August 14, 2025 • 53 mins
Dive into a fascinating exploration of applied postmodernism with hosts who bring contrasting worldviews to the conversation. This episode tackles the provocative idea that selectively applying postmodern principles amounts to "cheating" in philosophical discourse.
The conversation begins by unpacking postmodernism itself – a philosophical approach questioning whether objective reality can truly be known. While the hosts acknowledge value in considering multiple perspectives, they challenge the increasingly common practice of applying relativistic thinking only when convenient. Through engaging examples and thoughtful analysis, they examine how terms like "privilege" and "lived experience" have entered everyday language since 2015, often deployed inconsistently.
A highlight of the discussion centers around the "Mott and Bailey" fallacy – when someone makes a controversial claim but retreats to more defensible territory when challenged. This rhetorical tactic appears frequently in discussions about critical theory, allowing people to make broad statements but avoid defending them by shifting to easier positions.
The conversation takes a fascinating turn when exploring morality. Can we truly speak of "good" and "bad" in a relativistic framework? One host suggests replacing these binary concepts with "constructive" versus "destructive" or whether actions "build up" or "tear down" others. Through examples ranging from helping a friend with unhealthy eating habits to appropriate contexts for profanity, they demonstrate how nuance matters in ethical considerations.
Whatever your philosophical leanings, you'll appreciate the hosts' commitment to intellectual honesty and their final agreement that consistency matters. Whether embracing or rejecting postmodernism, applying principles selectively undermines the integrity of any worldview. Subscribe now for more thought-provoking conversations that bridge divides and find common ground.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Does it feel like every part of your life is
divided, every scenario, everyenvironment, your church, your
school, your work, your friends,left right, conservative,
liberal, religious, secular?
It seems you always have totake a side.
This is a conversation betweena progressive Christian and a
conservative atheist who happento be great friends.
(00:23):
Welcome to Living on CommonGround.
Do you think if we met today wewould still be friends?
Speaker 2 (00:34):
I don't know, but we're friends now.
Speaker 4 (00:38):
A mob is no less a mob because they are with you,
man.
So what?
We won a few games and y'allfools think that's something.
Man, that ain't nothing, y'all.
And you know what else?
We ain't nothing either.
Yeah, we came together in camp,cool.
But then we're right back hereand the world tells us that they
(01:00):
don't want us to be together.
We fall apart like we ain't adamn bit of nothing, man.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
How you doing.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
I'm good.
Are we recording?
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Krista's going to hit you.
Awesome.
Yeah, you deserve it, though.
Probably.
Usually it's like when youdeserve it, though probably
Usually.
It's like when you're a kid andyou get in trouble for
something and then it turns outyou didn't actually do what you
got in trouble for, and thenyour parents say, well, you
probably got away with somethingelse.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
That's very good.
Yeah, that's good.
I don't know that I've everused that.
Oh, that was used against me.
I like that Because.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
I never actually did anything wrong, obviously, and
so every time I got in troubleit was an error.
Uh-huh, all right.
So this week, what I want totalk about is, in the list of
topics that we're working from,you had written that applied
(02:06):
postmodernism is cheating,uh-huh, okay.
Now I wrote next to that one.
Tell me more.
All right, because I'm familiarwith postmodernism, but the term
, the phrase appliedpostmodernism was actually one
that was relatively, uh, new tome.
(02:27):
I wasn't sure exactly what thatwas, and so what I did is I
looked, I looked, I typed inapplied postmodernism and I
immediately went to jordanpeterson, okay, and checked out,
like so this was not just arandom google search.
Speaker 3 (02:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
Unlike most of my research for the podcast.
Uh-huh, what this was was I'veit, it, it.
It had the sound of JordanPeterson to me, just the phrase
applied postmodernism and so Iwent and I looked up what he had
to say, and then, of course, hehas other things to say that
relate to applied postmodernism.
(03:03):
Yeah, that I think that we cantouch on.
I'll let you drive thatconversation and see what we
touch on.
But what is appliedpostmodernism and why would you
say it's cheating?
Speaker 3 (03:18):
Okay, so here's my argument, and I am not the this
conversation has been going onfor forever.
Actually you can.
You could say this conversationhas been going on, you know,
for decades and decades anddecades.
Um, well, since philosophy beganto discuss post-modernism yeah
(03:40):
yeah, um, there there's a Frenchschool of philosophy that
talked about this quite a bitback in the 50s and 60s, and
it's been going on for a longtime here.
(04:07):
Here's why I say appliedpost-modernism is cheating.
I don't have a whole lot ofproblem with the act, with
actual post-modernism.
Um, do we need to definepost-modernism?
Well, it's really difficult todefine.
That is part of.
The issue is that it almostdefies definition, um, but
essentially it's a collection ofof um theories, um, or
philosophies that that positsthat um, no matter what I say,
(04:34):
somebody's going to argue withme, so that's fine.
Um, that that's not actuallywhat it means do you want the
oxford dictionary?
Speaker 2 (04:39):
yeah, go ahead and give me that all right, it's a
late 20th century style and andconcept the arts, architecture
and criticism.
That represents a departurefrom modernism.
Yeah, that's always veryhelpful when you use the word to
define it.
Speaker 3 (04:53):
And has I mean it's a reaction to modernism.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Okay, great, that's clear, that clears that right up
.
Speaker 3 (04:59):
Well, I can tell you how they describe modernism.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
Well, it, has at its heart, yeah, modernism.
Well, it has at its heart and Ithink this is kind of what at
least my understanding of thecriticism of postmodernism lies
here is that at its heart, it'sa general distrust of grand
theories and ideologies, as wellas a problematic relationship
with any notion of art, art,okay, okay.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
so modernism can kind of be defined as the idea that
things can be known, that thereare things that can be known.
Yes, there are.
There are principles that youcan.
You can pick up a rock and saythis is a rock, it is hard, it
is gray and there are ways,epistemological ways, of knowing
(05:53):
a thing.
It rests on the concept thatobjective reality does exist and
can be measured right.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
So as a, as a philosophy, because I think
that's we're not talking aboutpostmodern art and stuff like
that no what we're talking abouthere is um the the philosophy,
postmodernism right, which thenum it's a reaction to the
modernist's emphasis onobjective truth, reason and
universal narratives Right.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
So it is a reaction to, and this is what always
happens.
Everything's always a reactionto something that exists right
now A critical response to Okay,yeah that's right.
So it is.
It's a critical response to theidea of knowing, to the idea of
(06:49):
knowing.
So it'll say things like um, itwill.
It will posit ideas like you're.
You say that you know x, butreally you're just experiencing
something and you don't have anyidea if that experience is
really related to some objectivereality of x.
So you're a post-modernist sothis is why I say I don't
actually have a whole lot ofproblem with postmodernism as,
(07:11):
uh, as a um, as a subject in andof itself, okay, um, so a lot
of the terms that we have, um,that are kind of in our common
vernacular now that startedshowing up sometime in the in
around 2015.
(07:31):
That's important, okay, um.
And then now we're just kind ofpart of common vernacular.
Things like um, things likeprivilege, that term and the way
that it's used, things like, uh, well, that's more applied
post-modernism, but things like,um, lived experience.
People started talking about mylived experience, right, people
(07:55):
started talking about my truth.
My truth is right differentmaybe than your truth, right?
all of these things kind of worktheir way into the language and
so people who are not in theacademy, they start using this
in the way that they think isaccurate and, frankly, the way
that language works.
If you're using it and someoneelse kind of understands what
(08:17):
you're saying, then it is beingused accurately because language
is a method of communicationbetween between humans but can I
give?
Speaker 2 (08:25):
can I give a quick example of uh, when you use the
word privilege, I think, howit's shifted where it used to be
.
It used to be kind of a potlike, in a positive way, like
you have privileges that shouldbe something that you now it's
often has.
It carries a negativeconnotation that's right as a
result of applied post-modernismI would call it applied
(08:46):
post-modernism.
Yes, so like connotation as aresult of applied postmodernism.
I would call it appliedpostmodernism.
Yes, okay, so like, for example, as a gift and I didn't quite
know how to receive it, but Isaid thank you, that's a good
way to receive a gift.
Yeah, someone gave me a bookthat was called Understanding
your White Privilege.
Mm-hmm, thank you, your whiteprivilege, thank you, yeah.
(09:14):
And so, um, and it sat on mybookshelf.
I, I again, it wasn't like Iwasn't interested in reading it,
but I've got so many books thatI have to read that.
Yeah, it has to go down to thebottom and work its way up.
Anyway, as we were movingoffices this week it was last
week one of the guys that washelping move found that book on
my shelf and he has borrowed itand he wants to read it and I
(09:36):
told him that'd be great and hecan summarize it for me.
But anyway, is that kind ofwhat you're talking about?
Speaker 3 (09:42):
Yes, so all of the different types of privileges.
So when we were young someonemight have referred to the
privileged, and in commonvernacular we knew what that
meant.
Now again someone's going toargue with me because they're
going to say well, in theacademy, such and such was
talking about privilege in 1992,because Kimberly Crenshaw was
(10:05):
publishing articles aboutintersectionality and privilege
and all that kind of stuff backin the 90s.
And that's true.
