Here is one negative of Rationality '' Errors Believed as Truth'' You know from experience that clever wordplay can disguise falsity and error, particularly when motivated by less than honest motives. Sure, 'Rationally Derived'' and agreed to by the Honest. And I think you seriously Overestimate the average persons ability to a) understand an argument and b) accept such an argument when their emotional state overrides them. Here's a fact about Humans '' They will never all agree on any argument.'' If you agree with me, you know I am right, If you disagree you prove my point. How does you position deal with those who are idiots or malicious?
Peter, have you come across this work? I think that's very much needed in this conversation to come to a robust conclusion: cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/books/UPB/Universally_Preferable_Behaviour_UPB_by_Stefan_Molyneux_PDF.pdf
Hey Peter, I was struck by the end of your conv. I don’t understand how this hypothetical super computer is different in any appreciable way from the omniscient aspect of god. If I reformulate the question to: if god convinced you that rationality was supreme would you believe it? It sounds poor but how is it different? If it’s a hypothetical computer how can we know it’s workings (especially once we move into the quantum realm) isn’t that moving us into a world of trying to understand the ineffable mind of god?
He was also the person that first introduced me to the culture war, and all the intersectionality nonsense, 5 or 6 years ago. I branched out from there exploring left and right speakers, and a variance of SO many other subjects. I thought, at the time, that things were heading down a very troubling road, and things have only gone further and gained speed on that route.
Carl is great, and remember he is an English traditionalist, he was simply challenging Peter. They were exchanging ideas mostly about the enlightenment and postmodern worldviews. “It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain an idea without completely accepting it.”
Only on YT can you enjoy a long form conversation between an assistant Professor from Portland USA and an autodidactic working class man from Swindon UK.
@@seandrew7837 Did you know that in ancient Bhārata (India), a person who consumed ANY type of animal was known as a “Chandāla” (dog-eater) and was not even included in mainstream society, but was an outcast?🥩 So, do you ADMIT that you are an animal-abusing criminal, Mr. Dog-eater? 😬🙄😬
Carl was right, the flaw in this conservation appears to be an unwillingness to adhere to anything non-materialistic, namely Aristotle's primum mobile, as there is no reason that what is beyond rational is irrational
Another problem is that he is taking his contemporary views regarding rationality and assuming its the right view, the view capable of perceiving moral truth. He hand waves post modernism despite it probably being useful here.
Forgive me if this thought is too amateur on the subject, but it occurred to me that perhaps the idea of an absolute moral truth is actually only an idea we developed because of theology, and despite being an Atheist, Peter only has it because of being embedded in a Judeo-Christian society, not because it is itself a rational conclusion. Atheists like Sam Harris have tried to keep the idea of moral absolutes via his thought experiment of the Moral Landscape, but that itself might be an example of an irrationally originated belief that folks like Harris are merely trying to rationalize after the fact, having lost the original reason for it but not wanting to give it up. Indeed the Moral Landscape seems to make some hand wavey assumptions about suffering being bad that Carl was rejecting here, although perhaps that isn't a fair assessment as obviously heroin addiction vs sports training are examples given that are exceptions to the shortcut heuristic of suffering. But I think the point remains, it seems that rationality is often more likely to be used to justify preexisting assumptions and values than to derive new ones, and likely it cannot be used to determine values at all. Rationality seems to me to be in common with the conclusion I reached over the question: is math discovered or invented. As far as I am aware, all mathematical systems start with some assumptions and/or definitions, and then explore within those systems of rules. Thus the definitions and assumptions are invented, but everything that flows from them is discovered in the space defined by them. Sufficiently accurate starting assumptions can get you Newtonian Physics, but that runs out of usefulness when you need relativity or quantum mechanics. In real life, many mathematical concepts are likely absurd thought experiments. For example the idea of infinity. It's probably impossible to have an infinitely thin line that goes infinitely in both directions forever, outside of the thought experiment. This has implications in the real world, within an "is math real" kind of question when the rubber meets the road. For example: If infinity only exists in mathematical model thought experiments, then it's obvious why our systems break down in black holes or at the big bang. The starting assumptions and definitions are insufficient to accurately predict things where they break down and differ from actual reality. Rationality seems like the mathematical process of following whatever rules we have built up to start with. Like Math, it can do an incredible amount of work for us in finding truth things, but unlike math, the assumptions and definitions you start with are not explicit. If you had different starting values, your rationality would bring you to radically different conclusions in the same way as how the facts derived from geometry are significantly different if you are working on a Cartesian Plane instead of the surface of a sphere or torus, or some higher dimensional hyperbolic shape. If this analogy holds, then rationality IS over privileged, not because it ceases to be the most important tool in our toolkit, but because it's a tool in service to something else, AND limited by your starting preconceptions. One starting preconception Peter seems to be holding onto is the idea of an absolute moral truth that is good everywhere. In reality something may only be true only in flatland, and NOT on a 7 dimensional parabolic curve, or even a plain old 3D sphere. Morality could be entirely particular and not universal at all whatsoever. Note that that does not mean that immoral things become moral or vice versa in a particular frame of reference, nor does it mean that all frames of reference are equally useful and valid for the kind of creatures we are and societies that we have. I am not making a social constructionist argument, because the best starting assumptions will produce better (more functionally useful) models of truth/reality for the kind of creatures that felt irrationally compelled to subconsciously or otherwise define them. On a Cartesian Plane a triangle has 180 degrees, and the existence of a different value on some other geometry isn't relevant to us if that's not the situation we find ourselves in.
Oh yeah, great moral relativist position he's upholding. Sorry, but that's the woke position. Seems to have smoked too much chronic if his eyes are anything to go by.
@@zootsoot2006 He's just being realistic. If you appeal to the rationality of your argument to someone with completely different priors, they'll be able to reject it because they arrived at their own set of values based on those priors. Beating an innocent man to death with a rock is a moral wrong in my eyes, and that of all sane human beings. The rock doesn't care, and neither does the psychopath holding it. There is no objective, universal morality, but I still think that we must sometimes, with force if necessary, apply our own moral judgement to those who do not share our values. Do you disagree?
@@MrVeps1 Yes I disagree. There is an objective, universal morality. And everyone thinks so, whether they consciously acknowledge it or not. Without such a belief, we'd all just shrug ourselves off the planet.
@@zootsoot2006 That position seems a bit too universal. For your position to make sense, the people who do not believe in objective morality must be prevented from “giving up” due to a subconscious belief in objective morality. It seems more likely they just haven’t yet reached the conclusion that everything is pointless, possibly by purposefully ignoring the issue, never reaching it, or bypassing it through their subjective morality.
You have to hand it to Sargon, for an autodidact political philosopher he gave a professional philosopher close to a lesson in critical thinking there. For all his critics, Carl has done both the reading and the thought, and his thoughts and opinions are far from the cookie cutter vomit of mere punditry.
Yes, he's smart and hard working. I think he's only in his early 40's too, so I imagine he'll say many interesting things to say over the coming decades.
You’re one hell of a conversationalist, Peter. I loved this, and I’d like to request a “Peter Boghossian Podcast” where you have regular, interesting, conversations like this.
I agree, I actually looked for this convo on my podcast app because I remembered seeing it here. I prefer to avoid RUclips for stuff like this so I don't get distracted and watch 100 build videos and then forget why I opened it in the first place.
I could write a novel on my thoughts on this conversation, but I'll just keep it simple by saying this conversation needs a part 2. You guys were just getting to the heart of it and it would be a travesty if you didn't do this again and pick up where you left off. Keep up the great conversations
I think the reason people hate RINOS so much is because they are moral relativists. they rationalize things like globalism even when betraying their own principles because they rationalize it as bi-partisan agreement that separates themselves from zealots... as if projecting themselves as being cool headed and rational for self preservation IS actually more rational than standing behind their own stated beliefs with conviction. These people wan't to be martyrs but they are too scared to die, or even sacrifice their career... so instead they do nothing but gaslight and manipulate to make the actual martyrs look like tin foil hat wearing neer-do-wells.
I liked your comment as it is both correct and incorrect at the same time. Correct because Carl was using moral particularism to explain why people believe that their particular belief system is 'correct/true/valid'. Incorrect because Carl clearly stated that if 'universal values' do not exist (or we cannot determine them) then metaphysical truths i.e. theological/religious principles can be valid in addition to moral particularity. That being said, my thoughts are that religions are codified forms of moral particularity i.e. the moral rules applicable to certain geographical locations at least, but could also include and may be better explained by other things such as family structure and time.
The thought experiment offers ideals and principles to construct a society. When the agents know their place, they can construct systems to their advantage. But if they do not know their place, the systems and structures they create are *fair*
@@drpeterboghossian The problem with your thought experiment is that we do not know if there Is such an argument, even hypothetically. If you base a chain of reasoning on a false premise, sure you can reason to a conclusion, but that conclusion may well not have any basis in reality beyond your imagination. So it's all well and good proposing some hypothetical rational argument that convinces one of the existence of Moral Truths, but what if there is no such argument, and Carl is correct in his assessment that, at root, our perception of reality is itself in some way fundamentally Irrational And given that I would classify 'Morality' as 'Codified Value Judgements', I do not see how they can be 'objective' [part of the structure of reality] and not simply 'conceptual'; and thus amount to subjective judgements of an external objective state. Which is to say that Reality is Objective, but our valuation and judgement of reality is subjective.
@@williammarshal2190 No we are winning. Zoomers laugh at critical social justice. The boycott against the new Harry Potter games is a laughable failure. No one wants the products any of products these losers are demanding we buy, and we’ve made a parallel media that circumvents the traditional structure. It feels great! Oh, and your God doesn’t exist, too!
