DEBATE WITH PERSPECTIVE PHILOSOPHY FAKE HEGELIAN ROUND 2 [2021-08-14]

tht the pt the pple the ppy

the classical composers i like non fuckamll do what can i say

i used to have on on repeat beethoven's's going to sound so gringe i don't know i share this he has like i remember i used to talking listen to his his folk songs so he was com

mission to make to write full songs based on irish and scottish pems they're called like the twenty five whatever i used to listen to those because there was so much emotion so much pain so much it's like a very distinctly modern form of suffering you know that i related to a lot

it that's like you know how people are gty teens that was my teen g that was my form of teengs you know i guess she was angst wasjust so angstigt so just pure distilled anxiety to me and to me that's what b that's what listening to modzarts and beethoven and the classical

musicians was for me just pure modern s pure modern like think of that feeling you know when you're in like chicago or like a big city and you just feel just this fucking anxiety like you're in a machine or something just a radically alien world that's the feeling those composers used to give me and that's why i never used to tell people that i listen to them because

most people listen to those composers because they like the melody and they want to be pretentious and that it's like they'ir smile so melodious well no for me there's no melody or anything it's just pure balking ontian ha galian angs you know

yeah

are those russian composers you mention classical composers i don't know what you mean by classical i always thought classical referred to mozart beethoven in that era those guys i don't know if they're classical would they be considered classical

the

yeah romantic

makes more sense

yeah you're right but beethoven is romantic and mozart is classical you're right

you're right

guys i remember fucking being high as shit

like right out of high school and i would fucking listen to i would just listen to like mozarts just basic shit like ala turka or some shit

and i would have this just fucking feeling of just fucking vertiginous anxiety just fuck you know what i mean like that's i hate people who listen to classical music i hate people who like classical music because most people listen to it and they do it or

pleasure like oh this is that love the melody the melod and they want to feel pretentious and shit and then

the only other experience you could get from listening to that shit to me is just a sense of deep anxiety and you know reflection about modernity and shit otherwise why listen to it you know what i mean but i don't like listening to it any more i never i never listen to that shit any more because it's like satanic you know

i'm not in that state of anxiety

the

to me

you're listen there's it's the distinction between high culture and low culture right and real human authentic music

is low culture

real authentic human music is repetitive mindless

folksy soulful music that's real human music all that shit all of and gard music is say tanic

so jazz no shut the fuck up about jazz i'm so sick of hearing about fucking jazz

okay

jazz is p pretentous fucking people and for fucking restaurants fancy restaurants do to do do do to shut the fuck ub dude

yeh fuckus fuck jazz that's not what i mean by fucking folks se soulful music by folks the soulful music i mean like t grizzly or some shit i don't fuck and mean jazz fok jazz dude

you have a view of jazz that sets up the fuck up dude please shut the fuck up all of you jazz listeners oh i listen to real jazz i listened i don't give a shit shove it up your fucking as no one cares

that was

mm

the

to be

th

right

ther res

to

as a such a brian jan rat name one fucking jazz musician in twenty twenty one who's worth anything just the buck up it's like hating hagel but loving marx no it's not because music is music you dumb pretentious asphole critically and reflectively contemplating of the music's contribution to the development of music

is very different from listening to music to get your fuck in nourishment of the soul i rarely listen to older music i only don't know the oldest music i listen to is like nineties and twenty two thousands now because that's the era we're in returning to the nineties in the two thousands i'm in fuck

reality all are dwelling in the paste you're bunch of fucking losers and fuck in high school i have to go to the past to find myself because everyone rejects me in the present y shove it up here as

none and the cool kid like me

thank i have to go to the past and that's where i have friend no even in the past you'd be you want to be a cool kid either

i don't listen to old music i really don't that's something i realize i don't i don't i listen to music that i think contains the seeds of the future i listen to music that reminds me of the future you're a musical anti populist how how fuck and i am i'm a musical populist

i like music that fucking is populistic not fuckin music that only fuckin nerds like that what that means you like jazz fut the fuck up you dumb bitch that's anglo n ok here's the thing in twenty twenty one

s

people like that but especially stephen pinker and none of the oldest is chomsky chomsky's the oldest guy i would not have a problem but he's a thing even then i have to draw a line like i would never bully chomsk i would just talk shit about him from afar but if chomsky like came on i would not like be savage and brutal because he's literally like ninety nine

years old like you know maybe if chomsk he was like thirty years younger i would or twenty years younger but i think chomsky has not contributed anything to the left but bad things he's only fuck shit f

i'm feeling a lot better now i woke up groggy because of the pots but i'm feeling really well rested really alert and really energetic right now i'm feeling good right now i'm feeling good

perspective was caught in traffic he's going to be on a sap

sping to the west i'm so sad i need i need money to be

that's somethingk so

you thatks way

maybe we can tell the crow life isll with that sod with a crazy

seems like twenty two five to kaya but the other

to come uh

bye

it's not getting better andanther live i tell you

what's on my mindve but now is that is m and that up here

who said it's getting postponed by an hour who said it's getting postponed by an hour would you hear that w did you hear that

we so by not telling our siquesslove don axs tell

i'm trying to forget it i tell was on my mind but was ot of my

don't want ling i need you moy ove to be more phone don't want you with me but i'm afraid i'm gonna end up being lonely cly

can you tell me where you heard it was going to president sunday live stream is for eleven thirty nine then i ask you

moth time a month time

thank you la i appreciate it

f ama line almon line

i sa as y im back down and back down i felh

don't want to lose you

honey you more love to be more born

i can't believe this guys i literally took a year leave of law school and it's official now like they got back to me and like your year leave was approved

now i'm just like in this zone of uncertainty it's like fk i'm taking a risk guys i'm taking such a risk but i'm going to start being like an eight hour streamer i'm going to get my shit in order i'm going to clean my fucking apartment

i'm sick of being depressed man i'm sick of being depressed

i'm sick of it man

i'm sick of being depressed

i'm sick of being unmotivated

you know

i've been depressed for the past week or two

past two weeks i've been kind of depressed thank you j c but i'm i'm ready to get out of this fuckin phase you know

i'm going to w i'm going to get a haircut

trim my beard clean up my beard

s three

and i'm going to fuck and brace myself

i'm going to start looking at how to make infrared merch and i'm going to wear that merch every day i'm going to make merch that i could wear gotta be shit i could wear you know

i'm kind of thinking i like r t s merch a lot r t puts out pretty good rch and i kind of want to make it like that kind of thinking like that

se sialbody gets sick

che

i like arties style emerge but it's expensive yeah they sell it's like two hundred

russia today not fucking rooster t

always the one hour of my life with the astra debate when someone asks

for definition just pick one from the dictionary and move on

now he wouldn't do it he wouldn't

stop there he would be like trust me eh

what he was looking for is to reduce the fucking

word bad

some kind of neatly defined concept which couldo not possibly exhaust

the use of that word

be let me tell you why i don't subscribe to us for a version of subjectivismccording to which words just mean

what we prefer alone so when i say bad i think it's referring to something objective then he he would just say well i don't subscribe to moral realism so he wouldn't have to debate me you see this like i would have to agree to something i don't agree with just to begin the debate he's on now

sa

mhm

uh huh

uh uh stay in a le

stay h

mhm

uhhmh

ah

stay a get and the i can get i'm really try to get the ights of haen on y shoes of a dance and i just get it's it's ok you may

we can try to understand the new york imes are

stay in

you no good can she see b that l on love set her free oh she's only looking to me only love breaks our heart b that l me only lose the red ties so she's on looking to me brother me

why not treat him as an ally because i consider veganism that fucked up that's why i du i consider

that i am a cultural revolutionary and part of the cultural revolution i want to be a part of is a liminating veganism from the face of the earth

whats your question what's your question veganism to me is the end of humanity

i'm resisting the end of humanity by being against vegance

what's wrong with vegans because the fundamental relationship to being as a whole vegans establish is anti human

depraved nehlistic and very dark

oh shees on the looking so me oh litty boy she is on the cover brother litly oh do at st and sory somehwo

laura southern i don't even knowho she is i really don't

and you would describe your study method and how you got such a great understanding of philosophy because my goal was not to understand philosophy my goal

was to be at peace spiritually with the world

philosophy was just a way to

you know

i never cared about philosophy

as such i cared about things like justifying the truth of marxism

i was a religious fanatic before i was a philosopher

that's the truth of philosophy too by the way

you think philosophers where do you think philosophy came from

they cart

started modern philosophy because he thought a demon

he posed the question of whether a demon

was deceiving him about like he had this radical anxiety

and doubt that everything he thought was true could be false

philosophy itself is dry bankrupt and meaningless

free to

the interest in philosophy comes from something in your soul you know and philosophy only enters the picture when there's a spiritual turmoil inside of you and to me that spiritual turmoil was me growing up as a uslim in the modern western world

that's why i was interested in philosophy and that's why i don't trust

religious moslims who are active online and their superreligious in shit because how could you not be honest with the fact of their being a fundamental spiritual turmoil

you know all of these like religious people like i said they act like they're like moslims and they're religious and shit and they're goin watchin anime and stuff it's like no dude there's a contradiction here there is a fundamental fuck in contradiction you're just not being honest about it

do you see cities as a parasite of a country yes i do ultimately that's what they become

only h sa ho uh then ll anway

you like reading rooming so to me the possibility of hey we're going to start in fifteen

hey we're gonna enter right now

can we not elevate animals within human exceptionalism without devaluing language what you're talking about

mey and come me and come mey and come me prothers b with me oh she is sing to me oh me she is onrothers me

mm

what's up we're just waiting for leowis

so we're going to run the intra music a about five minutes too and then we'll get goe

m louis should be runding a second now

and we like uh speed it up and just kind of like

get right to it

ah sure

yeah the intro is just so people can come into my channel and see it

ok yeah and i haven't heard from leowis yet so it gives us some extra time

okay su

my impression is that he literally just got in the door as he messaged me

th

yeah

how are you doing

a'm alright

doing pretty good

thank

all right we're going to run the interest we're alive

and hopefully louis gets in on time otherwise i guess we'll

wait till you want one last quip

so late

the way that that we face each other right it's i think last time it was like back to back

is it possible to like we could face each other like

you mean like the the

like the frames on the screen

yeah like i was facing away and it kind of looked weird

why is that what you're saying

h yeah absolutely i can just h

flip them around

yeah yeah that sounds y

ya

yup we do

i

ok and louis is l uso we're just waiting for

dude get in the stream

i missed them

all right i'm going to run the intro and

you should be in by the

i'm taking so long

okay anybody who says they didn't like that a is band

all right

we are joined once again by has from infrad and lewis from prospective philosophy to debate

beganism

a quick reminder about format and rules opening statements are eight minutes long

who goes first will be determined

by a coin toss i will warn you when you hit five minutes so you can wrap up because when you hit eight i will cut you dead

this will be followed by two sets of alternating five minute responses followed by forty five minutes of open discussion

and concluding with twenty minutes for question period on do you think i have better if we just do like a full open discussion

i think i think a open statements and then

the my i

i do insist on opening statements and at least one exchange of arguments otherwise just becomes a shit show from go

ok ok fine

yeah but i'm i'm happy to cut it short by one five minute it's any conc lewis

if it's any consideration i haven't had a chance to prepare i got in like

like about

by

afll i thought that we were starting at half ten

so i thought i was late

so i have had no chance to prepare so like my steams watched me trying to type shit down

just to dry goets and for whatever reason i thought we were early so

st

all right so we are actually oh so i was actually late

ok you were fortunately that sounds about right the

all right so this will be followed by one set of alternating five minute responses followed by

endless open discussion and when we hit

let's say two and a half hours in we'll end with audience questions forr twenty minutes

if you have questions you need to ask them in my chat i ask that you mark them with an asterisk so i can find them

o rules of conduct are strict speaking and a turn will result in thirty more seconds of speaking time being allowed the other party

you

doesn't really matter because we're going straight to open discussion

the use of slurs or personal abuse will be met with an immediate ban and this applies both to the audience and to our debaters if either participant attempts to talk over or challenge the moderator being myself during this debate

they will first be muted and warned then removed

i trust all this has been made clear and that by participating both guests have castly agreed to the rules as just laid out

with that out of the way we'll flip a coin to see who goes first for opening statements louise your heads tas your tails

taalles has you go first

you have eight minutes sure yeah so i didn't actually prepare an eight minute opening statement but i think there's a few things that i think

i want to cover here that i wasn'unable to cover last time because i was too tired

so the first thing in order is that i made actually a big mistake

during the last debate

because i made a confusion i made a conflation and i was overthinking it too much

so

when i con seded that animals thank you for the reat them

when i conceded that animals are in fact conscious

for some reason i was confused and i was i thought that what he was trying to say is that

or hagel

animals are attributed with a degree of

self not a sorry not a degree they are attributed subjectivity and selfhood and obviously that is the case in hegel's

philosophy of nature

um

is

organism in general not just plants but also the earth

and plants

have subject

some kind of subjectthood in relation to their own generality

that's a completely different thing than subjectivity proper

for you know

speaking subject

so it's i confuse that for some reason with consciousness and i thought he was trying to say that

m by the criterion that there's some kind of similarity between m

the division between generality and individuality that hegel establishes is uniquely the case for animals as opposed to plants

with consciousness and that was a big mistake on my part

as a matter of fact

within the very opening of hegel's philosophy of nature it becomes very clear

that hegel has a working distinction between nature and spirit

and that animals actually fall within

the the kick category i guess is a loaded term philosophically of nature

animals do not participate in spirit properly

as far as haggle is concerned

now one of the reasons why this was so confusing is because hegel also makes it clear

that

the dialectical concept

m

which

which is interior and which emerges only in spirit

is the very thing that lead leads the stages of the philosophy of nature further so for example beginning from

a mathematics to inorganic

physics to organic physics

the thing leading these stages along is the very same dialectical concept

which emerges only in spirit

but that doesn't mean that it's the same thing as

the domain and sphere of spirit proper

and i think one of the other reasons i had this confusion because i was thinking more of the question of the implications this has in cosmological terms like

what does the implications of the emergence of spirit have

or

be for because like a cosmology of

spirit which i guess is the work of the enk of itself like

how is it that nature becomes the thinking consciousness

im

so i think i was being too generous with proerspective philosophy and attributing him with a degree of depth

that wasn't there

um

on fe because he wasn't talking about that

as a matter of fact

the stage of consciousness

i

if you can even call it a stage proper

within hegel's phenomenology of mind

is only meaningful

from the perspective of being an orientation a path to absolute knowledge

consciousness

and moreover self consciousness and

other stages

are

for hagel rather than necessarily existen

stages

within which different kinds of beings dwell

they are moments of the incomplete there are moments of not only moments of absolute knowledge

but they are also incomplete perspectives on the question of absolute knowledge within the history of philosophy

and hegel makes that very clear

even the question of whether

consciousness or self consciousness exist as such

is by no means

by no means clear in hegel rather than just being incomplete perspectives

in history philosophy

so this idea that leowis was forwarding like that oh yeah humans belong to the middle term of self consciousness

and animals belong to the junk it's god it's a complete absurdity hegel makes it very clear

also in the philosophy of nature

of yet this fphere of humanity and this sphere of spirit

coincide

one in the same sphere like spirit begins with humanity

so

consciousness self consciousness reason spirit etc

these are not things that you can you know neatly box

these are not this is not some kind of like

cosmology within which humans only occupy one's sphere

humans are a part of every single sphere

every single one

and there

the question like humans are not just

the middle term as lewis was putting it that's a complete ridiculous

absurdity

humans

uh

there is

humans

all of this

phenomenology of mind is describing

humanity proper

you can say that three minutes left yeah you could say that the different spheres represent like different

relationship

humanity has

different relations

but

you absolute knowledge i mean but ultimately it's all humanity it's not just the so called middle term maybe what he was trying to say is that

self consciousness is the extent of

humanity as can be conceived of like as an individual

a and moreover not just an individual but an unreflexive

like non philosophical individuals

like the kind of pre moral individual of cont

even then that would be very wishy washy and very

ambiguous

so

um

let me think isre anything else i wanted to get to

i have three minutes i can think about

um

yeah in general i just think luis doesn't

have any real grasp of ha gelian philosophy i think he's deeply confused about what he's talking about

i'll just concluded there

thank you very much

and louis you're going to get eight minutes

starting now

right that's great i hope you can all hear so

yeah

um i think it's quite funny in some respects to kind of double back on saying that animals are conscious considering hegel himself actually says animals are conscious

a in the phenomenology of spirit

he actually says i'll find the coquode if you like

he says i

what is it

where is it

and

and

as sandy and i am myself external spatial and temporal as receptive of sense sensuous intuitions i receive them from something which is

external to itself

an animal cae into it but the soul of an animal has for its object not its soul itself but something external

he does not say that animals are souless

without consciousness

who don't

into it the world nor they don't into it themselves

that is the separation which is why they never make it to the middle term

within the within the dialectical process which i thought you know i was hoping you are starting to understand

and but you know that's essentially

the positive and

constitut the positive

ah notion

being represented

against nature and this is where we start producing determinant objects and identities

from which then we can make meaning and sense of nature and not take it out its infinite form which seems to prevent any knowledge of nature itself

but you know like that's that's

essentially the hagelian dialectic which

reconciles absolute knowing in the sense of the

um well actually i mean like that's follow up another quurte

like it is

fundamentally the truth of consciousness which is being reconciled within spirit

spirit has shown itself as the unity of soul and consciousness

this

the former a simple immediate totality and the latter knowledge

which is not limited by any object

i no longer stands in relation to it

but its knowledge of the simple

neither subjective nor objective totality

spirit originates therefore not

only from its own being and

for only from its own being

and relates itself to its own determination

so spirit

is related only to itself

which is the meat which

has annihilated

the mediation

of self consciousness

in consciousness consciousness as spirit

no longer needs self consciousness

it takes reality as it is and no longer has the

propose

determinate objects for example

humanity

um

they geve that's

unbelievably clear i mean in the science of logic

he says m

a beginning is logical in that it is made to be the element of a free self contained thought

in pure knowledge it is mediated

for pure knowledge is the ultimate and absolute truth of consciousness

like i mean i don't know how many times i have to say this and he does say that animals are conscious

and he just says that animals

and don't will themselves

so cannot own themselves

he basically says they are conscious but can't

you know contain the role o the orown spirit

that's

just essentially that they're not self conscious

they're incapable of ethics

so

the general nothble the sign contract

which is i don't think many of us would disagree with

but his inability to reconcile

consciousness and self consciousness because of his own

ideology is exactly what we need to talk about

soul

now that's out the way

let's move on to really what we need to consider

within this conversation

which is that previously i outlined the onological commitments of hegel as consciousness

and that these commitments

also have i an epistemological ground in which self consciousness

must reconcile as the reconcile itself with consciousness

as a reflexive process

intellective

purely

reflective on the sensuous data that it receives from conscious experience

without such data it would be meaningless

the experience in the world is what grounds self consciousness

knowledge

is not knowledge abstract but knowledge of ourselves

which

would

without of without which

when we pause something like an abstract notion of a rational man

we reduced the notion of god

in ha gelian philosophy to that of a calculator or worse are still akantyan

the idealization of man has been tested and it has b hundred has resoundly failed

the hegelian position stands to reconcile the unity of consciousness

and the self

this attempt to

and move us towards

an abstract one sidedness

is in and of itself

i e m

a notion of either an unhappy consciousness

or an attempt

to express one's consumption out of fear

of them

of meaninglessness

so we're either trying to consume meaninglessly rather

or we are trying to escape that meaninglessness

through an abstract notion

so you can either chek you can either pick

you mea that someone who consumes animals because

you like the taste of them and you ca't and you just scared of given up your favorite food

or you do it because you have some sort of

supreme on propocentric motion you know you're a christian you're a muslim or something like that

that this suns

really as a as a dominant ideology

one which i would name calunism one that saes meet for go tok

a thank you

and one ses me consumption as actural normal and necessary one which s which places the object of mind as a sublime object of ideology from which we areo supposed to see the world through wheres name could only be said to be otom

we will seek to disavow this ideology oll this abstract notion andtead reconcile aurselves with consciousness

we need to confront the monstrosity that we see in the eyes of the animals

and our own death drives

as recognising ourselves as committing an action of evil and injustice

and

and reconcile ourselves with our own

self

destruction

so what must talken well

so what must happen next

is our active

reconciliation with consciousness itself

the movement to consider the life

and liberty of all sentian beings

and reject

abstract notions of right

and

unjustified

modes of consumption

thank you

thank you very much has you're going to have five minutes to respond

yup

ok well we can hear you and we can hear you on my i so i got to fix my stream though i got to fix ok no worris take a time

properties

well

hold on

okay

i think i got fix i gott a fix

it would be perfect all right

for ok let me just go we got five minutes

you got five minutes yeah ok sure

lewis hegel does not say that animals are conscious you literally just pulled that out of your ass

what you the relevant passage you just described

proves that animals could not possibly be conscious because consciousness takes as its premise

the very subject object distinction

which animals are not capable of having

consciousness lowis is not simply

um

it doesn't it's not simply like

the ability to intuit

the ability to have intuitions or whatever

consciousness specifically refers to

these what an object is

or another

for someone

for hegel it's very clear that animals do not possess this which is it's interesting and also that you keep fucking dodging

the point it is like as clear as day it is like so one sidedly apparent

or hagel within the very philosophy of nature you can read the first

part of that

philosophy of nature

animals belong to the domain of nature

humans belong to the domain of spirit

the gole like

there's no ambiguity whatsoever as far as that's concerned

now what you're trying to do is make it seem like

consciousness is some kind of existence

or hegel right

but in nowhere does hegel say consciousness is an existence

consciousness for hegel

represents an incomplete perspective as far as

the quest for absolute knowledge is concerned

hagel for example talks about

the immediate consciousness

sorry of sense certainty right and

the whole thing that is driving this process along is the quest

for absolute knowledge

eight

when hegel talks about consciousness he's talking about something

he's talking about the inadequacy of consciousness to exhaust this

that's why for hegel

there is actually a moment in which consciousness necessarily must become self consciousness

