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.”
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.
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
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? 😬🙄😬
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.
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.
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? ”
Carl's content is the stuff of legend, his videos defending Peterson back in 2016 when nobody would were simply fantastic. He has seen all of this shit coming and I doubt even he would believe it would be this bad. I work in big pharma, director level, and what's going on in the workplace is beyond insane, I've kept receipts and I'm desperate to lay this all out on a storyboard but don't know where to begin. I'm going for another internal position and I've already been told if I'm up against a non-white in the final interview they *must* invoke the "equity policy" - which means I don't get the job for being white. Yet we already employ 43% non-whites!!
I work in big law. Every month I have to spend 2 hours ‘learning’ about the history of slavery and racism. The history only includes white people taking black slaves. Nothing else. It is so woke my ears bleed. They told me white people do not make eye contact enough with ‘minorities’. 😂
@@designforlife704 I kept quiet during the plenary zoom part of the ‘education’. But my great great uncle was part of the east Africa squadron fighting African slavers to free African slaves. He suffered from what would generally be considered as PST (due to the slavers scuttling their slave ships drowning their slaves in order to get away. He was effector pensioned out. But this meant his family fell into poverty as a result. I intend to make these points if we touch on slavery again. People who don’t work for large corps and particularly US prof services and corps will struggle to understand the madness. It’s not far from cokes “be less white”
Send an email over to your HR department that you’re concerned about being discriminated again for your non-binary sexuality. Since it’s a claim inherently devoid of any actual meaning there’s no proof that could ever be offered - which is the point. But it might get you the protection against discrimination that you’re seeking.
And even if they weren't, and were born as a blank slate, it would be impossible for them to have an opinion on anything because they wouldn't know/understand what anything is. The argument Peter makes is rather "If I placed myself with all that I know/understand and my biases in that starting place" which doesn't really get us anywhere.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@LiamN4321 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!
@@ALeaud That isn’t what GG was about at all. GG was about corruption in games journalism, we were crystal clear on that from the beginning. Those corrupt journalists told you it was about feminism to cover up their corruption, collusion, anti consumer sentiment, and elitism.
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
These are the types of conversations that should be standard in schools. I respect the amount of time they take to ask questions and consider the responses.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Around the 50 minute mark: Sargon is on the mark here: It is impossible to have 'objective' ethics without some metaphysical reason that exists outside of human beings.
Sargon is an atheist, actually. He's not religious, he does think religion is a more positive influence on culture than most modern thinkers believe. Mostly due too religion providing a moral structure and a clear sense of right and wrong.
@@katnerd-Glen to add to this, he believes religion is good because the vast majority of society doesn’t have the time or interest to rationally determine what is “good” morally, so religion gives them a pre-determined morality that they can follow.
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.
@@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.
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!
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
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. 😊
This was an excellent conversation. I was especially impressed with Carl, he has improved his argumentation skills 1000 times in recent years, and gotta say, I felt that he had the most convincing argument. Which, if I can summaries for my own benefit if nothing else, comes down to "You can't create a 'universal' 'rational' moral system, because what individuals consider to be rational varies depending what their own starting point deems as rational." Yes, very post-modern, and yes, annoyingly difficult to refute. On the AI front, well there is chatGPT (I believe there is even a Sargon AI version somewhere). Maybe Peter could have a chat with that and see if it agrees with the real Carl! (or can come up with the rational moral system he is looking for) Hope it gets some more attention for LotusEaters. Them's doing good work.
There is nothing that the post-modernists said correctly that wasn't said decades prior, and very much better, by Nietzsche; it's a shame the post-modern school has usurped credit for making the obvious case against "objective moral truth" considering that this is not an argument unique to them.
Yes. There is no possibility of a universal perspective which is knowable to humans. The post-modern lens itself does show us a truth. The problem is the deconstructionists’ use of the post-modern lens. We cannot say they are “incorrect,” we must admit our biases and then righteously act from that prejudiced position. They are not incorrect or even objectively “evil,” they are simply unacceptable, and contest between the sides is inevitable. Either we lie down and get borg’ed, or we stand and fight without lying about our priorities. That is the difference between us: we state our true intentions, while the deconstructionist Progressive lies in order to extort our civility.
People are understanding "universal" and "rational/logical" wrong. It doesn't mean what people think it means, it doesn't give you magical powers to stop Nazi or communists just by saying they are wrong. Even proving they are wrong. Gosh, they will tell you they are wrong, evil and they don't care.
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.
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 ..
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)?
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 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.
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 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.
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.
