THEY ALL GET ROLLED [2021-09-02]

but the truth is their hatred is stronger than

you liking the reams and infrared

becuse most of you are normal and it's not personal

jn

thank you jobs on appreciate you thank you like most of you are just normal so you don't take any of this personally and you're just here for entertainment and to watch the streams but for these people

their hatred is personal you know they on to me with photos from when i was under age and say really disgusting falked up things

and it's like their hatred overshadows the support you guys give me because i you'r normal people right so you're not going to go above and beyond with your support like that and that's fine but these people go above and beyond with their

hate and it kills my fuck and motivation and it's like i can't draw a source of motivation myself

i'm going to be with you guys abut something i'm actually for most of my life a very private person i'm very private

you know i don't

and i've

really

it's so extreme that i can't even be in relationships and i can't even draw the motivation to seek relationships because i end up just being threatened that my privacy my sense of security is going to be breached

and when these people target me sextually every single day and they just s you know

there there sharing really grotesque specific targeted

comments about me

throwing me when i'm shirtless at

fifteen years old or something

and making edits sexual edits of me and just

spamming my fucking emils and shit

it makes me feel so sickened and it makes me feel like

when i ask about it

i don't fuck and have

any privacy

i love what

like people just want me to be exposed and fully existing for them

and i'm going to be rud with you guys this is the truth real this is the fucking truth like i joke a lot but this right here is the fucking truth

the real reason i don't give women a chance and i don't respond to d ms and shit is because that type of shit

just makes me want to withdraw

i want to talk about it

and makes me want to shut myself from everyone

gt

bumper

new

and i'm likem bump a see the satisfaction in your eyes bum you're not trusting you so so

i know you guys think that this is just shit every streamer gets becuse you hear about all the hate streamers get so i get it

but when i'm telling you guys that my haters are are different

and that it's actually not the same

and the shitl i go through is not the same

we

it's gonna fall on deaf ears

you know

i get more hat because my political positions yeah but they make it personal and they target the most private aspect of myself

they target the most private part

of my focking

existence and by the way they're all leftists they're all political leftists they're all leftists the people making pedophile comments against me as an under age kid are all leftists

they're all leftists

i love her

it ha american coymerican

h mm intom me y mm intom me brazils sy

looking for me

young lokal can you say

h that no you no youo

said her free oh she's on looking tell me

w

uh then anything

on bt eyes so shes on looking for me

ther anyway

is only looking to me all at it the weay she is on the cover bther

it has un innly un

mm economy ecy mm economy

loui oh she is only looking to me oh let it goy she is on the cover

mh

american onlyeric only

i don't know maybe maybe it's my fault you know i've been such a private

withdrawn person for so long

you know

and so maybe it's my fault i'm just

i'm not used to people

even knowing me on such an intimate level

you know

i don't trust people so when the only people

who are you know going on that intimate level are my haters

and they're just getting on that level with me it's like it's like these people are the ones filling the vacuum you know

and the reason i think it's my fault is because i've been so distrustful of people for so long

i haven't let anyone in my life

you

to just relate to on that level

and i was thinking this's whole time like you know oh you know that then it's just i get to be to myself like i can have my privacy

but instead of that

when he started this political movement he should' have known the consequences

yeah i know

this is honestly a me problem this is a me problem i'm not saying it's their problem these sick folks have always been around but i do feel like it's a unique case with me there's no public figure that gets what i get that's what i'm trying to say

i really don't think public figures have to deal with and go through what i go through

like how many of you get comments of people

talking about

you know how they're making sexual predator comments about you when you were a kid how many of them dig back into that time in your life when you are the most vulnerable

i don't think any of you do like it's one thing to attack me now you know but it's another thing to dig into my past and prey on the younger me

it's the modern taran feather you know that's the most stupid

fucking thing i've ever heard i was it the modern parn feather dude it's not that it's something so fucking specific and something so funcking evil thank you benignpreciate you i was it

the modern tar and feather dude like when i read these comments it almost does kind of break me when they tried to share child pornography on my read it and i found out about that it does break me i

going to lie to you it does it's so fucking dark man it's so fucking dark and sometimes i wondered if it's government i

thought to myself it's if it's government and this is government trying to drive me to the point of no return if you catch my drift and they're trying to psychologically drive me to a really bad point of despair and like

they're trying to traumatize me because i know about the history and that's something they do they really do weaponize trauma to make sure that they can silence the people they need to silence that's what m k altra was about it was about using trauma

and when they make these sexual predator child predator comments against me i'm sorry but it is traumatizing in a way

it's just unfathomable to me it's just so fuckin unfathomable

ight

they catch left doage jerking it in public and they turn and with a fuck jackson public and it's your fault

that's your fault for doing that in public the fuck

but i don't know you know there's just some things in this world that are just sick

and it really does remind me of my acid trip

it's almost like i get flashbacks every fuck in time

thank you anonymous

you know that flashback that acid trip i had when i was in high school is really my ultimate point of reference just the most nehlistic experience a person can have

i just want you guys to know there's some things that it's almost like you're preprogrammed

to look away from

you guys ever see westworld

where the robots are programmed when they are

when they encounter something that they're not

programmed to to respond to they just go doesn't look like anything to me you guys ever you know what i'm talking about

in westworld the robots when they encounter something they can't make sense of they just go doesn't look like anything to me

and that's what most of you do when you see this kind of stuff you said uh doesn't look like anything to me and you move on with your day

but if you stop

and pay a little extra attention

and try to make sense of a lot of the things that right are right under your fuck and nose

i cannot beeve

you're going to see things that are inexplainable

you're going to make connections that you don't know how to make sense of and which have implications that are so just

beyond the realm of fathomability

oka

people know things that you don't know how to explain they know people say things it just doesn't make any sense why they're saying it and where they're coming from

and what it means you know one of those experiences was when i was reading hillary clinton's e mails

and most people will read those e maails and this gooha doesn't look like anything to me

but really read those e mails

oh come

and you'll just wonder to yourself like what is going on

what

if this makes if there's some rational reason behind this which there has to be because everything is rational all that is real is rational what is this what are they talking about what is going on what is falking going on thank you havoc thank you havoc

and with my stalkers i have the same feeling in response like who are these people literally who are they where did the fucking come from

and what do they actually want from me

no i'm not gonna seek a fucking professional

if there's something i share with you on stream

it's to deceive you that's the truth if i'm sharing with you something on stream

it's because i've already secured myself from the repercussions of my number one worst enemy using it against me

i never tell you the whole truth

i never tell you the whole truth

i never tell you everything you'll never know everything

what i'm telling you now

is what i can afford to tell you

and nothing more

i'm not here to get professional help from you

i'm here to rant

about it and just talk about it in general

because i have no one to talk to

thank you

thank you johnnyppreciate you so much thank you

means a lot man appreciate you so much thank you benign appreciate you

thank you vermilionpreciate you you know i've always been

such a deeply ashamed person even as a kid you know as a kid i was fucking scared to even like dance i just was so embarrassed of myself

and had such deep deep shame deep deep deep shame

i was so so scared to do anything that would just incur shame you know why do you think that is i don't know

that's what i'm trying to think about i don't know i really don't thank you so much seed ax for the five wehate you so much i guess it's because like you guys think you're doing something when you share the copium whatever you're saying oh you just coping

i used to always just be shamed as a kid by like i'm not going to say who but just for like having a sense of living in the world and being able to enjoy a cope as a fucking kid you know having a co

that

my inner being is compatible with the world outside of me and i really did realize that there's a difference between those two things and i guess that's why i find so many people so cringe myself and why i'm such a fucking bully a lot so like these people have

have no idea that there's a difference between their inner being and what the rest of the world thinks of them you know but very early on i knew that like what i think i'm doing in my head and what other people who are watching me think are two very different things just two very very different things you know completely different things

and i had such a strong sense of shame because

i never felt like i could just be myself i have to be what other people

and that's normal for an adult but as like a kid very very young i guess that can fuck you up

you know

it's not just social expectations just that you really des ud i was a i was a kid who tried so hard to be the definition of cool like when i was five i would fuck and wear sunglasses to school and have bucking spiky hair and i would never

i mean i would never h let any one call my bluff i would be ice cold ice cool

how do you feel about yourself now i don't feel anything about myself that's the thing that's the thing is that

you guys really don't understand what kind of person i am

my head is in the sky my head is in outer space my head is in the seventeenth dimension i do not focus that much about my embodiment in this world

counl blesses everything was chosen

mm

in freud the super ego starts to develop around five

yeah

but i don't know why it bothers me so much when my stalkers and harassers just try to make me feel exposed like i'm naked and vulnerable like i'm a kid

and i don't know why it bothers me so fucking much

it's not really that

i feel like they've actually gotten to who i am

and they've actually succeeded in exposing me

what bothers me

lk

the

w go

what bothers me is the fact that my real ego thank you the hidden being my real ego like what i actually think of myself

is really an open question for me i don't define it i don't def my egle doesn't have a definition you know if that makes sense i don't define my eagle i don't define my innermost being i leave it undefined and i just

am

and i leave

what i am the knowledge of what i am i leave it blank i don't want it to be given form i don't want it to be known i don't want it to be i don't want to be put in a box i don't want to be named and even when the most pathetic irrelevant fuking

loser tries to get to my innermost being even if they're totally wrong totally off the mark it's like the fact that they're trying to do it it's not that i'm bothered by what they fill the hole with it's the fact they're trying to fill it that bothers me it's the fact that they're trying

to make me an object of someone else's knowledge and someone else's absolute certainty when no such thing exists like i don't obsess over what people think of me casually or just intuitively i

am completely open and completely fine with being at the mercy of the public's impressions and intuitions but what doesn't cease to bother me and whether it's intellectually whether it's emotionally whether it's psychologically is when people try to sek to know what i am

to make it a form of knowledge and that does bother me not because they have the wrong knowledge but because i insist on the fact

that it cannot be known

maybe even not to me

i'm a human being i'm not a fucking object

i'm not a fucking animal

to be poked and prodded

and made a fucking object of knowledge i'm a fucking human being

and i never tried to know others either

i always keep my respectful distance from others and i always

recognize that other people truly are

other people

and i keep that distance

and it really does bother me and anger me and really aggravate me and agitate me

thank you sticky soap

when people try to force some kind of categorization on me some kind of knowledge on me like they know absolutely the true secret essence of what i am i just wish people understood that there's no secret there's no secret essence

you know all it is is privacy it's the privacy of the fact that i'm a human being with my own

private being

it's just not for you to know

you shouldn't know you should just keep your fuck and respectful distance

ah

if but then again why don't you think about something isn't this how the modern european subject came to be i feel that they have to know the true essence of every every other civilization every other

people every other country they have to fuking know who they are and what they are and they have to conquer the content of what they are by means of knowledge they have to plug the with something they can't just keep the fuck and respectful distance and say this is aly other people and it's not of my fulk in business they have to face on them some kind of

funking categorization and they have to fus on them some kind of funking false false essence false essence that's the fucking story when they took slaves from africa they gave the

slaves a false essence ofs essence thse people came from civilizations from cutures from tribes and from religions

that they were gas lighted into forgetting for ever forgetting for ever

and instead of that true essence that real essence they gave them a false essence instead their own essence the europeans invented in essence and made that their real essence when it was a false essence it was a false form that was trying to be a substitute for their real true and material essence

and when they tried to colonize china they did the same fuking thing the centuries anden of chinese dipremacy was based on what they call in confucianism the kingly way and it was based on powersm and in the kingly way you don't negotiate

based on force negotiate based on honor tradion constans alu that's what you negothate on the basis of just an on speakable unspeakable object of respect that both parties understand you just don't talk about it it's an unspeakable thing you both understand and that's where you negotiate

we'n the europeans

had the gun gunbk the bremacy and then showed up to china and forced china china to be exact thressod of what was capable in terms of force

they imposed upon china a false essence they forced china into a dialectic that betrayed its own essence

because again the chinese were not saying this is about military superiority when it came to diplomacy they were saying this is about honor tradition and customs unwritten and absolutely sacred customs that it is fully prohibited to even doubt or question

and when the europeans came with their gunbow diplomacy and when the british decided they were going to peddle opium into china and when the five or four powers decided they were going to carve up china and steal china's territory and make it their own they forced china into a position

in its essence was prepared to fucking be in they made they imposed upon china a false form in the stead of its real essence and wan to what this form was oh china is too weak china is too weak to defend itself and that became the essence of china weakness a false essence

but the chinese people woke up one day they woke up after a long period and they said you impoed us

a false essence you made the assumption that this whole timere weak

oh if you want to play that game

we can see sullly weak we can see sullly weak youll want to go down the path of the kingly way then we will wake up and we will stand up and we will falcon boch you on your own falcon game

and they did and they have and they are doing that

the real communism the real paradise the real goal the real object of the new humanity

