Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:00 We will dive into those as well. And as usual, Jason, just, you know, if it's not a question you're interested in, just say, pass, we have tens and tens of thousands of questions. So we won't run out of them. We love to, uh, to get your questions from those of us, those who have joined us today. I want to also remind you, we are going to record the session, put it up on our podcast platform. And, um, yeah, so I know Scott has questions cause he, he always does. So, um, see if he will raise his hand and come on up and join us. But otherwise, um, I will dive in with a question here that I think is pretty much up your alley, uh, is canceled culture, the new authoritarian regime,
Speaker 1 00:00:56 Right? Well, well first we have to sort of, you know, define our terms and be very clear what we mean by cancel culture. Um, because I think when we talk about cancel culture, a lot of people say, oh, cancel culture has always been around. And it seems to me that the absence of a specific definition leads many of us to, to talk past each other. So my understanding given that it has so many different iterations of cancel culture is the willful intent. There are a couple of there, there are two fundamental attributes. I want to define it by, and then answer the question. It is a willful intent to punish or penalize someone for a viewpoint that lies outside. And this is going to sound fake, but what lies outside, um, receive wisdom or the orthodoxy that has been sort of a set up a set of premises, a set of beliefs, a set of ideas that get codified as cultural norms, to which we are expected to adhere.
Speaker 1 00:02:10 All persons are expected to adhere. Um, the latest one of course, being that people can change their sex, um, or change, change their agendas. Uh, and the two are used interchangeably and anyone who disputes that is punished and punished the punishment can take various forms. So the first attribute of cancel culture, I sort of would define as, uh, the willful intent to silence and or to punish persons whose expressive viewpoint deviates from, um, receive wisdom or the orthodoxy of those who take themselves to be the Vanguards of our culture in any sphere. And the second attribute I would associate with cancel culture has to do basically with, let me, let me use my words very carefully to here, um, denying from admission into the realm of knowledge, any evidence that could dispute that, which is taken to be an on a sale of a truth or a set of on a sale of a truths.
Speaker 1 00:03:29 So I think the two go hand in hand because for cancer culture to work, um, you have to make sure that you close the gates, that you closed the knowledge realm, that you bark truth, and that you bar the criteria that are used to judicate disputing truth claims, which are reasoning logic, um, in order that the codified cultural norms or mores, or, or, or, or norms can take a sentence in the culture. So that's probably not an exhaustive definition, but that would be my fin or skeletal definition of cancel culture. Not to answer your question, is it the new form of authoritarianism? Um, I think yes and no in the sense that we're still living in a free society in which, yeah. So let's be clear. People's careers have been ruined by cancel culture. People have been fired, whether one is an advocate of, or support of Chris more.
Speaker 1 00:04:34 Now we started with CNN fired him because of an allegation made by an anonymous, um, woman who claimed that she was, that he was guilty of sexual misconduct towards her. Um, and so he was in effect. People would use the word he was he's been canceled. I mean, we know that he was fired, but he was canceled because part of what constitutes cancel culture today is that the anonymous viewpoints of a person or the opinions of a person are both necessary and are sufficient, I should say, to penalize that person without any kind of forthcoming evidence, the person is presumed guilty and not in a sense. And that's another probably attribute I would ascribe to, or impute to cancel culture is that persons are assumed not guilty until proven innocent, but guilty until they can prove their innocence, which is typically a non-American way. So the reason I say yes and no is because we still live at these in a semi free society in which there can be rejoinders, uh, there can be counterfactuals.
Speaker 1 00:05:40 There can be claims that dispute that which counts as received wisdom, that which counts as the codified on a saleable truths that others have put forward without any evidence, um, just the declaration of their feelings. Um, we still live in a, in a society where people have access to legal resource. They can claim it, they can, they can test it. People are, newspapers are still an online fora are still free for us to express our opinions without any kind of reprisal from the government or the state. So there is no official censorship in the strict definition that let's say ran would define censorship as, um, there's self-censorship and there is big tech in quotes, censorship, but I'm not sure that that really constitutes censorship. So I said yes, in the sense that real lives are destroyed by a kind of authority that these codified norms and customs and principles, and more is seem to, um, occupy in our, in our culture.
Speaker 1 00:06:53 Um, so one could say, you know, ran wants to define the age as they age of Edinburgh. We could sort of colloquial way say we live in the age of cancel culture. So yes, in that sense, but no, in the sense that if we look at how authoritarianism behaves in authoritarian societies like Singapore or North Korea, um, those who are the victims of cancel culture would have no ability or capacity to challenge and to fight the accusations or the viewpoints that they hold. And we still have that in America. So it's not a definitive answer that I'm giving, but, but that's the best I can do.
