OMG. What an insight. Socrates was interested in the soul of the other. I think even Peter, the Socrates student, appreciated that point and application to today. They don't care what you think, until they think that you care. Wow, another beautiful statement from a wonderful man; "You give unity to diversity". Thank you, gentlemen.
This is what I love about Peter and his guests. A conversation with complex ideas and direct challenges, and yet they both remain calm and measured. The work you are doing is so needed in today’s society. Keep doing what you’re doing!
Absolutely fascinating conversation. I had not had the pleasure of listening to Dr. Jan. So many interesting thoughts in the conversation! Thank you Peter!
Peter, thank you so much for having this conversation. In addition to you two having just really good chemistry - and similar speaking styles, actually - I was excited to hear Dr. Bentz touch upon what I see as the problem of having skepticism as one's primary starting point, or default, when engaging with a particular claim, such as the existence of god - something I've sensed, but haven't been able to properly express. I'm agnostic in a sea of atheists. Anyway, AMAZING convo. On a side note, I'm also 58 years of age and my brother is named REID!!!
Best interview so far, and one of the best and most interesting I’ve ever seen! More of this please! P.S. Thank you, Reed, for restraining Peter’s BJJ commentary 😂
@1:24:13 exactly, why would you expect physical (objective) evidence for something that does not exist in our 3 physical dimensions. God does not take up physical space in the objective world. This is why you have to broaden your mind to other forms of existence. First being aesthetic truths, moral truths or even metaphoric truths, and the idea of conceptual existence such as numerical values, etc.
The Enlightenment began with Francis Bacon’s (1561-1626) popularizing the idea that Deductive reasoning was barren of progress because it did not produce any new knowledge. He recommended Inductive Reasoning, testing hypothesis about the natural world to attain new knowledge. This was known as “The New Philosophy” or what we today call Science. The stated goal of those doing the ‘new philosophy’ was to “reduce as much as possible human suffering” and to “increase as much as possible human wellbeing”
@@user-Bob_T "Count it all joy my brothers, when you encounter trials of various kinds, for the testing of your faith produces steadfastness, and let steadfastness have its full effect that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." James 1: 2-4
@@keeponrockin85 There’s a difference between stupid suffering and redemptive suffering. You are quoting scripture that refers to redemptive suffering. Yes!
1:07:00 Strong disagreement that starting with the "I" means that reality is "all in your head". Self-consistent proxies are reliable ways to know reality. Reality is outside of our head. We can start with the "I", and know reality. We know reality is real, because the external impacts what's inside the head.
Great conversation. Regarding the JiuJutsu gorilla in the room: As a human combative behaviour specialist, an interesting topic for discussion is that the study of a combative sport that temporarily places the individual in uncomfortable/painful situations is a microcosm of the pressures of the world at large. The 'dojo' is one of the few places where everyone is truly equal. As a teacher of SouthEast Asian arts for over 40 years I can honestly say it is a place where everyone is the same, and might be one of the few places where merit is the only arbiter, but only in systems that pressure test their content. Some aspects of your conversation can be examined through that lens.
33:26 As far as I know breast cancer is not caused by smoking. When she was nervous about the treatment and what happened in the bar, it probably soothed her. A good effect. * Recent research shows applying irradiation actually promotes the (delayed) spreading (source Sam Brokken). So then the secondary problem also lies elsewhere. I would worry about.
Epistemological conditions such as necessary, contingent, possible and impossible, are modal propositions, and therefore metaphysical. Even the periodic table is metaphysical, because its an ontology of elements
Great conversation. By the way, Buddhism doesn't say suffering is an illusion. Not sure where Dr. Bentz heard this but he is misunderstanding the tenants of Buddhism.
