Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:00 We are, um, one of the first questions, and I, um, am just bringing someone up to the stage right now. Um, but what are your thoughts on utilitarianism in the modern era?
Speaker 1 00:00:15 Well, utilitarianism has two problems, um, as normally defined. It's, it's often stated as the greatest good or the greatest number. But, uh, philosophical utilitarianism measures, uh, the greatest good in terms of, uh, pleasure versus paint that goes back to Jeremy Bentham in the 19th century. So the two problems with it, one is, um, the, uh, standard of pain or anything subjective, happiness, if you want to call that, but as opposed to an objective value, um, like one's own life. Uh, now there's a complicated relationship between success, living successfully by, uh, a valid moral code, um, and, uh, the experience of happiness. Um, and for that matter of pleasure too. But you can't start with the, with the, the emotional reaction or the experience, uh, reaction of pleasure, pain. You have to start with, um, what is our goal in reality? And our objective is, our goal is to, uh, uh, you know, live and live well.
Speaker 1 00:01:34 And the ethics teaches us what are the causal necessities if we're gonna do that. So that's the first problem with you utilitarianism. The second one is that it's collectivist. It says the greatest good of the greatest number. Well, no, um, you should be acting. Uh, it's inherently an altruistic, uh, ethic in that you, you treat yourself just as one person among millions and, uh, try to maximize pleasure, uh, for as many people as you can. Uh, so the problem is that, you know, there's no foundation philosophical for either collectivist, collectivist ethics or an altruistic ethics. Um, as opposed to an individualist ethics. It says, your life is your own and you live it, uh, by your own judgment. And, um, you know, we have principles about how best to do that. Uh, but the principles that make your life better, not, there's no conflict between an in individuals living by a rational code of ethics and other people, um, because the rational code of ethics, uh, excludes the predation. Uh, any other kind of, of, um, conflictual, uh, relationship with others, it promotes trade peaceful relations, but still, that's to your advantage, uh, and to the advantage of every individual that you may deal with. So, that's my problem. Number one, it's the standard is subjectivist, and number two, it's a collectivist.
Speaker 2 00:03:21 Okay. Good answer. I, uh, appreciate that. Um, let's go to Aquinas. Aquinas, thanks for joining us. Are you able to unmute? There you go. Yes, I'm here. Are you able to hear me? Yes. So my question for David is how would you characterize Carl Popper's approach to epistemology, and where do you think he goes wrong?
Speaker 1 00:03:52 Oh my gosh. Where do I start? Um,
Speaker 1 00:03:56 Uh, I guess, let me start with the, uh, the, what I understand to be his, uh, core idea, and that is knowledge, is he has an evolutionary analysis of knowledge, uh, based on Darwin's theory. And so we have random, uh, thoughts, random hypotheses, and then we test them. That's like, uh, survival of fittest or the, you know, the, um, in, in biology. And, uh, the ones that don't make it, um, survive. And we can, but we can't ever positively confirm all of them. So, um, we're always in the state according to popper of, we have a, if we have a set of phenomenon that we want to explain, like gravity or, you know, um, molecular dynamics or, or atomic dynamics, whatever. Uh, we form hypotheses. We rule 'em out by doing tests, but the tests are all negative. They, all we can do is refute it, uh, uh, hypothesis.
Speaker 1 00:05:03 We can't positively confirm it. Now, associated with that, he also has some, uh, views about perception that, um, all of our perceptions are, uh, to use a term that was common, I think still isn't philosophy, theory, lady that is, uh, we, we don't see things as they really are. We see them as we, um, as our concepts and theories, uh, in influence us to see them. So that means that there's no solid independent foundation for our conceptual knowledge. And I, those, both of those are problems in my view, because, uh, first of all, I think there is, there are ways of confirming, positively confirming, uh, inductive hypotheses. Um, it's a long story, um, but it, you know, it's against popper. And also I think that, you know, perceptual awareness is one of my specialties, um, that I've written about. And I think we have direct awareness of the world as it is.
Speaker 1 00:06:10 So, um, you know, popper basically followed in human. He actually said Hume was right about induction. There's no justification for it. And, uh, my view is no, Hume was, uh, completely, uh, you know, off the wilderness. He didn't, his arguments when you examine them are, are really weak, empathetic. But, uh, and, and I do think that we have, as I said, direct perception, uh, direct awareness of, of reality through perception. So Popper, um, was kind of, uh, the last of what's what are sometimes called the, uh, positivist, uh, ness in philosophy of science. And, um, I think that that whole approach has crashed.
Speaker 2 00:07:04 So, David, so you would put popper under, uh, the, the skeptics, the skeptics camp,
Speaker 1 00:07:11 Uh, broadly speaking. Yes, I would.
Speaker 2 00:07:13 And then the other, uh, I guess follow up question from my, I've only read excerpts of his work, and, uh, I appreciate you bringing up induction. It sounds like, uh, he's unwilling to start with like identification, like, uh, h how do we figure out knowledge? It, it, it seems like he never wants to start with, well, we gotta look at the stuff and we gotta investigate the stuff. Is is that a right, is my interpretation correct on that? Like, it doesn't even seem like he gives, uh, the idea of identification as, um, shown by, ran as a, a kind of a starting basis?
Speaker 1 00:07:54 Yeah, I think that is not his approach to knowledge at all. Um, as, and I'm going, I'm, I haven't read Pop in a long time, but, um, I, I think he was, you know, as, as in his era, uh, his context, his intellectual, you, if you will, was, uh, the positiveness movement. Uh, there'd be, there'd be in a school and, and so forth in the nine, mid 19th centuries, mid 20th century. Sorry. And, uh, so he didn't start with the basic question, what is knowledge? How does a mind relate to reality the way Rand does? He started with, okay, we have science now. What's the best interpretation of the complicated verification questions that arise within science? And so it, it's, he, he like Mindy philosophers, he starts way downstream. Um, and so that's one point. However, I will say that, um, he wrote on politics on the Total on Totalitarianism, and I'm not familiar with that book, but I've, I've, I've, from what I have heard about it, or the bits I've read is, you know, much more freedom is more freedom friendly, and therefore I'm more inclined to, um, you know, <laugh> take him to coffee or something.
Speaker 1 00:09:23 I don't know what <laugh>,
Speaker 0 00:09:26 Thank you for your answer. Thank you for that. Um, so, uh, let's see. I, um, there are some questions that came in from social media to, uh, otaku Tuesdays. This one's kind of broad. You, you tell me if you, uh, if it's too much. But, uh, what is left? What is right? What is authoritarianism? What is libertarianism?
Speaker 1 00:09:53 <laugh>? Yeah, that is a little broad. Um, <laugh>, oh my God, the political spectrum is, uh, we could spend a whole session on that. Maybe we'll have another one on that. Um, the usual left right conversion is, um, completely misunder, mis, uh, misconceived the political spectrum, because on the, typically, uh, in the typical conception, the right wants to control people's spiritual lives, their inner lives, sex lives, et cetera, their freedom of speech and, uh, but wanna leave the economy more or less free. On the other side, the left loves controlling the economy and telling me, telling businessmen especially what they can, what they can and can't do. But they're, they have been, traditionally, they were big defenders of, uh, uh, personal freedom, freedom of speech, uh, freedom of, uh, personal lifestyle. That's changed Now, um, the, the left and especially the progressives have gotten much more, uh, restrictive about personal issues, freedom and speech.
Speaker 1 00:11:02 I'm just thinking of the woke, uh, phenomenon where, uh, there's certain things you can't say in polite company, uh, that is woke polite company. And, um, so, but here's, I think, a proper approach to the spectrum. And all I can do is kind of provide a ru very rudimentary sketch, is that there are two dimensions. One dimension is freedom to control individual freedom versus social control, um, at the extreme fascism, or I mean, Nazism fascism or total, or, uh, communism. Um, and at the, at, at the other, other end of the spectrum is, uh, those libertarians, those of us who believe that we should be free, um, and have a government, a small government that is simply there to protect the individual rights. But there's another, so that's one dimension, freedom versus state control. Another dimension though, that this differentiates a lot of conservatives from a lot of liberals is the mind body issue.
