The debate highlights the futile struggle of rigid Objectivism to survive in a world of nuanced epistemic complexity. It serves as a stark reminder that ideological certainty often requires ignoring the very cognitive frameworks that shape our reality.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Ayn Rand's Strongest Soldier is Still FightingAdded:
very different politics that fall out of that. So >> I love stupid people, man.
>> Me too. That's why I bring you on.
>> I [ __ ] I love stupid people.
>> Einrand has functionally no real philosophy. All these words are meaningless. They don't stand outside of her philosophy.
>> No, she does. She does. She does. Look, you take you take >> She really doesn't. What is good is what ought be. And what >> what is good >> is what ought be >> what is ought not be is not good. Oh, it's [ __ ] terrible. That's so [ __ ] terrible.
>> They have some kind of rudimentary or protoconcepts.
>> Proto concepts. Yeah, that makes that's [ __ ] makes sense.
>> They have they have less evolved concepts.
>> Uh we are watching Dan uh Dan Norton apparently debate uh GrubHub over here about Ein Rand. Dan Norton is a is a fun figure.
He uh he's one of the last the last ant randroids in existence and uh he is very sensitive. He's a very sensitive boy. If you if you say mean things about Rand, he will not talk to you. He will he will clam up. He will clam up like a clam. And judging by the fact that some of the timestamps here are very short and they involve questions of what is reality, two types of knowledge, hallucinations, justification, a passage for iron rant, Hegelian idealism, justification again, possibility and logic, the law of identity. We are going he is going to solve role play with SA. I don't even want to know what the rest of that sentence is.
The source of the the meaning of psychopaths and the source of the good pleasure Hannibal Lectar does everything sadism.
Listen, we're going to have a lot of fun. Okay, here we go. Okay. Okay. Let's go to Rand. Take Iron Rand. I rand.
>> Yo, what up, Dan?
>> I didn't rand.
Lieutenant Dan.
>> Hello. Hello. Can you hear >> you give a full sentence? Testing one, two, three.
>> Testing one, two, three. My volume.
>> All right. I'm going to I'm going to put you up just a little bit. Okay. So, keep talking.
>> All right. Keep talking. Keep talking. I hope >> now say a full sentence about uh about God.
>> I do not believe in God. I am an atheist.
>> All right. Mr. uh um Jack Wait, what's his name? The Bioshock um villain inspired by Atlas Shrugged. Let me think.
>> Ranger Ryan.
What's his name?
>> What is wrong with you? Uncultured.
>> Jack Ryan. Is that it? Something.
>> Ryan. Andrew Ryan. I don't know. Anyway, you got it.
>> Yeah. The bio. No. No. Don't worry about it. Okay, my friend Dan, what >> how how are you like an Ein Randian in 2026 and you don't know who the villain of Bioshock is? It's like the only media that's referenced you in the past 30 years.
>> Would you like to talk about >> a variety of things? Um, do you want to do video or just audio? I can do video if you're open to that.
>> If you want to do video, yeah, I'm totally open to that.
>> All right, Dan, what's good? I just realized Pisco's glasses like slant inwards together. How's that work?
>> All right. So, I'm an Iron Rand fan as I mentioned in the chats and I have a YouTube channel where I also I love to do debates and discussions. Awesome. By the way, is it is it okay with you if I post this on my channel later?
>> Absolutely.
>> Conversation.
>> Okay. And it's Dan Norton one on YouTube for anyone who wants to check it out.
>> Great. So >> judging from the fact that this only got 244 views in 5 days. Nobody did.
>> Thank you so much.
>> I understand I understand you're from the left. So I I'm sure we have >> he's not >> lots to disagree on. Have you read Iron Rand before?
>> I have not read >> I have >> any full work by Iron Rand.
>> It's very boring.
>> Okay.
>> Anthem was okay because it was short.
>> I'm aware of >> Atlas Shrugged and the Fountain Head Arevi. I've read the fountain head cover to cover Atlas Shrugged. I've read too much of >> Atlas, the existence of Atlas Shrugged and um there's another book that I knew about, but I've never read Einrand uh fully. I' I've heard >> uh characterizations of her work and I've read like excerpts, I'm sure, but not full of works.
I can't get over the fact that this man has lived a long a long period of of just talking about ideas and politics and stuff. And everybody who comes out of this circle, they have like so little curiosity, even like the sexiest or the weirdest or the quirkiest stuff, it never even occurs to them to look into it.
They never they never spend like a free couple of minutes going, "Oh, I wonder I wonder what that is. I wonder what that that sounds kind of weird. What is that?
Could I look at that? Never happens.
It's so weird. It's so weird.
Lisa, why did you Why did you delete that? Why did you delete that uh that post? Okay. I think she's often smeared and distorted in straw man. So, I think it's really important in forming an opinion of her to actually read her own works. So, >> that's her. Uh um so I I don't know what the best place is to start. I I guess I I usually like to get as fundamental as possible. Uh you asked me to say a sentence about atheism or God and I said I'm an atheist. That's a very fundamental issue. Your metaphysical view of the world.
>> I don't know if you want to go that deep, but >> whatever you want.
>> Whatever. Wow. That's that's quite an invitation. Uh maybe maybe we could start with egoism. Uh I know you mostly talk about politics but I think politics is downstream from ethics.
>> Agreed.
>> So depending on your your view of >> why do you agree with that?
>> What what does it mean to say that politics is downstream from ethics? And wouldn't it be an ethic that it is the case that politics is downstream from ethics >> is good and bad in general. You will end up applying that in a certain way once you get to politics. But if we're not on the page, same page yet about what is good and bad in general. Like if you're an altruist or a utilitarian, whereas I'm an egoist, which I am, >> then we're going to have different very different politics that fall out of that. So I think first maybe it would be good to explore um ethics. So I'm an egoist and I'm I'm curious uh if you have a view in ethics that you would label yourself with. I think in um in meta ethics uh these are like questions about what it is what good is and um and then we go to normative ethics I guess but uh I take the view >> oh here we go you essentially >> can you hear me >> oh [ __ ] you actually I didn't I forgot I was actually calling you how are you doing >> I'm doing well I figured I'd let that sit for a minute >> I'm covering you >> just started watching without me you mother >> I waited like 10 minutes. The >> whole I've been in the middle of recording my [ __ ] final stoic essay.
>> I've rewritten it like nine times and I'm half dead. I can't tell you. This has been like >> Why are you making so many stoicism essays?
>> I've got the final one. It's not.
>> But how many are there? Isn't it this?
Isn't this like number 10?
>> This would be 11 technically, but it's the long one. So, the the setup is the smaller ones are supposed to be they some of them aren't turning into that. They're supposed to be like 12 to 15 minutes uh that go over specific bits and then I do one big long one so I don't have to reiterate those points because my biggest problem in doing a real essay is that I would always have to like explain what this thinker said or this or that. So, the the parts are meant to do that. The big giant essay which is its own and I'm really happy with the final version. I've just had to rewrite it like six times, which is a lot.
Sort of super tiring my brain.
>> You want to take a break and watch some mine ranch [ __ ] >> I can do some mine ran [ __ ] Yes.
>> Okay. Dickers is uh is calling me because of my comments on his faces. So, I might pull him into if he's down for it to join us for this because it'll be funny.
>> You don't need to know who that is. It's okay.
>> That what is good is what ought be. and what ought be.
>> Okay, let's go back a little bit.
>> I don't know if you want to go back.
>> I watched the first three or four minutes and I was like >> I think I watched this part I went, "Oh, this is going to be this is uh this is like if Clockwork Orange starred me, this is what the movie would be. I would never touch a philosophy book as long as I live again. It's awful. This is awful."
>> You will end up applying that in a certain way once you get to politics.
But if we're not on the page, same page yet about what is good and bad in general. Like if you're an altruist or a utilitarian, whereas I'm an egoist, which I am, >> then we're going to have different very different politics that fall out of that. So >> I love stupid people, man.
>> Me, too. That's why I bring you on.
>> I [ __ ] love stupid people.
>> Einrand has functionally no real philosophy. All these words are meaningless. They don't stand outside of her philosophy.
>> No, she does. She does. She does. Look, you take you take uh >> She really doesn't.
>> No, she does.
>> Nope.
>> Absolutely. 100%.
>> Nope.
>> Yep.
>> Nope.
>> Yep.
>> I need you to give me it in three sentences in a way that's not embarrassing.
>> Friedick nature labbotomized. Three words.
>> But that's not a system. That's my point.
>> Everything's a system.
>> It would be good to explore um ethics.
So I'm an egoist and I'm I'm curious uh if you have a view in ethics that you would label yourself with.
>> I think in um in meta ethics uh these are like questions about what it is what good is and um and then we go to normative ethics I guess but uh I take the view essentially that what is good is what ought be and what >> what is good >> is what ought be >> what is ought not be is not good. Oh, it's [ __ ] terrible. That's so [ __ ] terrible. I love it.
>> I love it. It's so good.
>> People are soful.
>> Mark, we can you can be bees essentially that what is good is what ought be. And what ought be um like relates to stances. In other words, it's a stance dependent notion.
>> Oh, I love this. I I'm not I'm I'm not going to even try, by the way, to like really respond. None of this is none of this is anything worth responding.
>> No, no. It's just this is just this is just clean fun is what this is.