Rorty: ”Rationality is often considered to be the endeavour to exhibit the universal validity of one’s position ” Nietzsche: ”What has universal validity to do with me? ”
This is just playing out the old philosophical problem of how rational justification is impossible, because once you reach the bottom it becomes circular, and circular arguments are rationally inadmissible. Therefore, rationality is irrational by its own lights, and rationalists have no grounds to object to people who recognize different sources of authority and justification. This is the problem at the root of 90% of philosophy.
Carl you just have to imagine you're a formless consciousness suspended in a black void running computations through an algorithm to build a stainless steel technocracy. It's not complicated Carl.
If you have an anxiety disorder or paranoia you know first hand how rationally can quickly become a sort of tyrant. Watch as your mind comes up with rational reasons for why you feel that way. This is why it's so hard to think your way out of those feelings because it's based on emotion first and then rational justification.
@@soulfuzz368 you are trapped in a well of sand logic says your stuck nonlogic says you can climb up but how do you climb? so um logic won't help you in real life when s hits the fan.
@@soulfuzz368 logic says you talk your way out of a situation but in reality you need to react to the danger infront of you not talk react logic will get you hurt or dead in reality.
@@antlerr yeah it isn’t always the best tool for the job, that is where intelligence comes in. A smart person knows when logic is the best tool and when it is dangerous.
33:25 "Empirically, no one wants to be a slave" IDK, I still see people wearing masks when I go out. The past two years have pretty thoroughly proven to me the willingness of some to happily have their lives dictated to them. I will concede though, this is a case where your immediate preconceptions of the word "slave" are very important.
FACTS. The lockdowns proved very clearly that there is subset of ppl who much prefer being told how to think, how to act, and what to do. They absolutely love not having the responsibility to make decisions for themselves.
@@umiluv They don't want to be slaves. They want to be children. A slave is created. A child is the thing that is cared for, told what to do, has all decisions made for it, and is shielded from consequence. I would think more highly of a person who desired slavery. It is an achievable goal even if absurd, and not without consequence. Better to be the thing you set out to be, than be it because you were too weak to be anything else.
@@aranisles8292 yes, but the branch covidians clapped like seals for releasing criminals. There were plenty of beds left open in the wake. What they wanted was rent moritorium and bail bonds for when they smash things up in a tantrum. I was not saying no-one desires slavery. Just that the specific group mentioned is infantilized, and wishes to be children. Which is a far less reasonable ask than slavery.
I mean you just have to look at some of the reasons for slavery. One was being conquered and another was debt. Loads of people would chose slavery over being killed in a genocide in the case of being conquered and many would choose stable slavery over being destitute on the streets. It wrung of slavery is bad so I wont thought expirement on cases where it would be chosen
Contractions are agony - but its an absolutely necessary pain to bring your child safely into the world. It's a good, positive pain, even if you want to punch your husband at the time.
@@hmsealey3243 Great point. I was also thinking about pain if we have stood (or sat on something) nasty. It is a positive warning for us to remove ourselves from what is causing our body harm.
Yeah, this is basically the point of the naturalistic fallacy. You can't conflate "good" with "pleasure", so neither should you conflate "suffering" with "wrong". Pleasure can be good, suffering can be wrong, but a critique of pure utilitarianism based on maximizing pleasure and minimizing suffering is that you could justify euthanizing sad people and keeping those not predisposed to feeling constant pleasure drugged out of their minds in eternal bliss and ecstacy.
This was hard to watch, the closest way for me to describe it is that Peter is so deep in materialism he is basically religious. It's like trying to teach a color blind person what color is.
@@xjmg007 It is definitely a difficult thing to deal with. While I would still consider myself pretty deep into materialism I've just decided that there are some things that I'm willing to not worry about rationally deriving.
Peter seems to under estimate the power of natural instinct, survival, greed, desperation. The list goes on. These things can never be beaten by a simple thing such as rationality.
if more people could experience and take note of how skilled trades are taught for example you'd see how so much human capital is locked into intuition alone. My experience is that the majority of artisans can't explain much of what they do, why and how they do it, but they still have the knowledge somewhere. This is part of why I can't stand the people who insist on language and text as a primary mode of communication or theorizing. I'm fairly certain visual communication and demonstration is far more primal. This is why I think Foucault and Habermas doesn't belong in Art History for example, which is the study of a far more basic form of human communication and ingenuity.
But what society has been the most successful about lifting the most people up in regards to their standard of living? I mean food, housing, opportunity, life expectancy. But that's using rationality so I guess it's already flawed. 😊
The smuggling of values into the 'original position' occurs the moment you introduce a metric by which you judge. That metric is your values. However meta you go, this remains true.
Wow yeah you guys got to do a part 2 that was good a conversation, It was interesting to see Carl come to the realisations that he did as he was going through the motions with you. Great job just exploring the ideas and seeing where they lead, Thankfully the pursuit of real intellectual enquiry is not dead yet in this post fact age that we now live in. There is hope yet it would seem.
One thing I really appreciate about Carl Benjamin these days, is that he is such an *honest* thinker. He simply doesn't want to take the shortcuts, and it's a rare trait. I have to admit to very pleasant surprise of his evolution as quite the deep thinker, it's inspiring!
@@drpeterboghossian MORALITY IS ABSOLUTELY OBJECTIVE: To put it even more tersely, whenever any individual person performs any action whatsoever, it is OBJECTIVELY either beneficial (that is, moral), neutral (amoral), or harmful (immoral). Thus, every single volitional act performed by humans above the age of reason, belongs to one of the three aforementioned categories without ambiguity, from a purely objective “God’s-eye-view” perspective. However, as explained, the adjudication to which of the three categories any particular deed belongs, is entirely predicated on the system of justice extant in one’s nation, community, or country. Hopefully, now that this Holiest of Holy Scriptures has been published, the world will come to understand morality in a far more scientific manner than it has in past millennia, in order to avoid the trajectory of moral decadence plainly visible in the present age. Analogically, on the macro level, there is a definite, objective separation between a person’s bodily form and the surrounding environment. However, in order to view the precise borderline between that person and his or her surroundings, one needs to zoom-in to the microscopic level (or even the sub-atomic level) and even so, the borderline is rather hazy and indistinct, especially when viewing bodily cavities and hairs. Likewise, an immoral action is OBJECTIVELY immoral, even though it may require the keen eyesight of a highly-trained observer to judge it so. Simply because there may be a great deal of disagreement regarding the morality of an action, does not entail that morality is subjective.
Excellent conversation.. I think Boghossian's problem is that the notion that you can make claims of universal morality on atheist, materialist and rationalist grounds is absurd.. Without God(or any other conception of The Divine), you can not philosophically justify universal morality, like so many other transcendental categories..
29:24 I don't think the critique should be of Reason, but of knowledge. Because no person has perfect knowledge, Reason must be treated carefully. Sometimes we know what is Good by experiencing it, even when we cannot reason there because we operate in imperfect knowledge. 44:37 Very nice bringing this from some type of "universal values" to just saying "this is my value and my neighbor's values", our notion of what is Good. It might be universal, but we are not the universe or God so we cannot make that claim. We have to act within who we are and what we know, and we need to own that. 52:12 Peter, I think the issue, like above, is not Reason, but lack of knowledge. If presented with some type of eye opening knowledge (in this case with a fantastic AI), then reason still rules. I think the fundamental issue is in reality we operate with vastly imperfect knowledge. 59:40 I agree with Carl here that it is through this experience of reality that we know what actually works and what is Good. To tie it in with your AI thought experiment prior, to date AI is trained experience, not logic. The AI that plays Go so well played against itself many many times and modern AI that we can with is trained on a large body of experience of works.
Yep, its funny because flaws and memes within the training set will bias the AI in pretty much the same way carl was arguing rationality smuggles in moral claims. The body of training data is integral to the rational and logic driven ai
@@assortmentofpillsbutneverb3756 Yeah, machine learning is the science of recreating brain function in a computer. We ape the feedback mechanisms, the strengthening and weakening of connections between neurons, and basically create an artificial brain tailored to have a "gut-feeling" or "intuition" about its area of expertise. There will always be bias, and the more we move away from the analysis of large, chaotic systems like weather, power consumption and economics, and towards more small scale and personal things, the more bias is introduced.
I think Carl's points are super interesting. It's impossible for a human to think in a way that a human cannot think. We can *imagine* what it is like to be a dog or a tree or a binary star, but every thought is still the human's perspective on that thing because we aren't that thing. The same is true of one's birthplace. Thus, coming up with a morality that is entirely universal, that would presumably appeal to all humans and cows and AI and space aliens is basically impossible to concoct because we cannot be a thing we aren't.
@@14percentviking - you would think for someone who believes himself to be so rational, he would consider the possibility of a personal bias due to where he grew up in the world. It’s the first thing you learn to note when learning about being objective in science. 🤷♀️
@@dontcallthemliberals3316 yes. A Russian and and American think differently not just because of environment but because the words, and meanings of, are different.
tbh i wouldnt worry about dogs, trees and aliens, when its already impossible to have universal morality for all humans - ofcourse unless everyones cool with getting rid of X amount of cultures and traditions etc that go against the said "universal" morality. I mean sure its "universal" if everyone else is dead i guess, but is that the right way to go about it lol
@@spacejunk2186 all of history supports the claim. And you are right, it's ugly. Philosophy only invents contrived conditions for their claims to be true.
