Exploring Why Modern Philosophy is trolling (H7WdUfuezZs)

https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=H7WdUfuezZs

At if Hello everybody and welcome to a long awaited other episode of exploring why modern philosophy is trolling. So there’s some history behind this subject. I’ve been binge watching philosophy videos on the Guru’s awesome YouTube channel and I think Mark can give us a link of that in the chat. So Guru has this amazing way to summarize and contextualize the philosopher or part of the philosopher’s work because he’s putting it in the historical context, he’s putting it in relationship to other philosophers and the personal life of the philosopher and so he’s kind of taking a step back and looking at the work. I think that’s really valuable because when you’re looking into the work you’re usually not really seeing what the work is about and why things are relevant and so he’s going through these philosophers and then he’s talking about Kant and how Kant is relating to Hume and how he’s like really upset about Hume and that he spends like 13 years of his life trying to articulate an answer to Hume. He spent 30 years of his life to respond to someone else then he’s talking about Hume and he’s like well Hume he came from a Calvinist background and then he’s making all of these prove about how determinism isn’t real. Like it can’t be real because like we can’t know causality and like there’s a bunch of problems with this and so I’m just looking at this and it’s just like oh like all of these people like they’re dealing with their personal problems and they’re expressing this in their philosophy and Nietzsche was also one of the people that I watched. Nietzsche talks about this as well right like someone’s philosophy says more about the philosopher than about reality and so yeah like that that that is a known thing but then I keep on going and I get more of these philosophers and they’re all doing their own thing for their own reason and I come at this this post-modern philosopher called Jean-François Léotard and at least when that video was made I haven’t looked it up but the guy was still alive right so it’s like oh this is what contemporary post-modern philosophy is saying and he was he was talking about oh when I do philosophy I basically say how things can’t be real like that’s my objective when when I do philosophy and what I want to get out of the world is like as many perspectives and ways of looking at things as possible like that was a stated goal and every every restriction upon perspectives is an authoritarian move it’s the constraint of the freeness of whatever freeness he defined stuff as and therefore it’s bad that’s basically the way that he judged the world like and that was the only way that he judged the world because you can’t judge anything else within within that axiomatic assumption and so what does he end up doing he he ends up critiquing all the other philosophers and saying you can’t do this because of this you can’t do this because of that right and then he’s like basically saying well the first reason you can’t do the thing that you’re doing is because it’s bad because like according to my way of looking at the world it’s bad and the second reason that you can do it and then he is basically make making like a smokescreen instead of looking for the truth which I thought was like oh like that’s what what philosophy is doing right like philosophy is is trying to afford us a relationship to the truth and I’m like looking back through this lens right it’s like oh like this guy is like literally trolling the world like like he’s he’s saying like we can’t have agreement we shouldn’t want to have agreement because having agreement is to the exclusion of other things and therefore it’s bad and and so he’s basically saying we we can’t commune we can’t come together we can’t be at in one because if we’re becoming one we’re creating a meta narrative we’re creating an exclusionary principle and that will end up in endogmatism it will end up in authoritarian show of force and of exclusion and the silencing of external voices so what when I saw that I’m like well what are these other philosophers doing like are they are they also trolling and I’m I’m looking at it and one niche niche it was was the big fish and Nietzsche said I’m I’m the Antichrist like he he writes a book called the Antichrist but he called himself the Antichrist he’s like well this this Christian morality I gotta like it I want to do something different right and then well what was what was you doing oh I don’t I don’t like this Calvinism let me do something different yeah what is Kierkegaard doing well I like don’t like this Lutheranism let me do something different different it’s like oh like you’re you’re all rebelling against the thing that brought you into being and and the way that you’re rebelling is often in a childish way right you’re not you’re not fully understanding well maybe Nietzsche did fully understand the value of Christianity although if he did I doubt he would have done what he did but without fully understanding the value in in in the thing that you inherited and you want you want to create the other thing and well what is the ways that they’re doing that right like they’re they’re trying to define a way of a relationship to the nature of being right so if if if I can say that being right like which is basically the justification for things right because you’re participating in it like it’s the thing that is informing you if if I can say something about it in a certain way then I can justify my belief and then I’m right effectively and the others are wrong probably yeah well look look I want to slow you down manual I was a lot to the basic thesis so for me this particular video the one that I posted which was the Jean-Francois Lyotard post the postmodern condition the thing the thing that struck me about that video was it just validated everything I did with my videos of postmodernism and modernism like it’s like yeah it’s right there and it’s funny because Sugru I don’t know if you noticed this at one point he mentions the fact that calling it modern isn’t really useful and then he slides right by it it’s a packed is 45 minute video you know he’s really doing a good summary but he slides right by right by that and I think that you’re right I mean all these guys are trolling in some sense and it’s explicit with with with what Sugru says like it it’s not so much that he says oh well you know this and therefore he starts from framing his terrorism having a telos is terrorism and this is one of the interesting things that that that lantern Jack taught me you check out the lantern Jack YouTube series he also has a ancient Greece declassified is his name of his podcast he told me he said look you go to these philosophy schools and he did it he traveled the world and went to all the famous philosophy schools that he could and got into the heads of the philosophy departments because he’s got a PhD and what do you call his ancient philology because he doesn’t want to be associated with modern philosophy either and he said I asked them like what you know do you guys believe in capital T truth and they’re all like well not all of them but almost all of them were like no and he’s like do you understand that everybody thinks that’s what you’re doing in philosophy and they were like yeah we don’t care well it’s fair enough they’ve got tenure their heads of departments at universities you think you’re paying them to find capital T truth and they’re like I screw you I got much you can do about it it’s like fair enough that’s that in and of itself is trolling right and that and that’s part of the problem people don’t really realize how disconnected these academic philosophers modern academic philosophers are from the rest of the world right they they don’t know or care about your opinion about what they’re doing and they’re just doing what they’re doing to sound smart and be important now Mills this is a good question with Socrates of mirror troll Socrates was not a mirror troll the way you know this is that some crazy people may say that Socrates said I know that I know nothing okay that’s a lie let’s just be clear that is a lie didn’t say that he didn’t say anything like that the context on the comment in the apologia from that where that’s taken from is super important and what he effectively said and I’m gonna paraphrase because I’m too lazy to have it up on my screen I I got rid of this a few days ago when I when I did all the research what he effectively says is and he’s comparing himself to somebody else he says that other person makes claims of knowledge that they don’t have and I don’t claim to know things that I’m sure I don’t know and therefore I have with more wisdom than he does that’s what he says okay that’s a very different claim from I know that I know nothing which is a paradox and therefore impossible and therefore should be ignored we don’t live in a world of paradox by definition by the way not like I’m stating that axiomatically definition of paradox the usefulness in understanding contradiction and paradox is that those aren’t you know they’re they’re limits to your worldview not limits on reality right you can cast them as limits on reality but they’re not the limits on your world and so that’s one of the high like bubble is after reading three modern modern philosophers a young man who said useless to read philosophers yes can confirm and and and that’s the thing is that you know these people are they know they’re misquoting Socrates okay they know it their scholars they’ve done the reading sorry Mills yes look it only took 25 minutes to find all that about I know I know nothing I knew what’s wrong the minute I heard it I’m like there’s no way stupid the bubble is yeah the philosophers have nothing useful to say it’s all nitpicking it is well and this is what Manuel’s point was right like when you start looking into these guys one at a time and sugru is such a great resource for this when we discovered and it was just like eye-opening right it’s like wow concise summaries of philosophers done by somebody who’s skeptical of all of them right we started off with him on Plato and right great on the old guys and then the new guys came and we lost interest and then I re-engaged well every time I engage with one of these guys I find out something seminal about them it’s like really you know like a kick a guard literally is the Luther of Lutheranism that’s all he is it’s no more difficult you can ignore everything that comes after that he’s just he’s rallying against the Lutheran Church in the same way that Luther rallied against the Catholic Church he might have had slightly different critiques but it was fundamentally just a critique of church leadership and and yeah I mean yeah you get into this what Ethan’s saying right sounds like all modern philosophers are just protestants protestant thing yes they that that really is what it is bubble this maybe Plato and Socrates are good Plato and Socrates are great I mean Socrates isn’t I would say so I’m gonna use another complete philosophy he’s very good at being a skeptical cynic I have a video on that on navigating patterns you can check it out but he’s not very good at answering questions because he doesn’t make axiomatic statements for the most part he there’s a few in there obviously and all we have of him is from Plato and so you know Plato but Plato’s really good Plato’s good Aristotle’s good too I would say anything after Aristotle is you probably don’t need it and now you know you can say well you know all these people read him and I’m like okay the democratic appeal to democracy is not gonna work and it’s funny because Suguru covers that in the in the video I posted to he covers the democratic argument which basically quantity right well if more people believe this then it must be a capital T truth and it’s like I know if you’re the mass hysteria hallucinations have you ever have you ever seen a vote where people didn’t vote in a way that you thought was reasonable no it yeah yeah it’s it’s interesting anyway look we found Suguru through Verveki and our engagement in that work so we want to know more about Plato and Socrates to be fair so yeah yeah I think I think it’s it’s good to know right like so there’s I’ll just go on with my rant a little bit it’s like so so what are they trying to do right like they’re trying to find justification well they’re trying to find justification for their idea right sometimes that idea is based in an observation like well Adam Smith or so like there’s a there’s a bunch of people they they see something and then they work it out right and then they start a new field of research or whatever right and then they get credited with their idea and I’m listening to this and I’m like this this is in the Bible and I’m just gonna bet that Confucius or whatever also also wrote about this right and then they get credited by the idea so what’s happening right like there’s a new discipline established philosophy and and then they get a canon it’s like okay like this is this is all the philosophical text and this is the things that we’ve dealt with right and some people disagree with the way that things were dealt with and then some people think that spirits are a real thing that you have to account for and other things people are materialist so you get all these competing ways where you’re giving privacy to the one and the other right and and then they start rediscovering these things that people always knew and like their systems of dealing with right but I’m like but you’re living in this tradition like why don’t you see the thing right yeah they never go up to look down again right they just look up and they go I see this thing over here and I’m gonna create a thing above it to explain it when they could just like go to the thing above them which came before them basically and and read what’s already there and I did I did want to interrupt and say maybe I’ll give Plato and Aristotle a chance and yeah Bubbly you should you should give Plato and Aristotle a chance for sure I like what Mills says here from the dialogues I’ve read Socrates makes no strong knowledge claims right and Segru is a hell of a lecturer he really is and not only he’s not only a good lecturer because that’s one set of skills he’s also whip smart like boy can he summarize a philosopher like unbelievable yeah and he gets all the sides right it’s like because because what are these philosophers doing right they’re trying to play with perspectives like they and so when you’re reading a philosopher fee you’re in a perspective and and it basically you’re in the tunnel and you’re getting dragged along by the current of their narrative within the tunnel which is actually what the post modern guy is objecting to right they’re basically saying we’re better philosophers because we don’t do that to you but of course yeah we don’t manipulate you I don’t think normal people know anything about postmodernists or anti-realism or understand the implications because nobody would ever engage knowingly with postmodernism if they understood where it leads and the brilliance about this particular Segru lecture is that he shows you exactly where it leads and it basically leads to them laughing about the fact that you figured out the trick that you can’t communicate that’s literally what it what happens and he says that they laugh kind of you know kind of maniacally about it effectively what he’s saying like they just end up laughing like you you went through the rabbit hole and it became smaller and smaller and you lost all your skin and you lost all your weights and you can’t see anymore and now you’re on the other side and you’re free but you’re nothing well and and and the categorization of all other philosophies as terrorism is so interesting to me I was like oh they just they just sort of state state ideology it’s ideologies right because because it’s it’s the problem of dogmatism right like oh like when you state something as true when you look at with a lens doesn’t matter what lens it is you’re gonna follow to use Peugeot’s terms create a margin that means that you’re gonna exclude people that means that you’re treating them unjustly