All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 20, 2008 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:18:38
1153 Freedomain Radio - The Boot Camp #1: What Is Debating?

The first in a series on effective debating - audio to a video, available at http://www.blip.tv/file/1281765

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everybody, and thank you so much for joining the first ever Free Domain Radio Boot Camp.
I have shaved my head in advance in order to get into this role deeper, and I will, of course, be using the phrase, you maggots, quite a bit throughout the video call.
So I hope that, and I hope at least to work in the phrase, what is your major malfunction, son, or...
I guess the first thing that I would like to talk about with you guys, and I will be keeping my eye on the chat room, just in case anybody has any questions around that, is the question, what is a debate?
What is the purpose of debating?
And how do you know when you're in a debate?
Because there's kind of a blended interaction, some of which is debating and some of which is not.
There's negotiations, which are a kind of debate, but not the same intellectual pursuit.
So, I guess I'd just like to, you know, going from, we have Nash and Greg, Colleen.
Is Rich around? Is he? He's in the other room.
Listen, on the feed. Oh, he's in the other room.
Okay. He's shy.
And has professional concerns.
And Chewy. So, I guess if we could start with you guys' thoughts on that.
How do you know when you're in a debate?
What for you is the purpose of the debate?
And so on. That would be...
So, let's try and get Greg back.
Ooh, stunning new technology.
Otherwise, Colleen, it might be you.
Oh, I'll start?
Yeah, hang on just a sec.
We're just trying to get Greg back.
We dropped out. It's all too beautiful.
Oh, they're back. And he's a close-up.
And he's live.
Alright. So, we'll start with you, Nash, since you're on the left.
And we want to get to me, because I'm always right.
Oh, sorry. I can't believe people are not dropping off after that joke, but I'm sure that over the next one will happen.
So Nash, if you would like to, we were just talking about what is a debate?
How do you know when you're in a debate and what for you is the purpose of a debate?
Whether it's live or internet or whatever.
Nash?
You're muted.
Sorry, I missed that last part because we dropped out and I feel very interesting.
You know, we could just switch...
No, try it again.
It's alright. Alright. What for you is a debate?
How do you know if you're in a debate and what is the purpose of a debate?
Well, I guess, first of all, I know that I'm not in a debate if we're just each asserting things back and forth.
So, I guess one characteristic of a debate would be that we're actually trying to discover what the truth is rather than just making assertions.
Okay, so, I mean, just making assertions is not a debate, right?
Right. Okay, is there anything else you'd like to add to that?
Not yet. Okay.
Oh, Greg.
Greg.
Greg?
Not at the moment.
Okay.
Uh, Greg doesn't have anything to add at the moment.
Okay. Colleen? Colleen? I would say for me that a debate is a conversation wherein two people have competing ideas wherein we're trying to figure out which one is more valid.
And which one is more valid by that I mean which one conforms more to the evidence of reality and which is more logically consistent.
And I'd say, sort of, within a debate, you have to...
The reason you're in a debate is to discover, you know, the truth value of an idea, and you know that you're in a debate when you are...
That's basically it.
I had another... Hi, Charlotte.
Wow, it looks very similar over there.
Yeah, it does, except the only thing is it's 10 o'clock at night here.
Terribly sore to be late.
That's okay. We know you have a busy schedule.
Jake and I went to this philosophy meet-up thing.
It was awful, as you would expect, but we had a debate, as it happens, with this fellow who just would not give up.
Well, I guess we have to reorganize everything now because we're going left to right.
So we can do the bouncing path here.
The Dan Buster organization of debaters.
So Charlotte, the question is when we start talking about How to successfully debate with people, the first thing that I think is important to ask is, what is a debate?
How do you know when you're in a debate?
And that's the question that's floating if you'd like to throw in your...
I guess you've got a good example of what a debate isn't floating around in your head at the moment, but what are your thoughts?
Definitely, I mean, I would think it's not just sort of a civilized fight, which is what most people seem to think it is, you know?
It seems like it would be an interchange of ideas with the object of, I guess, not necessarily convincing the other person, but certainly presenting a rational and well-thought-out case for one's side or one's thoughts.
Obviously, I guess, you know, what was sort of lacking in the debate with this fellow tonight was, you know, either that there was sort of the absence of of an end.
You know, it was sort of a discussion where he he wanted to be correct.
And that was sort of the be all and all of his desires, which I don't think is actually the purpose of a debate.
But I'm not sure how to articulate exactly what that purpose should be.
All right.
Chewie? Did you ever get around to seeing the question in the thread?
No. Okay.
So my question was really like, what is the functional definition of debate from which we're going to start?
Because it seems that there's no right answer to the question, what is a debate, until we have a definition to work from, if that makes sense.
Sure. Because I could just ask, what is a Gorblev or whatever.
So Greg actually said one in the chat yesterday that I liked a lot.
Greg, do you remember what that was?
Greg? Don't saddle him.
Okay. Well, basically, the general framework of the definition was, you know, a debate is a form of communication in which competing points of view are posed and resolved in some manner.
So, I mean, I think that we have to have a starting definition in order to, like, you know, proceed, I guess.
But there is no right answer to the starting definition?
There may not be one right answer, but there are definitely, I would say, lots of wrong answers, if that makes sense.
Well, wrong answers with regards to getting a certain result in mind.
If the desired result is truth, then we have to have the definition that can meet the achievement of truth or attainment.
Right, that makes sense.
Now, I'm going to just ask a couple of questions because obviously you've got a brilliant crew here and you'll have smarter things to say than I will, I'm sure.
There are two things that I think of when I think of a debate.
The first is you could think of it as kind of like a chess game where you're working with predefined rules and there is a winner and there is a loser.
And that comes out of my time as a debater in university.
I mean, they have these time limits.
I often had to be felt by hawks with tranquilizer darts, but there are sort of set up rules and you win and you lose depending on your rhetorical skills, your timing, your engagement with the audience and so on.
That's sort of the lawyer side.
There's a prosecution, there's a defense, somebody wins, somebody loses depending on either some external or internal criteria.
So that's sort of the first model of debate.
It's sort of like a chess game with predefined rules and a winner and loser.
However, the other Way of looking at a debate, which I'm sort of beginning to favor in, hey, look at that, we have almost the same hairdo, except they're separated by about 30 years, I would say.
So, anyway, so...
Oh, sorry. So that's one way of looking at it.
Now, the other way to look at a debate is a mutual exploration of unknown territory, where you both get to a new place.
In other words, there's not position A and position B. These are the people who were in the call on Sunday?
One of them? The one on the right, right?
Yeah, this is...
That's Ruth. And this is Max.
And where's Josh?
And that's Josh.
Wait, you have one son named Max and not one named Min?
All right. Don't worry.
You know what? When even the ten-year-olds are rolling their eyes at your joke, it's time to move on.