Speaker 0 00:07:40 I think that is really helpful. So it's, it's authoritarian and, um, it's pervasive, but it would probably not be correct to call it a regime. Um, because it's, it's not governmental
Speaker 1 00:07:57 That's right. It's more, it's more cultural, no loose, which is not to say that it doesn't wheel an enormous of nefarious power, but it is more a cultural phenomenon rather than a phenomenon that is unilaterally backed up by the state,
Speaker 0 00:08:16 Jay LoPaire chairman of the board of the Atlas society. Nothing, nothing better to do. So he's joining us.
Speaker 2 00:08:27 I love, uh, I love these and love your answer there, Jason, that was terrific. I had a, uh, I did want to elevate what I'll call the, the tribal loyalty to the narrative point that I think you're making with respect to the culture itself, but then ask if, if you might link it to the question of, since there's no truth, no objective reality as part of what drives much of this thinking, does it mean that we really deal with ideas as, as not true or false, but, uh, but good or evil and evil ideas need to be suppressed and facts. And, uh, the, you know, objective truth, any of that is, is irrelevant because of the oppressor oppressed narrative. And then all those who are on board need, I mean, all the board, everyone who's part of our tribe needs to be on board and never question or you'll get the same treatment. And I assume that's all connected in some pretty deep way here. And then I had a second question, that's unrelated to this, but I was reading a book, which I think is fantastic. And I had a question on it.
Speaker 1 00:09:52 Okay. So let me ask, yeah, the first part, that's why I said there it's, it's too full. That is that it's, it's the willful, the willful attempt to keep out of the, not what I call the knowledge realm or the realms of knowledge, the truth, which constitute canceling out philosophical, meaning tests or any kind of meaning tests that, uh, have, uh, method methodologies behind them for helping us to arrive at the truth. Um, yes, I completely agree. Um, Catholic culture is primarily concerned or the practitioners of cancel culture and say are primarily concerned with feelings as an emotions, as both tools of cognition and also as sufficient conditions for shutting down people's lives. That is if my feelings are hurt or if my opin, or if your opinion offends my opinion, that's a sufficient condition to shut you down. So yes, it's, I completely agree.
Speaker 1 00:10:51 It's it's, it's it's we all have philosophical meaning tests, uh, scientific meaning tests that we Marshall when we are appraising truth claims. So we know that when people make utterances that there are objective criteria that we can appeal to, to appraise the argument and the better argument wins because it has a better fit with reality. And so those truth claims, I'm sorry, those meaning tests themselves have to correspond to something very, very real, the purveyors or the practitioners of cancel culture, um, want to bypass that and simply use their feelings and their on substantiated opinions, which are beliefs as, um, as on a salable, as immutable. Yeah.
Speaker 0 00:11:46 Jason, before you get to a second question, could you also tap on me and make me a moderator?
Speaker 1 00:11:58 Okay, great. Okay. Thanks.
Speaker 2 00:12:01 Yeah. The second question, Jason, in, in, um, in your book, which reminded me, uh, uh, so much of why I fell in love with objectivism as I was reading the first part of your new book, the, you raise the question, um, that, or not the question, the, the, the, the point that this was the founding of America was a, it was a, was a revolution in, uh, a pistol, a pistol biology that linked into politics. How do you deal with what I'll call the fiction of the concept of the govern? You know, we've dealt with anarchism, ran was, uh, she dismissed, you know, uh, the libertarians because of the anarchist influence and maybe because of, um, Libertine, you know, ethical, outlooks, but, but I think anarchism was a huge part of her objection to libertarianism, you know, way back, um, that, that consent of the govern is a fiction and the purpose of government to protect Liberty. You have to have a monopoly on force it's just on, uh, it, it, it, it, it has to be any moral approaches to that that you would say are the stronger statements, or is that something you, you would say is just outside of what you've spent much time on?
Speaker 1 00:13:30 No. When I teach a course called the history of, um, European political thought, and we start with Hobbs and really it's a, it's a history on the, the, the, of, of, of social, social contract theory, looking at the beginnings of, of liberalism, um, after the collapse of, of, towards collapse of feudalism. And one of the, one of the questions that the students often ask me is I didn't choose to be here. I was born into society. And so I didn't ratify the social contract that subjects me. Um, I'm not, I'm not S I'm not a signature of the, of the, of the social contract. So why do I have to obey the laws and the more or less the more Lancer or the more ethical upshot of the response to keep it short is something on the order of, well, one of the beautiful things about political liberalism, there are many things problematic about poli political liberalism, but one of the beautiful things about political liberalism is that it has an exit clause that is you are free to exit the state.
