I'm uh, Dorian, did you want to talk? Got on mute? Okay? Yeah, how was that? I was listening earlier to your space earlier in the day, and I do disagree with you on the topic of MAO, but I'm not sure at what point you would want me to start. Well, I mean I gave a bunch of pieces of evidence. Do you think that information? Is that information wrong? Yeah? I believe so, Okay, on what basis? Well, pick pick which one? The
history of Yale and Yai Yale in China. Yeah, so, like, are you familiar with higher education in China at that time and how how it was structured? Well, I'm just saying, I mean the Yale review says that Yale had a key role in the rise of China, and I know that Bill Donovan went over there and trained MAUS guerrillas. Is that not true?
Yeah? So that's a second topic though, Like I wanted to go one by one, So on the topic of Yalviel Right, almost every single, if not every university in China, right around eighteen ninety five, under the Chain dynasty, they abolished the existing education system and we'll replaced it was a system that was brought in by the British as well as the Americans. And often what they would do is through various indemnities they were owed by the
Chinese government. They would receive money, but what they would do is they would put that back into various projects within China. One of them was the schools, so pick any university and for a lot of them, I can even tell you which either correspondence school or actual government was funding it if you want to look it up. The Officer Indemnity Scholarship basically brought hundreds of Chinese
students from China either to the United States or educated them in China. And the expressly written plan, and this is also backed up in a chattam House document, was too subtly changed the way the people in the society view themselves. I don't know if you're familiar with John Dewey, he wrote a book I am familiar with education that was basically the bible that they used when implementing these systems. That's why you had anarchism, you had like a like an
early trutskiest form of communism. You had feminism. Rachel Singer was going and lecturing on the importance of birth control bertrand Russell Rachel Singer. Are you talking about Margaret Singer? Yeah, yeah, Margaret Singer. Yeah. Okay, So you're not familiar with who Margaret Singer is, but you're an expert on I'm well familiar with who she is. But what does this have to do with I mean, they Yale Review says they bragged about helping malcome to power.
So what I don't understand? What's your point? So I'm not sure the reason for boasting about that. But what I'm saying is, well, but but I gave a thesis for them, But I gave a thesis for why they did boast for that boast about that, And you're saying that I'm wrong, then okay, fine, that's what well I thought you listened to them? Is Mal expressly criticized that very school so so much so, and I like it's so limited, Like they say they helped him come to power
because he edited a magazine. No, because no, it's much more than that. It's the oss. You've read it all. I've read, I've read, you looked into it. I wouldn't you were all if you read it all? Then okay, all right, you've read it all. Okay, so good job. So we're gonna go to We're gonna go to has So. Uh. We did the four hour chat later earlier today about this day the Bolsheviks. So, uh, what I'd like to speak to about is the philosophy that he has. So he said he's willing to talk about
that. So we're going to add him as a speaker and let him make whatever points he'd like to. What's up, man? So this is how we're gonna do this. If you mute me once or if you kick me, you surrender your manhood and you give up. The second thing I want to say is that it's very clear you're terrified to debate me, which is why you've decided to sho having you on here right now. So what are you talking about, Jay Dyer? You claim that my photo was photoshop.
I spent all day on the ground. Okay, good for you, Good for you. Do you want to talk about let's talk, let's talk about and let's talk. Let's cut that. We'll talk about imperial criticism. Are you gonna talk all right? Are you gonna talk about Leninism and materialism? Yes? Okay, I do that. Before I do that, we have some personal beef because We could have had a sip. I don't know anything about you. I would I would be I would have stopped saying my name
and just get to the topic grilling Beta Dier. I would have been more than all you have is calling Look dude, I was I was inviting you to have a discussion. You can you call me a listen? You call me a fucking imbecile. And all I said, all I was doing is trying to allow a debate with you. Sit down. We could have had a civil I'm not a boy. I want to have a civil conversation. Do you look, you came you immediately came on here calling me names.
Do you want to have a debate or not a civil debate? I'm giving you the opportunities to do that right now. Of us, I'm giving you the opportunity to do that right now. Are we going to debate materialism or not? Stop saying my name? Stop saying my name because you know it's very inconvenient for me. Do you want to debate materialism and empirical criticism or not? I have the book pulled up right now, let's go. Yeah.