But... So another way of looking at a debate, and I would say that that is the debate that has characterized, or the conversation that has characterized this show for the past two years, is that it's kind of a mutual exploration of new territory.
So rather than it being a chess game, you can think of it as sort of Lewis and Clark with webcams or Skype or a boardroom where we are in the conversation, we both get to someplace new rather than You know, viewpoint A or viewpoint B or some alternate viewpoint being sort of winning.
So the great thing about that sort of exploration idea of debating is that everyone gets something new, whereas in the sort of chess style or win-lose kind of debating, the person who goes in with the best argument comes out, the victor, but he hasn't actually gained anything new except possibly some new adherence to his view.
So does that make any sense?
Or is there a third kind of debate?
I mean, we all know the sort of ugly, vicious, trolly, nasty fights that go on.
But those aren't debates. Those are just, you know, mudslinging festivals.
But does this sort of make sense that there's a sort of chess version and an exploration version of debating?
Is there another kind that I haven't thought of?
Well, it seems that, I mean, in a way, good debating is like chess, in as much as the rules of logic and empiricism are the rules of the game, except they're like the broadest game possible.
So, yeah, I mean, in a way...
Did I get an echo?
Sorry, I just lost my train of thought because of that, so just go ahead, someone else.
I think the webcam is making your thinking fuzzy, too.
Anyway, so that's fine.
Let us know when it comes back.
This other... I just got it, sorry.
Oh, go ahead. Sorry, I just got it.
The good thing about a debate is that it's like an interaction in the free market, and that it produces mutual value.
So, you know, when there's trade, there are gains from trade that can be split between both parties.
In the same way, a debate's like an economic, in a very distinct sense, an economic transaction where something is created, or something is, some good is created for the people involved.
Right. So in that sort of old example that you give a dollar for a pen, that's a mutual advantage.
Both people end up with what they want through the exchange.
And it's more than what they wanted when they came in.
Because if I give you a buck for a pen, I want the pen more than a buck.
And if you do it voluntarily, you want the buck more than the pen, right?
Let me ask you a question just as you're having a drink.
Okay, others about this question of the model for debating exploration versus chess, or is there another one or thoughts about that?
I was just wondering what differentiates the exploration model of debating from like a conversation?
Wait, now we have a new term, conversation.
What do you mean by that? Oh, you mean just any conversation?
Right. Like, why would you call the exploration model a debate rather than just a conversation?
Well, a conversation can be, you know, where's the nearest gas station?
And, you know, that sort of call-and-answer thing, that I would characterize as a conversation.
I mean, I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question.
I'm just not sure exactly what it is yet.
I mean, I think you're onto something, if that makes any sense.
Look at that. We're exploring.
No, I think that's an excellent question.
For example, when we have a dream analysis conversation, and Colleen and I had one recently, that to me is a mutual exploration, right?
Right. But it's not...
It's not exactly the same as a debate.
However, there is a more right and a more wrong answer as we go through that exploration, if that makes sense.
So there is truth that we're in pursuit of, but it's a mutual sort of, how does this fit?
We're doing the goosebump test and all that.
So we are definitely in pursuit of a kind of emotional truth or a metaphorical truth that has resonance, but it's not the same as You know, I impose my analysis of the dream on you or vice versa.
It's not like a chess game, if that makes sense.
But we still are in mutual pursuit of an emotional truth in this instance.
Right. So that's a debate or not?
She's all about these black and white things.
Have you noticed that? It's chilling.
Well, I think that's an interesting question.
I don't actually know the answer to that.
I would like to say that there are elements of debate in it and that we're in pursuit of truth.
And if you think about, I think, the best elements of the conversations of Free Domain Radio, it is when we are applying principles, and there are principles to the dream analysis.
We don't just pull stuff completely out of our armpit.
But there are principles involved, but it really is a sort of mutual exploration.
But no, I would not say that that's exactly the same as a debate.
Christina is shaking her head, so clearly that's the answer.
Does that make sense? I mean, I think it is the pursuit of truth, but it's not exactly the same as a debate.
That's more of the fully in the exploration model, but...
Yeah, that's an interesting question.
Yeah, it's a great question.
So with the debate, it's more in the pursuit of an objective truth?
Honey?
I'm not even sure I would say...
I mean, definitely I think the goal would be the pursuit of an objective truth, but I think...
And you and I had a conversation earlier about what a debate is, which is why you didn't ask me when you went along and asked everybody else.
Go ahead. For some reason we can't see the actual Christina.
Come on, Christina. We're sort of jammed up in a corner here.
The study has not been very video-friendly since our last reorg, so...
I don't know, you want to? It's also very uncomfortable for me.
Yeah, she'd have to lean in and cut the fetus.
So I'm sorry. Who is actually in a wheelbarrow?
But I think that...
Hang on, sorry.
Hang on, sorry. With debating...
I think two people start off on different ends or different polarities and it's not just mere opinion that is being challenged.
It is using facts of reality to come to some conclusion.
So, yeah, it's a good question.
No, but with the dream, I mean, with the dream, I've certainly had conversations where someone has said, I think this part of the dream is about this, and I'll say, well, it doesn't quite fit because of this, and there is evidence that we work with within the dream to bring to a conclusion.
But with that one, we know the truth when we feel that emotional rush.
I mean, there is that element in truth as well, but it's a good question.
That's a good question. All right, does anyone else have any easier questions?
Do I have a dictionary?
I had a quick clarification I was looking for.
Earlier you had described debating...
I didn't catch all of this because I was still setting up, but you described debating as an exploration of the truth.
Is that right? You mean on this call?
Yeah. Yeah, I certainly said that there were two...
I just want to make sure we're talking about the same definition.
Yeah, I mean, there's the chess style where you come in and you have a perspective that's thought out and you're attempting to alter someone else's mind with reason and evidence, where your position doesn't usually change through the course of that, but there are other kinds of conversations where Your opinions do change or deepen or become enriched through the interaction.
That's more of a mutual exploration, if that makes sense.
Like if I go and debate a Christian, I'm not going to come out of that believing in mind-reading undead Jewish zombies.
So I'm not going to alter my position on that because reason and evidence is not going to change through the course of reality.
It's not going to change through the course of that debate.
But in a dream analysis, which is not the only but the easiest example of the exploration style of, quote, debating, it is sort of a mutual battle with evidence, with reason, with consistency, but I don't go in saying I know exactly what this dream is and I have to convince the other person if that makes sense.
Right. Well, I guess I was...
maybe the distinction for me then is the difference between exploration versus actual discovery.
Because it seems to me that the whole purpose of a debate, I mean, outside of the competitive university-style...
Podium debates.
It seems to me that the purpose, the whole purpose of a debate is actually to discover a truth, right?
Somebody has a theory or an idea or a series of arguments and you examine those arguments for their falsehood, right?
Not necessarily in an effort to win or lose, but to discover a truth.
