Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:00 Great. Well, uh, it's four 30. Um, I expect people to be along shortly. Uh, welcome to our pre Gala Clubhouse. I'm thrilled to have two of the best philosophers out there today. Uh, Atlas Society, Senior Scholars, Steven Hicks, and Atlas Society founder David Kelly. Uh, they'll be answering our questions for the next 90 minutes, which, uh, should give more time for detailed answers. Uh, wanna encourage everyone to share the room, and please raise your hand if you have a question for the scholars. Um, I also have a list of my own from social media, so, uh, welcome to both of you. Um, thanks so much for doing this format. Uh, any opening comments or, or you want us just to jump right into questions?
Speaker 1 00:00:55 Well, I just wanna say it's always an honor to share the stage with the great David Kelly. So <laugh>, let's, uh, have fun.
Speaker 2 00:01:04 Well, that feeling is mutual. And, uh, thank you Scott, too, for moderating. So, let, let's, um, let's go, go
Speaker 0 00:01:11 At it. All right, Good. Well, we've got Mark joining us. Let's jump right in with, uh, Mark's question.
Speaker 3 00:01:19 Hi, everybody. Um, I would like, I would like to hear, um, what would be the highest level, 20,000 foot explanation of what the practice of, of philosophy is? Even for, in other words, not so much detail, but what is it meant to bring a person by studying philosophy?
Speaker 1 00:01:44 Good one. Um,
Speaker 2 00:01:45 I'm sorry, what? Uh, I, I missed the key noun in your question Mark.
Speaker 3 00:01:50 Um, oh, What is the benefit to a
Speaker 2 00:01:53 Person benefit
Speaker 3 00:01:54 To be studying and practicing philosophy, um, from the 20,000 foot view?
Speaker 1 00:02:02 Okay, Well, let me, uh, take a stab at that one first. Uh, I would say that the, the value of philosophy is as a practical tool for living your life. And it's a practical tool because human beings are a smart species, or at least a potentially smart species. And how we survive and flourish is by understanding the world around us, understanding our own needs, and making plans for our lives, and to say, choosing goals, developing ourselves into the kinds of beings, and achieve those goals in the real world. And when you set your mind to answer those questions, you are inescapably led to philosophical questions about the nature of reality, the nature of human beings, what genuine goals are, and then, uh, somewhat self reflectively, how you come up with answers to all of those questions and know that those answers are good answers. So the questions of philosophy, the metaphysical issues about the nature of reality, about human beings, about our core values, about the capacity for shaping and our character, and then acting in, in the world. All of those philosophical questions bear on, uh, uh, what you come up with and your philosophy is your hopefully thoughtful and integrated set of answers to those questions.
Speaker 2 00:03:50 I would add, um, the, to Steven's point, the, um, the fact that, um, this is a point that was stressed by Iron Rand. You can't escape philosophy in a sense, because your whole life, you make choices, Many choices every day. Someone who visual, some are major, but, um, what choices you make depend on what you think the world is like as matter of physics, how you think you know it, and what your values are. What, what, what are you living for? What's good and bad for you in your life? And so that's, that's an implicit philosophy. If you look at any emotion, you'll see assumptions about, um, the other people, about the world, about yourself. And they maybe expressed only implicitly in the form of emotions, but the assumptions are there. And bringing them out into the open and considering them consciously and deliberately and rationally is, uh, all to the good.
Speaker 2 00:04:57 I don't think that means, uh, that everyone has to be a professional philosopher. Uh, the world will be a disaster if that were true <laugh>. Cause we, no one would be running the businesses or the school buses or whatever. But, uh, everyone I think needs some, some basic knowledge of philosophy, just in the sense that, on an analogy, maybe with everyone should know how to count as subtract, multiply, ideally, you know, a little more from your algebra class. But still, you don't have to be a professional mathematician to use math. And in some way, you don't have to be a professional philosopher to, uh, think about.
Speaker 3 00:05:41 Well, one of the first things that Steven said, almost the first sentence was something along the lines of living a good life. So, could it be that if one were restricted to six to 10 words, could one say that philosophy is about how to live a life? Would that suffice?
Speaker 2 00:06:01 That's the ultimate, I would say that, yes, that's the ultimate reason. Um, but that question carries a lot of subquestions implications and so forth. But yeah, I, I'm, I'm happy with that answer. Um, choice. Choice, sure.
Speaker 0 00:06:19 Good. Thank you for that. Uh, wanna encourage people in the room to ask questions. Um, but I also have a large stack. Uh, here's one, uh, for Steven Bmore asks, uh, you posted about the state of Florida arguing its teachers don't have economic freedom because their state employees, but isn't their argument correct?
Speaker 1 00:06:44 Yeah. Yeah. I think that one comes out of the context of, uh, contemporary discussions about education, both K through 12 and in, in higher education. And whether various woke agendas or c RT agendas have captured portions of, uh, uh, schools and universities. And then, uh, whether it's appropriate for, uh, governments, uh, local governments, state governments, perhaps federal governments to, uh, correct for this, by imposing various sorts of legislation to, uh, re restrict the teaching of C RT or, or woke. And some, uh, state level governments, uh, Florida is one of them, have gone pretty far down that road of, uh, enacting legislation of various sorts that says, woke ideas and woke texts can't be, uh, uh, used in the classrooms, uh, or put on the curricula, uh, and and so on. So that then is to say there's a, an ideology that's judged to be dangerous, but it has some power in the schools and universities.
Speaker 1 00:08:01 And then whether, uh, a political response is the best way to correct for this. Now, further context is that particularly by the time one gets to higher education colleges and universities, there are long cherished institutions, uh, to protect academic freedom in various ways. Um, uh, you know, tenure and then, uh, you know, various ex, uh, kinda explicit, uh, prohibitions on, uh, restricting speech, giving professors, uh, total control over the content of their courses and so on. So then, uh, what we have is politicians, uh, on the one hand, wanting to say certain ideologies are wrong. And in our role as, uh, kind of our fiduciary responsibility to our citizens in state institutions to make sure that, uh, state monies are being used to promote actual education and not ideas that we think aren't education, uh, justify in regulating the content of what's taught in the universities, and thereby a bridging academic freedom, or whether we should say academic freedom is the more important value, and therefore the politicians have to have to stay outta it.
Speaker 1 00:09:36 And one of the sub arguments then is the one that's referred to here that's used by the states, which is to say, Well, uh, yes, you guys are professors at universities, but we're gonna say more importantly, since these universities are state institutions, you are first and foremost employees of the state. And as employees of the state, you have to do what the state tells you. And so, if the governor or the state legislature says you can't, uh, espouse certain ideas in the classroom, then that trumps, so to speak, your, uh, your, your academic freedom. Now, I think that argument is, uh, is right, uh, uh, but I don't think it's the argument that we should go with. There is an inescapable contradiction between those two positions. Uh, if you're going to have politicians in the education space, you know, then politicians ultimately is an act of force.
Speaker 1 00:10:34 And, uh, people who are political employees have to follow the rules, uh, uh, and those can be backed up by, by force. And the contradiction then is with, uh, the pursuit of truth, which is a primary job of people in higher education. And the pursuit of truth doesn't operate under force, forceful, compulsory, uh, operations. So there's a contradiction there that can't be squared or resolved in the context, or it can't reve consistently in the context of politically funded education. So then it comes down to a matter of which side of the contradiction you think, uh, holds the more important value, and you're just going to live with, with the inconsistency. So in this case, I would say yes, uh, uh, it's perfectly, uh, uh, logical to say as a state employee, uh, academic freedom, uh, is going to be judged from that context to be a lesser value and to be overwritten when the politicians think appropriate.