>> This is just pure comedy. This is it's like watching two monkeys throw [ __ ] at each other >> of what ought occur and that is grounded in preferences. And I don't have an understanding of what good is other than with respect to um a stance. Uh in other words, I don't really think that it's coherent to think of stance independent I don't know objective truths or whatever.
Stance independent. Okay.
>> What does that even mean? Well, I think I think what he means is that uh I got nothing actually.
That's kind of meta.
>> Kind of irresponsible spending that causes so many business ventures to fail. You're forgetting the third rule.
>> I need to raise that amount >> at Ganganger's 330 super chatted $2. Why did Ran hate libertarians?
>> She didn't realize she was one.
libertarianism meant something different.
>> Uh I mean yes, but also like the kind of libertarian that people associate with EN like the problem is that Einrand also was a reactionary nutball, >> which are also what libertarians are now.
>> True, but they don't think they are.
I'm a subjectivist, I guess I would describe myself there. In terms of normative ethics, I don't know what the best way to describe it is. Some form of rule utilitarian or um some kind of like threshold deontologist I think would be best describing my normative ethical stance.
Um >> he's a threshold he's a threshold deontologist.
>> God, it's so stupid.
>> Like I can't stress this enough. This is a person who was silent about his primary benefactor and and like stream connection who he was starting a podcast with. This is someone who was silent about this person sharing intimate videos without the consent of the people in them with a minor and he was quiet about that. But he's a threshold deontologist.
>> That's so awful, dude. This is so great.
>> I guess I guess that's where his threshold is. I don't know. His threshold is where I comment on something apparently. But I don't know that I'm the best at describing that and I certainly don't have like a philosophy background. Um, but >> don't worry, we could tell.
>> Yeah, I I think that's enough words for you to chew on.
>> Yes. Yes, it is.
>> So, you talked about >> salad of words you might say.
as well as metaeththics. I guess there might be some overlap on the metaeththics point uh with with my view uh in that I I do think good and bad is relative to an agent and in that way it might not be stance independent as it's sometimes put. I don't usually think in those terms but like if I say a banana is good it's not just good period it's good for me for some other >> and I don't understand what it means to say for something is just good like good to me so sometimes people will ask me like uh in the context of a conversation recently someone was like don't you think a conversation would have gone better if you did this and I'm like well in what sense do you mean better like better according to my own view about what makes a conversation good then no if better in terms of what you think in terms of understanding each other I think that's like uh less clear. So yeah, no I I totally agree that um I don't really understand these like just just good independent of anything else.
I think that good is almost like a relational term.
>> Okay, where there might be some >> just say good is relative. Good is relative. Good is relative to an end you want to achieve or to a good feeling you want to have. Just just say that you don't need to do this.
>> Disagreement however is I wouldn't call myself a subjectivist use that term and that term I think itself it has multiple meanings. There's a metaphysical sense of subjective. There's an epistemological sense of subjective.
And um I don't know if we should get into >> they're the same to that right now.
Maybe we can. I >> I probably would be with respect to both like epistemically. Um I I think I'm I'm convinced that the best way to make sense >> he's a threshold deontologist, but he's a subjectivist.
>> The [ __ ] the [ __ ] way that people respond I [ __ ] hate people who just you don't have to respond and know everything. It's like, well, actually, in response to both, I would be. And it's like, are you kidding me?
>> You just said you're a deontologist.
>> Aside from that, nobody who's serious in the world would ever say in respect to both epistemology and ontology or what?
Like, oh, on both registers, I am that that you what the [ __ ] man.
>> Well, it's because it's filling out a character sheet for these people like for them like taking >> It's not even that. It's just words. I think it's like this is like honestly.
>> Are you the weirdo who draws on your character sheet?
>> I do.
>> Unbelievable.
>> I do. I'm also the rogue who steals from my own team, but I roll high perception check. There's there's a reason I love playing [ __ ] roles. But again, the the thing that they're doing that's like insane is and it's so frustrating. You see it a lot with people who've never actually engaged anything seriously philosophically at all is they just sort of do what AI does. It's the next words that come along that emotionally feel right. And it's absolutely out of their [ __ ] mind. It's just beyond [ __ ] It's great >> of what how we know things is with respect to an assumed epistemic context.
But beyond that, I'm not sure that I can uh ground out whatever that means or or or truly know uh the truth of something other than as filtered through given a set of assumptions like uh you know the the uh the uniformity of nature, the reliability of my senses.
>> I hate that I'm reading the tour right now because all this is triggering me so hard >> is these kinds of notions. And so I I think that >> I just drank it. I'd have to go I' I'd have to go buy alcohol for that.
>> That's fair. Um >> I can You want to do that?
>> It's a metaphysical sense.
>> I can do that. You want to do it? You want to do it?
>> No. No. No. No. No. I don't want to die tonight.
>> Um the metaphysical and epistemological sense of subjective.
We could actually I'll reverse it. Well, here's a drinking game. Anytime they use it correctly or apply it, we take a drink. We're sober.
>> Okay. We got to do it though. Oh, wait.
[ __ ] Never mind. I was all excited.
You need to understand. Okay. I'm in Canada.
>> This is going to hurt me.
>> I'm in Canada. The pubs and the liquor stores, they close at 11:00 p.m. because we're babies, apparently.
>> Well, I mean, if you don't already have alcohol. Yeah, you are one.
>> I mean, I did already have alcohol, but I drank it. Should I get some more?
>> That's why you should get more.
>> Okay. You want to entertain Chad for 15 minutes?
>> No. No, don't go get some more. I don't want to drink tonight. I'm not >> Oh, [ __ ] coward.
>> Both from an epistmic sense, >> irresponsible spending that causes so many business ventures to fail. You're forgetting the third rule.
>> Murray Rothbart is crazier >> and from a morality sense that um >> yeah, >> I'm like a seductist.
>> Murray's nuts.
>> Ein Rand actually has a handful of really interesting good points. I hate to tell you.
>> I'm telling you, labise labs.
>> She also she also and and to be clear, Rand was a narcissistic nutball. She wasn't a terrible writer. There is a very strong voice in The Fountain Head and in Atlas Shragden in Anthem. Like there is a she she's a good creative writer.
>> I've talked about her.
>> The problem is her repetition.
>> The the earliest writing she has um I actually really like two of her very early pieces. There's a there's a change that happens. But again, and even some of her like philosophical writings, um, she's 100% uh, pro-choice, protrans, like all of these things, like like excessively so. Anti-racist, violently anti-racist, like >> I didn't know she was protrans.
>> She was pro- anything. Like she doesn't believe in gender. Like she was not any of those things. She didn't believe in like gender. It's like bo your body is yours. was extreme on like the libertarian it's your own body do whatever you want you are whatever like that thing she she had some extreme statements about these things >> um she had an understanding of how religion and society [ __ ] you that I think was very uh eloquently put in a way I've used since the >> the way that uh uh the old church used to say give us a child until they're six you can do with them after what with them after that what you want and that's because that's all it takes to build a framework him to someone. I think that's a great way to discuss that >> on that view. I think is >> what what is that in by the way? Just out of curiosity.
>> I'm not going to read it out of time, but >> uh the the religion take I'm curious.
>> Uh the the oh the comprehic >> Okay. I've never even heard of that.
That's a that's an obscure one.
I was worried you were going to say I was worried you were going to say the virtue of selfishness and I was gonna be like shoot.
>> No no no I think compos is in um the new left or >> oh the anti-industrial revolution.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. I didn't read that. I haven't read it.
>> Two. So in other words I'm a kind of like a dayart guy. I think that >> he's a daycart guy. Brooks. Oh >> basic what? He's a threshold deontologist subjectivist who's a bit of a Decart guy.
>> I suspect he's putting Dart a bit before the horse.
>> The only thing I know for certain is that I am a >> mind and that I exist.
>> Wait, what?
>> Basically, the only thing I know for certain is that I am a mind and that I exist.
>> I don't think you do know that for certain, to be honest with you.
>> I got to tell you, I would doubt that if I were you at this point.
>> I just made that joke and you were like two seconds behind me. You can't do that.
>> I can do that. I delivered it better.
>> Okay. Well, that gets into some really deep territory and I'm I'm actually tempted to to explore that somewhat.
>> So, >> oh god, please explore it.
>> If I I guess if you're an epistemic subjectivist, then what immediately came into my mind?
Well, is >> I don't know if that's the right term. I just want to be clear. we want to be careful because like may maybe that's the right term and and uh maybe we and we I think understand each other when we use that term but um >> what epistemic contextualist I don't know if there's a better term for it but basically what I'm describing is just that um how we know things uh relates to our mind too and beyond that I don't know that um >> how we know things relates to our mind too Brooks >> I what the [ __ ] is any of this dude >> anything is true other than um that I know something is true other than an epistemic context, but but yeah, I'm I'm happy to use those labels. I just don't want to represent that >> it's like the right label. But certainly in the context of this conversation, I'm fine to, you know, to say that.
>> Okay. Well, maybe we can explore the label, Sam, and see if it actually ends up applying to you or not.
>> So, I I think the term subjective is often understood in contrast to objective, and people will say everything is subjective. And and what they mean by that might be something like everything is just a matter of opinion.
There's no objectively right answer. Um it's all an issue of perspective. And I think this this traces I mean it goes back further than Kant, but I think Kant made a um he put subjectivism on steroids in a way like there have been ancient >> a put subjectivism on steroids.