Well, I don't think you can say that the more formal style of debating is around discovering the truth, because if I go in to debate with a Christian, I'm not going to discover a truth, other than that Christians are usually sort of not debating, which I already know.
But I'm not going to discover a truth, because I already have a truth, if that makes sense.
But that's...
Now, in a dream analysis, we definitely discover the truth, right?
Sure, sure, sure.
So what you're saying, then, formal debate, is absolutely not about discovering the truth.
It may happen accidentally, but it's not about, the purpose is not discovery of truth.
Right, right.
I mean, it may happen.
If you have intellectual integrity and your position is vested, then you will discover a truth.
But the person who's right has not discovered a new truth, if that makes sense.
They've come in with the truth and have won the day, so to speak.
Well, is that necessarily true, though?
I mean, if I have, say, a series of arguments that leads to a conclusion that I believe is true, All I have before the debate is the belief that it's true.
But once I engage in the debate and we determine that my series of arguments leading to that conclusion is actually true, then the belief actually becomes knowledge.
It goes from just a, I'm going to accept this as true until somebody proves me wrong.
To after the debate where it's like, well, it's truth.
I just know it.
Well, see, but the thing I would say about that is if you're honest, which of course would be the first intellectual virtue, you would go into that debate saying, I don't necessarily believe that this is true, but I'm holding this as true somewhat conditionally for now, if that makes sense.
Isn't that sort of what I was...
Right, but then to me that would fall under the exploration model.
But if you're actually walking through the arguments, one at a time with someone...
Then you're sort of engaged in a debate, right?
Well, sure, but there's a difference, I would say, or it suggests, there's a difference in a debate between something where you come in knowing that something is true, like there's no God or something, or the world is round or whatever.
You come in knowing something that's true, and your purpose is to attempt to illuminate that truth for someone else, as opposed to coming in saying, You know, I don't know, two biologists saying, well, I don't know if there's any such thing as ethics, but let's discuss it.
And there certainly is reason and evidence you would need to bring together on that discussion, but that would be sort of the exploration model, if that makes sense?
Right, sure.
So what you're saying, then, is fundamentally the goal of a debate is not to...
It's not to verify or to learn or to gain certainty about the knowledge you have.
It's to impart that certainty to somebody else.
Well, I think that if you're going to come in saying such and such is true, then yeah.
I mean, obviously, if it turns out that it's not true, then you've made a mistake somewhere.
You have to correct your Your perspective for sure, but most of the debates that I've ever had in my life come in with someone saying X is true or X is false, right?
I very rarely get, I mean, I can't even, except, I mean, with the people who are in this conversation, I don't really get debates where people come in and say, You know, I don't know.
I have this perspective.
I have a few arguments for it, but I don't really know if it's true.
I mean, I'm not saying it's impossible, but it is very rare.
I mean, maybe it's just me, but I mean, do you guys have those debates often?
Most people just hit the gas straight off a cliff edge.
That's sort of been my experience of debating.
Debate.
Well, let's take-- well, to turn that around for a moment, Greg, if you could just leave it into the webcam a little.
You're debating with your ear.
I'm sorry. Is that better?
If we take an example, like for example, your stance on...
You changed your stance on free will slightly...
Way, way back near the beginning of the podcast, if I remember correctly.
Not like a huge reversal, but I seem to remember something about the approach you took to it at first that you changed after a brief exchange with a board member.
I don't recall that.
I do recall being, I do recall talking about free will as axiomatic because it just made no sense to me that it wouldn't be.
And I certainly did have to go into more, much more detail about the free will position.
I don't remember changing my perspective, but I mean, it certainly could have happened.
I mean, because it was just something I've never really thought about before because it's like, well, of course there has to be free will if you're going to engage in debates with people and call them responsible for their thoughts and actions and say that there is a preferable state I think we're good to go.
Well, of course there is, right?
And then I was completely surprised.
I heard about all this compatibilist nonsense and all this determinist nonsense, and of course there was quite a lot of back and forth about that.
But yeah, I certainly wouldn't say that my position was well-argued to begin with.
It was just stated as an axiom.
Right, and I'm not bringing that up as just to...
Please, dear God, don't bring the determinist...
Don't put the base in the...
But as an example of where you were fairly certain...
Sorry.
No, I was just bringing that up as an example of where you came into the debate with a certainty, but because your focus, your goal is to know the truth through a reasoned debate, you... You were still able to change your viewpoint about that.
So it suggests that the goal of a debate is not just to assert a truth you know, and it's not even to educate somebody.
It's actually to learn the truth yourself.
Well, I think that's saying it's an either-or, which I don't know that it is.
I mean, I think you should come in with something that you believe to be true, or of course, if you don't believe it to be true, you should be honest about that.
And you should, of course, be willing to change your mind based on reason and evidence.
But of course, if two people are just coming in to learn, then no one's teaching, right?
So there does have to be that back and forth.
Does that make sense? Well, somebody's got to be willing to make an assertion.
If both people are asking questions, it's not going to go anywhere, right?
Right. It's the old, be it, resolve that, right?
And then you have to have a proposition out there.
So that's, I mean, those two models, I think they both have value.
But I would sort of suggest, well, let me put another way of looking at debates forward, and you can see if it sort of makes any sense to you.
Is it just me, or have you guys also noticed that debates are amazingly emotional?
One point, I think, and actually it's kind of a question, too, is under what model would be the style of debate where all sophistry is eliminated, where you try to represent your opponent's is under what model would be the style of debate where all sophistry is eliminated, where you try to represent your opponent's argument, or I mean, isn't that part of the exploration model to say, okay, suppose what you say is true, you know?
Yeah, I would definitely say so.
In general, you want to avoid the armed and opposing camps style of debating, except in one scenario, which I'll put forward either this show or the next show.
But if we can just go back to this, I mean, has it not been the case, now that we've all been debating philosophy in the free domain radio model for a year or two, haven't you noticed just how amazingly intense it gets very quickly?
Emotionally, I mean. Well, just the reason I brought that up was because there is a failure.
There's a lot of times where there's a failure to represent the other person's argument fairly.
And I think that stems from emotional causes, right?
Like a desire to win at all costs, right?
No matter if it's the truth or not.
Yes, yes, for sure, for sure.
And there is a psychological model which says, and I think rightly so, that if you have doubts about your argument, then you will be harsher on the other person's questions, right?
So if you're like, I don't know, like a religious person and you have, I mean, obviously every religious person who's sane has doubts about the existence of God because there's no evidence, right?
And what they do is they sort of repress and attack those doubts within themselves as evil, and then they then will attack other people who express doubts in the same model.
And the same thing can happen with objectivists and rationalists and libertarians as well.
So I'm not picking on the religious brothers and sisters, but there is that model which says, if I have doubts that I'm not expressing, I will be harsher on the other person's position, if that makes sense.
And that's part of what this series is about.
It's for me to take the devil's advocate position so that we can figure out if we have weaknesses in our arguments.