At 52:52, I had the same thought. From a developmental perspective, both the necessity of an epistemological framework and the idea that it evolves as a self-referential structure over time are correct. The self-referential aspect emerges naturally during sociocognitive processes, such as theory of mind and mentalizing-the capacity to differentiate one’s own mental states from those of others. A hallmark of this process is that much of it occurs implicitly, almost by definition. Children often go through a phase of asking “why” about everything, yet they lack the executive functioning to fully understand or organize such complex ideas into a latent knowledge source. When we explain complicated phenomena to children, we often give simple answers, which they accept while continuing to encounter new questions in real-time. As their executive function develops, their inquiries become more sophisticated, and the way they arrive at answers grows increasingly metacognitive. The real point of disagreement seems to be about when during development the epistemological framework becomes knowable and usable. Even when we become aware of this framework, we continue to encounter new situations that challenge our existing knowledge. In many of these cases, we don’t consciously engage with the framework; instead, we process things without necessarily understanding all the constituent parts. This lends some weight to the idea of “baptism by fire.” We carry an implicit epistemological framework based on the data we’ve gathered, and this framework is often recruited, in response to new challenges, to form reasoned responses based on the information we’ve already absorbed. The danger of relying solely on the automatization of cognitive processes, without a conscious understanding of an epistemological framework, is that it leaves individuals vulnerable to extremism and blind adherence. Without a clear reference point for evaluating ideas, even good ones can go unchecked and become the fuel for pathological systems. An epistemological framework, in this sense, serves as an “anticoagulant” for ideas-preventing them from becoming rigid or dogmatic. When left unexamined, ideas, no matter how well-intentioned, can morph into ideologies that stifle dissent and critical thinking, as we see in movements like critical social justice or extremist religious orders. Without a framework to challenge and test these ideas, they can harden into belief systems that resist self-reflection, ultimately fostering environments of intolerance and fanaticism.
I love this discussion! It just feels like my IQ jumped several points after wading through all the crap and word salads of the internet. Finally, some real intellectual thought! What books do you recommend for someone who is interested in reading philosophy on her own?
With regard to whether the epistemological framework needs to come first, from a psychological standpoint people tend to change either from the inside out or the outside in. Which is to say that for some people, they will understand a better moral framework as an idea and then make the change. But many people have to learn by doing the thing. For example they learn that treating other people is more rewarding after they start treating other people better. If you think of the twelve steps from AA. Many of the steps are there because those are the actions people need to make in order to internalize those behaviors as more rewarding. Ie they learn from the outside in.
@1:39:13 LOL he isn't reducing things to the subjective realm, he is just including the subjective realm, you on the other hand are reducing things to the objective realm and leaving out the subjective, so from your perspective, from within the objective, it seems as though he is putting too much weight on the subjective when in actuality he is just pointing to when it is the valid dimension being measured or observed, instead of trying to cram everything into the objective dimension of measurement.
@1:25:48 I love that you are able to move between or differentiate between the objective and subjective realms but what you are missing is that the problem is only when people reduce all of reality to one or the other. The enlightenment and today's post modern thinkers are reducing things to the I, but science reduces reality to the is or the objective, but there are again the 3 that Plato defines and are often called the big 3, the individual interior (subjective/Beautiful/consciousness) the collective interior (intersubjective/Good/culture) and the objective (facts/True/physical reality) The problem is when society reduces reality to one, scientism, fundamentalism and subjectivism are the result of reducing reality to each of these 3. We need to recognize and integrate all three and understand where each of them fits.
@@goa9034 haha I've read a lot of Wilber, I don't agree with everything he has said but he is correct that people reduce things to one of the quadrants instead of learning how to integrate all 3-4
I haven't read Michael Shellenberger, but there are many other academic books and documents going back 140 years saying the same thing. I would not be surprised if communism wasn't a plan to do just that. Let's see if this comment remains.
Peter (and Jan), I refer you to Hayek’s book The Counter-Revolution of Science, which explores the theme raised here of the problem of “the scientific method being used in all aspects of life” (scientism), your son’s notion of “the subjective turn as a kind of prophylactic against authoritarianism”…”the primacy of subjectivity being a bulwark against any objective dogma, any institutionalized hegemonic authoritarianism.” Hayek is all over this.
Ive spent my whole adult life creating a solid epistemological framework. Bery few people i meet have done that. Most fall into some sort of echo chamber, some pre-made position the wouldnt come to on their own.
