Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:00 I'm Scott Schiff with the Atlas Society, and I am privileged to, again, be able to host, uh, two of the best thinkers and objective today, Atlas Society Senior Scholar Steven Hicks and Atlas Society founder David Kelly. They'll be answering questions for the next 90 minutes, which should give us some time to get into some in depth answers. Uh, I encourage everyone to share the room, and please raise your hand if you have a question. Uh, we'll bring you up to the stage. Um, welcome again to you both. Uh, it's good to have you both back in this format. Uh, any opening comments or you wanna just jump right into it?
Speaker 1 00:00:41 Oh, thanks Scott. Let's just jump in.
Speaker 0 00:00:44 All right, good. Well, um, we've got, uh, our own questions as well, but, uh, we've got Esam joining us. Esam, welcome to the stage. Hope I'm getting that name right.
Speaker 2 00:00:57 Well, welcome to have me. Yes. Yes. Esam Es um, it's a, it's an Arabic name.
Speaker 0 00:01:05 Okay, great.
Speaker 1 00:01:05 Nice.
Speaker 2 00:01:07 Yes.
Speaker 0 00:01:09 Okay. Did you have a question about philosophy for Steven and David?
Speaker 2 00:01:14 Yes. Um, I, um, I, I have a question about political philosophy concerning to Thomas Hops, you know, uh, among, among the seven, you know, the seven, uh, the right of the sovereign. What, what, what, what, what he, what, what, what, what does mean when he said the right, the sovereign, you know?
Speaker 3 00:01:42 Oh my gosh. Um, this is David. Uh, I haven't read Hobbs in a long time. Uh, he's not my favorite political philosopher, <laugh>. Um, I prefer Locke, but, um, Steven, correct me if I'm wrong, but my, my understanding is that, that Hobbes said we, that he was a social, um, contract there. So he said, We contract to give the sovereign, um, extraordinary power, um, to prevent the war of all against all, uh, see, analyze the state of nature. And so the right of the sovereign was, was, uh, more or less, um, unlimited. Is that your understanding?
Speaker 1 00:02:34 Yeah, exactly. So there's the, the question I think, uh, Es is asking is what, what is sovereign power? Um, and it is the, the power to make rules and enforce them in a social contact. He believes that that social power resides in each of us individually prior to the contract. But given human nature, uh, absent the contract, human nature in a state of nature, uh, the best or only way to get, uh, peace and order is by all of us transferring voluntarily our power to one individual who then becomes the sovereign with a capital S and collectively has all of our power, uh, in an absolute form.
Speaker 2 00:03:33 Can I, can I ask another question? Please? Yes, of course. Yes. So, so he said he, uh, he outlined the, the right of the sovereign, you know, and the right of the solve sovereign, I think, 12 rights, I think as far as, as I remember, I read the book 1212 Rights, you know, But what, what's, what's the why he talk about the state of nature. Why? Because, uh, you know, why he, why he make, you know, a statement like a state of nature. What is the state of nature? Because, uh, at that time, there's kings and queens and, you know, there is no state of nature, you know, But to what is the state of nature?
Speaker 1 00:04:20 Uh, yeah, that's, that's a good question too. And there's, there are a lot of scholarship on this. Sometimes, uh, state of nature is meant historically, say, human beings prior to the existence of, uh, the accumulation of various conventions and formal laws that have been built up over the centuries. So one way of trying to get the state of nature is then to, uh, strip away everything that is clearly a convention with the idea being that that will help us identify what human beings are like in a state of nature, rather than in a state of convention or, or a state of civil society. Uh, another way of going at it's a little more philosophical as a, as a thought experiment to say, yes, we're all born in culture now and in various kinds of social institutions, but what we can do still is isolate in thought those aspects of the current situation that are conventional and those that are part of human beings, uh, inside of any conventional situation or outside of any conventional situation.
Speaker 1 00:05:39 And that would be human nature. So, um, the social contract theorists would all recognize that now we are in a mixture. You know, everything that happens is partly due to human beings as they are by nature, combined with human beings, as they are acting in a social context. But they want to figure out what is the, kinda the purely human nature part of that. Um, and then most of them would then say, That's what we have to start with as the raw material or building society. We need to figure out what human beings are, uh, so that when we are formulating customs and conventions and laws, they are in a accord with human nature. The idea being that, uh, if we try to make customs and laws that go against human nature, we're not going to be successful in building, uh, uh, uh, civil society.
Speaker 3 00:06:49 Uh, thank you. Uh, Steven, I just want to add one thing that, um, the state of nature idea was part of a broader enlightenment goal of replacing theology as a source of, of philosophical insight, including political philosophy or tradition, and trying to get back to basics, trying to get back to philosophical basics. And this was good. This is good trying to have a rational basis for politics. And some of the theories were, you know, uh, not anything I would certainly agree with like Hobbs, but the fact that the state of nature, I think it represents a, um, a turn away from the, uh, um, theological and traditional explanations and a in an attempt to start over on a rational basis.
Speaker 1 00:07:50 Yeah, I think that's exactly right. Well said.
Speaker 0 00:07:54 Great. Thank you for that. I wanna encourage people to come up here if you wanna rate your hands. Uh, we do have, um, a whole list of questions to go through. David, one thing I wanted to touch on there, Um, you wrote a piece, uh, probably 19, 20 years ago about, um, the affirmative action case in front of the Supreme Court, um, at the time, Gutter versus Michigan. And, um, you know, I, I know that it's, it's back in the news, a new, um, affirmative action case of whether to take race into account as being heard. And, um, I'm curious if you're following that case and, and how you think things have changed, uh, between then and now.
Speaker 3 00:08:42 Oh, yeah. Great question is very and very timely. Um, this is an issue that both Steven and I have written about. The, um, the, uh, the Gruer case, um, against the University of Michigan, uh, was one in a series of basically compromises that the Supreme Court made, uh, over the years about whether it's okay to take race into consideration in, um, uh, college, college enrollment, uh, in light of the civil rights, uh, act of 65, that said, no discrimination is, is allowed. And because these are government funded organizations, ev every university and most colleges get government funding of some kind. Um, they're subject to government rules on this. The, um, so my view is that, and I wrote at the time that the court, um, compromised it, it, it was evasive in Rooter, um, in saying, Well, you can kind of take race, but not if it's overt, not if it's an explicit, uh, quota, um, but you've got, okay, you want to do diversity, just do it.
Speaker 3 00:10:06 So we, it doesn't really offend us. And, um, I mean, it was a total com pr pragmatic compromise, but underlying that is the issue of whether the government should be funding organiz, uh, colleges in the first place. If they do, uh, then I think every citizen has an equal more right to be considered on an equal basis. And so I'm, I'm opposed to it for a of action in that context. On the other hand, and this was the point of my essay, uh, back then, was privatize, uh, higher education as <laugh>, as well as, uh, all education. And then people make their own choices. And there may be well be cases where a college wants to say, Okay, the only ones we're accepting are Koreans, or Japanese, or whites or blacks, it, they can compete. And students and their parents who normally pay the freight will, um, decide what is the best suited for their, for their people.
