Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Jan. 1, 2011 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

13:21

1818 The Zen of the Zeta Jones's Ass - Email of the Year End

Here is your counterfeit detection machine. Enjoy for the new year! From Freedomain Radio - http://www.freedomainradio.com

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi everybody, it's Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Main Radio, December the 31st.
	Happy, happy, happy New Year's Eve to you.
	I hope that you have a wonderful time tonight, and I hope that next year brings you everything that your heart and mind desire.
	Just a little addendum to my last video.
	The fellow who I critiqued as far as empiricism wrote me back a comment, which I think is interesting, because I think it illuminates a lot about what it is that I'm trying to do, and I'm responding to this also because A number of people had issue with the way in which I responded to this fellow, saying that I was too critical or too harsh or whatever.
	Which is not a particularly philosophical response.
	I'm either correct or I'm not. I mean, harsh is just an adjective.
	You know, it's like saying that, you know, Steph, your argument is a little bit too much on the sandpapery and plaid side, so that's not really an argument.
	That's just a, I don't know, a description of an aesthetic preference that has nothing to do with the logic contained within the propositions.
	Anyway, so this fellow wrote back and he said, wow, you made a video for me!
	So much love going on here.
	I feel like I'm part of a community again.
	But really, making a backhanded personal attack on me, because I see things differently from you, is what a hack would do.
	The hack would be me.
	He said, obviously, I should have explained my point more clearly.
	I'm not attacking logic and empiricism entirely.
	Simply that they are systems with imposed limits.
	I think he means simply arguing that they're systems with imposed limits.
	Einstein did not figure out his theory of relativity by sticking to a system laid down before him.
	Also, read Plato.
	That's his response.
	Now... I can sort of see why this guy is not surrounded by the kind of love that leads people to help him out of his errors.
	You know, kind of snarky and pretty unpleasant, sort of emotionally, which I can sort of understand.
	Calling my argument a backhanded personal attack.
	Again, there's no proof in any of that.
	I did say that I thought it was tragic that he wasn't surrounded by the kind of people who could love him.
	I think I'm seeing a little bit more evidence for that.
	So he's done quite a lot to support that thesis.
	So saying, because I see things differently than you, this is the retreat into subjectivism, which is so often the case when you confront somebody on the irrationality of his propositions.
	So when somebody says, you're wrong about X, and you say, well, your argument falls apart because of this, that, and the other, and they say, hey, we just see things differently.
	It's like, but... His argument originally was not that we saw things differently.
	His argument originally was that I was incorrect and he was correct.
	So when I disprove his arguments, he's like, well, we just see things differently.
	This is the retreat into relativism, and I think it's a pretty cowardly and vile move, but that's just my particular perspective on it.
	And calling me a hack, so he's not into personal attacks.
	He's not into personal attacks, which is not what I did.
	So calling me a hack is his response.
	And so you can see this is what happens when you confront people's irrationalities.
	Obviously, I should have explained my point more clearly.
	Here's the patient and condescending response.
	I'm not attacking logic and empiricism entirely, simply that they are systems with imposed limits.
	Of course, he does not tell us what those limits are or what his definition of a system is or whatever.
	Einstein did not figure out his theory of relativity by sticking to a system laid down before him.
	Yes, he did! Yes, he absolutely did!
	Oh my god! I wish people would just stop quoting science who have no particular understanding of science.
	Einstein exactly figured out his theory of relativity using a system laid down before him.
	It was called mathematics and it was called physics.
	These are very important things to understand.
	He didn't use the Ptolemaic system, he didn't use the system of ether, he didn't rely on Newtonian physics, but that's not science, those are just theories.
	A system called the scientific method, called the predictions that your theory makes, being empirically testable and verifiable in the real world according to objective standards, they are absolutely, this is the absolute sin qua non, the essence of the scientific method.
	So saying that Einstein didn't figure out the theory of relativity without using systems laid down before him like math and physics and science as a whole and logic.
	I mean, this is just somebody who...
	Well, we don't have to get into any of that.
	I think it's pretty clear. And I love this.
	Also, read Plato.
	Read Plato is a wonderful, wonderful comment.
	Look, you don't care about this guy, and I don't care about him particularly.
	I'm sure he doesn't care about me that much either.
	But there's a lot, I think, that's in here that's very helpful for helping people to understand how to have a rational conversation, how to actually be philosophical with someone.
	Read Plato. So I say that you can't use the evidence of the senses to overturn the evidence of the senses.
	And he says, since Plato is about higher forms and realms that exist prior to birth and after, you know, the realm of the forms and the Platonic nuomenal or higher realms, that I should read Plato to find out the limitations of my senses, of course.
	As I pointed out in the first video, reading involves assuming the accuracy of my eyesight.
	Read Plato is one perfectly self-detonating statement.
	Use your eyes to read Plato so that Plato can convince you that your eyes are false.
	I just wanted to point this out and I wanted to explain why When I say that I'm explaining something, I don't mean that it's right or it's perfectly justified.
	I'm just putting forward my approaches and my reasons for what it is that I'm doing, which I'm perfectly open to being corrected and so on.
	The reason that I can be quite critical with people is, first of all, I think people do a hell of a lot of damage.
	A lot of damage.
