All Episodes
Previous Next
May 25, 2007 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
23:18
771 The Opposite of Truth
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good afternoon, everybody. Hope you're doing well.
It's Steph. It is time for us to have a little shopping.
This is a dry run.
I don't know whether I'm going to keep it or not.
But I'm sort of very much focused on something that I think is important for us to talk about at the moment for reasons which will hopefully become clearer over time.
And the main reason...
Actually, no. Forget the main reason.
What I would like to talk about is the question...
Of the opposite of truth.
This may, maybe, maybe, maybe, might make clear some of my vehement, perhaps, nay, almost intransigent opposition to certain kinds of thinking or certain aspects of thinking around agnosticism and the Ron Paul thing and so on.
Which doesn't mean that it's right, it's just, you know, this is a perspective that I hold and you can tell me whether you think it has value.
Now, I'm going to take into account some of the minor criticisms that have been leveled at me, which I think are not entirely wrong about being overdramatic, so I'm not going to have a big rolly setup to the topic of the day, but we'll just sort of start right up with it and dig straight in.
Well... What is the opposite of truth?
Well, clearly, the opposite of truth is not a differing argument.
Clearly, the opposite of truth is not just an argument that is different.
And this is true when you Talk to an unreconstituted religious person, somebody who's just been oh-so-religious and has never really encountered any opposition to the ideas around religion.
And they say to you, well, you know, have you found Jesus yet?
And you say, well, let me check my pockets.
And you also say that, you know, you don't believe or you may have the argument.
The person who puts forward the positive statement...
God exists, Jesus was born of a virgin, and so on.
This person, in my opinion, is not the opposite of truth.
Why? Because he's putting forward a knowledge statement of certainty based on a methodology.
Somebody who says God exists is putting forward a knowledge statement of Based on a methodology, the knowledge statement, God exists based on a methodology of faith, revelation, it was in a book, I've been told, I had a vision, I fell down, went boom, woke up, and there was the Virgin Mary squatting over me and healing me.
Well, that is a truth statement that is put forward, which is based upon a methodology.
As such, well, it's not really a bad or the opposite of what it is that we talk about in terms of philosophy.
I mean, naturally, I think it's an incorrect truth statement, but it is a statement of truth that is not ambiguous, that is not hedged.
God doesn't kind of exist.
God does exist. Based on a methodology of faith or revelation or whatever.
Or, you know, if they're trained in medieval philosophy, some Augustinian ontological proof or something like that.
But a positive knowledge statement is being put forward based on a methodology that is considered to be objective or considered to be empirical or considered to be something that's not just mere opinion.
That's not the opposite of truth.
Error is not the opposite of truth.
Because, Lord knows...
The truth is so heavily bound up with error that to call error the opposite of truth would be to make truth impossible.
So I don't think that is something that we really need to worry about as far as that goes.
Now, when somebody says the state is good, the state is necessary, the state helps the poor, the state does X, Y, or Z, and that is good, well, what's that?
I think you get the habit.
I think you get the hang of it. This is a knowledge statement that is put forward based on a particular methodology.
The knowledge statement is the state is virtuous.
The methodology is, well, that's what they tell me.
That's what the government tells me.
That's what the public school teachers tell me.
I mean, it's not usually couched in that, but generally that's the flavor that's hanging around, right?
So a knowledge statement is put forward where Marxism is not the opposite of capitalism.
Statism is not the opposite of anarchism.
Anybody who puts forward knowledge statements based on a methodology of which said knowledge statements are absolute is not the enemy of philosophy.
So that's something that I'd sort of like to establish first.
Now, compared to what, right?
It's not the question we have to ask, and I would submit rightly so.
So, compared to what?
What is it that we're comparing this knowledge statement to?
Well, somebody...
Sorry, just one more example.
I have to do the priests, the politicians, and the parents.
My parents are good.
I should forgive my parents.
It is moral to forgive my parents, it is moral to turn the other cheek, and it is moral to go and have, you know, they did the best they could, whatever.
People are putting forward knowledge statements based on a methodology that is subjective.