But what I'm going to be very clear about before we get into the nitty gritty of that book is that you're a fucking pussy who chows this time to debate just to inconvenience me, and thinking that there was a chance that I would. I have no, I'm absolutely not afraid of you. I think this is all ridiculous. Why are you whining about being inconvenience when you can have the debate right now? Because this is because this is a stupid
informal Twitter space. I don't I don't consider you. I don't consider you worth a formal debate. Okay, Okay, well bitch, let's see. Okay, what do you want to talk? So this is all you have? So let's talk about materialism? You would like me? Would you like to convince people of materialism? You think it's true. I'm here to destroy you, would violate you psychologically, That's what I'm here to do. Why is materialism true? Materialism is true because metaphysics is wrong. Metaphysics is mental
rot, it's mental laziness. It doesn't put the print. Do you have an art? Do you have an argument for why that's the case. Yes, I was finishing my argument. That's not that's an assertion. That's an assertion. That's not an argument. Well, materialism, as Marks understands it consists in the rejection of metaphysics and idle dogmas of the mind and idols of thought and the mind which are up proven or put to work in any kind of way practically. Okay, what is the mind? What is the mind?
What do you mean? What is the mind? What status does it have? Is it a thing? The mind is what we call the faculty or the ability to produce thoughts. Mind is the unity of reasoning. Okay, are those are all metaphysical statements? No, they're not sure. You're saying that they have ontological status that has some kind of level of existence. To say that what exists is matter is a metaphysical claim. It's not a metaphysical claim because no one is saying, for example, that there's a given
form of the mind that is not contingent on some kind of material. It doesn't matter, reproduction, it doesn't matter because you're you're you're granting it, You're you're saying, you're saying that it has a status of existence. That's a metaphysical claim. That's a metaphysical one. Oh one, no, no, no, yes, yes, yes, Earth exists. It's not a metaphysical claim. It is a metaphysical claim. It's a status, it's it's it's granting modality to a thing and saying that it has material existence, that
it's practically relevant to the people living on it. So it's not metaphys The fact that you call it practical doesn't mean that it's not metaphysical. Yes, yes it is, because metaphysics precisely consists in making claims about reality that have no practical significance, like saying that all reality is material. That's a metaphysical claim. It has direct practical significance because for a great period of mankind's history, the past, let's at least recorded history, we have made claims about
reality and clung to those claims. So you're just restating what reality is. That's a circular argument. Reality is materialism, and that's what reality is. That's called a circular argument. So you're at you're at, You're at t jump level reality of reality. Are you interrupting me? We spent a long time because because you're just restating what the question is. I want to know why that's the case, Jade. I are knowledge, Knowledge which which feeds
people, is not metaphysical. Okay, metaphysical is like, so wait, what is the knowledge there in that sentence? What is the feeding in that sentence? It's the same thing. So knowledge is identical to feeding knowledge. You're a clown man. You you don't have no idea what you're talking about? Knowledge is feeding material because it's not something that's it's sensuously tangible. Is that your fucking argument? You reachard, did you even read Lennon's materialism imperial
criticism? You really think the position of Marxism is that only empirically definite? That was it? As you guys heard, this was nothing but total nonsense. I knew it would last about five or ten minutes for this absolute clown. He says that metaphysics is reality, and reality is metaphysics. It is matter, and it is pragmatism. Knowledge is feeding people. Feeding people?
Is knowledge? Actually worse than T Jump. T Jump at least had to try to give some kind of account for justification or kind of some kind of meaning, and in his case it was really low tier. It was scientific consensus. We didn't even get that in this absolutely clown level, just ridiculous notion. And I want to give the opportunity to for any of this clown
triop of online nonsense, an astrotur ridiculousness. For all the clowns that believe this worldview, You're welcome to come on next and make your arguments for how any of the gibberists that you heard in the last five minutes was in any way coherent or any kind of actual argument. You heard that. It was all assertions. It was all pure propaganda assertions with absolutely no justification for why
we should believe that that is the case. He tried to reduced it to pragmatism, but I don't think I was ever going to get any kind of answers to why pragmatism is true. Shack, what's up? Shack? It's the word. I do agree with the point about materialism, you know, I think two on two sides. One, if you look at it like with physics, you know, there is the standard model. It describes all
of matter and everything that he oh wait a mite woo woo. So if you're an empirical criticist, you believe that knowledge comes from sense data, correct? Uh? I mean I have Lennon's treatise in front of me Materialism and Imperial Critics. Imperial criticism he says knowledge comes from sense data. I mean, the end of the chapter calls it the gospel. Sense data is the gospel. I mean you could say that for human beings, but I wouldn't.