Mind is blown. Gob is smacked.... Q: How do you get people to change their minds? (!! That's the thing we all want to know.) A: Love. ??!! Wait, what? We know it's not facts and logic. We think it may have to do with emotion. So culture. But, whoa, it goes straight to love? Humans are pretty efficient, I guess. A person has to know that I love him? And I have to love him? No wonder we're not changing more minds!! This actually makes a great deal of sense. Changing your mind feels risky. Love is a high bartier to entry! Next Q: are humans better at faking love/agape or better at detecting fake love? I think better at detecting, ICBW. Thanks from hurricane- battered FLA for great convo.
I think what Jan asserts is that there are truths which you exclude from being known by virtue of making the scientific method the only tool of knowledge verification. If you decide that something only counts as knowledge if it was tested by the scientific method, you decided on what knowledge is possible beforehand
Are we as a species to the point that we are in need of reinventing Christianity ? This whole conversion although a nail biter and truly one of the best of the channel, is just apologetics.
I guess just pick a reasonable sample of such individuals and question them on what is it about his paintings they like so much. Compare the answers, see which ones match the most between all of them and take your conclusion, which could actually be that it is unexplainable.
That was one great conversation, a veritable bonfire of deep thoughts! I feel one point around the Stanford prayer study was somewhat glossed over, though: the study could have gone the other way! The scientific method per se does not preclude such findings.
The Open Society and it’s enemies: “Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.-In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
39:30 Agape actually is the ontological root of all moral virtue. While the Principle of Reciprocity is basically the Law of Identity applied to normative conditions. With that in mind, morality and ethics are branches of normative ontology and epistemology, respectively.
I've said it before, discussing opinions is so obviously necessary and even for people who are just in for the sake of winning an argument, if you don't test your views against others, there's no point in feeling like you're the bearer of all truth. It's just like gold medalist or Champions in sports, if they don't put that title to test, it's worth nothing
Hey Peter, referring to the part where you two discuss that love is the most convincing approach. Isn’t what Dr. Bentz described the same thing as the way Sybok’s character in Star Trek operated?
Why does it take time for academics and intellectuals to figure out if you claim your goal is to modify justice... It's not likely to result in justice..i.e. justice (getting what you deserve).. to add social to it as a modified..has to mean something other than you getting what you deserve!!
One of the problems with using scientific method is when you go from some scientific inference to application. Say introducing a restrictive intervention with positive effects negatively affects a smaller share of population than not doing so, and, in contrast to what we had a couple of years ago, we have a solid scientific base for that. Should we do introduce it? If your answer is unequivocal yes, than that's dogmatic, I would say.
I would say it's dogmatic to believe that the only way to understand all phenomena is to use the scientific method because it's impossible to prove that belief with the scientific method, because you can't exhaustively test that hypothesis on all phenomenon. Therefore, one must dogmatically believe it's true.
Rupert Sheldrake discusses this idea in "The Science Delusion." He argues that the belief that all phenomena can be explained by the scientific method is one of the "dogmas" or assumptions that limit scientific inquiry. According to Sheldrake, this belief is rooted in the assumption that the scientific method is the only valid way of knowing about the world. He argues that this overlooks other forms of knowledge and inquiry, such as intuition, subjective experience, and spiritual or mystical practices. Sheldrake also points out that there are many phenomena that are not easily amenable to scientific study, such as consciousness, intention, and the placebo effect. He argues that these phenomena may require different methods of inquiry and understanding and that science should be open to exploring these possibilities. Overall, Sheldrake's argument is that the scientific method is a powerful tool, but it is not the only tool for understanding the world, and that science should be willing to expand its horizons and explore new ways of knowing.
“Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.” Thomas Paine, Common Sense
Tend to agree with Peter about the scientific method. Referring to results as 'truth' is not scientific, we have hypothesis, theories & empirical laws with definitive meanings of which none refer to a truth of objective reality. It sounds like Bentz issue with dogmatism in the method is unique only to people misusing/misunderstanding it which I would completely agree with. Somwhat makes sense with his stance against relativism - but I don't think relativism is fundamentally the issue we have, the issue is that people are not even attempting to form their reletivistic understanding using empirical evidence & rational thinking.
