All Episodes
Previous Next
May 20, 2009 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
28:09
1360 Arguments against Philosophy
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, good afternoon everybody.
It's Stéphane Molyneux and Isabella Molyneux.
It is, I think, the 20th of May 2009 and Isabella is five months and one day of age.
Like an exquisite wine.
So, it's going for a short walk around the neighborhood and I thought I would follow up a little bit on the conversation I had with Mr G. Which was the previous podcast.
If you're out of sequence, oh, sucketh to be thou.
But go back one, listen to that, and come back.
So, the case against philosophy, I think, is important to make.
Well, for two reasons. One, well, three.
One, that it's a very good case to be made against philosophy.
And the second is that we are already making this case for ourselves in our heart of hearts.
And third, it is also important because...
Other people will have this case, either consciously or unconsciously.
And the more unconscious their case against philosophy, the more it will trigger our case against philosophy, which we will attempt to overcompensate with aggressive, often, or passive-aggressive approaches, which will not help them or us.
So, well, hello Mr.
Sprinkler, how refreshing. Alright, let me get this thing clipped, and then we are good to go.
So what is the case against philosophy?
Well, the very first line of my very first book on the subject, on truth, was something about this is going to mess up your life, right?
And it does. It really does.
We are social organisms.
We exist within an economic ecosystem which requires the pretty solid agreement and positive responses of others.
And when the world is full of illusion, And it is less full of illusion now than it has been in the past.
We do have the mighty bulwark of science, which has proved empiricism and rationality relative to superstition and bigotry beyond a shadow of any reasonable doubt.
And I don't think really philosophy could have taken the leap forward without the technology and without the example of science.
So, we face a great deal of challenge when it comes to being philosophers.
It messes your life up.
I mean, I was a high-flying executive and now I scramble to get by on donations.
I was a business owner and now I walk the streets yelling at a microphone.
And I used to have employees and now I don't.
I used to have a career, and now I have a calling, which is less lucrative but infinitely better.
So, there is a very strong case to be made against philosophy.
And in a sense, it's important to understand the case against philosophy.
And I would say it sort of goes something like this.
And there's a number of different ways of approaching it.
We'll try a few different of these hats on and see if you've heard any of this stuff, either within your own mind or from other people before.
So, the cynical and angry case against philosophy is, look, I know that you're all high and mighty on this philosophy business, and I'm sure that it satisfies your ego in some obscure and frankly boring manner, but the reality is that it's just a pompous bunch of windbag nonsense that you enjoy posturing around with.
You need it to make yourself feel superior To other people, it is a pitiful way of trying to one-up people, since obviously you were the last kid picked for every team in the playground, and now you strut around with your moral superiority and your invented rules and standards looking down your nose at everyone else.
It is a pitiful reaction of a crushed ego to bounce back in this kind of abstract, embarrassingly Self-righteous way, and so you can have your little philosophy gig if you want, you can wander around and condemning and cursing the world and feeling morally superior to everyone, but I think that's just a pitiful kind of fundamentalism, and leave me out of whatever grandiose and humiliated delusions you are currently working out in this stupid way.
And of course that speech can go on for quite some time, but we all know that kind of stuff.
Pampous, illusory stuff we're just making.
Making up rules that make us superior and everyone else inferior and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
We've heard that sort of cynical, nihilistic thing.
And then there is the nihilistic but less aggressive thing, which is, hey, you know, whatever floats your boat, whatever gets you through the night.
If you find that this kind of philosophizing helps you to sort of get through the day and gives you a sense of belonging and gives you a place to go and, you know, it gives you people with similar interests to talk about.
Uh, great! You know, who's going to deny in this veil of tears the little rays of sunshine that conformity and subjugation to whatever is floating out there gives to people?
Why not? You know, it's as good to have these rules as it is to have any others, and if these rules make you happy, and believing that these rules are the only rules that make you even happier, I'm not going to be anyone to say that there's anything wrong with that, because if it makes you happy, you know, join with me and Mrs.
