation, which is actually hit piece that's going

162
00:11:03,600 --> 00:11:07,919
to prove me wrong. So nothing but loaded questions, nothing

163
00:11:07,960 --> 00:11:12,840
but bandwagon fallacy, nothing but begging the question and nothing

164
00:11:12,919 --> 00:11:21,799
but special pleading straw men, appeals to emotion at homonyms.

165
00:11:22,519 --> 00:11:28,600
That's basically the entirety of his piece, So not even

166
00:11:28,639 --> 00:11:31,039
really worth dealing with. But of course, all of these

167
00:11:31,080 --> 00:11:37,519
positions that are really emotional based, reactionary positions, and that

168
00:11:37,559 --> 00:11:43,279
would be liberalism, leftism, progressivism, anarchism. In my view, they

169
00:11:43,919 --> 00:11:46,960
have an appearance of logic and coherence, but when you

170
00:11:47,000 --> 00:11:50,000
really boil it down to the brass tacks, you're really

171
00:11:50,039 --> 00:12:01,960
just appealing to these empty broad categories such as freedom, democracy, rights, quality, egalitarianism,

172
00:12:02,840 --> 00:12:07,679
and so Jason Calvito actually got trolled, and the humorous,

173
00:12:08,039 --> 00:12:13,799
humorless left is quite easy to troll because he actually

174
00:12:13,799 --> 00:12:16,240
believed that I think Trump is God emperor.

175
00:12:17,720 --> 00:12:20,120
Speaker 2: He says that in this article, which of course that

176
00:12:20,240 --> 00:12:20,679
was a joke.

177
00:12:21,000 --> 00:12:28,120
Speaker 1: Okay, that's he wasn't deft enough to figure out that

178
00:12:28,120 --> 00:12:29,080
that's a meme.

179
00:12:29,159 --> 00:12:31,879
Speaker 2: That was used to troll the left right.

180
00:12:31,919 --> 00:12:35,000
Speaker 1: I don't I don't know anybody that actually believes Trump

181
00:12:35,080 --> 00:12:36,000
is a god emperor.

182
00:12:36,320 --> 00:12:37,000
Speaker 2: This is a joke.

183
00:12:37,200 --> 00:12:40,639
Speaker 1: This is from Dune, Okay, Frank Kerbert's novels Dune, David

184
00:12:40,720 --> 00:12:44,519
Lynch movie Dune, God Emperor of Dune it's a joke,

185
00:12:44,600 --> 00:12:46,519
man lighting up.

186
00:12:50,200 --> 00:12:52,279
Speaker 2: So I went by the way.

187
00:12:53,039 --> 00:12:59,720
Speaker 1: Jason Calvito lost his argument with Chris Kendall at Hoaxbusters

188
00:13:00,879 --> 00:13:03,320
because it got down to the point in their debate

189
00:13:03,360 --> 00:13:12,240
where Calvito had to argue that DNA produces absolutely magical

190
00:13:12,399 --> 00:13:15,120
new information and that this is how you get the

191
00:13:15,200 --> 00:13:18,799
rise of new species from one organism to the next.

192
00:13:19,039 --> 00:13:21,879
And of course there's absolutely no evidence or proof that

193
00:13:22,919 --> 00:13:28,200
DNA produces new information. Actually, it only codes the information

194
00:13:28,519 --> 00:13:37,639
existing already within the DNA. So Chris nailed Calavito on

195
00:13:37,720 --> 00:13:41,039
that point, and Calvito had absolutely no response, and if

196
00:13:41,080 --> 00:13:45,440
I recall, he at that point left the discussion because

197
00:13:45,480 --> 00:13:49,039
he talked himself into circles. So, I mean, come on, seriously,

198
00:13:49,679 --> 00:13:56,799
naive scientism and evolutionary Darwinism. I mean, these people, I

199
00:13:56,840 --> 00:14:00,799
don't think they've ever taken a philosophy classes or logic class.

200
00:14:00,799 --> 00:14:05,399
They've had maybe pop psychology and a few maybe biologic classes,

201
00:14:05,440 --> 00:14:10,600
maybe maybe, and that's about it. But don't ever expect

202
00:14:11,519 --> 00:14:15,879
any kind of upper level analytical philosophy class, any kind

203
00:14:15,879 --> 00:14:21,399
of understanding of continental philosophy, any understanding of math theory

204
00:14:21,639 --> 00:14:25,679
or metallogic. No don't ever expect that out of these people.

205
00:14:27,159 --> 00:14:34,759
So the problem that we want to hinge the argument against, well,

206
00:14:34,840 --> 00:14:38,720
this would extend to all modern liberal positions, and that

207
00:14:38,759 --> 00:14:46,039
would include Calavito and koquesh Is Nominalism. Nominalism is the

208
00:14:46,320 --> 00:14:51,679
medieval philosophical idea that came as a response to medieval

209
00:14:52,240 --> 00:14:58,399
Augustinianism or Platonism or neoplatonism. Noominalism says that there are

210
00:14:58,440 --> 00:15:07,120
no metaphysical ideas or categories. There are only humanly constructed symbols, signs,

211
00:15:07,559 --> 00:15:10,960
or what are called tokens. So a token similar sign

212
00:15:11,159 --> 00:15:17,399
is a purely social construct. It's purely made up from

213
00:15:17,919 --> 00:15:26,639
the human creative, pragmatic, it's solely based I guess on

214
00:15:26,799 --> 00:15:32,559
use right functional. So when we talk about things like truth,

215
00:15:32,759 --> 00:15:37,720
or when we talk about any metaphysical categories like ethics

216
00:15:37,759 --> 00:15:41,600
of right and wrong or whatever, these are all constructs, right,

217
00:15:41,720 --> 00:15:47,840
They're relative. This is what nominalism ultimately has to devolve into,

218
00:15:50,000 --> 00:15:55,799
because nominalism again starts from the position of rejecting any

219
00:15:55,879 --> 00:16:04,200
of these objective, logical, ontological, ethical, metaphysical, and even mathematical categories.

220
00:16:04,360 --> 00:16:08,240
Now you say, why do they do this, Well, they

221
00:16:08,279 --> 00:16:10,840
do this. Number one because they're wrong and they're stupid.

222
00:16:10,840 --> 00:16:15,600
But number two, because they have an agenda I believe ultimately,

223
00:16:15,639 --> 00:16:19,440
which was to attack.

224
00:16:19,120 --> 00:16:20,480
Speaker 2: The existing power structures.

225
00:16:20,759 --> 00:16:24,240
Speaker 1: And so I don't really care about what Akham's personal

226
00:16:24,279 --> 00:16:27,919
motivations are. You know, if he wanted to I don't know,

227
00:16:28,679 --> 00:16:30,519
he wanted to be with some check or something or

228
00:16:30,639 --> 00:16:33,320
Abalard the other famous anomalists.

229
00:16:33,360 --> 00:16:35,559
Speaker 2: I don't you know, he wanted to be.

230
00:16:35,600 --> 00:16:40,279
Speaker 1: With some check and maybe the existing power structures, rules,

231
00:16:41,039 --> 00:16:43,399
or the papacy or something like this was in the way.

232
00:16:43,519 --> 00:16:44,480
Speaker 2: It doesn't really matter.

233
00:16:44,519 --> 00:16:46,440
Speaker 1: If you want to really dive deep into that, you

234
00:16:46,440 --> 00:16:54,919
can read Haiko Oberman's book on Luther, Harvest of Medieval Theology,

235
00:16:55,080 --> 00:16:57,960
where he discussed is the influence of nominalism on Luther

236
00:16:59,039 --> 00:17:01,440
in A. Gabriel by all in these other characters be

237
00:17:01,559 --> 00:17:05,000
I eal and again, that's Haiko Oberman's excellent book. I

238
00:17:05,039 --> 00:17:11,079
read that probably twelve years ago. Very technical theological, philosophical book,

239
00:17:11,119 --> 00:17:16,319
but very illustrative, very enlightening to see the rise of

240
00:17:16,319 --> 00:17:19,759
the present Reformation coming out of the nominalist tradition. So

241
00:17:19,880 --> 00:17:22,559
this is what nominalism says. It says that you don't

242
00:17:22,559 --> 00:17:28,160
really the human mind is confined to its sense data.

243
00:17:29,160 --> 00:17:34,519
And because it's confined to it, since data, it can't pretend.

244
00:17:34,960 --> 00:17:41,240
It's a pretense to speak of eternal verities, or to

245
00:17:41,519 --> 00:17:50,440
speak of metaphysical categories, to speak of objective properties of knowledge, right,

246
00:17:51,440 --> 00:17:57,599
because it's always confined to the finite. So anything that

247
00:17:57,680 --> 00:18:02,559
we might speak of as spiritual metaphysical eventually gets smushed

248
00:18:02,720 --> 00:18:06,720
into the here and the now and the immediate now.

249
00:18:07,279 --> 00:18:11,240
Maybe many of the early nominalists did not have that intention.

250
00:18:12,039 --> 00:18:15,720
They did not have the intention of smushing all of

251
00:18:15,799 --> 00:18:20,680
man's knowledge or belief in objective properties into.

252
00:18:20,480 --> 00:18:21,200
Speaker 2: The here and the now.

253
00:18:21,880 --> 00:18:24,119
Speaker 1: But this is eventually what happens, and this is what

254
00:18:25,319 --> 00:18:28,119
is not debatable. This is known. This is where you

255
00:18:28,160 --> 00:18:32,680
get empiricism. Empiricism rises from medieval nominalism, and empiricism is

256
00:18:33,400 --> 00:18:37,160
just nominalism right. Empiricism says we.

257
00:18:38,039 --> 00:18:38,640
Speaker 2: Only know.

258
00:18:40,160 --> 00:18:45,319
Speaker 1: What we can derive from sense impressions and sense data.

