Haz vs RemTheBathBoi + Post Debate | InfraredShow Debate 🚀 Infrared Content Catalog

once so what do you want ram what am i

running away from

well i i even said i never said you were

running away people in my chat were

saying that i don't oh why were the same

screen i'm interested why were they

saying that i i don't know i guess you'd

have to ask them so can you go uh come

back and um explain some of the claims

you've been saying about me tonight that

i've been hearing about yeah sure yeah

go ahead

well what claims specifically

i don't know that's why i'm asking you

what what did you make what did you say

about me

oh i've said all

oh wait one sec i just have to adjust my

uh

volume levels

um

i don't know like i i've said a lot of

things uh tonight i can't

you'd have to can you give me specific

okay what would be a relevant uh point

of debate what would be a relative point

of contention to debate about

we should discuss the ethics of incest

when have i spoken about incest

i never said you did but so tell me what

what are you saying about me

you said oh yeah you said you don't

believe i mastered hagel at 19.

oh well yeah i know you didn't oh how is

that

just because i know about the difficulty

of hagel and the prerequisites required

i mean there's not much of a debate here

to be had i think there's actually a

debate here to be had so on the basis of

the difficulties of hegel which are not

under dispute and the requirements of

mastering ego system which i'm not sure

you would be aware of because i don't

even think you've ever claimed you've

mastered hegel's system so i don't even

know how you would [ __ ] know

how do you know for a fact that i didn't

master hegel's system at 19 go ahead

i guess i can't know for different you

can't you really can't so why don't you

just shut the [ __ ] up about it and stop

talking i can make an educated informed

guess basically but you didn't say i

don't think you said there's no way you

say that based on the type of people i

know who are familiar with hegel

these people who have really mastered

people tend not to act like man children

wait wait wait wait wait so you're

assuming so that's without hold on so

you're assuming based on the

character and temperament of people who

you know have read hegel and you know

you trusted what does that have to do

with how someone is going to act

specifically do you think hegel is some

kind of

cultural prescriptive um

thought guru like jordan peterson he

tells you how to talk and tells you how

to act and things like that

because i know i know you're like you're

used to only being on twitch and like

only being in public and like bluffing

and pretending you're a guy who knows

what he's talking about so you only know

there's like these cult of personality

people like jordan peterson and all

these people on youtube and stuff and

you you really associate something like

philosophy with you know

personalities and online influencers

like as if like hegel was some kind of

jake paul because that's all you [ __ ]