Speaker 3 00:11:16 I don't think it's, you know, I'm a teacher and as Steven is, and I know that, you know, students vary a lot in how comfortable they are going to college, being away from their family for the first time in their lives, being adults and expected to act a certain way. Some people may well feel more comfortable and more able to study and learn what education is about. That's the function of education. They may be able to succeed better in a, in a, um, environment that has people like them, others want a more cosmopolitan, they, they wanna meet people of all different, um, backgrounds. And that's fine. That's what a free market of ideas and a free market of organizations is all about, Let competition run. And I'm not against, um, uh, affirmative action, um, in that way. In fact, as a teacher, I know I engaged in a lot of affirmative action.
Speaker 3 00:12:19 If I had a student who was struggling, I didn't limit that student to my office hours. I would spend as much time as needed. And, um, I think most teachers feel that way. Um, we wanna, we wanna help every student succeed in the best way possible, given, um, and taking account of their individual character, habits, circumstances, background, whatever. Um, but if to the extent that, or higher education or any education is funded by the government, then the rule of law and the equal treatment principles apply. So, I'm, I'm, I hope that the current court overturns the, uh, you know, comes down much harder against affirmative action under, for any organization for India college or university that is, had receives government funds.
Speaker 1 00:13:25 Steven, you wanted to add something? Well, just affirmative action is a, is a huge issue. And there's lots of other, uh, aspects to it I agree with, with David's analysis, um, uh, you know, limiting it to that particular case. I'd rather move on to other issues unless we wanna drill down into affirmative action more.
Speaker 4 00:13:49 All right. Well, maybe we'll circle back to it. If, if another question comes up along those lines. Uh, we have one from what I like to call our pantry of questions that are submitted by our 67,000 followers on Instagram. If you guys are not following us on Instagram, uh, one of the fun perks is that we have, uh, both myself and other, um, guests coming in, uh, twice a week to answer your questions. And, uh, there are so many that, uh, not all of them get answered. And this is one that hasn't yet. I'd love to bring it to you guys from in a and that is, is existentialist thought compatible with Objectiveism?
Speaker 1 00:14:33 Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, Uh, alright, let me, uh, take a, take a stab at this one. Um, I would say fundamentally no, but there are some relatively important principles in existentialism that are compatible with, with, uh, withs. Um, and on those ones, I would say commitment to values and taking self responsibility and taking a kind of freedom, uh, as, uh, as fundamental to the human condition, uh, to kinda start framing the issue because, uh, existentialism is one of those big tent labels, and it includes, uh, people who share some commonalities, but also some quite divergent, uh, uh, important beliefs. So there's lots of, uh, uh, theistic existentialists and, and sometimes people like, uh, kard seen as a forerunner to existentialism and Gabrielle Marcel. Uh, at the same time, there are existentialists who are atheistic, uh, again, in the forerunner category. Someone like, like, uh, Fredrick and then, uh, others like kmu and sart.
Speaker 1 00:15:53 And then even among the, uh, atheist, kmu and sart differ amongst each other on, on some rather huge issues. Uh, so the core thing I would say is, uh, if we start from the existentialist side, that they will argue that human beings are free in a very fundamental sense. But what they mean by that is that they are free, not only from divine commands, uh, uh, that is to say, rather than saying, we are bound by a deterministic God, perhaps in the Calvinistic sense, who makes us do what we do, or even if we have, uh, free will, that nonetheless, God has ordained certain commands, and that morality is a matter of obeying commands without thinking. And what the existentialist will argue is, uh, there is no God to give such command, and that's the atheistic existentialist. So we are free. Uh, and then the question of where we're going to get our morality arises, But even the theistic existentialist will say, if there is a God, you know, suppose God shows up, you know, and says, Here I am, and here are the commands that I, I I want you to obey.
Speaker 1 00:17:19 Uh, you still are a free agent, and you have to make a decision about whether you accept those commands, and you are going to commit to them, or, or not. So even the theistic existentialist, for example, will reflect on the story of Abraham, where, you know, Abraham, uh, you know, was ordered by God to take his son, uh, Isaac, and, uh, and offer him as a sacrifice. And the way it's portrayed in the Bible is that Abraham basically unthinkingly, obeys God, even though he must have had all kinds of questions about the appropriateness of his, his action, and a mainstream interpretation that praises Abraham is praising him precisely for not questioning God, just more or less robotically accepting God's commands of being willing to do this barbaric act. So even the theistic existentialists will say, You are not a moral agent unless you, you know, question and, uh, make a decision to say, Yes, I recognize that, you know, this is a potentially barbaric act, and I'm gonna to take full responsibility for, uh, uh, the consequences of, of, say, following a command from God, rather than the kinda theistic person who's going to say, Well, I was just following God's command, so I'm off the hook.
Speaker 1 00:18:44 Morally, uh, you know, if you have questions, you address those to address those to God. So the idea here is this notion of, uh, core responsibility for the free choices that you make, uh, as a core existentialist doctrine. And to the extent that we push on that theme, there is a very strong overlap with, uh, objective, right? Obviously, uh, uh, that, that, uh, we are responsible for the choices that we make, uh, uh, and we can't, in any sense, slough off that responsibility to an outside agency. I'm just following the law, or I'm just following God, right? And so forth. Now, where there, there is, uh, one huge difference between objectivists and existentialists is supposing you agree that following divine commands is not a morally responsible thing to do. The existentialists will also argue that there's nothing, uh, in human nature, uh, nothing biological, nothing in the realm of nature, in addition to the realm of super nature that should be a constraint, or even the guidance on, uh, what kinds of choices we should be making.
Speaker 1 00:20:01 And so there is a kind of fact value dichotomy that runs through, uh, all of the, uh, the, all of the existentialists that, uh, you know, tying back into our first questionnaire. There's no human nature, and in fact, there are no facts of reality. Uh, uh, uh, instead, we are entirely free to make whatever kinds of commitments we want to whatever kind of value framework, and that it is the act of our subjectively committing to something that causes a value to come into existence. It's sort of a one dimensional free commitment that creates valuing. Whereas by contrast, Objectiveism is going to argue that there are facts of reality. There are facts about nature and the environment that we are in. There are facts about human, human identity, and we need to take those into account and then make a commitment, uh, based on those as, as well. So, the notion of freedom, uh, that's in, uh, in, uh, uh, um, existentialism is much more subject, uh, whereas the notion of freedom in, uh, in objectiveism is a constrained, uh, kind of freedom. And when we are using that freedom, we should be, uh, responsive to facts of nature, whereas facts of nature are, uh, held to be irrelevant in an existentialist context. How's that for a start?
Speaker 0 00:21:36 <laugh>? It's good. Great. Uh, Lawrence, thanks for joining us.
