TWO AND TWO MAKE FOUR - THE DEBATE! - video Dailymotion

Stefan Molyneux

A debate following up from podcast 6046, "DOES TWO AND TWO MAKE FOUR? Twitter/X Space": https://fdrpodcasts.com/6046/does-two-and-two-make-four-twitterx-space  In this episode, I explore the philosophical complexities of truth and context in mathematics, sparked by the statement "two and two make four." We discuss how context influences interpretations across numerical systems and the importance of clarity in communication. The conversation delves into the psychological aspects of certainty and the societal implications of uncertainty in moral judgments. I argue that doubts about logical truths can weaken moral reasoning. Ultimately, we emphasize the necessity of a rational foundation of knowledge to tackle philosophical inquiries and promote moral integrity.  FOLLOW ME ON X! https://x.com/StefanMolyneux  GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK! https://peacefulparenting.com/  Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!  Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!  You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!  See you soon! https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025

Transcript

00:00hey how's it going amazing most amazing time of my life i had an unbelievable month thank you for

00:09asking and you stefano ah things are well things are well thank you

00:12all right so you wanted to educate me on two and two don't make four

00:22you have to just mention the context right context is important in uh anywhere outside of the savannah

00:31let's say all the big things all the small things i'm sorry would you uh can you wait a minute i

00:38will close the window there should be some noise no problem all right all right uh so we so yeah

00:43i'll mention the context so i had a call i think it was on friday where somebody was on the line

00:50and i was saying do two and two make four and he said he was not certain of that he was 99.99 certain

00:56of that and i said that was wrong that two and two make four and if you can't be certain that two and

01:08two make four you can't be certain of anything and if you can't be certain of anything you have no right

01:13to really engage in discussions about truth claims so that was my basic argument and you wanted to set

01:20me straight on that yeah yes i uh to just for the starters yes two and two make four

01:27the but however there are two important points uh there are contexts uh in which uh if you only go

01:37go by the numbers then uh two and two and two will apparently will not make four you need additional

01:47context to actually understand them to be s4 for example if you are in the it domain and you are

01:56working with numbers of different bases then you can get a number like 10 or 20 even if you are

02:06and you actually need to ask which number base is being used otherwise you will not be able to learn

02:14and accept that two and two make four you will not be able to read that just from the number from

02:21the information okay do you think that that makes sense to anyone i mean what you're saying like you

02:27have to yes i mean it doesn't i mean this is a general philosophy show right so we deal with a general

02:34audience which means that you have to use general terms that people understand so if you're saying

02:40in computers that two and two don't make four or that there's some other thing i mean i understand

02:45sort of binary notation and all of that but are you saying that in the realm of computers

02:50two and two don't make four well now we are getting to the interesting part because my work

02:58the philosophy is is general and by general i mean really general uh it uh touches uh pattern

03:08recognition both in humans and in computers

03:11so what what i am saying that there is a hierarchy of layers of concreteness and obstruction

03:21it applies both to ai and to humans and by uh holding uh by keeping this consistency in this hierarchy

03:33abstraction you enhance your pattern recognition and this in turn okay bro bro bro what do you

03:41you enhance your packet pattern recognition using ai what does that have to do with two and two make four

03:51well you know you i know you don't like to introduce new concepts no no don't no don't be rude

03:57don't be rude let's let's not start off our conversation with you being rude because i'm very

04:02happy to introduce new concepts in fact most of what i do is i mean i've got a a a new concept of

04:09love i've got a new concept of free will i've got a new concept of secular morality new arguments for

04:13all of that so let's not start with insults i'm just asking you to to explain what you mean when

04:22you say that two and two sometimes don't equal four and explain it to me like i don't know what you're

04:26talking about because so far it's just a bunch of words that don't mean anything to me maybe that's

04:31because i lack technical knowledge but just explain it to me because this is going out to a general

04:36audience just explain it to me like i'm five years old oh yes very well your example with two and two

