Hi Stef, what role should history play in determining philosophical truths or falsehoods? I ask this question knowing your background in history and how you have integrated it into your communication of philosophy, however, the point of conflict for me is this.
When history is used as evidence for a problem existing, the debate is then about causality rather than principles.
Since causality can't be proven with certainty, neither is it encouraged because we have free will, the utility of a philosophical claim rests on whether or not the person is persuaded by the causality you have presented. From a logical and syllogistic point of view, the argument might be valid, but it might not be true without the empirical evidence to back it up since put simply, truth is a status that a claim has relative to its correspondence with the world.
For example, if you were to say child abuse is wrong, and use reason alone to make that argument, someone might not be convinced that how we treat children is even a problem. As such, you’ll then need to use history to support your reasoning. You would examine the French revolution, the childhoods of people in call-ins, look at other literature and research that uses a greater data set of human history to investigate if how we treat children is a problem.
At this point, someone might then be convinced since you have presented them with history, but maybe instead they’ll debate you on the causality of historical events. You won’t be able to convince them through principles, nor history. You could even try delve into their childhood only for them to say that they turned out alright.
At this point, we determine that the person can’t be reasoned with regarding this topic and move on, however, the problem remains regarding the role that history plays in making a philosophical claim that is valid, useful. If people can’t accept a truth statement, it isn’t useful even if it is true. History seems to be indispensable in persuading other people to accept truth statements, however, the battle is then about causality and how it is perceived or interpreted rather than principles.
If the first battle as a philosopher is about making valid truth statements, is the next battle about using history to persuade others of their validity, thereby rendering them ‘useful’? Is the final battle for the human mind about causality now that UPB is in the picture?
0:01 - Questioning the Role of History in Philosophy
1:22 - Using History to Support Philosophical Claims
3:03 - The Battle of Causality in Philosophy
5:24 - Frustrations with Learning History
8:12 - The Purpose of History for the Future
9:47 - History as a Manipulative Tool
12:41 - Emotional Manipulation Through History
15:09 - Gender Dynamics in the Study of History
17:14 - History as a Predatory Fiction
The conversation delves into the role of history in shaping philosophical truths and the complexities that arise when historical evidence is used to support arguments. The speaker reflects on the challenge of convincing others through causality rather than principles, highlighting the importance of history in persuading individuals to accept truth statements. They recount their personal journey from English literature to history, expressing disillusionment with the subjective nature of literature and the rigid academic environment of history studies. The speaker questions the purpose of studying history and suggests that history is often manipulated to extract resources from morally sensitive individuals.
Furthermore, the speaker explores how historical narratives can be distorted to serve political agendas, emphasizing that accurate history is difficult to attain under political power. They provide examples of historical distortions and highlight the manipulation of emotions to sway public opinion. The speaker also touches upon the gender dynamics in history, attributing certain manipulative tendencies to female and male nature. They argue that history has been turned into a predatory fiction through political power, with falsehoods being rewarded for their utility in serving specific interests.
In conclusion, the speaker encourages a critical examination of historical narratives, advocating for a discerning approach when consuming historical information. They urge listeners to be cautious of manipulative narratives and to interrogate the moral implications embedded within historical accounts. The conversation offers a thought-provoking exploration of the intersection between history, philosophy, and the manipulation of truth for political gain.
[0:02] Hello, hello. Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain. Question from a listener. I think this is from a live stream. Can't recall. Interestingly, a question about history has been somewhat lost in my history. All right. Hi, Stef. What role should history play in determining philosophical truths or falsehoods? I ask this question knowing your background in history and how you have integrated it into your communication of philosophy. However, the point of conflict for me is this. When history is used as evidence for a problem existing, the debate is then about causality rather than principles. Very true. Since causality can't be proven with certainty, neither is it encouraged.
[0:52] Because we have free will. The utility of a philosophical claim rests on whether or not the person is persuaded by the causality you have presented from a logical and syllogistic point of view. The argument might be valid, but it might not be true without the empirical evidence to back it up, since, put simply, truth is a status that a claim has relative to its correspondence with the world.
[1:23] For example, if you were to say child abuse is wrong and then then use reason alone to make that argument, someone might not be convinced that how we treat children is even a problem. As such, you'll then need to use history to support your reasoning. You would examine the French Revolution, the childhoods of people in Collins, look at other listeners and research that uses a greater data set of human history to investigate if how we treat children is a problem.