it's going to free itselves from the chains

of anglo saxon modernity

is going to be breathing room a chance to be other a chance to have privacy a chance to dwell in a sight of non knowledge a chance to just be themselves that will be the goal

of this new era that's what communism means privacy

to

of civilizations being able to go their own path

and develop themselves not on the basis of being at gunpoint by others

but based on their own determinate being and development based on their own inner being they will have the breathing room just to bath themselves that's what communism means

what do you think each according to their ability each according to their need means it means private distance because the institution of private property is pnographic it doesn't allow us to have any puk and privacy it puts us at fuck and gunpoint

on the very threshold of survival and on the very threshold

of being

giving us no room to breathe and just have culture and acculturate ourselves and be well round with falcon human beings and that's why in the soviet union even peasants didn't even have a bunch of food to eat for the first time in their history of russian civilization

the could could go to museums could go to libraries the could fill their minds with the treasure of mankind and ust themselves and just

and that's all china's doing now and that's all china wants to do now w just want to be palking left alone so they could be themselves it's not always about you it's not always about you sometimes people just want to be

themselves they don't want to attack you they don't care about you they're not concerned with you they just want to

think about a country like north korea

one of the most victimized countries on this falcon earth pu would sanctions from the start want to be left alone why do the wd have to pok and and stick their noses and stick their eyebrows in every facet of north korea's being just left

you have to read articles about kim john w and kim john who in this kim jonhg wh that aboutm just leave them ae fuking obsessed and i realize i am the north korea of the internet i'm becoming the internet's north korea because insist i'm having privacy

and being left alone the more the will try to pink and prod and impose upon you false essence the more north korea thus wants to go its own way and be left alone the more people will obsess over it and i pray i pray north korea

defend itself and so few people in this w stronger than the north koreans for people resilient people and more honorable people than north koreans

of course it on to

anyone who just wants to go their own way

and be fuckin left alone

that puts you in the crosshairs some but all of a sudden

you did something wrong

and the world hates you and the world want to commit genocide against you i've seen readters say that north korea should be annihilated and its people should also be annihilated and someone said what about its people they didn't do anything wrong and the person said we the're already living in hell anyway so this would be release this would be a mercy to them

but you know i do have issues with it on and i do have issues with some of these countries

because when you have people threatening you to nuclear attack your country

and you have countries like eton

that still refused to defend develop

deterrent preventative

nuclear weapons because they issued a fatwa against it why why

they issued a fatua against developing nuclear weapons

and what's the reason for that

i see

i love what is a fantasy only

you ply m line no par there

pakistan has them venezuela needs to have them too absolutely venezuela needs to have its own programe whether for peaceful purposes or for defence defensive purposes absolutely

cuba won't need it i venezuela has it cuba's too small to have them if venezuela ha it has it then cuba doesn't need it anymore itill be protected by venezuela

but sure if they can have it too they don't have a problem

i want to talk about it

brazil too why not

you don't bump

and there

butots on the p k k they're an american puppet everyone knows they're an american puppet

amini can you mean amini he can alter the fata under critical circumstances i hope he does i hope he does alter it tell me why itt on tell me why persia one of the oldest and most ancient and most powerful

and most brilliant civilizations in the history of mankind thank you emperatur

probably what the first world empire in history tell me of all the countries that are allowed to have them why can't they have them america can have them have them but you don't can't have them

because it's a fia gt of shot of fork up

saudi arabia have them saudi arabia has no historical

basis as a state it was invented by the british there's never been a state in history called arabia there's there's been the p there's been the province of the hajaz it's never been its own state in history

there's no please do not comet make me laugh and compare saudi arabia to eat on do not compare saudi arabia to eat on that is the most laughable comparison this is a list of countries you can compare it on to you can compare you on to china you can compare it on to ethiopia maybe egypt possibly egypt you

can compare it maybe with turkey you can compare it with russia you can compare it with those kinds of countries you cannot compare it on yet india i forgot india yet india is a good one

you can't compare iran to saudi arabia you just can't syria

not even

not even not even syria

only

uh then thever anything

no not even a yk

not even a dock

s only looking to me all at it the wey she is on the cover brother

of course idoq has history way more than saudi arabia obviously but dan you guys have to understand persia

it' is literally one of the centers of the world there's different centers of the literal world and persia's one of them

the whole reason islam exists is because of the conflict between the roman empire

and the last ah one of the last hellenic competitors to the romans

which was the assassinids and the which was the persians and their conflict is what gave rise to islam

is that all islamic culture most of it came from the persians

irak is mesopotamia i know i'm not saying they didn't have civilization i'm just saying iran is one of the centers of the world

what are the compares with ethiopian ned on because ethiopia is one of the oldest standing civilizations on earth

rome didn't even exist when islam came to be that's not true

that's literally not true

that's literally not true it's called the byzantine empire you dumb fuck shut the fuck up

it's the eastern roman empire no it's not true it's the eastern roman empire cry about it

three

me

yeah it's the missile program

you're right how do you ill do so well against you do on during the iran iran iraq war

because it on was crippled by years of crisis and turmoil culminating in a revolution and it was in the one of the most vulnerable states in its history it was extremely vulnerable it was in an extremely extremely vulnerable state and ek did not

not only have support from the u s but from the world including the soviet union by the way they gave them satellite maps of iran yeah

ic

was china yeah china helped out iran and north korea too a little bit too

not supporting syrian ancestry is literally a form of self hat so stupid ok let me tell you something if syria annext lebanon i would have zero issues happy

and next lebanon i don't care i'm fine with that i don't i never believe lebanon was a real country anyway it is i'm not going to spend my life twenty four seven campaigning for it to happen because i have better things to do but if it happens i won't protest so good luck if you listen you syria people if you really want to build greater syria and it works i'm not

against it just i'm not going to spend my time on something i don't really think is that viable but if you actually get it to work and happen you i'm not going to be against ith whatever you know if you can unite syria with lebanon palestine

jordan

and you could do that

and it's actually successful i'm not against you i'm just saying you have to get the support of all those people and i think they want ialk to well you have to get the support of all those people living in those countries if you do that i'm not against it i am not against any superanational state at all i wouldn't have been against an arab superstate under naser i wouldn't be against that either i wouldn't be against a

revival of the ottoman empire i wouldn't be against anything like that anything then do it i'm not going to be against it why would i be against it you think i have an issue with syria or something i don't

american needs to annex candada i agree i agree canada should be annext maybe not ottomans

the number one problem with neo ottomanism is turkish nationalism so you have to one must go either turkish nationalism goals or neo ottomanism goals they both can you can't have both that's why the ottoman empire collapsed because when the european inspired young turks created

turkish nationalism the arabs came and said well if you're going to we we used to be part of one tyfit if you're going to have your turkish nationalism we're going to have out of be nationalism either one big thing or we're not't be whatever would this nationalism stuff you know

no it could still be led by turkey and it could still be led by turks but they they just can't put it in the constitution that it has to be led by them that makes sense there's nothing wrong with turks leading the middle east i don't have an issue with that turks and persians should lead the middle east i think that

i do think they should lead the they're more advanced in terms of infrastructure technology education and stability so i have no issue with them too leading what's the alternative saudi arabia what's the alternative egypt egypt i'm sorry egypt is just a military dictators

ship and when the muslim brotherhood took power they were just pretty much just neo ottomans at that point so if anyone is going to be egypt though if and of any of the arab countries that can rule it's egypt it's definitely egypt and i'm sorry the rest of you are coping it's egypt

it's always been egypt egypt's the most populous one it's always been egypt you guys need to just stop falking coping and learn history ok it's not going to be syria it's not going to be idc

it's always been egypt

egypt has always been the center

okay

during the mamlukes that's how it was what about algeria

i don't know enough

i don't know enough about algeria

ight

ohh there's a new noman sky up there it kind of sucks though

i've been waiting for the update but they didn't really add much what di they add they didn't add shit

two

fellow european time zone

ight

syri is the only country to maintain the politics of arab unity i know but it's probably going to have to change that soon it's likely going to have to change that the is still occupying northern syria syria has to

address kurdish aspirations and if it's going to address kurdish operation aspirations it's probably going have to listen to russia and drop the syrian arab democratic republic from its name it's probably not going to be able to be an arab republic forever you know

i want to go back to aan knowse in log space i want to go back to alan in l space

oh man i'm going to have to prepare a little bit for that fucking debate about whether china's fascist or not it's not

going to be on which is it's going to it's going to be with keith woods or wherever it is and some other guy andy i'm going to have to prepare a little bit not for the china being fascist part but for i see to compile my sources and facts that's it just need to compile my sources like i already know i could debate about it right now right but the they s they're going to q

a lot so i need to actually just show based on sources the facts about the nature of italy you haven't do you need materials no i'll do fine by myself but yeah chinas actually fascist because why

wile they have corporates it's a corporate economy they have corporates what's a corporate a corporate is an institution that the states gives it's an economic institution that the state gives preferential preferential treatment to oh so the corporate is separate from the state no it's a mediator between the state and civil society got you

so by that's criterion in that definition was the soviet union also fascist and is there an example of a state in the history of mankind that is also not fascist because every single state after the one nine hundred thirty s at the very least has what you are describing as corporates which are institutions that mediate the state's relationship to the economy

me on an exclusive and privileged basis like is the arms industry a corporate because the government enters into exclusive contractual deals with themselves i don't understand are some unions corporates in america i guess america's already fascist right

it's not so much that the burden of me is i di disprove that by their definition china's fascist but that they also have to apply that definition to a range of countries that i don't think they would be content defining them as right it's like ok america's fascist that you know britain is fascist

frances fascist every fukan country's fascist this is the pathetic truth of fascism historically fascists have always been

and don't take my word for read fascist themselves they're fucking failures bashists have tried they defined their entire etiology based on war don't take my word for it take theirs it's all about war the whole economy is mobilized for war you lst you ost you lost the war and i want tell them should like this you know they'll tell me they'll be like

no it's not fair because

the soviet because britain teamed up with the soviet union again andtead of us britain tried to make deals with you all you had to do was not invade youre appeased you were given parts of czechoslovakia that's rightfully belonged to the german supposedly the soviet union wasn't consold

by the way you were given so much and you literally just took took took more upsetting the balance of order in europe what did you think that the british conservative

the conservative british interests we're just going to let you do that the conservative british imperialists who had a vested interest in maintaining british geminy in europe because remember there were british conservatives who wanted to maintain british geminy or defend british interests and not just submit

to germany it was a national conflict so did you think that so so according to you this is why fascism is a form of mental illness according to you if people don't just submit to you as the premier power of the world that means there's a big conspiracy and plot against you

how does that fucking make sense if there was a conspiracy against you there wouldn't have been years and years of a policy of appeasement i you just giving into whatever you wanted and you took going above and beyond the treaties yourself signed so what the fuctd you think would happen how that a fucking

conspiracy i anything if anything the real conspiracy was that there were literally elements within britain that we're going to just capitulate to the germans in the name of attacking the soviet union based on the basic national interests of britain the conservatives like churchill prevailed you know

i don't get it fascism is based has is coping ok if it's based please explain to me fascist had one goal which was mobilize their countries for and when glorious wars

she lost

fault was that all was unfair when was more ever fair

now you want wor to be fair

a way

have

fucking coward

hitler the biggest fucking coward in history

hitler the biggest bitch and pussy and coward in fucking history and he was

i'm not saying that's a virtue signal because it's what's popular

i am genuinely telling you he was a fuckin pussy and he was a bitch and he was always a bitch

that pussy got into a war with britain

and then he attacked the soviet union because he thought oh wait west come on i'm on your side i'm attacking the soviet union

you fucking pussy you fucking pitch that's like that's literally like a if a fascist larper got into a fight with destiny and then the fascist guy attacked me expecting destiny to take his side against me what a pussy what a fucking pussy you know

unbelievable but ok fascists are losers we can can we agree that they're losersin he says they are anti peace because men shouldn't stay inactive ok the the losers it's objectively the case they're fucking losers so what do the so called

old fascists do they have a whole etiology that's one hundred percent copu losers copium that's all they are right so what do they do they look at successful beautiful and brilliant countries like china and say oh actually we're taking credit for that we're taking credit for that

we're going to take credit for china have to agree with the t left deviationi ist that china is not true marxist or whatever to maintain their fuck in the obsolete copium dead etiology literally coping about china being theirs is the last bucking colt these people have

oh no china's fascist why can't why can't are there any winners that just call themselves fascist because all the fascists were losers right you lost you lost all but our goal was to take down the british empire and then

really was it is that why you tried to covet the support of the british empire when you invaded the soviet union and fuckin failed pathetically becuse you're fuckin pussy

even in spain the fascists lost does franco purge them and then in the cold war who was fighting the british empire it was the communists and what are the fascists what were they doing they were being the hired thgs and mercenaries

