All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 10, 2006 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
33:09
96 Concepts Part 2: Here is the master...
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good afternoon, everybody.
I hope you're doing well.
It's 5 to 5 on February the 10th, 2006 in the afternoon, and I am going home to my baby.
And I'm also freezing to death because it is very cold up here in Canada, and I have decided, for the convenience of you, my loyal listeners, to eschew the heater in the car because it creates rather a racket as it attempts to bring this up from sort of zero Kelvin to cryogenic to merely frigidly cold.
So, just for you loyal listeners, for the sound quality to be better, all that will happen is that the sound quality of the heater will be replaced by the rapid small arms fire of my teeth chattering.
But aside from that, I think the sound will be great.
So, thanks so much for listening, as always.
freedomain.blogspot.com, my email, s.m-o-l-y-n-e-u-x at rogers.com.
So we're going to pick up from where we left off this morning, which is the why.
Why, why, why would people come up with this crazy hallucinogenic nonsense of the realm of the higher forms, or what Kant called the neo-menal realm, or the world spirit of Hegel, or All of this nonsense that people come up with, which is supposed to explain things within philosophy and supposed to make things clearer.
Because, you know, if I'm right, and of course it's not just me who thinks this, then it's really not that complicated, right?
I mean, concepts, as I said at the beginning of the podcast this morning, they're really not that complicated.
They are tricky, and the trickiness is that they're recursive, which is to say, for those who aren't immersed in geek technology like myself, it means that you can build concepts within concepts, or concepts can be built on top of concepts, and this is where people get confused.
So, to take a simple example, and I know that I'm going to have to use the word in the definition, and that's wrong, but I just can't quite think of any other way to do it just now.
So, if you see two rocks there, then you have two discrete entities, which is a concept.
Concept rocks.
I got two rocks.
So that's three things.
I've got entities, I've got rocks, and I've got numbers.
And you can abstract rocks away from the individual rocks to have a definition in general, and you can also abstract discrete quantity away from a group of instances and come up with numbers.
And so numbers is a problem.
They say, well, numbers don't exist in reality, man.
And, you know, that kind of stuff.
Well, of course they don't.
But discrete atomic structures like rocks certainly do exist within reality and that can all be measured and verified and quantified and all that kind of good stuff.
So, descriptions do not exist in reality, no more so than a label describing the name of a painting exists within that painting.
But they nonetheless do exist.
And one listener had written in to tell me, well, at one time you say concepts don't exist, and another time you say that concepts do exist.
And my answer is, of course, that it's the sound of one concept clapping.
That is the answer.
And the answer will come to you when you stop wanting the answer.
Wait, sorry, that's my night job as a Zen teacher.
What I mean by that is that concepts do not exist in reality.
They do not exist in any tangible, measurable, physical way, other than as potentially discoverable at some point electrons within the mind, or arrangements of electricity within the mind, or biochemical energy.
But they do not exist in reality.
They exist as configurations within the mind, and unverifiable at the moment, which is to say that they might as well not exist in the mind.
But they do exist insofar as, you know, we do have concepts in our minds which we use, which are verifiable.
So again, if I say that the property of rocks is x, y, and z, and then I try and stuff an ostrich into the concept, then it's verifiably different, right?
An ostrich is verifiably different from a rock, and therefore concepts do exist as accurate or inaccurate descriptors of reality.
But reality, as I mentioned this morning, always trumps them.
So, to turn back to the fabulous world of high-drug culture, otherwise known as the platonic world of forms, the question is, why?
Why would people overcomplicate philosophy to this wretched and brain-bending degree?
Well, there are lots of reasons that we can look at in detail, but the main reason is to destroy independent thought and to enslave people.
Gotta tell ya, it's that simple, that ugly, and that evil.
Why is it that people would create such a wildly complicated scheme of philosophy when it is perfectly evident to everybody who watches a baby or an infant or a child develop their cognitive faculties, or who takes about 12 seconds to introspect and figure out where they have learned things from, That there is no higher world of forms.
And Aristotle does a pretty good job in his metaphysics of tearing this one down.
One argument that is, of course, worth looking at is he says, look, there's no such thing as the good that could exist as a form that is independent of individual entities.
So, a good chair is one thing.
A good sword is another thing.
A person who is good at being evil is another thing.
And you have this goodness that is in all of these things.
A good poison is one thing.
A good antidote is another.