From what I've read, certain thing becomes a fact, or universal Truth, if you want, after you can achieve a certain result and continuously replicate through the same method. So I'd say true science does seek to explain the Truth, and has, in many cases, but the results have to be heavily put to test, peer reviewed and eventually easily replicated to be considered as such
@@duarteleonardo8352 Science seeks to explain observations. With testing/collaboration of observations, we build up confidence about it being 'the truth' but never complete certainty. Everything that occurs in reality by definition becomes fact - as a fact is proven by occurrence, however, we can never say anything factual about what will happen, only about what has happened (assuming we trust our measuring device so technically even then, we could say 'probably a fact' but if we understand our view is relativistic then the 'probably' is implicit for everything and redundant). Everything for which you do not have the entire scope of information can inevitably only be theoretically perceived as probabilistic. For example, A bag of buttons called objective reality is filled with 1 billion red buttons and 1 blue button. Scientists pull 1 million consecutive buttons from the bag and measure them all to be red. Considering the massive number of measurements for which we have seen red without fail we can write an empirical law that if one measures a button from the bag it will be red. Being sensible scientists, they understand that this empirical law is still probabilistic, based on measurement (facts) because they are missing information. This is wise because you, having all the information about objective reality can see that they are not guaranteed a red button.
@@BillsRU-vidAccount hmm, I get your point, but what I mean is that, after being thoroughly tested, there are some concepts and laws that we, as humans may accept as universally true, which can also be quite helpful, while also being aware that unexplainable exceptions may occur, since we cannot predict the future. Of course this concept of universal Truth is just another man made thing, as we do with so many other things. For example, we universally accept that 2+2=4, but in reality and on practical terms, no 2 objects are exactly the same, so that addition would never be 100% correct. But I do get what you're saying.
The problem with scientific method is that it is limited on what we can physically detect in our world. 3000 years ago using the scientific method we would have never known that ultraviolet light, x rays, and gamma rays, etc that aren't visible to humans even existed. This is part of the reason I am agnostic because there could be a god and we just have no way to physically detect that he is there. In another 5000 years if we are still around our reality may be completely different in what we learn to detect that we never knew in the past. I also like to extend that even further in that what makes life better. Even if we just ignore facts it may mean living by certain rules is better. I don't believe in morals and I think nothing is wrong in this world. However, for society to function we need laws to restrict what we can do or society falls into chaos. Those laws change over time and sometimes can make things better or worst but we should always be questioning everything no matter how long it has been the standard to try to reach the best reality we can live in. The difference is factual reality (we are just random organism with no god creating rules to live by there is no moral right or wrong and it is all subjective) vs practical reality (we create laws using average subjective beliefs or right and wrong to try to find a way for us to not be afraid every day of our life).
Re: Jan Bentz's critique of Enlightenment. Descartes was one philosopher & not the template for Enlightenment philosophers. Philosophers aren't always the best people to understand Enlightenment; because the philosopher looks at the books. So misses the forest for the trees. But Enlightenment was a process: thinkers writing long letters to each other, Salon culture, the project of the Encyclopédie, finally the French Revolution itself. Yes - it went wrong. But it also went right. It gave us the USA, industrial revolution, ... I want to hear Jan Bentz criticise the scientific method directly. I can criticise scientific method from the point of view of better method, and better science. There is no other was to criticise it. I agree that empirical methods are ubiquitous, overwhelming, and a tax on the better life. So far, criticisms of science taking over the whole of our lives, have one massive flaw - what else? What else but science? Please show us by giving us counter examples. Much enjoyed this.
I believe that the reason it’s so hard to dig down at why people believe what they believe, is because consciousness is the illusion that sensory stimuli grouping algorithms have; that their hierarchical grouping mechanism is them generating thought. When in fact it’s no more controlled by the generator than the movement of mRNA from the nucleus to the cytoplasm is controlled by the phosphate groups that produce movement. People don’t formulate opinions through mechanisms of reason. Nobody does. Even the most rational people form their opinions via the influence of a set of conditions over time.
As a scientist, am baffled by how much philosophers overestimate the influence of philosophy in scientific advancements. In my experience, a background in philosophy obfuscates the ability to think critically
35:15 to 33:37 - I've rarely if ever seen personal testimony play much of a role in Christian apologetics. Usually it's more along the lines of the moral argument, the fine-tuning argument, etc.
