All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 16, 2007 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
50:15
647 Jennyism Part 2

Certainty and modern philosophy

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good afternoon, everybody. Hope you're doing well.
C'est la, Stefan!
I hope you're doing well. And it is the...
It's what? Just after 5 o'clock.
On some...
What? Tuesday was the 16th, 17th?
Of February 2007.
A few days after Valentine's Day.
In fact, you know what? It is the 16th of February 2007.
And we are going to continue on with our analysis of the philosophy we call Genism.
And I'll just say one last caveat and then not bother with it again, which is that I'm not trying to pick on Jenny.
This is the kind of stuff that is taught these days in philosophy, in school, in academia, in higher halls of learning.
So this is just the kind of stuff that's out there, and no disrespect to the individual, but it is all so very instructive that it's hard to resist looking at it in more detail.
Now, the central flavor of this afternoon's class is going to be compared to what?
Compared to what?
It really is a very, very essential phrase in philosophy.
Because really, philosophy is compared to what?
Compared to a falsetto? Well, I think I can get higher.
And I talk about this in the novel I wrote called Almost, where a modern philosopher, a philosophy student named Klaus, is talking about how one of his philosophy professors was saying that somebody said to him, how's your wife? And he said, compared to what?
And he said, you could spend your whole life mulling over that question.
And to some degree, of course, you can.
Compared to what is the most essential aspect of philosophy?
So... You are sick compared to what?
Well, compared to health. We don't say that somebody who is 100 years old who is having trouble jumping up a flight of stairs, we would not say that they are sick because you don't get to do that very often when you're 100 years old.
But a 14-year-old, otherwise relatively healthy young man or woman who can't do that, we would call sick.
Compared to what?
Well, compared to the fact that everyone else can do that.
There is somebody, I can't remember who, who talked about this in terms of going to his doctor.
And he went to his doctor and his doctor said, you know, I can't really do much to help you.
Yeah, you've got aches and pains, you've got complaints, but it's just called getting old.
It's not that you're sick, you're just getting old.
So this sort of compared to what is really, really essential.
Compared to what?
Well, God exists.
Compared to what? Compared to a rock?
Well, no. Compared to an elf?
Well, yeah, I guess they exist as ideas in the mind.
This compared to what is absolutely essential, and it's really, really worth netting this one under your skin so that this becomes a reflex question to subjectivism or objectivism or anything else.
X is true. Well, compared to what?
2 plus 2 is 4 is true.
Well, compared to what? Well, 2 plus 2 is just another way of saying 4.
They're synonymous. So, A equals A. So, that's true.
It's tautological, really.
So, when someone says...
Socialism is better than capitalism.
It's like, well, compared to what?
What are the definitions? What are the standards compared to what?
Look at the scientific method.
Incredibly valuable. The most valuable thought concept along with the free market and logic itself.
The most amazingly beautiful, wonderful, beneficial formulation.
So, in the scientific method, we say this theory is true.
Compared to what?
Well, compared to measurements of objective reality, compared to measurements of matter and energy beyond the mind.
That's what it is true relative to.
And this question of relative to what, compared to what, is so fundamentally essential that if you get that, you get philosophy.
If you get that idea compared to what, you get philosophy.
Logic is valid compared to what?
Compared to reality. Compared to the actions of matter.
Aristotle's three laws of logic, as I've argued before, are derived from the properties of observable matter.
True compared to what?
compared to reality.
And even a subjective, objective system like capitalism, where value, which is subjective, can be turned into an objective measure through the measurement of voluntary exchange, can be turned into an objective measure through the measurement of voluntary exchange, that answers compared to what? A car is more valuable than a duck.
A car is more valuable than a duck.
Well, how do we know? Compared to what?
Well, compared to what people are willing to part for for said car or said duck.
A Hummer is more valuable than a Tonka truck.
How do we know? Compared to what?
Well, compared to what people are willing to part for in terms of resources for said Hummer versus said Tonka truck.
Compared to what? Compared to objective reality.
What are people willing to pay for it?
That's how we know the value of something.
It's subjective and objective, right?
The value is subjective, but the measure for it in terms of price is objective.
In the same way that our processing of reality occurs within our own mind, but we can compare it to actual reality, and that's how we know whether our subjective mental state conforms with external reality, which is called the truth.
Conformed with external reality is what we call the truth.