04:47equals four assumes the context of base 10 decimal numbering system

04:54so if you uh leave that concept context out then uh sometimes uh two and two don't make four you

05:04have to provide that decimal context okay but the problem is if you say there's any other context in

05:13which two and two make four if there's any context where that's not true then you violated the law of

05:20identity because as you know in the decimal system when you say that two and two make four you're

05:26saying that four equals four right you're saying that an object equals itself and this is a foundational

05:33law of logic right the law of identity a is a and you know you could say it's kind of a tautology but

05:39that's fine so when you say that two and two make four what what i'm saying is that

05:48four equals four which is a foundational law of identity now if you say well there's contacts in which

05:57an object does not equal itself four does not equal four then that's a foundational logical

06:05error or contradiction and that's what i need to understand how is it possible to violate the law

06:11of identity in the arguments that you're making i am saying it is not possible to violate the law of

06:20identity however it is possible to obtain an unreadable information a meaningless meaningless bunch of

06:28numbers that way there are contexts to you when you say four equals four you are assuming the decimal numbering system

06:40you don't okay so tell me tell me sorry i'm sorry because you'll you'll have to step me through this

06:46tell me what is the alternative to four equals four and again this is just the law of identity so if there's another

06:54system then in that other system the thing has to equal itself right so let's say you have a number

07:02called blue unicorn for whatever reason right in some other alternate numbering system but blue unicorn

07:10has to equal blue unicorn right because that's still subject to the law of identity so even if you have

07:16some numbering system that is not decimal and i'm sure that there are such things they would still be subject

07:21to the law of identity i mean and this is what i was really saying was this person uh and i'm not sure

07:27if you have the same but you you say that the law of identity is inviolate which it is then if you're

07:34going to say that there are other numbering systems they would still be subject to the law of identity

07:40and so this person on the call on friday which is who you wanted to defend which is great

07:45the person on friday was saying a does not equal a i cannot be sure that the law of identity

07:54is valid and that is not uh valid that is not a rational conclusion that's not a valid conclusion

08:01i mean you can reject that but then you're just rejecting all kinds of logic and then i wouldn't

08:06have anything particular to say to someone like that because epistemologically that would be

08:11crazy craze right i mean it would be like somebody says hand me the salt shaker and you hand them the

08:16salt shaker and they say this is not the salt shaker it is the salt shaker but it's not the salt shaker

08:22that would be indication of mental illness right so again i'm not saying that this person or you

08:26are mentally ill but that would be a sign of that if that would happen in your real life but

08:31so yeah i mean whatever alternate numbering system would still be subject to the law

08:36of identity would it not yes yes of course yes may i share the opinion on that color i

08:43listened to that show yesterday well i mean i'm happy to hear your opinions but i thought

08:50we were having a a debate and opinions aren't particularly certain with regards to a debate

08:56and again i'm certainly happy to hear your thoughts but i would like to hear the alternate numbering

09:00system but if the alternate numbering system is subject to the law of identity i'd still also be

09:04curious how in that alternate number system four does not equal four oh it does it does but

09:14i am i am saying that to recognize what it does equal within the law of identity to read it properly

09:22you need to know the context there are multiple alternate contexts and you need to match the number

09:30with the right type of context in in order to actually read it in order to actually know what

09:37it means i'm sorry i i don't i don't i have no idea what you're talking about can i give you a practical

09:43example i mean i don't understand the theory uh and it seems to me just a bunch of words um but uh

09:50if you want to give me a practical example maybe that would help illuminate what you're uh talking about

09:55but go ahead all right so imagine that you are back in your old job at uh industries or what was the

10:02name of the environmental company right and but it is like a big it research company you have actual

10:10scientists with more from multiple fields and so on and you need the reports from them so you can manage

10:17them and they like to include what they are working for so they send you numbers for example this or that

10:26number and i'm sorry what are the numbers that they're sending me what do they represent they represent

10:33their computer science work let's say you are just a manager you are not the expert but you need to