Now, how can you have an abstract thing called goodness which exists independently of every single concept which it is supposed to describe and has completely opposite qualities to all of those concepts?
The word good is meaningless in and of itself because it could mean a good murderer, somebody who's good at killing people, or a good soldier, also known as somebody who has medals.
I mean, there's lots of ways to describe it.
But the word good has no meaning in and of itself other than as an extrapolation of quality relative to that which it is describing.
So, more, better.
The murderer is not the same as a good person, so good doesn't have any real content other than as a modifier of that which it's describing.
And therefore, you can't have an abstract platonic ideal for something called the good.
And the good is certainly a concept which we develop and which we refine and which we understand and which we learn about and we apply.
And so it would have to exist within the platonic world of forms, but How could it?
Because it has no content in and of itself, except insofar as it describes other things.
Now, since all concepts must exist in the perfect world of forms, how could a concept exist which would contradict itself depending on how it was applied?
As you probably know, Socrates taught Plato and Plato taught Aristotle.
Plato died of a ripe old age.
I think he was 80, at least according to legend.
Socrates was murdered by the Athenians for having the temerity to instruct the youth on the frailty of the knowledge of those in power, or those who claimed to be very wise and all-knowing about morality.
And so he was put to death for threatening the sanctity of the Athenian state.
Very instructive for we who search for truth.
I don't think that's about to happen to any of us, but it is the innate reaction of those confronted with their own falsehoods through the argument for morality.
And Socrates didn't specifically use the argument for morality, but he did all of the unraveling, that persistent curiosity of which I speak so highly, all the way through his adult life.
So, Socrates was put to death.
Aristotle, he taught Alexander the Great, and he was going to be put to death, but he fled with the help of friends, saying, I will not allow Athens to sin against philosophy twice, which I think is a great phrase, and if he never said it, he should have, so I'm willing to take it at its face value.
So, he said, in Metaphysics, I think it was, he said, we love Plato, but we love the truth more than we love our friends, because we cannot have friendship if we do not have truth.
So, I think it's a wonderful way of putting it, and something, of course, that I've taken to heart and argue with all those of you who have written in to tell me that your parents are wonderful and you shouldn't get rid of them, and I shouldn't counsel that you get rid of them if they are immoral, but the fact of the matter is that you can't have any intimacy with anybody without the truth and honor and integrity And you can't have those things if you have corrupt people in your life, and it doesn't do any good to the facts of the situation to make up excuses for those corrupt people by saying, well, they did the best they could, they're good-hearted, well-meaning, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I mean, they did what they did, and if they hid it at all, then they're corrupt, as I have mentioned before in podcasts.
And until somebody can come up with a good argument as to why that is not the case, I'm afraid the argument does have to stand, and the consequences of continuing to keep corrupt people in your life will be dire.
Not because of anything I'm saying, it's just a fact, right?
So the question is, sort of, why did these philosophers, why have this enormous chain of philosophers just worked so hard to create this impenetrable and incomprehensible web of nonsense that is constantly spouted by a large line of, I mean, why was Heidegger so enamored of the Nazis and so on, and why did these people create all of these myths?
Well, it's sort of very simple that they are in the service of the murderers.
They are in the service of the slaughterhouse of power we call politics.
And so what happens?
Well, sort of fundamentally in our heart of hearts, we really can't believe in things like the innate virtue of politicians.
We can't, for the life of us, really figure out in our heart of hearts why we should surrender ourselves violently to people who are kind of just like us.
That has never been something which human beings have ever been able to make any sense of.
And, of course, neither without the intense brutalization and scar tissue that goes on during early religious education.
And neither have people ever been able to believe in something called a god or a ghost or a leprechaun or any of this sort of nonsense that sort of fantasies.
Well, why are they so popular?
Well, they're popular because they serve power.
And the reason that they serve power is if concepts Trump reality.
Tangible, physical, material, sensual, objective reality.
If concepts have a truth value that has no relationship to sense evidence, then concepts cannot ever be judged or reasoned about.
Concepts themselves are subject to nothing.
That is so important to understand.
If concepts can never be subjected to any rational analysis or any sensual evidence, they then have unlimited power, they have unlimited truth value, they have no subjugation to anything outside themselves.
Which is why I've been hopping on for a couple of months about, you know, do you worship God because he's good or because he's powerful?
So, if there's something called the State, and the State has virtue, and the fact that the State has virtue is subject to no empirical verification or rational analysis whatsoever, then the State, fundamentally, is unlimited in its power, and there is no justice or logic in trying to limit the power of the State.