Speaker 6 00:21:45 Hello. Okay. It looks like I can be heard. So, uh, thank you Steven and David for doing this. Uh, my question, I kind of joined late, but you mentioned the state of nature. So kind of in tide with that more locking idea of how societies come together. My question is about once a society, a, a, a country, a group of people have come together sort of with based ideals, but began to differ ideologically, the question we all have is, does the state, is it still able to function? Because I see a lot of things here in Texas, it's not a major movement by any sort of means, but there is talks that when as a state becomes too ideologically different, it is much healthier for them to sort of break sort of a, uh, you know, a lot of people say national divorce. Is there any philosophical issues with, with just going your own way, rather than committing to still be part of the same group with the same ideals and being more open to discuss our differences?
Speaker 1 00:23:03 Hmm. So is this then to raise the, uh, partly the, the question of the right of session, um, or the right of civil disobedience, or in extreme cases, the right of revolution under what circumstances that's appropriate? Or is it more a matter of, uh, I suppose we have, uh, just, you know, big cultural differences, um, and we want to have a state that, uh, respects those cultural differences in a way. And so it's appropriate separate. Cause the question is quite broad in my thinking right now, so maybe a little more from you, Lawrence.
Speaker 6 00:23:53 I think in my mind, based on just what I've heard people talk about the, it might still be too broad, but would be the question of, is there a point where a country becomes, uh, to culturally different that it can no longer truly be worth? If we look at how a nation comes together in an objective standpoint, does it still function? Is it still a state? Or has it fallen basically into anarchy because these differences are too much? And is it better for it to dissolve, so to speak? So perhaps more the dissolution of state more so than violent revolution.
Speaker 1 00:24:33 Yeah.
Speaker 3 00:24:33 Um, Laura, let me jump in on this. Um, how states, uh, are formed and, um, when they break apart is really a question of political science and, um, partly of history. So I'm not sure there's a philosophical answer, but there are philoso philosophical considerations. Uh, one is that, um, you know, I ran, wrote a great essay called Global Organization, uh, back in the seventies. And she was thinking of the Balkans, that's why she called it out, where every different language group, every different religious sec, um, you know, Constellation wanted to have their own country. And what it led to was, uh, after the follow up Soviet Union and the dissolution of Yugoslavia was a whole bunch of little states that were constantly fighting and, uh, in conflict. She was opposed to it because she thought countries should be united by ideas, not by eth ethnic, ethnicity, religion, uh, language or whatever.
Speaker 3 00:25:57 And the US is, was a shining example of that. So I, under I appreciate Texas, um, and other states have a lot of opposition to, uh, and our constant constantly in conflict with red state, uh, blue states today, where, uh, and the federal government has, has deeply, deeply compromised the constitutional understanding, uh, of a, what a priest society is. But still, America is united by ideas. And we have a federalist structure that was a safety valve that the founders created so that states can bury and, um, experiment. They were called these laboratory of, uh, of America because they tried different policies, and you could compare and see, and populations would migrate toward the ones that were more successful. Between the idea of fundamental principles and the federalist structure, I think it would take a massive, massive rationale and failure of government to, to justify success.
Speaker 0 00:27:19 Okay. Um, thank you for that. Uh, so bring answer, <laugh>. Tom, welcome. Are you able to unmute Tom? You may have to leave and come back. Um, I don't see the, uh, the microphone button for you, but we're gonna go to jp, jp, can you unmute? Great, welcome.
Speaker 7 00:27:48 Hi. Thank you, Scott. Um, my question is, um, is, is is there any, any validity to the claim supposedly made by Iron Rand that, um, just as metaphysic is the subject in and, uh, uh, and epistemology is the, the, the tools that ethics is like the technology of philosophy and unique, um, strictly unique to humans as there are some cognitive capacity for learning in animals. And that, um, ethics is where, where the, the, the, the, the, the human condition really shines through in the, um, application of philosophy. Uh, um, and, uh, so if, if, if, if it's, uh, even true that, that Iran made, made this claim. Thank you.
Speaker 3 00:29:07 Uh, if I understand your question, jp, um, it's partly about animals, other animals versus humans. Um, and partly about the role of ethics for humans. Um, I think the idea of that ethics is the technology of philosophy is, um, I can't remember Iran's statement to that on that score. So, uh, forgive me for that. But, uh, ethics is a set principles, what the good life is, what, uh, values are conducive to a good life, and which, which are, you know, inimical to a good life. And then applying that is, you could call it technologies, sort of like engineering principles you study in college if you're an engineer, and then going out and building a bridge, um, where you have to do a lot more specific thinking to figure out what the materials you need and structural forces, et cetera. So, um, but animals can't do that because as first we know there's a gradation in animal intelligence, for sure.
Speaker 3 00:30:30 We know a lot about that now. And, um, the higher an, the higher mammals, um, can learn a lot. But as far as we can tell, there's no, they, they're capable of learning principles and governing their actions by cog, cognitively understood abstract principles. They learn habits, they learn, um, how to learn from each other. They learn any other things and can be trained for even more than that. Um, but I don't know any evidence that an animal can actually form the concept of its life or of value and consider the question mentally what will actually value my life. It they pursue their lives, but in instinctively and by perceptual means and, uh, perceptual level, um, learning and integration. Does that, does that get to your question?
Speaker 7 00:31:42 Yeah, I think so. It's, um, it's probably something that's, um, someone else wrote about her. Um, but I, I went, I wanted to know whether it, it, it was a thing among the, the, um, objectivists.
Speaker 0 00:32:05 Great. Well, I'm glad, uh, David was able to answer that. Uh, Tom, are you able to unmute?
Speaker 8 00:32:12 Can you hear me now?
Speaker 0 00:32:13 Yes. Great.
Speaker 8 00:32:15 Oh, great. Thank you everybody. Uh, uh, thank you all for, uh, hosting this. Uh, my question is, um, from a cassette lecture, number seven foundations a few years ago, maybe, uh, it's not on the web, I don't think, but, um, on the idea that, uh, consciousness, um, I think what, uh, you said David is, um, two concepts. Uh, um, it is about, uh, detection and selection and that, uh, that, uh, roughly breaks down to, uh, cognition and effective, uh, or affection responses. But then in one of the point you made, you said the sensation you don't know if, uh, um, you don't know whether the cognition affect, uh, division is, is, uh, clear cut. So I like to hear a little more on why you think, um, uh, those concepts aren't applicable.
Speaker 3 00:33:26 Oh my gosh. Well, first of all, thank you, Tom. You have clearly read, um, or heard, uh, my lecture on, um, on pre will, and the idea of selection and detection is biological functions. Um, I can't remember actually saying anything about cessation and the problem of just drawing the distinction there. But, um, in retrospect, um, even at the sensory level, well, actually we don't experience the century level, um, even children, um, un unlike the psychology psychological view that was, um, current at the time I ran, wrote, or, uh, introduction to Epistemology, uh, at the time, the psychological view was at first infants, uh, experiences blooming buzzing, confusion. That's William James's term of just, uh, individual sensations. And it's only later that they acquired Percepts. Um, I think the evidence now is that they, um, have perceptual level integrations virtually from birth. They can see objects, um, they can see faces, et cetera.