because you cannot justify your stunning conditions right like they’re and so that’s not good and they don’t realize that not having any judgment at all is also gonna have a face in the world like Mark talks about this right like the norm action or tolerance if you tolerate everything things are gonna happen in the world and they’re not gonna be good right just like the guy was like well we need a political theory because like if we can’t agree on what is real that how are we gonna govern like yeah you’re not which is actually the thing that we’re seeing we can’t go on anymore because we can’t agree on the truth because we’re arbitrarily deciding what what is true all like if I have my climate religion that’s true if I have my race religion that’s true and they’re in conflict and they can’t coexist and then you have the people who have a conservative worldview that is based on the truth and they’re like well guys you’re you’re messing with the truth by imposing your personal framing and like that’s not okay and like those things can’t coexist either right which is true like like in that sense there is a culture where like these these things can’t coexist like when you start going to the implementation right when things become it’s the war it doesn’t work anymore it’s the war of bad religion so yeah use if I love that actual troll it yeah well and look do they say that any realism about truth is terrorism because of all the sort of tyrannical enforcing these categories not leotard and I don’t think any of them I think what they say is enforcing anything is terrorism leotard starts with terrorism you know doing this is terrorism and he uses so group points this out at the end of that video he uses a very odd definition of terrorism that no one’s ever heard before he didn’t say that but like it is an odd definition of terrorism I don’t think anyone’s ever used it before and yeah like it doesn’t resolve it doesn’t mean there is no truth but it’s not see the question of the exist this is where I get wrapped up with people like guys this isn’t hard the question of the existence of truth is irrelevant to answer if the answer is there is no truth we still have to cooperate together and so we have to act as if that’s not an option otherwise there’s no alternative to acting as if there’s a capital T truth if it’s in fact completely arbitrary then anything we do is okay obviously anything we do is not okay because as the postmoderns point out allowing ideas to spread out and flatten along a flat plane results in what we’re now calling culture war and and so the relevance of the claim is is not important there could be seven or twenty capital T truths all of which are equally okay but it’s not infinite and it’s probably a small number it might even be a single digit number and like you don’t need any more precision than that and we’re so so stuck in the scientific mind frame that we want this ridiculous level of accuracy and precision about something we can’t we can’t possibly understand or know you know until maybe not not only we’re dead but all of humanity is over in some fashion whatever that would mean do you know like you you get into this trap well now we have to define this accurately now you can’t because now you’re just talking about the future and you can’t know the future with any accuracy or precision that’s satisfying right because if you could that means you’d be able to predict everything in the world I like what Ethan said pluralism evil confirmed he’s agrees yeah you know a bunch of woe jacks crying about getting mega trolled no we’re not we’re not we’re not we didn’t get trolled I never read any philosophy I thought it was all garbage back then so yeah the troll modern philosophy trolling confirmed it just gets funnier the more you you dig into it oh Mills are you for the benevolent lie for pragmatic neverland ends well hold on hold on like is it a lie yeah the right how are you defining truth right that’s that’s what you get in because because because like if if a thing is self-justified right like like if Marx says and I think I think that’s actually the argument of the post modern things like oh we don’t know how many capital T truths there are and therefore we need to have everybody exploring everything so that they can find the capital T truth not realizing that if that happens they can’t communicate it to anybody else because there’s no shared understanding of the world but yeah that aside like when when you’re having a capital T truth that that means that it allows you to live in accordance with reality right because that’s the definition of truth like it is true to reality and that that means that there’s a bunch of constraints put on you and you’re gonna have to accept those constraints in order to function and Paul Verneclay he had this was reading from this book and they were talking about modernism or not modern liberalism and how liberalism is effectively the impulse to liberate and then there was this phase of liberating from religion and then from the tyranny of the monarch and then from the class and then from race well like you’ve got and then from from the self right like this like this all of these oppressions like oh yeah like nature is oppressing you and now I can remove it’s almost like if you remove one several others pop up like a hydra or something I don’t know and that’s a theme in all the religious traditions weird it’s a coincidence nothing to see here don’t pay any attention to the fact that this is literally mentioned in every wisdom text ever written down yeah once you get rid of one right that’s why and my buddy Adam had me watch this series this BBC series called Monarchy and it’s like they can’t England can’t get rid of the Monarchy they try and then it you know bad things happen and then they beg for the king back and then it’s and it’s it’s a continual path they just can’t get rid of it for that reason that’s that’s the that’s the that’s the funny part and so the idea that was happening with the plural liberalism is is that there’s a new equilibrium that stops in right so this you do a thing and then chaos happens and everybody needs to understand their place and then there’s this other thing on the top and then you need to be liberated from that and and that that happens through a revolution whether that’s a violent revolution or whatever like there is there is an upheaval and then there’s there’s a new status quo and another question is whether that’s a that’s a new capital detruit or whether that’s a lowercase new truth that is still right within the capital and that’s that that’s the trick that leotard plays right is he says we can’t have a constructed unifying narrative to Mills’s point and therefore we have to get these small narratives it is like wait a minute you’ve just moved the scale of the problem we’ve changed the problem at all just scaled it down and and that’s the funny part right yeah Mills and we didn’t take it as an accusation I just I think it’s funny when people ask about benevolent lie because you get into this question of what is capital T true and I think the easy resolution for that and by the way hello Charles good to see the easy solution for what is capital T truth is to say thinking about it as truth is wrong thinking about it as what is true as an action is a better way to think about it and that solves a bunch of problems because you don’t get stuck in this you can’t make a truth claim problem which is effectively look this is Socratic right Socrates doesn’t make very many truth claims if he makes any at all and that’s kind of suspicious right and there’s not a problem but it leads to skeptical cynicism that I talked about in my video on that in the unnavigating patterns right so there is that that danger to it right but also you got to question things because we are exploring right we can’t you can’t have everybody exploring independently of everybody else or they lose the language and then literally he’s talking Segru’s talking about this like they laugh they actually laugh about this they think it’s funny when you when you pin them to the wall about the fact that now we can’t talk as humans at all we can’t speak which is a performative contradiction yes yes it is right like they don’t care like no no they do care they think it’s funny it’s like is that I guess that’s the troll right they know that they’re they’re they’re laughing because they got called out for their troll and you know that’s that’s it he sounds like you’re implying that PM’s may adopt the emergence is good actually yeah postmoderns have to adopt emergence is good they have no choice it’s emergence everywhere all the time and only emergence would you say the grounds you say that the grounds truth in its relation to something like the form of man now I would I would say there’s no ground of truth its truth is a matter of what you’re true to which is an action in the world it’s a participation you’re not going to get at it with a with a set of propositions because propositions work great on static things but proper to break down in action what were you true to a conception of reality in some sense so you’re participating with an anticipation of what is actually there yeah exactly when Archimedes over over ran his bath Thales declared that all is water well yeah I mean that see the funny part is that’s the Greeks trolling people but they were all in on the joke and everybody understood how funny it was in the same way I suspected Zeno’s paradox where basically you can’t touch anything we can’t reach anything because you can you can always divide the distance you have to go in half and therefore teach an infinite amount of time to actually touch a wall now we all know that we can touch things right like you can reach destinations right so all it’s really doing is it’s a troll it’s pointing out a contradiction or a paradox in the world that is a limit in that case to quantity you try to quantitatively measure how far you are from a wall forever you can never reach the wall that is actually true the only way you can reach the wall it’s sort of like in karate where you punch past your person you have to believe that you can reach the wall is reachable that the wall has a quality of reach ability not a quantity of distance a quality of reach ability and if you can’t believe that you can’t reach the wall because you’re stuck in the tyranny of quantity you know which is also the tyranny of propositions yeah and so so yeah like what what is this tyranny well this this tyranny is is the need to frame things to justify things right so to go back to all of these modern philosophers right that that that’s what what they’re trying to do and then they’re trying to frame things in in a way that they get to do what they want like they have an intuition or whatever and all of this right like is born from trauma right like oh like I had this experience in my childhood or like this person like said something and my whole world view collapsed or like other people around me are evil like or like savage and maybe that’s the default state of humanity it’s like well why are you extrapolating an instance of something to the universe so they’re always in in these in these games where they’re not consistent with with their categories or with their observations and well this goes back to the tunnel right so you see when you engage with a philosopher with a philosophical text they’re in a context they’re writing for a reason and then they start with a large they have a tell us is that what you’re saying because that’s a yes tomorrow’s live stream and now I’m getting patterns and when when the tellers takes control of you right like you you might pursue something for a long time so for example I had this math teacher in high school and he wrote this math thing that only three people understood or something in the world and what was he doing well he was trying to find the answer to the question that that he was trying to solve and then after like two and a half three years of trying it’s just laying in this path and he’s like oh it’s not possible and then he spent a year and a half more to prove that it wasn’t possible and then he finished this thing and then he could add it to the whole thing that nobody ever reads because there’s no relevant reason to even engage with with it but like he did it like he made the proof and I felt like that’s that’s what happens with these things right and philosophy to your point it’s also math and yeah it’s a bunch of things and if if you’re engaging as an external person and you don’t know why things are happening the way that they’re happening like they they start with an introduction right they’re like oh this is my problem formulation and then they stayed a bunch of observations in the world they’re like yeah I’ve seen that right like this happens in capitalism like capitalism definitely has these characteristics and yeah maybe that’s not good like maybe we should do something about I was like well if you can right like no and if it but that’s the framing trick right like this is in capitalism okay but is it also in not capitalism because if it’s in capitalism and something other than capitalism then the cause cannot be capitalism that it cannot it’s off the table because people get this correlation thing backwards like I understand the correlation doesn’t equal causation but when you don’t have correlation you don’t have causation like people forget like I’m dyslexic that’s why I know these things like yeah but are you considering the reverse case and is it symmetrical because the reverse case is not symmetrical right in one case correlation could equal causation or not right it’s a 50-50 sort of shot to some extent in the other case it’s zero no zero if it doesn’t correlate that’s because there’s no causation there period end of statement there are no other options and and that’s important to realize that you know they’re pre doing the framing so Anselman I reckon theologians give too much weight to philosophers whether trying to adapt Plato Aristotle Heidegger or whoever so why because theologians are doing the same thing as philosophers just on the other side of the register and so they want to they want the respect of being good with the propositions and the logic and the rationality and the reason they’re just starting from spiritual starting points instead of material starting points but they’re basically on the same the same ride I mean that’s why I don’t think theology is gonna save the world and it you know it’s interesting because again at the end of the talk that Sugu does on on Jean Francois Lyotard he basically says you know and I’m reading the transcript just because it’s so good like it that that particular talk is so good he basically says he starts from the idea that that silencing people is terror that’s the word terror and any he says I’m fairly sure that no one else would agree with this definition of terror because that would mean everybody in America was terrorized and you know it’s not the same definition they used in the Nazi death camps and it’s not the same as it’s like whoa like yeah he starts at terror he this is the beginning of his thesis is if anybody tells you that your idea is not correct they’re terrorizing you it’s like what and then you can see that everywhere you can see how even without knowing any philosophy engaging any of this stuff or reading any of this stuff they intellectually have led us to where we’re at because we’re acting out as if these guys had something useful and serious to say when in fact they know they’re trolling and they would just be happy to see the world burn yeah and he gave the example of Singapore which is like the bane of all modern thinkers because like it’s like oh you mean that there’s got a fascinating regime like literally that censoring the media and all doing all the things that should by and the people are happy like what’s what’s happening right so there there is this thing of the benevolent dictator and like he literally said it is like oh like the dictatorial regime realizes the problems with being a dictatorship so they’re not doing the problematic things and I’m like right that sounds great well that’s the history of monarchy in England if you watch the monarchy