Crow, And we will sing the song.
Miss Crow, I guess. So, that's the sort of, if it floats your boat, even to think that it is absolute when it is not, then go for it.
I'm not going to argue that it's not, because clearly you need it in some way, and it makes you happy and good for you.
That, of course, is very anti-philosophical and in a subtle way even more anti-philosophical than the former one, which is so obvious.
The nihilistic aggressive, the nihilistic subjectivist, the nihilistic sucker is the other one, which you'll hear.
It's another one that you will hear quite consistently.
And it sort of goes something like this.
Well, look. So, you found some guy on the internet who is selling his own self-published books, and he's claiming to be God's gift to philosophy, and, you know, he's strutting around in his little study, claiming to have solved all the problems of the universe and to have revolutionized every field of thought known to man, and he, shockingly, surprise, surprise, he wants donations.
I think there are better uses for your money.
There are deeper thinkers who actually have been peer-reviewed.
There are more consequentialist people who aren't so embarrassingly jovial and ridiculously self-confident about their own worth.
I think a true philosopher is supposed to be humble.
And so, you know, if this guy has a website and you all sort of march over there like a bunch of lemmings thinking that it is going to be, you know, some magical journey to a brave new world and give this guy money and, you know, well, I guess that's...
Fine in a way, but just sort of understand that this guy is just inventing a mythology where you all are superior and he's charging you money for it.
It is fundamentally exactly the same as religion.
And every religion says, you are the chosen people, you are the special ones.
And by the way, I'm going to charge you for saying that.
Or I would like money for helping you to believe that.
And this guy says, you're all on some moral mission to change the world.
And lo and behold, he's charging you money or wants you to give money.
For the privilege of being part of this special chosen people crew.
So the ethics that he's inventing is just a kind of sucker's game to make you feel better about yourself and, in fact, to avoid whatever it is that's making you feel bad by imagining you're part of this moral crusade, to feel better about yourself.
And you pay for that privilege.
So it's fundamentally the same, although infinitely less successful then.
Than a church or a synagogue. I know, I'm shocked at it too, but this is nonetheless what I'm sure is said out there.
And that's the nihilist sucker, right?
that you are a sucker for falling for somebody's fiscally motivated, eschatological, grandiose pronouncements of truth, virtue, and the rational way.
I'm sure there's the skeptical, psychological one, or the psychologizing one.
You know, this guy, which is, I guess, this guy, Steph.
uh...
You know, he has issues with his family, and so he's trying to get everyone else to have issues with their family, so he feels less alone.
If he was really comfortable with the issues, if he'd really worked through the issues he had with his family, he wouldn't be out there poking around, creating problems with other people's families, blah, blah.
You know, the standard nonsense that goes on, right?
None of which deals with any of the actual content of what is being said.
But it's just a mythology, or rather a thin coating of feces, to spread over what is a beautiful garden without even the benefit of fertilizer.
So... So anyway, you sort of heard all these things and perhaps you've even thought them yourself.
I certainly can understand why.
But of course, the important thing is not to focus on me or the website, but the rigor of the content of the thought and the value and intensity and depth of the content of the thought.
And that is where...
The mythology, sort of shit mythology that people try to coat this philosophy in just doesn't stick, right?
Because it is deep and it is meaningful and it is pretty rigorous.
Anyway, but to be anti-philosophy in another way, there's another, which is the, not nihilist, but, quote, reasonable relativist.
The reasonable relativist is another person who is going to be anti-philosophical.
He's going to say, look, hey, you know, don't get me wrong, I think that rules are good, and I think that not wanting to kill people is a good thing.
Of course, I don't think that people who really want to kill people want to worry too much about ethics, but, you know, it's good to think clearly, it's good to have evidence, it's good to be interested in philosophy, but...
You know, every kind of thinking has certain tendencies towards absolutism.
And with absolutism comes intolerance and discord and aggression and self-righteousness and all that, right?
So, yeah, philosophy is great.