That which conforms to objective reality or the principles derived thereof.
So, if you kind of get that, that the most essential question of philosophy is, compared to what?
Then you really, I think, you really get it.
You really fundamentally and totally get it.
There is no automatic compared to what?
Which is why you need the free market, which is why you need...
Philosophy, but once you get that that's the sum total and purpose of philosophy is to answer that question, compared to what?
Murder is wrong. Compared to what?
Well, compared to any objective standard that talks about murder and the accuracy and fulfillability thereof, which we've talked about in terms of the coma test.
Anyway, I don't want to sort of go on a big tangent, but compared to what?
That's the most fundamental question.
And this is why there's sometimes a lot of hostility in the realm of philosophical debates.
Because we don't get that question worked into our very bones.
Compared to what? So when Jenny posts and says that I prefer Keynesianism or democratic socialism or I prefer the government-run education and provide it free to everyone, well, compared to what? You prefer it compared to what?
Because if the sum total, and I'm not saying it is, but if the sum total of that opinion is this, I prefer free education that is available to everyone that is of high quality to inconsistent, expensive education that is only available to the rich.
Well, that's... I mean, that's not a sane comparison, right?
Who would not want to have free...
I mean, if we could just snap our fingers and have everyone be well-educated, of course we would do so.
No cost, no resources, fantastic.
So when someone says, I prefer government regulation of the economy for the sake of the environment, well, that's fine.
Say, compared to what? I was watching a bit of one of the West Wings the other day.
Christine and I are plowing through.
We saw season one and two a couple of years ago.
We couldn't get a hold of season three, but we did eventually.
So we're kind of plowing through that.
I enjoy it because I assume it has the same view.
Fucking jerking a Mercedes.
Jesus. Zooming around me when I'm trying to get into a lane.
Oh, man. I always want to give guys the finger, but I don't because he's big and I'm a chicken.
So, damn it, where was I? Oh, it's good.
Oh yeah, so The West Wing, I enjoy it.
For me, it has the same relationship to government that The Lord of the Rings does to medieval history.
So it's just a fun fantasy romp with great dialogue and great acting and so on.
But I was watching The West Wing.
Christina and I were watching The West Wing.
The other day, and Josh was saying, well, what do you mean you don't know the difference between these two parties, between the Republicans and the Democrats?
One party wants to make the polluters pay for the pollution that they incur.
The other party wants to pay people to pollute the environment.
It's like, so, okay, so one, you know, you're going to subsidize pollution and make it, you know, more pollution, and the other one's going to make the polluters.
I mean, compared to what?
Well, obviously that's, you know, if you accept the sort of status premise, the moral choice there is kind of clear, right?
So when people say, I want to end global warming, I want to say, compared to what?
And of course, that is the fundamental issue and question around economics as well.
Compared to what? I want to buy a house.
Well, compared to what?
Compared to everything else that you could conceivably do with that money, including burning it.
I want to go to work.
Compared to what? Compared to sitting home scratching yourself and starving to death.
So, compared to what?
I don't mean to belabor the point more than I normally do, but this is a fundamental thing to understand.
Philosophy is all about compared to what?
So, universal health care.
Are you for giving people healthcare?
It's free. Do you want people to have access to free healthcare?
Well, compared to what?
Compared to what? Compared to not giving them access to free healthcare?
Well, that's... I mean, you don't need philosophy for that.
It's like a maid coming in and knocking on the door and saying, Sir, would you like me to put a mint on your pillow or should I just shoot you in the knee?
Do you need an advanced degree in philosophy to figure out how most people will answer that question assuming they have a fairly good relationship with said kneecap?
So this issue of compare to what is absolutely essential.
Because if there is no such thing as compared to what in somebody's philosophy, then it's just a wish list.
It's not philosophy. It's a wish list.
And this is sort of what we get from this kind of approach to philosophy.
Yes, I want maximum civil liberties, and I want the government to have communized education and health care and old-age pensions and unemployment insurance.
I wanted to make sure that the air is clean and the food is clean, the water is clean, and I want to make sure that XY does foreign policy and has the capacity to wage war, but only uses it wisely.
It's a wish list. It's just a series of...
Randomized preferences based on no compared to what's.
So anyway, I think I tried to make the point there.
So, just to...
Okay, maybe one more.
Just one more. Oh, God, indulge me.