Very glad that you guys discussed sovereignty, as I see this as the most pressing issue for my own country these days. So I'm Norwegian, and trough our history and culture we have been shaped into a country that values sovereignty as a fundemental value. And this philosophy has served us extremely well. It was this thinking that led our state to kick out English landowners/companies that bought up our rivers and watersfalls for hydropower, and nationalized it instead, something that kickstarted the industry and economy of our nation. Half a century later the same thing happened with oil, and that in turn has made us into the powerhouse of an economy(for our size and population atleast) we are today. But these days we are seeing more and more pressure from specifically the US, China and the EU trying to chip away at this at every opportunity they can. This is ofc not helped by our current politicans that seem to rather want to play world politics rather than listen to the citizens. But again, our focus on sovereignty has made us into one of the most successful western nations, with both our happiness index, equality and wealth being much higher than most others. And again, the biggest threat against our way of life, are our supposed "allies" these days. So I am very much invested in seeing this topic becoming more prevelant in general debates, as I honestly think more countries should look seriously at this issue and decide for themselves what they think would serve them best. As for a "universal set of values" there is a very obvious counter argument if one thinks of a species different than ours. A hivemind being the most obvious example. For a member of that kind of species, they would likely not see the suffering of any "individual" member of the hive as something bad, at least looking at the instincts of ants and other species. So yes, all of these "universal" values they talk about here are without a doubt human centric.
Isn't Peter's position that of Bentham and the Utilitarians? Their's was an attempt to produce a calculus of morals, but, it fell apart when it was pointed out that there was an underlying presumption of shared values that would enable such a calculus (Carl's position) i.e. it relied on something external to itself and was thereby incomplete and thus untenable.
Great conversation. I agree with Carl. But I didn't arrive at this point by reading a ton of philosophy. I got on a plane. Travelling extensively to places off the beaten track puts what he is saying right in front of your face. We are a product of the culture we grow up in at the time we are living in. People who deny this are like fish swimming in a tank saying "what water?" There's no getting away from it. We can't remove our moral values away from ourselves, our history, culture and what we experience & feel in our lives. And I agree that not everything can be rationalised. Rationalise love, music, beauty....
There are however universal concepts of good and evil, in every culture. Also pain and pleasure. Those concepts are absolute. Culture is only interposer between individual and archiving good or evil.
@@randalldraco3822 I don't think good & evil and pain & pleasure are universal concepts or absolutes. I can list many examples of things that we think are "good' that ppl in other cultures believe are "evil", and vice versa. Pain and pleasure is kind of murky too. Not in terms of the physical sensation but in terms of our perception of it and whether it is associated with "good or bad" outcomes. Not to mention some people who actually appear to get off on pain. If you can't apply these things across cultures or people, and they vary so much, then they are not "universal concepts/absolutes".
@@GenXWomanthis is a very slight disagreement but I think anything can be rationalized but for something like music for example, rationalism is definitely not the best way to experience it. Love can be rationalized by learning how and why we feel certain emotions on a biological level. Again, this is missing out but definitely possible.
This discussion is beautiful. It's like a reimagining of Plato's dialogue, Parmenides. Carl is taking the role of Parmenides and Peter the place of Socrates, and in true Plato fashion they argue on every point and every possibility, discovering paradoxes and contradictions, and ultimately agreeing to disagree with the utmost respect for each other. This is a model for what real philosophical discussion should look like.
6 mins in and I already see the issues: Peter is discussing materialistically, while the question of ethics is a metaphysical one. And Carl is able to see this problem from afar.
I am very far away politically from Carl, but I am not a moral realist, and ended up agreeing with him for a lot of the debate. The “original position” strips away anything that gives someone identity, and leaves you with a method that presupposes harm-reducing egalitarian liberalism. (which I even agree with) Imagine proposing this to a devout muslim, specifying that you would all have no religion starting out. He would right well say, “what would I be without Allah? This hypothetical is immoral.” Morals are not rationally derivable, and any attempt runs into the same problems as those who have rationally tried to prove God’s existence for thousands of years.
@@HarryBalzak In different disciplines the terms are used in a different way. Carl’s position is less idealistic when applied, but moral realism is the view that moral statements represent objective truths about reality. If you look up “moral realism,” that’s what it will roughly say.
@@beatleswithaz6246 I don't particularly appreciate that words can have completely different meanings based on context and the only way to know is to already know.
@@HarryBalzak Yeah, it’s especially true in the humanities/politics when a word will have a completely different political, economic, and philosophical definition. Terms like realism, liberalism, and objectivism have been butchered. I definitely agree.
Two people having a deep and probing discussion on their disagreement in moral philosophy and they open-mindedly explore serious questions and part as friends... This is how dialectic is supposed to be done. Bravo Carl and Peter! More if you pleaee ..
I had to pause to write this while it was fresh, but when Carl reasserted his use of the term saintly a model of the lines instantly popped in to my mind along with where I imagined you both to be standing and all the usual questions that you pose in such a scenario. I've noticed this happening more often when I listen to people discussing ideas and it's obviously due to watching your other videos. It feels like a helpful way to approach the world.
Much respect Peter, but this is the mindset of Liberal Hegemony. It's that idea that would only make sense if we went from a pseudo-empire (where we break a country then shrug our shoulders) to a real empire (where we take full responsibility). I prefer the example model that Ron Paul laid out.
Carl has been there for quite some time. He has quite a few articles critiquing the Enlightenment and liberalism which came from the Enlightenment on his Lotus Eaters website.
@@umiluv he has done to an extent, yes. But he still has certain views that are grounded in Enlightenment thinking. Whether he realises that I'm not sure. For starters, he's an atheist. Which means he can't believe in the divine right of kings, as he doesn't believe in the divine. He still has some way to go before returning to a medieval mindset, which is what we must do.
@@joer9156 he does seem to hold some as we all do because its what we were born in and live in, also you will never return to a medieval mindset recreating an era simply is not possible
@@tikiwiki7428 we will never return to that culture, no, but I think there is a way of thinking that can be tapped into regardless. Jonathan Pageau talks about how the world is becoming "reenchanted" whether we want it or not, and if we don't learn how to approach that in the correct way, we'll end up with more craziness like the George Floyd worship, withh the crazy icons of him like Christ, people "taking a knee" etc. That will just get more extreme. We need to learn how to surf that wave and make it work, and I think we can learn a lot from the medieval mindset in regards to achieving that.
Carl is no slouch, considering he is an autodidact oik. As a representative/example of a thinking common man, very few Joe's down the pub could have lasted 5 minutes in that discussion.
@@agenticmark I don't think Peter can help himself, he Is a Professor. Carl can take it, and has humility. But you can see Peter Was pushed to reconsider, and was (i think pleasantly) surprised to hear some of Carl's positive assertions and pronouncements, but even more pleased and surprised that Carl had fully reasoned, and sourced, answers that didn't just fall down . Carl held his own and earned some cred. Carl knows he is an Oik, and has the humility to do the work, and bide his time, and Earn the respect. And frankly, does Sargon or any of Us really care about approval of the Academy? Part of the problem is people giving undue respect to 'experts'. Carl did not defer to expertise, as far as i could see. Remember this is a long game
i cut off the video after 5 minutes because of the constant interjection and not letting carl finish a single goddamn thought, it drove me fucking crazy, it's way too distracting and derailing for me
@@dutchdykefinger stick with it. Carl drives Peter back on his heels many times, and in the end Carl forces Peter to posit some hypothetical perfect argument as his ace card, in lieu of the argument he couldn't actually articulate. Carl had him beat
I followed Carl back when he still thought of himself as a liberal and were friends with Amazing Atheist and Thunderfoot. Times sure have changed, probably not for the better.
The whole atheism movement was kind of where the postmodern social justice thing broke out. That movement was so popular and we watched it degenerate and fizzle as soon as that virus spread.
A question for Peter: How do you tell the difference between good and bad, without being arbitrary (in the sense of philosophical justified, true belief)?
On the last point of the conversation, Peter has incorrectly presumed that just because you can change someone's mind you are revealing that a universal truth exists just because you're not appealing to culture.
As is the notion that Western aid come only with the most noble of strings. Western governments use aid as a tool to get other countries to do what they want and many times as a weapon to saddle a country in unpayable debt to effectively own that country's political system and strip out their assets. The West will support the worst of dictators as long as they do what the deep state/ corporate "leaders" want. If they don't tow the line, they get removed, see: Gaddafi, Hussain, etc.
Sargon. Been with you since Gamergate. I'm a lot older than you and I'm so fuckin' impressed by how you've grown into one of the cleverest thinkers on the internet. You done good, gamer.
Our moral values and intuitions evolved to facilite relatively small scale tribal groups and lineage selection. They are necessarily locally biased as their purpose is survival of ourselves and our tribe, not everyone else or Truth. Reason could hypothetically lead us to an empirical verified set of universally most optimized moral values, but our knowledge is too imperfect to believe we can get there.
Pretty much agree, rationality can help min/max but most people with wisdom realize there is more games and life than min/max especially when you ask the question of min/max what
This is a fascinating conversation about morality and values and how they apply. How moralities and values are derived, rationalized, or even just imposed because it just worked in a certain time and place is food for though. It is apparent that different people and cultures value different things and finding a universal value can be hard. Need a Round 2 of this when possible. On anther note, regarding rationality there are situation where stupid decisions can be rationalized but are not prudent and have caused many problems.