Speaker 1 00:11:41 But I think, uh, the better way to do this would be to, uh, uh, to, to stick with, uh, at least for the foreseeable future, while we're, we are going to have pub public education to say that is to stick with the, the tradition of saying that public universities were, are an exemption to kind of normal, uh, employment contract law, or normal bureaucratic rationality. And to see academic freedom as such an important value and the pursuit of truth and the debate and so on, that we're going have a kind Chinese wall inside the public institutions between the funding source and the politicians on the one side and the professors, uh, on the other side. So that, uh, there will be kind of futile, right? Kinda hearkening back to universities and their futile roots that will give them an exemption, uh, to do their special job, which is pursuing truth without fear of any sort of political imposition. I think that compromise has worked well, uh, in the context of, uh, public or government education, uh, in the modern world. And I, uh, it's a bad override that compromise for the ox of that happen to
Speaker 0 00:13:14 Great, Good detailed answer. Um, again, for those just joining us, we wanna invite you to the stage if you have questions for, uh, Dr. Kelly or, um, Dr. Hicks and, uh, Tom, um, thank you for joining us. You always have some good deep questions, what you got for us today.
Speaker 4 00:13:34 Thank you, uh, Scott. And first let me make a comment. Um, I, I have a few more questions than just one, but Clubhouse does not offer a another way to a way to raise the hand again. So that's just another comment. Uh, but the question I have is, um, uh, and maybe, uh, da uh, David can, can answer in six minutes and double space, um, for, for this question. And that is, um, uh, one of your essays, maybe a long time ago, talks about the, uh, the two kinds of public, the concept of public. One is implicitly invited interaction and the other one not. And I was wondering what, uh, reference, what source did you, uh, find during the enlightenment that gave, uh, you that, um, uh, distinction, uh, because I couldn't find it in the essay originally. So that, that's the, the question. And then of course, the follow up for that is, um, what is the distinguishing characteristic of a republic?
Speaker 2 00:14:59 Let me, uh, thank you. I was, I said, Oh my goodness, that's a, that's a heavy one, but let me just say about the concept of public, um, the two, the two concepts of the public I was trying to outline in that article. One was, there's some things that, uh, the public is, as you say, implicitly invited. I can go into a restaurant and, uh, I'm not crushing the parties, so to speak, uh, in, in my home that's private. Uh, you don't come unless you're invited. So, and, and that's an age old distinction. Um, so I, I think it predates the, uh, enlightenment, although pre enlightenment, um, who Steven can correct me if I'm, um, he's, you know, misleading on this, but it, pre enlightenment, I think more of life was, um, public in the sense that you had to answer to the church as well as a state on a number of counts.
Speaker 2 00:15:59 And there, one of the great things about the enlightenment was it recognized that individuals, the basis of society is individuals, their aims and aspirations and thoughts and choices. So, um, that, that did elevate the sense of privacy. Um, there so many sources on this and so many commentaries about it, That'd be hard to pin down just one. But the other concept of public means, um, supported by government, that is public, Um, uh, public education means education supported, paid for by the state, which means by the taxpayers. And, um, anything like that. And what the, the point of my article was, people are, are engaged in equivocation between those two concepts. When they say, Well, for example, in civil rights law, say you, uh, you're a restaurant, you're open to the public. So that's a public function, and, uh, the public gets to say how you conduct it, that's confusing the public as political and the public as, um, a form of commercial, um, reality by voluntary commercial reality. So that's the distinction I was making. Um, again, I don't know, I, I, I referred to a couple of, uh, in that article, I referred to a couple of contemporary, um, uh, authors who I thought had had committed that policy vocation. Um, but beyond that, I don't, I don't really have the, a whole lot to say, but in, in, uh, I think I'm less than six minutes in. Uh, the other question you had was, um,
Speaker 2 00:17:49 About, I'm sorry, remind me this, the second half of the question. The second question,
Speaker 4 00:17:55 It is the distinguishing characteristic of a republic.
Speaker 2 00:17:59 Uh, yes. Uh, it's interesting that the etymological roots of the concept republic is race. Publica, the things that are, are common or in, in, in, in the public sphere, um, goes back at least to the Romans, but a republic in the political modern meaning last two, you know, post enlightenment, a republic is one in which, um, that recognizes the primacy of individuals in regards the government as a means to protect them, and particularly their violation of their rights. It may provide other services as our government does and keeps adding to those functions. But it is still, um, uh, bound by the concept of, of a republic and individualist republic and, um, by our constitution, which reflects that to, um, legislate fairly and equally among individuals. And, um, the, uh, and it normally means, um, a democratic form of choosing leaders, and in some cases, choosing policies that those leaders must follow. So, um, it's a combination of things. I would say a a republic is a form of government in which the rule of law protects individuals. Elections are, uh, for office, are open and several by democratic means. That's as far as I can condense it off the top of my head.
Speaker 4 00:19:38 Thank you.
Speaker 0 00:19:40 Great, Chris. Welcome. Good to see you.
Speaker 6 00:19:46 Hello. Yeah. Uh, question for both of you. Do you think academia can be salvaged? And how did academia get this way? Does it just naturally attract charlatans, or is, uh, is it, I mean, what, what can we do to save the colleges? Or should we just give up?
Speaker 2 00:20:10 Wow, Steven, Uh,
Speaker 1 00:20:12 Yeah, I think I should take
Speaker 2 00:20:13 Equipped
Speaker 1 00:20:15 The current resident of, uh, the academic world of the, of the two of us. Um, let me say, I think many of our universities are in great shape overall. Uh, obviously there are problems there, there are big problems and there are sub sectors of many colleges and universities that are, are in fact disaster zones. But if you take universities as a whole, you know, what's going on in the medical schools, in many cases, the business schools, uh, in, in the sciences, and even in many, uh, places in the humanities and social sciences, there's a lot of great, great stuff that goes on. But all that said, uh, I think things are worse than they were say 10 years ago, 20 years, and now, 30 years ago when I started off as a, as a young academic. So we are, uh, seriously into postmodern, uh, nihilism, skepticism, relativism in all of the, the offshoot organizations.
Speaker 1 00:21:23 Uh, and they've done a significant amount of damage over the last 20 or or 30 years. So all of the journalism on that, I think is, is true now, uh, whether the universities can be salvage, I don't think that's quite the, the right question, uh, is then, cause I don't think they are beyond salvage, uh, or, or in a state where even the salvage question is the, is the right, uh, uh, word to be using there. The question I think is better, will they reform themselves sufficiently, uh, or, or not? And I am consciously optimistic that they will. One thing to keep in mind is that universities are, and colleges are meant to be places that are kinda like hot houses where strange plants are going be grown and experimented with. I can, if I can use that analogy. So its the place where it's precisely the job of, uh, academics to take, to consider all sorts of ideas, uh, and then to debate them.