[1:54] By the way, it's just a great question. Thank you. At this point, someone might then be convinced, since you have presented them with history, but maybe instead they'll debate you on the causality of historical events. You won't be able to convince them through principles nor history. You could even try to delve into their childhoods only for them to say that they turned out all right. At this point, we determine that that the person can't be reasoned with regarding this topic and move on. However, the problem remains regarding the role that history plays in making a philosophical claim that is valid useful. If people can't accept a truth statement, It isn't useful, even if it is true. History seems to be indispensable in persuading other people to accept truth statements. However, the battle is then about causality and how it is perceived or interpreted rather than principles. If the first battle as a philosopher is about making valid truth statements, is the next battle about using history to persuade others of their validity, thereby rendering them, quote, useful?
[3:03] Is the final battle for the human mind about causality now that UPB is in the picture. What a, what a, man, goosebumps. Beautifully written, beautifully articulated, wonderfully presented, just, hmm, hats off.
[3:22] Hats off to you. So as you may know, I started in English literature because I was interested in writing poetry plays, novels i've never been good at short stories but i started off in english literature and then i started doing a lot of acting i was always the lead in plays in uh university and so then i applied to the national theater school and i went to the national theater school and then i found the national theater school skin crawlingly repulsive uh in in its ideology and so then i I thought, okay, well, I finished my degree. I left before two years, it's been before two years, right? And if it's any consolation, the loathing was completely mutual, which is kind of fair. So then I said, well, you know, one of the reasons I left English literature is it just seemed to be all made up. Like you can just make up these causalities, these themes and so on. What does it matter? It's not moral. It's like analyzing dreams memes with no moral or purpose. It just feels like kind of intellectual masturbation, really of the worst kind.
[4:40] So then I thought, okay, well, I've always enjoyed history. I loved reading about history, so I'll go to history because history is more objective than English literature. And I remember, I don't remember this guy's name many years now, but I had a professor professor. And this was quite true of a lot of my professors. I did not know the point. What was the point? Why would we learn these things? You know, I had a professor who took a full-year course on Roman history. I remember almost nothing except the laws of Sulla. And he had us memorize all these things.
[5:24] And this is true of almost everything. Like 98% of what you learn is humiliating, kneel before the altar of irrelevance brain filler. It's junk food. It passes through you, leaving no nutrition behind. Except junk food at least tastes good. And I had this professor of European history who just was, you know, kind of anal and controlling rolling about all these little details of this, that, and the other. The pronunciations had to be correct, and the years had to be exact, and sometimes even the months. And it was like, why? So I had to write a paper for him, and I struggled. I think this is the only paper I really remember struggling with. I mean, I wrote a paper my first year on the village of Montaillou, which is a really well-preserved set of documents from a French village of the 15th century or or something like that. And the paper was so good, the professor read the whole thing to the class and said he'd never read anything better. Like, he literally spent a whole class reading my paper out. It was really quite something. But this professor and I were just at loggerheads, and...
[6:39] Back then, I did eventually struggle. I wrote the paper on the Crimean War. He didn't like the paper, and he gave me a chance to do it over with, you know, flesh this out more, like for no purpose that I could see. And I don't remember anything about the paper, like anything that I learned or what I did. Probably still have a copy of it somewhere. But the question that I really wanted to ask him, and he was one of these wound up, tightly wound up kind of people. But the question I really wanted to ask him, and I didn't have the courage to ask him, was why? In your view, what is the study of history for? Now, for him, it was an easy paycheck. He got to bully people over irrelevancies, and he got to make people jump through hoops. I personally think it was something like it's just my opinion right something like mild sadism or, just kind of a control freak and you know people who like to get into positions of power not to illuminate or enlighten but to control and subjugate and bully and I just didn't.
[7:46] I didn't have the courage to ask him which you know looking back decades and decades later was the right choice. I mean, that was wise. That was the right thing to do. It was the right approach. It was absolutely correct because he would have flunked my ass and he would have probably been so triggered that he would have prevented me from getting a graduate school advisor at some point.
