 Hello my friends and welcome to the 96th episode of Patterson in Pursuit. This is gonna be a fun one this week I'm going to do the most requested interview breakdown yet Which was my conversation with mr. Thaddeus Russell talking about the postmodern theory of truth I believe this is episode 80 At the time we had actually kind of a two-part conversation the first one ended up being about love Which was very interesting and then the second part was about Truth and in this conversation we kind of referenced the first part So I highly recommend people go back and listen to both parts one and two I thought it was a very fascinating conversation So my general argument in a nutshell is that humans seem to have some limited access To objective truth. We just kind of become aware of the nature of our experiences I would like to give the example of the ubiquitous philosophical pin, right? So Really if I'm being if I'm speaking honestly, I can say look I'm having a certain experience of blackness in my visual field and that must mean I can say at least one Certainly true thing about the entire universe namely that there is at least the experience of blackness taking place So even if we disagree about everything else, I can know I think with certainty that a black experience Exists and if anybody disagrees with me, I think I'm certain that they're objectively wrong now This is a a radical claim. It's got big implications if that's true And it's kind of diametrically opposed to the more Postmodern approach to theories of truth. So naturally we have an excellent conversation. Alright, let's dive right in We're gonna start at the beginning where I give a little bit of preface And then as we go along I'll kind of offer additional commentary and hindsight That you guys might find interesting. Here we go So this is a natural segway We we I'll give a little bit of preface and then we'll dive right into where I think we will disagree so where we just ended it is by saying that Language seems to be unique To every individual and our conceptual schemes seem to be unique to every individual that what I mean by the most Elementary of things is going to be sometimes slightly different than what you mean and sometimes radically different Great example of this is basic objects So like I have a pin here and I've done been doing enough philosophy to know that what I actually mean by a pin What I'm actually referencing is Probably radically different what from what most people Understand by that word in the West because I'm actually talking about my experience I'm talking about the experience of the color blue in my visual field I just call it a pen and most people think that I'm talking about some object out there in the world Okay, so that's the first point just a little bit of additional commentary But at the time I had a blue pen now I have a black pen the point is to say that If you have really really high standards of skepticism and you're like man, I just don't know I might be hallucinating all of reality. I don't know if there's any such thing as a physical world Then we can still speak Honestly about objects, right? I can't tell you with certainty that there is three-dimensional space and there is an object With such and such property that is located in a three-dimensional space and that's the thing I'm looking at because I don't I don't have access to that knowledge. I can't be certain I have a theory. Maybe there's some three-dimensional space, but I'm not certain of it But I am certain of the existence of the experience itself. I can tell you a true thing I am experiencing blackness in my visual field right now So for trying to get access to truth, even if it's a non-standard truth not talking about the status of the three-dimensional world I'm talking about my own experiences. I think it's important to start with what we can know For certain which is kind of immediately The content of our experiences is I like to say so even something elementary that we we can have like Practical discourse about and we both know what I mean by pen for all, you know practical purposes can be radically different in terms of philosophy So Where I think a lot of people who are postmodernists would agree is with this Like you and I are probably going to agree that language is very vague It's very imprecise when we're talking about communicating between two people my concepts are just not going to be your concepts And if we can make any philosophic progress you have to understand how imprecise languages, which okay one more thing on this So I start this off by saying I actually agree with some of the some postmodern theory of language It's interesting actually in some of my writings some people have commented that I sound rather postmodern Which is funny because in other areas. I'm like the complete opposite of postmodern But where people like objectivists I think go completely wrong is they don't actually grasp how language works They think that there are like Objective definitions for words language doesn't work that way Unfortunately language doesn't work that way things Appear much more simple if you think that language correlates to objective definitions in reality I think language correlates to the concepts in one's own mind And then if one is an effective communicator you can use words in such a way where it elicits concepts in the mind of somebody else That are similar to the concepts in your own mind, but it's Maybe never a case of perfect precision that the exact concept you have in your mind is the same thing In my mind even with things like mathematics I don't think you can get to Perfectly identical identical concepts arising in the mind of two different people just because their mental structures are going to be completely different kind of from birth great It's not the word I use right because imprecise You know obviously implies that there is something that is more precise which implies that there is a an external objective standard To which I think and be closer or farther from right how about how about imprecision in terms of like the Intent behind the communication So if I want to imply something by my words and I actually imply something else Like in your mind when you hear the words couldn't that be a kind of imprecision Intent I'm not sure. Mmm. That's a weird one I Doesn't I don't think this matter. Well So how about we just agree that we That the difference is is that there simply is a difference whether it's radical or whether it's about 10 to you know Yeah, I agree with you that there is a difference in the way you and I Think of that pen. Okay. Now the first little interjection. I want to make here is notice the claim that I'm not sure if this is important That that type of claim actually comes out through comes up throughout the interview at interesting times I'll just say up front. I think I've noticed it's not just a bit that is vessel, but this is a this is a normal human thing I have funny examples. Maybe I'll say it some future time of this recently happening, but when Sometimes when having philosophical conversation if the person you're talking with Kind of hits the nail on the head. It was like a direct immediate refutation of everything that you hold dear The reaction that the normal human psychological reactions is to be like, well, I don't know if that's important Or that's an uninteresting question, which is the thing that just happened happen to me recently it's like this is so for example if Let's say we're talking with a religious person somebody that believes very passionately in one particular interpretation of scripture and you know Hypothetically, let's say you have an argument for like Let's say that the Bible is written by men and it's not written by God now That's one of the they've never entertained that idea They've never thought about the nature of the Bible being written by humans versus written by God If they encountered that for the first time they might go, oh, that's not an important question That's a bad question. That's a silly question And they kind of try to poo poo it dismiss it to kind of make it go away And so I get the impression throughout this conversation and maybe I'll bring it up as it goes along as it happens That as we poke around some fundamental ideas regarding the objectivity of truth We get that type of response. Just keep that in mind as we go along so that that I think is really essential to understanding what I would say as a clear rational philosophy is how difficult sometimes linguistic Differences between us are like if you can have a long conversation And not make any headway because you don't realize you're using a different definition for the same word Let me just slightly clarify again I guess I believe that most people you're calling postmodernists would say they would prefer simply to say that there is a difference rather than That language is imprecise or vague Because that's I think that's that's how I read Foucault and Derrida. They simply they point to differences in interpretations differences and concepts differences in language, okay For a point on that if you're aware with like where the postmodern theory of truth is going then this will make a lot of sense I'm kind of preempting some of the conversation here, but um to say that there are differences in People's interpretation of the same word is in fact to make a objective claim about the nature of reality to say that it is the case that X is Positive statement of a positive universal statement about how language works and how language relates to minds So already off the get-go. I think that is Gives attention with the postmodern philosophy because it doesn't want to make any universal claims, but if you say that Interpretations of words differ among minds one has already made a universal claim, and I don't exactly see a way around that Rather they don't they just Don't say things something is more vague or less vague or more precise or less precise That's all but that's that's actually important which we'll probably now unpack. Okay, so the importance of yeah So part two of where I would talk about this pin I'm saying the contents of my experience like I'm talking about blueness in my visual field However, I also have the belief that I think most people do Um that aren't relevant that would say there is a kind of correspondence With the the contents of my experience with the blue pin in my visual field with some kind of external object There's a thing out there in the world that is constructed in such a way that when my mind interacts with it It gives me this experience. Yep. So that's what that's usually like the realm of what we're talking about objective truth There's this objective reality out there. That's something I'm very partial to what do you what's your position? Yeah, no Well, no, sorry. I take it back. I've evolved on that. Okay Uh I don't know if I ever took a hard atheist position But I think I tended to talk like I was an atheist on that. Uh, I'm an agnostic. So what I say now is Um, I don't know. Okay. Okay so, um I like this. I like also something to keep in mind. Um, just an observation that I think Thaddeus Often correlates the idea of objective truth with god and not necessarily to hit that is not necessarily criticism So there's actually some really interesting ideas. I forget I spoke with a There's a professor in australia. I I did an interview on this about the The remarkable claim that uh, there was a Objective nature out there outside of our minds that is somehow rationally comprehensible to us It's almost so beautiful and profound and crazy. It's almost a theological claim So on the one hand, I do think that there there might be kind of a knee jerk Um, I don't want to be religious. I definitely don't want to be solid christian or anything like that for whatever reason Um, I do think it's a bit of a knee jerk reaction on the other hand there may there might be some Uh, some deeper truths here that if you acknowledge the existence of rationally comprehensible objective truth You got some explaining to do that can easily I think Fall into some type of religious belief this doesn't necessarily mean like, uh, you know A denomination of a particular type or or you believe that holy books or literal or anything like that But some type of remarkable claim about, um Nature and its relationship with your finite mind I don't know. So what is your hesitation to to uh to that kind of idea because