259
00:18:45,960 --> 00:18:49,559
And this is why for a presubsitionalist such as myself

260
00:18:49,640 --> 00:18:53,359
or anyone else who has followed this train of thought,

261
00:18:54,240 --> 00:18:58,279
Hume is very useful. David Hume is very good, not

262
00:18:58,599 --> 00:19:02,440
insofar as he's the great of a philosopher, but rather

263
00:19:02,559 --> 00:19:08,119
he is the illustrative philosopher for the empiricists because he

264
00:19:08,279 --> 00:19:13,480
took it to its consistent conclusions. You see, Hume is consistent,

265
00:19:14,119 --> 00:19:19,559
and that's why he's worthy of note. And he admits

266
00:19:19,839 --> 00:19:25,079
that the end result of this empiricism is total skepticism.

267
00:19:26,480 --> 00:19:28,640
So you don't really know, you don't really have access

268
00:19:28,640 --> 00:19:33,720
to objective truths, you don't really know that the future

269
00:19:33,720 --> 00:19:37,480
will be like the past. You don't have any rational

270
00:19:38,079 --> 00:19:45,359
logical basis for induction. It's something that you assume and

271
00:19:45,599 --> 00:19:51,799
use pragmatically, but you can't justify it. It's unjustifiable because

272
00:19:51,799 --> 00:19:57,240
it's by its very nature not provable on empirical grounds.

273
00:19:58,359 --> 00:20:04,599
So empiricism can't stand the test of empiricism. And this

274
00:20:04,680 --> 00:20:08,799
is the ultimately the question that hum Is is putting

275
00:20:08,839 --> 00:20:13,519
out there to his fellow Enlightenment skeptics and empiricists.

276
00:20:13,720 --> 00:20:16,000
Speaker 2: And he's saying, let's not fool.

277
00:20:15,680 --> 00:20:20,079
Speaker 1: Ourselves here, right and be dishonest and assume that we

278
00:20:20,160 --> 00:20:21,359
have objective truth.

279
00:20:22,000 --> 00:20:23,720
Speaker 2: We don't. It's not possible.

280
00:20:23,960 --> 00:20:30,440
Speaker 1: So really all we have is pragmatic truth, right, positivism.

281
00:20:30,599 --> 00:20:39,240
Yet how often do we hear the rationalist, scientistic empiricist

282
00:20:39,440 --> 00:20:44,359
Michael Schrmer, Dawkins, Nildigrasse, Tyson, Jason Calvito. No, no, no,

283
00:20:44,359 --> 00:20:48,960
on arguing and behaving and operating as if they have

284
00:20:49,240 --> 00:20:56,240
objective reason, logic and metaphysical truths, as they consistently deny

285
00:20:56,359 --> 00:20:59,519
and denounce metaphysical truths. And this is of course the

286
00:20:59,559 --> 00:21:03,440
great pologetic point that we're making here. Now most of

287
00:21:03,480 --> 00:21:06,960
these guys don't know this because again, well number one,

288
00:21:07,000 --> 00:21:11,319
they don't care to know it. It would under mine

289
00:21:11,359 --> 00:21:15,480
all of their thought and philosophy, pseudo philosophy, their sophistry

290
00:21:15,480 --> 00:21:19,759
really and they actually are of the descendants of the sophists.

291
00:21:20,559 --> 00:21:23,000
But they also didn't ever learn any of this stuff.

292
00:21:23,839 --> 00:21:26,759
So there's a dual problem here. It's not one of

293
00:21:26,799 --> 00:21:29,920
the others, not just ignorance. It's also probably in many

294
00:21:29,960 --> 00:21:33,720
cases bad will. If you're Richard Dawkins, do you want

295
00:21:33,759 --> 00:21:35,319
to admit you've been wronging for all these years?

296
00:21:35,319 --> 00:21:35,759
Speaker 2: Of course not.

297
00:21:37,519 --> 00:21:41,559
Speaker 1: So there's a career political motivation obviously in many of

298
00:21:41,599 --> 00:21:48,880
these cases. And so let's come back to Cocash, because

299
00:21:48,880 --> 00:21:53,279
we can actually group Cocush and Jason Calvito's again, as

300
00:21:53,279 --> 00:22:00,519
we said, empiricism and skepticism under one banner here, when

301
00:22:00,559 --> 00:22:05,119
we've gotten rid of in our worldview or philosophy of

302
00:22:05,160 --> 00:22:12,640
the world, the possibility of anything like metaphysical categories, truths,

303
00:22:13,200 --> 00:22:16,920
objective principles and so forth, what we've actually done is

304
00:22:17,440 --> 00:22:19,000
severely limited ourselves.

305
00:22:20,160 --> 00:22:22,160
Speaker 2: Now you may think that they.

306
00:22:22,039 --> 00:22:25,119
Speaker 1: Argue, of course, that this severe limitation is good, and

307
00:22:25,160 --> 00:22:27,640
it's just the fact of how things are. It is

308
00:22:27,759 --> 00:22:32,920
just how it is, and like it or not, you're

309
00:22:33,000 --> 00:22:42,160
just confined to your immediate sense datum. The question then becomes, Okay,

310
00:22:42,519 --> 00:22:47,200
if that's true, then let's be consistent with that, And

311
00:22:47,880 --> 00:22:52,240
the argument, the presubpositional argument, the transcendental argument here is

312
00:22:52,279 --> 00:22:57,000
that no one is consistent with that because it's absurd

313
00:22:57,200 --> 00:23:00,440
and it's a reductio ad absurdum. So in logic, one

314
00:23:00,440 --> 00:23:02,119
of the arguments that you can make, and it's actually,

315
00:23:02,119 --> 00:23:03,720
I believe a very strong argument.

316
00:23:03,440 --> 00:23:04,519
Speaker 2: Is a reducty argument.

317
00:23:04,759 --> 00:23:09,720
Speaker 1: If you reduce the opponent's position to absurdity, then it's

318
00:23:09,839 --> 00:23:15,720
obviously not a defensible rational logical position. And anytime you're

319
00:23:15,759 --> 00:23:21,640
engaging in debate, you're assuming logic, you're assuming rationality and reason.

320
00:23:21,720 --> 00:23:26,559
Otherwise no point in debating. You go home right, drop

321
00:23:26,599 --> 00:23:29,559
the mic turn off the mike from get off the stage.

322
00:23:30,319 --> 00:23:32,880
If you don't come to the table at least the

323
00:23:33,039 --> 00:23:38,119
professing belief in logic, then you don't have an argument. Right,

324
00:23:38,200 --> 00:23:43,720
argument presumes logic, but with a calaveto or with a

325
00:23:43,759 --> 00:23:50,240
co cash, we don't have any desire to question empiricism

326
00:23:50,799 --> 00:23:54,160
or the bounds of supposed skepticism.

327
00:23:54,960 --> 00:23:57,160
Speaker 2: Rather, we just have this assumption that it's so.

328
00:23:58,519 --> 00:24:00,640
Speaker 1: I would argue that it's not so, and I can

329
00:24:00,680 --> 00:24:02,759
prove that it's not so because it's a reduct Yet

330
00:24:02,799 --> 00:24:06,920
it reduces to absurdity. The first argument against empiricism would

331
00:24:06,960 --> 00:24:12,160
be that the as we said, the position itself cannot

332
00:24:12,160 --> 00:24:17,160
be verified empirically. Now, if you're going to argue that

333
00:24:17,279 --> 00:24:23,160
all human knowledge comes through sense data an empirical experience,

334
00:24:24,160 --> 00:24:26,680
then to be consistent, you're going to also have to

335
00:24:26,759 --> 00:24:33,039
include the maxims and presubsisitions of empiricism itself under that claim.

336
00:24:33,400 --> 00:24:37,640
You see, so we need empirical verification for the truth

337
00:24:37,759 --> 00:24:41,039
of empiricism because it's starting off of the universal claim.

338
00:24:41,079 --> 00:24:43,880
And remember Adam had no problem with universal claims. He

339
00:24:43,960 --> 00:24:47,640
admitted this several times in the debate. Liberals themselves are

340
00:24:47,759 --> 00:24:54,319
always touting these moral platitudes and all this universal claims

341
00:24:54,319 --> 00:24:57,640
of morals and ethics. Then they turn around and espouse

342
00:24:57,759 --> 00:25:04,839
total cultural epistemic moral relativism. So they're they're total fools

343
00:25:04,880 --> 00:25:07,319
from the outset. When it comes to logic, we're saying,

344
00:25:10,920 --> 00:25:15,680
excuse me, uh. When Adam argued for a person ory self,

345
00:25:17,039 --> 00:25:20,559
we are told that that there's some inherent dignity in

346
00:25:20,599 --> 00:25:25,960
this because of the development of consciousness and reason and mind.

347
00:25:26,759 --> 00:25:29,720
But the problem, as we see from that evolutionary position

348
00:25:29,759 --> 00:25:32,359
of man, is that there's no reason to believe that

349
00:25:32,400 --> 00:25:36,000
there's some inherent value to consciousness or mind. And as

350
00:25:36,000 --> 00:25:40,400
many of the present day Darwinists are now discovering, there's

351
00:25:40,480 --> 00:25:44,720
no argument for consciousness or mind on their on their presuppositions,

352
00:25:45,440 --> 00:25:48,480
and it's it's so stupid. It should be obvious that

353
00:25:48,559 --> 00:25:53,119
if you confine everything to materialism, that there's obviously no

354
00:25:53,200 --> 00:25:56,319
place for a mind because it's by definition not material

355
00:25:57,359 --> 00:25:59,759
or the soul or the self, right, the self is not.

356
00:26:00,400 --> 00:26:03,359
At what point can you tell me which collection of

357
00:26:03,400 --> 00:26:04,599
molecules is the self?