Given the emotionality of debates, I would like to put something forward just as a possible way of looking at debates as a whole and we can see if this model is useful or not.
I'm going to submit that a debate Is emotionally very similar to an affair.
Which makes me an enormous slut.
But we can come back to that.
But emotionally there is that kind of intensity that goes with an affair and I think there is a great deal fundamentally of vulnerability in debating when particularly when we're debating about core concepts like God, metaphysics, Not so much epistemology, ethics for sure, politics of course, family stuff and so on.
There's a huge degree of emotional investment, let's say.
It doesn't necessarily mean volatility.
I mean, we've all had strong emotional interactions, not volatile, but passionate, which have been positive.
So it doesn't mean that it's like a bad affair, but often it does become that way.
I think that when we think of a debate, the way that I've sort of tried to picture it sort of more recently in the free domain radio environment is to say, it's sort of like I have an online dating profile and people ping me, right? And they sort of will give me those nudges or whatever and they will say either Hey, that's a lot of skin.
I like that. And they will say that I'm attractive or whatever, and then maybe I'll email them back.
Or they'll sort of ping me and say, you know, man, you're actually stupid looking.
Want to have a coffee? I'm sort of trying to figure that out, right?
So when you get that invitation to debate, and this of course happens most often, at least live, on the board or in the chat room, you get that invitation to debate, I'm sort of trying to process it like...
Would I date this person?
You know, I just sort of erase the gender and all of those sorts of environments and say, okay, well, based upon how I feel on this initial interaction, would I meet this person for coffee and pursue a potential relationship with this person?
And the reason that I do that is, the reason that I'm trying that approach is because to me, there is...
An emotional intensity to debating and a vulnerability to debating and a kind of open your heartness to debating that occurs whether we like it or not.
It is simply the nature of interacting with somebody at that kind of deep level.
When we do talk psychologically about things like core beliefs, foundational assumptions and so on, those are very, very personal aspects of our souls, of ourselves.
And when you debate those things with someone, there is a very strong intimacy in that.
And the closest approximation, of course, it's not a perfect approximation.
The closest approximation is dating, because it's not like family, because with family you have history.
People you meet on the board, you don't, right?
So I've sort of been trying to work on that metaphor, and also the metaphor that when you debate with someone, You are, of course, saying implicitly, you are worthy of respect.
You are somebody who's intelligent.
You are somebody who's worth my time investing in a conversation with you.
You are someone I'm willing to submit my judgment to because, of course, if you go into a debate never believing you're going to change your mind, then, I mean, it doesn't go anywhere.
It's sort of pointless, right? So you have to be willing to submit yourself to the other person's judgment to put your core assumptions about reality and virtue and who you are to this other person's scrutiny.
That's a highly, highly emotional and vulnerable situation to be in.
And so I sort of think about the online dating metaphor or whatever, and I also sort of think about would I let this person drive my car with me in it in particular, right?
I mean, if somebody wants to drive your car, you know, when they show up and they're Stoned on PCP and really angry about something then you know clearly you wouldn't let them drive your car because that's that same kind of vulnerability where you're putting yourself in someone else's hands so to speak and so I've really been trying to figure that out like if someone comes up you know they're calm they're rational and you know do you mind if I drive your car with you in it and so on but you know when someone's aggressive or or unpleasant or difficult I sort of think well what I do I want to open my heart to this person Would I be willing to reveal my core beliefs and put them in this person's hands?
Would I be willing to let them drive?
And of course, in a debate about core beliefs, I mean, it's like you're letting them drive your car with you strapped to the hood like a dead deer, right?
I mean, you're not even in a seatbelt because it is that vulnerable and it's the only way that I can really understand the emotional volatility of these kinds of debates and how tense people get.
So, I think That the emotional vulnerability of debating and the risk that your heart sort of undergoes, particularly when you're debating core ideas.
I'm not necessarily saying, you know, debating about the role of the Fed or whatever, but we don't really do that too much anymore here.
But when you are debating about truth and beauty and virtue and so on, you know, when you get that typical thing, and it's not hugely typical, but it's relatively common.
You know, when someone comes along and says, You know, your theory is stupid.
To one degree or another, that's sort of what they'll say.
And then when you don't really want to debate with them, they say, oh, you're just running away because I'm right.
You know, that kind of stuff.
Well, I just, again, it's the sort of thing, it's like someone pings me and says, you're stupid and ugly, right?
Let's go out. You don't respond to them and they say, well, I guess I'm just too sexy for you.
You're scared of my sexiness.
And I guess everyone was just expecting for me to say that in the next podcast, right?
It's a phrase everyone's been waiting for.
Sorry for that little speech, but I just sort of wanted to sort of put that out there as a way of, the way that I'm sort of trying to process this kind of volatility and vulnerability that I sort of see going on continually with debates, and just sort of wanted to put that out there.
Is that just my experience? Do other people have that experience, or does that approach make sense to anyone?
Yeah, I mean, that's definitely one of the experiences that I've had.
And it seems like that sort of emotionality around debates manifests itself in a lot of ways.
I mean, there are those people who, you know, they just, they won't let a point go.
Or, you know, they say, yeah, I agree with everything you say, but...
Or, you know, then you get the people who get sort of...
Sorry, you're talking about Greg, right?
Just lean in a little.
Just you and I will talk about this.
Go ahead.
And then you, you know, sometimes you get the people who say, well, your mom's ugly!
Or, you know, just go to...
My mother does...
Well, whatever. You get the people who sort of, you know, they leave off...
Anything that could possibly ever be constructive and just go to the nasty ad hominems, right?
So it seems like that sort of emotionality can manifest itself in a lot of negative ways.
I was going to ask, is there sort of a way that you can think of to manifest that emotion in a positive way or a way that that can sort of help the debate or move the debate along rather than, you know, it getting to, well, you're so fat that, you know, etc.
Well, I've not found a way.
It's sort of like, you know, if somebody pings you and says you're You know, you're ugly and dumb on the internet on a dating site.
Is there a way to turn that into a positive dating experience?
I don't really think there is, frankly, because there is this paradox that occurs with people who come, you know, lauding it over people with the vast interstellar intellect that they bring to bear on the internet, right, which is this basic paradox, which is that, you know, people come and say, well, you know, UPB is dumb and DROs are fascists and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, right?
So they claim to be, you know, just staggeringly intelligent, which is great, you know, it would be wonderful if we could all kneel at their feet, right?
But of course, the problem is, if they are so staggeringly intelligent, why don't they know that that's a really bad way to present your ideas to people?
I mean, it's that sort of fundamental thing, you know?
So, it's that paradox that I think is a real problem.
Sorry, somebody was saying...
I was just going to say that that's kind of like the free market trade analogy for debating.
If somebody walks up to you and says, hey, can I have that pin?
You know, I don't have any money, but sure, could you give me your pin?