understand or know but i really want you

to justify i really want to pin you down

and justify how you could say that

your perception that i act like a man

child and i'm not sophisticated and i

don't speak seriously like perspective

philosophy can justify the assumption

that i could not have possibly mastered

hegel's system at 19 years old please

justify that rem

i mean in order to do that you'd have to

be probably like a child prodigy and if

you have actually mastered hegel i mean

presumably you wouldn't be spending your

time

acting like you know a child on twitch

wait wait wait why wait hold on ton of

money publishing books on him what are

you saying

so

actually

have i written books before how many

have i written and if i have i i don't

think you have you don't think i've

written books

you've written books yes i have

i just didn't release them publicly yes

i have written books

actually

i don't want a sniveling

pseudo-intellectual like you anywhere

near my books yeah but so rem so you've

you've written books but you won't allow

something

absolutely not no but anyway um let's

continue

so ram so ram so you think that you

think that hold on hold on hold on i

want to pin you down in the center to

philosophy

philosophers and let's let's focus on

the meat and potatoes about since you're

since you're a philosophy i want to put

your philosophy to text do you think

that a certain type of disposition is

necessarily implied by the mastery of

hegel's thoughts do you think a certain

career do you think that's certain okay

so let me ask you a question

to the best explanation i think that

would be the technical term for it

so you're inferring what you're

inferring that i could not have possibly

mastered hold on

i could not have possibly understand you

i could not have possibly mastered

hegel's system as 19 because within the

limited range of my knowledge of what

kind of people hegelians are

they are nothing like you that's pretty

much your claim right well yeah so

that's that's part of it another is that

i don't know why you'd be spending your

time on twitch acting like a baby um i

mean so if you actually are able to show

me some of these yeah you've written

well you you

since it's such a

since it's such a decisive part of your

argument and no i'm not gonna show you

my [ __ ] books uh i've only showed

like [ __ ] 15 people my books why

would i show you

but the title can you tell me the title

of it of which ones

of any of your books okay i have one

book which is called islam in the shadow

of globality i have another book called

um

sorry

that one's not on hegel though no it's

not

what is the name of one of your hegel

books

i haven't written a book wholly and

specifically dedicated to hegel i don't

know why i should have to have done that

but you've incorporated hegel into some

of your books obviously

which like what kind like like for

example i wrote a book about utopian

socialism in which i

put to work hegel's decisive distinction

between

uh the state and civil society in

relationship to the um frederick

jameson's universal army and universal

conscription in relation to uni uh

utopian socialism and in relation to the

south african eff so the book is called

the south african eff i have another

book called form and vlaast which

attempts to take a dive at uh dealing

with the metaphysics of statehood in the

age of quantum mechanics from a hegelian

perspective and against um newtonian the

newtonian mechanics that informed

hobbes's perspective the origins of

statehood and foreign is about actually

the origin of the bolshevik party and

it's about the october revolution and

those by the way are just the books i've

given titles to and like that i actually

am committing to publishing

i

i have to do more edits and i have to

i've been working on them for years and

years and years those are the ones i

just know for certain i'm going to

publish as different books

here's an issue you are just wondering i

know you're wondering now rem but you

weren't justified in making all the

assumptions you did in the [ __ ] first

place why did you make all the

assumptions you do and the minute i call

you out that you should have shut your

[ __ ] mouth and not made assumptions

now you're being all inquisitive and

you're asking me all these questions

because oh i'm interested in knowing

that i don't care

i don't exist to interest you i don't

care about the extent of your interest

all i care about is whether or not you

can justify making all the assumptions

and claims you made about me and you

really can't justify them because you

are [ __ ] wrong about them you don't

have to justify anything you the way

that you talk right yeah you don't me

you are making subjective claims you're

making subjective claims about how

my temperament hurts my fifis and i

don't i don't like that you're a man

child and you're acting ridiculous

if you want to play the game of

subjectivity we have to compare the we

have to quantify it then right at that

point i'm a bigger [ __ ] streamer than

you more people like me than they like

you more people are interested in me

than they like you so why is your

opinion relevant

it doesn't have to be but clearly you

seem to care a lot about what the the

common the common sight of contention

because the sight of contention is truth

because when it's about the truth it's

about what is true you are making claims

about me you cannot justify as true

what is truth

what do you mean can you define truth

um define truth go ahead

no no i'm asking you

there's literally a million ways you

could define truth

well what what is your theory of truth

i am using truth collectively right now

i'm not interested in having a

philosophical discussion with you about

truth right now do you not know what i

mean by true wow are you not

do you know do you not know what i mean

by true

well i don't know i like there's many

way like you said there's many ways i

know i understand so when i say you are

saying things that cannot be justified

as true

um

yeah what do we mean by true there

in this context what we mean as true is

whether or not the form of your

reasoning

can be shown to be consistent with your

conclusion

whether your reasoning whether your line

of argumentation can actually justify

the conclusion you draw

in this context that's all it means

soundness not consistency but i think i

understand what you mean

when it's not soundness it's consistency

well no no i mean i feel like we should

care about the truth of stuff right so

okay be careful with how we're using

okay sir can you can you justify those

claims is true why would you say

something to the okay so

why would you say something that

you can't justify as true why would you

say it

oh no i mean i i feel very justified in

saying it but the justification you have

given me rem was uh your subjective

feeling that i'm a man child and that

i'm yelling all day and that a person

who has read hegel would not be doing

that but you haven't justified why we

should agree with that and the only and

then you've said that well everyone i

know

who's a hegelian doesn't act like you

but what if all of the people you knew

who were hegelians were white and i was

the only arab does that mean arabs can't

be hegelians by your uh your um

the scale and range of your inference

and the

you know the form of inference you're

making like what if all of the people

you knew were men and then you didn't

know any female hegelians would you be

justified in inferring that hegelians

cannot be female

since you know nothing it's clear you

know nothing about hegelianism itself or

at least you don't know enough about

hegelianism to actually justify why you

would claim that i haven't mastered

hegel's system at 19 you are in no

position to actually draw a conclusion

about whether i did or not whatsoever my

behavior

doesn't justify the conclusion you draw

just because the hegelians you know

don't act like i do doesn't justify you

making a definitive conclusion whether

you're justifying that on the basis of

likelihood or inference is completely

irrelevant you are not justified to talk

out of your [ __ ] ass it's simple as

that rem

well i mean we'll just have to disagree

i suppose on when i'm justified i accept

your surrender

no i'm well i accept your surrender what

did i surrender on and what point did i

specifically surrender on if you're not

willing to debate like the conception of

truth and justification with me i mean i

suppose we'll just have to agree to

disagree on this um so wait wait wait

now you want to debate about truth and

justification do you really want

do you really want to debate about the

nature of truth and justification realm

and let's actually see if this is a test

of your honesty or do you want to see if

i have a philosophically rigorous

view of what truth is in order to

justify the uh sorry in order to

test the extent of my knowledge

what are we really

looking for here because i haven't

actually said anything that warrants an

actual philosophical debate about truth

it sounds like you're just trying to

test the extent of my familiarity with

the relationship between truth and

philosophy which is a completely

different issue than the colloquial

commonsensical

accusation that i'm throwing against you

that you're just talking out of your

[ __ ] ass there's no new private

debate because i have trouble

understanding yeah

so

is it that you want to have a debate

about truth or are you trying to expose

me as someone who can't philosophically

what you're saying

you can't hear me

like you need to turn down the gain or

something on your microphone run right

because it right that's better this is

better

right now works are you actually looking

to debate that

which one is it yeah are you looking to

and then we're gonna do this we're gonna

test your honesty are you doing this to

debate about truth and justification or

are you trying to find some kind of

gotcha and try to prove

and you would dude so pathetically right

you would pathetically fail at that that

haas does not have any rigorous

philosophical notion or view of what

truth is i think you're just trying to

test me ram i don't think anything has

actually warranted a debate about truth

nothing clearly has so i can only draw

the conclusion that you're just trying

to test me

um well

i think you've posted as this binary

option which i don't think it is because

i'm still from my perspective um

i'm still not convinced that you're not

kind of like like an actor like okay

hold on what justifies me being an actor

go ahead

i actually don't like you rem i

literally don't like you so i'm not

acting no no i'm very aware of that wait

wait how can you justify that awareness

though if i'm an actor you can't pick

and choose what i am and i'm not acting

about right

no no you're right that i can like it's

very difficult for me to know for sure

right so what is what is the decisive

sight of me acting if you can know that

i genuinely dislike you then what do you

know is real and what do you know is not

real so we can draw that i mean you're

right i can never know necessarily you

can never know but you just said you

just admitted that you knew i didn't

like you and i don't like you

well you could like me it's possible but

but no one forced you to admit and say

oh i know you don't like me was that a

freudian slip was that a slip of tongue

you walk that back and take it back

moving the conversation forward

so

how is it moving the conversation

forward you could just say oh i don't

know if you like me or not

well okay i think you do know that i

don't like you graham i think you're

being very selective about my acting

actually

so you claim you don't know enough about

whether i'm acting or not

uh and where what is that decisive like

where's the decisive point in that

um

like i i know i can't draw a line for

you of course that would be yeah so

what's the what conclusion do you draw

that i'm an actor therefore what

therefore

it might not be worth engaging seriously

with you oh really okay

so why are you talking to me in the call

right now

oh well because it gives me viewers

right of course

um

yeah well at least you're honest in that

regard rim well what you i i even said

this before you think actually talking

to you because i'm trying

so your copium your copium strategy is

basically to say that well listen

are you going to talk to me about the

nature of sins

are you interested in debating about

truth or are you interested in testing

you right answer that [ __ ] question

and stop being a [ __ ] answer that

[ __ ] question rem are you interested

in debating about truth or are you

interested in testing me are you

interested in debating me about truth

because if you're interested in debating

me about truth you have to justify why

why should why do you want to debate

about truth what have i said on the

nature of truth that is a point of

contention and debate and is worthy of

debate we will begin there well any

claim that you make is going to be a

claim that follows certain understanding

of truth and by the way rem by the way

for example if i said you're not right

you're not correct you're [ __ ] wrong

here right you know what you are [ __ ]

wrong about that you're literally wrong

about that truth

actually there is a huge discontinuity

between the method by which people

consciously and explicitly justify their

concept of truth philosophically and the

functional and practical

reality of the truth claims and claims

they make like there's a difference

between what there's a dif there's a

difference between what people there's a

difference between what people actually

consider true and not true and the way

in which people and the way in which

people attempt to render explicit the

concept of truth there is a sorry what

can you demonstrate that to me

oh you're trying to uh troll me with the

alacrity thing no i'm genuinely curious

can you actually damn it because i don't

believe that okay you want me to

demonstrate that there is a

discontinuity between the concept of

truth and the operative and real

um

real real uh sense of truth people have

uh i want no no when i'm talking about

what truth is yeah i'm it's a question

that applies to everybody whether anyone

is aware of it or not they're engaging

with the notion of truth but they are

not engaging with the concept of truth

that is relevant to philosophy no

they're not um you would have to uh

actually no rem the burden of proof is

upon you to prove something that hasn't

been proven in the first place

since

since rem since the overwhelming

majority of people

rem

shut the [ __ ] up for a second since the

overwhelming majority of people like 99

of people will never be philosophers and

yet

still have some kind of sense of what is

true and what is false and uh and um

speak about the world in terms of true

and false what you're pre you're

presupposing that everyone has this

correct conception of what truth is no i

i it's not what i said i said they have

a sense of what true or false is i.e we

have this inkling of an intuition and

philosophy helps us you know no no

the only i'm saying such a banal

self-evident uncontroversial [ __ ]