when we think about theories of physics For example, they seem to be based on this idea of the external world that operates a certain way We observe it. And so we come up with theories that describe this external world. Would you say that Those are all kind of useful and nice like, uh, physical theories, but they're we have no way of knowing whether or not they're true Yeah, uh, which is what einstein said, you know, so he said that, you know Two things cannot occupy the same point in space or time. And so therefore no two things can can perfectly correspond and Therefore we never know whether our thoughts our ideas our words our concepts perfectly correspond with something else Meaning something outside of consciousness meaning some objective reality So and I've heard other Uh, I cannot vouch for uh for the einstein quote. It's funny I'm listening to this. I kind of scrubbed through it before but I'm listening to this whole thing as I'm recording it now and um I tend I tend to be Very partial to einstein surprisingly. Um, if you guys have been watching for a while, you know I think everybody's wrong about everything all the time academics and professionals included einstein actually has some excellent quotes. Um And on this topic actually he was in a a fight In the physics community until the end of his life where the physics community was saying, uh, there there is Uh, no such thing as observation independent reality There's no such thing as like nature out there separate our experiences and einstein said what that's crazy. Uh, yes, there definitely is. Um And this is uh as a result of physics profession Moved thought einstein turned more and more into a crank as he went along. It's a long and convoluted, uh story But I I side with einstein and all the quotes that I've seen of his Um Uh are rather good. So I don't know if this one is correct. I don't know if that interpretation is correct It actually sounds like a quote that you might hear from neils bore or who which kind kind of einsteins, uh arch nemesis in some respects But uh, and interesting anecdote nonetheless, this is say the same thing. In fact recently, uh, I heard laurence crouse Just say this in fact on I think sam harris's podcast or something And he he said a great thing. I loved it. He said, yeah, you know, I This idea about truth. That's not what we do. What we do is we disprove things what scientists do is disprove things We never prove anything but but he said I couldn't get out of bed in the morning if I didn't believe in objective truth Oh, uh My comment is that I think laurence crouse is a is a fool. Um, he's just a popularizer of uh, he's like he's like a science bro Um, uh, he's got logical contradictions in his work about nothing is something because he treats Empty three-dimensional space as nothing which is a logical contradiction He's also got he's also famous for saying that two plus two equals five in some certain circumstances for for extremely large magnitudes of two Um, I think he's uh, I think he's just kind of largely a fraud. Um, and it's I though I wish other scientists actually had the idea that they weren't proving things Go ahead to go talk to scientists go talk to mathematicians and see if they think they're proving things They definitely think they're proving things which is why they're so vociferously opposed to anybody that claims They're wrong about some of the fundamental ideas. Um, which I thought it was a great really honest um, I don't know acknowledgement of a conceit. I suppose that it's at the base of a lot of scientific Inquiry, I don't think it's necessary. I think you can still operate as a scientist without that belief But um, I do think that has driven a lot of science what we call scientific work Yeah, so what do you think about? To his credit, I think there's some truth to that which is what that Guy and that scientist in australia was saying is in fact the belief in the objective rationally comprehensible Universe has tended to be a religious one and has driven quite a lot of scientific and mathematical Thinking that is true. I don't think that means the ideas are wrong, but what he said what he just said there is true Propositions that make claims about the contents of our consciousness So if we're not talking about let's say the physical external world that we don't really have a direct engagement with because we're kind of We engage with what we experience which is the contents of our consciousness Can't we say true and false things about what's going on in our minds? um We what do you mean? Can we I don't sure I don't you can say whatever you want I don't know if any of our if if any of my own claim is about my own consciousness or true All right, so this is where we start to diverge so It's one thing To say that we cannot have certainty about the mind independent world and that's I think that's 98 true You can't actually say Logically certain things about all of existence like it is however it is when you get into that later But I'm actually I like the skepticism of the post-moderns to a point right But when you claim I can't have I don't know the contents of my own experience That's an entirely different beast. In fact I think that you can you actually have direct access to the contents of your experience You may mislabel them or you may mis conceptualize them in some way, but Maybe prior to the conceptualization or the articulation of the things you're experiencing You actually are experiencing things exactly the way that they are in your experience The the appearances of things as they appear to you are their experience are their appearances and you have access to them This is very important oops Is asking uh, yeah Yeah, I don't know again an agnostic position So if so from my perspective right if I'm if I'm having the blueness experience Yeah, but I not say it is the case that I am having the experience of blue I don't know what's causing it. It might be a hallucination, but that it is taking place is Definitely the case I you can again you can say whatever you want. I don't know. I just simply do not know whether what you are saying Has any relationship to an external truth or reality. Okay, so So there's a there's a switch here, right? I'm I'm I'm saying And I continue to say through the interview that there is a fact of my own experience which I am reporting on my internal experiences of a particular type and I'm saying that it is that way and I want that that fact to be acknowledged and he says well I'm not sure if that correlates to some consciousness independent state But that's not the claim the claim isn't the consciousness independent state necessarily at least not at the beginning the conscious The claim is simply is it true that my my I can Have access to the real nature of my own experiences. Are they the way that they are? But but it depends on what you mean by external So okay, so could you make a claim about kind of your and I don't mean to can as in like do you have permission to make these claims? I mean From your perspective Is it possible to make an accurate description an accurate conceptual description of the phenomena that you are experiencing It might be Sorry, I know Okay, well but hey not so so How could I be wrong so for I'll take from my perspective? I know we're two different minds So we're gonna have two different perspectives, but you can imagine if you were doing this yourself You know blueness is taking place in my visual field How could that possibly be wrong blueness is taking place in my visual field. I'm just reporting on my experience I don't know that it can be wrong So I like Well start with a compliment is that I like the skepticism. I mean you're talking, you know, this is a guy. This is me a guy who Has so much skepticism that I actually think Euclid was wrong right as an aside, you know Euclid is this old Greek Geometer that Created Euclidean geometry and he had I don't know seven axioms six axioms something like that And then he builds his beautiful structure of knowledge And you know in hindsight one of the axioms the parallel postulate came into doubt over like 2000 years People were like, you know what this is definitely Doubtable coherently doubtable so There's one level of skepticism which you doubt the parallel postulate then there's my level of skepticism Which is doubting all of the other postulates They're about like rotation and stuff because I think space is actually discreet I I'm the only person I think ever met who disagrees with like the first I don't know five axioms of Euclidean geometry So I love the skepticism, but Skepticism has to be uh tempered right skepticism has to you have to be skeptical of your own skepticism It has to be an open question whether or not you can have access to certain truth. Um So to say I don't know whether or not I can Make a mistake about my conceptualize conceptualizing of my experiences is good But that shouldn't be where the end of the inquiry is it's fine not to know like I didn't know for a while Well, there nothing could be logical contradictions, but now I do and this is information you can have You can have access to and and knowledge about like maybe so let's see where's my where'd my pen go? Here's my black pen So There's a time what I might think to myself. Well, maybe I'm not experiencing blackness in my visual field. That's fine But keep thinking about it. Keep meditating Eventually he'll come I think to the conclusion that no actually even if I'm confused about how this experience correlates to the external world Even if I'm hallucinating if I'm schizophrenic even if there are no other minds There is at least the experience of blackness in my visual field right now. This is a kind of certain truth Well, if so, but if you don't know if it could be right That would mean it has to you have to have a possibility of it being wrong because if it didn't have the possibility of being wrong That means it would definitely be right Possibility to be wrong possibility to be right. Is there a possible? Is there a possible truth? Um Okay, there might be I don't know. That's all I got for you See the thing is when you say it might be it implies it could be this way or it could be that way So so I I think it's fine to say it could be the case that There is indeed blueness in your visual field that could be the case But to say it could be that there isn't blueness in your visual field Well, that's not true because I'm directly experiencing them Whether or not there's blueness in my visual field I'm I'm missing I'm not I'm missing something here now I don't know if that's true I think what he just said there at the end that he's missing something this I have the suspicion I I can't say with confidence, but I have the suspicion This is one of the psychological things I mentioned earlier that this is so on the nose like If you acknowledge that it is certainly the case that you can Correctly identify phenomena in your visual field as they are Then I don't think you get the rest of the theory of postmodern theory of truth And if some part of your psychological structure or full of formal philosophy or Life that you built for yourself is based on the presupposition that you can't have access to that type of knowledge Then I think that I think you're going to see a kind of short circuiting of the of the thinking process Like accidentally, I don't know if he's doing this intentionally or not, but I get the impression This is a short circuiting like how How could it be that one truly does not know whether or not there is an experience of a particular type taking place Doesn't matter like I said, it's a hallucination It still is the way that it appears to you the experience itself Um, so when someone says there is a god I say maybe I don't know And then when an atheist says there is no god, I say, I don't know. Maybe I don't know Also, I think just decide now. It's interesting that in the abstract. This is a cool thing. I think that's going on as there's there's the The equating of claims about truth in one's experience with the existence of god We go right back to the religion thing where it's like, well, if I claim this then I'm like the person I'm like the religious person claiming that they know that god exists because of a type of experience I don't want to be that type of person. Therefore. I'm going to say I don't know What's wrong there? What am I what am I what am I admitting? So the difference is that when