Isnt personal testimony technically more important than what we tell ourselves is objective? We operate 99% of the time on unconscious modes of operation and we rarely have the knowledge needed to actually confirm our believed to be true “scientific facts”. We live subjectively and closer to personal testimony rather that objectively and closer to proven scientific truth. When dealing with someone in debate who we don’t want to accept some validity to their answers. We expect a proof or example well beyond any actual proof we have taken up on our own in our own beliefs.
Peter shows his inherent progressive bias of rationality as "all people and all time". Completely ignores a fundamental characteristic of reality, Pareto optimization. This where there are multiple axes.of choice and multiple choices, and the bias of which YOU find more important is not the same as ME, thus can never be universal.
Guest was on point about disproving the existence of God. I also can't say for sure that there is a God, so that's not what I'm trying to defend here, but how can anyone claim otherwise, how can anyone claim to be an atheist, doesn't that mean they woud need to have proof of the non existence of God. It's easy to understand why someone woud be agnostic, but if there's still the slightest chance we may actually have proof of God's existence, why would anyone not be interested in proving that. In my opinion, science and religion should never be separated as some people want them to be, they can and i think it's vital that they coexist.
@@Username-nu8el sorry, but that's not correct. I mean, you don't HAVE to disprove anything at all, no one's making you do so, but evidence is anything someone presents to you to defend their case, it can be strong and compelling evidence or the opposite. All the original scrolls that compose the bible, the shroud of Turin, amongst other things, are evidence for the existence of God, or at least Jesus, but then it's said they're the same, but that evidence needs to be analyzed in order to find out if it indeed proves the existence of God or not.
1:21:10 My example would be Love. Particularly in the Agape sense of the word. You cannot use the scientific method and "prove" (I know proof is only in mathematics and law) Love exists. Yet there are people who do try and use it and say Love is objective and reducible to brain chemistry, which is reducible to atomic forces.
1:44 I think the most important tradition is to understand that humans have original sin, and at the same time we're made in the image of God, and therefore we need checks and balances, limited government, private property rights, and free speech etc, etc... (I used to be an "enlightened atheist")
Like everything woke, it depends on how you apply it. Criticizing something for genuinely feeling there's something you feel wrong about and could possibly be improved is very different from criticizing everything just for the sake of it.
27:21 it's that desire creates suffering. The false need created by the mind for an object or experience is in its essence self imposed suffering. The Buddha didn't say that people who are starving aren't in fact suffering from starvation. This is why he rejected severe austerities and self-mortification as a means to achieve spiritual enlightenment, of the ascetics.
As a non-believer, I strive to live my life well not in order to receive a prize in heaven but in order that I may leave the world in a better state than how I found it. The very fact that I do _not_ believe in having an immotal soul causes me to strive towards good for its own sake.
So your lifes purpose is to 'strive towards good'? You cant fail because without an external moral framework, or a logos then 'good' can be subjectively defined. 'Good' for me can be to smoke pot and watch Family Guy all day long.
Why would you introduce a lecturer at a satellite for the pontifical college of Rome as "teaching at oxford"? The hall is in Oxford, but it is restricted to teaching religion and is not a college. Know who we're talking to.
A method might be suited to a given problem space and not to another. Indeed, within a given problem space, there might be a method with 100% validity. But other problem spaces might not be amenable to that method or to any method, independently of their validity. It is absurd to conclude that the only problem spaces which exists are those with methods whose validity rivals, equals, or mimics another method because it is suitable elsewhere. We see patent evidence of this when we consider the problem spaces addressed by different fields of study, each of which has its own confidence interval.