And, you know, if you found a place on the Internet that gets you interested in philosophy, fantastic.
But you want to make sure that you balance the rigorous demands of abstract perfection with...
The challenges of living in an imperfect world, of which we all participate in the imperfection.
So you want to make sure that you don't want to take these arid abstractions, which are a utility and a value, and you don't want to end up not seeing the beauty of a horse running, because you know the definition of that horse in the abstract sense.
So, that's another reason why you would want to be skeptical of not the philosophy or the value of philosophy as a whole, but of taking any particular philosophy to some sort of extreme, which results in the severings of relations or intolerance or hostility or self-righteousness.
That's the dark side of philosophy.
Philosophy, right? Which makes it more into fundamentalism or religiosity.
So you have to be very, very careful around any philosophy which counsels severing relations, blah, blah, blah.
All the normal distortions, right?
Like I go around counseling the severing of relations.
So that's the sort of middle-of-the-road kind of approach.
Let's not go too far down this road of absolutism to the point where we become intolerant and hostile and rigid and alone and blah blah blah.
That is another critique or case against philosophy.
And there is the world-weary, cynical, absolutist argument against philosophy.
Which is to say, yeah, you know, absolute truth, absolute beauty, fantastic.
But people are too stupid and irrational.
So if you are going to try to become rational, I think that's fine, and I think that's a worthy goal, and that would certainly be a better world if more people were like that.
But the reality is that humanity is composed of very shoddy and imperfect clay, and human beings are...
Shocked like a bathtub full of electric eels when they come into contact with even the vaguest shred of actual reality and truth.
People love to live in delusion.
They are stupid. They are sheep.
They are blind. They are ridiculously easily led.
They are lost little lambs begging and crying for a shepherd, usually in jackboots, and therefore the dream of reason is utterly vanquished by the nightmare of irrationality that the human race And so you can chase after this will-o'-the-wisp if you want,
this crazy will-o'-the-wisp of rationality, but you will beat your head against the titanic indifference and stupidity and bigotry of the world until your head falls off and you will not be any better.
So learning to live with the stupidity and irrationality of the human race is an essential part of wisdom.
You claim that your rationality is based on empiricism, well, look around you at the world.
Look at the stupid, ridiculous beliefs that everyone claims to hold.
Look at their pompous self-posturing in the realm of virtue followed by craven and cowardly submission and betrayal in the realm of truth and ethics.
And look at how everybody is afraid to confront creationists and look at how everyone is afraid to confront statists and look at how everybody talks about how virtuous they are.
And then cheers war and it's all, you know, everyone claims how great the welfare state is and they don't care when it just trashes entire generations of helpless children and young people.
So you understand that ethics is just what people use to feel better about themselves.
It is just another irrational superstition.
I understand that you take a more empirical and rational approach to ethics, which I think is great, but you just understand it's never going to work because human beings are fundamentally dumb sheep looking for an enclosure.
So there's that, right?
Which is, yes, you're right, and it will never work.
It's another case against ethics.
And then there is the social relativistic case against philosophy, which is, hey, yeah, you're absolutely right.
Philosophy is great. Ethics, rational proof of secular ethics, fantastic, UPB, all the way.
Unfortunately... It will take generations for this to come about, and until then, you have to find a way to live in society, and you have to find a way to live in the society that is around you.
And the society that is around you does not really believe in ethics, or rather believes in ethics, but it's just another kind of religious superstition, the ethics that are actually practiced.
So you don't want to get that involved in philosophy because all it will do is it will, you know, drop the scales from your eyes and you will get to see the shit planet that you live in, right?
And, you know, it's great to want to jump out of the Matrix, but they actually had a way of winning in the movie series, right?
But you don't, right?
So you can jump out of the Matrix if you want, but you will simply...
all will be revealed as crap and idiocy around you.
And unfortunately, you won't have any power to change it because to change it would require some sort of voluntary participation on the part of the people who might change.
And that is not going to happen.
And so you will end up just being frustrated and alienated and so on.