all around the world and specifically in europe with operation gladio you to masonic lodge propaganda do and they were serving the british empire and nato where are the fascists in the world

if someone says where are the communists i will say they're in china they're in cuba they're in vietnam we're not as powerful or they're not as powerful as they used to be but that's where they are that's or it's a real thing it's still a real thing

socialism with chinese characteristics is corportist ok then so is american neoliberalism so is american neuroliberalism lizard cope can you explain how china's corporatist in america' is not please because every country has corporates as you're narrowly defining them what country doesn't have corporates

as you're narrowly defining them we have political state institutions that mediate economic interests of civil society we have those we have plenty of those actually and we have them informally for example when the state the u s state enters into exclusive contracts and deals with recognized corporations i know that's not the same thing

technically but that's not an e coincidence they share the same name it's al taneous ok then you are especially educated to answer this question apparently you've read enough books can you show me in your quote and really justify how you can call china corporaateist and not every other

developed country on earth why is china specifically corporateist is my question elemo you think i'mll taneous dumb ass so who are you who are you you think just because china has

politic institutions and political institutions that represent sectors of the country's economic interests that's enough to call it fascist and corporatist no it's not words are based on context dude it's so stupid

it's so fucking stupid dude i pray for the stupid man i just pray for the stupid i pray for them i pray for the fucking stupid man

mmhmm

themo sat out

com a class ofitially

some pone place table from the

plas on

mohay this has like alls bs next have i go do

you mamentine my pasity s songs about you way ash p r city skking say by so di way reject genteeliy ont to g be that they such to mak my cy on different councls and sat me ps youp saying so genteli was a shitty hagelian bo to could have proceed toy to com be w but take song skep back in the mod compa something

but he's weirdly popular you know like perspective philosophy was also an actualist you a very actualist reading of hagel that it's based on an act you know that what sets everything in motion is an act the irreducible act in a way is kind of weird with that too you know

still waiting is such sicxtures thatmmber give you they o the tim ty idme gif ave you ex sey see more ft shes cons sruct compuperti sick only makey mo of the mastic f the shoud the to maion that dot the particular mement you see comon song d of p co to

inions on srel i used to like sro but i got over it i didn't discuss christianity what i wanted to talk about is why is orthodox russia so

infatuated by cosmism this imagery of the cosmos and going to space where it will truly find itself and when you think about it russian cosmism was the eo an etiological form to protect russian

orthodoxy from western christianity in the age of mass media

you a do what what not little ball what

i'll explain

i can actually explain that

i am doing the zerko royal it just hasn't started yet

when it starts all

y

it hasn't started yet

okay ses

sometimes

alright so

let me tell you why

memember i told you the thing about

imposing knowledge and form

on content

just long story short thank you mercurl just to skip a lot of shit

the first form of that was the catholic church

that's what the catholic church did

except

i'll explain how

if you want

so the catholic church has the doctrine of infallibility this idea that it's going to build an institution

that is completely free from worldly sin and worldly corruption and the world in general right and that is the catholic form i could talk about the catholic mysteries and whatever

um

in the age of mass media that's actually going to take that form of phenomenal form right some kind of phenomenal ultimate phenomenal form or maybe form of knowledge right but in the main phenomenal form when you think about it outer space this vacuum

which is completely devoid and empty or at least it's a space you can dwell in without being pigeonholed into a specific phenomenal form that's why man that's why it ha i mean that's one of the reasons you can think about russian orthodoxies relation to cosmism they have to go to outer space because in this world

they're trying to destroy and completely erace and eliminate russian orthodox civilization reaching to be honest no that if you understand what i'm saying it makes perfect falking sense it literally makes so much sense

because in whatever vision of globality whatever vision of the world we have it is overdtermined by western christianity and russian civilization which is trying to go its own way and build its own path and be its own civilization has to dream and imagine of going to outer space because there's no room for it in this world

there's no vision that can contain

the soul there's no phenomenal form that the soul of russian civilization can be returned

can be reduced to

so outerspace and the cosmos

represents not simply an empty indeterminate and negative form

but

o

just

some kind of relationship to divinity that is not always already predetermined by some specific dogmatic institutional form

m ok

n

so that's my view

but that's also why i have to say and this is my fucking experience to this is the truth a lot of people going to get mad most muslims are not really muslim most maybe they are in their feeling soulfully but there are no intellectual muslims there's almost no muslim

intellectuals the minute they elevate the inner authentic muslim feeling to the intellect they lose everything most are not there's almost no muslim and there are no muslim philosophers in this world there are no muslim intellectuals muslim intellectuals the majority of them and this is the sad sorry state we're in the majority of muslim intellectuals are

are mentally enslaved by western christianity because they conceive the abstract and indeterminate universalism of islam and they don't bring out its actual they don't know how to actually bring out its determinate content this is a lost knowledge this is a lost lightenment that the old is

islamic civilization used to be able to do so the muslim intellectuals today and muslim thinkers most of them are enslaved by

mentally and spiritually enslaved by western christianity overwhelming majority of them they just apply calvinism to the religion and they conceive islam through the lens philosophically and metaphysically through the lens of western christianity and that's why if muslims want to awaken who their trueuthent

islamic civilization and true real essence of islam you have to begin with orthodoxy specifically russian orthodoxy russian civilization muslims have to look at russia as another world they have to accept russia or the soviet union whatever you want to call it they have to accept this world

as their world because this world which is dominated by the west there's no possibility to awakento islam no possibility if muslims accept russia as a preeminent leader of this world not the only one but one of them they now have the basis to reawakeento islam i'm not saying is

and orthodoxy are the same by the way they're not they're there different religions but only by responding to orthodoxy does islam exist both islam and orthodoxy share the same

object

they just respond to it in different ways

islam does not share the same object with western christianity though

that's the thing

i

the object of western christianity and islam are totally different

completely completely different

what about hebrew judaism is a very versatile

religion

there are many

judaism h

has adapted to every civilization but the heart the true heart in soul of judaism belongs to the east

western judaism i think was a failed project mostly it was a failed project the true soul the true essence the true livelihood of judaism is in the east all of the greatest jewish philosophers and thinkers

belonged to the eastern civilization so eastern civilization is the judaism shares the same object with islam and orthodoxy but western christianity is a completely different object has a completely different object marx is the best you

philosopher you could actually say that i agree you could actually say that what fucking object are you talking about this s divinity they have the same divine object they have the same divine essence that's their point ultimate point of reference the same metaphysical absolute the same

yeah whatever you want to call it why would should we think of religions in terms of essences how else would you think about them in terms of form religion is about the essence it's about relating to some kind of essence what's my religion

i'm muslim right but there's a difference between religious feeling and how you articulate that religious feeling and the reason i say there are no muslims in the world is because there might be an authentic muslim feeling but the muslims articulate their religious feeling is still enslaved and within the frame and

dominated by western christianity and the presuppositions of western christianity the only way there can be a re awakening and remembrance of the unique islamic insight is through russian and chinese civilization they provide the basis to make sense of the islamic

religious feeling you can't make sense of this feeling within the frame of the metaphysical modern west yeah

and you give me an example of these christian presuppositions that's common in modern islamic thought yes most modern islamic thought is trapped within the anglo box it

is one hundred percent anglo saxon metaphysical interpretation of islam

it's the way for example that they assume the significance of religious prescription in terms of modern law and legislation it's like basically calvinist it refuses to acknowledge being atself

rather than the way we mediate being through our minds but being itself as a site of the divine reconciliation divine meaning it refuses to accept divine in the world it's must meateing intellectually or morally and

refuses to accept that in the world itself there can be any meaning isn't that essential prescribing to naturalism no well maybe it's a form of naturalism but it's not an undalectical naturalism it's a naturalism that also reconciles the spirit

remms throwing shit at you saying he thinks your entire twitch is a performance and he's skeptical you mastered hegel at twenty good because it wasn't twenty it was nineteen it wasn't twenty it was nineteen so i'm glad he's skeptical of that cause i never said it was i was at twenty it was when i was nineteen

but let me just tell you the truth rem

is the biggest

bullshitter on twitch

let me tell you the truth about rehm

and i i want you guys to know this and understand this

there is no such thing as a philosopher who exists in a vacuum there is no such thing as someone interested in philosophy in a vacuum you should judge people's personalities rendered look

if you see a person like rem their thought the highest extent of their thought is going to reflect their personality they're very meek

weak world personality m is not

someone who has ever you can just see it in their personality have never come to appreciate the true difficult tough and sweeping implications of philosophy in general

's a philosophical gatekeeper what is the gatekeeping from wo and gatekeepings gatekeeping people on wwich which twitch you need to

understand don't listen to people like ram philosophy is not a cope pilosophy will deliver you to the insight of pain it's not going to be oh this is philosopy this is a thing it's called philosophy and we do p losophy and it's a no such balking thing he's live right now no

i'm going on czircle royal so why would i debate him

another lose imortally mortal mortal

can you elaborate on why we should conclude that religions have essence

what the fuk are you saying religions have an essence there's n reason for ry that is that's not self contained in the very content of what religion is think religion has an essence we're not talking about religion it's as simple as that there's no external reason that justifies why we shuld treat them that

way there's no reason why we sred so what are you talking about what the fock are you talking about of course religions have as their object and essence of course they do they have an essence that isirreducible to the form that's right religion is referring to when it talks about

divinity and it talks about spirit and it talks about sublimity do you think religion is just form the question is do you think religion is just form and i think the burden of proof is on you to prove that religion is just form

are you rem watcher maybe that's why you think that way you're just not very smart i'm sorry you're not and that reflects the people you like to watch people who just are not smart rem says you're playing a character rem is also playing a character rems playing the character of a guy who

thinks he knows what he's talking about rem is also playing a character you don't think reram is playing a character toing pich youk the real philosophers actually do have a right to gatekeeping shit on wwitch no he's playing a character be srying to bloff to youll that he's a guy who knows what he's talking about and he's not

rem is playing a fuck in character do you understand that's how you know rem is not a philosopher rem is a note of fuck he's talking about i'm playing a character

like what does that even focking mean

this distinction between my true authentic self and authentic make believe character can emediately be dismissed by the fact of context i can still be my authentic self within the context of a twitch stream while also not be playing a character just because i'm going to be different in real

life with a group of three people and i'm really not that different to be honest mean that i'm being in authentic by being different in a different context that's the most stupid fucking thing i've ever heard why would someone be the exact same as they are in the context of having two or three close friends as their viewers

as opposed to hundreds of people that you have no clear idea who thisse people are so you're youre it's almost like are you playing a character when you look in the mirror and you're acting in front of a mirror and you're flexing in the mirror like what is the character w is the character begin and end and werees the real person begin and end can rem the fucking wise philosopher answer that no he can't because you don't know

k's talking about

and he just playing a character then how does this character know more than you ram i know more than you about literally any fucking topic that you're interested in how exactly may if i'm playing a character then i'm also playing a character role knowing way more than you know right like you

can't fake knowledge ram you can't play a character in fake all the knowledge i've proven i've had just by streaming alone

to say nothing to say speak of nothing else

's playing a character then why would i know what the content of that character was how would i know the content of what the character would be unless i kew it you know i mean like how would i know the right things to say if everything i'm doing is just a character you fucking bullshouor you just talk out of fucking ass because you're looking let this is the brilliance of ram this is the brilliance of ram what

username i'm going to see how many viewers they get right the brance of ram is that despite being on witch for years for years and years and years they can't get more than two hundred views

rus

and where's the philosophical brilliance with that i don't know

i've this not

s your eyes bump

i ove you and that ustage

m says hegel was just a poet

i see you try to find another lie

bombing

and when i ask about it

mm

what wo would say hegel was a poet you could spybe say heideger was a poet how was hegel just a poet stupd f a littleal dogmatic fk thing i've ever fuck and heard that means anyone outside of analytical philosophy was just a poet

was not a fucking just a fucking poet he was a philosopher was the last philosopher because he was rigorously dealing with the concept and its consistency there of rems like twenty one to twenty two i hat these fucking kids disrespect me if you're twenty one twenty two

when you're talking all the shit and speaking yourself up you sound so stupid you sound so stupid hegl was just a poet how can you really strange poetry from philosophy though don't you realize poetry itself has a deep like you are arbitrarily dividing all of these different things that

you can't justify how or why you're doing that s is just performance art w these people learn this shit they just get taught by people to say certain things and they just say it they don't even know why they're saying it

you your statust are you a dentist

my soul is tio

know what you hiding from me

ma waed some ro

thes a semantic dogmatism so fucking sick of gatekeepers why don't you do address what i've said instead of making value judgments on the extent of my knowledge about this or that topic

alltic philosophy

show the door

i see

rhms says hegel was just a poet these people literally think

i'm serious about that

okay

let's

who would say

hegel was a poet

i swear to god these people have no critical finking skills oh not now he's okay apparently he wasn't serious how am i supposed to fuck and tell you're serious serious