Speaker 1 00:12:24 Uh, I think it, a lot of people on their right are more concerned about, uh, people's minds, their habits, their beliefs, their religion, um, and, um, you know, their virtue. Uh, whereas people on the left are more concerned about controlling the economy, they tend to be more materialist. And so, um, as I see it, the political spectrum should be thought of as a cone. I mean, on the freedom side, freedom is it, in my view, is universal. And, and a lot of people's view beyond the libertarian and, and objectiveness camps is universal. Uh, you know, freedom of, uh, mind and body freedom of, uh, belief, uh, and economy. And, but, uh, other end, there are different styles of collectivism, depending on what the collectivist rulers want to do. And so you have Nazism focused on the spirit, the gestalt, uh, uh, I'm sorry, the geist of the country. And, uh, and, and the other extreme communists who are, where supposedly universalist and just wanted, mainly wanted to distribute income, um, but have to exert both of 'em, have to exert a lot of control, total control at the extreme over whatever it is they prioritize.
Speaker 1 00:13:54 That is a, you know, uh, chrisy for a long, long lecture. But it's, it's funny, interesting question.
Speaker 0 00:14:03 Yeah, it could actually be more of a course <laugh>. Um, I, alright, well, let's, uh, and again, I wanna encourage people, you know, if you've got questions, uh, for David, just, uh, raise your hand and we'll bring you up. Uh, I do have some more from social media. Um, fall philosophy says, what is the difference between freedom and liberty?
Speaker 1 00:14:30 I don't think there is one, but you have something particular in mind.
Speaker 0 00:14:35 Well, I mean, you know, there are two different terms. I think you, they often get used interchangeably, but I think they're asking is there a, a fundamental difference between the, or any, you know, real distinction between the two terms?
Speaker 1 00:14:52 Um, I don't think so. As with the English language in general, you know, one term comes from the dramatic tradition freedom and the other from the Latin tradition, liberty. Um, we have a lot of duplicates like that. Um, but conceptually, I don't, I think they're two, two alternative words for the same phenomenon. Okay. I see some people want to, uh, jump in. Um,
Speaker 0 00:15:27 Yeah, I'm sorry, I got a message saying our servers were bad. I, uh, let's go to Tom next. Tom, thanks for joining. Do you have a question for David? Tom usually has a good deep question.
Speaker 3 00:15:41 Hi there, can you hear me? Yes,
Speaker 1 00:15:44 I can. Yeah. Hi, Tom.
Speaker 3 00:15:46 Hi there. I'm, um, here. My question is, um, perhaps more specific to, um, maybe the fifth edition of The Art of Reasoning. Um, now the question I have is since the, the second edition and onward, uh, it seems to me that, um, propositional and predicate logic, um, symbolic logic, um, that I had read, uh, read from, from these additions prior to number five, um, almost like I resisted having the law of identity in the text, but now with the fifth edition, uh, there's a section ten six or 10 cent, can't remember which one, um, talked about the law of identity or let's say that, um, something is identical to itself and so on. And, um, I I thought that it's, uh, a little bit, uh, uh, different from Rand's Law of Identity. So the, the, the question, general question is what gives, or the alternative to, to that question would be what took you so long to get this love identity in <laugh>?
Speaker 1 00:17:08 Well, it, in symbolic logic, and for that matter, uh, uh, all of, all of, uh, deductive logic, including Deion, the classical form, um, the law of identity is implicit. And, um, I found his, when I was, the book textbook originally came out of a course I taught when I was teaching philosophy. And, um, you know, it, some years I talked about the law of identity excluded middle non-contradiction. And the students kind of looked at me, said, why are you telling this, telling us this? That's obvious. We knew that. Well, of course they did. They didn't always practice it properly. But logic is about, um, the various methods that are based on those laws in order to identify, uh, valid conclusions. So, uh, well, in the fifth edition we added, um, a section on identity that was, thanks to my co-author, uh, Debbie Hutchins, who's a specialist in, um, symbolic Logic.
Speaker 1 00:18:15 And, um, uh, but even so, I mean, so it, the law of identity and it's, um, uh, ancillaries are, are our really, really important in epistemology, in logic. All you have to know, I mean, if you, if you read through the entire section of the entire part of the book, you'll see, um, references the contradictions, for example, definition of, of validity, of, and inference is valid if it, you cannot assume or affirm the premises and deny the conclusion without contradiction. So contradictions, in fact, there's a whole section, um, just on ologies and contradictions. So, um, but it's, it's a formal system, and we try to, this is an introductory book, so we're trying to, um, you know, teach students how to make their way through this, um, system. But, um, I take your point, um, if there is a six edition, maybe I'll just make a, um, put my foot down and say, look, we gotta get this in somewhere,
Speaker 3 00:19:36 The, uh, to follow up. Um, I always thought that, uh, in the way that I, uh, conceptualize the axiom, a is a, uh, as the formula, um, that seems to be different from the binary, uh, relation, A equals or a is identical to a. So, uh, that's the, the part that, that got my attention.
Speaker 1 00:20:04 Uh, well, yes, and that, that's in the nature of symbolic logic. Um, the symbols, uh, either the, uh, names or the variables, uh, uh, are what draw are what are, are part of any inference, and you work, work with them and from them. Um, and so it's, you know, ran Rand's theory or the objectives theory of axioms actually starts with not the statement A a but with the concept, the axiomatic concept identity, it's a recognition in every form of awareness from the simplest sensation on up to science, that you're aware of something, and it is something, and it exists, and it is something. So the A is a, is a way of formulating that, and it becomes a pathology and totology play a role in logic, um, uh, in the form of any, all the particulars, X equals x, a equals A, et cetera. But, um, you know, the, the, this is intra, again, an intro book. And, um, I, I had my hands full, full writing about the rule of classification and concept formation without going into the deep theoretical material, which is in some ways where I live. But, um, that not for this book.
Speaker 1 00:21:45 Hey, Steven. Great.
Speaker 0 00:21:46 Yeah. Uh, I think he's a little bit delayed. Um, I'm not sure if he can talk or not. I know something's going on with a plane delay, so, uh, he's a real trooper even for trying to be in the room, but I know he's gonna be available in a little bit, even if he can't talk right at the moment. Uh, you're welcome to try Steven if you're able. But, um, otherwise we can actually just go to, uh, Lawrence for the next question. Lawrence, we appreciate it.
Speaker 4 00:22:13 Yeah, thanks for having this. Hi, David. Um, so, hey, Lauren. My question might be, uh, not, uh, hard philosophy, but I'd be curious to get your pinging on it. Regardless. I've been rereading some text from the likes of, so, and then some Adam Smith. And one thing that I found interesting in their writings was in regards to, um, they seem to have this idea of human sentiment, sort of this inherent thing that we sort of have this inherent sympathy for that which looks like us, us, and it influences how we operate. However, in Objectivism and such, it is more, we talk about more about people being a blank slate, so to speak. That's our whole Tablo Ross we're born. So I'm curious if you could maybe go into a little bit more detail about the sort of differentiation, because it seems that for Smith in this area, and Rau and other thinkers of that time, we don't have as much free will we still have some programming, which is influencing how we operate?