But in common vernacular wewould have talked about the
privileged If I said likethey're privileged what do I
mean?
Speaker 2 (10:18):
What I love is the face that you just made when you
said that that nobody got tosee except me.
Speaker 3 (10:25):
It meant that I was talking about somebody who was
like a trust fund baby.
Right, that's what we meant.
We said the privileged.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
Yeah, it definitely did not include me.
Okay, can I just say that oftenwhen we talk about the
privileged, well, it used to notmean me, but now it's becoming
a way of referring to ourselvesin a self-deprecating way
sometimes.
That's right.
Speaker 3 (10:50):
So here's applied, so okay.
So let me back up for a second.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
Yeah, sorry.
Speaker 3 (10:54):
No, no, no, that's okay, this is a good
conversation.
So again, postmodernism itself.
I don't have a lot of problemwith Helen Pluckrose and James.
Lindsay wrote a book calledCynical Theories.
That's a play on the termcritical theories.
Helen Pluckrose is great onthis.
(11:15):
She's very even about any kindof criticisms.
She's very well-researched.
James Lindsay actually is verygood on it as well.
But I like Helen Pluck, she'svery well researched.
James Lindsay actually is verygood on it as well.
But I like Helen Pluckrose'stakes on this and one of the
things she talks about is howthe actual postmodernists never
really got very far and theycertainly didn't break out of
(11:37):
the academy, partly because mostpeople couldn't understand what
the crap they were talkingabout.
They were just unintelligiblein there.
And that's part ofpostmodernism.
It's all wrapped up in therethat it should be unintelligible
.
Because part of the issue is Idon't know from what perspective
(12:01):
I would actually see, whethermy perspective is a real
perspective or not.
I've never been outside of myperspective.
I've never seen with anybody'seyes except for mine.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
I feel like I've heard you give this argument
before, right.
Speaker 3 (12:17):
So it is unintelligible.
That is true, and also I don'tsee how I can escape it as a
real thing.
I don't have any problem withit.
Here's the other thing that Isee, though.
The logical conclusion of thatis that it's even across
everyone.
Everyone gets an exact value ofone of one.
(12:50):
If one is to say you can't tellme how I should feel about this
experience, that I had becausethat's my lived experience.
That's true.
Also, you can't tell me aboutmy experience, because that's my
lived experience.
You literally don't know if,under postmodern thought, you
literally don't know if I ammoving through the world in a
(13:11):
way that every single personaround me that sees me thinks is
a completely calm, normal wayof moving around the world, and
yet I am under the greatesttorment and misery that any
human has ever experienced.
You would have no way ofknowing that under a postmodern
thought.
Right, because you don'texperience the internal
(13:32):
experience.
You have to believe what I sayis my experience, right, just
like I have to believe what yourexperience is if I'm going to
interact on that level at all.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
So what about like empirical evidence?
Speaker 3 (13:46):
Okay.
So what postmodern thoughtwould say is you never touch
empirical evidence ever.
What you do is interact.
You have an experience thatinteracts with something you
believe is empirical evidence.
You also have a prioripositions that determine how you
(14:07):
interact with that empiricalevidence, that give you
intuitions about it that areprior to consciousness and prior
to reason.
Speaker 2 (14:16):
Okay, so.
So if you're experiencing let'ssay, you and I are sitting here
and you're experiencing thismassive inner turmoil, yeah, but
you're telling me thateverything's okay, but I can
look at you and I can read bodylanguage then I'm being told
that I can't actually trust myinterpretation of your body
(14:38):
language.
How would you know?
Right, because the only way Iwould know was by my own
personal experience.
Speaker 3 (14:46):
Yes, you would when.
I experience inner turmoil, myface looks like this, you
wouldn't even know, then howwould that be any different?
Because that's still yourexperience, right?
Speaker 2 (14:56):
that's what I'm saying, the only way you'd know
is, if you were me Right,because your facial expression
of joy could actually look likeyou just sucked on a lemon
whatever it is right.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
The only way you could have my experience is if
you were me, and if you were me,you would not be you to know
you were having my experience.
This is post-modernism and youcan see how frustrating it could
be right, you're getting theseconversations and part of the
whole thing is like you can'thave a conversation with
somebody.
Right, it's well, it's verydifficult, because I'm rejecting
(15:32):
the very idea that you couldknow anything that I could know
and that I could know anythingthat you could know and right.
So Shared experience is rightout the window.
Right, so A shared experienceis right out the window.
There's no place to stand inorder to know if you could have
a shared experience.
Possibly you could.
You could have a sharedexperience, but you'd never know
(15:53):
.
But how would we know?
This is postmodernism, okay,this is part of postmodernism,
okay, and I don't have anyproblem with that.
But part of what that does isit puts everyone on an even
playing field.
Nobody knows anybody else'sexperience, okay, all right.
Applied postmodernism is whereyou take that concept and you
(16:15):
only apply it to certain groupsof people or certain individuals
, but you don't apply it toother groups of people and other
individuals, so would it bemore accurate to call it like
selective applied?
Yeah, you could you could sayselective, you could say applied
Helen Pluckrose and JamesLindsay call it applied and then
they um.
They also talk about reified,um postmodernism, which I don't
(16:37):
think they need to go into, butbut they see as a distinction,
as like it's the highest, it'sthe highest good.
But this is, this is where youget these terms like
intersectionality, which is theconcept that the part of well
(16:59):
and one of the basis forcritical theory, which is the
concept that you can know sometruths.
But the only truths that youcan know are the truths that
come from being outside of themain society or oppressed by the
(17:20):
main society, or oppressed bythe main society.
If you're not oppressed by agroup, then you can't know
what's happening, because you'rethe fish in the water trying to
talk about the water.
That's the postmodernism part.
But if you're the one that'sbeing oppressed by the water or
(17:42):
you're outside of the water,then you can know that.
So it's incumbent on all thefish in the water, or you're
outside of the water, then youcan know that.
So it's incumbent on all thefish in the water who don't know
to listen to the ones who doknow.
This is, this is criticaltheory, and right and post.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
The oppressor needs to in order to know reality, has
to listen to the oppressedright, and and so this is where
I think that's, I think it'scheating, and so this is where I
think that's, I think it'scheating.
Okay, so this is then connectsto I almost.
I almost got the a clip fromJordan Peterson talking about
this.
Yeah, um, so you're just goingto have to go with my paraphrase
(18:21):
of what he said instead,because I didn't record it.
Um, if you want, I can includeit.
You tell me right now,otherwise I'm going to press on
no, press on okay summarize, allright.
So what he talks about in this,in this lecture that I was
watching online, is that hebelieves that applied
(18:41):
post-modernism is just a um isputting a new face on communism
in that, because he said hetalks about how fail, how
communism failed as a politicalsystem, and so what happens now
is we just we just rename things, but basically it's the same
(19:05):
thing.
Right where before you had theoh, the term just went right out
of my head the, the.
Help me out.
What were the proletariat?
Speaker 4 (19:20):
You had the proletariat and you had the
bourgeoisie.
Speaker 2 (19:27):
And now we talk instead of using those terms.
We use oppressed and theoppressor, but it's the same
concepts.
Does that sound familiar to you?
Speaker 3 (19:39):
Yeah, so this is an argument that's been developed
over the last 10 years or so.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
Is he the one that has developed it?
No, not necessarily.
He's been part of theconversation.
Yeah, because the clip was likefor 11 years old.
Speaker 3 (19:50):
Yeah, yeah.
So that's why I say I don'tknow how to do this again, but
the reason 2015,.
2015 is important.
Speaker 2 (19:59):
Yeah, you said 2015 is important.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
Why that's 10 years ago it's kind of when this
breaks out of the academy.
So this has been.
These concepts have beenpercolating within the academy
for the last several decades.
Speaker 2 (20:37):
And they've been dripping out of the academy.
In the early 2000s there wassome concern by some people,
some writers and intellectualsthat look, there's these
concepts that college studentsare being taught.
That to these people were veryconcerning, right?
Well, 17 years ago I remember abig deal in theology.
I was, I had already finishedseminary, I was, uh, serving a
church and the idea of relativetruth became like I mean, this
was a huge deal, yeah, withinchristian circles, like pushing
hard against that, yeah, and nowit almost seems like it's just
(21:02):
commonly accepted yeah, well,and this is what so?
Speaker 3 (21:05):
okay, so again.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
This is where I say like as a culture, I would say I
still think that within certainchristian circles especially,
it's still very much pushedagainst yeah, well, and it's,
it's a.
Speaker 3 (21:21):
This is where I say like I think most of the time,
the way that we talk about umrelative truth or relativity um,
is again cheating.
It's.
It's what's called a mott andbailey um argument, which is
which is?
I always get this wrong.
I should have looked it up, butum.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
One of them is a yeah , do my deep research.
Speaker 3 (21:43):
You can look up which one is, which I'll tell the the
concept, but then you can tellwhich one is, which.
It doesn't matter the name, buta mott.
And bailey was a uh, a medievalstructure where you had a
fortress in a center that waseasily defendable and then you
had a larger area where peoplewould hang out and then you had
kind of a ring around that soyou'd hang out in that area in
(22:04):
the front.