I don't know because it because do you know what a universal claim is? Well, first of my memory? Okay, so you guys want to come and debate metaphysics, universal claims, and epistemology. You're not aware of basic ideas and epistemology, basic philosophical terms and positions. You said all reality is material. That's a universal claim. I just asked you if all knowledge
comes from sense data, which is what your position holds to. So I want to know how you have access to a universal claim and universal states of affairs as a finite sense database being. I wouldn't see that. Oh, now this comes from sense data, because I mean, there is fucking tons of science that is not it's from But I mean, okay, so your argument is there's tons of fucking science. No, no, no, no no. My point is that, like for example, point physics, that
I understand if that does not come from sense data. However, just like that, so wait, so hold on, so you're not a materialist or you think that quantum physics teaches materialism these materialism, Well, it's not necessarily because in quantum physics, no it's not, there's the No, it's not. There's the idea that all that, there's all the possibility of all universes are actual. So there's universes where not everything is material that are also actual.
Correct, No, yes, that is that is that is part of multiverse quantum physics theory. Yes, it is. What are you talking about? Does Brian Green? Brian Green has a whole book on that. What are you talking about? But that's not true? How do you know it's not? What a minute, it's not true. I mean what I'm saying is what you're saying isn't true, even though in those other universities it's still material. It's just that. How do you know that? Could I explain?
Well? Hold on, no, no, wait a minute, you said you so, hold on, You're now you're talking about other universes that are also strictly material. Oh my gosh, dude, this is utterly retarded. Now we're done. Now, goodbye, dude, this goodbye. Let's hear the next clown. Next up is commander. What's up? These people have never questioned materialism and don't know anything about philosophy. Remember, knowledge is feeding people, and feeding people is knowledge. And we got another one of
these cult members in here. When this thing connects, we'll go to FDA and imagine appealing to quantum physics to prove materialism. Hey, can I had something? Please? Please do I'm gonna that was a great point, by the way, which which point? What point about the multiverse? Right? So if we're gonna take quantum mechanics, right, So you know, I've done a lot of a lot of work in my PhD and other places on the philosophy of mind, and these modal arguments possible worlds, which connects to
the quantum conversations develops. Now, materialism is a position that isn't just in this world. Materialism is true, but it holds a modal strength across all possible worlds. Right, So, and you have a you have a paper on this, right, don't you have a paper? Yeah? And so in in philosophy and logic, if I can conceive of a world in which, for example, I'll just give you one off the top of my head, there's two entities that are identical in every sense physically, one has consciousness
and the other does or has some immaterial properties. The fact that I can conceive that and think of that without contradicting myself shows that it's logically possible. If it's logically possible, there's a possible world in which that's actually true. And therefore materialism is defeated because materialism is a position that it's not just happens
to be true in our world, but in every possible world. So I really like what you did with that argument right there is to actually bring up if they're wedded to to quantum mechanics and Paul possible worlds, then it's a defeater for material for materialism. Yeah, I can logically constive a world in which materialism is not true, and I didn't contradict myself. So materialism's false. That's basically how it goes. So very good. Yeah, So one of these they're spurging out, du k, what's up? Yeah? I
get it. You can punch the emog really fast. Good job, dude. I mean, why did you run away from how? It was like a little bitch. I didn't run away, didn't make an argument, he said absurd stuff? So why and why am I supposed to be an argument. Why am I supposed to believe materialism is true? Why are you running away from him like a little okay, right, So this is all you guys have Exactly, It wasn't. It wasn't a debate. I mean, the guy, the guy, the guy wasn't It wasn't. It wasn't even
able to make an argument. It was just like reality is feeding people. Feeding people is reality. And if you think that's an argument, then uh, there's nothing else I can say to you, Harold. He wants to make this point. What's up, Harold? Why are we supposed to be materialists? So you guys, you understand they don't make arguments, They just assert things. I mean, he was t jump level, what's up, Harold? Where are we supposed to be materialists? Jay Dyer? Why are
you sea? So this is all you've got? Exactly? This is it? So all of all of this is proving my point that so that there's no actual arguments. He didn't give arguments. He had all the time in the world to make arguments as to why we're supposed to believe in materialism, and he said absolute gibberish. And you know what, only fools engage in that kind of well anyway, so you were right to Actually, if somebody
wasn't presenting an argument, that's what was the invitation. And somebody comes in bringing assertions and profanities and insults, then actually you're the better man for not engaging in it. Yeah. I didn't think there was going to be a real debate to begin with, and so within five minutes I heard the most ridiculous bunch of gibberish. That is literally what It's worse than what T Dump said. So if you got if you're not familiar with T Jump, I