Speaker 1 00:23:27 Uh, well, okay. I, there's the deep question you're, you're getting at is, uh, to what extent are we a blank slate in the traditional sense versus having some inborn impulses and tendencies? I think there are at least some, I mean, babies, uh, instinctively, um, cry if they're hungry or, you know, go for the mother's breast. Uh, and they don't have to be taught, and I don't think they learn it by induction <laugh>. They're just say, you know, taking a guess, let me suck on something. Oh, hey, there's mom. Um, but the, to a eliminate extent. Now with Smith, the problem is you're, as you say, there's, his assumption is it's much more built in to human frame in, in the, the, in innate emotions. And that's part of the problem with the, the idea of the, um, uh, his view about the, the proper sentiments that, uh, you know, first of all, it's, it's, it's just, it's subjective.
Speaker 1 00:24:39 It's just, it's, it's like your, your conscience, or could be the word of God, whatever. I mean, it just comes outta nowhere that is rationally explainable or defendable. And so it's not a good, um, it's not a good ethical doctrine. Um, but, but also it's, um, it, it's not a good ethical doctrine in that it's a, it just posits this, uh, feeling of, um, sympathy for others. That, um, where does that come from? Why do we have it? Well, it, some people would offer a, uh, evolutionary explanation, but the fact that we have this feeling doesn't tell us what's right or wrong, it, that has to be figured out by reason. And again, I don't think there's any such thing, um, as built in, um, you know, emotional, uh, sympathy or any other instinct, feeling whatever in, in that, at that level, we learn those things. Cause we learn many of them young, and we automate them, and so they feel as if they're, you know, just right there and obvious. But I don't think that's the case. But if Steven is free to talk, he knows a lot more about this than I do.
Speaker 0 00:26:03 I'm not sure he's able to talk just yet. I think something's going on where he's got some limited plane service. He's still up in the air. And then, oh, yeah. Uh, but we'll, uh, we'll try to circle back with this if we can, uh, okay. When, uh, when he unmutes. Um, but in the meantime, let's, uh, let's go to Mike. Mike, do you have a question for David? And are you able to unmute?
Speaker 5 00:26:35 Ah, yes, I do have that button. <laugh>, this is my second time on, uh, on Clubhouse. That's right. Um, David, thanks. Um, I, uh, you mentioned direct perception, uh, which sounds very relevant to the topic, but I don't know of all the reading I've done, I haven't come across that particular term as a personal coach of many years. I constantly run into the massive epistemological challenge of getting to getting out of your own perception to anything you can consider reality is, is direct perception, uh, the, you know, if, if you can, if you can use the scientific method to get enough outside of your perception and verify what you've found, direct perception is out there eventually. Is that the core of it? Or is there more to say to it than, than that?
Speaker 1 00:27:30 Yeah, I, I think what I, I, I'm guessing, um, tell me if I'm wrong, but I think what you're talking about is when people say, you know, this is the way I perceive things, what they mean is, this is the way, with my knowledge, my experience, my assumptions, uh, you know, I, I see my boss that way. I see my, my wife that way. I see my friend that way. Um, where there's much more than perception built in, there's a lot of conclusions and that, that you've built up over your life and that get into the, um, uh, into the equation. Sorry, hang on one second.
Speaker 0 00:28:12 I, I sometimes think you live in the most dangerous, uh, neighborhood in dc There we go. That'll keep those sirens at bay. Are you, David, are you able to, uh, still answer or were you done with that answer? Am I audible?
Speaker 6 00:28:51 <laugh>.
Speaker 0 00:28:52 Okay, good. Um, well, uh, let's go to Ron for right now. David, you may need to leave and come back, actually. And, uh, if that's the case, um, I, I'm not sure if you're trying to talk, but we can't hear you. That happened earlier in the session and leaving and coming back did fix it. But, um, you know, for those of you, uh, that weren't here earlier, uh, there was a question, um, from our social media about, uh, utilitarianism and the, uh, modern era. And, uh, when David, I don't know if you can, uh, if you're able to unmute or talk or if you're gonna, uh, try leaving and coming back, um, but I'm curious to know, uh, how much utilitarianism played a role in, um, in Lockdowns. So, um, I'll look forward to your answer on that. Um, I'm not sure if you're able to, uh, unmute or not, or if you're able to hear me, everyone else can still hear me, right? <laugh>?
Speaker 7 00:30:05 Yes. Yes, I can hear you.
Speaker 0 00:30:07 Okay. Well, um, you know, if he's not responding to, uh, my question, I, you know, I'm, I'm gonna ask you to, uh, Ron and Hillary just hold your questions for a moment. Um, you know, and, and Steven is going to be available in just the next few minutes, but, um, in the meantime, um, I'm going to, uh, try to see if I can get some sort of message to David to, uh, advise him to try, um, you know, stepping out of the room and stepping back. Um, you know, uh,
Speaker 7 00:30:47 I agree that usually works.
Speaker 0 00:30:50 Okay. Um, well, in the meantime, I don't want to, uh, just have nothing going on. I think we can, uh, kind of open it up a little bit. Ron did, what was your question going to be?
Speaker 7 00:31:04 Were minus David and Steven.
Speaker 0 00:31:08 Uh, well, um, Steven is on a plane. I'm not sure if he can hear us or not, but, uh, he's unable to respond at the moment. And then David, I think, is having some sort of, uh, technical difficulties. But, you know, when he gets back and, uh, leaves and comes back, he should be able to, uh, answer your question, even if you, uh, just wanna field it now, um, you know, we can, uh,
Speaker 7 00:31:35 Okay. Yeah. Um, I'm a entrepreneur. One of my ventures went to a billion dollar acquisition in today's dollars. It went there from ideas in my mind, without struggle, without setbacks, without hardships, without grueling hard work. Uh, most people think that's utterly impossible. Uh, some people actually think I'm lying about it, but no <laugh>. There it is, uh, a venture. It was the largest selling sales training, la largest selling training program in history called Professional Selling Skills. So I live in the world of big, bold strategies that end up working without, without struggle, without setbacks. I live in a very non-deterministic world in the sense of, sorry, uh, a non malevolent universe world. I make things happen. They happen the way I expected. And there it is, people I'm mentoring a whole bunch of people who I'm mentoring and training. So you'd think these, this would be optimistic, ambitious entrepreneurs, but the common attitude, I'm thinking it's 95% of, of all humans is deterministic thinking. Uh, you are going to be what you were before. What happened will keep happening. What is new and strange cannot happen. Um, all the rest is arrogance and hubris and wishful thinking, and maybe even narcissism. These are very, very common beliefs, and it's tremendously undercutting to people who are aspiring entrepreneurs, this idea that they're just gonna keep being whatever they were. Oh, I'm a doctor. I can't be an entrepreneur. Oh, I've never made big decisions like that. Oh, I can't learn that kind of thing. Oh, my father told me such and such.
Speaker 0 00:33:50 Well, I, I think he's back. I don't know if you wanna kind of bring it back to a question for him.
Speaker 7 00:33:55 David is back. Hello? David?
Speaker 0 00:33:58 Yeah.
Speaker 8 00:33:59 Oh, hi.
Speaker 7 00:34:00 Uh, are you there, Ron?
Speaker 0 00:34:03 Your volume's very soft, David.
Speaker 8 00:34:06 Hey. All right.
Speaker 0 00:34:09 Do you wanna try leaving and coming back again? Well,
Speaker 9 00:34:12 If you, are you wearing headphones? Because if so, that's usually what makes it muffled the sound that we're getting if you're wearing headphones.
Speaker 0 00:34:18 Sorry. Yeah, I'm not sure what happened before, but he, it, we had this earlier in the session, and he left and came back and it was fixed. I don't know if he had headphones or not.
Speaker 7 00:34:29 Yeah. Or ear pads do it also, they cut your volume tremendously. You wanna be talking over the microphone of your, of your smartphone.
Speaker 10 00:34:39 Uh, well, I just turned off my Bluetooth headset.
Speaker 0 00:34:42 Is that, can you try leaving and coming back?