And being that kind of purist in an impure world, even if you're completely right, and let's say that you are, being that kind of purist in a horribly impure world is simply a recipe for alienation and loneliness and loss and sadness and financial and romantic and social ruin or failure and so you know put your two cents of rationality in the pile see what happens in the long run
Human progress is a series of little pushes and we want to make sure that we don't push too far too hard because you can't accelerate this.
It's like an ant pushing an ocean liner.
Okay. It's like a small fish pushing at an ocean liner.
If the fish thinks it can make a big difference, the fish is just going to get tired, exhausted, and drown.
And so, you know, put your little two bits in, and I think that's great.
But recognize that it's not going to get you anywhere in particular.
So, throw your two sinks in, and, you know...
Recognize that you're not going to be able to clean up society, make it rational, and to try and do so will be immensely frustrating, to no purpose, really, whatsoever.
So, don't beat your head against the wall, blah, blah, blah.
That's another argument against philosophy.
And then we have the relativist-hedonist argument against philosophy, which is, hey, relax, man, often.
And hey, Bagley! And vaguely offensively, Jamaican accent, which I will not attempt here.
But it's like, hey man, relax, just have fun, man.
It's not important what you end up doing with your life as long as you enjoy yourself.
Have a beer, sit back, stop being so tense, stop fighting the world.
Relax, smoke them if you got them.
Enjoy yourself, right?
The world is not a test match crusade that you have to win at all costs.
Raising the stakes so high is bad for your health.
You have to just relax, float downstream, row, row, row your boat, and have a good time.
And philosophy, which is going to cause you a lot of stress and doubt and conflict and frustration, it's going to interfere with the general pleasures of an easy, happy, calm, enjoyable life.
And that is a real shame.
We want to avoid those kinds of stresses, right?
You don't take on impossible crusades that indicates a desire for stress and conflict that is not particularly helpful, productive or positive in the long run.
And so you don't want to live like that.
And so relax, take a load off, you know.
Chill, chillax, my brother.
And don't worry about saving the world.
That's a delusion of grandeur that is just going to make you stressed and unhappy.
And for what purpose? The world is fine.
Then there is the Then there is the happy positive, which is what is so wrong with the world that you have to fight it so much.
Look around you. We have airplanes, spaceships, submarines, we have medicine, we have science, we have all the beautiful things in the world.
People are living longer and children are being raised better and so what is it in you that feels this desperate desire to condemn the world as universally bad and wrong and in need of fixing?
Could it not be that it is you who is in fact in need of fixing and not the world and you're projecting all of that and blah blah blah blah blah?
Things are fine. You know, yes, the world is imperfect and the world will forever be imperfect.
And focusing on the imperfections, railing against the imperfections will simply make your life unhappy, and let's recognize that we're a damn sight better off than we were in the Middle Ages, and thus focusing on the irrationalities and corruptions of the world, which has vastly improved incrementally, is... It's negative and vaguely you're a doomsayer, right?
So focus on the positive and, right, that's the Pollyanna hostility to, not to philosophy, but some of the emotional impacts or effects of philosophy.
And you could, of course, take all of these and reproduce their arguments in the realm of psychology as well.
And I'm sure you don't need me to do that, or if you do, if you'd like me to, let me know.
I serve you. My masters!
And all of these arguments against philosophy, you know, you've got to make your way in the world.
You know, man's got to live too.
Man cannot live by reason alone.
The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing.
Or as Carlson's wife said to him in WKRP when he said about them having another baby, these are troubled times, she said people have been saying that for 2,000 years.
And all of these are very interesting perspectives, and I think they're well worth pushing through.
They're well worth examining. They're well worth incorporating.
They're well worth examining and cross-examining.
And they miss, of course, in my strong and I hope somewhat considerate opinion, they miss the point, which is the purpose of philosophy is not To change the world, since that is not under the control of the philosopher.
The purpose of philosophy is not to affect the weather, because the weather is not under the control of the philosopher.