Speaker 1 00:22:29 And sometimes, uh, part of the occupational hazard, so to speak of that, is that some weird ideas are going currency, and they're going, uh, uh, to, uh, to, uh, a p position for a while. But the idea of having colleges and universities where these debates are going on is that they will be argued with, and if the ideas are in fact terrible ideas, they ultimately will get weeded out. Uh, universities then will be, will be self correcting. Now, I think we are starting to see that happening just, uh, in the last seven or eight years ago. I think it is true to say that we were all largely asleep at the switch in nineties and early Soviet Union collapsed. Everything is some sort of liberal democracy is gonna uhn its and worse. Uh, and then we didn't start to become aware of it more broadly speaking until say, the middle part of So Peterson, Steven, Jonathan, and others step up and say, Hey, we got a big problem here.
Speaker 1 00:24:00 We need, we, that I think already is part of the reform process happening. Other professors inside the academic world recognizing that there's a serious problem, and then marshaling their arguments and institutional muscle to, to push back now do move kindly in the academic world. So, uh, uh, it's not going to be a reform that happens overnight. But I do think that now we've got, you know, you know, not only dozens of first rate people, but hundreds of first rate people, uh, if not thousands of first rate people in colleges and universities who are aware of the problem, they're getting up to speed, they're fighting back. Uh, and so I think we will, we'll win the, win the arguments. Um, so I think at the same time, there's a significant amount of wealth and technological resources available for people to start new kinds of colleges and universities.
Speaker 1 00:25:03 And there's a very interesting large amount of activity starting to happen in the last 10 years or so in that area. So I think that the, the universities that do go down, the self-destructive paths that they don't succeed in internally reforming themselves, they will be marginalized. A lot of them will just go out of existence. The ones that do in fact succeed in reforming themselves, uh, uh, and offering well rounded healthy education, they will survive on into the next generation. And they'll be joined with, uh, or joined rather by a lot of ones that are now in the entrepreneurial stage, the startup phase, that have some new ideas about how higher education can be done well, uh, and themselves. That's just first part of whether salvaged reform or let's that one, that's a longer question back to that.
Speaker 0 00:26:07 Yeah. That can be its own topic. Um, <laugh> Dana, it's been a while. Thanks for joining us.
Speaker 7 00:26:16 Hi there. Hi there. Can you hear me?
Speaker 1 00:26:19 Yes.
Speaker 7 00:26:20 Good. Um, my question concerns Presentism. Um, I've had some encounters with it over the last few weeks and find myself victimized by it sometimes. Uh, then that is trying to judge philosophers and others, uh, in terms of what's currently understood about things. Um, and, um, and it's to some extent, uh, uh, it, I mean, it came up in a discussion about con, uh, a couple weeks ago, uh, and, uh, uh, his, his defense against science. And, and, uh, to be fair, he hadn't come up against, uh, some of the, um, uh, better ideas about science at the time. So it wasn't fair, it's not fair to criticize him, uh, on that behalf. N the same thing's true with Iron Rand, I think. I mean, there are criticisms of, uh, things she said at particular times that are, uh, that people try to judge in terms of what we know now. Um, and then the final thing was, is the American History, History historical Association, um, uh, rejected its president's, uh, call to be careful about presentism, uh, that, uh, historians shouldn't, uh, you know, shouldn't condemn people is in, uh, for, uh, what was, uh, going on at the time. Uh, so I guess my question is how do one, how does one discipline oneself, uh, with regard to Presentism?
Speaker 2 00:28:16 Um, I, I can jump in on, on just a couple of points. Um, this is issue arose in a big way with the, uh,
Speaker 2 00:28:27 Uh, taking down all, all the confederate statues in, um, Virginia and elsewhere in the South, and including some in, uh, Washington, DC where I live and elsewhere, um, because they did not, um, the south was dependening slavery along those. And, um, that's, you know, not, uh, not acceptable. Um, so, but the fact is that slavery was part of every society in human history up to the late 18th century as I, and it was only the liberal, uh, movements of the day and individuals movements that that contradict. So, um, you know, history moves by steps, and I, I don't think, um, I think if you're talking about hi history, whether intellectual history, like the history of philosophy or actual, you know, the, the events and people and, uh, trends that historians study historians of all people sh should hold context. You know, their whole job is to figure out what was happening and why, what were the people involved thinking.
Speaker 2 00:29:47 And the same, I think, applies to, to some extent, the philosophers. You know, philosophers like anyone else, takes certain things for granted from their culture. They're better equipped maybe to, uh, identify those assumptions and bring them to consciousness and criticize them if there's errors with it. But there's so many things, you know, Aristotle, um, he, he came up with the best argument he could think of because it was a universal practice, Um, at the time it was deeply woven into the way, uh, Greek and then later Roman society was organized. So yeah, that wasn't good. Um, I would've wished that he would say, Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. Um, but he, um, it was like two centuries before, um, he would be in a position to, to say that. And similarly with Rand, you know, yeah, she was a partly creature over times.
Speaker 2 00:30:48 Um, some of the things she said about sexuality, homosexuality, uh, and so forth, Um, I think Refl reflected more of the culture of the fifties and sixties or, and earlier then, um, than a har sharp philosophical claim. And so, one of the things that culture does that can help philosophers is bring certain issues into the open so that they can be examined. Um, but I still think philosophy is the, uh, the best way of examining them and ho holding context in the historical issues. Because, you know, the social warriors today are hardly ammunition and, um, they, they, they're, they're less, less close to ammunitions and, um, a lot of other people I can think of, including prison company. But, um, so they should have a little more, um, I, I hate to call it humility, but a little more objectivity about the limits of their, of their knowledge. Um, Okay. That I, I'll just stop there. Um, when
Speaker 1 00:32:00 You probably, Yeah, let me jump in on that. I think that that's very well said. Uh, David, for me, when I think about this, this question, it is the, it definitely the contextual framing is the important one. So with respect to Presentism, I think it depends what question you are asking. So if we look back at historical figures in politics, in philosophy, or, or wherever, and they had certain ideas and espe certain values, if your question is, is that idea true? And I think that's always the great question to ask, then Presentism, uh, is fine. I think you should be able to take your present context of knowledge and everything we, uh, have discovered since that person, uh, into account in making a judgment call about whether you agree with that person's ideas or not, whether it's con or lock or Aristotle or, or Rand.
Speaker 1 00:33:04 And in some cases, we'll say, given what we now know, I in the present day, I can usually say that that person's idea or ideas were, were false. But if your question is different, and this is often the, the historian's question or the intellectual historian's question where you put yourself in the time context of that person in history. So you put yourself in con's, shoes, or you put yourself in Aristotle's sandals and you say, What could I, uh, expect Aristotle to come up with, given everything that was known in his time? Then at that point, uh, the 2020 hindsight, uh, becomes inappropriate. You can't bring in later knowledge to judge in that context. So then you start to say, yes, he came up with an idea that was wrong, but in the context within which he was operating, it wasn't, uh, a stupid, wrong thing to come up with, or even necessarily a, uh, an immoral wrong thing to come up with. And so you have a more nuanced contextual judgment. So I think with respect to Presentism, uh, just getting clear what question you are asking of that historical person will help clarify what kind of judgment you should be making.
