Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 1, 2011 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

11:13

1819 Counterfeiter Payback!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi everybody, it's Stefan Molyneux.
	Happy New Year to you. We are going to continue one more time with this conversation about the belief that the evidence of the senses is limited and there's this realm beyond of infinite platonic perfection that we can access, wherein lives Santa, Satan, the Tooth Fairy, Jesus, and Krishna, or something like that.
	If you want to find out if somebody has good intentions in a philosophical debate, which I would say is far more important a goal to achieve than entering into or winning or losing a philosophical debate.
	And in philosophy, as in the free market, there are no losers.
	Everybody wins if the truth is achieved.
	But you need to figure out whether somebody is interested in the truth or is interested in using philosophy for its originally invented purpose.
	The original invention of philosophy and morality was to browbeat the dependent classes into remaining enslaved by creating values that always exempted the ruling classes from their application.
	So the ruling classes would say, and Martin Luther in the 16th, 17th century was very explicit about this.
	So the Bible has this contradiction.
	An eye for an eye.
	In other words, vengeance.
	Or turn the other cheek.
	And he said, look, it's very clear.
	An eye for an eye is when the slaves attack each other, the masters enact, through the justice system, an eye for an eye.
	So we punish those who attack others.
	Turn the other cheek is the relationship between the slaves and the masters.
	So if you're unjustly treated by your master, whom God himself has appointed to rule over you, then you must turn the other cheek.
	But the masters must enact vengeance, called an eye for an eye, either for slave on slave violence or heaven forfend slave on master violence.
	So the invention of morality was as a slave-owning mechanism.
	It was an invisible electric fence that kept people in the paddock of the ruling classes.
	It kept us as livestock.
	It kept us as slaves.
	That was the historical purpose and creation Morality was used to justify the ruling classes and to keep the slave classes slave classes by creating guilt and sin and shame and slave-on-slave attacks and so on.
	That is the original purpose of ethics and philosophy.
	And so to actually take it and make it universal and to apply it to the ruling classes and to apply it to the violent hierarchy of society is to take the weapon from the hand of the mugger and turn it on the mugger.
	I mean, the mugger doesn't want that to happen, right?
	And the mugger is all kinds of aggressive until you turn the weapon on him and then he's all kinds of, oh, it was a mistake, it was an error, right?
	So grabbing the gun of virtue From the ruling classes, instead of having it pointed at us, have it pointed universally, destroys the moral validity of the ruling classes.
	So given that...
	I'm not saying I've proven this.
	You can look into the history of philosophy and look at how philosophy was used to justify slavery and the subjugation of women and the subjugation of serfs and the subjugation of citizens as it is still used.
	The social contract, which only is...
	Citizen to government, not government to citizen, right?
	You have to pay your taxes as part of the social contract.
	The government has zero legal obligation to protect you.
	The government has zero obligation to defend your persons and property.
	The government has zero obligation to fulfill its obligations to you.
	So it's again, the social contract is only one way.
	Understand? It is a guillotine that falls down on the head of the slaves.
	That's what morality is designed for.
	So given that that is what philosophy and morality was originally designed for.
	My default position when I enter into a moral debate with someone doesn't mean that this is my inevitable conclusion, but it is my default position.
	That, given the historical nature And purpose of ethics that somebody is only going to use philosophy or moral standards as an attempt to dominate and control and bully.
	Doesn't mean that's everyone, and I've had many, many wonderful exceptions to that rule, and I'm always on the lookout for exceptions to that rule, but by far the majority of what I've experienced, I absolutely guarantee you the majority of what you will experience in this world, is people using relativism or people using ethics or virtue or philosophy or standards or morality or whatever.
	to dominate and control you because if I can get you to believe in a moral rule that exempts me then I have control over you.
	I am in the ultimate dominant position because I can inflict shame upon you and guilt and you cannot inflict shame and guilt and obligation upon me.
	It's a fantastic invisible Pinocchio puppet string masterclass extravaganza and so you've always got to keep your eyes peeled for people who were doing what philosophy was originally designed to do which is control the slaves.
	So, in the conversations that I've been having recently on YouTube, and you can look at the sin of Zeta-Jones's ass and my despair videos for prior, I've been talking to a guy who says, and a number of people have piled onto this and said that the senses are limited and this and that, you can't know anything for sure and blah blah blah.
	Standard relativistic mumbo-gumbo brain fog for hiding the puppet strings being attached to your wrists and neck and, dare I say, nether regions.
	So it's a very, very simple way to draw this kind of people out and to find out whether they're arguing in good conscience and good faith and with a goal of achieving the truth, or whether they're just trying to slip the invisible lariat of one-sided morality around your neck.
