All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 3, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
43:56
TWO AND TWO MAKE FOUR - THE DEBATE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
of the savannah let's say all the big things all the small things i'm sorry would you uh can you wait a minute i will close the window.
There should be some noise.
No problem.
Okay, okay.
So, I'll mention the context.
So I had a call, I think it was on Friday, where somebody was on the line and I was saying, Do two and two make four?
And he said he was not certain of that.
He was 99.99 percent certain of that.
And I said that was wrong, that two and two make four.
And if you can't be certain that two and two make four, you can't be certain of anything.
And if you can't be certain of anything, you have no right to really engage in discussions about truth claims.
So that was my basic argument and you wanted to set me straight on that.
Yes, just for the starters, yes, two and two make four.
But however, there are two important points.
There are contexts in which if you only go by the numbers, then two and two will apparently will not make four.
You need additional context to actually understand them to be as four.
For example, if you are in the IT domain and you are working with numbers of different bases, then you can get a number like 10 or 20 even.
If you are and you actually need to ask which number base is being used, otherwise you will not be able to learn and accept that two and two make four.
You will not be able to read that just from the number, from the information.
Okay, do you think that that makes sense to anyone?
I mean, what you're saying?
Like you have to, I mean, it doesn't, I mean, this is a general philosophy show, right?
So we deal with a general audience, which means that you have to use general terms that people understand.
So if you're saying in computers that two and two don't make four, or that there's some other thing, I mean, I understand sort of binary notation and all of that, but are you saying that in the realm of computers, two and two don't make four?
Well, now we are getting to the interesting part because my work, the philosophy is general, and by general, I mean really general.
It touches pattern recognition both in humans and in humans and in computers.
So what I'm saying that there is a hierarchy of layers of concreteness and abstraction.
It applies both to AI and to humans.
And by holding, by keeping this consistency in this hierarchy of abstraction, you enhance your pattern recognition and this in turn, okay, bro, bro, what do you do?
You enhance your pattern recognition using AI.
What does that have to do with two and two make four?
Well, I know you don't like to introduce new concepts.
No, no, don't, no, don't be rude.
Don't be rude.
Let's not start our conversation with you being rude.
Because I'm very happy to introduce new concepts.
In fact, most of what I do is, I mean, I've got a new concept of love, I've got a new concept of free will, I've got a new concept of secular morality, new arguments for all of that.
So let's not start with insults.
I'm just asking you to explain what you mean when you say that two and two sometimes don't equal four and explain it to me like I don't know what you're talking about because so far it's just a bunch of words that don't mean anything to me.
Maybe that's because I lack technical knowledge, but just explain it to me because this is going out to a general audience.
Just explain it to me like I'm five years old.
Oh, yes, very well.
Your example with 2 and 2.
two equals four assumes the context of base ten decimal numbering system So if you leave that context out, then sometimes two and two don't make four.
You have to provide that decimal context.
Okay, but the problem is if you say there's any other context in which two and two make four, if there's any context where that's not true, then you've violated the law of identity.
Because as you know, in the decimal system, when you say that two and two make four, you're saying that four equals four, right?
You're saying that an object equals itself.
And this is the foundational law of logic, right?
The law of identity.
A is A. And you know, you could say it's kind of a tautology, but that's fine.
So when you say that two and two make four, what I which is a foundational law of identity.
Now, if you say, well, there's contexts in which an object does not equal itself, four does not equal four, then that's a foundational logical error or contradiction.
And that's what I need to understand.
How is it possible to violate the law of identity in the...
I am saying it is not possible to violate the law of identity.
However, it is possible to obtain an unreadable information, a meaningless, meaningless bunch of numbers.
That way, there are contexts.
You, when you say four equals four, you are assuming the decimal numbering system.
You don't Okay, so tell me, I'm sorry, I'm sorry because you'll have to step me through this.
Tell me what is the alternative to four equals four.
And again, this is just the law of identity.
So if there's another system, then in that other system, the thing has to equal itself, right?
So let's say you have a number called blue unicorn, for whatever reason, right, in some other alternate numbering system.
But blue unicorn has to equal blue unicorn, right?
Because that's still subject to the law of identity.
So even if you have some numbering system that is not decimal, and I'm sure that there are such things, they would still be subject to the law of identity.
