In this episode, I delve into a thought-provoking and unsettling experience I had during a recent live call. While discussing philosophical concepts, specifically the is-ought dichotomy, a caller—let’s refer to him as Bob—instigated a series of responses in me that bordered on panic. I share my sensations of being caught in a fight-or-flight response while attempting to engage respectfully with a caller who seemed consumed by his frustrations.
I explore the paradox of Bob’s assertions, wherein he expressed doubts about the existence of concrete realities—like rocks—yet remained confident in his assessments of my arguments. This dissonance raised troubling questions about the nature of our conversation, compelling me to confront the validity of what we were discussing. Bob's approach and the way he framed his arguments sparked a profound discomfort in me, as I perceived it as a challenge to intellectual honesty and coherence.
Throughout the episode, I unpack the manipulative aspects of our dialogue. Bob’s statement that I would not like his argument felt like a preemptive strike—one that implied my responses were driven by emotion rather than reason. I analyze how such statements can trap an interlocutor into a corner, where expressing dissatisfaction with an argument could lead to unnecessary defensiveness. The psychological maneuvering in our conversation left me grappling with larger themes of communication and truth, particularly when one party seems unwilling to accept foundational premises.
Furthermore, I reflect on the emotional implications of addressing deep contradictions present in Bob's reasoning. If someone enters a debate while harboring radical skepticism yet actively engages in a dialogue, it raises significant questions about their intentions. I mull over the unsettling nature of this situation, contemplating whether Bob's motivations were to engage authentically or to sow confusion and disarray.
As I narrate my thought process during the call, I emphasize the importance of grounding philosophical discussions in a shared reality. I question how one can logically debate the is-ought distinction if they doubt the existence of established truths. This leads me to ponder whether someone challenging objective realities is not merely engaged in a dialectical exercise but rather indulging in a form of intellectual sabotage.
Ultimately, I find myself coming back to the psychological dynamics at play. It prompts a discourse on how individuals unwilling to confront their inner contradictions often push that discomfort onto others, potentially using dialogue as a means of gaslighting. The implications of this are both disturbing and enlightening, revealing much about human interaction and the philosophical debates we immerse ourselves in.
This episode culminates in a call to reflect on one's motivations in discussions of truth and morality, encouraging listeners to examine the integrity of their reasoning and the sincerity of their interactions. It’s an invitation to consider the philosophical underpinnings of our debates and the ethical dimensions of how we engage with others in pursuit of objective truth.
0:12 - Introduction to the Rant
1:31 - The Caller and My Reaction
3:37 - The Paradox of Certainty
6:42 - A Strange Debate Tactic
14:32 - Understanding Emotional Responses
18:51 - The Purpose of the Conversation
25:16 - Addressing the Is-Ought Dichotomy
26:57 - The Implications of Radical Skepticism
[0:00] All right, so semi-subjective ranty-rant time. This is related to the, I guess, fairly lengthy live stream I did on X, September the 30th, 2025.
[0:12] And just for me, again, I'm not saying this is anything objective, but I sort of wanted to be honest in case you had the same reaction, or if you didn't, just sort of let me know about my reaction, that I felt a creepy sense of danger. I think he was the second caller. Ask yourself, I think, was the name of the username, and he said he'd been on before, and I don't really remember being, I have a vague memory of a sort of is-ought debate. But yeah, I got to tell you, like, I mean, I went into fairly full fight-or-flight mode with that person. I had to sort of work to keep myself calm and reasonably respectful and so on. But it was a very interesting response.
[1:01] And I experienced it as an assault upon consciousness, which is, I think it's just this, for me, it's a creepy paradox. And it's not creepy that there is a paradox. It's creepy because, for me, we'll just call him, you know, Bob. I have no idea what his name is, right? We'll just call him Bob. So it's creepy because Bob was triggered and he was frustrated, for sure.
[1:31] And I mean, I won't say that I was triggered. I was annoyed. But I think triggered is when you don't know it. But I think the reason that I'm.