could you have a legitimate criticism then it was a poet

w would say

hegel was a poet

can i make that a

a sub sound

can i i want to isolate this and whenever some one donates i want this to play who would say

hegel was a poet

you could spabe say ideer was a poet

typ

was hegel just a poet

would that be a stupid thk

analytical dogmatic fucking thing i've ever fucked

listen i know you like you want i

people want me to call and stuff but

oh

it's just

i want you to know the endpoint of whatever rem's specific views about philosophy are

i want you to know that this is the endpoint of rern's philosophy smuggly and ironically going being just like as d l industry that's the endpoint of his philosophy so why do you need philosophy if you can just wake up and be like that

you know what i mean why do you have why do you

can someone ask raem rahm what is really the need for philosophy

when you could just be s d l and have that same

english romantic aesthetic of being a smug fucking arrogant

you know

more kind of effeminate type of person nothing wrong with that but you know why do you meean philosophy if if most people who share your class background are already that what's the point of philosophy where will philosophy lead you

nine

thousand dollars

uh let's see

anyway oh i'm not even done the clip yet

been heard

that means anyone outside of analytical pilosopy was just a poet was not a fucking just a fucking poet

he was a philosopher he was the last

philosopher because

haywll was rigorously dealing with

the concept

got

damn

oh

it's all lot

it's a lot to take in

and

hegel being the last philosopher

udit claim

see this is the issue right as soon as we try to have any sort of discussion he would just accuse me of

because a methodology like let's say that he's legitimately higelian

right

um

because the actual methodology

by which a higelian i mean this is why i struggle like i have a lot of friends who are hgelians like mardy

ah

respect to philosophy

they all know each other dude

you approach a lot of topics from very different angles and there's a communication barrier there

because you are using terms in very different ways

um it doesn't mean that

talkings impossible but it really means that if you want to talk to someone who comes from such a different tradition again granting that it's just not a character

um

oh my god my cat's actuallyally hilarious

um

ah

you know even granting that it's not just a character you know both sides have to be willing to engage in really really

good faith

bounds to have the

pa had that kind of discussion and i don't know if that's going to be possible

well you seem really cowardly and you don't really seem like you even have the courage

to

um confront

the consequences of any

form of thought

that doesn't just lead to whatever fuck and copium leads you to be the person that you are so

i don't even know what we would be talking about but you want to debate me i'll debate you any fuckin

you know i'll debate you wram

his

at that point it's not going to be a discussion about philosophy it's going to be about

how you can justify

you're falcking arrogant and baseless

and childish claims about the extent of my knowledge of things and whether i'm just putting up a character or not

so that's what it's going to be about gram because that's how you've established your encounter with me

in general

i i don't really yell in debates h anymore because i'm not a child

um

i don't think it's because you're not a child i think it's because you're a coward

thank you anonymous gifter and you lack any passion about what you're talking about

you're not actually passionate about the content of the subject matter

you're passionate about your whole fucking professional and academic and

um

media image about

as someone who's a philosopher you're not actually passionate about the content and the meat and potatoes you're passionate about being a guy

who's known as someone who knows about these things and that's what you're passionate about and don't worry rem because i will address your passion

on the source of yourpassion by mess method

methodically fucking destroying it

so don't worry about thatm

um

discord server i'm already maxed out on my servers i don't want to leave one and then

thank you

andan sioxs

for

or the sab

i don't know i'm trying to find uh

go

if he joined he'll steamroll

ate

um

is he in destiny's discord or something

like where

i don't even know

my thing is ram

town sign

rampound sign

uh something i don't know

rampound sign thirteen thirteen

there you go

so he'd sent me a friend request

if you want

well the what's his uh

what's his discord thing so i know i have a lot of

you wt

this person has zero honor

they literally just need the cloud

hey august thanks

pce would follow

nice to see ya

has he've been wanting maybe he doesn't want to do it

no i will debate you rem

schedule it and set it up

i'm goinga piss and we're going to go on zerk a royal

very back

n

h

what's his name

what's ram saying

sorry

so i can't bring that on

for you

my god is that actually him in the chat

that real

six

i sentd you a fad request you

i sid you can

you can call me and we can talk if you want

i never said that you're running from me

i never said that other people were saying that i don't know what's

i'm not watching your stcreen

just ask for a donation for joining yeah ok fine

for two hundred noo no no

the

two hundred fifty dollars i will join the fucking

zirka show for an hour

that's how

that's how

how much i don't want to go on

yeah and i'm not i'm not winking from that

we have to be entrepreneurs

so yeah if they're calling m now fifty

what did i say three fifty or two

ca i make it three and fifty instead

you were now being called

how he

look i can wait

way i'm listen i'm not going on the

thezerka reat royal

whatever ok he's calling me e

so what do you want rm what am i running away from

well i even said i never said you were running away people in my chat were saying that i do't i the saying

i'm interested why are they saying that

i don't know i guess you'd have to ask them

so can you come back and explain some of the claims you've been saying about me tonight that i've been hearing about

yeah sure yeah go ahead

would claim specifically

i don't know that's why i'm asking you what what did you make

what did you say about me

oh i said lo

oh wait one second i just have to adjust my uh

volume ofble sad

um

i don't know like

thank you

i've said a lot of things

tonight i can't

you have

can you give me specific you what would be a relevant point of debate what would be a relative point of contention

you debate tomorrow

we should discuss the ethics of incest

when have i spoken about inssts

i never said you did but so not tell me what

what are you saying about me

h you said you don't believe i mastered hagl at in nineteen

oh well yeah i know you didn

oh how is that

just because i know about the difficulty of ha the tree requisites required i mean there's not much of a debate here to be i think there's actually a debate here to be have so on the basis of the difficulties of hagel which are not under dispute and the requirements of mastering hagle system which i'm not sure you would be aware of because i don't even think you've ever claimed you've mastered hagl system so i't even know how you would uk you know how do you know for a fact that i didn't master hagel system

tom at nineteen go ahead

i guess i can't know for if you can't you really can't so why don't you just sort the fuck up about it i stop t can make an educated informed guess

base but you didn't say i don't think you said there's no way say that based on the type of people i know who are familiar with hagel

these people who have really mass and not to act like manchildren wait wait wait w wait

so you're assuming that's without on so you're assuming based on the character and temperament of people who you know have read hegel and you know you trust it what does that have to do with how someone is going to act

specifically do you think hagel is some kind of cultural prescriptive um thought grou like jordan peterson he tells you how to talk and tells you how to act and things like that

because i know i know you're like you're used to only being on twitch and like only being in public and like bluffing and pretending you're a guy who knows what he's talking about so you only know these like these cult of personality people like jordan peterson and and all these people on you tube and stuff and you you really associate something like philosophy with you know

personalities and online influencers like as if like hegel was some kind of jake paul because that's all you fuck and understand or know but i really want you to justify i really want to pin you down and justify how you could say that um your perception that i act like a manchild and i'm not sophisticated and i don't speak seriously like perspective philosophy can justify the assumption that i could not have possibly mastered hagel's system

at nineteen years old please justify that rem

ah i mean in order to do that you'd have to be probably like a child prodigy and if you have actually mastered hagl i mean presumably you wouldn't be spending your time

acting like you know a child on trick money

publishing books on him what he's not o actually ha read have i written books before

how many have i written

and if i have said i don't think you have you don't think i've written books

you've written book

yes i have the i just didn't release them publicly yes i have written books

actually read one of your i don't want a sniveling pseudo intellectual like you anywhere near my books yeah but so m so you've written books but you want allow i'm absolutely not no but anyway let's continue so ram so ram so you think that you think that real hold on hold on hold on i want to pin you down on this since you're such a philosopher actually let's be

philosophers and let's let's focus on the potatoes about ss senceor philosophy i want to put your philosophy to text you think that a certain type of disposition is necessarily implied by the mastery of hag stok ok so let me ask you a question gms to the best explanation

i think that would be the technical term

so you're inferring what you are inferring that

i could not have possibly mastered i could not have possibly understand you i could not have possibly mastered hagel's system as nineteen because within the limited range of my knowledge of what kind of people hegelians are they are nothing like you that's pretty much your claim right

well yaes so that's that's part of it another is that i don't know why you'd be spending your time on twitch acting like a baby

um i mean so if you actually are able to show me some of these yeah youre written well you you you we since it's such a

since it's such a decisive part of your argument and no i'm not going to show you my fuck and books i've only showed like fucking fifteen people my books why would i show you but title can you tell me the title of it

of which ones

of any of your books

ok i have one book which is called islam in the shadow of globality i have another book called

donn the seagl

were sorry

that that on's on hageloug no it's not

what is the name of one of your hegel books

i haven't written a book wholly and specifically dedicated to hegel

i don't know why i should have to

i've done that

but you've incorporated hagel into some of

obviously

like what kind like like for example i wrote a book about utopian socialism in which i put to work hegel's decisive distinction between the state and civil society in relationship to the frederick jameson's universal army in universal conscription in relation to utopian socialism and in relation to the south african e f f so the book is called the south african e f i have another book called form t

which attempts to take a dive at dealing with the metaphysics of statehood in the age of quantum mechanics from a hegelian perspective and against newtonian the newtonian mechanics that informed hobbs's perspective the origins of statehood and fleman vast is about actually the origin of the burcer party and it's about the october revolution and those by the way are just the books i've given titles to and like that i actually am committing to to publish

simpler

i have to do more edits and i have to i've been working on them for years and years and years but those are the ones i just know for certain i'm gonna publish as different books

is

the one

ho ram ram ram here's an issue you

are making wondering i know you're wondering now reram but you weren't justified in making all the assumptions you did in the fucking first place why did you make all the assumptions you do and the minute i call you out that you just should have shut your fucking mouth and not made assumptions now you're being all inquisitive and you're asking me all these questions because oh i'm interested in na i don't carem i don't exist to interest you i don't care about the extent of your interest

all i care about is whether or not you can justify making all the assumptions and claims you made about me and you really can't justify them because you are fucking wrong about them you have to justify anything you the way that you talk you don't me ram ram ram ram you are making subjective claims you're making subjective claims about how my temperament hurts my feef and i don't i don't like that you're a man child and youre acting

ridiculous but red red if you want to play the game of subjects we have to compare have to quantify it then right at that point i'm a bigger fucking streamer that people like me than they like you people are interested in me than they like you so right is your opinion relevant

it doesn't have to be but clearly you seem to care a lot about what the common

the common sight of contention because the sight of contention is truth because when it's about truth it's about what is true w are making claims about me you cannot justify as true

what is truth

what do you mean

need to find truth

um define truth go ahead

no i'm asking you

there's literally a million ways you could define truth

what is your theory of truth

i am using truth colloquially right now i am not interested in having a philosophical discussion with you about truth right now do you not know what i mean by true how are you not do not do not know what i mean by true

why i don't know i like there's many ways like you said there's many ways i know i understand so when i say you are saying things that cannot be justified as true

um

yeah what do we mean by truth there

in this context what we mean as true

is whether or not the form of your reasoning

can be shown to be consistent with your conclusion

whether your reasoning whether your line of argumentation

can actually justify the conclusion you draw

in this context that's all a men soundness not consistency but i think i understand what you mean

when that soundness its consistency

well no no i mean i feel like we should care about the truth of stuff right so okay be careful with how we're using o o can you can you justify those claims as true why would you say something to the pub okay so

why would you say something that

you can't justify is true why would you say it

oh no i mean i i feel very justified in saying it but but the justification you have given me rem was a your subjective feeling that i'm a manchild and that i'm yelling all day and that a person who has read hegel would not be doing that but you haven't justified why we should agree with that

and the only amn you' said that well every one i know

who's a hegelian doesn't act like you but what if all of the people you knew who were hegelians were white and i was the only arab does that mean arabs can't be gelians by your your

the scale and range of your influence and the

you know the friend of inference you're making like what if all of the people you knew were men and then you didn't know any female hgelians would you be justified in inferring that gelians cannot be female since you know nothing

it's clear you know nothing about ha gelianism itself or at least you don't know enough about ha gelianism to actually justify why you would claim that i haven't mastered hagel system at nineteen you are in no position to actually draw a conclusion about whether i did or not whatsoever my behavior doesn't justify the conclusion you draw just because the he gans you know don't act like i do doesn't justify you making a definitive conclusion whether you're

justifying it on the basis of likelihood or inference is completely irrelevant you are not justified to talk out of your frocking ass it's simple as that ram

w i mean will just have to disagree i suppose on what i'm justified i accept your surrender

n i'm well i accept your surrender

what did i surrender on on what point that i specifically surrender on if you're not willing to debate like the conception of truth and justification with me i mean i suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on this and if so wait wait wait now you want to debate about truth and justification do you want want to debate about the nature of truth and justification ram and let's actually see if this is a test of your honesty