That methodology, in the case of forgiving parents, is almost always based on a sentimentalized view of certain tenets within Christianity.
Not so much the Old Testament view.
Actually, it's a little bit honor thy mother and thy father.
So, these people, we often think of them as enemies.
Now, why? Why do we think of them as enemies?
Or at least, I shouldn't say, what do I know about what you think?
Why do I think of them as enemies sometimes?
Why do I fall into that habit?
Well, I fall into that habit because, of course, when you know that somebody's in error, it does get a little bit tiring to sort of correct the same errors over and over and over again.
And... Because there is a pretty ghastly thing, I think, that occurs when you debate with people about things that they have a pretty strong investment in, as far as knowledge statement goes, right, so God exists, my family is virtuous, the state is good, and so on.
People have a pretty intense relationship to these propositions.
This is not a, oh, is Borneo over there?
I thought it was over there. Oh, is it Mumbai?
I thought it was Bombay. I mean, these are not heavily invested knowledge statements.
People don't invest their mythology in that, their virtue and their stories and all that kind of stuff relative to some more recent podcasts.
So, when you start to talk to somebody about a highly volatile or a highly embedded mythology that they have sort of cast their lot in with, then there's a lot of...
The first thing you get, of course, is that somebody says, well, no, it's not just my opinion, it's a fact, right?
So they establish that it is a knowledge claim, right?
There's a knowledge claim based on objective methodologies and so on, right?
So it's not... Just an opinion.
Nobody says the state is good and that's just an opinion, like I like ice cream or something.
They say the state is good.
They're identifying a fact external to their consciousness based on an objective methodology.
And then, of course, when you point out to them that what they consider to be an objective external methodology is far from it.
Is far from it.
And then it turns out that it's not anything that's real that should be respected, but rather just rank opinion dressed up in the scientific method.
So, that is a process.
You can't guess that. I mean, that usually happens, doesn't always happen.
I mean, you do get people who change their minds, and we have some highly noble examples of people like that here in this conversation.
But the people who put forward that kind of knowledge claim statement, they're not the enemies of philosophy.
Because they're saying, yes, truth is important.
Yes, a methodology is important.
Yes, truth is better than opinion.
They're putting all of that forward.
And that's what they're basing their knowledge claims on.
That's how you know it's a knowledge claim, not an opinion.
An objective methodology. Empiricism, rationality, and science.
Now, I'd like to...
Sorry, and then because they have put that knowledge claim forward as something objective and scientific when you give them different evidence...
Or different rationality or different evidence than what they've been working with, then they do face that highly, highly momentous choice that people hate us.
I mean, I just really do.
I could be wrong about this, but looking at my inbox over the past 18 months or so and certain times on the board, I mean, people really do hate us for putting them in that situation, right?
Everybody wants to tool through life thinking that their prejudices are facts.
I mean, that's... That is a hellishly joyous situation for people to be in.
And they want to pass off their prejudices and their inherited bigotries as facts.
And when somebody comes along and says, Oh, you know, tell it to me like I'm three years old.
I don't understand. I don't know that these things are facts in the way that you do.
Well, they don't like it at all.
They don't like it at all. And why don't they like it at all?
Because they know that it's not true, what they believe.
But some people, of course, do like it very much.
Some people say, geez, you know, I was sleepwalking and some philosopher came along and jolted me out.
I'm so much happier.
I mean, it was hell, but I'm glad to have it to be alive, enjoying this kind of stuff, and so on.
But the enemies of philosophy are not those who claim to have a methodology and can make knowledge statements.
And by making a knowledge statement...
They are implicitly saying, it's more than implicitly saying, but they're definitely implicitly saying that certainty is possible.
And not only is certainty possible, but certainty is necessary.
That certainty is necessary for determining truth from falsehood.
You can't just sort of make this stuff up.
That certainty is really, really necessary.
And certainty is derived from some objective methodology.
That's how you differentiate opinion from fact and truth.
So, as we sort of move along through this particular aspect of the conversation, I think that we can fairly safely say that when somebody first puts forward a knowledge claim statement to us, That they are not a confirmed opponent of the truth yet.