10:40communicate with experts so okay so i just i mean an example would be the amount of air emissions right

10:48let's say it's a hundred units right so so they send me a report saying uh that this company has

10:55produced a hundred units of air emissions okay got it yes yes yes that is brilliant that is brilliant

11:02because you have scientists from multiple backgrounds some use the metric system some use the imperial system

11:09some use their uh some are from china they use some kind of chinese system and in order to know what

11:17that number means you need to know the units in which that number comes and then you can convert it

11:23in your excel or something and then you can properly understand if what they are actually reporting

11:29okay yeah got it so i need to know the units and whether it's metric or imperial yeah i mean i've done

11:35code code that converts all of that sort of stuff so uh i got it and then oh so and because you want to

11:43make your work easier then you order all those types of units from the most like granular from the smallest

11:52to the most biggest the broad across the board units uh you arrange them in a hierarchy so to speak

12:00so i convert them to a common format and then um i order them lowest to highest okay yes exactly uh so

12:10and when you when you put the number that you get to in the right uh rung of the law on the ladder

12:18then you get the right result you know what if that number is actually big or small in practice yes

12:25and there is a similar ladder of units and those units are uh base systems like uh base number systems

12:34on the bottom you have the binary which with it and on the top you have the hexadecimal the 16

12:42base system both are used in practice and in the between are uh there is the our familiar decimal that

12:49we know and love and so i'm trying to sort of think about this in terms of um computer storage so with

12:59computer storage the lowest is binary which is just one zero true false yes no and then it goes to to um

13:09uh minus 3 267 to plus 3 267 and then uh it goes that's an integer and then there's a single and

13:19then there's a long or something like that right so so these are uh numerical systems or or mathematical

13:30storage systems uh for for memory and and it's whether you need integer numbers is like whole numbers

13:36no decimals and then you need a single or a long or if you've got more decimals that you want to uh

13:43to store so is it is that the high kind of hierarchy that you're talking about yes yes exactly very well

13:50when you when you only store in bits one zero you need a lot of bits like grains of sand on the beach

13:57but if you store information in like a float format then you only need like relatively relatively few of

14:04those chunks of memories so they are also pretty human readable so okay so sorry sorry to interrupt

14:11so um i i understand of course that uh numerical systems aren't binary i mean they're not zeros and

14:19minus one is it's the way that it works in computers of course as i'm sure as you know so uh but if

14:28the computer saw something let's say it's true false right generally minus one is true zero is false

14:35so um if you say that the answer is true right so if somebody would ask me the question were you born

14:43in 1966 and i would answer that as true it would be stored as a minus one in the database or in the

14:49computer programming and that would be uh true right so the law of identity says that the true statement

14:59is a true statement right that's it's factual and yes and so it would not be any different from two and

15:06two make four foundationally everything other than the binary is still in the integer numerical system

15:11that uh that we were talking about the integer system sorry what did you refer to it as

15:17oh the interest the integer system i mean uh i refer to the hierarchy of abstraction

15:23uh we just let you mention the calendar which is very good sorry i mentioned the calendar yes the

15:31year of birth yeah let's say you get a person from russia who is not using gregorian but a julian

15:37calendar or someone from china who is using another type of calendar he gives you a number but if you do

15:44not know which system that number is defined under then you cannot that it's nonsense you know you will

15:51not be able to read it it has identity within the system within that calendar but but not necessarily

15:59within your calendar because the numbering is different uh identity is preserved but to preserve

16:06identity in our mind we must know which system which within which system that number has a meaning

16:14okay but there is no system in which the law of identity is violated is that right yes that's right yes

16:23it will always be inviolable we can only fail to read it because we apply the wrong

16:31wrong position in the table of those systems okay so when i'm saying to someone does two and two make four

16:39four and they don't want to violate the law of identity then they have to say yes 100 percent two and two

16:47make four in the integer system right we both agree on that oh i agree and i must add uh just that person should