Speaker 2 00:34:41 Great. Let me just jump, add one, one thing. Go ahead, Steven's. Uh, great. Um, comment there. And that is that, uh, there's an analogy here with, uh, uh, cognitive bias called hindsight bias, which is something, and this is occurs at the individual level of individual mind. Something hap you make a choice and something bad happens and you look back and say, Oh, I should have known that. Well, no, that's, that's an out out of context, um, judgment cuz you didn't know at the time you made that choice what you now know. And you could say it's really, you could, you could maybe say that the, uh, the presenters are engaged in confirmation bias and blaming past thinkers, uh, and past leader political leaders and societies for not grasping what they claim to have grasp today.
Speaker 0 00:35:40 Great. Uh, thank you for that, Nina. Uh, we chatted the other day. I hope you're gonna ask, uh, something about what we chatted about.
Speaker 8 00:35:50 Yes, thanks Scott. Um, so seeing, uh, a growing reliance in research sphere on, uh, lived experiences standpoint, epistemology, um, I see it in areas like, uh, government funded public policy research, and, uh, I was hoping it could, um, help me articulate an objectiveist kind of critique or position on reliance on, So idea of lived experience, um, really personal anecdotes and perspectives getting, uh, heavy amounts of weight.
Speaker 2 00:36:31 Um, okay, I'll jump in, Steven. I, um, I know you, you have thoughts about this as well, but the standpoint of epistemology is, uh, as I understand it, is the view that, uh, what people believe the contents of their minds are shaped by their experience, which in turn is shaped by their group, identity, culture, race, uh, sex, uh, all the other, you know, basic features, uh, that are, are, you know, at the top of the list today. Um, and so stated in that way, that is a form of relative. It says, you know, existence. It's, it's like saying we either existence doesn't exist. It isn't what it is, uh, but varies for every individual or that it may be, but, you know, an absolute, but we can never know it. So either choices, um, bad news. I do think that, um, but however, there is a fundamental issue in, in psychology in the social sciences, which is we want scientific methods, um, uh, logical methods for forming generalizations and detecting patterns.
Speaker 2 00:37:53 But so far, anyway, those methods, um, that are, you know, you show what you see in every, uh, paper in, uh, academic psychology or social or, or social psychology is, um, doesn't, it just doesn't, it leaves out a lot. It abstracts from a lot of things. Um, in objectives terms, it OITs so many measurements that may turn out to be quite relevant in the form of how individuals experience it. So I, I, you know, we're empiricists I think we should pay a lot of attention to experience, and I think it's, it is very broadening for, um, students in particular to be educated in and have experience of other cultures just as a way of, uh, you know, under, under covering some of their own assumptions. And the same is true for, you know, within a society of, of different groups within, but that, that does not justify either, you know, primacy of consciousness, views about knowledge or, um, skepticism about what about whether there is a truth.
Speaker 1 00:39:14 Yeah, I agree with David's remarks. I think there, there are two sub issues here, broadly speaking, objectivists are empiricists. So we start with experience. And experience always is of an individual, uh, in a particular context. And so lower case standpoint, epistemology makes sense in that regard. But as a term of art or as a, as a, as a more full-fledge epistemology, like, there are two false versions of it that then get currency in the humanities, but also in the social science literature. One is the one that David was referring to at the beginning where we then say the individual's initial standpoint isn't autonomous, uh, cognitively, but rather that individual's, uh, experience is shaped by prior and previous group memberships along various dimensions that the individual was born into and shaped by. So you end up with a kind of, uh, collectivized, uh, initial starting point, and then in the strong forms, the individuals seen just as a vehicle through which those various collective epistemologies and collective viewpoints are, are funneled and channeled. And, uh, in that case, I think that's, that's a false understanding.
Speaker 1 00:40:51 Uh, started the part flag this one a little bit. Is there traditional danger in empiricism that says when you start with individual experiences, you can never get to generalizations or to universal principles, and often standpoint epistemology with now the capital letters, uh, is in that skeptical tradition, basically says, you know, we can never come up with grand theories or grand narratives. All we ever have are things that are going on at a very local individual level. And so the best we can do is just all of us tell our anecdotes and nobody's anecdotes really are better than anyone else's, and we're never really going to try to make the effort of generalizing from these various anecdotes. So it's a retreat from doing some kinda social science in a robust form to just storytelling. And I think that's another, uh, false epistemology in operation.
Speaker 0 00:42:07 Good. Thank you for that. I've seen, uh, some talk of, uh, autoethnography, which is, you know, almost turning science into writing a diary. Um, but again, i I wanna encourage people to, uh, join us. Um, again, if you, um, I have a list of questions here myself. Um, one thing that I was curious about, uh, logical positivism was something that, uh, Randolph and railed about, but you never hear about it. Did it morph into something else? Or, uh, you know, did it, uh, is it still around?
Speaker 2 00:42:56 That's a good question. Uh, disappear. I mean, I went to grad school with people who were still like Carl Hemple, uh, who was connected with being a school that po logical. But, um, I think it just peter out because it couldn't solve any problems. Steven, what do you think?
Speaker 1 00:43:20 Yeah, I, with that logical positivism, again, capital L, Capital P was a school that was very powerful in the twenties, thirties, forties, and it did start to peter out by the time we fifties. Um, although I'm bit younger, I still had heavy doses of logical in, in my undergraduate and graduate school experience as well. Uh, but it was, I think, broadly speaking, one of the sub schools in the, the, uh, the more analytic approach to philosophy where what we're trying to do is be very careful and precise and analyze all of our concepts and where they come and how we combine them in various ways. Uh, and initially it did start off as a science friendly, uh, approach to doing philosophy that we don't want to be, you know, speculative, uh, head in the clouds word salad, kind of philosophers, like the worst of the continental philosophers coming out of, uh, haal and keer regard and, and heger and so on, that we think science is the right way to go about understanding the world.
Speaker 1 00:44:37 Uh, so we're there instead metaphysical, and at the same time we are rather than emotional, uh, uh, moody subjective and, and so on. So initially then it was, uh, meant to be philosophy as the hand of the, and to work with the scientists and sharpen all of their analytical and conceptual tools so that they can, uh, figure out the, the, the way the world works. The, the problem was that in their, or the series of problems was that in their understanding of all of the major elements that go into scientific method, from sense perception to directed observation, to concept formation to logic and mathematics, uh, all of the basic principles that they, uh, took to be true and were working within turned out to be false and to lead to skeptical dead ends. So, uh, they started off with, I would say, high hopes in the generation immediately following World War I, the Vienna Circle. Uh, and then it was very influential in, in England, and then a little bit later in American philosophy. But then as the implications of their axioms got worked out by the time people got to the forties and fifties, it was seen as a, a failed research program.
Speaker 0 00:46:13 Thank you. I appreciate, Go ahead.
Speaker 2 00:46:16 Uh, yeah, lemme just add something to Steven's, um, narrative. The, um, the logical positiveness build themselves as, um, empiricists who, uh, are only looking at the evidence of the census and logic people of logical rigor. The problem is that their view of perception was human, that it rep or representation was, we only see, um, images and, um, we have to prove that they stand for something out in the world. And the logic they accepted was that of the frager Russell symbolic logic tradition, um, which has enough of paradoxes in it and is not particularly, has no theory of concepts to speak of. So they were, um, trying to concoct symbolic logic proofs. I, you know, I, I know this is opaque, that people haven't, um, looked at this before, but they, they try to concoct proofs of various kinds, um, but all on the basis of really bad assumptions, so then, which they often never questioned. Um, so I think that was part of the prob part of the problem. But I will say that those same underlying assumptions, human, human skepticism, and, um, the view that logic is the only valid, reasonable, rational logic, those are still front and center. There's still active in philosophy, at least in many, um, realms of philosophy. So the logical positiveness may have, but um, they're underlying, um, uh, assumptions and impulses have noted they're still present.