If they don't have a value to offer you, and so when they come up, they just start making fun of you or making fun of your position rather than actually debating the ideas.
Does that make any sense? Not particularly to me, though.
You may be onto something. Maybe I just missed it.
Go ahead with the pen thing again.
Okay, so you were saying that some people, when they come up to you and they want to debate, they come in and they start making fun of your position or making fun of you rather than actually discussing the topic.
I'm not saying they want to debate.
They don't actually want to debate, which is like if somebody were to come up and say, I want your pin, can we trade, but I don't have anything to offer you to trade.
They don't actually want to trade.
They just want to take your pin. Right.
Yeah, it's sort of like a con game or I guess you could say it's like negative economics.
There are basically two kinds of advertising.
One which says this is the benefit that this product will give you and the other one which says you're deficient if you don't have this.
I think that this style of debating is more negative economics.
You know, like, you're an idiot, but if you listen to me, I can make you not an idiot, which is sort of like, you know, you're ugly, but if you use this Botox, then you won't be, or something like that.
And I think it's more along that line of somebody, they knock you down, sort of like a priest, right?
You're evil and sinful. They'll knock you down, and then they'll say, but if you conform to my thinking, I will give you The respect of whatever.
Because you don't agree with me, you're an idiot, but if you agree with me, then I won't call you an idiot anymore.
That's sort of an appeal to insecurity and self-attack, which I don't think is really what I would really debate.
It's more like an assault, if that makes sense.
Right. It'd be like, instead of a free market trade, you just have some kind of...
It's the government violence in this scenario, though.
I mean, instead of saying, here, I have a value to offer you, and do you want to trade?
It's like, well, I'm just going to take your money, and then if you vote for me, maybe I'll give some of it back.
Yeah, or it's sort of like going up to someone and saying, you know, for a pen that's worth five bucks, you know, your pen is totally gay, and I'll only charge you five bucks to take it off your hands.
You know, if they can get you to believe that the pen is bad or stupid or whatever.
I mean, this is a bad analogy, but I think you sort of understand what I mean, right?
Like the ads about, you know, the complexion or whatever, right?
Or, you know, Nash's perm.
I mean, those kinds of ads will sort of say that, you know, I'm going to inflict a negative state and then I'll charge you to restore you to a positive state.
Like, you're getting old, Steph.
You're getting wrinkles and therefore you should get Botox.
And it's like, well, I didn't feel like it was old until I saw the Botox commercial and now suddenly I feel like I need to pay to get back to not feeling old, right?
So I think it's sort of like that where somebody will make you feel worse and then offer you a way of feeling better from a wound that they themselves have inflicted.
And that just to me is like, well, if I just don't care about my wrinkles, then I don't need the Botox.
And if I just don't care about somebody who calls me an idiot in one form or another, then they don't have anything to sell me.
Can I expand on that economics metaphor?
Who said that? Chewy.
Yes, please. From the crotch cam, we got a Chewy.
Hello, Steph. I'm live, but...
Chewy.
Okay, so... From the functional standpoint, like, what's good for me, right?
Like, you can take the economic metaphor a step further.
Like, let's say I enter into a business relationship with somebody, right?
And we're talking about, okay, how are we going to make the most money?
How are we going to market our product?
How are we going to research it?
And so on. And he's just telling me, you know, you're dumb or using all these sophisticated techniques, right?
That's bad for me because I'm not going to make as much money.
So in that way, too, it's not that somebody's, like, sort of giving you a negative...
Giving you negative economic incentives to change your behavior, but they are actually impairing you from achieving any positive value in your life, too.
There's an opportunity cost.
You could be working with somebody else who isn't going to call you dumb in a negotiation, right?
And you can make more money in the end.
And so, to tie it into the debate and truth, right?
Truth is like the profit in the free market.
And, you know, if somebody's just going to come and yell at you, right?
If you're interested in truth, he's not the right person to be talking to.
Yeah, I mean, that's sort of what I've said to people.
We had this thread with the fellow who was very aggressive.
And he said, you know, well, basically he said, I don't want to debate with someone who's aggressive.
And he's like, well, what does it matter what my style is as long as we get to the truth?
And I said, well, You can't get to the truth with someone who's aggressive, because I know, I understand the vulnerability of exploring core truths with people, and you simply can't get there if you're operating in a system of threat.
It's like saying, I'm going to yell at you until you love me, right?
Oh wait, sorry, that was the first 200 podcasts.
Sorry, what was that? No?
Okay. So you simply can't get to the truth or to anything that is positive in a state of threat, right?
I mean, the threat eliminates those possibilities.
So, no, I mean, I think that you're right.
I think that you're right. So I think that the debate has to arise, you know, there has to be a mutual respect.
And again, I said that there was one exception, which I'll just sort of mention briefly here.
I was on the Michael Badnarik show.
I'm actually going to be back on on the 25th, the first day of my 42nd year.
43rd? 43rd year.
43rd year. Anyway, and the reason that I'm going back on is not because I am going to expect that the rabid Christian callers are going to be converted to a more rational and empirical way of looking at the world.
But there are people who would be listening, who would be in the audience, who would be on the fence, right?
So I wouldn't have a one-on-one debate privately with any one of those particular callers, but when you have an audience, I think that the chess style of debating, you could say more assertive or aggressive or combative style of debating, I think can have validity,
if that makes sense. I don't have any particularly clear delineations, but I can tell you that When you do have an audience who can be swayed, then I think that you don't have to have an exploration necessarily.
If you have two people with opposing and fixed viewpoints debating before an audience, I think that you can have more of the win-lose style of debating and it can actually be productive in that environment, if that makes sense.
It's more of a competition and less of a practice, right?
It's like if you're two gymnasts and you're practicing, you can help each other out to become better gymnasts.
But then when you're in a competition, there's a win-lose situation and you both have to give it your all, so to speak.
Does that make any sense?
Maybe this would just be...
Yeah.
Maybe this was just me completely badly explaining what I had meant.
I mean, obviously you don't want to debate with, you know, the people who say, well, you're stupid and ugly, you know, right off the bat, right?
But if you get into a debate with someone who is, you know, me, for instance, I think that I'm, you know, otherwise kind of...
Maybe semi-sane.
But, you know, there's always a point in a debate where it gets to, like, God, you've proven me wrong!
And, you know, I don't really want to say, well, yo mama's so fat that.
But, you know, it's like this, you know, this energy that comes up like, God, I'm wrong!
There's nowhere to hide!
"Flee!" You know, that sort of energy that comes up.
Is there a way to use that better?
Yeah, I mean, I think that's interesting, and I think we've all been there.
My experience of being there has been when you're in a combative debate, then losing feels like falling off a cliff, right?
Because you've invested into winning and you know it's a win-lose and you've taken on someone who's oppositional.
Whereas Again, to take that contrary example, if we look at a dream analysis, if it turns out that something I'm talking about is just not even part of the dream, I just abandon it and move on, right?