Speaker 10 00:34:45 Yes, I'm gonna
Speaker 0 00:34:46 Do this. Okay, good. I I couldn't hear that. I'm sorry. Um, but Ron, you were going to, uh, tie this back, you know, where All right. So there's a big determinism. I mean, there are some people that are, you know, I watched Shark Tank. There is kind of some entrepreneurial spirit. I think what you're saying is that it's less in young people these days that they don't have that motivation. You can't get 'em to work as hard. They think there's no chance to, you know, rise from, uh, you know, whatever station they're at.
Speaker 7 00:35:26 I'm saying determinism is, obviously, we all know this is not a philosophical idea. It's a deep, practical belief that your destiny is set and you can't do anything about it, and you can't break the norms and the rules. You can't change your career. You can't learn, you can't invent, your new innovative venture cannot succeed. Somehow, destiny is against you. All those kind of ideas I find quite ubiquitous. And my question is, what can we do to blast through this terribly false belief? Because motivationally, it's just couldn't be more undercutting. It causes people who have a fabulous entrepreneurial idea to not invest, not be optimistic, not learn new skills, not do experiments. Okay.
Speaker 0 00:36:25 Let's, uh, let's give David a chance to answer.
Speaker 8 00:36:28 Uh, okay. Can you hear me now? Better?
Speaker 0 00:36:31 It's still really soft, unfortunately.
Speaker 8 00:36:35 Uh, alright. I, um, I'm not sure what to do at this point. Um, maybe, uh,
Speaker 7 00:36:43 I can't hear David at all.
Speaker 0 00:36:45 Yeah, it's very soft. I mean, I'm able, I, I have it turned up.
Speaker 8 00:36:51 Um, hang on a second.
Speaker 0 00:36:56 I doubt you want to shout and it's probably just not the best way to do it. Um, I did see Steven leaving, come back, Steven, are you, uh, yet in a place where you're able to talk? Okay. Um, well, uh, David, I, I might suggest, uh, maybe, you know, uh, just leaving the app completely closing it, and then, um, you know, uh, opening it back up and, and rejoining the room. It, it may just take a moment.
Speaker 8 00:37:33 Uh, okay. It's, it's no better.
Speaker 0 00:37:37 Yeah, if it's no better, we may just have to, okay. Um, y you know, just, uh, call it if, if Steven's unavailable because, uh, you two are the ones they really want to talk to. So, uh, we'll try, we'll try to give it one more chance. Um, Hillary, I don't know if you had, uh, any, uh, desire or willingness to, uh, float your question. Uh, while we're waiting for David to return,
Speaker 11 00:38:04 Uh, I'm gonna let Ron have this stage until, um, he gets back just because, uh, they're two very different questions and I, I don't wanna, you know, confuse everybody and get off topic. So I'll, uh, I'll wait and, uh, let my good friend Ron here have a stage.
Speaker 0 00:38:17 Okay. Uh, David, how about now?
Speaker 8 00:38:21 Uh, well, what do you think?
Speaker 0 00:38:23 It's still pretty quiet.
Speaker 11 00:38:24 Would you like to try interpretive dance?
Speaker 0 00:38:28 <laugh>?
Speaker 8 00:38:30 I'd love
Speaker 7 00:38:31 To. Hillary, now I can hear David is speaking, but totally well inaudible in the sense of, it can't make out a single word he's saying.
Speaker 0 00:38:42 Yeah. I don't know. If you want to just get right next to the mic, David, and try talking really loud and see if that's at least manageable for a moment.
Speaker 11 00:38:51 If you're using anything else, like to, to speak like from a microphone or a headphones or any other tool like that, unplug it. Because Clubhouse sometimes has issues with those, and even if it's your plugged into your battery, sometimes they'll have issues. And try just talking with just plain the phone itself and
Speaker 10 00:39:08 Okay. Um, that's what I'm doing right now. And you
Speaker 7 00:39:12 Better, I agree. The phone has a microphone in it, so without anything attached, you're talking into the phone.
Speaker 10 00:39:20 Yeah, that's what I'm doing.
Speaker 0 00:39:22 Uh, yeah, I'm d it's still soft, so, uh,
Speaker 10 00:39:26 Okay. I'm, I think I'm having a bad connection here, uh, in
Speaker 7 00:39:31 My system. So my question is about determinism as a practical, ubiquitous human behavior, not a philosophical theory as something that's running people's lives, undercutting their ability to believe, to invest, to learn, to act, or to get anywhere.
Speaker 10 00:39:55 All right? Yeah, I, I did hear, um, Alana
Speaker 7 00:39:59 Saying, I can hear David is talking. I think you should encourage him not to waste his breath.
Speaker 11 00:40:07 <laugh>, if you'd like to type it in the chat or use voice to text to the chat, then I can, I'll read it for you if you'd like,
Speaker 7 00:40:13 Can't explore an issue like this on chat, but David should know that he's not getting through because it is so wasted.
Speaker 0 00:40:21 Yeah, no, I, I get it. Um, let's see. Um,
Speaker 10 00:40:26 Be back. Um, I'm gonna try again, um, and restart my phone completely.
Speaker 7 00:40:33 What might be going on is that David hears us and, and has the false inference that we can hear him <laugh>. No,
Speaker 11 00:40:44 I can hear him slightly. He knows what's going on. He can understand. Yeah, he, he's gonna try it again.
Speaker 0 00:40:49 He's understanding. We just can hardly hear him. Um, so, uh, he just left, he's gonna try coming back and, uh, hopefully that is going to solve the issue because, uh, and, and the other thing is that Steven's going to be available in just a few minutes.
Speaker 7 00:41:12 You could close the room, Scott, and reopen a new room, which might solve the whole thing.
Speaker 0 00:41:18 I'm not sure that it would, and, uh, the way that we have these set up where they're, you know, done ahead of time, I just, uh, that could actually create a new set of issues. So, um, we appreciate everybody's patience. Um, if, uh, you know, anyone wants to come up and, uh, ask a question, uh, Steven May be able to hear you and, uh, you know, we'll get an answer for you, uh, just as soon as we can. We do think David's also coming back, uh, very shortly, uh, with his, uh, speaker issues fixed. So, um,
Speaker 7 00:41:58 It's a very profound moment in the history of humankind. It's a virtual demonstration that humans have questions, but there are no answers.
Speaker 0 00:42:10 Is that a reference to your question or the bigger picture overall?
Speaker 7 00:42:14 It's, it's a global humorous assertion, <laugh>
Speaker 0 00:42:19 <laugh>. All right. I'll take it in the spirit. It was meant. Um, so, uh, all right, Hillary, you, you, you sure you don't wanna, uh, preview your, your question?
Speaker 11 00:42:32 Well, I'll tell you what, I'll throw one out so the whole room can discuss while we're waiting. How about that? That's fair. Not, not the question I'm I was going to ask. Uh, but, uh, so if reality is a construct that we all have to agree upon for it to, to exist, how do we, how possible is it to deconstruct that? How possible does it to change the reality that we're in by agreeing that the the terms that we've set upon our reality aren't plausible anymore? They don't work, but
Speaker 0 00:43:05 I think, I mean, part of, you know, basic objectivism, and, and I rand and I'm, you know, I'm, I'm a fan, um, is that there is an objective reality. And even if we don't agree on the terms, you know, a a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, uh, that these things that are, you know, there is an external world out there that's operating independently of us that's gonna go on after us, whether we pay attention to it or not. And that, you know, success in life comes from, uh, you know, inter relating with it as, and, and trying to, uh, you know, create and, um, just, uh, use productivity to, to make our lives better.
Speaker 1 00:43:55 Uh, Scott, can you hear me?
Speaker 0 00:43:58 Yes.