I have a feeling it's useful. Eventually, what happens is, it's like beating the bushes to get the quail out, but here there's one quail in all of Australia, and I'm beating the bushes in the hopes of finding it.
When the quail flies out, we shall move on.
No, no, no. That was just a vulture looking for the death of my idea.
Not yet, my pretty.
So, when somebody says, I want free, universal education, then the question, of course, the logical question is, well, as we said, compared to what?
And you have to include the real comparisons there.
Now, the answer to free universal education, the compare to what, is not compared to expensive, restricted education.
Because that's a false...
I mean, that's like saying, would you rather everyone be healthy or everyone be sick?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
I mean, it's not a real compare to...
Compared to in the realm of free universal education is do you prefer free universal education or do you prefer that human beings not use violence to solve problems?
That's the compared to.
The universality, sorry, the universal health or education or whatever it is you're talking about that the government's supposed to provide, the comparator there is or a non-violent solution.
This is why, I mean, this is the sophist in the statist, right?
Which is basically, statism is sophistry.
There's no distinction between the two.
Statism is sophistry in action.
It's like a big con, right?
So if they can get you to ask the wrong questions, they don't care about the answers, right?
So if you can say, do you want universal free education?
Well, who wouldn't? But that's not the compared to, right?
The compared to is, or do you think that human beings should not use violence to resolve their disputes, right?
Or do you think that good things can come out of people pointing guns at each other?
That's the real comparator, right?
Compared to, right?
Coercive solution compared to monopolistic coercive solution compared to voluntary peaceful solution.
And this is the gun in the room, as we've talked about before.
A lot of libertarians end up wanting to argue with statists and say...
Well, you know, it's not really free, and it does cost money, and maybe that money could be used in better ways, and that kind of stuff.
And that's not the compared to.
The compared to is not efficiency, because who cares?
It's not what people live their lives for.
They live their lives for ethics, virtue.
So the compared to is always guns or no guns, rape or lovemaking, a fist in the face or a handshake.
That's the compared to.
Violence or non-violence?
Is violence a good solution compared to non-violence?
Well, no.
Of course not, right?
Especially a monopoly of violence.
So this idea of compared to what is so essential, is so essential.
And if you don't have a compared to what, if you don't have a compared to what, that is objective.
You can't have compared to what my invisible purple parakeet nightingale familiar told me in a dream last night, because nobody knows what that is, right?
Compared to the voice that I'm hearing in my head right now, right?
That's not a compared to anything.
That's just a whim compared to whim or reason compared to whim.
It's a null, right?
You can't compare anything to a null if you know anything about database technologies.
You can't compare anything to a null.
It's like saying, does this orange equal something I'm not going to define?
Well, maybe yes, maybe no.
Couldn't tell you. Don't have any clue.
Could be, could be not.
Likely not. Don't know for sure.
So if you have no compared to that is objective, then it's not philosophy, it's just whim.
And this, of course, this collapse in philosophy that has occurred...
Well, it's continually occurring, but is reaching a bit of a peak at the moment.
This collapse in philosophy, this collapse of a compared to that is objective, is one of the reasons why we have such a mess when it comes to trying to have conversations with people about anything.
Because you can't compare anything to anything unless you have a compared to that is objective.
Then you have the, quote, shrieky debates of priests rather than the recent deliberations of scientists.
And yeah, yeah, sure, scientists get into shrieky debates at some points as well, but the final arbiter, of course, is scientific method and measurements of objective reality.
The compared to your theory compared to reality.
That's subjective. That's why it works.
The value of something compared to how much money people are actually willing to plop down the table for it.
That's objective. So you turn the subjective into the objective, which means you turn the indeterminately true into the true by comparing the thoughts with the reality.
That's how it works.
That's the basis of any rational scientific philosophy.
So, to return to this question, and sort of to help understand Jennyism, for want of a better phrase, to help understand Jennyism, it's so essential to recognize that Where there is no compared to that is objective.
Where there is no comparator. Where there is no validation standard that is objective.
Logic being the first and most basic minimum requirement and then a conformity with the actions of external matter, behavior, organisms, people, societies, whatever.
Something that's objective.
If you don't have all of that stuff, then you're just talking nonsense.
Fundamentally, you're just talking opinions.
But you don't know that you're talking opinions.