Speaker 1 00:14:37 So you're ensconced your personal ensconce means your personal stance in the state is a tacit agreement, um, that you give to be subjected to objective rational laws that protect your inalienability, the inevitability of your rights, the inviolate dignity that you possess. Um, and so the fact that you haven't taken advantage of, and I think this is a big thing in political liberalism that you haven't taken advantage of the exit clause soccer down to go back to Socrates. You know, Socrates made that argument, um, in, um, not the apology will, but the tech staff, the apology, um, oh, God has this, my teach that texts so often, um, where he, he has a chance to escape Athens and he does not. And he says, I chose to remain, um, in the state. Therefore my mere presence means that I've endorsed, um, in some sense, the laws that cover me, whether I agree with them or disagree with them or disagree with them or agree with them.
Speaker 1 00:15:46 Um, so I think in some sense, that is the response that I would, would give that is, um, um, once you choose to remain within the liberal order, your consent is tacit. And then very, very real, um, I wouldn't get the content order that answer that you have duties to yourself. Uh, for many, many reasons I would prefer to just keep it really thin and skeletal and say that in not taking advantage of the exit clause, you subject yourself voluntarily, um, not to all laws, because there are, we have a theory of civil disobedience within civil, within political liberalism, and we do have the right to disobey unjust laws. Um, but your mayor, um, your mayor existence and your agreement to stay within the liberal, the geographic boundary in mature, born is a tacit is a tacit endorsement of the state to govern you by objective rational laws that protect your inevitability and among other things that are consonant with your nature as a rational human being, if the, if the government abrogates all of that, then of course, um, you have the right to, to object and you have the right to even disobey an unjust law through civil acts of civil disobedience.
Speaker 1 00:17:16 Right.
Speaker 2 00:17:16 That's terrific. And, and it, and it links directly to free speech and to the right of exit. Yep. Yeah. Thank you.
Speaker 0 00:17:25 Also, Jason professor, Stephen Hill is driving, so, uh, can't unmute himself, but he says the piece of writing you might be looking for is,
Speaker 1 00:17:38 Oh my God. The credit. Yes, yes, yes. I just thought it in the spring and my intro, my honors class. So, yeah. Thanks Steven. Yes. Yes. The cryto where he explains the cryto who wants him to escape, uh, and your refuses. Thank you. The cryto, which is the follow-up texts, the apology. Yeah. Scott.
Speaker 3 00:17:57 Hi there. Uh, good, uh, good stuff so far. Um, I wanted to ask you professor Harrell. I know you've been also, uh, you know, the cancel culture has come after you, whether it was people claiming, you know, you didn't like trans people or Palestinian people, and it just seems like part of it is, you know, that's what they do. They, they accuse us of being bigots, which is basically the worst charge you can have today and they'll find some way to do it, but, you know, we, there's only like so many things we can get really worked up about. And I feel like the Liberty movement should push back on people, falsely using that charge. Um, you know, and to the extent we don't, we're, we're sanctioning it and encouraging it more. And, uh, I'm just curious to hear your thoughts on that.
Speaker 1 00:18:49 Well, yes, thanks God. I think that's right. And to pick up on something that you're saying about when they falsely accused us, they can only do that because moral relativism, um, is the governing norm in terms of, you can't even say adjudicating among truth claims moral relativism is just the in quote ethical norm. That prevails that is that among other things, you know, each culture has the author sovereign creative its own truth, or in the subjective form of relativism that, um, every opinion has equal value and equal worth and equal purchase on the truth. So the village idiot who wants to elevate his sophomore in high school opinions to the level of human knowledge, his opinions are just as valid as someone who has used lack empirical evidence, reason, and logic to justify a claim that he or she has made. So I think to get real philosophical, one of the reasons that they can accuse us of be bigots is because their opinions don't have to be substantiated.
Speaker 1 00:20:01 Well, opinions can't be substantiated because opinions are unsubstantiated beliefs by definition. So their claims are there, their utterances don't have to be substantiated by any factual or evidentiary methodology method, because according to cultural relativism, among other things, um, there are no objective criteria to adjudicate among truth claims and truth claims here I'm using as opinions that people have. Like, I'm, I just, I'm a, I'm a Palestinian hater. I hate Arabs, right? Or because I say that men should not be competing biological men who identify as trans women should not be competing in sports that are the realm or the, the, the, the, of biological women. Um, so I just get called a bigot and that sort of sticks. Why, because we've dispensed with the criteria that really, uh, are responsible for determining sex. It's not genitalia really it's chromosomal markers, and those, you cannot change.
Speaker 1 00:21:13 Science has not come up with a way to change chromosomal markers. So, but in most people's minds, it's kind of a magical thinking. We don't have to take science seriously. Why? Because science is also a racist, subjective, uh, set of hypotheses by people who will discuss it power in the world. So there are all these Ken ARDS and all of these, these, these false beliefs that are left on challenge that make it possible. Something I can sculpture. What we need to really do is to simple, simply among other things. It's not that there's nothing simple about this, but it's to assert the primacy of reason and assert the primacy of logic, uh, as the only methods for adjudicating. Um, I won't include empirical evidence because if you're a rational person, you know, when to include them, you know, when empirical evidence is necessary, um, as the only arbiters of dis of, of, of adjudicating among truth claims and at arriving at something like the truth, I mean, short of physical violence, which does not prove that one is wrong on which I certainly am not an advocate of it's like enforcing the rules of grammar, or like when you learn a foreign language and you just, you, you, the, the teacher enforces the rules.