What what a peculiar thing to say >> skeptics >> going back to the ancient world in Greece who who who thought we couldn't have any knowledge for certain >> and I I think part of their arguments for that view would be like sensory illusions like you put a pencil in a water >> why did he agree to this convo he's an idiot >> bent but I think once K came around in the late 18th century he he had a much more radical kind of skep skepticism where it wasn't just sensory illusions so-called but the entire conceptual apparatus of human beings. Uh so he had this view that um have you read Kant?
>> I have not read primary source Kant works.
>> You have not read there's no way this dude has read Kant.
>> He's read secondary source K works by implication.
>> He's never read Kant. Guarantee you this dude's never read Kant. I'm aware of, you know, the categorical imperative and references to deontology, but my back.
>> Oh my god.
>> Run is certainly not in philosophy.
>> [ __ ] >> Okay. Well, I can just say a little bit about his um metaphysics/epistemology.
Um so the categorical imperative, that's part of his ethics, but deeper than that in is his view on um epistemology and metaphysics, which you get in the critique of pure reason. Um so he had this idea that the mind had these filters um categories he called them through which everything >> just no >> [ __ ] really the mind okay okay wait >> he doesn't know what trans he doesn't know what transcendental means he thinks that the mind has goggles he thinks that there is a mind that has goggles and not like >> Kant's [ __ ] project was a reaction to Hume. Hume said the emotion drives reason ultimately is settling it.
>> Yeah.
>> Kant's project was to secure objective experience against that skepticism.
That's literally what Kant was. That's the whole [ __ ] thing. So, and he's going to do the thing on's always done, which is hilarious. It means he's never actually read Kant and like it's embarrassing, but the confidence is off the charts here for what he's going to say, which is that he basically says everyone's just feelings and not facts, which is the opposite of Constantire project. It's insane.
>> You know what's weird? There's actually like a a large cluster, they kind of disappeared in the last five or so years, but there's a large cluster of um like relatively mainstream like political and theoretical writers. uh who and I I remember I would go to the bookstore and I would look in the index and I would see oh do they not reference this major philosopher that talks directly about that topic but do they mention Ein Rand like Yuram Hzone is one um the virtue of nationalism kind of obvious um obviously uh uh Steven Hicks is another one >> Steven Hicks doesn't read anything >> no but he still has Ein Rand in his uh his thing it's like it's like God's not great you ever see that horrible movie as a joke.
He talks about uh there's the uh the philosophy professor guy. The premise is this like Christian student is in this battle of wits against this atheistic philosophy teacher and he goes on a list of like great great philosophers who were atheists like Hume uh Rand and it's like okay >> yeah you didn't see that >> no >> oh it's great it's funny it's so funny >> we should you know we should we should do a uh we should do an in Discord watch of that movie cuz it's hilarious. It's one of the funniest things in the world genuinely.
>> Lord, >> good [ __ ] >> uh in the world is filtered. So we we don't have aware of true reality, what he called numinal reality. Yeah.
>> We only have awareness of phenomenal reality >> and that's not the true world. It's just like the world of appearances. This was his view. And >> whether it's ultimately coherence, I would say it's not. But I I I >> you know the worst part about this is that uh Pisco is 100% going to internalize this and he's going to think he understands Kant for the rest of his the rest of his life. Now >> he's going to use this tomorrow in a discussion bring up how Kant even Kant didn't believe in objective reality and that's it. The the the plague continues.
>> This was his view. But he had this very deep kind of skepticism uh where we are we are cut off from true reality. It's impossible um to have any awareness of true reality because god damn it we have >> just god damn it that's all I don't have anything just >> how's he how's he talking about true reality then doofus >> some means of processing world >> but but you're just you're inferring the world still like what what are you doing no you can't directly perceive the thing in itself but obviously the thing in itself is directly inferred by the fact that you are having an experience All awareness is processed awareness.
There's no pure undiluted awareness.
>> Yeah.
>> I mean, it's the thing. He [ __ ] dismissed critique of pure reason >> as Kant was.
>> As a side note, he just went like, >> "H whether it's coherent or not, I don't I don't think it look good job, buddy.
You undid Kant, you [ __ ] liar. go into the index of of any uh any edition really of consequent. I'm only aware of three, so I don't I'm not aware of any bad ones. I think the penguin one's not very good, I hear, but like even then, go into the index and look up the word skepticism or skeptic.
It might be with a C or a D.
>> He doesn't like it. He doesn't like it.
Is he like the skeptic claim? Yeah, >> he's literally trying to undo the skeptic claim.
>> That's what it I [ __ ] hate this so much.
>> Yeah. And it's just to note uh no translation of Kant works because Kant is horrifying to read.
>> Well, it's weird actually. Um Hegel has a reputation for being an extremely difficult writer. Actually, Kant is worse. The difference is he's been translated more smoothly. But also, if you read, for example, just just start the introduction to Kant, okay? Start the preface.
>> You'll notice there's a bunch of lines that say A and B on it. It's because there's not one preface. There's two that have been mashed together.
He was literally he was literally still writing it as he was running it to the printer. It's nuts.
>> But but here's the thing. Kant's work >> having I've I've gone through it again recently because now I' I've I've understood more.
>> You just casually went through like 2,000 pages of Kant. Got it. Okay.
>> Well, no, I went I went and did the critique of pure region and pure and critique of pure judgement.
>> Critique of pure region. He knows it's K. Sorry.
>> Critique of pure reason and critique of judgment. Um because they're they're both basically figure into lose. And I think the thing I realized, and I didn't have this understanding before, >> um, is that >> Kant's work is so [ __ ] good.
>> Oh, it's really good.
>> It's not, >> it's not a thing that you can just sidestep. You actually have to do what most real philosophers have done since, which is build off of it or invert it in ways that it sort of like >> it's not just a thing you just go, well, it just doesn't make sense. It's like, no, it it kind of super does. really got to do a lot of work with it.
>> I think the worst thing about the way in which Hegel has been culturally received is that it's it's sort of uh given people the impression that Kant has in some sense been sort of like beaten and he's old news. You know, it's sort of like the way Freud is treated where it's like nobody understands Freud but everybody thinks that psychology has somehow gone past Freud which to be clear it has but nobody knows how it has because they don't even know where psychology is at. So, it's like you got a whole bunch of people who are like, "Oh, oh, Freud, he's like that that like uh you know that like obsolete guy." And it's like, well, no, no, he was he was a he was a philosopher of mind fundamentally. He was a he was a political philosopher. He had a lot of stuff to say that some of it seems obvious because it's wrong, but it's so saturated our discourse that we've all just kind of accepted a lot of it. Um, >> yeah, some of his stuff still holds up.
And >> no, it's it's I just finished my my Stoic video is basically on the horrifying way that the the Platonic framework has basically created a version of Stoicism that is unrecognizable to it and fully inverts the entire project because the framework of things and that's what this guy and really both these people really suffer from >> is that framework and how it ingests and how they don't realize it. And that's something Kant actually does talk about and how we we we build these systems and how how these things sort of work backwards, but not as these guys are talking about. They're doing like a platonic [ __ ] version of Kant without reading anything. It's it's [ __ ] man.
>> Yeah, but the problem is that Kant's books are really long and they're hard.
I mean, they're actually not. They're not that hard, but they're long and that takes work. And >> if they had ever read anything that was long and difficult, except for the guy on the left probably has read Atlas Shrugged 19 times. Um, anything else I would be like, "Oh yeah, they're just too busy." Don't talk about things if you like I there are books I haven't read I don't talk about. Don't do it.
You don't have to do it. You just don't just go I don't know.
>> Lies it happens every day. More lies.
You talk about books you haven't read. I talk about books I haven't read.
>> I mean, you shouldn't barely.
>> I say if I haven't read them, though.
>> That's true.
just impossible to have true uh knowledge of the world.
>> To be clear, I don't talk about books I haven't read on any of my video essays, and I definitely don't talk about their contents, but I talk about them.
>> Well, that's that's >> that roughly approximates what feels true to me or what feels that describes my my view. Um >> like I think the Torah talks about the uh the lesser logic. I've read bits of the bigger logic. I would never the great bigger logic, the greater logic. I would never ever ever say I understand Hegel, but I do understand critiques of Hegel. I do understand how they're correct or incorrect.
>> Except to the extent that there's um you know a truth claim with the following sentence or proposition I am a mind or my mind exists or something.
>> Haven't we forgotten Freud because we have a better understanding of the brain. Oh no, we have we have forgotten Freud because psychoanalysis had different conceptions of desire and anti-csychoanalysis and a bunch of philosophers around that or who connected with that have different different approaches to the relationship between just a whole a whole bunch of things and bunch of weird words like signification and stuff like that. To man taboo is kind of you can throw that one out. That's kind of garbage. But like generally speaking, no that is not why we did not get past it because we have a better understanding of the brain. Um, >> we still haven't really gotten past some of Freud. Some of Freud is still very much the foundation of things.
>> Yeah, >> something like that. Um, so yeah, I I I think that to the extent that we're taking a skeptical view, my my views would, you know, ground down into deep deep skepticism. And uh yeah, so when I make truth claims about objective reality, the term objective is mapping on to some epistemic frame for which I can't justify uh with some of the assumptions that I referenced before.
>> Okay.
>> What? Why has it got a hole in his sleeve?
>> Uh with some of the assumptions that I referenced before.
>> What? Why?