series with David Starkey it’s fantastic and it’s like yeah that’s the history is this battle between who has what power and how much of that power and who’s taking power at any given time and what that actually looks it’s all it is so Mills you agree with the idea that emergence all the way up and emanation all the way down is correct no I don’t I think this is one of those things people it’s not the formula that I used it’s really simple and nobody likes well not nobody but almost nobody it’s real easy guys it’s in it’s in all these wisdom all the wisdom all of them say the same thing you don’t need to unite East and West they’re already say the same thing we’re bringing down something and lifting up something and in between the emanation and the emergence which is where we exist we are the thing that can reach the emanation and bring it down and we are the thing that can pull the emergence up okay that is reality so simple there’s three things right and so you can’t exclude the ethereal from reality and you can’t exclude the material from reality but they are not reality because reality is the thing we create that we then call history after being created from the interaction that’s I don’t even know how else you could ever understand this like I don’t know what are the formula you could possibly be using also like Peterson talked about this with Stephen whatever like anyway he said what if evolution is exploring a space and if that’s true then that space has to have pre-existed before evolution right exactly so like the only way that emergence can manifest in a means that can persist through time is that there is a pre-existing structure that can hold it like right right like well this is what I’ve often said right John Verbeke’s like evolution has no telos and I’m like all right dude I’ll grant you if you define evolution as a process of discovery then evolution has no telos I can take the evolution take the telos out of evolution all day long it’s not hard the problem is the space that it’s discovering as Manuel said which which is a good good paraphrase of Peterson has a telos otherwise evolution all the theories that we that we throw in the bucket of evolution are wrong and can’t operate literally cannot operate because selection could not exist and this is why I get upset about equality if the if equality then evolution fails and doesn’t it’s wrong like all Darwin is wrong all the people he drew from are wrong all of it is act and I do mean actually all of it like literally every single piece doesn’t work you can salvage pieces no yeah I just kind of had an insight so you can say well like okay so there’s this structure of ammunition but like like do we know if we have like this part of the pyramid or this part of the pyramid what we don’t know to what what part of the ammunition we have a relation to right and I think this is the postmodern argument right like okay like if we start here on this side of the pyramid we might get all the way up and like you use you saying like well what we have is is right like we might be in a local optimum right like just like evolution like you have creatures like the Panda right which are solely highly specialized that they can only eat one type of food and like spent the whole day digesting their food and like are incapable of relating to change right like that’s that’s no good and so the the emergence of good argument like to give them the benefit of the doubt is like okay like maybe we’re we are the Panda like like there’s way the world is way bigger than we know right and this this goes to what was it Renaissance or conservatism or yeah no enlightenment conservatism from Burke who effectively said we should only implement things that we’ve tried like we can’t revolutionize things that we haven’t tried because then we fall into a pit of chaos and like we’re gonna get a worse tyrant than than what we get rid of right and so there’s there’s this this pattern that we get into right like if we chop off the head we establish a new hat and we don’t have control over what hat we get and after the French Revolution right like everybody was like oh that was a complete disaster and we don’t want to do that but we also don’t want to give up on on this progress thing right in order to make progress we need to engage with new things right so so he Burke was stating that we we want to stay in constant touch with reality so that we can get feedback from the implementation that we we don’t implement an ideology right because that that’s what happened right like there was all these people that did the thinky-thinky thing and then they’re like well let’s make the world in the image of my thinky-thinky thing that didn’t work and so so this this conservatism was not a conservatism in the sense that they were trying to preserve something but it was a conservatism in conserving the process of evolving developing right right conserving the the quote progress right and progress like the word progress doesn’t mean anything by itself it cannot be a communicative tool alone you have to talk about progress in terms of tell us you have to otherwise there’s no such thing it’s undefinable right and look I mean I’ve said it before I’ll say it again the problem with progress is that Hitler was a progressive no really look it up he was he was a progressive that’s what he was fascism was progressivism it was it was the progress from science by the all this is science socialism it’s science applied to governance that’s what it is maybe other things too but it’s definitely science applied to government governance and that’s and that’s one of the problems is that yeah you can progress yourself right into genocide that’s very easy to do it’s a rational reasonable logical arguments wrong ethically but it is a rational logical argument I would argue that well this is maybe a bold claim but maybe all progression ends in suicide yeah that’s that’s because I I see all of this progression lead lead to nihilism right like like it’s all liberation from oppression until there’s nothing left like who are you at the end like for real like fanaclae’s thing on homesickness was really nice it’s like well America’s on the move right and like this there’s all of this this type stabilization and identity and then they start forming new identities based upon well like what what is the thing that you can keep well when you’re on the you can’t keep your tradition or your home or whatever so you can only keep the thing that you’re gonna build right so you’re gonna have to put your identity in the thing that you don’t have so now you’re gonna create your identity instead of that you inherited from the past and when well like how are we creating our identity it’s like we’re gonna have to use the things from the past to create our identity like like that has to happen right and then well you end up in the craziness that we have we have now yeah so why do I think it leads into suicide because like I like at a certain point you don’t have anything like this right there’s no you’re you’re nothing I have this umbilical cord like it’s keeping me stuck like I need I need to kill my father I keep need to kill my mother to liberate myself from them so that my identity is not informed by them I need to liberate myself from my religion I need to liberate myself for my state because like they’re not allowed to tell me who I am I need to liberate myself from my peers because like they’re not cool and like like who are you? It goes on. It has no end and things with no end are parasitic and if it’s parasitic yeah it’s suicidal and that’s the point you can only you can only feed on your house for so long before you kill the host and that’s why parasitic things are bad and now do you recognize them? Self-reference. Self-reference is a bad sign guys saying I know I know nothing is obviously absurd and can’t be useful to you so you know these things are not useful don’t be fooled into thinking they are because they sound clever or they put your mind in this ooh titillating contradiction you know it’s this novelty it’s seeking novelty and you can’t not seek novelty a little bit of novelty is fine but it has to be tempered temperance right with this appreciation for the past this embedded grounding that you have this historical grounding that keeps you a oneness otherwise you fly apart and then it’s and then you’re back to the parasitic behavior you just fly up I’m just literally what Subaru says in this time it’s like yeah you get to the point where everyone’s speaking their own language well I wish somebody had written that down in a book a few thousand years ago maybe we could have read it and learn something from it I don’t know and if you want to engage with newness maybe you should have a mentor like Suguru who actually knows the ins and the outs of what he’s talking about right and can guide so today like whatever you’re engaging with is a safe engagement because that’s that’s a problem of these philosophers right like they’ve had unsafe engagement right like I think Kant said that that you liberated him from his dogmatism like okay so you grew up dogmatically so you have an internal tendency to be really strict which is actually expressed in his following philosophy so it’s like oh you you got liberated but did you did you right you didn’t right and that’s it and that’s the problem it’s like are you sure you know are you sure you can see yourself as the result of reading a book because I don’t think you can I don’t think you can outsource your sanity to a true the written word which is not to say it’s not helpful but it’s limited and we’re just not recognizing it’s tempting I can read all these books and then I can have all this knowledge and then when I have this knowledge I can do all these things and it’s like or you can just do the things without the books or the reading or the knowledge and indeed there’s a deep asymmetry in that the quality of gardening cannot be captured by the quantity measurement of putting forth the propositions of gardening on a piece of paper it doesn’t work I’m not saying it’s not useful I’m saying that is not required it might be better in some cases but it also might be worse because you could just be gardening books the rest of your life and never actually plant anything and yet that happens to people all the time well there’s a bunch of people that run into that problem this is actually what Adam Smith was talking about with specialization right so you can you can have specialization which allows you to optimize for productivity but is a measure of quantity right but there’s a there’s a cause right because like you specifically narrow to a subset of a process and like who what is your identity like who are you when you’re doing that like now you’re getting into a whole bunch of spiritual problems right because you’re you’re making yourself literally a machine and right and that’s good if you if you want to have like an army right and like when the guy in front of you dies you can replace him immediately right like that’s good in that situation but like maybe when you’re doing gardening for like relief you don’t want to be the soldier that replaces the soldier that was doing the planting of but that’s not why you’re doing it so like your relationship to that activity needs to be informed differently like you shouldn’t use propositions and procedures to to engage in that activity because you’re you can’t see see not not see yourself you can’t evolve yourself within a a following of a constraint because like when when you’re in the procedure it’s like a tunnel right you’re going through the tunnel and and you’re you’re trying to stay in the middle so that you don’t bump to the side because then you you fail your procedure right like and you’re not gonna get the result that you want but but as a consequence you can’t dance can’t look around like they’re in conflict with with your procedure and like maybe gardening is not a best example because there’s no time constraint but if we’re talking about cooking for example where there is a time constraint then you get stressed right like like yeah time constraints in gardening what are you talking about they’re just longer constraints when to plant when to pick yeah how often do we eat different time constraints there’s a bunch of them but yeah they’re different it’s not a simple example but that’s the point the simple examples fool you into thinking procedures might work and it’s the complex examples that show you procedures are useless it’s like oh you know oh we need the procedures but they’re actually not gonna do the work right we have to do the work with something other than mere procedures and that’s where people get wrapped around the axle they don’t like and this is the problem like the postmoderns understand full well while they’re critiquing well everyone else is putting you in a tunnel in philosophy and then carrying you through thing and that’s terrorism or whatever they’re framing it they understand full well that’s because you can’t do any other thing and that’s why they laugh when they when you find out oh the end of your thing is nobody can talk like yep and they laugh they do they laugh I’ve done it many times these postmods they always laugh because they realize that it doesn’t work it just results in no one being able to cooperate anymore you’re an individual and to be an individual you cannot cooperate with others by definition you want to be an individual go right ahead and try I dare you you’re not watching the internet so you know go ahead be an individual otherwise you’re tied to people in some way whether it’s for the house you didn’t build if the electricity you are not generating or for the solar cells you bought to generate your own electricity like you can’t get around these things right when you’re not an individual you’re gonna end up in conflict and you’re gonna be part of a body right which means that you have to conform to it but that also means that you have to protect your body because now there’s not your body and that’s gonna be adversarial at some points and that’s the thing that that they’re trying to avoid right so yeah so Peugeot was mature Peugeot was talking about that we’re at the end of an illusion in in our society right so so what’s what’s the illusion well the illusion is is the consequence of tolerance like when you tolerate things then you’re allowing people to deceive themselves into thinking that what they’re doing is okay and at a certain point what they’re doing isn’t okay because like it can’t exist anymore in the way that it is existing and then you’re gonna end up in conflict right and then you could call that a revolution but but you can you can also look at it as like a tension like it’s a fat in which pressure builds up and at a certain point you need to release the pressure and then the question is well like how are you gonna release that pressure because right like you need you need to re-establish order in some way you built you built the pressure up too much through the tolerance right Mills an individual is a harsh pejorative term in basic training yeah I bet it was but but also I mean you have to you have to look at this reasonably one of the things that people do not understand about revolution is a revolution is a sub class or subtype of war so everyone’s like no war but revolution and I’m like do you not understand that a revolution is actually a war against your own ruling government party king whatever in all cases there are no exceptions all revolutions because revolution is just a type of war and people die in war people die in revolutions and it’s not just the people you don’t like I’ll tell you that right now so you know and look when you understand these formulas you can spot to some generous people or you know ignorant people right away it’s like oh I shouldn’t trust this person they don’t understand the revolution is a war and that people are gonna die and some of them are gonna be innocent because innocent people die in war like that’s just axiomatically the way it’s always happened and there’s no way around it as near as anybody can tell and yeah once you do the the the trick of tolerating and just tolerating and more tolerating or giving people grace or redeeming