Speaker 3 00:34:49 But at that level, there is, there is a cognitive development, which is the awareness, perceptual awareness of reality, their, their mother, that the mother's breast, the, uh, the place they are, the bed, the crib, whatever. And there's motivational aspects, pain and pleasure. Some things are, are pleasant, and some things are, uh, painful, and infants cry when they experience pain. So I think the, the basic distinction between detection, that is awareness of reality and selection, that is response to reality in terms of whether it's, you know, good for you or bad you at this moment. Um, and how are you gonna act in response? I think that, uh, applies all the way down to the earliest experience, uh, and most primitive experience that we have.
Speaker 8 00:35:52 Can I ask a follow up then? What about the sensation of pain? Is that considered cognitive, or is that, uh, a affective?
Speaker 3 00:36:02 Well, it's both. And the, the cog cognition affect distinction is a little, um, would be misleading. Um, it's, it's, it, it's partly a distinction, theoretical distinction that we draw so we can understand the elements, but pain is both cognitive. You're aware of a condition in your body that, uh, but it's also affective because the awareness of that condition comes with a strong feeling of, I don't like this, I don't, I, it's this hurts, I wanna get out of it. So, um, in that respect, it, you know, it's both cognitive and, uh, affective.
Speaker 8 00:36:47 So would you say then that perhaps that is one reason why at the time of your, uh, lecture then you did not like the, the classification, because it seems not to be mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive?
Speaker 3 00:37:08 Well, it was a, the distinction between detection, which is a, a term I introduced for, uh, re re response to the what is, and I've used detection rather than consciousness, because organisms, not all organisms are conscious, but they still detect features of their environment. And I use selection rather than affect because, um, organisms select actions, even if they don't do so with conscious purpose. So their broader concepts, selection and detection. But, um, to, I
Speaker 4 00:37:51 Have a,
Speaker 3 00:37:52 Sorry. It is a, it is a somewhat, um, theoretical distinction because, you know, the line between them is it many conditions such as the experience of pain, they're combined, they have both elements. So I don't wanna make it, uh, a dichotomy here. I just wanna make, uh, it's only a theoretical distinction for the purpose of analysis.
Speaker 4 00:38:20 David, I have, and Steven, I have another question, uh, in from Instagram, uh, and it is from a na again, is consciousness derived from the soul? Is the soul even real?
Speaker 3 00:38:38 Uh, well, I wanna invite Steven to weigh in on this too, but, um, I would say there's, there is no mind body dichotomy in the sense of a physical being on the one hand and a soul, a spiritual being, on the other hand, as separate entities. I think consciousness is a function of the brain, and it's not reducible to the brain or reusable to neural activity. Um, it is a immersion property of brains of a certain degree of complexity. Um, but it's not, but it's a naturalistic phenomenon. It's, um, part of our, one of our biological systems. And so I would, it, the soul is not a literal entity, but when we speak of the soul, um, informally, we can be invoking the idea of spiritual values and spiritual, the spiritual nature of human beings. And that refers, I think, to the many needs of consciousness that, uh, the sophisticated form of consciousness we have, in which we think conceptually, we got our actions by choice. We're aware of our, the finite extent of our lifetimes. We're aware that we're going to die at some point. So it raises lots of questions about the meaning of life and, um, the values that we live by, and the ways in which we and enhance those, those values, or become aware of them through art, through, uh, personal relationships. All of that constitutes a spiritual dimension to human lives. And it's very important for Objectiveism, uh, but not in the sense that it's all based on a, a separate soul or much less an eternal soul.
Speaker 1 00:40:50 And I think that, I think that's well said. I don't have any problem with the using the word soul, but I think it's important to, to use it contextually just because philosophically it does have a huge amount of baggage associated with it, mostly because, uh, a mind body dichotomy or a kind of dualism has been so prominent philosophically and culturally. So I, uh, when writing in the, or speaking in a philosophical context, would, uh, not use the word soul. And that said, I would there use a, a more accurate term, you know, like consciousness or, or, or whatever. But I think outside a philosophical context, if one is in a, you know, casual context or literary context, uh, I think soul for all of the reasons that David just indicated the word soul rather, uh, is very useful and, uh, and valuable.
Speaker 3 00:41:50 Yeah. We, we have soul.
Speaker 0 00:41:56 Well, great. Well, we are honored to have, uh, TAs, senior scholar Richard Salzman joining us. Richard, thanks for joining. Do you have a question for these gentlemen? Richard, are you able to unmute?
Speaker 9 00:42:14 Yes, I do have a question. Can you hear me, gentlemen?
Speaker 3 00:42:18 Yes. Yes.
Speaker 9 00:42:19 This is a great conversation. Here's my question. Of the five branches of philosophy, from metaphysics to epistemology, ethics, politics, aesthetics, which of the five are in the best condition today in terms of having the right approach, the best perspectives, something close to what we want? If you were to have to pick one, what would it be and why?
Speaker 1 00:42:48 Hmm.
Speaker 3 00:42:50 Oh my God.
Speaker 1 00:42:51 Um, um, that's a, that's a huge one, Richard. You have to survey all of the work that's being done in all of philosophy and, uh, assess all of it and pick which one's doing the best. Huh. Think, uh, my, my first stab, and this is just a kneejerk right now, is to say, I think probably, um, epistemology is doing the best, just because while philosophy wasn't a very skeptical place in the middle part of the 20th century, uh, I've been encouraged, say, since the 1980s, 1990s, how, uh, philosophers, many of them have become more realistic and less skeptical. But there's also been a move toward less armchair philosophy and, uh, doing epistemology in a broader cognitive science context, where the philosophers are talking to the neuroscientists, talking to the psychologists and the linguists, uh, and of course talking to the people, uh, doing computer programming. And so much of it is, uh, interdisciplinary and proceeding on a much more realistic basis. Uh, and I think a lot. And, and that's a, that's a much healthier place.
Speaker 3 00:44:23 Yeah. I, I, I think that's, that's right. Um, Steven, I might add, um, that in epistemology, I think my sense is that most philosophers, academic philosophers have less patience for postmodern ideas than, um, people in other disciplines. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, which is good. Um, there are a couple good things in happening in ethics, too, um, including the idea, there was actually one, a bridge, a famous bridge philosopher, maybe you can remember her name, uh, Steven, who talked about, uh, ethics as ground in life of all things.
Speaker 1 00:45:08 Yeah. Phillip Foot.
Speaker 3 00:45:11 Philip Foot, Yes. Correct. And, um, that relates in a way to virtue ethics, which is a little closer to Objectiveism, although not, um, really there, um, compared to some of the old older, mid century twentie, mid twentie century stuff. And in political philosophy, there's at least a libertarian movement that has done a lot of analysis of rights. Um, we don't have to agree with it, um, at all. But, um, the, um, there's pushback against the idea, the, the, some of the ideas of the collectivist ideas that dominated political philosophy for a long time. But it's, it's a really broad question, Richard, and, uh, we're just kind of, uh, skating along the service here.
