Jay Dyer (109:15)
Yeah. I hope we get some more Professor Dave fans. But why would we be surprised that we had that level of argumentation when this is Dave's level of argument advantage? And so why would I. Why would I listen to sounds coming from a purposeless brain? Because I'm right. There we go. Because my intuition, bro. By the way, if you guys would hit like and share also, you can support the stream through super chats now. It's interesting too, that I don't know Lucas, but it's. It sounds like he's been listening to philosophy podcast and talks and. Because he picked up on some of the jargon, but. And people think that you're being a douchebag or you're being, you know, engaging in sophistry when you try to ask people these questions about. Because I can spot immediately when a person doesn't know the material, when they haven't actually done the reading, when they've got a smattering little bit of it. It's just like if you were a guitar player, you really got at guitar. You can spot when somebody has just simply mimicked a solo or they just know basic chords, but they're not actually proficient in the material and they haven't done the. Put the time in and done the research. And nobody who's advanced in philosophy cites their own first paper. I mean, that's just so. Just arrogant, ridiculous. It's. It's a sued attitude and behavior of extreme overconfidence. And that's why when you start to ask them questions and you hear what they're saying, I can pick up on a person who doesn't know basic philosophy or has only heard a little bit. So that's a person with a kind of freshman, sophomore level of philosophical information. And, you know, that's great that he's getting into it, but what everybody has as a kind of a temptation when you get into Philosophy is everybody who's a first or second year philosophy student thinks that they've solved everything. They think that they've, they've, they're going to have the answer to, you know, the criteria problem. They're going to have the answer to, you know, the consciousness problem. And, and then as you get more and more advanced, you get into grad school, you realize that, oh, actually that was a really arrogant attitude, right? I have, I need to have more humility about these topics because there's a lot of people who spent 20, 25 years in this domain and they know this stuff better than me. So to act like as a new, you know, that you're gonna have. It's the same. It's like when people go into the MMA stuff and they're like, they bust up in the gym and they think, I'm gonna fight the dude that's been, you know, fighting in the Octagon for 20 years, because I watched some videos on YouTube and I think I could take that dude. And then in every case, those people end up being just manhandled, right? We saw that with Derek Myth Vision a year ago, and that's why he's still angry. And I think in the MMA domain too, like, people will say, look, you got to learn some humility, right? The only way you're going to advance in these topics is to be willing to be wrong, because I guarantee you there is nobody who studied philosophy and went from the introductory level to, you know, advanced who didn't get humbled at some time. This is a, this is a necessary stage in the process so that you can advance to, to learn and to realize that you don't know what you think, you know, know. So when I hear him say this and that, oh, you make this tag argument, and I say, well, I don't, I don't believe that you actually understand what a transcendental argument is in terms of the form, and they can't explain it. They don't know what it is. Now, I give him props for at least understanding what JTB was and the gettier problem. So that was a, that was a, that was a good thing. That means he's studying. Okay, but that you're studying doesn't mean that, for example, you don't make fundamental mistakes. Okay? So, for example, to say that because a universal claim is made by an individual human being and because individual human beings aren't universal, it's not universal misses the point of what a universal claim is, right? So there's claims themselves, the truth value of the claims. And then there's a separate category of which I was inquiring into, which is what is the ontological status of those truth claims? Where are they? How can we have a universal claim? What is universal claim? So he kind of got a little bit of the basics of what Tag is arguing. But then when I try to say that his approach at denying JTB ultimately ends up putting him in a way worse position, his answer was, well, I'm just relegating it and limiting it to the human domain. It doesn't matter. Because even relegated to the human domain, it, it disqualifies the initial statement that you, in other words, you couldn't know that no one in the human domain has that lack of knowledge. So it's just moving the problem back a step. So what he ought to look at, if he actually wants to understand this, is to go deeper into Sellers and into the criteria problem of Chisholm. Right? Because Chisholm brings this issue up in multiple different ways. And it's a problem that, that you can go in the direction of metaphysics or you can go in the direction of epistemology. If you go in the direction of epistemology, you're in a really bad position to deny jtb. And then the problem is that you can erect other types of systems and criteria, because a lot of philosophers try to do this. The problem though, is that usually it's moving the problem back a step and not actually addressing what the criteria problem is asking for. For. So, for example, oh well, I'm going to throw out JTB because I'm going to instead say that we don't even have to have that. No one can have that. But wait a minute. Every time you're asserting something, you're begging the question about, okay, but what is the criteria to say then? If it's not jtb, then what is the rival criteria? Oh, well, it's. We know. Structuralism that I've come up with. With. Okay, but you saying that it's a structuralism that you come up with is an assertion that is not actually dealing with the criteria problem. Father Deacon, Dr. Ananas, what would you say? I'm you. But we have a logic professor on hand, by the way. What's up? Go ahead.