They're not a sort of confirmed enemy of the truth.
And I know this all sounds very, you know, talkamada-ish, but just bear with me if you don't mind.
You can throw your iPod down and discuss when we're done if you think that I'm speaking out of tone or irrationally.
But when somebody first puts forward that knowledge statement, they're totally on your side.
They're totally and completely and beautifully and wonderfully on your side.
And I think that's something that we should enjoy more or take more pleasure in, I think.
You can let me know what you think, but I think that it's a good thing for us to be able to take some real pleasure in that.
And somebody comes up to me and says, God exists.
I'm like, praise be, brother!
I mean, I think that's fantastic.
You believe that knowledge statements are valid.
You believe there's an objective methodology.
You believe in certainty. I mean, it's all good stuff.
But it's all good stuff.
That's what we want.
That way I know that you're not just a subjectivist, right?
So... I think that we should welcome that and be pleased with that and be happy with it and so on.
So, next, what we can look at is where this all begins to break down.
Now, for some people this breaks down in the conversation, and for other people it breaks down...
it has broken down before the conversation has even started.
And what I mean by that is that then when you begin to, I guess, press someone...
On their problems, on the logical problems for their methodologies.
If somebody says God exists, and you say, oh, you believe that God exists based on an objective methodology, and blah, blah, blah, then you begin to sort of cross-examine them, to question them, and things begin to go to hell in a handbasket relatively quickly, and their rationality and their common sense, like it all breaks apart, and so on.
And then, of course, they face the challenge, right?
They face the challenge. And the challenge is, well, I thought this was true, and now it is not.
And based on the methodology that I've put forward, I mean, if they're not just putting forward rank faith, which is not a very good argument to get into, I say, well, geez, I thought it was true, but it's not.
It's not true. And then, of course, this is the precipice over which they hang, or the choice, the fork in the road, which they can take.
And one aspect of that fork in the road is to say...
Well, it's not true that what I believe is true is not true.
So it usually takes...
It's a certain shock.
There's a certain kind of shock that comes from that.
And they either will regroup and then reestablish the crazy ideas, which are now revealed as crazy because there's no evidence and blah blah blah, But they will sort of regroup and then start to attack back and do all this kind of stuff.
And that, of course, is not going to be very nice or healthy.
And then they sort of recognize that.
They throw out the methodology.
So they keep the knowledge statement.
God exists, or the state is good, or my family is...
I should forgive my family.
They throw out the knowledge statement. Sorry, they keep the knowledge statement.
They throw out any objective methodology.
Then they've just blown their mind, right?
Very fundamentally, they've just blown their mind.
Because they say, well, my beliefs are based on this methodology, but I'm going to keep the absolutism of that belief while throwing out the methodology.
It's like ripping the engine out of your car and then pretending to drive somewhere.
I mean, it really is mad.
But this is sort of what people do if they've been too heavily...
...traumatized by their families or this kind of stuff.
If it's been just too awful for them for words, and their brain has sort of been futzed to begin with, then they'll take that approach.
Now then, of course, they do become...
I mean, this is the transition point I'd sort of like to suggest.
They sort of do become the enemies of truth, because they wish to retain all of the value of objective truth while throwing out the methodology...
Which they themselves have put forward as the way of establishing that objective truth.
And that is, you know, that's the enemy, right?
The opposite of truth is not doubt.
I mean, there's two opposites to truth, in my opinion.
I know that's not exactly mathematically correct, but bear with me.
The first is to say that truth is impossible.
Truth is impossible.
That is the real opposite of truth.
To say that truth is impossible.
Because if you say that truth is impossible...
Then, without a doubt, you are entirely shutting down the conversation with regards to truth.
If you make an error in your truth statements, then you're not opposing truth.
You're just making a mistake, as Lord knows we all do.
But, if you say that truth is impossible, then you are really the enemy of truth.
Then you are really, really the enemy of truth, and then that means that you've become really, really, as far as I'm concerned, really poisonous to the discussion of philosophy.