Speaker 1 00:46:10 Yeah. Well follow up on Steve. Yeah. David's point about, I agree. Also, there's some interesting things happening in ethics. Um, virtue ethics is one of the, the movements, um, that got away from what seemed to be a very sterile, uh, deontology versus utilitarian, uh, thinking about ethics, and then also a lot of anti-real stuff in ethics that had dominated for much of the 20th century. There's an interesting kinda gendered observation. I throw a book that came out maybe one or two years ago now that I skimmed and I wanna get back to, but it's called The Women Are Up To Something. Um, and this was a, a British philosopher, a male noticing that a lot of this virtue ethics and more naturalistic, uh, or attempts to ground ethics naturally in, in human life, a bio psychological understanding of what it is to be a human being was being done by women.
Speaker 1 00:47:20 Uh, you know, Iris Murdoch, Rosalind Hurst house mm-hmm. <affirmative>, Philip Wood was mentioned and so on. Uh, and then of course, Iron Rand was in the mix and of the, of the same generation. But it was striking that there was this school of more naturalistic virtue, ethics, life, faith ethic that was being developed. And it seemed like <laugh>, all of the interesting work was being done by women as opposed to men who are much more abstracted and, and, and, and rationalistic. So, um, I just put that out there as a, as an addendum to, to Dayton's point.
Speaker 9 00:48:00 Yes. And I think in theist world, uh, Tara Smith synthesis of Philip afoot and the virtue ethicists and connecting them to rand is also interesting cuz she's also a woman. Yeah. And it also reminds me of the three great women of 1943, so to speak, Rand Rose Wilder Lane, and Isabel Patterson, who on the, on, they thought of it at the political level of being, uh, revolutionaries for liberty at a time when it was really in a dark state. Well, um, Steven, thank you for that. I'm, I'm, uh, when I think if it's true, you know, our view is the more fundamental the branch. And if that's where the improvements are coming, we should be optimistic because that will in time generate better results in, uh, ethics and politics. And it, and I'm trying to think of the vernacular, uh, extensions of this. It would be something like, follow the science.
Speaker 9 00:49:05 We hear that all hear that all the time. Now whether they know, whether they know what that means or whether they're doing it consistently or not, I think we should be encouraged by the idea that that's a admonition. And another one would be, you know, fact checking fact checkers, or again, whether they do it <laugh> carefully or not, but the fact that the idea would be, Hey, we're gonna fact check that. To me, that sounds like epistemology. And, and the other one would be actually something, David, I think you did this whole session on this, the, the preoccupation people, well, I wouldn't say preoccupation that's negative. They focus on biases, on cognitive biases and, and priors and stuff. So people like on the search for, on the lookout for all the ways we might be prejudiced or biased, bigoted, and I think is a good thing. It's like the flip side of Aristotle's laws of logic. Well, there were also law, the fallacies be where the fallacies be, where the ways that thinking go wrong. So those are like three cases where in modern vernacular I see what I think Steven's identifying, namely, there does seem to be a good move toward better thinking.
Speaker 1 00:50:22 Yeah, I agree.
Speaker 9 00:50:24 Oh, thanks Steve. Thank you both. Thank you.
Speaker 0 00:50:29 Great. Well, um, I, um, wanna encourage people, if you have questions to raise your hand, we'll bring you up to the stage. I did want to, uh, read at least one from Mabo, um, who, uh, wrote in our chat, um, he said, Considering the persistence of greed, injustice, and war, despite the accumulated wisdom, does that mean vice is part of human nature?
Speaker 5 00:51:01 Hmm.
Speaker 3 00:51:04 Well, we'd have to talk a bit about, um, what you mean by greed, uh, and injustice, because those are, are ethical concept or ethically concepts within ethical content are great. But, um, but yes, fundamentally we have free will. So some people choose to back byre and hopefully as a result, uh, they come out to, uh, principles of honesty and integrity and justice. Um, but that's choice. And some people don't. So there are, are all kinds of shortcuts, um, get rich quick schemes, um, short cuts to wealth or power or sexual conquest, whatever. And, um, there's no question that people do that. I think, you know, there's a case being made that the more the government intervenes in, uh, the economy and in people's lives, the more one consequence that it makes possible. Uh, things like crony capitalism, which is typically a kind of exploitation and injustice or, um, your responsibility on the part of people receiving government benefits. And so, um, there's a social aspect too, but fundamentally it's human choice. And, um, you choose, you choose whether you're gonna commit to your life and to reason and values and or, or not. So yeah, it's part of human nature, not, not an innate aspect like an, uh, original sin, but it is a possibility.
Speaker 0 00:53:16 Good. Well, uh, thank you for that. Um, I wanted to go, Stephen, to one from Twitter where, uh, someone was questioning you maybe get your response to it. They quoted someone else saying, um, that, uh, individualism is being self-absorbed and narcissistic. It's never about having the ideal, closest possible relationship with one's friends and, and community. And that it's, it's about using the most superficial kinds of narratives to describe what human beings are and, and what our role in the universe is. And then in response, you said that he was setting up a straw man. And so Tom g wants to know, well, what is the right way to set up individualism then?
Speaker 1 00:54:01 Okay. Uh, well, yeah. Individualism is a, um, a concept that cuts across many philosophical categories. So, uh, kinda meta physically, what is the, the unit of reality? Are human beings, uh, individual agents, or are they part of some collective board or collective organism, uh, of which they're merely an aspect? Uh, so, uh, sometimes when people say, Well, we are fundamentally individuals, uh, uh, people will then set up a straw man and say, Well, then you mean some sort of atomism and isolation from other human beings, uh, socially all the way down. And that then would be to set up a straw, straw man rather than to say that we are individuals, uh, with our, with our own agency on epistemological issues. Individualism is, uh, the EPIs that we each have our own minds. And the exercise of that mind is a, a matter of individual choices that we make.
Speaker 1 00:55:15 There's not collective thinking, uh, or just me absorption from one's social surroundings, what one's beliefs and values are going to be. So individuals will say, we have that capacity and responsibility for thinking for ourselves, uh, and, and, and carrying that on through. And then with respects to, uh, uh, values and acting toward those values. So individuals position is, uh, individuals need to make those decisions and, and initiate the action, and sustain the action to, to achieve those values. Uh, as opposed to that, somehow collectively stuff just happens. Uh, right now I'm thinking of, you know, back in high school, probably all of us had this experiment experience of working on group projects. You know, you're, you're divided up into groups of four, and you're supposed to do various things. And, you know, the fact that you're in a group of four doesn't mean that anything is going to happen automatically.
Speaker 1 00:56:23 Instead, you know, if there's a, the way those groups typically worked is there was an initial attempt that a division of labor, but some people would do the work and other people would not do the work. And it's very clear that it requires even in that group context, that each individual do what they are going to do to achieve the value of, uh, of, of completing the, completing the group project. So, uh, uh, all the way through you, the, the philosophical individualism wants to say the individual is the, the unit of, uh, the individuals, the unit of, of, uh, of knowing the individual is the, the unit of, of, of valuing and, and acting. And then that in a social context, uh, the individual is the primary unit of, of value. That social relationships should be beneficial to the individuals who are participating in it in a political context.