358
00:26:05,039 --> 00:26:05,279
Speaker 2: Right?

359
00:26:05,759 --> 00:26:07,880
Speaker 1: Well, you can't, obviously, and that none of them can,

360
00:26:07,960 --> 00:26:10,759
and they all admit that. And so since you can't,

361
00:26:11,240 --> 00:26:14,079
then the self is alusory because the self is really

362
00:26:14,160 --> 00:26:17,880
just an arbitrary collection grouping. Remember Adam had a problem

363
00:26:17,920 --> 00:26:22,279
with arbitrary collective groupings. Well, the self is an arbitrary

364
00:26:22,279 --> 00:26:25,839
collective groupings of a grouping of this group of molecules,

365
00:26:26,799 --> 00:26:30,599
this group of atoms, supposedly right, this section of the

366
00:26:30,640 --> 00:26:37,640
gray matter. Perhaps, well, no, I see, perhaps under this microscope,

367
00:26:37,799 --> 00:26:43,599
many chunks of gray matter. But you have not shown

368
00:26:43,640 --> 00:26:50,960
me that that equals a self exactly exactly, And we

369
00:26:51,400 --> 00:26:54,960
really need a person, the conception of a person, a soul,

370
00:26:55,559 --> 00:26:57,960
right in order to make sense of this idea of

371
00:26:58,920 --> 00:27:03,519
a morally responsible agent operating with a will. And we

372
00:27:03,599 --> 00:27:08,400
always hear from the libertarian perspective of the anarchic perspective

373
00:27:08,440 --> 00:27:12,000
of responsibility, moral responsibility, ethics, et cetera, et cetera.

374
00:27:12,119 --> 00:27:15,440
Speaker 2: Well, this all assumes individually acting agents.

375
00:27:16,240 --> 00:27:19,519
Speaker 1: But again, as many of the Darwinists have noted in

376
00:27:19,559 --> 00:27:22,759
their mechanistic view of the universe, if the universe is

377
00:27:22,799 --> 00:27:27,720
one giant machine of determined materialistic process, then the arising

378
00:27:27,880 --> 00:27:33,000
of consciousness in evolutionary process is also just another aspect

379
00:27:33,079 --> 00:27:36,559
of the determined machine. And so your belief in free

380
00:27:36,559 --> 00:27:40,319
will is really just illusory. It's a phantasm, just like

381
00:27:40,400 --> 00:27:43,920
the angels and the demons in God right according to

382
00:27:43,960 --> 00:27:49,400
your view. So this again reduces to a reductio, reduces

383
00:27:49,440 --> 00:27:54,720
to absurdity. If everything is in flux, how is it

384
00:27:54,799 --> 00:27:57,839
that we can claim to have access or knowledge of

385
00:27:58,359 --> 00:28:02,039
objective metaphysical principle and logic that are not in flux.

386
00:28:03,000 --> 00:28:06,519
This is another problem, and this is ultimately this was

387
00:28:06,559 --> 00:28:08,880
a problem for Plato as well, because Plato had a

388
00:28:08,920 --> 00:28:12,759
dialectical view of the body and the soul, the soul

389
00:28:13,440 --> 00:28:20,279
existing or subsisting, perhaps with its connection to the abstract, unchanging,

390
00:28:20,440 --> 00:28:24,039
eternal verities of the forms, yet at the same time

391
00:28:24,079 --> 00:28:27,039
being imprisoned in the body subject to perpetual flux. So

392
00:28:27,079 --> 00:28:30,279
you have a dialectical tension between two realms, one realm

393
00:28:30,279 --> 00:28:41,400
of perpetual flux, another realm of stasis and permanence and unchangeability.

394
00:28:42,160 --> 00:28:44,880
And the problem, of course is that never the twain

395
00:28:45,000 --> 00:28:49,079
shall meet. And this is a dialectical tension in the

396
00:28:49,119 --> 00:28:52,799
history of all Western philosophy. You could argue as well

397
00:28:52,880 --> 00:28:57,119
in for Eastern philosophy we reject all dialectics.

398
00:28:57,160 --> 00:28:58,559
Speaker 2: But of course all modern.

399
00:28:58,319 --> 00:29:02,039
Speaker 1: Philosophies, especially in the West, are built on dialectics. Be

400
00:29:02,079 --> 00:29:06,680
it libertarianism, be it anarchism, be it Marxism. They are

401
00:29:06,799 --> 00:29:12,440
all classed and start from the presupposition of dialectics. This

402
00:29:12,480 --> 00:29:16,480
goes back to Plato, goes back to Aristotle, to Platinus,

403
00:29:17,079 --> 00:29:21,000
who all argued that the starting point of philosophy is

404
00:29:21,039 --> 00:29:26,559
that multiplicity equals tension and division, or excuse me, multiplicity

405
00:29:26,680 --> 00:29:35,519
or distinction implies tension or opposition. And this is why

406
00:29:35,599 --> 00:29:41,519
we have so many problems in society, in man's own life,

407
00:29:41,839 --> 00:29:44,319
and so forth and so on, because we believe that

408
00:29:44,400 --> 00:29:50,119
the fall is what brought about dialectical tensions as a

409
00:29:50,160 --> 00:29:53,119
result of the movement of the will. Okay, it's not

410
00:29:53,279 --> 00:30:00,319
a metaphysical problem of differences or distinctions that are Man's problem,

411
00:30:01,319 --> 00:30:03,519
but the movement of the will away from the good

412
00:30:03,799 --> 00:30:04,880
that is man's problem.

413
00:30:05,519 --> 00:30:06,759
Speaker 2: So two different views there.

414
00:30:06,799 --> 00:30:11,759
Speaker 1: Whereas so we locate Man's problem as ethical in a

415
00:30:11,759 --> 00:30:15,839
matter of the heart, the Greeks and the rest of

416
00:30:15,880 --> 00:30:19,480
the tradition of the West locates Man's problem in the

417
00:30:19,519 --> 00:30:25,599
externals of metaphysics, politics, and then ultimately with Marx and

418
00:30:25,680 --> 00:30:29,960
so forth, class, gender right, identity, politics right, So all

419
00:30:30,000 --> 00:30:33,720
of Man's problems are located in the external sphere. Right,

420
00:30:33,799 --> 00:30:36,680
this is where we get behaviorism, the perfecting of man

421
00:30:36,720 --> 00:30:37,960
through external stimuli.

422
00:30:38,880 --> 00:30:39,880
Speaker 2: No no, no, no no.

423
00:30:40,079 --> 00:30:45,839
Speaker 1: Man's problems begin, as Paul and the Book of James say, internal,

424
00:30:45,960 --> 00:30:48,640
with the desires and lusts of passions of the heart,

425
00:30:49,519 --> 00:30:54,720
right the corruption that resulted as from the fall, and

426
00:30:55,039 --> 00:31:00,599
man no longer having control of his passions. So man

427
00:31:00,680 --> 00:31:03,759
needs a renovation of his heart. And this is why

428
00:31:04,440 --> 00:31:10,759
we believe that Christian theology preaches this repentance, this change

429
00:31:10,759 --> 00:31:14,119
of heart, which is a lifetime thing, a continual process

430
00:31:14,119 --> 00:31:20,400
through life of moving away from rebellion, dialectical tensions and

431
00:31:20,440 --> 00:31:26,079
towards God. So dialectics and dialectical tensions actually is a

432
00:31:26,119 --> 00:31:34,200
manifestation of blaming God for man's own moral vices and fall.

433
00:31:34,319 --> 00:31:39,000
In other words, when we say that man's problem is

434
00:31:39,519 --> 00:31:43,279
the fact that there's these differences out there in the world,

435
00:31:43,920 --> 00:31:47,200
and there's these there's your nation over there, and your

436
00:31:47,279 --> 00:31:49,480
race and your gender over there, and then I've got

437
00:31:49,559 --> 00:31:52,240
mine over here. And the problem that we all have

438
00:31:52,440 --> 00:31:55,079
is that we're different. And if we can just battle

439
00:31:55,119 --> 00:31:58,240
and smash and war against each other until we all

440
00:31:58,279 --> 00:32:01,640
have one giant small is board, melting pot or something.

441
00:32:02,279 --> 00:32:04,720
Then we'll finally have peace when we destroy all the

442
00:32:04,720 --> 00:32:09,880
differences or when we say God, it's your fault because

443
00:32:09,920 --> 00:32:18,000
you created these distinctions, and distinctions cause division and opposition. Well, no, actually,

444
00:32:18,079 --> 00:32:21,799
in our theology, we believe in a balance between the

445
00:32:21,839 --> 00:32:25,200
one and the many. In God, there is a perfect

446
00:32:25,359 --> 00:32:31,200
ultimacy between the one and the many. There's no divergence

447
00:32:31,319 --> 00:32:35,960
or imbalance. There's no premissy to unity in God over

448
00:32:36,039 --> 00:32:38,440
against the.

449
00:32:37,920 --> 00:32:39,160
Speaker 2: Triad of God.

450
00:32:39,599 --> 00:32:42,920
Speaker 1: Right, so it's not like the Father has more being

451
00:32:43,440 --> 00:32:46,279
or the oneness of God has more being over against

452
00:32:46,640 --> 00:32:52,079
the Son and the Spirit. No, the Son is just

453
00:32:52,119 --> 00:32:54,759
as much God as the Father, we say. And so

454
00:32:55,519 --> 00:32:59,079
our view is that the Trinity, the doctrine of the Trinity,

455
00:32:59,599 --> 00:33:03,319
is the source, foundation and basis for our belief that

456
00:33:03,359 --> 00:33:09,279
there is harmony of both with unity and with multiplicity.

457
00:33:09,440 --> 00:33:11,359
The one and the many are never out of balance,

458
00:33:11,400 --> 00:33:15,079
and they're not intention And by tension I mean te

459
00:33:15,240 --> 00:33:17,920
and s I owing in tension, not intention.