thing all i'm saying is that 99 of

people despite never knowing or caring

about what philosophy is or the concept

of truth explicitly whatsoever we'll

know how to say for example oh what you

said about me the other day isn't true

or oh that's not true the contrary sorry

people use this in their everyday

[ __ ] practical functional language

what

what they might be using it wrong what

do you mean they're using it wrong they

could be using truth in a way that

exactly if you are claiming they're

using it rem if you're claiming the way

99 of people use words is wrong then

you're over you are overreaching

evidence you are overreaching the domain

of philosophy in places where it doesn't

[ __ ] belong

simple as that

you're overreaching

you are being greedy about where the

actual domain of philosophy is

philosophy doesn't exist to correct

people about their actual real uh

practical reality philosophy deals

yeah philosophy is its own spheres

philosophy doesn't go and say oh the way

people use language in their everyday

and common use is wrong and we

philosophers are correct which

philosopher does that listen i i

understand that you're a master hegelian

yeah right but i mean

not just an analytic but also

continental philosophy now it's

semiotics and even in deconstruction is

actually analyzing the way that we use

words and trying to determine whether

we're using them okay so i have a

question how do you know how do you know

someone

how do you know you are not

superimposing claims or presuppositions

upon someone that they have never

claimed and that they are not in their

thoughts or in their head presupposing

like for example if someone uses truth

in a way

that while common and practical for them

um violates what you think is the true

concept

uh of truth from a philosophical

perspective how do you know you're not

just superimposed

in uh

a position that they don't have what if

they don't care about the concept of

truth what if they're not even having in

their mind the concept of truth how do

you prove that they are actually dealing

with the concept of truth relevant to

philosophy can you prove that

well for one thing we're always engaging

with the topic of truth because the very

idea of having knowledge itself requires

you know having truth in in some yeah

can you answer my question now yeah yeah

can you answer the question that's

not that you you just avoided the

question by saying that it's not under

contention there's this thing where you

where you just

it is not under contention it's not

under contention that truth is necessary

for knowledge the question is in an

everyday ordinary and common context can

you justify can you prove can you prove

to us

that everyone has the concept of truth

that the concept of truth relevant to

philosophy is what is conditioning and

premising people's sense of truth in the

ordinary context can you prove that rem

please prove that specifically

sure i mean actually that's kind of

baked into an investigation of truth in

the first place because philosophers

often when they're investigating the

nature of truth are going to take a

bunch of

uh

instances where there tends to be some

type of agreement it doesn't have to be

based on anyone else's it could be an

individually based individual based

intuitions on you know true statements

and then over time

through a process like reflective

equilibrium you're going to essentially

narrow down the conditions required for

a statement to be true or not depending

upon uh for example whether you're

willing to give up that uh certain

statement that you tend to make like

when you're saying that this is true um

like for example if i take a theory of

truth that uh means correspondence with

something out there in the world right

that rules out a lot of things that we

typically want to say are true like that

sherlock holmes um

you know smokes a pipe right that's not

something that i can point to in the

external world so that's an instance

where you know i might have to weigh

whether i really value those types of of

truth claims over other ones that are

more ordinary truth claims such as you

know there's a cup on my table for

example so we can start from of course

you you have pleasure i'm answering your

question no you're not you're not

because what you have

okay go ahead ram finish yeah thank you

um so we start from these

presuppositions which is absolutely true

we start from these presuppositions of

what is actually true in the world and

then we refine this conception

to make it more coherent and more um

i don't

i wouldn't say correct because

correctness is is a whole different

issue because we speed it up

respectively

i thought you want to have a serious

conversation on well we're not because

you're avoiding my question and i can

demonstrate why you've just completely

avoided my question in its entirety

there's not one [ __ ] facet of your

response that addressed my question you

have only pointed out that philosophers

attempt to take as their object the

ordinary use of truth and begin from

there

don't take it as their object as the

starting point

you know what i mean as the starting

point of their contemplation and

reflection of the concept

and they turn they turn something that

is suspended in ordinary uh use in

reality into a concept right but when

they that's already there

that's what you have to prove rem you

have to prove that it's already there

and you haven't proved it all you've

proven is that philosophers have taken

something and they try to be consistent

with how it's used already there but you

have not proven that it is already there

that's what i am asking you to prove so

can you prove that

what you're asking me to prove is it's

something that is is possible to prove

nor does it of course it's not [ __ ]

possible to prove because there's no

reason to believe it's the case there is

no reason to believe it is the case if

you believe it is the case you are

committing an unwarranted dogmatism rem

there is no reason to believe it is the

case

it's built into the idea of conceptual

analysis that you are working with ideas

that somebody already has and you are

working here's the thing

yes do you know what the idea is do you

think the idea is the same thing

as the fleeting and

the idea relevant to philosophy which

begins from plato onwards that idea

i that is the idea relevant to

philosophers the ambiguous and fleeting

and indeterminate and completely

wishy-washy um

things that are suspended in everyday

everyday language have never been the uh

the idea for philosophers that has never

been the site of ideas for philosophers

philosophers have dealt with the idea on

the terms of philosophy and they kept it

there they didn't go up to random people

on the street and say ah you are

misusing the idea or ah you have you are

using a false notion of truth because

truth as is relevant to them

philosophy's role is not to dogmatically

insist that everyone is already a

philosopher philosophy's role is to

insist that it can clarify it can

clarify can give clarification

to what is i don't actually

in fact you seem to use kind of proving

my point because quite literally the

idea of conceptual analysis is showing

that hey guys we use this concept let's

narrow down no here's no no it's not

it's not that's not an invention no no

it's not that it's very fine listen

listen location listen rem rem that's

ordinary people

listen rem shut the [ __ ] up and listen

little boy i'm educating you now rem

when you turn it into a concept though

that's the thing what do you turn it

into a concept what does that mean it

means you cannot treat it as though it

is the concept relevant to philosophy

already turn something into a concept

what does that mean

you want to talk over me again little

boy or you want to [ __ ] hear my

response you keep saying i'm doing

something explain what the hell it means

explain what the hell it means you know

you sound like jordan peterson right but

anyway rem both canadian so yeah anyway

rem let me explain it to you again to

turn something off

you want me to [ __ ] respond or you

want to keep talking over me

oh are you gonna answer it yes

okay

it means

that something suspended in reality is

now put

within the frame of conscious explicit

and conceptual thought you are turning

thoughts that are not necessarily

conceptual thoughts relevant to

philosophy into objects of inquiry and

relevance and investigation for

philosophers so to turn something into a

concept

so to speak is to make something

relevant to the domain and sphere of

philosophy that's all it means

the way philosophers treat things is

because the way philosophers are going

to treat something is going to be

different from how ordinary people treat

it

well what do you say then to like

ordinary language philosophers who don't

actually do anything that you're

describing but still try to explicit the

concept by actually treating it how it

is because ordinary language philosophy

is a farce that's why that's what i will

say to them

i see yeah it's a contradiction in terms

it's it's a contradiction in terms

that's my position on ordinary language

philosophy

okay so going back to your idea so

what what is this fleeting domain that

you're talking about are you talking

about like the direct it's maybe the

spherological experience it can be this

fear of it can be the sphere of

phenomenology for rehearsal and later

heidegger or it could be the uh the

object relevant for psychoanalysis do

you think that was a good philosopher

i don't think herself was a philosopher

at all

why

because again for me philosophy ends

with hegel

that seems like a very arbitrary line to

draw doesn't it well it's not arbitrary

what about it it's not it's not a very

it's not a very uncommon position either

to hold that hegel was the last

philosopher like for example not if

you're an online

larper i agree but what do you mean not

if you're not

literally it's uh you think i'm the

first person to say hegel was the last

philosopher

there there are many people on

in discord philosophy servers who say

similar things i'm so was

fuco a discord philosopher

um

i don't know i don't know foucault

well discord wasn't invented in this

time span in which he lived so are you

sure

no i think foucault's still alive

and cool is still alive yeah

hey mitchovsky had a debate like last

year or something

i did not know that no he's not [ __ ]

