Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

May 21, 2015 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

02:33:29

2978 Subjective is Objective? - Call In Show - May 20th, 2015

Question 1: Is the subjective theory of value a valid claim? | Question 2: If your significant other begins to fail to meet your rational standards in a relationship, is it worth it to try to change them back? What is the best way to go about doing this and what level of responsibility do we have in imposing rational standards on the ones we care deeply about? Or - is this all too demanding/controlling?

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good evening, everybody.
	Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio.
	Hope you're doing well.
	Welcome to...
	Hump day night, middle of the week.
	I hope you're doing well.
	freedomainradio.com slash donate to help out the show.
	We've had a few listeners who've absconded with their donations because apparently they're offended at the idea that Hitler was not a great guy.
	Anyway, if you'd like to step in and take their place, we would love to have you on board at freedomainradio.com slash donate.
	So without further ado, let's move on to the callers.
	Alright, up first today is Brian.
	Brian wrote in and his question is, is the subjective theory of value a valid claim?
	Are you there?
	Yeah, hey Steph.
	Hello.
	Hi.
	Yeah, so, you know, I always get into debates about value and what it is.
	And people always reference, I know a lot of libertarians like to reference the subjective theory of value.
	From the Austrian school.
	I don't know.
	Just knowing a little about it, I kind of reject it.
	Go on.
	I feel like all value is objective.
	All value is objective.
	Yeah.
	It's because I partition reality Such that subjective things is just a subset of objective things.
	In other words, all subjective things are objective.
	What?
	Sorry, you've got to take...
	When you end up something with all subjective things are objective, I think that we are in not necessarily the easiest to comprehend land of philosophy.
	What do you mean?
	This is kind of like one of the things that I don't understand why people...
	I think they're mutually exclusive, meaning that something cannot be both objective and subjective at the same time.
	Well, because of the Aristotelian law of non-contradiction, right?
	I mean, because of logic, right?
	So something cannot be itself and the opposite of itself at the same time, right?
	A number can't be both four and minus four at the same time.
	That's if you define it as mutually exclusive.
	No, the definition of subjective and objective are not exactly opposite, but certainly not the same thing, right?
	So subjective is that which is open to my interpretation or is subject to my evaluation, whereas objective is something that the measurement of which is independent of my consciousness, right?
	So I may say something looks brown or But there's a wavelength, right?
	The wavelength is objective.
	My subjective experience of color is different than the objective measure of the wavelength of the light.
	So, it's not just semantics to say that subjective and objective aren't the same thing.
	And you can't define them as the same thing.
	I agree wholeheartedly with the distinction between your opinion and what the measurement of an actual object is.
	So, like with your example with color...
	There are two things there that you're referring to, your opinion of the color and the color itself.
	Both, to me, are objects, which you can make true and false statements about.
	I can determine your opinion of the color just based on what you tell me, or I can try to determine your opinion on the color, but it's not the color itself.
	So when people refer...
	Wait, wait, hang on, hang on.
	What do you mean you can determine my...
	Opinion of the color.
	I can always ask you.
	I can always lie.
	Yeah, and I can...
	Okay, so just like you said, objective things, they don't...
	Wavelength won't lie.
	Wavelength, the spectrometer or whatever they use, the wavelength machine is not going to lie, right?
	Yeah, your ability to measure a wavelength is going to be limited, right?
	The precision of any instrument is always going to be limited.
	You're never going to know the true actual wavelength.
	It's virtually impossible to know within a certain unit of measurement.
	Yes, but that's not what I'm saying.
	You're moving the goalpost.
	The wavelengthometer is not going to lie, whereas a person can lie, right?
	But it won't be accurate to the actual truth, right?
	There's always going to be some...
	No, no, no.
	Hang on.
	No, you've got a platonic version of the truth, or...
	You know, the Kantian version of the truth, which is that we can only know our sense data experience of things.
	We can't know the things in themselves.
	Like, I can't get the perfect, exact, accurate, blah, blah, blah, wavelength.
	But there is no such thing as the perfect, exact, accurate wavelength, right?
	Because it's oscillating.
	The light is changing.
	You get to as close of the truth as humanly possible.
	I mean, but saying we can never go exactly 100% north doesn't mean there's no difference between heading north and heading south, right?
	So this idea that it's not 100% accurate, pure, platonic, perfect, godlike truth, which is an impossible standard, which doesn't really apply and therefore can't be a standard, doesn't have anything to do with the fact that wavelength is objective and color is subjective.
	So...
	Like, okay, so I mean, your ability to know something, the fact that an object exists doesn't depend on whether you can evaluate it or not, right?
	So I think we can safely assume that when you refer to a specific beam of light and you refer to a specific cycle of it, that wavelength will have some objective number that you'll probably never know to within A certain precise measurement, right?
	But it's infinitely more precise than me saying, it's brown.
	Because even if I'm not lying, when I was a teenager, I used to work in a hardware store.
	One of the 12 billion jobs I had as a teenager.
	And there were three things that were fun in the hardware store.
	One was cutting glass.
	That was cool.
	Number two was cutting keys.
	It was also pretty cool.
	Number three was mixing paint.
	And, man, people would come in with, like, you've seen those paint things, right?
	You know how many names they have for paint in the known universe?
	It's insane.
	There are thousands of names for paint, right?
	Arctic Morning Glory Sunrise Bird Crap or something.
	They have just, like, crazy names for Diaphanous Gown of the Deity Sunset or something, you know?
	And...
	So, and you could mix this according to the instructions.
	There was a machine that rotated and you put the color into the different base.
	You usually start with white and then add a color.
	And you'd shake it up and you'd open it, right?
	I love that little shaky machine.
	You'd open it and you'd hold the chit in front of the paint and the person who bought the paint would say, hmm, it doesn't look the same.
	It's like, I followed the instructions perfectly.
	It looks the same to me.
	To other people, it doesn't look the same.
	And, you know, that's fine.
	We could bounce a wavelength off it or whatever.
	But the reality is that if I just say, hey, I see green, I mean, that could be, I don't know how many billions of wavelength spread it could be.
	So whatever color, light green, emerald green, whatever it is that people are saying, it's still vastly less precise than a wavelength.
	Can we agree with that?
	Of course.
	I'm not talking about language.
	And when people talk about color, they're not referring to a specific wavelength, right?
	It's poorly defined.
	Whenever people use terms, they don't use them precisely, right?
	Well, no.
	It's as precise as you can get without saying wavelength.
	And it works for the most part.
	I'd like to look at the red car, you can say, in the dealership.
	And now, if there's two red cars, he'll say, which one?
	Or whatever.
	If there's some Aretha Franklin hot pink Cadillac, he'll say, do you want the Aretha Franklin hot pink Cadillac car?
	But we're drifting here, right?
	Because we need to get back to the thing where you say that subjective is the same as objective.
	It's not the same.
	So if you were to call two sets the same, that means all elements of each set would be in the other.
	If you think about it in sets, I'm saying that subjective is a subset of objective.
	And when I define subjective, I'm saying...
	Okay, hang on, hang on.
	Slow down, slow down.
	I always hate it when people run past with their most important statements and keep going as if they're self-evident.
	I always get suspicious when people do that.
	Okay, so you're saying that subjective is a subset of objective.
	Yes.
	Well, yes.
	Okay, so what that means, right, so if I say that wolves are a subset of mammal, then all wolves are mammals, but not all mammals are wolves, right?
	That's a subset as far as I understand it.
	Are we in agreement?
	Yes.
	Okay, so if you're saying that subjective is a subset of objective, you're saying that all subjective is objective, but not all objective is subjective.
	Yes, and when I say subjective...
	No, no, that's not correct.
	You can't say that all subjective is objective.
	So we adopt definition for the utility in helping us understand reality, right?
	You agree with that?
	No, no, no.
	Forget understanding reality and other things.
	This is logic.
	Subjective is not the same as objective, right?
	And you can't say that subjective is a subset of objective.
	It depends how you define them, right?
	No, this is logic.
	Subjective is my internal experience that cannot be verified by external means.
	Objective is external phenomenon that can be defined by objective means.
	They're not the same thing.
	You can't say that subjective is a subset of objective.
	I think you're adding to the definition.
	You added that part where I cannot determine what your opinion is.
	I mean...
	Ultimately...
	No, because if you can objectively determine what my opinion is, it's objective.
	Yes, I can always ask you and...
	No, no.
	Asking doesn't make it objective.
	Otherwise, there'd be no such thing as a court of law.
	They'd just go up to someone and say, did you kill this guy?
	And he'd say, no.
	And they'd be like, well, that's an objective answer to me.
	Or he'd say, yes, I did.
	It's like, well, that can't be a false confession because subjective is objective and we don't need any proof for anything.
	We first agree that objects don't rely on us knowing that they exist to exist.
	It's not dependent on us knowing that I'll go one step further.
	Objective is everything in the universe that is still valid, true, and has existence when there are no human beings in the universe.
	Okay, so me determining what your opinion is, all I have to do is get enough info.
	I mean, it's possible for me to obtain your opinion.
	It's an object that I can try to ascertain by even asking.
	You absolutely can.
	And look, if I write down and I say, I believe that the Earth is banana-shaped, then you can objectively prove that I wrote down and said, I believe that the Earth is banana-shaped.
	You know, lie detector tests give some indication.
	You know what I'm trying to get.
	Yeah, you can get closer to it.
	You can get closer to it.
	Yeah, because it's an object.
	It's something out there that I can try to measure.
	Alright, but let's go this.
	And so to the degree with which you can objectively establish the contents of someone's mind, they go from subjective to objective because it's something you have objectively measured.
	If I say to you that I had a dream about an elephant last night...
	I guess you could run lie detectors and so on, and you might get some answers, you know, they're not 100% and so on.
	But it's either true or false, right?
	Objectively, it's either true or false, whatever you say, depending on how specifically you try to define your dream.
	It doesn't matter what I can prove or what I can know.
	Objectively, if you dreamt about an elephant or not, it happened, right?
	You can say that about it.
	That's what I mean.
	Well, no, you can say that I said it happened, but you can't necessarily say it happened.
	No, even...
	You can...
	I mean, I don't want to have to get into a materialistic argument, but basically I have...
	But there are crazy people who say, I'm currently riding a mongoose made of fire.
	And they may well pass a lie detector test about that, but that doesn't mean that their experience is objective.
	It's just they're having a subjective psychotic episode.
	Yeah, but again, objective things do not rely on someone knowing about it.
	So it seems like you keep relying on that for your argument, right?
	Objectively, you had a dream about something, whether you even know about it or not materialistically, right?
	I mean, that's why I say if you were to just...
	Suspend the fallacy that they're mutually exclusive and actually put it as a subset.
	Everything starts to make sense.
	We are kind of straying.
	You mean if I accept your argument, then your argument makes sense?
	Well, of course it does.
	Absolutely.
	I fully agree with you that if I accept your argument, your argument makes sense.
	Unfortunately, that's just not how arguments work.
	Well, that's how definition works.
	All definition is internal.
	It's an internal adoption of How you refer to objects in reality.
	So your brain can make sense of it.
	Oh, so you're saying if I accept your definition, then everything can accept it.
	All definitions are arbitrary.
	You agree with that?
	All definitions are arbitrary?
	Yes.
	No?
	The dictionary is just a proposal.
	Absolutely not.
	Absolutely not.
	You and I could not have, and maybe it's because of the way you use language that you feel that way, but we couldn't have any kind of conversation if all language was arbitrary.
	But we've implicitly agreed to use the English language, but to the degree of technicality for this debate.
	Are you saying that in English, the arbitrariness of language means that one day I can refer to a tree as a tree, and the next day a tree can be a blowjob?
	No.
	I mean, for instance, if you were to rewind the tape and listen to your definition of subjective, you've added to the definition.
	That's not what you'd find in the dictionary.
	And it'd probably be different in a philosophy dictionary.
	Okay, let's go to the dictionary.
	Subjective.
	Existing in the mind.
	Belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought.
	Opposed to objective, right?
	The dictionary says subjective is opposed to objective because subjective is, quote, existing in the mind belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought.
	Opposed to objective.
	Now, opposed means not a subset of objective.
	Now, if you want to redefine the word, then that's something you need to be honest about, right?
	So you need to come to me and you need to say, I'm going to work to redefine, to overturn one of these central pillars of philosophy, which is the distinction between what occurs in the mind and what occurs in reality.
	I'm going to take a radical approach.
	It's very much against the way that the language is used, but you didn't do any of that, right?
	Okay, so...
	No, no.
	Do you know that you're radically redefining the term?
	No, because there are several sources to a definition.
	I'm not sure what source you're referring to right now.
	And we'd actually have to look at both definitions to see that.
	Okay, no, listen, I've got no problem.
	I've got no problem.
	If you can find me a definition of subjective that says it is a subset of objective, I would really be happy to hear that.
	Have you found such a definition?
	No, you get that from probably the definitions of both of them, but I didn't think I'd have to get this, you know, literal, but...
	I don't know what you mean by literal.
	The standard definition is that subjective is opposed to objective.
	Now, if you want to redefine subjective as a subset of objective, then you need to put that forward up front and not just kind of steamroll people with your opposite definitions as if they're just like, that's sneaky.
	Tell me you're going to redefine the language.
	Tell me you're going to redefine what the dictionary says.
	I didn't know what your source is, right?
	Because when I quickly Googled subjective, I didn't get that definition.
	What definition did you get?
	There's alternate ones, right?
	Okay, read me an alternate one from a standard dictionary.
	So what I'm going to do is just Google subjective.
	Ours came, this one came from dictionary.com, which I believe doesn't have a K in it and therefore doesn't involve blowjobs, but go on.
	Okay, I'm just going to dictionary reference, which is like the first link on the Google search.