mean, it's exactly the stuff T Jump says. Realities, reality, knowledge is feating people. How would we ask this question? How come you cowered away from manning up and presenting an argument? How you resorted to child? Yeah? Actually he actually like a psycho without any actual arguments. But I'm the one and female hysterics. So let's another So this is all that this crew does. They're all just super low IQ. What's up a XX? First of all, first of all, what do you have this guy in
here sucking you off? But thanks for here we go? Okay? Basic? Yeah, So again, look how these people speak to deacons in the church. Just complete goblins. These people are possessed. Right wing Carl Mark, Carl right wing Marks. What's up? Does anybody have an actual argument or just filthy nonsense? Can you hear it? Yep? I think you're a rhetor, but I want to understand your position better. I'm a rhetor, and how do you come up? How do you how do you come
to that? What does that mean? Like you're just debating like this psychopath on the internet. I'm debating like a psychopath. But he's no, no, no, you're debating a psychopath on the internet. Oh okay, but I'm a rhetor. I mean yeah, it's already treat to debate on the internet. So all traits that are shared. Everybody has the same traits because there's so everybody's a rhetor because they're on the internet. I didn't say that. Could you have any arguments? Are you just here to talk? No,
you're the actual rhetor here. You don't have any arguments? Well, I asked you. I said I wouldn't understand your argument better. All right, We're moving on to anybody that has an actual argument or any any reason why we should believe any of the gibberish that's been spouted tonight, Maximus something something, I'm mute. Yeah, it took about five minutes to show that that was utter philosophical gibberish and nonsense. So are you gonna or are we
gonna move on? Barnwell? Uh yeah, Jay, let me ask you a question real quick. What you have you ever dived into the Late Angles later essays on Mark's immaterialism. Uh no, I don't know that I've read Late Angles. Well, if you did, you would do it good. Yeah, this is really solid stuff. I think that maga communism is really winning the day. I think everybody's really going to be convinced. I mean, what can we say against this kind of stuff? Right, giggling,
uh, blaspheming, blaspheming against God. I mean, it's just this is just really solid imitation. I think that we're I think they're winning today here. So, by the way, I've read some of the Late Angles on he was just joking, Oh he was, Okay, go ahead, Ken, Are you do you have a point? Ken? All right? Nothing from Ken, still waiting for any kind of actual argument as to why we should believe in materialism Sabbatai, I mute SABBATAI. Oh sorry, gi us
up. What do you want to say? You've been asking to speak? Yeah, so I just wanted to hear you speak on the Sabbatan Francis movement. I heard you speak earlier, and I agree with you that nothing to do with what we're talking about. Absolutely way out of left field. I'm not being mean to you, but obviously the topic is listed materialism, Marxism. Why are we supposed to believe in materialism? Doctor Ao? Another one? Hell yep? I So I want to actually give up more of a
serious argument. Okay, so instead of I don't actually want to touch on specifically a topic of materialism. But I do think that by insisting on a conversation about philosophy and metaphysics and avoiding conversations of history, I did that talk four hours earlier. We had a four hour talk on that earlier. Today. Well, I think you're moving the subject of the debate to a context where it's very easy to call anything GiB or jib or gibberish or meaningless or
content. Did he give an argument for why materialism is true? I unfortunately missed. I thought the spasic well, you tell me what the argument is for materialism being true, for materialism being true, I don't think that. I mean that's just about your I think it's more of a statement of your commitments, like what are you're most interested in, what you want to focus on. Well, the argument is materialism as a worldview, which he believes in and which I don't believe in, and so I want to know why
we're supposed to be materialist. He said he was going to argue that, and he said, because it's just true in metaphysics is false, and I'm not making metaphysical statements when I believe in absolute materialism, which is a metaphysical statement. I just agree that materialism in the context of Marxism is making a metaphysical statement. Okay, so is it a statement about what exists? It's a statement about what is going to be brought to the for what we're going
to focus on. So materialism is not a statement about what exists in the world. That's philosophical materialism yet, correct, Right, then that's that's what and that's what I was debating. Well, I think that that's not the correct debate to have when we're talking about that's the debate I'm having, so you can go have the correct debate with whoever you think is supposed to be had with Are you a materialist? And if so, why is it true? Yeah? I mean I just don't think that's really relevant. Okay,
yeah, so it's not relevant to the debate about materialism exactly. Again, this is just this is unbelievable nonsense. So I'm here to have a debate about materialism. That's the position that I take issue with with Jackson Hinkel and this whole crew of Maga communism, and nobody wants to have that debate. They just want me to say that it just give me the just grant me my presuppositions, and then we'll argue from there. Well, no, that's
not how debates work. Proba though, what's up? Why is materialism true? I'm mute. I'm mute, like I was seeing. Physics is the underpinions of materials. Quantum your theory, the most scientific and most bro You're just nobody knows, you don't know where, you have no idea what you're talk about? Dogs, thank you? What's up? Quantum physics the most ridiculous speculative thing to try to prove materialism. Dude, you're a fushing cowards.