Great conversation. The two of you were respectful in disagreement and articulate in your presentations. This is how political discussions, and philosophical discussions, should proceed. Thanks.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
"you can't assume because a country is more prosperous (it's almost universally because it's democratic)" I'd love to see this justified. Almost no empires where 'the sun never sets' were democratic, and even in recent history they are more like oligarchies.
@@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'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.
Carl is the only man I can think of to get in trouble with Johnny Law for saying he WOULDN'T rape a woman. I think he hurt her feelings pretty bad with that.
Amazing conversation. I think that no rational argument can be made that will convince every human being in existence. No matter how well constructed the argument, some percentage of people will always believe that it is a trick by Satan, Loki, or a djinn in order to lead them astray.
the only issue i have with this conversation is that it was much too short. loved the interplay and delving into ideas at such a crucial time. thank you peter and carl.
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 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.
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.
~33:00 in "Empirically no one wants to be a slave" Carl should have challenged him because even discounting sexual fetishes that statement has absolutely no evidence to back it up. I can point to dozens of people I know who make it incredibly obvious that they actually DO want to be slaves.
Do they really, though? Don't they all have "safe words", enabling them to "top from the bottom" whenever they don't like something? Real slaves can't stop things with a safe word.
@@zxyatiywariii8 I would phrase this not in the light of a fetish, but in embodied actions. I know many people who live as though they wished to be slaves - to be directed by the will of others, to be told by their betters how to speak and act, and who would gladly trade the chaos of agency for the guarantee of a bed, food, and structure. These people don't call it slavery, however, but some combination of state and technology that stands in as a lenient parent - the "good master". Far fewer people than you'd think truly want freedom, and you can see this in our very coddled societies.
@@zxyatiywariii8 yes, I am not talking about people who want to play at being a slave as a sexual fetish I mean the want to be a slave for real. The want to be absolved of the weight of making decisions and the responsibility of the outcome of those choices. What do you think it is that makes communism so appealing to people? They are not into it for the Hermetic Gnosticism, they buy into it because in submitting to the collective they are absolved of the responsibility to make decisions for themselves. Now you'll never get many people to admit that they want to be slaves, honestly, they probably aren't even aware of that themselves and even if they were they have been given received wisdom that "slavery is bad" so of course they would never agree to it. Instead, they just keep voting for politicians who will enact ever higher levels of slavery for them without ever thinking about the fact that in voting for those policies/politicians they are agreeing to incremental enslavement. My bet is that at least a 3rd of the human race given the chance would willingly sell themselves into a form of slavery that placed minimal limits on mistreatment by the slavemaster for free and north of 2/3rds would freely enter into a binding feudal serfdom contract that restricted their freedoms to the most superficial decisions but placed requirements for reciprocal protections from the feudal lords
Great discussion. I very much enjoyed it. One thing that stuck out for me in this conversation was the conflation of “rationality” and “reason”: I don’t think they are the same thing.
![Why Colleges Are Becoming CULTS [Full Series] | Dr. Lyell Asher](/img/1.gif)
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?
This interview really illustrates why Carl has become so prominent. He really gets it
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.
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.
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
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? 😬🙄😬
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.
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”
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.
I love how much Carl's views have evolved. Been a fan since gamer gate.👍🏻
Carl's content is the stuff of legend, his videos defending Peterson back in 2016 when nobody would were simply fantastic. He has seen all of this shit coming and I doubt even he would believe it would be this bad.
I work in big pharma, director level, and what's going on in the workplace is beyond insane, I've kept receipts and I'm desperate to lay this all out on a storyboard but don't know where to begin.
I'm going for another internal position and I've already been told if I'm up against a non-white in the final interview they *must* invoke the "equity policy" - which means I don't get the job for being white. Yet we already employ 43% non-whites!!
I work in big law. Every month I have to spend 2 hours ‘learning’ about the history of slavery and racism. The history only includes white people taking black slaves. Nothing else. It is so woke my ears bleed. They told me white people do not make eye contact enough with ‘minorities’. 😂
@@mattkile1976 I tried to discuss the East Arab slave trade and was reprimanded.
No joke.
@@designforlife704 I kept quiet during the plenary zoom part of the ‘education’. But my great great uncle was part of the east Africa squadron fighting African slavers to free African slaves. He suffered from what would generally be considered as PST (due to the slavers scuttling their slave ships drowning their slaves in order to get away. He was effector pensioned out. But this meant his family fell into poverty as a result. I intend to make these points if we touch on slavery again. People who don’t work for large corps and particularly US prof services and corps will struggle to understand the madness. It’s not far from cokes “be less white”
@@mattkile1976 never stop speaking out mate
Send an email over to your HR department that you’re concerned about being discriminated again for your non-binary sexuality. Since it’s a claim inherently devoid of any actual meaning there’s no proof that could ever be offered - which is the point. But it might get you the protection against discrimination that you’re seeking.