[1:43] Viewing it, I think my body sort of, my physicality viewed it as alarm. Obviously, you know, crazy family and all of that, that's fairly obvious, at least to me, and it probably is to you too. But it's this paradox of, I don't know if a rock is real, but I'm certain you didn't answer my question to my satisfaction. Or I'm certain that you, Stef, are being irrational. Like, I'm not certain that you exist, but I'm certain that you haven't answered my question. Do you see what I mean? It's that, that paradox is so strange. And I did point this out when he said, you know, oh, you're being unfair. I think you're being unfair. And I'm like, oh, so you're not certain that rocks exist, but you're certain that I'm being unfair.
[2:31] Now, I don't know what to make of that kind of paradox, or rather, my sort of fight-or-flight response, perhaps, knows what to make of that. But it's so strange to me to be not certain that a rock exists, but to be certain that I, Stef, am wrong, right? Or that I'm being unfair or whatever it is, right? Or I'm not certain that rock exists, says Bob, but I'm absolutely certain I have no ulterior motives. I don't know what to make of that paradox, to be honest. Because a person who's intelligent, like, I think a person with good will or honest intentions or debating, I say, in good faith, right? If I pointed out, look, you say you're not certain that rocks exist, but you're certain I'm being unfair. Now, he might say, no, no, I'm not certain you're being unfair.
[3:37] If you're not certain that a rock exists, then how can you be certain that someone's being unfair? Because being unfair is infinitely more subjective than the existence of a rock. I hope I'm making some kind of sense here. Being unfair is infinitely more subjective than the existence of a rock. So if you don't know for certain that a rock exists, or that I, Stef, exist, or that the phone exists, or the speakers, or the internet, or my show, or the conversation that happened a month ago, right? Oh, maybe that's it too, right? Now, he didn't say, I think I called you a month ago. I think you existed a month ago. He said, I called you a month ago. So, like, we had this conversation a month ago, and it wasn't resolved. I had mic issues, blah, blah, blah, right? Right. So when it came to things that served him, he was 100% certain. He didn't say, well, you know, I think I called you a month ago in the same way I think rocks exist. Right. So he was certain about the emotional side of it. He was certain he didn't have ulterior motives. He was certain that I was being unfair or something like it. He was certain that he called me a month ago, right? So he had all of these certainties. And I didn't like the jabs, honestly. And this is, you know, this is the thing that I also find is kind of creepy and weird, right?
[5:06] Which is, if he says, here's my answer, and I don't think you're going to like it, that is an insult, really, in an intellectual debate, right? Now, he could say, I don't think I don't think you're going to agree with it, or you can, you know, you can have arguments against it. But if he says, you're not going to like it, then he's, as I pointed out, he's implying that, I mean, it's kind of stating that he thinks that my response is driven by emotion rather than by reason and evidence. Now, the fact that I don't like an argument doesn't mean, like he said, if I don't like an argument, it means that I'll probably argue against it, but my argument won't be, gee, I just don't like this argument. That's not going to be my argument, right? So the fact that I like or don't argument, don't like an argument is interesting. And when people sort of pre-guess your response, I find that quite manipulative in a way. So if he says, you're not going to like it, that's kind of like a trap. Because if he's going to say something that I'm not going to like, and he says, I know you're not going to like it, And then if I don't like it, maybe, I mean, I wouldn't feel that way, but maybe around other people, he's like, well, he predicted that I wouldn't like it. So I can't really express that I don't like it.
[6:30] Now, I might say, I don't like that argument. I mean, I don't think I would. I'm sure I have, you know, at some point in 44 years in philosophy.
[6:37] But if I were to say, I don't like this argument, and then I would say, and this is why. I wouldn't just say, I don't like that argument, and then that's it, right?
[6:49] So, to say you're not going to like the argument is strange because, I mean, the argument is either valid or invalid, right?