	So there's multiple definitions, right?
	No, I get it, I get it.
	Okay, I think this is the one you're referring to.
	Existing in the mind belongs to the thinking subject rather than the object of thought.
	Opposed subject.
	Okay, so...
	Okay, so you're wrong.
	No, sorry.
	You may want to redefine the word, but you're wrong.
	About your use of the word.
	It is not a subset.
	Now, you can say, well, I want to radically redefine subjective and make it a subset of objective, but that's something you need to rigorously do, and you can't just say that it's true.
	Okay, so...
	So, do you at least understand that according to the existing common use of the word, you are incorrect in saying subjective is a subset of objective?
	I understand that, but first...
	No, no.
	Do you admit that you are incorrect in saying that subjective is a subset of objective?
	I'm not trying to bust your balls here.
	We need to have some reality in the conversation.
	According to that definition, yes.
	Okay, I'm willing to be patient.
	If you want to weasel and find another definition, I will sit here and stare at the camera until you find a definition that says subjective is a subset of objective.
	Okay, then...
	No, take your time.
	Honestly, take your time.
	To truly prove me wrong...
	To make sure that everything is consistent, you'd have to Google the definition of objective and actually just verify, right?
	Go ahead.
	It's actually nothing subject can be objective.
	You have this argument, and so I'm willing to be patient.
	Clearly, now, what's obvious, though, is that you have this argument without having checked the definitions of the word.
	No, I think I did.
	Which is pretty suspicious behavior.
	I'm just going to give you this annoying rigor, right?
	I think I did.
	I think I may have done it on another source, maybe an actual dictionary.
	So you're going to get some variation between definitions, right?
	I mean, yeah, you're going to get some variations in the dictionary.
	You absolutely, you're going to get some variations of language.
	That doesn't mean that you're going to find that subjective is a subset of objective.
	Yeah, I have no problem.
	I have no problem redefining the term if I have to.
	But you don't even know that you're redefining the term.
	That's the problem.
	Well, I thought I did.
	I'm not sure what I was referencing before.
	Okay, so just give me some benefit of the doubt.
	No results.
	With Google, subjective is a subset of objective and there's no results found.
	Now, I get that Google is not all philosophy, and if you want to take on the task of defining subjective as a subset of objective, you could try and find a way to do that.
	I think you won't be able to do that because they're not the same thing, right?
	And the reason why this is important is...
	I mean, I've got this whole Introduction to Philosophy series on YouTube and on the podcast feed, which says that the whole purpose of philosophy is to recognize that it is the mind that makes mistakes.
	Subjective experience, subjective thought, subjective evaluation contains the capacity for error.
	Objective reality does not contain the capacity for error.
	So if you wish...
	To say things which are true and valid and right and proven, then you need to align your subjective experience with objective reality, which is why I'm an empiricist and why I believe in the supremacy of reason.
	Because those are principles.
	Empiricism means to check your thoughts, your theories against empirical reality, the basis of the scientific method, which is you have a hypothesis, you test it against empirical reality, and in any conflict between the products of the mind and what occurs in reality, It is the products of the mind which must give way, which are automatically conceived to be false.
	Like if I come up with a theory that says the moon should come out of my armpit tomorrow morning and the moon doesn't, I don't get to say, well, my theory is correct.
	The moon just screwed up, right?
	We would say, well, my theory is not correct because that's not how it's going to happen.
	So...
	The whole basis, I believe, of the entire discipline that I am dedicating my life to is to take the principles of objectivity and apply them to people's subjective thoughts and experience so that people don't say, well, I do believe there's a giant invisible snow spider sitting on my head shitting thoughts into my brain, but you align your thoughts with objective reality through empiricism and objective principles through rationality.
	And so the capacity of the mind to err, to have mistakes, to make mistakes, is entirely why philosophy is needed.
	And the only way we know that a mind has made a mistake is with reference to reason and empiricism.
	And so the distinction between subjective experience and objective reality is the whole point of philosophy.
	So when you say they're not really that different or they're not different to one subset of the other...
	Just so you know where I'm coming from, you're saying there's no such thing as philosophy.
	I mean, the beginning part of that statement there is why the whole reason I called, right?
	Just going back to the whole idea of value, or in terms of a good, value of a good.
	This is kind of like my argument, why I... I propose that subjective theory of value is kind of ridiculous because it's saying that your opinion is actual reality, right?
	Well, first of all, ridiculous is not an argument.
	And, you know, there's a lot of very smart people who have made this case.
	And if you're going to stand there after this intellectual performance so far and tell me that people like Ludwig von Mises and people like Hayek and people like all the other thinkers who have put this argument forward, they're just ridiculous.
	But And you're in such an elevated intellectual position to call them ridiculous after not getting the dictionary definition right.
	You are maybe sounding smart to yourself, but you don't look smart to other people.
	I understand your perspective.
	I understand how that can seem, given not enough time to listen to my case.
	I've been listening.
	Oh, no, no.
	I understand the technical...
	Okay, let's just skip over the ridiculous thing.
	Yeah.
	I mean...
	I mean, it's fine to be scornful of other thinkers.
	I have no problem with that whatsoever.
	But you really have to make the case.
	If you put the cart before the horse, so to speak, if you want to be scornful and call other people's arguments ridiculous, fine.
	But you've got to earn that right to call them ridiculous.
	But you've actually already argued for my case, right?
	The fact that you're wrong about reality when your opinion is...
	So your opinion...
	Which is what I claim is the only thing that is subjective.
	So if you accept my definition, and I'm redefining the term subjective here to be a subset of objective, and I define subjective as anything determined by the mind solely, things that are determined by a mind is what I call subjective objects.
	Anything to do with an object in reality is objective to me.
	That's how I define objective.
	And so now they work together, one as a subset of the other.
	So taking this definition, your opinion of a value or the utility of a good to you can be wrong.
	Just like you say, opinion is not reality.
	Sometimes it can match, sometimes it doesn't.
	But the fact that you can be wrong shows that they're not the same.
	And That's what I'm trying to make the case for.
	The subjective objects, your opinion of stuff, refers to an object, a measurement of an object, of the value, in other words.
	And this thing can be wrong.
	So this whole idea of subjective value is totally kind of erroneous when you look at it that way.
	Wouldn't you agree?
	No, I'm really working to follow.
	If I understand it correctly, you're saying that if your goal relates to an object which is objective, your goal is also objective.
	In other words, if I want to climb a mountain, the mountain is objective, and therefore my desire to climb the mountain is objective.
	Well, again, if you accept my definition, everything subjective is objective, right?
	No, no, I can't.
	If you accept my definition, no.
	No, just accept it.
	No, I'm not accepting your definition.
	That would be irresponsible of me.
	I'm asking.
	I'm telling you.
	If I accept that two and two make five, some pretty crazy shit can go down in engineering, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to do it.
	That's the thing, right?
	So if all definitions are arbitrary, personally, on an individual basis, you accept the definition arbitrarily.
	No, don't accept that either.
	Don't accept that either.
	I mean, I can understand how having arbitrary definitions serves your case because you're defining subjective in a way that is the opposite of what its common use is.
	So I can understand that you'd like to convince me.
	Because if you can convince me that definitions are arbitrary, then I have no basis by which to reject your definition, which makes your case, whatever it is, much stronger.
	But I don't accept that definitions are arbitrary.
	Just like for the purposes of debate, one can adopt the other person's definition set just to continue with the argument.
	No, no, no.
	I can argue the devil's advocate position, but I can't argue self-contradictory positions, right?
	See, that's the thing.
	So to prove the guy wrong, you adopt their definition and deduce a contradiction.
	And that's how you...
	But no, if the definition is contradictory, then you can't go anywhere with it.
	It's not.
	It's only contradictory in the sense that you just looked it up and it doesn't match that one.
	No, no.
	It's opposed to...
	Let me explain to you how it's contradictory.
	Mammals are...
	Sorry, wolves are a subset of mammals, right?
	Yeah.
	Therefore, as a subset of mammals, wolves cannot be the opposite of mammals.
	See, here's...
	No, no, no.
	Forget that.
	You're saying put the other person's viewpoint on.
	Do you accept that definition?
	No, you're using a poorly defined opposite.
	You can either say complement, which has a specific meaning in set theory.
	Okay, let me put it to you this way.
	Let me put it to you this way.
	Wolves are a subset of mammals in that wolves are warm-blooded and mammals are warm-blooded.
	All wolves are warm-blooded, but not all warm-blooded animals are wolves, right?
	That is a subset.
	It's a slice of the pie, right?
	Yes, yes.
	Now, I cannot also say that the definition of a wolf is a cold-blooded animal and say that it is a subset of mammals.
	If all mammals must be warm-blooded, then if a wolf is cold-blooded, it cannot be a subset of mammals.
	So, yes, you're contradicting yourself because you're adopting two definitions at the same time.
	Exactly!
	So here's the thing.
	When you arbitrarily accept the other person's definition...
	You dropped the other definition.
	No, no, but you see, you're saying to me that wolves are a subset of warm-blooded animals, and wolves are cold-blooded at the same time.
	And you say to me, well, Steph, if you just accept that, then whatever.
	But that's still contradictory.
	I can't accept it.
	I'm not saying the latter.
	See, that's the thing.
	You're holding on to the connotative definition.
	Oh, is that what I'm doing?
	Okay.
	So you're looking online and looking at a definition that says they're mutually exclusive, and then I'm telling you to redefine it, but you're still holding on to that definition you're looking at.
	You've got to let that go, right?
	No, see, holding on is another insulting argument, like I just have some weird emotional hang-up to things making fucking sense, right?
	Saying I'm holding on and I refuse to let go, this is like bullshit girl guide emotional manipulation 101.
	No, you are making a contradictory statement.
	And then you're saying, well, Steph, if you just let go of consistency and rationality and common sense and philosophy and definitions and common sense and logic, my position makes sense.
	It's like, well, yeah, I guess so.
	But I don't know what that means anymore.
	I can redefine an even number to be something not divisible by two.
	I can totally redefine it.
	But then I can say that all numbers are not divisible by two.
	Are even.
	And so when you accept that, it takes on all the characteristics and logical conclusions of an odd number.
	No, what you're doing is saying, I can call a wolf a giraffe.
	And if you accepted the word giraffe means wolf, then blah, blah, blah.
	But that's not what you're doing.
	You're saying all mammals are warm-blooded.
	Wolves are subsets...
	Of mammals, but wolves are cold-blooded.
	You're not just changing the name of something, you're changing its definition when you say that subjective is a subset of objective.
	You're changing a definition to something that is contradictory to the concepts of objective.
	That's what I'm doing.
	But what you're doing, you're still holding on to the...
	No, no.
	You say holding on again, man.
	I'm cutting you off.
	Because that is an emotionally manipulative argument.
	Okay, so when I redefine it, So you're accepting my redefinition.
	Is that correct?
	No.
	I mean, how many times do I say I don't accept your redefinition?
	Not with respect to the other definition, right?
	Just for the purposes of a debate.
	If I'm wrong...
	It's not a debate if what you're saying is self-contradictory.
	So here's the thing.
	When someone does that wolf thing, and if I were to redefine mammals...
	Mammals is warm-blooded.
	That's part of the definition, the criteria to define mammals.
	If I were to do that and then say all mammals are also cold-blooded, right away, that definition leads to a contradiction, right?
	So then you can say, okay, that's where you cannot adopt this definition and make logical sense, right?
	So you haven't allowed me to...
	You keep holding on to the old definition.
	I'm trying to establish a new redefinition.
	I want to try that one again because I don't want to cut you off, but you can't use this holding on.
	That is a rude thing to say.
	Just go with me for a second.
	Just kind of forget you ever looked it up on the internet and allow me to redefine it and just accept my redefinition.
	It's just a label, right?
	It's just a label?
	I can call it a quark.
	If everything's just a label, what the fuck is the point of this call?
	Everything in...
	So there's a subset of objective reality called quarks, right?
	Okay, so, you know, it's just arbitrary.
	So let's just call it quarks for a second.
	Then later on, I'm going to come back and just say, take out all the word quarks and put back subjective and everything will make sense, right?
	It's just arbitrary.
	I mean, you're just messing with me here, right?
	You're not seriously proposing this as an exercise in thought.
	That you define a self-contradiction as logically consistent and then just go with me.
	It's only a self-contradiction if I define it as such.
	Oh, seriously.
	Come on.
	Look, if you get into a cab and you want to go to the airport and the guy drives the opposite way from the airport and says, well, just go with me, man, because, you know, I'm defining the airport as the opposite of the airport, what would you say?
	Turn around or let me out of here, but I'm not driving the opposite way.
	Yeah, because it was implied that he was using the same definition as you, right?
	Yeah.
	But you see, if you get to make up all the definitions that you want, including that self-contradiction is consistency, then there's no debate to be had.
	Because what you're saying to me is, Steph, I want to sit down and I want to play chess with you, but I get to determine all the legal moves on my whim for me and for you, depending on how I feel in the moment.
	That's not chess.
	If you get to make up all the definitions you want and you get to define things however you want and there's no objective rules that we have to subject ourselves to, then whatever we're doing is not chess.
	Like if you say, well, I'd really like to play tennis with you.
	We're going to use a hand grenade.
	I get to call in an airstrike and release tigers.
	It's like, well, I don't know what that game is, but it's not tennis, right?
	And so if you want to have a debate with me where you get to define all the terms and you get to say, well, Steph, if you want rational consistency, you're just holding on to some weird emotional thing that you got to let it go and so on.
	Then you're kind of inviting me into a game where you can make up the rules as you go along.
	You're not subject to any restrictions or any standards, in which case you might as well just be talking to your hand because this is not a debate.
	You're erasing my entire existence if you're saying, Steph, you know, I'm just going to redefine things as the opposite and just go with it.