So, I'll sort of give you an example of what I mean based on Jenny's own post, and then you can see, I think, the power of this idea that I'm talking about, and fundamentally, of course, the powerlessness of not having a comparator.
So, Jenny says, I have trouble pinning down my personal stances simply because I really don't follow the party line for any particular party or sect.
And my views and opinions on each and every issue change regularly the more reading I do, the more people I talk to that are more informed about certain issues than I am.
For reality, I agree partially with Descartes' logic that I think, therefore, I am, and that everything else might be an illusion, except that I have developed that point into a complex proof of God and absolute morality.
I'd share it here, but I'm writing my honest thesis on my argument for the existence of God, and I'm reluctant to share it before I publish or even have all my thoughts properly formulated and written.
Well, right there, in these two paragraphs, you don't even need the last sentence, you have an exact and explicit formulation of the consequences of No comparator.
No compared to what?
In the philosophy. So, you can see that Jenny says that her views and opinions on each and every issue change regularly.
The more reading I do, the more people I talk to, the more informed about certain issues that I am.
Now, this should go a long way towards helping us understand some of Jenny's hostility towards Ayn Rand, because Ayn Rand would call this kind of, quote, validation of truth to be social metaphysics.
That your basic opinion about what is true and what is not true...
is formed or formulated with relation to other people's opinions.
So when you read someone who seems particularly convincing on a certain point, then you, like water being poured into one container, you take the shape of that container.
And then you go and read something else, and then that person seems convincing, so you take the shape of that container.
And there is no...
Compared to what that has any objectivity?
You're just comparing your own particular beliefs of the moment to the persuasiveness of other people.
And what is it that makes them persuasive?
Well, we don't know.
It could be the way they use their language.
It could be that there's some particular emotion that the two of you share in common.
It might be a sunny day.
You might have just got really well laid.
I don't know. There's no way to know because it's so subjective.
Because Jenny doesn't say, I compare my beliefs to reality.
I compare my beliefs to logic.
She says, I compare my beliefs to whatever I'm reading at the moment, and whoever seems the most persuasive, and whoever seems to know more than I do.
Compared to what? How would you know if somebody knows something more than you do, unless you have a compared to what?
So it's just following the whim of the moment.
This is exactly what will result for anyone who has a fundamental philosophical hole where their brain should be, which is compared to what?
So let's look at the second part of this.
The Cartesian demon.
As she says, for reality, I agree partially with Descartes' logic that I think therefore I am and that everything else might be an illusion.
Well, what can you say?
She agrees partially with it.
Now, this is, of course, somebody who is fundamentally unable to take a stand on anything, again, except against taking a stand.
She can't take a stand on anything.
She can't make an absolute statement on anything, even about the basic nature of reality.
The only absolute statement that she can make is her hostility towards anybody who makes an absolute statement, like Ayn Rand and perhaps myself at this point as well.
Who knows? But... She agrees partially with the Cartesian demon theory.
And for those who haven't or who don't recall this, I'll just mention it very briefly.
René Descartes was a drunken fart.
He was very, very stable.
Anyway, we can come back to the Philosopher's Song another time.
But René Descartes was a French philosopher who wrote Meditations, a bunch of other works.
His basic problem was that he doubted existence in a truly schizophrenic manner, retreated to his room and thought and wrote and thought and wrote, and came up with, I think, discourses on First Meditations, wherein he makes the argument and says, I could doubt the existence of my room, of the clouds, of the sky, of God.
Of my hand, of the pen, of the ink.
I can doubt the existence of everything because I could be a brain in a tank.
And I could be being manipulated into believing all of these things by a malevolent or non-malevolent but certainly rather tricky demon, a Loki of the metaphysical world, who is tricking me into believing that all these things exist.
So the only thing that I know for certain is that I exist.
Because I am being fooled.
So everything that I perceive may be the result of a Trixie illusion from a magical, omnipotent golem of all power.
But the fact that I am being fooled is the bare minimum that must be accepted in terms of reality.
So everything may be an illusion, but the fact that I exist cannot be an illusion because I, even if I am being completely fooled, there is an I in there who is being fooled.
And that's the I think, therefore I am.
It's the basis of that. So for reality, she agrees partly with this approach, that everything may be an illusion.
Do you see how many qualifiers there are in that?
Just sort of in general, right? Everything may be an illusion, and I partly agree with that.
Well, what part of it do you agree with, and what part do you not agree with?