I think the mot was the uh, thefortress here.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
It is interestingly enough because my computer is
listening to us.
It came up before I.
I typed mo and it came up.
Uh, the mott and bailey fallacyis a rhetorical tactic where
someone presents a controversialclaim which is the Bailey.
Speaker 3 (22:24):
The Bailey.
Yes, and then I got it right.
The Mott is the fortress.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
Yep and then, when challenged, retreats to a more
defensible, often vague orambiguous position called the
Mott.
Speaker 3 (22:34):
Yeah, so it's very clear.
Like you can, I'll do a crudeexample of this.
You push to have taught in highschools books that are
(22:55):
explicitly promoting criticaltheory concepts.
We don't have enough time toget into actually what critical
theory is and how.
It was born in the law schooland it was really a legal
defense and all of that.
But the idea that fundamentallythe United States is a racist
(23:16):
country it was born on racism,it was built on racism, it was
built on racism is built onoppression.
It is fundamentally anoppressive country, right, and
that I'm just gonna say.
There, there are writers I canpoint to.
The robin d'angelo is a hugeproponent of this, okay, and
she's very, she's very popular.
Um, that, uh, that minoritiescannot be racist and that all
(23:40):
white people are racist.
Okay, so that's the Bailey.
You push back against theBailey and you'll find that
people typically will retreatinto the mott of I just want to
teach history, I'm just tryingto teach history and real
history, okay, and people havesuffered real oppression, and
(24:01):
right.
So they retreat into thesmaller, easily defensible
argument yeah, they don't.
Speaker 2 (24:06):
You can't, yeah, you can't argue against that.
Speaker 3 (24:07):
People have experienced racism so that that
is a typical, and it's not that.
It's not that people who arepromoting post applied
post-modernism orintersectionality or whatever
are the only ones who do this.
This is a typical argumentative.
Well, I just, I just watched, Ijust watched fundamentalists do
that same device.
Speaker 2 (24:24):
Yes, or maybe.
This was a little bit different.
Theirs was the um.
This is another.
This is another topic, maybe,but the straw man.
I hate the straw man whenyou're trying to debate with
somebody yeah where they buildup this fake you, yeah, and then
tear that down, yeah, and feellike they have now somehow won,
(24:47):
yeah, or achieved, made theirpoint.
So it's a little different, Ithink.
Speaker 3 (24:50):
It's a little different, but it's related.
It's a rhetorical fallacy, yeah.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
I hadn't, so I hadn't been.
I was not familiar with theterm Mott and Bailey.
Speaker 3 (24:57):
Yeah, and you can watch people do it where they'll
retreat Again.
It's just a very simple day.
They'll make implications thatare wide ranging and very strong
and then they'll retreat, as adefense, into something.
That's what happens withrelativity.
(25:21):
I think people do that when itcomes to relativity and what
happens is that they want toapply non-relative truth to some
people, because we all do.
We all want to apply somenon-relative truth to some
people because we all do.
We all want to apply somenon-relative truth.
(25:44):
Give me an example.
Well, we want to say this isbad, right.
We want to say, yeah, let's saywe want to say slavery is bad,
okay, yeah, but if you're a truerelativist, if you're really
applying those principles, thatis an impossibility to say right
(26:07):
.
Speaker 2 (26:08):
Sure, so then you get— Unless, of course, you're
the oppressed by slavery, thenyou're the only one that
actually knows the reality.
Speaker 3 (26:15):
This is what the argument would be okay.
The argument would be okay, butwhat I'm saying is true.
Relativity would say even if Iam being oppressed, I can't know
that it's wrong, right, maybe Ijust have the wrong perspective
.
Maybe I'm not right.
I'm not making these arguments.
I'm saying like this is therelativistic argument, sure, so
(26:37):
if you, but but you want toapply relativity yeah, just to
be clear, lucas is not sayingthat he agrees with slavery do
we?
maybe we should put that in boldin the notes.
Yes, that is.
I am not promoting slavery.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
I do not agree with slavery.
Speaker 3 (26:54):
yep, not a fan of hitler say this.
Okay, but but what I'm sayingis that typically, when people
want to apply relativity orpostmodernism, they want to
apply it when it gets certaingroups out of having to engage
(27:17):
in the back and forth betweentwo people, between humans.
You can't tell me, you don'tget to have a voice in this, and
this is where people likeJordan Peterson will say this is
just another power struggle.
This is an appeal to power,right, and actually there are
critical theorists who wouldcompletely agree with him on
(27:38):
that.
What they would say is thereare critical theorists who would
completely agree with him onthat.
What they would say is actually, the world is only power.
That's all human interaction is.
And so, yes, we agree, that'sso disappointing, but they would
say that's just always the caseis that human civilization is
defined by groups that havepower and groups that have less
(27:59):
power.
That's what intersectionalityis.
Also defined by groups thathave power and groups that have
less power.
That's what intersectionalityis.
Also, intersectionality is theidea that there is a hierarchy
of oppressor and oppressed, andevery different possible
grouping that you could findyourself in has some level of
either being an oppressor orbeing an oppressed, and
(28:19):
intersectionality is the comingtogether in an individual of
multiple of those groups.
The thing is, it could be itgets the groups should be under.
That philosophy should beinfinite.
You know, like you have glasses,like I know, if you started
(28:44):
defining the groups that youfall into, I know the groups
that you would say because ofthe groups that have been given
to you, you would talk about howyou're white.
You talk about you're male, cis, heterosexual.
You would talk about yoursocioeconomic class.
You talk about the fact thatyou consider yourself a
christian.
You talk about the fact thatyou're american.
Those are some groups.
(29:06):
I'm a fan of star wars.
You're a fan of star wars.
Those are some groups you fallinto.
a billion other groups oh surethat are just never talked about
, because those are not onesthat we care about or that some
people care about, um, and sothat's why I say I think applied
post-modernism is cheating,because it takes this concept,
(29:26):
which I think is coherentpost-modernism, and it applies
it in some places and not inother places.
Speaker 2 (29:37):
So you feel that it's not applied enough I think you
got to stick with it.
Speaker 3 (29:41):
If you're going to stick with it, you can reject it
I think some people reject it,and that's okay you can have
that argument I'm not like.
Speaker 2 (29:50):
James lindsey rejects it.
Speaker 3 (29:52):
He says we can know, we can't.
He's a mathematician.
Okay, he says we can know, wecan measure.
He modernist?
Okay, I'll have that argument.
But I don't think you get tojump in and jump out.
That's what I'm saying, right,when it's convenient.
Speaker 2 (30:07):
Okay, so a couple thoughts.
One is I could see where 2 plus2 equals 4, and someone would
say that that is something thatwe can actually know.
But you could also argue thattwo plus two equals four.
Only because we agree that itdoes Base 10,?
Speaker 3 (30:25):
that is specifically an argument that happened for
like three years, four years ago.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (30:31):
Yeah, it was like blew up on Twitter.
Speaker 2 (30:33):
Well, and the thing is too like-.
Speaker 3 (30:35):
It's now a code word or a code phrase.
Speaker 2 (30:37):
What is?
Speaker 3 (30:38):
Two plus two.
Speaker 2 (30:39):
Interesting.
Speaker 3 (30:41):
For whether or not you adhere to this.
Speaker 2 (30:42):
Okay, all right, um, and also, you know you get into,
you can get into the whole idea.
Then where you can, we couldrun down the rabbit hole of all.
Words are simply mouth sounds,yep and um, and the only thing
that actually gives it meaningis that we agree that that's
what it means, and it's a danceright which is reminds me of a
conversation I recently heardwhere a fundamentalist was
(31:07):
asking an atheist whether or not, where does sin fit in?
What does he believe about sin?
And the atheist simply said Idon't believe in sin, and I love
the fundamentalist's responseto that, but it's in the Bible,
which that's always a convincingargument.
And then his next argument wasbut it's in the dictionary.
(31:28):
And so, as I'm sitting therelistening to this conversation,
I did not give the same responsethat the atheist gave, but my
response would have been there'sall kinds of things that are in
the dictionary that I don'tbelieve in, and what I'm
(31:52):
actually saying is that thatmouth sound is not something
that I agree with.
Like I don't believe that, thatmouth sound actually carries any
weight to my understanding ofreality.
It doesn't describe anything inmy reality.
That sounds very postmodernist,doesn't it?
Kind of yeah?
So here's the question then Doyou believe that there is good
(32:17):
and bad in the world?
Speaker 3 (32:23):
I act as if I believe that there is good and bad.
Speaker 2 (32:26):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (32:27):
I clearly live my life as if I believe that there
is good and bad.
Speaker 2 (32:32):
I don't.
I don't believe there's goodand bad.
I believe that there's helpfuland harmful.
Okay, I believe that there isthings that build up and things
that tear down, and then I thinkthat the easiest way for us to
describe those things is to usethe mouth.
Sounds good and bad?
That's just my opinion on that.
Speaker 3 (32:53):
What would you call sin?
Would, you be able to give ameaning.
Speaker 2 (33:01):
Yeah, sin is one of those words that I don't have a,
I have no problem if I'm with agroup of people that are
persons of faith to discuss sin.
Sin is not a word that normallyshows up in my everyday
language.