Speaker 1 00:57:19 That means a robust understanding of individual rights and, and so on. So that's the set of claims that individualists make. Uh, so I would just say that, you know, the strong man typically is, uh, uh, not recognizing any of those, but just projecting individualism is meaning either some sort of, uh, you know, metaphysical atom that is, uh, asocial or, uh, stalking the individual with a very pessimistic understanding of human nature. Uh, that, that, you know, that, that to be an individual is to be antisocial. Uh, and so that therefore only some sort of, uh, you know, rejection of individualism makes social living possible. So that would be my rough draft.
Speaker 0 00:58:12 Pretty good. I thought it was quite rich. Um, this, uh, this one, again, we wanna encourage people if you have questions to come on the stage. David, did you wanna add something?
Speaker 3 00:58:24 Um, yeah, briefly. Um, part of the, uh, the objective is ethics, um, has to do with the values that we gain from other people through, first of all, trade in the economic sense, personal relationships, um, in, uh, everything from acquaintance to friendship to romantic love. And, um, the knowledge we gain from other people. Uh, humans are unique, um, as far as we know among, uh, species, uh, that learn from their history and knowledge accumulates, those are huge, huge values, and they require a certain way of dealing with other people. So objectiveism has a rich ethic. Um, it's individualists, but the individualism includes the pursuit of values, the values that individuals pursue, include many, many types of relationships with others. So the adamistic view is just, um, it's an arbitrary view. It's, it's a claim. I don't, I see where it comes from. If, if someone starts as a collectivist, they're gonna demonize, um, the opposite view, but it's just a false conception of what any reasonable individualist holds.
Speaker 7 00:59:56 Great. Can I ask, uh, a new question? Go ahead. Um, you would seem to me that in today's political, um, discourse, the, the, the, the line between, well, the supposedly diametrical postures of the left and the right are merging into a common sense of, um, collectivism and, and altruism only exchanging, uh, the villains and the oppressors, um, or the collectives. There's, there's, it seems to me that left leftists and, and rightists are being equally, um, collectivist in many v in many respects, and, uh, that the right as it was once, uh, conceived is no more. So what's your take on that?
Speaker 3 01:01:02 I suggest, uh, uh, Steven, that you take this, but I'd also like to invite Richard away and, um, uh, you guys are much more tuned to social, um, issues.
Speaker 1 01:01:17 Um, yeah, I, I sure wanna deduct this one as, as much as possible too, just because, uh, I tend not to follow the politics, uh, at, at that journalistic level. So all I can do is say that I have a, a sense that the, the question or the observation that's built into the question is correct. That the, the, the left has always been collectivist pretty thoroughly, although it's a big tent and there are lots of strains of, of collectivism there, some more or less extreme, whereas on the right, at least in North America, the North American, right, that big tent had collectivists in it, but it also, uh, had a significant number of people who were, you know, pretty robustly individualistic in, in, uh, in a lot of ways, particularly economic individualism. But I think, uh, that it is true, and again, this is just my sense, uh, that the right is less individualistic in this generation than it was say a generation ago.
Speaker 1 01:02:35 And my my sense of that is that, um, the economic individualism, uh, kinda the, the rhetoric surrounding free markets that was more a part of the right, quote unquote a generation or two ago is less muted now. And I'm not sure whether that's cause say, after the fall of the Soviet Union, people who were advocates of free markets, uh, became kinda complacent or the cold wars over, we won. We don't need to make the economic case anymore, everybody by and larges into markets at, at some level. And so they, uh, they dropped the ball. Uh, and so are not, just not as articulate in, in defending those princip princip before, or whether what has happened is that the, the, the issues have shifted. The, the issues that we are arguing about politically, or at least in the political sphere, are less economic issues, and instead other cultural issues where economics is, uh, is not, you know, front and center. And so more collectivistic voices on the right have come to dominate, uh, uh, in those discussions. And so they're just, uh, loud voices for a certain kind of collectivism, combating loud voices on the left for, uh, other variations on collectivism.
Speaker 9 01:04:15 Yeah. If I could mind, uh, this is Richard. My observation would be that, um, it, it's, uh, it's indisputable that the leftist collectivism of the kind scene politically is obvious, too obvious to name and the group identity obsession mostly from the left. My problem is that conservatives are collectivists also, but in the following way, uh, the trinity for them is faith, family, and freedom. So their, their oppo opposition to the individualism of the kind we advocate is call it a mini collective, the family. Now, that's not the worst thing in the world. If, uh, the family is a unit that is good for civilization and good for acc culturalization and things like that, that's fine. But you do see conservatives resisting and critiquing individualism a lot. And if that's a pillar of capitalism, which I think it is, that's a problem. We have a problem with conservatives not really embracing, uh, individualism.
Speaker 9 01:05:26 Now, the, the, the Trump movement reminds us that the right also has nationalism. So as a form of collectivism where they say the nation is all crucial, and, uh, that wouldn't be so bad if you're just pro patriotic American in the, you know, the original sense of Americanism. But if it's a nationalism of the kind that was prominent in the thirties where it subordinates the individual to the nation, that's obviously collectivist as well. So I think Objectiveism is really unique in its conception of, uh, individualism and even, uh, vis-a-vis the libertarians who, so, where the libertarians would say, I'm an individualist because I'm a subjectivist, get to do whatever I want. Um, and so Objectiveism is so unique cuz it's neither the leftist collectivist or the right conservative religionist collectivist nor the <laugh>, the libertarian individualist who's a subjectivist. Here we are saying, you should be an individualist and objective that is a Venn diagram, so to speak, that people aren't used to. You should be an individualist and an est following a uniform ethical code. You know, it, it strikes people as odd as a mix. I dunno if that makes any sense, but that, that's my reading.
Speaker 7 01:06:49 Yeah. Thank you, Richard. That's, that's the same theme that I, that I've, uh, been observing, so thank you. Thanks.
Speaker 1 01:06:56 Just jump in one more observation. While I do think there, there still are many people on the right, so to speak, among the conservatives who are, uh, at least implicitly individualistic on economic matters. I think there's just more subdued. And I also don't want, just as a kinda of a political sociology point to overstate the collectivism on the left, because there always has been a kind of, uh, individualism, uh, a subjectivist individualism among many of the schools of the, uh, of, of, of the left. They might be economically collectivistic the idea we should all share in, uh, everyone else's productivity, but in the service of freeing people to then do whatever they want to be artists and pursue their own sex lives and, and so forth. So there's that, uh, that element there. And even in the current generation where, uh, people are, say, talking about identity and what is it to be a human being, there is a lot, obviously, of collectivism, of identity, uh, in the left, but at the same time, there are subs, strains of individualism so that, you know, that my sexuality, for example, should not be binary and that nobody should be, uh, no society should be forcing individuals into pre-established categories and saying, You have to conform to these.