Who knows? Where's the line?
Either everything is an illusion or it's not, right?
I mean, it's not one of these highly complex things.
Yeah, yeah, there are people who see tricks of light and there are people who have visions and so on, but so what, right?
There are people who have phantom limbs after their legs have been cut off.
And they really feel like they're wiggling their toes, but they're not, right?
So that's not a big problem for most people.
I mean, you don't, on a baking hot day in Arizona, you don't drive down a red-hot road, see water, and break to a halt.
You say, oh, look, a mirage, right?
I mean, people don't have big deals of trouble processing.
Maybe the first time you ever see it, you might be a little curious, but you figure it out pretty quickly.
So, while there are people who mistake things within reality, we know that they're mistaking things in reality because there is reality, which we can test independently of our mere sensual apparatus, right, by transferring audible objects into sound waves and light objects into spectrographs and so on.
It's how we know a good chunk of the universe, right, based on this.
So, you know, either there is this malevolent demon that's out there doing something to us, or there's not.
Because they can't sort of half be.
What are you going to say?
You're going to say, well, the demon controls my left eye, but my right eye is accurately reflecting reality.
Or whenever I'm facing south by southwest, that's the realm of the demon and everything's being manufactured, but then seamlessly, when I turn north-northeast, then everything becomes hunky-dory.
I mean, this is all just nonsense, right?
You can't sort of say, well, yeah, there's a demon, but it's every third car on the highway that the demon is manufacturing.
I mean, that's just making stuff up.
It's arbitrary divisions, right?
Either what we call external reality is real, or it's a fantasy.
You can't sort of say, well, I partly believe with this possibility.
I partly believe this possibility.
It makes no logical sense whatsoever.
But the one thing that modern philosophy will do to just about anybody who gets involved in it is it will mock and condemn and rail against with virulence any statement of certainty.
Any statement of certainty.
Which is the hostility towards Ayn Rand.
You'll see, of course, that the philosophers that Jenny quotes and likes are those who do not believe in external reality in a fundamental way.
That's sort of her approach, right?
So she sort of goes into the subjectivism of other people's opinions without any sort of objective compared to what, and naturally she's lost in space.
She's making stuff up as she goes along.
Yeah, I go with the Cartesian demon, but only to a certain degree and only under certain conditions, and so what?
I mean, that doesn't mean anything.
You might as well just sort of be singing in Elvish on a mountaintop in another dimension.
So it doesn't mean anything at all.
But the fascinating thing for me, again, about this sort of genism, and it's not genism, this is just modernism, right?
This is post-modernism, I guess.
Is that although there's a partial agreement that everything in the universe that you perceive, including everyone else, of course, may be an illusion, she certainly can't act on that basis, right?
You can't act on that basis.
So the fact that she's posting on a board and responds to people and admits to trolling...
This is a fundamental way that you know that she doesn't really sort of believe in anything that she's saying, right?
You don't post to other people that you think that it's highly probable that they might just be a complete illusion, right?
I mean, that's not the act of a sane human being, right?
That's the act of somebody who thinks their imaginary friends have really come to life and are dancing around and offering them candy and so on.
So, does this stop, right, this fundamental doubt or lack of any kind of certainty when it comes even to reality?
I mean, that's sort of number one, I would say, that you'd want to get cleared away if you want to start making any kind of coherence in the world of ideas.
I think number one is you'd kind of want to get sorted out whether or not reality exists in an objective and external manner to your consciousness.
Kind of bare minimum, I would say, in terms of being able to speak coherently in the realm of ideas, right?
Like if you want to be a doctor, it's sort of important, I think, to figure out whether or not your patients exist or not.
If you can't figure that out, I'm not sure that you have any real right to be a doctor.
And I, for one, I will never meet this person.
Not Jenny. I will never meet this fictitious person who logically should exist, but never does.
But never does. I would love to meet this person.
And I were to sit down across the table and someone had said, you know, I heard maybe a rumor that this person was anti-Rand or anti-Rationality or anti-Plato or whatever, right?
And I would sit down across from this person and I would lean forward and say, so you think that Ayn Rand is really bad?
Or is a bad philosopher or whatever?
And this person would just stare at me.
And I would say, sorry, I'm not sure if you heard me.
I just wanted to discuss this if you're interested that you think that Ayn Rand is a really bad philosopher.