I mean, and this is what I was really saying, was this person, and I'm not sure if you have the same, but you say that the law of identity is inviolate, which it is, then if you're going to say that there are other numbering systems, they would still be subject to the law of identity.
And so this person on the call on Friday, which is who you wanted to defend, which is great, the person on Friday was saying, A does not equal A. I cannot be sure that the law of identity is valid.
And that is not valid, that is not a rational conclusion, that is not a valid conclusion.
I mean, you can reject that, but then you're just rejecting all kinds of logic.
And then I wouldn't have anything particular to say to someone like that because Epistemologically that would be craze, right?
I mean, it would be like somebody says, hand me the salt shaker, and you hand them the salt shaker, and they say, this is not the salt shaker shaker.
It is the salt shaker, but it's not the salt shaker.
That would be indication of mental illness, right?
So again, I'm not saying that this person or you are mentally ill, but that would be a sign of that if that were to happen in your real life.
But so yeah, I mean, whatever alternate numbering system would still be subject to the law of identity, would it not?
Yes, yes, of course, yes.
May I share an opinion on that color?
I listened to that show yesterday.
Well, I mean, I'm happy to hear your opinions, but I thought we were having a debate and opinions aren't particularly certain with regards to a debate.
And again, I'm certainly happy to hear your thoughts, but I would like to hear the alternate numbering system, but if the alternate numbering system is subject to the law of identity, I'd still also be curious how in that alternate numbering system four does not equal four.
It does, it does, but I am saying that to recognize what it does equal within the law of identity, to read it properly, you need to know the context.
There are multiple alternate contexts.
And you need to match the number with the right type of context in order to actually read it, in order to actually know what it means.
I'm sorry, I don't I don't I have no idea what you're talking about.
Can I give you a practical example?
I mean, I don't understand the theory and it seems to me just a bunch of words.
But if you want to give me a practical example, maybe that would help illuminate what you're talking about.
Go ahead.
All right.
So imagine that you are back in your old job at Dastrix or what was the name of the environmental company.
But it is like a big IT research company.
You have actual scientists from multiple fields and so on.
And you need the reports from them.
And they like to include what they are working for.
So they send you numbers, for example, this or that number.
And I'm sorry.
What are the numbers that they're sending me?
What do they represent?
They represent their computer science work, let's say.
You are just a manager, you are not the expert, but you need to communicate with experts.
So I just, I mean, an example would be the amount of air emissions, right?
Let's say it's 100 units, right?
So they send me a report saying that this company.
has produced 100 units of air emissions.
Okay, got it.
Yes, yes, yes.
That is brilliant.
That is brilliant because you have scientists from multiple backgrounds.
Some use the metric system, some use the imperial system, some use their, some are from China, they use some kind of Chinese system.
And in order to know what that number means, you need to know the units in which that number comes.
And then you can convert it in your Excel or something, and then you can properly understand if what they are actually reporting.
Okay.
Yeah, got it.
So I need to know the units and whether it's metric or imperial.
Yeah, I mean, I've done code that converts all of that sort of stuff.
So I got it.
And then?
So, and because you want to make your work easier, then you order all those types of units from the most granular, from the smallest to the most biggest, the broad across the board units.
You arrange them in a hierarchy, so to speak.
I convert them to a common format and then I order them lowest to highest.
Okay.
Yes, exactly.
So, and when you.
when you put the number that you get to in the right rank of the on the ladder, then you get the right result.
You know what if that number is actually big or small in practice.
Yes.
And there is a similar ladder of units and those units are base systems like base number systems.
On the bottom you have the binary with IT and on the top you have the hexadecimal the sixteen base system.
Both are used in practice and in the between are there is the our familiar decimal that we know and love.
And so I'm trying to sort of think about this in terms of computer storage.
So with computer storage, the lowest is binary, which is just one, zero, true, false, yes, no.
And then it goes to minus 3,267 to plus 3,267.
And then it goes, that's an integer.
And then there's a single and then there's a long or something like that, right?
So these are numerical systems or mathematical storage systems for memory.
And it's whether you need whole numbers is like whole numbers, no decimals, and then you need a single or a long, or if you've got more decimals that you want to store.