	By putting out anti-philosophical, anti-rational, mystical, supernatural, non-empirical, non-verifiable, non-scientific propositions out there, by chiseling away at other people's certainty and rationality and rootedness in the real world, they contribute vastly To mental health problems, I believe, to superstitions, to paranoias, to aggressions.
	False beliefs always require the aggressions of authority.
	To enact them.
	And so people who chip away at rational certainty and objectivity are doing massive amounts of damage in the world.
	And unfortunately, it's the majority of people.
	People who go around giving really bad nutritional advice to people obviously do a lot of damage to people's health.
	People who go around giving a lot of bad philosophical advice to people Do a lot of damage to the world and particularly to the raising of children.
	So I don't have a lot of patience for people who muck about in philosophy without knowing what they're doing.
	I think that they are absolutely smashing the delicate levers at the base of the brain that keep us structurally upright when it comes to our sanity.
	So I think that's an important consideration for me at least.
	You may agree with that, you may not, but this is where I'm coming from.
	So that's one aspect.
	I view Obviously self-detonating and false philosophical arguments and propositions, like ones that just take a moment to refute.
	Not, you know, really complex ones, like I've got a theory out there, which if you want to check out, it's free to download or read the PDF. You download the audiobook or read the PDF at freedomainradio.com forward slash free.
	I've got a theory of ethics, which is how we have universal morality and ethics without gods, without governments, and so on.
	That's a complex and challenging theory.
	I mean, at least it is for me, and certainly from what feedback I've got over the past few years.
	It's a challenging theory.
	But I'm not talking about those kinds of things.
	I'm talking about the really basic and obvious ones, like using the evidence of the senses to communicate that the evidence of the senses is limited, right?
	The most fundamental question in philosophy is three words, right?
	The most fundamental question in philosophy is, compared to what?
	That's an old story about, I think it was a philosophy professor, who was asked by a colleague, how's your wife?
	And he said, compared to what?
	Which is a fantastic question.
	So compared to what is the most fundamental question in philosophy.
	And okay, so the evidence of the census is limited.
	Compared to what? And that's the answer you can never get, other than God, which is a complete non-answer.
	So I think it's really important to understand that Obviously false ideas that are pushed forward with this kind of, you know, silly and petty aggressiveness and poutiness.
	It's a form of fiat currency of the mind, right?
	It is to the human mind what fiat currency is to the free market economy, right?
	It undermines and destroys and causes long-term catastrophes for the short-term profit of others.
	And so I view people who are putting forward ugly and false and destructive philosophical arguments exactly the same way that I view counterfeiters.
	Now, there's two choices when it comes to dealing with counterfeiters.
	You can either try to convince the counterfeiters to stop being counterfeiters, to go and get an honest job and burn all their monopoly money, or You can say, well, the reality is there are always going to be counterfeiters.
	You can't spend the rest of your life convincing counterfeiters to stop being counterfeiters, and there's almost no counterfeiters who will, based on a verbal argument, agree to stop being counterfeiters because they're nasty, evil, and corrosive people.
	So you can either try and convince counterfeiters to not be counterfeiters, or you just give people counterfeit detection machines.
	And that's what I am trying to do.
	I'm not interested in changing this guy's mind about his crazy beliefs.
	I have no interest in that. I mean, I've been doing this almost three decades.
	I know when someone can change and when someone can't.
	I have a lot of experience, now thousands of conversations about philosophy.
	I know that I am not just a mindlessly aggressive and destructive guy.
	I have wonderful, positive, happy relationships in my life.
	So I know when someone can be changed and when someone can't.
	My concern is that you know when a counterfeit currency lands in your hand.
	My concern is not to stop the counterfeiters because you can't, with words.
	All you can do is, if you can't stop the source, you stop the destination.
	So my goal, always, is to give you the tools to see the bullshit.
	If you think of those scenes in movies, I remember Catherine Zeta-Jones-Ass was in one.
	Anyway, if you remember those scenes in movies where they have to go into some vault and there are these lasers that nobody can see, and you have to spray the air with lasers.
	to spray the air with water in order to be able to see the lasers and that's my job is to put the water vapor in the air so that you can see the lasers and navigate them in a way that doesn't get you cut down and the alarms go off and whatever burning sizzling bits of smoky flesh So that's my goal.
	So, yes, I can be harsh on people who put forward the most destructive nonsense.
	Absolutely. Because my goal is not to change them.
	I think that's a huge mistake in philosophy to try and convince bad people to be good.
	And I'm not calling this guy bad, bad, bad.
	I'm just saying that these... I don't know the guy, but these particular arguments are very destructive.
	And certainly he's revealed...
	A little more of his personality afterwards, which is entirely predictable.
	I mean, again, I've been doing this so long that, you know, you don't have to take my word as gospel, heaven forbid.
	That's exactly the opposite of philosophy.
	But I'm entirely comfortable with my perceptiveness and decision-making in this area.
	I haven't been wrong in I don't know how long.
	And, you know, assessing somebody's personality based on, you know, you don't need a lot of evidence to see who people are.
	We, you know, just read Malcolm Gladwell's Blink if you have any doubts about that.
	That's pretty well established. So that's my goal.
	I don't want to convince crazy people to be sane.
	I want to give you the tools.
	I want to give you the tools to see crazy.
	To see the crazy that's in the world so that you can avoid it.
	Because we can't avoid what we cannot see.
	So I am the water vapor floating around Catherine Zeta-Jones' ass.
	I think that's really the message.
	And what a wonderful way to ring in the New Year's.

▲