REASON IS A VALUE SYSTEM. "To hierarchically prioritize values" is a tautology. A value IS a hierarchy of priorities by definition -one thing valued over another and therefore given priority. This is the blindspot of most self proclaimed "Rationalists." Reason is a heuristic we practice to recognize true things. It can also be flawed. But there is no reasoning without a value-based framework - which is why critical thinking is a skill. It is a discipline composed of rigorous values with its own biases. What also needs to be acknowledged is biases are not necessarily bad (despite what unconscious bias training is claiming). We all have gravitational bias - we all prefer our heads be above our feet (most of the time). The real work of critical reasoning is not to strip us of biases, but to challenge them, and discriminate toxic from healthy biases. I really respect that Carl is pushing to recognize this and that Peter is putting in real effort to challenge his on blindspot.
The idea of "Universal moral principles" fails for the same reason as "The self-evident existence of god". If they were indeed universal or self-evident, there would be neither dissent, nor debate.
It's telling and more than a little worrisome that a former university professor of philosophy is so blinkered by modernism that he feels confident arguing for a universal morality based in reason, yet is wholly opposed to moral systems that oppose homosexuality. I believe there is a rational moral system that addresses homosexuality, but that system- natural law- proscribes it. I don't know of an "evidence based" or rational moral framework that approves of it without "smuggling in" other values ahead of time.
I've heard greay things of Peter but this was definitely not a good first impression of his work. Carl made his point in the opening. Different cultures value different things and forcing our beliefs on others is an excercise in futility.
As per John Rawls' Veil of Ignorance, I propose a slight tweak to the thought experiment in order to get around the probability/chance-taking response: Instead of not knowing who you will end up being in the system you build, give it an Andy Weir "The Egg" (short story, look it up if you are not familiar) twist where you have to live the life of **every** person in the society you construct, exactly once and back-to-back. So you will be every commoner, every peasant, even royalty a couple of times, but you also have to live the life of every slave as well.
Step one of answering this question. What is it like to die? The problem with your question isn't that it wouldn't be a good barometer. The problem is anyone that thinks they have an answer to it should be completely ignored. It's possible that the pain one experiences the first time they are crushed under the wheels of a car would lead the person given this choice to select oblivion. Would you even want relief from the suffering? Imagine for one hour, by some miracle, nobody died painfully in the society. Would that brief relief be the cruelest thing of all to a single entity experiencing all things? The thing that could answer this question could never be a human.
So sad that I can't give this more than 1 thumb up. Carl is so close to seeing the need for God. I really look forward to further thoughts on this. I'd also love to see Carl talk to David Wood. That should be a fascinating conversation.
Amazing conversation! I'm not expert in philosophy, but this conversation made me think. What "Rational derivable" means in this context? Induction and deduction? Both maths and religion need a predefined set of facts to start reasoning and deriving from: Axioms and Dogma. There is no way to know if those are universal or not, but they do resemble to convention to me, more than absolutes. Conventions are not bad: they make our society possible. I think there is a grayscale between universal morality (either religious or secular) and total moral relativism.
it means that you do not need any assistance to come to a conclusion.... anyone can look at it, and through their own use of logic and rational deduction derive the observation.
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem kinda proofs that Mathematics isn't infallible, like you said. Maybe this conversation attempts to show the same thing but than for moral values? I like falling back on Pragmatism which would probably deem this debate as technical nonsense. Because, does the outcome of some value structure change whether or not it is rational?
Aren't morals woven into the fabric of the universe because men are part of the universe and have the concept of morals? Putting man outside of the universe seems wrongheaded. Anyway, thanks for the great discussion!
John Rawls was wrong. All rational people will NOT come to the same conclusions on ethics and morals. A priori, we start with different values. So we begin from different locations and we end up at different places. This does not mean we should NOT apply rationality in preference to irrationality or instinct. It means we must defend our values in debate, and experiment, and may even have to change or accommodate them to others. I'm not making a Big Tent argument. I'm making a "let's evolve rationally argument". Sargon scares me sometimes because it's never clear what he's replacing rationality with - as a basis for judgement. Rationality is not my highest value; empiricism is.
I couldn't agree more. My _subjective_ values are actually pretty close to "Enlightenment values" that Peter supports, but all the arguments for "objective", "a priori", "rationally derivable" etc. seem fallacious to me. That includes John Rawls's, John Stuart Mill's, Ayn Rand's, Murray Rothbard's and all the rest of them. I am also opposed to Sargon's anti-rationality, because not applying rationality to one's values makes one more likely to get into conflicts which could have been avoided. Even though I disagree with Sargon's values, I still want him to be rational, so that he at least doesn't do things that hurt himself _and_ others. And I wouldn't say that I "value" empiricism more than rationality, but the thing that I call "rationality" is always _downstream from_ empiricism. Any rationality that empirically doesn't work, isn't rationality at all.
I'm delighted to see the overwhelmingly positive response to this conversation. I enjoyed this conversation with Carl and I'm glad you did too!
Here is one negative of Rationality '' Errors Believed as Truth'' You know from experience that clever wordplay can disguise falsity and error, particularly when motivated by less than honest motives.
Sure, 'Rationally Derived'' and agreed to by the Honest. And I think you seriously Overestimate the average persons ability to a) understand an argument and b) accept such an argument when their emotional state overrides them.
Here's a fact about Humans '' They will never all agree on any argument.'' If you agree with me, you know I am right, If you disagree you prove my point.
How does you position deal with those who are idiots or malicious?
Peter, have you come across this work? I think that's very much needed in this conversation to come to a robust conclusion: cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/books/UPB/Universally_Preferable_Behaviour_UPB_by_Stefan_Molyneux_PDF.pdf
Great discussion! Really enjoyed it.
Can you release the full 2 hour conversation?
Hey Peter, I was struck by the end of your conv. I don’t understand how this hypothetical super computer is different in any appreciable way from the omniscient aspect of god. If I reformulate the question to: if god convinced you that rationality was supreme would you believe it? It sounds poor but how is it different? If it’s a hypothetical computer how can we know it’s workings (especially once we move into the quantum realm) isn’t that moving us into a world of trying to understand the ineffable mind of god?
Sargon is THE reason I started paying attention to political issues. I'm not sure if I'm happy about it or not lol
Ignorance truly is bliss.
He was also the person that first introduced me to the culture war, and all the intersectionality nonsense, 5 or 6 years ago. I branched out from there exploring left and right speakers, and a variance of SO many other subjects. I thought, at the time, that things were heading down a very troubling road, and things have only gone further and gained speed on that route.
Carl is great, and remember he is an English traditionalist, he was simply challenging Peter. They were exchanging ideas mostly about the enlightenment and postmodern worldviews.
“It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain an idea without completely accepting it.”
GamerGate and Sargon played a big part in my political awakening.
Carl in not Sargon though. Carl has become a big disappointment.
He should change his name to Sargon. He looks more like a Sargon than a Carl.
He was one of the first people I followed as well. Cult hero.
This interview really illustrates why Carl has become so prominent. He really gets it
Only on YT can you enjoy a long form conversation between an assistant Professor from Portland USA and an autodidactic working class man from Swindon UK.
He teaches ASSISTANCE? 🤔
@@ReverendDr.Thomas why the pedantry?
@@seandrew7837 Good Girl! 👌
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
@@ReverendDr.Thomas no. What you on about, sweetheart?
@@seandrew7837 Did you know that in ancient Bhārata (India), a person who consumed ANY type of animal was known as a “Chandāla” (dog-eater) and was not even included in mainstream society, but was an outcast?🥩
So, do you ADMIT that you are an animal-abusing criminal, Mr. Dog-eater? 😬🙄😬
Carl was right, the flaw in this conservation appears to be an unwillingness to adhere to anything non-materialistic, namely Aristotle's primum mobile, as there is no reason that what is beyond rational is irrational
Another problem is that he is taking his contemporary views regarding rationality and assuming its the right view, the view capable of perceiving moral truth. He hand waves post modernism despite it probably being useful here.
Forgive me if this thought is too amateur on the subject, but it occurred to me that perhaps the idea of an absolute moral truth is actually only an idea we developed because of theology, and despite being an Atheist, Peter only has it because of being embedded in a Judeo-Christian society, not because it is itself a rational conclusion.
Atheists like Sam Harris have tried to keep the idea of moral absolutes via his thought experiment of the Moral Landscape, but that itself might be an example of an irrationally originated belief that folks like Harris are merely trying to rationalize after the fact, having lost the original reason for it but not wanting to give it up. Indeed the Moral Landscape seems to make some hand wavey assumptions about suffering being bad that Carl was rejecting here, although perhaps that isn't a fair assessment as obviously heroin addiction vs sports training are examples given that are exceptions to the shortcut heuristic of suffering.
But I think the point remains, it seems that rationality is often more likely to be used to justify preexisting assumptions and values than to derive new ones, and likely it cannot be used to determine values at all.
Rationality seems to me to be in common with the conclusion I reached over the question: is math discovered or invented.
As far as I am aware, all mathematical systems start with some assumptions and/or definitions, and then explore within those systems of rules. Thus the definitions and assumptions are invented, but everything that flows from them is discovered in the space defined by them.
Sufficiently accurate starting assumptions can get you Newtonian Physics, but that runs out of usefulness when you need relativity or quantum mechanics.
In real life, many mathematical concepts are likely absurd thought experiments. For example the idea of infinity. It's probably impossible to have an infinitely thin line that goes infinitely in both directions forever, outside of the thought experiment. This has implications in the real world, within an "is math real" kind of question when the rubber meets the road.
For example: If infinity only exists in mathematical model thought experiments, then it's obvious why our systems break down in black holes or at the big bang. The starting assumptions and definitions are insufficient to accurately predict things where they break down and differ from actual reality.