ok

and this follows imminently hegel doesn't say

consciousness becomes self consciousness

because of some biological mutation

egel says consciousness becomes self consciousness

because

the attempt

to arrive

at the

the absolute

a knowledge

by means of

ah the immediate

consciousness of

objects in the world ultimately fails and becomes inadequate

so

eventually consciousness itself

as sulfthood must become

such an object and this is the stage for hegel of self consciousness

it is so fundamentally meaningless to say that animals are conscious

because

animals are not

like caught in this quest for absolute knowledge whatsoever

so no

then the second thing you said that it's very clear for hegel that

you said a lot of word salad and a lot of mumble jumble

about self consciousness

m hegel yeah it's very clear that humans are the middle term no it's not clear whatsoever hegel nowhere does hegel state

that humans are the so called middle term

for hegel

again

the phenomenology of spirit

exhaust

is is about

it is

all humanity it's all humanity that's participating in all of these stages

it's all moments of humany actually the young he geans precisely interpreted it that way they got rid of the element of god

and we're basically just saying that

it's just a fundamentally human hegel was secretly just saying that this was all

man ors mark said

the conclusion of german philosophy is that man is the highest essence

four men

um

i mean you can you can get rid of you can reject that perspective and say hegel was really talking about god and so on and so on but

animals don't figure in it whatsoever

um

you're saying that

you sing

yet consciousness isn't some kind of existent premise consciousness is a stage of inadequacy for hegel and nothing more

now if you're talking about consciousness as the elementary moment of the subject object distinuis a minute

then yeah

obviously consciousness has a

has great importance for hegel

what

what consciousness actually is so far as its essence is concerned has to be taken at the end of his philosophy not the beginning it doesn't establish a dogmatic premise

that he remains committed to to the very end

what consciousness actually must necessarily be

is at the end of the phenomenology of spirit not the beginning

you said that is clear

but nowhere is

i forgot i don't know which said

this so called ontological commitment you're talking about consciousness is just wrong you're talking out of your ass

hegel describes the inadequacy of consciousness and that's the whole point

already said that

now you may oppose the so called idealization of man

as a failed enterprise or whatever

but hegel recognizes humanity and man as the exclusive domain of spirit it is literally meaningless

incomprehensible and

absurd

to think that the animals can belong to this sphere of spirit

okright that's a good one and if you' rejon you're not a hegelian okay that's it yeah run time yeah sorry about that

and lewis five minutes

he just doesn't reconcile them as the

self conscious which provided evidence for because i actually quoted hegl

um the the thing is is that

i think it's quite funny because you say that hegel see the begins with the subject object distinction no he begins with the imminent consciousness which is the point of self certainty

m which is just existence itself it's infinite

which is why he starts with the infinite

and which i would like to ask you if you could name them what are the three infinites that exist in hegel

and if you could outline what are the fundamental

onological la

tenets of reality

and

which exist within which self consciousness must reconcile

um

because they are what we begin with

which is the whole movement like

if we already began with the subject object distinction

the movement would have already would have already and

started the dialectic too soon which he criticizes other philosophy

with other philosophers for doing

he starts the dialectic at the very beginning

what must be the case

and where can we reason from

so when you say that he actually presupposes like a dogmatic notion

or something as the first term that he is not committed to

that's ridiculous

hagel absolutely is committed

to the movement of the dialectic

the terms prior were necessary and we have imminently moved from them

to complete the dialectical process

which is the reconciliation of the first term

and the sec and the middle terms

in spirit

it's the way reason works

hegel's not like

abstracting a new

rational skamata where he's just

it' totally revolutionizing the way people think

is actually taking something which was proposed in many ways

by plato and aristol

and and renewing it

for a modern time and showing how it actually develops over time

like the notion of consciousness as its imminency

he's stagnant

the motion of the middle terms

it's

self consciousness and is infinite

and he says that as much the infinite middle term which is self consciousness and that is on

and i think

on aups in the phenomenology of spirit

an absolute right

and the reality of the situation is

like to say

that the on logical commitments of hegel on not to self not to consciousness

and purely self consciousness

totally misses the value

of self consciousness

self consciousness

is to remove

the negativity that exists

that the purely negative motion that exists in consciousness

in which we are subject to all of the pains of nature and never actually able to express our dride

we a were existing in a way that

purely impulsive

in a way that is damaging and so seek to free ourselves

it is is an imminent movement because we are in pain and that

drives us on what

it's not that

we have already started with the intellectual like the respective necessary

conditions to

work out what we must know because that would be the int in position

that would be like all right well we already have what we need to know

ah everything about absolute knowledge and truth

and so we can just enter it into a calculaateor into a w a boo boo categorical imperative they will go no that's not how it works

the reality of the situation is that we are analyzing

the drives

that are being mediated through society

these drives

are necessary for hegel and they exist in consciousness

and that's what society is mediating

in terms of absolute right

at the point of absolute right

there is no confliction in the system of drive

now hegel sees that

as being purely anthropcentric

of course e doteres

he was writing three hundred years ago it is absolutely odd

when people

were even non racist

three hundred years ago

and you said you said yourself

hagel is fairly conservative as an individual

that that's not surprising but looking at hegelian philosophy

through the lens of

what did hegel think

would be dogmatism and historicism that one met left works

you don't go

hegel thought

x y and z and then seek to prove his conclusions

you take the hegelian method

you take the ways in which you understood the world and then you apply it to the problems that we have

and that is what contemporary hergelians do

which is why we don't seem to be reckon trying to promote some sort of monarchy

for some reason it's almost as if it had everything to do with him living in prussia

like the

like oh my god

like anyway

the the whole point of this scenario

is to reconcile

that

consciousness must reconcile itself

with itself

that is the whole that is the mandate in spirit when spirit has done that then spirit is free

now i'll give you four quarters i think was a four or three quarters

explaining that

now

i ask you the question

what are the three infinite tenants

which are the on alogical foundations

for hego

the three infinite

in hago

all right than that's time yeah so ok and by request going to move into open discussion i

for the audience if you want to ask questions

i cannot see them unless they're in my chats you're going to come in here and put them into my chat i ask that you put an asterisk on both sides of it so i can identify quickly

and we'll try and go through as many as possible in the last twenty minutes we're going to go for about an hour if we're both oka with that

um so h

yeah guys take it away

so louis i'm actually not going to entertain your like little attempt to quizz me or whatever because you're not the touch jonals scenario you're my student

as proven by our actual and

as you don't know you're avoiding the question why you don't you ok so you're randomly going to like quizz me on randomly question establish establish

sunday it is guy he's a lot to interrupt me like this

because i can interrupt you i ca you way more unpleasant than you louis we don't want to play you game do yous little boy don't play this game with me louis don't play these gorilla games with me little boy

leowis

ho you ls seconds then lewis go lewis you faile to actually i have a lot i have to respond to a lot of the shit he said i'm only get thirty second ten seconds until he's allowed to interrupt

ok

yeah louis

you you haven't fucking demonstrated the relevance of the three infinites according to agl as far as the actual point under contention with was concerned

the point under contention being

you talked about the imminent oh no higgle doesn't begin

division of subject of object

well you're just fucking putting words in my mouth what i'm trying to say is that consciousness beginning with consciousness

imminent or otherwise

implies some kind of fundamental division between

subject an object

there is no consciousness without that division

now i didn't say hegel

my fucking point was hegel doesn't establish a dogmatic premise

that he maintains his commitment

as far as the ontological commitments of consciousness is concerned which is what we're beginning with

the actual content

the being of consciousness

is something that hegel develops through the course

of the phenomenology

you do not first establish

the ontological significance of consciousness and then begin

from there

that's not the nature of hegel's

thinking and it's not his method it's not how his system works

now your thing about the

nothing hegel lived three hundred years ago yeah but here's the difference hegel had a very rigorous distinction

between nature and spirit

and therefore and he also had a rigorous description of what he considered animals

and the way in which animals were different from humans

you nothing has changed to justify a difference as far as

a how you can reconcile hegel's underlying method in his system

with the others you talk a lot about you talk a lot of gibberish and word salad as i'm going to stop you there louis you want to respond

well i mean like to meentre you hoest with i'm a little bit sad that you're not going to answer the question because i think it is fundamentally important since it is the ontology from which hegel's building everything from

i mean i can answer it if you like but

whatever and if you want to ask me a question on hagel you're very welcome to

to be entirely honest with you you can z if you want you're the one who needs education year

well i'm happy to i'm happy to answer any question you like

but the thing is is that

when we look at the determinant objects a the production of the

of determinate objects and hag

im

and that the one in terms of the first

subject object distinction

that's not where we begins

the the phenomenology of spirit

he begins at the immanency of consciousness

which is essentially the end of seizure

you know well yeah ok well then i'm just making it clear what you wt to put it in my min is it a subject object distinction

the morning hang on

lethim let him finish this point

ten seconds lewis then he can interrupt go quite the opposite it doesn't it doesn't it doesn't imply a subject object distinction it actually implies the infinite subject

that that's the issue it implies the infinite being

until we start of reconcile ourselves and destroy nature

and replace it with the notion

a or a concept

and then the reconciliation of that notion

and and reality

is the concept itself

when he sees a the concept

or like spirit

you're right in saying that the truth

of spirit

m isn't

it is not like in nature itself like we we don't like you know we don't have ethical knowledge like im like imbued within us

um at least

it's not knowledge enough

it's the grounds for knowledge

it's the grounds for truth which is why

hagel points towards

and the the the law within me

as well ok but he doesn't say but he doesn't say that it's

thank

it doesn't say specifically

that

the

ok he doesn't say specifically that we have knowledge in nature or something in w can we walk back what you just said though

you just said that hegel believe begins with the imminent consciousness which is infinite subjectivity

ok and then you said

it's before we have to destroy nature

wait a second we don't do anything louis it all follows imminently from the nature of consciousness itself

that

a division between subject and object

so yes consciousness does imply the division of subject and object

i will say it doesn't if we do something i think that you know we don't do anything voluntary that's complete nonsense what are you even talking was not a iminist

hegel is not a determinant you're saying that we begin with the infinite consciousness and then we voluntarily

to destroy nature and create a decision the words ho in the words of hagel the substance is separated through action

everything is a moment of will

like there is but that was doesn't make it voluntary here hang on one of the lewis no will

sorry it is the will the will figures in his ontology on has the will isn't one seven from finis stockhus

lewis go

and i'll just saying that we are the will that when not when we are acting we are manifestations of the will the will is not separate from being

i completely agree which is why when we are truly free it's in spirit itself which is the reconciliation of

will with

with itself but spirit reveals the truth of consciousness and if it reveals the truth of consciousnessruth is that being entails

the will the will is part of being and that therefore the subject object distinction is implied by consciousness

it's not that the will is part of being it's that the will is being that all there is is will

like that like it's not to say that like so when we talk about what

hegel seeing as the foundation it's he wouldn't see a consciousness as something thatch is ine

it is non oct how does objectivity arise according to ha

how does objectivity arise well we would get it through the through the negative process of the

well through self conscious media is that we t from group

so at the masa slave dialect again where does that come from

onologically on soologically speaking where does that latent potentiality come from

it is it something outside of being or is it something imminent to being itself e nothing nothing's outside ok so let's let's shut the stop saying that tagle do in with an object subjectintion implied by consciousness all right not lewis respond

yt

so nothing's outside of being as becoming i mean that's like that's

obvious that' mean that there's something outside of existing

they existence so like what's outside of existence ex like nonexistence like it doesn't make sense

like the point of what

hagel's saing

is that

the the the there are a few things actually this is why said one of the three infinites

because it's the three on alogical infinite

that are the foundations for this process

oks now you can respond

okay i'll iull okay

less you want this outline you want to leuis it's not relevant because me saying consciousness implies a subject object distinction

is one hundred percent correct

it's as simple as that

we' sorry say that again

me saying that consciousness implies a division between subject and object that for a being to possess consciousness

it must be able to differentiate it must participate in a subject object distinction

it must be able to be cognizant of objects to be conscious of some kind of content

that isn't one hundred per cent true you contested it by talking a lot a lot of gibberish and word salad

and i had to rein you in and now it seems like you're conceding on the point

no i would one hundred percent say that the o the subject object distinction is actually a product of language i mean

this isn't even just in hagel we could go to high consciousness is

presupposes language for hagel

consciousness presupposes lung

yes only conscious being is a being that possesses language justg yes it does yes no it literally don't why does hegl consciousness is an object on word other one a time

has finish your thought the loose response

consciousness yes

implies language and presupposes the elementary subject object distinction

proper to language there is no conscious being that does not possess language according to hegel because

the necessary mediation

of arriving at what an object is

for another for some kind of subject

relies upon and implies

language in the mediation of the

their natural world or whatever the real world

by language so yes consciousness implies language

like i said you don't seem ling understand i as has as i responded lewis you got to reond

so that's

fundamentally false i mean if you look at where he says determinant objects come from

because he still he starts with the infinites and into

two respects i mean you can look at the

the three infinites which he poses as

um within spirit

and then you can look which you know maps very well onto

notions of the trinity

by the way

and so when you look at like and it's allegorical like and i thin cagle relevant three

name what's relevant

was it wass relevant yeah ok you have this sarg me and mana

so what so the mediation between the self and the other is how we understand matter

and our understanding of the other

is mediated through mona and i under standing of self is mediated through both of them

like it is a unity which when separated becomes incapable of producing knowledge

so when was separating anything

why when w when did i separate this

this is

but

use what one because

the in consideration of otherness within consciousness

would be the separation there i would argue what you're all talking about i'm the what you're the one who's trying to say that consciousness is some kind of infinite subjectivity and that's all it is

no i never said conscious i said that consciousness at the very beginning of the dialectic

consciousness is the infinite we begin with and then we produce determinate objects

but andw how do you produce determinant object ok

through negation

and how and where does the so consciousness does not imply the negation the negation comes from something else

yeah i know

that's what i'm saying

so no there is no way we could have had language

because they have language

is to imply negation

to go this and not that

yeah

there's a very famous quote by blanchaw where he says

for me to be able to say this woman i must take her flesh and blood reality away from her

destroy her

the whole point of giving a name to some you are trying to has has

finish

then has respond go yet so the whole point in naming something

is to give a determinate existence

to see that it is not

the infinite

immediacy of consciousness

but a single entity in itself

and that is an act of language which is not presupposed

in the imminency of consciousness

hagel hegel says that

language cannot actually name particular

well you don't know what you're talking about in that regard

secondly

like i said you're trying to make it seem

like hegel is trying to say ontologically speaking

consciousness as the imminent consciousness and infinite subjectivity

that is not

imminently already entangled

with the three two other infinites

that give rise to the possibility of objectivity and therefore subject object distinction

you're trying to make it seem like hegel is trying to say

the infinite subjectivity is an existence and it's not

it's just a useful way

it's just something hegel a sets up

to uh

to make it a

it's something useful for hegel

to expound upon

the relationship between consciousness and the world

but in so far as consciousness is taken as an existence

as something which beings possess

i think on the list let him finish

sorry

i's finish your though

as something that beings possess it necessarily implies a distinction between subject and object

how could a being possess consciousness

without

without that implying a division between subject and consciousness no determinate being whatsoever

good

possess consciousn

the ind the imminent' going to i'm going to on a lss the imminent consciousness you're talking about is not determinate being it's not andan it doesn't sa it's not something that exists in reality

o

lewis respond

so the imminent consciousness is reality and i think you misspoke andn i'll give you the benefit of the doubt i don't think you meant i

between consciousness and the world

you meant between

uh consciousness in itself because consciousness is the world right you're is an absolute idealist like there is no separation between consciousness

it's being in we are design

right

and

like

so like the well we all the weld geve in otherness

it's other yes ok well and it's determinanateness

this is the difference

so we have the world in its determinateness we have that world in its otherness and we have the world in itself

which is the three infinite

right

s ner this in this and otherness

me otherness means

it's the relationship between consciousness and it's

ah

i don't know if i would say a parent or it's opposite

which is in fact yes for hegel ultimately a moment of itself

but that's what i'm talking about

yeat and the consciousness of otherness

exists in what

consciousness of otherness exists in what

mhm

what does it exist in

what are you asking like it present how does it present itself to consciousness

how does erminent way

but in what what

what does what

are we presented with

it as as the other

what is what is what is being presented there

what

new

get your point what are you trying to ask

you are being presented with a manifestation of will

the day the separation between self and

self or that and and determinateness

is that a rock doesn't have a will

but another individual has

o the mediation between the self and the other is what allows us to construct determinate objects because they're the only active participants

within within substance a conscious being

implies a being

cognizant

or

participating in a division between subject and object consciousness implies the division

of subject and object

no it doesn't it's not do and it doesn't it doesn't do that for hegel and it doesn't even do that why doesn't it explain

um because hegel doesn't start at the point of

he already starts prior

to the subject what does that have to do with where he starts

consciousness ultimately implies you let not let him fchre stocks are can say

because if the chapter starts at consciousness and then he outlines consciousness and then outlines how

objects are then formed from consciousness

later on

he's not saying that we start with a subject object is notion you fucked up the whole thing

in hegel's beginning yes in the beginning chapter of consciousness

hagel

he does imply the existence of objects is just that objects are given

they are given to consciousness

have you even fucking read the book dude

what are you saying i'm saying objects don't exist ill the second chapter take it down a bit

no no no i'm not saying the objects don't exist until the second chapter i'm saying objectsment giving on hang onestn

has le let respond

i'm seeing the first movement in hegel

is not

is not the production of the object subjecti vision

it's the beginning of the immediate infinite ok which is doesn't he doesn't explain how the division was as it has let him let him finish his thoughts we like have a coherent conversation

you're going

which is why in the phenomenology of spirit he describes

e being and nothingness

as either a room of bright white light

ah infinitely bright

or infinitely dark

there's no difference because there's no determination

there must be a combination between being a nothingness

which is being reconciled within consciousness which allows us to produce determinate objects

we are the production of objects

and not we do not find ourselves your batt ls let has respond babbling

leuis it's very simple

he may not arrive at in the first chapter how precisely the division is engendered

but that is different from saying the division isn't implied the division is fucking implied

in the first chapter

because objects for he hegel are the the it is the immediate object of consciousness is objects in the world

that relate to consciousness

and an immediate

uh

in in immediate way according to these philosophical perspectives he's critiquing hegel says obviously

that such an immediate consciousness is not even possible

and he critiques the possibility of a real immediate conscionus

like i said there's a reason why

chapter one leads to chapter two because of the inadequacy

of chapter one in being able to actually arrive at a

at the point of real absolute knowledge

but

the division between subject that set up the division between object

and subject in the first chapter

is fucking implied

ok that's like if you don't know this you haven't read the book

ok i don't

i don't

like what i'll say

is that the first the whole point

of the first chapter

is to show that the that the wills

engagement with reality is an engagement with itself from which it seeks to satisfy itself

it is the attempts a self satisfaction which produces

the subject object of i what we

we produced the subject objectivied in an attempt to satisfy ourselves

and find it

inadequate so ben move the self conscious o what guys what

a guy both of you e

i will meet you

let's bring this back to the question at hand

how does this bear on the veganism debate

oce i want to he's a fake a gell i want to press him on this because

so what

that it this is what endangers the division between subject and object

for hegel consciousness implies such a division

consciousness first does not imply such a division the reason that it's relevant for the veganism debate is because he's trying to say that self consciousness would be necessary or like the subject object distinction would be necessary for the consideration of consciousness

as simplicity i't have to s have to imply you don't understand what you're talking about self contut this is how the is how he elaborate aw the diion is i meen i me hang on has has let him finish his statement then you can go

so

the whole point in hegel

is the mediation of the will may attempt to produce a world from which it can satisfy itself

if the subject object distinction was already presupposed

this would already imply that they hund the world

and in a way which is

mediaated

but they seek mediation it's the constant drive for mediation that moves consciousness

to self consciousness i thank youo so here's the thing lewis it's not such a drive that leads it to this

for hegel the conclusion is already implied at the premise is just developed at the end

when you get to the end of his focking book all of that is already there in the beginning

that's what you don't fucking understand that's why you're not a he gelian and you don't understand dialectics

forgle beginning yes it is there at the beginning it develops at the end you learn the truth of what's at the beginning at the end

that is so elementary to gellan dialect ight how the call yourself and gell ok has has

al doesn't again as with a fucking dogmatic premise and then builds from the premise

p les got fels the truth of the

the beginning i completely agree that it is the reconciliation of consciousness with itself which i've been arguing this entire time

that doesn't imply the subject object division

in hegel

and even in the even in his successores

i mean let's take someone who is very much inspired by hegel like heidega

when we take you know being in the world

and the production of language and determinate objects is one of the existential structures of azign from which we must analyze

so when we find ourselves in this throwess and find ourselves with

subject object distinctions

when we when we every in every single subsection of the first chapter a subject object distinction is operative

in every single one

objects are given to the immediate consciousness that is what i was saying i the gol is talking about why consciousness is imminently inadequate

he is not saying consciousness is some kind of discreet stage

he's saying that consciousness is almost a kind of

perspective philosophers have had which is ultimately inadequate to satisfy

the the need for absolute knowledge which is the whole fucking reason why he wrote the book in the first place

to actually satisfy what it would mean to have absolute knowledge

and hegel is saying

consciousness

let a lem finish stup you correspond lewis going house consciousness as something he hegel if hegel begins

with consciousness

he does it he's not saying that this is like

the the structure of creation like

this is where god first created the world and then

it developed like that

ok that is not the structure of his book you're not a real hegun you literally

such i re hang on hand ok okk thank you has and leuis can you reply

like like fighting straw men is really not doing you any any good mat like i reck i have outlined my position time and time again if you can't understand it then i suggest either a reader's guide

to the phenomenology of spirital respect break don i'll break down your position i' has let finish his response the let you go

but the argument that i'm making isn't controversial and it's not something that even

struggles to reconcile itself within spirit the will is willing itself toward spirit

now

you say that like the truth

of spirit already exists in consciousness

i mean yeah in the sense that it's unmediated and um like without um with

without determination

but that

precisely is why it's inaequate which is why we move through

like so i don't see why that's necessarily relevant except for

in relevance to my position which is the consideration i the wlies the distinctions there going to you know i donng hass

which try to be concise lsa

so which is the consideration of the ontology of consciousness which exists within animals as well as humans