[7:01] And I don't remember, honestly, I don't remember if he said, I don't think you're going to like the argument or you're not going to like the argument, right? Because if he said, you're not going to like the argument and you're not going to like it. Now, maybe he said, I don't think you're going to like it. But if he said, you're not going to like the argument, then he's more certain about my emotional response than the existence of a rock, which is, again, to me, very strange. Like if somebody said to me, you know, you're more certain about my emotional response, Stef, than you are about whether a rock exists, I would say, you know, that is kind of odd. That does seem like an odd set of priorities. That does seem kind of strange to me. That's not right. I can't be more certain about things that are more subjective than things that objective, if that makes sense. That is a strange thing. It would be like, I'm not certain that the color blue exists, but I am certain you don't like the color blue. Ah, yeah, I think that's it. In other words, I'm more certain about feelings than I am about things. And that's odd and strange to me. And I suppose the question then for me becomes, if someone, like, to me, there's a certain amount of embarrassment about things.
[8:29] And the embarrassment is, it's in the contradiction, which is if someone were to say to me, do rocks exist? And I were to say, I think so, I would feel embarrassed. And of course, nobody can live that way. Nobody can actually live that way. You couldn't survive if you believed things were subjective, right? And I would feel embarrassed to not be able to say a rock exists because, you know, I kind of get the instinct deep down that if I believed, if I did, if I wasn't certain that rocks existed, then I wouldn't get to call people up to have a debate because I would have to assume my phone exists. I would have to assume the internet, the data, the other person, the prior phone call, like all, I would have to assume all of that stuff exists and I'd have to accept it, not like maybe, not I think, right? So the interesting thing would be, and maybe this is something that I'll puzzle out for next time, right? Not next time would this guy pay good money to never talk to this guy again. But for next time, he would say, did we have, oh, he would say we had this call a month ago, right? And I would say, no, we didn't. He'd say, yeah, yeah, yeah, we did. We did.
[9:54] And I said, well, are you certain? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm certain. He's like, well, how are you certain? Well, I experienced it. Well, you experienced seeing a rock too, but you're not certain that exists. So why are you more certain that we had a phone call a month ago than you are that a rock exists? Well, I remember having the phone call. It's like, okay, you hold a rock in your hand. That's even more, if you pick up a rock in your hand right now, is that more vivid than a phone call a month ago? And then he would just say, but that's not what I want to talk about. And I think that's the part that was, I mean, sorry, there was a lot that was creeping me out, which is if someone is being that contradictory, and it was a little maddening for me because I like to get to a resolution of things. It was a little maddening for me. And every time I would try to get to a conclusion, he would say, but you're not addressing what I called in to talk about, or you're not addressing my issue, right? When of course, and I said, look, I am addressing your issue. You asked for my position on the is and the ought, and I asked you, is a debate an is or an ought?
[11:04] And so every time I would try to get to a conclusion, he would do this jump out of the conversation, jump out of the conversation, and he would say that this is not a, like, we're doing a chain of syllogistical reasoning. I don't think there was any, I think it was all deductive, not inductive, right? So we're doing this chain of reasoning, and then when we start to get to something that could prove him wrong, he jumps out of the conversation and says, but this isn't addressing the point that blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, right?
[11:34] And it's, again, how do you know, right? So it's the weird thing for me is that somebody, and I get that this is weird logically. I'm just trying to get it emotionally, right? I think it's pretty clear that it's weird logically, right? Like, he is not certain that rocks exist, but he's certain that my complex line of argumentation is not addressing his issue. Did you see it? Like, I hope this makes sense. Like, he's not certain of the things that he can hold in his hand, but he is certain that my complex reasoning is not going to address the issue that he brought up, even though I am working to address the issue that he brought up, right? So, I guess my question, and this is the part that I don't understand, and I think that the sort of fight or flight sense of danger that I got was interesting. So, I think that the fight or flight that I got was, if he's either capable of processing these contradictions, or he's not, right? If he's a dumb guy, let's say, or just not smart, you know, somebody who couldn't answer the theoretical, you know, how would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast yesterday? Say, well, I did eat breakfast yesterday. If somebody just can't process theoreticals, or somebody who's like, and I say, here's a general friend, and you say, well, how do you explain this exception, right? That's just somebody who's not smart.