Speaker 1 00:22:27 You just, we just have to enforce the rules that give us purchase on the truth, some purchase, or give us an exclusive access to the truth in whatever realm we're dealing with. We just have to be consistent and not yield one inch to the radical subjectivists who are moral relativists. Really?
Speaker 3 00:22:53 Roger. Yes. Thank you. Um, uh, Dr. Hill, this is a pleasure. Uh, every time I get to see you on this app, I enjoy the opportunity to have an exchange with you. I have purchased your book, not just for myself, but as Christmas guests for family. So I appreciate you putting the work into that, um, question that I have for you is I get a lot of conversations here in the clubhouse app and talking about the value of Liberty and how that, that virtue is more important than the idea of equality in that equality is this elusive thing that we'll never get to, but Liberty is this, uh, this ideal that we, we, we should strive for. And what, what strikes me as odd is how hard it is, um, to convince people of the importance of Liberty. And I'm wondering, you know, from your experience in, in, in teaching, uh, how do you reach people on the concept of Liberty and, and, uh, and break through the, uh, the noise that's out there, uh, and beat down these, these narratives that seem to be destroying us. Uh, I, I'm just looking for extra arrows for my quiver when it comes to communicating the point of, uh, the importance of Liberty and, and, and how we, how we can be more persuasive and get people to, uh, value some of the lessons that we learned through the age of enlightenment.
Speaker 1 00:24:26 Thanks. Thanks, Roger. Well, the first thing about equality is that, and rant, I think made a great, great point about this. Um, it's going to take the spectacle of massive, massive kind of suffering. And by that, I mean, the consequences of evading the very means that you need to survive long-term as a human being for things to restore, um, things to be restored and things will never be restored, fully. Things are never, ever restored fully. I think that's too demanding, um, a criterion, uh, things even, you know, when Ron was writing, she thought that the culture was bankrupt that, uh, we're heading towards the collapse of the Roman empire. Analogously speaking, there were heading towards Rome and the collapse of Rome, and she could be quite apocalyptic and with good reason, but I don't think that things have to be perfect. I think for me, at least, um, Jennifer, one of the, the, the, the beauty of living in the midst of this chaos that we're living in, and, and a lot of it is chaos is that there still is no official censorship, right?
Speaker 1 00:25:39 When there is a sense of ship when the government who has a course of monopoly on the use of force, begins to criminalize thought and dissent, and actually start putting people in jails and shutting down, um, social media or newspapers, then it's time for another tea party, but we're not there we're, we're not there. And so long as people have the freedom to build new universities as they are certainly building new academies so long as we have the freedom to say, you're wrong. And here's why I think you're wrong. And consistently employ those philosophical meaning tests or scientific meaning tests or whatever, meaning tests are suitable for the dispute at hand. Um, there is still hope. And, um, and, and we see remnants, we see signs of this in a, in a semi free society or a free society. Still think we're a free society.
Speaker 1 00:26:37 Um, but I don't, I don't know that we have to have an author economic collapse, quite the opposite. I think if we had an economic collapse, it would just give the socialist, um, room to move in and, um, to really take, to fully take over and establish a socialist, um, regime, which is really what the, the left the radical th th the, the far left is after. But, but to ask the question know, I don't think that it takes up complete economic breakdown, um, for us to, to have some sort of restorative, um, appreciation of our society.
Speaker 0 00:27:14 Yeah. A new beginning. And I think the second part that you mentioned was especially important. Would you be, can look at places where these ideas have been enacted and they have led to utter ruin Venezuela. Cuba becomes almost impossible to, to come back, uh, when you have a new regime that's in place that is just not going to give up power under any condition. So, um, Monica love to love your, um, profile pic. I completely agree with it. You have a question for professor,
Speaker 4 00:27:55 Thanks, Jennifer. And thanks professor health for your time. I'm learning about you. And I'm so excited to learn about, uh, people that are going in the direction that I think our country needs to go in. I'm reminded about the Chinese curse. May you live in interesting times, and I believe we're living in quite interesting times, but it is a little fatiguing. So my two questions are how, how you said we will have to go through discomfort for us to go through it, to get to the other side, how can we buffer against the pain of the people from the people who are not paying attention? Because I think a lot of people aren't paying attention. And then when, when you receive personal slights, because you don't think you don't have a homogeneous thought process as I do. And I, you know, the sense that the verbal slings and arrows, how do you handle those?