Great interview. I think your question about when the scientific method has been used and claimed to be objectively true is wrong though. The obvious example of that is the one already discussed, ie with ideologies like gender ideology, identity politics, implicit racism which all claim to be objective and scientific. The social sciences, that claim and use that term to turn the subjective into objective and binding scientific truths. I’ll give you another: defining mental illness and the science of the mind, the fields of psychology and psychiatry, the history and status quo of which are really worth investigating. The better question I think you meant to ask is the one you later delve into (I think you actually get sidetracked into theology) which is to ask if there are examples of non-scientifically verifiable ideas that nonetheless ought to be held with high confidence. The answer to that should be equally obvious; not just theology, but philosophy, the very conversation that you are having and discussing. The very idea of scientific, empirical validity being the necessary benchmark of objectivity is itself questionable under this very presupposition because it is not verifiable. It appeals to information outside of the empirical. It is philosophy, not science. You hold it with in fact the highest confidence you have, as you admit numerous times. Yet it is NOT scientific! There is nothing in science itself that demonstrates “convergence” or verifiability ought to be the standard of human progress and flourishing, in fact this is no different a claim than a dictator claiming that to force their subjects into converging on their own subjective standards will lead to their flourishing. It is inescapable using the science alone, and to say that scientific method should be the measure with confidence requires appeal to the unscientific. Anyway, great interview. Loved your pushback on Dr Bentz’s arguments, I can tell you really got his gears turning, and although I think there were moments he seemed to stumble or didn’t quite answer the question I think he found some really intriguing answers on the whole. Can’t help but feel that having different mother language is unfortunately still an obstacle, even if minor. I can’t believe he didn’t attack you on your scientific “dogmatism” when you spent more than an hour and half arguing about philosophy and neither of you are actually even scientists.
The guest says, in respect to the political decisions of a zero carbon emissions goal, “ and nobody is discussed this”. Are you fucking kidding me? “ nobody is discussing this”? Is he not aware of any of the scientific reports released on the topic in the last 20 years? And he is literally discussing the topic at the moment he say “nobody’s discussing this.” And he teaches philosophy?! That is worrisome.
He is correct. Nobody discussed it. It was mandated by government or UN bureaucrats claiming to be experts. All the scientists who refused to go along with the doomsday claims were defunded, refused publication or outright blacklisted and defamed. When others pointed out the problems with the claims, the data those claims are based on, or the models use to predict problems, or offered alternative solutions than the standard degrowth/depopulation "solution", they are ignored or slandered as well.
@@2jlee since An Inconvenient Truth in 2006 I have seen literally hundreds of articles, videos, discussions, verifications, denials, counter arguments etc. Literally thousands of people discussed it before 2006 and since, and long before there was any political action.
Pivoting off of some of Peter's concerns in this video: it occurs to me that one of the (many) cultural problems we're currently facing in the West is due to a massive number of people who have so LITTLE faith in their own perceptions that they refuse to evaluate evidence themselves and, instead, have complete and blind faith in a class of anointed experts. (See: everything around the medical mishap that shall not be named.) After all, the easiest person to fool is yourself. What kind of fool would trust his own perceptions over that of an Expert? Example: "The double blind study is the gold standard in medicine. Therefore, medicine must be proven through double blind studies or it's worthless." And we saw how well that played out during the event we won't name. That is not how medicine is, or has ever been, practiced. Reminds me of that great Jesse Ventura cameo speech in The X-Files. IFYKY.
Very subjective. How do you know that you yourself haven't been fooled into believing in an 'experts' pure random musings. Its very easy to find a 'expert' that supports whatever dogmas that you hold.
I'd say they are natural and understandable, but not rational. Because most addictive behavior can just be stopped in a blink of an eye and your life would not be in danger, despite feeling like it is.
For two centuries, fiction novels dealing with dystopia have been numerous every decade. But the present decade? Now it is rare. Coincident with the rise of Woke CRT/SWJ - oddly enough.
It depends what sort of dystopia. A dystopia created by the right? Especially by Christians such as The Handmaid's Tale (I know that's an 80s book but the TV show is very popular) That's perfectly acceptable because we all know conservatives and christians are bad, right?. My favourite dystopian author is barely heard of. H M Sealey writes about what would happen if gender ideology (Their Thoughts if Not Their Land) Islam (This broken land) or affirmative action (The Privileged Few) are taken to their logical end. I've seen a few interviews with her and I think there's quite a good FB essay about why she chooses to write controversial dystopians. She talks about how the right's sort of dystopia is easier to spot and far less acceptable, but that the left's is considered "good" even as it destroys the country. But there are authors writing dystopians in an attempt to show the world that every idea can turn bad if we're not careful. So if the rise of woke has done anything, its made it hard to get such things publicised.