eh this first of all

first of all before we even get to that stupid fucking thing you just said which directly contradicts hegel's views

that it exists in animals

louis i know your posit your position is crystal clear and you haven't f the issue here louis is you're not responding to anything i'm saying in response to your position

like an n p c you just keep saying the same shit you said before

without addressing what at the points i'm trying to raise

hagel begins with consciousness

he doesn't actually establish within the first chapter how the subject

object distinction comes to be maybe but that distinction is implied by consciousness itself

ok

you don't understand the difference between these two du

do different things

there is a difference between hegel elaborating how the subject object distinction

comes into being

and whether or not it is already implied and already there from the beginning

hagel's a dialtician he begins from a perspective of a radical difference a radical

discontinuity a radical contradiction

i know some he gelians take issue with that but whatever you get the fucking point

and that is always implied from the beginning

hegel you have a fundamentally un dialectical understanding of the phenomenology of mind

if hegeld begins the writing of the phenomenology of mind somewhere that doesn't mean he's actually

beginning ontological

the actual ontological beginning is revealed at the end

the nature of the the essence of what was at the beginning is only revealed

at the end

ok the essence of consciousness for example what consciousness actually is

m

as consciousness ontologically that's something that's revealed at the end of his book not at the beginning

ok

the that is the thing that drives the process along that you're talking about

is precisely something that was always already there that's why for hegel absolute consciousness

follows necessarily

sorry absolute knowledge

follows necessarily

i

these are all moments in its being

you coud lose the outoin

yeah so i'm just going to say that the subject object distinction is certainly not implied i mean that's the whole point

of the hegelian schimata

i mean let's be honest like the whole point of consciousness developing determinanate objects is an attempt to satisfy you n p c and you p sying has with within the world

so the reason that we move to self consciousness is because the desire to

satisfy ourselves within the world has been frustrated by the

by the existence of the other we see something

which is monstrous to us a will which resists youra it and soaw satisfaction so the negative force which moves the dialectic is the frustration of the will itself

which yes is because you read chapters

has you had time

leois finish with p place

ya so the negative force

of the dialectic which is moving us from negation and negation is the frustration of the will attempting to satisfy itself in the wild and that's why he moves between

hednistic self satisfaction and obstruct notions of our lewis lewis let me break it down for you very clearly very concise

ok at this point if you don't respond i'm going to assume you're an n

let's break it down like

do we're going to go yes or no in the beginning the first chapter

does hagel speak of objects

for the immediate conc

in the world

nay meeting about objects

he speaks about objects not for the immediateus consciousness

he does not speak about

the givenness of objects for the immediate consciousness

nor he talks about the determination of concous objects

which are which are in the first chapter

yeah

determine so he talks about objects objects are in the first chap he does talk about objects yes in the first chapter

yes given it's the givenness of object

or the immediate conscious

heg

rebukes the view of the given obviously he shares that with kant

but

that is what he talks about in the first chapter

he doesn't actually believe they are just given

but in that he's not describing how they actually come to be and how they're endangered

but hegel speaks about the fact that in

he's talking about the stages of philosophy

in consciousness

it appears to us at the very least it appears to us that there are objects

given already

consciousness

now the that what it appears that what it appears as it's not the case hegel talk hegel is trying to explain

why philosophers before him

we're beginning from that persective empiricism and so on and so on

now

what the issue for hegel is not

that

b

the issue is the will

satisfying itself

itself

ok

what it actually is

rather than these various objects in the world which hegel will

obviously elaborate

um

instantiate

the wills

slf

for itself

hegel is still saying that at the beginning

there are objects

now how are there objects is a different question he elaborates that later

but in the beginning

consciousness

does imply a division between subject and object

pros sion is ok as and does it we're going to letus respond ok lewis go

okay

that that's actually like loo i can understand why you would make that mistake but no

that the rejection of sen certainty

comes precisely from

the lack of sensertainty we can have we do not have the term and i know luis did you listen to what has has wayk crime did you listen to what i fucking said i did listen to what you said which is why i'm respondent

look obviously they don't satisfy as re now right now

okay great so essentially like the way that self consciousness works

the the we before we move to self consciousness where the consciousness works is self satisfaction

so the production of determinate objects

it comes as a given in order to satisfy

a one sided will

it's dogmatic and inadequate

but it's still produced from an action of consciousness

because everything is in motion

remember that

it's not andan it's not like a stagnant thing where we get presented an object

we produce objects to satisfy ourselves

that's the whole point

and it's about the production of the right object

to satisfy ourselves

how we objectify the world

is the question inhgele

am i on you to now

you are onmuted now

leuis

you just admitted just now

that in the beginning chapter

objects where you're saying they're produced for consciousness in the consciousness is quest for self satisfaction

so consciousness does imply a division between subject and object

no

the consciousness implies a desire for the division between s objects and objects

but no that division between subject and object

is established

by consciousness

consciousness establishes it

it's something that consciousness seeks to establish

does establish it does's not

that's the whole point because the the

the meet the reconciliation of the world with itself like lewis on you res not i want to gong onn hang on has has let him finish a sentence

leuis finish her thought then has

the reconciliation of the world with itself is the destruction of the subject object distinction

we no longer need it

the will is

purely in tchune with the world around it

it uns itself as the world

ok lewis thank you a you go perspective philosophy you're trying to obfuscate the question i'm going to get to the meat and potatoes and just see if you can respond to

thk

to see if you can respond to this

orhgel

hagel

obviously says that the perspective of consciousness is not enough to actually exhaust

how

the subject object distinction

is arrived at we cannot solely through consciousness

arrive

ad the distinction between subject and object

but despite the inadequacy of consciousness alone in being able to arrive at this

it is that distinction is still there and operative

and that is precisely why consciousness is inadequate

the distinction is there even if consciousness

is inadequate

to to understand it

you have not

um um

made it clear

you have not proven you have not demonstrated you actually are aware of this distinction that i am trying to fuck in

point you to can you please address this point i'm raising

there's a distinction between the how and the is

ok ok

has no interuting when he responds this time ok

the is

right

which would be being itself

and that's something that happened way before

hagel by the way this is

this goes right back to

paramenities

right

although hegel would see this as an as an infinite negative

and non infinite positive

he is an infinite nonetheless

it does not have form

the positing of essence

is an action

within

consciousness

that's the point

lewis

andmy oneeded

you are imuted i'm not muting you except when you talk over last time

the last time

consciousness

inadequately

attempts to seek knowledge

of a division already set before

fundamental distinction

between subject and object

which is implied by consciousness for hegel

because for hagel

consciousness seeks to arrive and explain

the objects given before it

or that it believes to be given before

which are not in fact given but in fact endangered by conscious

itself yes

hagel makes that

very clear

you outlining some one sided

ontology which in no way is

could possibly be gelan because for hegel

there the

the implications of absolute knowledge are implications for

b

in other words for the nature of being itself

from the start

hagel doesn't say we begin from some kind of a

we begin from some kind of one sided being and then

voluntarily by means of philosophy

add add more to it

philosophy itself participates in being

were hage

so that distinction you're drawing is completely false

or hagel

consciousness implies a division of subject and object

even if consciousness

like we're going in circles do you

can you please demonstrate you even understand what i'm trying to say

even if consciousness is inadequate the stage of the so called stage of consciousness is inadequate to comprehend how the division

that is the very object of consciousness

is uh

is possible to know

that division is still there and implied by consciousness itself because

consciousness implies a radical contradiction

or discontinuity at the heart of being itself otherwise

there would be no consciousness only

a one sided being

ok has it's on record now that your charge is that he's a fake a yelling i'm going to let

h leowis respond to that and then we're going to drop

that

charge going forward ok we're going to talk about the the subject matter at hand

louis please respond

okay so like collin is a fak ka gelian i think it's just

ridiculous

i mean they we not not because i've actually outlined hegel i would argue in a way that

more

complete than you and you won't actually answer my questions on hagel and i will answer any questions on hagel

and when i do except the ones i did

hang on has repond and wen i do and so you just find the not youliing and so you di you know you get mad

but the i mean like look like even at the start of

like m

at the start of our consciousness

like

the the

theyk

the beginnin

of the

of the dialectical process

is a pure

ya

and now

it is a universal unit

of experience it is

this

business absolute

presence

that's all it is

to go

this on the doct

is the next movement

right which isn't the next chapter he doesn't quite a few movements in a chapter

it's and which is my self consciousness is a huge bit of the book

thank

the next movement is a this and a that

it's going

you know

this is a bottle

that is a microphone

that is the object

yet that's the next movement which is the proposal

of objects against the subject

but prior to that that distinction does not exist

and even before and he even says

yes it does

because of its concrete contents

sense certainty eminently appears as the richest kind of knowledge

indeed a not a knowledge of infinite wealth

for which no bounds can be found

either when we reach out into space and time

which is dispersed

or whether we take this bit of wealth

and the division

and a're into

and enter into it

right ok now

we'm go to cut you off there i'ming to cut you off there leowis because we' we're we're running a bit long on that response

i want to bring this back to

again for the sake of clarity for the audience and

for ourselves

on what are the actual stakes here we're debating the a particular reading of hegel at nauseum

what are the stakes why does this what's about whether animals

could be possibly be conscious according to

which

i would argue i've already established no you haven't you've quoted all you do is quote shit without proving how sport the fucking conclusion i've actually give i'm not disputing you know you didn't

your quotation about how hegel says animals are conscious he didn't say they're conscious though

he didn't lewis respond

but

one he does say that animals are conscious he dojesn't show me the falk and quoting i show me where he says has let loose respond

okay wait a minute just wait right there

you want to get some quotes for for heg on animal

so that's no no no no i want to quote that proves hegel thinks animals are conscious despite what he said in the philosophy on nature that there's an distinction spiriture

o animals are in possession of themselves

their soul is in possession of their body but they have no right to life because they do not will it

hagel

does not agree that animals have a right to life how are they conscious by that quote

animals are in possession of themselves their soul is in possession of their body

it doesn't go rocks are in a possession of themselves ok but how does it prove their conscious

all of vegetables of vegetables are in a sense also it hang i think on the question hang on house so for

clarification the question originally concerned whether or not he gol regarded animals of conscience and hoes this prove their conscious

these are two separate questions you can pick one to ask louis you know i'm asking him how does that prove hegel thinks they're conscious is my question

ok so that's the one go lewis

oka because hegel proposes a soul

for a foundational spirit

that exists in the animal which has not

itself as its object but only its externality

it is only direct relationship with the world

with seik satisfaction

it's at the place we stop qote the relevant quote one more time i'm going to show you why you're wrong

okay

and so animals are in possession of themselves their soul is in possession of their body

their soul is in possession of their body

does hegel say that animals are in possession of their soul

they have no right to life because they do not will

so they are not in possession of themselves

they are not ok animals are not in possession of their soul their soul is in possession of their body right

yes

you think what do you think now

since you know so much about hegel

what would hegel say about vegetables

in regards to the nature of their soul

well actually i can quote that go ahead

and but only because he's horribly sexist

at one point and

where he says men correspond to animals while women while women correspond to plants

because their development is more placid and their principle

and underlies a vague unity of feeling

so like the way that he takes and this is really a byproduct i would say i'm not asking for quotes i'm asking you what does hagel how does he how would hegel how would he because i know he doesn't

i would hegel

what he just described of animals a soul in possession of their bodyes

would this what would be the case for plants and vegetables

and there would well i think i would probably say that he would

the probably make a distinction between something like life in general

and describe it as a vegetative

and that would be a byproduct of a metaphysical distinction which

originated the organism is gly

hang on hang on as let him let him finish that sentence then go

so so yeah so like this like if you look at the

hegel's philosophy like the way that spirit is

kind of the the

you know separated in terms of soul

is very much built off

christian

metaphysical

im analysis

okay l lwis i meant i meant finish the sentence you're already on the start all right okay fin

that's fine that's fine

or it has gone

ok louis you didn't answer my question

you're saying that hegel thinks animals are consciousness because the soul is in possession of their body

right

soory i think that yeah i think animals are consciousness because their soul is in possession of their body yes ok

what about the land sol what about vegetables

and i would say that they don't have a soul

why they do want a soul that it's why a wording to ngle would they not possess a soul

well they don't necessarily not possess a soul they would they think there are distinctions in the self because we all possess a notion of self

at least a notion of consciousness

to are you aware that

when hegels talking about soul

he's not he's still within the realm

were as far as animals are concerned he's still within the realm of in itself not for itself

in other words

he's giving a description of a theme

so when he's talking about the soul of the animal

it's not the same as the soul in the human sense

yeah there's a dist there's a distinction from being in itself and being for itself which i think is absolutely the movement between

to from from consciousness to self cond it's not ok not let me ask you hang on hang on ha as let him finish and then reply

like i mean you would have to presuppose that being for itself exists in consciousness in consciousness in the first chapter when you secifically says in the second chapter that be the reason or that is because consciousness is inadequate so luis here's what you don't seem to understand for hegel

consciousness does not exist as such it is just something he refers to to

prove its inadequacy

but

there's there's no use in talking about the consciousness of animals no you know ls s letter finish no being can just be conscious consciousness is a moment of spirit

ok

no being is consciousness

if consciousness is taken divorced from being a moment in spirit

it is tak you are precisely reifying

something that hegel is just

establishing to prove its inadequacy

specifically within the history of philosophy

empiricism

sense and so on and so on

hegel is trying to say

so

consciousness cannot exist outside of being a moment

of spirit

or hagel whatever consciousness is

it's a moment of spirit it's in it's an inadequate

unfinished

explication of absolute knowledge

o good leowis respond

well absolute knowledge contains everything so everything's a part of spirit that's the whole point but the onological commitment

within within

i

within

if you keep saying onanologic on has has you got to lewis

so this would be like the commitment to reality which we obtain the abstract laws of right from like that's where before we get into that we as as trust me sunday i'm saving us time i'm saving us i wrt to go to the read in particular not care has i do not care

leuis finish your thought concisely please and then hos you can respond

yea absolutely so it is a hundred percent like consciousness absolutely is the thing

for hagel to say that is absolutely ridiculous

and we said in the introduction of the phenomenology of spirit

we said that in the introduction of the phenomenal

phenomenology of spirit

's the scilence of consciousness

it's exposition that consciousness

ha's the concept

of science

sure sure so two things right

do things be caause you just you you let him keep talking it piles up the bullshit

do things louis

the first thing

hegel begins with the science of consciousness but the science of consciousness is not the same thing as consciousness taken one sidedly

within the first chapter of the phenomenology of spirit of consciousness

consciousness only

so for example the science of consciousness leads to the conclusion of absolute knowledge yes

but

consciousness

consciousness cannot be taken in a vacuum one sidedly within the confin

what the essence of consciousness is

especially ontologically

cannot be taken within a vacuum within the first chapter

of the phenomenology of spirit because

it necessarily follows from consciousness that there is self conscious

and from self conscious that there is spirit and so on and so on

so this is what you don't seem to understand now you keep talking about he goe's ontological

commitment

too consciousness

and i keep trying to pin you down and you keep avoiding my question

what is

for hagel the being of consciousness is the being of consciousness

fully exhausted in the first chapter of the phenomenology or

is the being of consciousness

inadequately

and uh

unfinished whatever inadequately described in the first chapter

is the being of consciences all there in the first chapter without any further elaboration

being like purely is is

what it is purely there

like its existence

i mean so for hegel so hegel's ontological commitment to consciousness what you mean by that is that hagel hegel

is uncle is committed

to the ontological

he he privileged the ontological exceptionality of the consciousness that he describes in the first chapter of the phenomenology is that what you're trying to say

what i'm trying to say is that i can actually ill outline this in a really easy way

everything that is necessarily there to be understood in hegel

is within

the immediacy of consciousness

but it is inadequate

for us to will

ourselves

so we reconcile ourselves a the movement of consciousness

seeks to reconcile itself with itself

' how what already be there if it's acause it wasn't already there then there would be nothing to reason and the be nothing to actually

a pol ha hang on had hang has leth finish his start

it's the positing of existence which we are reasoning out it is the

it is reality itself which is what hegel is saying is already there

that reality is real that existence exists

what is is it's taughtological which is why it's infinite is now i got now i got

i got you know

so this reality according to that is already there for hagu

this hegel fully exhausts already in the beginning

he sets it up fully in the beginning everything else is just kind of and sillery right

well i mean like in the sense that like

he doesn't fully exhaust the the foundations of reality jus that we move beyond

the immediacy of self certainty and move you ok now let me ask you another question

the same question in a different way

do we move beyond

this immediate reality

or

was there something latent within this reality that leads to it moving beyond with regard to itself

quite the opposite actually if you look at hagel we move

buck

to immediacy

but i'm just quoting you ing on hang what you want to fight i'm s here i'm just quoting you to help i why youre go g idiot as let him answer

so if you look at hagel we don't actually move away from the immediacy of reality

we mediate to that's what you said you said we moved away from it why are you wasting my time as youre muted

lewis f is your response

we move back to the to the immediacy so we do mediate we do mediate in the second term but only to make and reconcile

ourselves with ourselves so it's immediately available

and to give you a quote from this if it would maybe help

co

what

what

well

whatk you big

oh get right

all right is you still hereo i do'ls finish your thought please concisely and then we're going to let has respond

tion f i mo so the essence so the positing of an essence is actually the movement in self consciousness but the re the

the grounding of essence

is the foundation in the concrete existence which exists in consciousness and he says that in

and i think that was the

for the science of logic

cavery done

ok as you can respond ykus ek that y ahut sharmuta

all your re in't know what that means but i'm not allowing it

only languages that the host can understand please

you're literally just

quoting shit not you're not getting to the focking point

you're quoting gibberist saying gibberist to dance around the way i fucking pinned you

you said you said louis not me

that everything is there in the beginning but it's not enough so we have to move beyond

is this not enough in

itself a feature of what is originally there or not

well yeah but i mean the deficit is one of knowledge not of not of reality

that's where you're a fake

walkinghagelian and a cont

yes it is a deficit of being itself

it is definitely a deficit of being itself not just knowledge louis

there is no one sided distinction between

being a knowledge that is not actively suspended in hegel's philosophy

hegel does not simply set up a being versus knowledge

and then it ends there being and knowledge are

for hegel

thinking and being for hegel are the same louis they're the same thing ultimately

so you're a fake focking hearan book in in fraud

ok was not think enugh just to clarify i be willing

actually

nor egle says thinking and being are the same he says that

yeah yeah it's it's a will

it's i'm talking i'm talking about you lewis you want to interusort it as a will on lewis and has youre both muted because you're not listening to me

so i will

i will suffer a lot but not that one of my participants be accused of being a contience are going to move into audience questions again if anybody has a question

um you may uh

put it in my chatter there was i won't see it i need you to put an asterisk on either andend so i can quickly cycle through and find them thank you very much

let's find

your

i've got a question for both of you actually

um

we've been talking a lot about whether or not animals are conscious i want to know what the stakes are

if indeed they are why does it matter whether or not animals are conscious

because it first of all a proves he doesn't know anything about hage

b

the all the

even though i already wrecked him as far as the supposed necessary conclusions that would follow from this

and even if i were to concede that animals are conscious which i don't

the conclusion obviously doesn't fall we establish it last time he didn't even respond any of my argument

but first of all you're not even able

you arrive at the conclusions you did in the first place because your fucking premis is wrong animals are not conscious

leuis do w to play that

yeah so i will say that i think it's quite funny that he says that it doesn't matter if uh

if animals are conscious even though the whole point of what he's arguing here is to go as way to charitable i shouldn't conscious

because this means that we are considered im the here's the thing lewis lewis i was fully yeah yes lewis leis i don't have that has

the way streamyard works is that if both of you speak at the same time you both turn into a garbled mess nobody can hear so leuis finished thought that has you can address it

yeah i just think that he's i just think that he's backpedal and i think that he's attempting to undo the debate that he had because it was not oh really let mes not w lewis again you always conflate shit

luis here's what i just said

and sunday don't don't let me say my piece sunday

ok hes your turn

what you said blouis

you said

i said you said that oh

you're just trying to it's funny that you're saying it doesn't matter because that's the whole point of this debate

the whole point of his debate leuis

i don't get it twisted louis

i am one hundred per cent

fully confident in the fact that i fuck and wrecked you last time i just didn't wreck you as thoroughly as i wanted to and that's why i'm doing this

was even if i conceded to that animals are conscious as i proved last time you'd still get fuck and wrecked

what

for the sake of being philosophically consistent and consistent with my own beliefs in my own views

i want to clarify

that i was wrong to even concede that in the first place even though

it was it doesn't make a difference as far as who wins

this little encounter between you and i

that's why louis i wanted to have this fucking debate and clear this shit up

because it this debate not only proves

and yet again another victory for me

but that you literally don't know shit

about hagel and that is something i don't think

i proved well enough

last time

i plured it well enough this time

ok question for has from seeking a

independent of hegel if animals are conscious would dichange your view of veganism

there's no independent of hegl animals it did the notion of an

i uh

understand my concept of consciousness comes from german idealism comes from

uh this kind of philosophy so no

it's an absurdity to call fucking animals conscious i will never accept animals as a

so called conscious it's completely meaningless completely stupid to call them

ok and this is for both of you

from angela marney i'm going to let loose go first in this one

how does consciousness imply an object subject distinction is it baked into the meaning of consciousness itself

um yes so it doesn't that's the whole point when you start in hegel it is the infinite experience consciousness doesn't imply

a an object subject distinction

that comes later like that is the nest that is

the subject ma well not the subject

the consciousness produces the object subjecti vision distinction as a means of self satisfaction

which is why if you go on after hegel and you get the idiga

and you start learning about existential analysis and so on you start saying that language is actually a form of equipment in which we use

to engage with reality

so this production of self consciousness and object

h and

determine objects

actually is a means to self satisfaction

and not given in our experience which is exactly wise critiquing

am self certainty

all right has do in reply to this

yes consciousness does in fact necessarily imply a subject object distinction otherwise consciousness could have no determinate content

whatsoever there's

absolutely no meaning to calling something conscious if you don't have a subject object distinction

it's a pretty play and i already prove that through the coursees debate like an n p c he's repeating his original argument that's fine

i got thank you

andh this is from gj a cor abov thank you for the five dollars

on proerspective philosophy you say quote unquote will a lot it seems like you'r focused on actualism more than anything else