Why? Why? Get a new hoodie, sir.
>> Okay.
>> Weird. That's that's really weird.
>> Well, that has that that's interesting.
And I think this is a very common view.
I think many people are Contians.
>> Like he's a lawyer. I think he can afford a hoodie.
>> Living in a postcontian world to a large extent.
>> Sounds like the lyrics to a song.
>> Um which I think is in my view that's unfortunate. I I I don't have this view.
I don't share Kant's view that we are cut off from reality or the view of earlier skeptics. But I I think one point I would make is that this you might think this undercuts all your views, right? So if all your views are basically resting on this very untenable foundation, if you're deeply skeptical, then you know all your claims in ethics, all your claims in politics, do they just collapse or where >> I think so because I'm I'm I'm self open with the fact that all my truth claims contain within it that provides a subject to a set of assumptions that I uh take for granted. Um, so the truth claims are only uh accurate in so far as they onboard those assumptions and I'm self-aware about that. So given X then this is true. Um, and so I don't think that there's any if if I know right if if my claims are understood usually people don't go this deep but if if pressed I will say well I'm not making a claim as to objective reality or whatever. I'm I'm making this truth claim with respect to an epistemic context and everything needs to be understood. you know, the truth or falsity of my claims needs to be understood merely as uh uh true or context with sorry, true or false in relation to that context and not true or false outside of it. And in other words, my claims don't go beyond the epistemic context. In which case, I think it doesn't disturb them.
>> It's scoped in. It's priced into the claims or at least in my mind they are.
>> Okay.
So, I I've got a couple thoughts on directions we might go from there. So, >> one is because someone might look like a dork.
>> Is that why people take him seriously?
Because he looks like a [ __ ] dork.
>> You're going to have to narrow that down. Who are we talking about?
>> Uh, yep. You win. You're right.
>> That answers my question. Fair enough.
>> That is Well, it's all worthless because it's all it's all self-refuting. Self any skepticism. I don't think anybody takes Dan Norton seriously. So, you're obviously talking about Pisco.
>> He's having him on to debate him. He takes him seriously enough.
>> Late 18th century think that everything you just said is well, it's all worthless because it's all it's all self-refuting. Self any skepticism, deep kind of skepticism is is a self-refuting.
>> Well, I I take self-refuting to be a contradiction and I don't think there is one. So, I don't think it's self >> self-refuting to be a contradiction.
What self-refuting is talking about a contradiction? What is contradictory about self-refuting?
>> Weird self-refuting.
>> Well, maybe there's an implicit kind of contradiction, which is like anything you say >> has this Well, let me just entertain this view at least. Any view you put forward has this implicit um addendum to it which is uh is objectively true. So for example, if I >> agree with that it contains an addendum, but that's not self-refuting. That just means the scope of the claim only extends so far as the addendum.
>> So I don't think it's self-refuted. I think it's just people would maybe subjectively feel a kind of way that the addendum is added there because it feels like wrong, but I don't think it's a contradiction.
>> Okay. You don't think it's a contradiction?
>> This this actually I've got a way to make this interesting.
>> Listening.
>> So, what we're kind of seeing is anyone who's really into Rand and talks about her stuff is basically a sophist at best. Right.
>> Sure.
>> Um and Pisco totally a sophist but a lawyer sophist. So, he's better at it.
And actually, we're going to see like the war of the sophists here. And that I think could be interesting to watch how that forms.
>> I Okay, I'm going to be real. I don't I don't think Dan Norton is a sophist.
I don't think he I don't think he knows what he's doing. I think he's unself-aware.
I think he's completely unself-aware.
I think he thinks he's dead serious.
>> Yeah, but he's he's still a sophist.
>> I mean, not by design is all. I think anyone who does Iron Ranch philosophy is because they're it they're basically they're running everything back to, yeah, but is it truly selfish? Which is my favorite [ __ ] line of questioning that's ever existed.
>> Is objectively true? I'm I'm trying to apply this analysis.
>> Yeah. So analytically, I understand a contradiction. So truth can, you know, something can be analytically true by which we just mean like we're just defining the terms and the concepts. So in that sense of it um if we define a contradiction to be something related to I don't know the a proposition and its negation. So the joining of those things I guess or I don't know um P and not P together. If that is what we understand a contradiction to be then analytically that is to say by definition >> that that sounded funny. I'm sorry.
>> Um >> there is no P and not P contained in the statement all of my claims are subject to an epistemic context. Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ. The [ __ ] That was a lot of [ __ ] right there, man.
>> I think that that's not There's no >> You got to You got to admire just how locked in he is, though. This is like This is like life and death for him.
He's taking this so seriously.
He could just say, "Yeah, dude. Sure."
>> There by definition.
Okay. Um you you are alluding to the term analytic definition which is contrasted in in K actually that's where this terminology comes from the analytic and the synthetic.
>> I don't accept that whole distinction but >> I don't know that we need to get into that right now.
>> Linets how the [ __ ] do you say that?
Linets really wants to have a conversation dude. Also Hume like also Hume.
I guess he thinks that uh Kant coined that language. Nobody had heard of those distinctions before.
>> What Kant did is my understanding and again whatever limited uh he for him it was the synthetic a priori the idea that some information some non-tological judgment this is a critique of judgment um are knowable independently of experience the the synthetic a priori That's insane.
>> Well, specifically specifically he was curious if they if they were even like if that was even a coherent notion. Like is that a thing you can have?
>> Right.
>> Uh I mean yeah and he said it was >> Yeah.
>> Like you can have a non-tological judgment that is independent of experience like and it's it's again interesting but Linets was around man.
>> Yep. But he's hard.
They're hard. Reading's hard.
Why read when you can just talk about it like you read it? Um, but I guess it is part of your view that everything is subjective and you're you're self-aware of that fact. But if you say everything is subjective for that to have any coherent or intelligible meaning I think it needs to be contrasted with something like as opposed to objective.
>> I don't know that I think that >> why why would that why would you need that? because otherwise I sound stupid.
>> Um I don't even know that the like a tr a notion of true objective I even understand what that means like I I understand objective to be mind independent and I understand mind independent as uh in other words and in the legal context it has a different meaning entirely too. So for folks who are watching don't don't let me uh when I say I don't even understand objective u we're just talking about in this sense um I think to the extent that I can make any truth claim independent of an epistemic context it's that my mind exists or that my mind is experiencing something and I think that makes it so all claims are mind dependent because of course the claim that my mind exists or maybe not I I haven't thought about it as much. Um, but I I do think that truth claims, as far as I understand, rely on an epistemic context or uh don't make sense to me outside of an epistmic context.
>> Not an awful response like just generally that's like, yeah, but isn't your objective understanding of things through your mind? Like >> he doesn't know it, but he's kind of pitching back humor and [ __ ] back at him without knowing it. Thank but isn't it isn't that claim also from your mind that's uh which is a tough thing to answer and therefore in that sense of something you know I don't know if there's anything besides that sense of subjective okay there are different senses of the term subjective sorry yeah of subjective and of objective and I think I I mentioned this earlier in the discussion that there's a there's a metaphysical sense and an epistemological sense of both terms both subjective and objective >> and you you mentioned just a minute ago that um you understand objective to mean mind independent >> or stance independent I think. Yeah.
>> Yeah. And that's the I take that to be the metaphysical sense >> okay >> of objective and I think maybe the more relevant sense in this discussion is the epistemological sense.
So to give an example um this is the sense which one might use for instance uh in talking about say a teacher grading papers. You could say the teacher is objective in her grading or subjective in her grading >> and neither one means mind independent.
Like there's no it doesn't make any sense to say you could grade a paper without using your mind.
>> It literally does. It literally does.
Sorry. It's just like he's [ __ ] just >> But how would you grade a paper without a mind, Brooks? Riddle me that.
>> How did he how did he literally name the epistemic one? The epistemic one that he's arguing now. He's like, it's not the it's the epistemic one. That is the one that is about mind independent rules and mind that's [ __ ] >> I don't know. I just work here >> independent grade. But I do think there's a distinction in the way the teacher uses her minds. She could use her minds >> for good >> in an objective way >> or for evil >> where say she's >> uh >> genuinely >> the the if she's grading papers like is the students paper logical? Is it coherent? Is it >> some standard right? Some some so in accord with some standard right and that I think is like the definition of normative right? So in other words, I I think like if you're grading objectively, yeah, we're using that to mean uh as a shorthand to mean like free from bias or according to some consistent framework. Um so in that sense, yeah, I guess I would understand that that's objective, but it just means that you know it's set uh you know according to a set standard or criteria that might be at least part of it. I I might want to add in more elements, but just to the to contrast that with the subjective method of graving.
>> Holy [ __ ] Imagine Pisco [ __ ] [ __ ] you in front of everyone on a point like that. Jesus Christ.
>> I'm >> You should That's so sad that he just did that.
>> I'm just I'm just kind of baffled as to why you would do this to yourself. I don't I don't I don't get this is like self harm. I don't get what the point is.
>> Be for instance, just going by her feelings. Like >> I will give I mean at this point by the way I'm going to give a little credit to Pisco.
>> Yeah, >> that's not bad >> for off the cuff knowing nothing. It's pretty good actually.
>> Yeah, it's not bad. It's not bad.