That's nihilism. Nihilism is more dangerous than error.
Nihilism is more dangerous even than those who keep the conclusions but throw away the methodology.
Nihilism... It's more dangerous than even people who keep the truth but throw away the methodology, who say, well, yeah, you've just proven that God exists, but I don't care.
God still exists. At least they're still making positive knowledge claims.
At least they're still making positive knowledge claims.
Let's be happy for that, right?
I mean, that's not too bad relative to there's no conceivable possible such thing as truth.
There is no conceivable, possible such thing as truth.
That is a really awful and terrible thing to get involved in, to sort of believe.
There's no such thing as truth.
That's the opposite of truth. The opposite of truth is not falsehood.
The opposite of truth is not error.
The opposite of truth is not blind assertion in the absence of evidence.
I mean, those are all mistakes to varying degrees of corruption.
But they're not the opposite of truth, because they still say that truth exists and truth has value.
I mean, it's horrible all around in the way it's put forward, but that's still saying that truth exists and truth has value.
But when somebody becomes a nihilist, when somebody says that truth is impossible...
That's kind of like a plague, in my view.
And again, when you run into a nihilist for the first time, they may just not have ever received any particular criticism of that nihilistic approach.
So, on the radio show last weekend, there was a gentleman who was very keen on this, you know, there is no such thing as truth in the realm of God because there are these other dimensions.
I mean, he just may never have Come into that, right?
You come across somebody who was able to semi-competently argue the opposing position.
But, so I don't sort of count the first time you talk with someone, but then when somebody continues on with that falsehood statement, when somebody continues on with that falsehood statement, or the no-truth statement, the no-certainty statement, that really is horrendous, right? That person is kind of like a plague, and the worst kind of plague, right?
And I don't, I mean, I don't put the wrong people, again, forget whether it's pro or false, it's just sort of my opinion, right?
But the people who are agnostic, to me, fall into that category.
Again, not the first time they encounter any strenuous or staunch opposition, but when they run into somebody who can argue the opposite case...
And they continue to sort of hang on and plug on with this, I'm making a positive knowledge claim that there can't be any such thing as a positive knowledge claim, and so on, then they are, I think, dangerous, like in a very, very fundamental way.
And those are the people that I have the most, well, I'll be frank about it, might as well.
These are the people that I have the most hostility for.
The people who say that truth is impossible.
They're the people who make my job much more difficult than all of our jobs, if this is what we are interested in talking about.
They're the people who make all of our jobs that much more difficult.
That much more difficult.
And those, I think, people are the ones that...
It's kind of, for me, like no mercy after a while.
You know, like this is...
If there's any area where I'm really tempted to not be gentle, I mean, other than sort of outright hostility and abuse that I may be receiving, and this may completely be an emotional problem of mine, I don't think it is, but I'm certainly willing to hear arguments of the contrary, but when I run into the nihilists, I mean, the people who change their minds based on reason, fantastic.
The people who throw out the methodology and hang on to the conclusions as if the methodology were sound, kind of annoyed.
But they just go back to making positive truth statements.
to a non-philosopher, somebody who says God exists, they're still making a truth statement, they're still saying truth is possible, but a nihilist completely detonates someone's capacity to believe in the truth.
This is the post-modernism, right?
This is not a small problem as it sounds.
This is not isolated.
This is a whole post-modernist movement, which we'll get to in an upcoming podcast, but this is the really hellish stuff that goes on in the post-modernist world.
There is no such thing as truth, everything is mythology, everything is perspective, everything is story, there is no such thing as compared to what, other than perhaps somebody else's story, but that really is the opposite of truth.
That really is the opposite of truth, which is the, not error, not falsehood, but the argument, which is self-contradictory in the extreme, the argument that no such thing as truth exists. the argument that no such thing as truth exists.
So, I hope that at least clears up my perspective on this.
Thank you so much for listening. I will talk to you soon.
I look forward to your donations. It's been a little thin lately, so if you can come up with a few shackles, I would hugely appreciate it.
▲
Export Selection