	That's not true.
	I'm still playing by the games of logic here.
	Definition is arbitrary.
	It's like a game of Plinko.
	You can set the disk, you know, for those of you who are not familiar with prices, you can set the disk anywhere you want, where it lands after you release it.
	No, you can't.
	No.
	See, if all definitions are arbitrary, then let's just define you as having one in your own subjective mind, and I'll move on to the next call.
	Nice.
	They're all arbitrary.
	So what on earth are we talking about?
	For you, every definition is arbitrary.
	Rules don't apply, so what's the point?
	No, logic still applies.
	Definitions are arbitrary, but it's like the laws of physics, right?
	In Plinko, where you set the disk is subjective, but once you release it, the laws of nature take over.
	It's the same thing with definition.
	You can set definition arbitrary.
	The laws of logic force the conclusions.
	This is the structure of mathematical proof.
	It doesn't matter what you call something.
	I can call it quarks.
	And assuming that we're using English, my definition of quarks, which would be anything determined by the mind, right?
	Yes, but see, the problem is, my friend, that you are a control freak.
	Because you want to be in control of the language, right?
	Now, we've got a very clear definition that's subjective.
	I'll totally use a different term.
	I'll let you finish your thought.
	Let me finish my thought.
	Right, so...
	You want to be in control of the definitions, and when things don't go your way logically, You insult the other person, and then you say, I'm going to define it the way that I want to.
	And then if I don't want to go along with this game where you define whatever you want the way you want it to, somehow I'm close-minded.
	No.
	If you want to use subjective and objective, you can't just redefine them to be whatever the hell you want.
	Like, I can't redefine mammal to include the ability to swim underwater with gills, be cold-blooded, and give birth to dragon eggs, right?
	I mean, if you just go with me along that line, then it'll all make sense.
	I'm not going there.
	Steph, if you're good with logic, you can allow the person to do that.
	I can allow you to redefine mammals as such, right?
	But then it would take on...
	The mammals would take on...
	But why?
	Why do you need to redefine mammals?
	What kind of slimy trick are you up to?
	Why?
	If I say, listen, I want to talk about mammals, but I want to redefine them as reptiles, I'd be like, why?
	Why the hell would we have that additional complication?
	It doesn't matter.
	It doesn't matter.
	So logically...
	It does matter because it matters that you want to redefine things and you didn't up front even know what the correct definition was of subjective versus objective.
	You tried to put across this definition.
	You said it was correct.
	We told you that you were incorrect and now you just want to keep on with that definition.
	It matters because you won't subject yourself to any external standards like a dictionary definition.
	Okay, so there's going to be variation between...
	No, you will not subject yourself.
	It's an ego trip for you.
	It's not an ego trip.
	It's a trip other people up for you.
	This is pure logic, right?
	No, it's not pure logic.
	If you reject definitions, you are not being logical.
	Now, you can choose to redefine things if you want, but you've got to be upfront.
	You've got to say, I'm redefining this to be the opposite, and you've got to make a really strong case, which you didn't do.
	That's what I'm doing at this point, right?
	No, now you're stuck in the wolf-mammal thing, which you still haven't addressed.
	I think I did.
	Well, I thought I did.
	Well, again, the logic part is compulsory.
	The definition part is arbitrary all the time.
	I've had my training in math, so I know the importance of definition and the logical structure of your conclusions.
	I know definition is arbitrary.
	It's just labels.
	They're just an internal mechanism for you to label something.
	That's all it is.
	Now that I see a dictionary definition, if I knew this by memorization, just by rote memory, I would have said, okay, I'm going to redefine it as such.
	I didn't see like...
	But you don't...
	So I'm kind of thinking too much as far as object, because you'd have to look at that too and make sure that they were mutually exclusive, right?
	So that's the thing.
	It might not be logically consistent with the dictionary.
	You're assuming that the dictionary is going to be logically consistent, right?
	It would be logically consistent if the definition for objective would actually show that subjective is mutually exclusive from objective.
	Not just from declaration, right?
	And I don't want to get into what the dictionary says.
	That's not the goal of an honest debate.
	The debate shouldn't be hung up on a definition.
	It should be arbitrarily adopted by whoever has logical integrity.
	I can adopt whatever definition you want.
	The consequence is If it doesn't make sense, then I can call your definition set.
	It's like proof by contradiction.
	You can define contradictory terms.
	And if they contradict, something's wrong with your definition set.
	And then you've essentially proven them quote-unquote wrong.
	So if you were to suspend the online dictionary definition, adopt mine for a second.
	And see if you can force me to a contradiction, then you've won the game.
	You see, I'm playing by the same game you want to play, but you don't want to just set the starting pieces.
	You don't want to choose who's what piece in Monopoly.
	It's like the arbitrary part.
	I want to be the symbol.
	Who cares, right?
	Wait, are you accusing me of being arbitrary?
	You're saying all the definitions are arbitrary and you're throwing away the standard definition of the word because it doesn't fit your thesis, but you're accusing me of being arbitrary?
	My God, you've got some balls.
	I mean, they're not real, but they're certainly big.
	I'm claiming when you start a debate, the definition starting point, the initial conditions of definite, the definitions, it's arbitrary.
	All that's important is that both parties agree to it, right?
	I mean...
	Now, if my definition set was somehow logically inconsistent, you can force me to a contradiction.
	But you haven't even heard my definition yet.
	Okay, go ahead.
	I will follow you down this path, so go ahead.
	I accept that subjective is a subset of objectives, so go ahead.
	Okay, and I define subjective as anything determined by the mind.
	And I define objective as anything to do with an object.
	That's kind of like the common sense, you know, the suffix if objective.
	It has relating to an object in reality or something.
	That's what I think a dictionary would say, but obviously I could be wrong.
	I'm sorry.
	Subjective is anything determined by the mind, and objective is what?
	Anything referring to an object in reality, which your mind is a part of.
	Your mind is...
	To make a materialistic argument, it's just...
	No, no, no, no, no.
	Don't start going making materialistic goddamn arguments.
	Right?
	Just give me a second to absorb, right?
	You've got to slow down.
	Like, I'm three years old, right?
	I'm sorry.
	I'm just excited that we've gotten this far now.
	Okay, so subjective is anything determined by the mind, and objective is anything referring to an object in reality.
	Yes.
	Okay, but the mind...
	Can refer to an object in reality, right?
	Yes, that too.
	Your opinion.
	Hang on, hang on, hang on.
	Is color subjective or objective?
	You mean the sensory perception of the individual?
	Yeah.
	Because it refers to an object in reality, which would seem to put it in the objective category, but it is determined to some degree by the mind, and therefore...
	The sensory perception triggered by the actual light is subjective.
	What is sensory perception?
	But again, it's objective.
	So color is subjective.
	Yes, and no...
	Hang on, even though color refers to an object in reality...
	No, you are referring to the sensory perception of the individual, the chemical process of what happens when the light hits the optic nerve.
	But where does the light come from?
	The light comes from an object in reality.
	Yes, it's reflected off an object in reality.
	So that's the light itself.
	Sorry, hang on, slow down.
	So color is referring to an object in reality.
	I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say color.
	Are you referring to the sensory perception of the individual, the chemical processes that are triggered after the light hits the optic nerve?
	Or are you referring to the light itself?
	Okay, let's take this nice and easy.
	You and I are standing in a field, right?
	Yeah.
	I see a white cloud and I say, oh look, a white cloud.
	Now, I'm referring to something that is in reality, the cloud.
	So, you said objective is anything referring to an object in reality.
	So, when I say a white cloud, I'm referring to an object in reality.
	So, that would seem to be objective.
	However, you're saying that it's determined by the mind and therefore is subjective.
	So can it be both subjective and objective at the same time?
	You have...
	Now, what are you referring to?
	You actually...
	Are you...
	Now, when someone says something like that, the truth value depends on how you're interpreting it, right?
	Are you...
	No, no, no, no.
	Fuck...
	Forget all that shit.
	You and I are standing in a field.
	I go over it again.
	We're standing in a field.
	I understand.
	Let me make the distinction.
	The opinion of an object is not the object itself.
	Just like the drawing of a dog is not a dog.
	It's a drawing of a dog.
	So all your sensory perceptions, all the images created in your mind from your senses of light is not the object itself.
	Okay, let's break it down.
	Let's break it down.
	One more.
	Okay.
	I can close my eyes.
	In fact, I'll do it right now.
	I'm going to close my eyes, and I'm going to imagine a white cloud in the sky.
	Okay.
	Now, I see that in my mind's eye.
	Yeah, that'll be a subjective object.
	Right.
	Because that's determined by the mind, right?
	Yes.
	I open my eyes.
	I'm looking at a white cloud in the sky.
	I am now looking at an object in reality rather than something in my mind's eye.
	You are perceiving an image in your head.
	Is there a difference between when my eyes are open and my eyes are closed?
	There's a difference between the actual cloud and what you're actually perceiving in your head.
	No, no.
	When I close my eyes and imagine a cloud, I'm not referring to an external cloud.
	When I open my eyes and look at a cloud in the sky, I am looking at an object in reality.
	Your eyes are pointed to the cloud, but the image in your head is totally different.
	I get that.
	But am I referring, with my eyes open and I see a cloud, am I referring to an object in reality in a way that I'm not when my eyes are closed or when I'm just dreaming of a cloud?
	Yes, you're kind of breaking up.
	Is my audio okay?
	Yeah.
	Okay, so your opinion is different from the actual object, right?
	You have an opinion of that cloud.
	I didn't say anything about an opinion.
	I didn't say whether I like it or not.
	No, but you're making a truth statement.
	Or you're expressing your opinion of what you think the cloud is.
	When you say, oh, the cloud is white, that's your opinion.
	It's not the actual object.
	It might not be the actual truth value.
	Wait, wait, wait.
	Hang on.
	Weren't you earlier arguing that you could get to the truth of people's opinions?
	And now you're saying you can't because it's just my opinion?
	Wait, no, no.
	That's totally...
	So, first of all, I'm saying the subjective theory value is bullcrap because your opinion...
	No, no, no.
	Forget the subjective theory value.
	Earlier on, you were saying, when I said that there's subjective, you said, well, you can find out the truth about someone's subjective experience, right?
	Yeah, it's an object that you could theoretically find a truth, you could make a truth statement about.
	Okay, so hang on.
	So I'm a little confused now because you say that objective is anything referring to an object in reality.
	And now when I tell you I've opened my eyes and I'm looking at a white cloud, are you saying that you can't refer to an object in reality?
	Yeah.
	I think you misstated my definition.
	No, no.
	I typed it in directly as you said it.
	Anything referring to an object in reality.
	Yes.
	Subjective is determined by the mind.
	Anything determined by the mind.
	Objective is anything referring to an object in reality.
	That was your specific definition that you told me about ten minutes ago.
	I might have misspoke.
	Objective has to do...
	I'm not saying an actual mind referring to an object...
	I'm talking about maybe a truth statement.
	It's kind of getting a little abstract.
	You think?
	A statement about an object...
	Wait.
	Objective has...
	Objective relates to statements.
	No.
	Wait.
	Statements are in the mind?
	But that's a subset of objective reality.
	Okay, so hang on.
	We're scrapping your definition of objective as anything referring to an object in reality, and we're going to go with something else, right?
	Not referring to.
	Having to do with.
	What?
	Having to do with.
	What difference does that make?
	Because I'm going to use the term refer with opinion.
	And that kind of has loaded, it's kind of attached to opinion, referring.
	I'm going to actually use that word, and I want to make a distinct, it should make no difference, but I know it's going to come into play because referring to, I'm going to use refer when it comes to opinion, because an opinion refers to an object.
	Okay, I don't know what the hell you're talking about.
	Can you just give me the definition of objective that you want to use?
	Objective is having to do with an object, in reality.
	Having, okay, having to do with.
	Okay, so objective is having to do with an object in reality.
	Yes.
	Okay, can you give me an example?
	You and I are standing in a field.
	I think we're standing in a cloud philosophically.
	We're standing in a field, and there's a white cloud overhead.
	Mm-hmm.
	How do I make an objective statement about the cloud?
	How do you make an objective?
	Well, again, if you accept my definition, all your statements are objective by default because it's a subset of objective, right?
	But you mean, can you make a true statement about the cloud?
	Dude, don't ask me.
	You're making a definition of objective.
	You said subjective.
	Hang on, let me finish my sentence.
	Subjective is that determined by the mind.
	Yes.
	Which is, again, which is a subset of objective.
	So that too is objective.
	Because it's a separate object.
	Your mind and what goes on in your mind are separate objects.
	Your mind and what goes on in your mind are separate objects.
	Now I need to know what your definition of object is.
	Maybe it would be better if you draw a Venn diagram.
	No, I think maybe it would be better if you were consistent.
	Because, so when your opinion, it's like object-oriented programming, right?
	No, it's not like object-oriented programming because that requires rational consistency.
	Let's try it again.
	It is.
	Okay, you and I are standing in a field.
	We're looking at a cloud.
	Okay, objectively, there's a white cloud overhead.
	Yep.
	So, like, from an omniscient perspective, like some omniscient god, just allow that term.
	Wait, are we bringing a god in now?
	I know, I know it's a loaded term, but, you know, I'm just trying to say that objectively there's a white cloud.
	How many sideways fish bones am I supposed to swallow here in order to give you an argument?
	That's objective, too.
	No, I'm just joking.
	Okay, so objectively, okay, there's a white cloud.
	That's all I'm trying to say, you know.
	Okay, so if I say there is a white cloud...
	Okay, now you're saying, you're making a claim that there's a white cloud overhead.
	Right.
	Is that right?
	Okay, go ahead.
	And you see the white cloud.
	And I see the white cloud, okay.