Rationality seems like the mathematical process of following whatever rules we have built up to start with. Like Math, it can do an incredible amount of work for us in finding truth things, but unlike math, the assumptions and definitions you start with are not explicit. If you had different starting values, your rationality would bring you to radically different conclusions in the same way as how the facts derived from geometry are significantly different if you are working on a Cartesian Plane instead of the surface of a sphere or torus, or some higher dimensional hyperbolic shape.
If this analogy holds, then rationality IS over privileged, not because it ceases to be the most important tool in our toolkit, but because it's a tool in service to something else, AND limited by your starting preconceptions.
One starting preconception Peter seems to be holding onto is the idea of an absolute moral truth that is good everywhere. In reality something may only be true only in flatland, and NOT on a 7 dimensional parabolic curve, or even a plain old 3D sphere. Morality could be entirely particular and not universal at all whatsoever.
Note that that does not mean that immoral things become moral or vice versa in a particular frame of reference, nor does it mean that all frames of reference are equally useful and valid for the kind of creatures we are and societies that we have. I am not making a social constructionist argument, because the best starting assumptions will produce better (more functionally useful) models of truth/reality for the kind of creatures that felt irrationally compelled to subconsciously or otherwise define them. On a Cartesian Plane a triangle has 180 degrees, and the existence of a different value on some other geometry isn't relevant to us if that's not the situation we find ourselves in.
We need more ongoing public first principles discussions of received orthodoxies. This was really great, Peter and Carl. Thank you.
Wow I have never heard Benjamin but he killed it in this conversation. Thanks to you both!
Oh yeah, great moral relativist position he's upholding. Sorry, but that's the woke position. Seems to have smoked too much chronic if his eyes are anything to go by.
@@zootsoot2006 He's just being realistic. If you appeal to the rationality of your argument to someone with completely different priors, they'll be able to reject it because they arrived at their own set of values based on those priors. Beating an innocent man to death with a rock is a moral wrong in my eyes, and that of all sane human beings. The rock doesn't care, and neither does the psychopath holding it. There is no objective, universal morality, but I still think that we must sometimes, with force if necessary, apply our own moral judgement to those who do not share our values. Do you disagree?
@@MrVeps1 Yes I disagree. There is an objective, universal morality. And everyone thinks so, whether they consciously acknowledge it or not. Without such a belief, we'd all just shrug ourselves off the planet.
@@zootsoot2006 That position seems a bit too universal. For your position to make sense, the people who do not believe in objective morality must be prevented from “giving up” due to a subconscious belief in objective morality. It seems more likely they just haven’t yet reached the conclusion that everything is pointless, possibly by purposefully ignoring the issue, never reaching it, or bypassing it through their subjective morality.
Check on the conversation they had together mentioned at the beginning of this talk… you can find it as “kindly inquisitors”
You have to hand it to Sargon, for an autodidact political philosopher he gave a professional philosopher close to a lesson in critical thinking there. For all his critics, Carl has done both the reading and the thought, and his thoughts and opinions are far from the cookie cutter vomit of mere punditry.
Yes, he's smart and hard working. I think he's only in his early 40's too, so I imagine he'll say many interesting things to say over the coming decades.
@@jon8864 Another decade of reading, thought, and media presence, and he will rival the vast majority of present day public intellectuals
@@LordEriolTolkien can't wait.
@@jon8864 he's a father, husband and business man too. An intelligent everyman.
He's certainly done his homework and put the work in too, he's always been intelliegent but he's come very long way since he's Sargon days.
You’re one hell of a conversationalist, Peter. I loved this, and I’d like to request a “Peter Boghossian Podcast” where you have regular, interesting, conversations like this.
You
I second that!
I agree, I actually looked for this convo on my podcast app because I remembered seeing it here. I prefer to avoid RUclips for stuff like this so I don't get distracted and watch 100 build videos and then forget why I opened it in the first place.
I would listen. Hell I would pay $5 a month for it. And currently I only pay for audible.
I could write a novel on my thoughts on this conversation, but I'll just keep it simple by saying this conversation needs a part 2. You guys were just getting to the heart of it and it would be a travesty if you didn't do this again and pick up where you left off. Keep up the great conversations
I love how much Carl's views have evolved. Been a fan since gamer gate.👍🏻
Moral particularism vs moral absolutism. This was delightful to listen to!
I think the reason people hate RINOS so much is because they are moral relativists. they rationalize things like globalism even when betraying their own principles because they rationalize it as bi-partisan agreement that separates themselves from zealots... as if projecting themselves as being cool headed and rational for self preservation IS actually more rational than standing behind their own stated beliefs with conviction. These people wan't to be martyrs but they are too scared to die, or even sacrifice their career... so instead they do nothing but gaslight and manipulate to make the actual martyrs look like tin foil hat wearing neer-do-wells.
I liked your comment as it is both correct and incorrect at the same time. Correct because Carl was using moral particularism to explain why people believe that their particular belief system is 'correct/true/valid'. Incorrect because Carl clearly stated that if 'universal values' do not exist (or we cannot determine them) then metaphysical truths i.e. theological/religious principles can be valid in addition to moral particularity. That being said, my thoughts are that religions are codified forms of moral particularity i.e. the moral rules applicable to certain geographical locations at least, but could also include and may be better explained by other things such as family structure and time.
You cannot base an entire society on a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT that starts with people that have never and will never exist.
Exactly the problem with Mssrs Marx and Engels.
We kinda did though.
The thought experiment offers ideals and principles to construct a society. When the agents know their place, they can construct systems to their advantage. But if they do not know their place, the systems and structures they create are *fair*
@@drpeterboghossian The problem with your thought experiment is that we do not know if there Is such an argument, even hypothetically. If you base a chain of reasoning on a false premise, sure you can reason to a conclusion, but that conclusion may well not have any basis in reality beyond your imagination. So it's all well and good proposing some hypothetical rational argument that convinces one of the existence of Moral Truths, but what if there is no such argument, and Carl is correct in his assessment that, at root, our perception of reality is itself in some way fundamentally Irrational
And given that I would classify 'Morality' as 'Codified Value Judgements', I do not see how they can be 'objective' [part of the structure of reality] and not simply 'conceptual'; and thus amount to subjective judgements of an external objective state. Which is to say that Reality is Objective, but our valuation and judgement of reality is subjective.
America.
Gamergate has had more lasting impact than its most fervent supporters could have ever dreamed. Hold the line, boys. We are winning.
We are losing and have been for a long time. But God wins in the end.
Convert to Islam or suffer.
@@williammarshal2190 No we are winning. Zoomers laugh at critical social justice. The boycott against the new Harry Potter games is a laughable failure. No one wants the products any of products these losers are demanding we buy, and we’ve made a parallel media that circumvents the traditional structure. It feels great! Oh, and your God doesn’t exist, too!
@@spacejunk2186LOL, good one!
@@haircutdeluxe Gamer Gate! ROFL!! Video games are full of LGBTQWHATEVER now. Great work, dude.
Rorty: ”Rationality is often considered to be the endeavour to exhibit the universal validity of one’s position ”
Nietzsche: ”What has universal validity to do with me? ”
Nietzche did care about universality. His bit on the eternal return was a way to ground it.
This is just playing out the old philosophical problem of how rational justification is impossible, because once you reach the bottom it becomes circular, and circular arguments are rationally inadmissible. Therefore, rationality is irrational by its own lights, and rationalists have no grounds to object to people who recognize different sources of authority and justification.
This is the problem at the root of 90% of philosophy.
It was an hour of talking with some interesting ideas but nothing really emerged
Carl you just have to imagine you're a formless consciousness suspended in a black void running computations through an algorithm to build a stainless steel technocracy. It's not complicated Carl.
Great comment lol...
They won't take pomo critique seriously...woke fd their brains up..I get it kindve lol
If you have an anxiety disorder or paranoia you know first hand how rationally can quickly become a sort of tyrant. Watch as your mind comes up with rational reasons for why you feel that way. This is why it's so hard to think your way out of those feelings because it's based on emotion first and then rational justification.
Bingo
Very well said. That is why I think of logic and rationality as a tool. It can help you get what you want but it can’t tell you what you strive for.
@@soulfuzz368 you are trapped in a well of sand logic says your stuck nonlogic says you can climb up but how do you climb? so um logic won't help you in real life when s hits the fan.
@@soulfuzz368 logic says you talk your way out of a situation but in reality you need to react to the danger infront of you not talk react logic will get you hurt or dead in reality.
@@antlerr yeah it isn’t always the best tool for the job, that is where intelligence comes in. A smart person knows when logic is the best tool and when it is dangerous.
33:25 "Empirically, no one wants to be a slave"
IDK, I still see people wearing masks when I go out. The past two years have pretty thoroughly proven to me the willingness of some to happily have their lives dictated to them. I will concede though, this is a case where your immediate preconceptions of the word "slave" are very important.
FACTS. The lockdowns proved very clearly that there is subset of ppl who much prefer being told how to think, how to act, and what to do. They absolutely love not having the responsibility to make decisions for themselves.
@@umiluv They don't want to be slaves. They want to be children. A slave is created. A child is the thing that is cared for, told what to do, has all decisions made for it, and is shielded from consequence.
I would think more highly of a person who desired slavery. It is an achievable goal even if absurd, and not without consequence.
Better to be the thing you set out to be, than be it because you were too weak to be anything else.
Empirically, some people want to be in prison, so it's not a stretch to believe that some people want to be slaves.