I would not use the word sinwhen discussing or having a
(33:28):
discussion with persons who arenot of faith, to discuss things
in this world that appear to betearing down or to create
conflict, or I think that if Iwere to be pushed for what I
would define sin as.
(33:49):
Sin to me is, um, is sort ofthe failure to live up to our
potential as human beings.
Speaker 3 (34:02):
It's the, it's the destructive portion of ourselves
okay, okay, okay, when let's godown that road, when you're
talking about the um how did weend up?
Speaker 2 (34:12):
how did we end up interviewing me on sin?
Speaker 3 (34:14):
I don't know, but I like this conversation when, um,
when you're talking about thepotential.
I'm not trying to catch youhere.
Oh, I want to hear.
Speaker 2 (34:21):
Go ahead when you're talking, because if you, here's
the thing if you catch and Iinterrupted you if you can catch
me in in a, in something thatis not um, an inconsistency in
my thinking, that actually isreally good for me, because it
forces me to go back and eithergive up on what I was thinking
or, uh, to really reevaluate itand come up with a better way,
yeah, you do, you do a good jobof that.
Speaker 3 (34:43):
You do a good of that , but that's not what I'm trying
to do.
I'm just actually genuinelyinterested.
When you're talking about notliving up to the potential which
I think I could get behind as adefinition, as a meaning for
sin.
Do you think that thatpotential comes from within?
Is that something that isexpressed internally that you,
(35:09):
it's, whatever potential youbelieve you have for yourself or
do you think that there is someobjective potential for you
that you can either succeed atliving up to or fail at living
up to?
Speaker 2 (35:23):
Okay.
When I say succeed, I'm talkingabout in terms of us as humans.
Okay, Right.
Not so specific at that point,and so what I would say is if
you look at this world today,are humans living up to their
potential?
Speaker 3 (35:40):
Oh, hang on.
So do you think that sinapplies to an individual?
Ever, yeah.
Speaker 2 (35:44):
Oh, okay, so do you think that sin?
Speaker 3 (35:46):
applies to an individual.
Ever, yeah, oh, okay.
Speaker 2 (35:48):
So when you said not living up to the potential, Do
you think that we as humanscould do better than we're doing
?
Speaker 3 (35:57):
As far as this is funny, I don't, but I do believe
in that concept on anindividual level.
Okay, I like that on anindividual level.
Speaker 2 (36:12):
I think that we as humans maybe it starts at an
individual level, but I thinkthat we as humans could do
better.
And when I say do better, I'mnot talking about financially
better, I know, financiallybetter, I know I'm not talking
about like, uh, intellectuallybetter.
I'm just talking about like,could we, could we have, could
we be working towards creating abetter society for all people?
Speaker 3 (36:32):
what would it mean that?
What would be better?
And, and that's subjective okay, but wait a sec now.
How could I just do the?
Speaker 2 (36:40):
how could you know, bailey, yeah, yeah, how could
you know if you succeeded or ifyou were?
Yeah, there's a potential andthat's the problem, right?
How could?
Speaker 3 (36:43):
you know, Martin Bailey.
Yeah, how could you know if yousucceeded or failed?
If there's?
Speaker 4 (36:47):
a potential.
Speaker 2 (36:48):
And that's the problem.
How could you?
Know if we were moving towardor away from it, and that's the
thing that does become a problem.
Yeah, the more general you cankeep it, the more we can agree
to it.
The moment it starts becomingspecific is when it becomes
debatable how so?
Speaker 3 (37:06):
What do?
Speaker 2 (37:06):
you mean the more general.
If we can all say that we thinkthat as humans, we could do
better, 90% of the population isgoing to say, yeah, we could do
better at taking care of oneanother.
Speaker 3 (37:16):
At taking care of one another.
Okay At taking care of oneanother.
Yeah, let's just say it's that.
Speaker 2 (37:21):
Okay, nietzsche's going to argue with you?
Of course he is.
That's why I said 90%, becauseI'm wondering if Lucas is going
to argue with me.
So Nietzsche was a depressedindividual.
Doesn't mean he was wrong, well, it just means that he needed
to get out and have a littlemore fun.
Speaker 3 (37:45):
Needed to get over that girl?
Speaker 2 (37:46):
So wasn't Nietzsche the one that ended up never
speaking again and was likefound hugging a dead horse?
Speaker 3 (37:51):
uh, yes, and he has a uh, and he had a nightmare
about um, a horse being likebeaten and uh.
Speaker 2 (37:58):
Anyway, that yeah, that's yeah, yeah and he was and
he read like brothers karamazovor something like that, and he
believed that.
Who wrote?
That book Dostoevsky Dostoevskyyeah, that he somehow knew him.
Speaker 3 (38:12):
Yeah, he was writing about his life.
He was writing about his life.
That is a very, veryinteresting story.
Speaker 2 (38:18):
Oh yeah, absolutely, but it doesn't relate, no.
Okay, so you think, as humanity, we can be better I think that
I think, in general, humanscould treat each other better
than we do treat each otherbetter.
Okay, that there could be agreater kindness in this world
now greater kindness.
Okay, so now we're good allright, but the thing is, the
(38:39):
more I try to define it, themore holes that you're going to
find in it and the more that wecould debate.
Speaker 3 (38:46):
I'm not interested in debating, no, I'm just saying
that in general.
Speaker 2 (38:50):
Yeah, if you like, keeping that's when we begin to
break down, okay.
So, as a whole.
Speaker 3 (38:57):
Wait and sin.
Speaker 2 (38:59):
So then, sin.
Yeah, I'm going to get back tosin.
Okay, go ahead.
Speaker 3 (39:01):
So then, sin is the not living up to that potential
as an individual or as the raceBoth.
Speaker 2 (39:08):
I think that there is such thing as systemic, I think
that there is institutional, Ithink that there is individual.
We could use the word sin, sin,but the best way that I can
identify what I might call sinis those moments where am I
(39:38):
building up or am I tearing down?
And I think it's in thosemoments when I'm tearing down
right.
Am I contributing to good,which, whatever?
Speaker 3 (39:48):
that like I don't think and then see that's where
good and bad and that could bebuilding up or tearing down
yourself, then yes, yeah,absolutely, it can also right.
Speaker 2 (39:54):
Am I, um?
Am I, am I improving the thingsaround me myself, or am I
tearing them down?
Um, like in individuals?
And that's where, like the ideaof of just sort of a general
good or bad, I struggle with.
Because let's just take this,for example I just had this
(40:17):
conversation yesterday withbucky, by the way, um, and bucky
just looked at me and said I Ican't go there with you, which
is fine.
Um, bucky, by the way, is veryself-deprecating and he's
brilliant.
Speaker 1 (40:32):
He is very brilliant, he's brilliant and he doesn't
think so, which is just blows meaway.
Speaker 2 (40:37):
But, um, okay, so think about this.
Let's just say that we, weagree that feeding people is
good.
Okay, let's just say that we,we agree that feeding people is
good.
Okay, we say, we say that'sgood, Okay.
However, let's say that I have afriend who struggles with
(40:58):
obesity and has no self-controland he comes over to my house
and he goes into my pantry andhe takes out my son's cookies
and he starts eating the cookiesand I take it away from him and
I tell him you are not allowedto eat while you are at my house
.
Well, if feeding people is good, then I have.
I'm not being good, right, andthat's where I think that I I
(41:21):
can't buy into like just sort ofgood and bad I.
I think that it all is relativeand that's where I have to come
away with.
Is it building somebody up oris it tearing somebody down?
So allowing someone whostruggles with obesity and has
no self-control to just eatwhatever they want while they're
at my house, that's actuallywhat I would define as bad if I
had to use those terms.
Speaker 3 (41:42):
Okay, but you just defined it, you just said that
it was bad.
Speaker 2 (41:45):
Yeah, and that's why I said if I had to use those
terms, okay, but you justdefined it.
You just said that it was bad,yeah, and that's why I said if I
had to use those terms.
It's better to think, though,that what I'm allowing that
person to do is tear themselvesdown.
Speaker 3 (41:52):
So okay, so that's fine.
What I'm saying is it soundslike— it's destructive to that
person.
Speaker 2 (41:58):
Is it destructive or is it constructive?
I think those are better termsthan good and bad.
Because then?
Because I think that we could,you know, to just say like this
is what is good and this is whatis bad, it depends.
So I just so, but, and so Ilike descriptors better.
Speaker 3 (42:17):
How's that?
Okay, but it sounds.
It sounds to me like when Ihave not removed good and bad
from my line, from my vocabulary, of course, because you're,
because you are still describingit Mm-hmm, because you're,
because it sounds to me like.
What you're saying, though, isthat it just needs to be a
higher resolution, meaning itneeds to be, it needs to be kind
(42:37):
of in a moment I can determineif this is good or bad Mm-hmm,
but it's based on something,it's based on it's's, so then
you're just saying there's ahigher good than giving a piece
of food to somebody.
Speaker 2 (42:51):
Yes, there is a good which you can use, the word good
trying to keep somebody healthy.
Speaker 3 (42:54):
Somebody else could easily say it is good to be
polite.
Somebody else could say it isgood to not make someone feel
ashamed of themselves.
Someone else could right.
So so what's?