16:55have explicitly said that this is within decimal system within decimal system no it's not within the

17:03decimal system now tell me because we just went through the whole thing and i'm sorry if i misunderstood

17:10but we just went through a whole thing where we said there's no numerical system or no system of any kind

17:16that violates the law of identity so given that two and two make four is four equals four which is a is a

17:27which is the law of identity there is no system which violates the law of identity therefore there can

17:33be no system wherein two and two do not make four now there may be a system where two and two is not

17:40referenced it's i don't know some color based system or something like that but it still cannot

17:45overturn the law of identity and therefore two and two will always make four in the same way that

17:51if i say something is six units away from you you don't know if it's millimeters or inches or centimeters

17:58or kilometers or light years or parsecs or anything like that right so if i say something is six units

18:04away from you you don't know how far away that is from you and i understand that however

18:14whatever is six units away from you if we're using the same units will also equally be three plus three

18:22units away from you because three plus three is just another way of saying six and if you say that

18:27three plus plus three doesn't equal six you're violating the law of identity which we've agreed you cannot

18:32do so removing information in terms of context still doesn't give any system the capacity to violate

18:40the law of identity is that right yes yes that is right i am just saying how to successfully communicate

18:48to avoid misinterpreting that information to make sure that the system is also adopted along with that

18:55i'm sorry sorry but there's no system if if we agree with each other about the law of identity

19:03then there's no system that can violate the law of identity is that correct that is correct but you

19:09in your subjective experience you do not know if the other person uses the same system as you it doesn't

19:16matter because it doesn't matter no it doesn't matter because two there's no system which allows for the violation

19:23of the law of identity so if i say two and two make four and somebody says well i don't know if you're

19:29talking about uh abstract numbers or meters or pounds it doesn't matter because there's no system of

19:38measurement there's no system of logic in which you can violate the law of identity so it doesn't matter

19:45in what context or in what framework we're talking two and two make four that's the law of identity and

19:52there's no system that's rational that can violate the law of identity so there's no context that is

19:57needed i agree you are right about that i do not dispute that oh fantastic then

20:08maybe now would be the good time to share what do i think actually about this color what what was

20:14going on in his head on your call well hang on so we have resolved the dispute

20:21in that context doesn't matter two and two make four and anyone who disputes that is attempting to

20:27violate the law of identity yes yes okay fantastic sorry sorry i didn't mean to wrap both so go ahead

20:35with your thoughts about the corner yes i do not dispute the truth and actually i think that the

20:42the caller also did not dispute that but he was simply uh just ignorant about uh he was uh both

20:51ignorant and overly careful and this is what i think he did not know enough to actually dispute

20:59that no no it doesn't doesn't matter because there's no amount of additional knowledge

21:04that allows you to overturn the law of identity i thought we already went through this but we can

21:09yes yes so it doesn't matter if he knew more or he knew less right other than if he was some sort of

21:16herbivore or monkey or something like that so it doesn't matter if he knew more or he knew less

21:22it's not like additional knowledge allows you to overcome the law of identity it doesn't matter how much

21:29you know the law of identity is inviolate do we agree on that yes absolutely we do okay so it's not a

21:36matter of the gradations of knowledge and um what we see so you had two points i think with regards to

21:42the caller oh yes i think so i think so oh you know people are suffering suffering from terrible

21:50existential anxiety when they are not absolutely sure in the love law of identity uh they are sure

21:57about the identity of things they can see within the horizon but then after horizon it's like uh the

22:03flat earth and drop right into the void they are not sure about what they cannot physically see or

22:09reach they will uh generally agree 99 that two plus two equals four here and now but if you ask them

22:17if the same is true at the million light years away or a million years ago or in the middle of the

22:23black hole they will not be sure anymore well um but they would have to be because if you're going to

22:29say a million years ago then you're using more numbers right so you can't you can't say well i'm

22:36not certain about numbers but i'm certain that a million years ago i might not be certain because