So is it, is that the kind of hierarchy that you're talking about?
Yes, yes, exactly.
Very well.
When you, when you only store in bits, one, zero, you need a lot of bits, like grains of sand on the beach.
But if you store information in like a float format, then you only need relatively few of those chunks of memory.
So they are also pretty human.
readable.
So you have.
Sorry, sorry to interrupt.
So I understand, of course, that numerical systems aren't binary.
I mean, they're not zeros.
And minus one is the way that it works in computers, of course, as I'm sure as you know.
So but if the computer saw something, let's say it's true, false, right?
Generally minus one is true, zero is false.
So if you say that the answer is true, right?
So if someone would ask me the question, were you born in 1966?
And I would answer that as true., it would be stored as a minus one in the database or in the computer programming.
And that would be true, right?
So the law of identity says that the true statement is a true statement, right?
That's it's factual.
And so it would not be any different from two and two make four fundamentally.
Everything other than the binary is still in the integer numerical system that we were talking about, the integer system.
Sorry, what did you refer to it as?
Oh, the integer system.
I mean, I refer to the hierarchy of abstraction.
Just let you mention the calendar, which is very good.
Because I mentioned the calendar.
Yes, the year of birth.
Let's say you get a person from Russia who is not using Gregorian but a Julian calendar or someone from China who is using another type of calendar.
He gives you a number, but if you do not know which system that number is defined under, then you cannot, that it's nonsense.
You will not be able to read it.
It has identity within the system, within that calendar, but not necessarily within your calendar because the numbering is different.
Identity is preserved, but to preserve identity in our mind, we must know which system, within which system that number has a meaning.
Okay, but there is no system in which the law of identity is violated, is that right?
Yes, that's right, yes.
It will always be inviolable.
We can only fail to read it because we apply the wrong.
wrong position in the table of those systems.
Okay, so when I'm saying to someone, does two and two make four?
And they don't want to violate the law of identity, then they have to say, yes, 100% two and two make four in the integer system, right?
We both agree on that.
I agree, and I must add, that person should have explicitly said that this is within decimal system, within decimal system, this literal number.
It's not within the decimal system.
Now, tell me, because we just went through the whole thing, and I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but we just went through a whole thing where we said there's no numerical system or no system of any kind that violates the law of identity.
So given that two and two make four is four equals four, which is a is a, which is the law of identity, there is no system which violates the law of identity.
Therefore, there can be no system wherein two and two do not make four.
Now, there may be a system where two and two is not referenced.
It's, I don't know, some color-based system or something like that.
But it still cannot overturn the law of identity.
And therefore, two and two will always make four in the same way that if I say something is six units away from you, you don't know if it's millimeters.
or inches or centimeters or kilometers or light years or parsecs or anything like that, right?
So if I say something is six units away from you, you don't know how far away that is from you, and I understand that.
However, whatever is six units away from you, if we're using the same units, will also equally be three plus three units away from you.
Because three plus three is just another way of saying six.
And if you say that three plus three doesn't equal six, you're violating the law of identity, which we've agreed you cannot do.
So removing information in terms of context still doesn't give any system.
Any system the capacity to violate the law of identity, is that right?
Yes, yes, that is right.
I am just saying how to successfully communicate to avoid misinterpreting that information to make sure that the system is also adopted along with that number.
Sorry, but there's no system.
If we agree with each other about the law of identity, then there's no system that can violate the law of identity, is that correct?
That is correct, but you in your subjective experience, you do not know if the other person uses the same system as you.
It doesn't matter because it doesn't matter.
No, it doesn't matter because there's no system which allows for the violation of the law of identity.
So if I say two and two make four and somebody says, well, I don't know if you're talking about abstract numbers or meters or pounds, it doesn't matter because there's no system of measurement, there's no system of logic in which you can violate the law of identity.
So it doesn't matter in what context or in what framework we're talking.
Two and two make four.
That's the law of identity.
And there's no system that's rational that can violate the law of identity so there's no context that is needed.
I agree you are right about that I do not dispute that.
Oh fantastic then.
Maybe now would be the good time to share what do you think actually about this caller what what was going on in his head on your call.
Well hang on so we have resolved the dispute in that context doesn't matter.