The same is true of God and of the Church.
If there's something called God which exists and is virtuous regardless of anything that happens, regardless of what happens in the world, regardless of what is said in the Bible, regardless of how many Danish papers publish pictures of Muhammad and cause how many buildings to get burned down, regardless of anything, God is virtuous and all good, then God clearly, the virtue of God or the virtue of the state,
can be subject to absolutely no rational analysis or limitation.
If I say that I am seven foot tall, then you can get a tape measure out and measure me and find out that I'm just under six feet tall.
Maybe six feet in the morning, five eleven and a half in the evening.
And that is subject to... So my claim, my claim that I am seven feet tall is subject to a rational verification, empirical verification.
It's how we know whether I'm telling the truth or not.
But if I say I am 7 feet tall in another dimension, and by the way, you can't measure that other dimension or enter it, and no tape measure can be placed against it, and I can never explain what it means, and the units are completely different than what they are in this dimension.
In fact, they have to be the same.
Otherwise, you just redefine those units as being a little bit smaller, and I would then be 6 foot for real in that other dimension I'm claiming 7 foot in.
But, if I can get you to believe that whatever it is that I say, as a concept, is subject to no empirical rational verification or rational analysis, then how on earth can you ever tell me that I'm wrong?
How on earth can you ever limit the moral claims or the political power or the religious authority or any of these crazy collectivist notions that go on in the world that feed like maggots on the dead brains of this nonsensical and evil philosophy?
Nobody can ever prove that these people are wrong and that's why those who are evil Love these philosophers.
And that's why these philosophers get the money they do.
That's why they get the respect they do.
That's why they get the veneration.
And that's why professors continue to teach these ugly and venomous falsehoods.
Because those in power love the idea that there's no rational way of analyzing whether that power is justified.
Even if it is justified, what its limits should be?
What is the moral nature of that power?
How do those who claim to be in power substantially or fundamentally differ from those of us who are not in power?
How is it that moral rules apply to people who are private citizens in an absolute sense, thou shalt not kill, and yet apply to the complete opposite to the police and the military?
Thou shalt kill, if I point to that person and tell you you should.
So, state power, religious power, social power, collectivist power, racial power, class power, however you want to define it, the power to use violence must get flushed or hurled into this otherworldly dimension where up is down, black is white, good brains go to die like dogs in the street.
Because otherwise, it's just something in the world which can be reasoned about.
And the moment you sit and reason about power, it falls apart.
It has no substance whatsoever, other than the fantasies that it inflicts on us through brutal indoctrination when we are children.
The concept of political power or religious authority or collectivist totalitarian belief systems have no reality whatsoever.
Why do you obey George Bush?
Because George Bush has convinced a lot of people that what he says goes, and the most important people that he's convinced are the military.
And he knows that you don't want to obey him, otherwise he'd just be sending you a newsletter saying, this is what I think you should do with your life.
And you'd be so enamored of his genius that you would simply say, well, whatever that George guy tells me to do is what I'm going to do.
And then he would have all the power that he now claims is chosen.
That is why the state loves to fund education.
That's why the first thing that was taken from us in the 19th century was not our property rights.
It was not our right of assembly.
It was not our right of the freedom of the press.
It was not our voting rights.
It was our free choice in education.
I mean, it's the first thing that has to go.
But you have to teach children how not to think.
You have to destroy their capacity for thought by creating all of these thought constructs Like the state and God and so on, that cripple and destroy their capacity to reason.
You have to create an entire realm that they can't even remotely think logically within.
And then you have to place the ultimate power and authority to use violence within society in that realm!
But first you have to have it created, right?
You've got to buy the house, then you move your evil gang into it.
And it is the philosophers who create this world, and they create this world as a home for tyrants, as a defense for brutality.
As a hideout for evil.
And that's why they get paid so much.
That's why nobody's really too bothered by Noam Chomsky complaining about foreign policy of the United States.
If he was really an anarchist, he probably would never have the kind of exposure to the media and so on that he does.
And Noam Chomsky says, when he was lecturing in Dublin recently, somebody in the audience started talking about anarchism.
And what he said was, the deep insight that anarchism contains is that all power structures are open to question.
But this is just something he says.
It's nothing.
I mean, what he actually advocates is that the state take over everything.