460
00:33:19,759 --> 00:33:22,359
Speaker 2: So there's no dialectical tensions in oppositions.

461
00:33:23,480 --> 00:33:26,119
Speaker 1: This has been argued many times by many many Orthodox

462
00:33:26,160 --> 00:33:29,359
theologians for many centuries. So this is not something that

463
00:33:29,400 --> 00:33:33,200
I derived from some new philosopher somewhere or something like that.

464
00:33:33,559 --> 00:33:37,480
It wasn't from some Protestant philosopher. No, this goes back

465
00:33:37,519 --> 00:33:42,039
to orthodox philosophers and theologians. So it goes back to

466
00:33:42,160 --> 00:33:46,720
Maximus Maximus a confessor arguing dialectics with.

467
00:33:48,240 --> 00:33:54,920
Speaker 2: Uh Pirris the Monothelite. So all of this plays out.

468
00:33:54,799 --> 00:33:57,039
Speaker 1: In our worldviews, whether we know it or not, is

469
00:33:57,079 --> 00:34:02,480
really the point here with.

470
00:34:00,440 --> 00:34:02,680
Speaker 2: With the modern revolutionary.

471
00:34:03,240 --> 00:34:05,720
Speaker 1: Okay, let's just I'm going to class all these people

472
00:34:05,799 --> 00:34:09,280
under the modern revolutionary, and the modern revolutionary for me

473
00:34:09,360 --> 00:34:17,119
will include the progressive libertarian, the right libertarian, the American

474
00:34:17,199 --> 00:34:24,119
neo conservative, the American conservative, the anarcho capitalists, the anarcho syndicalists,

475
00:34:24,199 --> 00:34:29,760
the anarcho liberal, the anarcho feminist, the Marxist, the socialist,

476
00:34:29,960 --> 00:34:34,880
the communist, the modern fascist. All of these I'm going

477
00:34:34,920 --> 00:34:41,480
to group under the category of the modern revolutionary because

478
00:34:41,519 --> 00:34:49,559
they all share the modern revolutionaries presuppositions. They're all birthed

479
00:34:49,679 --> 00:34:52,960
from that source, whether they know it or not. Interestingly,

480
00:34:53,119 --> 00:34:58,400
anarchism itself is a tradition. Many of the anarchists are

481
00:34:58,440 --> 00:35:04,679
apparently unaware of this, believe that they as a magical

482
00:35:04,800 --> 00:35:09,199
mathematical unit in a within a vacuum, came to anarchism

483
00:35:10,159 --> 00:35:13,000
through their supposed reasoning powers, when in fact they actually

484
00:35:13,079 --> 00:35:18,320
were propagandized by reading it on various online forums, YouTube videos,

485
00:35:18,360 --> 00:35:21,239
and books. So they, whether they know it or not,

486
00:35:21,760 --> 00:35:26,519
receive their information through a tradition. And some traditions are

487
00:35:26,800 --> 00:35:32,000
even you could argue anti traditions. I believe that one writer,

488
00:35:32,119 --> 00:35:39,360
Charles Upton talks about he has some term for it,

489
00:35:39,559 --> 00:35:43,679
like a dark not dark tradition, but I forget his

490
00:35:43,800 --> 00:35:50,599
term anyway. Point being, you could even argue that that

491
00:35:50,960 --> 00:35:54,719
some of these anti traditions are just really themselves a tradition.

492
00:35:55,079 --> 00:35:55,199
Speaker 2: Right.

493
00:35:55,719 --> 00:35:58,800
Speaker 1: It's kind of like the Baptist Church was grounded in

494
00:35:58,880 --> 00:36:03,199
opposing tradition, and then over time the Baptist Church develops

495
00:36:03,239 --> 00:36:07,039
its own traditions, right with you singing the hymns just

496
00:36:07,119 --> 00:36:09,039
as I am at the beginning of the church, and

497
00:36:09,079 --> 00:36:11,320
then you have the offering, and so they develop their

498
00:36:11,320 --> 00:36:14,039
own traditions when they're birded out of the.

499
00:36:16,239 --> 00:36:18,119
Speaker 2: Desire to have no traditions.

500
00:36:18,480 --> 00:36:23,880
Speaker 1: So quite absurd really, And so we heard a lot

501
00:36:23,880 --> 00:36:28,280
about the right to freedom of movement, and as I

502
00:36:28,320 --> 00:36:31,880
was pointing out where does the anarcho person derive these rights?

503
00:36:31,920 --> 00:36:34,599
And he says, well, from logic, and then also talks

504
00:36:34,599 --> 00:36:39,000
about nature. And I appreciate Adam admitting that nature seems

505
00:36:39,039 --> 00:36:42,920
to show us predators and pray. So nature is not

506
00:36:42,960 --> 00:36:47,280
always the best source of argumentation for a position natural rights,

507
00:36:47,320 --> 00:36:48,000
so to speak.

508
00:36:48,960 --> 00:36:52,159
Speaker 2: So I'll give kudos to Adam for realizing that.

509
00:36:53,639 --> 00:36:58,840
Speaker 1: So Adam wants to appeal to eternal verities, Thank good job. Yes, absolutely,

510
00:36:59,440 --> 00:37:04,159
of course, how do we have access to eternal verities

511
00:37:05,679 --> 00:37:09,559
when we're the product of millions of years of evolution?

512
00:37:09,840 --> 00:37:10,679
Speaker 2: We will never know.

513
00:37:11,280 --> 00:37:13,480
Speaker 1: But we're just going to assume that that's the case,

514
00:37:14,280 --> 00:37:16,480
and we're going to assume that this consciousness that we

515
00:37:16,519 --> 00:37:22,599
have is a self, some special identity we could look at,

516
00:37:22,639 --> 00:37:26,840
perhaps Descartes Daycartes says, well, how do I know that

517
00:37:26,880 --> 00:37:27,360
I exist?

518
00:37:27,440 --> 00:37:30,639
Speaker 2: Well, if I.

519
00:37:29,320 --> 00:37:34,599
Speaker 1: Doubt my own existence, I must assume my existence in

520
00:37:34,639 --> 00:37:39,559
doubting my existence, which is interesting a kind of transcendent argument. However,

521
00:37:41,079 --> 00:37:44,360
it's actually not that great of an argument because the

522
00:37:44,480 --> 00:37:47,400
argument doesn't actually prove the existence of a person or

523
00:37:47,440 --> 00:37:47,960
a self.

524
00:37:48,400 --> 00:37:52,880
Speaker 2: It only appears, at least to prove the existence of thought.

525
00:37:53,880 --> 00:37:57,599
Speaker 1: You see so leaping from a phenomena of thought to

526
00:37:57,719 --> 00:38:01,960
saying that O, therefore I am a person. You see,

527
00:38:02,039 --> 00:38:06,440
that only follows with a larger context in worldview, where

528
00:38:06,480 --> 00:38:08,920
you believe in and assume the existence of a self.

529
00:38:09,760 --> 00:38:12,760
So and I believe many philosophers have actually pointed that out.

530
00:38:12,800 --> 00:38:17,800
You know, I think therefore I am is not a

531
00:38:17,880 --> 00:38:25,519
non sequitor. It's a non sequitur. I think therefore thought happened.

532
00:38:25,760 --> 00:38:25,920
Speaker 2: Right.

533
00:38:25,960 --> 00:38:29,360
Speaker 1: You might can argue that that would be a better

534
00:38:29,440 --> 00:38:33,480
argument that I think therefore I am. You see, the

535
00:38:33,599 --> 00:38:38,480
I there is intended to denote a self or a person,

536
00:38:39,320 --> 00:38:41,880
and when we've just tried to boil down all of

537
00:38:41,920 --> 00:38:47,039
our starting points. And this is why descartes methodology, right,

538
00:38:47,159 --> 00:38:50,679
was this presuppositional attempt to get rid of all presuppositions,

539
00:38:52,039 --> 00:38:56,559
which is impossible. And this is the folly of Descartes.

540
00:38:56,960 --> 00:39:00,440
While at the same time being somewhat insightful, you can't

541
00:39:00,679 --> 00:39:04,079
ultimately get rid of all presubpositions. This is what Descartes

542
00:39:04,079 --> 00:39:13,199
shows us. Even in his heroic quest to theoretically divest

543
00:39:13,280 --> 00:39:18,679
himself of all presuppositions, he still has many presubpositions. And

544
00:39:18,679 --> 00:39:22,079
by the way, I actually critique this in my undergrad

545
00:39:22,159 --> 00:39:24,760
days because.

546
00:39:26,719 --> 00:39:28,480
Speaker 2: There's a lot of actually, there's a lot.

547
00:39:28,320 --> 00:39:34,000
Speaker 1: More things that Descartes is assuming here that people haven't noticed.

548
00:39:34,360 --> 00:39:35,679
Speaker 2: Maybe somehow, I don't know, but.

549
00:39:37,760 --> 00:39:40,840
Speaker 1: You can't boil all of your presubositions down to I think,

550
00:39:40,880 --> 00:39:48,360
therefore I am because you're assuming language, for one, right,

551
00:39:48,400 --> 00:39:52,639
You're assuming subjects and predicates and sentences. So this brings

552
00:39:52,679 --> 00:39:58,960
along with it the assumption of linguistics. You're assuming that

553
00:39:59,480 --> 00:40:03,840
language operates within time and space. You're assuming that subjects

554
00:40:03,880 --> 00:40:07,960
and predicates have reference to things in an external world,

555
00:40:08,519 --> 00:40:13,280
even within your attempt right at boiling things down to

556
00:40:14,119 --> 00:40:17,599
no presubpositions. So it's absolutely impossible, and that's why the

557
00:40:17,840 --> 00:40:23,320
presubpositional is rejects Classical foundationalism. Classical foundationalism is the idea

558
00:40:23,400 --> 00:40:27,880
that within philosophy you can just in terms of we'll

559
00:40:27,880 --> 00:40:31,960
say epistemology, Well you can just start with self evident maxims, right,

560
00:40:32,519 --> 00:40:35,320
the principle of non contradiction.