[8:12] So yeah, it's kind of, so what's the purpose, right? So the purpose of history is not the past, but the future. This is not a stunning insight. Let me sort of flesh it out a little bit. So the purpose of history is to manipulate those who are morally sensitive into giving up liberties and resources.
[8:42] So, I mean, if you look at something like COVID, people who are morally sensitive, oh, well, you know, I don't want to spread the germs, and, you know, I don't want grandma to die, and I want to do the right thing by society, and I want to be moral, I want to be good. Well, this was all manipulated and used with sort of this weapon-grade propaganda, military-grade propaganda, really, to have people obey and turn on their fellow citizens by provoking their conscience. And of course one of the amazing things about the internet now this is really truly a wild thing one of the amazing things about the internet is you get to see historical narratives versus actual facts in real time right i mean the whole time i was growing up what did i hear oh nixon was bad he was corrupt and joseph mccarthy there were no communists it was all a fantastical witch hunt it It was all, like, and then you find out the facts. I did a whole truth about Nixon. I've done, of course, a truth about Joseph McCarthy. It's all a lie, a complete and total lie.
[9:48] History is a manipulation. It is, it has about as much truth, really, as, and not all of it, right? I mean, there's certainly some facts that I accept and some morals that are definitely there. But for the most part, history is a manipulation to extract resources from morally sensitive people with both bribes and threats. It has, in many instances, about as much moral truth as a medieval morality play, right? You look at another woman with lust, you're going to hell. There's no particular truth in it. But the one thing that is true about history is that you can't have accurate history while you have political power. You just can't do it. You cannot have even remotely accurate history while you have political power. So, for instance, if you look at, what is it now, coming on six years ago that I was in Australia doing a speaking tour.
[11:05] And I chose as the topic of my speaking tour actual anthropological historical facts about the Aborigines in Australia. Now, of course, I've just said history is all narrative and so on. These were objective anthropological facts based upon some very basic scientific research.
[11:27] And I wasn't even doing that much of a moral judgment. I was simply talking about the facts of the Aborigines and their treatment of children and infanticide and rape and torture and mutilation and the occasional cannibalism, all this kind of stuff, right? Which was important. So the purpose, of course, of saying there were these wonderful noble savages and then, you know, the evil Europeans came along and killed these wonderful noble savages and they were terrible people and like the Europeans were terrible and the savages were noble and good and kind is to delegitimize the victory and extract resources from the guilty conquerors, right? I mean, there's a reason why Cortes and other Spaniards were able to overthrow, the tyrants of Central and South America. It's because all of the local tribes hated them, the Aztecs, the Mayans, and so on. They hated them for all of their viciousness and brutality and child sacrifice. I mean, these are people who played a game of soccer with human heads. So, and sacrificed thousands of children sometimes in a single weekend to their god that feasted off the tears of children, so they would torture children, drug them, and then slaughter them en masse, right?
[12:42] So, it's a way of saying, it's an appeal to emotion, right? And it's funny, you know, because there is this kind of instinct, right? There is this kind of instinct. And I remember when I, my daughter and I went to a mall, it was like an Asian mall when she was very little, right? And it's really neat because it's all in Chinese and I think it's mostly Chinese and Korean. And we were actually kicked out of there, that mall, because we bought food but we weren't vaccinated and we didn't have our little cards so they kicked us out to eat in the cold, was excellent but anyway many years ago we went there and we picked up some green tea Kit Kats.
[13:27] And I'd kind of forgotten about them and then one day my daughter is a hoarder I mean in a good way she likes to hoard everything right don't ever sell anything in Minecraft dungeons and she hoards everything, And she's a keeper, right? And that's perfectly natural. She comes from sort of European stock, although opposite ends of Europe, right? Well, she's a quarter Irish, a quarter German and half Greek, right? So she's quite the smorgasbord. But to hoard is part of surviving winter and keeping track of resources. So it's perfectly natural for her to be that way. Anyway, so I went to the fridge, and I just snizzed back when I was on sugar, and I just snacked on one of these little, I think it was the last one, these little green tea Kit Kats. And I think my daughter saw the little wrapper in the garbage, and she's like, oh, that was my favorite, right? To make me feel bad, you know, and she was young, and this is no big issue. You. It's just interesting. There's this instinct, right?