	And we have a drone flying around it, and we can bounce lasers off it and see the white cloud.
	Whatever it is that you need to determine the objective existence of the white cloud, right?
	Sure, there's evidence to the existence of that cloud being white.
	It is established as existing as anything can be established as existing, right?
	To the best of our technology, yeah.
	If I say that's a white cloud...
	Is that a subjective statement or an objective statement?
	Remember, it's both.
	It's a subset of objective, right?
	The fact that you've made that statement, I can refer to that statement too.
	Okay, let's go back.
	Let's go back.
	Let's try another example.
	Because you're just saying that they're the same, right?
	But you're not proving anything.
	You've got to make the distinction.
	I know you know the distinction between an opinion and the actual object it's referring to, right?
	The opinion and the actual object it's referring to are two distinct objects.
	Let's switch our location to a desert, and this will clarify things a lot.
	Okay, so you and I, Brian, we're standing in a desert, and we're looking over the dunes.
	We're looking at Sting having some tea.
	And we are looking over the dunes.
	And I say, I see a lake.
	And you say, I see a mirage.
	It only looks like a lake.
	It is just the light waves bouncing between differently heated layers of air or whatever it is, right?
	Okay, so when I say I see a lake...
	I am drawing a conclusion based on my sense data.
	Now you, who have almost exactly the same sense data but know about mirages and maybe know there's no lake there or whatever, you just came from there or something, you are saying that is not a lake, that is a mirage.
	You said it in a different way the first time.
	You said, I see a mirage.
	I know you said, I see a lake.
	Yeah, I see a mirage.
	Either way is fine.
	Or you can say to me, Steph, you see a mirage.
	You're mistakenly interpreting it as a lake, but you are in fact seeing a mirage.
	Okay, there should be a distinction between these two statements.
	I see a lake there versus there is a lake there.
	If the guy's not alive...
	Let's say I say there is a lake there.
	Okay.
	Is that an erroneous statement?
	Don't know.
	No, no, you just walked from there.
	There's no lake there.
	That's, again, my opinion of it.
	It's your opinion that there was no lake there when you walked there?
	Do you think there was a lake there, but you...
	You...
	Drowned in it, but didn't notice you're a zombie full of water who thinks there's no lake.
	Where are we here in the story?
	The thing is, it seems like So, to analyze things objectively, you kind of have to...
	No, no, no.
	Come on, man.
	Just simplify it a little bit.
	We have to teach philosophy to five-year-olds.
	Otherwise, we can't hold them morally responsible.
	So, decomplicate things.
	There's no lake there.
	If I say there's a lake there because I see the mirage, am I right or wrong?
	The thing is, you have to detach yourself from perspective when you talk about things objectively.
	So...
	Objectively?
	No, you're begging the question.
	We're trying to figure out what is objective.
	You can't say when you speak objectively because we're trying to figure that out.
	You haven't given the objective conditions of that hypothesis, right?
	You have to tell me, is there a lake or there objectively or not first?
	I did.
	I've told you that three times now.
	No, you said I went there and I think there's no lake.
	I don't want to have to get this technical, but I have to, right?
	You have to objectively say first, okay, there's a lake there, or there's not a lake.
	Okay, there's no lake there.
	There's no lake there, objectively.
	And I say there's a lake there, and you say it's a mirage.
	Forget what I say.
	Now that I know that objectively there's no lake there, and you say there's a lake there, your opinion is false, objectively false.
	Okay, so I'm incorrect.
	Yes, you're incorrect at that point.
	Fantastic.
	Beautiful.
	So I have a subjective belief...
	Yes.
	That there's a lake there when there isn't a lake there.
	Yes.
	Now, it is subjective because I'm wrong.
	No, subjective things can be right.
	Because what's in my mind does not correspond to what is in reality.
	Of course.
	Yeah, well, subjective things can...
	No, no, no, we're getting there.
	You're getting there.
	It's beautiful.
	Angels are singing.
	Sorry?
	You're adding a bunch of Things that are subjective that I didn't want to accept.
	So first off, you imply that subjective things are wrong.
	They can be either wrong or right, depending on how specifically your statement is.
	The more specific you want to get...
	I may be begging the question there too, so we'll drop that.
	And I'll accept that, and I apologize for that.
	So let's say that if I withdraw that, then when I say there's a lake in the desert, I am incorrect.
	Yes, you're incorrect.
	The lake exists only as an error in my mind, not as an existent in reality.
	Yes, and if you actually see the lake in your head, that's a different object, right?
	Well, it's not a lake in reality.
	I can't open a swimming pool that I'm thinking of.
	I'm referring to your perception itself, not what's actually out there.
	Right.
	Those are two different objects.
	Got it.
	Got it.
	Now...
	If there is a lake there, and I say there's a lake, that is a different relationship between what's in my mind and what's in reality, right?
	Yes, the truth value.
	Because I'm accurate in what I'm saying.
	I'm actually describing something that is there rather than thinking something there which isn't there, right?
	Yes, yes.
	So it can happen either way, right?
	Of course, I can be right.
	I can be wrong.
	I can make no sense at all, right?
	So I can be right or I can be wrong.
	So, if I say there's a lake, then if there's no lake, I'm wrong.
	If I say there's a lake and there is a lake, then I'm correct, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Is correct a subset of incorrect?
	No.
	It can't be, right?
	Yeah, mutually exclusive.
	Right, so if there's something that's in my mind that does not correspond to reality, it cannot be a subset of something that is in my mind that does correspond to reality.
	No, see...
	I'm just saying exactly what you said in a different way.
	No, you're using...
	What was the word?
	Did you correspond?
	Were you saying correspond?
	Correspond, that's a reference, right?
	That's not saying they're equal.
	No, you're complicating it again.
	Let's take it again.
	Error cannot be a subset of non-error, right?
	Yes, they're complements of each other, so they're mutually exclusive.
	Mutually exclusive, right?
	Okay, so if I have a thought when I'm looking at that desert, that it's a lake, but there's no lake, that's an error, right?
	That's incorrect.
	Because the lake only exists in my mind.
	It doesn't exist in reality.
	My assumption that there's a lake in the desert when there's no lake in the desert is false, right?
	That's an incorrect statement.
	It's wrong.
	We don't have to get truth.
	I'm wrong.
	Let's just keep it simple, right?
	But you're not incorrect.
	It's like you're trying to...
	No, no, no.
	I'm saying there's a lake.
	There's no lake there.
	I am incorrect, right?
	Your statement is incorrect.
	Okay, whatever.
	My statement is incorrect.
	Fine.
	Okay, so the statement there is a lake is incorrect, right?
	Yes.
	Because the lake only exists in my mind, not in reality.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	If I say there is a lake, and there is a lake, my statement is correct.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	I just proved my point.
	subjective cannot be a subset of objective.
	No, I, I doubt you did, but, um, So, it makes no sense...
	Because subjective is determined by the mind, not what is referent to an object in reality.
	So, if I say there's a lake, that's something in my mind that is not referent to, as you said, does not have to do with an object in reality.
	And so if the lake is in my mind but not in reality, that cannot be a subset of the lake being in my mind and the lake being in reality because one is an error and the other one is not an error.
	And you said to me directly, error cannot be a subset of non-error.
	So subjective cannot be a subset of objective.
	You're confusing the You're confusing the idea with- You are awfully confident that I'm wrong.
	You have not listened to or processed my argument.
	You're just telling me I'm wrong without listening or processing the argument.
	I can jump to it because of how sure I am, if you're careful with your words, right?
	So the existence of the lake does not depend on your mind.
	Agreed.
	Your opinion of the lake depends on your mind, and that is subjective.
	That is different, just because it does not match reality.
	They're not the same thing anyways.
	So, by your definition, subjective is that which is determined by the mind.
	You're equating them just because one refers to the other.
	I can point, you know, it's just a pointer.
	I mean, it's a reference, right?
	A pointer.
	It's just a pointer?
	Is that your argument?
	No, no.
	You'll be chasing ducks now with dogs?
	What are you talking about?
	Your opinion of what's there is its own thing.
	Okay, I don't know what that means.
	That is determined by your mind.
	Your opinion.
	I'm not going to explain it to you because you're just dead set against understanding this.
	But I'll explain this one more time to the audience when we move on to the next caller, Brian.
	Are you sure you're misunderstanding me?
	I'm going to explain it to the audience.
	Okay.
	And those of you watching the video, this will make sense.
	Okay.
	So this hand, blinky hand, is the lake.
	Right?
	When it's open, the lake is there.
	When it's closed, the lake is not there.
	This is me.
	I think there's a lake, there's no lake, right?
	Which means that something determined by the mind does not refer to something that is an object in reality, right?
	Which would be subjective.
	Now, if I think there is a lake and there is a lake there, then what is determined by the mind has accurately reflects the object in reality, in which case my statement is true.
	Now, if error cannot be a subset of non-error, Then subjective, which is making a statement that is not true in reality, maybe only true to your own perspective or your own reference, cannot be a subset of statements that are true and accurate about reality.
	So I'm going to move on to the next caller.
	I really do appreciate the work you had.
	It was an enjoyable chat, and I hope we'll get to talk again sometime.
	Okay, let me just say that I thought you started to conflate subjective and truth, right?
	Yeah.
	Well, given that we haven't even defined truth, I don't see how we get to conflate something.
	I did accept your perspective, and I think I argued it very well, but you disagree.
	That's obviously your prerogative, but you can just redefine yourself as correct.
	So let's move on to the next column.
	Thanks, Jeff.
	All right.
	Up next is William.
	William wrote in and said,"'If your significant other begins to fail to meet your rational standards in a relationship, is it worth it to try and change them back?' What is the best way to go about doing this?
	And at what level of responsibility do we have in imposing rational standards on the ones we care deeply about?
	Or is this all too demanding slash controlling?
	That's from William.
	Hello.
	Hello, William.
	Hey, how's it going?
	Good.
	Good for me, too.
	Did you want to add more to the statement of question?
	I mean, other than that it applies directly to a relationship I'm having right now, no.
	But I would like to say before we start the conversation that as a student of philosophy for the past five years, reading lots of authors from Aristotle to Rand,
	you are by far my favorite philosopher simply because your Your enthusiasm for philosophy and your, I guess, valor in standing up for morality and consistency and logic in the world is something that's incredibly inspiring to me and I'm sure to hundreds of others.
	Also, considering your childhood background, which I completely sympathetically and empathetically am sorry for.
	I think it's incredible where you've come from and where you are now.
	Well, thank you.
	I really appreciate that.
	It's very, very kind.
	And I accept your empathy.
	You know, it's surprisingly rare.
	You know, I put a lot of empathy and care and concern out into this show, and it's really nice when the occasional person shows up and expresses some sympathy for my history as well.
	So, you know, good for you.
	He's a big-hearted young man, and I really appreciate that.
	Well, we have to do our best to be sympathetic and empathetic with the people we care about and the people who are important.
	Right.
	All right.
	So you have some...
	It's a great, great question.
	And I know it's personal to you in your life.
	Is this a girlfriend?
	Is this a family member?
	Is this a friend?
	Yeah, it's a girlfriend.
	Girlfriend.
	All right.
	I'm sorry, because you said you've been dating for a year, right?
	Five.
	Five years?
	No, sorry, I'm sorry, five months.
	Five months, okay, okay.
	Yeah.
	Now, we can take this one of two ways, because you studied philosophy, so you know the one of two ways.
	We can go empirical, or we can go theoretical.
	And what I mean by that is, of course, is I can say, what are your standards, and a gap analysis, right?
	What are your standards, and where does she not meet them?
	And then we can look at those.
	The other thing we can do, though, which I have a mild preference for, but it's your call, so do what you think is best, is to say, is it even possible to impose a rational standard on someone?
	Because I think that rationality has to be something that we want to pursue.
	Yeah.
	Well, I would like to go with the former, but I actually kind of want to answer the latter, if that's okay.
	Okay, if we have time, we can go to the former too, but go ahead.
	So...
	When I mean in pose, it's not like you can force someone to accept rationality or force someone to accept some sort of standard, but it's like if you care about that person and you know these standards will make them happy, then is it important for us to constantly try and get the person to meet those standards?
	But how can you get a person to meet a standard called rationality if rationality is internally generated?
	Like, um...
	Like, reminding them when they're not being rational.
	No, no, no.
	Sorry, I understand all of that.
	But what I mean is that...
	Like, if you want someone to...
	Let's say someone you know is overweight or gaining weight or something, you want them to eat well.
	You can encourage them, of course, to change their diet habits or dietary habits or whatever.
	But either they're doing it because you're nagging them, or they do it because they're committed to it and just needed a reminder or something, right?
	And so you're saying if I nag them and they do it, then it's not really their choice.
	It's more of...
	Well, they're just obeying.
	All they're doing is like, fine, I'll be rational, just shut up, right?
	I mean, that's not...
	The internalization of the value of rationality.
	And since rationality is something that you really need to commit to.
	I mean, you only eat three meals a day, but I hope people are rational more than three times a day, right?
	Of course.
	And so it has to be something that you're really committed to.
	So to me, maybe a better analogy would be, can you impose an Olympic gold medal on someone?
	No.
	You can only encourage them to do it.
	Right.
	You can encourage them to do it, and nagging sure as hell isn't going to do it, right?
	Because the amount of commitment that you need to get a gold medal is so prodigious that if it's coming from someone else, you'll both be exhausted and suicidal long before you get to the podium, right?
	So do you think there's any way to, I guess, spark that...
	That internal acceptance of reason or whatever standard.
	If I didn't have any idea about that, I don't know what the hell I've been doing for the last 10 years or 30 years of my life, really.
	Well, I hope so.
	So, yeah, I mean, I think there are ways to spark people's desire to be rational.
	And you've listened to this show, so what...