Speaker 1 (43:08):
so what's?
Speaker 3 (43:08):
interesting is that I don't know that we're getting
away from the concept but youcan even say bad, but you can,
okay, right.
Speaker 2 (43:13):
And again I'm just saying that, yeah, okay, that's
a fine way of putting it.
And that's where I'm saying,like it's, to me, it's hell.
It's more healthy to use likesort of descriptor words than
just, than just good and bad.
Because you want to get moredetailed, I do, I want to know
exactly what we're.
And so to me, I don't thinkabout well, is that good?
I think about, will that buildsomeone up?
Will that tear someone down?
(43:34):
Is that constructive, is itdestructive?
So go back to the obese friend.
Yeah Right, there would be aconstructive way to keep them
from raiding your pantry everytime they come over, and there
would also be a destructive wayof doing it.
So ultimately— At least intheory there would be.
So ultimately, the constructivething very possibly would be do
(43:57):
not allow them to eat a bag ofdonuts at your house, right?
But it would be destructive ifyou said, hey, fat ass, don't
eat the donuts right.
Because you're tearing themdown.
But if they're a good friend ofyours and you're like, hey, fat
(44:17):
ass, I would say don't eat themIf they're a good friend of
yours.
Speaker 3 (44:21):
maybe that works.
Maybe, who knows, who knows?
Speaker 2 (44:24):
right.
Speaker 3 (44:25):
Yes, but that is the point.
We are applying principlesthere for different things, to
determine a good and a bad.
Speaker 2 (44:32):
It's just more precise Something as dumb as
that's a bad word.
Yeah, that's not dumb.
Speaker 3 (44:38):
That's not dumb.
That is dumb.
No, it's not.
See, this is the thing.
Okay, here's the deal.
Is dumb a bad word?
It might be it depends.
Speaker 2 (44:46):
And what do we mean by bad?
Is it offensive?
Is it not well used?
Is it not a good enoughdescription?
Speaker 3 (44:53):
It's socially not acceptable, and we all know when
something's socially notacceptable, unless we don't,
because we need to learn moreabout what's socially acceptable
.
Listen, it is true.
Speaker 2 (45:09):
There are some people , by the way, that will never
learn what's socially acceptable.
Speaker 3 (45:12):
Yes, that is true, which is why I think there is a
place for a low resolution goodand bad.
I think for maybe 70 to 80percent of the human population,
it's not a bad thing thatreligion crafts kind of a low
(45:34):
resolution vision of good andbad.
Just don't do this.
Just don't murder, okay, justdon't beat your wife.
I hear what you're saying don'tmurder, okay, just don't beat
your wife.
I hear what you're saying Justdon't have sex until you get
married, just don't.
You know what I mean.
Like sure, I hear what you'resaying.
However, and I'm still gonna Istill disagree that the term bad
(45:56):
word is dumb.
I think that it is true.
I think it absolutely has aplace.
Speaker 2 (46:00):
I would want to know what you like to me, don't say
(46:28):
bad word.
Speaker 3 (46:29):
there are people who would say words in places that
are inappropriate because theyalmost dropped an F-bomb.
They frigging know it'sinappropriate and there's some
part of them that gets a littlecathartic enjoyment out of
dropping an F-bomb aroundgrandma and Okay and I'd say
that's bad, that's inappropriateRight, because I think that
(46:52):
there's sometimes when droppingthe F-bomb is the appropriate
thing to do.
Speaker 2 (46:57):
Absolutely Right.
I don't have a problem withthat.
Speaker 3 (46:59):
That was a good word to use.
That's right, that's right,absolutely Right.
Yeah, okay, that's right,that's right.
Speaker 2 (47:06):
Absolutely Right.
Yeah, okay, that's right, sogood and bad, but it is bad.
Speaker 3 (47:08):
It's still a bad word .
Speaker 2 (47:10):
No, it's a good word.
Speaker 3 (47:12):
And it's a good word here.
Yes, and also, by the way, I'mgoing to say a few things, which
is why it's more important tobe able to say was it
constructive, was it destructive?
Speaker 2 (47:28):
destructive, did it lift up, did it tear down, like
what I just think?
And here's why I just want realquick yeah, because it is, we
got to wrap this up.
Yeah, because, um, you've gotthings to do, um, and I've got
episodes to edit, okay, but um,um, the problem that I have is
then, when we, when we justcreate these categories of good
and bad, yeah, and we don't howdid you put it?
(47:50):
I really liked the way you justdescribed that a moment ago
when I was talking a higherresolution, yeah, okay.
Is that when someone doessomething that we have
determined is bad, yeah,something that we have
determined is bad, yeah, even if, even if, then what?
Then?
(48:13):
The next step is that somehowwe have to ostracize them or we
have to shame them because theyhave done bad.
And what I'm saying is thatwhen you do that, when you begin
to inappropriately shamesomeone, or you begin to
ostracize them or villainizethem, you have now done bad
(48:38):
Because you have torn somebodydown Right.
And so that's why the verysimple of this is good or this
(48:58):
is bad, mm-hmm, I feel like itneeds to be a little more
nuanced.
Speaker 3 (49:04):
I think this somehow in some ways goes back to a
previous episode where you hadmade kind of a side comment of
how you can't help but thinkabout your faith intellectually
and parse it and dissect it andcontinue to think about it.
Continue to think about it andtry to keep it in the front of
your mind Deconstruct,deconstruct, deconstruct and
(49:27):
construct and deconstruct again.
Speaker 2 (49:28):
Yeah, and I got thoughts about just the word
deconstruct, by the way.
Speaker 3 (49:33):
And yeah, we should talk about that, and that's I
mean just to be clear, like thatwas something I like about you,
I know.
I know that is it, didn't botherme it.
I know, I know that is it,didn't bother me, it, it, it.
It's part of what I like aboutyou, right, it's part of the
reason that, part of the reasonyou and I are friends, I think,
is that we connect on that level.
(49:54):
What I'm saying is, though, Ithink the vast majority of
people don't, and and that's not, I think that's- just a
personality thing, and so Ithink that it's useful.
For a lot of people to godrinking too much is bad,
(50:14):
whereas I would go.
Why, in what circumstances?
Did you cause any other harm?
Did you debase yourself?
You know, like there's a lot ofother right, but I think that
it's.
It's useful and good and finefor a lot of people just to go
drinking too much is bad.
Dropping an f-bomb is just bad.
What it?
Is it ever going to hurtanybody to never drop an f-bomb?
(50:36):
No, probably not.
Probably not.
Now there's some you could getdown the road of.
Like there's some correlationbetween somebody who would never
drop an f-bomb, um, and alsowould be really rigid and maybe
cause other problems in otherareas.
We could have that conversation.
I think that'd be interesting,you know.
But I'm just saying, like, thereason I don't have a problem
(50:57):
with the, the good and bad, uh,concepts and and even lower
resolution probably than youwould have a problem with, is
not because, because I thinkthat it makes any sense to say
you know, pick whatever.
Dropping F, like an F word is abad word.
Like in and of itself,obviously it's not.
(51:18):
I'm going to say a word joder,that's nothing to you, right?
If anybody from Spain 20 yearsago maybe the idioms have
changed this in 20 years heardthat they'd be like.
I can't believe that.
You just said that on the likeyou got to get a explicit rating
.
Speaker 2 (51:33):
That's don't need to put the e on this, yeah it's,
it's, it's essentially an f-bomb.
Speaker 3 (51:39):
It's not exactly, it doesn't translate, but it's, uh,
it's like their harshest, itwas their harshest um word, but
it means nothing to us.
So obviously these are justmouth sounds, yes, on a
fundamental level, but I justthink that there's.
There is usefulness in theselow resolution ideas of good and
bad.
Just don't have sex till youget married.
(52:00):
That's going to help a lot ofpeople.
Sure, right, a lot of teenagers.
Now people are going to pointout it's going to cause a lot of
shame.
It's also going to cause a lotof people Sure, right, a lot of
teenagers.
Now people are going to pointout it's going to cause a lot of
shame.
Speaker 2 (52:08):
It's also going to cause a lot of people to go out
and have sex because they'vebeen told not to and they're not
going to have.
Speaker 3 (52:15):
I know that.
That's the argument.
I know that's the argument I'mnot, we're going back to a
previous episode, anyway.
Speaker 2 (52:28):
All right, so do we have common ground.
Speaker 3 (52:29):
That's the first thing.
The other thing is what does?
Speaker 2 (52:31):
it.
Say about me that I'm havingthis sudden urge to just yell
out the F word.
That's some of our commonground.
Speaker 3 (52:36):
I could beep that.
All right, go ahead.
So what's?
Speaker 2 (52:38):
our common ground Is our common.
Well, you tell me.
Speaker 3 (52:40):
Because, remember, our topic was actually
postmodernism.
Speaker 2 (52:41):
Yeah, is our common ground, that Applied
postmodernism.
That you've got to stayconsistent with your
philosophies.
If you're gonna, if you'regonna apply that absolutely, you
gotta stay consistent.
I think we both agree that,ultimately, you need to strive
for consistency and a moderndaily.
I'm gonna start using it nowbecause I know it.
Speaker 3 (52:58):
Uh, that's cheating so is straw man.