@1:18:58 yes, exactly, think of Plato's Good, True and Beautiful, the "True" is the 3rd person perspective, scientific and objective layer of reality and this is where the scientific method thrives. But the Good and the Beautiful or aesthetics and morality have better tools and the scientific method is not all that helpful in these layers of reality. It might be helpful in some cases but science can't determine what aught to be (morality) and it cannot explain to us the subjective meaning of aesthetics and taste which reside in the subjective realm, not the objective realm. These 3 layers are the subjective (Beautiful/Aesthetics) inter-subjective (Good/Morality) and the objective (True or Factual) The enlightenment did a great job of pulling out and differentiating the True, but as Dr Jan Bentz is suggesting, we can't then leave behind the Good and the Beautiful. They all need to be integrated together.
Religions vary, but what seems to be consistent across cultures, time, and place; is that all religions establish meaning, extrapolated from unfalsifiable ontological axioms The enlightenment period represents an epistemic shift in human history, as scientific claims regarding the nature of reality had to be extrapolated from sound epistemological conditions Religions posit objective claims of ethic and aesthetic worth, from unfalsifiable axioms, such as god Rational objective claims such as mathematical abstractions, are predicated on verifiable axioms (observable/measurable) Scientific axioms exist in the natural world Religious axioms cannot be empirically measured/observed in the natural world, and are therefore supernatural Science = natural world Religion = Supernatural world But if ethics and aesthetic value is immeasurable And meaning, in of itself, does not exist in the world beyond our senses Then the human experience is supernatural in nature And we value among all other things, that which cannot be measured, quantified, or contained.
This wasn’t a bad conversation altogether but him going off on climate change is both way off base, and begs sooo many question. Off base firstly, in that scientists who study this and those of us who communicate it, are not utopian. Opposite. We don’t think there is some perfect carbon world just waiting for us. We see disruptions in systems that, in business as usual, are going to get progressively worse unless we take action. (Increased extreme weather, aquifer depletion due to changing rainfall patterns, loss of timber due to suitable climates being edged out by heat, increase insect species that aren’t being held in check by cold winters any more) Many of these processes are not things you can flip a switch on. It’s already happening. There is no future where we are not dealing with these things even if we went zero emissions. But we might have a better chance to adapt if we can slow down change. Now, the begged questions. He brings up this point that basically the other side has already won because they got you to change your lifestyle. But it begs the question that the change was bad. Let’s ignore the electric car thing, because honestly I don’t hear anyone in my circles saying electric cars are going to save the world. They are still cars and what they don’t emit in driving they almost completely make up in production (for CO2). But look at power generation for example. There carbon is hardly the only issue with their usage. If all the impacts of climate change we are seeing right now are all just coincidences actually explained by something else, but we managed to reduce our dependency of electricity and avoid all of the other known consequences of it. That’s a good thing. He may wish to make the claim that change under false pretenses is bad. Or someone is getting paid. That’s fine. He can make the claim. But it’s not the change itself. Next begged question, because he loves talking about cars so much. If he really believes the problem is compelled, changing lifestyle itself, he’s really begging the question that the lifestyle has right now isn’t a result of compulsion. Cars are an excellent example of this the birth of the automotive industry companies went to the extreme to reduce freedom of movement by pedestrians in favor of cars. Neighborhoods businesses were demolished for the free movement of cars now in most of the United States you cannot live without a car whether you want one or not. if outside compulsion is the problem, he must ask himself what among his wants are manufactured from the outside. of course some won’t be. You need no commercial to tell you that cold showers are uncomfortable. But others are distinctly perverse. We’re here in the United States. We are less healthy, our kids are trapped in their yards and have less freedom and independence, because we basically made it impossible for people to walk around their own town. And all this ignores the fact that he clearly doesn’t accept the science about climate change despite the fact that it has existed well before this woke era, Well, before the parents of Gen Z even existed.