Two and two make four and anyone who disputes that is attempting to violate the law of identity.
Yes, yes I have a test of that.
Sorry, sorry, I didn't mean to run, but go ahead with your thoughts about the caller.
Yes, I do not dispute that truth.
And actually, I think that the caller also did not dispute that, but he was simply just ignorant about he was both ignorant and overly careful.
This is what I think.
He did not know enough to actually dispute that.
No, it doesn't matter.
No, it doesn't matter because there's no amount of additional knowledge that allows you to turn the law of identity.
I thought we already went through this, but we can do it again.
So it doesn't matter if he knew more or he knew less, right?
Other than if he was some sort of herbivore or monkey or something like that.
So it doesn't matter if he knew more or he knew less.
It's not like additional knowledge allows you to overcome the law of identity.
It doesn't matter how much you know, the law of identity is inviolate.
Do we agree on that?
Yes, absolutely we do.
Okay, so it's not a matter of the gradations of knowledge.
And what was he, so you had two points, I think, with regards to the collar?
Oh, yes, I think so.
I think so.
No, people are suffering from terrible existencial anxiety when they are not absolutely sure in the law of identity.
They are sure about the identity of things they can see within the horizon, but then after a horizon it's like the flat earth and drop right into the void.
They are not sure about what they cannot physically see or reach.
They will generally agree, ninety nine percent, that two plus two equals four here and now, but if you ask them if the same is true at the million light years away or a million years ago or in the middle of the black hole, they will not be sure anymore.
Well, but they would have to be because if you're going to say a million years ago, then you're using more numbers, right?
So you can't you can't say, well, I'm not sure about numbers, but I'm certain that a million years ago, I might not be certain because you have to be certain then instead of two and two make four of the million years ago or the million miles away or something like that.
So no, listen, look, I understand, I think I understand, and maybe you agree, I do understand that certainty creates anxiety for people.
Really?
Because there's a lot, sorry, there's a lot of times in history where people have said, oh, I'm certain about X or Y or Z, and that certainty ends up being overturned, right?
People were certain the world was flat, people were certain that heavier objects fell at a faster rate, people were certain that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the Sun revolved around there.
So people were certain of things, and of course a lot of science, and certainly, well, I would say mostly science, to some degree mathematics, and philosophy, hopefully, but people are certain of things.
People were certain that slavery was morally valid.
People were certain that the best system of social organization was a fairly tyrannical monarchy and so on.
So people were certain of all these things, and it turned out that they were wrong.
They were wrong about these things.
And so I think science has given people a justified hesitation in making certain statements.
I think to the point of absurdity, like there was someone on X the other day, I think it was yesterday, who was saying, you know, science doesn't prove anything.
And it's like, well, that's not true.
Science, I know.
It's a continuous process of refinement.
But science doesn't argue that the world is banana shaped, and science doesn't arguegue that matter or mass has the property of gravity.
These things are not.
And he's like, well, gravity can't be proven.
And I'm like, no, come on.
Like, we wouldn't be alive if gravity wasn't a fact because there wouldn't be any atmosphere on the planet, which we need to at least be carbon-based life forms.
So, and, you know, every time you walk around, you reestablish the existence of gravity because you're pressed down to the ground.
And every time you get on the scale after Thanksgiving dinner, you're reminded of how gravity can affect your weight.
So, the idea that we don't know anything, the sort of radical skepticism, I mean, it's great to be skeptical, of course, right?
But you have to have a methodology by which you can be something other than skeptical.
Because otherwise you end up in this absurd position, which happened at the call on Friday, where the next caller was like, Well, Steph, you were unfair, right?
To the guy who was saying two and two make four.
I don't make, I'm not sure that two and two make four.
And that, of course, is a wild thing to say.
I don't know that two and two make four, but I know that you're being unfair.
Because moral judgments are more tricky than judgments that are almost tautological like law of identity stuff, right?
So saying two and two make four, if you can't be certain of that, then you can't be certain of anything with regards to morality.
And then, of course, that makes the world a very dangerous place because evil people are very certain.
I mean, they don't have the complicating factors of empathy and skepticism and humility and self-doubt and all of that.
So you do have to be able to ground your morals in certainty.