Okay, so what's the argument for materialism being surete? There we go. So the materialists are really pulling out the big guns tonight, is I mean they're I mean, I'm I'm almost convinced. I mean, after that stellar showing, I mean, I think we gotta we got to become I'm about to I'm about to pull out my red shirt over here, I'm about to put on my Soviet star here. I mean, this is some hardcore
argumentation. Uh, inward, what's up? And it's amazing that they don't even know what an argument is, Like, nobody actually gave an argument. They they think that stating your position over and over over and asserting it is what an argument is. An argument is evidence or syllogism or some sort of
reasoning that we ought to believe your position. Why is materialism true? We had about five minutes of spurging out nonsense from the original pause, no actual argument, and so far none of that crew has doesn't it doesn't even apparently know what an argument is. That's a that's pretty amazing to me because I thought we were going to have a philosophical discussion. But all I've heard is how I'm scared. Uh, this is like I hope everyone sees that this
is a complete clown show like this. And I suspected months ago when I heard about this, that this was utter nonsense. And I can't believe anybody that falls for this sort of astroturfed online thing as if it's a real thing. H b b boop, what's up. It's a really great showing too, for these people to have presented absolutely no argument and just basically screamed and
cussed at me the whole time. I think this is this is gonna really demonstrate how absurd all this is. Do you want to make your argument, Hi, why wouldn't you believe in materialism when it comes to economics instead of like, pull yourself up by your bootstraps and it's your values that will drive you to success. When people feel that they're being sabotaged by corporations, and that's when the whole nonme what does this have to do with with materialism as
a philosophical view? That's what is that because you put materialism and Marxism in the same thing in your debate, that's where Marxism comes in with materialism because a lot of right wing propagandists will say, oh, it's the values of the nation that will drive our prosperity. Again, what is materialism true or not? That's the debate here. Yes, okay, it comes to economic stuff. Yes, No, I'm not. I'm talking about metaphysical materialism.
That's what Marxism is predicated on. Is that true? No, it's predicated on the structural issues that are cut I'm talking about. I'm talking That's not what Lennon's book Materialism and Empirical Criticism is about. It's about metaphysical materialism. Chapter four. That's just one incredibly small part of it. It's only relevant here because is materialism as a philosophy true the meta physics? Yes? Okay? And on what basis are we supposed to believe and know that that's the
case. Okay, you're trying to force people. Are you going to make an argument? Do you know what an argument is? Yes? Okay? What's an argument? Reframe it in a way that makes it seem like binary that if you believe in what is the argument that materialism? What is? No? I never said that. I want to know one argument for why we should believe that materialism is true? Can you give one? Maybe you're
right, maybe it is true. What's the argument that is true? Materialism basically says that you create your ideas and your values based on the environment. Okay, so define it for me and not give me an argument exactly. That's not defining the position, is not telling me why the position is true. Discriminate or what's up? Hey? Can you hear me? Yep?