@@aranisles8292 yes, but the branch covidians clapped like seals for releasing criminals. There were plenty of beds left open in the wake.
What they wanted was rent moritorium and bail bonds for when they smash things up in a tantrum.
I was not saying no-one desires slavery. Just that the specific group mentioned is infantilized, and wishes to be children. Which is a far less reasonable ask than slavery.
I mean you just have to look at some of the reasons for slavery. One was being conquered and another was debt. Loads of people would chose slavery over being killed in a genocide in the case of being conquered and many would choose stable slavery over being destitute on the streets. It wrung of slavery is bad so I wont thought expirement on cases where it would be chosen
Brilliant - Sargon is exactly right - Pain and suffering cannot be classed as 'wrong' . . . if there are circumstances in which they are necessary.
Contractions are agony - but its an absolutely necessary pain to bring your child safely into the world. It's a good, positive pain, even if you want to punch your husband at the time.
@@hmsealey3243 Great point.
I was also thinking about pain if we have stood (or sat on something) nasty. It is a positive warning for us to remove ourselves from what is causing our body harm.
@@buddhistsympathizer1136 Yes, people born without pain receptors are in constant danger. Pain has its place.
Yeah, this is basically the point of the naturalistic fallacy. You can't conflate "good" with "pleasure", so neither should you conflate "suffering" with "wrong". Pleasure can be good, suffering can be wrong, but a critique of pure utilitarianism based on maximizing pleasure and minimizing suffering is that you could justify euthanizing sad people and keeping those not predisposed to feeling constant pleasure drugged out of their minds in eternal bliss and ecstacy.
Necessary according to what and whom?
One of the best conversations I’be heard in a while and I listen to a lot. Thanks to bot of you!
I agree 100% with this statement.
That was a fascinating discussion, I held Carl in high esteem and even more so now
Props to Carl, and his impressive ability to translate, follow, and tolerate Peter's wood-chipper like way of communication
This was hard to watch, the closest way for me to describe it is that Peter is so deep in materialism he is basically religious. It's like trying to teach a color blind person what color is.
this
i had to turn it off, the constant interjection and not letting carl finish was drinving me fucking nuts, let the guy finish a sentence already.
@@xjmg007 It is definitely a difficult thing to deal with. While I would still consider myself pretty deep into materialism I've just decided that there are some things that I'm willing to not worry about rationally deriving.
If I had been interrupted that many times I would have gotten angry. Peter’s communication style is insufferable.
@@xjmg007 I had to stop watching it about 15 minutes in because I just couldn't stand the guy.
Peter seems to under estimate the power of natural instinct, survival, greed, desperation. The list goes on. These things can never be beaten by a simple thing such as rationality.
if more people could experience and take note of how skilled trades are taught for example you'd see how so much human capital is locked into intuition alone. My experience is that the majority of artisans can't explain much of what they do, why and how they do it, but they still have the knowledge somewhere.
This is part of why I can't stand the people who insist on language and text as a primary mode of communication or theorizing. I'm fairly certain visual communication and demonstration is far more primal. This is why I think Foucault and Habermas doesn't belong in Art History for example, which is the study of a far more basic form of human communication and ingenuity.
But what society has been the most successful about lifting the most people up in regards to their standard of living? I mean food, housing, opportunity, life expectancy. But that's using rationality so I guess it's already flawed. 😊
The smuggling of values into the 'original position' occurs the moment you introduce a metric by which you judge. That metric is your values. However meta you go, this remains true.
One of my favourite quotes from an actual philosophy book is "It was revealed to me in a dream".
Dang, this one and Michael malice interviewing Carl dropping at the same time.
Thanks for that!
I listen to the Malice first via podcast app and then afterwards opened up RUclips and voilà! Carl again, thanks. 😊
Cheers for the heads up
wow sargon gotten alot sharper over the years
Wow yeah you guys got to do a part 2 that was good a conversation, It was interesting to see Carl come to the realisations that he did as he was going through the motions with you. Great job just exploring the ideas and seeing where they lead, Thankfully the pursuit of real intellectual enquiry is not dead yet in this post fact age that we now live in. There is hope yet it would seem.
One thing I really appreciate about Carl Benjamin these days, is that he is such an *honest* thinker. He simply doesn't want to take the shortcuts, and it's a rare trait. I have to admit to very pleasant surprise of his evolution as quite the deep thinker, it's inspiring!
Good work as usual, Peter. You're asking great questions & I have faith that you'll get there. 🙏
Good and bad are RELATIVE. 😉
Great and lowly are RELATIVE. 😉
Faith?? Don’t you mean rationality.
Many thanks!
@@drpeterboghossian
MORALITY IS ABSOLUTELY OBJECTIVE:
To put it even more tersely, whenever any individual person performs any action whatsoever, it is OBJECTIVELY either beneficial (that is, moral), neutral (amoral), or harmful (immoral). Thus, every single volitional act performed by humans above the age of reason, belongs to one of the three aforementioned categories without ambiguity, from a purely objective “God’s-eye-view” perspective. However, as explained, the adjudication to which of the three categories any particular deed belongs, is entirely predicated on the system of justice extant in one’s nation, community, or country. Hopefully, now that this Holiest of Holy Scriptures has been published, the world will come to understand morality in a far more scientific manner than it has in past millennia, in order to avoid the trajectory of moral decadence plainly visible in the present age.
Analogically, on the macro level, there is a definite, objective separation between a person’s bodily form and the surrounding environment. However, in order to view the precise borderline between that person and his or her surroundings, one needs to zoom-in to the microscopic level (or even the sub-atomic level) and even so, the borderline is rather hazy and indistinct, especially when viewing bodily cavities and hairs.
Likewise, an immoral action is OBJECTIVELY immoral, even though it may require the keen eyesight of a highly-trained observer to judge it so. Simply because there may be a great deal of disagreement regarding the morality of an action, does not entail that morality is subjective.
@@rafal5863 no. I mean faith. Faith in things that have evidence.
Excellent conversation.. I think Boghossian's problem is that the notion that you can make claims of universal morality on atheist, materialist and rationalist grounds is absurd.. Without God(or any other conception of The Divine), you can not philosophically justify universal morality, like so many other transcendental categories..
29:24 I don't think the critique should be of Reason, but of knowledge. Because no person has perfect knowledge, Reason must be treated carefully. Sometimes we know what is Good by experiencing it, even when we cannot reason there because we operate in imperfect knowledge.
44:37 Very nice bringing this from some type of "universal values" to just saying "this is my value and my neighbor's values", our notion of what is Good. It might be universal, but we are not the universe or God so we cannot make that claim. We have to act within who we are and what we know, and we need to own that.
52:12 Peter, I think the issue, like above, is not Reason, but lack of knowledge. If presented with some type of eye opening knowledge (in this case with a fantastic AI), then reason still rules. I think the fundamental issue is in reality we operate with vastly imperfect knowledge.
59:40 I agree with Carl here that it is through this experience of reality that we know what actually works and what is Good. To tie it in with your AI thought experiment prior, to date AI is trained experience, not logic. The AI that plays Go so well played against itself many many times and modern AI that we can with is trained on a large body of experience of works.
That's cuz the law of God is written on every human heart. She me times we feel it & sometimes we don't. Absolute Morality is fact & always true.
Yep, its funny because flaws and memes within the training set will bias the AI in pretty much the same way carl was arguing rationality smuggles in moral claims. The body of training data is integral to the rational and logic driven ai
@@assortmentofpillsbutneverb3756 Yeah, machine learning is the science of recreating brain function in a computer. We ape the feedback mechanisms, the strengthening and weakening of connections between neurons, and basically create an artificial brain tailored to have a "gut-feeling" or "intuition" about its area of expertise. There will always be bias, and the more we move away from the analysis of large, chaotic systems like weather, power consumption and economics, and towards more small scale and personal things, the more bias is introduced.
I think Carl's points are super interesting. It's impossible for a human to think in a way that a human cannot think. We can *imagine* what it is like to be a dog or a tree or a binary star, but every thought is still the human's perspective on that thing because we aren't that thing. The same is true of one's birthplace. Thus, coming up with a morality that is entirely universal, that would presumably appeal to all humans and cows and AI and space aliens is basically impossible to concoct because we cannot be a thing we aren't.
It's a massive shame that Peter couldn't understand Carls points about this
@@14percentviking - you would think for someone who believes himself to be so rational, he would consider the possibility of a personal bias due to where he grew up in the world. It’s the first thing you learn to note when learning about being objective in science. 🤷♀️
It gets way deeper when you hit languages and how much your first language impacts your conceptualization and bias.
@@dontcallthemliberals3316 yes. A Russian and and American think differently not just because of environment but because the words, and meanings of, are different.
tbh i wouldnt worry about dogs, trees and aliens, when its already impossible to have universal morality for all humans - ofcourse unless everyones cool with getting rid of X amount of cultures and traditions etc that go against the said "universal" morality. I mean sure its "universal" if everyone else is dead i guess, but is that the right way to go about it lol
Fantastic conversation, gentlemen. It’s great to see two competing ideas discussed openly. Please have more, our civilization needs more of this.
@25:00 i love Carl's take. The rationalists want to say that anything that is arrived at outside of rationality is bad. That is *wrong*. Applause.
Wouldn't it be a real kick in the philosopher's pants if morality itself was, at base, irrational. Careers would end in a heartbeat
@@LordEriolTolkien I don't know who this is by : "morality is what is good for the group".
There's the discipline killer you were looking for.
This can turn around to bite you very quick. When you cannot ask "why", ugly things will happen.