561
00:40:35,400 --> 00:40:38,480
Speaker 2: Well, that's just a self evident maxim and you can't

562
00:40:38,519 --> 00:40:39,039
question that.

563
00:40:39,559 --> 00:40:42,639
Speaker 1: Well, the whole of modernity is based on the idea,

564
00:40:42,760 --> 00:40:44,599
supposedly that we're going to question everything.

565
00:40:46,079 --> 00:40:47,960
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, let's question everything.

566
00:40:48,199 --> 00:40:50,519
Speaker 1: Now, what we find then is that in this long

567
00:40:50,599 --> 00:40:54,679
process from Descartes and anomalis on and questioning everything, they

568
00:40:54,719 --> 00:41:01,280
don't actually honestly do that. They rather turn their supposed

569
00:41:01,480 --> 00:41:07,719
questionings into a political or religious agenda slash motivation to

570
00:41:07,760 --> 00:41:12,639
remove the existing power structures and hierarchies. That's actually what

571
00:41:12,679 --> 00:41:15,199
was going on. And this is where, of course, we

572
00:41:15,320 --> 00:41:20,760
get revolutionary thought and revolutionary movements out of these philosophical ideas.

573
00:41:21,719 --> 00:41:24,840
And is everyone who's listened to Jay's analysis for any

574
00:41:24,880 --> 00:41:29,639
period of time knows revolutionary thought and movements are the

575
00:41:29,679 --> 00:41:33,519
tools of foreign powers and bankers and so forth and

576
00:41:33,559 --> 00:41:37,239
so on. Right, they're the tools of foreign states. And

577
00:41:37,280 --> 00:41:39,480
if you don't understand that or know that, then you're naive.

578
00:41:40,960 --> 00:41:47,079
So when you believe that you've come to a special

579
00:41:47,119 --> 00:41:54,360
position of autonomy and individualism, you've really actually just been

580
00:41:54,400 --> 00:42:01,480
propagandized by fought from a few hundred years ago. Now

581
00:42:01,519 --> 00:42:04,280
that does that mean that you got everything wrong? Nope, Nope, nope,

582
00:42:04,280 --> 00:42:07,360
because that's not how humans and worldviews work. It's not

583
00:42:07,400 --> 00:42:12,519
an all or nothing thing. But if you haven't questioned

584
00:42:12,719 --> 00:42:17,239
anarchism and empiricism and these kinds of things, then I would.

585
00:42:17,079 --> 00:42:22,199
Speaker 2: Venture to say that you have a lot wrong. And

586
00:42:22,239 --> 00:42:24,239
this is what hopefully.

587
00:42:23,840 --> 00:42:29,239
Speaker 1: The deconstructions and dissections and transcendent arguments and I'm presenting

588
00:42:29,280 --> 00:42:33,840
here will convey that's at least my goal in the

589
00:42:33,880 --> 00:42:35,199
debates that we're having.

590
00:42:35,079 --> 00:42:38,199
Speaker 2: And so forth. So we heard all kinds of things

591
00:42:38,239 --> 00:42:40,679
like what it is to be rational? Right? This is

592
00:42:40,760 --> 00:42:42,039
special pleading, and.

593
00:42:41,920 --> 00:42:48,840
Speaker 1: This is appeals to popularity, as if there's this popular

594
00:42:48,880 --> 00:42:52,880
notion of what it is to be rational that everyone shares,

595
00:42:53,119 --> 00:42:53,800
which they don't.

596
00:42:54,679 --> 00:42:59,679
Speaker 2: Now does that mean that I deny common reason? I

597
00:42:59,719 --> 00:43:00,000
do not.

598
00:43:00,079 --> 00:43:02,880
Speaker 1: Uh, but I don't think that there's such a thing

599
00:43:03,000 --> 00:43:05,559
that we can appeal to in a public sphere, especially

600
00:43:05,559 --> 00:43:06,280
not in our day.

601
00:43:07,079 --> 00:43:11,719
Speaker 2: That that we that is just quote rational.

602
00:43:12,159 --> 00:43:16,920
Speaker 1: So Richard Dawkins believes he's rational, right, but he also

603
00:43:17,000 --> 00:43:21,079
believes that everything is subject to evolutionary flux. So I

604
00:43:21,119 --> 00:43:25,119
would say Richard Dawkins is irrational, right. So there's no

605
00:43:25,280 --> 00:43:40,360
there's not really a prima fascia publicly accessible rationality that

606
00:43:40,360 --> 00:43:45,199
that that's in the public sphere of debate. Okay, Now,

607
00:43:45,599 --> 00:43:48,039
I'm not saying that human nature doesn't possess reason.

608
00:43:48,280 --> 00:43:48,719
Speaker 2: It does.

609
00:43:49,360 --> 00:43:54,840
Speaker 1: But you can also the great human nature through various means,

610
00:43:54,880 --> 00:44:00,000
toxic culture, whatever, brainwashing, bad bad.

611
00:44:01,159 --> 00:44:02,880
Speaker 2: Education, and so forth, to.

612
00:44:04,360 --> 00:44:10,400
Speaker 1: Have a programmed populace, and so reason in many of

613
00:44:10,440 --> 00:44:14,679
these cases, quote unquote is really just a propaganda tool.

614
00:44:15,119 --> 00:44:15,360
Speaker 2: Right.

615
00:44:15,960 --> 00:44:17,880
Speaker 1: In other words, in our day we think of reason,

616
00:44:18,119 --> 00:44:21,320
I would say a lot of people, especially in internet discourse,

617
00:44:22,000 --> 00:44:26,320
quote reason is identified with Dawkins, It's identified with scientism,

618
00:44:26,320 --> 00:44:29,239
it's identified with these kinds of things which are all

619
00:44:29,280 --> 00:44:32,000
the tools of statism.

620
00:44:33,360 --> 00:44:37,679
Speaker 2: And I think that that can that alone, I think

621
00:44:37,719 --> 00:44:38,199
shows that.

622
00:44:40,199 --> 00:44:42,639
Speaker 1: You know, when you're talking about reason, we have to

623
00:44:42,679 --> 00:44:45,320
be clear exactly what we're talking about. Now when I

624
00:44:45,440 --> 00:44:48,159
talk about reason, I believe that there's objective logic.

625
00:44:49,239 --> 00:44:49,440
Speaker 2: Right.

626
00:44:49,719 --> 00:44:54,480
Speaker 1: We should look at fallacies and syllogisms. We should understand

627
00:44:54,639 --> 00:44:59,400
what a straw man is. We should understand what no

628
00:44:59,519 --> 00:45:02,000
true scot stsman is as a fallacy, we should understand

629
00:45:02,039 --> 00:45:04,440
what two quoke way is. We should understand an appeal

630
00:45:04,480 --> 00:45:12,920
to emotion. We should understand either or fallacy, genetic fallacy. Right,

631
00:45:14,920 --> 00:45:21,199
we should understand all of those in the drama pen

632
00:45:21,320 --> 00:45:22,559
in the process of debate.

633
00:45:24,360 --> 00:45:27,000
Speaker 2: Most people don't do that. They don't know the fallacies.

634
00:45:27,599 --> 00:45:31,440
Speaker 1: I mean, just knowing the basic fallacies informal fallacies is

635
00:45:31,480 --> 00:45:33,599
a great step towards.

636
00:45:35,519 --> 00:45:36,719
Speaker 2: Your own mental health.

637
00:45:37,320 --> 00:45:41,719
Speaker 1: Actually, now what I do in my philosophy though, is

638
00:45:41,800 --> 00:45:43,239
and then what I think what you would get in

639
00:45:43,280 --> 00:45:45,400
a lot To be fair to a lot of people

640
00:45:45,400 --> 00:45:47,480
out there, they would probably agree and say, well, yeah,

641
00:45:47,840 --> 00:45:50,159
I'm talking about like the internet so called philosophers, but

642
00:45:50,400 --> 00:45:53,000
they're going to say or even in college classes, you

643
00:45:53,039 --> 00:45:55,480
should learn these things. I mean, I learned this in

644
00:45:55,920 --> 00:45:59,800
my first year of college in a literary class. Beliter

645
00:45:59,880 --> 00:46:08,599
or my English professor passed out the lists of informal fallacies, so.

646
00:46:09,519 --> 00:46:11,599
Speaker 2: When I was like, I don't know, twenty twenty one.

647
00:46:12,599 --> 00:46:13,920
So these are good things to learn.

648
00:46:14,119 --> 00:46:18,440
Speaker 1: But as you advance, and as you progress in these

649
00:46:18,519 --> 00:46:23,239
kinds of topics, especially in philosophy, you'll encounter really interesting

650
00:46:23,320 --> 00:46:28,559
questions for more advanced students, more technical students, which I

651
00:46:28,599 --> 00:46:31,559
totally support, which I've investigated and put a lot of

652
00:46:31,559 --> 00:46:34,920
time into in my education. And one of those which

653
00:46:35,000 --> 00:46:37,519
none of these so called Internet philosophers know anything about

654
00:46:37,960 --> 00:46:40,880
or I've ever looked into, is the question of metallogic.