Every human is born in a particular place and time. Only here in modern Western modernity can individuals pretend to reject where they came from.
Exactly
Very well put
And even if they weren't, and were born as a blank slate, it would be impossible for them to have an opinion on anything because they wouldn't know/understand what anything is. The argument Peter makes is rather "If I placed myself with all that I know/understand and my biases in that starting place" which doesn't really get us anywhere.
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.
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.
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.
That was a fascinating discussion, I held Carl in high esteem and even more so now
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
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.
Gamergate has had more lasting impact than its most fervent supporters could have ever dreamed. Hold the line, boys. We are winning.
Convert to Islam or suffer.
@@LiamN4321 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.
@@ALeaud That isn’t what GG was about at all. GG was about corruption in games journalism, we were crystal clear on that from the beginning. Those corrupt journalists told you it was about feminism to cover up their corruption, collusion, anti consumer sentiment, and elitism.
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
These are the types of conversations that should be standard in schools. I respect the amount of time they take to ask questions and consider the responses.
There should only be private schools.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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?
Around the 50 minute mark: Sargon is on the mark here: It is impossible to have 'objective' ethics without some metaphysical reason that exists outside of human beings.
Sargon is an atheist, actually. He's not religious, he does think religion is a more positive influence on culture than most modern thinkers believe. Mostly due too religion providing a moral structure and a clear sense of right and wrong.
Reasons for anything humans do cannot exist "outside human beings." What does that even mean? Just make shit up? How a the marxists wrong then?
@@katnerd-Glen to add to this, he believes religion is good because the vast majority of society doesn’t have the time or interest to rationally determine what is “good” morally, so religion gives them a pre-determined morality that they can follow.
@@katnerd-Glen he isn’t acting like one
@@katnerd-Glen I’m not sure Sargon would describe himself as an atheist anymore, it would be interesting to hear him clarify this
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
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
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.
Fantastic conversation, gentlemen. It’s great to see two competing ideas discussed openly. Please have more, our civilization needs more of this.
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!
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
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. 😊
I'm so glad you're on our team Carl Benjamin.
This was an excellent conversation. I was especially impressed with Carl, he has improved his argumentation skills 1000 times in recent years, and gotta say, I felt that he had the most convincing argument.
Which, if I can summaries for my own benefit if nothing else, comes down to
"You can't create a 'universal' 'rational' moral system, because what individuals consider to be rational varies depending what their own starting point deems as rational." Yes, very post-modern, and yes, annoyingly difficult to refute.
On the AI front, well there is chatGPT (I believe there is even a Sargon AI version somewhere). Maybe Peter could have a chat with that and see if it agrees with the real Carl! (or can come up with the rational moral system he is looking for)
Hope it gets some more attention for LotusEaters. Them's doing good work.
There is nothing that the post-modernists said correctly that wasn't said decades prior, and very much better, by Nietzsche; it's a shame the post-modern school has usurped credit for making the obvious case against "objective moral truth" considering that this is not an argument unique to them.
Rationality is a tool, not an answer. If you go as if rationality is the end goal, and not a tool to use on the path, you get lost.
Yes.
There is no possibility of a universal perspective which is knowable to humans. The post-modern lens itself does show us a truth. The problem is the deconstructionists’ use of the post-modern lens. We cannot say they are “incorrect,” we must admit our biases and then righteously act from that prejudiced position. They are not incorrect or even objectively “evil,” they are simply unacceptable, and contest between the sides is inevitable. Either we lie down and get borg’ed, or we stand and fight without lying about our priorities. That is the difference between us: we state our true intentions, while the deconstructionist Progressive lies in order to extort our civility.
People are understanding "universal" and "rational/logical" wrong.
It doesn't mean what people think it means, it doesn't give you magical powers to stop Nazi or communists just by saying they are wrong. Even proving they are wrong.
Gosh, they will tell you they are wrong, evil and they don't care.
@@lloydgush "Gosh, they will tell you they are wrong, evil and they don't care. "
Wrong.
An excellent conversation between two of my favorite peeps!
wow sargon gotten alot sharper over the years
This conversation was exceptional and pretty please do more :)
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.
Happy to see you too on a podcast. It was a great chat👌
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.
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 ..
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)?
Thanks!
Thanks!
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.
Billiant and thought provoking conversation. Left me with much to think about. Thank you.
Finally.
Carl, I followed you from the very start, what are the most important insights you gained from that rollercoaster ride?
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.
lol
This was the BEST brain bubblegum I 'very had the privilege to listen to in eons.
Thank you both!
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.