Speaker 1 00:28:59 Well, thanks, Monica. Um, yeah, I mean, so, yeah, I mean, I won't go through the history of the ways in which I've been censured by my university, formally by the faculty and, um, and reprimanded, uh, through a formal procedure by the university and, and canceled, and then the boycotts against my classes. Um, that's, that's pretty much anybody can just Google me and see that, but, but more importantly, um, you know, I was reading Rand's essay recently, how to live a rational life and an irrational society. And that essay really helps me a lot, because what I realized is that you can't escape, you cannot escape moral judgment, and you have to realize that is something called cultural psychosis. It doesn't mean that everyone in the culture is a psychotic of course, but it means that it means that there are pervasive beliefs and norms and mores, which people mindlessly adhere to or ascribe to that gives at least if not the veneer gives the, uh, it's more than a veneer really because, um, we see the real suffering of people who are canceled.
Speaker 1 00:30:11 We see the real suffering of people are subjected to walk ideology, but first you asked how I deal with it and help it. I suggest that others deal with it is to recognize, first of all, that you are dealing with the kind of psychosis that is a break with. And what do I mean by psychosis? I like to define my terms like what long, because I'm a philosopher, but, um, so you know, a person who has the shortest definition, a person who has a complete break with objective reality, whose perceptions are out of alignment with what is real and what is true. So they look at racism. Uh, one of the reasons I've been able to survive in tech psychologically, um, after being the subject of re you know, racism from left on the right, um, as a person of color is to realize that racism and racist is, are psychotics they're, they, they, they perceive something about you based on morphological characteristics that have nothing to do with reality.
Speaker 1 00:31:11 So I think one of the reason that I can throw my blanket, my cover off every morning, plant my feet on the floor with complete joy, to face this chaotic world and, and, and, and not just battle intellectually, but to lead a wonderful personal life and to live happily is because I realized that the psychotics are not to be taken very, very seriously. I mean, they're to be taken seriously in one respect, they can inflict damage, but never internalize the cultural psychosis as part of your cognitive makeup. So I have a schizophrenia father, which makes life very easy for me and difficult in one respect, who thinks that he's Jesus Christ, who thinks one day that he's a fallen angel. And I had to learn early on as a child to navigate the madness of a, of a crazy parent. And so, you know, you have to, so once you don't internalize and think this person really is a spider, you've got to treat them seriously, because if they think they're a spider, they can they'll, they might come after your throat is distinguished, but you don't internalize the, the falsities, you don't internalize the untruths.
Speaker 1 00:32:18 You don't internalize the dispensation with meaning tests. You certainly certainly don't buy into this, this new prevailing viewpoint, that reason and logic, uh, the constructs of racist, white imperialists, European men who devised it to keep people of color outside of the domain of the ethical or outside the panting of the human community. You realize that all of those things, all of those statements are, are forms of psychosis. And then you, you, you, you assert what you know is the truth based, not just on, because you believe it, but by going through rigorous argumentation, marshaling, empirical evidence, using reason and logic, um, as the only tools of cognition that are available to the human being, as we, as we know so far, um, and you just use your agency, your creative agency, as both an inoculant against this form of psychosis, and also as, um, an an Lexier as a panacea against these things.
Speaker 1 00:33:31 So just, you know, I'm a teacher, I get papers that have grammatical infelicities in them. I just seem to correct them. You know, I don't, I don't believe that if someone says Mary and Sally has been walking, that that's proper grammar, I just simply, you enforce rules of grammar. You have to use your agency to enforce the truth, not in a subjective whimsical way, but in an objective rational way, you just use your agency, um, to fight the psychosis. It's, it's, it's a terrible psychological burden. But the way that I found I have found not to be defeated by it is to first recognize that it is a form of collectivism. It is a form of irrationalism and in many, many respects of form psychosis.
Speaker 4 00:34:21 Thank you, professor. I did a room called in defense of broccoli, the bigotry against tiny trees. And I had a, uh, a counselor come on the stage and criticized me for my racial bigotry. And I'm like, okay, but it helps you answered both questions in one answer. I'm very impressed. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 0 00:34:50 Monica, I'd also share something that's helped me, um, in the past, uh, particularly in work situations where I've had an employee or colleague who just had a hate on me or was making my life very difficult. And my mother, once, uh, I tried to turn to her and I say, I don't know what to do with this person. And she said, JAG, you have everything. And they have nothing. And, um, I think what she was just pointing me towards was, was gratitude and understanding that this person, you know, was insecure, was angry, was fearful. And I think that is probably the case with a lot of, um, the cancel culture warriors, who, who, uh, you know, as, as I, and ran said, envy is the hatred of the good for being good. And just, um, you know, understanding that you have the truth and, uh, and you have confidence. You have a community and you're being productive. Um, that's a passion help. Uh, okay. Let's see. Time.