And the person would say to me...
You know, I feel silly even speaking out loud, because I don't know if you're a figment of my imagination or not.
So, I can't really have this debate.
I would say, well, just for a moment, you know, indulge me, pretend that we do have, each of us, an independent existence, that I do exist external to your consciousness.
Just, you know, humor me for a second, because I'm really interested in this.
I've heard it said that you think that Ayn Rand is a really bad philosopher.
Is that true?
And this person would say, well, I, you know, I don't know.
I couldn't conceivably answer that question.
And I'd say, well, why not?
I'd say, well, I don't, I'm not even sure that you exist.
And you're sitting right here in front of me.
And I've never met Ayn Rand.
I've seen a picture of her.
I've seen that she has some books that may be books that may be in a bookstore that I don't know.
I mean, I'm calling it a bookstore, though it may not exist in any way, shape, or form.
It might just also be, of course, a figment of my imagination.
So, if I'm having trouble believing that this table exists and that you exist, Steph, then how is it that I could conceivably have an opinion about Ayn Rand, who I've never even met?
So it would be inconceivable for me to have an opinion about Ayn Rand when I'm not even sure that you sitting right here in front of me and this table and this glass of beer, I don't even know if they exist, let alone some Russian woman who wrote books 50 years ago.
I have no idea. I couldn't even conceive of that.
And then I would be comparing her philosophy with what?
With somebody else's philosophy?
Well, that's like saying that the word Spanish is better than the word Fred.
It's just words. They don't connect to reality because I don't even know if reality exists.
So to compare one philosopher's words I've never met with another philosopher's words I've never met when I don't even know if reality exists, let alone the philosophers, let alone the language...
It's just going way beyond anything that I could ever conceivably make a judgment on.
Because I don't even know whether my body exists.
My hands, everything could all be a cunning illusion.
I could just be a brain in a tank.
And I might not even be a brain.
I might just be a cloudy collection of atoms in a gas somewhere.
So you're asking me to make a value judgment on a philosopher's writings...
When I don't even know if my arm exists.
That person, I tell you, brothers and sisters, I would love to meet that person one day.
I would slobber on that person like a Saint Bernard.
I really would, I would hump their leg.
And I would just kiss that person all over.
Because, finally, you would meet a subjectivist who took His or her opinion, seriously.
Who really believed in radical skepticism, or just skepticism, really, with regards to reality.
Because the amazing thing about Jenison, the absolutely mind-blowingly amazing thing about Jenison, is that she doesn't even know if reality exists.
She's not willing to commit to a statement that says, reality exists.
Existence exists in the Randian sense.
She can't commit to her body existing outside of her consciousness.
But she is absolutely certain that Ayn Rand is a terrible philosopher.
She can't judge If the nose in front of her face exists or not, is real or not, but she is perfectly certain that Ayn Rand is a terrible philosopher.
When you really work that into your brain, you will...
I don't know, I'm just giving you a moment to get the aha here.
I don't know if my body exists.
That's how little I know.
I don't know if my body exists.
But I'm certain that we should have universal state-sponsored education.
Do you get how wild?
How wild that is!
Do you feel it, brothers and sisters?
How mad it is!
I don't know if human beings exist, but I'm positive we should use violence to educate them.
I don't know if the planet exists, but I know that the government should protect nature.
That's it.
Oh, man!
Oh, it's just beyond words.
It is... It's absolutely beyond words.
Oh, my God, I'm going to faint.
Oh my God.
Oh my God, Jenny, you're killing me.
Ha ha ha!
Oh my god.
She says, politically I would place myself as a European liberal.
I support things such as the legalization of drugs.
I don't know if my body exists, but I know that Europe does.
I don't know if I have any flesh around my brain or I even have a brain, but I'm sure that I'm for gay marriage.
*laughter* Oh my god, I just can't fathom how people expect to be taken seriously.
And this... Jenny's just a victim of this brain-mangling educational system we have and this general nonsense that state-run education talks to the crap that it blows people's brains away with.
I personally think she's too far gone.
I don't know. I would be very surprised.
Because when you have certainty only in the realm of...
Attitude, and you have no certainty in the realm of metaphysics or epistemology, you're pretty corrupted, right?
You've kind of blown several fuses there, and I don't think that there's any logical way back from that.
But, man, I just can't believe that people expect to be taken seriously with this dog.