And he's actually an anarcho-syndicalist, which is that there's no private property and everyone breaks into these little Communes or fiefdoms and it's all just a complete load of nonsense because, as I mentioned in a podcast about property, you can say that property doesn't exist but still somebody has to dispose of assets.
And if that person has the right to dispose of assets, why doesn't everybody?
It all falls apart with just a moment's logical examination.
But as I mentioned, his own cultural background is blinding him to this sort of stuff.
So the why is simple.
The why is to unleash the predators to prey upon the weak.
Not the naturally weak, but those who are weakened by being force-fed this brutal nonsense.
And nobody believes it.
I mean, that's something that's so important to understand.
Nobody believes this stuff at all.
You're not driving along and you wonder, hey, I wonder if I've just slipped into the platonic world of forms.
You don't look for your toothbrush and you can't find it and say, well I guess I just had the concept maybe I was looking at the perfect toothbrush which was an extrusion from the perfect world of forms and it's vanished again.
Nobody lives their life this way at all.
At all.
It is just a load of windy gas bag verbal filth that people pour into other people's ears so that they will break their brains like the back of a heretic over a wheel and cause them to be crippled.
And docile, and unable to question, and unable to assert themselves, and unable to speak the truth, and unable to be direct, and unable to live!
Unable to live!
That is the worst part of it!
I know there are lots of people who are listening to this who are perhaps alarmed by the things that we're talking about.
Well, what does this mean?
I mean, the amount of disapproval I'm going to face.
Well, what if I do break with my parents?
And what if I do try and live a perfectly rational life as much as well as I'm able?
And what if I do end up looking at society as if it is a scabrous leprous hole at the moment full of very corrupt slaves to power.
Slaves, servants, and users of power.
Evil power.
Power of violence.
Power of coercion.
Power of taxation.
Power of national debt.
Power of money printing.
Power of inflation.
Power of all of that.
Well, what if I do look at society that way?
I'm going to face a lot of disapproval, I'm going to have a lot of awkward silences around the dinner table, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
But what you don't understand, and what is very hard to understand, and which is something that I'm only recently really beginning to absorb, is that the people who disapprove of you when you see the truth aren't alive in any way that you and I would understand.
They breathe.
They talk.
They reason.
They have feelings.
And they reason within a sort of limited sensual manner.
But they're not alive.
They're stunted.
They're warped.
They're broken.
They're not alive in the way that you and I would understand it.
And it's the worst kind of death.
It's a spiritual death.
It's the intellectual death.
The people who have given up the fight for truth and who merely survive on the handouts from those in power by parroting The Sikh justifications for the use of that power are not alive in any way that we would recognize.
They have experienced a soul murder or a spiritual death which has robbed them of the capacity for intimacy, has robbed them of the capacity for joy, has robbed them of the capacity for honesty and integrity and honor and plain dealing and outspokenness and curiosity.
And rationality, and optimism, and all of the things that make life worth living, that make life such a fantastically powerful and wonderful journey.
They have none of that.
They're barely alive.
And the idea of... This is a minor cultural side note.
It's no accident that zombie movies are sort of coming back in popularity.
But the idea that we should be fearful of offending such people is astonishing to me.
And I know, I mean, people make me nervous from time to time, too, because they just can be so aggressive and so weird.
But the idea that we should withhold our exploration of And speaking of the truth, the greatest pursuit in human history is the pursuit of truth.
It is the slow, halting, and bloody steps by which human beings ascend notch by notch up the evolutionary ladder to an even remotely moral way of living.
It's very hard, as Nietzsche points out.
Every single step forward in human history, every progress, has been wretched and brutal.
Now, it doesn't have to be violent.
Of course, the last thing I would ever suggest is that anybody try and change anybody else's mind through violence.
But it is hard.
And the idea that we should hold ourselves back from this pursuit of truth, which is the greatest joy that the world has to offer, from the honesty and passion and power of learning the truth, whatever scraps we can get a hold of and nurture and grow, that we would give up that pursuit.
Because the half-dead scowl at us is astonishing to me.
And the reason that I'm talking about this is that it's not that much use in seeing this in an intellectual standpoint.
To recognize that what we call philosophy is a sort of vicious, acidic, entangling fog under which assassins move in swirls of clouds.
This is what is put out.
It is a cover for slaughter.
I mean look at the New York Times regularly on its front pages prints stories that are genocidal war crime material and they don't seem shocked.
We see the pictures from Abu Ghraib.