Speaker 5 00:36:11 My question is about, is about, uh, it's more like a social philosophy question. I just want to ask Jason and the interaction between the human groups, we can call it cultures or nations. Do you think that there is a moral code that we can appeal to a total justify, more adjusted judgments about other groups being false or being wrong and other groups of being, I just want to, they just want you to clarify where, where this comes from, if it's, and, and, uh, if you, if you, if you agree that there is no, there is no culture. I want to ask where democracy comes from. If, uh, if, uh, if some culture thinks that democracy doesn't fit in this in its socialist system, why it is, it is the job of other culture to force it. I just can't understand where this comes from.
Speaker 1 00:37:35 Right? Well, thank you at time. I, I'm not a cultural relativist. And I do think that there are universal, uh, on a salable, um, truths, and, uh, that are indisputable that transcend anyone culture, and that can be unilaterally applied to culture, to different cultures. Now, where does that come from? Well, it comes from our human nature. So we have a right to our bodily integrity. That is, I have a right, not to be harmed by another person because it is a precondition. It, it actually is a condition for my survival. If you, if anyone has the right to inflict bodily harm on me arbitrarily, then that compromises or that endangers my right to self-preservation. So there are certain moral axioms that I don't need to prove. Subsequent truths are derived from those axioms. And one of them is I have the right to self preservation because that's built into my nature as a human being, to preserve my life.
Speaker 1 00:38:44 And anything that stymies, that, anything that compromises that is across the board, wrong unprovoked infliction of harm or unprovoked violation of my bodily integrity is, is a, is a wrong. So we can say female genital, mutilation, torture, gang rape for, um, women in Pakistan who commit adultery, or in some parts of Afghanistan, we can unilaterally say that is a violation of their individual, right? To their bodily bodily integrity, to their individual, right, to safeguard their, their lives as individual human beings. And that's not dependent on the opinion of other people. That's somehow just built into our nature as human beings. And the proper role of the government is to provide the methods or the systems to secure and safeguard those rights. Um, these are not gifts from the government. These are the right of the consent to demand the government, poor servants of the people going from Royal sovereigns to popular sovereignty.
Speaker 1 00:39:58 They serve our interests. They're there to protect our rights against the encroachment that others would make against us that would egregiously harm our capacity towards self self-preservation towards the inevitability. That is the built in, on a salable, um, non viable, right. That we have to our own lives, that we are ends in ourselves. And, um, so that's, you know, that's the first part of, of, of where they come from. They come from our nature as human beings, and just, I call you have a stomach that has a particular nature, and it is inimical to the ingestion of certain items. Like a shark can ingest certain things like a shoe or, or, or, or a piece of stick. Your stomach has a particular nature. And in order to unilaterally preserve that nature, you'd have to know what nutrients or what things are good that the stomach can digest.
Speaker 1 00:41:06 If it can't digest, it it's unprocessed food that it vomits back up or in process items. It's the same thing with human nature. We have a particular nature. Certain things are inimical to that nature. And certain things are conducive to the flourishing and the maintenance of that nature and the proper role of an individual to understand what human nature consists in and, uh, to rationally adopt principles, ideas, uh, norms, uh, that, that are conducive to the preservation of that nature. And of the last part of your question about, um, I wasn't sure about the right of the country. Are you talking about the right of other countries to interfere in the democratic procedures of a state?
Speaker 5 00:41:50 It was law of morality that we can appeal to. That means that that means that any culture that does not follow this law can be, can be, uh, uh, can be forced to follow this. It's like, but I have, I have, I have, uh, one comment on your own on the saying that, uh, it's, uh, the, these, these rights follow from the human nature. And as, as I understand, my stomach nature is, and your utility is to, to make me survive. It's a tool for my body system. So, yes. So, so saying that there are certain rights that are, that are, that are there to, to preserve the human nature or survival. But th th that tries is another question. Like if those cultures that funnel this unhealthy morality have survived for thousands of years. So that raises the question, how can a culture survive for those and, and flourish for those thousands of years of following and, and, uh, a morality that is against its nature. So
Speaker 0 00:43:21 I also just want to give a time check because we have seven more minutes, um, until professor hill has to go. So, uh, we, I want to apologize in advance if we're not able to answer all of the questions fully, Jason, did you want to jump get to, or
Speaker 1 00:43:42 Yeah, just briefly. And then we can move on. I would say that yes, people have survived, but survival is not the same thing as flourishing and, and, you know, slaves, we are chattel slavery where people were living on the forced condition of labor and servitude. Uh, we would not say that they were flourishing. We would just say that they were surviving and people can live on a subsistence level by adopting bad ideas or ideas that are inimical to their nature. Uh, is it sustainable over a long period of time? I would say the answer is no. And, um, to answer your question about whether or not we can enforce cultures that violate the inevitability of other citizens rights is, would take, uh, almost an entire session in, in short, and then we'll move on the answers in moral principle. Yes. Whether it's politically expedient for a sovereign nation to do that. If it's not in national self-interest of its citizens, as a completely different is a completely different issue.