I mean, I know it's a short quote and maybe she can clarify it.
But I bet you she can't.
*laughs* I agree partially with Descartes' logic and that everything else might be an illusion, except I have developed into a complete proof of God and absolute morality.
So, I don't know if my nose exists in front of my eye.
I don't even know if my eyeballs exist.
But I believe in morality.
I don't know that human beings and entities outside my own consciousness exist.
But I do know how they should interact with each other.
I don't even know if they exist.
But I'm positive about how they should interact with each other.
I don't believe that human beings exist.
But... I have developed a system of absolute morality about how they should interact with each other.
Isn't that just completely mad?
Do you get... I mean, once you really simmer in this basic fact that seems very hard for most people to see.
Seems very hard for most people to see.
But I mean, I tell you, once you see it, it just blows your mind wide open.
I don't know if people exist.
But I know absolutely how they should interact with each other.
Do you get that you don't have a single goddamn right to talk about morality until you can talk about the existence of human beings?
Do you see how in the modern world of philosophy, and this is a student of higher education, I don't know if she's a grad student or what, but do you get how in the realm of philosophy these days, It costs you nothing to be a radical skeptic?
To be a subjectivist?
If you don't believe in any fundamental way, or you don't accept, or you can't commit to the very fundamental idea that existence exists, why are you talking?
Why are you talking?
Why are you talking about God?
You don't even know if people exist, and you're talking about an absolute proof of God?
It's madness, and when they listen to this hundreds of years or thousands of years in the future, they will look back and just think that we were all barking lunatics.
That we didn't have the sense to come out of the rain.
That we drooled over electrical wires and were shocked when we were shocked.
They will look back at our buildings and our computers and they won't have a clue how it occurred.
They will look at our technological achievements and compare it to our philosophical understanding and they will look upon us as we would look upon Walking in to a room with a puppy, seeing the puppy with a paintbrush in its mouth and an exact reproduction of the Mona Lisa.
You can't even stop peeing on yourself and you can do the Mona Lisa?
This is how we will appear.
I absolutely guarantee it.
We will look like complete idiot semence.
We will look autistic and hyper-specialized.
That we can do the most amazing technological marvels by pretending that reality exists, but when it comes time to reason or think about it, we completely short-circuit and start spewing the most insane stuff imaginable.
And they won't have any clue how our brains work, and they will be right not to have any clue about how our brains work, because they don't.
Because they don't. Because if you want to say, I don't even know if reality exists, that's fine.
Then don't talk. Or, if you want to talk, then talk about, I need to figure out a way to figure out if reality exists.
That's the first thing I've got to do.
The first thing I have to do is figure out if reality exists.
If existence exists beyond my consciousness.
If it's objective, if it's real.
I've got to figure that one out.
Let's work on that.
Now, maybe after I've answered that in a logical and consistent manner, then maybe I can start figuring out...
What are the principles that can be derived from the objective nature of existence and matter and energy?
Maybe logic, something like that, consistency.
And then maybe I can start to think about how I might be able to build a structure of thought that would compare what is in my head to what is out there in objective reality, the epistemology, the validation of truth and falsehood, and then I can start maybe thinking about the existence of human beings, the nature of man, and then I can start thinking about Social behavior, social organization, pleasure and pain.
Then I can start to think about applying the principles of logic and reality to human beings and how they interact currently so that I can observe for quite some time, study history, figure all that sort of stuff out.
And then maybe after 20 years, after you've figured out that reality exists, you can start talking about ethics.
That was my path. Maybe other people can do it much quicker, but...
But no, these people, and I know so many of them, I can't even tell you, they won't commit to the idea that reality exists.
They won't commit to the idea that their own bodies exist.
But they will waltz in casting about the most astounding orders about how to use violence in society.
They don't believe that people exist.
But they absolutely know that they should have guns pointed at them.
Do you see just how sick this is?
Greg had posted something a little while back to say, I'd like to get more of your thoughts on modern philosophy.
And this is a sum.
I mean, we'll do more once I start doing this full time.
But these are my thoughts on modern philosophy.
The modern philosophy shoots itself in the foot and then kicks you with it.
Modern philosophy does not believe that people exist.
It is so skeptical it doesn't even believe that people exist.
But it is absolutely certain that they should be thrown into jail for disobeying the state.
This is the tyranny of concepts.