Or if I say something, as I often say in the psychological conversations or continually say in the psychological conversations, this is just a theory, it doesn't mean anything, use it or don't use it or whatever, right?
If they then discard that, it's like, well, so try this sweater on, right?
If they don't like that sweater, it's not like I'm bad, right?
But in other situations where I have dug myself more into a position, then yes, absolutely, it feels like ripping your own epidermis off to admit fault.
And that usually comes when you're in a win-lose debate rather than an exploration.
In the exploration mode, I don't find that surrendering a position, because you've kind of never really taken a position, I don't find that surrendering a position is a big problem.
So I think if you get into that situation, I think it's important to figure out Whether that's a debate you want to be in, if that makes sense?
And how you got there in terms of getting to this win-lose place?
Yeah, I suppose it would sort of make sense to figure out exactly what you have invested in winning and why that's particularly important for you.
Yeah, certainly I would say that you're probably correctly...
Anticipating a kind of triumphant position, you know, the ah-ha!
You know, the balloons come down and Barack Obama comes out of your, you know, breast pocket or something.
I think that if you're in that kind of situation, then I think it's important to figure out how you got into that kind of oppositional place where you just feel the other person's going to do that, that, you know, thong-based victory dance that we all know so well in our heads.
Sorry, go on. What were you talking about?
The one that you did.
Oh yeah, sorry about that again to everyone involved.
So I kind of wanted to point out those kinds of differences.
I think I'm sort of trying to move more towards the exploration style of debating.
And this has really come out of my marriage because I never win.
Because there's no debating in your marriage.
There's no debating. Do you have to be next?
Anyway, somebody else please take over?
No, so I'm really trying to move more towards that kind of collaborative exploration, positive style of debating.
And it's come out of the psychological aspects of the conversation that we've had here.
It also comes out of personal stress.
I'm just trying to live a, I mean, excuse me, there's so much that's inherently stressful with Freedom Aid Radio for me.
Firstly, yeah. Mostly Greg, up there.
But there's so much that's stressful that I'm really trying to sort of cut back on those kinds of things in particular and work on a more collaborative and positive style of debating where, you know, in a win-lose debate, if one of you wins and one of you loses, that tends to be it, right? You're done for the relationship, right?
Whereas with a collaborative and exploration-based kind of debate, it really tends to grow through that kind of mutual respect for each other's abilities.
Sorry, just one last thing.
We've all seen those kinds of relationships, or maybe had them too, where they're kind of nagging-based one-upmanship relationships, you know, marriages, or boyfriend-girlfriend stuff, where it's like, and another thing, you know, where it's like one person wins and one person loses.
And it tends not to be that sort of mutual exploration thing.
And of course, based on the marriage template, which is the most successful relationship that I've had, or have, That's sort of a mutual exploration thing, and there really is a thrill of great knowledge.
And of course, the free domain radio conversations that have the most value to me are the ones where I learn the most, and that tends to be that collaborative style of conversation.
Obviously, I've developed six million new ideas since I started this conversation.
I'm not unrolling things that I thought of earlier.
It's because of this collaboration and sort of mutual stimulation, so to speak, that The greatest growth in knowledge to me occurs.
So I'm trying to reserve those chess style debates for when there is an external audience and work more towards this collaborative and curious style of debating.
I find those, I'm sort of gravitating towards those as more enjoyable and more productive.
Though that doesn't mean necessarily I won't I wouldn't be drawn back to the dark side or anything, but that's sort of the style that I have found to be the most positive and enjoyable.
And the relationships that are the best for me through Free Domain Radio tend to be the ones where there is that kind of exploration style.
It may be better, it may be worse.
It's just something that I'm sort of working on.
How do other people experience that style with me or with others?
Is it more productive, less productive?
Doesn't really matter? Well, my own experience has been...
Greg first.
We've had a ruling from the Shaggy one.
Greg first. Greg started first.
Greg started first. Greg, you got it under the wire.
Stimulate us. I was just going to say, in my experience thus far, the collaborative style, the collaborative approach that we've taken has been It's extremely gratifying for me.
I'm going to take just a little bit of an angle here myself.
There's the acknowledgement up front That you can't really avoid the emotional investment in positions.
No, you can't. And so traditional style debates try to pretend like that can't happen.
Like you can get behind these podiums and dryly and dispassionately argue a position without any regard to your own emotional investment to it.
And so... I think one of the things that the collaborative approach that's taken here does is to sort of make that explicit and say, look, there's no way you can avoid that, and so how do we use that in a productive way?
And I think that's what you were getting at, too, with the whole idea of making a debate something where both people...
Come away with more than they started rather than a win-lose situation where it's a closed-loop sort of economy of thought.
But one question I had for Christina, actually, is the emotional investment is the emotional investment in positions and arguments, things like that.
To what degree is that healthy?
And to what degree is that not healthy?
And how can you best...
Identify where the line has been crossed, if that makes any sense.
I'm so sorry, Greg. I missed the question.
Let's switch seats so you can...
No, I'm fine here. I missed the question because Steph was asking me...
I'm so sorry. Could you just repeat that last bit about what is healthy and what is unhealthy?
Healthy and what is unhealthy? Sure, absolutely.
Since we acknowledge up front here that emotional investment into an argument or into a position is something that really can't be avoided, that we all sort of internalize that as part of our identity to some extent, and to change a position is to, or to ask someone to change their position, is to sort of ask them to change themselves in a way, right?
So I guess what I'm asking is, To what degree is an investment in a position or a conclusion or an argument healthy?
And to what degree is it not healthy from a psychological standpoint?
And how can we sort of, within ourselves, detect when we've crossed that line?
I mean, that's a huge topic, I think.
I get the sense, Greg, that you're looking for, you know, for some black or white answer with the first part of the question.
Give me an equation.
I want a blood test.
I want a blood test. Greg's like a closet Dalek or something.
The only horse that Greg knows is the zebra.
Anyway. I do agree with a statement that Steph made earlier.
A statement? Sorry, go on.
That Steph made earlier about...
Maybe it wasn't even Steph.
I can't recall who it was.
I'm sorry. I apologize if it wasn't Steph and it was somebody else.
About needing to go into a debate, and actually it may have been you, Greg.
Needing to go into a debate with a position that I may not be right here.
I'm taking a position that I'm right, but it's not...
It's not confirmed.
It has not been validated.
It is not set in stone.
And so that opens us up to be more vulnerable.
It opens us up to be more open to...
Something about opening?
Yeah. To other ideas and opinions.
I think...
And sorry, the division to me there would be that we are not certain...
About conclusions, but we're certain about methodology.
Like a scientist, right? A scientist will say, this is a theory that I'm putting forward, I'm not certain about that it's true, but I am certain that it will not be disproven through prayer, right?
That you will have to use science to validate or invalidate it.
I won't accept chicken entrails, prayer, your Aunt Jemima's syrup bottle talking in your ear, that there is a methodology.