Speaker 0 00:44:39 Okay. Well, in the interest of time, maybe if we could have Henry, uh, and then Roger, and then Andre just briefly ask their question, um, because there may be one of those questions that you have more to say about than another. And we'll make a note, um, to also try to circle back with them. I wanted to remind you all, we've got two clubhouses next week, Tuesday at the same time, we're going to be talking with, um, our senior fellow Rob Sinski and then Thursday also, uh, Richard Salzman. So Henry
Speaker 6 00:45:15 Yes. So, um, my question in particular, first off it's, it's, it's awesome to be able to share the stage with you. Um, my question in particular is, is, is in, is in the topic of, uh, higher education, especially with the university at the university level. Um, I'm currently a sophomore enrolled at Winthrop university, which is a public liberal arts school in rock hill, South Carolina. Um, and I've got a question. So we have a big emphasis, especially in our, in our English, um, in our English sector, uh, in regards to open-mindedness, this is something that our university heavily promotes right now, in terms of not only with writing, but also with, with building our ideologies, our opinions as scholars and throughout our research. Um, this idea that, that, you know, keeping an open mind when looking at different opinions, different ideologies, not allowing certain, um, uh, automatic thinking, uh, getting our way of progressing our ideologies, how we take in information from different people and what we do with that information and how we respond to that information.
Speaker 6 00:46:09 And I'm interested to hear, because, you know, I've been really inspired by this idea. I've taken several courses on, and I took a contemporary morals issues course where we discussed major topics, you know, about terrorism, um, about, uh, rights to certain things. Uh, and, and the big idea behind it was keeping an open mind when looking at these questions and looking at these topics. And I want to hear your, your opinion on, on the importance of open-mindedness when, when addressing even, even really controversial statements, very controversial takes on certain things, whether it be in politics, whether it be in society and religion. Um, and, and I want to hear really how important you think it is maybe for, for a university to kind of promote that idea. That is open-mindedness. So thank you.
Speaker 1 00:46:48 Thank you. Thank you. I agree with iron rant here, uh, be careful of having an open mind, because you might have trash thrown into it. I would prefer to say, I agree with there have a critical mind that is without the issue of context dropping, have a critical mind. That is when you are open to diverse ideas and beliefs, you always subject them against the backdrop of some, uh, meaning tests that can adjudicate again, whether they among the competing claims, whether they are true or false to have an unpredictable open mind is a very dangerous thing, because it means it's a form of, of relative. It can translate into a form of relativism where you just think I have an mind I'm open to all viewpoints. Some of those viewpoints are less valuable because again, they're just less on truths. They have not been proven than others. So my, my recipe for this whole thing is to have a critical mind, um, that is open to a multiplicity of viewpoints, but that is also subjecting them to philosophic, meaning tests, and judging them according to the criteria of reason, which reason logic suggests, um, in those moments to get at the truth, but just having an open mind as such, I don't think is a virtue, having a critical mind, I think is the way to go. Thank you for your input.
Speaker 0 00:48:15 Roger,
Speaker 7 00:48:16 Uh, Jason real quick. I, well, two questions, one personal one, maybe more, uh, expansive, but what ha how did you bite your tongue all the way through graduate school and the tenure track process? And what was that like? You may have already answered that, but I would like to hear a little bit, and then second, um, do you take trees and skis, uh, thought that con, uh, caused, woke ism seriously, if you do. I think if you don't, uh, you're on my side and anyways, I'd just like to hear your thoughts, I think.
Speaker 1 00:48:48 Okay. Thanks, Roger. I never bit, my tongue in graduate school. I've never bit my tongue anywhere at all. I, um, I was teaching iron ran the first time I got my first class as a graduate student. I taught the verge of selfishness much to the chagrin of my professors. And I told them, basically, if you penalize me for this, I'm going to Sue you. I was a very, very obstreperous child, uh, even as an adult. So I never bit my tongue in graduate school because I just always would say define what you mean, define what you mean. If you think iron man is a monster define monster, show me a stance, a big thing that she's done in her life to destroy people's lives. I, so I never bit my tongue and no, I don't think that con this is ridiculous. I don't think that con is the, um, is the godfather of volcanism. I mean, I think the kind of epistemological, um, processes that you'd have to go through is a far stretch. It's just too far for me. I am not willing to go that route.
Speaker 7 00:49:43 Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful. To hear that.