	And that is... To pay them back in the coin they give you.
	I mean, that's very, very important. If you want to find out whether somebody who's a counterfeiter is guilty or innocent, all you do is you pay them back in the money they gave you.
	Somebody who's an innocent dupe of a counterfeiter or who doesn't know, Whether the money is counterfeit will say, hey, thank you.
	I'll take these bills gladly because they're good bills.
	Somebody who's like, well, I'd really prefer you didn't pay me back or I can't believe you would pay me back in that cash.
	I only take these or whatever. This is somebody who knows there's a problem with the bills.
	And this is as simple as it is, right?
	And it's tragic that in the 2,500-year history of philosophy that this step has not been taken more assertively and aggressively, but as Baby James says, that's why I'm here.
	So I'll... I'll give you an example.
	It's about 18 months ago.
	And again, it doesn't really matter the content, and you don't care, and I don't care about the content, but I think the form is important.
	There was a guy who was just a relentless, relentless relativist posting on the board.
	A relativist and an agnostic about reality, about the existence of others, about objective truth, about the behavior of matter, about even the existence of an external world.
	A true You know, powdered up and snorted deep into his brain, the Cartesian demon.
	So, at one point, during this time of chaos and madness, as this kind of nuttiness enters into the message boards, he was posting some assertion that you can't trust your senses, don't know anything about external reality, can't say anything for sure, there's no objective standards, and so on.
	So what I did was, and I've only done this once in the history of Freedom Aid Radio, but I think it was a good time to do it.
	I went to his message board post and I edited it.
	And at the bottom I put in, I'm a little teapot, short and stout.
	Here is my handle, here is my spout.
	When I get so steamed up, hear me shout.
	Just tip me over and pour me out.
	Just the lyrics, not the bad singing.
	And he posted complete outrage.
	Complete outrage.
	Because he said, someone's been tampering with my board posts.
	Somebody is tampering.
	I consider this intellectually dishonest and wrong and reprehensible and inappropriate and bad.
	Stormed, right? Had a true hissy fit of moral outrage.
	And I said, well, gosh, are you sure that your post was changed by someone else?
	Maybe you copied and pasted something by accident.
	Maybe there was, you know, something wrong with your cache in your browser or something, cookies, who knows, right?
	And he's like, no, I am absolutely positive that somebody altered my message board post.
	This is intellectually dishonest and reprehensible and not to be tolerated.
	And I said, okay, so you're certain?
	Yes, I'm certain. Well, how do you know you're certain?
	Well, I can read it right here.
	Okay, so you understand, right?
	So this guy who says that nothing is true and nothing is real should have absolutely no complaints when he perceives that his message board has been changed because he doesn't know.
	He can't trust the evidence of his senses.
	He didn't know what he posted yesterday.
	He doesn't even know if there's a server out there in California or wherever it is that is processing all of this.
	He has no idea. But he immediately imposed both the absolutism of his post had been changed and the moral standard that it was intellectually dishonest and reprehensible.
	So he believes in absolute morality, and he believes in the objective evidence of the senses, and the objective true and real nature of the real world.
	In other words, that bored posts don't just magically change themselves, that reality is not a delusion, and so on, right?
	So this is an important standard, right?
	Another thing that you can do, which I've done before, again, not very common, but it's important to stand up for the truth.
	Is that people will sometimes get into a conversation with me where they say, I say, reality is objective and universal, and they say, no, it's like there'll be board posts or emails even, although I rarely do this in emails anymore.
	So somebody will say to me, reality is subjective.
	And I say, reality is objective.
	And they say, no, reality is subjective.
	And I say, well, then we both agree.
	And they say, well, no, I don't agree with you, Steph.
	And I say, well, yes, you do. You said to me that reality was objective.
	And they said, no, no, no, no, no.
	I said that reality was subjective.
	Read the board post. Read my email.
	Reality is subjective. I said, well, no, to me, you're saying that reality is objective.
	No, no, no, no. I said reality was subjective.
	Right? But they have no right to say that if they're a relativist, because my perception of their board post or email or posts on YouTube or wherever, my perception is completely valid that they agree with me because reality is subjective.
	The moment that they appeal to what they actually wrote, to what's actually there, to what's objectively outside their own consciousness, they have completely let go of subjectivity.
	This is designed to pay the counterfeiter back in his own currency, and if he finds that abhorrent and terrible, then the problem is with the currency, not with the person who's paying him back in his own currency.
	So I hope that this helps you.
	I hope that you will take this.
	You can call it a rhetorical trick, but it is really just taking people's premises and applying them consistently and universally.
	And if you have a philosophy and are outraged, horrified, appalled and frustrated and enraged when your philosophy is applied back to you, you can, of course, get mad at the person who's applying your philosophy back to you, but I think it would be not even more mature.
	It would be even remotely mature.

▲