>> Student kind of looks like they know what they're talking about, but I'm not going to read it too closely. I'm just going to go by a feeling uh like or if they're she's grading a math problem set. Oh, he's using a bunch of fancy symbols, but I'm not going to bother to analyze.
>> So I I think this is really interesting.
There's no >> I recognize a distinction between those.
>> Hang on. Let him let him cook.
>> Two methods. What I never understand is when someone says like, well, one is incorrect.
>> I just don't understand what that means.
If it doesn't mean, well, I prefer them to use one method. What does it mean to say like it's a it's correct or it's better or the right way to do it or the natural way to do it is to do the one method versus the other method? I understand the distinction, you know, coherently between those two methods, but I just don't know. In what sense one is objective and subjective except to just distinguish how people use those terms to describe the methods?
>> Okay.
>> Well, I don't know if the the term objective implicitly contains the idea that it's that it's correct. I mean, exactly what is the relation between the concept correct and the concept objective? Well, uh, that would be that the the correct is a reflection of what is and the objective is what is between multiple perspectives.
>> Jesus, >> that's that would be that would be why, Dan.
>> That's something we can get into. But you might think that >> but why >> they're they're overlapping or if not synonyms, maybe different angles on the same thing. But >> yeah, like what makes the the rubric objective and the >> the feelings, the language things subjective? That's what I don't understand other than the fact that we just I will recognize that we use those terms I that you're being totally subjective and unfair and arbitrary, right? We use the term subjective to to be references to those concepts, but um in a true sense like or in a sense that um means something other than just labeling, right? Because I don't think that what you're saying here is just a labeling thing. Um, what makes the method of grading by which we're going off of flowery language versus not flowery language versus like some uh like coherence or evidence-based set of grading? What makes one objective and the other not objective?
>> Okay. Well, maybe uh I think one is tied to reality or the other is not.
>> Well, hang on a bit. If if you're grading something based on flowery language, just assume the teacher is like actually identifying the flowery language, actually seeing the biases that she agrees with, actually being like arbitrary and is self-aware about that.
How is that not mapping on to reality in a way that the the the one that focuses on coherence, on rationality, on evidence >> that is not a bad response, dude. It's also it's also it's also to be fair like you need to understand language to get this because it's kind of it's kind of very simple. Not not to like undermine this like he's he's doing okay.
>> I'm just like >> this is like there at the base level this would be this is like all everything the Rand guy is saying is fundamentally hilariously stupid. But if you take it seriously, these are very, this is actually not a very bad as far as like debate bro mentality point of attack to just dismantle a person because he's got no response to this.
Why is the rubric more objective?
Because it's matching reality. Why?
Well, I've never had to.
>> Well, it's it's a weird thing. Well, here's the thing. It's like it's a weird thing when people like get into philosophy or to a specific philosopher because they want to wear them like a costume as an identity. So, this guy doesn't read anything. He just reads Ein Rand because he's an Ein Randian and his identity is an Ein Randian and he he he feels good about himself because he's an Ein Randian and they're in Bioshock. They're cool.
Right.
>> Um >> so it's like you put that against somebody who's not committed to any of these things, they are free to just go, "Hey, that doesn't make any sense.
Actually, can you elaborate? Oh, your elaboration doesn't make any sense.
Actually, none of the words you're saying make any sense." And he can just do that because he's not committed to actually having to know anything or to defend anything. So like it's it's it's one of these things. It's like you either drink deep or don't bother because it's not worth it.
>> Yep.
Been on to reality. I think that that implies some sort of norm that we ought coher to reality. We ought be normative.
We ought be evidence-based. In other words, that's what I'm getting at is like um I'm not sure what makes one more tied to reality, one method versus the other.
Well, I I take that I take it that objectivity in part at least means adherence to an object. I think that's actually part of >> Wait, what?
>> Where the etmology is >> an adherence to an object. Hang on, wait, wait. I need to hear that again.
>> I take it that objectivity. Hang on, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. No, inherence >> in part at least means adherence to an object. I think >> objectivity means inherence to an object. No, that >> adherence like gluing >> intoherence.
Inherence, not adherence. Inherence.
So that which is objective is is inherent to an object in some sense.
>> I guess >> the objective is fixed to an object. But but no, because uh oh I'm sorry. You can talk about the objective without necessarily having a metaphysics that proposes an actual thing to which that which is in common between the perceptions of multiple agents is actually fixed. Right? Like we do that all the time. Like process philosophers do that all the time. They don't believe in objects. They do believe in quote unquote the objective. They just think it's conditioned.
whatever I >> think that's actually part of >> where the etmology of the word comes from. So I think >> the etmology of the word objective comes from object books. Brace yourself more revelations to come.
>> I'm I'm trying to understand how language works anymore.
>> There is a >> because >> there's a tie between the epistemological and metaphysical aspects.
>> Yeah. But the bias grader has a purpose too. is their purpose is to be biased and to be partial and to be arbitrary let's say.
>> Okay. But then one could raise a question you know is that a reality based mode of operation or is that somehow being run by you?
>> What makes something a reality based operation versus not?
>> Okay.
>> Those are the basic things never answers. This is great.
Well, maybe we we need to go into, you know, >> for his philosophy, but it's like this Einran never answers any of this [ __ ] whatsoever. So, this is great >> if we're going to answer this question.
>> And um >> well, it's weird, too, because like Einrand was like in the in the era of like Phil Donahghue and whatnot. And it's like I don't think she ever debated anybody.
I don't I don't I don't recall any case wherein Rand actually was like on a stage with two Dan.
>> She did. She did. Um I have to remember who it was. She had a >> Was it like one debate >> really large debate discussions? They were popularized in her newsletter, too.
>> They It wasn't with anyone interesting, but she did >> claim to do it.
>> Okay. Well, that's different. I'm talking about I'm talking about >> I have to look through. I remember there being instances of it.
>> I I I don't remember there being any formal public debate. I know she's like I think she might have actually appeared on Phil Donnie here. Hang on. Fine. And Phil Yeah, she was. I remember that interview. That's the green one.
>> I was on Phil Donahghue, too.
>> It's a true story.
So old.
>> I mean, it was in the 2000s, so >> Yeah. But you were an adult then.
>> I was an adult. I think she was an adult when she was on it, too, by the way.
>> Uh, she was like elderly when she was on it.
She was always elderly. I don't know if you've seen pictures of her. She never had a young face.
>> That's not true. They always put they always put her very young face, like in her 20s and 30s on the uh on the inside cover of book. She looked she was pretty looking.
Looked kind of like uh looked kind of like the Stormfront actress from season two of The Boys >> a little bit. Yeah, I can see that.
>> Yeah, that's Yeah, let's try to go there, I guess.
Let's get as deep as possible. So, >> wait. sort of theory. This is not theory. Do not call this theory, okay?
This is this is smut is what this is.
This is this is the this is the level of drama that I can sit through and suffer through.
What is reality? Um >> I think reality >> I can give an answer to that or if >> Yeah, sure. I can try but it's the words are about to fail because I think we're going to get into like some sort of primitive of some kind. um which is I just think I take reality to be what is >> reality is what is >> I don't know that I can describe it any more than that I just take what is is to be like almost um a semantic >> some people don't think the universe be the way it is but it do >> primitive >> that was exactly what I was thinking right sense.
>> Okay.
Well, I I would also agree that reality is what is there are other terms that could be used like synonyms like existence?
>> Yeah.
>> So, what is that?
Is it what we're aware of through our senses?
>> That's one question. I I guess I would understand that um it's possible for what is to be beyond my senses um and what's my mind is but I don't know that I can uh know that. So that's I guess the epistemic sense of objective where we're we're running into the wall which is like um and what you mentioned with these filters you know I don't know the contient filters which is um yeah I guess what is what exists can be >> this man is going to be talking about the contient filters till the day he dies >> independent of my mind um so I guess I would uh recognize that there's a notion of of reality that isn't depend on my mind I >> real exists are different things in several different philosophical approaches >> just don't have access to Okay.
>> Although I have to confess total ignorance to the Stoics because I don't watch Brooks because he's gay.
>> Oh, probably fair.
>> You might. So, it might be that you are just caught in a matrix, so to speak, or um to use that.
>> Yes.
>> I don't think there's any contradiction entailed in us being in the matrix.
>> What's that?
>> Caught in the matrix. Good solid real philosophy. That's how you know. tricks and me being a brain.
>> He's a brain in a vet. Hang on.
>> That and me being the only living being in existence and all of you guys are just >> projections of myself. I don't think there's any contradiction entailed in those. And because I can't uh generate a contradiction, I don't think that can say it's impossible and therefore I can't rule it out.
>> I I didn't understand that to be honest with you. I need to hear that again. in me being the only living being in existence and all of you guys are just projections of myself. I don't think there's any contradiction entailed in those and because I can't uh generate a contradiction.
>> Well, I mean there is because you're you're assuming that the outside world I mean it's not really necessarily a formal contradiction, but you're sort of presuming that the outside world behaves in the exact same way as you're ostensibly projecting outward. So I don't know I just don't know why you draw any conclusions from that thought experiment. I don't think I can say it's impossible and therefore I can't rule it out.
>> Okay.
>> Okay.
>> So, I think there might be a contradiction in the idea that you're not aware of any mind independent existence.
And um >> what is it?
>> There's a passage from there's a passage from Ran which I'm tempted to read. I'm wondering.
>> Yeah, we got to get to Iron Rand for sure. No, I'm I'm interested. You've intrigued me. So, um, let's let's take the time limit off the table.