Speaker 0 00:48:05 Good stuff. Thank you, Lawrence. Thanks for joining us. Oh, go ahead. Actually, if you wanna add something,
Speaker 1 00:48:11 If you don't mind, uh, um, Scott, can I just say add just one more thing to, to David's very good points about the perception and the nature of logic. Another one of the assumptions, uh, the logical positivist bought into all of them had to do with values. Uh, they had a very strong fact value dichotomy. Uh, and the assumption was that anything in the value range, moral values, political values, aesthetic values was non-logical, uh, uh, uh, and so should not even be part of philosophy. So basically, right from the very beginning in the twenties and thirties, they, uh, their operative position was going to be that philosophically, uh, those are, those areas are not even part of philosophy and should be in effect, banished to the wilderness. Uh, and so one implication of that in philosophy more broadly was that then all of the value issues in philosophy, uh, there was a vacuum, uh, in the, in the, the logical positivist tradition that was then picked up by people who wanted to do value philosophy, but on a non logical, non empirical basis. And that led to all sorts of irrationalist schools of value philosophy, particularly in the continental traditions becoming ascent in the, uh, middle part of the 20th century.
Speaker 2 00:49:44 Thanks, Dave. That's a great point. Um,
Speaker 0 00:49:47 Good. A thank you. Uh, Lawrence, do you have a question?
Speaker 9 00:49:54 Yeah. Uh, thanks for having this. So, uh, my question isn't perhaps one of the, uh, maybe it's not as philosophical as is appropriate for this clubhouse, but I was still curious, perhaps it's more psychology, but I was studying, uh, an arco movements. And one thing that I noticed, especially in the late 18 hundreds, early 19 hundreds, anarchism was sort of this big thing that had movements and a lot of violence and, you know, assassinations and such. They were sort of making a lot of moves in their own field, but that all really seemed to die off with the prevalence of socialism and communism sort of collective and more collective as ideals. And I'm curious if there's any philosophical sort of understanding or evidence, maybe suggesting why there was sort of this departure from the anarchists and the jacobins and more towards, uh, you know, social. Was there just something more philosophically fulfilling, I guess, for these types of people? Maybe that's more along the lines of psychology, though.
Speaker 1 00:51:01 Hmm. Uh, I think that's a great history, intellectual history, political history question. Let me take a, a quick stab at it. I, uh, I too have read some of the late 18 hundreds anarchists, and your, your point, uh, Lawrence is quite right about how vigorous and active they were in the, uh, the latter part of the, the 18 hundreds and on into the early part of the 20th century, all of the bombings and assassinations and, you know, hundreds of little cells all over Europe and some in North America as well, and on into, uh, to Russia as well. My, my, uh, I've never actually thought about this, but my sense is that the, the reason why they died out in activity was due to the consequences of World War I, uh, 1914 to 1918, and then the success of the Russian Revolution in 1917. So, uh, both of those historical events, uh, took people who were attracted to an, uh, anarchism and then pushed them into one of two other far left camps.
Speaker 1 00:52:16 Uh, World War I, uh, uh, meant that, uh, what happened was not any sort of anarchist communist revolution. It was obviously a huge event, but the, uh, people on the far left took from World War I, the view that, or some of them did, that, uh, nationalist, um, sentiments and nationalist commitments were much stronger than they had anticipated. And so what happened to a lot of people who were on the far left was they repackaged in a more fascistic direction. And Bento Mu is a very example of this. Someone who was very much on the far left thought in of revolutionary, the whole world and society, uh, at which there's the brotherhood of all man kind, uh, coming to realize that really it was French national feeling and Italian national feeling, and English and German and Russian national feeling that was extraordinarily powerful. And so all of that left revolution needs to be channeled through more ethnic and nationalistic lines.
Speaker 1 00:53:36 And so that then led to a huge amount of what we now would call fascistic or national socialistic activity in the 1920s and on into, into the 1930s. Uh, and that took a lot of people who might have continued on the anarchist path, uh, in a different direction. The other, I think, was the success of the, uh, the Russian Revolution. Uh, you know, Marxism was, uh, you know, Marks was second, third rate kind of guy. By the time we get to the end of the 18 hundreds, uh, just another name kicking around there, he had his followers and so on. But I think the success of the Russian Revolution, uh, meant that suddenly here is a version of socialism, uh, and that's now in control of a major country in the world. And, uh, the people who were running it had flirted with anarchism, had flirted with various sorts of revolutionary socialism.
Speaker 1 00:54:37 But it turns out that, of course, that lenn, Stalin, Trotsky, they were Marxists. And this was extraordinarily exciting to people on the far left all over the world. And so what happened then was, uh, people's, uh, who might have been attracted to Anorism that said, Well, I'm basically going to bet on this winning horse. And so they became much more enamored with and kinda signed on to Marxist Leninist or, or, or Bol Vic approaches to communism. So basically, uh, I think those two historical events took, uh, people who might have been attracted to anarchism in that generation, but gave them two live options that seemed to have some traction. And, uh, and so all of the anarchist potential, uh, membership went into one of those two groups.
Speaker 0 00:55:37 Great. Thank you for that. Um, we've got Chrisy, welcome to the stage.
Speaker 10 00:55:44 Hey, Scott, thanks for ringing me up. And thanks Steven and David for, um, having this, uh, in the Atlas Society tonight. Um, I, I just, honestly, I think it's, it's to both of you guys, but more or less to David. When I was driving listening, um, I found that, uh, it, it was really interesting when you were talking about, um, the republic and it, it, it, it rose that, that feeling in me of, of like, for the Republican, which it stands, you know, And like I, I heard what you were saying, and maybe I, I might be reaching here, but, um, throughout history, from what I know and my knowledge of it, uh, humbly, it, it, it, it sounds as though to become the true American republic for which it stands. And, uh, everything that I've, I've, I hold dear. As an American, it means that there must be, um, otherwise there would be tyranny, uh, a separation of church and state.
Speaker 10 00:56:42 And, and that's what it was able to establish and accomplish. So it wasn't just, we had government control, but on top of that, we had to then before even going to that, we, it, it was super, it super was superseded by the church. And to that, uh, I guess, and, and I kind of feel as though, and I don't wanna speculate, but David, it sounds like, um, well, both of you, amazing, very accomplished, published philosophers, dumb little me, but it sounds like, David, that you, it's coming from a, at least a spirit of someone that would be either agnostic or atheist. And so I guess my question would be, um, and I know this might be dabbling like philosophy and theology in one, which is where my brain gets really confused, um, <laugh>, can you, can you equate, um, in, in your eyes how the separation of church and state could potentially have, although started at a good place and for a good reason, be very, uh, convoluted, especially today in modern day society, meaning that, uh, those of, uh, religious aspects are basically shunned? Um, sorry,
Speaker 0 00:57:57 Either of you wanna take that.