All right? The only I don't know how this came about exactly. All I wanted to say is that there's no The whole basis of Marxism as an ideology to begin with, is completely divorced from the concept of there's no into a worldview into itself. There is no purpose of it without assuming materialism as the basis of Sure, Yeah, I think so, right, So why
are we supposed to believe in materialism? Oh? I don't. I mean, I'm just saying, like, I don't know what, I don't know the backstory, I don't know how you Yeah, I don't even think this is controversial. I mean, are there any Marxists that are not materialists? I mean, I suppose, I'm sure that you could find one somewhere, But I mean I don't even think this is controversial. I'm looking at chapter four of Lennon's Epic Materialism Imperial Criticism book, and I want to know why
it's true. He's citing a bunch of atheist philosophers and ancient Greek philosophers about flux and materialism. So okay, why am I supposed to believe that that's true? What are the reasons for materialism being true? I mean, I'm I don't I don't believe in materialism. I'm not a Marxist. I'm just I don't know exactly who, well, how he came to this debate came to be. I just The only point I wanted to make is that I was just I was curious what they're what has would have to say to be
honest? So yeah, well you can. You can go back to about the first five minutes, and he said materialism is true because metaphysics doesn't exist and is false, even though to say that all realities material is a metaphysical claim. And then he said that minds exist, but minds are not existing is not a metaphysical claim because he said that the mind is a faculty, although a faculty is some kind of metaphysical modality in which the mind exists when
you talk about modes of things, that's a metaphysical claim. And then he said that knowledge is feeding people, and feeding people is knowledge. So that's about the level of depth that we got from this person. Yeah, yeah, it's about what I expect. Yeah, exactly, the riff raff, it's yeah, do we have any more? Rachel? Want to say something? Where are the people that can argue this position? Does anybody have an actual argument for this position? Or is it just screaming and yelling and fuming
at the mouth and acting possessed? Rachel? Rachel, are you there? Father Deacons? Did you want to say anything? No, it's just amazing. What if we pay people to give us like arguments? Rachel? Did you want to say something? Can get Yeah? Can you guys hear me? Now? Okay? Yeah, I'm hoping that one of these idiots will come on and explain to us if y'all are a bunch of materialists, which I know that's what they claim because it's their tactic of how they're going to,
you know, try to manipulate politics and economics. But if they're really materialists, I'd like to know why They've been preserving Vladimir Lennon's body for over one hundred years so that they can hopefully resurrect him someday and he can come back as a god and restore the glorious Bolshevik Soviet states. Like, if you're a materialist, why would you do that? Have you guys ever looked into the preservation of Lennon's body and the insane stuff they are trying to do
to preserve his core. Yeah, it's a religious call. They're in a religious call exactly. Yeah. So I mean this whole front of saying their materialists, they don't know what the hell they're talking about. That's the bit you can see. They come in here and they just spurg because they don't know. They just know that as a dialectical tactic, saying their materialists is
like advantageous to their economic aims. But clearly they're full of shit. So I just want to I want to hear from them if you're a materialist, you know, I want to know why you're preserving Lennon's body so that you can reanimate him, because that's creepy. Uh. I'm on right now, rev go ahead, Kingdom, uh oh yo, Uh so I'm I take your position more so than there's, but I just have something to say that
I think is interesting. Okay, I totally missed the debate. I got home late, and what it was about five minutes of him cussing me out and saying that materialism is true because it's true, and that knowledge is feeding people and feeding people's knowledge, and that that's what proves materialism, which is
not an argument at all. It's t jump level stuff. Definitely. Yeah, So what I heard from I hopped in your space after the ended, and then I hopped in his just to hear what you guys were talking about in terms of like damage control and stuff like that, and uh, I just uh it was funny because he essentially was advocating for the position that materialism
at uh uh it uh contains within it the aspect of the immaterial. And so pretty much what you're what you're talking about is being confirmed by his trying to do damage control in him being a part of some sort of cult or something like that. He's essentially saying that he believes in the immaterial and that and that materialism can contain that within it, and so that that can mean nothing other than some sort of religious cult. Uh. And and whether he
wants to admit it or not, that's that's the case. I think at this point I feel bad for him because he's got all of these people that pay his bills. He wants to keep that and and yeah, I'm just going to continue praying for him at this point. But that's really all I have to say. All Right, thank you, just Michael man h it's so. Yeah, So what was the I don't understand what is this whole argument about. Yeah, so is materialism true? That's what Marxism is based
on. And we want to hear the arguments. Okay, why why? Why is subjectivity regarded as the privilege privileged site of like consciousness or of like ontology. Why do you think that is? Because that's not what materialism is. That's what I'm argetting against. Well, I'm arguing against what I thought was his position in terms of Leninism that Lenin outlines in chapter four of Materialism
and Empirico Criticism. So, well, I'm talking about like materialism as a metaphysical const right, Yeah, that's what I'm talking about, that talking about Lenin. Well, but the original debate that the guy that was in here was arguing the Leninist position. So that's what I'm concerned with, is that, why are we supposed to believe that that is true? Believe what? What did Lennon say? That's the quote? Just that that basic Chapter four
is about there is object of truth. It's not pure subjectivity, but that objective truth is just objective matter and sensation. Yeah, I agree with it, Okay, and but why is that true? How are we supposed to know that that's true? Well, I think this, I think you're getting a misconstrued with this kind of vulgar materialism that it's no. I'm reading chapter four where he's arguing, I'm explaining what I'm saying. I'm saying. I think you take that quote and you're saying, Okay, what is it out
there? I can't feel it, I can't touch it. But it's like, no, I want to know the the argument for why materialism true because the subject is not the privileged site of ontology of being, how does that? How does that prove materialism? Because that means the world as upon X upon us, It means the world is real, it means the world is How does it prove that because you are being acted upon. H Okay, how does that answer? How does that? How does that at? How
does that answer something like Sellers is problem myth of the given? Explain that? Well? What any minute? You're the philosopher or so you don't know about the myth of the given? No, you're the philosopher here explaining materialism to us, So surely you would be familiar with the major objections to materialism. What is that objection and lay it out? If you're the smart guy, can condense it. But but I'm not the materialist, I thought you.