Speaker 1 01:08:29 I can make up my own sexuality, whatever it is that I want to be, or all of the traditional religions that, uh, I should not be forced into any of those traditional religions. I can just make up my own, you know, weird subject religion, uh, uh, as a, as they want it to be. And among people who are artistic, uh, and, and think of themselves as creative people, uh, almost all of them are, are, are on the left or, or left. But when you talk to them about what it means to be a creative person, they use individualistic, uh, rhetoric. Uh, now it's not tie back to Richard's point tied in any way to an objective understanding of what it's to be an individual, but these are people who are on the left in most respects, but nonetheless have a, a strong of a kind of subjective individualism.
Speaker 9 01:09:31 Yeah, Steve, I, I, I, I really love those points because often I will find, um, allies, uh, on the left, this'll sound weird coming from me, but there's a certain part of the left, which the profile is something like this, which is quite individualist, revolt, revolution, resistance, defiance, dissent, my body, my choice. Now, however, selective that may sound right, but the whole idea we call ourselves, I think, radicals for capitalism, therefore, we should be somewhat sympathetic to radicals for anything else. Like why would they be radical, willing to put themselves out to be combative, to be pious, to be militant, if you will. Um, I know I'm stretching the point here a bit, but the non-conformity of the revolutionary, okay, even on the left to me is admirable. I like the idea of someone saying, I am gonna fight for my values, God damnit. And, um, even if I'm in the minority, I don't know if that's what you're trying to capture, Steven, but that's something I've noticed on the left, the moral certitude and self righteousness of the revolutionary. I love, I love that. I just wish they were capitalist.
Speaker 3 01:10:57 Yeah. <laugh>, I just, before we close Steven and Richard, these are, you know, your points are great and, um, mind opening, but I do wanna say that the, from what I read in the news and the, you know, the political state of the, of, uh, politics today, I was shocked. I was shocked, um, when the, I've been observing the tendency on the right toward nationalism and um, uh, a point that just really stuck in my pro was, uh, the c p a, the Conservative Political Action Committee had a conference recently where they invited Victor Orban from Hungary, the strong man, uh, authoritarian from Hungary, and he got his standing ovation. I mean, this is, this is way, way beyond the pale for, uh, anything that they, you know, people on the right had done before. So, uh, I think there's, there, there's definitely a sea change here, but otherwise, um, all, all points are good. So thanks, thanks for the question, jp, and, uh, I'll, I'll turn it back over to you just Scott.
Speaker 0 01:12:25 Great, thank you. I, uh, actually got into it with one of the head Orthodox guys over Orban and me calling him mixed, but, uh, we'll get to that story another time. Um, this is from Johann G's following on, um, on the famous and deeply seminal tradition started by mathematician David Hilbert. What in your view, are the most important still open problems in philosophy?
Speaker 1 01:12:56 Yeah, that's another, uh, huge one. There is a, a Wikipedia page and, uh, uh, which lists, uh, unsolved problems in, in philosophy or ones that are most perplexing to, you know, this generation's philosophy as well. And, uh, it's interesting to me how many of them are interesting puzzles, but don't necessarily turn on, uh, philosophers being able to answer that very quickly. You need to, uh, start doing some physics or start doing some biology or science in order to get to the answer. So, um, I'm gonna actually think about that for a minute before I try to answer that question. So if, David, do you have anything on, uh, on your mind? Uh, go for it. While I'm giving it a thought.
Speaker 0 01:13:55 David, any thoughts on, uh, what are the open problems still left to be solved? I mean, in Objectiveism it was, uh, you know, uh, there, there were still open issues to be solved, like induction.
Speaker 3 01:14:12 Uh, yes, I, I had a little trouble unmuting here. Um, within Objectiveism, I would say, uh, in my own field of epistemology, uh, one of the chief, um, open questions is the nature of propositions. I Rand said that, uh, in presenting her theory of concepts, um, which I really admire and studied and written about in depth, uh, she said, she said that, um, you know, the integration of concepts into propositions is, uh, um, an issue to be, you know, to be developed. Um, I would also say in the, uh, realm of ethics, uh, the ethics of families and, um, is an issue that, uh, we don't have a lot of literature on in Objectiveism, Uh, a lot of development. Uh, we've, we've done some work on it at the Atla Society, um, and in our, uh, associated research workshop. But, um, you know, the whole objective ethics is, uh, of personal relationships is based on voluntary relationships and, uh, but families involved involuntary relationships between parents and chi children. So, um, that's an example. Um, we could, I've sometimes made a list because it's very relevant to the idea of opens that there are problems still to be solved, um, from an objective standpoint and potentially to be included in the overall objective view view. Um, but short, that's my short answer to the, That's fair. The question.
Speaker 1 01:16:02 Steven, did you, uh, have time? Yes. This is more of a personal interest answer. I would say it's in the realm of aesthetics. There might be a more general interest. Cause, uh, as we've become richer, we have, uh, socially started to consume and create more art than ever before in human history. So people have more leisure time, there's more art, art available, more movies, more TV shows, more music, more basically everything available to us. So the place of art in our lives is increasing. And, uh, so it might be then that understanding better what art is and why it does for us, what it does, uh, is going to be a philosophically rich territory over the next generation or two. So I do think we have a great start in, uh, uh, in, in Rand's aesthetic theories. There's a lot more, uh, integration of philosophical understanding of human cognition, human emotion, human value seeking with our continued understanding of, uh, human psychology, which is still a, an infant science. So I think, uh, there's a lot of room for growth and development there.
Speaker 9 01:17:44 If I could, uh, Scott, is that okay if I, if I chime in for five minutes on politics?
Speaker 0 01:17:52 <laugh>? I don't know about five, but Sure, go ahead.
Speaker 9 01:17:55 Okay. Three, Uh, two three, very briefly. It's very rarely said that objective has more work to do in politics, it's usually in the epistemology induction and other things. And in objectivism I've noticed that the standard approach is something like, let's just invoke the founding fathers. We're done. Uh, cuz they're brilliant and they were the first correctly to constitutionally limit government and they were lucky and, and Montesquieu and so on. But I do think much more work has to be done, um, what with what I would call the technics or the engineering of politics, that it would truly be political science in the sense of what does it mean to have a republic versus a democracy, a constitutionally limited government of federalist system versus not. I I think it's, it's a kind of amber frozen in time too much for those on the right to say, well, the founders figured it out.
Speaker 9 01:19:02 Just let's go back to that. I don't think that's good enough. I don't think it's very contemporary or modern or scientific, frankly. And I'll just name one example of this. When you try to argue against the welfare state, I think it's very difficult for people to surrender that unless you make a case, for example, for something like what I call v I like to call vpc, voluntary private charity. So for example, does objective have a theory fully worked out of what charity means, of what philanthropy means, of what used to be called, uh, you know, mutual aid societies? Because that is gonna be, that's gonna have to be an argument we use to get rid of these quote unquote social safety nets. The, the welfare state is largely social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and, you know, unemployment insurance. And, and people just as, when you go to people who are theists and say, get rid of God, they won't unless you give them a full fledged case for reason.