Speaker 10 00:58:02 I, I,
Speaker 2 00:58:03 Sorry, I was muted. I I didn't realize that was muted. Christy, that's a really important question. Let me just, um, throughout a couple of thoughts. Um, the, the idea of religious, uh, tolerance, religious freedom, um, and the separation of church and the state goes back, you know, at least to Milton in the, I think it was 16 hundreds in England, and to, uh, John Locke who were saying, You know, we should not, And, and with the background of the hundred years of war in which a lot of people were killed over religious differences between protests and Catholics, or different sex of Protestantism. But, um, so the ideal was around, and I think I've never really studied this, but I think the founders had a sense that the purpose of government is to protect individuals in their rights. And those rights include freedom of conscience, as well as freedom of speech, uh, the right to own property and not have it taken without, um, the good public reason. Um, freedom from unreasonable seizures and searches all the things that had plagued, uh, earlier societies in one form or another. And so religious freedom was, um, was important, but it didn't mean atheism or agnosticism necessarily. You could be, but the majority of, of, you know, the founders, I think had some religious belief, um, uh, very good historian of the enlightenment. Uh, uh, Steven, you remember his, you may remember his name. Um, founder of, uh, fire at, yet the University of Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1 00:59:58 Alan Charles Coors
Speaker 2 01:00:00 Alan Course. Yes. Um, what I remember asking him, Well, how come there wasn't more atheism at the time? And he said, Well, that was pretty Darwin. So people could not understand how, um, the world could be so species could be so well calibrated to their environment, uh, without a designer. Anyway, the, the point that broad point is that, um, we are not, um, like France a, uh, layer to like lay it to see a society that is founded on the idea of, um, atheism or agnosticism. We're founded on the idea of freedom. And so many people, uh, understand that they don't want to kill their Muslim neighbors or the Jewish neighbors. I mean, that unfortunately, there's a certain amount of that. But, um, not like the wars of religion, um, in ancient times or the wars in that are happening in Middle East now. People hating each other just because of their religion. Um, and that's fine. That's the way it should be. Belief government should, And here's the basic point, the go to point. Um, I, of course, I am an atheist. I, um, as an objectiveist, I don't see any reason for that belief. However, um, that's my exercise of my freedom of thought and, uh, conviction. And I respect everyone else's, you know, whatever they believe, so long as it does not violate my rights. Um, so another, a wrap up point here. I'm sorry. Um, all Steven, help me out here.
Speaker 1 01:01:56 Think also Chrisy, that's a, that's a great question. And also on this agnostic atheism issue, I agree with David that that was not, uh, the historically point during the enlightenment, particularly in the, in the United States. Uh, the nation was founded on the idea of freedom. But the thing I wanna add is that, uh, the freedom was conceived of in individualistic terms. Uh, so what that meant was with respect to religion, that whether you were an atheist or an agnostic or theist or whatever, that for your beliefs to have meaning and significance and, and actually to do you good in your life, they have to be things that you as an individual have come to believe by your own thinking processes. And so it wasn't agnostic. And, uh, and atheists who were only pushing for separation of church and state, you know, their argument might be, we don't want to have, you know, the state pushing religious views on me, or particular religious views that I disagree with if I'm a, an early atheist or an agnostic person.
Speaker 1 01:03:17 But the most, uh, powerful arguments for separation of church and state came from religious people who wanted to say, uh, the, the instruments of the state coercion, uh, and so on, are completely in effectual in the area of religion. You can't compel people to believe things that are actually true, uh, and good for them. The, the only way religious belief can work properly is if I, uh, believe it wholeheartedly, right? For myself as an individual. And so that's to say my individual free will and commitment has to be, has to be involved. And so, uh, and this is a lock in argument, uh, and there are shades of it also in John that says the state is completely irrelevant, completely for genuine. And so it was very strong theists also who were arguing for, uh, a conception of freedom, individual freedom in the domain of religion as a value that needs to be protected. And that means the state has to be hands off.
Speaker 2 01:04:36 And one, just one, one additional point, The, the First Amendment and the issue here of freedom of Religion, uh, is, is cast in terms of religion as a, as a very important kind of belief about ethics and about the world. Very important kind of philosophy for many people. But the more general principles is the state should not be enforcing any set of ideas. It should not be subsidizing any set of ideas. And so, you know, Tom Jefferson said, it is a, uh, is is evil to force a man to pay for things he disbelieves and, and bores. Well, you could say that not just about enforcing religion, having an established church, but also about, um, having government support, art, the arts in the form of the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities. It's another thing, all the research that doesn't, that some government research is fine if it helps the defense, uh, of the country, but most of it is just throwing money in academics and everyone's paying for it, whether they believe or agree with those academics or not. And now they're paying for public universities, which to turned to an earlier, um, issue is, um, you know, really wildly against, um, what a lot of people believe. So
Speaker 2 01:06:12 I would I totally
Speaker 10 01:06:13 Agree. I just wanted to follow, I mean, I, I couldn't agree more. And, and in fact, it's not just, uh, what I've noticed, what I've, I feel it's not so much, um, that society in, in the United States as a whole has worried so much about, um, not giving, uh, like, uh, the idea of not being persecuted, uh, for the ability to have, uh, a faith or, or, or of any religion, name any religion here. It's, it's more of the subtraction. It's more of the, um, it's been allowed to go too far. And so let's not let it go any farther and let's, let's take any kind of faith or religion out of, And to me, I think that the founding fathers <laugh>, whether they were atheist or of, of any particular faith or not, I think that the whole idea was to just hands off, like, don't touch it. You know? And, and I just don't see that, Um, and humbly again, as a, a dumb 37 year old girl, uh, roaming around and hearing things that I hear in real life or in social audio and media, um, or even on the news. I mean, you don't really see that more moreover, you see the latter. And, and it, it sounded more historically and amazing, um, confirmed, I guess from both of you. So thank you.
Speaker 0 01:07:45 Thank you. Um, I do wanna try to get in our last three if possible. David, did you have any, uh, quick follow up?
Speaker 2 01:07:54 Uh, let's, let's move on.
Speaker 0 01:07:57 Okay, Ron, thanks for joining us. We appreciate your patience. Thanks for including me. I'm, I'm a listener today. Okay, no question. That's fine. Uh, Steven looked like he was ready to go. Yes. I, I, I,
Speaker 11 01:08:14 I appreciate, uh, I, I googled you, Steven, and, uh, I used to run the, um, and one of the, and ran, um, uh, forum sites on, um, on Facebook. It was large, probably about five, 7,000 people. And I've had very good interactions with the people at the, at the Atlas Society, and I saw that you have an event that's coming up tomorrow. I, I, I retweeted that for you to hopefully get some attention here. Here's my thoughts for any of, for, for either Steven or David or both, is, is I think one of the most valuable things today is genuine feedback loops, meaning bringing people in that come from a very diverse, uh, number of backgrounds. One of the things that has been disappointing is I don't think too many people from, uh, the Atlas Society or that have objectiveist type of views get many seats at the table.
Speaker 11 01:09:08 And here's, here's, here's one of the reasons I'm bringing that up, is I think that I think best ideas have to win today and best ideas, regardless of which direction they're coming from, and counting the cost, seeing which is the very best idea to solve the most difficult problems. And I would like to know who you guys think are the best people at putting together genuine feedback loops where they're able to bring in people that come from various faith backgrounds, various political backgrounds, various economic backgrounds, and bring them to a table for constructive conversation. Who is the very best at doing that right now? I think we've been able to pull some pretty cool ones off here on Clubhouse, but I'd like to know any feedback you guys have with who's the very best at bringing people from diverse faith, diverse political and diverse economic backgrounds together in one place, to bring a place where they have a place at the table.