So you don't know the major objections to your position, Well, offer one forward. You're not giving me, you're not you're not presenting your case. Well, the myth of the given is the idea that the external data that comes in that there's a correspondence, or that there's a givenness or a pattern that exists, that the information that comes in matches up to the ideas in your head. Yeah, but that necessarily can't be true. That's what
your position given information, and they're not able to disclose that information. You're not even understanding, you're not even you're not understanding the argument. You're not even understand who hasn't You're not not even understanding the argument. Yes I am, No, you're not. Okay, what am I not understanding about it?
It's an argument against materialism because materialism operates on the assumption of the myth of the given that the act that the data that comes in is meaningful information just CONTI and jibber jabber, I know what that means. Not Kantian, it's not CONTI No, it's not. Sellers is an empiricist. He's not a Kantian And what do you kant literally use a lot of hum what do you when? He was Yeah, I'm wrong, I'm aware. I know I make transcendent arguments. I know, I'm a I know what content Okay.
So my point is being that and it's it can be interpreted as the contient just yet negation of what is being said. I understand that your mind plays tricks on you, and I understand what you're saying. Well, that's that's part of it. But the argument is that there's an assumed correspondence between the idea that's produced from the sensations and the meaningful content in the external world.
And how do you know that that's the case? Because of vibes man, this is what I'm talking about because of vibes, Because of vibes into and just say that. I don't know if you have some type of if you're responding to some type of phenomenalism or something like that, but the fact
of the matter is what you're saying about the subjectivity of consciousness. It certainly doesn't prove materialism because you have all of Greek antiquity and the Ristituian philosophy that believes in immatrial entities and realistic essentialism is being h immaterial properties and substances. Yeah, but because of vibes did you not hear the conclusion? The concluding argument was because the vibes man Maximus. People that just like take like just
look at a few philosophy pages. Yes, all of these people have looked at like one or two YouTube videos and they read a little bit of Lenin and they think their philosopher is correct. Go ahead, Oh no, I just kind of wanted to like go off what some of you guys were saying, which is like my understanding of what he kind of believes is it. It's just sort of like this like Hegelian monism, and they think that there's some kind of like former content to reality, but like we can't really know
what it is, Okay, so what's the justification for that? Exactly? And that's what we're that's what we've been asking for this whole time, that the position is predicated on all these assertions and dogmas that are supposed to be anti metaphysical but are all completely metaphysical dogmas. And the justification was knowledge is feeding people, and feeding people is knowledge. That's a that's a t jump
level argument. Well, also, if everything is just like purely induction, how are you, like not an empiricist, right, Well, they'll just how do you, ever, how do you get to any universal claim? Yeah, well that's exactly right because of the claim about materialism, right, but induction never even gets you to knowledge, not even in particular. What they'll say is is that you know whatever, like if there's some objective content
or quality to it. But the problem is is that they don't believe in forms, right, So they don't because they think that that is like idealism or whatever. So like the medieval realists and the ancient realists, they thought there was some kind of like form that was impressed on Yeah, we know right, you know, but they don't. You know, you bring up a good point because as materialists, they're going to have to subscribe to inductivism.