655
00:46:41,400 --> 00:46:44,280
Right now, we're getting way, of course, but metaal loogic

656
00:46:44,639 --> 00:46:46,920
points us in the direction of the kind of argumentation

657
00:46:46,960 --> 00:46:49,960
that I'm talking about, transcendental arguments, And how do I

658
00:46:50,000 --> 00:46:53,239
know that? Well, meta logic is the question of how

659
00:46:53,360 --> 00:46:58,519
is it that logic operates as a logical process, right,

660
00:46:59,360 --> 00:47:02,599
How does it operate in the world of flux and

661
00:47:02,719 --> 00:47:05,639
change that we're talking about. We know that it does

662
00:47:05,840 --> 00:47:13,400
because you know, the mathematical you know, formulas that we

663
00:47:13,519 --> 00:47:16,119
use to build an airplane or to build a bridge

664
00:47:17,000 --> 00:47:19,199
ten years ago are the same ones that we're going

665
00:47:19,239 --> 00:47:21,840
to use to build a bridge today. They might get

666
00:47:21,840 --> 00:47:24,440
more complex, they might get more advanced, we might discover

667
00:47:24,519 --> 00:47:28,679
new materials, but the mathematical principles behind building these things

668
00:47:29,079 --> 00:47:35,719
or computers or whatever, they don't change, right, These theorems,

669
00:47:35,760 --> 00:47:40,599
these algorithms, they don't become the opposite of themselves tomorrow.

670
00:47:41,760 --> 00:47:44,000
I mean, this is should be obvious, right, I mean,

671
00:47:44,039 --> 00:47:46,760
the law of non contradiction doesn't turn into the opposite

672
00:47:46,760 --> 00:47:53,920
of itself tomorrow. Maybe in terms of multiverse other worlds, right, which,

673
00:47:53,960 --> 00:47:57,039
by the way, there's ways you can refute multiverse and

674
00:47:57,039 --> 00:48:00,440
all that kind of stuff philosophically speaking, which that I've

675
00:48:00,440 --> 00:48:02,480
delved into on Hoostbusters.

676
00:48:01,800 --> 00:48:06,239
Speaker 2: On many occasions. How you can actually show that those.

677
00:48:07,639 --> 00:48:14,159
Speaker 1: Supposed scientific views, which they are, are a nonsense. But

678
00:48:14,440 --> 00:48:17,320
you would do it through kind of transcendent augmentation like

679
00:48:17,360 --> 00:48:20,719
I'm doing here, because they would lead to absurdities.

680
00:48:23,159 --> 00:48:26,480
Speaker 2: Anyway, we saw with Adams.

681
00:48:26,239 --> 00:48:31,519
Speaker 1: Talk that progress is objective, it's universal, it's not what

682
00:48:31,559 --> 00:48:33,840
you believe is progress is going to be conditioned by

683
00:48:33,920 --> 00:48:37,079
your value judgments, which are conditioned by your worldview.

684
00:48:37,239 --> 00:48:39,119
Speaker 2: Right, Well, you consider to be good, we considered to

685
00:48:39,119 --> 00:48:39,519
be bad.

686
00:48:40,280 --> 00:48:43,639
Speaker 1: So if you, as I said, are a proponent of

687
00:48:43,679 --> 00:48:48,599
scientism and reductionistic materialism and global warming and depopulation, then

688
00:48:48,719 --> 00:48:51,800
you believe it's good to basically kill off most of

689
00:48:51,840 --> 00:48:56,639
the planet, right you would say that's progress, Well, is it?

690
00:48:57,840 --> 00:48:59,280
Speaker 2: Right? So there's nothing.

691
00:49:00,159 --> 00:49:04,000
Speaker 1: Inherent in the word of progress with this just bantering

692
00:49:04,039 --> 00:49:07,360
about throwing out the slogan of progress that actually tells

693
00:49:07,440 --> 00:49:13,719
us what is progressive. If you're a shaman in some

694
00:49:13,840 --> 00:49:19,639
tribe somewhere and you trip a bunch of ayahuasca or something,

695
00:49:19,760 --> 00:49:23,360
and you almost go crazy and kill yourself, but you

696
00:49:23,519 --> 00:49:26,920
got like to the limits of perception or something, right

697
00:49:29,280 --> 00:49:32,199
like that was in your view a good right because

698
00:49:32,199 --> 00:49:35,800
you went through the shamanica or initiatory process, and yeah,

699
00:49:35,880 --> 00:49:38,280
you might have almost died and lost your mind, but

700
00:49:39,039 --> 00:49:41,719
you came back and you survived the process, and you

701
00:49:41,800 --> 00:49:43,159
think you have an enlightenment, and so.

702
00:49:43,199 --> 00:49:46,400
Speaker 2: For you that was a good right, that was that

703
00:49:46,519 --> 00:49:49,760
was progress for you individually.

704
00:49:50,199 --> 00:49:52,079
Speaker 1: And then most of these people, of course, believe that

705
00:49:52,079 --> 00:49:55,599
everybody in a society then should be taking ayahuasca perfectly

706
00:49:55,599 --> 00:49:57,880
in line with the CIA's and culture of plans.

707
00:49:58,840 --> 00:50:02,360
Speaker 2: And so is that progress or is that regress? Right?

708
00:50:02,440 --> 00:50:05,000
Speaker 1: I mean, if we're all living in huts, you know,

709
00:50:05,079 --> 00:50:08,960
like archaic revival primitivism or something like this, and we're

710
00:50:09,039 --> 00:50:13,119
sitting around tripping ayahuasca, rolling around on our own shit

711
00:50:13,239 --> 00:50:14,599
or something, is that progress?

712
00:50:14,679 --> 00:50:16,840
Speaker 2: Well, some people would say it is progress. I don't

713
00:50:16,880 --> 00:50:17,440
believe it is.

714
00:50:17,519 --> 00:50:21,880
Speaker 1: But you can't just say progress as if it's somehow

715
00:50:23,199 --> 00:50:27,679
inherently clear as to what this is. Progress doesn't work

716
00:50:27,800 --> 00:50:31,559
or function outside of some context of a belief system

717
00:50:31,639 --> 00:50:35,519
or worldview. And so that was a lot of the

718
00:50:35,559 --> 00:50:40,199
stuff that we heard in the debate. We had Adam

719
00:50:40,599 --> 00:50:44,159
sort of arbitrarily consigning certain things to the category of

720
00:50:44,199 --> 00:50:48,480
eternal verities and other things to eternal progress or in

721
00:50:48,039 --> 00:50:52,199
to never any flux but we never heard any clear

722
00:50:52,199 --> 00:50:58,559
and consistent pattern or benchmark or judgment measure of judgment

723
00:50:58,599 --> 00:51:01,119
as to how we know which things are with right

724
00:51:01,280 --> 00:51:04,800
logic and reason, he says are in the eternal verities category,

725
00:51:05,559 --> 00:51:10,440
traditions and morals are in the evolutionary flux category. Well,

726
00:51:10,599 --> 00:51:14,760
on what basis do you know which is which? We're

727
00:51:14,760 --> 00:51:18,199
never going to get that from an empirical perspective. I

728
00:51:18,239 --> 00:51:20,840
think at one point he said something like, we test

729
00:51:20,880 --> 00:51:24,679
it and see what works. Well, again, what works is

730
00:51:24,719 --> 00:51:33,199
dependent on your presubsitions. Right, if my empire where I'm

731
00:51:33,239 --> 00:51:36,559
the god emperor and I smash all the people that

732
00:51:36,639 --> 00:51:40,320
I don't like, works for me, then I'm going to

733
00:51:40,519 --> 00:51:44,159
interpret that as a working. So what quote unquote works

734
00:51:44,679 --> 00:51:48,119
is a very ambiguous subjective notion. We can't just apply

735
00:51:49,000 --> 00:51:53,400
this abstract category something quote working as if we know

736
00:51:53,480 --> 00:52:01,000
exactly what that means. Every anarcho libertarian, whether right libertarian

737
00:52:01,079 --> 00:52:05,480
or left libertarian, I argue once nominalism when it comes

738
00:52:05,559 --> 00:52:06,840
to the category of the state.

739
00:52:07,119 --> 00:52:09,280
Speaker 2: Right, the state is not real, it does not exist.

740
00:52:09,320 --> 00:52:09,920
It's a fiction.

741
00:52:10,760 --> 00:52:16,000
Speaker 1: However, when it comes to other arbitrary groupings that they'll prefer,

742
00:52:16,360 --> 00:52:21,360
such as their own private voluntary incorporation status and its

743
00:52:21,440 --> 00:52:26,559
quote rights and legal categories. Suddenly they're essentialists and Platonists.

744
00:52:28,559 --> 00:52:30,239
Hence the parable that I told at the beginning of

745
00:52:30,280 --> 00:52:33,679
the debate. So I see this as a very arbitrary

746
00:52:33,679 --> 00:52:39,719
contradiction here, that we're the metaphysical groupings and categories where

747
00:52:39,760 --> 00:52:47,000
I voluntarily created corporation, and where I have laws that

748
00:52:47,039 --> 00:52:51,920
I will then extend into posterity, such as inheritance. That

749
00:52:52,280 --> 00:52:58,880
my inheritance, the people who inherit my wealth, they get

750
00:52:58,880 --> 00:53:04,000
this somehow magically as a right when they're so. In

751
00:53:04,000 --> 00:53:07,079
other words, if I say that my children are entitled

752
00:53:07,119 --> 00:53:10,639
to what I pass on to them, that's a collective

753
00:53:11,559 --> 00:53:15,360
legal category that I'm assuming, and you're saying, no, it's not.

754
00:53:15,440 --> 00:53:18,840
Speaker 2: Oh, yes it is. I'm assuming that my family.

755
00:53:18,519 --> 00:53:24,760
Speaker 1: Has some collective legality status by which my children right

756
00:53:25,239 --> 00:53:26,800
are going to get my stuff.

757
00:53:28,679 --> 00:53:32,960
Speaker 2: And you say, oh, well, it's voluntary. Oh is it not? Always?