Speaker 1 00:44:00 Oh,
Speaker 0 00:44:01 Great. I had
Speaker 1 00:44:02 To re, I had to restart my, I just upgraded from a Galax from Samsung gal Galaxy S seven to an S 23, several, several generations. I feel like a young man again, except my phone is operating like older guy. I'm,
Speaker 7 00:44:18 Oh, welcome back to,
Speaker 1 00:44:20 Thank you.
Speaker 0 00:44:21 Yes.
Speaker 1 00:44:22 Anyway, can I just say a word about determinism? Um, I think that was, was that, uh, Ron's question?
Speaker 7 00:44:29 Yes.
Speaker 1 00:44:30 Okay. Um, I think that the essence of what I'd say, and, and I know conversations moved on since then, but determinism is a doctorate. Um, it's not built into the human mind, it's acquired, uh, belief that's acquired, and it has an opposite, which is free will. And people are capable of choosing either side of that. And it does have effects on their psychology, their initiative, their ambitions, uh, their hopes for the future, and, uh, expectations. But it's, I, so it's important to get that one right. I know what you mean. It's a real downer when people are determinist and just even as you said, people with some good ideas, um, determinism is a really crippling doctrine. And, uh, you know, it, it's one of, one of a number of crippling docu, uh, doc doctrines that people have embraced. But the, I think the, the, the solution is philosophy. Get them to honor, embrace it, show them what, uh, a genuinely free life can be. And I think, uh, I mean, I personally, I would start with iron rans novels. Her characters are so, uh, so free in their own spirits, uh, not subjective, but they are free to, um, uh, initiate, create, make their make shape the way their lives go.
Speaker 7 00:46:09 Great. And, and as a result, it seems to me they're, uh, positive, optimistic, confident, uh, and ambitious.
Speaker 1 00:46:26 Yes.
Speaker 1 00:46:30 Yeah. And now there are ways of, I'm gonna be, this is, this is a philosophical issue, and I can state it in the abstract, and I present the arguments under either side, but you know it, for most people, it comes down to, um, you know, what they've learned, how they've been treated in life, uh, some aspects of personality and cognitive style that they've acquired, but are, you know, become very native to them. And, but the, so in, in some ways, the best example, the best, uh, way to address it is by concrete examples, you know, your own stories. And, uh, those of the people that you admire, uh, for achieving things is, you know, I can ar I can lecture on philosophy, uh, to the, uh, you know, the, you know, until the sky turns dark. But, um, you know, for most people it's not as effective as great example of someone they admire.
Speaker 7 00:47:33 Excellent. I, one of the dynamics I serving with people, sorry, Scott,
Speaker 0 00:47:40 Let Hillary in. You know, she has been waiting patiently as well.
Speaker 1 00:47:44 Oh, no, no,
Speaker 7 00:47:45 Go ahead, please. It's fine. All
Speaker 0 00:47:46 Right, Ron, go ahead and ask your follow
Speaker 7 00:47:48 Up. Yeah. Uh, David, I'm thinking of one particular extreme determinist who I deal with. He's an entrepreneur. He has a fabulous opportunity to have a world changing service. And here's a very peculiar thing. His couple of his favorite phrases are, I'm, I'm not sure, I'm not convinced, I'm not certain. He has the stan, his standard of belief and action is certainty. And his belief is that e the things are unknowable. Uh, could you relate this to determinism? Or what do you think that psychological dyna dynamism is that holding the standard of belief and therefore action to be certainty. Which of course for an entrepreneur is never in the cards. You might get 95, 90 9% certain, but you're never certain.
Speaker 1 00:49:02 Yeah. Well, you said, um, your, uh, acquaintance, um, wants certainty at both in thought and action. Let me divide the two, uh, in thought. I think certainty is a great goal. That's, you know, you really know something when you're certain of it. And when you have enough evidence and there's no competing hypothesis, and then you are certain, but in action, we're always dealing with, um, in a condition of uncertainty. We don't know what is gonna happen a year from now, or two years, or sometime even next week with the weather. So, um, in, and ironically, part of the reason that the future can't be predicted, especially for, for an entrepreneur who's in business and, uh, depends on workers and, and customers, is that they have free will. <laugh>, they do. And you can't predict their choices. Um, you can have good evidence that if you make a great product, uh, it will attract people. I mean, a lot of money's been made that way, but, um, you know, it certainly that's just in demanding, certainly before you act, is, um, a hopeless thing. And if your, if your acquaintance is successful entrepreneur, I can't believe he operates, operates that way, I mean, because my god, no, an idea, then you have to go out and get an investment money or entire workers, et cetera, and et cetera. Um,
Speaker 7 00:50:34 No, he a very unsuccessful entrepreneur, I think. Oh, okay. As a direct result of his not being willing to act, because okay, he's waiting for certainty, which will never come.
Speaker 1 00:50:49 Well, this gets into psychology, which is not my field, but I would say, uh, one of the, I think illuminating questions in many cases like this is, what are you afraid of? Are you afraid of, you know, losing face losing, and I you feel afraid of losing money? Well, yeah. Uh, look for any way of, of ensuring yourself you can and, uh, do the, you know, make the best plan you can. Um, but, you know, it's just, there's no, it's in a rational standard to, to expect to be certain in a, in, in, uh, about what's gonna happen, you know, completely in the future. We governed some of the aspects by our own character choices and thoughts, but we operate in a world that presents us with different kinds of situations, and especially situations involving other people who have their own free will. So I would try to get to the guy's standard, um, I mean, if you were talking with them directly.
Speaker 0 00:52:02 Sure. Great. Um, well, let's, uh, I do wanna give Hillary a chance to ask a question. Hillary, I appreciate your patience.
Speaker 11 00:52:12 No worries, no worries. Um, so yeah, so my question is, um, on my, as a parent, um, my personal philosophy and how it's affecting my child, and my husband doesn't have any philosophies at all. He's one of those, uh, very analytical, very much, um, raised Catholic, but doesn't go to church. And I, that just very much, I I got work to do. Don't fucking bother me with this shit. Okay. <laugh>, you know, uh, philosophy is for people who don't have jobs, but in his, in his mind, um, whereas I exist in a world where I don't, I guess I, I don't adhere to a, a particular religion, but I believe that we are all connected. Um, every single one, every single living creature on earth is connected, you know, through, through energy. And because of that, I am responsible for you, you, you know, I'm responsible for, for helping raise all, anyone, everyone up.
Speaker 11 00:53:06 I can't walk away from a situation where I could help and choose not to. Cuz it's inconvenient for me. I can't, I'm not capable of doing that, um, because it actually physically it hurts me to not be able to, to help. Um, and that's, I'm probably phrasing this correctly, but my husband feels that I am doing a disservice to my child by raising him in the same philosophy of, um, you are responsible. Uh, we have a couple, we have a few pets that my husband thinks that we should not have in this house. Um, my son's school project, his take home for the summer, uh, mouse had babies. And, um, my husband's like, we need to do something. We need to get rid of these <laugh>. And I'm like, I'm not gonna go, go put them in the forest, they'll die. You can't do that. And, uh, he's like, okay, well, you can't endanger your family by having a herd of mice in the house either, which I agree with.
Speaker 11 00:53:58 So, um, it, it's is my personal philosophy of being good for the sake of just being good, just doing the next right thing. And, um, and, and trying to live on a life of kindness and trying to live helpful and, uh, compassionate and understanding. Am I wrong in that thinking and should I be more, I also, I'm also very, very honest with my child. I've, I've told him the truth. I've did Dr. I did drugs in my past. I've got 15 years clean and sober. I've been very honest with him about everything. He has a very real world view of how things actually are. And I've now, he's turning 13 in two days, and I'm starting to feel like maybe my husband's right, that, uh, I should not have raised him believing, you know, maybe I should raised him believing religions not philosophies and things like that. And I'm just curious to know what your thought is, and if you know, I don't know, I'm just curious to know
Speaker 0 00:55:01 What you did. Yeah, that's, that's a lot. Uh, it's great. And I should also note that Steven is back and can participate, but, uh, David, I don't know if you wanna start or,
Speaker 1 00:55:12 Yeah. Well, I, I, I'll say a few words. Hillary, thank you for that. And, uh, uh, Steven's available. I'd love to hear what he says. Uh, first of all, um, uh, objectivism is, uh, a secular philosophy. It, it does not believe in any supernatural or, or God godlike figure. Um, however, it does have a strong belief in that human beings in their nature have a spiritual capacity of wanting things like love and self-esteem and, uh, art. I mean, there are reasons for all of these things that we can go into, but it's, um, just call it spiritual, but not without spirits <laugh>, so to speak. And, um, but so that's a, that's one point. Another point is you said you felt connected to everything. Uh, what, um, how are you connected?