@@spacejunk2186 all of history supports the claim. And you are right, it's ugly.
Philosophy only invents contrived conditions for their claims to be true.
I'm so glad you're on our team Carl Benjamin.
An excellent conversation between two of my favorite peeps!
Very glad that you guys discussed sovereignty, as I see this as the most pressing issue for my own country these days. So I'm Norwegian, and trough our history and culture we have been shaped into a country that values sovereignty as a fundemental value. And this philosophy has served us extremely well.
It was this thinking that led our state to kick out English landowners/companies that bought up our rivers and watersfalls for hydropower, and nationalized it instead, something that kickstarted the industry and economy of our nation. Half a century later the same thing happened with oil, and that in turn has made us into the powerhouse of an economy(for our size and population atleast) we are today.
But these days we are seeing more and more pressure from specifically the US, China and the EU trying to chip away at this at every opportunity they can. This is ofc not helped by our current politicans that seem to rather want to play world politics rather than listen to the citizens.
But again, our focus on sovereignty has made us into one of the most successful western nations, with both our happiness index, equality and wealth being much higher than most others. And again, the biggest threat against our way of life, are our supposed "allies" these days.
So I am very much invested in seeing this topic becoming more prevelant in general debates, as I honestly think more countries should look seriously at this issue and decide for themselves what they think would serve them best.
As for a "universal set of values" there is a very obvious counter argument if one thinks of a species different than ours. A hivemind being the most obvious example. For a member of that kind of species, they would likely not see the suffering of any "individual" member of the hive as something bad, at least looking at the instincts of ants and other species. So yes, all of these "universal" values they talk about here are without a doubt human centric.
@@ForbiddenFollyFollower Lol😅
Isn't Peter's position that of Bentham and the Utilitarians? Their's was an attempt to produce a calculus of morals, but, it fell apart when it was pointed out that there was an underlying presumption of shared values that would enable such a calculus (Carl's position) i.e. it relied on something external to itself and was thereby incomplete and thus untenable.
Great conversation.
I agree with Carl. But I didn't arrive at this point by reading a ton of philosophy.
I got on a plane.
Travelling extensively to places off the beaten track puts what he is saying right in front of your face.
We are a product of the culture we grow up in at the time we are living in. People who deny this are like fish swimming in a tank saying "what water?"
There's no getting away from it. We can't remove our moral values away from ourselves, our history, culture and what we experience & feel in our lives.
And I agree that not everything can be rationalised.
Rationalise love, music, beauty....
There are however universal concepts of good and evil, in every culture. Also pain and pleasure. Those concepts are absolute.
Culture is only interposer between individual and archiving good or evil.
@@randalldraco3822 idk man. Some cultures don't believe rape or pedophilia is a bad thing
@@randalldraco3822 I don't think good & evil and pain & pleasure are universal concepts or absolutes.
I can list many examples of things that we think are "good' that ppl in other cultures believe are "evil", and vice versa.
Pain and pleasure is kind of murky too. Not in terms of the physical sensation but in terms of our perception of it and whether it is associated with "good or bad" outcomes. Not to mention some people who actually appear to get off on pain.
If you can't apply these things across cultures or people, and they vary so much, then they are not "universal concepts/absolutes".
Yes! Beauty isn’t rational but longed for by many.
@@GenXWomanthis is a very slight disagreement but I think anything can be rationalized but for something like music for example, rationalism is definitely not the best way to experience it. Love can be rationalized by learning how and why we feel certain emotions on a biological level. Again, this is missing out but definitely possible.
This discussion is beautiful. It's like a reimagining of Plato's dialogue, Parmenides. Carl is taking the role of Parmenides and Peter the place of Socrates, and in true Plato fashion they argue on every point and every possibility, discovering paradoxes and contradictions, and ultimately agreeing to disagree with the utmost respect for each other. This is a model for what real philosophical discussion should look like.
Pete would do well to remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
6 mins in and I already see the issues:
Peter is discussing materialistically, while the question of ethics is a metaphysical one.
And Carl is able to see this problem from afar.
lol
Always good to hear you talk, Peter. Looking forward to hearing this one!
It was a fun conversation. Carl is a great guy and I always enjoy speaking with him.
Finally.
Carl, I followed you from the very start, what are the most important insights you gained from that rollercoaster ride?
I am very far away politically from Carl, but I am not a moral realist, and ended up agreeing with him for a lot of the debate. The “original position” strips away anything that gives someone identity, and leaves you with a method that presupposes harm-reducing egalitarian liberalism. (which I even agree with) Imagine proposing this to a devout muslim, specifying that you would all have no religion starting out. He would right well say, “what would I be without Allah? This hypothetical is immoral.” Morals are not rationally derivable, and any attempt runs into the same problems as those who have rationally tried to prove God’s existence for thousands of years.
I think you meant, "I am a moral realist[not a moral idealist]".
Carl is being a realist here.
@@HarryBalzak In different disciplines the terms are used in a different way. Carl’s position is less idealistic when applied, but moral realism is the view that moral statements represent objective truths about reality. If you look up “moral realism,” that’s what it will roughly say.
@@beatleswithaz6246 I don't particularly appreciate that words can have completely different meanings based on context and the only way to know is to already know.
@@HarryBalzak Yeah, it’s especially true in the humanities/politics when a word will have a completely different political, economic, and philosophical definition. Terms like realism, liberalism, and objectivism have been butchered. I definitely agree.
@@beatleswithaz6246 Ah. So it is just another part of the socialist/communist agenda being forced upon society.
Got it.
Thanks.
i love how the shitposter is giving the professor of philosophy a good run for his money.
"We can never adopt a god's-eye view." I think is one of the wisest things ever said.
Temporary suffering is healthy, chronic suffering needs addressing.
Well put and succinct.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
Not according to my values lololol.
Two people having a deep and probing discussion on their disagreement in moral philosophy and they open-mindedly explore serious questions and part as friends...
This is how dialectic is supposed to be done.
Bravo Carl and Peter!
More if you pleaee ..
I had to pause to write this while it was fresh, but when Carl reasserted his use of the term saintly a model of the lines instantly popped in to my mind along with where I imagined you both to be standing and all the usual questions that you pose in such a scenario. I've noticed this happening more often when I listen to people discussing ideas and it's obviously due to watching your other videos. It feels like a helpful way to approach the world.
This was great. I've never watched Benjamin much. Please have him on again!
Much respect Peter, but this is the mindset of Liberal Hegemony. It's that idea that would only make sense if we went from a pseudo-empire (where we break a country then shrug our shoulders) to a real empire (where we take full responsibility). I prefer the example model that Ron Paul laid out.
Peter is fully in the grip of the Boomer Truth Regime
Yup, Peter is stuck in the Boomer Truth Regime
I feel as though Carl proved conservatism with post modernism towards the end.
Incredible.
lol
Good to see Carl finally seeing the flaws in the "Enlightenment" and critiquing it. He would do well to read 'Nihilism' by Eugene (Fr Seraphim) Rose.
Carl has been there for quite some time. He has quite a few articles critiquing the Enlightenment and liberalism which came from the Enlightenment on his Lotus Eaters website.
@@umiluv he has done to an extent, yes. But he still has certain views that are grounded in Enlightenment thinking. Whether he realises that I'm not sure. For starters, he's an atheist. Which means he can't believe in the divine right of kings, as he doesn't believe in the divine. He still has some way to go before returning to a medieval mindset, which is what we must do.
I see you're a man of culture. We must convert Carl and bring him into the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church! ☦
@@joer9156 he does seem to hold some as we all do because its what we were born in and live in, also you will never return to a medieval mindset recreating an era simply is not possible
@@tikiwiki7428 we will never return to that culture, no, but I think there is a way of thinking that can be tapped into regardless. Jonathan Pageau talks about how the world is becoming "reenchanted" whether we want it or not, and if we don't learn how to approach that in the correct way, we'll end up with more craziness like the George Floyd worship, withh the crazy icons of him like Christ, people "taking a knee" etc. That will just get more extreme. We need to learn how to surf that wave and make it work, and I think we can learn a lot from the medieval mindset in regards to achieving that.
This was the BEST brain bubblegum I 'very had the privilege to listen to in eons.
Thank you both!
Happy to see you too on a podcast. It was a great chat👌
Great stuff. Think I lean towards Carl on this subject
Good back and forth discussion. I love the honesty of this conversation, no one trying to win with dumb rhetoric. Nicely done.
As a professor, Peter feels superior to Carl. That’s why he interrupts and talks over him.
Carl is no slouch, considering he is an autodidact oik. As a representative/example of a thinking common man, very few Joe's down the pub could have lasted 5 minutes in that discussion.
@@LordEriolTolkien Carl is very well read and thought. That is why it annoys me how Peter treats him (and all non professors) very portlandian of him
@@agenticmark I don't think Peter can help himself, he Is a Professor. Carl can take it, and has humility. But you can see Peter Was pushed to reconsider, and was (i think pleasantly) surprised to hear some of Carl's positive assertions and pronouncements, but even more pleased and surprised that Carl had fully reasoned, and sourced, answers that didn't just fall down . Carl held his own and earned some cred.
Carl knows he is an Oik, and has the humility to do the work, and bide his time, and Earn the respect. And frankly, does Sargon or any of Us really care about approval of the Academy?
Part of the problem is people giving undue respect to 'experts'. Carl did not defer to expertise, as far as i could see.