want to see if i have a philosophically rigorous view of what truth is in order to justify the s in order to test the extent of my knowledge

what work looking for youreram because i haven't actually said anything that warrants an actual philosophical debate about truth it sounds like you're just trying to test the extent of my familiarity with the relationship between truth and philosophy which is a completely different issue than the curriculal common sensical

accusation that i'm throwing against you that you're just talking about it fucking ass there's no a mik because i have trouble understanding yeat sot that you want to have a debate about truth are you trying to expose me as someone who can't philosophically you're saying

you can't hear me

like you need to turn down the gaining on your microphone

rat's better this is at it r right now works are you actually looking tod ay good

miram which one is it

are you looking to and the we're going to do this we're going to test your honesty are you doing this to debate

about truth and justification or are you trying to find some kind of gotcha and try to prove

and you would do it so pathetically right you would pathetically fail it that that haz does not have any rigorous

philosophical notion or view of what truth is i think you're just trying to test me ram i don't think anything has actually warranted a debate

about truth nothing clearly has so i can only draw the conclusion that you're just trying to test me

ah

well

i think you've posted as this binary option which i don't think it is because i'm still from my perspective

i'm still not convinced that you're not kind of like

like an actor ok putting on ok ok sure what this is partly what on what justifies me being an actor go ahead

i actually don't like you ram i literally don't like you so i'm not acting no no no i'm yeah

very aware of that wa wait how can you justify that awareness though if i am an actor you can't pick and choose what i am and and i'm not acting about right

no no you're right that i can like it's very difficult for me to know for sure right so what is what is the decisive sde of me acting if you can know that i genuinely dislike you

then what do you know is real and what do you know is not real so we can draw the i mean you're right i can never know n you can never know but you just said you just admitted that you knew i didn't like you and i don't like you

but you could like me it's possible

but but no one forced you to admit and say oh i know you don't like me was that a athrodian slip was that a slip of tongue

you walk that back and take it back

moving the conversation forward

so how is it moving the conversation forward you could just say oh i don't know if you like me or not

well okay i think you do know that i don't like you ram i think you're being very selective about my acting actually

so you claim you don't know enough about whether i'm acting or not

and where what is that decisive like where' is the decisive point in that

um

like i know i can't draw a line for you of course that would be yeah so what's the what conclusion do you draw that i'm an actor therefore what

therefore

they might not be worth engaging seriously with you

oh really okay

so why are you talking to me in the call right now

oh well because it gives me viewers

right of course

m

yeah well at least you're honest in that regard m well what you i even said this before you think i was in fth of you i'm trying to remm m m

so

your copium your copium strategy is basically to say that well listen in fd are you sa to talk to me of s nature of sense say which i want togain i have have to ser my fk questionjust rend you interested in debating about t are you interested in pressingn answer that fcon question and stop being a psy answer that fecon question

are you interested in debating about truth are you interested in testing me ca are you interested in debating me about truth because if you're interested in debating me about truth you have to justify why

why sh why do you want to debate about truth what have i said on the nature of truth that is a point of contention and debate

and is worthy of debate we will begin there

what any claim that you make is going to be a claim that follows a certain understanding of truth

and by the way ram by the way if i say you're not right you're not correct you're fucking wrong here m you m you are fucking wrong about that you're literally wrong about that

when actually there a discontinuity between the method by which people consciously and explicitly justify their concept of truth philosophically and the functional and practical reality of the truth claims and claims they make like there's a difference between theres there's a difference between what people there's a difference between what people actually consider true

not true and the way in which people and the way in which people attempt to render explicit the concept of truth sorry what

can you demonstrate that to me

oh you're trying to troll me with the alacrity thing n know i'm genuinely curious can you actually dem it because i don't believe that o ok you want me to demonstrate that there is a discontinuity between the concept of truth

and the operative and real

real real sense of truth people have

ah

i want no know what i'm talking about what truth is yeah i'm it's a question that applies to everybody whether anyone is aware of it or not they're engaging with the notion of truth but they are not engaging with the concept of truth that is relevant to philosophy

no they're not you would have to actually know rem the burden of proof is upon you to prove something that hasn't been proven in the first place why since since rem since the overwhelming majority of people nm shut the fuck up for a second ining since the o majority of people like ninety nine percent of people will never be philosophers and yet still have some kind of sense of what is true and what is

is false and and

and speak about the world in terms of true and false

what you're prety you're presupposing that everyone has this correct

conception of what truth no i mean i didust i said i said they have a sense of what true or false is i we have this inkling of an intuition and philosophy helps us you know no d r bring d only i'm saying such a baano self evident uncontroversial fucking thing all i'm saying is that ninety nine percent of people despite never knowing or caring about what philosophy is or the concept of truth explicitly whatsoever will know how

to say for example oh what you said about me the other day isn't true or oh that's not true the contrary s people use this in their everyday fucking practical functional but language it wrong

what

what

they might be using it wrong

what do you mean they're using it wrong

they could be using truth in a way that if you are claiming they're using it ram if you're claiming the way ninety nine percent of people use words is wrong then you're you are overreachingvidence you are over reaching the domain of philosophy in places where it doesn't fucking belong

simple as that

you're overreaching demonstrate you are being greedy about where the actual domain of philosophy is philosophy doesn't exist to correct people about their actual real

a practical reality philosophy deals

yeah philosophy is its own spheres philosophy doesn't go and say oh

the way people use language in their everyday and common use is wrong and we philosophers are correct which which philosopher does that listen

i i understand that you're a master hegelian yeah right but i mean

it not just an analytic but also continental philosophy now in semiotics

i'm even in deconstruction

it's actually analyzing the way that we use words

and trying to determine whether we're using them ok so i have a question or how do you know how do you know someone

how do you know you are not superimposing

claims or presuppositions upon someone that they have never claimed and that they are not in their thoughts or in their head presupposingly for example if someone uses truth in a way

that while common and practical for them

violates what you think is the true concept

ah of truth from a philosophical perspective how do you know you're not just superimposed

in uh

a position that they don't have

what if they don't care about the concept of truth what if they're not even having in their mind the concept of truth how do you prove that they are actually

dealing with the concept of truth relevant to philosophy can you prove that

well for one thing we're always engaging with a topic of truth because the very idea of having knowledge itself requires you know having

truth and some yeah can you answer my question n yeah can you answer i am that's

now that you just avoided the question by saying that it was not under contention is this thing where you

m it is not under contention it's not under contention that truth is necessary for knowledge the question is in an everyday ordinary and common context can you justify can you prove can you prove to us that everyone has the concept of truth

that the concept of truth relevant to philosophy is what is conditioning and premising peoples

sense of truth in the ordinary context can you prove that ram please prove that specifically

sure i mean actually that's kind of baked into an investigation of truth in the first place because

philosophers often when they're besting the nature of truth are going to take a bunch of

instances where there tends to be some type of agreement it doesn't have to be based on anyone else's it could be an individually based individual based intuitions on

you know true statements

and then over time

through a process like reflective equilibrium you're going to essentially narrow down the conditions required for a statement to be true or not

depending upon

uh for example whether you're willing to give up that certain statement that you tend to make like when you're saying that this is true

um

like for example if i take a theory of truth that meets correspondence with something out there in the world

right

that rules out a lot of things that we typically want to say are true like

that sherlock hobes

you know smokes a pipe

right that that's not something that i can point to in the external world so that's an instance where

you know i might have to weigh whether i'd really value those types of

of truth claims over other ones that are more ordinary truth claims such as

you know there' is a cup on my table

for example so we gt aar from of course know you have to aning your question i know you're not you're not because what you have m

okay go ahead ram finish yeah thank you um

so we start from these presuppositions

which is absolutely true sef

presupposition

of what is actually true in the world

and then we refined this conception

to make it more coherent

and more

i don't

the i wouldn say correct because correctness is a whole different issue because lease speed it up retively please

well i thought you want to have a serious conversation on we're not because you're avoiding my question and i can demonstrate why you've just completely avoided my question in its entirety there is not one

fucking facet of your response that addressed my question you have only pointed out that philosophers attempt to take as their object the ordinary use of truth and begin from there and is don't see it as their object as the starting point w you know what i mean as the starting point of their contemplation and reflection of the cons fin and they turn turn something that is suspended in ordinary use in reality into a concept

right

but when the that's already there that's what you have to prove ram you have to prove that it's already there and you haven't proved it all you've proven is that philosophers have taken something and they try to be consistent with how it's used already there but you have not proven that it is already there that's what i am asking you to prove so can you prove that

what you're asking me to prove is not something that is

possible to prove nor do of course it's not fucking possible to prove because there's no reason to believe it's the case there is no reason to believe it is the case if you believe it is the case you're committing it on warranted dogmatism ram there is no reason to believe it is the case

it's built into the idea of conceptual analysis

that you are working with ideas that somebody already has

and oh you are worth here's a thingarks that are yes do you know what the idea is do you think the idea is the same thing

as the fleeting

the idea relevant to philosophy which begins from plato onwards

that idea

that is the idea relevant to philosophers the ambiguous and fleeting and indeterminate and completely wishy washy

things that are suspended in every day everyday language have never been the ah the idea for philosophers that has never been the sit of ideas for philosophers philosophers have dealt with the idea

on the terms of philosophy and they kept it there they didn't go up to random people on the street and say ah you are misusing the idea or ah you have you are using a false notion of truth because

truth as is relevant to them

philosophy's role is not to dogmatically insist that everyone is already a philosopher philosophy's role is to insist that it can clarify

it can clarify can give clarification

to what is atually you

in fact he seemed to to be kind of proving my point because quite literally the idea of conceptual analysis

is showing that hay geys we use this concept

let's narrow down no no it's not it's not that onan invention no no it's not that it's fine listen listen cation of listen ram ram ordinary peop listen m shut the fuck up and listen little boy i'm educating you now m when you turn it into a concept though that's the thing what you turn into a concept what does that mean it means you cannot treat the

it as though it is the concept relevant to plspy already r something into a concept what does that mean

you want to talk over me again little boy or you want to fuck and hear my response and you keep saying i'm doing something explain what the hell it means explain what the hell it means you know you sound like jordan peterson right

but anyway i'm both canadian

so yeah anyway ram

let me explain it to you again need to turn something you want to f respond you want to keep talking over me

weh are you going to answer it yes

ok

it means

that something suspended in reality is now put

within the frame

of conscience explicit

and conceptual thought

you are turning thoughts that are not necessarily conceptual thoughts relevant to philosophy into objects of inquiry and relevance and investigation for philosophers so to turn something into a concept

i so to speak

is to make something relevant to the domain and sphere of philosophy that's all it means

the way philosophers treat things is because the way philosophers are going to treat something is going to be different from how ordinary people treat it

what do you say then to like ordinary language philosophers who don't actually do anything that you're describing but still

try to explit

ha the concept by actually treating it how it because ordinary language philosophy is a farce that's why that's what i will say to them

yeah it's a contradiction in terms it's it's a contradiction in terms

that's my position on ordinary language philosophy

ok so going back to your idea so

what is this fleeting domain that you're talking about are you talking about like the direct it may be this logical experience it can be this sphere of it can be the sphere of phenomenology for her sol and later heideger or it could be the object relevant for psychoanalysis for example sarl was a good philosopher

i don't think herssel was a philosopher at all

why

because again for me philosophy ends with hegel

that seems like a very arbitrary line

drawn doesn't it well it's not arbitrary

what about it's not it's not a very it's not a very uncommon position either to hold that hagel was the last philosopher

for example if you're an online

larper i agree but

what do you mean not if you're non love literally it's you think i'm the first person to say hegel was the last philosopher why do there are many people on

in discord philosophy service you say similar things i'm so was was fu a discord philosopher

i don't know i don't know fuico

well discord wasn't invented in this time span in which he lived so are you sure

no i think uka still alive

co is still alive

yeah

timit tosky had a debate like last year or something

i did not know that

no he's not fucking alive he died in eighty four what are you fucking talking about

so what was the point in saying that

you actually

thought it for a second that's so i'm not keeping tabs on i mean like people like elen bed you are still alive for example or i sar as i remember

i think so i'm not i'm not keeping so what i'm not keeping tabs on the lives of friens philosophers there's a plot but plenty of people that i thought were dead ended up still being alive before

so why would i why is that a relevant point

it's not i was so ok it was fucl a discord philosopher

i don't know i don't know picole said that for any thinker for any philosopher

hagel will be the last all roads lead to hagel that's what he said

it's the position of virtually every marxist that hegel was the last philosopher

but

yeah you know there're also people who save

plato was last philosopher and that everything are just footnotes on plato including hegl

okay but

the whole point is that

after hegel

you are outside of philosophy

that's the main point

after hagel you different definitions of philosophy after hegel you are no longer within the sphere of philosophy proper