Speaker 11 00:56:14 Um, I feel that, uh, we are all sources of energy and, um, I, I feel that I am tied into, plugged into, um, an energy that, that exists. It flows through every, every living thing. And, uh, and I, I feel that, uh, I am connected to people who are connected in, in the same way. People who choose not to connect in, in any way. It's kind of a like static to me, but when you connect and you, you understand, you're, you're there, you're with someone. It's, it's a, I don't know, it's difficult to explain without getting into the medical physical of it, but, um, I believe that every single person is one. We are, we're all part of one greater energy source. And because of that, uh, we're responsible for each other because if you pull me down, if you failed, then you're pulling down the, the energy that we all are connected with, and therefore, you know, you're pulling me down. So I have to make sure that I can help you not fall, not fail, not be in pain.
Speaker 1 00:57:14 So you feel that everyone's connected and, and, uh, uh, animated by some common energy, and so that one person's, uh, uh, is, is declining, uh, that lowers you. Um, so it sounds like, you know, what matters to you is, is you have this belief about connections, but you, you want to, you wanna be good and happy, right? You want to be, it's your, your share of that energy source that is, uh, the most important thing to you.
Speaker 11 00:57:53 Uh, yes. I, well, somewhat, yes, I do. I wanna be happy and I wanna live, I wanna live without pain. And, and ha of course, I wanna be happy and I wanna feel loved and, uh, accepted and understood. And, um, if I'm around a bunch of chaos or if I've caused any chaos, I can't feel those things. I I can't live in that, in that goodness, that lightness, because, uh, I feel disconnected. So,
Speaker 1 00:58:18 Okay. I think there's a lot of, there's a, um, a lot of issues we'd have to talk about, um, given what you've said about your, your views and, you know, but, um, I, and some, the rest, some of the rest of us here think of, have views of our own. But, um, so let me just say one thing. We are individuals. We think your own life is the most important thing, and that involves relationships with other people. They enrich our lives, uh, but their value is that they enrich our lives. And to make that work, we need to enrich their lives as well. So it's a mutual, uh, value. Um, but there's not everything. I mean, I, I like nature, I think as much as the next person, but a mosquito on a bear in, in, um, near Juno, Alaska is nothing to me. Um, and, um, seriously, I, I wonder if it, you know, <laugh>, how much, how much it is to you, but in any case, um, but ence,
Speaker 11 00:59:26 It's right, it's relatives, but it is, you know, spatially relative, you're right, because no, uh, mosquito in judo doesn't have an effect on me. You're right.
Speaker 1 00:59:34 So I'll, I'll j I just wanna say that, um, despite our, uh, the individualism and the, uh, the focus on self-interest, and it's a, the use of philosophical term egoistic in approach, um, nevertheless, uh, we think that there's a big role for benevolence as a way, as part of the way we a, interact with people and treat them. And, uh, that extends as far as we have people we're connecting with. It's not universal, um, but it's, um, it, it is part of a good life. So I'm, I'm gonna leave it there for now.
Speaker 0 01:00:12 I, I wanna at least invite, uh, Steven, he's probably in a terminal somewhere, if I imagine correctly, but, uh, uh, see if he wanted to add anything to this.
Speaker 12 01:00:22 Uh, no, I'll pass on this question.
Speaker 0 01:00:25 Okay. Well then, uh, why don't we go to Ed, ed, thanks for joining. Are you able to unmute?
Speaker 13 01:00:34 Yeah, how you doing? Thanks for having me up.
Speaker 0 01:00:36 Sure.
Speaker 13 01:00:38 Um, I, I, I wanted to piggyback a little bit off of what, uh, she was just discussing, but I really wanna form the question the way that I'm feeling it, and it's not coming that way. So gimme a few moments, if you would.
Speaker 0 01:00:55 Okay. Uh, we've got, uh, other questions that we can get to from our, uh, social media. Um, I'm gonna, now I've got sirens here. Uh, you think central Florida's a little better, but, uh, <laugh>, I guess, uh, it's rough all over. Um, are there absolute truths in morality? This is from Romero, that is, can a scientific criterion be applied to morality?
Speaker 1 01:01:28 Um, Steven <laugh>?
Speaker 12 01:01:34 Well, sure. Um, yeah, objectiveism ethic is a, a science scientific ethic as say, is naturalistic. And we, uh, study, uh, our, our, our human nature and the world we live in. And, uh, it's a, it's an absolute fact that human beings have needs. And, uh, there are things in the world that can satisfy our needs and that we have capacities to act in the world, to change the world causally to satisfy our needs. And all of those are, are facts. And, uh, uh, once we, uh, recognize them as facts, they become absolute facts. So, for example, we have a need for oxygen, and we have a capacity for extracting oxygen that's out there in the air. And so a short form way of saying that is, you know, oxygen is good for us, and it has the status of, uh, an absolute, um, you know, <laugh> and that we die if we don't get the, get the oxygen we can survive if we, if we do get it. So with that, um, let me ask if there's a, you know, more to the question.
Speaker 0 01:02:57 I mean, it, it seems almost like it's two separate questions. Are there absolute truths and morality? And then he follows up with that is, can a scientific criteria be applied to morality? You know, I, I think of, uh, in Atlas Shrugged when the, uh, wet nurse asked, uh, Hank Rearden, you know, what's a moral absolute after his trial?
Speaker 12 01:03:17 Yeah.
Speaker 12 01:03:19 Well, yeah, I, let's give a short form combination answer, which to both of those, you know, you know, that humans need oxygen and, you know, it must act to ensure, uh, the supply of oxygen. That's, that's an absolute for us. Uh, it's a scientific absolute. But then once, as you know, rational, conscious human beings, we identify that as a fact about the world, a kinda a relational fact about the world. It functions as a, as an absolute about it, uh, or functions as an absolute for us. If by an absolute you mean something that, uh, applies always without exceptions, uh, another would be that human beings are rational beings, that, uh, we have a capacity for rationality. Uh, that's a fact about us. That it's essential for us to survive as human beings, that we exercise our rational capacity to learn about the world, and to act on the basis of what we learned about the world. Um, that's a, that's a set of scientific facts about the world. And once we recognize those facts about the world, uh, they become, uh, uh, moral principles that absolutely we, uh, uh, have to act upon. How's that sound?
Speaker 0 01:04:54 I think that's great. Um, ed, I'm not sure if you have your question ready or if, uh, you wanna say, okay.
Speaker 13 01:05:04 So where, if anywhere, do epistemology and metaphysics overlap in the le you know, looking through the lens of psychology, I felt philosophy. Sorry,
Speaker 12 01:05:27 Sorry. So the question is, where do metaphysics and the epistemology overlap? Yeah.
Speaker 13 01:05:32 If anywhere.
Speaker 1 01:05:37 Um, I, am I unmuted
Speaker 0 01:05:40 Now? Yeah, I can hear you.