>> You are going to be so >> Oh, are you interested in that passage?
>> Well, I'm interested in wherever you want to go because I'm interested in the conversation.
>> Can Can I pretty please read a passage from Ryan Rand? Really? You're going to let me? Oh, boy. Oh, gee. Oh, gosh.
>> Well, let's be fair.
>> I would let him. I like [ __ ] off, dude.
>> I'd let him.
>> What? You want to read your stupid [ __ ] philosophy?
>> I want I want to I want to hear what I want to hear what he's picked out.
>> No one wants to hear what Iran has to say. Don't lie.
>> I've I've read Iron Rand. You've read Iron Rand. For a brief period of time, you were mentally damaged enough to want to know what Iran had to say.
>> Yes, I agree with that. That's not good.
>> Um All right. Well, I got the passage pulled up, but maybe in before I read it, I should just try to put this in my own words. Uh so to have the idea of a u if we're only if we're all caught up in our own consciousness, I don't know that that's that's a coherent position to be in because I sometimes you you need a contrast in order to get the idea of something like it sometimes said a fish isn't aware of the water it's swimming in because it's all around it. Um, but if you now take the fish, >> no, it's actually because it's a fish and it doesn't have a concept of water, but whatever.
>> Fish out of water and then it can like if we're in a mind.
>> Okay. Okay. Let me see if I can uh cuz I might agree with you then. In other words, a mind is almost like a contentful state and u there needs to be content to fill it and if there isn't things other than the mind um itself like h in other words how can we even say that there is such a thing as a mind if there isn't like content independent of it I don't know maybe >> it's weird because he just said he was a carteian earlier but the entire thing about Decard is that I think therefore I am like the thinking is is the just it's an activity.
>> Yep. That's the doing.
>> Now granted, it is absolutely like smuggling in Christianity [ __ ] but >> Well, I mean, more specifically, it's it's smuggling in like grammar. So it's like it's it's it's literally like oh based off the structure of this sentence I can infer the separate existence of this other thing and and this signifies some it's just this it's like but leaving all that aside like that that's that's weird stuff that for some reason is actually really hard for people to find their way to. I just find it weird that in the context of this conversation like just it's because he did label himself as some stuff earlier to try to sound smart. Not in as awful a way as Dan did, but it's just like just don't just don't just don't me don't mention stuff you don't know except to say, "Hey, you know, I've heard that word, but I have no idea what the [ __ ] they were talking about or whatever they said." Just saying I heard the name at some point. Couldn't spell it if you asked me to. See, that's perfectly respectable. It's actually a sign of intelligence that you'd say that or something along those lines, but whatever.
>> Yeah, I'd map on to that to say that there there is some there there are some mind independent truths perhaps. Um, but I don't think there's a contradiction in me not knowing them or having access to them. So, so I I think it's possible that there's a contradiction in there being a mind without anything else. Uh, but I'm not convinced that uh there's a contradiction in not knowing what that is.
Okay.
Oh, well, there knowing has different senses. There's there's perceptual knowledge. what you might call that like animals you might say they can perceive the world they have a sense of sight so they can know things about the world but then there's no in a conceptual sense which I think applies uniquely to humans >> you think that applies uniquely humans >> why do you think that applies uniquely to humans >> I I think so yeah I mean this is some people will dispute this and say animals also have conceptual knowledge but I I I don't think so I mean >> animals literally have language what do you what do you mean why would you assume that I I always find this weird because it's like I you can you can be skept skeptical about that simply because we don't have access to like any other any other experience but but ours. But like why would you why would you take a stance on that? Like you you evolve from the same stuff. You're from the same stuff.
>> Like why would you assume that life on Earth can't can't develop the capacity to think in and in and concepts when we we literally did that?
Well, I' I'd argue this is literally like the Lu writes about the image of thought and how it's completely [ __ ] us. And I talk about in my this is this is it. This is the thing that [ __ ] people is this idea like the image of thought and how it functions and it it sets up a lot of stuff for us we don't even realize.
>> There might be some borderline cases like chimps, you know, very close relatives, human beings which are >> speak for yourself.
>> Okay, calm down. Octopi, dolphins.
I octtopi I would I would even say are more extraordinary. I would never >> basically basically basically anything anything with memory you have to entertain the possibility of of something like that like how does that work and it's like I think people have this notion for some reason that conceptualization is downstream from from spoken codes but that doesn't follow like you have to be able to think categorically you have to be able to think in terms at least even if you don't have a concept of a concept that like you're not sort of aware of what you're doing per se, but that's children by the way. That's everybody who hasn't thought who hasn't like embarked in any kind of like exercise of metacognition. But like you have to be able to essentially think in concept in order to be able to name different things the same thing.
>> Well, and I'd even say the idea that like the raw data that anyone gets in like perception is what a layer >> when where how do how do you see this working?
>> Yeah. Ex. Well, exactly because like you you you you identify like even without like dwelling upon them so to speak like doing a thinking upon them. It's like you recognize a thing like there is conceptualization happening there. Is it is the act of conceptualization before your consciousness and awareness? Maybe not. But like that is happening. And there's this weird like notion that if this is not like a thing you are uh sort of doing with the self-awareness that you're doing it's like therefore it doesn't count but but why would that be why would that be so anyways >> they have some kind of rudimentary or >> protoconcepts but in the full full-fledged sense >> okay >> I would say only humans are >> they have protoconcepts >> protoconcept yeah that makes that's [ __ ] makes sense >> they have they have less evolved concept concepts.
They have chimp concepts, conceptual or rational beings, animals.
Um, but I think the uh the the sensory or perceptual level that the five senses is a more basic kind of contact with reality. And I I think that's where we start as infants. you know, we we don't have any words yet, any concepts, any ideas, but we have our senses and we can look out and see the world and hear things. And I think that's the most basic kind of contact that we have with the world.
>> So before when you say you're not sure if we we have knowledge of the world. If by that you mean um >> conceptual knowledge like awareness of truths like Newton's laws, for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. Maybe we can set that aside for a moment and just focus on the more basic case. Um, which I think all the conceptual knowledge is based on like I think we derive our concepts and principles from sensory observation.
>> Sure. Sure. I I think I can grant that I'm perceiving something. I'm perceiving stimuli or whatever. And uh so yeah, let's use that notion of uh perceptive knowledge. I'll I'll grant that that that I I think I understand what that means. Um okay, where do we go?
>> All right. So stream to the twilight >> the senses can deceive you right and it could be the case by by could I just mean it's logically possible and no contradiction is entailed >> by my senses uh not um you know you know being triggered by a machine or a computer or I don't think it's disproving the kind of the problem of of deriving any kind of truth claim about the objective reality which probably which exists but which we can't know anything out.
>> Okay.
>> Okay.
>> So, I'm not sure it is coherent to to think that we our our senses might might not give us any awareness of reality if that's what you're saying.
>> I I think at most it can say that reality is a thing. That is to say, the act of perceiving proves that there is something.
>> I want to jump ahead of this passage mine ran because I want to see where this goes. Okay. I'm getting I'm getting bored of this back and forth. I don't know. It's so such a brilliant discussion. I hate to miss the nuance.
>> So maybe this is where we go into epistemology and you know what it takes to >> and eventually iron rand the people are are waiting for it.
>> Yes.
>> They're waiting for Rand. Well, this is all I'm >> Yeah. It's all leading up. It's building. Yeah. Yeah. It's building up.
Yeah.
>> I mean I'm I'm giving voice to Einran's ideas without mentioning her explicitly.
She has a book called Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.
Um, but maybe more relevant to what we're talking about right now.
>> What's that?
>> She didn't have that book. That's a new book that's been released with other [ __ ] inside of it.
>> An introduction to objectivist epistemology.
I think you're thinking of something else.
I think I think that one is Randublished.
>> Oh, wait a hang on. Hang on.
No, it's by Enrand.
Ran considered >> I'm not saying she didn't write words.
>> No, no, no. It's it's literally her book. Rand considered it. It's it's on uh it's on Wikipedia. Rand considered it her most important uh philosophical writing. You are thinking of something else that came out recently and I know what you're talking about, but I can't remember what it's called. But I know what you're talking about because there was a recent a relatively recent book by like on an Rand's philosophy.
>> Um >> no, >> no.
>> No. Okay. Well, this this was written by Anran.
>> I'm not saying it wasn't written by her.
It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter.
Wait, but what does that mean?
>> Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter.
>> There we go. He's slicking back into his cave.
>> Did Ni ever read write the Knockless?
No, of course not. But he wrote it, but he didn't write the Knockless.
The The Objectivist. Okay. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology was published in her life as an introduction to objectivist epistemology, >> right?
>> She considered it as a thing, her writing. Okay.
>> She wrote it.
>> That's fine. I didn't say she didn't write it.
>> Okay.
>> I didn't I never said that.
>> Okay. Okay.
>> How is there there's a passage in Atlas Shrugged, her most famous novel, where she addresses this, which I could read.
Maybe I should read just one paragraph.
>> Oh, no.
>> So, this is from one of the I won't say who it is. I don't want to plot give plot spoilers, but I'll just read the words. This is what one character says.
Quote, existence exists and the act of grasping that statement implies two corlary axioms. That something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness. Consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists. If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness. A consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms.
A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself, this might be the kind of matrix idea.