so every every single philosopher on earth except for strictly specific galleans

are not lost

no hegelians are not philosophers either they are disciples of the last philosopher hegel

oh i see so that would be the aren't any philosophers a you do it wait rem are you did you study elementary logic or whatever like

if i say hegel is the last philosopher that doesn't mean hagelians are philosophers what is wrong with your head dude

well you know if you're if you completely take on all of his ideas that presumably maybe you could

it still doesn't remake you hagl it still does not make you hagel taking on all of th make you ha gol but i mean just being a person you know it's the ideas that you have

it's not

no it doesn't i wouldn't it would make you the disciple

of the last philosopher would not mary lo was pagl is the one who

arrived at those insights in the first place everyone else is just studying them so that makes him the philosopher you know what a philosopher does

a philosopher is the one who a philosopher doesn't just study philosophers a philosopher actually engages in philosophy

oh yeah yeah

by studying hegel you are not engaging in any new philosophy you're not even engaging in philosophy proper you're just studying a past philosopher

do you think that ah

you know so you think that every single

philosopher on the planet right now is not a philosopher

w you just worded that and as though it's an absurdity if we presuppose that they are philosophers obviously it's an absurdity to say that they are not philosopher let me restate it then

you think everyone who claims to be a philosopher and was shit absue lossoper bllue shit yes i do think they're not philosophers area

i have a similar position ao mathematics

in that anyone after why do i far

not a can you demonstrate why i should care

let's stick to the meat potatoes

i can't really demonstrate that because i think that philosophy ended with

probably

herodotus and orodotus ok ok no no o you're trying to troll becuse you just got your fucking ass handed w i exposed you as a fucking fraud

but let me let me entertain you reram if you really want to maintain your little point with you trolling

why why is he the last philosopher

two

oh herodotus

yes herodotus why is he the last philosopher

you're assuming there's no person to truly engage with philosophy prob why in the way that he lives

why

ok will you not interrupt me will i actually try to seriously explain

fokplain

so in the last days of herodotus' life

he was incredibly sick

and he continually refused to take any advice from doctors or any medicine from doctors because he believed that as a philosopher

he essentially knew better

than these trained

you know who were trained in like the

alexandrian sciences you know the four humors and whatnot

um

and committing to his philosophical cause and these fundamental beliefs

um but he put himself

in a bathtub full of horseshit

ten

basically boid to death

and hot

portion and i think that

i can't really talk that

okay so

actually ram

and even when even look gram

so at this point you've conceded to me en you've surrendered you're just trying to on so ok so let's pretend you're being real right right

no no that's that's that's real you no you know let's pretend you're not you're being real about the position you don't believe that's true no no but that you're qualifying that you sincerely believe this makes him the last philosopher stay ot m learn logic one on one please

a i'm not disputing whatever story you just told being true i'm disputing i'm calling into question whether you sincerely believe

this qualifies him as the last philosopher

so weram

this actually would not

make

herodotus

the last philosopher it may just make him the most ethical philosopher in your view

i don't know i stre be philosopher or the most done that

onle has completed

she had a complete system

that allowed him to live

in a way that he just completely surrendered

to his life

but that does b but but but guess what

philosophy is while ethics is a part of philosophy it's not the same thing

so you have to actually demolt it no no no the fact that herroticus didn't think that

is quite literally why he is the last philosopher because people who think otherwise

are now no longer engaging in philaw ok ok then let me ask you a question how does this how does this qualify him as the last philosopher as regards to the fundamental question and essence of what philosophy is

because he fundamentally believed that ethics was the complete end of all philosophy

and that to live in a way that is completely consistent with your ethical worldview and not try to extend philosophy to anything else

that is what philosophy tru you didn't answer my question

what was the queste i trw does this resolve how does this resolve

f the fundamental project of philosophy

we the fundamental project of philosophy which is not just abouts you can say that you can say that you think that for example philosophy

the project of philosophy ends with ethics right

that it ends with a tub of horsehp ok

but you haven't gotten from a to b

you understand

you have it may happen either

in regards to what

but your notion of what philosophy is is not somehow more justified than ok so what's my notion of philosophy

well it's presumably whatever hegel did and no one else can do since

that's actually not true

so there is something that more people can there can be another philosopher no there cannot

ok then how is what i just said fall

because the reason because

ram

because the reason i'm saying and other people say hegel was the last philosopher is not just because they're saying hegel has the best

or only philosophy it's that no no no i know i believere aging has oncept it egle has resolved egle has resolved

the question uh the fundamental

problem of philosophy

what is that problem

the problem of philosophy is the relationship

between thinking and being in the form of the idea the platonic idea

wehd

no i just disagree

now why is that

i you know i just do i mean i guess you bsicgree with youro should hold on aram

i have never made an arbitrary line where i'm saying i just think it because i think it

wellll what why is that the philosophical question why isn't

prodotus is the fundamental question

why does why effective what you're saying is why does philosophy begin with plato

n know i'm asking but why is

you know right res it styling the ideas of thinking and being why is that no i'm not the ideas of thinking and being but thinking and being as s itself as yes in itself and not through the idea as the privileged media why why is that the fundamental question

um

why is the idea fundamental to philosophy

it was that the fundamental philosophy

question

because for most for all philosophers in history actually

they are responding to the challenge set before

by plato

and the platonic idea what this implications has to

to be consistent to the platonic

ideas the privileged sight

of the relationship between thinking and being that has consequences and ramifications

that is the very object of philosophy

and re think you're excluding people who you don't consider to be because i know many philosophers who

don't engage with that

concept at all

who i' consider

a philosopher so you're just kind of begging the question

by saying that well these other people who do this so what you do is the essence of philosophy

alrerdy said i mean it's its

it's the robertsing right ok but

how is mine arbitrary though because i because although there are other people who have a different view of philosophy

i would critique them not because i'm imposing some dogmatic form i would c critique them

based on the content of what they're saying philosophy is not i want is what is what is wrong with herototus

what is erodot this is herodo to is how can how long

how long

and someone

look

of hourse shi before they die

in

how ok how what does this how i do with the essence of philosophy

that that is the essence of philosophy why

because that that's just what the nature of the question is

o i'm ok we at the problem the problem ram is that i don't know of any philosophers

and you want herodotus

ok but i don't as far as the history of philosophy is concerned i could not possibly explain the development and history of philosophy on the terms

of the development of that essence

like i could not explain for example hegel could not write about the history of philosophy which he did

am

on the transition from

ah the post socratics

uh to i'm skipping a lot of the the stoics and the uh the medieval scholastics and the islamic philosophers

and the enlightenment des cartes espinoza

i can't

hegel actually imminently develops

philosophy from one to the other as the development of one singular essence

he could not possibly do that

on the terms and basis of the herodotus shit whatever you're talking about

can i pote propose to a serious

idea like one of the fundamental questions of philosophy i'm just curious why you would consider to be ileegitimate i would consider

and this is

a question that i would say

a large number of modern philosophers now grapple with this

the question of how we can have

how we can have reasons

and what reasons are

that's what i would say the fundamental question of philosophy

ok

then because actuallyyyah i would i would actually and i ust give you the positive because you give your positive for reason as to why that would be so m would simply be

that the very question

of the nature of philosophy

that question

you need to have a reason for a ok ilex graam since you decided to grow up and actually engage i'll actually respond to that

i'll respond to that absolutely

so the problem with that is that you're using a very ambiguous word the reasons

but it sounds like you're presupposing

that reason can only take the form

of the idea or the concept

but

if we actually treat the word reason with the full breadth

of what it really means which is more or less meaning

then has you many has beany the definition you just gave

would make philosophy indistinguishable from not only religion but also art and aesthetics and many otherstly i think i think everything it's fundamental is

the loss of

sure yeah

no what i am saying is that you have not you are not specific enough about why that's philosophy and not religion and not aesthetics itcause all questions

fundamentally

require an answer to that

but religious for example the way in which religion deals with the question of meaning is very different from the way in which i'm a lost i don't know i don't know what your meaning by meaning ok reason the way the way religion deals with the reasons for things is very different than i de fine reason for you can i try to give ok if go ahead to fine reason

okay i would i would describe it because i think it's primitive i don't think it

can be

basically

reduced anything more than this

it's basically something that counts in favor of something else

that's what reason is something is a reason for something

yes

is

it counts in favor of something being the case so for example

on the question of the fundamental nature of philosophy

i

we have to have a reason

for ascribing value to that question

yeah but with that wasn't but as you far as religion ram but as far as religion is concerned

even your def the definition you just gave of reason is still doesn't address my point

even religion will deal with a reason for another reason

im i'm talking about the very nature of reason itself the structure of okin i'm not talking about instances where you're look when you but he's in but here's a ram different when you introduce i know what you're trying to say ram it's not that i don't know what you're trying to say i'm just trying to demonstrate to you

that your definition is bullshit

of what philosophy is

because when you talk about structure and form what you're really talking about is the

not even in i don't think the analytic philosophers even really deal with the idea in all of its breadth

and all of its the

implications

but

what they are what you are dealing with is some kind of

form of thought

of pure thought

specifically

and maybe not even necessarily sut but you'r presupposing answer the question

because many people hold that reason is not something that's internal

but it's something external to us

it doesn't matter it still doesn't address how it's different from

religion or aesthetics

and i can explain why if you i don't understand so

oky yeah go ahead and explain because

the question of what reason is it's a way of understanding

how it structures our experience and how it structures our normativity

and not haming not ncessar n no structure is something you're introducing i don't know where you're getting structure from

structure is simply the way that we understand

at

how reason plays a role in our experience

that's it it's an analysis of how wen it's and you're not dealing with reason you're dealing with the understanding

i

i don't understand what you mean by that obviously there's understanding we have t understanding and reason are not the same thing

ok but but let me let me try to demonstrate what i mean here because for everything that you're saying i can ask well why

and you have to provide me a reason for that

so every question that yeah but but but wy gram there's there's more for why to what i'm trying to tell you is that there are experiences

or state mental states or whatever you want or relationships to being

that can be argued to be more fundamental than just conceptual thought like a religious experience of you have to gvine sublimity that

but

as you've just pointed out reram reason is always metanumic in the sense that it's always going to have to refer to something else so eventually the buck has to stop somewhere

and it's going to denote some kind of irreducible intuition that cannot be expounded into the form of a completely transparent

communicable static form it's something that

for example

can only refer and relate to a more fundamental you agree it's a fundamental question of philosophy

no not necessarily because philosophy is dealing with the question of reason and the understanding and so on

within the frame of the platonic idea the platonic idea is where the buck stops as far as philosophy is concerned

like for example but why does the buck not stop with reason if you acknowledge that that's irreducible because because it's reason in the form of the idea

but what does that mean

because if it's not in the form of the idea then you have not assemilated in the form of an idea but then it's not separate from religion and it's not seve but i'm just trying to f what does it mean to be in the form of an idea as opposed to what

for example as as the form of an aesthetic sense or as the form of a kind of religious consciousness or a religious deep spiritual belief something like that

i don't understand how these things

ah

i guess i know because you're not really an educated person so i can get we no i mean you're saying that i'm using terms vaguely but i would say that

yeah reason reason is an extreme reason reason does not only take one form

well you've acknowledged that it's irreducible is a fundamental

heart of our experience

but you want to say it's not the most fundamental there's something more fundamental than that

you're saying reason is the most fundamental part of our experience

i' yeah i don't ok well but but by your own admission reason

refers to something beyond itself reason cannot it could

it could that but that's the topic that yes all it's allws are ok whatever ok you whatever form you may isolate and call that reason

that form necessarily must refer to something beyond itself

well no if it's something that's purely no but you've already acknowledged so can you tell me if auditf intuition so it can't it's indefinable it can't refer to something beyond its

i agree

i mean no no it does refer to something beyond itself and that very something is the object of the intuition

but if it is the object of the intuition then it is referring to itself

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

you said to me that it's something irreducible and something that we just int to it

right i said reason is that

yes

no i said reason eventually has to stop the buck has to stop somewhere in the chain of reasoning

ok i don't mean reasoning as in like

rationality i'm ask i'm using reason in the form of

counts in favor of

what counts in favor of that's i said that multiple then you're not if you're do if you're saying counts in favor of it's not necessarily reason anymore it's more like i'm not verifiability then it's a question of justification and verifiability it's not necessarily the same as reason

in and out

any question you ask

i can ask you a reason for ass

i know but that's still not specific enough to define with reason you don't even know what reason me let me give you an example you know motor oponents

i know what

modorsponents

no what is that

weren't you accused me of not knowing basic logic

yeah i don't you i'm not a loge oponent is like the basic

logical axiom which is basically

if p then q yah i don't deal with the p p stuff i think that's just math it's not really philosophy at all you have you read science of logic