Good back and forth discussion. I love the honesty of this conversation, no one trying to win with dumb rhetoric. Nicely done.
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.
Thank you both for this nourishing conversation.
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😅
Great conversation. The two of you were respectful in disagreement and articulate in your presentations. This is how political discussions, and philosophical discussions, should proceed. Thanks.
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.
This was great! I had so much fun objecting out loud while driving home from work. ❤
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
This was deep and insightful but I wonder where they would land on the great Futa question of "Balls or no balls?"
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.
A wonderful illustration of two people respectfully disagreeing with one another on almost every point, yet both desiring the other's input.
You guys should both talk with Douglas Murray and Camille Paglia. Good show as always 👍🏻
Gentlemen, I'm happy to be sharing this timeline with you. Keep up the great work.
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..
Really good. I typically get frustrated with the difficulty and depth needed for this conversation. This was a really good display of dialogue.
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.
This was great. I've never watched Benjamin much. Please have him on again!
Pete would do well to remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
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.
I feel as though Carl proved conservatism with post modernism towards the end.
Incredible.
lol
"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.
"you can't assume because a country is more prosperous (it's almost universally because it's democratic)" I'd love to see this justified. Almost no empires where 'the sun never sets' were democratic, and even in recent history they are more like oligarchies.
Just because you are an empire does not mean you are prosperous.
59:01 it’s a mistake to accept the Whig theory of history where new developments are equated with progress.
@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.
How many ways can you describe Hume's guillotine without saying "you can't get an IS from an OUGHT."
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.
Carl is the only man I can think of to get in trouble with Johnny Law for saying he WOULDN'T rape a woman. I think he hurt her feelings pretty bad with that.
It would be great if you were willing to share some other segments from this conversation.
Great stuff. Think I lean towards Carl on this subject
Absolutely fantastic discussion. 👏
Amazing conversation. I think that no rational argument can be made that will convince every human being in existence. No matter how well constructed the argument, some percentage of people will always believe that it is a trick by Satan, Loki, or a djinn in order to lead them astray.
Or they might have their own rational counter argument and think you're an idiot.
This is the game within the game. Great conversation.
i love how the shitposter is giving the professor of philosophy a good run for his money.
the only issue i have with this conversation is that it was much too short. loved the interplay and delving into ideas at such a crucial time. thank you peter and carl.
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.
Two very intelligent and thoughtful men! Thanks for sharing.
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.
Very interesting discussion - I applaud Carl for taking the post-modern position seriously, and steel-manning their arguments.
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
Really great conversation. Hope it happens again.
Great convo! Been listening to Carl on Lotus Eaters and really dig his content
~33:00 in
"Empirically no one wants to be a slave"
Carl should have challenged him because even discounting sexual fetishes that statement has absolutely no evidence to back it up. I can point to dozens of people I know who make it incredibly obvious that they actually DO want to be slaves.
Do they really, though? Don't they all have "safe words", enabling them to "top from the bottom" whenever they don't like something?
Real slaves can't stop things with a safe word.
@@zxyatiywariii8 I would phrase this not in the light of a fetish, but in embodied actions. I know many people who live as though they wished to be slaves - to be directed by the will of others, to be told by their betters how to speak and act, and who would gladly trade the chaos of agency for the guarantee of a bed, food, and structure.
These people don't call it slavery, however, but some combination of state and technology that stands in as a lenient parent - the "good master".
Far fewer people than you'd think truly want freedom, and you can see this in our very coddled societies.
@@zxyatiywariii8 yes, I am not talking about people who want to play at being a slave as a sexual fetish I mean the want to be a slave for real.
The want to be absolved of the weight of making decisions and the responsibility of the outcome of those choices. What do you think it is that makes communism so appealing to people? They are not into it for the Hermetic Gnosticism, they buy into it because in submitting to the collective they are absolved of the responsibility to make decisions for themselves.
Now you'll never get many people to admit that they want to be slaves, honestly, they probably aren't even aware of that themselves and even if they were they have been given received wisdom that "slavery is bad" so of course they would never agree to it. Instead, they just keep voting for politicians who will enact ever higher levels of slavery for them without ever thinking about the fact that in voting for those policies/politicians they are agreeing to incremental enslavement.
My bet is that at least a 3rd of the human race given the chance would willingly sell themselves into a form of slavery that placed minimal limits on mistreatment by the slavemaster for free and north of 2/3rds would freely enter into a binding feudal serfdom contract that restricted their freedoms to the most superficial decisions but placed requirements for reciprocal protections from the feudal lords
Great discussion. I very much enjoyed it.
One thing that stuck out for me in this conversation was the conflation of “rationality” and “reason”: I don’t think they are the same thing.
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.