Speaker 1 01:05:42 Okay. Well, they overlap everywhere because, um, what the fundamental principle of epistemology, the fundamental axioms, one of them, um, is that consciousness is, is identification. Identification of what, of what's there, what's out there. And so, you know, and that's a realm of metaphysics. I mean, the, this principle of what we call the primacy of consciousness, um, is a better physical thesis in the sense that it's, it gives us a deep truth about the very nature of consciousness. But then, um, you have to go down some levels, get deeper into, you know, into each subject. Like, um, uh, in epistemology, um, for example, uh, how do we know about reality? Well, we, we, we know it through sense perception, and then concept formation, and then, um, inductive generalizations and logical inference. And those things are epistemological. That's the technique of how we identify. So that would be epistemology, but they, epistemology of metaphysics start at the same place, um, with, with the law of identity fact that there is, there is a world existence exists and, and, uh, things at that really, really fundamental level.
Speaker 12 01:07:14 Just to add another, uh, example of David's point would be it's a metaphysical fact about human consciousness that it's volitional. Uh, so that's, that's a metaphysical point. But then at the simultaneously that grounds an epistemological, uh, set of, uh, truths about human consciousness that we need to be aware that it's volitional and then, uh, uh, you know, that we can use our consciousness well or not so well, depending on the choices we make. And so we need to, uh, attend to principles of how to use our consciousness. Well Ally, and that's epistemology.
Speaker 13 01:08:00 Thanks, Steven. Thanks, David.
Speaker 0 01:08:04 Good question. Thank you for that. Um,
Speaker 12 01:08:08 That's
Speaker 0 01:08:08 An interesting, well, uh, again, we encourage people to come up here if you've got questions. Um, we had one from Aay. Um, should there be rules at all on high interest rate loans in a free market? I guess thinking of like payday lenders or, you know, is usri a a valid concept that if it turns into a protection racket, maybe?
Speaker 12 01:08:42 Um, so an interest is the money you pay to, uh, to use someone else's money for a certain period of time. And the value of that, uh, is something that should be set by both the lender and the borrower based on whatever value, uh, the money has to them. So in principle, uh, I don't think there should be a lowest or a highest rate. Um, and circumstances vary, uh, as well as the value of that particular chunk of money, uh, to, to both parties. So I don't see, uh, why there should be a highest, uh, limit beyond which we say no. So I don't think there's such a thing as the highest interest rate such a thing as the highest, uh, cost of anything.
Speaker 0 01:09:49 That's fair. Thank you. Um, we've got Connie up here. Connie, thanks for joining.
Speaker 14 01:09:57 Oh, you're welcome. And I noticed that you, uh, posted, um, a thing at, at the top. So you were reading my mind. Dr. Salzman will be coming up soon. Um, I'm assuming that's the Zoom
Speaker 0 01:10:09 Machine. You're correct,
Speaker 14 01:10:11 Yes. I, I, that's all I was going to come up to say. So you were reading my mind, Scott, that's pretty scary or what? That Jack <laugh>?
Speaker 0 01:10:20 No, that, uh, it was, I, um, he's gonna be talking at the top of the hour to Students for Liberty event. That is the, um, link to it. The code is, uh, passcode is 1 9 7 7 30 for, uh, those interested in that. It's on, it's gonna be on the pillars of Libertarian politics. David, did you want to comment or?
Speaker 12 01:10:47 Uh,
Speaker 1 01:10:47 No, no, Steven, I agree with Steven on that. Uh, Richard would go into more depth, I know if he were here, um, Uhhuh or wanted to speak. But anyway. No, that's great. Uh, at upper level on interest rates is a price control. And I mean, interest is the price you pay for loaning, borrowing money, and like any price control, um, it has economically destructive effects in that it restricts, um, it, you know, increases demand while not allowing, um, supply to expand. And so you get shortages. So I'll, but that I've now exhausted my knowledge of economics. So let's move on <laugh>.
Speaker 0 01:11:35 So, um, you know, this one caught my eye. I, uh, there's some, uh, website that's about, you know, philosophy, news that I went to try to, uh, find some information on. And, uh, one of the stories was that there were at least four summer programs in philosophy for undergraduate students that are designed, especially for members of groups that traditionally have been underrepresented in the field. I guess that the group of people that have, you know, that are freshmen doesn't count for anything, or, uh, it just seems like they're already starting with a philosophy. Uh, and I'm just a little curious if, uh, you know, how much we see, um, you know, this type of affirmative action really hitting the, you know, academia
Speaker 1 01:12:35 Well, I, go ahead. I'm, I'm gonna jump in. As, as a former teacher, um,
Speaker 1 01:12:45 You know, I hate the legalized affirmative action, which is basically a, a quota system. It's not an explicit quota system, uh, an affirmative action is defined by goals, but a goal is just an effort to fill a quota. So I'm totally against that, and I think it's had destructive effects, uh, since the sixties. But as a teacher who cares about students, I always felt that I was engaged in affirmative action if there were students who came from impoverished or, um, backgrounds that I had, or, you know, from parts of the city or with parents that were not encouraging their education and somehow made it past that and, uh, but didn't have the preparation of some of the prep school kids. So, um, I would be happy to spend extra time with them and foster them. It's not because they were black or because they were women, it's just that because they of who they were. Um, but realistically there are, you know, as a result of all kinds of factors, but racism and prejudice was, is among those factors. Um, people, uh, start out in different places in life. And if someone has the ambition to succeed and learn, um, I, and you know, they have to have want the, they have to want this, but, uh, if they do, I'm happy to spend extra time. Uh, and you call that affirmative action. Um, I'm all for it. But Steven, you're a current teacher, so you, uh,
Speaker 12 01:14:26 Yeah, I think there, I don't have good demographics on this, but I do know, uh, in hiring professors, uh, higher education is extraordinarily attuned to all of the, uh, kinda ethnic, racial, gender, uh, demographics and, uh, over and above any legal requirements, uh, once, once to have a, a representative, uh, uh, workforce. And that does mean, uh, that, that they overlook merit criteria, um, uh, rather frequently in the case of students, um, uh, I wanna say it's the, the universities that I've been teaching at that's probably been less of an, an issue just because, um, uh, this, you know, the universities I've been most affiliated with, particularly Rockford University, which has been my home base for a long time, we, you know, are not as selective as other universities. So, you know, we do turn some students away, but students, uh, who want to go to university have a very good chance of getting in.
Speaker 12 01:15:43 So, uh, and since we're a private college, they're paying a lot of money to be here, so they come in motivated. And so I haven't noticed that we're doing affirmative action with respect to students. But I, I would say even at the, the more selective universities such, there's the recent scandal at, at some of the IVs and, and Harvard in particular, that, uh, affirmative action, uh, to the extent that it just functions as a racial quota, uh, is quite pernicious to everyone who's involved. So, um, you know, I'm glad it's getting exposed that there are legal challenges to it, but, uh, we do get still, uh, to, to make the philosophical argument. There really is a moral argument about justice and individuality and, uh, uh, right now we're in a place culturally where there's a huge amount of racial collectivism and gender collectivism out there. And so a lot of sympathy for affirmative action.
Speaker 0 01:16:54 Good. Thank you for that answer. Um, I'd, uh, I'd like to switch gears. Um, I was going over, uh, part of, uh, truth and toleration and, uh, you know, it was talking about how, um, you know, part of what Objectivism didn't have was a theory of induction and also, um, you know, good enough standards for what constitutes proof, David. So I'm just curious if you think that, um, some of those issues have been addressed in, um, by Objectives thinkers in the last 30 years, and if there are any, you know, recommendations you'd make in that regard.
Speaker 1 01:17:36 Uh, yeah, I can mention some, um, on induction, uh, I ran herself, said that she didn't have, had not developed her epistemology that far. Leonard Poff and David Harbin, uh, in the year, I think believe it was the year 2000, published a book called, uh, the Logical Leap, um, which was about induction. Um, and a lot of good ideas in it. I'm not sure I fully agree, but it's, uh, it's in enlargement and, you know, if it's, if it stands a test of time, I would say yeah, that's part of Objectivism in, in addition to it. Um, the, uh, I'm sorry, Scott, there was another issue you mentioned, I think
Speaker 0 01:18:23 What constitutes proof?