758
00:53:33,119 --> 00:53:37,079
Speaker 1: Sometimes children inherit stuff and it wasn't voluntarily their decision

759
00:53:37,119 --> 00:53:45,719
to inherit it. Sometimes bad things are inherited, right, Well,

760
00:53:45,760 --> 00:53:50,079
how do we parcel this out in the supposed anarcho

761
00:53:50,280 --> 00:53:55,039
setting when we again, when we've been told that groupings

762
00:53:56,119 --> 00:54:04,280
are fictions. Law is a fiction unless it was voluntarily contracted. Well,

763
00:54:04,320 --> 00:54:09,079
I mean this is just retarded. I mean, come on, no,

764
00:54:09,159 --> 00:54:13,159
they're not. Humans have the ability to enact things that

765
00:54:13,239 --> 00:54:16,760
are binding on other people, and that does not always

766
00:54:16,960 --> 00:54:23,840
require voluntary submission on the part of other persons. And

767
00:54:24,440 --> 00:54:27,760
I would say that fathers and families and children.

768
00:54:27,400 --> 00:54:28,400
Speaker 2: Show that to be the case.

769
00:54:31,760 --> 00:54:36,119
Speaker 1: Now, modern political and ideological systems, as we said, we're

770
00:54:36,199 --> 00:54:40,400
arguing against the revolutionary here, the modern revolutionary in all

771
00:54:40,440 --> 00:54:46,039
of its forms, they prefer solving man's ills, as we said,

772
00:54:46,039 --> 00:54:49,119
through the imposition or the lack of imposition of some

773
00:54:49,280 --> 00:54:50,239
external structure.

774
00:54:51,079 --> 00:54:52,159
Speaker 2: Man's problems are.

775
00:54:52,039 --> 00:54:55,719
Speaker 1: The result of class, the result of race, the result

776
00:54:55,760 --> 00:54:59,719
of economic disparities, the result of the state, the result

777
00:54:59,760 --> 00:55:04,760
of hierarchies. And while many of these things are problematic,

778
00:55:05,000 --> 00:55:09,360
there's no doubt. Are they really the source and the

779
00:55:09,360 --> 00:55:10,760
solution to manzils?

780
00:55:11,239 --> 00:55:12,039
Speaker 2: I don't believe so.

781
00:55:13,199 --> 00:55:17,920
Speaker 1: And again that's because man's ills begin with his own

782
00:55:18,000 --> 00:55:23,840
internal vices. And this is why we see that libertarianism

783
00:55:23,840 --> 00:55:27,320
in our the modern revolutionary positions, all of them have

784
00:55:27,440 --> 00:55:30,559
their own version of faith, hope, and love. Interestingly, we

785
00:55:30,599 --> 00:55:33,719
have all these Christian categories, these biblical categories that are

786
00:55:33,800 --> 00:55:37,679
used by the left, by the modern revolutionary, but they've

787
00:55:37,679 --> 00:55:42,199
all been divorced from any transcendent theological status, and so

788
00:55:42,280 --> 00:55:46,079
they have absolutely no binding force or meaning or purpose

789
00:55:46,199 --> 00:55:50,400
because the whole universe is meaningless and purposelessness apart from

790
00:55:50,480 --> 00:55:54,280
everybody's subjective whims. So if your political economic theory has

791
00:55:54,320 --> 00:55:57,480
to argue, quote, well, we've never really seen the real

792
00:55:57,519 --> 00:56:02,000
implementation of blank, then you have a religious faith in

793
00:56:02,039 --> 00:56:07,119
an idealized position that will maybe eschatologically imminentize one day,

794
00:56:07,159 --> 00:56:10,199
we don't know. But of course this is out of

795
00:56:10,239 --> 00:56:13,840
a chord with all human nature and history as we've

796
00:56:13,840 --> 00:56:18,920
seen it so far, which requires some sort of social

797
00:56:19,599 --> 00:56:25,800
cohesion based on social norms and laws. Right, even the

798
00:56:25,800 --> 00:56:28,639
most tribal societies out there in the middle of nowhere

799
00:56:29,199 --> 00:56:30,039
still have families.

800
00:56:30,199 --> 00:56:32,639
Speaker 2: Right, still takes a man and a woman, mommy and

801
00:56:32,679 --> 00:56:35,440
a daddy, and then a couple other people.

802
00:56:36,440 --> 00:56:39,719
Speaker 1: Again, unless you live a completely hermetic existence, which is

803
00:56:39,760 --> 00:56:43,840
possible people do that. There are some guys out there

804
00:56:43,880 --> 00:56:48,880
out in the woods doing that. But again, most of

805
00:56:48,920 --> 00:56:54,920
these people who want the anarchism, the anarchical position are

806
00:56:55,039 --> 00:56:56,920
on the internet, arguing all day.

807
00:56:57,039 --> 00:56:58,280
Speaker 2: They're not out there doing this.

808
00:57:02,719 --> 00:57:08,400
Speaker 1: So another point that none of this stuff ever comes

809
00:57:08,400 --> 00:57:14,039
to realize is that we have protections, even if they're voluntary,

810
00:57:15,840 --> 00:57:18,719
for a reason. We have borders and walls for a reason,

811
00:57:19,320 --> 00:57:25,800
and that's because you can't have everybody, the whole other

812
00:57:26,159 --> 00:57:28,199
half of the planet, other chunk of the planet, with

813
00:57:28,360 --> 00:57:32,400
billions supposedly of the rest of the planet, just coming

814
00:57:32,440 --> 00:57:36,400
into your culture and your nation. And you say, well,

815
00:57:38,840 --> 00:57:41,079
the state is a fiction, it has no right to

816
00:57:41,159 --> 00:57:45,000
erect borders. Okay, that's all well and good for the

817
00:57:45,039 --> 00:57:49,599
fantasy world. But in our world we need borders. Okay,

818
00:57:49,679 --> 00:57:53,480
go down to El Paso and look at Juarez, and

819
00:57:53,519 --> 00:57:54,800
if you want to, if.

820
00:57:54,639 --> 00:57:57,360
Speaker 2: You would literally rather live in Juarez.

821
00:57:57,960 --> 00:58:03,039
Speaker 1: Where the cartels rule and it's all shacks, be my guest, right,

822
00:58:03,599 --> 00:58:06,119
Or if you would rather live in El Paso where

823
00:58:06,440 --> 00:58:08,119
you have running water and electricity.

824
00:58:09,480 --> 00:58:09,920
Speaker 2: Yeah.

825
00:58:10,079 --> 00:58:14,400
Speaker 1: I mean even the mainstream open border news outlets like

826
00:58:14,440 --> 00:58:19,880
AP and Reuters, they report on Juarez and El Paso

827
00:58:19,960 --> 00:58:21,960
this way. And I've been there, so I can speak

828
00:58:22,000 --> 00:58:24,440
from experience, my direct personal.

829
00:58:25,559 --> 00:58:29,760
Speaker 2: Empirical experience. I went there and I took photos, and.

830
00:58:29,880 --> 00:58:35,159
Speaker 1: You can stand on the one hand, at the Moca

831
00:58:37,280 --> 00:58:42,719
shop where you get your smoothie, you're sipping your smoothie

832
00:58:42,960 --> 00:58:46,119
and you have running water in a clean restroom, and

833
00:58:46,199 --> 00:58:50,519
you look over the wall and you see just endless

834
00:58:51,199 --> 00:58:58,480
shanty shacks and people being run by private cartels, private cartels, okay,

835
00:58:59,039 --> 00:59:04,039
where there's no state. Arguably, I mean, I guess you

836
00:59:04,039 --> 00:59:11,079
could argue this's like some local what's the Hispanic word

837
00:59:11,119 --> 00:59:15,280
for hethe right, who works for the cartel or something.

838
00:59:15,800 --> 00:59:19,920
Speaker 2: So there's your private government right there. And we always hear.

839
00:59:19,880 --> 00:59:21,719
Speaker 1: About the state, the state of the state, the state,

840
00:59:22,679 --> 00:59:28,320
but the anarcho capitalists don't often mention that the state

841
00:59:28,440 --> 00:59:31,840
that we exist under is a corporate state, that is,

842
00:59:31,920 --> 00:59:35,480
a private monopoly state, which is the result of their

843
00:59:35,840 --> 00:59:42,239
centuries of market god that they worship. In other words,

844
00:59:42,559 --> 00:59:48,360
the libertarian market god is precisely what gives birth to

845
00:59:48,400 --> 00:59:53,400
the monopolistic, capitally capital god which runs the society of

846
00:59:53,440 --> 00:59:56,559
the West that we now live under. So they're arguing

847
00:59:56,599 --> 01:00:02,719
for the beta position, right, liberty beta seventeen seventy six,

848
01:00:02,800 --> 01:00:06,639
seventeen eighty nine is what gives birth to nineteen eighty four.

849
01:00:07,239 --> 01:00:08,840
Speaker 2: Now you say that's stupid. I don't believe that.

850
01:00:08,880 --> 01:00:11,280
Speaker 1: Well, Quigley says that form one we saw that. Quigley

851
01:00:11,360 --> 01:00:17,679
says that the libertarian market positions of the seventeenth century

852
01:00:18,119 --> 01:00:21,559
and the eighteenth century that came to dominate were the

853
01:00:21,960 --> 01:00:25,960
banker's plot. How many times have I been saying this,

854
01:00:26,800 --> 01:00:30,519
but our anarco libertarian friends do not want to give

855
01:00:30,519 --> 01:00:36,159
this up. On what basis we can ask these libertarians?

856
01:00:37,000 --> 01:00:40,159
Do you then impose the non aggression principle upon me?

857
01:00:40,199 --> 01:00:42,119
And so what we actually see is that all world

858
01:00:42,159 --> 01:00:50,719
views have this implicit desire to export themselves. Right, Adam

859
01:00:50,800 --> 01:00:55,960
is out there debating, trying to convince people of his view. Well,

860
01:00:55,960 --> 01:00:59,559
that's not very relativistic, right, in other words, And to

861
01:00:59,679 --> 01:01:02,480
be fair to Adam, he believes his position is objectively true.