them before they’ve done anything to deserve the grace or redemption you’re you’re weakening them right in the long term and you’re screwing yourself Oh father Eric says that’s not what John Lennon says well yeah that’s that’s that’s definitely the but imagine but imagine imagine right well I like Anselman yes war with the same consequences right and so these people call for revolution but no war and it’s like um I don’t think you understand how the universe is actually formulated and that’s a universe you were born into and are subject to as a subject of reality which is the thing that you were created into and it is that creation denial is right there like that talk man I just I’ve never felt more incredibly validated in my life than listening to that talk I mean John Frasla leotard is so transparently stupid and Segru just frickin annihilates everything in 45 minutes also super concise I love concise things well I don’t read long books right I like short stories short stories are good and thinking about revolution you can make an analogy with a family getting a child and then at a certain point like the responsibility or the care or the patronage is gonna go over to the child and it’s like well what is the child that you’re gonna give your patronage right like like like is is is it your child gonna murder you to take your throne like is your child gonna murder is this is this is so like like like like what like what is it gonna do like is your child gonna bring in a bunch of foreign women that will change all the traditions in your family making it unrecognizable like like what what is your child gonna do and so like there’s this book where they’re like kind of exploring all these problems with with how to deal with with that thing and inheritance and like children and like what’s good and what’s not good and there’s there’s a bigger version of that on the societal level right it’s like but this this affects more people like this doesn’t affect only you and and and one thing that you do know is like all energy is spent in war right whatever version that may take whether it’s council culture or is not going somewhere else and so this is this is a disease that is self-inflicted by by the society and there was there was this idea right like that you’re not allowed to be in opposition to the king because that’s treason and that’s not allowed but like if you allow people to be in opposition to the body that they’re in you you end up with a known body right and and and like the body is like laying on the ground like still having the same physical shape but the the body parts aren’t connected anymore and they’re not functioning as a unit and as soon as some external force comes at it it will fall apart and that’s the moment that you need the body the most because like the body is the thing that is there to deal with the external things like it needs to deal with the things that are not the body right yeah no it’s a big it’s a big pattern that you can’t escape as a result of having been created in the world and everybody wants to escape it and it’s like you can’t escape that which you were created into like you can’t there are limits you can do some things to mitigate or whatever but ultimately you you know you can’t escape and someone is claiming there was a glorious revolution in England in 1688 which it was a peaceful regime change until some fighting had to be done against the ex-king tyrant in Ireland yes I’m sure that’s exactly exactly what went down I remember that incident in the monarchy series yeah it was it was quite quite interesting Anselman John Milton’s tenure of kings and magistrates argued for the legitimate deposing of tyrannical kings well it’s happened throughout history I don’t know why this is such a big deal rebellions are real kings rule on behalf of and with the consent of the people they always did this is the funny part like that that’s why I like the series monarchy because he really shows that there were no monarchies that work the way people cast them in in we’ll say recent times because we have this oversimplified view of how a king and there’s a succession and that goes by birth it’s not like Parliament ever passes a law saying Catholics can’t be part of the succession and therefore the 65th cousin or something who happens to be the first Protestant on the list it gets in charge like you know new people don’t realize that’s what actually happened and there’s other you know there’s all this back and forth and and and even in you know even in France like there’s all this back and forth and yeah if you tolerate too much and I would argue that was part of the problem was the king was tolerating too much opulence like that’s what Versailles is it’s the toleration of infinite amounts of opulence to the point where and a lot of people don’t realize this right you get the French Revolution right and what happens is no one in the Parliament that wanted the king to pose Robespierre none of these idiots wanted to take control none of them it wasn’t a vying for power what they kept doing is voting well we’re just not gonna have a king we’re just still not gonna have a king we’re just still not gonna have a king we’re not gonna we’re not gonna pass any laws because we don’t want to seem tyrannical as Parliament we’re just not gonna we’re just not gonna do anything we’re gonna sit back and eat more cake and it’s like wasn’t the king that was doing it was that it was the Parliament basically was the nobles it was that it was the soft power beneath the king and and that’s the thing is that yeah and until somebody went and chopped all their heads off basically that didn’t act and you know they were they loved Napoleon you know Napoleon hated France he hated France Corsican and and France had taken over Corsica and stolen all his family wealth and prestige so he hated the French so he was like happy again one of those people with resentments having an idea of how the world to work oh my god like wasn’t that true for Hitler as well yeah yeah well then a simplified idea I mean the whole problem and I talk about this in my talk about the French Revolution with Adam on navigating patterns here the whole problem with all of this is that ultimately Napoleon just doesn’t understand anything correctly he missed he misunderstands the so-called American Revolution and the Enlightenment philosophy and so he tries to just be emperor of a vast land right and you can’t actually do that because you’re tolerating too much within your own borders and then it all falls apart and that’s exactly what you know what happens to him Anselman claims the reason the British monarchs swears to uphold the Protestant religion is that the Pope’s are deemed to be foreign princes with no jurisdiction over the kingdom yeah you should watch David Stark that also like it’s not a Protestant religion it was more a political objection to papal secular power yeah it was all Jinda and it was all based on Protestant like Henry VIII fell for the Protestant solution when in fact there were better solutions available to his problem and he basically screwed up the entire country and it like until you know that you don’t get how bad Protestantism is it just destroyed England so I want to engage with this right it was like why would you do this right like if you want to depose a king just say that you’re deposing the king and that you’re committing treason like you because you are so like why do you need to legitimize it like you are committing a sin yeah just say I’m a sinner I think it’s for the good and I’m a sinner and get redemption right yeah you shouldn’t legitimize it you shouldn’t normalize it because that’s that tolerance thing again when you’re legitimizing something you’re tolerating it and maybe you should agree that transgression is required in this case and I will get redemption later and if I’m wrong I won’t get redeemed that seems better all around right and like like why why are we trying to make this into a law or whatever right it’s like well we’re outsourcing our responsibility it was like no screw you like if you want to if we want to kill the king like you better take responsibility for it like geez like you right you want to be had the country take the responsibility for transgression because then you can be redeemed and you can’t be redeemed any any other way father Eric says the 16th century Jesuits in Salamanca we’re writing theories of regicide too not no we’re not anti-irresponsibility for it you can do what you want niche niche erode a theory of regicide for Jesus like how did you like that there we go shall we open the floor so that we can post it if you want me to to go and commit regicide you side against the the YouTube kingship or something it’s pinned at the top of navigating patterns that link father Eric I remember one of them said that if a generally good king was trying to kill you unjustly then charity would dictate you let him kill you well yes exactly yeah that’s the proper use of charity right there don’t tell the Protestants any any use of charity that doesn’t favor them they don’t like I’ve noticed that about this crazy Protestants but strangely individual preserving idea and interpretation of absolutely everything there’s there’s very little we’ll say ultimate sacrifice in their system that’s why I think and and I know Paul Van der Kley used it recently the he liked the Christians for the alliance thing he really liked that he used it in a recent talk too I didn’t watch the whole talk I just watched the last ten minutes where where I heard everything else up but got that right so sounds like the guy had been reading play-doh yeah was he right to drink the hamlock I don’t know yeah it’s funny too right because there’s the ultimate taking of responsibility right well at the same time I’m gonna grow old and die anyway on my terms it’s like it’s still screwing it up like good job soccer but but I like I don’t like this generally good King thing because now we’re just like okay are you the judge of whether the king is good or not right the problem always boils down to distributed cognition you’re a muppet right and what do you know and that’s why you know because it doesn’t boil down to perfection like perfection in my eyes is X well no kidding everyone’s got and they conflict right it boils down to the collective consciousness the distributed cognition has decided for all the faults of this King were better off with him than one out of and who are you to override the intelligence of the collection of the collective that’s really what it boils down to and also right like in Christian stuff like he’s he’s an authority your principality on the direct blessing of God because I’ll see wouldn’t be there so like you to say no to what God dictated right yeah no it’s a it’s a tough thing to like nobody wants to hear that like yeah you’re the one that has to take the hit for the team kid like nobody wants to hear that but also guess what but that’s what they say to soldiers right like oh yeah you got it you got a sacrifice your life for this piece of land now because of yeah some general saying that that is the right thing to do yeah okay yeah well and it’s and it’s funny right because by the time things get to war everyone’s willing to take arbitrary orders left right and center because things are so chaotic that arbitrary orders are better you know good you can make all kinds of arguments about people taking hills and various battles it’s like why do you need that hill kids just give it to the enemy and laugh as they’re screwed because they’re on top of a hill you know it’s even worse with castles or something right so like yeah it’s like like this army goes into the country and I’m like well we’re gonna count like a year outside of this castle to take it I was like what like you’re gonna spend a year like dying and doing nothing for a castle like are you kidding me but it works that’s the funny part it worked doesn’t work reliably and consistently the way you want it to but it works and yeah I mean that’s why you know that’s why those scenes those war scenes like you know particularly Lord of the Rings right where you’ve got the you get Helms deep and he’s like I’m gonna ride out and die like a man and then all of a sudden you know that the wayward Rohirrim returned to their king and like come in by the enemy and take them all out right so yeah there’s all those I like that version better than the book the book the book story is a little bit different but Jackson did a wonderful job making a story out of Tolkien’s work which is not a good story by the way great mythos bad story you know and that that that’s the thing like we like that story we like the story of people returning this arbitrary death right in this winning of spaces and and all that like we like that and you know maybe we should like that but also you know there are problems with it so you have to be aware of that yeah I’m just thinking of all of these every watching Asian shows the last year or whatever um yeah you don’t you don’t want to know how many of these Asians die in these battlefields and and they’re storming the walls right like they’re they’re not like yeah let’s just sit out outside here notice like we’re gonna make this happen and I don’t know I read the fantasy book and I said like when you store a castle you pay 10 to 1 in lives like who would ever do that like like in that sense sitting around but but then like when you sit around the castle right you can get backstabbed right and you have supplies for a year so so then you’re already like I kind of already won I just have to have reality catch up well yeah that’s that’s another thing right you know I in some ways the trolling of the philosophers this idea that they’re basically screwing with us which I think is pretty much true everybody past Aristotle is important because what it means is that the resolution to being caught in fantasy land in your head with these philosophical propositions and garbage is that you go to war you get the ultimate signal back about what is right and what is wrong and and some of the Jesuits were of course were plotting to attack the English monarchs well yeah that’s why they were hunted down in subversives yeah that I like that in monarchy Starkey goes over this whole like crazy guy who was trying to get back at the Catholics so he found some justification and respond the story and that whole thing was like wacky like what it’s one crazy guy came up with the craziest story of all time and people bought into it politically expedient for them to do so and and you know a lot of of of monarchy is all about the the intellectual class right which is usually the Parliament or the or the noble class or whatever right because they’re well read they don’t work in the field coming up with these great new ideas right not not sitting on the throne and like I said I mean in some ways it’s a credit to the French Revolution that the revolutionaries were smart enough not to take that to do anything on the other hand they just got a lot more people killed because they needed that to resolve sooner before Napoleon sort of took power and so in much the anti-roman Catholic persecution was duetto for a duetto fear of revolution and regicide I agree oh look who’s here welcome Len you are muted you can unmute yourself though Oh perfect did I figure it out you did you’re the best good to see you on a live stream excellent congrats welcome my heart’s a thumping we so my great aunt four generations ago was Catherine the great oh wow my mother said that we always had special blood I don’t know if I believe that I don’t know that the royalty because there was so much in breeding maybe that was made special I don’t know well if it isn’t her you always have Genghis Khan to fall back upon so well the story in the family was that the history was she was a very kind woman and the history books deemed her as ugly as an ugly person and so there was a lot of resentment towards people for the like I remember as a kid there was a story about they would like throw babies in the air and swords kill them and stuff horrible stuff that they put in the history books and my my family said that that wasn’t true so I don’t know so we were talking about trolling and I don’t know