are we seeing thee triumph

of your will i'm not entirely certain how that

is implying he follows gioventali's actual idealism

now i'm

what i'm arguing the whole point of bringing up will in hegel

is to show that it's not a stagnant

process that being is not in

that being is not

and there in itself it's actually his reply to xeno's paradox

which explains that everything must be in motion like if you

if you were to shoot an arrole

and you were to stop time at any moment

xeno's paradox is supposed to say that the a would have to both be there are not there simultaneously

the over comomes the distinction you don't hang on the question as the questions for lewis letm finish

that is exactly what i'm saying

it's a moment of becoming

it's not a moment of being there or not being there it is both simultaneous

ok just to clarify the idea of pure will is just as absurd for hegel as pure being

cor

this is for both of you from e gonner i have a question why should i care if animals feel pain or not

i can justify that we have a social contract between us i take them to mean us humans but what is the social contract between me and an animal

what

morally prevents me from harming an animal

a

has would like to tak that one first

yeah sure um

first of all i i completely doubt animals have so called pain as we know it

i think pain is something we take for granted there's a lot of things about pain we take for granted it's not just a sensation

ok

im

like i said

the fundamental distinction you don't even have to talk about this stuff about a social contract or whatever

as someone else pointed out that i saw on twitter which was actually such a great way of summing up what i was trying to say before

the question of harming animals or not harming animals has nothing to do with morality has nothing to do with ethics it's a question of normativity

ok it's it's

you can't

you can't um legislate you can't

it's no more relevant to ethics and morality than aesthetic taste is

the

in the st

yees so like the idea of a social contract like being able to form a social contract is

in and of itself a bad way to establish ethics

hegel actually points this out he basically shows that everything that you're doing in the social contract

already must pre exist the contract

for you to be able to accept that an individual could complete the contract

that they are capable of actually

signing and understanding and engaging in a contract

and having it as the end of their

of their will

so the whole point is it presupposes an ethical relationship in which you already can have a trust

established in order to sign the contract

or even have the capacities necessary

or even the

the fundamental tendency

ah set that you would require for

to experience to even want to sign a contract

all of that is already presupposed in social contract theory

so saying that signing a social contract it's a bad way to do it

so looking at an animal animals inability to sign a contract is secondary

why is a human able to sign a contract and why do i es stablish contracts with human

so if i want to sign a contract with a human it's so that we can facilitate a joint end

in order to satisfy a joint will

now if already established that this joint will

exists prior to the contract

the foundations of that will exist in ontology but they're also epistemologically available to us

by analysis

and n exists in an animal

i can see their pain and pleasure as valuable

prior to

their ability to sign a contract

because that is exactly the same pain and pleasure that i would see as valuable prid of the humans capacity to sign a contract

which i must consider

for has from android three to three

what does it matter what an old man sayd of science nowadays proves animals being conscious

because science proves no such fuck

simple as

see how i get to straight to the point i don't babble along like perspective philosophy to say in so many words where you can sum up in like two seconds

come

for perspective philosophy from king of based do you deny the labor aristocracy

i

i i don't i don't really know

and

i i i can't i like to be entirely honest with you i don't think i could give like a the definite answer cause i i can't really remember what

the i don't even know the labor aristoky is off the top me had to be entirely honest with you i'm jus going to make

i'm willing to admit me ignorance yre

and

in terms of the terminology

forr enough

for i'm angela morney and i take this to be for both of you

is absolute knowing the final and necessary developments of consciousness will animals ever achieve quote unquote absolute knowing

according to louis yes they will they're on their way so the cow uprising is imminent

that's not actually what i think cows don't establish absolute knowing humans it'savial consciousness and wies the inevitability of absolute knowing

it's because it's inadequate

no no doesn't really but that it requires an intellective capacity which is what is wch is on mal contract has has let him finish his response

but the reconciliation of spirit and consciousness is the you know the movement

from being an immediate consciousness

to a reconciled self consciousness

that's not to say that animals are going to be

m the can be present in spirit in the sense that it is consciousness is reconciliation with itself

but it is mediated

not by their actions

but by our actions and all consideration of their at

so like

the they engage with us and communicate with us

and we can recognise what is valuable within them

and that is recognized in this little appves veganism is fascist like you're describing a voluntarist actual idealist

reading of hegel according to which

everything is just some kind of like subjective actual intervention in reality

rather than the fact that absolute knowledge literally follows imminently from consciousness

it's literallysciousness isn a conscious lseless consciousness is imminently inadequate with regard to itself it can't exist by itself

it's so ironic

that you would accuse veganism as being fascist when you aorer wasgan from ocean which is ideologically an abstract where you're presupposing some idealized version of man and and seeing it as an

sublime object of ideology from which we looking the nazis and humanists and do not ha know the nazis humanist

and then say and then um

and then h satisfy our desires the nazis the nazis venera has nazis loveic mechanism

you're the one engaging

in what is an abstract moment of right

that is being justified by what

the hedgenomy of man when did i say that you don't even know my fuck yout putting words in my mouth talking out of your fucking ass just like your pretend pretended knowledge of hegel

it's clear that the nazis werel vegetarian the nazis were pro vegetarian that's a fact of history

not yes they fulk and wre yes they fuct arian the used methods to kill the jews that were were taken from slaughterhouses

yeah the you know i meen why did nazis demonize holding on hos has let me whath i did wy demoniz closer slaughter

because they ad the jews what was the explanation they gave that it was cruel toward animals that's why they said the jews were being cruel toward animals

and nazis thought animals have more rights than jewish ingals just like a veganda

it's not like we love animals it's like

we hat the jews the jews are worse than us everything the was a vegetarian himself

hitler wasn't a vegetarian that's a myth and it was a way the propagandaiz himself

in respect to being comparable to gandi who was popular at the time

but you know what about you know folk history right

all right next question from thought bat

forur has are you permissive of animal abuse if not why not

no i'm not because i don't believe that our relationship to the world comes from thin air we it's established by president custom moors

and common sense

why would you want to be abusive toward an animal if not

the fact that you're projecting upon that animal

human qualities and characteristics and you want just like you want to use the animal as a way to

invent your own misanthropy so no i don't believe in

intentionally abusing animals but

if animals like are not being treated up to the standards of what wegans think as an incidental fact of a

our already existing fundamental relationship to them then i don't give a shit i obviously think

sadism is foxed up

but no i don't give a fucking shit about animals

in come

a leowis this is from forehead its asked this question now four times

our cars vegan

yeah

calls

can be vegan anyway not all cause like

and

like the reality is that we can engage in modes of consumption

which unfortunately will lead to states of tragedy which we should reconcile

and but

only ones that are

really

considering everyone but then attempting to minimize home so like for example look at it like this

a i have an obligation to other humans but if i drive a car i have a risk of running them over

it's not that i'm going to kill some i want to kill someone

but that there is an ospect of all being which necessitates

ll drive in the car

i have to drive a car to get to work i need to satisfy

my own needs on drives

so having a call is not an inherently onarth

ok this is from j cor abot for five dollars per sect perspective philosophy you sound more like a neo had gelian how is this concept of hegel anything but a precursor to the worst ideas in human history

um well i am a hegelian um i don't think it's a precursor to the

ideas the the worst ideas in history

i i i don't see how you could say that i mean

what do you considering the worst ideas in history are you relaateing this to pops like

um

like i don't know like movements from the like the mocxy inside of things

um which i don't think were necessarily the worst ideas in history but i'd say that a lot of the negatives

within the marxist leninist movement come from the rejection of the negation of negation within hagel

which meant that they started

presupposing that like uh

essentially notions of right without that's notu so first of all

the rejection of the negation of the negation has nothing to do with the rejection of reconciliation it's rather a point of i'm going to quickly just sum this up

it reconciliation re emerges

from the dialectical materialist perspective in the form of material being material being is what reconciles

and leads to a

so it's not that they reject the negation of the negation as

as reconciliation

they do accept that the negation is ultimately negated it's just negated by positive material being it's a

very important distinction

that they do not rejectgelian reconciliation they reject the view that

the negation of the negation i

as a metaphysical view which which leads to a kind of a

still negation of negation does not arrive at positive being that's the issue

i'm going to modify this question from seeking because i go to get quickly just ess maw actually certainly does reject the negation of negation but as

he says that there are bas points towards particulars

and that everything can be infinitely divested into

am smaller and smaller units

and in society any points that any points that towards that

like but it definitely doesn't say that it can be reconciled the say is that there is

the constant unity of opposites

yes for ik you know e you know le let hi finish his oght and then you can respond go but the never reconcile

that's the point like the contradiction must exist in a form of contradiction

that is never reconciled

ok ok in the mos sre go i'm very quickly ijust want to clear do for you have to go you have time just it is lewis it is it is actually reconciled it's just that you don't understand

the chinese tradition is coming from ma was ontologizing contradiction itself as a form of positive being

so it is reconciled in the form of this

material positive being which for hegel is the very unity of opposites itself the content of the material object for mau

is the unity of opposites which is he is inheriting from the chinese philosophy

chinese a tradition

and it's also something this orientation towards being

itself

a positive being as opposed to the negativity of of

thought

is something that distinguishes eastern philosophy and thinking from western in general

so to say that he doesn't accept a reconciliation is wrong

he accepts a reconciliation it' is just that this is a reconciliation

in reality itself in the form of the very being of the unity of opposites itself

thank you i'm gonna i'm gonna cut you off there h louis because we're goningn get to the nex question

this is from nimrod's fall to has

has how do you differentiate between your view and the view that some scientists used to have that non whites lacked consciousness and pain

use of the animal because

your comparison of non whites to fucking animals is precisely why veganism is a white supremacist ideology that is the enemy of mankind

ok just you call q just that's just how you're going to respond to that

yeah because i get straight to the point instead of wasting people's time like you point that's a two col qe that's that's a logical fallacy

what do you would criticize criticism of a criticism

would it w we what

youre like like someone's just went and

oh like how would thevst your question and then you went you're a white supremacist yeah the reason it's different lewis is because there's a fundamental because non white people are still fucking human i don't know is that is that enough for you i didn't take the question to be making that implication i thought the point was that the

it's not it's the equivocation goes in the other direction whether or not animals should be raised up to the general status of

having equal value to human beings

that's that's how i interpret that question i didn't have the negative connotation at all

that's just me

that what i'm saying is that the reason why you can't compare it is because there's a fundamental difference between

humans and animals and that non white people

a the difference between non whites and whites is not the same as the difference between humans and animals

that's how it respond

jesus chrass

that's what they want you to establish what is the difference

ok well that's a different question if you wants to know what precisely a differues

your question is what precisely is the difference between humans and animals

the ethical in consluent are you are you asking me that question

what's the difference between humans and animals we have just to fin the rethical in consideration yeah sure you know my answer to you is

yup

read hegel

ah that was terrible

just read he talks about it here lack on a right pretty pretty well ok next next question

all right there's a

premise to this one are either of you aware of metamodernism or post post modernism

i'm aware of it i know very little about it to be entirely honest with you i i need to read into it somebody sent us this on one of me prior

ah streams but i can't say i know very much about it to be entirely honest with you

i don't remember i remember encountering it and my i remember what i thought

when i

read up on it en conners that i wasn't impressed of by it and i thought it was a bunch of bullshit but i don't remember specifically why but that's my memory

h i have no knowledge of this whatsoever

m this is from seeking a i'm going to modify this slightly

if you were pressed how would you salvage the position of your opponent

has you want to go first or lwis i'll let you choose once yourself

um

if i if lewis was an intelligent person then they would

i'm at this from the perspective of a cosmologist

he wouldn't try to collapse the distinction between nature and spirits which is

anti futical to the geling enterprise

he would try to actually reconcile them from the perspective of cosmology similar to a

evold ilyenkov's his cosmology of spirit

a boll but this is a't necessarily materialist enterprise though

and he would from this cosmology try to establish how

animals figure into the ultimate development of of

spirit

from the perspective of

the development of spirit as something that arises out of nature

and how spirit is in fact part of nature and so on and so on

so if he was smart he would come at it from that perspective

just

he's not smart enough to do that so he has to lie about hegel and pusllh it out of his ass

lis

i think it depends what you mean by salvage do you mean like aes' make a steel mount of the argument or do you mean to the best of your ability perhaps you regard the position as unsalvage wble but if you

to the extent that you can

right so i would say that

e's position perhaps could argue if he was being justified about it

wouldll be to accept that animals were conscious

um but then say that um and then try to do i think the honesty argument in the first debate was

stronger than his argument in this one

although still terriblem essentially try to argue an epistemological difference in that one

which is

meant that animals couldn't be considered because

we cannot demonstrate the resistance in their will

which would lead us to a discussion of whether we can

they have no will

have an have an

like interest

which we can consider

that would be the that would be the best argument that he could make but i still think it a very poor one

all right this is from j a cor above again for five dollars again to proerspective philosophy

by neahgelian i meant genteelily

a perspective philosophy are you aware of some of the abstracted concepts you introduce are you wware these seem a lot like actualism

um i'm not really i've never i've never really encountered this

so much

to be entirely honest with you

i

but i'm not really introducing an abstract concept

i'm not saying that there is a

anything that necessarily must be accepted as its pure abstract essence

but rather that we need a reconcile

what is a pure abstract essence

and with the fundamental concrete reality which is

fundamentally what does that have to do with actualism

i just said i've never encountered actualism and i don't know so you don't know what he's talking he's not taalkt he's not saying you have an abstract concept he's saying that your interpretation of hegel is pretty much the same as giovanni genteel's actual idealism

well giovanni's the i

he's the founder of ital intellectual founder of italian fascism yeah fascism

i never have been ready his work i was going to read it in to respond to fascist

but i haven't met a fascist gillan yet because i think that's

fe i think i've just met one today which is

i met one last week which is you

that's absolutely done

like like let's be honest like what i'm allguing you're not you're not a fascist i wouldn't call you a fascist like philosophically i think you are

i don't think that's i don't think that's the case at all considering that i'm arguing for a mediation

oh

the self with the self

in a way that reconciles

us from in and out groups to a unified individual

so like nothing and i fascism

fascism fascism requires and also versus them

notion

in which we can posit a single identity

against the against the other

not not necessarily fascist for example can have a view of like world conquests like hitler where there's going to reconcile all beings with but it's going to be in like a determinate hierarchy with germans at the top just like animals with figure in the hierarchy

but that my other raiss well

i mean the hierarchy in and of itself i think in a he gelian stance would be absolutely unjustify we have a hier you admit we need a hierarchy with animals

or you don't admit that

no i don't think that we should hire our guys

know if you see like a baby and a baby like chicken and which one would you save

there's no hierarchy

i would do my duty

to and do what which one would you save

well i probably do my duty to society and my family

and like oy whatever

so youre but your society is a determinant society right it's not just like universal so don't exist yeah but if at the point of absolute spirit if you wanre to say like

what might as more chicken or a baby there equal invold so so how can you not why don't you transpose and has has lem finishes response and then you can reply

y so that's a movement from hagel's

metarethical commitments or hegel's on alogical commitments

thm you eagles normative commitment

you know

or or judy's

and how we express that notion of right who

let's bring it back to the point

point was

there's clearly a hierarchy between humans and animals

clearly yet you haven't established this

yeah no but you just established me

you agree that animals cannot have the same rights human beings can

what do you mean when did i say that they can't have the same rights absolutely do think the can of the same rights some rights

so like i wouldn't give a child for example the right to vote and i wouldn't give a dog the right to vote

not settin which one right it it liinate

is it the same rights or it's not the same rights which one is it

is it the same rights or is it not the same rights which one is it

but it would be the same right

n know the same right i didn't say right and the askm sd his rights right

the right rights

quote unquote and you can you stop dancing on the point would they have the same rights or w they be unequal

well no you don't have to have the exact same rights to be equal

ok colliqually from the common sense perspective would animals be equal to humans

ok what you're arguing

you can argue also from the nazi perspective we don't not everyone has to have the same rights ok has let him reply

like like look at it like this like would hagel have said that everyone has the same right

to the money that exists in my family if they don't live in my family

no like that's not how it workss fine

people's rights

are dependent upon the context

but we have you haven't established how it's different from notzi hay hang on hang up let him finish and then hos you can go

holl was you going to be quick

how' is a different from naziism because we're considering everyone equally

and the notion of rights

is being delved out from that position yeah

the nazis are saying we're treating everyone equally just like how you're saying we would treat all animals equally but if there's differences in the content of the rights

that's not because there's no equality it's just because of the differences in determinate reality just like the family example you mentioned

so why not actually not going the opposite because why terminate reality

the determinate reality from which you are proposing is the subject object of vision

i'm saeing is necessarily

inadequate

to establish right

and that it needs to be reconciled with consciousness in your infence leis not not it which is the whole point of is ap you're trying to avoid what has res i know you're trying to avoid the point my questions very simple right

why

ok so clearly ok

animals would be con treated differently than humans right

according yes

ok so why shouldn't

different races be treated differently from the nazi perspective what's wrong with that

because the nazi perspective that

the lib deliberately undermines the value that exists in a race and it proposes an abstract notion

of value in

let's say like that's something like germaness right

like where there is no value

well it's national position

that's not necessarily true because german this is just referring to the actual determinant society in which germans

live

whereas other and alsoth of you again the platform are on if you both speak over each other it becomes a girbled mess that nobody can hear you silence yourselves

one of the time has finished your thought the lui so basically and also you could also say that hitler might argue that german society represents the fullest and most developed i think nazis did argue this

um

developed expression of spirit the most

in the world and that it necessarily doesn't tail

a hierarchy of races

so why does that not follow from your

well

because the establishment of a hierarchy in terms of of conscious beings is exactly what is

being undermined by the hed giligan position wh is the consid the nazis are not as let him finish

the consideration of determinate being

is inadequate which is why we start

at consciousness

just what you've missed this entire time

you're the one that's presupposing an abstract determinant

foking

ah notion of ah

of that right

within one night prove it

ok you are putting forward an unthropacentric position where there is no justification for that

in consciousness itself

so what

so that is fundamentally non so what there's no just so what that there's no justification in consciousness off and how my establishing an arbitrary abstract primacy of humanity over everything else

because you're unwilling to consider

that animals are voluble that doesn't mean i have an abstract pers they hang on hang on hang on it doesn't logically necessarily faal that the tails let let remly he has an abstract

let him reply he derailed the topic i was asking him why

ok so but you can you can point it out when you respond but he's to be able to finish the sentence otherwise you don't like saying five different things we're aging about now make real the topic you're trying to

pa trying to bring us back to a debate i want about consciousness

nobody talk over me

that's the rule

lewis than has

be quick

but yw was

okay right okay great

so

the the reason i'm not the rail on the topic i'm defending myself against claims of fascism

and i'm sowing that the hagelian critique of fascism would be the inadequacy in spirit

i don't care what nazis think

of themselves of course they have delusions of grandeur

that's that's basically entailed in that position

but that's because they're looking for the

through

a sublime object of ideology which paints gjermanic superiority

as being justified

just as your position

pains anthro pacentism as being justified

you look through adam

they look through hitler

as go

yeah two things and this is why i'm saying this is taking

first thing

im

no

no it doesn't necessarily follow because

from your perspective

one of act

i deeal with

the actual triumph of the will

and the actual the

the actual triumph of the will

far as the nazis are concerned is a decisive moment so these nazis are merely saying well since it's not a given in being just like how you said

we it requires our will to establish what was already true the nazis are not saying

for abstract reasons we elevate ourselves above others they're saying

this is actually the case in reality we've proven it by our military prowess

periorder this is just the manifestation of our

actual will our triumph of the will

the second thing is that

your claim about that my humanity is an absou you have a

completely you just pulled something out of your fucking ass i'm a fucking marxist materials dialect

you think i have an abstract um

humanism of some kind of abstract bourgeois humanism no i have a marxist humanism my marxist humanism

has nothing to do with arbitrarily elevating some kind of form

to the status of supremacy against which all the reality is being related you haven't proven that's my position nothing i've said

implies or demonstrate that's my position if you want to know more about my humanistic perspective just ask me you're clearly uneducated

so instead of talking out of your ass why don't you just fuck and ask me

the nature of my humanism i have completely have railed against

abstract humanistic universalism human rights and all that kind of stuff i always fuck and critique that

regularly my i don't have some kind of fucking

european modern european humanistic perspecti i don't think hegel necessarily does either

which you're saying is completely fucking wrong but that doesn't mean i don't think a distinction between humans and animals is justified unless your argument is that

hagel is trying hagel's a

elevation of humanity is abstract and

whatever but

that just proves you're not a fucking hegelan because hegel makes it clear it's not

eiggle doesn't create some kind of abstract

criterion for humanity

against which the world is a

being measured

iggle demonstrates

why humans are different from animals

through the through an imminent process of development not through some kind of h

up down thing

helose would like to reply

ya so

um the nazis positing a power structure as a justification of their position is exactly what hegel argues against in the

and in the phenomenology and the philosophy of right

in the master slave dialectic i mean that's the whole point power doesn't justify itself

what justifies power is actually thex the expression of subjectivity or the expression of the will

yeah i mean that's that's that's essentially the whole point so

saying like all right the nazis say that the superia and so they have shown themselves to be you know more considerable nor that's that's exactly exactly what he was arguing against

so like no i haven't got it wrong

like wre youp and you know the thing is

i wouldn't be surprised

if you agreed with that no way i'll let you speak so do you let me speak

i wouldn't be surprised if you agreed with a power structure where you say might makes right and some sort of

stupid notion

in which rights can be justified

through the acquisition of material or power

right is not justified in relation to some sort of

m control

or ideological manipulation

it's justified against

reality which is why

reflection

and which is why the essence is reflection

but the concrete

foundation

is the existence

we are going to move to the next question before this turns into a wedding

this is from angela marney agains is with the glue

no please go for

yeah ok the imminent justif i'm not saying they're justifying themselves on the basis of power perspective

maybe the power proves something imminent but i'm not saying it's coming just from the fact they have power

maybe what the the nazis would say is that our power attests

to this fact not necessarily that it is what proves it

so it's a complete straw man you still haven't distinguished yourself

and i i st is you know being tautological

they are saying might makes right the saming thato they're not ca not necessarilyll i'm saying that willul and what we are considered you're saying they might say that might attest to right but they're not saying it's actually what makes right