So for us, I mean for me at least, I'm not certain about certain things that I put forward, but I do know that Reason and Evidence, or UPB as a whole, is going to have to be deployed to prove or disprove anything.
I have a position.
I'm not certain that it is absolutely true, and I'm willing and open to To the debate or to being educated on something.
And I think where we get stuck is, like you said, when we sort of hang on to a position and...
I mean, it does become kind of crazed, right?
It becomes kind of crazed. It certainly does for me, right?
Yeah, certainly. You become kind of crazed and you become defensive.
And it's the kind of thing that Charlotte was talking about earlier where you want to sort of resort to, you know, well, your mama is kind of thing.
Well, and that's tough because my mama is.
So... But, you know, and I think when you do get to that position or when you find yourself...
Too many mamas here, that doesn't work.
It's like, oh yeah? What's that old joke?
It's like, you know, one guy says to another and says, sitting on the steps and says, you know, my dad could beat up your dad.
And the other says, really?
What would that cost me? Yeah.
See, that was always the thing I used in elementary school.
You know, people would say, yo, mama's so fat?
Well, yes, she is, in fact.
Right. So I think, you know, when you find yourself getting to that particular point, you need to sort of stop and say, alright, why am I feeling this?
What part of this argument or what part of my position has just been destroyed that I have to react in such an aggressive way?
Well, but even the language, position destroyed and this sort of stuff, right?
Yeah, precisely. How is it that I've ended up in a situation where the truth has become something I'm nervous about?
You know, like if I'm disproven and I have to back down or I have to give up my position that's bad or whatever, right?
How have I ended up in a situation where...
The possibility of being wrong, which is a constant companion to all of us, that the possibility of being wrong has become an enemy.
Where something has become a greater value or a competing value with the truth, that is, I think, a very difficult place to be in.
And I think it's important to figure out how it is that we get there.
And that's sort of why I'm trying to delineate these two styles of debates.
This is why I think...
When you and I had the discussion earlier, and you shared your thoughts with this crew today about debating being akin to being in a relationship, I think that there's a lot of truth in that, because we do have to open ourselves up, and we do have to be vulnerable, and we do have to be...
There has to be a tremendous amount of trust, I think.
Well, there is innately a kind of trust.
If you start to date someone, you sleep with them, you can't help but get attached in some way.
You can't help it unless you're a complete antisocial personality.
You can't help but get attached in some way.
It's the same thing with debating, that we have those deep I think that's why the deeper we go in terms of debating, the more secure and positive and cooperative the environment needs to be, if that makes sense.
Yes, I agree. At the moment there's a win-lose, a triumphalism, as Greg was saying, a closed-loop economy or a zero-sum economy.
If I'm right, you have to be wrong.
I win, you lose, I triumph, you are destroyed.
I think that is scarring, if that makes sense.
It's a reinfliction of unpleasant early things.
So, just a question I would have is...
Princess Leia, you had something you wanted to add?
Sorry, the headphones.
It looked like two black danishes on your head.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah.
Something I was wondering about was, if you enter into a debate wherein you are sort of convinced that you're right, I mean, and you just know through logic or something that your position is true and the other position is false, is that possible for it to be a collaborative debate?
Or if it is, how would you make that into a collaborative debating style?
Well, I think that's something that we're going to try and work through in upcoming episodes of the Boot Camp, which so far is not particularly booty, but is, for at least my part, somewhat campy.
But I would say that, I mean, the first thing that is always important to me is to start off with the definitions.
You know, what is it that we're trying to establish, and how are we going to know when we get there?
You know, if you go on a road trip, you know, you just sort of blindfold yourself in the car and hit the gas, right?
That doesn't work. Trust me.
So I think that starting with definitions and so on, right?
And if the person is willing to define his or her position, then that's great.
I mean, to look at the recent, when we recently got infested with nihilists, the fumigation was a 15-minute video saying, you know, here are the logical contradictions in nihilism.
They just don't come back, right?
So once those clear definitions are in place, then you find those people who want to have those debates and who are curious and open to debating those essentials.
I think that is really important.
I mean, I can think of countless examples where that has averted problems on the board, where one guy came along and said, you know, Steph, what's this word you keep using, valid?
What does valid mean?
You can always tell the emotional intensity behind these things, right?
And I said, well, you know, that which conforms to reason and evidence.
And he says, well, that just seems like a really amateur definition and never comes back.
It's like, okay, well, I guess you didn't want to play, right?
You didn't want to debate, right?
So, you know, when somebody puts the checker piece on the chessboard, it's like, okay, well, I guess we can't really play whatever game it is you think we might be playing, right?
So I think starting with definitions and starting in a friendly and positive way and seeing, but the most important thing, as always, is that self-RTR, you know, really, really figuring out how do I feel when somebody is posting?
How do I feel? And we've all had those threads, right?
Lord knows. We've all had those threads where You know, we're afraid to check, you know, because it's gotten heated or it's gotten volatile, it's gotten unpleasant.
And it really is, if you're enjoying it, then obviously there's no problem.
If you're not enjoying it, saying that this, I find this to be combative or unpleasant or I don't like this approach, it seems too confrontational, this is not...
Right? And then if the other person says, you know, you're totally right.
It has become unpleasant for me as well.
I do apologize, and you can both apologize.
Let's backtrack. I really do want to have this debate, but we went off on the wrong foot.
Let's backtrack and see if we can sort it out again.
That's wonderful. I mean, that's a mature, responsible way to deal with the mistakes that we all make when these kinds of interactions.
But if it's just like, oh, so now that I've proven you wrong, suddenly you're getting all emotional on me, right?
It's like, okay, well...
Of course, there's no obligation to respond even to that.
It really is around trusting your own feelings.
If you're having fun, then it's a collaborative and positive thing.
That doesn't mean that it's not always pleasant at every moment.
Sometimes it can be emotionally difficult, but not because the other person is being aggressive or unpleasant.
I think it really is just around checking with the self, being honest in the moment about your experience Of the other person, and if they can get through to honesty or empathize with how you feel, that's great.
But there's no way that I know to change anything except through just being honest about how I feel in the moment, if that makes sense.
Right. I guess the question is, do you have to have that degree of uncertainty in order for it to be a collaboration?
I don't think that you do.
I think then it becomes more educational than debating.
Yeah, you can definitely lead someone somewhere.
For sure, right? I mean, you can definitely lead someone somewhere if you're certain of your position.
You know, I'm certain that the Old Testament says to put unbelievers to death.
And I'm certain that Jesus said that every law in the Old Testament is perfectly valid and honorable and respectful.
So, you know, I'm certain that Jesus is affirming the law to put non-Christians to death.
Now, the average Christian doesn't know that, right?
So you can lead someone to that position, even if I'm certain that that's what he said, right?
So there's ways to lead someone more towards certainty, or I'm certain that taxation is the initiation of the use of force.