alive he died in 84. what are you

[ __ ] talking about

so what was the point in saying that

you actually bought it for a second

that's it so i'm not keeping tabs on i

mean like people like ellen bedu are

still alive for example or as far as

remember

i think so i'm not keeping so what i'm

not keeping tabs on the the lives of

french philosophers there's a pl plenty

of people that i thought were dead ended

up still being alive before so why would

i why is that a relevant point it's not

obviously so okay it was foucault with

discord philosopher

i don't know i don't know if we could

because said that for any thinker for

any philosopher

hegel will be the last all roads lead to

hegel that's what he said

it's the position of virtually every

marxist that hegel was the last

philosopher but yeah you know there are

also people who say plato was the last

philosopher and that everything are just

footnotes on plato including hegel

okay but the whole point is that after

hegel you are outside of philosophy

that's the main point after

you're using different definitions of

philosophy then after hegel you are no

longer within the sphere of philosophy

problem so every every single

philosopher on earth except for strictly

specific hegelians are not philosophers

no hegelians are not philosophers either

they are disciples of the last

philosopher hegel

oh i see so that would be any

philosophers you do wait rem are you did

you study elementary logic or whatever

like if i say hegel is the last

philosopher that doesn't mean hegelians

are philosophers what is wrong with your

head dude well you know if you're if you

completely take on all of his ideas that

presumably maybe you could it still

doesn't make you hateful it still does

not make you haggle taking on all of

this doesn't make you vehicle but i mean

just being a person you know it's the

ideas that you have

it's not no it doesn't it wouldn't it

would make you the disciple

of the last philosopher would not make

you a philosopher

who

arrived at those insights in the first

place everyone else is just studying

them so that makes him the philosopher

do you know what a philosopher does

a philosopher is the one who a

philosopher doesn't just study

philosophers a philosopher actually

engages in philosophy oh yeah yeah by

studying hegel you are not engaging in

any new philosophy you're not even

engaging in philosophy proper you're

just studying a past philosopher

um do you think that uh

you know so you think that every single

philosopher on the planet right now is

not a philosopher

you just worded that and as it though

it's an absurdity if we presuppose that

they are philosophers obviously it's an

absurdity to say that they are not

philosophers let me restate it then you

think everyone who claims to be a

philosopher

yes i do think they're not philosophers

very interesting you know i have a

similar position about mathematics in

that anyone after why do i fear

not

can you demonstrate why i should care

let's stick to the main potatoes i can't

really demonstrate that because i think

that philosophy ended with

probably herodotus and

okay no no

you're trying to troll because you just

got your [ __ ] ass handed to i exposed

you as a [ __ ] fraud but let me let me

entertain you rem if you really want to

maintain your little point with you

trolling why why is he the last

philosopher

who oh herodotus yes herodotus why is he

the last philosopher

you're assuming there's no person to

truly engage with philosophy why in the

way that he lived why

okay will you not interrupt me will i

actually try to seriously explain we'll

explain

so in the last days of herodotus's life

um he was incredibly sick

uh and he continually refused to

take any advice from doctors or any

medicine from doctors because he

believed that as a philosopher he

essentially knew better than these

trained uh you know who trained in like

the alexandrian sciences uh you know the

four humors and whatnot um

and committing to his philosophical

cause and these fundamental beliefs

um he put himself in a bathtub full of

horseshit

and

basically boiled to death in

hot portion and i think that i can't

really top that

okay so

actually rem and even when even look rem

so at this point you've conceded to me

when you've surrendered you're just

trying to joke

okay okay so let's pretend you're being

real right right

no no that's that's that's real yeah no

no no let's pretend you're not you're

being real about the position you don't

believe that's true no no but that

you're qualifying that you sincerely

believe this makes him the last

philosopher stay out rem learn logic 101

please um i'm not disputing whatever

story you just told being true i'm

disputing i'm calling into question

whether you sincerely believe this

qualifies him as the last philosopher so

rem

this actually would not

make

uh herodotus

the last philosopher it may just make

him the most ethical philosopher in your

view um

he had a complete system that allowed

him to live in a way that he just

completely surrendered to his life but

that does but

but guess what philosophy is while

ethics is a part of philosophy it's not

the same thing so you have to actually

demonstrate it no no no yeah the fact

that herodotus didn't think that

is quite literally why he is the last

philosopher because people who think

otherwise are now no longer engaging in

philosophy okay okay then let me ask you

a question how does the

how does this uh qualify him as the last

philosopher as regards to the

fundamental question and essence of what

philosophy

is because he fundamentally believed

that ethics was the complete end of all

philosophy and that to live in a way

that is completely consistent with your

ethical worldview and not try to extend

philosophy to anything else that that is

what philosophy but you didn't answer my

question

what was the ques i tried how does this

resolve

how does this resolve

the fundamental project of philosophy

well the fundamental project of

philosophy which is not just about

economics you can say that you can say

that you think that for example

philosophy

uh the project of philosophy ends with

ethics right it ends with a tub of

horseshit okay but you haven't gotten

from a to b

you understand you haven't yet but you

haven't either

in regards to what but your your notion

of what philosophy is is not somehow

more justified okay so what's my notion

of philosophy well it's presumably

whatever hegel did and no one else can

do since that's actually not true

so there is something that more people

can there can be another philosopher no

there cannot

okay then how is what i just said false

because the reason because rem because

the reason i'm saying and other people

say hagel was the last philosopher is

not just because they're saying hegel

has the best or only philosophy it's

that no no i know i believe

it has a concept

has resolved hegel has resolved

the question uh the fundamental

problem of philosophy what is that

problem

the problem of philosophy is the

relationship between thinking and being

in the form of the idea the platonic

idea

no i just disagree

why is that

i you know i just do i mean i guess you

disagree with me

hold on

i have never made an arbitrary line

where i'm saying i just think it because

i think it

well what why is that the philosophical

question why isn't herodotus is the

fundamental question

why does why effectively you're saying

is why does philosophy begin with plato

no i'm asking

why is

you know right reconciling the ideas of

thinking and being why is that no not

the ideas of thinking and being but

thinking and being as such itself as yes

in itself and not through the idea as

the privileged media why is that the

fundamental question

um

why is the idea fundamental to

philosophy

why is that the fundamental

philosophical question

because for most for all philosophers in

history actually

they are responding to the challenge set

before by plato

and the platonic idea what this

implications has

to be consistent to the platonic

idea as the privileged site of the

relationship between thinking and being

that has consequences and ramifications

that is the very object of philosophy

and right that you're excluding people

who you don't consider to be because i

know many philosophers who don't engage

with that concept at all uh who i'd

consider a philosopher so you're just

kind of begging the question

by saying that well these other people

who do this okay so what to you is the

essence of philosophy

i already said i mean it's it's it's the

herodotus thing right okay but how is

mine arbitrary though because i because

although there are other people who have

a different view of philosophy

i would critique them not because i'm

imposing some dogmatic form i would

critique them based on the content of

what they're saying philosophy is not i

wouldn't say what is what is wrong with

herodotuses

what is herodotus is um herodotus is how

can how long

how long can someone

of horseshit before they die

and

how okay how what does this have to do