22:40you have to be certain then instead of two and two make four of the million years ago or the

22:44million miles away or something like that so no listen look i understand i i think i understand and

22:50maybe you agree i i do understand that certainty creates anxiety for people really because because

22:58there's a lot sorry there's a lot of times in history where people have said oh i'm certain

23:03about x or y or z and that certainty ends up being overturned right there people were certain the world

23:09was flat people were certain that heavier objects fell at a faster rate uh people were certain that

23:18the earth was the center of the universe uh and that uh the sun revolved around there so people were

23:23certain of things and of course a lot of science and uh certainly well i would say mostly science to

23:30some degree mathematics but and philosophy hopefully but people are certain of things and people were

23:37certain that slavery was morally valid people were certain that the best system of social organization

23:45was a fairly tyrannical monarchy and so on so people were certain of all these things and it turned out

23:51that they were wrong they were wrong about these things and so i think science has given people

23:59a justified hesitation in making certain statements i think to the point of absurdity like there was

24:05somebody on x the other day i think it was yesterday who was saying you know science doesn't

24:11prove anything and it's like well no that's not that's not true i know it's a continual process of

24:17refinement but science doesn't argue that the world is banana shaped and science doesn't argue

24:22that gases don't expand with heat when he didn't science doesn't argue that matter or mass has the

24:28property of gravity uh these things are not and he's like well gravity can't be proven and i'm like

24:32now come on like let's we wouldn't be alive if gravity wasn't a fact because there wouldn't be any

24:37atmosphere on the planet which we need for at least being carbon-based life forms so uh and you know every

24:44time you walk around you re-establish the existence of gravity because you're pressed down to the ground

24:49and every time you get on the scale after thanksgiving dinner you're reminded of how gravity can affect

24:54your weight so uh the idea that that we we don't know anything um the sort of radical skepticism i mean

25:00it's great to be skeptical of course right but you have to have a methodology by which you can be

25:07something other than skeptical because otherwise you end up in this absurd position which happened at the call

25:13on friday where uh the the next caller was like well steph you were unfair right to to the guy who

25:21was saying two and two make four i don't mean i'm not sure that two and two make four and that of course

25:28is a wild thing to say i don't know that two and two make four but i know that you're being unfair

25:34because moral judgments are more tricky than judgments that are almost tautological like law of

25:41identity stuff right so uh saying uh two and two make four if you can't be certain of that then you

25:49can't be certain of anything with regards to morality and then of course that makes the world

25:53a very dangerous place because evil people are very certain i mean they don't have the complicating

25:58factors of empathy and skepticism and humility and self-doubt and all of that so you do have to be

26:05able to ground your morals in certainty and if you can't be certain that two and two make four you

26:11can't be certain about any moral standards or values in which case you lose the world to evildoers

26:18so to me there's that's one of the reasons i was fighting fairly ferociously i guess with them and

26:22perhaps even with you is that certainty is essential for the world to be a moral place i'm sorry go ahead

26:28oh i'm sorry i'm sorry but you remind me sorry i'm not a hegelian or whatever but you remind me of

26:34the thesis anti-thesis and synthesis the initial state this pathological certainty people are certain

26:42but they are not able to explain why they are not able to walk you through the steps it's basically

26:47just an emotion like no no sorry sorry to interrupt it right people do explain why if they say well why

26:53does the sun go around the earth they just look at it right i mean we're standing here on solid ground

26:58and the sun is rotating around the sky clearly right they would have arguments as to why or they

27:03would say with regards to is the earth the center of the universe they'd say well in the bible

27:08it says the earth is fixed and does not move and it accords with god's experiment with humanity

27:14and and so so they would have reasons if that makes sense but they would not be valid go ahead

27:20okay so do you have like a method to walk people from this initial like a basic naive

27:28certainty through to the healthy skeptical uncertainty and then into the philosophical

27:35certainty again well sure yeah i mean i've got a whole i think it's 17 part introduction to philosophy