yeah

you know paygle deals directly with that

with pp

he deals directly with logical axioms and stuff like modus ponent

but

he doesn'talk with he doesn't deal with the p p and the p q and the q q or whatever

i mean he ok so he phrases it in a different way but he still it's a logical axiom that we s it's a rule of inference ok but he doesn't deal with thing on and this purely mathematical terms

ok that's analyt i mean i wasn't consider it mathematic like i don't think that these are mathematical

i think it is i think it's just mathematics ok then you know if something is the case

well you understand what i mean

i mean mathematics is like the purest form of logic proper so i mean i'm not saying that i think you're using mathematics in a way that i don't use it i think mathematics is at its root logic not the other way around but

um okay

i don't care it's jt comptly semmantical point

okay yeah so i recognize okay well what's whats exam what i on you understand what i mean by when i say yeah if p then q

ok

yam if pce instantiated then necessarily q

right if grass is green

or if it rains tomorrow then the grass will be wet

yes

if it's true that it rains then necessarily ok so that's mot but that's not going to say that that's a sets that's not specific that's the

actually that's too specific to be

what reason is ok

i'm not i'm not i'm not defining that as reason i'm not i'm giing so but that's something that we want to say is necessarily true within you know our way of experiencing the world

for example or for example we can't experience n it that you're not describing the way we experience the world you're describing only the logic itself you're not actually talking about something is very sweeping and broad

and

deep as experience

are you a diet ok are you dialtheus

sorry

do you think do you think we can experience something as being both the case and not the case

m

it depends on what you mean by that

i don't know what you mean

do you think we can experience something as existing

and not existing at the same time

um

can we experience something that is both existing

and not existing

at the same time it depends on how we define existence if we define define existence

um

so for example to me i think that's something thats not definable

i don't know

for to me for example my conception of the existence

i'm a dialectical materialist so for me

every existence is a latent

sorry is uh kind of pregnant with its own uh

development and becoming and thus inevitable in existence

and trans sublation into a higher existence for example

so it's a difficult question what

what you're actually asking me

do you think

do you think you can experience ok

example do you think you can experience an object like a copy

being both red and not red at the same time

im

can it be both red and not read at the same time

ah

let me think

kind of from a maybe transcendentalist like contient perspective

type

i i have no idea what's it's actually not really easy to answer that question

i mean etm would for example never say that that's possible at all

comt would say that that is a complete t

the very idea of that

i would not say thatperience

why would he say that because for an example the principle of contradiction

is something that he did but you're not talking about is that listen listen the principle of contradiction is about a a the principle of contradiction is not about something sorry n contradiction whatever whatever have a principle of non contradiction is something be both the case and not the case at the same time

yes but when you bring experience into it you're opening up a whole new can of worms

no but when you bring up experience and existence into it you're opening up a whole other can of worms have you read the principle of non contradiction yes i have

ok so then you know that he derives the pure categories of the understanding through a transcendental deduction

ok yah and part of this

is going to be that you can't experience an object in the world

when we form a judgment about something in the world an object ok

we can't premise it

with two things that are contradictory to one another

that's a necessary yes yes but but

when you bring

for example do you can you experience the cup as red and not red at the same time

you count would say no

no but that you haven't actually demonstrated that based on what you've said

but

you the whole point is that you can't really demonstrate it because a demonstration of that fact or

at

you demonstrated by for example where does redness come from where does the redness come from

read again that's that's an indefinable thing that we experience that that's not but this is the whole point

this is the whole point of con's project

is to investigate well what are the necessary conditions for experience in the first like on the one hand the wy reason i'm saying is is on the one hand you are experiencing the structure

you through some kind of transcendental structure

the co you mean by transcendental structure

through the

the way in which the world is structured transcendentally

what

through that i don't know what like cont doesn't ever talk like this so i don't know what you mean by this

oka so for kan

i don't know if you've ever read content maybe i should i have

no you really haven't

i i have yeah so for con for cons the world is actually mediated

um

by

the categories of experience

categories of pure understanding yes the categories of pure understanding

and the synthetic apriori

yes

ok so i'm just calling that the street the transcendental structure the the transcendental what is the word screen if you will

if you have any familiarity with the history of philosophy

it's actually pretty common language

actually

okay bye bye

n know talk about the transcendental strucke because there's a transenental stance that we can take towards objects in the world

but that's very difer so f comedy type of empirical standpoint that we take

listen rem

i'm going to i'm going to say this slowly for you

brook on

is our experience of the world structured or is it just a pure empirical experience

i've already said that it's structured by the nest so why are you taking a fucking why are you taking qualms when i say clarify what you why are you having a problem when i'm saying something that any real contian would just understand exactly what i'm talking ont to sa a transcendental structure what's the issue

ah sorry someone donated

no the issue is that i don't ever recognize kantas speaking in that way if you want to cite me it soly that just means you can't even put it into your own words you can't even recognize someone putting it into their own no it was called you use terms in a way i didn't recognize and constantly didn't use it that way so i was asking you to clarify but no'

contians talk about this all the contiansll use it in this way all the time what contents

i mean i couldn't name them off the top of my head but i'm familiar name is single

contin right now

me being educated you m wa wait on you know that's not that's not true what about um

it's about henry allison

i'm not familiar with him who is the ne alice

n no the neoconthean from the late nineteenth centuries

reinitiated continism

neocantanism

bradley

was it bradley or bradley

yeah f h brody

hold on

who his name

bradley

i fh bradley

f h

brad was a no it was not it's not it's not not bradley

buck what is his name

he was german i'm pretty sure

um

or he was french either german or french he was not english

i forgot his name

but you do you find it i mean i can name i can name caught like cober moss is a conti and there's plenty of contients i can name it's just that what

conti

i'm just saying like if you're familiar with contian literature

neo contians whatever you want

it's not

well i am but that's why matthew can even rem if you name people who talk about khan's philosophy

yes they will you will find it's very common that you're going to find this type well that's that's what i'm asking for example transcendental structure

gjaq will use the word transcendental structure i'm pretty sure he

it doesn't matter when he's talking about kant and he's very familiar with kant he will say that

it's not it's not controversial

listen

so getting back to the topic at had

wh i was talking about modus ponents ok caught would say that this is a necessary no way but i'm responding to what you're saying

so let me respond

now that we've gotten over this thing about transcendental structure which you've decided to drag on for no fucking reason even though you know what i was talking about

though when it comes to the transcendental structure

um

we cannot actually speak about

what

the cup or its calor really is

we can only speak about it as it is mediated by our

and transcendental structure that's that's a misreading of con con w se wants to say that the only way

the only way we can talk about the yes

that is the only way we can talk about it butus doesn't yorkly but that does not speak about its existence in itself

that of course b but the whole the whole point of con

is that to ask those types of questions is absurdity

it's not it's not i i know but just because you're not asking the question

doesn't mean it doesn't have relevance as far as existence is concerned

your existence is exery only hasard meaning from the empirical standpoint

that's caught's whole point

but the but

which no

existence doesn't only have to have meaning because for kant there is a thing in itself

that is completely unknowable to us

which we ca yeah

exactly it's one hundred percent and if it's on you know it's wll it's one hundred percent unknowable to us

then who am i to say that it's not possible that the cup is not actually read i can't i could never know that

you just you have a

this is

a butchered understanding of hy i mean

because like i would call myself a dual aspect

interpreter of conh and i read con as essentially arguing

that justify why you read it that way

by the way

why i meanlo at the way if we look at the way yea if we look at the way the cont uses the terms like transcendental objecth or the thing in itself

he uses these words in epistemic ways a as epistemic conditions not as something that is ont to logical

in a certain sense how can you justifa i would love yeah so you're trying to make conflict a rationalist so how can you justify that

would not not as a rational yes because if you remove

the thing in itself

as you know you're not removing the thing in itself if you remove thata physically charged if you remove the fact that the metaphysic the thing in itself is metaphysically charged and it is actually referring

to the world outside of our possible knowledge

and it's actually referred then you get listen i want to interpret t as charitable i don't share what do you mean as charitable

why would conkt say the thing in itself as just the necessary conditions

of knowledge he is speaking about the precise limit of knowledge so he is referring to a threshold beyond knowledge

he's not allowing us or permitting us

to speak about it or have knowledge of it but he is acknowledging that that threshold is there

yeah right and that's the whole point so anything that we want to define and talk about in exxperience

has to be done from the empirical standpoint

so existence itself yes but you cannot enter but the buyer ok nw if

if the thing in itself is unknowable to us and that this is the threshold of our knowledge

then

what they then this entails that we can only talk about it but i just m just because that's all you can talk about

doesn't mean

you can say with certainty that that's all there is now that's what i'm trying to say

ok there is to diffly that's all we can ever say

yeah all we can ever say that it doesn't mean that doesn't mean you for lone to say anything other than that because it contest fundamentally agnostic

that's all you can say but he's not making claims about what it is in itself he's just saying this is all we can say he's refusing us higher point yes he's not allowing us to speak about what it is in itself and why do you keep trying to p so we are not allowed then we are not allowed to say that the content of our experience is all that exists we are not allowed to say that kant is not acllpsis

the entire point

is that we essentially we can we can we can look at things from the transcendental perspective

right and all we cod you know derive pure categories of the understanding and what not okay we're done that project

right

we can't go beyond that we recognize ok so everything that we have to do we have the pure categories

so everything that we want to say about the world

it's going to be bounded

by human subjectivity and our conditions for experience ok but haing that we now hold on everything that we now say

is going to be

you know an empirical investigation you know it's subject to these causal yeah but with an objection with object to

something like modusponent wait but with an exception

there is no exception yes there is

where's the exception

theend

we can' talk about remember you claim to know anything about conkt and you don't know that con's whole point

is that we in our experience must acknowledge that there is an object of both our knowledge and experience that we could never possibly experience a you something we must igno n know if we don't know anything about the object yeah are we saying anything about it

because the only thing we can know is that we don't know

i thought we don't know anything about it

we don't that's why it's formless that is why i n youre ok that is why it is fundamentally you can't say these two things of this yes you literally can'ttanus we can't say anything about it and also o hey let me say something about it

and hears that which is that we can't say anything about it

that's point knowledge we can do any that is the whole point anything we want to talk about in the world who de is literally the ld and that's the whole point of the contian thing

that's why it's the contan thing the only thing we can say about it is that we know nothing about it

that doesn't mean

we can say with certainty that the only things that exist certainty is going to be defined

within the empirical standpoint

you don't understand that kan's position is agnostic it means we can never be fully certain about anything that's why kan says

that the whole aim of his philosophy is to reconcile the whatever

the religious feeling within and the starry heavens about say like you're viewing con as this hyper pessimist

he's not a i didn't say he's a pessimist i said he's an ano is that that that's why he has his whole argument for the existence of this d what is what is the name of conc what is the name of con a sminal work what is the name of consinal work the critique of pure reason the critique of practical reason the critiqe of judgment i mean i yeah i've read these books yeah i say you didn't understand but you didn't under if you don't understand that con

you understand yes if you don't understand that con project single contempor if you don't understand that cons project

ends in agnosticism that we cannot be fully sers in all this contradiction at the heart of your interpretation of this is literally tanism one one the only thing we can be certain about is that we're not certain about it that's really the constant the conclusion of con

you say we can't say anything about this thing yeah i i agree with you therefore everything that we're going to say is going to be the things in human subjective experience yes and i know but but the issue m is that is defining m the wal issue m m i know you like to blaber on and not get to the point the issue ram is that the things we say about our experience we can never be fully certain about whether

they accurately reflect or correspond to abslute or are identical to the thing in itself

can't because you're trying to basically bring stuff from outside of human subjectivity and draw a limit i'm just saying you can't

close the knot and say you know things for certain you don't know

find within human subjective experience

no it's not because the only thing with kant you can be certain about is that you're not certain

that's why e is fundamentally exghnostic

now i just i yeah yeah i do recommend you like some modern interpreter you can recommend we why don't you just respond to what i'm saying now

why we resp manyccording according to you cons thing in itself

ah is basically just like he just wants us to throw it in the garbage

n we don't throw it in the garbage it's in residental standpoint

what is the way

yam

they was want to be analyzing the way that human beings experience the world

okay

sokep that damn point that's a lot of blather in a lot of luer that's a lot of blather in babel can you actually get to the point of why cont

would even talk about and mention the concept of the thing in it i don't really just sad because that's how he derives the pure categories of the understanding

okay

what

what what that means what that means is that we cannot be certain about the content of the thing in itself yes or no

we can'tven we can't even say that

why not

because you can't say anything about it do you see you get yourself into this contradiction what is the resolution to this contradict what you already said so itsun certainty is defing ram but you just committed the same error you accuse me of

saying oh we can't say anything about it except

that we can see we can't say anything about it what's different

no i recognize the inherent contradiction w s wy to bring certainty no no to bring certainty into the realm of human subjectivity