with the essence of philosophy

that that is the essence of philosophy

why

because that that's just what the nature

of the question is

um i i'm okay well the problem the

problem rem is that i don't know of any

philosophers

okay but i don't as far as the history

of philosophy is concerned i could not

possibly explain the development and

history of philosophy on the terms of

the development of that essence

like i could not explain for example

hegel could not write about the history

of philosophy which he did

um

on the transition from

uh the post-socratic

uh to i'm skipping a lot of the stoics

and the uh the medieval scholastics the

islamic philosophers and the

enlightenment descartes espinoza

kant hegel actually imminently develops

philosophy from one to the other as the

development of one singular essence he

could not possibly do that

uh on the terms and basis of the

herodotus [ __ ] whatever you're talking

about can i propose to a serious um

idea like one of the fundamental

questions of philosophy

i'm just curious why you would consider

to be illegitimate i would consider and

this is a question that i would say

a large number of modern philosophers

now grapple with is the question of how

we can have how we can have reasons and

what reasons are

that's what i would say the fundamental

question of philosophy is okay then

because actually yeah yeah i would i

would actually just give you the

positive because you gave your positive

reason as to why that would be so mine

would simply be

that the very question of the nature of

philosophy that question

you need to have a reason for asking

okay i'll explain since you decided to

grow up and actually engage i'll

actually respond to that

i'll respond to that absolutely so the

problem with that is that you're using a

very ambiguous word the reasons but it

sounds like you're presupposing that

reason can only take the form of the

idea or the concept

but if we actually treat the word reason

with the full breadth of what it really

means which is more or less meaning then

it has many has many the definition you

just gave would make philosophy

indistinguishable from not only religion

but also art and aesthetics and many

others absolutely i think i think

everything that it's fundamental is

philosophy for sure yeah no what i'm

saying is that you have not you're not

specific enough about why that's

philosophy and not religion and not

aesthetics because all questions

fundamentally require an answer to that

question but religious for example the

way in which religion deals with the

question of meaning is very different

from the way in which philosophy does i

don't know i don't know what you're

meaning by meaning okay reason the way

the way religion deals with the reasons

for things is very different than can i

define reason for you can i try to give

just a definition go ahead define reason

okay i would i would describe it because

i think it's primitive i don't think it

can be

basically reduced anything more than

this it's basically something that

counts in favor of something else that's

what reason is something is a reason for

something if

it if it counts in favor of something

being the case so for example

um on the question of the fundamental

nature of philosophy

um we have to have a reason

uh for ascribing value to that question

yeah but what would that work listen but

as far as religion rem but as far as

religion is concerned

even your def the definition you just

gave of reason is still doesn't address

my point even religion will deal with a

reason for another reason

but i i i i'm talking about the very

nature of reason itself the structure of

okay i'm not talking about instances

where you're looking

but here's the thing

when you introdu i know what you're

trying to say ram it's not that i don't

know what you're trying to say i'm just

trying to demonstrate to you that your

definition is [ __ ] of what

philosophy is because when you talk

about structure and form what you're

really talking about is the um

not even in i don't think the analytic

philosophers even really deal with the

idea and all of its breadth and all of

its um

implications but

what they what you are dealing with is

some kind of form of thought

of pure thought specifically and maybe

not even necessarily thought but you're

presupposing to answer the question

because many people hold that reason is

not something that's internal but it's

something external to us it doesn't

matter it still doesn't address how it's

different from

religion or aesthetics and i can explain

why i don't understand so

okay yeah go ahead and explain

because the question of what reason is

it's a way of understanding how it

structures our experience and how it

structures our normativity

and not determining not necessarily no

no structure is something you're

introducing i don't know where you're

getting structure from

structure is simply the way that we

understand uh how reason plays a role in

our experience that's it it's an

analysis of how

you're not dealing with reason you're

dealing with the understanding

i

i i i don't understand what you mean by

that obviously there's understanding we

have the understanding and reason are

not the same thing

okay but that but let me let me try to

demonstrate what i mean here because for

everything that you're saying i can ask

well why and you have to provide me a

reason for that so every question that

you have but but

there's there's more to it what i'm

trying to tell you is that there are

experiences or state mental states or

whatever you want or relationships to

being

that can be argued to be more

fundamental than just conceptual thought

like a religious experience of

divine sublimity

but as you've just pointed out rem

reason is always metanewmic in the sense

that it's always going to have to refer

to something else so eventually the book

has to stop somewhere and it's going to

denote some kind of irreducible

intuition that cannot be expounded into

the form of a completely transparent

communicable uh static form it's

something that for example can only

refer and relate to a more fundamental

you agree it's a fundamental question of

philosophy no not necessarily because

philosophy is dealing with uh the

question of reason and the understanding

and so on within the frame of the

platonic idea the platonic idea is where

the buck stops as far as philosophy is

concerned like for example but why does

the buck not stop with reason if you

acknowledge that that's irreducible

because

because it's reason in the form of the

idea

well what does that mean

because if it's not in the form of the

idea then you have not separated in the

form of an idea but then it's not

separate from religion and it's not

separate from but i'm just trying to

what does it mean to be in the form of

an idea as opposed to what

um for example as is a form of an

aesthetic sense or as the form of a kind

of religious consciousness or a

religious uh deep spiritual belief

something like that

i i don't understand how these things

uh like i i just i know because you're

not really an educated person so i can

get well no i mean you're you're saying

that i'm using terms vaguely but i would

say that yeah reason reason is an

extreme reason reason does not only take

one form

well you've acknowledged that it's

irreducible is a fundamental part of our

experience but you want to say it's not

the most fundamental there's something

more fundamental than that

you're saying reason is the most

fundamental part of our experience

yeah i don't okay well but but by your

own admission reason refers to something

beyond itself reason cannot be it could

it could that but that's the topic

okay whatever okay you whatever form you

may isolate and call that reason

that form necessarily must refer to

something beyond itself

well no if it's something that's purely

no but you've already acknowledged okay

so can you tell me it's a product of

intuition so it can't it it's

indefinable it can't refer to something

beyond itself i agree i mean no no it

does refer to something beyond itself

and that very something is the object of

the intuition

but if it is the object of the intuition

then it's referring to itself

it's not what do you mean it's referring

to itself

you said to me that it's something

irreducible and something that we just

intuit

right i said reason is that yes no i

said reason eventually has to stop the

buck has to stop somewhere in the chain

of reasoning

okay i don't mean reasoning as in like

rationality i'm ask i'm using reason in

the form of counts in favor of

what counts in favor of that's i said

that multiple times then you're not if

you're if you're saying counts in favor

of it's not necessarily reason anymore

it's more like um i'm not verifiability

then it's a question of justification

and verifiability that's not necessarily

the same as reason

no no

any question you ask i can ask you a

reason for asking it

i i know but that's still not specific

enough to define with reason if you