27:40series that i did in 2007 i think it was and basically the idea is you start with a blank slate

27:46and you build with reason and evidence a worldview that is consistent consistent with rationality and

27:55consistent with the observable facts of the universe and at the highest levels also with the observable

28:02facts that the free market generates wealth which means that there must be something rational about

28:06it and to say communism or or fascism destroys wealth which means there must be something irrational

28:12uh about it i mean if you if you build a bridge and it stays up even if you don't exactly know what

28:18you're doing you've done something right and then you need to figure out the principles whereas if you

28:22build a bridge with some other material like balsa wood and it keeps falling down then you're doing

28:28something wrong so yeah you start with okay i don't know anything the socratic thing right you start

28:33i don't know anything so how do i build certainty and this was sort of a cartesian exercise right

28:39right rene descartes started with this and said okay the only thing i know is that i think that's

28:45the only thing i know and he wanted to build things up from there now he went totally sideways into the

28:50being controlled by an external demon simulation matrix nonsense but yeah you you start with a blank

28:55slate and that this is what science did right started with a blank slate and it said okay look if

29:00we're going to talk about the universe the universe is rational and consistent yes the behavior of

29:07matter is rational and consistent therefore any theory which describes the universe or describes

29:11the behavior and properties of matter and energy must be rational and consistent in other words since

29:17matter is not self-contradictory then any theory that describes the behavior of matter cannot be

29:24self-contradictory so first you look for logical consistency and then you look at

29:30that uh measurability does it measure does it accurately measure what happens in the world and

29:38you should then say it should be predictive right so it would measure it would accurately predict the

29:45behavior of matter and energy in the future so that's how you would do it with science and that's how

29:52you do it with knowledge as a whole you exist the senses are valid and the behavior of matter and energy is

30:00stable predictable rational empirical and universal and you build your knowledge up from there and

30:06then you would arrive at moral theories moral theories are being universally preferable behavior

30:13they must be rational and consistent across space and time and therefore any moral theory that is

30:22self-contradictory is invalid and therefore you have to have moral theories that don't

30:29involve themselves in self-contradiction and then ideally they also both explain the past the present and

30:35predict uh the future so for instance uh uh the initiation of the use of force is immoral and

30:41therefore things like um uh these um lockdowns and mandates and so on which were the initiation of

30:49the use of force uh will have bad outcomes as as and this is my prediction and of course it turned out

30:55uh to be the case so sorry that's a very brief sprint through it but hopefully that makes sense

31:00of course i am very familiar with your series the uh on the philosophy and with the descartes as well

31:06i will try to not to digress since you explain them so well but uh i i thank you for basically doing my

31:12work for me you are presenting like uh frameworks or resolutions you have this camera and you can zoom in

31:21to basic principles or you can zoom out a little into a human scale and on both uh scales there is

31:29consistency and this consistency is identity it's real reality it's virtue it's logic and

31:37if a person wants to be a good philosopher a good good thinker then he has to be able to find this

31:43reality to read it correctly or find where someone deviates from reality on multiple resolutions the

31:51most granular and then zoom out a little find where is upb on that level there is upb there is logic on

31:59all levels on all levels of reality so this zoom out exercise is like going up and down a ladder and i

32:09found it extremely useful to think of reality as those layers with others and each layer has its

32:17as the upb in a different uh resolution or different granularity or different complexity

32:25and each level must be mastered that is what you have been saying each level has to be about

32:31uh i have one small thing to add to that uh those uh besides this kind of inconsistency or insanity on

32:40every level uh those rungs of latter ladder also have to be arranged in a logical hierarchical manner

32:49from like low resolution where you see grains of sand or atoms to humans to a greater like a cosmic

32:56revolution because evil doesn't uh come only evil insanity and vice doesn't only come from

33:03breaking the upb among humans but also valuing the more concrete more zoomed in layers above the more

33:12abstract switching the order of rungs on the ladder or the layers of the pyramid that's also where