It's the tyranny of concepts and the hatred of reality.
Reality limits you.
Reality is discipline. Reality limits you.
Reality crushes whim.
Or at least it makes whim whim rather than truth or whatever.
Because it's not up to Jenny, and it's not up to me, and it's not up to you.
What is the truth? Because the compared to what is reality?
Logic at least, reality at best.
But it's very hard for people to subject themselves to that discipline.
It really feels like a huge, glowing, glittering, magical, world-spanning toy is being taken away from us.
Our omnipotence is denied when we accept reality.
Eternal life, God, whim, fantasy, not imagination, all of it is denied.
I'd like everyone to be educated.
I'd like to teach the whole world to sing.
I want to be a pony. It's the random spoutings of impulse and whim.
It's nothing. It's nothing.
And people don't want to know that about reality.
Dream of water all you want in a desert you die nonetheless.
If you want the water you dig you get to an oasis.
this.
But you don't dream. You don't make things up.
I mean, you can, but it's...
It's what happens...
Sorry.
What happens when you dream is other people have to find you food.
This is a student who's being supported by the state in general, by the taxpayers at force, right?
She's free to dream because other people are forced to fund.
She's going to write to me and she's already going to post to me and say, no, no, no, I work three jobs to put myself through school.
Well, that's not true, though. I mean, I did too, but still the vast majority of my education was paid for by the taxpayer.
Yeah, I've given money back, but that's not true of most art students, so...
I started a company and contributed millions of dollars to the tax coffers, but we're still heavily subsidized.
So when other people are forced to pay, yeah, you can be whim-based, you can be dream-based.
This is the corruption of the mind that follows the force, that follows the violence.
If Jenny were working in a factory, would she be able to doubt the existence of reality?
No, but if you're sitting there jawboning in a library with a bunch of other radical skeptics and subjectivists on the taxpayer's dollar, yeah, you can dream up all the crap you want.
Imagine that you're contributing something of any importance.
When you're actually just corrupting the soul of the world by dreaming up all this nonsense.
And you can also just sort of end up with this, but you can certainly, I think, very clearly see...
That this is a manifestation of something that Ayn Rand writes about, which is that there are very, very many, quote, thinkers who are radically skeptical in terms of metaphysics, but rabidly, absolutely and totally certain in the realm of using force.
And this is a perfect example.
She's absolutely and totally certain that Ayn Rand is a bad philosopher.
Compared to what? Well, we don't know, because she doesn't even believe in reality.
But she's whim-based. Ayn Rand troubles her, or offends her, or bothers her, or upsets her, or someone has told her that Ayn Rand is bad.
And Ayn Rand is not respected in academia, so I'm not going to judge for myself.
I'm just going to judge by whether academia respects Ayn Rand.
I'm not going to think for myself. I'm not going to compare Ayn Rand to reality and find the overlaps and, yes, the contradictions.
I'm not going to take that effort on myself.
I just need to rely on what people in general in my circle think of Ayn Rand.
And then I'm absolutely certain because I'm in agreement with the people around me.
And no matter what you come up with that may be surprising to people in specifics, if you agree with radical skepticism fundamentally, then you are no threat to academia and you are no threat to the powers that be.
Oh, they feast.
This emptiness fills them up and, frankly, reloads their weapons.
And Ayn Rand pours quite a bit of scorn on those who do not accept the existence of reality, but who are perfectly, absolutely, and totally sure about the application of violence to people within that reality.
And the two are logically connected, of course.
I mean, we don't have to get into that now.
I mean, Ayn Rand explains it, I'm sure, a lot better than I could.
But it's really just amazing when you look at the philosophical principles that people speak.
They're serious. They're not kidding.
They're not fooling around. This is not an off-the-cuff comment.
She will not commit to reality.
This is why I say she's got to be unsaving.
She's not going to be somebody who's going to turn around.
She's not going to experience this as a benevolent correction.
She's going to experience virulent hatred towards me based on this.
She's going to personalize this like it's me talking.
But I'm not attacking this Jenny person.
What I'm doing, I do have a compared to what?
Logic and reality. I do have a compared to what?
And all I'm doing is comparing Jenny to reality.
And I'm also comparing Jenny, which is probably the most painful thing that I can do.
I'm comparing Jenny to Jenny.
And that's where she comes up the most wanting.
▲
Export Selection