it's a very very

sa in that the power within nature is what determines right now

so they're not they're not saying that yes they are the same be a testament no they are lewis lewis you're not a hang on hang on hang on has been lewis

ate leowis i'm not they're not saying it's what actually determines right it's just that

from our perspective of finite knowledge this is

what

maybe this is what the

demonstrates it for us but it's not imminently what actually proves it it merely attests

to it there's a

the operative distinction there you seem to be unaware of the distinction i'm trying to make

i'm actually very aware of the distinction you're trying to make

but the foundation

from which the ap pointing to in which is this justification i didn't think of justification i did not say not ho to has let let him finish the reply it's a testament as you call it

towards reality is an attestment

towards their power they're saying that their actions within the world

are somehow justifying their actions within the world no that is exactly agains the gelian position no one mentioned justification no one mentioned justification no one mentioned justification ase

let's finish

so

the whole point of the hegelian

the ha gilian system is to recognize that what is valuable

is

is the will itself it's not like

some sort of like

oh that predicate it is it is you think a

ok do you think hegel's philosophy is some kind of like normative

well i think there is a normativity in hagel look of col yes that's a

extremely vague obviously there's a normaltvity in a yeah but like so youls thining it's and you think it's a normative system not a philosophy

h no of course i think that it's more than normal dove

that'll be ridiculous

it's it

that the answer us is that it's not a normative s

ca it wasn't

and then you g you laugh and w you're just be you're treating it like i

you're treating it like as if i say if i say that the nazis

are coming from are understanding themselves from a perspective of actual idealism that's very different from saying they're using hegel to justify

themselves normaaltive

the point the point what i was making is that the ontology

from which they are saying is justifying their supremacy supreme superiority where do the justification cracks

is the're supposed to cariority sure ll point

the whole point in the hegelian system

is that the master and the slave

regardless of any higherrochization on mutually dependent beings trying to express subjectivity

they that is all that matters

their interest

that fine

it's fine i ha

first of all has nothing to do with the point

where does just where did i mention justification and where could justification possibly factor into the point i'm trying to know on that you wen saying that a testament

was a notion of trying to prove something

no

so you were just saying that it might might possibly indicate

yes that's exactly what i was saying leowis if you were listening so they were just so they're just making unjustified assumptions then and i can to accuse them of that

wait wait wait

what do you mean

because justifications import what you deny that i'm saying i'm saying that they they are interpreting their actions from the perspective of actualizing the will

within this greater harmony of spirit i'm talking i this is not my view of hegel this is your view of

is abslut my view anything this is your attempts to try and make paint me as a fascist because you're in n ok to be clear that the audience

to be clear for the audience luis is obviously not a fascist

i'm just saying that your philosophical

views are uncannily close to

actual idealism

and i'm very much i don't actually you know actually saying that i'll read giovanni

i'll make a distinction as to why they differs

but i will say that my be at the logical end of my philosophy

does not attest

or does not

in any way

give credence

to fascism

well you're going to be oning to be ope when we have a prospective fascist in the next i no no no i prospective to be clear i

agree that you don't want it to lead to fascism and you don't want it

so i agree with that you don't want to be a fascist obviously

but do you have a choice is a question

i you if it's all right to the end

there's an apropo question here by angela marney i take it to be addressed to prospective hlosopyll you both answer

a but louis first does absolute knowledge mean no hierarchy between human beings

or between being

im

it depends on what you point towards hierarchization it would mean equal consideration of interests uniformity like

but in terms of like

we were all subject on the right but if we were to like create let's say it would be more like a hehait off

you would accept you would still expect like

some form of normativity maybe not actually because he does say that

subjects reconcile themselves with the world

so probably not probably no higher rochy

and

but it would but oll auctions would attest to the greatest expression of right

so for example if

and the greatest expression of right

was the consideration of

one interest over another in a particular scenario we would all agree that would be absolute knowing the would all go absolutely it is our duty to do x

and that duty is the one that we will follow

it logically follows

very clearly from hagel's

you have absolute knowledge and his philosophy in general

that

hagel does explain why the hierarchies in reality exist and hegel does believe

in my view that hierarchies are an inevitability of the discontinuities

in reality

that exist objective

so for example igld doesn't believe in hierarchy in the sense that he believes like

a person is ontologically superior to another person or a person is superior by virtue of some kind of characteristic

but

for hagel there are are necessary hierarchies in for example a society

that represent the

different positions of human beings in relation to the spirit and in relation to the state in particular

so in that sense yes hierarchies are implied

or hagel but they're not there's no i don't think hagel believes in an ontological hierarchy

between human beings i think hegel immanentizes

hierarchies as the relationship between the individual human

and spirit in the form of the state

um if if if by that you mean that hegel like thinks that hierarchies unnecessary in order to express

absolute spirit to its greatest possible degree i wouldn't disagree

necessarily

although the top of the high rocky

is

absent of any subjectivity

which is why the king

is just an empty

a an empty subject

he fulfills the will of the people it's not it's not just the king your others

there's the civil servants and there's all sorts of officials that stand above

society well yeah but the civil servants what they're actually i mean there is like a

it's not that it stands above society it's that they all they all society mediating itself so you've got like civil servants

m who are bureaucrats

and then you've got private society and then you've got like

that these are three p which to the in the lock

but in common sense terms that implies some people have more power than other people

and arg in the common sense sense they're more

they're higher on the higher up

well and i mean i would probably push back on that and say that power

is in and of itself an expression of

the of spirit

and not an expression of individuality ok sure would he there's hierarchy ok just common sense there's hierarchy

be

yeah but i think that that's that's making hegel like

essentially saying nothing of what he's actually saying that would be like justifying like

individualism brother th because you're not addressing the person's question the person is asking from a commonsense perspective like would there be hierarchy like as we know it hierarchyes and yes consideration

versus hierarchy of you know what you sound like you sound like george orwell in the animal forarm and they go some are more equal than ok yeah in reality it's a hierarchy ok like you can justify it however you want but yeah that's a hierarchy

one person does not get more than another

that's that's not that doesn't well no yes i mean they do

no but that's not that's not what he's justifying he's not saying that one should get more than another

that's not he's not but he's saying that thes exactly what he's toe he gos his philosopher is right is not a normative prescriptive normative document he's describing what

the way in which spirit is mediated

in the form of the states to individual human beings and hierarchy is a necessary part of that

well this other thing

nw we'll move to the next question this is an interesting one for has from noa watson

at what point in human evolution does the slaughter and i'll extend this to mean just the use as we use animals

of protohumans become unjustifiable

i actually

am very skeptical to this idea that like proto i like for example a lot of people think theanderthals were like proto humans but that's

there's actually no scholarly consensus

as far as archaic humans are concerned as actually being a different species

the second thing i would say though is that

there's a reason why we don't slaughter

like chimpanzees and goerrillas and shit i mean i guess some

bribes in africa might or whatever

but we generally don't because they're too similar to us and

it's not necessarily because we're doing it from an ethical or moral perspective it's just a normative

it's like aesthetic taste it's like

you know what i mean like

that this question of like how to absolutely justify this or that is like

if we don't absolutely justify it then necessarily it will follow that

our normative

osition to the world will be chaotic and scary

well that's not the geling perspective for igel

our normative our nor our mors customs norms and the things we consider from a common sense perspective to be like normal

that is actually not like completely arbitrary and chaotic it is reconciled with this sphear of ethics and morality and stuff so

it's not they're just not the same thing is this

important to point out they're not the same thing but it's still rational and meaningful and stuff it's not like

people are just going to become cannibals in less we

create some contrived some kind of like ethical system

okay we're past the two hour remarks i'm gonna limit us to two more questions

again if anybody has questions put an asterisk on either end so i can catch them in the chat

and we'll be ending off after those

ah this is another one for has from seeking a what would happen and i apologize if this is redundant

i vaguely remember seeing this question earlier

what would have to be true that would convince you that animals are conscious and what about the argument from marginal cases

yeah the only i would have to be the thing that would be necessary for that to be proven to me is that animals would actually have to demonstrate to me by means of some kind of communication

that

they

that they are conscious like they have to actually like talk to me or something

i mean like maybe they would have to do it in a language

that i don't i wouldn't immediately understand but they would have to be capable of language and they would have to be able to recognize

is a difference between subject and object

how would you respond just quickly how would you respond then to levanons

where we talk about what comes before language

as the primordial expression

so like

communication i mean eighty percent of communication seventy eight percent of communication is non linguistic

like most of it comes from you know body language vocal tone

or engagements with each other

a that or not

g you know

actually contained within the words

but i just want to sy lok you're explaining this the has right now keep going

yes

and but but actually the semantic content

of the word

so

when we talk about some forms of like

communication

we can have communication which is not linguistic which animals display

in their resistance

they scream

they tried to get away

they display acts of

fia

and terror and

in many ways

are pleading to us

and they they

act and call us

to our own conscience

okay

that's like saying a tree makes you feel a certain way they're calling it to your conscience ok

obviously language is not the same as like

formal

gerbalized

words is not language is not the same as words obviously there's forms of communication that fall within the

criterion of language that are outside of formal language

so to speak right

as far as this primorial language stuff is concerned i'm a lakinian so for me this is the primordial basis of language is death drive

which animals do not possess

animals do not possess a

the self relating negativity

the death ri

death drive that exists in they do not have the death drive but we have the death drive and we can see that in their faces which is why as actually points out that we see the death drive in our own monstrosity i understand i understand the idea like

s language is something that emerged so nature could speak its own pain whatever

but still animals don't possess it

ok they're not conscious they are not themselves conscious

maybe they i'm asset

what

so the the make a display which we would say was fundamentally a communication of no

no noo i do know a there's a distinction between the communication that is proper to language

and the elicitation of

the expression of some kind of contingent and

external

expression on a part of the animal that evokes a certain stimuli to other animals that is different from communication communication implies

a withdrawnness

of the subject with regard to themselves so that things become for themselves

to another not just a

you need something like for example a big other it's not just

a one way relation between the

me and then another person it's that it's me another person and a fundamental third point of reference that is the presupposition

but the only way that the only way that that occurs is in the acknowledgment of the other

and that acknowledgment of the other happens

between us ananimals in wento w i mean anmals do acknowledge yet youen engage with so thek knowledgement yet theing on lewis quickly and then has

so one animals do acknowledge and engage with us animals do and i mean the

shit this is unbelievably obvious in terms of training

in terms of like

your ability to manifest a relationship with the anorimal

animals definitely do and they'll act even defensively even with each other

animals form social pacts

um they're not in like a society or or something like that

but they do have relationships with one another it's not purely

from like ever an internal standpoint

and then also

they they do communicate

pain in that respect they try and communicate their pain

in the sense to make you stop

they try to communicate pain within a sense to cower from you and act defensively in order to make it end

like cuts will lie on their belly and sure submit kick concisely like two examples not to go ok so ye that's right but

big

animals submit to each other even

there is an act there is an active power relationship with be with with an animal with an animal

hayes ok the first thing you like you know you what you do is that you go like five thousand different points when i have one point i want to stick to one point so let's go one by one there's three i could identify

the first point with regarding to the fact that

a big other the third term is created only by a relationship with another person actually that's not true

this third term is necessary both for the acknowledgment of another and ourselves

so that dialectic relationship is always there just by

having a relationship to another

you do not establish that third term that is the third point of reference between you both

it's very important to understand that' im ok well n i'm addressing your point on i was hangng you fucking shit out so many stupid fing a

ok the second thing i

is you said that animals

do in fact communicate to us and do relate to us

they they don't do this anymore

then a fucking plants does

ok you haven't established how it's different from a plant

ok

i

you haven't just you haven't gotten from in itself to for itself as far as that's concerned

of this the third thing is that you said that animals

communicate pain and all these kinds of things well that's just anthropomorphisation it's like a cat lady who tries to intuit

the feelings of her cat ultimately

there's a complete

unbridgeable difference there

where you could not possibly have communication

with a with an animal because the third term that is the reference point of communication could not exist between you

so

a and as far as animal training and stuff is concerned

even though i don't myself take this view from a ha gelian perspective and classically modern a european perspective

you still don't establish the different in itself and for itself for example

what separates a robot from an animal in this regard

completes a just robot the machine that can be trained and so on and so on

mean like a

you don't actually arrive at

the point at which

animals are conscious

our have langluis

if ih alright okay so

andm

the third term in the hagelian and lacian kind of especially in the laconian sense like the you know the the big other

let's produce

that's not produced that's not imminent within our being that's produced from the relationship with the other

which then produces a notion of self

and that is self consciousness which is what happens at the murror stage

and the production of language

that's not that

that's the production of language

not the necessary tenants of language

which animals have

no know that you reckon saming recognition so we hang on

the recognition

of consciousness

is what produces language

and allows us to formulate the third term

it's not what gives us consciousness it's not what it's not already os now i thank you ls and now has you cant you make the same mistake in regards to look on that you did with hagel so when hegels talking about the mirror stage you're again confusing this with

lacon's ontological claims and the implications are again being developed

from the end

yes from the yes the truth of the beginning is again same with look on

at the revealed at the end

so yes and the very beginning

a distinction

of the big other

is there

it's

the reason why look on moves to the big other is because of the inadequacy

of um

the relation between one and another to possibly explain

uh

what gives rise to identity and subjectivity

lak on moves for to the big other in order because the

initial thing is inadequate it's literally the same as hagel

but you make the same mistake and misunderstanding

ok the was a big o that could not possibly be there because if it was there then we would start with the bod subject and not the subject

which is exactly why look on starts with the subject

which is not barred by language

and at the production of language becomes bod

so that's that's the relationship with the big go that right you're making real lus can you please respond to my point

i did respond i did wright move has as restate the point alths sing on point sure lewis there's a difference between

luk on is not saying this is onto logically the case

he's saying as to the extent

for purposes of his investigation for purposes of his

development of what is already there

so yes the big other in a sense is already there

it's just that

we don't know this

so to speak

at the beginning this has to develop in a certain way in order to arrive at it but yes the big other is there

k lwis oll that isn't a thing it's a relationship

ya i okay

listen the big hother is the relationship

the symbolic

it's the relationship of the symbolic order

to the subject mediated by the imaginary that's just what the big other means that's all it means

and the symbolic order is something that la conne

believes as ontologically antestedent in the form of death drive

i would agree that the death drivers there

we could agree on that

but that's not separate that's like

that's the saying like the will seeks to destroy that's the wills

and frustration with itself you know why it's especially true that the symbolic order is already there louis

well because w you're because when you're an infant it's literally there like you are you're born into a society into a symbolic order

and you're just confused about your relationship to it

it's already there

actly against what he argues because he even talks about how rogen errogenous zones don't even develop until past the ras stage so even all

um experience of

pleasure

hasn't even been sublemated in a way that mak sense

but this resinence of the symbol hang on as litt unfinished response lewis try to be concise go

yeah so sublimation and the um symbolic

and the symbolization of our drives

is past the miror stage which allows us to feel things in different locations and understand them in that way but look on is not a stages he doesn't believe like there's these are just different stages lok on's own mirror stage

that was almost an epistemic development on his part to arrive at where he would eventually become he doesn't

actually ontologize these stages and say that this is actually imminently an ontological stage in being

he

like lok like i don't know if i can

can of say this in another way

and like the whole point of the mirror stage

is to recognize

something

that you did not see before

like prior to that

consciousness was not aware

of aware of itself

we know

but what is the lding the process along is the symbolic order

desire

and the frustration of desire

well but

desire again what is leading desire alone

nothing

no yeah there is something

what

rive

that is desire no it's not desire is not the same as drive dude i've studied look on for like five years you don't know what you're talking about

desire is not the same as drive

desire is the imaginary form drive take drive belongs to the domain of the real desire belongs to i you want to imagine ok if you want to know what you're talking about dude if you want to wasting my time i i don't let him respond

if you want to say that what you mean by desire is the symbolized drive

fair n it's not symbolized drive

yes it is no it's belongs to the imaginary it be's obmated dry

symbolize drive

is signified

it's the sublimated drive

man

it's not it's not simple it's the drive which is given content so that it can be expressed in the ind the imaginary form

well yes but in so much that it gives the capacity for the will to actually express itself

althoughy n't this is not a philosophy so he's not talking about will or any of this other stuff he's talking about psychoanalysis

you have to know what you're talking about

you just don't you don't you're not well read on the confinitely definitely is philosophical since con was heavily inspired by hagel

luk on was inspired by hagel's dialectic but luck on even would say this is dialectical materialism like it's not even hegel per se it's a n con is not a material

really well let me ask you a question

when luck on was confronted with the possibility of a certain theoretical position he said no this can't be true because it would violate dialectical materialism so yes he was

but le on explicitly ok even if you reject history and the facts which you are

laok on actually explicitly rejected the entire enterprise of philosophy he contrasted psychoanalysis with philosophy as a completely separate

enterprise so no la con on does not think

this is all philosophy it's not philosophy

philosophical readons of thek on are separate from the on him self anyway

i'll think that's

not separate even and read you have to critique con's view of philosophy because they disagree with it

that's fair enough that's not the point i'm making i just what the point i'm making is that i don't think that loc is a materialist

but you don't think you have le says he is i would i would argue i was let me argue that the whole point of sublimation

is to reconcile an individual's relationship

with their drives

to actually understand material

in the world without yes you know you would be assuming that they would have those drives

and i' just see we where does lock on a lot of mooxist do hang on as let i'm finish

finanxism now though

can we stay on topic y electrial materialism i'm not going to not mention them because i'm just ok let's just take it is lck on a materialist yes or no that's the top

i would say no other

ok well

well

with the way you've justified that

is because you've said that lacan is making a philosophical claim about knowledge that's incompatible with materialism but lacon is making no such claim

in the first place and lakon himself

believes that he is engaging in a materialist enterprise he himself does

okay i would say that lakn begins

from a position which unifies the real

the signified on the imaginary

and one such notion

in that' is immaterial

and without such

law wouldn't make sense

well what no material is not the same as substantial

it's clearly material in the sense of a

possessing a material content you think that the imagination is material

when did i say that

the relationship lak on establishes between the imaginary symbolic and the real precisely gives

is precisely materialist

it's like saying

oh so so like go on let me finish

that's like saying so like oh if marx acknowledges ideas

does that mean he thinks ideas are material well no ideas are not themselves material

you can be a materialist while acknowledging the reality of ideas

can be ammaterialist wle acknowledging the reality of the imaginary

you well one you would have to either explain

material you dier have to explain the ideas in material terms

or the material in ideal terms

that would be walking in separate there's material need for youal

i has let let him finish his point then you can respond

so in other words i would say that i would say that marx is very much very well aware of the

a of ideology

and how it impacts our relationship with materials

but it's all explained with by

moving through material

as in

the material explains the ideas

well in hegel the ideas explain the material ok what is material

what do you what you mean by material

do you mean as in like what do i mean by material like per yeah what are you trying to say when you say look on