	You know, hopefully this show has sparked a little bit of desire for you to be rational, along with your philosophy courses, of course.
	So what has worked for you?
	Not just for me, but from whoever has encouraged you to be more rational.
	Well, I mean, it was more of a childhood experience, as in, like, I saw that being anti-rational or being over-emotional That led to problems in my life and that being rational and using rationality in my life helped me solve those problems.
	I just wanted to mention, William, it's extraordinarily unlikely biologically that I have an 18-year-old twin, given that I'm 48.
	I mean, that's a 30-year labor that we must obviously apologize to our mother for.
	But that's just remarkable.
	Like, I couldn't have put my own experiences like, hey, I was full up, full it into the screeching German crazy face of irrationality.
	And it's like, well, let's not do that, right?
	Whatever we do, let's not do that, right?
	You just...
	Whatever's not working, you go to the next thing, right?
	Yeah, do the opposite.
	I mean, I'm like that Seinfeld character, right?
	Opposite George, right?
	I mean, so that's what my mom is doing, that's what my culture is doing, that's what my friends are doing, and it's really not working for them, so let's...
	Yeah, and so I know, I know for, or at least I know, maybe it's a different experience for other people, but I know for me that accepting rationality, accepting the certain standards that I'm talking about in my life helped me solve my problems.
	Right, so all you need to do with your girlfriend is give her a really bad childhood and a really good brain.
	What do you mean by that?
	I'm not quite understanding that.
	Well, I'm tongue-in-cheek, because if you look at what formulated your desire for rationality, I mean, I've seen your Adverse Childhood Experience score.
	You did not have much fun when you were young.
	To put it mildly.
	And for that, of course, my sympathies return back to you, William.
	But you had a bad childhood and a good brain.
	And that seems to have a lot to do with people who end up becoming quite rational.
	You know, there's no one who hates a drunk more than a drunk's child.
	And some people drown that hatred in Alcohol and follow down the same dismal path and other people say, I'm never touching a drop of drink because I saw what I did to my dad.
	I don't know what the difference is.
	It might just be as simple as your IQ, your genetics, your whatever, right?
	May just be how smart you are.
	And a lot of that seems to be kind of innate, not all of it, but a lot of it.
	And so if you look, if you want to reproduce a spark that lit your rocket ship, then it would be a bad childhood and a good brain.
	I know she has a bad childhood, but from discussions outside of problems that are obviously deeply emotional or deeply troubling, our conversations can be pretty intellectual and pretty engaging.
	And I learn a lot, actually.
	So I know the brain is there, too.
	Well, but the brain isn't just one thing, right?
	There's intelligence and there's wisdom, if I remember from my Dungeons and Dragons character sheet correctly.
	And there's IQ and then there's EQ, right?
	IQ is just a raw processing power for things like language and logic and symbols and numbers and all that kind of stuff.
	And EQ is your emotional intelligence, your empathy, your capacity for self-protection, your capacity to negotiate and so on.
	Can we equate emotional intelligence to emotional maturity?
	Yeah, I think that's a reasonable proxy for it.
	I was just wondering.
	Yeah, no, but maturity sounds like, the problem I have with maturity is it's a word that's used both for involuntary biological processes and highly willed emotional and intellectual processes.
	I mean, sorry, that's just a minor quibble I have with the word.
	You can reach physical maturity and that just happens because you don't die.
	If you're 12 or so, I guess it's a little younger now, if you're still breathing, you get puberty.
	Emotional maturity seems to be something that is much more willed, at least in the current culture, than it is involuntary.
	But obviously, I'm not equating my girlfriend to a child or anything, but if a child is not at the emotional maturity to process emotions in a rational way, isn't that a semi-developed ability?
	I think that the perspective of emotional intelligence that matters here is cost-benefit.
	And that to me is...
	Really, the very essence of what is needed in philosophy, maturity, self-knowledge, even in therapy and so on, it is the capacity to see down the road for the benefits of self-work, of self-knowledge, of philosophy over the flaming scimitar, scything, lightning strikes and raining flaming pigs, valley of the shadow of death that you have to go through to get there, right?
	And like we all sort of understand this stuff intellectually that philosophy hurts a hell of a lot before it helps.
	And the more it's going to help in the future, and the future can be years down the road, the more it's going to help in the future, the more it hurts in the present.
	And I think that this is why until we have more examples, right, we need to show people the benefits of self-knowledge through Through reasonableness, through moral courage, through intellectual rigor, and all the good things, and general happiness.
	We need to show people that because they need to see that there's something on the other side of that valley of the shadow of flaming pigs and lightning bolts and Thor's hammer coming out of his ass and stuff like that.
	We need to wave, you know, and I said this at the beginning, at the end, sorry, of...
	I think it was, um, on truth, the tyranny of illusion where I talk about the village at the other side of the desert where people are setting up shop and the shop called the future.
	And so I did not know when I first really began, I mean, I started learning about myself really at the age of sort of 16 or so, 15 or 16, and really began to delve into it when I was 18 or 19.
	And then it took a long time before I went into therapy, and then I took a long time in therapy.
	And during that process, I didn't see what was on the other side of it.
	I didn't.
	It was...
	I mean, the only people I saw on the other side of it were, like, people really into Buddhism or, you know, people who were really into the good news of God's work.
	Mysticism.
	Yeah, mysticism and, I mean, even my therapist was an out-and-out mystic who believed that monks could fly in.
	I mean, I was like, well, I don't know what's on the other side because it really was the road not traveled for me.
	The intellectual heroes that I had, as far as rationality went, as far as IQ went, those intellectual heroes did not really pursue self-knowledge.
	And those intellectual or those emotional or self-knowledge heroes that I had that did produce self-knowledge It never got philosophical, right?
	I mean, there's Jung disappearing up his own ass, studying Mandela's and killing his porters by pointlessly trekking through the jungles of Africa and so on.
	I mean, they just, they went very mystical.
	Oh yeah, there's plenty of self-help books, but not a lot of those self-help books are philosophical.
	Right, yeah.
	And I mean, Dr.
	Phil is religious.
	John Bradshaw is religious.
	Nathaniel Brandon wasn't.
	But Nathaniel Brandon didn't do much about childhood.
	He was big on sentence completions and so on, but he doesn't sort of do what I consider very important work to do, which is the internal family systems therapy stuff, the alter ego stuff, the stuff that, you know, the...
	The full-on ghost manner of prior personalities that infest our subjective experience.
	And so, for me at least, I did not know what was on the other side because I didn't know anyone who'd gone there.
	Murray Rothbard, really great economist.
	Did he really work that hard at self-knowledge, confronting childhood demons, escaping culture?
	I don't think so.
	Whereas the other people who were able to, quote, individuate...
	A little crazy to me.
	Like, I don't want to end up.
	I want to be like that.
	I don't want to go that way.
	I don't want to go that way.
	That it almost seems like the only people who, I guess, approach their personal lives philosophically as well as academic endeavors are those people who have come from a life where they needed to appeal to rationality instead of anti-rationality.
	Right.
	But so often self-knowledge seems to be associated with anti-rationality.
	That to me was the great challenge.
	I did not want to give up the objectivity.
	I didn't want to give up the rationality.
	I didn't want to give up the stuff that got me going on anything to begin with.
	I did not want to give up the scientific objective rationality, but I also didn't want to give up the intense self-knowledge work.
	Now, I think that's why this show has done over 100 million downloads and why you're calling it and so on, is that I can't obviously claim to be the only one, but I'm the only one that I know who has gone through that LSD-style waking dream, lucid dream, mental disintegration rebuilt by the ghostly hands of the future.
	I'm the only person that I know of who's gone through that self-knowledge process while hanging on Like grim death to reason, science, objectivity, empiricism, rationality, and so on.
	In other words, it's kind of a Plato-Aristotle combo, like a one-two combo thing.
	Because, I mean, Plato would write beautifully about certain kinds of interstates.
	You could never imagine Aristotle writing something like the Symposium, which is the discussion of love.
	So I've sort of tried to do the inner work that I got from Plato and the rationality that I got by synthesize, synthesize as much as possible the deep self-exploration at the same time with never letting go of rationality, empiricism, objectivity, and all that.
	What I think an element, I'm sorry, what I think an element you bring to self-knowledge is the The confronting of your problems.
	A lot of people who go to therapy or read self-help books, what they get is, well, here's all the self-knowledge, here's what I know about myself, and here are the sources of my problem, but then don't go the next step of confronting that problem.
	You know what I mean?
	Well, yeah, because self-knowledge is...
	I confronted problems with my parents by either ostracizing them or demanding an apology or a change in action.
	And that let me hold on to empiricism instead of, I guess, denying my problems or ignoring my problems with religion, mysticism, or spirituality, or whatever.
	Right.
	There's an old phrase, it's a bad joke, and it's an old joke, which says, you know, everybody complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.
	And I think for me, And this was always frustrating to me, which was, okay, what's the effect of self-knowledge?
	Like, why?
	Why would you want to pursue it?
	What's the effect of self-knowledge?
	And a lot of times it would be like, oh, you know, you're more peaceful, you're less judgmental, you're, you know, easier going, and, you know, you enrich those around you and so on, right?
	And, okay, I mean, nice, but what if you're surrounded by jerks?
	I mean, how serene can you be if you're...
	And so for me, it was like, okay, well, if the purpose of not being racist is to not hang around with racists, right?
	I mean, yeah, try and change them into not being racist, but if they're just hellbent and dug in and they're just going to be racist, then it wouldn't seem to me that the point of Overcoming racism would be to continue to hang out with racists.
	In other words, if you fundamentally change your belief set, what is your relationship to those who now oppose your belief set?
	You know, if you're giving up on sexism, then surely you should, you know, try and enlighten the people around you who were formerly compatible with your sexism.
	And now that you're against sexism, not just non-sexist, but anti-sexist, What is your relationship to people who are hanging on to their rampant sexism?
	You know, or their racism or homophobia or, you know, whatever it is that is going on.
	Sorry, you want to say?
	Yeah, right.
	This is, like, knowing racism is wrong does not equate getting rid of racism.
	And so therapy is very good in identifying, like, the self-knowledge.
	But it doesn't get rid of the problem.
	Like, self-knowledge is great, and it helps you understand things, but it doesn't get rid of the problem, doesn't solve the problem, and it doesn't fix the problem in any way.
	Right.
	Yeah, and I had, Mike, if you can look up a couple of the quotes about marriage from people like Betty Frieden, Gloria Steinem, and so on, Andrea Dworkin, God help us, but...
	I grew up with feminists saying marriage is bad.
	Marriage is an ugly bourgeois institution.
	It's a kind of suburban concentration camp.
	It's a prison.
	And they had all of these horribly negative, hostile judgments about marriage.
	They didn't say at the end of these judgments, but you shouldn't get divorced.
	Their goal was, I'm telling you this is terrible, so you can get out.
	So you can go and divorce your chauvinistic man-pig of a leave-it-to-beaver husband who is really your oppressor and all heterosexual sex is rape and all marital sex is rape.
	And the point was to get people to change, to get women to change their behavior, to divorce these guys.
	To leave the marriage.
	And that's what I grew up with.
	I heard about this stuff.
	I saw the effects all around me of women's discontent being stoked and women leaving their husbands and then women becoming largely miserable.
	I mean, there's study after study seems to show like women home with the kids, they generally are happier.
	Trust me, I see it in my own personal life, I know what you're talking about.
	Yeah, I mean, and there is this, and I'm not, it's not true for all women.
	Ayn Rand never got, had kids and all, I mean, but for a lot, and there's this weird statistic about how now that women are working, I can't square this circle, it's just a by the by.
	But when women were home with the kids in 1965, the average mom spent 10 hours a week on childcare.
	And I'm like, and the rest of the time, you were what exactly?
	I mean, and it's actually gone up now.
	I think it's like 16 or 17 hours for women.
	Even women who are working, they're spending much more time on childcare than they used to.
	Now, of course, there were fewer labor-saving devices and so on, and sugar needed to be borrowed, and chit-chats needed to be had, and so on.
	Well, there's a wave of independence.
	I mean, you didn't have to.
	Like, it was more socially acceptable for you to be out on your own being an independent woman than it was to take care of your child, and now that paradigm has sort of shifted.
	Well, and there's this terrible thing that happens when a bunch of women start going to work, is that it becomes less fun to be a stay-at-home mom when everyone else is working.
	And also, you know, this is also quite true, that...
	Feminists wanted to get other women into the workforce because they didn't want to compete with men who had stay-at-home wives.
	Because when you have a stay-at-home wife, you know, you can work late, you can take business trips, your house is kept clean, you don't have as much to do in the evenings, you can really concentrate and focus on your work.
	And so it was really tough for feminists who didn't want to have kids to compete with men who had stay-at-home wives.
	So it was kind of like an undermining the opposition to convince their wives to go out.
	Mm-hmm.
	Into the workforce.
	So as much as I love a rant about feminism, and I really do, but I wanted to kind of get back to the main question.
	Well, we are sort of circling that, and I think that is important because we're getting back to, like, how can you stimulate rational thought in other people?
	Mm-hmm.
	And that is a big challenge.
	The second part of this is that when I first met her, she was more rational, more mature than she is now.
	Wait, five months ago she was more rational and more mature than she is now?
	Oh, now she's more.
	No, like five months ago when we first started dating.
	We met, I would say, about nine months ago, nine or eight months ago.
	But in that timeframe, when we were first meeting, before I first asked her out, she at least seemed more intellectually engaging and mature.
	And then that kind of degraded about a month after we started dating.
	Hmm.
	That was the original question.
	She started to not meet my rational standards.
	The two big rational standards that I have is one, emotional maturity or rationality.
	The ability to take criticism, take...
	Truth as objective, value truth, things like that, value reality, live in reality, and the want or the act of living a significant life.