And if you can't be certain that two and two make four, you can't be certain about any moral standards or values, in which case you lose the world to evildoers.
So to me there's..
one of the reasons I was fighting, fairly ferociously, I guess, with them and perhaps even with you, is that certainty is essential for the world to be a moral place.
Sorry, go ahead.
Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
But you remind me, sorry, I'm not a hegelian or whatever, but you remind me of the thesis, antithesis and synthesis, the initial state, this pathological certainty.
People are certain, but they are not able to explain why.
They are not able to walk you through the steps.
It's basically just an emotion.
Like, oh no, sorry, sorry to interrupt.
People do explain why.
If they say, well, why does the sun go around the earth?
They just look at it, right?
I mean, we're standing here on solid ground and the sun is rotating around the sky.
Clearly, right, they would have arguments as to why or they would say, with regard to is the earth the center of the universe?
They would say, well, in the Bible it says the earth is fixed and does not move.
And it accords with God's experiment with humanity.
And so, so they would have reasons, if that makes sense, but they would not be valid.
Go ahead.
Um, okay.
Uh, so do you have like a method to walk people from this initial, like, a basic, naive certainty through to the healthy, skeptical uncertainty, and then into the philosophical certainty again?
Well, sure.
Yeah.
I mean, I've got a whole, I think it's 17-part introduction to philosophy series that I did in 2007, I think it was.
And basically, the idea is you start with a blank slate and you build, with reason and evidence, a worldview that is consistent.
Consistent with rationality and consistent with the observable facts of the universe and at the highest levels also with the observable facts that the free market generates wealth, which means that there must be something rational about it.
And to say, communism or fascism destroys wealth, which means there must be something irrational about it.
I mean, if you build a bridge and it stays up, even if you don't.
know exactly what you're doing, you've done something right.
And then you need to figure out the principles.
Whereas if you build a bridge with some other material like balsa wood and it keeps falling down, then you're doing something wrong.
So yeah, you start with, okay, I don't know anything.
The Socratic thing, right?
You start, I don't know anything.
So how do I build certainty?
And this was kind of a Cartesian exercise, right?
René Descartes started with this and said, okay, the only thing I know is that I think.
That's the only thing I know.
And he wanted to build things up from there.
Now he went totally sideways into being controlled by an external demon simulation matrix nonsense.
But yeah.
Yeah, you start with a blank slate and that this is what science did, right?
It started with a blank slate and it said, okay, look, if we're going to talk about the universe, the universe is rational and consistent.
Yes.
The behavior of matter is rational and consistent.
Therefore, any theory which describes the universe or describes the behavior and properties of matter and energy must be rational and consistent.
In other words, since matter is not self-contradictory, then any theory that describes the behavior of matter cannot be self-contradictory.
So first you look for logical consistency and then you look at measurability, does it measure, does it accurately measure what happens in the world?
And you should then say it should be predictive, right?
So it would measure, it would accurately predict the behavior of matter and energy in the future.
So that's how you would do it with science and that's how you do it with knowledge as a whole.
You exist, the senses are valid, and the behavior of matter and energy is stable, predictable, rational, empirical, and universal.
And you build your knowledge up from there, and then you would arrive at moral theories, moral theories being universally preferable behavior, they must be rational and consistent across space and time.
And therefore, any moral theory that is self-contradictory is invalid.
And therefore, you have to have moral theories that don't involve themselves in self-contradiction.
And then ideally, they also both explain the past, the present, and predict.
the future.
So for instance, the initiation of the use of force is immoral, and therefore things like these lockdowns and mandates and so on, which were the initiation.
the initiation of the use of force will have bad outcomes, as is my prediction.
And, of course, it turned out to be the case.
So, sorry, that's a very brief sprint through it, but hopefully that makes sense.
Of course, I am very familiar with your series on the philosophy and with Descartes as well.
I will try not to digress since you explained them so well, but I thank you for basically doing my work for me.
You are presenting like frameworks or resolutions.
you have this camera and you can zoom in to basic principles or you can zoom out a little into human scale and on both scales, there is consistency.
And this consistency is identity, it's reality, it's virtue, it's logic.