[12:53] So, if he's smart enough to understand these contradictions, which I think he is, then why doesn't he experience them or feel them? Which is a fairly important, like, why doesn't he acknowledge them or experience them or notice them or feel them or something like that? Now, if he feels or notices or experiences these contradictions, then what is his response? His response is to sort of gaslight, to jump out of the topic, to break the chain of reasoning, to accuse me of not answering his questions, all that kind of stuff, right? Or when I say, why would I have a complex debate with someone who isn't even certain that rocks exist? I mean, I don't think there's a good answer to that, but maybe there's an answer to it that I'm sort of not aware of. But so then, what's the motive of the person who's calling up to engage in a conversation if these obvious contradictions aren't being processed by him, aren't being addressed.
[14:00] And I think... And I'm not saying it's conscious and it doesn't really matter, but I think that the purpose is to use my platform to spread craziness and corruption. To use craziness and corruption. Because he wants to use, this is someone, I assume, and it's such a foreign sort of internal mental state to me that I'm just trying to sort of process it here. Because for me, you know, this is sort of the Socratic daemon that he talked
[14:30] about, like this little conscience on his shoulder. For me, if I experience a contradiction, I rebel against it. I don't rebel against the knowledge of it. I rebel against the contradiction. Like, oh, gosh, you know, like I always had an uneasy feeling that the objectivist proof of ethics was not airtight. I need something that's airtight, that you don't need a premise or any kind of agreement in order to accept, which is why everyone, even the philosophy professor and rationality rules and all the people I've debated UPB with, even those people have accepted that rape, theft, assault, and murder can never be universally preferable behavior.
[15:17] So I had this uneasiness, but I had a pretty busy life as a whole, and it wasn't like I was being paid to do philosophy or study objectivism, but, you know, I had a feeling like it's a good answer and maybe it is the best answer, but it doesn't feel like an airtight answer. I've always sort of had an instinct for these kinds of things, which is not proof, but it's usually a good indicator that something is missing or something can be added. I always want arguments that are airtight, right? And airtight arguments are hard to come by. They're hard to invent, they're hard to come by. And so if Bob, right, the guy who called in, whatever his name is, if Bob is calling in, then he must accept the reality of what happened. He must accept, you know, the phone, the conversation, me, him, debate, language, validity, truth, blah, blah, blah. So if Bob is calling in to gaslight, to nag, to, you know, kind of insult in this sort of petty way, you know, this sort of petty, oh, you're not going to like it and all that kind of stuff, right? That is kind of insulting. And either, so then what do you do, right? You know, this kind of trap when people do these kinds of little digs, right? Then either you let it go and other people feel the dig and they feel you not responding to it or naming it, right?
[16:42] Or you call them out on it, in which case they act all innocent, and then you are, quote, paranoid, right? You're just, hey, you know, I didn't mean it that way, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, right? So this is the, and is this a conscious skill or a kind of instinct? I don't know. I don't know. Like, I've known people in my life who are just, you know, absolutely fantastic at verbal insults and abuse, or sort of riding that line where you take a dig at someone, either under the guise of a joke or, you know, I wasn't, you know, okay, fine, I'll use a different word, you know. So they take a dig at you, and that puts you in kind of an impossible situation, at least I think so, or at least that's the aim. And the impossible situation, as I said, is either you ignore the dig, in which case people see you ignoring the dig, and then they either think you didn't notice the dig, or you noticed it, but don't want to respond to it for whatever reason, and it's just, it's a downgrade. Or you respond to the dig, in which case they claim innocence, and then you are, you know, kind of paranoid, and hey, man, it wasn't my intention. If you want me to use a different word, I'll use it from, you know, they're just, then they're, you know, they're just, quote, trying to.
[17:51] For the sake of the conversation, they're just conceding to your irrational dislike of what they said, and fine, you know, we'll just use it. So, you can't have any status. Now, I don't know, is that an instinct, or is that sort of thought through? I think it's probably an instinct. That would be my guess. It's an instinct, not something that's thought through.