This was the freest country in the world that is now performing these Nazi-like Stalin-esque atrocities and people don't Oh, that's shocking, and then they go right on with their lives.
This is not an ethical or civilized culture that we live in.
Everybody just gets momentarily shocked, perhaps into a kind of honesty, and then down it goes, flushes down through the memory hole into vapor, and everybody moves on as if nothing occurred.
Everybody is simply covering up the evil that is gathering and uncoiling itself from the dark roots of this philosophy.
All we have is apologists for evil in the public sphere at the moment, and we'll talk about media another time, but it's very important to see that, that we are so far from what will someday be called a humane and civilized society.
And the reason that we're so far from it is because we have nothing but public intellectuals and public thinkers Who bend over backwards to excuse evil in one form or another.
Or if they attack evil in one way, like in foreign policy, they then beg for it in another.
And evil doesn't care where it gets to exercise its power, as long as it continues to increase in its power.
Which is why, of course, the government listens to Noam Chomsky about something like takeover of medicine, and doesn't listen to Noam Chomsky about get out of Iraq and stop with all these foreign meddlings and invasions and corruptions.
So they're perfectly happy with Noam Chomsky.
Trust me, they have no problem with him at all.
But that is why it's so hard to see this, is that it is a constant focus of those who have the public microphones and the public media.
There is nothing, and it's not conscious, it's not conscious, it's not something that they all sit and have a cabal conference call every morning to figure out how to obscure the truth and obscure the evil that is occurring within society.
It's nothing like that.
It is simply that the brutalization that we talked about in the last couple of podcasts between the state and the family, the brutalization that occurs early in life is then hidden from psychological view and is then continues to fester and to grow and comes out as either self-abuse or abuse of others as children.
And then as they grow up, it can never find its way back to its proper source, which is the moral responsibility of parents and elders and those who are in power when we are young.
So people can't see that, and they're specifically well-trained not to see it.
I mean, this Chomsky gets beautifully when he talks about the willing blindness of the educated classes.
And this knee-jerk reaction to hide what is unpleasant is absolutely the single most powerful subaphoric or morphine that society imbibes.
I mean, it's like a ridiculous junkie.
Anything that feels bad, we stare at for a moment, our eyes widen, and then we instantly blink it out of existence.
And we can do that because there's this other realm.
There's this other realm where virtue exists.
The government has virtue.
My country, right or wrong.
The old glory, the marines, the salutes, the white gloves, the medals, the gunshots, the flags over the coffins, the taps music.
All of this is a theatrical horror show cloaking savage and genocidal murder.
And until we understand that the vast majority of all social activity is the covering up of evil, then it's going to be very hard for us to understand the effects of this kind of philosophy.
Because this is what this philosophy is all about.
It says to you, look, there's morality.
Don't question it.
Don't question it.
It's not for you to question.
There's a morality that exists, that is attached to the state, or attached to God, or attached to your priest, or attached to your parents, or your teachers, which you can never understand, never analyze.
It doesn't apply to you in any way.
In fact, the exact opposite rules apply to you.
Now, get back to your job, pass your taxes, get drafted, and shut up.
Don't ask any questions.
Don't raise your head from the slaughterhouse.
I know that this is a harsh way of putting it, and it is very hard to see this in society.
But when you look at what is going on, the level of intrusions in civil rights, the level of taxation, the brutality of war, the detainment of people at Guantanamo Bay, The prisons all throughout Iraq, the prisons where there are millions of people being regularly raped and physically abused and chained up and locked up for decades, for nothing, for nothing, for smoking a plant, that the brutality that is right under the surface of modern society is staggering.
And I'm talking about modern Western society.
I mean, if you talk about Eastern society, you can turn the volume up to 5 million because that society is even more sick.
Not even more sick, it's on a different level of I mean, they make us look like the kind of paradise that we're thinking about in these conversations.
But I'm talking about here, because here's what we can understand, and here's what we can do something about.
Your country doesn't exist, as I've mentioned before.
Your family doesn't exist.
Your parents don't exist.
There are two people who had sex many years ago and who gave birth to you.
But parents is a category that does not exist in reality.
There's a genetic basis for a relationship, but there is no such thing as parents.
There's no such thing as priests.
There's no such thing as politicians.
There's no such thing as union leaders.
They're all just people.
And if they're all just people, then they all must be subject to the same moral rules, or to no rules whatsoever, which nobody ever believes in or ever advocates.