Speaker 9 01:20:10 Right. They won't surrender something they're clinging to unless they have an alternative bank to swim toward. And I think the same is true objective has a lot more to do not, and I think they're reluctant to do this cuz it sounds altruistic. It sounds like saying, Why should I come with up with philanthropy and helping the poor, helping the poor? And it, it, it's something that objectivists don't want to focus on because it sounds altruistic. But if we came up with something like an egoistic case for philanthropy or an egoistic case for charity, I think that would be excellent.
Speaker 1 01:20:47 Let me add one more, uh, Richard, just Byre talking politics, uh, prompted and mentioning Montesquieu in this issue of geography and a way it ties back into Lawrence's question earlier in the, uh, in the discussion. Uh, so I, a question to me about, uh, the nature of a government has almost always been tied to a de limited geographical area. So it's a monopoly on the use of force in a given geographical zone. As an open question to me, whether emerging technologies are going to alter that or make that obsolete in some ways. So to, you know, to the extent that we say, you know, commercial contracts Yeah. Are gonna be bounded and everybody's gonna agree by the laws of the state of Delaware or in the state of New York. What's that going with decentralized, uh, contracts, uh, stored in the blockchain you're contracting are in different, uh, legal jurisdictions. Uh, whether there will be the, you know, kinda emergence of say, you know, contract dispute resolution things that are purely decentralized and what that's going to mean for all sorts of legal sovereignty issues.
Speaker 9 01:22:17 Yeah, that's a good one too, Steven, This sound, this will sound radical too. What about the idea <laugh> of one world government?
Speaker 1 01:22:27 Exactly.
Speaker 9 01:22:28 When you hear one world government, what the, what the right will mostly say that's terrible. That's awful. That's likely to be abusive. Okay. But among ourselves, if we said to ourselves, what if it was possible? I mean, we went from the states to the United States in Europe, they're trying to go from many states to the European states. It, what if the future of politics is this more unified globalistic approach to governance? Wouldn't it be good if there was a one world government which was truly respectful of individual rights? I mean, if that were true, you wouldn't necessarily be against world government. Right? The the fear people have is that if there's one world government, it'll be oppressive. But why are they assuming it'll be oppressive? So that alone is an example cuz we do see NGOs, the un, the World Bank and others having the WTO having more and more influence.
Speaker 9 01:23:25 So I think if objectives do not have an opinion other than we're against it on international organizations and what they should be doing, cuz we've always been critical to the un terrible get rid of the un A ball. Okay. Yeah. Cuz it's been so bad. But the principle of the idea of you nation, nations getting together and uniting on the basis of individual rights would be a good thing if possible. So I'm, I'm willing to go out there, out on a limb and say Objectiveism needs a world government theory. But it sounds weird. I that sounds very weird. I know.
Speaker 3 01:24:04 Yeah, Richard? Um, I gotta say that it sounds really weird, um,
Speaker 9 01:24:09 <laugh> <laugh>.
Speaker 3 01:24:11 But I think, I think there's a, a philosophical point that I've, I've made before and I i it might be a, you know, just a broad guidance, but there you could draw a chart. The advantage of a more extensive government, uh, the scope of upper government, the reach of a government, the more, uh, the more contracts and property that are protected by a single government mm-hmm. <affirmative>, um, the better because then you have, you know, rule of law within one jurisdiction and with increasing world trade, um, you know, there's a great deal of trade is now across borders, uh, as well as, um, still low, less than within borders, but, but other hand. So there's an advantage to larger, uh, size of government to bring as many transactions as possible under a single legal domain. On the other hand, given human free well and various other tendencies, it leads to there are bad governments and always will be the possibility of bad governments. So the right to plea the right to leave one country and go to another is really, really important for I know, So you draw on graph, I know at where the larger the government, the more, the more, uh, commercial act and other activities are brought within a single jurisdiction on legal system. On the other hand, the larger the government, the less chance it is for government, for individuals to flee oppressive government. Yeah. And I think we just looked for the maximum, uh, yeah. On those few lines.
Speaker 9 01:26:15 Yep. Good point. Thanks, David.
Speaker 0 01:26:19 Good, Thank you. Um, one, uh, last question. Uh, hope this isn't too broad. What is being, That's the question. What is being, Can you hear me?
Speaker 10 01:26:47 Yes. I hear,
Speaker 3 01:26:50 Oh wait, I was muted. Sorry. Uh, I was muted too. But I would say, um, I would answer with the question, what would you take as an answer? I mean, being you looking for definition or a T object
Speaker 9 01:27:16 Or just existing?
Speaker 0 01:27:19 Yeah, that's how I being,
Speaker 9 01:27:21 Being being is existing. Is that too brief to be, is to exist
Speaker 0 01:27:33 To be, is to be something
Speaker 9 01:27:36 <laugh>. Well, that too, that's implied. Yes.
Speaker 8 01:27:40 That was my question. Also, I, I was gonna ask David, how how you would formulate, um, existence exist. That was one of the questions you asked a long time ago.
Speaker 0 01:27:52 Two minutes left.
Speaker 8 01:27:54 And I thought that, uh, maybe the subject has to be a concrete, what do you think?
Speaker 3 01:28:02 No existence pertains to whatever exists? Uh, and everything that exists is concrete. Yes, there are no abstractions or universal dilemma. In reality. Those are conceptual concept. But, um, given that, um, and existence is an matic concept that you can't define it because there's nothing, there's no broader genius to which you're gonna sign it. Um, there's no being, there's no non being with which you can contrast it except in the cognitive sense that there are errors, uh, where you believe in something that does not exist. But in reality it is just what is is, period. And we start from there. Amatic. So you, so this being is, is, I'd just say open your eyes, look at anything that's being
Speaker 0 01:29:09 Tom. We're at a time. But, um, this has been a great session. I wanna thank everyone for joining us. Uh, I'm on the fundraising team for the Atla Society, and we're trying to raise enough, uh, revenue to cover next year's expanded events to promote brand's, ideas to young people in creative ways. But it's gonna be a nail biter down to the final days of 2022. But for donations this year, a major donor agreed to match all brand new donors. So every $5 donated means $10 to our student initiatives. All lapse donors, if you haven't donated since 2019 or longer, then your gift will also be fully matched. And even current donors, anything you give over your 2021 giving will also be matched. So, uh, a as you evaluate your year end, uh, philanthropic, uh, you know, I hope you'll take into account the full scope of our impact and decide to include the Atlas Society in, in your end of year, uh, giving plans. Thanks to everyone who joined us, uh, we'll look forward to seeing you at the next events.
Speaker 9 01:30:15 Thanks, Scott. You're great. Thanks.
Speaker 3 01:30:17 Right, Thanks everyone. Thanks everyone.
Speaker 9 01:30:19 Thanks Steven. Thanks David.