you're talking about god, you're talking about some external phenomena You're like positing some mind independent entity out there. That's right. I don't think that's the way to go But I'm I'm saying I am we're all I'm doing is reporting on the contents of my experience So I'm not saying There is a god there isn't a god. I'm saying it is the case that experience is happening a particular way Oh, oh does your experience exist? Does your consciousness exist? Okay, that's uh, that's not what I'm saying, but that's a good question So so uh, how would you answer that as does your consciousness exist? Yeah, I mean man I'm totally fine answering this and it doesn't doesn't bother me or challenge me at all I just think it's not that useful, but whatever Not that useful Um Yes, I there. Yeah, I guess I'm still an agnostic like I don't know like it could be This thing that I Might consider consciousness is could be something else it could be But it is it is conscious at the very least even if it's like who lose even if you're hallucinating it still is experiential in nature, right? Oh, I see so it's consciousness because it's because we're conscious like That's a tautology I think something that happens maybe in um The postmodern philosophy proper not just um Thaddeus Thaddeus is philosophy, but I think what happens is people get trapped up in language So so they right there's I forget somebody said there. There's nothing. There's no outside text The idea is like Oh, if you say consciousness is consciousness, that's just an empty tautology Which is an importing an idea from logical positivism, but never mind that point Um, tautologies can't tell you anything and therefore it's just kind of silly I can't like I can't label my consciousness anything because consciousness is consciousness a is a and it isn't really a tiny thing But really that's I think that's a confusion about language It's like there is an experience taking place doesn't matter the words you put on it It doesn't even matter if you communicate with anybody. There's something that's happening That uh, I have direct access to as a matter if it's a hallucination, but it definitely exists It's definitely going on if there's anything whatsoever. There is My direct experiences that is definitely something that is part of the entirety of the universe But it's I I think people I think people give tautologies a bad rap There are a few tautologies, but I think are pretty interesting, but this wouldn't be one This is just a way we use the word consciousness to describe something that's happening So it's okay. We can use another word, but when you introspect You understand English most people mean by the English word experience. I I'm guessing we have a shared Experience. I don't know. That's the case, but when I introspect there is perception taking place There is consciousness you could call it that Experience that is going on or there are colors for example that are Moving in my visual field is the way that I describe it right so to prove that there that consciousness exists you then use words like um introspection and experience and I'm not proving that consciousness exists By to see this is the other thing about language, right? And this is the this is the this implies this is like an external game a language game that we're playing between two people This is not the function of it doesn't need to be the function of language Sometimes language can serve that purpose, but not all the time, right? It's not I am here's a theory Consciousness exists. Here's my proof blah blah blah blah blah blah. That's not what's going on It is a statement of fact. It is the case that experience is taking place I am reporting it to whomever can listen Argument that's that would be that would be backwards that would be Yeah, the there's I'm saying when you meditate on your experience like if you are aware of your experience Is it the case that you can be aware of something taking place that there is something It is not the case that there is only nothing To which I say it's possible that I don't know and to which you say To which I say it when you say it's possible that implies there's a possibility of being a or a possibility of being b Right. So when you say it's possible what whether or not there's consciousness, you're saying it is a possible Case that there is no conscious phenomena taking place Maybe that's going on. No, you're you're positing the binary. Yes or no, I'm not Yeah, I'm not positing a binary. I'm just I don't know I don't know is not to say that there's an a or b or yes or no It's just I don't know mean So you're positing if someone were to posit a got exists or that pen or your or your consciousness Is a thing is is a true thing And I say I don't know that doesn't posit that there are that there are two Or only one alternative What what is I don't know mean so would you say I don't I don't know doesn't mean It could be x it could be not x Yeah, I don't know where you're going to I don't oh there it is again. There's this a little slip I don't know where you're going with it. This is important. I don't know. Uh, I think it's rather clear, right that the When one says I don't know How I understand I don't know that to mean is it could be the case that x is true And it could not be the case that x is true or it could be the case that x is not true not um I'm having a hard time finding this Fruitful or maybe I'm missing something here Having a hard time finding it fruitful. Wow what this is central. This is it I Yeah, I don't There it could exist it could not exist. There could be yet another category There could be no categories. I guess is what I want to say. Maybe that's what you're driving at Or or that's what you want. Okay, or that's that's the only real answer to what you're saying That there are no categories. That's another possibility If there so let's say there are no categories because I think you might even be able to say that like, you know You could come up with a coherent worldview. I think that would say there's no categories But that doesn't mean existence. There's there still is something right even if if you're just purely Awareness for example Awareness is a word that describes something that is right Uh, huh. Yeah. Well, okay. So awareness is a word which and we attach we have attached meanings to it Those meanings are made up of other words which are defined by other words Which are all part of the same language So it's a and and and when the same so it's all circular it all circulates within the same language so because I think it's too kind of a A good and fundamental part of the philosophy of language here that I think can trip a lot of people up that There's an idea that words come attached To definitions themselves or like there's or perhaps I should phrase it this way This idea that he's articulating about the philosophy of language Denies that there was a correspondence between internal meaning And the external word choice Right when one says ah I use this word and then somebody responds. Ah, well the definition of that word is such and such and such and such That's applying. It's like an external thing Um, and if you think that's the only thing that exists you're trapped in language Right because you you'll find that words are defined by other words are defined by other words are defined by other words Are defined by other words and it's just this big circular mush. That's one philosophy I think that's wrong The way that words actually work is that they correspond to internal mental states So a meaning of a word is not a definition That's the people that the people that think words are objective think that no the meaning of a word is what I mean by it By my word the the you know, so I so let's say I didn't know the english. Let's say I didn't uh Speak english and and I was talking to somebody in english I have a there's a there's a meaning at that this thing that I'm referencing like this Object here in this way just because I don't have the word doesn't mean that the meaning is not there And I'm fortunate if I speak the same language I can choose the word out of the ether that corresponds You know, we're speaking the same language with the same general concept in your mind That's how the that's the that's that's the grounding of Uh Language into meaning rather than language into other language Structure, this is derrida and deconstructionism. Okay, and nothing there's nothing outside of that system You can't ever show that any one word in that system is closer to something outside of it See see you can't show that by language. I think that's true. I mean half true, right? The important part is there is something outside the language namely the meaning What you mean your personal consciousness your internal state, which is the thing that the word corresponds to It's not just the word itself somehow in isolation. Well, there's there's two things on that one that implies that Words are necessarily about communication And I don't think that needs to be the case it could be the case that for example The only thing that exists is your awareness And you just come up with words to talk to yourself you could do that we that would be the case But if that's true, you still have awareness But and Two is it the case then that at least words exist Like that is a something that's a clever question I don't I I don't know I don't know Do words exist if everything is you're stuck in language you're trapped in words will do the words exist Now, I think the reason he says I don't know is it's something I think you can interpret that as It must be that I don't know or it must be that I couldn't know or I couldn't know therefore. I don't know I think that's actually the the the idea that is being communicated here because If it would be the case that you can know words exist The whole paradigm collapses and suddenly you have access to objective truth I don't know. Maybe maybe not. I don't know so Yeah, I I don't I don't know I guess Is this I'm trying to get at what you're There's this you're you're there's a strategy here, which is fine. I'm just wondering what you're driving at like what do you I think that is Another version of a psychological tick where where we go from From the ideas to well, what about your motivation? You know what what is the reason you're actually doing this? What are you trying to achieve by this conversation? This is also related to I think postmodern theory of power That really what's going on like when we're having this discussion is some kind of exchange of power and there's some kind of manipulation going on And I think I think two things on that first of all I think It's mostly true In the world. I do think that uh, I learned this the hard way actually rather recently But it took me a long time to realize that most people don't communicate in order to try to exchange information Or to try to get at the truth most people in the world. I think Talk in order to manipulate you or to To put their place in some kind of a social hierarchy to quack and figure out Their their social status and all of that And one can imagine how this would be this would if one didn't understand this information How difficult to navigate the world because I here I am flapping my mouth trying to communicate information and everybody else is playing a power game So on the one hand, I think I think if you want an explanation for how the world of mankind works I think focusing on power and manipulation is good on the other hand. There is an exception Uh, there are a few exceptions There are people who are seriously interested in the pursuit of truth and aren't trying to manipulate somebody else I would consider myself one of them and I hope I communicated that I think Thaddeus actually got that impression that like I'm actually not trying to communicate. I'm sorry. I'm not I'm not trying to manipulate you Like if I'm wrong, tell me I'm wrong, you know, show me why I'm wrong And if you're wrong, I'll try to do the same I'll try I'll try to share with you the ideas that persuaded me to see if they persuade you and it's not manipulation um So yeah, I think to treat it as entirely 100 in all cases languages about manipulation is a is an overly pessimistic Way of understanding how language works You're trying to establish something right? No This is the the strategy is to have this conversation about the objectivity of truth. This is this idea Is I think what the um, the