's not he's not a materialis what is material

i would is a material thing

i would say that material would be the um determined would be a

i probably say like

a determinate matter

in terms of our experience what does matter

and

i would say the external reality

ok sure

the matter for you is just external reality a do i have you clear

a

i would say that it's i mean like i'm not for me personally i would say that what matter is is actually a relationship but i mean like

in terms of like h

so like

i would say that like mat in terms of how we understand it i'd say that mas actually an emptiness

which is kind of what make hagel would kind of point what amless right of course of course so it's that matters negative

ok yeah so let's let's be clear

so luk on is a materialist

because for luck on

the imaginary cannot possibly be self referential

what defines the imaginary

just like what defined ideology for marx

is in the form of

symptoms in the real

symptoms in the real

for luck on

which is a fundamental

struck

fundamental formation

that subsists in the real which accounts for the range

of our imaginary

fororms

so for on lk on is clearly a materialist

like believe symptomk on does not have an un dialectical view of materialism according to which there is like an underlying substance

that determines the

the form and content

of like the superstructure the imaginary or ideas

obviously that's an undalectical materialism that's a straw man no no dialectical materials believes that

dialectical materialists understand that matter is a dialectic

is dialectical matter is itself

the unity of opposites it's compatible like with mao's view of

the drawing from chinese philosophy of the unity of opposites as being matter itself

the matter has no form outside of the actual form given to it in the form of the imaginary and so on and so on but it is still primary

it is the primary content of that form

lac explains this one last thing la con actually explains this logic in the form of his

concept of the non all

it is all yes but there's the non all

makes it so that um

it is internally incomplete and contradictory and there lies

the primary primacy of matter he doesn't say like matter is a ready made form

that determines everything

matter is itself

something that exists in relation and disturbs in the form of symptoms the imaginary forms

and it's primary because it is its real being

well i think that like the important thing to recognize i think that i would i would i would not accuse

the con on of being anything but a phenomenologist

to be entirely honest

i don't think that we live in unmediatedmata that is like

that is exactly the so

big

otherwise like one i think the way that you describe materialism there

i want to ask you to define motter as well

and because you describe materialism in such a way that it almost included cant

i knock on's ot hegel

which is so strange like the idea of like a prime minister a prime a primary

of reality

that we are subject to hegel agrees with that but he's not materialis

he doesn't see that like reality as a pure through material notion

and physical notion he sees it through

he sees the material as being posited

as an understanding of something this is exactly the same as the laconian point of the real

which is infinitely negative and resists meaning no but here's what you don't understand the real for lak on is not only negative the real actually has determinate form in the form of symptoms

symptom

the real is not simply negativity

we luck on

and that's actually the primary form of that's the primary distinction as far as dialectical materialism

with hegel's idealist philosophy is concerned

it obviously there's an agreement with hegel as far as the fact of there being a dialectic relation between

form and content that much is very clear

what

from the materialist perspective

it is precisely content

material essence and being

which reconciles

the form

in other words the truth of the form is in the material it subsists in material being

itself already this explains

for example marxas elevation of the proletariat as the class i don't want to get into that but

m

i would

wellll ok we can ex i can i can ha finished tm you can go we don't have time i want to diverge into other topics that's why

i

so for lacon uh

matter is so if you want to ask me the question of how i would define matter

i would define matter in a very similar way that phil

three modern philosophers in the past would define like essence and content

matter does not self subsist

in an undalectical way in an unmediated way as you're trying to say that's on dialect

that's actually not materials

it's substantialist and ultimately leads to the conclusion of idealism

was marx and angles as criticism

of french materialism in the first place

matter is definitely mediated but that

doesn't change that matter is

primary and that matter is antes

matter is

in contained in the word itself it is the matter the real content

the real content of any given totality

um

necessarily comes at the expense of both our knowledge

and

the form

given to this content

that's the point of dialectical materialism it is the is describing a relationship between form and content

thatk i'm going to or

form arises from content but not in a way

it is all contained in the form itself

the content is latent with the birth regeneration and destruction

of

existing forms

okay i'm going to allow one more response from both of you no interruptions please lewis and hans

um i don't necessarily even disagree with pretty much anything you've said it's just whether you would give mata the primacy of that it's like whether you would say that the real is mata i don't think that lacon

well at least in my understanding of look ona

suppose i could be wrong

i wouldn't have said that thek on would give that primacy to matter

you would have gave the real like it's not that he would say that

what is real is this external physical existence which we are being tested again

instead actually this internal

existence that we are experiencing is already

the symbolic

we experience the symbolize the symbolic reality we don't experience the

the the real

the real manifest itself in the inadequacy

of this symbolic round

and in our internal understanding of self

the real is existence itself and all place within it and how we are symbolizing it

which is why it's phenomenlogical at least from my

interpretations of things if you want to see that it's matter

um i mean i would have to do more reading to just go

fundamentally on hundred percent mac

is saying that

the real is mata

but i do not think that i've ever come across anyone saying that the real is mata

and not that rather anything else

that what the real is

is anything but what is

which is what makes it infinitely negative

you can't predicate anything of it you can' see that there is an essence

of it

over then

because essence is actually

in the symbol

it is in the production of essence

that we get the symbolized reality the

the imagination produces an essence from which is

apply to reality in the form of a symbol which is mediated through

the sulf and bk the other

a two things the real is not matter

i didn't say that

it's just that the real

occupies a similar relation

do both the symbolic

and the imaginary

that matter does two ideas as relevant to philosophy

that's why look on is a material

i

and obviously materialism for marx implies the destruction of philosophy which lak on is committed

insight in the form of psychoanalysis itself

so in that sense the real and matter are related the real and matter are related because

the real is the precise way in which matter relates to us psychological

but it's not identical with matter itself obviously

um

i don't have a as if i if i may i will say i don't think that the con

like it the primary like the importance oh yeah i i'll get to it i'll get to it

now i'll get to it

la conin obviously doesn't draw like a conktian distinction between psychology and reality but what i'm i was just trying to simplify

um that the real is matter insofar as it relates to our like psychological reality whatever because

there is clearly a discontinuity but that discontinuity is ontologically accounted for for example in gijq's work the discontinuity

between for example symptoms

in the unconscious in the symbolic order and i'm going to get to that's going to be my second point

and symptoms in nature there are symptoms in nature

that you can understand ontologically and then there are symptoms

relevant for the unconscious

there is no hard conktian distinction between these two but there's still a discontinuity and that discontinuity is

the very object of gijqe's ontological enterprise which i disagree with a lot but i'm just saying acknowledging

at the discontinuity

exists is not a contyan

think

then the second thing you said is that

be real is always already takes the form of the symbolic but it seems like you're very confused about the actual content of the sam symbolic

i didn't say that

hang on lwis thats has a tur ok whatever you said whatever you said about the relationship between the real and the symbolic

eight

this this is what you need to understand the symbolic is

precisely i would argue material

actually the symbolic is precisely material in regards to the imaginary

signifiers are symptoms

or look on this is the conclusion of look on's work

signifiers are not produced asill they're not philosophical concept

very easy to mistake in signifiers for concepts

they are not the same thing

signifiers are symptoms of the unconscious

and they are formed

in a way that comes at the expense of our conscious conceptual

the imaginary form so for thek on the concept belongs to the realm of the imaginary

a for example

it is not something that premises the imaginary itself

and

well i guess this is what i would sad we i wasn't saying

that the

that the

the

we get the we already exist in the symbolize i mean

in a thronness and maybe like a hede garian sense

perhaps

but not like in a like in a already the world is simply given to or symbolized

um the quite the opposite i was saying that we gain

symbolization

through an active

process of imagination

which is mediated between two parties

that's buten lock on that's not the case

but i think it is the case

and thank you for luck on the imaginary has a very passive role

relationship to the symbolic in the real

but we can get into that and

you know i'm happy to i do need to go and research the more

but

i

from min s on and of a con this is where i've taken it

the the real isn't seen as material it's seen as the absence of any given thing

the symbolic

would contain material

but it wouldn't be limited to material

it would be anything which would be given determinate existence the i mean it's for thek on is material

determinate existence is material for laokon

well

that that's like a point of contention of whether it is or not like i don't know i have the' definitely check ok you don't know that's fine

like no i'll definitely check from my understanding it's phenomenlogical because it contains

ah the mediation of what is

i

it is a mediate a reality through

thought

it is the ut

not i thought

all right i think the're going to mo on the next question now

um and we're going to make this the final question and this is from m

einsel ganner and i'm going to address this to both of you

leaving aside the previous argument about the consciousness of animals

ah please comment upon

the argument that veganism is necessary for the sake of the environment in so far as it is able to sustain human beings int perpetuity

ah who wants to go first

i have to can i go and then i can i go pee because i got a f really bad

and you guyt want to take two seconds to do that right now you can

i'm i'm going to go pee i'm very bad you do that hang on louis w'll wait till he gets back

no problem no problem

i'm a

my blood are istorically shut

yeah i'm just going to soon as this is over i'm running the bathroom to be enta honest yea you got time wh you do that now

uh no i'm happy to wait i'd rather just like

i'd rather be able to take my time

and feel like it's is like if you want to you want to you want to like

you want to really sae wre that release i got be abots the thing it's almost it's almost like it's it's going to be like is that will be that will be symbolic

hey by the way i mean to ask where did you get that that jellyfish lamp behind youjo wll

ah me gol friend gotes it

so i aska

oyeah i lost p

but yeah i'm a big fan of the johnny fish lumb

i've had lots of people ask if the're real jellyfish now which i don't know half of them i think are taken the pisce

and then the other half like i think are serious cause its even people

like um well how do they work

so right so like this is the thing right

so that's water

right

yeah you get this like filt like empty

and you get those like jellyfish like plastic things

and then you put

the water in that you fill it up yourself put a couple of drops of like

and dishwashing like this this like what theyir soap

and

and then like once you put it on like there's a light

at the bottom and like a mortar or whatever or pump rather

so like it's pumping water up that's making it like circulate

okay the light at the bottom so like and then you've got a remote that can like

away

so the jellyfish themselves they they have there's nothing moving in them they're just being

ru

all right yes back we're going to to get back to this

so i'm going to restate the question

um

has i don't know if you can hear me yet i can hear you

you'r good brilliant ok

so again please comment upon the argument that beganism is required

to sustain the environment

for humanity

who would like to go first

i i will if uh please there's no objection okay sure

yeah i don't think it is there's two

two things right

first

to say it's necessary means it's necessary from

the perspective some kind of subjective agent

well the first problem with that is that you're including in your necessity something that may not necessarily be possible

m

for example the commitment

human beings have in this world to eating meat

is not simply a result of a deficient ethical or moral system on their part

but could itself be somehow part of our objective reality changing

our very notion of necessity the necessity implies that we can actually

force people or convince people to stop eating meat

but that is not

necessarily true i

it's not necessarily true you can convince everyone to stop eating meat so you have to change

um

the object sorry you have to change the content of what your necessity is

a based on the necessities of sorry based on being based on reality

now the second thing is that i actually don't believe it's true

first i'm going to do three things the second thing is that i don't believe it's necessarily true

that meat consumption has to end

in order to stop climate change maybe there's a level of wasteful wasteful meat production that's harmful to the environment that has to be crammed down

but i don't think this implies anything about stopping climates the third thing is that there's an assumption that

a climate change

and even be stopped

and i' actually don't think

that much is very clear i don't know if we can stop climate change

i don't i don't i'm not really inclined to believe we can stop it i think we're entering a new era in which

humanity will have to adjust to this new reality and reconcile itself with the way it which has

in a way that

it did not choose to or will to change the world

so i believe in a deeper reconciliation

of this fact of having changed the world in a way we didn't expect or know

as something actually which will turn out to be rational

so that's my three points

oky leowis

yeah so i can you just do do is a favor just restate the question so i make sure that i can

answer it concisely i i'll do my best to anyway

yeah no worry sure comment upon the argument that leaving aside the issue of the consciousness of animals and all that ethical stuff

veganism is required to preserve the environment for human beings

okay

so obviously i do think animal lives matter and so on and i do think that all behavior is molluble from an existentialist position in theory everything can change about the way we act we can

radically reinvent ourselves and

change the way we act in our relationship with nature

specifically energy production and food production

im

with animal agriculture

there was a real big issue in terms of

deforestation primarily

and also the production of methane

so what we have is a relationship in which we need to

radically

reduce meat consumption

ah meat dairy and egg consumption in order to save

all planet i mean that means

that would mean

taking away the number one cause of deforestation

for example which is on am agriculture

it would also mean

takingway the number one cause of ocean dead zones

which is animal agriculture

it would mean taking away the number one cause of

and ocean plastics

the number one cause of

um

oh than

river pollution

so

and then also twenty eight percent

of greenhouse gas emissions

and that was a study done by oxford

and also seventy percent of our land use

is coming from animal agriculture so in terms of animal agriculture

environmental impacts even towards the human

um habitag

it is profound we need to we need to reimagine our relationship

with all food supply

and move towards a plant based diet

even for a matter of self preservation

and then to add to that

we haven't even considered the risk of zoootic diseases which are a massive existential threat coverd nineteusen being

only a tiny

shitty little

they really flew

compared to what can happen when we look at things like a bola

or when we look at things like am

even h one n one and h five n one

and these flu would have been absolutely devastating had they had the virulency

the there would have been a massive existential threat for our own survival

and then even in terms of how we treat others

if we look at something like the slaughterhouse

m the slaughterhouse is indicative

of an environment which is unsuitable

for human engagement it is a house of horrors

and individuals come out with

a what it's called

pitts disorder

perpetration induc traumatic stress

this is this is a manifestation of trauma

people have feelings of disintegration

feelings of

paranoia

you know drug addiction alcohol abuse

and are much more likely to engage in domestic violence and violence against other humans as well

which is documented

pretty clearly in the size that in the point that

we can actually

sure

that arrest rates on

sorry arrests on this bey on the question

well it's just it's untrou it's un throug promorpic value isn't it in relation animal agriculture

so it was about the environment okay hang hang on t try try to wrap it up luis and then we'll statements

in terms of the size of a slaughterhouse facility

we can actually map on domestic violence and violence as a whole

to the size of the facility

so if you care about humans

and you want to protect

also against

ah habitat destruction

and even protect us against ourselves

from

the production of zoootic disease and even

manifesting violence

then yang

go pan base

goo argument

i've got evidence

view

let me know you said a lot of things but like the idea that

you want to stop domestic violence more you dude

the reason why we have domestic violence the reason why the harm toward animals evokes feelings of domestic violence is because of a more underlying problem in the first place

it doesn't necessarily follow that

you know factory farms and slaughterhouses will lead to domestic violence

it' yt that they do do that given the current circumstances

of the relationship between men and women in our society like

what you're saying is like really stup

well actually the authors posit the fact that women and children are usually seen as vulnerable as arounimals so the relationhap between ner ability

is what is producing the domestic violce well it's a cycle well that

state of vulnerability that women and children are in is also societal it's also resulting from the fact that women and children

are not given adequate protection in our society

but also and also the fact that the

women and children are

o children i sorry women p in particular objects of male violence and it's a more deeper problem than just animals

you know i agree it's a much deeper problem in overall society but i think that it's certainly feeding into a problem

and also the vulnerability that is manifest in children

it's probably not something that we could

just miraculously change like i'm not even saying wonder the changes the women of all wello women are weaker than men i'm not even saying you can change it for women i'm just saying that

mm

the violence against

women in particular

is not

doesn't simply follow from seeing animals being killed it follows from seeing animals being killed

thlus a society with a specific relationship between men and women

but that's was only the manifestation of that aggression that's w that's the way it's sublimating so would sublimate in a self destructive way regardless which is why

the ones who don't come out weed to prove that you can't prove because

because many of them report feelings of disintegration insomnia

alcoholism drug abuse

a much higher conviction rates

so it manifest itself and so ofm its and various different ways to g mean i can't check the studies and data so i'm going to assume it's correct that's what i use when i cant verify a source

but even if we assume that's correct

it doesn't actually follow

a that that is the true cause

well i mean you can go into i got a video on it it's called working and how you can go and have a look

ok well i think you should read hegel before you recommend me videos

all right we're going to call it now we at two hours and forty one minutes and i believe the taliban are about to take a bul so i'll let you guys take three minutes each to make your final statements and then we'll call tonight sound good

ya ya alright uh

has would like to go first

no he can go first

orright lewis

yeah sure

so what has has demonstrated in this

argument as his

time

ignorance to be entirely honest with you

he actually gave a better position in his first debate which was

a essentially that the separation between animals and humans was one of of

um

of epistomological difference not on a logical difference

and in this debate he's trying to make the onological difference which hegel outright

the nies

he hasn't answered any of the questions i raised about

ideology and why we are abstraucting man to the form of consciousness

which is

definitely against the hergelian notion

um at least

from the perspective

of someone who understands the system and not reading through the lens of what hegel himself thought

so yeah

i've answered

all of these questions

and i think now we just have to ask ourselves

what is the foundation of value in reality

is it

the notion of humanity

is it the self

is it a form of self righteous

andm

consideration

of

of something

that is the form of adam

that is being bestowed upon us by man or some sort of abstracted rational agent

in a contient sense

or is it

something which is sensitive

is it that the intellectal the intellective capacities

of a rational agent

or based

upon reflecting upon the sensitive nature

of experience

we gain

information which is good or bad

imminently from reality

that information is

what consciousness is

and that information exists in animals

and so when we do not consider

that information we are curr we are committing a philosophical failure

we are not considering what is actually right

and what is actually valuable

we are considering what we want to be right

and what we want

to be valued

all right thank you has

yeah i w i w i didn't catch all that be cause i was ordering chicken schama sandwiches um really hungry but

anyway m

i'll concluded with this

a

so i

left the last debate

last debate i was really tired and i didn't quite

know for certain whether perspective philosophy actually understood hegel

or not

so

in this debate i actually wanted to take the opportunity to grill him and see if he actually could prove

he knows what he's talking about

i am i have one hundred percent confidence beyond any reasonable doubt

whatsoever that perspective philosophy derives his understanding of hagel entirely from his ass

a and not only does he know nothing about hegel he doesn't he also prove he doesn't know anything about lak

and things like materialism and marxism

and a host of other subjects

lewis says he's responded to all of my questions and i haven't responded to any of his but the exact opposite is literally true and i think anyone who reviews this debate in good faith

weill see that i did make a good effort to try and actually pin lewis down and ask him concrete

simple questions which he just dilly dallied and danced around without ever directly addressing anything

i raised none of the points i raised were addressed by him or even acknowledged

he has a proclivity to go into tangents about completely irrelevant things that are meant to confuse

the audience as well as me

i wasn't impressed by it i can clearly map and trace

through the course of receiving his arguments

that a does not follow b and that what the tangentsy goes on are in no way connected to the actual underlying points that were under contention

m

so in conclusion i think it's a pretty one sided debate

i got what i was looking for

i've exposed proerspective philosophy as a fake hegelian especially when he actually admitted

that he doesn't actually think that hegel believes in the unity of being and thought

um

and i think i've gotten more than i wanted to do because all i wanted to do here was prove that proerspective philosophy was a fake hegelian who doesn't know shit about hagel

but i also proved

that he also doesn't know shit about lacon either so that was

a freebie you know

um

yeah i think you know i'm pretty satisfied with the result i was pretty well rested pretty alert today unlike last time

so you know i'm i'm

i'm satisfied

i got what i wanted

just to quickly say i definitely didn't say that hegel didn't said that being what we had a chance to are

says although your closing you aready had you closing statement so there is the thinking th you already gave your closing statement

and also

you never on said the infint as is correct unfortunately the these were closing statements we cannot we can if you guys want to do a rematch

give me give me a week or two so i can not die of blood clots but will

weill arrange that but

for now

for now we're done

so thanks everybody for participating

um and take care thank you again to audience questioners as well

a thank you has thank you lewis have good night

bye bye

oh sit

well

oh my golod

ok guys that was the win i was looking for ok

that now i'm satisfied i wasn't satisfied last t i' satisfied nw

that was the win i was looking for

you know

i was satisfied

i was very satisfied with the result

i was satisfied with my performance

i was satisfied with how it went

and it is what it is you know

it'ss what i

i came to look for something and i got what i wanted you know what i'm saying

that what i was looking for

ok

am i got what i was

i what i was looking

am

damn i feel good i felt guilty did i was like damn i i was hyping it up i didn't do as well as i wanted to

now after

today i'm sat

'm satisfied with

b t

oh b d f

o b t f

oh

b d f

o b t f

oh you know what i'm saying like

and i got energy

it is energy

i'm well wsked

today

i'm well rested

what i

say he just

i might

oh yeah my windows settings for

one

found

my mike settings are fucked up right now

i'll fix it device properties

oh wait they're actually fine volume fifty

it's not my good

good

ix

what's your question

well

bk you big

oh get right

all right is you still hereo i do' als finish your thought please concisely and then we're going to let has respond

well

bk you big

oh get right

du it every time when he said i want to do another quote i got mad because he's fucking wasting time

and every time he wastes time i forget about what i want to say

like when he wastes time i forget about the thing i wanted to say

that's why i was getting so mad

like ah another quote no dude we don't need another fucking quote holy shit

jesus fok in christ

we do not need another quote

my holy fox

and you say he's just a

ok

that's all i wanted to do

all i wanted to do

i got what i needed

i got what i came for

i came to kick ass and chew bubble gum

and i didn't have any bubble gum

and i literally did order chicken schawatma

you think he's read it and didn't get it or didn't read it

i think he was taught

it

by a teacher in school who didn't understand it

the like he probably didn't directly read

he probably didn't directly read everything

but even if he did he didn't understand it

i think you should go read it again

his pp represented the academic mainstream of hegel no

he's not

he's not

he's literally just a dog maatic vegan who's trying to use hagel to justify his idiological cllt

you

got what i need

what you say he's just a

they he's just a french

oh baby you

you got what i need

a the point of absolute spirit if you are to say it like

what matters more a chicken or a baby there equal invalue so so so how

ah man

you're not goird can sh see we're going to do a longer stream tonight

i didn't work out yet

h

i didn't

t

i don't work out yet but we're goninga stream for like

or more hours or something going to seem for a lot longer

i'm going to have a long stream today at least six hour stream you know so don't worry about that

you think you went a little bit too far when it you tried to root leuis's interpretation as similar to fascism no i don't i don't he's not a fascist obviously he's not a fascist it's just that his understanding of hegel seems to be like the same

as far as the fascist understanding the issue is actualism this kind of volunteeristic you is like it's just an irony he's not a fascist ok he's not a fascist it's just an irony i want to point out and it's an irony that makes sense to me i do think veganism is ultimately fascist i do think that i don't think he's a fascist personally

on

uh then thever anything

isn't believing in objective morality ft no i didn't call him fascist for no reason dude i didn't say his argument was fast for no reason it's literally because it mirrors

the actualism of giovanni gental who was a fascist scholar of hegel and founded

the doctrine of fascism whatever

oh no

why is veganism fascist it attempts to mediate our relationship to the world in a very similar way to fascism

mean i kind of believe in objective morality to

obviously morality is objective

would you debate him again

yeah

possibly

if he wants to

if he wants to

morality is historical you don't think history's objective

would you debate him on marx yes but i don't think marx is like orte he's like mainly a haganian

right

benign what's your question

can you see there's only one history there is not one morality so how is morality conditioned by history in so far as it's relevant yes there is only one morality as relevant to one historical totality

if yeah in the same way there's one his thory the's one wereality to the extent of one is the extent of the other

rip gripper thank you so much we appreciate

l you ma thank you thank you what is beninns question i asked her to f ik and ask you posed it didn't the mod seem really biased not really i think the mod was fine

they didn't seem that biased they don't share the same morality despite that morality being dependent on their historical position so the morality is the same in so far as they possess a shared history they have the same objective morality now the caut the way they give expression to that morality is a different question but it's

what do you think of president sunday he cochol

no issue with them ok let me look at this

dude it's like when i'm when i'm when i'm not tired my my patience is thin when i'm tired i have really it seems like i'm very patient

but that's just because i'm not even paying attention because i'm too tired

how could people who never contacted each other have a shared morality well they don't have a shared history then

pick one or the other

and to give you a quote from this if it would maybe help

a

well

bk you big

oh get right

all right is you still here no it finish your thought please concisely and then we're going to let has respond

ft mod so the essence so the positing of an essence is actually the movement in self consciousness but the re the

the grounding of essence

is the foundation in the concrete existence which exists

i'm going to admit something right now like right now today my body does not look that good

my body is not looking good

and it's because of that for those fuckin pot gummies is not looking that good

give me like a week i'll fix it

me like a week

like a week i'll fix it

wrother louis lu am i coudding

not really

i'm hungry now

i'm hungry his folk

brother louis louis louis

oh send hm to me

oh let it louis

he's undercover

what's going on in iraq

based biden look at this

one more year or five more years of u s military presence would have not made a difference if the afghan military cannot or will not

hold its own country

wow

the sort

an endless american presence in the middle of another country's civil conflict was not acepted me

low base

bace

the guys i read charlotte got back to me and i think she's going to messes me when she can debate it's not going to be today i don't think

but whenever she's available she'll just message me

rather louis louis louis

oh who said in to me

oh let it louis

she's undercover

brother louis louis louis

oh who sent thehm to me

we're going to check the reddit but guys the reddit's been boring lately can you guys stop making the reddit boring

what's going on in iraq

set the record it

what

no falconway

s intelligence agencies who just said four days ago that kabul could fall in ninety days