you want to stay houw does it not resolve the contradiction

use what

how does that resolve the contradiction

because certainty

and what and for example the necessary way that we experience the world is defined in human subjectivity

so the very idea of a contradiction

is going to be rooted in our subjective experi why is there a thing wy is there is a thing in itself of which we can speak nothing

oh i don't know how to explain to this so we can be certain about everythingb but that we can be certain about everything but that right

we can be certain of everything but what

what the thing about which we can speak nothing

fve

i'll try to explain it one more time okay

he's the transcendental standpoint

that we take towards objects in the world

for example i can consider well what is the actual thing behind this bottle that i see in front of me

we can derive

through you know his transcendental arguments

the way that we have to experience the world

we get these from contemplating the very nature of how we would experience things in the first place

yeah okay

once we do that

we recognize oh hey

to even talk about something being certain in the first place because we have to have the idea of certainty to call into death you're saying it's not a let me finish

to call into doubt the existence of something

there has to be something that's certain

you can't doubt the existence of something without having the very notion i'm not saying thes doubt to the old i'm i'm not saying you dout it's st i'm not saying you have to have it in the m i'm not saying first of all would youly bee you blabber on a lot your whole point is basically that the thing in itself is not relevant as an object of knowledge in the first place to be certain or to know it's not an australis knowledge at all ok well i just summed it up for you just keep talking

king and i'm doing you a favor

then the second thing you're saying

is that

m

well we cannot doubt the existence i'm not saying

that i'm saying i'm saying there's a fundamental dualism at hand i'm not saying you doubt dont exist agree i don't believe this ik well then you are in the minority as far as contience i not anymore not anymore i n ok for most of history you were

and i don't care about your whatever the i don't care about your cult m i don't care about academics i hate them all

second of all that story so you want to go based off of a dog matic well this is a dogmatic interpretation that doesn't show true engagement with the text in for and you haven't even proven that most contians agree that it's very contt not wen you st we name i can name a bunch for you

that doesn't prove anything though just naming that literally cons literally the preeminent modern philosophers so i to go like my

con commentaries and read just what i said cont eminent modern philosopher which means you are not going if you put a list of five hundred people consider scholars of cont they will not even one percent ok understand you step away from the mike

ram don't knowm m ram m no matter how many contients you mention they will not even be one percent of living contients today

second ofll he is the pre eminent modern philosopher

how many contients do you think that there are in the world

so people who study ant and draw conclusions about the nature of conan's work

yes there are just about as many modern philosophers

really that's a very interesting statistic can you pro id i could i cannot fathom a modern philosophy n can you can you prove that to me

yeah i i can't i can't reve it but i have a interesting you can't have it so you're conceding the point no i'm not i'm just really

ok mean ok ram ram

then what are you basing this onting me and i can explain it

you fucking gave up because he lost

what i was going to say

is that i couldn't fathom it and if that he would could fathom it i'm open to hearing what he has to say

i chose to leave because i realized

one

type and to

there's no real way to end that conversation of fortunate

um

i'll say this though about

infrared

every right you couldn't listen

i can engage for someone who's not going to prove their claim

you can't make a claim that

all these people are conscient without any sort of

proof that's crazy i want to get someone who so bad theate

they're not willing to back their claims

that's just not ok i just won't engage people like that that's all

um what is it i'll say though

halfway through halfway through that debate there's an ethling there you can tell he's been indoctrinated into a very certain

went to a very certain interpretation of k

but he's just he doesn't have the this this is the real point

he doesn't have epistemic humility

to consider that other people might have just as valid interpretations of

caught

right of any philosopy

ight i mean

he is just a complete

in utter

like he talked about other people being dogmatic i've never talked to someone more dogmatic than that

you know what i mean

um let me just say

hey thanks so much

the scurse of pognition and grey dong

the names

for ten bucks and fifteen bucks up to forty bucks now

ca we hit sixty maybe i don't know

thanks so much for the so law rolto crystal lurker trav sammy's

captain oh joseph low

bb hoser the boy

too young keppa and i

thank you very much

ah

for the follow

um

two

i'm not rejecting that his interpretation of but that was the that it's called that the dual world understanding

oh m thanks so much for wow seventeen months riight

it's called the dual world understanding of caus and it's largely gone out of fashion now because you know you have to run into something called jacobies dilemma which is that whole contradiction that wek abut how how do we have not how can we say for example that the transcendental objects that things in themselves are the causes in a sense of our phenomenal experiences

because presumably that's ho gain access to them but also say

that we can't have knowledge of these obects there's an inherent contradiction and so i think the way to resolve that is to treat the whole transcidental investigation as something that is inherently

methodological and e epistemic in nature it's on a metaphysical investigation like he wants to say it's instead it's instead a methodlogical on got something

crazy

oh my god

cup

get

five

to spamm me my

it's kin did i enjoy that no i guess you guys enjoyed it thoug song

song sixty hey modus peep

someone save the vad right now before i before i raid zirko can i get be certain someone save the vad can someone save the vad

jes which halfway through have like a serious discussion and i thought we were were going somewhere there for a bit but just not also i wish i could find some i ws there wating someone who had such a hate bonor for modern philosophy analytic philosophyaus

i can't actualally talk to anyone about the stuff that i'm interested in no no no no i cut me off tunting me like a child lot you know i cut you off and you started screaming at the top of your lot like something that would appear on my buck and wll star hip hop or if someone did that i mean the police would

be called you need to look into some serious ancher management class seriously i mean that tr my music down yes sort of a

maybe they

get some nicotine

get some c b d oil

if it's legal

oh yea ya

like i think that if if infrared has neighbors

finally don't think it's bad for you

if you have neighbors

if i for as neighbors i think the police would i would have called the police

i' like what the fok is there like domestic violence happening

is he having like a mental breakdown

that require some sort of intervention so he doesn't harm himself if some was screaming at

top of their lungs

i'm just saying i'm not i'm not a psychologist at all

i'm just saying what i would do

if i was in the

physical vicinity of

octually i wouldn't want to go near i'd be afraid for my

my life

not my life

i'm not saying you ca kill me

but like

no i'd be afraid for my satee

goh that sort you know

most tense got me i ran away and is narrating the debate

to make himself feel better after getting intellectually

you're right

i know what i'm doing with my life

i'm just pandering to the audience i'm not actually make

i mean if i i wanted to actually be on the same level i would have been screaming

the entire time

that's probably the way to go but

hospic

trans people's identities are illegitimate

really

yea

i don't know about that

i don't endorse

hope

that

i sound racist against arrow

onm fort

holy grapt

and fred is accusing me of being rac

against ever

guys

yea

fuck like that's so unacceptable

you know listen

let me scroll up here and forraured what else did you say here

why did you run away

talk to me like a child

what are you saying about gay people are you seeing that gay people somehow

like

are capable of standing up for themselves and are easily going to

almost

behave in a way that is cowardly

what do you say

are you homophobic

the fuck is wrong

i didn't know that infrared was a fucking

homophobe too

right

yeah

fuk me i need to stop

when i get rid of this one

i'm going to get one without any nicket

otherwids a

there's no question about who won but i actually want wn himself to know

isn't smart

are you saying gay people can't be smart

but the he's still doing it in my chat

ight

to stop roads t a bad luck

this

i heard about this on the news about

bigger streamers rating smaller ones and being bigger

i just didn't think it would happen to me on my first dream back

right

soon expect

i don't what

wasn't today you know what i should have partics you know i did

wasn't yesterday the day of no streaming

that's why i didn't stream yesterday

because i want to stand in solidarity

against people like

infrared

to harass a smaller streamers

well you are from white culture and i'm from arab culture

and my culture is more passionate and we don'

are you trying to say

that my culture isn't passionate

ha

are you saying

are you saying gay people

our passion dad would say otherwise i think your dad say that we are very

thank you goose appreciate you

why do you think arabs have to be homophobic

oh no

arabs are some of the greatest people i have met

then wh are you racist against them

are you trying to imply that all gay people are racist against

he

the fuck is

ok anyways

why are you blowing whym i'm sorry i won't you

second hand

see this is the thing because when we started talking about the cotton stuff

you can clearly tell he's got some knowledge on the topic

right

but then he comes in my chad and accuse me of being racist against a

but i'm like

it's hard to square these two things you know

like i'm like wait maybe he is

i still think he's a care

i still think that he is a care

heh's just broadcasting my stream

maybe i

m c

can't just restream

on

i didn't allow that

please stop harassing

stop harassing gay stream

not

did anyone save the vat

what are you saying about nobi

i

did anyone save this vod

you did los heavens

why don't you save it

you did ok los heavens are in the discord

very much

here's the ultimate conclus

right

and if you're if anyone uploads the debate

i need you to put i might put this at the end of the vard right

i will

i might upload it myself

so m

what i was going to say

was that

at the end of it

obviously i can't

prove that every philosopher is responding to con

but it's a reasonable inference because kt is the pre eminent

modern philosophy who sets what we call

modern philosophy

in motion

so him constantly interrupting me and saying

oh oh can you prove it can you prove it it's like

wait a second if you disagree that

with that like commonsensical point we could actually work around it and i can see where the point of contention is coming from but as far as i'm concerned

yeah it's not really controversial that every modern philosopher is going to have

some kind of view about

con

so listing what conscience today

that you're familiar with to speak nothing about contiens in general

think about

yh weather cont

implies some kind of

dualism

isn't actually going to prove the point

whatsoever

that can't

a that your reading of kant is actually what prevails among the majority of contians it may be prevail among the majority of contians you're familiar with

but it you haven't proved

proven that it's a

prevails among the majority of contians

and you also haven't proven that it prevails among the majority

of philosophers in general who draw a conclusion about kt

but he kept haunting me so i said shut the fuck up so i can explain this and he just gave up

a

but

to offer another commentary

to be clear rem is wrong

now when cont talks about the thing in itself

im

he actually is

talking about metaphysical thing in itself

which leads to the problem of dualism and agnosticism

kt says

that

we cannot say anything about the thing in itself

but the actual implication of that fact

isn't that

you know

we can be certain about the world

what that

the highest

extent of our certainty

abouw the world's always going to be

um

condition

relative and ultimately

not

sirc

our certainty becomes relativi

and is no longer certainty about the world in and of itself

but certainty on the terms

of

our relative relationship to

now

some will he says ll it's an absurdity to speak about certainty

in any other way or any other capacity

what

there is still a world in itself

that's the issue and that is so decisive for cons philosopy that there is a world in itself

just because we can't talk about it

doesn't mean it's not necessary for cont

that we acknowledge

oy someone please save the boll

someone please save the vox

of course not

thank you jennifer

jennifer underscore az he donated one hundred dollars

that dude is a libteral grifter

you'll held your own as always

thank you so much gennerfa

i

yeah anyway

the point i was trying to make

is that

obviously kant is not the sanme

that

the content of our experience

is all there is

he's not saying that

just because it leads to a contradiction or a paradox

doesn't mean

a

it's not the conclusion of cont's view

it's more up to debate whether or not cont believes the thing in itself actually exists

i'm not saying he thinks it exists i just

am saying

for him he's really referring to things in themselves

and it's metaphysically charged

that these are the things in themselves

existence is a

is a different thing and that's why i said

from a basic kantien dualistic perspective

our experience of a cup being both red and not red

could very well be possible

now we could never know but

we could never be certain about the fact

the cup is only red

we can never be certain about

now for practical purposes we could be certain about it

and that's actually the

cont is that for all

incensive and practical purposes yes that's

all we could be certain of

what

in and of itself we could never be certain of and when we are dealing with the question of existence and things

existence

we're not just dealing with

for all relevant and practical purposes to us we're dealing with existence as such

things in themselves as such

now if rem was smart

he would actually

ah

go with the argument about existence he would say

well

for something to exist

means it has actually

mm

existence is phenomenally

chart

that would be the smartest argument you can make

existence is not

nothing could exist in the thing in in itself

the thing in itself could not be

ow

is a matter of being not existence

that would be a really smart argu

but i would still rebuke this argu

m

because even this would be too much as far as the thing in itself is concerned

we wouldn't even know if it exists

isn't existence irrelevant

isn't it existence and relevant to what yeah like

the issue is that like you would have to say

ok does that mean existence only means things that exist

for us

because that would also be controversial why can there not be

existence in itself or existence for god or existence

sos on

you wouldn't know

the someone save the vod

please someone save the live

both

someone saved his life

please save his life

and don't assume someone else is going to do it save the focking

whoever you are if you can just save the lot

basically what it is is you have to register yourself

with the

with

like if you're trying to enjoin these online games you have to register with your real name

and all of that your internet providers are gary

what if you play on your brother's account

and he's over eighteen

they will send them china only one kid you're only allowed one kid so you would have a brother change chin