that philosophy trolls I was more thinking about how being trolled by artificial intelligence so something in the algorithm kicks up a novelty or kicks up an algorithm thing and you depending on your generation or where you your point of view or the narrative you could take it as being good or bad or you could take it as offensive or not offensive well I think if we’re looking at the modern algorithms like they create bubbles right they create a network of connected things that are sort of an abstraction from ideological actualities right because because they’re trained by people who follow certain ideas right so in some sense they are a philosophical network right like they’re just like a philosopher building they’re downstream right so they’re informed by the philosophies so you can say this gender stuff is a philosophy right it is it’s critical race theory it’s drawn like James Lindsay talks about this drawn directly from that right and then okay well it’s drawn directly from that and then that informs somebody who’s writing the code right or doing the training or picking the training set for the thing to train itself right and then that’s that’s you know and then another philosophers were like the great part is they’re like oh we didn’t do it we don’t we don’t touch computers what are you talking about right and they’re gonna play all innocent even though they’re the ones that poison the minds of the people who are doing the work well after my talk with Banderclay the algorithm kicked me a video and the name of it you know had the word queer in it and for Gen Xers queer is a derogatory thing but for the younger generation using the word queer isn’t necessarily a derogatory thing right so um my intuition was that okay a millennial or somebody in the younger generation programmed this novelty piece and headed it get a clickbait for it but then there was no relevant nothing relevant it was like I don’t I’m not they didn’t connect to anything it was like such an irrelevant so I I didn’t understand so maybe Sally Jo was right calling it parasitic or Frankenstein I just well the creating is really interesting right because what is here this talking about well it’s talking about the periphery right like the things that are outside of the center like the show is talking about and and so what did they do instead of having it as a derogatory term they did the pricing right like they’re like oh we need to redeem the thing that’s outside of the thing by lifting it up and and making it special right so so it became a badge of honor right it’s like oh look look at me having my unique identity and my unique identity is by not conforming to the norm because like it it is an anti identity the queerness is is defined against the norm that is stated by society if I could be and you you can say well society is a reflection of a natural norm that that that is inherited in the society right and so the queerness is is is literally an anti or identifying against this other thing and and we started talking about the Jean-Francois de Jotard and he he he was celebrating that right just like what what is this new identity well this is way of looking at the world and if we do evolution enough then maybe a really really really beautiful pearl appears among all the ships that’s literally his right but then when you when you get right down to it you ask him how would you know that that was the case he admits he can’t tell and so even if he’s right it’s not useful because you can’t make that decision and you can’t show it to other people because you can’t even talk to them you have the best idea in the world and can’t communicate with them at all in any way shape or form so what use is it if it’s the best thing in the world but it’s only yours right that’s just the recapitulation of individualism as parrot as as parasitic process and yeah pure individualism is parasitic but also we don’t want those parasites and that’s the problem with modern philosophy is that they’re trolling there they’re telling you there are these new ways of thinking or that they’re gonna figure something out or that they’re implying over looking for capital G truth here and when in fact none of that is happening they’re not finding anything new they haven’t gotten past play dough like explicitly Nietzsche yeah he doesn’t admit it Heidegger admitted he couldn’t get past play dough he admitted it in his writing we’re not this isn’t even different they didn’t right they knew they didn’t that’s the important part Nietzsche said he couldn’t get past Jesus so like he just took a different reference point Nietzsche just said that play dough was always over his shoulder it’s like well maybe that’s because he’s still above you and whatnot mills so one of the products of the p.m. postmodern philosophy getting into the culture at large was everyone’s deconstructing right or trying to which you can’t deconstruct it’s an invalid communication that the term deconstruction makes no sense and in language by the way I tend to see this as a burning away of what is dead in the possibility of revival but it’s not because you’re not you don’t know what’s dead and what’s not like you can’t judge that’s the trick the postmoderns are playing on you they’re telling you you can judge and you’re telling you you can selectively remove things you can’t do either of those things that’s apparent and observable and also what is the thing that you’re going to remove well that’s that’s the log well it’s not it’s not the log in your eyes it’s the thing in the world that is annoying you when you have the log in your eye like you’re going to have a projection from you and and you’re going to create the world that is is not resistant to your fault your sin right like so either you’re going to conform to the world and you’re going to have to change yourself and better yourself in relationship to truth right but if you say well truth doesn’t exist then the only option that you have is have the world conform to you and so so you’re gonna you’re gonna get rid of white privilege you’re gonna get rid of all the white people because they’re in the way of your success because they’re more successful and you’re supposed to be the most successful right right and you see that pattern i mean you you know you you in particular didn’t see this pattern clearly right where they’re like well if Marc Emanuel just get off the discord server it will flourish right and Marc Emanuel are on the discord server and it dies it’s like you guys think that success is something that anybody has equal access to and then if the people who seem to have the success that you crave are gone then you will then inherit it somehow or something and nothing works that way like you build success and you maintain success and if you don’t it goes away and if you can’t you can’t have it pinning some people can’t have it whatever that it is like we’re all different we all have different skill sets i’m not going to be Elon Musk i don’t want to be Elon Musk but even if i wanted to be i couldn’t you know and and it is what it is and yeah you know father eric is is bringing up a good point about the Pareto distribution right and and that’s the thing and Mills claims that what has become dead to those who deconstruct then rediscovering with it but they don’t Mills they don’t they see none of this ever happens when you talk to people they didn’t deconstruct they hit a wall at 90 miles an hour and their car went kablooey that’s always the story i’ve never heard a different story people say oh i’ve deconstructed i don’t tell me your story and it’s always i’m driving down the road and i took the wheel and i crashed into a wall and the car went a million pieces and now i don’t know what to do yeah i don’t know what to do oh oh look at this look up hold on hold on esteemed welcome father eric good to see you see y’all cut off the head he is our head now we’ll have to we’ll have to put him there we go there so so but put me at the bottom when we’re talking about uh reconstructing what’s that but that’s assuming that you don’t end at the bottom of a bottle or in whatever hole that that will take you right like you’re not you’re not necessarily reconstructing because like when you cut off the branch that you’re sitting on you fall and when you fall you might get hurt you might get hurt in a way that doesn’t allow you to get up again so like no and then also like is the thing that you’re going to build back better than the thing that you destroyed like because like like even if you can do it like is is is it gonna be better you had like this is the problem do you even know what you had you don’t know you have no idea well it’s individual and nihilism i guess nihilism and isolation is that’s where that road took me is isolation and nihilism yeah you were told by the philosophers yeah and then not even having the capacity to even know where to begin to communicate or begin to start the conversation to begin to take a step to reach out to at least have somebody to bounce off your to begin to sense make to begin to sense me so our sanity right paul vanderkleid talks about this we outsource our sanity and it’s important and and i like what uh moysette moses it says right it’s called a hierarchy for a reason we all have different gifts right and we can’t all do the same thing just because i can do something with computers doesn’t mean manuel can and you know uh lynn knows how to save birds lives and i don’t i don’t do that so no that wasn’t me that was god don’t don’t you dare even with that yeah you were patient we’re all being like well let’s let’s tell you how to get rid of this noise you’re like no i don’t want to get rid of the noise i want to save the bird we’re like we don’t know how to save the birds but you did you had faith and no i prayed i just prayed yeah i would say that’s that’s a good that’s a good good uh analog for faith praying praying that the bird is okay and then it is so well done well done it was not me that was a miracle so so yeah there’s this idea right like lynn lynn got at the place where the philosopher is laughing at her right it’s like oh you’re you’re at you’re at this bubble you have your own language right like nobody understands you because like literally you’re all my friends on facebook trolling me i mean and the algorithm trolling me and not being able to commute or even reach out for help i mean it was this total dead end sorry well yeah but but what happens if if you’re disconnected right like in there’s some sense if you’re disconnected like even the connected thing right like like if if i extend a hand and you don’t have a hand me extending your hand is trolling you right because you can’t reciprocate and it’s like i’m i’m actually showing you your disability even though i’m well intended it’s like joe biden inviting the disabled veteran to stand up and be recognized yes yes exactly exactly unfortunately it and that’s what happens though that’s you get into this clown world this upside down thing and i like jonathan peugeot’s clips channel is a great clip from a talk he did um well i can’t remember who it was with now it might have been benjamin voice um but he was basically talking about yeah you can’t get around hierarchy so what happens is you invert it because you can’t you can’t get around it so you just end up inverting it it’s too bad it’s too bad father eric what do you have to say about this this uh reganus in excelsius thing on elizabeth the first and a hard do we kill hardened heretics in the catholic church i don’t know it really used to haven’t done it in a while how long how long back i mean did they kill them all or is that what they were doing um we were never that efficient i know that’s the thing like yeah heretics were redeemable i i think um i think it might have been a uh a tactical error that caused more problems for english catholics than it solved well that’s certainly true but uh but i don’t think they the pope called for her actual execution at any point although the prodigies love to demonize the catholics on these weird grounds the pope tried to kill her with a knife it’s like a what no they always do that but but but it’s interesting question like like it’s like what what is the question answer to this disaster of a culture right like how do you redeem that which is straight i don’t get the question well there’s people that have strayed from the truth right um like like we were talking about at a certain point the tolerance has to end right right so like what do you do like like how do you resolve that you call people to repentance yeah okay don’t right well and that you mark the dust off the bottom of your shoes and move on they can’t look at look at these people and they’ve kicked the habit of killing heretics dude there are heretics all over the catholic church to this day and there always have been and almost none of them get killed honest to god you can look it up i don’t know where these people get this fantasy from it’s really weird though yeah what was it copernicus or whatever like they didn’t kill him Galileo no he had house arrest cushy house arrest like Galileo had really cushy house arrest like that is that whole story is like what are you guys talking about he’s treated pretty it was it was it wasn’t his house either like it was yeah it’s just it’s just crazy just admit you don’t know mark no i i’m not i no no i know it’s not in the in there like the killing is not in the paper bowl like i do know that you can look it up too by the way you’re assuming i don’t know because i didn’t actually do any research that is false he’s not closer to on topic he’s he’s saying people use an excuse to kill to to plot against the queen really well that happened with guy fox too do we blame the pope for that one like how many plots against to kill kings are pope’s fault i don’t understand because everyone’s got an excuse for why they they plot to kill a monarch like they watch monarchy it’s a great series i learned a lot from he’s very limited in scope for history he’s just talking about certain aspects of monarchy in england but um that that’s the thing and the pope did not call for the killing of a monarch that didn’t it didn’t happen not in that instance it didn’t happen you you literally can just look it up on wikipedia and they pretty much say now that didn’t happen like they say it too it’s not that i don’t know it’s that well the consensus is that that didn’t quite happen that way uh and and so the fact that that a statement might might have led to a plot is whatever i mean that happens all the time so oh yeah just a little joke uh-huh look look everybody wanted to be in the spanish inquisition they didn’t want the local courts here in your cases the inquisition was kind or at least kinder than the local officials let me leave that out you know what it is it’s monty python history that’s the problem monty python is more trolling from the philosophers i say more trolling from the philosophers but that that’s really the issue is you know these ideas they do filter down and and we adopt them whether we realize it or not like we adopt postmodernism if we’ve never read a line of postmodern philosophy and and to be fair right like these are perennial patterns right like saguru was like yeah postmodernism is basically um romanticism but more extreme right so it’s like it’s it’s the identification against the dogmatic oppression of whatever came before it right and then we get this liberal so we got we got a spiral and we get to the same place but we’re we’re farther from the center um exactly but right like there’s there’s a way in which these things can be well propagandized right like they can be promoted in things like the matrix or whatever right where it’s it’s it’s being uh put in in a nice enchanting uh package and and like you walk away with it and and it’s just as the introduction to the philosophy book where oh yeah that is a problem like i i agree like the thing that you just articulated is a problem but you don’t you don’t have the context right you don’t you don’t have to the way to understand why and how it is a problem and you’re just gonna have to rely on the authority of the philosopher to tell you well as like it’s a problem for this reason right and if you listen