33:19evil insanity and vice can come from yeah and and i also want to reiterate a good summary and i also

33:26wanted to reiterate that it's really not that complicated and i'm not saying that you're trying

33:30to overcomplicate things but it sounds pretty daunting you know every step of the ladder has

33:33to be rational we're very good at this i mean if i don't know if you're a dad but if you've raised kids

33:38you know just how effortless effortlessly they conceptualize the world i mean it's it's a wild

33:44process to see like you you you point out that this is a chair and like within a day they're

33:49identifying every chair in the vicinity they can identify a chair on the television show and they

33:55can identify a chair at the library and they can even identify uh something that's like a chair but

34:01not quite a chair like a stool or something like that i mean it's wild so we are really really good at

34:07creating universal abstractions from very very limited information and that's really our great strength and

34:14most of what people need to do to solve problems of philosophy is simply to slow their role and

34:19figure out what it is that they're doing in the moment so if i'm correcting you or your let's say

34:25let's make it more more more generous if you're you're correcting me right so let's say say the two

34:30and two make five then if i say two and two make five and you say no it's actually four like which would be

34:37a math teacher uh dealing with a say a four or five year old and say well no it's it's actually

34:43four and here's why and so on right count these two and twos right and oh one two three four four

34:48okay so if you're correcting someone you're using language you're relying on the evidence of the

34:55senses to communicate that language uh it could be visual it could be um well i guess like tracing

35:02you could even trace on their hands if they're deaf dumb and blind um you could use the sound to

35:08sound to speak or something like that and so when you correct someone you're saying well there's such

35:14a thing as objective truth if you're going to make an objective truth statement it needs to be

35:18objectively true which is kind of a law of identity thing but it's a process and i'm going to use

35:24language i accept that both i exist and you exist and you're going to correct me based upon reference to

35:32a universal standard it's not a matter of will or bullying you are sort of hopefully somewhat

35:36gently reminding me that if i'm going to make a statement that is universal and objective and

35:44valid it needs to be true and so if we look at what we're doing during the process of debating or

35:53correcting uh upp is validated objective truth is validated uh the validity of the census is validated

36:00the fact that there is an objective universe out there is validated because there would be no

36:06point correcting someone about the physics of their dreams at night because that's a subjective

36:11experience and there's no such thing as universal truth or objectivity or a shared reality in dreams

36:18so if people when they debate simply say okay what are all of the assumptions that i need to make

36:24in order to correct someone using language then like about 95 percent of philosophical problems are

36:31solved with people simply accepting their actions when they correct someone right right it's a

36:39i think hans herman happa calls something similar argumentation ethics that's like the academic term yes i

36:46understand what you mean how do not making self detonating statements that's a real training is not just you learn

36:55information it requires training yes right fantastic um listen i certainly appreciate you advocating for

37:03the listener and i do have sympathy for people who have anxiety about certainty because if you are certain of

37:12something and i've obviously been doing this for like 40 years if you're certain about something 100

37:19people get anxious and the reason i think one of the reasons for that is that they've been bullied by

37:24people who were both certain and wrong and therefore they think they think that the defense against

37:29being bullied by people who are ideologues or certain and wrong is to remove their own capacity for certainty

37:35but uh that doesn't make any sense that's like well there are dangerous people in the neighborhood uh

37:42who who have weapons so the best thing that i can do is disarm myself and it's like no no that's

37:47it's not it's not the way to go we need to have robust epistemological and moral certainty

37:55in order to combat those who are both certain and wrong but if you are certain and right and you run

38:01into conflict with people who are certain and wrong they will get aggressive and so what people are

38:05doing is they are trying to disarm themselves in the hopes that that will somehow you know like how

38:12dogs if if they meet each other they have a dominance display and the dog that loses has to

38:16kind of bare his throat to say to the other dog well you can you can then bite my throat if you want and

38:22it signals a kind of submission and i think people have the idea that because there are people out