Speaker 2 (53:02):
Absolutely Yep, yeah, all right.
Speaker 1 (53:07):
Thank you for listening to Living on Common
Ground.
Please follow wherever youlisten to your podcasts and
share it with your friends.
You can also find a link to oursocial in the description.
The more people we have livingon common ground, the better the
world will be.
Does it feel like every part of your life is
divided, every scenario, everyenvironment, your church, your
school, your work, your friends,left right, conservative,
liberal, religious, secular?
It seems you always have totake a side.
This is a conversation betweena progressive Christian and a
conservative atheist who happento be great friends.
(00:23):
Welcome to Living on CommonGround.
Do you think if we met today wewould still be friends?
Speaker 2 (00:34):
I don't know, but we're friends now.
Speaker 4 (00:38):
A mob is no less a mob because they are with you,
man.
So what?
We won a few games and y'allfools think that's something.
Man, that ain't nothing, y'all.
And you know what else?
We ain't nothing either.
Yeah, we came together in camp,cool.
But then we're right back hereand the world tells us that they
(01:00):
don't want us to be together.
We fall apart like we ain't adamn bit of nothing, man.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
How you doing.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
I'm good.
Are we recording?
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Krista's going to hit you.
Awesome.
Yeah, you deserve it, though.
Probably.
Usually it's like when youdeserve it, though probably
Usually.
It's like when you're a kid andyou get in trouble for
something and then it turns outyou didn't actually do what you
got in trouble for, and thenyour parents say, well, you
probably got away with somethingelse.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
That's very good.
Yeah, that's good.
I don't know that I've everused that.
Oh, that was used against me.
I like that Because.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
I never actually did anything wrong, obviously, and
so every time I got in troubleit was an error.
Uh-huh, all right.
So this week, what I want totalk about is, in the list of
topics that we're working from,you had written that applied
(02:06):
postmodernism is cheating,uh-huh, okay.
Now I wrote next to that one.
Tell me more.
All right, because I'm familiarwith postmodernism, but the term
, the phrase appliedpostmodernism was actually one
that was relatively, uh, new tome.
(02:27):
I wasn't sure exactly what thatwas, and so what I did is I
looked, I looked, I typed inapplied postmodernism and I
immediately went to jordanpeterson, okay, and checked out,
like so this was not just arandom google search.
Speaker 3 (02:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
Unlike most of my research for the podcast.
Uh-huh, what this was was I'veit, it, it.
It had the sound of JordanPeterson to me, just the phrase
applied postmodernism and so Iwent and I looked up what he had
to say, and then, of course, hehas other things to say that
relate to applied postmodernism.
(03:03):
Yeah, that I think that we cantouch on.
I'll let you drive thatconversation and see what we
touch on.
But what is appliedpostmodernism and why would you
say it's cheating?
Speaker 3 (03:18):
Okay, so here's my argument, and I am not the this
conversation has been going onfor forever.
Actually you can.
You could say this conversationhas been going on, you know,
for decades and decades anddecades.
Um, well, since philosophy beganto discuss post-modernism yeah
(03:40):
yeah, um, there there's a Frenchschool of philosophy that
talked about this quite a bitback in the 50s and 60s, and
it's been going on for a longtime here.
(04:07):
Here's why I say appliedpost-modernism is cheating.
I don't have a whole lot ofproblem with the act, with
actual post-modernism.
Um, do we need to definepost-modernism?
Well, it's really difficult todefine.
That is part of.
The issue is that it almostdefies definition, um, but
essentially it's a collection ofof um theories, um, or
philosophies that that positsthat um, no matter what I say,
(04:34):
somebody's going to argue withme, so that's fine.
Um, that that's not actuallywhat it means do you want the
oxford dictionary?
Speaker 2 (04:39):
yeah, go ahead and give me that all right, it's a
late 20th century style and andconcept the arts, architecture
and criticism.
That represents a departurefrom modernism.
Yeah, that's always veryhelpful when you use the word to
define it.
Speaker 3 (04:53):
And has I mean it's a reaction to modernism.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Okay, great, that's clear, that clears that right up
.
Speaker 3 (04:59):
Well, I can tell you how they describe modernism.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
Well, it, has at its heart, yeah, modernism.
Well, it has at its heart and Ithink this is kind of what at
least my understanding of thecriticism of postmodernism lies
here is that at its heart, it'sa general distrust of grand
theories and ideologies, as wellas a problematic relationship
with any notion of art, art,okay, okay.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
so modernism can kind of be defined as the idea that
things can be known, that thereare things that can be known.
Yes, there are.
There are principles that youcan.
You can pick up a rock and saythis is a rock, it is hard, it
is gray and there are ways,epistemological ways, of knowing
(05:53):
a thing.
It rests on the concept thatobjective reality does exist and
can be measured right.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
So as a, as a philosophy, because I think
that's we're not talking aboutpostmodern art and stuff like
that no what we're talking abouthere is um the the philosophy,
postmodernism right, which thenum it's a reaction to the
modernist's emphasis onobjective truth, reason and
universal narratives Right.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
So it is a reaction to, and this is what always
happens.
Everything's always a reactionto something that exists right
now A critical response to Okay,yeah that's right.
So it is.
It's a critical response to theidea of knowing, to the idea of
(06:49):
knowing.
So it'll say things like um, itwill.
It will posit ideas like you're.
You say that you know x, butreally you're just experiencing
something and you don't have anyidea if that experience is
really related to some objectivereality of x.
So you're a post-modernist sothis is why I say I don't
actually have a whole lot ofproblem with postmodernism as,
(07:11):
uh, as a um, as a subject in andof itself, okay, um, so a lot
of the terms that we have, um,that are kind of in our common
vernacular now that startedshowing up sometime in the in
around 2015.
(07:31):
That's important, okay, um.
And then now we're just kind ofpart of common vernacular.
Things like um, things likeprivilege, that term and the way
that it's used, things like, uh, well, that's more applied
post-modernism, but things like,um, lived experience.
People started talking about mylived experience, right, people
(07:55):
started talking about my truth.
My truth is right differentmaybe than your truth, right?
all of these things kind of worktheir way into the language and
so people who are not in theacademy, they start using this
in the way that they think isaccurate and, frankly, the way
that language works.
If you're using it and someoneelse kind of understands what
(08:17):
you're saying, then it is beingused accurately because language
is a method of communicationbetween between humans but can I
give?
Speaker 2 (08:25):
can I give a quick example of uh, when you use the
word privilege, I think, howit's shifted where it used to be
.
It used to be kind of a potlike, in a positive way, like
you have privileges that shouldbe something that you now it's
often has.
It carries a negativeconnotation that's right as a
result of applied post-modernismI would call it applied
(08:46):
post-modernism.
Yes, so like connotation as aresult of applied postmodernism.
I would call it appliedpostmodernism.
Yes, okay, so like, for example, as a gift and I didn't quite
know how to receive it, but Isaid thank you, that's a good
way to receive a gift.
Yeah, someone gave me a bookthat was called Understanding
your White Privilege.
Mm-hmm, thank you, your whiteprivilege, thank you, yeah.
(09:14):
And so, um, and it sat on mybookshelf.
I, I again, it wasn't like Iwasn't interested in reading it,
but I've got so many books thatI have to read that.
Yeah, it has to go down to thebottom and work its way up.
Anyway, as we were movingoffices this week it was last
week one of the guys that washelping move found that book on
my shelf and he has borrowed itand he wants to read it and I
(09:36):
told him that'd be great and hecan summarize it for me.
But anyway, is that kind ofwhat you're talking about?
Speaker 3 (09:42):
Yes, so all of the different types of privileges.
So when we were young someonemight have referred to the
privileged, and in commonvernacular we knew what that
meant.
Now again someone's going toargue with me because they're
going to say well, in theacademy, such and such was
talking about privilege in 1992,because Kimberly Crenshaw was
(10:05):
publishing articles aboutintersectionality and privilege
and all that kind of stuff backin the 90s.
And that's true.
But in common vernacular wewould have talked about the
privileged If I said likethey're privileged what do I
mean?
Speaker 2 (10:18):
What I love is the face that you just made when you
said that that nobody got tosee except me.
Speaker 3 (10:25):
It meant that I was talking about somebody who was
like a trust fund baby.
Right, that's what we meant.
We said the privileged.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
Yeah, it definitely did not include me.
Okay, can I just say that oftenwhen we talk about the
privileged, well, it used to notmean me, but now it's becoming
a way of referring to ourselvesin a self-deprecating way
sometimes.
That's right.
Speaker 3 (10:50):
So here's applied, so okay.
So let me back up for a second.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
Yeah, sorry.
Speaker 3 (10:54):
No, no, no, that's okay, this is a good
conversation.
So again, postmodernism itself.
I don't have a lot of problemwith Helen Pluckrose and James.
Lindsay wrote a book calledCynical Theories.
That's a play on the termcritical theories.
Helen Pluckrose is great onthis.
(11:15):
She's very even about any kindof criticisms.
She's very well-researched.
James Lindsay actually is verygood on it as well.
But I like Helen Pluck, she'svery well researched.
James Lindsay actually is verygood on it as well.