	So not filling day-to-day conversations with like, you know, how is the weather and what are we going to eat for dinner and things like that, but real intellectual stimulating conversations.
	And not only that, but the acts that go along with that.
	So if we have a conversation about the environment and then go out and do something about it, you know what I mean?
	And so those qualities were there pretty predominantly, at least I believe so, or at least it was presented to me this way, and that faded about a month after we started dating.
	Alright, and what happened about a month after you started dating?
	Look, some of this is like, there's the complaints that men have, like, you know, I married my wife, she cut her hair.
	You know, I like long hair, and then we got married and She cut her hair.
	But, you know, women have the same complaints, too.
	You know, he used to be in shape, then he got married and he went to pot or whatever.
	So it seems a bit early, a month after.
	Was there anything in particular that happened a month after you guys got together?
	Not much that I can read I mean, before we started dating, she was...
	So I'm going to have to kind of explain how our relationship came about.
	Sure.
	Is that okay?
	So I had moved to a new school and I had met her and I was dating another girl.
	I dated her for about three months or so.
	Realized she wasn't what I was looking for and was going to dump her.
	At this point, I had already been having a lot of stimulating conversations and a lot of good qualities coming out of my current girlfriend.
	And the week or like the day before I was supposed to break up with my other girlfriend, me and my current girlfriend got drunk and we got high and we ended up kissing.
	And I mean, that was it.
	It was just, I mean, it was just kissing.
	And then...
	Wait, wait.
	So hang on, hang on.
	So your relationship started with cheating?
	Yes.
	Well, you say yes, like, why would I even bring that up?
	No, I mean, it's obviously pretty relevant.
	It did start with that.
	So your relationship started with cheating.
	And so did you break up with your old girlfriend the next day?
	And as well, my current girlfriend was dating somebody long distance.
	What?
	Wait.
	Your previous girlfriend was also cheating with you?
	No, no.
	My current girlfriend was dating somebody long distance.
	Oh, you were both cheating?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Not that that makes it or justifies it.
	I'm just saying that that's what...
	No, it makes it worse.
	Okay.
	Because then both people are...
	Now, did you break up with your previous girlfriend the next day?
	Mm-hmm.
	And did you tell her why?
	We told each of our other people that, like, right after we did it.
	And then, yeah, I explained to my girlfriend why I did that.
	And I took responsibility.
	It wasn't like I was trying to dart around.
	I told her why.
	Right, so you said I slept with someone else.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	And did you guys drink a lot?
	Enough to be buzzed.
	Right, how often?
	Like how many drinks do we have?
	No, how often a week do you drink?
	Like two to three times a week.
	If we have alcohol.
	So two to three times a week you drink a couple of drinks?
	Drunk?
	What are we talking?
	Usually just buzzed.
	And what about smoking?
	Well, if we have it we...
	I guess once or twice.
	Not very often.
	Oh, once or twice in your relationship?
	Once or twice, if we have it in that week, but not very often.
	Like, if I always had it, I wouldn't be smoking it once or twice a week.
	But when I do have it, I smoke it once or twice a week.
	So you smoke once or twice a week, and what, three or four times a week you get buzzed?
	Yes, if I have it.
	Why do you do that?
	It's just, it's fun.
	No, I think thinking it's fun.
	I think that this sort of...
	Escape from the South that has to do with this kind of stuff.
	I don't know if you've seen my conversation with Gabba Mate, but this kind of drinking and drug use is not necessarily associated with, you know, it's fun.
	I'd love to have fun without that.
	So you haven't, I mean, you never smoked, right?
	Like marijuana?
	No.
	Okay.
	So when you, so reality is certainly pretty great.
	Like I can have fun without smoking or drinking.
	But when you smoke or drink, it makes that situation more enhanced.
	You know what I mean?
	No, I don't know what you mean, because you just asked me.
	I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
	It's the difference between watching a movie and watching a movie in 3D. You can have lots of fun watching a movie, but if you're watching a movie in 3D, it makes it better.
	It's not like we can't have fun.
	How old were you when you started smoking weed and drinking?
	13. 13. 13. 13.
	And what's it like for you if or when, I don't know if it's ever happened, but William, what's it like for you if you don't have access to these mind-altering substances?
	It's perfectly fine.
	It's perfectly fine.
	I thought you said it wasn't as good.
	Well, it's still a fun, I mean, life is still a fun experience without these things.
	It's just enhanced when you have these things.
	What is the enhancement like?
	Is it 5% better or 10% better?
	Drinking, I'd say 20% better.
	Smoking, I'd say 10% better.
	I'm not destitute for these things.
	I don't need these things.
	Tomorrow, I could just stop doing these things.
	I'd still have not as much fun, but I'd have, I'm sure, lots of fun in my life.
	Well, I mean, you wouldn't be doing something illegal with the marijuana.
	Illegal doesn't mean anything to me.
	Well, it should.
	Why?
	I don't mean it should mean something morally, because it's certainly not a perfect equation between morality and law, but it's a little risky, right?
	I mean, it's risky, but it's not...
	I mean, weed is so common, it's basically legal nowadays.
	I think you can...
	Have up to an ounce, and you can't even be arrested.
	It's not much of a risk.
	So, it's not illegal for you?
	I mean, it's illegal, but it's not a risk, you know what I mean?
	Like, it's illegal to jaywalk, but it's not that risky to jaywalk.
	And how much money are you spending a week on this stuff?
	We don't get it on a weekly basis, but I'd say in one month I'd spend like 80 on alcohol and in one month I'd spend maybe 40 on weed.
	But we don't buy it every month, I mean, or at least I don't buy it every month.
	It's very rare that I ever get weed or smoke weed.
	Sorry, I thought you said it was once or twice a week.
	Maybe I mistook that.
	Yeah, I kept trying to tell you that it's only when we have it.
	If I have it in my possession, and I only get a little bit at a time, then I will smoke it once or twice a week until it is gone.
	Okay.
	And it's the same thing with alcohol.
	Right.
	Okay.
	And our relationship, I mean, we didn't start smoking and drinking together until a couple months after we met.
	And we were still being, before that and after that, we were still able to have intellectual conversations and there was still that level of maturity.
	Okay, I'm just trying to figure out...
	No, I appreciate this.
	I'm just trying to figure out the timeline here.
	So it was about a month after you started sleeping together that the intellectual stuff diminished?
	We didn't...
	Actually, yeah, it was about that.
	And how long was that after you met?
	Let's see...
	Four months?
	Okay, so if it's four months after you met, and it was a couple of months after you met that...
	Wait, what was the relation?
	You said you didn't do weed or drink for the first couple of months, is that right?
	Yeah, of knowing each other.
	And then you were drunk and high when you had sex for the first time, right?
	We didn't have sex, we just kissed.
	Oh, just kissed, sorry, you did mention that.
	Yeah, I did mention that.
	Yeah, no, that was my fault.
	Sorry, I forgot.
	And did you then continue to do drugs and drink during the first month that you were together as a couple?
	No.
	You didn't?
	No.
	And when did that start to pick up?
	February?
	Actually, wait.
	Yeah, February.
	So you've been together five months, and at the beginning you didn't drink and do drugs.
	What month did you start drinking and doing drugs?
	The second month.
	The end of the second month.
	Near the end of the second month.
	Yep.
	Okay.
	So she was already not having intellectual conversations...
	Before all that started.
	So a couple of weeks before...
	You started drinking and doing drugs.
	She was not having intellectual conversations.
	She was having less.
	Less.
	So it was diminishing and then you started drinking and doing drugs.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	But very rarely.
	Or not that much.
	Like it wasn't a consistent thing.
	It wasn't weekly.
	It wasn't any of that.
	It was when we had it.
	Maybe we had it for two weeks at a time.
	Um...
	And then in those time frames, it was like once or twice a week, or drinking, I would say about two to three times a week.
	Now, if you could choose between drinking and drugs and having more intellectual conversations with your girlfriend, which would you choose?
	More intellectual conversations?
	Wait, are you asking me or telling me?
	Oh, I'm telling you.
	Sorry.
	Okay.
	Do you think that drinking might interfere with intellectual conversations?
	For the moment, like while we're drinking.
	I don't think, I mean, it's never impacted my ability to have rational conversations or intellectual conversations outside of drinking.
	No, no, no.
	I'm just talking like, but while you're drinking, right?
	Yeah, obviously.
	Obviously.
	Right.
	Okay.
	And what about smoking weed?
	Actually, it tends to pick up more then.
	Okay.
	So drinking might have something to do with why you're having fewer intellectual conversations.
	Again, I'm not saying all the time or whatever.
	That's one possibility.
	Just looking for as simple a set as possible.
	Sure.
	The second set, the second place that I would look for is...
	Where does rationality impact her relationships?
	In other words, let's say that she accepts...
	I don't think that smoking weed and drinking and so on are necessarily the highest plateau of a rational pursuit of self-interest and self-knowledge, but that's perhaps a topic for another time.
	But if she accepts your standards of rationality, rational behavior, self-knowledge and all that, what does that do to her relationships?
	it forces her to confront things and it forces her to accept things that she's always thought were maybe untrue.
	You're talking about her relationship with herself.
	I asked about her relationship with others.
	No, that's what I was referencing too.
	With her mother or her stepdad.
	Oh, okay.
	So it would be a challenge.
	Self-knowledge would be a challenge to have relationships.
	Yeah.
	Like, I mean, I've confronted her about how, from the way her mom treated her in the past, that her mom might not rationally love her.
	And that's a challenge.
	Right.
	Now, does she believe that this is a possibility, or is she rejecting your thesis?
	Or hypothesis, I should say.
	She rejects it, but, I mean, she hasn't, like, it's not like an ended conversation, you know what I mean?
	She's not just outright telling me to stop having the conversation.
	Or, you know, because she could tell you you're incorrect, right?
	Yeah, but, yeah, ultimately.
	Right.
	Right.
	Well, I mean if rationality is going to lead her to difficulties in her relationships, then that's probably the biggest block.
	I mean, we all benefit, most of us benefit from rationality.
	I mean, I've benefited enormously from rationality, but the people who were in my life when I was younger, well, I guess they benefited if they find me annoying, but the relationships were not helped, so to speak, by rationality.
	Or, to put it more accurately, the relationships came to a crossroads where they could have been helped or harmed.
	But ultimately, the acceptance of rationality in her relationships would improve her life.
	Has it improved yours?
	Absolutely.
	And does she see and accept that it's improved yours?
	I don't think she does.
	Well, then that's the challenge is that she doesn't see the benefit, right?
	Right, so how do I, I guess, I don't know, how do I get her to see the benefits?
	Paint on a big giant ass Joker grin.
	And for heaven's sakes, don't blink.
	I was thinking about it, but I mean, I would think my early interest in things like economics and philosophy and the pursuits I want to take in life, the things that I do in life, the way I I don't know if she sees that.
	She has, I guess, a complaint that I seem emotionally absent, as in when I talk about things or when I approach things, it's like I'm almost a robot.
	And what do you think of that?
	Well, I think that I think it's more important to react on rationality rather than emotion, as in...
	Wait a second, Dr.
	Spock, or Mr.
	Spock.
	Why are emotions irrational?
	Why are they irrational?
	Yeah, you said it's better to act on rationality rather than emotion, which is sort of an implied dichotomy.
	Because emotions are very subjective.
	Like, I can be angry about anything or I can be sad about anything.
	Whereas rationality is something more objective.
	Like, if a child gets angry about something, we tell them to control their anger, and that's like...
	I don't.
	Why not?
	Why?
	I mean, that's like if my child stubs her toe, do I tell her just to control her pain?
	Well, no, but you want to...
	I mean, isn't it more effective to act on your rationality rather than your emotions?
	Like, isn't it more, I guess, examining reality objectively than reacting on your emotions?
	I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand your question, William.
	Right, so if...
	If somebody says something to me that's emotionally distressing, like the example with my girlfriend, if someone tells me that my mother doesn't love me, I've always believed that, right?
	Sorry, you haven't told her that.
	I assume that you've made the case, right?
	Evidence or whatever, right?
	Yeah.
	Okay, so let's not try and figure out your girlfriend.
	Let's say something...
	You, right?
	Like you.
	So if someone tells you something or someone says something and you get angry.
	Yeah.
	It's better for me to act on my rationality and be objective in the situation rather than getting angry or emotionally defensive about it.
	Well, what you're saying is, aren't you saying it's better to lie?
	I'm not sure I follow this.
	Like, if I say something that makes you angry, well, you might hope that you would say, I feel angry.
	Because that's being honest, isn't it?
	There's a difference between saying you're angry and acting on anger.
	Like, there's a difference between I'm angry and punching somebody in the face because I'm angry or denying everything they say.
	Well, of course there's a difference between that, right?
	I understand that.
	That's a difference I'm making.
	But your girlfriend is not complaining that you're punching her in the face.
	At least I hope to hell she's not complaining that you're punching her in the face.
	She's saying that you appear unemotional to her.
	Okay.
	Right?
	Okay.
	So you're trying to slander emotions by saying they make you punch people in the face.
	Well, they do no such thing.
	But they won't make her look at things as objectively as they should.
	No, no, no, you.
	Forget.
	No, not you.
	Not her.
	You.
	Does it make you punch people in the face?
	If you feel angry?
	No, but it would make me look at things less objectively.
	Less rationally.
	Because I... Because if anger controls me or whatever emotion controls me or takes over, then it's...
	But no, no, no.
	See, now you're...
	And I know you come from a dysfunctional family, so I get that you would have this emotions mean acting out.
	But emotions don't take you over.
	Now, weak-willed and...
	I'm not putting you in this category, but weak-willed and self-indulgent people...
	and then blame their emotions.
	Yes.
	Right?
	But that's not rational.
	Right?