have revised the figure to seventy two hours

no falkon way

cowbul's goninga fall in three days

even i didn't think that

even i have assumed that like there's going to be a civil war

it's going to fall in three days

you're fighting now

damn

the towman really got this in the bag

the taliban really got this we're going to check i think it's happening right now

yeah i have a prediction

shit is goninga hit the fan

this is going to be world war three

afghanistan is the center of the world

that's where the great game for central asia is going to begin

now am i the only one

who really doubts

that afghanistan is not going to

have implications

for the central asian republics and for sxinjiang

bese i think there will be implications

afghanistan's a very important country

in this world

and we react to the news live

as long as it's not us

and

the will the will theway

over

ww biden administration

thanks

prepares for the collapse of kbus

four hours ago

caliban are seven miles from kabul

seven hours ago

it's miles

situation

government this proposal

from the talle of me

but right knowow it's fine the go for people radio

on is fight

a of the

but

you pay me i will not as much inexorable advance

it's almost unheard of to see this number of afghan special forces in one place at one time

kina signed a trade deal i'm talking about the long term

dow kabul e a chinese persian and russian quarter really

should china step in no

have you seen not

they're regrouping in kabul

they're well trained and heavily armed

together

they are formidable i just think you should be vigilant

fce

they're desperately needed in the capital

the taliban

are just miles away now

steadily the british and american soldiers and crucially their equipment

are arriving at cakrbul

transporter planes

lack

heightening security the government held hours of talks

discussing a taliban alpha of a se rejected previous proposals that as for is for kabl all they wanted was peace and some said they'd accept the taliban

especially if they showed

they had changed

but right now it's fine the people as good with them the they said

everyone can go to school the girls the boys

lif is normal but in the future we don't know right but right recently life has become difficult for people

people worried about the how the way thought abou treat us before and now

it's a little different

the question is

can you trust them to be nice

well we just want piece

but the early indicators of a reformed taliban are

looking good

in kandaha they've taken over the radio station it's now sharia radio

women know they'll suffer the most only a few so defined

are youcared now and i'm not discared if i'm a girl you know i know that taliban is fighting in my unshahad that's the intrig gate of ab they are here i'm not afraid of them we are not the people who will you know go back to the dark era i'm a girl and i don't care about anyone not pakistan not america nobody is i'm here even today of the killing me of the identify me i will not care about them i

will not care about them what should they be scared of this is my homeland my land

change is coming here now whatever the president says the taliban's inexorable advance on kabul is almost complete

the coalition forces will likely

i hope it turns out well i really hope

they have changed

i really hope they have

they haven't

now

it's going to be bad news

or afghanistan

they haven't i don't know

i feel like they're more modern now you know like they're more like a national movement rather than a

you're not like isist or whatever right

there will be so many deaths

yeah

i don't know

i think they've changed

i think they're trying to like show the world that they've changed

the biden administration is preparing for the fall of kabul c b s news has confirmed that all u s embassy employees except a small handful of key personnel

are expected to be evacuated in the next seventy two hours

the remaining employees will include diplomatic security top decision makers including the ambassador

and several security engineers responsible for destroying hard drives and other embassy electronics it's part

of the biden administration's plans

to remove all american diplomatic presence from afghanistan

the decision comes as the taliban is rapidly gaining ground on its march toward the country's largest

what happened to don bass it's still happening i think

be sure

germany said if they do bad shit they will stop sending money

the four hundred million till twenty twenty four yeah we'll see

city

the rest of the embassy staff along with local employees and families are set to be taken to karzai international airport

where a makeshift embassy will continue processing visas

ahead of the evacuation in the meantime there is news

that the taliban has claimed

do i feel like i look afghan do i look like i from i'm from afghanistan

i feel like i kind of look afghan what do you guys think

i feel like i could pass as afghan

i could pass as afghan why not

leouis said that because you're an m l you come from a tradition where you talk over people and straw man them with fake intellectualism

i he's coping ok let him cope

poor guy let him cope in his own stream ok we're on our own stream now

we're done with him

i could see myself as afghan just like chilling in the mountains and stuff

like if you saw like an afghan guy in the mountains

and he had this beard and he had this face would you second guess it

would you say all is he can't be afghan

reerspective philosophy calling you insecure ons stream ok let him talk what does he want to talk more

you can get in v c if you want

that

i got what i wanted ok

i could pass as afghan

hair to light

you've never seen af dude afghans

have this

are

they do

afghans have a lot of afghans have colored eyes and have

dude you know you haven't seen enough afghans

you haven't seen enough

afghan people are not dark haired well not all of them but a lot of them are

yet my beard is red did you guys know i have redness in my beard

i do have redness in my beard

yeah

i could pass as afghan dude i could

another major city missouri shari

i feel like i could be a momula like la has i could passes that shit dude

i could live as that dude i could just be like a guy who lives on a mountain and shit

just chill in minding my own business

i could do that man

i could live that life

where's the red

i don't know you have to see it in real life

guys

good

it's so weird dude

you know what's weird i feel like when people convert to islam it changes how they look

and they' just like it's just a different like vibe and different look you know

have you seen the city of harat

one beautiful oasis city

it looks coom

mean beard

no like i'm saying like over time i'm saying over time like over the course

because i think about a dude

turks and greeks do look kind of different like i could tellf someone's turkish from greek even though they're like the same people

turks and greeks come from the same people

and yet turks look different

it's called norder sad you lost it

the fuck are you talking about

what did i lose bitch

afghanistan's president ashraf ghani is clinging to power despite growing calls for his resignation

he says he is working with local

i lost my dean when did i have my dean hah

and i was fucking twelve

and i would lie to people saying i eat halal food

then i snuck and ate fucking chicken nuggets

that were not hallal in the fridge

as i was just

feeling satanic

i would virtue signal yea i'd only halll food

s i lived in a place where there was no halal food

so all i could eat was fucking fish

and then there were some chicken mg nuggets

in the fridge

and that the devil's temptation came on like you know mother buck i want those nuggets man

i ate the nuggets

and then i stopped

then everyone found out and they were like you don't need to have that and i stopped eating hal food

what about now i don't give a shit about how that now i don't give a fuck

this morning por

and it's honestly cultural

i don't eat pork

because it's weird to me

like

i don't know

guys i saw this twitter thread

and it was like

let me show you got something scary holy fa

show you something scary

i saw this twitter thread

that was like

animals

are human

mutations

animals are human mutations

and i was like what

and then they gave two examples that i actually i think i believe it now

so i don't think it's true for all animals but pigs and elephants

i think

were you'd like

they resulted from humans mutating

now let me show you something

did you know this this is so scary

this is an elephant's foot

look at it

this is the bone and this isn't even the

it' looked like a person trapped inside

did you not this this is like high heels

this is literally like high heels

dude you're gonna tell me

that elephants

aren't

the result

of human

evolute dude

everywere everything we know about fucking evolution

is fucking wrong dude

i actually do believe that

elephants and pigs are descendant from people

punished by god

or something

this is not fake i looked it up it's not fake

it's not fake

it's not fake

and pigs

dude pigs are so weirdly similar to us

monkeys too probably are apes

chimpanzees

i're probably like a cursed human tribe that was exiled

from

falkon

ancient

that no was ark or some shit

did you guys know this

our pig similar dude

look at a pig's eyes

look at a pig's eyes dude

let me show you this

j look at a pig

fo

e

this is a

you g to wo

there's transplants between pig organs and human organs

did you know that

pigs are very similar to humans

their skin is very similar you can

people tattoo on pigs to fuck an experiment

pigs are weirdly too smart

what's up with that

they're smart

they use them for heart surgery

just think about it dude think about it let me show you this

think about it

think about it

think about it

this looks like

dude

look at its hands

look at its fucking hands dude

these came from humans

thece came from humans

think about it

look at its hands dude

this mother fog a look at its face it looks like a chimpanzee

it's got the eyes the ears

it's got a cartilage mouth

that mother fucker smiling

this is the descent doune

yh

yeah

yeah

what the folx

wall hands

what theg

these are literally whil hands

whales literally is the same thing

it's the same shit dude

these are all lost human tribes that evolved

for being separate for too long

damn

look

you don't believe me look at this explain

ok scientists explain that

ok eva i believe in i darwin evolution ok then explain this go ahead explain it

i'm waiting

explain this

explain this

no we didn't

we didn't involve fm yeah the common ancestor is fucking atam or something

it's a human

humans

gave birth to all of fucking animals

in the mammalan world

animals became

from human

this is a human and a tiger

so let me ask you a question

can i ask you a question chat

let's say a guy goes and lives in the forest

and he just starts like

being savage and shit and he just like starts adapting to his environment

and then he brings a woman with him and they have a baby

and they keep doin that shit livin in that forest adapting to it

eventually they're going to change

eventually how they look will change yea

eventually how their look will change

and am i allowed to show skeletons like a human skeleton drawing

or is that not a lot on twitch

skeleton drawings are allowed right

it's a drawing it's not a real one

it's aloued okaen

let me check let me show you guys this

think about it

this

used to be human

it's the same thing

it' just like it used to stand up and then it

grew a tail and it went on its legs

and its head turned weird and this is the product of

millions of years

we that

one second

my food got here

oh yeah

the liberal wild order

what's the common ancestor ha

you're going to tell me

humans are so unique

that we're not the common ancestor ourselves

a shrew

so you think everything came

from a fucking mouse

get the fuck out of here

you're saying it all came from a mouse

humans aren't unique

everyone i wis was a dunce cap

for chatters you say dumbshit

humans aren't unique

really

then go get your dog to type

in this chat

don't mass

all i know

let me show you guys up

let me show you something

they're trying to hide

they're trying to hide this shit

but i found out

look at this

that's a real photo

that's a real photo

there's all sorts of species they're trying to hide

let me show you something else

they don't want you to know about this shit that's the thing

o i believe in evolution

and explain this

they found this

they found this

i will send the video they found this

take

this is what perspective philosophy thinks we're going to become and we must become

perspective philosophy thinks that according to hegel we must become this

if you listen to proerspective philosophy

your grandchildren will look like this trust me

they don't want you to know about this

you ought to know the truth

you know you think you know the truth right

let me show you something

i'm going to show you something

your perspective will be changed

yeah keep laughing

you keep laughing right

keep laughing

now you all think you got the full story right

i can't sholw this ship

a sholder shoes

wish they would put clothes on the the

leaders and international partners to prevent further instability violence and displacement of the afghan people

s marines and soldiers are starting to arrive in kabul

roughly three thousand troops are being deployed to the capitoal in an effort to secure and remove american diplomats and key personnel from the region

the taliban seized control of afghanistan's second and third largest cities kandahar and herat earlier this week

they are now pressing toward the capital of kabul

the militant group's reign covers roughly two thirds of the country

u s defense officials fear it could be just a matter of days before kabul is taken c b s news foreign correspondent roxana saberi is

i hate my palking beard

i can't eat anything man

i don't want to shave it because i'll fuck it up i need to go to the barber and have m professionally do it

is on the ground in the capitoal

with more

as the taliban take territory they also gangs ring marh mar and replenishing their ranks with taliban prisoners they free along the way

but and seizing the spoils of war left behind by retreating afghan forces trained by the

pentagon spokesman john kirby there we are always worried about

s equipment

that

could fall into an adversary's hands

those adversaries now control more than two thirds of the country yesterday they captured the capital of helman province u s troops once fought some of their bloodiest battles

now the taliban are eying what's essentially the afghan government's last stand

for now daily life here in the capital kabul appears to be carrying on more or less as usual but many people here fear this way of life could soon come to an end freedom equality and a woman right all of these things are the issues with every one is concerned about theyre killing women who were born and raised here what about me

but after ahimi says her family will stay in afghanistan

but as a woman who studied on an american scholarship she needs to flee you're afraid of being killed at the gah and i think being killed like it's im i'm like totally shore that iot surve here thousands of afghans are already escaping many lining up at cobbles airport this video appears to confirm fears of the insurgents brutality

with the taliban fighter counting fourteen bodies of men

executed for fighting back

roxand is a bverry

joins us

walk this sandwich man

i just want to finish it man

if fuckin falls apart and faughts falling all over man

so insulty

i fuckan paid money for this man

why so could fall on the floor

bachman

i got to put it on a plate you with fuck and forks and shit now man

it's now for more roxana thank you for taking the time to chat with us taliban forces are quickly

closing in on the capital city of kabul

what more can you tell us about the taliban's latest gains because they've been alarmingly fast according to some officials right

they have been moving at stunning speed tom we know that

they have captured at least twenty one major cities

in afghanistan in just over the past week since last week on friday

three of those fell just today that's over half of the provincial capitals of this country

and that's the one that they've captured that's closest to kabul where we are

is only fifty miles away there is heavy fighting taking place in another provincial capital

only thirty miles from where we are here in kabul tom

and you know that speed

it has shocked a lot of national security officials

you know and officials for the u s government looking at the afghanistan government afghan president

ashraf ghani has vowed to fight back

against the taliban as they pushed closer to kabul

what are they saying about the taliban's latest victories though

yea that's right president ash afghani made his first public comment since the taliban made its recent gains in the past several days he gave a televised speech

and as he said he vowed to keep fighting he called for

re mobilization of afghan security forces and he showed no signs of giving up to despite all of these defeats across the country

and we have to tell you tom we've seen city after city

why would you why are they st what do they expect

are they still fighting

falling to the taliban

after in these past few days and some of these u s trained security troops have actually surrendered

without a fight

oftentimes they've been leaving behind military equipment

we've seen videos of humvees of bases military bases that the taliban have seized from those retreating troops we've also seen a lot of videos on social media

celebrations by the taliban

tom

and these are military forces that the u s spent

nearly two decades trying to build up as you mentioned those forces are collapsing

and in your peace people are clearly scared in the country's capital

is that a surprise that these military groups are collapsing to the people there

the people we've talked to said they are the ones we've spoken to said they're very disappointed

they're very surprised

they didn't think that the taliban would be able to take these cities

at such a fast and rapid speed

many of them are afraid of what the future might hold

those who can leave some of them have been leaving many of them

through the kabul airport if they can catch a flight

others want to leave but don't know how

and

the governor's made a deal with them

what a surprise

still others tell us they just feel resigned to the return of taliban rule here in kabul

but they are concerned especially about losing those rights that they've gained in the past twenty years

since the taliband had been overthrown

by the u s invading forces

they don't want to lose their democracy

their human rights the women

i'm going to tell you what edward told me about what chinese people are saying

so edzra told me

that in china chinese medicines

are like super pro taliban like they're really

they don't even care about the islamic

they don't care they're really like

rooting for the taliban

in china

that's what he told me

esmer told me that

in china people are making comparisons to like

bows encirclement of the cities

why i think and this is what i asked asre and he confirmed it

it's because they see the taliban is like an in like a national

popular

orse like the

the l a you know

they just

it evokes that kind of

thing for them you know

yeah it's like a peasant thing you know that's that's what they're looking at it

super interesting

's wriightes that they've gained especially women by telling us thank you granddad christmas infra eight sungorll infra eightsungorll

a lot of resources

yeah i'm saying just medicines like in chinese

medicines like just people who are just like

watching what's going on

that they have been that they're concerned about not being able to study anymore to work anymore

and there are also a lot of young people who don't remember taliban rule

and they are particularly concerned about the future tom

obviously a very tense and dangerous situation unfolding there give us a sense of the timeline is there a feeling on the ground of when

the fight could reach the capital where you are

it got one hour ago breaking news

good evening president biden today di

slowing they now control more than half of the country's major cities and are battling relentlessly for those that remain in government but the inspired escape

good evening president bydon today de

capital

about

can i can show it up

good evening president biden today defended his decision to withdraw u s forces from afghanistan saying he would not pass america's longest war to a fifth president he also raised a number of u s troops deployed to evacuate americans

to roughly five thousand this as the afghan army trained and financed by the

collapses cities and places that have become familiar including

now what what what ethnic group hates the taliban there's the specific group that doesn't like the taliban where are they located

probably here right

is what is it it's

which one is it

one of the ethnic groups is really against the taliban

the north

that's

not

case anymore

wrkman

hazara is it that hazara

or paston

i thought they had support among the passun

it's the hazara and the turk

brkman and then the useback

they're in the north

ashton support them

no

does this does this map have like a ethnic

aspect to it

like are these areas ethnic strongholds of anti taliban

people

no

the's no like rhyme or rhythm

uszbeks and tajieks don't like

and there

probably were they

a jigstand

it's a city and rule thing

hundus kandahar and now mazari sharif

have fallen

the blue areas are where the hazara are

like dominoes

as taliban force

ss sweep toward cobul

c b s is roxanna saberi is in the afghan capital tonight

roxanna good evening

good evening adriana

right here is about where

as the u s and other nations race to evacuate their citizens

heavy fighting has reached the outskirts of the capitol

about thirty miles from here

afghanistan shows no signs of slowing

they now control more than half of the country's major cities

the gaffan government are also anti haz are really

pedtling relentlessly for those that remain in government hands b in one it is m today for the first time since the taliban's recent victories

afghan president ashrafghani gave a televised address to the nation calling on afghan forces to keep fighting but in city after city those u s trained troops are surrendering to the insurgents sometimes without to fight leaving behind military equipment like helicopters and humvees as the taliban celebrate

the mood on the streets of kabul is tense those who can escape are making a run for the airport others here

wisher could marry

hughly what are you saying

seem resigned to a return to taliban future and face an unknown future what will happen if the taliban come will you stay in kabul of course you sad it is n oner option many afghans tell us they're disappointed the u s is leaving their country but they're angry at their own government for failing to protect them

adriana

oll we're told

they captured it yet

what life is like in some cities captured by the taliban

holy shit

bl thank you so much man appreciate the raid

man

we shaate a bro

thank you someonoe reased me earlier too i forgot

i see

amen

i yes

what a a man

hore you doing

a you been how' is your stream

how long do you stream for

i guess life has returned to normal

only ten hours

wiw dude

the most i do is like six

that's crazy the most i do is like six

a long bread line outside of a church food bank

i haveve been hearing about this

what is this

under of

and i guess we're going to watch some tuk

carlson

check this out

twenty four hours stream wen

maybe i'll do one in october

under of compassion for addiction

he says the culprit in the question of opioated addiction is in't the drug companies or congress but instead

it is the system itself

capitalism dr mante joins us

tonight

a doctor thanks a lot

for coming on so we're doing a series for a week on this question i want to get at least one night with an alternative

voice

in here because i want to remain open minded

and as i understand it your contention is

that drugs and alcohol even heroin are not inherently

a dict

but they only become a problem because this the society in which they're used

no it's not exactly what i say but thank you for having me first of all and thanks for bing this series

what i'm saying is that all drug use and particularly opiate drug use is about people soothing pain these are powerful painkillers

and as a palliative care physician for example

i was very happy to describe will p s to people as a way of easing their suffering

yes

but these drugs don't only suit physical pain they also suit the emotional pain

and what i'm saying about addictions of all kinds

is that they're rooted first of all in emotional pain

and particularly in trauma

and so the question is what conditions traumatize people

and what conditions traumatize people are

family violence multigenerational trauma history

of abusive situations in childhood

but also

extraordinary stress on the parents release which leave the children without emotional support

and as a result of what's happening in our society right now

both in your country the us and my country canada

lot more people are getting addicted so here and you says you know in your country

has gone to fivefold in the last ten years

yes and iin some saing is this's not it's not this's not because it's not because the drugs are

n it's not because the drugs are inherently addictive

but because so much more people are in pain that's my point

let me ask you this question however

if you flood a community with a physically addictive substance and opioids i don't think anyone disputes are physically addictive as is alcohol as you know

then you're more likely to have a higher percentage of them become addicted which is to say if heroin or its synthetic substitutes are really cheap

why wouldn't you have more heroin addicts doesn't that make sense

well as an american judge said very astutely that

you can no normal repeal the lot of supply demand you can repeal a lot of gravity

the question is why are so many people in so much emotional pain

that they gravitude towards those solutions and not just the

not just drugs by the way but also alcohol this is sertn people as well cigarettes cigarettes re ca people much more lethally by the way than the opiates are

so

people are addicted to gambling to shopping to eating to sex there's obesity there's diabetes

this must be old because tucker has his old like

face where he's just like

what the folk are you saying

now this is what i imagine goes on in talker's mind with this log hez

ucker he's jus sitning in his iye

what

what the fuck are you talking about

ah

it is

these are addictive patterns rooted in emotional pain and trauma

and if you want to deal with the question of addiction we have to ask what is it as traumatizing so many people now last night in your very excellent series

you talked about

was a the night before about a comunty in kentucky

one of the poorest conunt counties in that state

where there's a lot of willp addiction don't you think the poverty and the loss of jobs

and the loss of hope

and the loss of connection and the destruction communities as a lot to do why people a cour s i do of course i do and it's so it self its self evident that that's true i guess here's the point

that i would dispute that you just made and i think a lot of what you said is true

but not all addictions are the same in their effects and there's a weird kind of relativism that would argue they are so

smoking is clearly bad for your health but it doesn't cause you neglect your children

or lose your job or beat your wife or as other kinds of addictions

do

yeah tucker's right

then they're both right

you're both right

and so

if we were the had not no they don't

yeah that's weird i don't know like saying that like

you could

dude you could do

someone someone who does crystal meth once

that's all it takes

heroin wants thats all it takes

it'll funck your life

and yeah it's the drug the drug is what does it it's like

like the the drug isn't like just socially constructed like it it will have a fucking addictive effect

i think this guy would be smart if he just like

the reason why people do

turn to those drugs is because of x y z

but yeah the drugs are inherently bad they definitely are

well of course a heroin is is a is a threat to your in imminent threat to your life it can make you incapable of going to work

of course it does

no actually

in vancouver let me tell you a fact

that

in international studies in germany and switzerland

in the u k and in canada

we've actually had clinics

that prescribe heroin to confirmed addicts they hold on jobs

they're good with their families

much and they don't break the law

so that would creates the problem

with heroin addiction is mostly the arbitrary laws

that say that it's not ok to use heroin but it's ok to kill yourself with cigarettes and by the way alcohol as you know cause a lot of violence much more than heroin does well you're not going to hear me defend i'm not here to you're not going to hear me defending ot but i think that's a