jordan petersons of the world Find sinister, you know when they when they look at the postmodernist or they look at what they mean by postmodernist That this is what I think they say this nugget here That you can't even say that awareness is happening or that we can't that's disingenuous or it's not true or it's bad So I think it's it's it's central No, no, I know I know that's the question we're dealing with it sounds to me like your answer to that is yes There is truth and here's here's where it is It's in something you're calling awareness or consciousness I'm asking you questions if you admit the existence of the contents of your own consciousness If that's the case then yeah, there are other things we could say But we because it's a natural step to say if it's the case that there is consciousness Then at the very least that's truth So the contents of your consciousness taking place however, they're taking place that is something that is The way that it is and it isn't some other way. It's truth Um, you know, I really don't know. Uh, I could be schizophrenic Interesting claim, right right, so So I think I think again from the outside what's going on is there is a conclusion in mind And this is a kind of okay. So if you start with the conclusion that truth is not discoverable And you and you encounter the idea that I've just made then you'd be like, well Truth isn't discoverable. So like maybe I'm schizophrenic I think that's actually where you get that type of response I think it's it's interesting an interesting data point in in one's worldview to respond to say well Like, you know, maybe I could be schizophrenic because because I also think it implies Not carefully listening to the ideas I think I hope I hope I respond if I don't respond properly I'll I'll make sure to respond properly in this commentary one alternative Okay, but that wouldn't invalidate the idea of your awareness. Right. Exactly your awareness is schizophrenic in nature Exactly. Oh that that I have awareness whether I have awareness. Yeah, that's the question Whether I have awareness. Yeah, I don't know because Yeah, this has gotten to the level of abstraction that I find actually Borders on obscurantism. I don't know if this is even helpful That line is the craziest. I'm sorry. I forget beat the ideas That is not true Let me tell you why There is literally nothing more concrete in the entire universe than our experiences So the way that theorizing about the world works is something as basic as like Ordinary objects. There is a pin that takes up three-dimensional space. This is abstract Like the world outside of my experiences is necessarily abstract This is something that Bernardo Castro actually was really good In explaining that the world out there the world I do not directly experience is the world of the abstract The most concrete thing that We have that that is to us as the nature of our experiences Is that the specific qualitative phenomenological texture of our experiences that is literally Concreteness Is what we experience Nothing is more concrete than it's direct. It's certain So to say that we've reached a level of abstraction in which it's getting to obscurantism Is the opposite of the truth? That's literally the opposite That there is nothing more concrete or or less obscure than The texture of your own conscious experience and and and again, I suspect this is does not come from Rational deliberation in concluding this. I think I think this is I think this is something I think actually you're seeing something like the unity of opposites. Let's say. It's something so clear so concrete so demonstrable so So like right there right in front of your face that the only way to reconcile with it and not completely Change your worldview is by claiming the opposite must be true So it's like the most concrete thing, which is the nature of your own experiences Well, it couldn't be that that's the most concrete thing So it's got to be that that is the most abstract thing that like I can't even I can't even grasp but it's like obscure That's my guess is what's taking place and I say this because Experience right I've been in like I grew up religious and for a long time I held those religious beliefs. I've experienced these type of psychological Things before your your mind plays tricks on you to try to keep together your worldview And this is just what it looks like I think from the outside Um, but it is because there's so many people that there's so many people that will take these ideas And run with them in either direction because there are people that are going to say I can't really answer that question because it's too abstract and I'm not going to deal with questions of truth There are other people like myself who would say ah, there is actually truth to be discovered right here This is where you can discover truth even if it's obscure abstract and then we can build A somewhat of a structure of knowledge based on some things that we can discover about our own awareness It's funny that I I think I was being polite there because To say oh, yes, well, yeah, I think that's actually what's going on is it's like, oh, yes Well, okay, I will call it abstract if you want to use that word But but keep examining it and see if we can find truth there because the reality is it's not abstract at all it is You can imagine a creature that has no abstraction What is the the nature of that creature? It's pure perception With no abstraction whatsoever no ability for pattern recognition, which is an abstract thing like The living conscious creature Sons abstraction is the creature that is pure experience and no understanding Yeah, so my answer was Originally and still is I don't know and so what am I admitting by saying that? Okay So that's what I was asking you so when you say, I don't know what I what I think most people mean by that is So let's say I claim proposition x X is true and I ask you do you think x is true? When people say, I don't know that means it it could be the case that x is true One could not be the case that x is true and I don't have a position. I got it. Is that what you mean? Yeah, okay, so what I'm saying is If that is the dichotomy it could be or it could not be then that implies something could not be So like if I'm talking about consciousness, you're saying well Whether or not there is awareness Is a matter of maybe there is maybe there isn't which means maybe it's possible that in some way there isn't awareness So so that's what I'm saying when you say I don't know if there's awareness You're saying it might be the case that there isn't Yeah Yeah, um, okay. So right and again, I don't know and um, what you can do I suppose an answer to this Okay, what a post-modernist would do What Foucault definitely would do what derrida would definitely do is simply trace The genealogy the history of those words and those concepts that you're using In having this discussion and asking those questions Thus people are misled by Foucault and Derrida because this is the wrong question to ask He said what is consciousness to get out the dictionary and to get out the history books and say let me tell you about the word Consciousness is not to get at the nature of consciousness consciousness is the underlying experience Not the word consciousness or the word experience So awareness, what does that mean? What is its meaning been and you can actually trace it you can show how people have thought about it over the years And how it's changed and where it started people have thought about it though I care about for me my consciousness or my awareness My mind having access to correct information and whether or not it's encoded in a particular language I don't really care if I could communicate to anybody else. I don't really care I just want to know for myself But if but if it turns out that it's historical meaning social meaning created by human beings This is a confusion about language and the world. So this is interesting. Actually, I picked up on this Uh, just listening to hear I don't know. I think I picked this picked up on this line of reasoning last time So I think the claim is that oh, this is fascinating. I think the claim is that What is this is interesting. What is consciousness? Postmodern answer Consciousness is a word And a word has history Turns out in that word's history You'll find its definition changes its meaning changes it itself the word is a social construct Therefore consciousness is a social construct fascinating again The response to this is There is a difference between the word consciousness and what consciousness refers to What what consciousness refers to is not a social construction in the sense In the sense that it's not fundamental. It's not taking place. It's not concrete. It's not happening right now No, it's the the word consciousness is a convention the thing that's happening right now is not a convention Right then it invalidates any truth claim you make about it, but that's not that wouldn't be the case So let's say it's the case that awareness is something that's somehow socially constructed Wouldn't wouldn't make a difference of whether or not it exists. It would still exist Okay, I take it back. It doesn't invalidate it, but it certainly challenges it doesn't it and it more importantly Not it's not as hard as that not its existence even if it's socially constructed. So what? Right, but again, so okay more importantly, I guess for my purposes It makes it impossible to answer the question satisfactorily because again, I would ask What do you mean by awareness? What do you mean by consciousness? Right, and so and those words have been used in infinite ways Interesting fascinating. So I wonder could I say so perhaps this is the explanation actually of postmodernism As understood by at least people like Jordan Peterson whether or not it's postmodernism proper is not really relevant So maybe the claim is that when one only when one only looks at words And one does not look at what words refer to One will find that the words have a social history the words meaning is a social construction And therefore That's all that there is there's nothing if there's nothing outside the text and words change over time then reality changes over time It was socially constructed in the first place. There's nothing concrete by George that is I think that's incorrect But I think that's actually what's going on here that that way of thinking actually puts quite a lot of Other ideas in context not just with with mr. Russell, but with a lot of other modernist who I've spoken with Okay, but so I don't know exactly what you mean. So there is no exact. So there's a there's like a there's a Appeal to the public nature of language here Which is that well if we can't really have precise communication. We can't really have precise thought I disagree with that. I'm saying I don't really care if we can't communicate precisely I have a meaning in my conceptual scheme What I mean by perception and based on my conversations with most people I think most people mean the same thing like if I Let's say I poke somebody with a needle They say how that hurts I I have a theory which says okay. They have an internal experience as well They generally use the same language. So that's all I'm doing in this conversation is saying is it the case that For the individual you can have some access to truth the way that things are in the world simply by being aware that your Awareness is happening That your perception is happening your consciousness is happening even if you can't communicate it to anybody you can still know that it's taking place I don't know. I don't know how that advances the ball at all here on the quit. I wouldn't it be truth I mean gosh, that would be a discovery of truth Again interesting. I don't know how that would advance the ball well That's that's the question that is the central question You know, can we have access to objective truth? I don't know. Let's investigate Is this an example of objective truth? I don't know how that would further the discussion Well, it's the central point Could be more exciting. Oh, it would if I said yes, that's true, but I don't I say I don't know Yeah, but you said you don't know why it like why it's important of what it gets at And that that it's that's like a goal itself. Wow. Okay. Well, fine. I'm just still an agnostic on it I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. That's my answer to every