Speaker 11 01:10:00 I found it happening through thankfulness, encouragement, and forward thinking. Those principles seem very uniting, but I'd love to know principles that would bring people together and ideally who are three or four examples of people, three or four people, examples, if you think these are great people at bringing diverse people from diverse backgrounds together, especially on the political front, especially on the faith front, Who are the very best people that you come, that come to mind for you guys that are good at bringing diverse opinions to the table to come up with great solutions? Love to hear any, any thoughts you guys both have on that.
Speaker 2 01:10:35 Wow. Um, Steven, you've been more active. I
Speaker 10 01:10:41 Nominat both of,
Speaker 2 01:10:44 So Say it again.
Speaker 10 01:10:46 I said I nominate both of them. <laugh>.
Speaker 2 01:10:53 Thank you. Um, Steven, you, I, I wanna let you jump in because you've had more experience, you've more active, um, with your interviews with, uh, Jordan Peterson and some other, um, headliners. But there, there are, let me just sketch a little, uh, outline of a project. Some years ago. I, um, was writing about culture, reading a lot and analyzing it, and came up with a distinction between, uh, the pre-modern culture that basically cultural conservatism, which is steeped in religion, tradition, and so forth. Modernism, which is the enlightenment view and postmodernism, which is a conscious reaction against the enlightenment against modernism. And one of the reasons I did that was I say, was to find out who out there are persuadable. And I come up with the, with the thought that people in the enlightenment camp, even whether they're not they're objective, um, are potentially UA because they believe in reason, they have an instinct toward individualism, the pretty moderns and the postmoderns, no, there's no hope for them.
Speaker 2 01:12:08 Their views are too ingrained. Um, and so I, I've been looking at the, and we we're talking about maybe reminding this, but some of the people that Steven mentioned earlier, Jonathan hate, uh, who are active in the educational issues, but also are thinkers in their own rank. Jonathan hate, uh, uh, the premodern and the postmoderns, no, there's no hope for them. Their views are too ingrained, um, and emotions. So I, I've been looking at the, and we we're talking about maybe reminding this, but some of the people that Steven mentioned earlier, Jonathan, hey, uh, who are active in the educational issues, but also our thinkers in their own right. Jonathan Hate, um, uh, Alan Cos who, whom we've mentioned, um, these are a's getting old, like, um, but I'm drawing a little bit of a blank, but, but I know a lot. I'm, I'm trying to think of a lot of people. Steven, you have a bunch better, much better sense of this, um, than I do. So just, uh, stop there and let you
Speaker 1 01:13:32 Yeah, I agree with that. I, I think as I was listening to, uh, to Steven's question, I was going more to institutions rather than to individuals. I think it's, it's, uh, it's fair to say there's individuals like Jordan Peterson and John and Steven Pinker and Glenn and John Mc, uh, and, and many others who are stepping up and making an impact not only in their professions, but uh, within intellectual spheres more broadly. And, um, and reaching a worldwide. But my sense is, uh, the people who probably should get the credit are the people who are building the new platforms. So I don't know who these individuals are, but, uh, I can't think of a better platform say than for bringing together diverse people on all sorts of topics and coming up with great algorithms. So if you show interest in a particular topic, uh, or a particular individual, you get to more and more.
Speaker 1 01:14:41 Uh, and so just the huge of learning that is going on, I think is a great cultural achievement. Uh, would also in that vein and Wikipedia, which is now kind interestingly starting to sound kind a resource because it's around for a while in historical context, that is an amazing, uh, cultural accomplishment to have, uh, literally millions of articles crowdsourced and editable on the fly. Uh, bringing again, together diverse voices and everything that you want and with very good internal algorithms. So if you show an interest in one thing, leads other, well, So my inclination then is to, to the intellectuals who might be most famously using those platforms right now. At the same, I also wanna stay, I think it's early stages for the development of these new technologies. So interesting in years to return to Steven's question and then say, Okay, so where are, you know, all of these diverse voices, uh, congregating effectively in the new platforms and, uh, bringing us together for the great conversations.
Speaker 11 01:16:24 I think it's clubhouse. That's why I'm here. And, uh, cause you know what, I can invite people in that come from a wide variety back. And so that, um, I had this record. I'm, I'm glad this is being recorded. So this is kind of a setup up. So it was a setup question. Cause I, I think's a difficult question and, uh, it's very, very difficult because, you know, I knew probably to Jordan Peterson's, Pinker Pinker and Is, is, is, you know, atheist, uh, you know, Jordan Peterson. He can bring in some, some Christian cuz he's kind of Christian is friendly, but you don't really see any outspoken Christian much on the, that you're able to bring stuff together. It, Thank you for your answer and I, I really appreciate both of you being here. And I, and I, I'm, I really, I mean, your, your background's phenomenal.
Speaker 11 01:17:05 I think that the problem that I shrug in and in Anne Rand's work is very, very valuable, very, very relevant to today. And being able to bring in people, because here's the thing, you'd be surprised how many different people can listen to the Anne ran tar type of arguments for things when it's presented with, I'm not the, sometimes the Anne ran, people can come across as, let me show you how smart I am. And, you know, and, and there's, she has great arguments and the, the Atlas Society deserves more places at the table. I'm not just saying that because you're here, Steve, and I think it really does, and I don't think you get, I don't think Atlas shrug type of the, the objectiveism doesn't get as many seats as the table as it could and should to, to come to bring the best ideas. Not to bring the best philosophy, but the best ideas. Cuz the best ideas don't win. The best people leave. And I think that's across the board and a lot of things and best ideas mean what does the best for the most, most number of people legitimately. Stephen,
Speaker 0 01:18:08 I do wanna try to, uh, squeeze in our last
Speaker 11 01:18:10 Two. Yeah, I, I'm done speaking. Thank you so much. All right.
Speaker 0 01:18:13 No, it was a great question. We appreciate it. Um, Allison, thank you for joining us.
Speaker 12 01:18:20 Thank you. Yeah, great conversation. Um, I would love to see on that topic that you were talking about, about before, um, like an intellectual light web. You know how they have the dark web, but nobody really knows like who the members are or where they're writing. And it would be great to have kind of an open forum for people that are objective as thinkers to solve problems. Um, but my question has to do with sm and I was wondering, there's kind of where it came from and what the philosophical or the epistemological error is, Um, the idea that there's no truth outside of science or anything that you can't prove scientifically. And is that from, is that a totally modern phenomenon that came from Marxist thinkers or like the German idealist, or where did this come from? And there, there seems to be this trend where it's taken, it's like people are obsessed with it now. They think, you know, anything that's not science is just total opinion. It can't be intuitive, it can't be self-evident. It's just, it's just, it's either science or, or nothing. It's like, almost like science has become a religion. I just wanted to get your, your, your thoughts on that. And I'm following
Speaker 2 01:19:27 You, lady. Um, am I, am I'm un muted, David. Yeah. Okay. Um, I mean, the, the, the, the con, the conventional and easy answer is that science has succeeded in a way that no other discipline has, no other form of, um, I mean, philosophy moves in its own pace, but it's hard to say, um, that philosophy progresses and builds and, and has reached certain answers. Um, that, so people are still selling aristo on Plato. Um, same with art. People are, um, I mean, artistic friends come and go, even is written about a lot of this. They're influenced by other parts of the culture. But science is a, uh, I mean, it relies on, um, assumptions about how you establish scientific crews. Going back to your earlier discussion about logical positivism, it relies on the assumption that, uh, you wanna observe things. You want to do experiments, you need, uh, well, well constructed experiments. So there are no, you can illuminate compounding factors. Um, you use statistics and other, um, mathematical techniques as well as logic to induce your, your conclusions. But the nature of mathematics, what validates mathematics, the nature of logic, what validates logic, the nature of perception, observation, what validates that? Those are philosophical questions. And science relies on those things. So it can't be the only form of knowledge because it's a dependent form in all.