And if a person wants to be a good philosopher, a good thinker then he has to be able to find this reality to read it correctly or find where someone deviates from reality on multiple resolutions the most granular and then zoom out a little find where is UPB on that level there is UPB there is logic on all levels on all levels of reality so this zoom out exercise is like going up and
down a ladder and I found it extremely useful to think of reality as those layers, ladders, and each layer has the UPB in different resolution or different granularity or different complexity.
And each level must be mastered.
That is what you have been saying.
Each level has to be upheld.
I have one small thing to add to that.
Those, besides this kind of inconsistency or insanity on every level, those rungs of ladder also have to be arranged in a logical, hierarchical manner, from low resolution, where you see grains of sand or atoms, to humans, to a greater cosmic revolution.
Because evil doesn't come only.
Evil, insanity and vice doesn't only come from breaking the UPB among humans, but also also valuing the more concrete more zoomed in layers above the more abstract switching the order of ranks on the ladder or the layers of the pyramid that's also where evil insanity and vice can come from yeah and and i also want to reiterate a good summary.
And I also wanted to reiterate that it's really not that complicated.
And I'm not saying that you're trying to overcomplicate things, but it sounds pretty thrilling.
You know, every step of the ladder has to be rational.
We're very good at this.
I mean, if I don't know if you're a dad, but if you've raised kids, you know just how effortlessly they conceptualize the world.
I mean, it's a wild process to see.
Like you point out that this is a chair, and like, within a day, they're identifying every chair in the vicinity.
They can identify a chair on the television show.
They can identify a chair at the library.
And they can even identify something that's like a chair, but not quite a chair, like a stool or a chair.
I mean, it's wild.
So we are really, really good at creating universal abstractions from very, very limited information.
And that's really our great strength.
And most of what people need to do to solve problems of philosophy is simply to slow their role and figure out what it is that they're doing in the moment.
So if I'm correcting you, or let's say, let's make it more generous.
If you're correcting me, right?
So let's say I say the two and two make five.
Then if I say two and two make five and you say, mm, no, it's actually four, like which would be a math teacher dealing with a, say, a four or five.
year old and say, well, no, it's it's actually four and here's why and so on, right?
Count these two and twos, right?
And oh, one, two, three, four, oh, four, okay.
So if you're correcting someone, you're using language, you're relying on the evidence of the senses to communicate that language.
It could be visual, it could be, well, I guess like tracing, you could even trace on their hands if they're deaf, dumb and blind.
You could use sound to speak or something like that.
And so when you correct someone, you're saying, well, there's such a thing as objective truth.
If you're going to make an objective truth statement, it needs to be objectively true, which is kind of a law of identity thing, but it's a process.
And I'm going to use language.
I accept that both I exist and you exist, and you're going to correct me based upon reference to a universal standard.
It's not a matter of will or bullying.
You are sort of, hopefully, somewhat gently reminding me that if I'm going to make a statement that is universal and objective and valid, it needs to be true.
And so if we look at what we're doing during the process of debating or correcting, UPP is validated, objective truth is valididated.
The validity of the senses is validated.
The fact that there is an objective universe out there is validated because there would be no point correcting someone about the physics of their dreams at night because that's a subjective experience and there's no such thing as universal truth or objectivity or a shared reality in dreams.
So if people, when they debate, simply say, okay, what are all of the assumptions that I need to make in order to correct someone using language, then about 95% of philosophical problems are solved with people simply accepting their actions when they correct someone.
Right, right.
It's, uh, I think Hans Hermann Huppak calls something similar argumentation ethics.
That's like the academic term.
Yes, I understand what you mean.
How do not make self-detonating statements?
That's a real training.
It's not just you learn information, it requires training.
Yes.
Right.
Fantastic.
Um, and I, listen, I certainly appreciate you advocating for the listener.
And I do have sympathy for people who have anxiety about certainty.
Because if you are certain of something, and I've obviously been doing this for like 40 years, if you're certain about.
something, one hundred percent, people get anxious.
And the reason, I think one of the reasons for that is that they've been bullied by people who were both certain and wrong.
And therefore they think that the defense against being bullied by people who are ideologues or certain and wrong is to remove their own capacity for certainty.
But that doesn't make any sense.
It's like, well, there are dangerous people in the neighborhood who have weapons.
So the best thing that I can do is disarm myself.