38:30there who are certain and wrong and dangerous thereby that if they don't express any certainty

38:35themselves then they will somehow be be safe and it doesn't it doesn't work i mean it might it's

38:42like appeasement it might buy you a little bit of time but as churchill said appeasement is the idea

38:47that the crocodile is going to eat you last and so we can't turn over i mean this is again the socratic

38:53argument although socrates didn't get to certainty but it is the argument that you cannot fight

39:02false or wrong or invalid certainty with your own uncertainty but to be certain particularly in

39:09the realms of moral matters is to be uh you will be attacked by people who are both wrong and certain

39:17of course and i can i could tell you endless tales of of my own experiences in this matter as i'm sure you

39:23could as well but the cure for incorrect quote certainty which is just bigotry that the cure

39:31for incorrect certainty is not uncertainty but correct certainty but it makes people anxious because it

39:36draws them into a uh a set of conflicts that that is it can be tough for some right right and this is

39:44very important because you show people how to achieve the healthy valid certainty and i think that after

39:53people actually do that it is possible to train them even more into certainty like you have you are

40:00pretty fit you exercise a lot but people can even become bodybuilders they can become super strong imagine

40:08that it is possible to train people into a super strong almost super human certainty and i think i

40:16found a method for that ah okay um i know you're sort of limited the time because you're at work at the

40:23moment but um you should drop that in an email and send it to me i'd love to love to read it all right

40:29uh well the method uh i wrote i am writing a book it's pretty complete but it is basically uh four books

40:38in one the first one is the uh fundamental philosophy which where i also reference you you know

40:44uh the second one it is so it is what i've been talking about the concept of the hierarchy of

40:52abstraction and it is the same concept that it people use what systems theory uses it floats around

40:59the internet it's not completely unknown it's not completing you uh and but what i would like to say

41:06i would like to say two things so there is in my uh philosophical work a concept of shared properties of

41:13reality uh this concept says that a philosopher can know things even that they can that he cannot touch

41:20he cannot see he can know them by their properties there are some properties which are the same for

41:25the things we know and for the things we do not know yet but they are all the parts of the same reality

41:31and this is how we can know them and i found that my method for super charging this certainty human

41:40certainty it also seems to enhance the function of the artificial intelligence so i can with this method

41:48enhance both people and any chatbot any ai chatbot of course different chatbots have different technical

41:56limitations however i have i think i have amazing results and i am willing to share them with certain

42:04people under certain conditions of course not not on public call okay all right that sounds interesting

42:11and i hope you'll drop me a copy when you're done oh of course of course i will spruce it up a little

42:18just to will you be okay if it's a little bit incomplete draft like i would say wait till it's done

42:27because otherwise i don't if i have sort of feedback on it i don't know if you're already working on

42:32resolving it so i mean if it's just a final proofread that's one thing but i would say don't give me

42:37something that's a work in progress because it's tough to give feedback on something that's still

42:40fluid yes i made the discovery with uh ai enhancement uh well i was processing this draft in an ai so you

42:50it's distracted me uh but i'm sorry i wanted to just give another example of this uh wrong hierarchy of

42:59values for example imagine a person who has who is very focused to have a clean apartment uh which

43:07is like a very concrete value but then has a mess with the relationships like behaves to children to

43:12his own treats his own children badly which is human relationships are more complex more abstract than

43:19just a clean apartment just things and non-living things and when he values this clean apartments above

43:25living and complex people then this can be interpreted as a wrong order of the wrong zone on the ladder

43:33you can uh understand this ladder this hierarchy of abstraction as a useful shorthand how to untangle

43:41very complicated things in reality and understand them very simply good good well i i appreciate that

43:47and i appreciate that work that you're doing and i hope you'll send me a copy and i appreciate your time

43:51this morning all right thank you stefan all right thank you stefan all right thank you stefan all right

TWO AND TWO MAKE FOUR - THE DEBATE!

Category

Transcript

Recommended