[18:13] Maybe I should grip my teeth and listen back to the conversation because it's not often. I can't remember the last time I've had a sort of visceral reaction to a conversation like that. Because what is the purpose? If I don't believe that there's such a thing as the truth, if I'm not certain that there's such a thing as a truth, like what would the is-ought dichotomy, like what would debating the is-ought dichotomy do for me? Or if I'm not open to reason, what is the purpose of calling someone up and pretending to debate? I think it is to thwart, to paralyze, to humiliate, to punish, right? To punish.
[18:51] So generally, people without self-knowledge will recreate in you the feelings they're not experienced, like they have but are not willing to experience in themselves. And sorry, that's a sort of an awkward way of putting it. Generally, people without self-knowledge will provoke the feelings unacceptable to them in you. So somebody who's feeling helpless, but who will not accept that feeling of helplessness will provoke helplessness in others. Somebody who's angry, but won't directly and honestly admit that anger, then he will provoke anger in others. That's sort of passive aggression, right?
[19:32] Somebody who is secretly, if they're in a relationship, they're sort of secretly attracted to someone else, that person will often accuse the other person of infidelity or impure thoughts or something like that. So, the sort of fight or flight, the hostility that I felt towards him is him not calling up and saying, Stef, your arguments are bugging the shit out of me. Stef, you know I'm really your arguments this conversation we had a month ago is kind of sticking in my craw and it really is is bothering me because then you know then what's interesting is we could actually have a very interesting and productive talk about feelings you know that's interesting when did you feel it and and what's your childhood like we could actually have a productive but this is acting out which is he's bothered by my arguments but he doesn't want to admit that. So he calls me up. And it's funny, because he said, you didn't address my arguments. And then, and I don't remember this, but obviously, I'm sure it's true. And then he went on to say, I had a mic issue. Like, so I guess he had to cancel out of the conversation.
[20:47] So to even accuse me of not addressing his issues when he has a mic issue is kind of strange too, right? How do you even know you had a mic issue? Well, it went out and blah, blah, blah, but you're not even sure that there are rocks. So how do you know you had a mic issue?
[21:03] So again, if you can't be sure of tangible things in the present, how can you be sure of intangible things in the past? Ah, well, it's a recorded. It's like, yeah, but that could be manipulated. That could be AI, whereas a rock in your hand is not manipulated, right? So his arguments bother me. Sorry, my arguments bother him. So, and he was not able to oppose my arguments. And it might, I'm wondering if, yeah, it might even be because I did a show for donors where I was working through all of the debates that this guy had with me. I think it was him. Yeah. And I, because it probably was about a month ago. I did a show for donors where I was working through how to debate the is-ought dichotomy in a way that's airtight, right? And that's why we're the guy. And so, yeah, you know what? This is probably the guy. He provoked me, and this is a good thing, right? He provoked me to come up with airtight arguments for the is-ought dichotomy, which is, is a debate an is or an ought? Because if a debate is an ought, which it is, right? If a debate is an ought, then debating whether there's such a thing as an ought, when a debate is an ought, is the debate has answered the question. You're having a debate, therefore there's naught.
[22:20] So, he gave me something productive, something really productive last time. I'm pretty sure it was the same guy, because I think that's the only is-ought conversation I've had in quite some time. So, yeah, and I remember it's like a half hour, 40 minutes of me just working through how to have a really good debate and how to airtight prove the is-ought stuff and all of that. And I think it only went out to donors, if I remember rightly.
[22:45] But so then he came back I don't honestly I don't believe the mic issues I just don't I mean the idea that two shows I guess the only argument would be that he ran out of power but of course if you ran out of power last time you'd make sure that your headset or whatever was fully charged, right or if you run out of power with a headset it will switch to speakerphone and then you can continue, at least continue the conversations. I don't believe that I had mic issues like twice in a row when I'm getting the other hand, gaining the upper hand in a debate.