	That's like me not getting off the couch and then blaming Brad Pitt for me not having abs.
	Okay.
	Right?
	So weak-willed and self-indulgent and immature and bullying and destructive and abusive and immature people lash out and then they pretend that their emotions made them do it.
	So they don't actually have to change anything.
	They don't actually have to take responsibility for anything because, you see, it's their emotions that make them do it, right?
	Well, I mean, I've gotten, I mean, I'm not trying to defer away from me again, but I've gotten that from her too, where she's blamed what she said or what she does on things like depression or anxiety or being drunk or things like that.
	Right.
	And so self-ownership is a challenge for some people, right?
	Which we all, when we act badly, the first thing that just about everyone wants to do Is to find a way that they're not responsible.
	Yeah, I mean, I understand that.
	Right?
	I mean, first thing you told me, I kissed her, we were drunk and stoned.
	Yeah, but it's still my responsibility, obviously.
	I'm just telling you what you told me, right?
	Okay.
	And so, immature people...
	And self-indulgent to me is the real key.
	And again, I'm not putting you in this category at all, right?
	I'm just telling you my observations and possibly your experiences.
	But I really dislike people who act out, who lash out, who don't intercept and are not honest with their emotions, but instead blame everyone, blame their emotions, blame other people, blame whoever, right?
	Because they are...
	I mean, we get an immediate relief from pretending it wasn't our fault.
	It's like, ooh, whew, it wasn't me.
	But it traps us.
	It traps us completely, right?
	And so my concern is that you've had a model where emotions get blamed for bad behavior, and therefore you say the best way to avoid bad behavior is to avoid emotions.
	Wouldn't you agree that emotions can clog your thinking?
	Or clog your rationality?
	Or clog your objectivity?
	Or cloud it?
	I don't know.
	I mean, I don't know.
	I've had some of my greatest ideas when I'm stink drunk with passion.
	You know, there are times where I felt perfectly calm.
	Where I have good ideas.
	There are times when I've been very passionate and I've had great ideas.
	I mean, you've heard some of my rants.
	I don't think that I become an irrational person when I rant.
	I think there's some really great ideas and arguments.
	Well, I'll give you a personal example.
	When I was younger and I was first, I guess, confronting my father about things, Not even just confronting him about things, but just in general conversations.
	We used to have conversations about economics.
	I would get emotional to the point of tears.
	And when I left the conversation, I would get very angry about him saying things or whatever.
	And this would not enable me to look at what he said objectively.
	No, no, but what- Hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on.
	Hang on, let me make a case here.
	Because your emotions were telling you something about your father, not about your father's argument.
	And the most important thing is your relationship with your father, not the debates you have with your father.
	Because the only reason you're having your debates with your father and not some guy on the bus is because he's your father.
	It's the relationship with your father, the fact that he is your father, that defines everything else.
	That is the bedrock, the foundation for everything else that you do to interact with that person.
	I mean, I will be forever six million different things to my daughter, but I'll always first and foremost be her father.
	And that's why we have everything else.
	Because if she was a kid on the other side of town, I probably wouldn't even know her.
	And so, when you had tears and anger, your emotions were being very important.
	They were giving you incredibly important information about this relationship.
	And I would argue they were being more objective and a more rational prioritization than, well, the important thing is I suppress my feelings and try to intellectually analyze My father's arguments.
	And I'll give you a very, very tiny example.
	Like I just had a conversation with the guy in the first hour and a half of this show, which I found enjoyable.
	I'm sorry, I have to say that was hard to listen to.
	Well, I get it.
	I want it to be hard to listen to.
	And you know why I want it to be hard to listen to?
	So that people understand that.
	So people know when to disengage.
	I knew from the very first moment we had that conversation, or at least within the first 30 seconds, that we weren't going to get anywhere.
	Because he told me that up front.
	Subjective is objective.
	I reject different dictionary definitions.
	I define whatever I want.
	Everything's arbitrary.
	But first of all, I wanted to show, and he was right to ask, I wanted to show that you can accept people's definitions and still disprove them and whatever.
	But I want also people to know when a conversation is not possible.
	I never in a million years would have had that conversation with a guy if it was just he and I at a dinner table.
	But the point is there's a public aspect to these conversations, right?
	So the question with your emotions and your father Was, can I even have a rational debate with my father?
	Now, you wanted to go into the rational analysis, but your emotions, I think, were saying, or were giving you your deep heartfelt opinion based upon close to two decades of experience with the man, can I even have a rational debate with this man?
	Okay.
	I'm trying.
	I'm angry.
	Okay.
	That's important information to have about the relationship.
	Right, and that can be considered a valid emotion.
	Right, so, but if I'm in a conversation and I have an invalid emotion, then that can clog my thinking.
	No, no, I thought you were giving me this as an example of an invalid emotion.
	Um...
	Because I said, what do you mean?
	It cogs your thinking.
	And you said, let me give you an example, if I remember rightly.
	You said, I'm having conversations with my dad, debating economics, I'm crying, and afterwards I'm angry.
	And I'm giving you why I think those emotions are valid and important.
	And now you're saying you want to give me an example of invalid emotions, but I thought we were just doing that.
	No, I see what you're saying.
	Never mind.
	I don't want my daughter to suppress her emotions because I want to be close to her.
	I want to know what she's thinking and feeling.
	And if she's angry at me, I need to know that so that I can course correct, so that we can have a discussion about it.
	I would no more tell her to suppress her feelings than I would tell her not to cough if she has a cough.
	It's important that I know she has a cough, right?
	So we can do whatever, right?
	Fix it.
	Oh, well, you just kind of blew my mind with some self-knowledge.
	It's just a new perspective I haven't really seen.
	What do you feel about this perspective?
	I feel bad.
	Good one?
	Well, I feel like I've been...
	I mean, that's what I've been doing.
	With my girlfriend, anyway.
	It's like...
	Like, I want her to just be analytic.
	You know what I mean?
	Because that's easier for me to deal with than the emotions.
	And the emotions to me seem frivolous or...
	Or...
	Like...
	Oh, no.
	Listen, man, I know you're trying to be honest, but I'm telling you, I've read your Adverse Childhood Experience score.
	It's huge.
	Don't tell me that emotions seem irrelevant or frivolous.
	Emotions, weren't they dangerous when you were growing up?
	Yes.
	Oh.
	Right?
	No, I see what you're saying.
	I mean, if I get repeatedly mauled by tigers and I say, well, you know, tigers are just boring and irrelevant, people will get that that's not really my true experience.
	tigers are terrifying.
	Well, you definitely give me something to think about.
	And you want her to love you, right?
	Absolutely.
	And is love an emotion?
	Yes, but it has reasons behind it.
	I get it.
	So there can be reasons behind emotions and you want the expression of that emotion in terms of love, right?
	So you would not want her to suppress her emotion called love, right?
	Right.
	Do you think that it's possible...
	Let me rephrase this.
	Do you think there's such a thing as a painkiller that only affects...
	A tiny part of your body?
	Of course not, but I think it could be invented, obviously.
	Right, but there isn't one now, right?
	Yeah, yeah, I understand that.
	I know what you're saying.
	Do you think that there's a way of suppressing emotion that only suppresses some emotions?
	No.
	And by the way, I know people are gonna say, what about Novocain?
	I get it.
	Yeah, local injections, I got it.
	I'm talking about like an oral morphine-based painkiller or whatever, right?
	It's going to affect your whole system, right?
	And I don't think that there's a way to say, I want to suppress these emotions, but not these emotions.
	I mean, you'll be really surprised, William, when you listen back to this, as I hope you will, at the degree to which you say, I have blown your mind and your vocal inflection has not changed at all.
	Well, that's because I'm still trying to react off of rationality rather than emotion.
	Yeah.
	Right, which is an irrational thing when I've just convinced you of the value of emotion.
	Right, but it's a little hard to kind of just switch like that, you know what I mean?
	I mean, obviously I've spent most of my childhood trying to go off of rationality.
	I sort of trained myself to just shut down my emotions when confronted with a problem or a debate or a discussion.
	I appreciate that, but why do you think it was your choice to shut off your emotions?
	Because there's one thing...
	How do you know that that was your choice?
	Well, because if I'm in a discussion and I feel emotional, I can...
	No, no, no.
	But you're saying if you've suppressed your emotions for a long time, right?
	Yeah.
	How do you know that that was your choice?
	So what age were you, do you think, when you began to suppress your emotions?
	Probably eight.
	Right.
	So how do you know that was your choice?
	Well, I mean, I remember...
	Specifically having one fight with my father and coming back pretty upset.
	And I was like, well, this is not...
	It was more like, well, I can't see him cry type thing.
	Sorry, I can't let him see me cry.
	You don't want him to see you cry.
	Right, right.
	And I wanted to be able to be intellectual enough to...
	That's not your choice.
	No, that one for sure is not your choice then.
	So it's not...
	No, what you much rather would have had is for your father to be empathetic and either not cause you to cry or, if he did cause you to cry, to be extremely apologetic and to comfort you and to have a conversation where you figure out what happened so it wouldn't happen again.
	You'd much have preferred that, right?
	Of course.
	So, the repression of emotion is because it is inconvenient to the other person.
	For you to have that emotion, not because you made a decision to repress your emotion because it's less rational.
	Because there's one thing that I know about emotionally self indulgent people, histrionic people, hysterical people, people who act out, is that they really hate little more in this world than inconvenient emotions on the part of others.
	If you have feelings that are inconvenient to other people and they are immature, they will really work to get you to suppress those feelings.
	Not because you or they value rationality, it's just that they don't want feelings that are inconvenient to them.
	Is that what I'm doing with my girlfriend?
	Like, trying to suppress her emotions because they're inconvenient to me?
	I don't know, because we haven't talked much about your girlfriend's emotionality.
	But we can say, I think, that if you're looking to increase the rationality in your relationship, then I would say that your relationship to your emotions would be the first place to start, not your girlfriend's relationship to rationality.
	Okay.
	That makes sense.
	Well, again, you're giving me a lot to think about.
	So Don't think about it.
	I think that's not the best thing coming from you, right?
	Because I don't want you to think about it.
	I mean, obviously, I want you to process it, right?
	Like, and understand the value.
	Nathaniel Brandon is good with this stuff.
	If you want to read the psychology of self-esteem or some of his other stuff, he's pretty good with the value of emotions.
	And I get it.
	I mean, it's...
	Emotions are inconvenient.
	They can be difficult and so on.
	But I think without them, it's a continual slow spiral into less and less feeling.
	As a friend of mine said years ago, and years past where you are, he said, I think I have not felt for so long.
	I literally feel like I'm turning to stone.
	I'm turning into a statue.
	I actually...
	I told my girlfriend about two months ago that I felt that I had an empathy problem.
	Like, understanding and processing other people's emotions.
	Or really just feeling emotions when it makes sense to.
	Right.
	You keep your emotions on a tight leash.
	You only allow the convenient ones.
	But empathy is an emotional experience.
	Every human being looks at another human being and says, oh, that person is like me, right?
	But to actually feel what other people feel is an emotional experience.
	And I think that love without empathy is not sustainable.
	And you can call it lust or you can call it, you know, the initial rush of endorphins that come from romantic or sexual attachment.
	But long-lasting love is not possible without empathy, I believe.
	And empathy is not possible without self-empathy, which is knowing what you feel and respecting and valuing.
	What you feel.
	And if you treat, the way you treat other people's emotions is the way you treat your own emotions.
	Because we can't have those, we don't fundamentally work on those kinds of double standards.
	And so if your emotions go through this rigid checkpoint, you know, like this Gestapo, show me your papers, find out if you're convenient, find out if you're acceptable, and I'll need to give you an anal probe, Mr.
	Anger, then...
	Don't do that to Mr.
	Lust.
	He loves it.
	But if you've got this kind of border checkpoint, then nobody has a passport.
	Everyone has to stop.
	And it's very rigid and it's very hard for other people to be spontaneously emotional around you because your defenses extend to them.
	And then people start to feel, after a while, claustrophobic.
	And they feel resentful and they feel they can't be themselves around you because spontaneity and pleasure and, you know, just the immediate exposition of feeling and honesty and so on.
	This is all very self-censorious.
	It's very...
	No right of free speech, no right of free feels, right?
	I mean, and I think people then, this is why a lot of relationships, they start off with this spark and people mistake the sexual attraction for emotion.
	It's not.
	It's not.
	Almost every animal that copulates, well, every animal that copulates feels sexual attraction, but that's not the same as mature, philosophical, deep, self-knowledge-based love and appreciation of another human being and their virtues, right?
	I mean, if I'm right...
	Yeah, that's why I... Yeah, if I'm right that love is our involuntary response to virtue, if we're virtuous, then virtue is the prerequisite for love.
	And mere animal attraction, which is not to say it's not fun, it is, but people mistake the animal attraction for emotion.
	But then when that begins to fade, as it does four to six months into a relationship, the sexual attraction begins to fade, which doesn't mean that your sexual desire, but the mere physical sexual attraction begins to fade.
	And then what happens is people feel this emptiness growing.
	They feel this, something's not right, we're not quite simpatico, and then they start to maybe talk about it, and then this repression comes in, and then they feel bound up, and they feel silenced, and they say, well, why can I talk with other people but not my boyfriend or my girlfriend?
	And then they start to feel resentful.
	And then they try to maybe talk about it more.
	They hit more defenses.
	And then they start to feel really silenced.
	And then next thing you know, they're like, I just fell out of love.
	It's like, no, you ran out of hormones.
	It's a different phenomenon.
	You just mistook the hormones for the love.
	I'm sorry.
	That's why I've always tried in my...
	Before having a relationship with somebody, identifying, or if I feel love for that person, identifying, or I should say lust, sorry, if I feel lust for somebody, identifying which virtues or which values in that person that I value.