don't even know what

let me give you an example you know

modus ponens

i know what

modus ponens

no what is that

weren't you accusing me of not knowing

basic logic

yeah i i don't i'm not a

logical is like the basic

logical axiom which is basically if p

then q yeah i don't deal with the pp

stuff i think that's just math it's not

really philosophy at all

have you read science of logic

yeah

you know pagle deals directly with that

with pp

he deals directly with logical axioms

and stuff like modus ponens but

he doesn't talk about that he doesn't

deal with the pp and the pq and the qq

or whatever i mean he might okay so he

phrases it in a different way but you

know he's still it's it's a logical

axiom that we say it's a rule of

inference okay but he doesn't deal with

things and this purely mathematical

terms okay that's analytics i mean i

wouldn't consider it mathematic like i

don't think that these are mathematical

terms i think it is i think it's just

mathematics okay then you know if

something is the case

well you understand what i mean i mean

mathematics is like the purest form of

logic proper so i mean i'm not saying

i think you're using mathematics in a

way that i don't use it i i think

mathematics is at its root logic not the

other way around but um okay

i don't care it's it's a completely

semantical point okay yeah so i i

recognize that okay

you understand what i mean by when i say

if p then q

okay yeah if p is instantiated then

necessarily q right if grass is green

or or if it rains tomorrow then the

grass will be wet if if it's true that

it rains then necessarily okay so that's

most but that's not going to say that

that's that's that's not specific that's

um

actually that's too specific to be what

reason is okay

i'm not just i'm not defining that as

reason i'm not i'm giving you so but

that's something that we want to say is

necessarily true within you know our way

of experiencing the world for example or

for example we can't

experience you're not describing the way

we experience the world you're

describing only the logic itself you're

not actually talking about something as

very sweeping and broad and uh

deep as experience

are you a diet okay are you a dialethist

sorry

do you think okay do you think we can

experience something as being both the

case and not the case

um

it depends on what you mean by that i

don't know what you mean

do you think we can experience something

as existing

and not existing at the same time

um

can we experience something that is both

existing and not existing

at the same time it depends on how we

define existence if we definitely define

existence

um

so for example to me i think that's

something that's not definable i don't

know well to me for example my

conception of the existence i'm a

dialectical materialist so for me every

existence is uh latent

sorry is uh kind of pregnant with its

own

development and becoming and thus

inevitable in existence

and

tran sublation into a higher existence

for example so it's a difficult question

what what you're actually asking me

do you think

do you think you can experience okay

example do you think you can experience

an object like a cup being both red and

not red at the same time

um

can it be both red and not red at the

same time

ah

let me think

kind of from uh maybe transcendentalist

like kantian perspective

i

don't i have no idea what it's like it's

it's it's actually not really easy to

answer that question

i mean you can't would for example never

say that that's possible at all kant

would say that that is a complete

actually that that the very idea of that

transition why would you say that

experience why would he say that because

the principle of contradiction

is something that he believes but you're

not talking about that

listen listen

the principle of contradiction is about

a is a the principle of contradiction is

not about something sorry

non-contradiction whatever whatever yeah

the principle of non-contradiction is

something cannot be both the case and

not the case at the same time

yes but when you bring experience into

it you're opening up a whole new can of

worms no no but when you bring up

experience and existence into it you're

opening up a whole other can of worms

have you been the principle of

non-contradiction yes i have okay so

then you know that he derives the pure

categories of the understanding through

a transcendental deduction

okay and part of this is going to be

that you can't experience an object in

the world when we form a judgment about

something in the world an object okay we

can't premise it with two things that

are contradictory to one another

that's unnecessary

yes but but

when you bring for example do you exp

can you experience the cup as red and

not red at the same time

yes kant would say no

no but that you haven't actually

demonstrated that based on what you've

said

well

you the whole point is that you can't

really demonstrate it because a

demonstration of that fact or at you

demonstrate it by like for example where

does redness come from where does the

redness come from red again that's

that's an indefinable thing that we

experience that that's that's not but

this is the whole point

this is the whole point of kant's

project is to investigate well what are

the necessary conditions for experience

in the first like on the one hand the

reason i'm saying this is on the one

hand you are experiencing the structure

you through some kind of transcendental

structure the company by transcendental

structure through um

the way in which the world is structured

transcendentally

well

through that i don't know what i'm like

kant doesn't ever talk like this so i

don't know what you mean by this

okay so for kant i don't know if you've

ever read kant and maybe i should i have

no you really haven't i i have yeah so

the world is actually mediated

um

by

the categories of experience

categories of pure understanding yes the

categories of pure understanding and the

synthetic a priori

yes

okay so i'm just calling that the

transcendental structure the

transcendental uh what is the word

screen

if you will if you have any familiarity

with the history of philosophy it's

actually pretty common language actually

okay but

no no talking about the transcendental

struggle because there's a

transcendental stance that we can take

towards objects in the world but that's

very different so

the type of empirical standpoint that we

take yeah okay listen rem

i'm gonna i'm gonna say this slowly for

you for kant is our experience of the

world structured or is it just a pure

empirical experience i've already said

that it's structured by the nest so why

are you taking a [ __ ] why are you

taking qualms when i say clarify what

you mean why are you having a problem

when i'm saying something that any real

kantian would just understand exactly

what i'm talking about when i say

transcendental structure what's the

issue

uh sorry someone donated no the issue is

that i don't ever recognize contest

speaking in that way if you want to cite

me

that just means you can't even put it

into your own words you can't even

recognize someone putting it into their

own no it's called you use terms in a

way i didn't recognize and constantly

didn't use it that way so it's asking

you to clarify it you know it's

conversation

like kantians talk about this all the

kantians use it in this way all the time

what contents

i mean i couldn't name them off the top

of my head but i'm familiar with your

name a single content right now

[Music]

that's not true what about um

what about henry allison

i'm not familiar with him who is the

neocons no no the neocontian from the

late 19th century

reinitiated continuism green

neocontinism bradley

was it brian bradley yeah fh bradley

hold on what was his name

bradley

fh bradley f h

brad was it no it was not it's not it's

not not bradley

[ __ ] what is his name

he was german i'm pretty sure

um

or he was french either german or french

he was not english

i forgot his name

but you do you find it i mean i can name

i can name kant like habermas is a

kantian there's plenty of kantians i can

name it's just that what

i'm just saying like if you're familiar

with kantian literature

neocontians whatever you want it's not

well i am but that's why matthew can you

even remember

if you name people who talk about khan's

philosophy yes they will you will find

it's very common that you're going to

find this type well that's that's what

i'm asking for example the

transcendental structure

will use the word transcendental

structure i'm pretty sure he's music

it doesn't matter when he's talking

about kant and he's very familiar with

kant he will say that it's not it's not

controversial

listen so getting back to the topic at

hand when i was talking about modus

ponens okay yeah kant would say that

this is a necessary no wait but i'm

responding to what you're saying so let

me respond

now that we've gotten over this thing

about transcendental structure which

you've decided to drag on for no [ __ ]