to for vacant for example right like the the way he classifies problems is is as a consequence of a paradox right like so so some things can’t coexist right right it is is it the is it the consequence of the things coexisting or is it the consequence of where you’re looking from and then if it’s a consequence of where you’re looking from it’s not a paradox like you’re just wrong and and that’s that’s the kind of like the questions like okay what what is causing the problem like what will make the problem stop um well i don’t don’t let the philosophers tell you up front things like it’s terror for them to what and misuse the word in the process like yeah i i like this comment uh my world was rocked when i read that flat earth had been a 19th century attempt to discredit catholics yeah talk about trolling it really is trolling too it’s uh it’s it’s it’s fascinating that that so much trolling goes on and i’m i’m not going to defend the jeduits jeduits definitely have a problem but like complaining the jeduits and the pope is that you can see oh that you can actually do that right now if you want to well right now because the pope is a jesuit but uh yeah yeah but yeah uh the world there we go the jeduits are uh the jeduits are not doing so bad at at at the moment at the moment oh oh here we go don’t we have two popes though i mean ouch technically this is why i chop wood and carry water as much as possible yeah you’re going to do the work right then you don’t get trolled by the philosophers right the minute you actually start engaging in the world the philosophers attempts to troll you into post-modernism or or whatever hegelian dialectic whatever kind of made up garbage that they made up last week because they ate some bad food or something uh and spent too much time in the no no no it’s it’s it’s really not that complicated mark it’s because they’re french well it doesn’t explain all the german ones but yes yeah that’s that’s true yeah now the french are a problem that’s so was who was master echhart now was he catholic i mean yeah yeah but everybody was catholic then but he was a heretic wasn’t he well it’s it’s more like so he he went in front of i think it was the the parisian tribunal and he was not wanting to be in rebellion against the church and he was willing to to submit and and recant um basically he got in trouble for being just kind of wild so he was like making the argument making the argument making the order god is nothing and then making the argument making the argument making it god is everything and i think it was just supposed to be kind of frame breaking but it wasn’t appreciated yeah that’s that that’s that um um you know that that whole idea of we can find god by looking where he’s not so the eye within the eyes yeah the eyes which god sees me is the same eye with which i see myself that’s that’s his favorite quote i haven’t studied him really that much so that that’s i think that’s in the bible at a certain point right like god yeah i’m not yeah i’m not probably by my name and i will like like my true name or something right but a lot of these yeah a lot of these patterns are just extracted out and then they’re isolated so for example non-theists right in in the classic tradition is as vervecky somehow didn’t know because protestants don’t study anything apparently um you know the the church a bunch of church fathers were non-theists but in order to find out where something isn’t you have to start by defining it you have a precise accurate definition but you have to kind of say like well you you you’d have to define god to look where god isn’t like it doesn’t work it’s like a piñata right it’s like if you miss the piñata that’s one thing if you stand in front of it but if you stand like next door or if you never define what a piñata is and you just start swinging and that’s very much the trick that sagru points out in in that video that i posted in the beginning right he says look the starting point of the argument is that to tell somebody they can or cannot have an idea is terror like the word uses the word terror in a unique and new way and it’s like oh well if you’re starting from that premise you can’t you can’t philosophize on the basis of that premise you’re making axiomatic judgment statements that are unsupportable by any stretch of any imagination you’ve thrown out all logic reason or rationality forever because your starting point is bankrupt you’ve made an emotional plea of terror to make your argument and build it upon completely invalid i’m gonna defend the word usage of terror because what what he’s what he’s doing is he’s he’s saying there’s an oppression right and then the oppression the systematic oppression becomes internalized through terror and so because you’re conforming to a non-actuality right because it’s it’s an idea it’s not a real thing that that is an act of terrorism like it’s like yeah it’s all a stretch well and sagru sagru basically destroys that entire argument at the end at the end of the video he basically says this doesn’t make any sense he’s confusing political principle and an epistemological principle right he’s just flat out destroying the usage and definition of words on purpose and he’s knowingly doing so and he’s doing that to get a starting point from which to make a ridiculous argument and then at the end he’s laughing about it all when you when you catch the trick basically and he says all postmoderns do that and it’s like yeah that’s that’s what happens mills what is justice socrates was thoroughly apophatic did sacrilege even deal with justice or is that just in the republic which we played out yeah and we’re doing a book club on play dough and i’ll post a link to the texas wisdom community yes texas wisdom community youtube so that you can actually check out our awesome it’s a great book club we have a lot of fun it’s quite it’s quite uh quite the thing we get we get a lot of good good juice out of the republic imagine that um um i think i think he he does define it right but like justice is like a second order thing like it’s it’s it’s a thing that’s contingent upon a body and the relationships within the body right and i think he defines it as the maintenance of good relationship or something right yeah and and and again right for play dough in the republic effectively what he’s saying is the only way to know justice is to look at it at a certain scale the scale of a city right you can’t know the whole the whole opening of the of the republic is you can’t know justice by using single person examples it’s the whole opening of the book that’s book one you can’t do that that’s what he says you can’t do it we’re gonna have to talk about cities in order to get to justice because justice is that complex and then they just you know it’s not about politics either in fact the word politics is only used a few times in the republic and it’s used to refer to specific situations not to the project in the republic of building a city so the ancient greeks did not conceive of politics the way we use the word at all and we conflate that by the way so yeah there’s lots of good gems in the republic and so he he’s defining the word justice or the concept of justice in relation to three other virtues right and virtues are not a a static entity or like a being like they’re becoming or the process of becoming not not the process of being and and then like there’s a a thing that emerges from those things right so it’s like a church order concept and like you can’t capture the other virtues in any good definition so so if you want to have a way to relate these things but that see that’s real philosophy it’s all participation he’s not talking on the abstract like the postmoderns welcome chad what’s going on i don’t know what are you guys talking about they’re talking about modern philosophy and why it’s truly what’s what’s modern philosophy modern philosophy is is basically the philosophy after the enlightenment where where it basically rediscovering or trying to redeem the greek ideas right like to the getting to getting the renaissance where they’re getting all these things back and then they’re building a thing and what what they’re building is is a consequence of of well they them seeing the things that were known for for a long long time and then picking them out and then focusing really hard on them and i i went i went into the introduction of it i advise people to watch because i’m i’m pointing out like how they’re they’re basically introducing their personal problems and making them existential in some sense and and they’re then they’re basically pretending that it’s a problem for all of us and then we get sucked into to their problem for the place yeah it’s it’s pretty weird that they they just have trauma and they try to resolve it by saying you all have the same trauma as me and here’s how we’re gonna fix it together it’s like that’s that’s the human condition my trauma is universal yes yeah they’re all like that it’s really weird yeah i’m not a big fan of the the the inflation of of the the of trauma as a as a conversational centerpiece for for people’s troubles yeah like universe i’m just that’s that’s modern philosophy you know and it’s hard to avoid right because like when you’re traumatized and you’re living in the world and you’re going to say things about the worlds like it seems like the whole world when you’re traumatized it seems like the whole world to you yeah yeah i mean it’s it’s very much um uh kirkegaard right kirkegaard is the luther of lutheranism that’s it that’s his whole story you don’t need to know anything else about kirkegaard get the whole thing right i think there are different motives honestly because i think like to me i think that there’s a what i’m noticing in like your what you’re describing is this modern you know post-modern thing is it it’s like a it’s a marketing tool no yeah they’re trying to solve a problem like i think they’re all i’ll genuinely think that the problem that they’re facing is of existential nature like i truly believe that like i don’t think they’re trying to fool us i think they’re just stuck in a rabbit hole yeah i think there’s a very big market for it though for problem solving of this kind but they’re not solving the problem that’s the problem in modern times there is right because yeah that’s what i’m saying i think it’s very different than kirkegaard because i don’t think kirkegaard was his motive was to get rich or you know have a scheme for making the philosophers none of their motives were to get rich or have a scheme it’s just right they suck people in because people like problems right and and they can solve problems when you can solve problems you feel good but the world does not consist of problems that is not the world that we live in the world consists of patterns that we continually have to navigate hence the name navigating patterns is that the new channel navigating patterns it is it’s an excellent name that manuel came up with um so i don’t know it was maybe a few weeks ago where uh i actually i was on the youtubes and i saw uh it was uh kevin smith you know the sov and bob dude and he was like doing like this 38 minute monologue talk doing a internet or a monologue for a youtube for uh people magazine and the whole thing was talking about his trauma yeah and he’s doing it dressed as silent bob and i just thought it was very annoying to me and like i don’t know because i it was something very just uh disingenuous about it i thought yeah well he’s he’s he’s playing a role instead of being a person and he’s not being authentic because that’s not he’s not silent bob i think that’s a character that he created that isn’t real and that and that’s the you know the irony of of the fact that silent bob is the philosopher character in his movies right he’s the silent sort of drops the one-liners that ties everything together right so he’s the ultimate philosopher in kevin smith’s writing and you know when i first encountered kevin smith it was uh it was a video put out called an evening with kevin smith which was honestly the funniest thing i’d ever seen in my life i was four hours of him doing college tours talking about his time in hollywood and you learn a lot about hollywood by listening to that and it was really funny and but a lot of people have talked about in the past few years he’s really broken down and and and like had a break with reality and like gone off his bend and that’s that’s certainly true i mean if everybody around you is telling you the only motivation for anyone to do anything including corporations is money uh which is observably false then you’re gonna start acting like that eventually it may take years but uh i would say everything broke in 2014 and now we’re we’re uh you know suffering from the break in 2014 which you know is very much gamergate and all that i mean i think that’s true but this is this is all the trolling from philosophers who are trying to explain the world to you in a way it is observably false and absurd and leads to bad things yeah so that’s what he opened his whole video with is he just he recently had a break with reality and landed himself in like a i don’t know what a resting home and it was just like i don’t know man i’m like why am i getting why am i trying to why am i listening to silent bob for people magazine trying to tell me some sob story what is he trying to sell me like it’s just i don’t know it’s just annoying that’s right it was interesting because paul van der klees i think it was his latest video he goes into like internal things in the crc and and they’re talking about the strategy right don’t don’t talk to people and try to convince them with theology or whatever convince them with your personal story right so that that’s what they’re doing it’s like oh i’m gonna appeal to your emotions and like if i appeal in the right way you’re gonna agree with me and i was like well no like well that’s manipulation like don’t manipulate please i agree with you know trying to use stories so you can tell your story and then maybe somebody can identify with something but like what is the motive is what i’m i’m interested in why is well that but that’s that’s the point right like in paul van der klees video it was obvious right like i want the other person to empathize with me right and therefore i want them to fight for my cause i want an ally okay right if people are looking for allies that means that like they don’t want to take responsibility they want you to take responsibility well like you’ll see this in like you know obviously people share their testimony in churches and whatever but even in like a meetings you know guys will share their story and you’re telling your story to somebody who is looking to grow and so it’s there can be some encouragement that happens with that but what’s inspiration right like you have you have been captured by a spirit and you’re trying to pass that spirit to other people or the seed of that spirit well i want to address some of these so michael sartori philosophers will never explore any philosophies that would eliminate the need for philosophers no they did the post-moderns are all like and they and they’re overtly like that you you think that but that’s actually people aren’t that self-preservational they maybe they think they try to be but people would rather be cheeky than self-preservational was it the enormous amount of mary jane potato giant of the crowd that surrounds them we never know what happened to kevin smith yeah we’re probably never going to know and i like clint’s comment that’s weaponized compassion or empathy but what’s a better story a story that’s personal to you know to a person that maybe you’re not close to or a story that’s general about a fictional character but say more true or more real than reality or something however however peterson frames it because i think peterson’s right if you’re talking about crowds and people you don’t know or large numbers of people the generic story by definition is going to have more people will you know be able to relate to it whereas if you’re talking to a person you know them telling you their story is going to have way more weight than uh than snow white you know it just it just is and and and that’s one of those things