[14:33] That was my favorite. And so that is not about any objective facts. It's certainly not about any morality. It is about an emotional manipulation of a narrative. And I've always said that communism is pathologically female male, and fascism is pathologically male. For more on this, you can check out my review of the album, The Wall, which you can get at freedommail.locals.com if you subscribe. So...
[15:09] As more and more women have moved into the field of history, history has become more and more, you know, kind of manipulative and so on. Because remember, the whole purpose of women is to make sure that people don't suffer negative consequences for bad decisions. Whereas the whole point of female nature is to which is why they have sympathy for the underdog and it's a beautiful thing don't it's an absolutely wonderful thing right female nature is beautiful combined with political power it goes bad rancid but then so does male nature as well male nature is beautiful but right so the whole purpose of females is to make sure that people don't suffer negative consequences for bad decisions because they are there to protect babies and toddlers and you can't let babies and toddlers learn through bad experiences, you know. There's that joke about the kid about to put a fork into a socket. The mom's like, don't. And the dad's like, go ahead. And it's like, you won't do that again now, will you? So men, you have to learn by consequences. Women are there to prevent negative consequences. So women have a very heightened sense of danger and they feel great sympathy for anybody who has.
[16:19] Who is going through negative consequences, Which is fine when children have, when moms have, women have a conveyor belt of babies and toddlers and then grandbabies and grandtoddlers to take care of. But when they don't, then they just find some underdog who can present a sad face and it causes their estrogen twitch and, oh, you can't have negative consequences. Negative consequences are terrible. People should never be able to learn by negative consequences, which is fine for babies and toddlers. Not so great for single moms and so on, right? Yeah.
[16:49] Which is why women tend to vote to let dangerous criminals out of prison and then complain that they can't walk the streets at night. Because the criminals, oh, they had sad stories, they had sad histories, they cry, you know, and they just arouse that protective, nurturing, shield people from consequences kind of thing. So, yeah, history as a whole is turned into a predatory fiction.
[17:15] Through political power, because the stakes are simply so high. If you can get a historical lie, and a historical lie doesn't mean that things didn't happen. It's the morals of the story, right? Is it true that the Europeans conquered the Aborigines? Yes, it is. Were the aborigines noble savages who lived at one with the neighborhood like you know this thing about the north american indigenous popular they used every part of the buffalo it's like no they didn't they drove buffaloes en masse off cliffs and then just had a little bit here and there they're like so yeah i mean it's it's all just um and they practice genocide and cannibalism and rape as a weapon of warfare like all this kind of stuff right and and of course uh back Back when I was on X or Twitter, you know, I would, you know, there'd be people complaining about the European occupation, the British occupation under the Raj of India. And it's like, yeah, well, I mean, 15 million Indian girls are killed every year. 15 million, 15 million Indian girls are killed every year, infanticided. Maybe that's slightly more important than what happened in 1870.
[18:25] Maybe, just maybe, there's a possibility, right? But that kind of guilt is really, really important. So history, stuff happened, but the way that it's often, not always, but the way that it's generally twisted is that the rewards of lying and falsifying and manipulating, the rewards are so enormous, right? The rewards are so enormous, right? I mean, the fine people hoax, I think Snopes has finally said that that's not true, that Donald Trump referred to white supremacists as very fine people. They finally said that that's not true, but that's simply because the political requirements have changed and so on, right? And they're probably going to move Biden out. So it was a useful lie. In other words, it was a productive falsehood.
[19:24] And we have an instinct for camouflage, right? To gain resources through camouflage is half of nature, right? To either avoid predators or to have prey not see you. There's a reason the tiger has stripes and moves through tall grass or it hides, right? So camouflage, for the sake of gathering resources, is an instinct as old as life and certainly as old as mammals. And so uh lying to gain resources through the power of the state uh is um is really such a powerful force in human society that you you can't expected the truth from historians in the presence of massive political power is like expecting truth from a junkie looking for his fix it's just not going to happen so i went to a place that i thought was more objective and again the facts are real the morals are often purely manipulative and so when i read stuff in history now i used to do it with much more this is what happened only i can see that moral and so on uh now i assume i assume again there are exceptions but i assume in general that it's all all. My daughter suddenly claiming that this candy was her favorite when I've eaten it and she didn't like it. So I hope that helps, but thanks for such a great question. And I'd love to get your thoughts on it too.
Support the show, using a variety of donation methods
Support the show