reason even though you know what i was

talking about

so when it comes to the transcendental

structure

um we cannot actually speak about

what

the cup or its color really is

we can only speak about it as it is

mediated by our

um

transcendental structure that's that's a

misreading of khan khan actually wants

to say that the only way

the only way we can talk about the world

yes that's the only way we can talk

about it but that doesn't work but that

does not speak about its existence in

itself

of course but but the whole the whole

point of khan is that to ask those types

of questions is absurdity it's not it's

not i know but just because you're not

asking the question doesn't mean it

doesn't have relevance as far as

existence is concerned

your existence is very only has meaning

from the empirical standpoint that's

kant's whole point but the but which no

existence does doesn't only have to have

meaning because for kant there is a

thing in itself

that is completely unknowable to us

which we can yeah exactly it's 100

percent and if it's if it's if it's 100

unknowable to us

then who am i to say that it's not

possible that the cup is not actually

red i can't i could never know that

you just you you have a this is a

butchered understanding of why explain

because like i would call myself a dual

aspect

interpreter of kant and ivory khan is

essentially arguing

that justify why you read it that way by

the way

i mean

the way if we look at the way yeah if we

look at the way that kant uses the terms

like transcendental object yeah or the

thing in itself he uses these words in

epistemic ways as as epistemic

conditions not as something that is

ontological in a certain sense how can

you justify

i would love yeah so you're trying to

make kant like a rationalist so how can

you justify that

no not as a rationalist because if if

you remove

the thing in itself as you know you're

not removing the thing in itself if you

remove the

metaphysically charged if you remove the

fact that the metaphys the thing in

itself is metaphysically charged and it

is actually referring to the world

outside of uh our possible knowledge

and it's actually referring then you get

listen i i want to interpret kant as

charitable i don't care

what do you mean as charitable

why would kant say the thing in itself

as just the necessary conditions uh

or of knowledge he is speaking about the

precise limit of knowledge so he is

referring to a threshold beyond

knowledge he's not allowing us or

permitting us to speak about it or have

knowledge of it but he is acknowledging

that that threshold is there

yeah

right and that's the whole point so

anything that we want to define and talk

about in experience has to be done from

the empirical standpoint so existence

itself yeah but you cannot render it but

but

okay if if the thing in itself is

unknowable to us and that this is the

threshold of our knowledge then what

exactly this entails that we can only

talk about it but just because

just because that's all you can talk

about

doesn't mean

you can say with certainty that that's

all there is no that's what i'm trying

to say okay they're two different things

that's all we can ever say yes

but that doesn't mean that doesn't mean

you foreclose say anything other than

that because it kant is fundamentally

agnostic that's all you can say but he's

not making claims about what it is in

itself he's just saying this is all we

can say he's refusing us

yes he's not allowing us to speak about

what it is in itself and why do you keep

trying to take so we are not allowed

then we are not allowed to say that the

content of our experience is all that

exists we are not allowed to say that

kant is not a solipsist

but the entire point is that we

essentially we can uh we can we can look

at things from the transcendental

perspective right and all we can you

know derive pure categories of the

understanding and whatnot okay we've

done that project right we can't go

beyond that we recognize okay so

everything that we have to do we have

the pure categories so everything that

we want to say about the world is going

to be bounded by human subjectivity and

our conditions for experience okay so

that we now hold on everything that we

now say is going to be

you know an empirical investigation you

know it's subject to these causal yeah

but with an exception subject to

something like modus ponens wait but

with an exception

there is no exception yes there is

where's the exception

we can't talk about it

remember

you claim to know anything about kant

and you don't know that khan's whole

point is that we in our experience must

acknowledge that there is an object of

both our knowledge and experience that

we could never possibly experience

something we must ignore no no if we

don't know anything about the object how

are we saying anything about it because

the only thing we can know is that we

don't know i thought we don't know

anything about it we don't that's why

it's formless that is why okay

that is why it is fundamentally the two

things you can't say these two things at

the same time yes you literally can

simultaneously we can't say anything

about it and also oh hey let me say

something about it and here's that which

is that we can't say anything about it

that's the whole point of knowledge we

can't do anything that is the whole

point anything we want to talk about in

the world dude that is literally the

world that's the whole point of the

kantian thing

that's why it's the kantian thing the

only thing we can say about it is that

we know nothing about it that doesn't

mean we can say with certainty that the

only things that exist certainty is

going to be defined within the empirical

standpoint no

you don't understand that kant's

position is agnostic it means we can

never be fully certain about anything

that's why khan says that the whole aim

of his philosophy is to reconcile the uh

whatever the religious feeling within

and the starry heavens above let's say

like you're viewing kant as this hyper

pessimist he's not a i didn't say he's a

pessimist i said he's an ignorant

like that that's why he has this whole

argument for the existence of this

category what is what is the name of

khan what is the name of khan's seminal

work what is the name of khan's seminal

work the critique of pure reason the

critique of practical reason the

critique of judgment i mean i yeah i've

read these books

yeah you didn't understand that but you

didn't unders if you don't understand

that i think you understand yes if you

don't understand that khan's project

single contemporaries if you don't

understand that khan's project ends in

agnosticism that we cannot be fully

resolve this contradiction at the heart

of your interpretation

this is literally continuism 101 the

only thing we can be certain about is

that we're not certain about it that's

really the cons the conclusion of kant

you say we can't say anything about this

thing yeah i i agree with you therefore

everything that we're going to say is

going to be the things in human

subjective experiences yes

i know

but the issue

is that it's defined

the whole issue

i know you like to blabber on and not

get to the point the issue rem is that

the things we say about our experience

we can never be fully certain about

whether they accurately reflect or

correspond

or are identical to the thing in itself

yeah because you're trying to basically

bring stuff from outside of human

subjectivity and draw limits no i'm just

saying you can't

close the knot and say you know things

for certain you don't know

defined within human subjective

experience

no it's not because the only thing with

kant you can be certain about is that

you're not certain

that's why

is fundamentally agnostic

no i i just i 100 yeah i do recommend

you like some modern interpreter you can

recommend why don't you just respond to

what i'm saying now why would you

respond in many times so according

according to you khan's thing in itself

uh is basically just like he just wants

us to throw it in the garbage no no we

don't throw it in the garbage it's and

what is the dental standpoint what's the

weight

yeah

analyzing the way that human beings

experience the world okay

so can you have that standpoint that's a

lot of blather and a lot of blood that's

a lot of blather in babel can you

actually get to the point of why kant

would even talk about and mention the

concept of the thing in itself

definitely just that because that's how

he derives the pure categories of the

understanding okay

but with that

what that means what that means is that

we cannot be certain about the content

of the thing in itself yes or no

we can't even we can't even say that

why not because we can't say anything

about it do you see you get yourself

into this contradiction what is the

resolution to this contradiction what

you already said so it's uncertainty is

defined rem but you just committed the

same error you accused me of saying oh

we can't say anything about it except

that we can we can't say anything about

it what's different

no i recognize the inherent

contradiction

no no to bring certainty into the realm

of human subjectivity you want to stay

how does that resolve the contradiction

you what how does that resolve the

contradiction

because certainty and what and for

example the necessary way that we

experience the world is defined in human

subjectivity so the very idea of a

contradiction is going to be rooted in

our subjective experiment why is there a

thing

why is there a thing in itself of which

we can speak nothing

i i don't know how to explain to this so

we can be certain about everything but

that we can be certain about everything

but that right

can you sorry we can be certain of

everything but what but the thing about

which we can speak nothing

i've

i'll try to explain it one more time

okay his the transcendental standpoint

that we take towards objects in the

world for example i can consider well

what is the actual thing behind this

bottle that i see in front of me we can

derive

through you know his transcendental

arguments the way that we have to

experience the world

we get these from contemplating the very

nature of how we would experience things

in the first place yeah okay

once we do that

we recognize oh hey

to even talk about something being

certain in the first place because we

have to have the idea of certainty to

call into doubt so you're saying it's

not hold on let me finish to call and to

doubt the existence of something there

has to be something that's certain you

can't doubt the existence of something

without having the very notion

because you blabber on a lot your whole

point is basically that the thing in

itself is not relevant as an object of

knowledge in the first place to be

certain or to know it's not an object of

knowledge at all okay well i just summed

it up for you you just keep talking and

i'm doing you a favor then the second

thing you're saying

is that

um

well we cannot doubt the existence i'm

not saying that i'm saying i'm saying

there's a fundamental dualism at hand

i'm not saying you doubt they exist i i

don't believe this i i i okay well then

you are in the minority as far as

kantians are not anymore

okay for most of history you were and i

don't care about your whatever

i don't care about your cope

i don't care about academics i hate them

all second of all

so you want to go based off of a

dogmatic well this is a dogmatic

interpretation that doesn't show true

engagement with the text infrared and

you haven't even proven that most

kantians agree that it's

not realistic well i can name i can name

a bunch for you that doesn't prove

anything though just naming it there's

like literally willing to read this kant

is literally the preeminent modern

philosophers want me to go grab like my

commentaries and establish

did you just hear what i said kant is

the

modern philosopher which means you are

not go if you put a list of 500 people

that you consider scholars of kant they

will not even be one percent okay i

understand you step away from the mic

rem don't

no matter how many kantians you mention

they will not even be one percent of

living continents today

second of all because he's the

preeminent modern philosopher

how many continents do you think that

there are in the world so people who

study con and draw conclusions about the

nature of khan's work

yes there are just about as many modern

philosophers

really that's a very interesting

statistic can you prove that i i i could

i cannot fathom a modern philosophy no

no can you can you prove that to me

yeah i i can't well i i can't prove it

but i have a word oh

interesting you can't prove it so you're

conceding the point no i'm not i'm just

really okay

okay rem ram then what are you basing

this on shut the [ __ ] up stop

interrupting me and i'll [ __ ] explain

it

you [ __ ] gave up because he lost

what i was gonna say is that i couldn't

fathom it and if that he could fathom it

i'm open to hearing what he has to say

i chose to leave

because i realized one

i had to pee at two

there's no real way to end that

conversation unfortunately

um

i'll say this though about

infrared

[Music]

infrared you couldn't listen i can't

engage with someone who's not going to

prove their claims

you can't make a claim that all these

people are kantians

without any sort of proof

that's crazy

i want to get someone who's so bad they

are not willing to back up their claims

that's just not okay

[Music]

i just won't engage with people like

that

that's all

um

listen i'll say though halfway through

halfway through

that debate

there's an inkling there

you can tell he's been indoctrinated

into a very certain

and to a very certain interpretation of

khan but he's just he doesn't have this

this is the real point he doesn't have

epistemic humility to consider that

other people might have just as valid

interpretations of

kant right of any philosophers right i

mean he is just a complete

and utter

like he talks about other people being

dogmatic i've never talked to someone

more dogmatic than that you know what i

mean

um let me just say

hey thanks so much the scours of

cognition and graydong interesting names

for 10 bucks and 15 bucks up to 40 bucks

now

can we hit 60 maybe i don't know um

thanks so much for the sub lol ralto

crystal lurker trev sammy's

captain o joseph blow phoebe hoser leloy

young keppa and i

thank you very much

for the follows um

[Music]

i'm not rejecting that

his interpretation of tom but that was

the

that it's called the the dual world

understanding

oh hey thanks so much boy wow 17 months

christ it's called the dual world

understanding

of kant and it's largely gone out of

fashion now

because you know you have to run into

something called jacobi's dilemma which

is that whole contradiction that we were

talking about how

how do we have no how can we say

for example that

the transcendental objects that things

in themselves

are the causes in a sense of our

phenomenal experiences

because presumably that's how we gain

access to them

but also say

that we can't have knowledge of these

objects there's an inherent

contradiction and so i think the way to

resolve that is to treat the whole

transcendental investigation as

something that is inherently

methodological and

epistemic in nature it's not a

metaphysical investigation like he wants

to say

it's instead

it's instead a mythological one

god some people are

crazy dude oh my god

christ

ah people get i thought

geez he's just spamming my chat

like

it's kind of embarrassing

[Music]

did i enjoy that

no

i guess you guys enjoyed it though

sweat song

someone save the vod right now before i

before i raid zurich can i get be

certain someone save the vod can someone

save the vod

of the whole thing

see i switched

halfway through to have like a serious

discussion and i thought we were going

somewhere there for a bit but

just not possible

also i wish i could find some i wish

there wasn't someone who had

such a hate boner for modern philosophy

analytic philosophy at least

because i can't actually really talk to

anyone about the stuff that i'm

interested in

[Music]

no no no no

i

you cut me off taunting me like a child

not a lot you know i cut you off when

you started screaming at the top of your

lungs like something that would appear

on like [ __ ]