it’s one of those patterns we can’t get around you have to pick one are you targeting somebody that you know or a few people that you know or are you targeting a large group of people and this is you know this is the argument everyone gets caught up with uh especially vanderkley in my third way talk he’s like what about you mark i’m like no no we’re on the peterson train we’re not talking about individuals and conversions at the individual level we’re talking about what leads people into an area where they are more open to at least symbolic thinking if not religion in general right those are two different things you can’t swap one for the other like the tactics are totally changed you got somebody in front of you those tactics are specific and what what is the tell us right what is the purpose that you’re listening with or should be listening with when someone tells you right one to one their story well you’re trying to see in what way you you can participate right right now by comforting them or giving advice or whatever or in the future right like okay like they’re being bullied by these people if i see these people i need to react in in a certain way right so so you’re looking for a way to participate right but when you’re listening to the abstract story right like that abstract story holds means to inform you right so it would be silly to start empathizing or or whatever with that story which is in some sense what the philosophers do is like oh i’m going to resolve the problem of the abstract individual in the story because that’s a problem and if i can find the answer to the problem then i’ve found a solution to life or a part of life right like this is what the fake he says grief is a problem if i could solve grief then i would be amazing what about this is it no mark the personal story is always way more engaging not to me ever so no you’re just wrong right away right off the bat yeah not even father eric’s personal stories are are more engaging than the general story to me at all ever sorry wrong there you go one example destroys your own world it’s just also it’s not true peterson doesn’t do that yeah i listened to the general in the personal story because that’s the thing that i can relate to right so i have a i just wanted to say before i hop off here i have i have answered all of these questions successfully in my sub stack so go to my sub stack i read it my mind asked read your sub stack chad i read the whole thing and i magnified it really i read every word chat wow good for you then thank you and i added a heart yeah so yeah take a look for it right i mean i got all the answers there and uh it’s not quite navigating patterns but it’s the alcoholic substance but it’s also not philosophy i hope or is it no philosophy we’re fine it’s the perfect balance of general in particular there you go it’s like fine wine or the sweet and the tannics it’s all just perfect heart after you read it he’s asked you the alcoholic good job eric right the catholic’s got to keep our branding next week excellent yeah yeah we will oh yeah it’s gonna go to chino chino is gonna be a big deal that’s the weather’s gonna be perfect so that’s philosophers there so i think chad is no more there we go i’ll just what if i actually love wisdom instead of making money off of it can i be a philosopher still and still be one of the well look i mean i think that as long as philosophy is acted out it’s philosophy and if you’re not acting it out i mean playdo and aristral were wrestlers everyone after them i’m not so sure about in terms of philosophy like my idea of modern philosophers is anybody after aristral is considered suspect until proven otherwise and so far none of them have proven to be anything except uh reprehensible trauma children trying to resolve their trauma by extrapolating it to everybody well so it’s interesting that the english tradition which is in contrast to the continental idealism right so idealism is trying to deal with ideas trying to emanate the ideas instead of god effectively right because they’re replacing or they’re imagining god as as whatever their imagination is or they’re substituting it with their imagination so like nichita right and so on in england right they have this this more pragmatic uh boots boots in the ground aspect so they’re they’re more concerned about staying in relationship to reality and maybe because that’s because they’re always walking through the mud so they’re like really grounded but but but yeah like so you have people like yume and and yume was like he’s like well philosophy is nice but don’t take it too seriously because like you want to drink nice beer and eat meat right like that was basically his idea like there’s there’s a bunch of of people like that which which don’t take it serious in well like they don’t make it existential i guess that’s that’s the the distinction they’re not depending on it to give them a big revelation that will save them from from this disaster although yume still had to deal with his galvanist heritage right well we all have baggage and when we suppose that we can know enough to philosophize about things that’s the first mistake all the other mistakes seem to flow from there in the same way that you you know that somebody tells you you can deconstruct it’s like i i have my doubts on that i just don’t think that that even makes any sense and even if it did you couldn’t do it how are people going to recognize being trolled by the algorithm i mean rather than being triggered i mean i was so i was almost triggered like you you don’t you don’t have to recognize you just don’t participate like yeah you don’t have to engage well look look if you want to know right when you know when i’d i’d heard the quote from sakuti said i know i know nothing i’d heard that before but i was just like whatever these people i don’t you know i just like whatever these people are just saying stuff but when verbeke did it i was like wait what because you know he’s he’s he’s fairly well read and i was like i cannot believe that’s true i have to believe that verbeke made a mistake i have to believe that it’s wrong and i went did the research and it’s wrong this is not hard like when i was stuck in atheism when i was stuck in atheism it was a first step for me knowing that perhaps maybe religion or god just tell me so i’m not going to totally dismiss it as it was a really good beginning step to open up my heart to see god if that makes sure well you feel but again you feel something it’s your intuition like we’re trained not to pay attention or intuition we’re trained to pay attention to you know what the science says or whether or not it’s logical it’s like well look logic is great but i can i can i can make any i can justify anything with logic reason rationality anything i’ve done it many many times it’s very easy to do it really doesn’t it’s not that hard for me you know it’s really not difficult right the problem is that that you know hitler logically rationally and reasonably justified the holocaust so i don’t object on logical grounds i object on ethical ground yes you can get there you can get there the same way the post-moderns get to laughing at you because because you realize that language doesn’t work in their system you can’t communicate with other people like they laugh about that and like fair enough they should laugh about that they’re trolling you and you caught them like the appropriate is the maniacal laughter of the evil you have perpetrated onto the world right but you feel that it’s wrong like and that’s the thing we’re ignoring how we feel we’re saying oh intuition doesn’t matter intuition is irrational and it’s like well and this is what people miss socrates and play-doh and aristotle placed way more uh we’ll say credit or gave way more value to mania or madness than they did to rationality explicitly it’s in the text it’s in the text everybody leaves that part out no one’s gonna tell you oh play-doh was very big on mania he thought mania was really important way more important than rationality way more important to transformation than rationality madness madness that’s what he thought was more important no one tells you that they’re just leaving it out what would be uh play-doh’s argument against or or your argument knowing that against somebody who’s like oh mania is super important therefore psychedelics right well look i i because you’ve made this point yourself that the drugs are the number one cause of mental illness right well schizophrenia right the number one cause of schizophrenia is psychedelics uh single largest cause of schizophrenia yeah look i i mean madness is not induced by psychedelics psychedelics have a very uh rationalistic um experience phenomenological experience in the moment with a lot of breaks in between but that’s not the same as madness and it’s very hard to know what madness you know what mania really translated to you know in modern terms because it’s kind of like well do they mean like crazy like run naked through the streets madness or did they mean like what did by madness did they merely mean exploration outside of logic and reason rationality because it’s a big range i i think i have an answer for that because matthew peugeot is talking about about the flooding right so you have these concepts right and then there’s this well this category can’t hold a thing right and then you have the flooding right and that means that there’s a chaos right i’m like the chaos can go up high right which is a place you don’t like so you want you want to have controlled okay and right and i think uh if we took take a look at at moses or noah i mean like he got drunk right which which is effectively taking in control the flooding right like he’s he’s doing a miniature flood in himself in in order to recalibrate right like like you can you can see what like oh i i i don’t feel nice today let’s get let’s get a glass of wine right like to to chill out right you’re trying to force the relaxation like in a sense that’s a sin right you shouldn’t be using wine to relax you should just be able to relax so so what’s the thing holding you back from from that realization but that’s that’s the thing that you have to deal with right like that’s your oppression and so if if you’re not dealing with with the thing that’s holding you back then you you can get your relaxation and like that might actually be good right like taking a glass of wine there’s there’s nothing wrong with doing that once if you make it a pattern if you make it a solution right like i think the philosophers are trying to provide a solution it’s like that like right the solution nature isn’t there and right you also have to recognize every time that you spin and you’re going to rely on the sin to provide you but it’s more but it’s more fundamental than that right at the end of the day madness is not something you can control and so if you’re using chemicals to control it it’s not madness by definition and that’s the problem and the greeks knew this they they knew this well you know they were very wary respectful but wary of the oracles especially the oracle of delphi which you know there’s a lot of evidence that they were heavily drugged and and other things were going on they they didn’t dismiss it by any means but they were also very wary of it because they realized it was unreliable because you were trying to control something that by definition is uncontrollable and maybe always trying to control something that is by definition uncontrollable is a bad thing i would say that is axiomatically true and i think the christian version actually of madness might be surrendered to the holy spirit yes if if you’re totally what’s the word uh an ecstasis right or oh yeah right you’re you’re filled by by by the holy spirit you’re mad right like like yeah you don’t have reason like you lost reason yeah like the reason you’re operating with reason on a higher you’re operating according to somebody else’s reason right right or yeah well this is where reason crosses into telos and that that gets yeah you mean reason or reason this is my problem with socrates didn’t he say didn’t he have the experience of being the only one that could drink alcohol and not be affected i these are these are allegations yeah that that is the allegation that was made this is my issue is because yeah it’s like or the buddha getting eating pork and you know that’s what he died from eating bad pork it’s just this is suspicious stories to be sure and they’re probably instructive right they’re probably instructive but you know they’re instructive of what and that’s where the problem comes and what are they instructing you about and that’s the problem with mania is that it’s hard to know exactly right because it’s not an exact thing it’s an exploration but you can’t control an exploration in the same way that you can control something that’s we’ll say not an exploration well well so so so what like if we look at it symbolically like what is getting drunk well getting drunk is having the the things on the bottom of the hierarchy right like the specifics get floored right now if if you’re not founded in proper hierarchy or whatever like the loss of of the stability will like disrupt your capacity to relate to to the world like it would just break it so so my personal experience like i have had multiple times that i basically felt part of my brain fainting well that means that i didn’t completely faint so that means that there was a other part of my brain that was able to hold awareness while there was a dysfunction somewhere else and and that means that i i have a capacity that i like i didn’t have that before like before that like i would have fainted so now i want to i want to address this expand troll meaning to include the method of fishing well it’s always meant that actually trolling the motor around with the line in the water the algo did well that and that’s that was the game of trolling was to see who you could catch or you could fool or you could get get entranced right that was always the mode of trolling that’s what trolling is trolling isn’t isn’t necessarily some specific targeted thing because you’re throwing out a bunch of propositions to see if you can rile somebody up that’s a form of trolling but it’s still just catching them in the net is the algorithm then trying to in that way do a type of enchantment now i’m not saying it’s conscious or anything i’m just saying who programmed it to well the problem yeah see nobody programmed the algorithm this is this is the deep mistake algorithms do not work by being programmed if everybody on twitter posts smiley faces the only thing you’re going to see on twitter are smiley faces no algorithm is going to fix that well then what spit out this horrible thing to me this well the algorithm is doing this this dance with the information it has in general right and the information it has about you and then there’s a t-loss the goal for the algorithm which is to get you to watch more maybe or it might be to uh to uh get you want to have information out of outside of your bubble because they want to um yeah right it could try to shake you out of the bubble like there’s lots of there’s lots of different potential t-losses and the algorithm actually has more than one t-loss as far as i can tell and so what what ends up happening is that it’s trying to do this dance between these uh pieces of information right these bubbles of information that it has the zeitgeist being one of them roughly speaking right and then your preferences at least that it knows about being the other one and and that’s a that’s the problem right it it’s it’s it’s a very random sort of thing because my algorithms are very well trained but then i understand technically how they all work so i know how to manipulate them and uh yeah with one or two exceptions because i’ve made some mistakes you have to be super careful with your browsers and your cookies in order to fashion the algorithm not to not to misbehave um it my algorithms are great like my twitter feeds awesome my facebook feeds awesome you know my instagram feed is awesome my youtube feed is pretty good it’s not it’s not awesome but it’s it’s really good it’s very quiet every once in a while throws me a curveball am i how do