And it's like, no, no, that's not the way to go.
We need to have robust epistemological and moral certainty.
in order to combat those who are both certain and wrong.
But if you are certain and right and you run into conflict with people who are certain and wrong, they will get aggressive.
And so what people are doing is they are trying to disarm themselves in the hope that that will somehow, you know, like how dogs, if they meet each other, they have a dominance display and the dog that loses has to kind of bare his throat to say to the other dog, Well, you can, you can and bite my throat if you want.
it signals a kind of submission.
And I think people have the idea that because there are people out there who are certain and wrong and dangerous thereby, that if they don't express any certainty themselves, then they will somehow be safe.
And it doesn't work.
I mean, it's like appeasement.
It might buy you a little bit of time.
But as Churchill said, appeasement is the idea that the crocodile is going to eat you last.
And so we can't turn over.
I mean, this is, again, the Socratic argument, although Socrates didn't get to certainty.
But it is the argument that you cannot fight false or wrong or invalid certainty with your own uncertainty.
But to be certain, particularly in the realms of moral matters, is to be, you'll be attacked by people who are both wrong and certain, of course.
And I can tell you endless tales of my own experiences in this matter, as I'm sure you could as well.
But the cure for incorrect quote certainty which is just bigotry the cure for incorrect certainty is not uncertainty but correct certainty but it makes people anxious because it draws them into a a set of conflicts that that is it can be tough for some right right and this is very important because you show people how to achieve the healthy valid certainty.
And I think that after people actually do that, it is possible to train them even more into certainty.
Like you have, you are pretty fit, you exercise a lot, but people can even become bodybuilders, they can become super strong.
Imagine that it is possible to train people into a super strong, almost superhuman certainty.
And I think I found a method for that.
Ah, okay.
I know you're sort of limited at the time because you're at work at the moment, but you should drop that in an email and send it to me.
I I'd love to read it.
Right.
Well, the method.
I am writing a book.
It's pretty complete, but it is basically four books in one.
The first one is the fundamental philosophy, where I also reference you.
The second one is what I've been talking about, the concept of the hierarchy of abstraction.
And it is the same concept that IT people use, what systems theory uses.
It floats around the internet.
It's not completely unknown.
It's not completely new.
But what I would like to say., I would like to say two things.
There is in my philosophical work a concept of shared properties of reality.
This concept says that a philosopher can know things even that he cannot touch, he cannot see, he can know them by their properties.
There are some properties which are the same for the things we know and for the things we do not know yet, but they are all the parts of the same reality, and this is how we can know them.
And I found that my method for supercharging this certainty, human certainty, is the same.
It also seems to enhance the function of the artificial intelligence.
So I can with this method enhance both people and any chatbot, any AI chatbot.
Of course, different chatbots have different technical limitations, however, I have, I think I have amazing results and I am willing to share them with certain people under certain conditions, of course not on public call.
Okay.
All right.
That sounds interesting and I hope you'll drop me a copy when you're done.
Oh, of course, of course.
I will spruce it up a little bit.
Just will you be okay if it's a little bit incomplete draft?
Like I would say wait till it's done because otherwise I don't if I have some sort of feedback on it, I don't know if you're already working on resolving it.
So, I mean, if it's just a final proofread, that's one thing.
But I would say don't give me something that's a work in progress because it's hard to give feedback on something that's still fluid.
Yes, I made the discovery with AI enhancement while I was processing this draft in an AI.
It's distracted me.
But I'm sorry, I wanted to just give another example of this wrong hierarchy of values.
For example, imagine a person who is very focused to have a clean apartment, which is like a very concrete value.
but then has a mess with relationships like behaves to children, to his own, treats his own children badly, which is human relationships are more complex, more abstract than just a clean apartment, just things and non-living things.
And when he values this clean apartment above.
living and complex people, then this can be interpreted as a wrong order of the rang on the ladder.
You can understand this ladder, this hierarchy of abstraction, as a useful short hand, how to untangle very complicated things in reality and understand them very simply.
Good, good.
Well, I appreciate that and I appreciate the work that you're doing and I hope you'll send me a copy and I appreciate your time this morning.
All right, thank you, Stefan.
I'm just getting back to work.
Take care.
▲
Export Selection