It's a violation of the non-aggression principle.
But you can definitely lead someone there, for sure.
And the challenge there, of course, is that they're also trying to lead you somewhere, right?
And that's where a lot of debates become difficult.
When they're trying to lead you to the social contract and you're trying to lead them to taxation equals force, that mutual pull apart, one of you has to give way.
I mean, obviously, if you're both just trying to pull, it's like a rope pulling contest.
People end up just falling down, one of them in the mud, right?
So in that case, if they're not going to follow you, you either have to stop the debate or follow them, right?
And say, okay, well, lead me to the social contract.
Make the arguments and I will attempt to disprove the social contract by responding to the position that you have.
And then if they are able to realize that there are contradictions in the social contract, then you can lead them away from the social contract towards the reality of taxation equals force or whatever.
But yeah, you can't both be saying, well, there can't be two Socrates in the conversation, right?
Because one of them has to lead and one of them has to follow in those kinds of debates, if that makes any sense.
But there's nothing wrong with following somebody to the cliff edge and saying, well, one step more, four, and we both fall into error, right?
Yeah, there was a question that I've had just sort of all along.
I know that most of the conversations that you have with people, they just sort of, they naturally find a level, they naturally find an end, right?
But specifically in the sort of adversarial, per se, but in the sort of chess-like debates that you mentioned, the thing that I always have a problem with is figuring out when somebody's won, right? So is that something then that you just sort of decide earlier, you know, like burden of proof or whatever, or how does that exactly work?
Yeah, if you don't have a criteria, If you don't have criteria for truth or falsehood, then all you're doing is table tennis, right?
It's not like table tennis ends in a fundamental victory of truth, right?
It's just batting something back and forth.
And that's why, you know, I always try to say to people who come in and say such and such is true, it's like, okay, well, what's your definition of truth?
What's your definition of reality?
How do you know when something is true and when it is false and blah, blah, blah, blah, right?
Because otherwise, all you're doing is manipulating symbols, right?
So you're just passing hieroglyphics back and forth, right?
So you need to have a way of knowing, if you're going to have those kinds of debates, a way of knowing whether something's true or false.
And there are very few people in the world who can Honestly, tell you that they know when something is true or when it's false.
It's really hard to figure that stuff out.
I mean, once you get it, I think it's relatively easy to implement it, but it's really hard to have a consistent philosophy based on truth and empiricism, reason, evidence, and so on.
So, when you ask people those questions, they're either going to be honest and say, you know, that's I don't have a good way of saying what is true and what is false.
I don't have a clear way of saying that and therefore I'm going to withdraw the other position and let's work on that problem.
Or they're going to say, well, it's reason and evidence, right?
Or not, right? And then you can just sort of keep asking them those questions.
So, okay, we'll know.
So if I prove that your argument is illogical, then you will withdraw the position.
Is that right? And either they're going to say, oh, yeah, absolutely, or they're going to say, well, that depends on what phase the moon is in and whether the Sagittarius is in the Jupiter orbit or whatever.
So it's just around building that Those standards of truth.
And if you can do that successfully with someone, then you can definitely have a very productive and enjoyable debate.
And the fact that we all have, I think, that same standard of reason and evidence and we've gone through the Intro to Philosophy series, we've been working these issues for months, if not years, then that's why we can move so rapidly, right?
Because once you get past those basics, I mean, as we can see, it's an ever-accelerating bobsled ride into the glacial bowels of blue truth.
Sorry, metaphor got away from me.
Anyway, but there is an ever-accelerating, it's an asymptotic rise of insights and understandings once you get the basics down, but if you can't get those basics down with someone, then people just get exhausted and withdraw.
The relationship just ends, right?
It's like if two people just nag each other forever, they either sort of live in misery or break up, but they don't ever come to a productive resolution about the quality of the relationship.
That makes sense. That's, you know, exactly the problem that we have with this fellow tonight, right?
It's like, okay, well, you know, your argument's invalid.
But, you know, I think it's true, and here's another reason.
You know, it was just sort of, you know, it's not quite useful at that point.
Well, it is useful, I would submit, but not if you keep debating.
I mean, it's useful to say, hey, I think I found an exit from this highway, right?
But if you just keep driving on the highway to nowhere, then you're just burning gas, right?
Right. I mean, you have found something out, which is, you know, I don't want to debate with this fellow ever again.
Right. And what you can also do with that kind of person is to say, what are you feeling at the moment?
You know, what's your emotional experience of this interaction?
If I say that I've disproven your argument, how does it feel to say, well, I should rethink things then?
I mean, you can definitely RTR with the person and try and get an understanding of their emotional state, right?
Because, well, I'm going to work on this in the next book, but 95% of philosophy is actually psychology, right?
Because the basics of truth aren't actually that hard.
But getting across from them is...
I mean, taxation equals force, as I talk about in my new book, it's not hard, but it's almost never believed.
That's a very important empirical fact for us to work with, that psychology trumps philosophy just about every single time, and that's why we focus so much on the emotional side of things in this conversation.
I think that we should all recognize the degree to which Nate and Greg look like they're on an album cover for something entirely folky.
Nash. Sorry, Nash and Greg.
Just wanted to sort of mention that. It really does look like the cover of a folk album.
Am I wrong? I quite agree.
I quite agree. All I need is, you know, a guitar and a banjo or something.
Sorry? Oh, God.
There we go. There we go.
I think Craig will be better on the banjo.
Yeah, definitely.
Yeah, it is a hoedown of near biblical proportions.
Just wanted to mention that. That really does look that way.
Nash still looks... Sorry, Chewie still looks like he's transmitting from mirror.
I'm waiting for R2G. It's like the lighting and the seating.
It's a great combination.
And I still look very similar.
To a giant thumb.
Just wanted to mention that.
We haven't done that in a while.
I actually meant to put the little eyes and faces on.
But it is eerie.
Because I haven't got much of it.
Anyway. So that's all I wanted to get through for the first of it, just so we could understand ways in which we can explore counter positions in the future.
And I thought that we could start off next week with me taking the pro-social contract side and attempting to take out a contract on most of you.
If that sounds like a reasonable approach, then we could start that.
I'm certainly happy to do other topics that we could do.
I could take the pro-existence of God side or pro-possible existence of God, but I think the social contract is the one that we're dealing with the most.
And then, so the idea is to sort of, you know, I'll take that pro side and try and win the case, so to speak, and if I can't win it, that's great, then we've got a great example of how to counter these, and if I can't win it, then we can figure out where things went awry, so to speak. Sounds good.
All right. Well, thank you very much.
I think Greg and Nash have a concert.
Colleen has to flee Darth Vader.
Chew Garris has to adjust his webcam in ways that we can barely conceive.
Charlotte is just about to face the dawn, and I'm getting hungry.
So, thanks everyone so much, and we'll pick this up again next week.
Good night, all. Bye.
▲
Export Selection