question, you know On this I don't I don't know and so you haven't you haven't gotten me any farther. Okay, so so what if So what do you think about this idea? Because this is kind of my my perspective on it and I want to know your thoughts I think it's the case that there is Experience happening that there that when I use the words the contents of my perception I'm actually talking about things that are so balloon is in my visual field actually references something in my mind And the way that I know that is just through being aware of my experience Like it is the case because there it is. It's it's like a self-evident truth Even if I can't encode it in a way that other people understand this is self-evident truth um And if somebody were to say as I think you are that I don't know if self-evident truths exist essentially or that if they are self-evident It's kind of um It's almost like leading a horse to water, but you can't make them drink It's like my claim is I'm not trying to persuade you that this is the case. I'm just saying look I think you can have an experience like maybe like love experience I think you can have the experience of a nature in which you will also conclude I must have some access to truth because I am aware that some Something blue exists in my visual field very very very very very important and you know in listening to this I think post-modernist actual arch enemy is objectivist like I'm randy an objectivist because I've argued with them about language and probably would sound like I'm arguing for Thaddeus's position here Because I think What Thaddeus is correct in identifying maybe the post-modernist in general is that there isn't objective definitions Therefore that must have an implication on the accuracy of our communication But it also misses the philosophical important point that okay Well, what about truths that are without communication to another like what about just truths for myself? I don't care if maybe I'm incapable of using words that perfectly reconstruct the concept in my mind into your mind Okay, but that doesn't mean I personally can't have access to these certain truths myself Which is critically important Blueness is happening Yeah, is this is this your your riff on Cartesianism basically like I think therefore I am is it kind of your version of this? Yeah, I guess the The necessariness of awareness sure that I don't like the Cartesian Cogito because it implies I exist and then you have to try to define what I is But if you just say experience is happening you don't even have to define that Uh-huh And if you find this interesting you can find a comparable paragraph in square one the foundations of knowledge Which is my first book on philosophy. I don't know I mean, I don't know it's the only so you can know you can know though. That's what I'm saying You can I might not be able to persuade you. No, no Steve. Yes. You're the thing. You want me to know No, no, no, no What a turn right? This is such an interesting turn this happens. This is not unique to the Thaddeus or Now suddenly it's not about the idea is now it's about my motivation now It's about that now it's about the power the power relationship. Okay anecdotal story I probably have said this before but it just popped in my mind. So, uh Many years ago. I was in Washington, D.C. for a I did a A semester long program in D.C. My alma mater was in upstate new york and they sent me to D.C. it was like a The idea is you get an internship somewhere in D.C. And then you go to these these classes at american university My internship was with Ron Paul, which was pretty amazing. I was a lucky kid And the uh The semester of curriculum at american university was a total joke. It was just ridiculous One of the professors I forget her name now She was a huge fan of fuko and she was from somewhere in new jersey and I'll never forget Um, she was always talking about the power structures We were talking to talk about anything once that we talk about how frogs hop and like the mechanics of waves on the ocean Let me tell you about the power structures of the entities involved And so whatever I hear, you know people people Turn conversations to questions of motivation and power. I always think of this lady from new jersey talking about the power structures And that's just a silly aside Why are you bothering with this? Otherwise That's it. No, totally. I agree with you on that. It is it is okay. So So, uh, if that doesn't make sense then you guys need to listen to our earlier conversation There's actually a rather profound point here though Which is that uh for me personally I do think it's an it is an act of love to try to discover truth with people So for me like I am on the pursuit of truth. It's just burned into my being and There was a limited amount of people out there who are also pursuing truth explicitly But I think most people even Even if they don't know consciously have an implicit pursuit of truth So to share philosophy and to share ideas that I find persuasive really the secret is it is actually an act of love Like it is my way of showing love to Thaddeus Russell that hey look I think I found truth and as a fellow human I think you should hear these arguments because you might be persuaded by them as well And once you walk down the path of discovering truth it leads to other other big things that are That are really important. So you got me. I do have I think an underlying motivation Which is to show love through the pursuit of truth It is a kind of human peership that I've discovered something which I found exciting Which is that I do have access to some kind of limited set of truths about the contents of my consciousness And so I am I'm freely sharing it with you. I love it. Okay Here's your problem my friend. Okay, you know, so you're the apple hasn't fallen too far from the tree it turns out Which is that you know When the missionary went to Peru and stood in the jungle looking at the Indians there and said God is real and they said No, he's not Our god is real. Yeah, then they're engaged Right, they're locked in this struggle Between this and that there's this binary opposition going on which becomes Co-constitutive, right? They can they constitute each other. We are good Which is the opposite of them and we right And then it's a fight and they're both trying to win over the other and they're both really worried Both are concerned about the other. I don't care if the if the Indians had said I don't know if your god exists, right? Then then it's just up to the missionary whether he pulls out the guns, right? All right, so I'm going to theorize here I'm going to say this is Thaddeus's Revealing his attempt at love So I think this is really interesting that rather than Saying I have access to objective truth One pretends not to have access to objective truth or puts oneself in a state of confusion and agnosticism Perhaps for the goal of peace Because he sees what has happened when two people claim to have objective truth They fight and they kill each other. He's he's deemed that bad And so perhaps this is part of the motivation is like a look Maybe if we just get rid of this whole truth thing Just eject it out the window. Maybe we'll all be more loving and more kind and there will be less fighting so I think that's rather sweet I also think it's rather dangerous because I think well, there's lots of reasons. I won't go into another monologue but this this might be This might be part of Thaddeus's motivation as an explanation for why the insistent agnosticism also Notice the reference to religion again that there's a kind of fundamental. I think knee jerk Reaction for religion that he thinks either one of two things either um One should not make claims that religious people make because it's unfashionable and Religious people we all know are silly. So let's not be like them Or it might be one should not make religious claims because it lends it tends towards violence and uh and and And groups and group conflict you might say So interesting Because he can't convince them The onus is on the person who makes the truth claim. It's not on us. It's not on the relatives But you're but you're again taking it from a public perspective. I'm not screw the evangelists screw the the missionaries good riddance I'm just saying hey friend. I I have meditated Yeah, I've become aware that there are things taking place in my visual field And I'm guessing what a great sentence. Hey friend. I've meditated to become aware that there are things taking place in my visual field signed steve Yeah, philosophy every once in a while you get an absurd sentence that arises from philosophical discussion That's one of them because I think you're another conscious being that if you are aware if you you've got a white shirt on So I would say if you do this thing with your head where you look down You will have an experience of a certain nature. Wow, that's all And to say you don't know with my response is not well, I'm not going to persuade you I'm just gonna like you can know all you have to do is Be aware. Okay. Does it does it give me axe? Are you claiming that it gives me access to a universal truth? Ah, that would be part two See, this is interesting. Okay Are you telling me it gives me access to universal truth? So the answer is that Yes, but not immediately. So part one is Can I be aware of the things happening in my visual field part two is you simply turn that truth into a universal claim? So it is true that there is at least one instance of the experience of x taking place in the universe Which is in fact a universal claim now, but notice. I think this question goes out of order I think what data says asking is okay. Well, I want to agree that consciousness is happening Like I'm experiencing things some things of a certain nature, but he doesn't want the conclusion to be and I have access to objective truth So and so if this is in other words, if this is where we're going, I'm not going to agree with your premises I think that's what's happening here. So here's why here's why in the most limited of senses and this is where people go Crazy they become dogmatic rationalists My position is that you The truths that you can get access to Immediately are within the contents of your experience And you can have some extremely abstract truths about the nature of logic By meditating on the nature of your experiences something like for example The blueness in my visual field is the way that it is And the blueness in my visual field is not the way that it is not So there's like a white part here in a blue part here The blue part is not the white part the white part is not the blue part Now that actually gets out a very abstract principle of logic the idea of identity and non-contradiction Things are the way they are and they aren't the way they aren't so in that sense I do consider that kind of universal that's true for everything it is the way it is and it isn't the way it isn't Not it doesn't get you particularly far. It doesn't get you a religion, but I do think that is something that is universal See so this is also why I think those in fact I knew a lady back in the day who very much didn't like the idea of Objective truth and its implications and so in the reasoning process There was a there was a worry about any line of reasoning which would result in that particular conclusion You know, I think that I can I think that's what's happening here and and it would be it would be interesting to Maybe even to watch this for myself From the standpoint of thinking that perhaps Perhaps it's it's an ethical Objection to the notion of the existence of objective truth because the existence of objective truth implies eventual group conflict and that might be true Okay, so what? What is your Act of love offering me like what what will I get from this if I if I were to believe Agree with you. Uh, I think that you would get a A new belief and the existence of some very limited form of truth Right. I just it's just popping in my head, right It's hard. I I don't know so it's hard for me not to feel Like this is the disingenuous method of reasoning To have one say well, what where are we going? What am I going to get from this? What is the value I gain from this? um On the one hand, maybe it's good to have that perspective like going into a conversation Hey, what am I going to gain from this on the other hand? It doesn't feel genuine It feels like I'll I'll believe your