Remember this is a long game
i cut off the video after 5 minutes because of the constant interjection and not letting carl finish a single goddamn thought, it drove me fucking crazy, it's way too distracting and derailing for me
@@dutchdykefinger stick with it. Carl drives Peter back on his heels many times, and in the end Carl forces Peter to posit some hypothetical perfect argument as his ace card, in lieu of the argument he couldn't actually articulate.
Carl had him beat
Of all the Internet shitlords from old RUclips who would bang on about politics back in the day, Carl is the only one that really did the work.
Glad this happened. Wished it was a couple hours longer!
This was great! I had so much fun objecting out loud while driving home from work. ❤
A wonderful illustration of two people respectfully disagreeing with one another on almost every point, yet both desiring the other's input.
I followed Carl back when he still thought of himself as a liberal and were friends with Amazing Atheist and Thunderfoot. Times sure have changed, probably not for the better.
The whole atheism movement was kind of where the postmodern social justice thing broke out. That movement was so popular and we watched it degenerate and fizzle as soon as that virus spread.
Yes, Maximal Liberalism is the causal problem, were you not listening?
@@ktrigg2 A real example of; if you believe in nothing, then you'll fall for anything.
amazing atheist is a piece of shit now, well he already was in 2011
How many ways can you describe Hume's guillotine without saying "you can't get an IS from an OUGHT."
You guys should both talk with Douglas Murray and Camille Paglia. Good show as always 👍🏻
59:01 it’s a mistake to accept the Whig theory of history where new developments are equated with progress.
Thank you both for this nourishing conversation.
Very interesting discussion - I applaud Carl for taking the post-modern position seriously, and steel-manning their arguments.
A question for Peter: How do you tell the difference between good and bad, without being arbitrary (in the sense of philosophical justified, true belief)?
On the last point of the conversation, Peter has incorrectly presumed that just because you can change someone's mind you are revealing that a universal truth exists just because you're not appealing to culture.
The notion that Chinese aid comes with no strings is absurd. They have different strings, implicit and explicit.
As is the notion that Western aid come only with the most noble of strings. Western governments use aid as a tool to get other countries to do what they want and many times as a weapon to saddle a country in unpayable debt to effectively own that country's political system and strip out their assets. The West will support the worst of dictators as long as they do what the deep state/ corporate "leaders" want. If they don't tow the line, they get removed, see: Gaddafi, Hussain, etc.
Gentlemen, I'm happy to be sharing this timeline with you. Keep up the great work.
Sargon. Been with you since Gamergate. I'm a lot older than you and I'm so fuckin' impressed by how you've grown into one of the cleverest thinkers on the internet. You done good, gamer.
This is the game within the game. Great conversation.
24:42 Going through pain is what athletes and people need to go through when they exercise to become stronger and healthier.
And people will deliberately self-inflict pain when they are comfortable enough to experience insufficient stimulus.
Billiant and thought provoking conversation. Left me with much to think about. Thank you.
Our moral values and intuitions evolved to facilite relatively small scale tribal groups and lineage selection. They are necessarily locally biased as their purpose is survival of ourselves and our tribe, not everyone else or Truth. Reason could hypothetically lead us to an empirical verified set of universally most optimized moral values, but our knowledge is too imperfect to believe we can get there.
Pretty much agree, rationality can help min/max but most people with wisdom realize there is more games and life than min/max especially when you ask the question of min/max what
"Everyone is the hero of their own story. It just makes you the monster in someone else's."
This is a fascinating conversation about morality and values and how they apply. How moralities and values are derived, rationalized, or even just imposed because it just worked in a certain time and place is food for though. It is apparent that different people and cultures value different things and finding a universal value can be hard. Need a Round 2 of this when possible.
On anther note, regarding rationality there are situation where stupid decisions can be rationalized but are not prudent and have caused many problems.
REASON IS A VALUE SYSTEM. "To hierarchically prioritize values" is a tautology. A value IS a hierarchy of priorities by definition -one thing valued over another and therefore given priority. This is the blindspot of most self proclaimed "Rationalists." Reason is a heuristic we practice to recognize true things. It can also be flawed. But there is no reasoning without a value-based framework - which is why critical thinking is a skill. It is a discipline composed of rigorous values with its own biases. What also needs to be acknowledged is biases are not necessarily bad (despite what unconscious bias training is claiming). We all have gravitational bias - we all prefer our heads be above our feet (most of the time). The real work of critical reasoning is not to strip us of biases, but to challenge them, and discriminate toxic from healthy biases. I really respect that Carl is pushing to recognize this and that Peter is putting in real effort to challenge his on blindspot.
So either the game is rigged or everyone just really cares about woke sensibilities.
NO. FUCKING. WAY. AAAA looking forward to listen to this!
Delighted it makes you happy!
I second this
I don't want to be a slave to the supercomputer no matter how smart it is.
The idea of "Universal moral principles" fails for the same reason as "The self-evident existence of god".
If they were indeed universal or self-evident, there would be neither dissent, nor debate.
This fails for the exact reason Peter said in the video, namely that anyone who disagreed would just be wrong.
@@grantgooch5834 If anyone disagrees, it's not universal, though, is it?
Which makes the people in this comment section saying that Carl is so close to finding God rather hillarious.
Two very intelligent and thoughtful men! Thanks for sharing.
It's telling and more than a little worrisome that a former university professor of philosophy is so blinkered by modernism that he feels confident arguing for a universal morality based in reason, yet is wholly opposed to moral systems that oppose homosexuality.
I believe there is a rational moral system that addresses homosexuality, but that system- natural law- proscribes it. I don't know of an "evidence based" or rational moral framework that approves of it without "smuggling in" other values ahead of time.
Absolutely fantastic discussion. 👏
That was fantastic. Thank you so much for an actual discussion - thought provoking and genuine.
Lotus Eaters have a new video up on the Gender Unicorn in "training" in schools, very disturbing stuff. A must watch with his colleagues.
I've heard greay things of Peter but this was definitely not a good first impression of his work. Carl made his point in the opening. Different cultures value different things and forcing our beliefs on others is an excercise in futility.
Great convo! Been listening to Carl on Lotus Eaters and really dig his content
As per John Rawls' Veil of Ignorance, I propose a slight tweak to the thought experiment in order to get around the probability/chance-taking response: Instead of not knowing who you will end up being in the system you build, give it an Andy Weir "The Egg" (short story, look it up if you are not familiar) twist where you have to live the life of **every** person in the society you construct, exactly once and back-to-back. So you will be every commoner, every peasant, even royalty a couple of times, but you also have to live the life of every slave as well.
Step one of answering this question. What is it like to die?
The problem with your question isn't that it wouldn't be a good barometer. The problem is anyone that thinks they have an answer to it should be completely ignored.
It's possible that the pain one experiences the first time they are crushed under the wheels of a car would lead the person given this choice to select oblivion.
Would you even want relief from the suffering? Imagine for one hour, by some miracle, nobody died painfully in the society. Would that brief relief be the cruelest thing of all to a single entity experiencing all things? The thing that could answer this question could never be a human.
Eat some mushrooms and you may become convinced that that's exactly what we're up to here hehe.
I put this one off because I knew I would need to really pay attention to it. Interesting discussion is an understatement.
So sad that I can't give this more than 1 thumb up. Carl is so close to seeing the need for God. I really look forward to further thoughts on this. I'd also love to see Carl talk to David Wood. That should be a fascinating conversation.
Amazing conversation! I'm not expert in philosophy, but this conversation made me think. What "Rational derivable" means in this context? Induction and deduction? Both maths and religion need a predefined set of facts to start reasoning and deriving from: Axioms and Dogma. There is no way to know if those are universal or not, but they do resemble to convention to me, more than absolutes. Conventions are not bad: they make our society possible. I think there is a grayscale between universal morality (either religious or secular) and total moral relativism.
it means that you do not need any assistance to come to a conclusion.... anyone can look at it, and through their own use of logic and rational deduction derive the observation.
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem kinda proofs that Mathematics isn't infallible, like you said. Maybe this conversation attempts to show the same thing but than for moral values?
I like falling back on Pragmatism which would probably deem this debate as technical nonsense. Because, does the outcome of some value structure change whether or not it is rational?
Aren't morals woven into the fabric of the universe because men are part of the universe and have the concept of morals? Putting man outside of the universe seems wrongheaded. Anyway, thanks for the great discussion!
John Rawls was wrong. All rational people will NOT come to the same conclusions on ethics and morals. A priori, we start with different values. So we begin from different locations and we end up at different places. This does not mean we should NOT apply rationality in preference to irrationality or instinct. It means we must defend our values in debate, and experiment, and may even have to change or accommodate them to others. I'm not making a Big Tent argument. I'm making a "let's evolve rationally argument". Sargon scares me sometimes because it's never clear what he's replacing rationality with - as a basis for judgement. Rationality is not my highest value; empiricism is.
I couldn't agree more. My _subjective_ values are actually pretty close to "Enlightenment values" that Peter supports, but all the arguments for "objective", "a priori", "rationally derivable" etc. seem fallacious to me. That includes John Rawls's, John Stuart Mill's, Ayn Rand's, Murray Rothbard's and all the rest of them.
I am also opposed to Sargon's anti-rationality, because not applying rationality to one's values makes one more likely to get into conflicts which could have been avoided. Even though I disagree with Sargon's values, I still want him to be rational, so that he at least doesn't do things that hurt himself _and_ others.
And I wouldn't say that I "value" empiricism more than rationality, but the thing that I call "rationality" is always _downstream from_ empiricism. Any rationality that empirically doesn't work, isn't rationality at all.
This was deep and insightful but I wonder where they would land on the great Futa question of "Balls or no balls?"