I think the issue here is what you put priority on. Science doesn't tell you what is true, science tells you what has the highest probability to be true, and there are many times in the real world where the thing that seems most likely given the evidence is not actually the truth. Does this mean anything, since we don't really have a better alternative? I don't know... But the question this brings up is: Hypothetically, in a world where God does exist, do you think people who believe in God would be wrong in holding their belief because the scientific evidence doesn't support it even though the belief is actually true? If epistemology is king, it kind of seems like you would have to say people shouldn't hold unjustified beliefs even if they are true...
Loved this conversation! But you totally lost me on the utopia argument. Whoa talking about utopia in the public space??? I don't see the categorical distinction between greenhouse gas and carcinogenic diesel fumes. Is legislation to reduce other forms of pollution also utopian in nature???
1:43:15 Our physics is young, only a few centuries old. What we believe on the basis of the evidence we have now could very well be a gross misunderstanding. The best answer we have is simply that we do not know, but we have a well-reasoned-to guess based on the work we have done so far. It could well be the case that energy and matter are both holographic lower-dimensional manifestations of some higher-dimensional reality. Or we might be better off smoking more weed and listening to jam bands. Perhaps that's a more proven method to arriving at conclusions about such matters.
For somebody to change his mind he needs a slap in the face. That's having children. Suddenly someone else matters more than you. You are forced to grow up, and mature. The second slap is much harsher but optional. You get that slap when your children become adults and are ill equipped to have children of their own, ie unwilling and unable to mature. Don't let the second one get you, be proactive.
19:39 That contains a serious thinking error. Not using fossil fuel (or less), means the oppropriate scientific (not social) goal is using a different energy source. Using less fossil cannot be the (ultimate) solution to that. This is swapping one causal source for the other. From scientific (which cannot be called 'utopian', but technical) into a social cause effect solution. My psychological analysis would be these people want to blame others, for potentially not obbeying their rules. In terms of tribal politics. Slight (not heavy) sociopaths. Or otherwise unreasonable prophets. * Using less fossil fuel buys time. But it cannot be the solution. This would for instance mean when 100 million people use X amount, 50 million may use double X to get the same warming effect. With the surfice of earth they live on included. Unless for instance more rainfall stems the effect. Because the carbon particles percipitate. So you cannot even state a global individual level as well.
26:11 Even that is incorrect. When two mentally handicapped people decide to marry or live together and get 6 children, you are asking for trouble. And for the parents because they cannot handle it. At least 1/3 of all people choose the wrong partner. So liberalism is not the answer. Unless multi partnership is advised for having a more fulfilled or educational life. But then the state law should be changed.
@1:21:19 again, this occurs in the realms of the subjective and intersubjective. The is ought debate is evidence that morality or the good cannot be reduced down to the scientific method or the scientific method cannot be used to tell us what we ought to do. Likewise, it cannot tell us what is going on inside our own subjective thoughts. You can claim that you objectively like olives, you can swear on the grave of your most loved relative and there would really be no way of objectively proving that. You could actually be lying and there would be no real way to prove it. You might be able to find some correlations in your brain chemistry or neurology but ultimately those could all be trained to deceive. This is why polygraphs are not definitive evidence of anything.
AI Overview: "Some of the beliefs of Gnosticism include: The god of the Old Testament is the devil " Perhaps Judeo-Christianity is a bulwark against gnosticism.
@1:22:56 this is making an assumption that the only form of existence is in the objective realm. But there are lots of forms of existence including conceptual which exists in the subjective realm. I think people who are not familiar with their own metaphysics will make the claim you're talking about and claim that God exists in a form that is objectively knowable. But this really isn't what deep theologists believe. God is not a physical being, so why would you expect there to be physical space occupied by God? The objective and physical dimensions are very well defined and if you are claiming something objectively exists then you are claiming it takes up physical space. The number 2 does not take up physical space but we can all agree that it exists. Absolute beauty does not exist in the objective world but it exists conceptually and we see fragments or reflections of it in the objective world. Like morality I believe God exists "objectively" but because God and morality are only experienced by subjects they have to come through a subjective agent and that basically makes them something different than objective, in the physical sense.
Enlightenment is not the answer Peter, there were and are preexisting ideas which underlie it and which are higher, your guest has it correctly, If Republic is founded on the enlightenment, it needs to be re begotten