conclusions if they help me All right, so I'm going to skip ahead just a little bit. We had a few minutes diversion of just Again going back to my motivation Um why why I want to have this conversation when I'm trying to get out of it Is that the case that that there is at least some acknowledgement or like, okay, yes You can't you don't have to take a religion, but consciousness is happening. However, it is happening Oh, I didn't acknowledge it. I was just saying that's what you're asking. You got my hopes up. Okay No, you're that's what you're asking for and I'm not and I'm no I'm not asking for anything I want to know your thoughts if I'm wrong. I want to know if I'm wrong and why I'm wrong. That's all Yeah, and I I've said this for how long an hour now hour and a half, you know, I don't know I don't know. Um, it could be something else. It could be None of the above I But I'm but mostly I just don't know what on earth. I'm gonna get from it like um So, okay. If if I were to Accept that as a truth that I have What you call awareness, okay consciousness, um What particular doors does that open? Interesting question, right? Right, it does not communicate This sincere pursuit of truth if there is one right now to say are you pursuing truth? Maybe does that presuppose truth exists? Well Not necessarily, right? Are you pursuing honestly whether or not truth might exist? Right and and uh to say well, what do I get from it just does not communicate? Um, sincerity Well for one, uh, you're gonna have to go back on the Joe Rogan show and you're gonna say Dude, I was converted. There's this guy. I'm now a card carry truth seeker Oh, that's what this is about Steve. You want to get on the Rogan show? Okay, that's what it is So, uh, honestly and I I say from the ethical nihilist standpoint, I'm not pitching anything I don't really so from my perspective because it really was Nihilism and you say what do I get from it? I think I don't care You get whatever you get from it. You adjust your worldview. However, you need to adjust your but you want Hello, you do want me to think that way. Don't you you are trying to convince me of this, aren't you? Uh To be honest if it were the case that I were wrong You said it was love you said it was love. Well, so so here's what the love is The love is me trying To discover truth myself and if I discover it to try to share it with people who care So if I'm wrong about this, no, I don't want to convince you. I want you to convince me I want to be in your I want to be I want to discover that Maybe it's all wrong if it's all wrong So isn't interesting. I think there's a a identification here thinking that Perhaps pattern recognition that just like the evangelicals believe that they have truth and want to convert others If one believes that you have truth of any sort and wish to convert others and talk to them about it You're trying to convert them to a religion essentially I think that's I think that's again the kind of knee-jerk. Let's not do anything that could be remotely constructed as religious Which makes me wonder which makes me wonder maybe I've seen this before I've seen this before With people that really really try to insist they aren't something that they are It's like, uh, it's like, you know, sometimes the most passionate and enthusiastic and like like anti homosexual people are like closet gays. I wonder if Thaddeus here is religious Or I wonder if the intensity of the passion of the denial corresponds to um Being seduced by the allures of religion and if that's the case, that's okay If you're watching Thaddeus, I accept you. It's okay. It's okay. It's okay to feel have to have those feelings But but for real um, because I don't think this level of rejecting anything that could remotely give the appearance of religion is Normal, I think it points to some there's something else and it's cool like like Something I found in my own personal journey like when I so I was I was raised evangelical and fell away from that and then this is kind of the normal story right and then Thought all religious people were stupid wanted nothing to do with it because it seemed anti-intellectual and devoted my life to to the use of reason and Then then had experiences where I kind of came back around to some religious conclusions Love is so profound to me that it I had some kind of at least implicit religion built around The importance the transcendentalists the divinity you if you want to use those words of love So so I wonder if like under the surface Thaddeus sees some of that and maybe wants some of that and is like secretly persuaded by some of that But uh, but it was maybe in the closet about it. I don't know it's an interesting theory So yeah, my my goal is actually genuinely to discover truth if it's out there And I think it is which is why we're you know, I gave I went through the examples that convinced me to see if they would convince you as well Okay, let me tell you about my happiness. Yeah um So I have been happier since I Shows to orient myself Toward the world as an agnostic um It it grants me The feeling that I have is one that I would call freedom Um, I feel freer than before For the reason I was sort of describing in the jungles of paru with the missionary and the indian who's trying to who they're trying to convert, you know um I don't I no longer have a mission to Convince you of one thing or another right all I am doing Really? And this is what fukou says he was doing I think um It's trying to stop people or at least get in their way Of trying to convert us Right because that's really all he's doing. He's not he's not saying this doesn't exist He's just saying look dude You're claiming that you know because I have a penis I'm a man and this means x y and z because I'm a homosexual therefore I'm a natural blah blah blah You're making truth claims about me and my body and what I should do and where I should be and maybe you might even Want to put me in prison because of that Right and so all I'm going to do it to you is say oh here's your here's this category man You know and here's the history of it and I can show you how it changes over time radically over space Places people have thought about it really differently over time and it keeps getting added to and blah blah blah So you know what it's historical. It's contingent. It's created by human beings and therefore Your claim about the essence the natural essence of my body Is bullshit. It's it's it's historically contingent. There is nothing in nature or god You know where it's rooted See I think I think it really sums it up rather well that And I don't I don't know if that is would agree with this rephrasing But he might he may hear me or not That truth if it is not Personally invigorating if it doesn't give you freedom if it doesn't give you happiness Then it's not it's not worth caring about that. It is that if delusion makes you happier Then delusion is better than truth And It reminds me it's like that scene in the matrix right where the guy's eating the steak and he's like I really care if this is an illusion this tastes really good I think that might be what's what's going on here at least that that's the impression I get from that that claim I'm very partial to a lot of that except it sounds like the purpose of communication is different between us or between the postmodernist and the non postmodernist because my claims are I'm presupposing that there may be objective truth and that if there is that will be What uh, what my beliefs will be oriented around because they're true if we say We choose our beliefs based on them giving me power and freedom. Then the whole conversation is very different All right, so then it's like well, what ideas make me feel better or what ideas make me happier and more More fulfilled with my life, but that's a very different. That's a whole different paradigm So is that what you're saying that Whether or not there is truth is not really relevant because it does it's not something that's practical for your own life Uh Yeah, well, I know I It's all it's all tangled together So I mean to me scientific truth claims are just as valid as moral truth claims. Uh, they all have a history Um, and you'll see when you do the when you write the history when you study the history of all the truth claims Whether they're scientific or moral You'll find that there is a history meaning that there is an origin and the origin is in human minds What about logical history though? So let's start so so before we talk about logic, right? There's there is real value to understanding That scientific paradigms change and moral paradigms change um I think it's really most people don't understand that I think that a s does understand that But if I think he's taken too far Scientific paradigms change therefore there's no truth because claims about the objective nature of reality have changed And people have been wrong. It means there's no way to be right What one will notice if you think about it is The existence while I guess the logical truths are not something that Have ever changed nor could they ever change right the fact of things being the way that they are To the extent people were conscious the contents of their consciousness. These are These are truths. These are not Put it this way It is not the case that a thousand years from now people will look back On what's happening and be able to correctly conclude that awareness and experience as I'm experiencing it right now didn't exist right that is a that is a kind of a universal claim about the state of our Present universe is that awareness and experience definitely exist. It ain't a scientific paradigm. It's not a moral paradigm. It's a factual metaphysical claim I I'm I mean, I'm a radical I got a radical worldview But there are logical truths dating back, you know, we're talking Pre pre-aristat all about the law of identity and non-contradiction that really haven't changed Um, no logic is a language. It's just like english It's a language with its own internal structure. It's self-referential. It's a closed system So sure one plus one equals two within Logic within mathematics, but does that mean that that has some connection to an objective truth outside of mathematics or logic Logic is a language if you state that it's a language So this if I remember correctly is that I think I might skip because we have a Long aside about the nature of logic. So I think it comes down to people to use different words different ways The truth that logical discussion point at are Universal had been written about unchanging since pre-aristat all the law namely the law of identity and non-contradiction Things are the way that they are and they are not the way that they are not This is not something that gets revised every few centuries as the scientific paradigm changes or the moral paradigm changes It's a kind of universal one. I'm gonna skip ahead. So we don't just rehash some linguistic Disagreement Sounded like you were saying that because they all agreed on it must be true I only bought that up because you were talking about ideas being radically revised Scientific ideas being radically advised culture ideas being radically revised and I'm in total agreement But it is so if it's the case that there are objectively Discoverable truths that are abstract and maybe at the fundamental logical level what you would expect to see Is precisely what has happened that everybody disagrees and revises about all of the Contingent theories about how the natural world works or whether it exists Right the thing that everybody agrees on is the thing that is actually discoverable just by meditating on your experience That things are the way that they are. Oh, it's the introspection that gets us to the truth If it's the case, well, yes, of course So for those who don't know To say, oh, it's the introspection that gets us to the truth is another Only anti religious claim That's all that it serves. So there's there's this idea because it's not just religion But depends on how you might categorize religion. There's this idea that oh in religions, there's you know introspection and revelation that these are kind of non-sophisticated ways of understanding the truth and and all these my responses The only way to understand truth is by introspection or meditating on the meaning of things and meditating on your own experience Um, so that's just another thing of oh, so it's introspection or it's revelation or