>> A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms.
Before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.
>> Yeah. I I I think I grant that that uh at a base level for consciousness to exist, I think I would grant that there needs to be something besides it for which to perceive. Um I I think that's fine. Yeah. I know. But the reality like what our everyday reality that we experience that we refer to as reality, what I propose is that's just not that right. There is something right that exists outside of the mind for sure but it's the stuff outside the vat and the stuff in the vat is just the mind and so and I don't think that that entails a contradiction and if there is a contradiction what is it because I don't think it's that um a mind exists without existence or something other than the mind. I think that in the example I'm giving, there's the vat other, you know, there's a brain in the vat, right?
There's the brain, the vat, and then the world outside the vat. And these comments, they're so mean.
Just look at this one in the chat. What a [ __ ] loser to quote. Ein Rand.
>> I'm I'm agreeing with that. I can agree with that.
>> That's so it's not a he's okay.
>> What we're experiencing just isn't the thing that exists beyond the the brain.
And so I think that I've resolved the the problem with a mind existing without reality at all. And I'm just saying that the the stuff that we're all in the matrix of that isn't the outside experience.
>> Okay.
>> In the proposed alternative where where I'm not saying that that's what I don't have a base to believe that's true, but I just don't think it's uh entails a contradiction.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. Um well I I wonder if you're there's at least one other claim of what actually exists mind independently then there's so we're not you're not just saying um I'm aware of the stuff in my mind.
You also are committed to saying there is a there's a VAT if we're going to use the brain and the VAT model or there's a machine that I'm hooked up to like in the matrix. So I know objectively those things exists.
>> Well, I'm just saying if that were the case, right? Like I don't think so assuming that that were the case, that world doesn't contain a contradiction.
>> But that would mean that the table you're perceiving um isn't part of that which exists independent of the mind.
>> Okay.
Um, I wonder if there's like if you're you're saying everything could be part of my mind.
>> No, no, I'm not saying everything. I'm saying the stuff you perceive is all part of your part of your mind. There is a world in which I don't think I can say that everything is in your mind. And I'm just saying the what we take to be everything in the in the conventional sense, which is everything that you experience, that could all be in your mind.
>> Okay. Uh it's like he's hearing all this for the first time. Why are you arguing about this?
>> Every human you've ever met, every thing you've ever seen, every music that you've ever heard. And I don't know that we can generate a contradiction for that view.
Okay.
If everything is you perceive as part of your mind.
>> So you're you're not denying there is something mind independent.
>> I think I have to be committed to something other than a mind existing. So uh cuz I I don't think there's a good response.
>> You could just deny the category mind and say that whatever's going on it's weirder than your categories allow.
That's all.
That's an easy answer. just like, "Hey, >> but this guy's never thought about any of this shit."
>> But it's like he did though because he's arguing about it and he had a quote lined up. So it's like he >> I meant I meant he thought about it, not not he's heard what people have said.
>> He digested it.
>> Yeah.
>> Bonds the notion that like >> guess the next chapter, by the way, it's short. It's like 2 minutes long, but it's called Hegelian idealism.
>> Oh. Oh god.
>> These are Dan These are Dan's titles, by the way. This is on Dan Norton's channel.
Hegelian idealism >> sucks.
>> I'm excited. I don't I don't that like that's amazing. What are you talking about?
>> We got here the nature of I think we have the nature of rights over here.
>> The Hegelian nature of rights >> that consciousness is incoherent.
>> This one is called roleplay with uh SA and then it stops.
I want when we're done the Hegelian ideal >> assault. I I I know right. When we're done the Hegelen section, when that tires out, I want to skip ahead. I want to see what the hell's going on with that role play. I want to see I want to see Dan Norton role playing with Pisco >> without something some reference point.
So So I I think you've convinced me and I think I this might have been a prior belief of mine um as I'm coming back to this conversation that something independent of mine must exist. So I I think I would grant that. I'm just don't think that I would I'm committed to the view or that anyone is committed to the view that >> Sunday. Why can't we just read some serious? You can $100 donation. You can't donate that though right now Abby.
I'm going to refuse.
>> You can also just go read Saras.
>> You can go read Sarah.
>> Pretty useful.
>> You can go read Saras. You can you can you can do that.
I didn't know he wrote anything after Galaxy Quest, but you can go read Sarah.
>> The things we perceive are part of that independent reality. Um, that's what I think I'm stuck on. And I want to be convinced. I want to be convinced of the things that I perceive.
>> I want you to read Saras. How about How about we do How about we do an inserver reading of Saras at some point? But right now, right now, we're watching this garbage because I spent the entire day reading other stuff and recording stuff and I'm tired. Okay. So, I'm watching the dumb I'm watching the dumb thing.
>> We're watching dumb. Dumb.
>> We're watching dumb.
>> Two points. I don't know. I don't And I don't want to lose one if I go to one first. um if if everything so I guess if you're not sure whether what we perceive exists independent of you if if you have it seems like maybe you're you're of the view like Kant would say we're only aware of so-called phenomenal reality but not numinal reality um because everything gets filtered through our >> yeah categories Um so later German philosophers said well let's just get rid of numeal reality. I think Hegel might have gone that route and this led to I I think a number of German following >> I mean he's I mean he's he's close if you have it completely backwards.
>> Uh >> yeah he's close if you're playing a different sport >> with that rat.
>> Damn. It's also like like no no no Hegel I mean a very here's a very crude version that Antonio Wolf will hate me for but like a very crude version is uh stuff behaves like ideas do for for Hegel there there isn't that there isn't that like essential gulf between the thing in itself or the numinal and and the phenomenal um because it's all it's all acting the way the way the phenomenal does in a certain sense it's not phrased that way but like things in themselves like stuff in the world interacts in the same way that concepts do. And therefore you can you can >> theorize the world dialectically. Um which is the exact opposite the exact opposite of what he just said. It really is.
>> It's not getting rid of the numinal.
It's actually it's actually anthropomorphizing it to an extreme degree. I love that Bruno makes that critique because it makes so much sense of it.
So they argue, you know, if if we really don't have any access to true reality, then can we say it exists at all? Do we have >> that's Hegel apparently >> any basis for that?
>> I I think the answer is >> no unless you're clear that what your epistemic context is. In other words, when I say something is true, um, usually, not though not always, I guess, depending on whether we're talking about, uh, you know, uh, the numinal or whatever the the terms you're using here, that in a given statement about truth and in the main run of situations when you're talking to a neighbor and saying, "Hey, I left the lawn mower over there. Hey, it's going to rain tomorrow. Hey, it's sunny outside." that those statements are true only in so far as they assume that reality is uh you know that my senses are generally reliable uniform of nature.
>> By the way, I just I just I just want to observe this for a second. Um this is the only topic, not this topic, the previous one. This is the only topic that I can make Brooks upset on. We can be arguing about conscription and war and actual people being being killed in swabs perfectly chill. Actually, >> you think you think Invincible isn't crap.
>> I'm gonna I'm gonna disagree. There's one other thing.
>> What's that?
>> And that's what is a game mechanic and what isn't.
>> Oh, for [ __ ] sake. Not I'm not even touching that.
I'm not even I'm not even touching that.
>> We don't live in a matrix. So, in other words, if you understand the truth statements to be um context contingent and that contain the proviso that I'm talking about, I think they retain their truth value.
Okay.
I love how that's his response there. I love how that's his response to everything just like >> Huh. Okay.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. Uh >> so when you say the table exists and someone's like well how do you know you're not a brain of like well my my truth claim about the table existing is contingent on that is is only applicable in so far as we aren't brains of Nevada.
And in that frame of reference, it's true. It is the fact that you're perceiving it. Um, and uh, you know, and assuming the reliability of your senses and the uniformity of nature and uh, and all that [ __ ] and that like reality doesn't just that you haven't been implanted with false memories up to the point of the present like that all follows. And I think the truth value is preserved.
>> Walking Dead is terrible. Um, I uh, I hated Negan's redemption arc. It was unearned. Oh, I hated that.
>> It was It was unear. There's a flip side to this where it's like >> I worked on two Walking Dead games, man.
I [ __ ] hate that show.
>> What? The Tailteller ones.
>> No. God, no. No. No. Um, no. No. No.
Starburst put out what was the worst Walking Dead game. So bad it really destroyed the company. And uh I quit six months beforehand because I told the CEO in a big fight that it would, the long story. Um, so that sucked. And then um a a VR game uh that we were going to be putting out in partnership with them.
That was my major project.
>> No, I I take it that was canceled.
>> Oh, thank God.
>> Um >> awful people.
>> Negan's Negan's redemption is is un is unearned. It's it's like the flip side of Homelander where it's like his execution is unearned at the very least.
Like they even they even deep Sorry, we're gonna go back into the boys again because this is it still makes me mad.
They even they even depowered Butcher as well. So they could have had him just run for a gun. They could have had Homelander just run behind the the desk.
Oh, there's the president's gun. Oh, he's going to get him. Homelander or Butcher, you got no choice. It's like, okay, like just do the Disney thing. Do the Disney thing. He leaves him alone.
He walks away and he tries to stab him in the back. And there you go. You got the justification. At least do that.
Like at least clean it up a little bit or at least make it like this is a bad thing that you did, Butcher. Actually, we don't condone this. What is wrong with you? Um, have we learned nothing in all these years? We literally got saved by a guy of the exact same profile because we spared him last time. What are you doing? Anyways, sorry. Moving on. Back to this dre.