	And whether or not they're holding true to those values.
	Which was true for my current girlfriend.
	Again, the problem with the emotions is my fault, but it seems that the qualities that I fell in love with are not as prevalent anymore, for whatever reason.
	Right.
	And the challenge with empathy, William, is to ask yourself this.
	What are the qualities that she was first attracted to that I'm not showing as much of anymore?
	Were you more emotionally available at the beginning?
	Were you more passionate?
	Were you passionate at all?
	I mean, have things changed for her in you over the past couple of months?
	Yeah.
	And what do you think?
	Well, I mean, I'd have to, I guess, discuss that with her.
	But what do you think?
	I'm not saying be right.
	I'm just saying if you had to answer now, what do you think?
	I don't...
	I don't...
	I don't think I've changed that much fundamentally as a person.
	No, no, no.
	That's...
	Oh, man, you're good.
	Don't touch me.
	I'm not saying, have you changed from a reptile lord into a human being?
	I'm not talking...
	Have you grown an extra arm or anything like that?
	Okay, let me ask you this.
	You know you've been very passionless in our conversation, right?
	Yeah.
	Were you this passionless when you were drunk and stoned and kissing her?
	No.
	Were you like, okay, well, I guess we can kiss.
	No.
	Would that be all right with you?
	Is that okay?
	No.
	How would that have worked, right?
	It wouldn't have.
	Right.
	So were you passionate when you first got together with her?
	Yeah.
	Are you that passionate now?
	No.
	So, she probably was attracted to you for your passion, and you're diminished in that capacity now.
	So what...
	I understand that.
	So what is the...
	Or what do you think the cause is?
	Because I'm blanking on it.
	Like, why have I diminished, or why has she diminished?
	Because you got together while having affairs.
	I mean, that's the symptom.
	The cause is childhood and self-knowledge and all that kind of stuff and all that.
	But I'll tell you this, I mean, what do you think a virtuous and heroic woman would have said to you if you'd said, hey, I'm drunk and I'm stoned and I'm in a relationship, would you like to kiss?
	What would she say?
	No.
	God, no.
	I'm insulted that you asked.
	True.
	What kind of girl do you think I am?
	Right?
	Yeah.
	So where is this virtue?
	Isn't that kind of an important aspect?
	She's in a long-distance relationship, you're in a relationship, you're drunk, you're stoned, and you make out.
	Yeah.
	Where is all the virtue that we're talking about here?
	Well, it was before that.
	At least I was still attracted to her before that moment for different reasons.
	I didn't try and kiss her or try to do anything.
	No, no, no.
	Of course you were attracted to her.
	I'm not saying your attraction came out of nowhere.
	She took off her glasses, shook out her hair.
	She had virtuous qualities beforehand.
	And did those virtuous qualities include cheating on her boyfriend with a guy who was cheating on his girlfriend?
	No, that was an effect of, obviously, our decisions.
	So there were other virtues independent of her betrayal of a boyfriend combined with your betrayal of your girlfriend while you were drunk and stout?
	Well, I mean, the cheating wasn't virtuous, obviously.
	But it was something I was able to overlook for the virtuous qualities she was presenting to me.
	She has told you that you're emotionally unavailable, right?
	Yes.
	And have you believed her?
	Well, yes, because I didn't see the point in, I guess, being emotionally available.
	I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand that.
	So she said, William, you're emotionally unavailable, and what did you say?
	Well, I agree with her, but I said that the emotions were unnecessary.
	Or more like if she came to me with a problem and was...
	Emotional about it.
	I tried to get her to look at it in some sort of rational way.
	I wasn't trying to identify the emotions.
	I was trying to identify the problem and how to solve it.
	You know what I mean?
	Right.
	Do you love her?
	Yes.
	And is that love emotionally expressed in how you interact with her?
	Yeah.
	I mean, outside of important conversations, I'm pretty emotionally there or active or It's only when we're in a sort of important or intellectual discussion that I become more rational than more emotional.
	Because at that point, I looked at it as it was more efficient to be rational than be emotional.
	Okay, so when she says that you're emotionally unavailable, she says that only when you're talking about important things, and the other times she finds you emotionally available.
	She only brings up the fact that I seem like a robot or whatever when we're having important discussions.
	Because I don't try to verify her emotions.
	Validate?
	Validate, sorry.
	Validate, yeah.
	And what are the other virtues that you perceived in her prior to getting together with her?
	Well, she was very, I guess, caring of animals, empathetic to animals.
	She was, we both have, or at least I have a very strong appreciation for nature and animals, and she showed that similar appreciation.
	So I thought that was very good, and she was very, like, good at, I guess, you know, listening to me when I had a problem, which now seems hypocritical.
	But Again, I guess she was very empathetic towards me and towards other people.
	She's a very caring person.
	If somebody has a problem, she's one of the first people on the scene to try and help somebody with it.
	I guess in a more emotional way, but help that person.
	So she values emotional intimacy, but she's willing to be with the man who she describes as not emotionally available when there are problems.
	That would seem like it, but that's not all.
	She was also very open-minded and again, when we had discussions, it was very intellectual and I value intellect highly.
	Right.
	Would you characterize her kissing you when she had a boyfriend and you had a girlfriend as being empathetic towards her boyfriend or your girlfriend?
	No.
	Right.
	What do you think of that?
	Well, here's all these situations in which she presents empathy and then there's this one situation which is still her responsibility but is also influenced by drugs and alcohol in which she displayed a lack of empathy.
	So when she's drunk or stoned, she displays a lack of empathy?
	I would say so.
	And does she know that this is something that happens when she gets drunk or stoned, that she loses her empathy?
	Well, I mean, it's not like every time.
	Like, if we're with people, she can show empathy towards those people, but I mean, if we're just alone, it's not usually that way.
	No.
	She lacks the empathy.
	I think I follow that.
	I think I follow that.
	Okay.
	So she values empathy but not in her boyfriend because she's willing to keep dating you even though she says you are emotionally unavailable or lack empathy.
	Is that right?
	Mm-hmm.
	Right.
	So it's not that much of a valuing if you're willing to be with someone who doesn't have those characteristics.
	Like, and I'm not putting you in this category.
	This is just obviously an intellectual example.
	But if I say, well, I'm really against racism and then I date a racist...
	It's hard to say that I'm really against racism, right?
	Yeah.
	So it's hard for me to sort of figure out how much she values empathy if you got together through a kind of brutal act of betraying your existing lovers.
	But I don't know if she...
	And then she dates you, even though she says you don't really have much empathy or lack emotional availability.
	I don't know the degree to which she really has the virtue, if that makes sense.
	I don't know if she values empathy in me.
	I know...
	I don't...
	No, no, no.
	If it's a virtue, you have to value it universally.
	Otherwise, it's not a virtue.
	It's an aesthetic preference.
	So if I value moral courage, then I value moral courage.
	And I despise its absence if it's possible for it to be present, right?
	So I can't say, well, I really universally value moral courage, but I really want to date a moral coward.
	Well, then I don't universally value moral courage.
	Okay.
	Does that make sense?
	Yeah, that makes sense.
	So, her commitment to empathy as a principle, which is, virtue is a principle.
	Virtue isn't like, I'm a good shoulder for people to cry on, or people like to come to me with their problems, or I'm a good listener, or whatever.
	Those are not virtues.
	The virtue of, you know, honesty or moral courage or whatever it is, these are universals.
	And the degree to which she's willing to date someone who does not display what you call a virtue in her is the degree to which she does not have that virtue as a principle.
	Okay.
	So she doesn't have that virtue as a principle then?
	I don't see how she could.
	If the foundation of her relationship was a betrayal of that principle...
	And if she's willing to be with the guy who she calls emotionally...
	I don't think she called you unempathetic, but I think she did say emotionally unavailable.
	Emotionally absent.
	Emotionally absent, yeah.
	And you think that you may have an issue with empathy, right?
	Yeah.
	Right.
	In fact, I know it.
	Sorry.
	Right, right.
	So then she doesn't have that as a value.
	And also, of course, the way that you get people who lack empathy to become more empathetic is not by criticizing them for their lack of empathy.
	Like, as you notice, I haven't criticized you at all for any of these things that you've told me about, right?
	Yeah.
	Because she knows about your childhood, right?
	Yeah.
	And so she knows that.
	I'm sorry?
	She knows, like, the general, but not, like, the whole thing.
	What do you mean by the whole thing?
	Like I haven't gotten to details about certain situations.
	But you have an adverse childhood experience of eight.
	We've got verbal abuse threats, physical abuse, non-spanking, molestation, sex, rape, no family love or support, neglect, not enough food, dirty clothes, no protection or medical treatment, parents divorced, live with alcoholic or drug user, household member depressed, mentally ill, or suicide attempt.
	So you had it horribly rough.
	Yeah, but as a teenager, I dealt with all those problems as I saw how they negatively affected me.
	like if I had a problem with my father and we didn't come to an agreement, I ostracized him and I realized that I didn't need to be emotionally dependent on my father or I ostracized him and I realized that I didn't need to I didn't need to be emotionally dependent on my father or things like that.
	How my childhood negatively affected me, I sort of confronted and figured out and fixed as a problem.
	And all the problems that I haven't identified, such as the empathy one, I would eventually work to fix.
	I've been wanting to go to therapy for some time now, but I don't have the money.
	Would you like some help?
	Take some help.
	I would love to know.
	Good.
	Good.
	I mean, you know, I would love to, you know, get a therapist and send us the bills or send us how much it's going to cost and we'll front you some money for some therapy.
	God, I mean, you've gone through the wars, man.
	Holy crap.
	I mean...
	You've had one of the top ten god-awful childhoods.
	This is like the David Letterman list from hell, right?
	One of the top ten god-awful childhoods we've seen in this show.
	I would love to front you some cash for therapy.
	I mean, God, you're such a smart guy and your language skills are great and you love philosophy.
	And so, I mean, I would consider it a real honor to be able to help you out in this way.
	That would be incredible.
	I mean, I'd be so thankful for that.
	I mean, I wouldn't even know.
	I know how to express in words how thankful I am for something like that.
	I wasn't even expecting that out of this at all.
	Oh, listen, it's a great investment in the future of the world.
	You know, when you see a talented athlete, you try and get him a good coach, right?
	Yeah, I guess.
	Well, I've never really seen myself that way.
	You know what I mean?
	I mean, I've never really seen myself as this super important dude or whatever.
	Do you want to remind me what you're studying?
	You're doing your Aristotle, you're doing your philosophy, and you mean, yes!
	You are a remarkable young man.
	And given that you have gone against my advice in ostracizing family members without being in therapy, at least we can get you into therapy now, right?
	Yeah.
	All right.
	So, good!
	Is it a done deal?
	Do we do a virtual handshake here?
	I would love to, Stefan.
	If I could only shake your hand, that'd be great.
	Again, you're one of my, I mean, I've studied a lot of philosophers.
	You're definitely my favorite.
	Well, I appreciate that, and we'll get you in to see a good counselor.
	Podcast 1929?
	I think it is.
	Mike, if you can check.
	I just asked to end this last week, but...
	I can't remember.
	How to find a great therapist.
	It's not any kind of absolute.
	It's just my suggestions or my thoughts about it and, you know, find someone you feel comfortable with.
	But, yeah, I mean, 1927.
	It should be 1927.
	1927, yeah.
	Right before the crash.
	So, yeah, just listen to that.
	And again, this is just my thoughts.
	Whoever you feel comfortable with, and we'll get you set up and get you funded and get you on your way.
	Because, listen, I mean, if you can connect that bruised heart to that mighty brain, I mean, you'll be an unstoppable force in the world, I think.
	That would be absolutely fantastic.
	I mean, I've wanted to pursue philosophy.
	My goal is to be a philosopher, so I don't...
	Well, the self-knowledge thing, I think, helps you stand out.
	So I really, really appreciate the call.
	And I'm so god-awfully sorry about everything that happened in your childhood, William.
	I mean, this is a hell of a fiery nest to come vaulting out of.
	But you have certainly kept your intellect intact, which is no easy feat.
	And your hearts, I'm sure, are still bubbling there under the surface, waiting to get plugged back in.
	And I think a therapist will do great stuff for you that way.
	So I'm glad that you decided to accept the help.
	Just let us know and we'll set you up.
	And you'll obviously keep us posted about how things are going.
	Well, thank you very much, Stefan.
	You've given me, I mean, you gave me a talk that I wasn't expecting at all and definitely a lot of things to feel and act on.
	Good man.
	There's a listener.
	You made up for the first caller.
	But I do, I mean, I know we didn't get to do it, or we're not going to be able to do it on this show, but I do have some objections to your moral theory, so I think it will be an interesting conversation if we ever have another call-in show.
	Oh, listen, you are welcome back anytime.
	And bring your best stuff.
	I mean, the worst that can happen is errors fall away.
	And I'm always happy to participate in that process, no matter where it comes from.
	Well, again, thank you very much.
	And again, it's amazing.
	I mean, it's amazing to talk to you.
	And it's amazing where you've gotten in life with such a troubled...
	I hope you continue to do what you're doing for the next good 60 years.
	Speaking of which, I think that would make me older than I can even think of.
	But yeah, thanks very much, William.
	Keep us posted.
	We'll get you set up.
	And yes, to help out the show, freedomainradio.com slash donate.
	It does come down to shackles.
	We are in the business of helping people, and that requires that you help us.
	So if you've been listening to these shows for a while...
	Do you really need another game from Steam or Lunch Out or whatever?
	Sign up for 20 bucks a month.
	You know it's the right thing to do.
	You know that philosophy is what the world needs the most of now.
	So go to freedomainradio.com and help us out.
	And we will continue to do this great work for the world.
	So have yourselves a wonderful, wonderful week, everyone.

▲