we're gonna it's it's one of these words that's associated with religion It's the case that the truth is that there's experience taking place Then all you have to introspect in order to understand that experience is taking place. So you're a Platonist in this way If I don't think so, I mean, I don't I don't exactly know how that category But that's how that's how I arrived at the truth, right was by thinking About you know, just thinking that's what he was about and rather than Aristotle Who's like no go out into the world and study stuff and observe things and measure. I don't think that would be a fair Position to summarize. I mean, maybe you could call it Platonism. I don't I don't get that I mean, I I'm not a Platonist. I'm like a definitely not a Platonist in my meta So from my understanding of Plato and metastar Plato and Aristotle, you know Aristotle would not have disagreed that some truths are available to one upon introspection as namely the laws of logic Identity, uh, non-contradiction and he said the excluded middle. Um, yeah Physics but to the extent that Aristotle and Plato covered the law of identity they agree that things are the way that they are and uh in I forget the there's a muslim philosopher early early philosopher who Who was talking about the law of identity and he said anybody that claims Um, that there's not that contradictions are possible should be beaten and burned And to the point until they admit that to be beaten and burned is not the same as to not be beaten and burned In other words that contradictions aren't possible. No, no, no, I was getting at um Patterson's pursuit like what it is and what am I right that it is it presupposes That introspection looking inward thinking inward Uh, is the is the general direction Toward which truth will be uh ascertained I don't like the term introspection because it it it comes with a bunch of philosophical baggage I would say that there is some truth you can and also uh to say inward Implies a metaphysics of inward and outward right So to commit oneself to say look look inside is to say there is a difference between inside and outside Which I think you can make a reasonable claim that there is a difference, but uh You don't have to and it requires other philosophical augmentation discover by being aware of what you're experiencing But that's what you're trying to get me to do though, right look inward and and think about my own Inward just look Yeah, okay, but but look inside myself, right? Or look just a little I like that I should write that down. So Actually, that is the claim don't look inside that implies something just look Just be aware of what is and and and in the future if you come to a particular metaphysical theory in which you think there are internal experiences and an external reality great But that's step two step one is just look That implies there is a self and all that just look just be aware of what is happening Oh, okay. Okay. Okay. Yeah. So but it's about my awareness and my awareness alone Yeah, I would say that that because that's what you have direct access to yeah, okay. Yeah, um And Uh-huh and so but you want to you so you want to say that there's something universal about that No, oh well kind of kind of in the most limited of sense It is the case that there is experience of a certain nature taking place which means I have this amazing ability to take a A personal truth or like a conscious experiential truth and turn it into something that's objective So I can say something well of all the things that exist in the world at least one experience of blue Is taking place So now it so if for anybody that were to claim anywhere in the world at any time that blueness is not taking place I could say you're actually objectively wrong because blueness is taking place So that kind of turns the subjective into the objective meaning meaning it's taking place in your consciousness. Yes Yeah, yeah, so you can't right well taking place in my consciousness and my consciousness is something that exists So if somebody's making a claim about things that exist in the world at least my consciousness exists in the world Oh Oh Well this that sounds right there like you and I might actually be converging maybe I don't Think we really are but at least at least that sentence or a couple of sentences right there Take in an isolation converge with my own thinking So so I think if I if I could speak for that is I think the idea that Okay, we are all having our own individual experiences. He likes but he doesn't like part two part two is Not only we're have we're all having our own individual experiences and they differ but You step back and say it is true that We are all having our own individual experiences and that they differ So the one is a kind of a claim within our own mind Oh the redness over here is happening another is a universal claim goes what I call the objectivity of subjectivity that you're inescapable It is the case that of all the things that exist The contents of my experience Are are actually happening and how do I know what's objective because if anybody were to claim otherwise I know they would be wrong That's if there's any other person that says Experience is not happening blueness is not something that's taking place in anybody's visual field. He's wrong. I'm certain that he's wrong He's making a claim about the status of the entire the universal hole And he's wrong in that claim which must mean that my my mind has some limited access limited access to universal truths Because which is which is this? Leave me alone Right because that's that's that's my that's my whole mission, right? It's like hey You want to make all the all you christians all you americans all you you know Absolutists of all sorts, right? You make all these claims about me and my consciousness and who I am and Everything about me, right? What my skin color means what my penis means like everything about me, right means all you How do you first of all? How do you know? second of all um You're gonna all you're trying to do is manipulate me and try I know you're not trying to do this but that's you know um That was an interesting cream all you try to do is manipulate me, but you might not be trying to do that Well, am I or am I not? I mean that's actually important. Have you found somebody that isn't trying to manipulate you? I mean that would seem like it's a big deal. Maybe there are a few of those out there um, but again, I do as as as deeply as I disagree with the Philosophical claims. I do think there's some goodness here There comes maybe from some place of goodness where that is does not want to restrict you and your freedom And push you in any box whatsoever based on his perception of you and based on his theories of you, right? I think that's cool. Um, I just think it gets taken too far I think I think the desire to live in a world in which there is no nature And therefore absolute freedom is so great and so strong that it, uh If It's so it's such a beautiful almost like a religious claim itself That it destroys everything else in the in the process It's like this vision is so beautiful and good and helps people flourish That we're going to destroy everything else in order for that vision to be True in order for that vision to be true. We're correct or the one that everybody holds We have to annihilate the concept of like a real objective nature in general Which is funny. It just it just adds a a little bit more evidence to my theory that actually Thaddeus is religious and which is okay, right? It's okay. Everybody has their own type of like religious things They're bringing to the table and I think this is uh, I think What's that that shakes per quote me thinks the the lady does protest too much. I think that's going on with that is here Uh So when you say that that when someone makes a claim that that pen is not blue To you your answer is yes, it is it's blue to me and that's my truth Kind of that's the way that you would phrase it. I would say you're objectively wrong if you're making a claim Right, right, right. So so that's so important To me my truth is that this is black See how different see that this is very quickly important, right? It's one thing to say my truth is that it's black and your truth is that it's blue Right the objectivist the the randian objectivist says it is the case that it is black. No, no, that's silly I think the correct Correct answer solution here is the middle ground. It is true that in my visual field It is black and if you're claiming the contrary you are wrong right It is true That in my visual field it is black. It's this is an this is an objective claim about something that's taking place in the universe This is not just purely a statement of preference. This is not a purely subjective thing. This is not my truth I am stating objective universal claim, which is right or wrong depending on whether you agree or deny deny it That there are no such things as experiences of looking into a computer right now. I'd say you're wrong I'm certain that there are such things that exist Mm-hmm. Yeah, so you become Yeah, you become a you you become an imperialist like right away. You flip it right immediately It's not imperialism. I'm just See, I think that's I can't tell if that's a joke or not. I mean, it's funny that you become an imperialist right away but this is the same This is the same thing that keeps coming up. It's like This this incredible aversion to a particular set of conclusions Regardless of the collateral damage of of The rest of the philosophy it's like what can't we cannot be imperialist. We cannot be religious We cannot be like the Christians therefore. We must take all contrary propositions What is the case if somebody is claiming that my mind is not experiencing what my mind is experiencing they're wrong No, but you're making claims about my mind and what it's experiencing right now, aren't you or no? No I don't I don't know. Oh, I don't know. I I don't know that any other that there's any other mind out there I can't know that so you're an agnostic on me If it's the I have an agnostic as to whether or not There is another type of consciousness like my own I have a positive belief that there are lots of them Because if I were to go if I were to have the experience of poking you I think you would say ow, which means makes me think okay. Maybe this is another conscious being But I don't claim any kind of certain knowledge about it All right. Well, I'm I like that too. So what um, but if and if I said that pen in your hand is red You would say what? Well, I would say if if you're having the conscious experience of seeing red Then it is if we speak the same language. We're having different conscious experiences If your claim however, is that it is read in my visual field I would say you're making an objectively wrong claim about the nature of the world because the blue experience is what's taking place Right. This is where I get okay. So it sounds to me like you're Sometimes it sounds like your truth claims are universal and sometimes it sounds like they're particularistic I call it the universe the objectivity of subjectivity that I can make I can say subjectively true things I am experiencing blue, but I can make them objective very easily The blue experience is part of what exists in the world. Let me give you another example To me This pen is black That he was probably like that claim to me this it blends back now you can interpret that Through the subjectivist lens or the non-subjectivist lens you can interpret the claim this To me this pen is black as some relativistic claim You can also take the exact same words and make them objectively true and universal It is true that to me this pen is black All right It's one thing I'm saying it from my mind. It's like a preference for imagine we're talking about music like Jazz music is the best type of music. It's like a subjective truth But imagine I say to me jazz music is the best type of music. Is that a subjective claim? How about if I phrase it this way in the universe? There is at least one mind which evaluates jazz music as the best type of music That is a universal claim That I have direct access to Jazz is by the way, not the best type of music and maybe the only part. I don't know Because you okay because you perceive it that way because you yeah, right and we're talking about my perception Yeah, so if you leave it at that we're good We're good. I