Speaker 1 01:18:26 Oh, proof. Yeah. Oh, Jesus. I've been batting my head against the wall for decades on that one. Um, because that, that's, that's bound up with the theory of propositions. Propositions are, you know, complete statements like, you know, um, this is a zoom, uh, call and, um, which involve, which are, uh, composed of concepts. And, uh, so we have a good theory of concepts, but how do we, when we put them together, a new proposition, there are many, uh, questions, some logical, some, but a physical, and I've, I've written about that and spent a lot of time thinking about it. It's, uh, I actually have a paper called, um, on Propositions and Truth, and I think I have a, a good lead on it. Um, but so yeah, definitely, uh, that work has been, uh, there's been progress in that realm. Also, you know, Ren did not have a lot to say about families and, but, uh, a lot of objectiveness people I know have families and have thought a lot about kids and raising children.
Speaker 1 01:19:37 And, um, you know, I, there's there, I'm not sure if, if we can isolate a single or small set of philosophical principles because people differ so much, but, um, certain things, uh, stand out, um, that, you know, for example, uh, I mean, this goes back to Brandon, uh, ing a kid and just saying, do, do, as I say, and, uh, as opposed to, you know, trying to develop their intelligence, that is a bad, that's bad parenting. And that comes from an objective foundation of, you know, the goal in life is to be, you know, a mature, mature individual who's capable of self, uh, self-direction, self-governed thought, uh, self-sufficient, and, and so with self-esteem. And, you know, that's not how you get there. So, um, yeah, I think there's been a lot of progress. Um, I think less than there might have been if there weren't such a divide among, but that's another story,
Speaker 0 01:20:51 <laugh>. Great. Um, well, uh, Hillary, you had a follow up question I at least wanted to give you a chance to ask. Uh, you, um, I'll, I see it here. It says, uh, what is the role of reason and objectivism and how does it relate to the concept of individualism? If that isn't too broad,
Speaker 1 01:21:22 Not not too broad at all, <laugh>, Steven, you wanna take this?
Speaker 12 01:21:28 Uh, I would say they're directly related because, uh, reason is the capacity of an individual, uh, an individual consciousness. So it has to be, uh, exercised by individual efforts, sustained by individual effort, and then acted on by, uh, by individual efforts. So in that sense, uh, individualism is baked into, uh, a proper account of reason from the beginning.
Speaker 0 01:22:02 Great. I appreciate that. Uh, we've got Dana here. Dana, thanks for joining us. Uh, I didn't want to, if David, unless you had something to add
Speaker 1 01:22:15 No, uh, agree completely with Steven.
Speaker 0 01:22:18 All right, go ahead, Dana. Thanks for joining us. Are you able to unmute? I just wanna say thank you, Steven, for answering that. Great. Well, uh, Dana, you may need to actually leave and come back for us to be able to get your question. It looks like you're unable to unmute from what I can tell. Um, there you go.
Speaker 15 01:22:45 Can you get me now?
Speaker 0 01:22:47 Yes.
Speaker 15 01:22:48 Okay. Uh, I just have a quick question. Uh, we heard earlier this week that Steven was going to have a discussion, uh, with some other people from the, uh, I guess the Anne Ran institute about open versus closed, uh, objectiveism. And I was wondering if we can get any more details, like save the date or whatever.
Speaker 0 01:23:14 I think I can answer that. I saw a post, it's actually Craig Biddles organization, um, or it's actually I, Rand Center Europe, but, uh, it is Craig Biddle, not someone from the e Brand Institute. And, uh, they are going to be, uh, releasing more details on it in the next few days per that website.
Speaker 15 01:23:35 Okay. I didn't, I couldn't find it on that website, but, uh, uh, about how far out? Is it a couple months or?
Speaker 0 01:23:42 I believe a month.
Speaker 15 01:23:44 Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0 01:23:45 Thank you. It's gonna be at the, and it's, go ahead.
Speaker 1 01:23:50 It's going to be in Europe, though,
Speaker 0 01:23:51 Right? It's gonna be in Belgrade, so we don't know if it's gonna be live streamed or made available after. So, uh, but, um, you know, I think it's great that it's happening.
Speaker 15 01:24:02 Yeah. So do I. Thank you.
Speaker 0 01:24:06 Good. Well, um,
Speaker 3 01:24:08 I have a follow up.
Speaker 0 01:24:10 Go ahead.
Speaker 3 01:24:11 Uh, thank you, uh, about the question that, um, David, uh, answered about the, uh, development in Objectiveism, uh, in certain areas, um, in on induction. What do you think of, uh, John p Maki's, uh, uh, set of ideas, uh, when it was kind of, um, uh, contrasted against David Harriman's and Poff in the 2013 book of, of theirs, uh, uh, logical Leap?
Speaker 1 01:24:45 Uh, I sort of followed that at the time. Um, uh, honestly, I can't remember that well, my sense of McKowski, though was that he was kind of nitpicking based on his specialty in the, in the history of science. And, um, you know, I know there's a lot of bad blood around that time, um, about relationships, status and, and, uh, on top of intellectual disagreements, um, what I read didn't, you know, could tell me anything that, um, made me question, um, David Herriman's or, and kickoff's, uh, view. Um,
Speaker 3 01:25:29 The, the, uh, the other point that I wanted to raise, uh, as a follow up is, um, the, the concept of induction itself. Uh, I think in one of your lectures you said it's a, it has already been solved a long, long time ago, and you cited, uh, uh, horas, w p Joseph, um, logic book, uh, uh, and, um, a few others. And it's, it's going back all the way to Aristotle's, uh, term itself. And so, um, has your view of induction, um, it, uh, the same, uh, or, or stay the same? Has it stayed the same, um, in, uh, in that sense compatible with, uh, what, um, what Harriman calls the general induction, uh, that, that's his technical term, uh, the green light, red light kind of, uh, uh, process for, uh, getting a generalization from,
Speaker 0 01:26:32 From observation, a chance to answer. We're wrapping up here. Thank you.
Speaker 3 01:26:37 Uh,
Speaker 1 01:26:38 Um, yeah, I, I can be quick here on this. I think, um, the red light, uh, Herman's red light, green light thing is ha has to do with the process of discovering specific causal factors. Uh, and that is, that is the big issue, but the fundamental issue, what, what justifies induction, it's a law of causality, which is an axiom or axiomatic. So we don't need, uh, uh, it's not a problem why the same entity in the same circumstances will act the same way. That's the law of causality. It's an axiom, but how, what relevant, what parts, what aspects of an entity are relevant to what actions it may engage in and, and to the circumstances it finds himself. That's what science is about. And I'll defer to David. Uh, not that I am <laugh> agree to agree with him across the board, but, um, that, you know, he, he writes with much more knowledge, uh, about all this.
Speaker 0 01:27:42 Great. Well, um, that is fantastic. I just wanna, uh, first thank everyone, uh, Steven, you're such a trooper for, uh, coming here straight from plane, uh, David, for, you know, just keep plugging away with your phone issues, uh, and came back and, uh, you know, even, uh, Ron and Hillary and, uh, everyone else for getting us through it. So I just, uh, I do feel grateful for that. And again, uh, per the link above, uh, Richard Salzman is gonna be talking to, uh, students for Liberty Group. Now, uh, the passcode is 1 9 7 7 3 oh, if you follow that link. Um, and so it should be a, a good event talking about the pillars of libertarian politics. So again, thanks everyone for being a part of this and, uh, we'll look forward to seeing you, uh, when we're back here next week. Take care.