The purpose of philosophy is not to change the world.
It is not to enlighten the masses.
It is not of any of those things.
I mean, the purpose of philosophy is reason equals virtue equals happiness, right?
The end goal It's happiness, like the end goal of medicine is health.
And to be happy, we need to know the truth.
And there are times when the truth will make us unhappy, right?
But just because everybody is imbibing the general shit sandwich of cultural delusions doesn't mean that we have to follow suit.
And yes, there is a short-term relief in terms of conformity from the challenges of individuation.
Absolutely. But so what?
There's a short-term relief from The criticisms of heroin dealers if you take heroin, right?
So what, right? I mean, the whole point of...
We've always been told if everybody else was jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you, right?
Just because everybody does it doesn't make it a good idea.
Resistance of peer pressure.
Think for yourself, be yourself, no matter what they say, right?
That's... This is everything that we're ever told and talked about, right?
So... I don't think we want to just sort of toss that aside because things are a little bit tougher in the adult realm of philosophy.
But... This is all consequentialist.
This is all argument from effect.
If you pursue philosophy, these bad things will happen.
But philosophy is not about arguments from effect.
Philosophy is about one thing and one thing only.
It is about the truth.
And all of this nonsense that people spit and spew out into the atmosphere like so much sulfuric smoke is just a bunch of nonsense to avoid.
Answering that basic question which philosophy continually brings you back to.
Is it true or not?
Is it proven or not?
Is there evidence or not?
Is it valid or not?
If you just stay at that level, Then all is well in the realm of philosophy.
It doesn't mean all is easy, but it means that all of that chattering, empty, birds-in-your-face nonsense that I just sort of described just kind of goes away.
It's like, yeah, yeah, yeah, so philosophy is tough.
But philosophy is not about is it tough or is it not.
Philosophy is not about do people like it or not.
Philosophy is not about what is the statistical average of rational capacity in the human race.
Philosophy is not about where are we relative to the 11th century or the 21st or the 25th century.
Philosophy is not about does Steph ask for donations?
Philosophy is not about is ethics for suckers?
Those are all just a bunch of mythologies, a bunch of stories.
Philosophy is about is the proposition true or false?
That's all philosophy is about.
True or false? Everything else is just nonsense.
True or false? I was reading this article, which I might read a bit more of to you, about a woman who was making some pretty, what to me would be pretty uncontroversial claims about the way that the natives are treated up here in Canada, which in a word is completely abysmally, but to the great profit of their tribal leaders.
And people got really angry and threatened to beat up the woman who came up with it, who actually put these theories out there.
And one of the arguments was, well, you see, but if we put this stuff out there, then natives would be less inclined to pursue careers in academics, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And it's like, the fuck does that have to do with the price of bread in China?
Right? It doesn't have anything to do with anything.
Well, the consequences of this belief, you see, will be X, Y, or Z. Well, screw that.
That's not what philosophy is about.
The consequences of 2 plus 2 equaling 4 will be x, y, and z.
Well, that's not the business of philosophy.
That's the business of Nostradamus and other soothsaying liars and fools and exploiters.
The consequence of men not believing in God will be that they believe in anything.
Will be that they believe in bad things.
Will be that they become bad people.
No, no, no, no. That's not...
Nobody can predict that.
In fact, you will.
A rationalist can predict that the more rational people are, the better they will be.
And there's significant evidence for that in the next generation.
But all of this stuff that I was describing, it's just a bunch of noise.
It means nothing. It's completely meaningless.
If 2 plus 2 equals 4, a sparrow might die in Africa.
Well, no, the question is not whether the sparrow dies in Africa, which is unverifiable anyway, but the question is, is it true or false?
Is it true or false? And people will create an enormous amount of noisy, hostile, emotionally charged bullshit in order to avoid just that basic simple question.
It's like, stop telling me stories about the truth and answer me about the proposition.
Is it true or is it false?
That's all it's about.
That's all it's about.
And the case against philosophy is fundamentally the truth.
▲
Export Selection