But I like Helen Pluckrose'stakes on this and one of the
things she talks about is howthe actual postmodernists never
really got very far and theycertainly didn't break out of
(11:37):
the academy, partly because mostpeople couldn't understand what
the crap they were talkingabout.
They were just unintelligiblein there.
And that's part ofpostmodernism.
It's all wrapped up in therethat it should be unintelligible
.
Because part of the issue is Idon't know from what perspective
(12:01):
I would actually see, whethermy perspective is a real
perspective or not.
I've never been outside of myperspective.
I've never seen with anybody'seyes except for mine.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
I feel like I've heard you give this argument
before, right.
Speaker 3 (12:17):
So it is unintelligible.
That is true, and also I don'tsee how I can escape it as a
real thing.
I don't have any problem withit.
Here's the other thing that Isee, though.
The logical conclusion of thatis that it's even across
everyone.
Everyone gets an exact value ofone of one.
(12:50):
If one is to say you can't tellme how I should feel about this
experience, that I had becausethat's my lived experience.
That's true.
Also, you can't tell me aboutmy experience, because that's my
lived experience.
You literally don't know if,under postmodern thought, you
literally don't know if I ammoving through the world in a
(13:11):
way that every single personaround me that sees me thinks is
a completely calm, normal wayof moving around the world, and
yet I am under the greatesttorment and misery that any
human has ever experienced.
You would have no way ofknowing that under a postmodern
thought.
Right, because you don'texperience the internal
(13:32):
experience.
You have to believe what I sayis my experience, right, just
like I have to believe what yourexperience is if I'm going to
interact on that level at all.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
So what about like empirical evidence?
Speaker 3 (13:46):
Okay.
So what postmodern thoughtwould say is you never touch
empirical evidence ever.
What you do is interact.
You have an experience thatinteracts with something you
believe is empirical evidence.
You also have a prioripositions that determine how you
(14:07):
interact with that empiricalevidence, that give you
intuitions about it that areprior to consciousness and prior
to reason.
Speaker 2 (14:16):
Okay, so.
So if you're experiencing let'ssay, you and I are sitting here
and you're experiencing thismassive inner turmoil, yeah, but
you're telling me thateverything's okay, but I can
look at you and I can read bodylanguage then I'm being told
that I can't actually trust myinterpretation of your body
(14:38):
language.
How would you know?
Right, because the only way Iwould know was by my own
personal experience.
Speaker 3 (14:46):
Yes, you would when.
I experience inner turmoil, myface looks like this, you
wouldn't even know, then howwould that be any different?
Because that's still yourexperience, right?
Speaker 2 (14:56):
that's what I'm saying, the only way you'd know
is, if you were me Right,because your facial expression
of joy could actually look likeyou just sucked on a lemon
whatever it is right.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
The only way you could have my experience is if
you were me, and if you were me,you would not be you to know
you were having my experience.
This is post-modernism and youcan see how frustrating it could
be right, you're getting theseconversations and part of the
whole thing is like you can'thave a conversation with
somebody.
Right, it's well, it's verydifficult, because I'm rejecting
(15:32):
the very idea that you couldknow anything that I could know
and that I could know anythingthat you could know and right.
So Shared experience is rightout the window.
Right, so A shared experienceis right out the window.
There's no place to stand inorder to know if you could have
a shared experience.
Possibly you could.
You could have a sharedexperience, but you'd never know
(15:53):
.
But how would we know?
This is postmodernism, okay,this is part of postmodernism,
okay, and I don't have anyproblem with that.
But part of what that does isit puts everyone on an even
playing field.
Nobody knows anybody else'sexperience, okay, all right.
Applied postmodernism is whereyou take that concept and you
(16:15):
only apply it to certain groupsof people or certain individuals
, but you don't apply it toother groups of people and other
individuals, so would it bemore accurate to call it like
selective applied?
Yeah, you could you could sayselective, you could say applied
Helen Pluckrose and JamesLindsay call it applied and then
they um.
They also talk about reified,um postmodernism, which I don't
(16:37):
think they need to go into, butbut they see as a distinction,
as like it's the highest, it'sthe highest good.
But this is, this is where youget these terms like
intersectionality, which is theconcept that the part of well
(16:59):
and one of the basis forcritical theory, which is the
concept that you can know sometruths.
But the only truths that youcan know are the truths that
come from being outside of themain society or oppressed by the
(17:20):
main society, or oppressed bythe main society.
If you're not oppressed by agroup, then you can't know
what's happening, because you'rethe fish in the water trying to
talk about the water.
That's the postmodernism part.
But if you're the one that'sbeing oppressed by the water or
(17:42):
you're outside of the water,then you can know that.
So it's incumbent on all thefish in the water, or you're
outside of the water, then youcan know that.
So it's incumbent on all thefish in the water who don't know
to listen to the ones who doknow.
This is, this is criticaltheory, and right and post.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
The oppressor needs to in order to know reality, has
to listen to the oppressedright, and and so this is where
I think that's, I think it'scheating, and so this is where I
think that's, I think it'scheating.
Okay, so this is then connectsto I almost.
I almost got the a clip fromJordan Peterson talking about
this.
Yeah, um, so you're just goingto have to go with my paraphrase
(18:21):
of what he said instead,because I didn't record it.
Um, if you want, I can includeit.
You tell me right now,otherwise I'm going to press on
no, press on okay summarize, allright.
So what he talks about in this,in this lecture that I was
watching online, is that hebelieves that applied
(18:41):
post-modernism is just a um isputting a new face on communism
in that, because he said hetalks about how fail, how
communism failed as a politicalsystem, and so what happens now
is we just we just rename things, but basically it's the same
(19:05):
thing.
Right where before you had theoh, the term just went right out
of my head the, the.
Help me out.
What were the proletariat?
Speaker 4 (19:20):
You had the proletariat and you had the
bourgeoisie.
Speaker 2 (19:27):
And now we talk instead of using those terms.
We use oppressed and theoppressor, but it's the same
concepts.
Does that sound familiar to you?
Speaker 3 (19:39):
Yeah, so this is an argument that's been developed
over the last 10 years or so.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
Is he the one that has developed it?
No, not necessarily.
He's been part of theconversation.
Yeah, because the clip was likefor 11 years old.
Speaker 3 (19:50):
Yeah, yeah.
So that's why I say I don'tknow how to do this again, but
the reason 2015,.
2015 is important.
Speaker 2 (19:59):
Yeah, you said 2015 is important.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
Why that's 10 years ago it's kind of when this
breaks out of the academy.
So this has been.
These concepts have beenpercolating within the academy
for the last several decades.
Speaker 2 (20:37):
And they've been dripping out of the academy.
In the early 2000s there wassome concern by some people,
some writers and intellectualsthat look, there's these
concepts that college studentsare being taught.
That to these people were veryconcerning, right?
Well, 17 years ago I remember abig deal in theology.
I was, I had already finishedseminary, I was, uh, serving a
church and the idea of relativetruth became like I mean, this
was a huge deal, yeah, withinchristian circles, like pushing
hard against that, yeah, and nowit almost seems like it's just
(21:02):
commonly accepted yeah, well,and this is what so?
Speaker 3 (21:05):
okay, so again.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
This is where I say like as a culture, I would say I
still think that within certainchristian circles especially,
it's still very much pushedagainst yeah, well, and it's,
it's a.
Speaker 3 (21:21):
This is where I say like I think most of the time,
the way that we talk about umrelative truth or relativity um,
is again cheating.
It's.
It's what's called a mott andbailey um argument, which is
which is?
I always get this wrong.
I should have looked it up, butum.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
One of them is a yeah , do my deep research.
Speaker 3 (21:43):
You can look up which one is, which I'll tell the the
concept, but then you can tellwhich one is, which.
It doesn't matter the name, buta mott.
And bailey was a uh, a medievalstructure where you had a
fortress in a center that waseasily defendable and then you
had a larger area where peoplewould hang out and then you had
kind of a ring around that soyou'd hang out in that area in
(22:04):
the front.
I think the mot was the uh, thefortress here.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
It is interestingly enough because my computer is
listening to us.
It came up before I.
I typed mo and it came up.
Uh, the mott and bailey fallacyis a rhetorical tactic where
someone presents a controversialclaim which is the Bailey.
Speaker 3 (22:24):
The Bailey.
Yes, and then I got it right.
The Mott is the fortress.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
Yep and then, when challenged, retreats to a more
defensible, often vague orambiguous position called the
Mott.
Speaker 3 (22:34):
Yeah, so it's very clear.
Like you can, I'll do a crudeexample of this.
You push to have taught in highschools books that are
(22:55):
explicitly promoting criticaltheory concepts.
We don't have enough time toget into actually what critical
theory is and how.
It was born in the law schooland it was really a legal
defense and all of that.
But the idea that fundamentallythe United States is a racist
(23:16):
country it was born on racism,it was built on racism, it was
built on racism is built onoppression.
It is fundamentally anoppressive country, right, and
that I'm just gonna say.
There, there are writers I canpoint to.
The robin d'angelo is a hugeproponent of this, okay, and
she's very, she's very popular.
Um, that, uh, that minoritiescannot be racist and that all
(23:40):
white people are racist.
Okay, so that's the Bailey.