But the problem is inductivism is viciously circular. So if I said that, well, how do I know that inductivism works because it's worked in the past. See well, actually, this chapter four is where Lenin is responding to Hume's objections and he responds to Ernst Mock and some other people that had these really kind of you know, naive views, and his response is to basically quote a Foyerbach. I'll read what Lennon says here. He says how
Benal wrote Fourier back to Deny that sensation is the gospel. It is the objective savior. A strange but a preposterous term, but perfectly clear. In philosophy, sensation reveals the objective truth. In other words, pure sensation is truth. Okay, yeah, not answering any of the actual objections and just restating the posiness. So this is what, Yeah, these people think, this is the height of philosophy. Is Lennon just quoting Firebach that sensation is
the gospel? Just sense data, bro, just pure sense data. It's more than that, right, because they believe that there's some kind of somehow
like objects or something. Right, they're making progress. I understand that they will go they'll violate that by then tacking on all these things like meaning and form and faculty and mind and knowledge, which is what he did in the first five minutes, attributing reality to all these concepts, and then not understanding that that's completely negated by the idea that materialism, that everything's reducible to materialism.
So before I leave, I'm just going to head out tonight. But if I resummarized, well, what are the arguments against materialism, One is it's the denial of metaphysics, But then they use metaphysics to actually make that all their positions number two get they're reduced to an inductivism through their empiricism, in which case is viciously circular. And furthermore, inductivism never actually even gets
you to any universal claims in which you're making. Number three. We would say that, well, my my argument from universals concerning proving the immateriality of the mind using all valid deductive syllogisms that are all basically based on the first syllogism, and therefore you can't deny the rest without denying the first. But the first is so on controversy, we can't deny it refutes materialism. So what would you what would you say also to the myth of the given objection
to that one guy and you push that out too. Is that so he's trying to basically make a he's trying to make a subjective statement about objectivity. Well, let me put it this way. My PhD who actually did on Wilford Sellers, my PhD advisor Jmosche, said he's trying to take a God's I perspective and reach objectivity. Walste being immersed in the subjective framework of linguistics and semantics and all these things that theory contaminate everything that you're saying. So
he's trying to do two things at once that are contradictory. So yeah, I could say like two things on that is also they say everything is contingent, which is kind of like self contradictory. Yeah, so is the proposition everything is contingent? Continue One because it's a metaphysical scheme of the world, right. The other is because then they say, oh no, but there's like this there is this meaning that you kind of discover through dialectical materialism and
the revolution. Yeah, it's a religion. It's a mystical religion of matter in motion giving you enlightenment point. And then so the way that like some of the you could say something like so if I have a smell, Like I begin to smell something and it smells like cheese, and I think it's the cheddar cheese in the in the it's the mozzarella cheese of the pizza. The fact that I've had a sensation does not immediately translate into the information that
it's quote cheese pizza that corresponds to that smell. So, in other words, the sensation as a meaningful, informed, informational content experience or two different things. Now, maybe it is giving you the content of cheese pizza through the sensation, but raw sensations do not themselves give you the meaningful content of cheese pizza. You see. That's the objection here. Yeah, but then you need form and they're going to say, like, oh no, that
that doesn't exist. Well, that's metaphysics. So it only exists at the end of history basically, right, that's when everything stops. That's an even more ridiculous non empirical claim. And you know what, just eology of science or epistemology one on one class would shook any of this stuff exactly. That's what I'm saying, Like, if you learn, if you learned basic philosophy
of science, you would learn some of these problems and challenges. And none of these people is even aware of h. If you go to the stuff on Molny debate that I did on YouTube, you'll notice that I listed in
the debate and in the pen to comment. Uh, Steffon had never encountered the basic challenges to his materialist paradigm, and so he doesn't deal with the myth of the given, he doesn't deal with the problem of the external world, the problem of induction, the status of immaterial objects, UH, universals,
numbers, et cetera. That there's no properly basic beliefs. And then I also brought in the underdetermination of data, all of which are classic problems for any form of imperialism that excu empiricism that will have to deal with. And none of the people tonight we're even familiar with even one of the basics. No, and I'll end with this and I'll let you guys go because I gotta go to bed. But number five point against refuting materialism is the
irreducible of consciousness arguments. We already gave one from the logical conceivability of zombies, but any of those logical conceivability possible world's arguments are great refutations materialism.
So if anybody's out there that wants to know, those are five. Those are five hardcore arguments that refute materialists that none of these people have never they've never even heard of this because they've never even taken like an intro class on philosophy, science or epistemology, maybe not even just even philosophy, which is amazing. What that. I bid you guys, farewell, blessed evening, and thanks for having the thanks for joining us, and thank you for your
comments. And as we see, everything went as expected. Everybody a good night, all right,