Speaker 10 01:21:35 Oh, some of theology rooms, oh, goodness.
Speaker 1 01:21:52 I have a quick question more about the, uh, the, the meaning of the concept of which, uh, I've always found to be slippery. Uh, sometimes there's a, a narrow use of, and sometimes a very broad use of, So the one sense s can be either view that all knowledge should, uh, be scientific in the sense that we use our sense concepts carefully in the tools of sophisticated fashion. And that if we do that, then we should be able to figure out basically everything. But here, sciences conceived very broadly, and so all of the physical sciences and social sciences, uh, history and so will be considered as, as as sciences, but sometimes is used more narrowly. Uh, and it gets packaged with some other kind of assumptions that, you know, if you are going to be a scientist, then that means you have to be a materialist and you have to be non valued judgment person.
Speaker 1 01:23:17 You have to not make any sort of, uh, ethical or moral pronouncements. And so science is only a hardcore materialistic value discipline. And then means that only things that come out that understanding of science are legitimate and everything is, is garbage. And my is when I, uh, religiously oriented, which the understanding of using the more robust understanding of science, or they are using science in is very narrow sense. And then they wanna conclude, well, therefore there's all this other stuff that really is important to human beings that science has nothing to do with. And so is a, is a ridiculous belief system. So for me to say more, I would like tease out more what conception of, and we're,
Speaker 0 01:24:29 Yeah. Well, we may not have time for that today, but uh, maybe that can be another, uh, new topic as well. Um, Brian, did you have a question? Welcome to the stage.
Speaker 13 01:24:48 Oh, thank, thank you, uh, honor to speak with you too. Um, and thanks for, for having me. Um, I work in film industry. It's been a pretty interesting time. Definitely feels like a change of culture and ideas of free speech and just the culture free speech, uh, makes me look back and a lot of other people reflect on, I think maybe what we thought was a status quo or, or reflect on philosophical arguments. And I've really, uh, gained a lot, um, Steven in particular from reading your book on postmodernism and meeche in the Nazis and things that, um, seem like just academic lessons 15 years ago in some college class and all of a sudden really have a lot of meaning, um, and a lot of reason to analyze one such thing that I'd love some clarification on or thoughts is I'm wondering if I misunderstand, uh, that Kyle, or sorry, Carl Popper's open society verse, let's say Marcos's repressive tolerance.
Speaker 13 01:25:46 Are they, are they completely in opposition? I've seen it, especially in the mean world online, like both sides have been represented to say both things. I was wondering if Carl Popper's Open Society really was about even allowing the idea that'll end all ideas. You still have to allow that to be said while Carl, uh, I'm sorry, Mark Cusa, um, is coming from that, you know, uh, shut down the conserve of the right wing side of the argument. Don't ever let it gain steam. I don't, I just wanted maybe some clarification on that. And then my second part on the censorship is just as we face a future, uh, of, of changing technology, posthumanism just really wild stuff, the power that one human has in their garage and or their pocket on their, in their cell phone. Um, are we facing a, a, a future where an individual human truly does have too much power to wield and censorship does become necessary, Uh, hyper hyperbolically when the, when the high school kid could create a nuclear bomb, you know, uh, in his, in his garage. You know, do we need to be aware of this type of future? Um, is there an argument for censorship given the technological future we're facing? That's it. And thank you. Thank you so much for the time. Thank
Speaker 1 01:27:04 You. Hmm. Um, well, lemme just take up the, the first, the, the second question I think is another huge one that, uh, I don't think we're have time for, but yes, absolutely. I think, uh, versus for mid 20th century, uh, intellectual life, those two are in mortal contradiction to each other. You, Carl Popp was a kinda classical liberal and, and pushing the open society, open discussion, open debate, free speech as far as it, uh, as it can possibly go. Uh, and then Herba very clearly is coming out the authoritarian left, Uh, uh, that's, you know, deep in his DNA and coming up with just, you know, very fancy state of the art arguments to quasi justify, uh, censorship of, uh, any political view that does not fit with his, uh, left Marxist, uh, commitments at the, at the time. So, um, yeah, it either or and there, no of that particular,
Speaker 2 01:28:20 Dave,
Speaker 13 01:28:21 Did you wanna add anything?
Speaker 2 01:28:23 Uh, just a, a quick note, and this is a big topic about censorship and, and, uh, uh, technological advance. You know, the, the, the horror example that people use as, uh, uh, Brian did was, you know, someone designing a nuclear bomb in their basement. Well, nuclear bombs are, uh, enough of a threat. I mean, we, we have means of preventing that, um, if anyone should do it. Uh, when it comes to any form of action, the, we have intelligence agencies, we have police, we have, you know, you can't do that. That's, that's not covered by the Second Amendment. So, um, but the extent of power, I don't see individual human power as a threat to any kind of freedom. I think it expands it in general. Um, I would say, you know, uh, there's a lot of talk about Facebook and Twitter. I don't use them much, but, uh, you know, they're gathering information.
Speaker 2 01:29:31 They, they have, you know, tons, trillions of dollars and they all this information that's marketable. Why? Well, because we enjoy it. They're offering something to us, and, um, the cost is revealing our, our, uh, our information to them. So, okay, that's a choice, and someone exploded it and got very rich that way. So I don't see a danger here. Um, what I do see is a huge expansion from Technol technology, just in my own field of, of studying, of perception, perceptual, the advances in devices that help blind people or people with other, uh, perceptual issues are so far advanced just in my lifetime that, um, you know, people are now able to work who couldn't work before. Uh, I think this is great if an event comes up, you know, I need, I need a case study. So I, I think the burden is on anyone who claims that this will cause uh, uh, create a ground for censorship, but I don't see it yet.
Speaker 0 01:30:46 Well, uh, that's, uh, great stuff. We could have gone longer, but, uh, this was great. This hour and a half format really gave, uh, both of you a chance to expand on some answers. We had a lot of great audience participation. Um, you know, usually I invite people to the gala, uh, at this point. But from what I understand, we are at capacity. So if you are, uh, planning to be at the gala, we look forward to seeing you there. Uh, any final thoughts, gentlemen?
Speaker 2 01:31:17 Uh, only, only my thanks to all the participants. Great questions and to my dear colleagues, Stephen.
Speaker 1 01:31:24 Yeah, same for me. Uh, a fun hour and a half. Thanks everyone.
Speaker 0 01:31:29 Great. Thank you both. We'll see you all soon.