>> Okay. Are we talking about the show or the comics? I did not read the comics and I do not care for them.
>> So, I'm thinking maybe >> zombies as the novelty is not a novelty.
Maybe I should we should go to the issue of justification. You asked these questions like how do you know you're not a brain of the vat?
>> So that was that was Hegel apparently. I don't know why we had to name that.
Okay, I want to see this role playing thing. Hang on.
>> We're we'll we'll wrap it up here.
>> Role play with essay. Role play with SA and Pisco. Here we go.
>> So I'll give you an example. Let's play this role play. So I'm I'm the person I'm the Satanist who wants to destroy all humanity.
>> The Satan is role playinging with Satan.
Okay.
And you ask me the question, so you say good, go for it. So I'll assert. I'll say, I disagree with you, Mr. Objectivist. I think that the the only good thing is the destruction of all sentient life on this planet.
>> No one No one on earth is this person.
What the [ __ ] >> Well, what about the person who wanted to, you know, save the African slave trade, provided it saved a billion people? Remember that?
>> Um, all right. You got >> Okay, Mr. saying this. What do you What do you mean by good? When you say something is good, >> I just mean that it's my preference that it occur >> your preference.
Okay, that's all you >> careful with your answer, Dan. You're talking to Satan after all.
>> Jesus Christ.
>> So, and it's in accordance with Satan's it's in accordance with Satan's laws. And my preference is to enact Satan's laws. I have to give Pisco a lot of credit that he's just diving into Satanism like that. Like that's that's that's funny [ __ ] man.
>> I mean, it's it's very accurate and it's sort of in his wheelhouse. So, >> I mean, he went to school for this.
>> Okay. So, where did you get this idea?
Good. Where did it come from?
>> Uh, what the [ __ ] >> I don't know. That's like all I can think is the Ricky Jerves sketch about uh with Liam Niss where he's teaching him improv.
>> Yes, exactly.
>> That's like that's all I can think is like >> we're closed.
>> I we didn't agree to that beforehand and I refuse to be given notes. Like it's like where uh did you learn about this in our improvisation moment? Jesus Christ, these [ __ ] people.
Oh, I think that like I was raised in a Satanist uh background and you know I was taught Satanist dogma growing up and uh I think it you know it makes sense to me. I didn't really decide my neural pathway and development. So it's hard to give you a descriptive account of how I came to this belief but it is my belief.
>> All right. So you're not sure how you got this notion of good?
Well, uh, maybe it's maybe we should explore that. Maybe you're mistaken if you don't know where it came from.
>> Oh, I'm not mistaken. I I I know I have this preference.
>> Okay. Well, I'm not denying that you have this preference. I I'm asking why you think it's good to do this.
>> Are you asking for a descriptive account of how I came to this belief?
The [ __ ] >> I don't know that I'm asking that. I I mean, you've already told me something about that. You said you >> How do you pedantry? How do you turn role playing into pedantry? This is amazing.
[ __ ] these people are terrible.
>> Family. I'm kind of like an antisocial person and uh I think the dogma looked cool and actually believe it and um I don't know, it convinced me. I don't really have like a subjective awareness of of what I find to be convincing, but it convinced me.
>> Okay. You you thought it was cool. Um, >> and so now I want to see what it is.
>> Sound like So it sounds like maybe you don't have a really solid foundation if it's just based on >> Well, I don't know what you mean by solid, sir. Here's Okay, here's the thing. And I I will say this.
>> [ __ ] me. I'm This is insane. I don't think I don't I I'm I'm going to be honest. I don't think Dan is actually stupid.
>> I think he's something else.
>> I got to tell you, >> I don't think he's actually stupid. I have a particular reason for this. Um I have I have uh you remember years and years ago I used to host debates.
>> Not really.
>> Okay. Well, years and years ago, I used to host debates. Okay. It was called the Sunday Showdown. I had like >> I have no idea what this [ __ ] was this.
>> I This is before you were on the we were interacting.
>> God. Um but it was called the Sunday show and I used to I used to host and moderate debates between people and Dan Norton was on one but he had stipulations okay he could not handle people being insulting towards Ein Rand if he was debating them so what I'm seeing here is like obviously he has no idea what he's talking about obviously his only point of reference for any of this is something Einrand wrote and obviously that's garbage but underneath this Pisco someone who is capable and is seasoned at talking to people who disagree with him and who are not nice.
He can he can be confident under pressure. Dan is someone who has avoided all conflict while taking the fringest, dumbest philosophical position possible that offends a ton of people. And so he has zero conversational experience at all.
like he he has none when he's like he can't think on his feet because he's he's something is said to him that he hasn't heard before. He doesn't he doesn't know what it like it confuses him. The cogs turning in response to another mind saying a thing that he didn't anticipate because he didn't read it and agree with it in advance. Like he actually can't do that. It's not cuz he's stupid. It's cuz he's a [ __ ] coward.
It's cuz it's cuz he's a self-coding coward.
>> Is he a coward? No. Um I'm not going to necessarily disagree with that cuz I think they both surface the same. So that could be fair.
>> There you go.
>> Like uh are you telling me that it's not actually my preference?
>> No.
>> So what do you mean by solid?
>> This is like when Brooks defended infrared. Infrared is not stupid.
Infrared is a very selfish corrupt person. There's a difference.
>> Yeah. No. Absolutely. H is not stupid.
>> H is not stupid. Hos is actually very quick. Hos is actually pretty quick on his feet. He's not He's not He plays a Pisco is Pisco is not stupid. This is [ __ ] really smart [ __ ] he's doing here. Same with Hos.
>> I mean I mean look look adjusting adjusting for the context. Pis Pisco is fast on his feet and he's not he's not dumb. Um he is he is >> let's put it this way, okay? We wouldn't be saying he's he's doing as well as he is if we were talking to him directly, but um he's not dumb. Hos Hos is not dumb. Hos plays dumb character for a very dumb audience, but he's not dumb. He's actually pretty He's pretty smart. S I I He's He's not slow. I'm going to say smart has other baggage that I wouldn't append to him. Um this fellow, he probably has he he probably has some capacity to ingest and and and engage with something and it's atrophied to the point of virtual non-existence because he just doesn't exercise it. So, and he doesn't see anything wrong with that. So, he's he's screwed. But it's like it's not because were those features that I just described, were those to be changed somehow, a bonk on the head or something, uh he would he would still be sort of encouraable that way. This is fundamentally a personality defect in my opinion, not uh not in abstract, at least a lack of ability.
>> Yeah, I can go with that. uh something with evidence to ground it, to back it up, to justify it.
>> Oh, well, hang on a second. When I when I say um you know, evidence to justify I don't know what you mean. I I I'm telling you this is my preference. And so the evidence that it's my preference is that I'm telling you it. And uh in fact, here hang on, sir. This is a mind reading machine and you know I'm telling you the truth and you you can actually experience the preference I'm having. So here you you've seen it and it in fact is my preference. There's evidence of my preference. I've justified it to you.
>> It exists. And my notion of what morality is is just preferences.
>> They just [ __ ] him in front of everybody. That's insane. That's very good.
>> It wasn't in front of everybody. Only 244 people. So >> on Pisco channel, too. I have no doubt.
>> I don't think he has that many viewers.
Let's see how how many how many were here. Let's take a look. He doesn't get that many. He gets He gets like >> more than more than you. No, not really.
Actually, he gets like two. No, he gets like 2.2, 3.6. Denk's pretty good.
>> [ __ ] that's what I get.
>> 7.3. Yeah, he's not He's not that. This This one from back here is like 589.
>> Why did I think he was doing really well?
>> Because he sold his soul to Network with Destiny and all those [ __ ] before.
So, you'd think he would have paid off better, but no, nobody watches him because he's boring and he kind of sucks >> because because people people clock people clock that he's disingenuous.
embarrassing as [ __ ] to happen on any [ __ ] I would I'd be mortified if I was a rand guy. I'd be [ __ ] mortified.
>> Oh yeah. What's his most popular? He must have something that's that's uh that's been successful. Let's take a look here. Holy [ __ ] His most popular video is not as popular as my most popular video. That's actually kind of surprising. This is I pressed Tim P. He was on Tim P and he got fewer views than my philosophy tube video. That's wild.
I feel pretty good about that now. And with more with more subscribers than I've ever had. Damn. Sucks to suck, I guess.
Related Videos
BSA Goldstar - I gave up! And why animals beat humans!
thebingleywheeler
102 views•2026-05-31
The 'Islamic dilemma': Quran tells Christians to judge by the Gospel
canceledkings
1K views•2026-05-29
Seneca - Escape The Crowd, Find Your Inner Peace!
realfreewisdom
114 views•2026-05-29
Scholar Explains: WHAT IS A GNOSTIC?
fightbackpodcast
965 views•2026-05-31
Fulton Sheen: A Mente Tenta se Manter Jovem para não Sofrer com os Impactos do Tempo
SantoCotidiano-port
673 views•2026-05-29
Why Pure HEDONISM Is IRRATIONAL
qnaline
12K views•2026-05-31
When They Ignore You, Do This Instead | Stoicism
ZenithWisdom-e3k
615 views•2026-05-31
The fourth great humiliation. #jimmycarr #crowdwork #hecklers #standup
jimmycarr
576K views•2026-05-28