think I just sounded many times like you weren't leaving at that and I got really nervous, but uh Yeah, no, sure. I don't I just wouldn't I wouldn't use terms like objective and truth So what if I would have say that is not having the experience of looking into a computer right now? Oh, um, I would say, uh, well, you know, I don't know And I would just see see I think I think again What he asked himself what would I say I think The word choice if I don't know is It's almost that really this is this is crazy. This is the same thing that happens when talking with Um evangelicals. I have many many many many many many hours talking with evangelicals arguing with them and their Answer to some philosophical questions is is almost as if they read off a script. It's like, oh I guess I believe this and well, what about why? Well, I guess in order to be consistent with everything else that I believe I must believe why It's not it's not serious It's it's like I guess this I guess this is what I would say in order to keep the whole thing together You don't know whether or not you're having the experience of looking into a computer screen I that's what I think that you can know though But imagine you were actually having that experience that you described that way somebody can be wrong about that No, I can prove that. I don't know. I don't know how you can prove any of this stuff. You don't have to prove it You just know it. It's like it's just religious belief you're christian. It's not really Ding ding ding Right That's what it is That's there. There it is in a nutshell If what you say is true That the mind has access to objective and universal truth And that is a religious claim you christian and and really really That is not The most ridiculous thing to say Okay, because I there is something deeply deeply deeply profound about believing that one has access to universal truth and I think in escapably the mind does have access to universal truth and there are Many people have attempted to answer the question of how we could have access to objective and universal truth by positing something like a god mind A universal mind that you partake in like that is not it is not Too far away from a religious claim. It's not hard to see how religious thinkers Would arrive at their conclusions. So say that on the one hand on the other hand. I think it's just a demonstration that Any religious claims are to be avoided at all costs Even if even if they're right there and like They're self-evident my experience is the way that it is Well, how could it be if it were that way? Then I'd have to be a christian Right, it's like well, you got to go where the argument leads It's not religious to say that my experiences of a nature that I know the nature that it is and I describe it with the word blue And if you use the word red that means something different to me in my language And it is certainly not the case that the experience is red. I know it This is why I say it's a big deal because that then that immediately gets you to the laws of logic It is the way that it is and it isn't the way that it isn't and suddenly. Yeah, we're all christians now Let me let me leave you with something. Okay You may have come across this. Um, do you know what niches said about The writing of philosophy? Uh, in a concrete sense like a quote or the general idea. Yeah. No, I don't I don't I don't He said that all philosophy is biography Okay I like that I like that So I don't know. I just I'm very I'm taken with this your narrative of um, I don't even know exactly what's going on I'm not trying to say, you know, this explains You or your ideas in any particular way Um, but I'm just taken I love this that you that you have a narrative about it about the pursuit Patterson's pursuit, uh, which or Patterson in pursuit, which is that, you know, it kind of Began with this sort of general vague idea about there being a truth and that you like that you were attracted to it Maybe that if it's the case, I don't know about it. And if it's not the case I don't I don't I want to live my life in a way that is like, oh, there's no such thing as objective truth Yeah, you were attracted to it You were moving so you decided to move forward toward it toward it, right? And then And then along comes this woman and then you fall in love and then in that experience You feel like you have discovered a truth about yourself that you didn't know previously Yeah And then that became much more specifically your pursuit In a way and you also wanted to Give other people access to this thing that might possibly might possibly Help them and um In various ways and so that's why you're doing this and so I just think that that's um, I think that's really interesting And I like it. I don't know. Thanks. That's a fair summary. I would say that just as an addendum I do find Truth far more important than the the specifics of love So I'm not claiming I might be wrong about love being important and it they marry they may May very well be totally a hallucination and it may just I have a brain structure that's susceptible to serotonin in a way But I wouldn't say that about truth Whatever the truth is is more if I get unplugged from the matrix What happened? I'd be like, okay. That's more important I don't know though. See because you're saying I see what so on one level the overarching mission is the truth, right? Okay, cool But the fact that the love experience confirmed your belief in truth And seemingly accelerated your pursuit of no, but the love experience didn't concern my belief in truth I had already logic is the thing that can that that can be true as as real Yeah, and then it was well love was totally unexpected and just like oh, this is like this is something human The most important. Yeah, but my hearing what your own narrative was that it did something to your pursuit, right? It did there was a moment that was a turning point. It it turned me from a nihilist into whatever I am a love person but wait, so this is uh kind of grody I don't like that. You know the summarization of everything. There's this quote from Nietzsche Not so subtle. Oh, philosophy is really just biography. I think that's interesting Okay, so I think the the message there is You're just a plan a game. All this is just kind of an exercise and vanity and you know, you had this love experience I never communicated this but he seems to think that my belief in truth has something to do with my experience of love That's certainly not the case absolutely not my belief in truth is Completely separate of my experience of love and my belief in love I might be mistaken about the existence of love and its profundity. I'm not mistaken about the existence of truth For the reasons that I laid out in this so I find it very condescending frankly condescending and To kind of pat one on the head and and say well, I'm not going to actually engage with the arguments But I'll kind of distantly mock them and and see what's going on as you're just on this pursuit as a young child And that's an interesting fact not a fan Nihilist does not believe in truth, right? Right. So I say that ethical nihilist and ethical nihilist things that that truth that uh, there is no such thing As like objectively true morality or that statements about morality don't really have meaning to them But technically I might be an emotivist an emotivist, which is like there's statements of preference I think that is the case except now. I had this love experience is like, okay. This is actually Meaningful here's here's the meaning This is what human life can be oriented around at least my human life. And so that's why it changed me Yeah, okay Yeah, and and when I asked you why are you doing this right now talking to me this way? You said one word love Yeah, well, I mean All right, so I think um, it's a it's a it's a two-pronged approach for the intellectuals who just want to know about truth Great. I'm happy to share it But for those those crazy people that will follow these conclusions wherever they lead Well, they might have a love experience in which case I you know, I would feel pretty good about that I just want you to think about that biography philosophy and also one last thing, um, you know for fuko Discourse all all power is discourse number one and then number two he says that discourse power Does not go from top to bottom Or even from the bottom to the top of the society It circulates it goes laterally it goes up and down sideways backwards diagonally it goes all the way it's constantly circulating, right so that Ideas discourse concepts categories words Claims truth claims the color blue the idea of the color blue the idea of pens the idea of steve of that of all these They're circulating. They have no they have no Origin, right? There's no you can't sort of You can't identify a an origin a genesis moment to be more um apt here. That's correct I don't know if that's fuko's claims or dardo whoever he brought up, but that would just be wrong Right that that's the critical error is that there's no origin of meaning And there is origin in every single individual every word that they speak the origin is the meaning inside of their mind Genesis right inside of a person or anywhere anywhere either in the bible or in nature in a person That it's just all you can see is just these con all these things circulating between people among people and back and forth You say this I I hear the thing and then I make it into my own concept And I give it back to you then it goes back and forth and it goes to your wife And then it goes to my girlfriend that goes all around the world um I you know All those all those things Circulating in your own what you think of as your consciousness He would say Began elsewhere Maybe but one of the benefits of being somewhat anti-social is that like three quarters of that story doesn't apply to me I'm on my own pursuit. I don't really I I'm fortunate to have discovered the love meth crack that is like the best thing ever and If I persuade people or don't it's not as important as me discovering truth myself Okay But all right, I have kept you much longer than we agreed to this has been a fantastic conversation I really appreciate it. Yeah, thank both parts the love and the and the truth conversation. So that was great All right. Thank you, man. This was fun so I guess in conclusion, I think that there's a another turn here where There is an attempt to explain the philosopher rather than engage with the ideas um and I don't think that's good I think I think that results in confusion. I don't think it's honest. I value honesty and trying to engage ideas separate from the speaker of the ideas and I do think that a lot of these ideas come from maybe The desire not to harm anybody and not to force them into a particular box In particular conceptual system that exists in your mind. I think that's admirable I I think that That desire has created a rather extreme Allergy to anything remotely sounding religious I think I think it might be that Were Thaddeus to introspect inside himself. He might he might find a little religious person as well I guess you could you could also interpret the intensity of the conclusion that determined this of the conclusions about not knowing whether or not experience is taking place As a type of religious thinking That's the way that I would put it is that if somebody's being honest and somebody's, you know, sincerely Reporting their experiences and their thought process and they don't already have a conclusion in mind I don't think you wind up with the postmodern theory of truth to be honest. I don't think you do But that's my thoughts I'd love to know what you guys think. I very much enjoy both of my conversations with Thaddeus I hope to speak with him more in the future either on my show or in his show Yeah, I think I think this has been valuable for me just to listen to it again I feel like I understand postmodernism a little bit more now And I I hope the arguments that I made for the existence of External truth and the the connection that we have to objective truth are compelling If they're not if you think there's a flaw, please leave a comment. Let me know. I'm very interested in if I'm wrong I'd like to know that I'm wrong though. I have the suspicion Not being persuaded that consciousness isn't taking place, but I'm I'm ready to hear the arguments All right. Thanks for listening guys and I'll talk to you again in a couple weeks