[23:18] So I'm sure it was him the last time. Sorry, I lost the thread. I'm sure it'll come back. But so the point I want to make here is, so what's the motive here? What's the motive? He's coming in and he's angry. So he comes in and he accuses me of not answering his question. And then when I try to answer his question and I start to make headway philosophically, and again, I'm not saying with him, but with the audience, right? Then he jumps out of the conversation and simply says that this is not addressing my issue. Now, that in itself is an odd, annoying, and kind of selfish. And what I mean by that is, so if I'm having a conversation with someone, they ask me to address an issue, and I start to work on addressing the issue, and then they say this isn't addressing my issue, when I'm like a few minutes into a complicated topic, then saying it's not addressing my issue is interrupting the conversation. Like I'm trying to address this issue, but he keeps telling me, he keeps jumping out of the conversation saying, this is not addressing my issue. So that's asking me to give him something. And then when I'm in the process of giving it to him, smacking it out of my hands and saying, that's not what I asked for.
[24:34] I mean, I am trying to answer him. What am I going to do? Like not answer the guy? He's asking a very interesting question, which I've done a lot of prep on based on the last conversation. So I'm trying to think, the analogy of the delivery thing is not. So he asked me to answer the is ought question. And listen, I had no problem with that. I mean, I was dissatisfied with some of the proofs I'd put forward for the is ought. And so I worked hard after the last conversation to improve them or to make them airtight. So I have no problem with the fact that he did not feel I had completely answered the is-ought dichotomy, perfectly fair. I mean, I think the arguments are the same, but there's a way to do it that's airtight.
[25:17] And that's sort of what I was working on, on the premium podcast from about a month ago.
[25:23] So, but if I'm, if he says, I want you to answer this incredibly complex question about the is-ought dichotomy, and I start to answer it, and then he won't even accept. See, the is-ought dichotomy, and I think this is another thing that bothered me, the is-ought dichotomy is, sorry, I have to say is, the is-ought dichotomy is saying there's a difference between existence and preferences, or things you ought to do, the is and the ought, right? And so, if he's saying there's a difference between the is and the ought, and I ought to address it, which is kind of one of the things I was going to get to. If he's saying there's a big difference between the is and the ought, then the first thing I wanted to do was establish what an is is, right? Because for the audience, right, they haven't been sort of privy to prior conversations, they haven't read UPB, they haven't read essential philosophy, and so on. So, if somebody's going to say that you haven't answered the is-ought dichotomy, then I need to ask, what does he mean by is? Is is something exists independent of consciousness. That's the is, right? But he won't even accept the is. So, if he won't even accept the is, how on earth are we supposed to get to the ought, if that makes sense?
[26:39] That's really, really important, right? He won't accept. If he won't even accept that there is anything, how can there even be any kind of ought? If he doesn't accept that things existed before human beings existed,
[26:55] then he doesn't even accept the is. So if he doesn't accept the is, how is it even remotely possible to have anything to do with the ought, right? Makes no sense. Anyway, maybe I will go back over the conversation and mull it over. But yeah, I don't know. Is this an instinct? Is he feel frustrated, angry, and thwarted? Because if he spread all of this radical skepticism and he's wrong, then he's kind of a toxin, like he's like a brain toxin. If he spread all of this super radical subjectivism and relativism, and he's wrong about that, then he has done some, you know, some pretty sinister stuff. some pretty bad stuff.
[27:37] And maybe that's the guilt is causing him to want to, maybe he's angry at me for provoking his guilt if he's wrong, if he's capable of it. And maybe that has something to do with his response or his reaction. And if that's the case, then if it's that convoluted, like if I've provoked his moral horror and guilt at having spread all of this toxic stuff. If that's the case, then, well, then there's no having a conversation with this guy, other than if he were to be honest about his childhood and what led him to such a bizarre and twisted position. Anyway, I hope that helps. I hope that's interesting. And lots of love, my friends. I'll talk to you soon. Bye.
Support the show, using a variety of donation methods
Support the show