862
01:01:03,079 --> 01:01:06,000
But I would say that I agree with you, Adam,

863
01:01:06,039 --> 01:01:09,440
and the belief and objective truth. It's just I don't

864
01:01:09,440 --> 01:01:11,760
think we can have it on the basis that you

865
01:01:11,920 --> 01:01:19,400
argue for it. How can we have objective truths and

866
01:01:19,440 --> 01:01:21,480
at the same time be moral relativists.

867
01:01:22,320 --> 01:01:23,679
Speaker 2: And I do get the.

868
01:01:25,280 --> 01:01:28,519
Speaker 1: Sense that Madam, that Adam is a moral relativist because

869
01:01:29,559 --> 01:01:33,480
you know, things like homosexuality are not wrong in themselves.

870
01:01:34,559 --> 01:01:37,599
Speaker 2: They're only quote wrong in some case of.

871
01:01:39,000 --> 01:01:41,199
Speaker 1: It being done on someone's private property when it wasn't

872
01:01:41,199 --> 01:01:42,360
desire or something like that.

873
01:01:43,039 --> 01:01:44,480
Speaker 2: But they're not objectively wrong. Right.

874
01:01:44,559 --> 01:01:49,559
Speaker 1: So I can bang and screw dead horse carcasses all

875
01:01:49,639 --> 01:01:53,960
day long, I can commit necrophilia. I can actually have

876
01:01:54,079 --> 01:01:57,199
sex with dead bodies all day long, as long as

877
01:01:57,199 --> 01:01:58,760
they do it on my private property and it doesn't

878
01:01:58,800 --> 01:01:59,320
hurt somebody.

879
01:01:59,599 --> 01:01:59,880
Speaker 2: Right.

880
01:02:00,719 --> 01:02:05,719
Speaker 1: Yeah, Well, see, doesn't something seem wrong about this, right?

881
01:02:05,760 --> 01:02:11,199
I mean, doesn't something inherently don't? We want to say, Yeah,

882
01:02:11,239 --> 01:02:14,719
I don't really think that having sex with dead babies

883
01:02:15,159 --> 01:02:18,880
is good. There's something wrong with this, right, But on

884
01:02:19,119 --> 01:02:23,199
the anarcho moral relatives position, there's nothing wrong with it inherently.

885
01:02:29,880 --> 01:02:30,800
Speaker 2: A couple more points.

886
01:02:30,840 --> 01:02:35,960
Speaker 1: I guess Adam speaks English.

887
01:02:36,079 --> 01:02:38,880
Speaker 2: English is a linguistic tradition.

888
01:02:39,360 --> 01:02:43,039
Speaker 1: So when Adam makes all these arguments, tries to convince

889
01:02:43,079 --> 01:02:50,360
others of his position, which he believes is subject to Well,

890
01:02:50,400 --> 01:02:53,679
on the one hand, it's relativistic because everything is under

891
01:02:54,360 --> 01:02:59,599
perpetual evolution. At the same time, he's using a linguistic tradition,

892
01:02:59,679 --> 01:03:04,320
English to convey all of his ideas, which is strictly speaking,

893
01:03:04,719 --> 01:03:13,039
not in his view, not objective metaphysically objective. Right, everything

894
01:03:14,000 --> 01:03:17,760
is subject to evolution in terms of such traditions in

895
01:03:17,800 --> 01:03:22,920
Adam's view. Okay, well, then how are the words that

896
01:03:22,960 --> 01:03:26,280
you're using able to convey eternal verities?

897
01:03:26,719 --> 01:03:27,440
Speaker 2: Exactly? Now?

898
01:03:27,480 --> 01:03:32,480
Speaker 1: In my view, I believe that tradition and traditions actually

899
01:03:32,519 --> 01:03:36,400
can convey eternal truths and are not completely subject to evolution.

900
01:03:38,280 --> 01:03:40,440
So that I think, I mean, and I've got a

901
01:03:40,440 --> 01:03:42,199
whole bunch more notes, but we've talked for like an

902
01:03:42,239 --> 01:03:47,079
hour just to sort of recapping the debate, and you know,

903
01:03:47,079 --> 01:03:55,960
it boils down to utilizing universal claims and principles with

904
01:03:56,119 --> 01:03:59,480
no real way to make sense of how there are

905
01:03:59,599 --> 01:04:01,639
universe claims some principles. All right, we're just going to

906
01:04:01,719 --> 01:04:04,840
say that there are these eternal verities and we back

907
01:04:04,920 --> 01:04:08,639
them up by he says, testing it. Yeah, well, there's

908
01:04:08,679 --> 01:04:11,880
not really a way that we just test by trial

909
01:04:11,920 --> 01:04:14,760
and error. By the way, there's no been no trial

910
01:04:14,800 --> 01:04:19,119
and error test of his position yet, so we don't

911
01:04:19,199 --> 01:04:24,880
actually know if that position is true on its own grounds. Right,

912
01:04:25,079 --> 01:04:29,400
If everything that's an eternal verity is known, he said,

913
01:04:29,440 --> 01:04:33,920
by testing it and see if it works pragmatism, right.

914
01:04:35,079 --> 01:04:36,320
Speaker 2: I don't think we can get.

915
01:04:37,920 --> 01:04:44,599
Speaker 1: A coherent defense of where his anarchic society has been enacted.

916
01:04:44,639 --> 01:04:47,440
Maybe he does have an argument somewhere where this was

917
01:04:48,440 --> 01:04:51,400
done somewhere I don't know, but I think you would

918
01:04:51,440 --> 01:04:54,599
have to go in the direction of maybe Chris's arguments of.

919
01:04:56,719 --> 01:04:58,719
Speaker 2: Like Indian tribes or Native American.

920
01:04:58,400 --> 01:05:01,960
Speaker 1: Tribes or something like this would maybe be the closest approximation.

921
01:05:02,239 --> 01:05:04,400
But to me, it looks to me like they're all

922
01:05:04,480 --> 01:05:07,599
organized hierarchically with tribal chieftains.

923
01:05:07,639 --> 01:05:10,280
Speaker 2: So I don't know how we're going to get that.

924
01:05:10,400 --> 01:05:15,639
Speaker 1: But we have talked for an hour here. This has

925
01:05:15,639 --> 01:05:18,000
been the first hour you've been listening to Jay's analysis.

926
01:05:18,760 --> 01:05:25,360
This is my analysis of revolutionary thought and against the

927
01:05:25,400 --> 01:05:30,119
revolutionary moderns. And in the second part we're going to

928
01:05:31,079 --> 01:05:36,360
do an in depth critique of Umberto Echo's relatively famous

929
01:05:36,519 --> 01:05:46,199
essay uru fascism. That is how revolutionary moderns must ultimately

930
01:05:46,960 --> 01:05:52,920
argue against all meaning, because meaning, an objective truth is fascism.

931
01:05:54,400 --> 01:05:57,400
And this is going to be Echo's point, and this

932
01:05:57,480 --> 01:05:59,639
is a good point. Yes, we want to hold the

933
01:05:59,760 --> 01:06:05,880
left to their own presubositions, hold them to accountable, that

934
01:06:05,920 --> 01:06:09,639
they're accountable to their own claims and statements, and if

935
01:06:09,679 --> 01:06:12,440
they're going to be consistent, we want them to go

936
01:06:12,679 --> 01:06:17,039
the full way. We want them to ultimately say, as

937
01:06:17,079 --> 01:06:22,039
Wittgenstein and many of the revolutionary monitors will say, words

938
01:06:22,079 --> 01:06:24,400
are meaningless games and constructs.

939
01:06:24,800 --> 01:06:26,679
Speaker 2: And guess what. Once you've said.

940
01:06:26,480 --> 01:06:32,400
Speaker 1: Words are meaningless games and constructs, you have completely destroyed

941
01:06:32,599 --> 01:06:36,199
your own position. You can no longer argue and debate,

942
01:06:36,440 --> 01:06:42,360
and so actually you've contradicted yourself at the most fundamental level.

943
01:06:42,960 --> 01:06:47,880
So you've lost the debate. And we're going to show

944
01:06:47,920 --> 01:06:56,239
that in presubsitional fashion with Umberto Eco's famous essay. If

945
01:06:56,280 --> 01:06:58,000
you like what you're hearing and you want to hear

946
01:06:58,000 --> 01:07:01,199
the second half of the talk, subscribe at Jason Alsi's

947
01:07:01,239 --> 01:07:02,559
for four and a five a month or for sixty

948
01:07:02,639 --> 01:07:06,920
dollars a year. You can also get my book Esoteric Hollywood,

949
01:07:06,880 --> 01:07:09,440
Six Cults and Symbols in Film, which applies a lot

950
01:07:09,480 --> 01:07:16,679
of these philosophical techniques and critique methodologies to Hollywood. And

951
01:07:16,679 --> 01:07:19,440
so it's a way to teach people and learn the

952
01:07:19,480 --> 01:07:22,559
process of what I do through philm in a fun

953
01:07:22,599 --> 01:07:25,840
way through movies. And so you can get my book

954
01:07:25,920 --> 01:07:28,159
signed at jasonalysis dot com.

955
01:07:28,199 --> 01:07:29,199
Speaker 2: At the tab at the top.

956
01:07:29,719 --> 01:07:32,960
Speaker 1: There is PayPal options for inside the US and outside

957
01:07:33,000 --> 01:07:35,000
the US, and please get the book from me to

958
01:07:35,000 --> 01:07:38,159
help support the author, not through Amazon. Thank you for

959
01:07:38,280 --> 01:07:41,960
listening and stay tuned for hour two.