Speaker 0 00:49:46 And am an example of, uh, one of the defining characteristics of the Atlas society is that we have scholars and fellows who can disagree broadly within the tent of objectivism and appreciating and studying and communicating Iran's ideas. So, um, Jason, you have to run, Jason, do you have to run? I
Speaker 1 00:50:17 Can take one more question.
Speaker 0 00:50:19 All right. Let's make it short because I have to run.
Speaker 8 00:50:23 Awesome. I am going to try to speak very fast because I just wanted to qualify something. So it seems that one of the, first of all, thank you so much, uh, Dr. Hill really appreciate everything that you are doing and have done so far, but, um, so it seems to be one of the features of the, uh, democracy democratic system. And I would argue it's a feature, not the bug is the fact that, you know, the course of direction of the society, the progress is determined, not by the majority necessarily, but the loudest, uh, the most motivated group and the loudest, uh, speaking like the little group that speaks the loudest. So, uh, to counter that, uh, political and social movement that is composed of, uh, uh, mostly of zealots and, you know, zealots, uh, when dealing with zealots, you know, like you're dealing with people who are willing to go through great sacrifice in terms of their time and energy.
Speaker 8 00:51:15 And I think, uh, John McWhorter made a fabulous point with his latest book about, uh, you know, kind of determined it as a, as a quasi religious, uh, called, uh, with volcanism. How do you deal with those people who are willing to go to great lengths to drive their points? And, you know, if, if majority of the people who, uh, understand what's happening, but they might not have the same type of time or energy in order to counter it. And, uh, the second part of the question is like, it seems that, uh, you know, there was great work that was done by like Dr. Hicks and Dr. Lindsay and the triple goji in terms of exposing the belly of the beast in terms of what we're dealing with. Uh epistemically and, uh, you know, culturally and historically like where all of those things come from. So how, like, uh, what kind of coherent alternative can we provide to, you know, like the coast of critical theorists that are inspired by my accuser and, uh, green sheets, uh, methodology and using post-modern, uh, tools to dismantle what they have right now and impulse, uh, some sort of new social order, because it seems like the L like the new wave of classical liberalism, uh, would be the answer, but there needs to be some sort of sexier version of it, uh, that needs to come.
Speaker 1 00:52:31 All right. So we have to be brief here. I would simply say that, you know, diagnosis is not enough. One, one has to diagnose the problem. And one diagnose, diagnose. One can diagnose a problem by asking people, always, always, always to define their terms and walk around with a little pocket dictionary or with your telephone and say, okay, so what, what do you mean by this? You'd be surprised at how people are, people are so sloppy in their conceptually sloppy in their usage of terms. They don't know half the time, the terms that they're using by which, by which they indict other people. Uh, so ask them to define their terms. You make a diagnosis, but also I think the proper solution is to provide a solution, to provide an alternative. It's not just enough to diagnose and expose the belly of the beast. One has to come up with an alternative, and the alternative is always going to be some kind of truth based on objective reality that you can extensively point to that will demolish their demolish the positions.
Speaker 1 00:53:26 If this is done consistently indefatigably, but a number of people, then we can change a cultural trend. So analyses diagnoses, these things are all fine, getting people to define their terms, which will silence many of them immediately because you catch them in a conceptual conundrum where they're just, they're twisting themselves into these conceptual pretzels and they can't get out. So I always tell people, what do you mean by this? What define your terms, define that term, use a big word, define it. Don't don't look at it. Dictionary, define it. You used it. That will shut them up, but that's not enough because they'll go ahead and use it, you know, against some, some person who's not as, might not be as rigorous as we are, but then consistently providing a solution alternative one has to provide an alternative, um, to the mess and the junk that's out there.
Speaker 1 00:54:18 And that's more important. That's I think that's more important providing an alternative, a solution, which is always going to be grounded in reality, and which you can show us sensibly is conducive to our nature as free rational creatures that need not only survive, but need, we need to flourish and sustain our virtues, um, over time sustain those virtues that are conducive to flourishing over a protracted period of time that we're future oriented creatures. We're not range of the moment, concrete bound creatures, uh, we're we're we're future oriented creatures who have to sustain our lives over a long period of time. And those virtues and values that are conducive to that, to that projected period of time.
Speaker 0 00:55:04 Thank you, Jason. And thank you everyone. Excellent questions. Excellent conversation today. Please follow us on all of our social platforms, but in terms of questions and answers on Instagram. As I mentioned, we do have, um, the guest takeovers twice, twice a week. So the quality of questions we're getting here is, is really impressive. So I'd love to bring some of those onto the, uh, the Instagram platform. So, uh, that would be Alice society on Instagram and come back and join us next week on Tuesday, again, talking with Rob Thursday, uh, with Richard Saltzman and, um, thanks everybody for a great conversation.
Speaker 1 00:55:52 Thank you. Thank you everybody. Thank you, Jennifer. Bye.