I mean, it would be foolish, as I've mentioned before, be foolish of them to advocate it, because if I say there are no rules, then I've already made a rule.
It's all nonsense, right?
So, the entire purpose of this kind of platonic philosophy is to create this massive, impenetrable fog wherein dark deeds can be done out of the sight of moral eyes.
I mean, if a friend of yours said, you know, I just went over to Denmark and shot a bunch of people who were driving in a car, you'd be pretty horrified.
You'd say, well, why?
It's like, well, you know, I was told to.
Well, who told you to?
Oh, this guy down the street.
Well, why did you do it?
Well, because he's right about everything he says.
I pledged my loyalty to him.
Well, why did you do that?
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
But you'd still be completely horrified.
You'd recognize this person as a complete sociopath.
And if you knew some other neighbor who said, I support Bob's murder in the Netherlands, then you would view that person as just sick and evil.
And this is the state, of course, of Iraq and the support your troops stickers.
But it's much worse, because people are calling a virtue what is the greatest evil in the world.
They want to support Slaughter.
They want to support murder and invasion and war and genocide and torture and the killing of innocents and of children.
And this is called virtue.
And even in the anti-war movement they have a very tough time looking at that fact that their society as a whole is right in there behind with the slaughter.
This is a very different country than it was 30 years ago or 40 years ago.
But this is the aftereffects of a failure to examine the moral horror of World War II, the slaughterhouse where hundreds of thousands of Americans died and, you know, millions of Japanese, innocent Japanese citizens were murdered.
I don't think the Japanese had any more freedom.
And this is the after effects.
This is what happens when you don't examine these things.
This is what happens when this platonic philosophy wins and you have this idea of abstracted virtue that has nothing to do with how people actually act.
That you've got this entity called the state wherein people can do whatever they want.
And you won't judge them by any moral standard that you would apply to yourself or to others, because it's got its own reality.
It's its own thing.
You don't judge these people as individuals, because you've got this shiny toy called the state, which is going to distract you from the actual behavior of people who claim to represent it.
I can't come to your house and say, you know what, from now on you're going to give me 50% of your income, because I really feel like helping the poor.
And if you don't, I'm going to shoot you dead.
You wouldn't have a countenance for that.
And you would never countenance in anybody except for the fact that you've been blinded and drugged by this idea of concepts being more real than the reality that they're supposed to be derived from.
That you've been blinded by the existence of things of a belief in the existence of things that have no existence.
So the why is to cover evil.
To cover murder and exploitation and theft and rape and torture and imprisonment and all of the black evils that so stain those who are corrupted as children and so flow outwards from their brutalized youth like a black oily tide across the entire planet.
And that's the facts that we have to see if we are going to do the part that we can do effectively in making a better world.
There's no point going halfway to the truth.
It's torture.
You know, you're on the island or you're off the island, so to speak.
There's nothing in the middle other than uncertainty and torture and so on.
So, if you have had the profound insight that there is such a thing as morality, and that morality is common to all human beings, that right and wrong is not something that every individual can make up for him or herself, then you have come as far as most people have ever throughout human history.
And you're really to be applauded for that.
It's a very hard thing to do.
But where I'm inviting you to go to, which is the next step, I believe, in sort of the human journey, or the journey of the species, or the journey of civilization, or the rise of the culture, is to recognize that none of these concepts which we are taught about exist.
That they are all sick fantasies put there to cloak the actions of evil men and women.
And that we have to go all the way in terms of understanding reality, of pushing through this veil of illusion to the facts That are always hidden from us and that we are blamed and hated forever, exposing.
Because we are the future in this sense.
There is no way for the race to go forward, for humanity to progress without people finally putting their flag in the ground on the firm root of truth and saying, no, I will accept no substitutes for the facts.
I will accept no theories that are not derived from logic or empirical verification.
That I am going to be finally Finally, humanity can begin to be scientific about morality and about social institutions.
And that's the only way that we can move forward.
So that's the why, and it's an ugly truth when you look at the basis of this kind of philosophy.
It is an ugly truth, and it is a difficult thing to see, and it's a difficult thing to hold in your mind.
But if you've come this far, you know, please help me understand if I'm wrong, of course, as always.
But if you've come this far, we band of brothers and sisters, let's just continue, because there's just so many miraculous things over the horizon that I can't wait.
So thanks so much for listening, as always, and have yourselves a great weekend.
▲
Export Selection