you get that from so yeah i don’t i don’t think uh i don’t think so michael michael i i i think you misunderstand human motivations deeply philosophers will never explore any philosophies that would eliminate the need for philosophy philosophers unless it allows them to become celebrities no no philosophers explore stupid things all the time they’re not all intelligent and the fact that the fact you think that they could do that is already a problem like most people aren’t competent at all for anything some people are competent at something but he’s gaining an abnormality by doing the normal philosophy jerk circle jerk thing mark is trying to use the lame exception reduce me look people don’t motivate the way you say they do and and i understand that slapping money or celebrity or you know profelicity or whatever identity or whatever goofy t-loss is on things works really well to map them in the past that’s almost never somebody’s motivation and manuel’s point in the in the opening statement was a lot of these philosophers are being driven by their traumas period that’s all they’re being driven by they’re not being driven by anything else they’re being driven by their traumas and their their desire to overcome their own personal trauma by generalizing it out to the population and then resolving it at that layer and of course that’s stupid and doesn’t work because your personal trauma is unique to you right so their motivations are actually around their trauma and they’re not singular and that that the other the other one the other motivation that i ascribe to to philosophers which is a positive one is that they actually make an observation in the world like uh like well like peter snowy talks about the the guy who was watching the kids what was his name again pidgey there we go john pidgey had an observation in the world all right and then he builds this whole framework on top of the observation right adam smith also there’s a bunch of people that that have an observation and they’re like oh this has a bunch of explanatory power and then they they get enchanted by by this idea right and um like sometimes this idea is so amazing that like you build economics as a science or you you build psychology as a science or whatever right so there’s there’s this this idea that that drags the personal long but what what does that do right like it reciprocally narrows your understanding of the world through one domain just today do people have ideas or do ideas have people right and i feel like i’m ambivalent on that question right but that that is the point it’s not always that people know where things are going to lead before they go down the rabbit hole that’s what they have to go down the rabbit hole in order to find out where they leave right like i think in some sense that’s the purpose of philosophy right like it’s like oh yeah like this guy goes down there but they present their trip going down into the underworld as if that’s universally true or important or or anything and and like we got inherited with all of these friends all the economic frame who the political political all of all of these things are a consequence of philosophers having means to describe the world or like zeitgeist like fashion right like like freud like oh the unconscious right like and and then people start using that concept and like they start building it out to just start applying it outside of the philosophical frame and and they they use it to manipulate um other people and and because because it is well economics is a useful description of the world right like it gives you information that allows you to actually make actions that are reliable in in a certain way so if you’re going to build something upon that basis upon that intelligibility it is going to have lasting power if is it is it eternal no because it’s not an eternal pattern and what is it what is it used for right because because you know this is well on friday i’m gonna go up tomorrow i’m gonna go into this in my in my monologue my live stream is telos matters and the reason why telos matters is because when you start misusing things they don’t work and so if you if you misuse politics or economics as a goal which it’s not they’re not telos then the frames break and and people don’t realize this and mills says maybe you should make a video called how to train your algorithm maybe it’s kind of like training your dragon yeah well and ethan the more attuned to telos you are the less effect material things like alcohol will have exactly right the solution to materialism is proper telos and once you tune yourself to telos you can you can get a lot of control over yourself i mean that’s what that’s what stoicism talks about ironically enough and and there’s there’s this idea right like where you have the first generation adopters right like this is true almost everywhere whether it’s in in a field of science right you have the people who who come from the world of chaos and then there’s like an answer and like they know why the answer is important because like they were struggling finding the answer that so it’s like they they they’ve been contextualized completely and then you have the second generation right and they they kind of grew up with the other people struggling right so they’ve had participatory experience in some sense of of of the problem and they they get taught by the people who have personal relationship to to the struggle and now you have the third generation and like in the third generation everything goes apart because the third generation loses the relevance like they lose the understanding of why things are as they are and they start playing the game based upon the rules of the game that they’re given by the people who have described the game scientifically and like there’s also this other thing right like because the first generation is small and the second generation becomes bigger right so there’s a growth like in in the population so like the competence of the people in the field is probably lower than the first generation because they make the breakthrough and and this this this this is a pattern that playdough discovered in trade effectively right and and this is true in science it’s true everywhere like might not be exactly three generations but the pattern is there um is that why vanderkley says spirits continue on yeah yeah it would be interesting to find out the relationship in vanderkley and for that matter john’s majeure’s mind between spirits and patterns because they you know they they go on with you know principalities and powers and i’m like i don’t i don’t know why you need powers if you have pattern but whatever and i still don’t like their definition of principality i think it has too too much of the wrong type of something like agency and not it’s still up in the air on how they’re parsing all that but well i think it’s amination like it’s an aminating structure a hierarchy to use my agency to sign off all right father it was great to see you thank you sir to see you so that one i i don’t like this one i fixed it relax i fixed it get out of there you can go back over there there we go i started this live stream i’m gonna take the spot oh yeah so so the distinction between between a spirit and a structure or a container of an institution and then the embodiment right and the system right so there’s there’s a container and then within the container there’s a relationship to the container which is the system right and then there’s people who have to live it out and i was i was thinking of this in the context of of nobility right so like a noble person gets a title right and then his house keeps the title right but like at a certain at a certain point like his house may fall from grace right like like it might no longer embody this title and like what happens then like how do you resolve that because like in some sense it’s it’s like an eternal recognition of of of the name literally right like there’s out of the name i learned that name is the thing that gives law right or that which rules in some sense right so like there’s there’s something of that name that gave the right spirit right they gave the right law and we’re recognizing it for that but now the manifestation of the name right the body that the name has in the world no longer is exemplifying that like they’re not upholding that which which is kind of what israel did right like they didn’t uphold their status of the chosen people and like what do you do if that happens like well we know what happens we know what happens all over the bible right right well and that’s and that’s the thing that yeah that’s not my you know my i’m fine with emanation i’m fine with spirits it’s the principalities and powers part that still i don’t i don’t know how they square that circle it’d be interesting to hear them talk about i should have asked joe when i was like like like what’s wrong with saying that a principality is a emanation like oh oh okay that doesn’t resolve the agency issue that that they clearly place in the principality that’s still my issue it doesn’t go away because you say it’s a type of emanate well so so like i well this is going back to the philosophers right the philosophers has this idea that there’s this this interaction between the system right and and the potential that the system gives the individual within the system and the individual agents right and then effectively what what they are saying is that because we dissociate it from nature right like we’ve started entering in more and more systems so our freedom or our ability to use our freedom is constrained as a consequence of yeah i don’t have a problem with any of that that’s all true yeah well so damn there it well but the fact that there’s an information happening from the system towards us means that there’s some type of um yeah i i i i agree so you can use emanation and spirit you don’t need principalities or powers i still agree i don’t know why bichot uses that i don’t know where the powers and principalities come from you don’t need it well but good i i think i think the principality is the container for the spirit like i think that’s maybe where’s the powers at all like again well i think i think the issue i think i think the powers are natural law maybe i can’t tell i don’t i don’t believe it’s fuzzy for me but yeah right well thank you then it’s fuzzy for you it’s fuzzy for me i don’t believe him i don’t think there’s such thing i’d like him to explicate it a little bit better because he just says powers and principalities moves on well i i think the way that for fakie would describe powers is it’s like the arenic describe powers it’s like the arenic uh qualities so like becoming like the rising of the sun informs our behavior in certain ways and i mean if you want to invoke natural law i would just use natural law um you know again like why why these extra words i don’t i don’t know what i don’t know where they fit into anything because they’re at the top of the hierarchy is there a hierarchy no they’re not their powers and principality they’re not at the top well the issue is that they’re areneic right and so like i like i do think that you have to submit to them so you can live with nature right like so you can live with the seasons and like you can’t go along with them or you can ignore them to a certain extent right and so if if you live along with them then they become an entity that you have a relationship right well the spirit of nature yeah absolutely i i agree you’re not going to resolve the powers and principles no i’m not i’m not going to resolve it i get it right no i mean and that’s my problem it’s like what are they getting at when they’re referring to that because i don’t think they’re necessarily wrong i just don’t know i’m genuinely curious about what are they on about why are they using these extra words i don’t understand you don’t need any of those words to explain any of the things they’re explaining so there must be something more there maybe i don’t know that and that’s still the question that’s the open question in my mind well i i i think if if we’re looking at it from a christian perspective like if we want to find out the will of god listening to all of these things is appropriate right well you have to track them all yeah well then that’s all you have to track to me that’s like oh yeah track quality not quantity yes i agree track the qualities and not the quantities right and then that solves the but and all that’s really saying is don’t be idolatrous don’t be don’t engage in dogmatic thinking don’t like those are all the same thing right when you’re when you’re putting the primacy on the quality quantity and not on the quality you’re screwing up right because you can’t you can’t measure everything a king does to know if he’s a good king you have to balance it with the quality of of all the things the king’s doing which which quality is inclusive of a bunch of stuff where his quantity you have to divide and we get the story of joke yes that’s yeah yeah yeah you have to divide stuff up to measure it so quantity has a problem in the division and what is the authority making the division that’s always that it’s always easy not to say you can’t ever it’s just to say you got to be real careful so so anyway i don’t know manuel i’m i’m pretty complete on this on this topic so um ethan ethan’s got a nice comment here that ultimately you should be submitted to the telos yes and not constraints also true christians are for lions submission to constraints makes incredibly volatile reality hence the inevitable nihilism of materialists i agree i agree all right well i’m gonna go too because we’re going mushroom picking excellent have a wonderful time mushroom picking i’m gonna be up in the mountains picking morel mushrooms so hopefully getting the flood going open the floodgates see ya yeah well yeah i i i guess i guess i want to end with a public service announcement right like what do you what do you do about distrolling right well you you go in with a purpose right like when you are setting the rules for the game you cannot be enchanted because you’re getting the thing that you want out of what you’re doing but then you need to know how to do that and what that means like so if if you want to know about the context of a philosopher right like engaging with a video like we’ve been talking about is really really useful right like me reading das kapital like fully is like what is that gonna gain me like like where where am i gonna apply this there’s knowledge like i’m i’m i’m gonna change right as a consequence of reading this it’s not like it is a free act and it’s not not free in the sense that it takes time it is free not free in the sense that it’s not without effort of me to resist ideas right and then there’s ideas that i don’t recognize and i can’t resist and it like it is just shaping my understanding of of the world like i’m gonna see the patterns i have to navigate the patterns that i just put in my head and if those aren’t good patterns then i’m screwed right yeah yeah no there’s consequences yeah and and to the point and i’ll address ethan’s issue your constraints are constantly changing telos and therefore the divine do not where do you place your your identity well look i think that’s an excellent question and i think that that is the point that way to resist enchantment in general uh particularly from philosophers is called telos and that is why tomorrow at 7 p.m eastern we will be doing coincidentally all this happened coincidentally as usual we will be doing a live stream on telos and that is the magic secret you know and you can you know go back and boundaries discernment judgments right action right all these things uh avoiding two stairs the telos is going to tie all that together hopefully if i can pull off the monologue which i’m still taking notes on but anyway uh i’m glad so many people engaged uh i’m i’m i’m hopeful that this was helpful to people uh it seemed like we had some good engagement will do yeah we’re gonna do more if people like it right yeah like subscribe tell other people tell everybody how awesome navigating patterns is go to go to chad’s sub stack right yeah yeah excellent all right guys well thank you very much and have a lovely day