world star hip-hop or something

if someone did that i mean

the police would be called

like you need to look into some serious

anger management classes seriously i

mean that

i'll turn my music down yeah sorry about

that

maybe vape

get some nicotine

get some cbd oil

if it's legal

oh yeah yeah like i think that if if

infrared has neighbors

by the way don't vape it's bad for you

um

if you have neighbors

if infrared as neighbors i think the

police would i would have called the

police

i'd be like what the [ __ ] is there like

domestic violence happening

is he having like a mental

breakdown that requires some sort of

intervention so he doesn't harm himself

if someone was screaming at the top of

their lungs

i'm just saying i'm not i'm not a

psychologist at all i'm just saying what

i would do if i was in the physical

vicinity of this actually i wouldn't

want to go near i'd be afraid for my for

my life

not my life i'm not saying he would kill

me but like

no i'd be afraid for my safety probably

god that sucked you know mouse chance

got me i ran away and is narrating the

debate to make himself feel better after

getting intellectually dominated

you're right

i don't know what i'm doing with my life

i'm just pandering to the audience i'm

not actually making serious

arguments

i mean if i if i wanted to actually be

on the same level i would have been

screaming the entire time

that's probably the way to go about

doing it

hospice trans people's identities are

illegitimate

really

well i don't know about that but i don't

endorse transphobia

that's bad

i sound racist against arabs

oh boy

holy crap

if red is accusing me of being racist

against arab people

guys

yeah [ __ ] like that's so unacceptable

you know listen let me scroll up here

infrared what else did you say here

um

[Music]

why did you run away

taunting me like a child

what are you saying about gay people are

you seeing that gay people somehow

like are capable of standing up for

themselves and are easily going to

uh almost behave in a way that is

cowardly what do you say are you

homophobic

the [ __ ] is wrong with you

i didn't know that infrared was a

[ __ ]

homophobe too christ

crazy

oh

[ __ ] me i need to stop when i get rid of

this one

i'm going to get one without any

nicotine i think because otherwise i get

nick sick

there's no question about who won but i

actually want rent himself to know he

isn't smart are you saying gay people

can't be smart what the [ __ ] he's just

still doing it in my chat

christ

just stop bro it's just a bad look

jesus

i heard about this on the news about

bigger streamers raiding smaller ones

and being bigots i just didn't think it

would happen to me on my first stream

back

christ

just didn't expect it

i don't know what to do

wasn't today you know what i should have

partici you know i did

wasn't yesterday the day of no streaming

that's why i didn't stream yesterday

because i wanted to stand in solidarity

against people like infrared

who harass us smaller streamers

well you are from white culture and i'm

from arab culture and my culture is more

passionate and we don't are you trying

to say

that my culture isn't passionate

are you saying are you saying gay people

aren't passionate

[Music]

i think your dad would say otherwise i

think your dad would say that we are

very passionate

thank you goose appreciate you

why do you think arabs have to be

homophobic oh no

arabs are some of the greatest people i

have met

then why are you racist against them

are you trying to imply that all gay

people are racist against arab people

what the [ __ ] is wrong with you

okay anyways

why are you blowing why am i doing vape

i'm sorry i won't do that anymore

secondhand smoking is really bad

um

see this is the thing because when we

started talking about like cotton stuff

like you can clearly tell he's got some

knowledge on the topic right

but then he comes into my chat and

accused me of being racist against arab

people and i'm like

it's hard to square these two things you

know like i'm like wait maybe he is i i

still think he's a character

i still think that he is a character

if he's just broadcasting my stream

maybe i should dmca you can't just

restream my content

[Music]

i didn't allow that

please stop harassing me

stop harassing gay streamers

not anyone save the vod

what are you saying about buying i'm not

gonna keep doing this

um

did anyone save this vod

you did lois heavens

why don't you save it

you did okay lowe's heavens are in the

discord

very much depends on who i'm talking to

okay here's the ultimate conclusion

right

and if you're if anyone uploads the

debate

i need you to put i'm gonna put this at

the end of the vod right or i will i

might upload it myself

so rem what i was going to say was that

at the end of it obviously i can't prove

that every philosopher is responding to

kant

but it's a reasonable inference because

kant is the preeminent

modern philosophy who sets what we call

modern philosophy

in motion

so him constantly interrupting me and

saying oh oh can you prove it can you

prove it it's like

wait a second if you disagree that

with that like commonsensical point we

could actually work around it and i can

see where the point of contention is

coming from but as far as i'm concerned

yeah it's not really controversial that

every modern philosopher is going to

have some kind of view about kant

so listing what kantians today

that you're familiar with to speak

nothing about kantians in general

think about

uh whether kant implies some kind of

dualism

um isn't actually going to prove the

point

whatsoever

that kant

uh that your reading of kant is actually

what prevails among the majority of

kantians it may be prevail among the

majority of kantians you're familiar

with but

you haven't proved

proven that it's um prevails among the

majority of kantians and you also

haven't proven that it prevails among

the majority

of philosophers in general who draw a

conclusion about kant

but he kept taunting me so i said shut

the [ __ ] up so i can explain this and he

just gave up

um but to offer another commentary

to be clear rem is wrong

now when kant talks about the thing in

itself

um

he actually is talking about

metaphysical thing in itself

which leads to the problem of dualism

and agnosticism

kant says that we cannot say anything

about the thing in itself

but the actual implication of that fact

isn't that you know

we can be certain about the world

but that the highest extent of our

certainty about the world is always

going to be

[Music]

conditioned relative and ultimately

not certain

our certainty becomes relativized and is

no longer certainty about the world in

and of itself but certainty on the terms

of

our relative relationship to it

now

some will he he says oh it's an

absurdity to speak about certainty in

any other way or any other capacity but

there is still a world in itself

that's the issue and that is so decisive

for khan's philosophy that there is a

world in itself just because we can't

talk about it doesn't mean it's not

necessary for kant that we acknowledge

it

okay someone please save the vlog

someone please save the vod

of course

thank you jennifer

jennifer underscore as he donated 100

that dude is a literal grifter you held

your own as always

thank you so much jennifer

um

yeah anyway the point i was trying to

make is that

obviously kant is not saying

that

the content of our experience is all

there is

he's not saying that just because it

leads to a contradiction or a paradox

doesn't mean

uh

it's not the conclusion of khan's view

i think it's more up to debate whether

or not kant believes the thing in itself

actually exists

i'm not saying he thinks it exists i

just am saying

for him it he's really referring to

things in themselves and it's

metaphysically charged that these are

the things in themselves existence is a

is a different thing and that's why i

said

from a basic kantian dualistic

perspective

our experience of a cup being both red

and not red could very well be possible

now we could never know but we could

never be certain about the fact that the

cup is only red

we can never be certain about that now

for practical purposes we could be

certain about it and that's actually the

conclusion

is that for all

intensive and practical purposes yes

that's all we could be certain of but

in and of itself we could never be

certain of and when we're dealing with

the question of existence and things

existence we're not just dealing with

for all relevant and practical purposes

to us we're dealing with existence as

such

things in themselves as such

now if rem was smart he would actually

uh

go with the argument about existence he

would say well for something to exist

means it has actually

uh

existence is phenomenally charged that

would be the smartest argument you can

make existence is not

nothing could exist in the thing in

itself the thing in itself could not be

uh

is a matter of being not existence

that would be a really smart argument

but i would still rebuke this argument

um because even this would be too much

as far as the thing in itself is

concerned we wouldn't even know if it

exists or not

isn't existence in rel

isn't it existence and relevant to what

yeah like

the issue is that like you would have to

say

okay does that mean existence only means

things that exist for us because that

would also be controversial why can

there not be

existence in in itself or existence for

god or existence

so on

you wouldn't know

yeah okay someone save the vod please

someone save the

vlog whole thing

someone save this vod please save this

vod and don't assume someone else is

going to do it save the [ __ ]

whoever you are if you can just save the

lot

basically what it is is you have to

register yourself with the with

like if you're trying to join these

online games you have to register with

your real name and all of that to your

internet providers like gary yeah what

if you play on your brother's account

he's over 18.000

you're only allowed one kid so you

wouldn't have a brother