there's a lot wrong i think with that comparison but unfortunately we're out of time but i appreciate

that is the weirdest shit i've ever heard dude i've liked

this is dumb this guy's walking dumb

whight

oh well you could get heroin prescribed and you'll be fine ah my god

iprechate you bringing up the topic because i think it's more complex

that a lot of us can see dr thanks for coming on tonight

my pleasure thank you

i read it's so boring

you guys put fon store on n

i just approved more posts

so let's check these potht out

the drug is bad for you end of the story

has got fucking demolished elemo

ow

you want to know the difference between mean and perspective philosophy

every single argument he made

no one in the chat even understood it

i made the best effort to like say shit that people in chat would understand

i want you to break down how i got demolished though go ahead

uck and los your

actually max

a max

youre max

i'm going to ban your bit ch ass because you didn't even make an argument

m

here this is what i'll give you

wan't to say i got

allays

how i got

they drug their bads

drugs are back

respective philosophers coping saying has lost because he didn't quote anything

yeah

quoting shit during a fucking debate

is pathetic

you think i have all this qut material ready at hand

no

quoting shit is not going to help anyone

facilitate the debate

he quoted shit and failed to demonstrate how the quotes support his conclusions

that's what he did

hey folks i'm out here in brooklyn near prospect park in the area where the fountain is near prospect park if you've ever been here it's a nice little place out here in brooklyn and the john brown volunteers

ridiculous t v what's your question

here's were doing outreach and i thought i might just hop on you know this isn't going to be a really long complicated video i don't have time for that i do make a lot of content and i just felt the need to make this video real quick because a lot of people have noticed that the mainstream left the jacobin crowd the bread tubers

i was thinking of

this really does cook my content

got to be honest

f i fuckn do this but

i'm going to just do it

they fucked along

there's nothing i really want to react to tonight

i don't know i want some lazy easy content right now you know

i want some lazy easy content right now

i think i need a controller

oman

i forgot about jubilee fucky yeah i forgot about

is it okay to have a preference of race

oh no

hold on

i got to stress

we're going to limber up

okay everybody's ok

one of the hardest parts of data

you know i can't watch this because i don't like any of them

the only thing that would keep me

wanting to continue watching this is if i liked one of them

at least one

and i don't

if i walked past any of these young women i would not

pay attention to them i'll just keep walking

sorry galls

let's checke this out is it ok to have a preference in race

oo's spicy let's take it out

stuff in the bedroom

it

ridiculous what's your question

will there be round three he has to want it if he wants to and messages me that is what he wants

ays i will

now you haven't seen them from the back yet

actually

i know how to into it

what's going on back there from the front

i know how to do that

i can tell i can tell from the legs and the hips

and i can just tell i have that vision you know what i'm saying

i can tell from the front what's going on in the back

trust me i can

if race sprinkles it is put into that context

what do we think of that like what how would race be

put into the bed use your imagination

i have unintentionally been racist towards my part

three

to you

one go

i definitely i've definitely been ignorant so we were so we were ho we had argument and i was upset

everyone who goes on jubilee a there's no o g going on jubilee by the way there's no like nobody everyone who goes on jubilee is fuckin

soy

everyone who goes on jubilee is fucking

you know i mean a no od going on jubilie promise you

at and i had previously expressed how the

they are the stereotype of the stigma on angry black man or angy black women and how that

makes me feel and so we got into an argument

i was an angry black man

but in that moment of anger he actually called me angry black man

which which is like the worst the maz crazy because that you know that was like the one thing i was i talked to him about so

you know that was a really bad fight and it never happened again i feel like i mean i'm strongly disagree but i think as just a white person i am just inherently ignorant so i' think i'm going to someonhat agree dating a black man has completely opened my eyes more than i already thought they were open you know to be fair you've never

said anything that made me feel like

damn she's races i'm from the bay

so

it used to be in my vocabulary where i would say the n word

with

the a

i would wrap it i would i would do

just those things but um my slang in general would just tick her off and then um i became conscious of it and

and goo honesus

and i really liked her

or i still do

course i love you

i started changing the way i speak

i feel like she should be over here too

s she would do asian accents

the only time that i feel like i could be offending people is when i'm mocking you when you're mocking your mother so i only do the accident when he making fun of his mom before that i never did that

thes and basically our audience hotes and assumptions that they make about interracial relationship they're really sex gets steamy since you are inter racial

i literally knew this was cap

i literally knew it was going to be a strong disagree

thats our strong disagree

that's the

strongest disagree ever

let me not talk about race but let me just talk about culture

ok

so from the perspective of culture

when i've

even if i don't folk them

i don't think i've never slept with someone of the same culture as me

eep thatu of mind

even when we don't

the fucking tension

and the foking

steaminess is off the charts

when they're like i come from the same

especially like this same country like another a lebanese girl

the f it is so fucking steamy

whatever

but without when i'm with like a normal

american girl

it's kind of bland

to be honest it's a little bit bland

it's like there's like a disconnect

they got disconnect you know

it' a lack of

wavelength understanding

so i knew this was going to be strong disagree

i knew that

i literally knew that i predicted it

i possible it's just an american girl thing no it's not

not

it really isn't

it's it takes a lot to like come to an understanding with someone that you're on the same wavelength and if you come from the same culture

i'll just get it right off the bat

right off the bat you understand

each other you know

latinas

don't get me wrong dude i love latinos i love latinos don't get me wrong

don't give me wrong dude don't get it twisted

like

she man

six sx six what's the question

but

i don't know actually

i don't know

six soxs was going on

broad fulkin

good

all the girls i liked growing up were latinas man that was my dream was to have a latina girl

that was my dream

all i would do is fuckin thirst after latino girls dude my whole fuckin life

my whole life

i mean i think it adds to i like the differences between us yeah definitely i mean there's not like any weird role play or anything

when i was in fucking high school guys i went on a cruise ship

freshman year i was on a cruise ship

and all these fine assed latina girls colombian

they were like the elite elite of like brazil

and then spanish girls like colombia mexico

i that's the all i only noticed them on that cruise ship

those are the girls i was thirstin after those are the girls i was fuckin chasing after

and

that's all i that's all i cared about man that's all i cared about like

dude that's why i became so arrogant when i came back to fucking school

because i was like

once you focking

once once those are the girls that are around you and that's like your standard now

like

it does not compare do the girls back at home

did not compare to that

they just did not compare to that dude

did not compare

i'm like w i'm going to fuck and go like chase after these like

boring foking

and listen i went to a wealthy

suburban school

we're like

there's a bunch of trophy trophy wives so yeah the the women fine as hell

don't get it twisted

but it was nothing close to like those like latina girls or whatever the elite of the elite

nothing close

nothing close

live in michigan

the ainm' bad in michigan it's not too bad in michigan

it' not too bad

but yeah definitely you know makes it fun i will say like when i'm not with you people will like be like oh like i know why you're with the black guy and it's like that's like super disrespectful because it's like that's like definitely like on the line of like fetasizing ay rase there's not many a sexual stereotypes about white men but like walking down the street especially dating an asian woman like i get looks from

men all the time and like you know right and like like people like actually like calling me out while i'm right next to her

my question inappropriate was your question

i don't know what you ask

soracial relationships can be a feti i that is ok if it's loved too

even if you love the person you speticizing that person is a feel good at all yeah and you're devoaling the entire community in itself i think there's always room for growth

n i lost my vi card

no it is kind of embarrassing i don't like talking about it

not like a focking it

proud story

thank

leave me alone do

so i can understand if it starts as a fetish and then along you know the relationship they actually fall in love with that person and they realize that ok it wasn't ok for

no here's what all fucking say i regret it dude i regret it

i lost it too early man i regret it

i regret it

i regret it

it was awkward

she was unnatural

shit was

i just was not proud of that

we're don't sage it's not like i fuck in

you know it was the end of the world

i was seventeen

i was seventeen okay

was she hot

i know

might

nothing crazy but

see i don't even know if i can talk about it

i was

i had a fake id

i had a fake ida

and

i would

chill and like outgood

i sad there was a summer that i would just go to fucking bars and like

yeah

meet a lot of people

and i got lucky one night

and it's like that's what i was doing it for i was doing it to lose my fucking virginity dude

i didn't want to i thought it was weird that i was a virgin

at seventeen and i was like i got to lose this shit

orlse on a lowle bitch

but all of my friends still had their virginity but i just thought

i thought no girl would respect me if i was a virgin so that's why

no

which is not true

which is not true which is not true which is not true

literally not true

do not try and lose your virginity if you are a guy just for its own sake

i've seen girls don't do that but guys do guys do because

you know what this is the truth

guys get bullied for being virgin so they try to lose their virginity just for its own sake

don't do that guys

she was not more than four years

no she wasn't more than four

did you know you were a virgin no she didn't

for me to initially jus

was it short

yes

yes dude

yes it was

what if she's watching right now

i do not look like the same fucking person

i don't look you saw what i looked like in high school goga i don't look like the same person

just like you based off of that if it's between two consenting adults the freak stuff in the bedroom

if race sprinkles it is put into that context

what do we think of that like it's just in the bedroom or is it like possible to t keep it in the bedroom what how would a race be

put into the bedroom use your imagination it doesn't even matter if you're consenting or not it's still wrong yeah right like you got you want to say that stuff you want to do that stuff because of the stereotypes you have of those people and that doesn't

oh

jubilee fccing socks oky jubilee socks let's just admit that

the jubilee falcon socks fock jubilee

jubilee is not cool jubilie sucks

dooblily shit

doblies why

jubilees lame jubnes shit

oh

and jubilee just got ugly people do aint nobody find going on jubilee

y

i'll need some eyche if i'm doing this

fucking coomer bullshit i need some eye candy dude

i need something that's goinga like keep me focused

them

let's let's look at afghanistan again

ss america's troops and the nato allies it drags along for the ride pulled out of afghanistan last month after twenty years of bombing bedouins i'll be honest it hasn't gone well and on friday the first city fell to the taliban sunse then we've seen like a domino effect nine other provincial capitals in rural areas falling under taliban control yet the taliban is going through afghanistan fater than a dogi urry

intel actually thinks a ca bom my ful within ninety days to expect that to happen by next week in fact some nato countries are actually sending troops back to get their citizens out already if you wanted a visual metaphor for america's twenty years in afghanistan here its the taliban driving u s supplied humvees that they just took from the afghan forces like it was a lunch money so having achieved and i think the

technical term is cool in two decades surely washington is prepared for this his bonds big plan've got to fight for themselves fight for their nation nice one jo thatill do it i'm sure they call your rallying cry on the evening news in lask these poor have been fighting their entire lives so overall president

response to the renewed misery of the average afghan person is i do not regret my decision i'm sure he doesn't he's not the one looking down the barrel of some taliban schol settling isy they're dragging the dead through the streets as a warning to anyone who gets so some reports suggest that officials have been caught by surprise a the speed at which the taliban has moved

move back in underlining what we all kind of know already that america in its middle east policy as absolutely mastered the element of surprise fortunally no one told washington that the enemy is supposed to be surprised them last year a u n report said the taliban was already preparing positions for when foreign troops leave proving that age old piece of military wisdom if you're going to retreat it's probably best not to tell the enemy

me a couple years in advance this whole withdrawal has been planned since trump i could win that war in a week i just don't want to kill ten million people they could have been worse i suppose so some other parls of wisdom coming from the white house include saying the afghan government should make peace with the time to avoid civil war to late

the w hous is also pushing pakistan to try and break a peace well judy i think the u s has really messed it up in afanistans pakistan's prime minister speaking for so last month he doesn't seem overly keen to do america's bidding he says the biden hasn't even cooled him since becoming president you see first of all the tried to look for a military solution in agi

we the never was one innk n was it the american diplomats have talk to the afghan the pakistanis i've been talking to china and the russians how they even signed a deal with tniban last year and the load of them out of prison but when it comes down to it this is what they thought we spent over trillion dollars over twenty years we trained and

equipped with modern equipment over three hundred thousand afghan forces how many more times america dropll its bombs spent trillions of dollars to win a war and be surprised when it doesn't work a side is that u n report that no one seems to have read from last year page twelve is interesting he suggests al ked it is present in at least fifteen afghan provinces and still great mates for the taliban

perhaps closer than ever of course al qeda will probably come back britain's defense secretary there well done everyone is in the next twenty years of pointlessness

i'm going to run a pole

vote in the poll guys vote

well

ut

both

both

both

brother louis loui louis

rood

no one is voting

you guys really want skyrom

give me a second

um

give me a second

inunter sky roen

m

can i stall it

that install it

um

wow

it's not even installed

going to take like two seconds don't worry

brother lulu loui

oh who sent them to me

oh let it louis

he's undercover

we are at three gigs out of ten

it's almost done

you know why i'm scared to make mings because i have a

belief

can you make a character

you will look like that character

you will like transform into that character

you will look more like that

like not exactly like them but like you will just

he come looking like that

that's why i make all of my characters like beautiful chads because

you know what i mean

that's what i do now i make my characters good looking now

because i realize

the fuking truth

it's almost done

eight gigs

what about the guys that play women i don't know

wouldn't be me

it is the vanilla unmotted skyum

wondering if i should moind it

should i mock this game

the video setting's been set to low get the fuck out of here

ultrum

they we're going to ultra

we're not doing fuckin

his bullshit

oh

for skyrim

ok

but's

let's play

i'll do in

the

what's going on we'en have a cozy little thing

hey the graphics are pretty good honestlyway they're not bad cross the border

walked right into that imperial ambush same as us and that thief over there oo storm cloakes skyrim was fine until you came along the empire was nice and lazy i hadn't been looking for you i stolen that horse had been half way to hammerfeld

you there you would be shouldn't be heres the storm cloaks have i ons the're all brothers and sisters and byes now

thatju's up back there what's wrong with him watch your tong speaking to ol fri story the true high king

yarlhlm you're the leader of the rebellion

captured you

gods where are they taking us i don't know where we're going but soverein guard away

no this can't be happening this isn't happening what village are you from or state

what do you care

on nord's last thoughts should be or exteid i'm

i'm from rkstead

general telli itsman is waiting good let's get this over with

this is the worst intro of any game of all time please help me

o faster man stakes longer than president sunday's intros the military it looks like with they had something to do with no i'm doing vanilla skyrom no mods i'm not doing any mots just vanilla skyroum

this is helgan

as the the as they intended for me to play the sam on

as bethesdo wanted me to play boy imperial walls towers used to make

why

i want to watch the soldiers inside the house

why are we stopping why do you think of the line

let's go

shouldn't keep the gods waiting for us we're not rebels face your death

cerry

you've got to tell them we work with you this is a mistake

port

i

and epire loves their damn

list

luck you bits yarl of window it has been an honur yarl of frick

l

i the i'm not going to do any hacks but i am going to do exploits to become like a god

someone teach me the exploits like just just bucking

there's a lot of glitches in shit

and i want to do that

i want to do the glitches to make me like opis fox

nw

wait

you the

that four

to

are you

right i think this one is most like mine right no it's not

is one

this one this one's the most like mine right

yeah

i beg this is me

that's that's me

that's me

i got yeah one eyed

yeah this is me

eyeshadow

you will say i wear iy shutle

people try to say i wear eyeshadow so i guess i have to add it

a brows eyebrows

want more bushy eyebrows

how you go

ill

i don't want to do with that hair

finally

ba sial here we got to you know we're doing you know you know what this is you know what the

yeah

i feel like this is good

the're a long way

period

you do

gre

should be

not on the

forget

goes

a all

so

make sure you remince of ame

follow the cap

i'm i playing as an imperial because what else would i be dude

i'm either going to be a red guard or an imperial

and i'm not african so i'm an imperial

one of those two is the only thing that makes sense

we what would i be a breton i'm not french here in hell would i be a nord i'm not from scandinavia

the only option is a mediterranean

foror north african but i'm not african

one

gyraman

cause you

hery if you're a kejeet get the fuck out of my chat you fuckin weirdo all you kejeets an argonians you fuckin ruin the game

like i don't know if you needed to get the fuck and hint

is this supposed to be a medieval fantasy game

it's not fucking you're not supposed to have a tail ok that's just like an option they give you you're not actually supposed to do it los this is a fucking mit this is like game of thrones by the fuck would you be a fucking lizard or a fucking

cat furry fucking weirdo

like those are supposed to be characters in you're not actually supposed to be those dude that's like a

it's like a gimmick you're not actually supposed to be that

you literally ruin the game for yourself by being a fuck and argonian or some shit

you look all you do is ruin the game for yourself

like congrat you played yourself

we

as

fearly

that

was

is there no focking um

next

the screen tearing

here it is

did you hear that

said

next

prison

the block

nice and he

fucking kejits are the worst dude

oho let me out i want to get p and run around and say man i t this far but fokn et this sh man it takes so long

are gonians are not the tkingk goy ways going to speed run is no a way to glitch this go dud

on my way is there what there's a glitch to like skip all this isn't there how do i do the glitch me where do i go

where do i go ahead for o here i don't know what you're not stopping us this timeummer dart

it's so hard to choose storm cloaks notches imperials andn betray them later

looks like we're the only ones was that really a dragon cut me loose you mother foker we should keep moving come here let me see if i can get those bindings off there you go take a look around there should be plenty of galp to choose from i'm going i can find

get that all gve that sort of you swing let's keep moving that thing is still out open

up let me adam

let me adm

yeah now we're talking

yeah oh yeah i taking that ight let me see if i can get that door open

to paid off this is my weapon

okay

god

oh i callly shit

it game so unrealistic i come in

way i like the x i want the x

should have named myself these boys oz the beheaded like been entertaining their comrades

it tot pork out of youar

where in oblivion are we supposed to go

the way min all ganging up on me

its

robin hood bing arrow bitch go on my way

are ey choice

goy falcon he splain he so much die die die die die die die

pork vegans

bigs for you wok wo p eat

stomina who wened who wen yeah

the never trust me

it's

fuck out of here

yah

n

i'm meeting a rad

h

both

yes

what is this

i'm a barbarian

oh

ah

absolutely

vegans

yes

h

foo

doors

biguns get n bring the ol

you're leave here alive

which

rey go

ah oka can ogn

and all this shit

yeah

yeah

the fuck out of here now one last job

mm

you

bucked out of my face

nothing

bdmanism was never invented yet

fie

i survived the vegan attacks

i pillage the victim

yh

mm

get the bug back over here

wait

yeah

after yeaar

if it's a joke

he gets a joke

what is this

i the only out meat eater in a vegan kingdom

oh i will never be be good this

pk is thiss

are you began

calloskuy

no big guns

we have to go sit on a yarls walking

we're going to go we're going to go take a shik

on the yarls dinner table

oh yeah

aight

okay s

haacking me oh learded yes ar burial prying over everything o

yeah

oh ya

oh

egans

take that arm with the arm arms

look a those people wh need my help they're fighting a giant

there's a bigger enemy afoot

fineal kill the giant

i'll frik you in you pitch

f i was going to mark this

say haw onre you

oh serright

wait

tear you have pice

go

yes my final pray

oh

two

you

yah coop

if you know any

doll

guy

tell them to hit the windhill

yup

complete that's

o

stop me now

o

evil

my mission will be completed

boi the giant

su no

in a garden

fact

bok

' spot

it'

but

yes

not online

s

animals have no consciousness

how you and

no consciousness

ah

thought i heard some

oh

take me to jail

i'll go to jail fine turn myself in i can infiltrate your walls fine i el

take me jo dow

oh guards

guards

you don't know who you just let inside your city

ah ah ah ah ah ah

i' lost nothing from my murders

nothing

high guards

i spy with my little eye

being devoid of consciousness which is not that transition to the for itself it is only in itself

oh yes yh yh

o i'll go to jail

how many more animals will i kill until i learn my lesson though

i have no consequences

no repercussions

bigess i can handle

zero consequences

for my accent

i have taken

so many animal lives

something

no thank

what is it

maybe some other time

i'm just looking for a littleever it's all

must

ver

go notice

that's

good piece

yes

how about you smith

in iron

here's everything you need

i make weapons which i'll use to kill re animals i th you don't understand

i don't claim to be the best

not bad

little dull

that

sharp

of have met

you mean

i help my father

this looks good

wen it

helping

how about you make

st

nning

another on the ground

you

out

ah

good

let's see if you can make

hide

here's the berest

yes

i should hire

let's improve

s

take this leather to the work

yah

need some

you have

why don't you

ah

maybe you will remember

i for

every

i'm wait

a dog or cat in there

that's

take the

good piece

remember my face

and the pain of anim

need something

a fuk out of my way

i fin out of my way

i work

be careful

heading east

watch it

nobody high in my

point

and i'm going to do it right again

i'm going to do it again

you

but they can take it away i'm going to eat all of it

the woodter the yod

e it

please please go trip

heard

meaning of

well

lanes wider

s like you w

come on

yall will

oh you were italan

you

saw the

dragon with your own eyes

deal with heven

dear santa claus

all i want is christmas

is the death of every animal

ya

n

oh j you dog jack

o

you were at heell

but

number

mike

who the imperials want to a

guess

oh frick would be mixed up in this

no

trust

strength of our walls

against the drigon

no

river

what it one

the most immediate danger

wragon is bloking in the mountains

you assumre

hering to join all for excite in attack

you know

i not stand i

lolters might be

what

yes

he aquino aquino

acquino

account created august twelfth

by bits

write there next time

ho on the gag

well done

here take this as a small token of myteem

ano not gop

let's go find

oh thank you

thank you

for this arm

court wis

so great but looking into a matter really i don'tt to look like this uus look how look how weird i like run

is this weird

like look i saw you

look at that

now i look normal

see this is normal

and then look what look what happens

this glitch so weird i look normal now

a whip

and sure

firing

come to dragons

yet

well

when i say

straight to the p

i you

go to bleak falls berre

this tim

so

everth urting

anything we bring you

i the falcon yard

i am the yarl

i serve yarw ball

brom

counsel

what

ah

oh

mm

he really needs it these days

figured i'd give it give him some views

the guy really needs these gays poor guy

these days he really needs it

you know

por guy

figured out to give him a little little push

little boost

you know a little booster seat

ah charity for the less fortunate

you know

i'm i'm a big streamer i help out small streamers were here and where i can so youally got bang bang guys there you go