You push back against theBailey and you'll find that
people typically will retreatinto the mott of I just want to
teach history, I'm just tryingto teach history and real
history, okay, and people havesuffered real oppression, and
(24:01):
right.
So they retreat into thesmaller, easily defensible
argument yeah, they don't.
Speaker 2 (24:06):
You can't, yeah, you can't argue against that.
Speaker 3 (24:07):
People have experienced racism so that that
is a typical, and it's not that.
It's not that people who arepromoting post applied
post-modernism orintersectionality or whatever
are the only ones who do this.
This is a typical argumentative.
Well, I just, I just watched, Ijust watched fundamentalists do
that same device.
Speaker 2 (24:24):
Yes, or maybe.
This was a little bit different.
Theirs was the um.
This is another.
This is another topic, maybe,but the straw man.
I hate the straw man whenyou're trying to debate with
somebody yeah where they buildup this fake you, yeah, and then
tear that down, yeah, and feellike they have now somehow won,
(24:47):
yeah, or achieved, made theirpoint.
So it's a little different, Ithink.
Speaker 3 (24:50):
It's a little different, but it's related.
It's a rhetorical fallacy, yeah.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
I hadn't, so I hadn't been.
I was not familiar with theterm Mott and Bailey.
Speaker 3 (24:57):
Yeah, and you can watch people do it where they'll
retreat Again.
It's just a very simple day.
They'll make implications thatare wide ranging and very strong
and then they'll retreat, as adefense, into something.
That's what happens withrelativity.
(25:21):
I think people do that when itcomes to relativity and what
happens is that they want toapply non-relative truth to some
people, because we all do.
We all want to apply somenon-relative truth to some
people because we all do.
We all want to apply somenon-relative truth.
(25:44):
Give me an example.
Well, we want to say this isbad, right.
We want to say, yeah, let's saywe want to say slavery is bad,
okay, yeah, but if you're a truerelativist, if you're really
applying those principles, thatis an impossibility to say right
(26:07):
.
Speaker 2 (26:08):
Sure, so then you get— Unless, of course, you're
the oppressed by slavery, thenyou're the only one that
actually knows the reality.
Speaker 3 (26:15):
This is what the argument would be okay.
The argument would be okay, butwhat I'm saying is true.
Relativity would say even if Iam being oppressed, I can't know
that it's wrong, right, maybe Ijust have the wrong perspective
.
Maybe I'm not right.
I'm not making these arguments.
I'm saying like this is therelativistic argument, sure, so
(26:37):
if you, but but you want toapply relativity yeah, just to
be clear, lucas is not sayingthat he agrees with slavery do
we?
maybe we should put that in boldin the notes.
Yes, that is.
I am not promoting slavery.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
I do not agree with slavery.
Speaker 3 (26:54):
yep, not a fan of hitler say this.
Okay, but but what I'm sayingis that typically, when people
want to apply relativity orpostmodernism, they want to
apply it when it gets certaingroups out of having to engage
(27:17):
in the back and forth betweentwo people, between humans.
You can't tell me, you don'tget to have a voice in this, and
this is where people likeJordan Peterson will say this is
just another power struggle.
This is an appeal to power,right, and actually there are
critical theorists who wouldcompletely agree with him on
(27:38):
that.
What they would say is thereare critical theorists who would
completely agree with him onthat.
What they would say is actually, the world is only power.
That's all human interaction is.
And so, yes, we agree, that'sso disappointing, but they would
say that's just always the caseis that human civilization is
defined by groups that havepower and groups that have less
(27:59):
power.
That's what intersectionalityis.
Also defined by groups thathave power and groups that have
less power.
That's what intersectionalityis.
Also, intersectionality is theidea that there is a hierarchy
of oppressor and oppressed, andevery different possible
grouping that you could findyourself in has some level of
either being an oppressor orbeing an oppressed, and
(28:19):
intersectionality is the comingtogether in an individual of
multiple of those groups.
The thing is, it could be itgets the groups should be under.
That philosophy should beinfinite.
You know, like you have glasses,like I know, if you started
(28:44):
defining the groups that youfall into, I know the groups
that you would say because ofthe groups that have been given
to you, you would talk about howyou're white.
You talk about you're male, cis, heterosexual.
You would talk about yoursocioeconomic class.
You talk about the fact thatyou consider yourself a
christian.
You talk about the fact thatyou're american.
Those are some groups.
(29:06):
I'm a fan of star wars.
You're a fan of star wars.
Those are some groups you fallinto.
a billion other groups oh surethat are just never talked about
, because those are not onesthat we care about or that some
people care about, um, and sothat's why I say I think applied
post-modernism is cheating,because it takes this concept,
(29:26):
which I think is coherentpost-modernism, and it applies
it in some places and not inother places.
Speaker 2 (29:37):
So you feel that it's not applied enough I think you
got to stick with it.
Speaker 3 (29:41):
If you're going to stick with it, you can reject it
I think some people reject it,and that's okay you can have
that argument I'm not like.
Speaker 2 (29:50):
James lindsey rejects it.
Speaker 3 (29:52):
He says we can know, we can't.
He's a mathematician.
Okay, he says we can know, wecan measure.
He modernist?
Okay, I'll have that argument.
But I don't think you get tojump in and jump out.
That's what I'm saying, right,when it's convenient.
Speaker 2 (30:07):
Okay, so a couple thoughts.
One is I could see where 2 plus2 equals 4, and someone would
say that that is something thatwe can actually know.
But you could also argue thattwo plus two equals four.
Only because we agree that itdoes Base 10,?
Speaker 3 (30:25):
that is specifically an argument that happened for
like three years, four years ago.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (30:31):
Yeah, it was like blew up on Twitter.
Speaker 2 (30:33):
Well, and the thing is too like-.
Speaker 3 (30:35):
It's now a code word or a code phrase.
Speaker 2 (30:37):
What is?
Speaker 3 (30:38):
Two plus two.
Speaker 2 (30:39):
Interesting.
Speaker 3 (30:41):
For whether or not you adhere to this.
Speaker 2 (30:42):
Okay, all right, um, and also, you know you get into,
you can get into the whole idea.
Then where you can, we couldrun down the rabbit hole of all.
Words are simply mouth sounds,yep and um, and the only thing
that actually gives it meaningis that we agree that that's
what it means, and it's a danceright which is reminds me of a
conversation I recently heardwhere a fundamentalist was
(31:07):
asking an atheist whether or not, where does sin fit in?
What does he believe about sin?
And the atheist simply said Idon't believe in sin, and I love
the fundamentalist's responseto that, but it's in the Bible,
which that's always a convincingargument.
And then his next argument wasbut it's in the dictionary.
(31:28):
And so, as I'm sitting therelistening to this conversation,
I did not give the same responsethat the atheist gave, but my
response would have been there'sall kinds of things that are in
the dictionary that I don'tbelieve in, and what I'm
(31:52):
actually saying is that thatmouth sound is not something
that I agree with.
Like I don't believe that, thatmouth sound actually carries any
weight to my understanding ofreality.
It doesn't describe anything inmy reality.
That sounds very postmodernist,doesn't it?
Kind of yeah?
So here's the question then Doyou believe that there is good
(32:17):
and bad in the world?
Speaker 3 (32:23):
I act as if I believe that there is good and bad.
Speaker 2 (32:26):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (32:27):
I clearly live my life as if I believe that there
is good and bad.
Speaker 2 (32:32):
I don't.
I don't believe there's goodand bad.
I believe that there's helpfuland harmful.
Okay, I believe that there isthings that build up and things
that tear down, and then I thinkthat the easiest way for us to
describe those things is to usethe mouth.
Sounds good and bad?
That's just my opinion on that.
Speaker 3 (32:53):
What would you call sin?
Would, you be able to give ameaning.
Speaker 2 (33:01):
Yeah, sin is one of those words that I don't have a,
I have no problem if I'm with agroup of people that are
persons of faith to discuss sin.
Sin is not a word that normallyshows up in my everyday
language.
I would not use the word sinwhen discussing or having a
(33:28):
discussion with persons who arenot of faith, to discuss things
in this world that appear to betearing down or to create
conflict, or I think that if Iwere to be pushed for what I
would define sin as.
(33:49):
Sin to me is, um, is sort ofthe failure to live up to our
potential as human beings.
Speaker 3 (34:02):
It's the, it's the destructive portion of ourselves
okay, okay, okay, when let's godown that road, when you're
talking about the um how did weend up?
Speaker 2 (34:12):
how did we end up interviewing me on sin?
Speaker 3 (34:14):
I don't know, but I like this conversation when, um,
when you're talking about thepotential.
I'm not trying to catch youhere.
Oh, I want to hear.
Speaker 2 (34:21):
Go ahead when you're talking, because if you, here's
the thing if you catch and Iinterrupted you if you can catch
me in in a, in something thatis not um, an inconsistency in
my thinking, that actually isreally good for me, because it
forces me to go back and eithergive up on what I was thinking
or, uh, to really reevaluate itand come up with a better way,
yeah, you do, you do a good jobof that.
Speaker 3 (34:43):
You do a good of that , but that's not what I'm trying
to do.
I'm just actually genuinelyinterested.
When you're talking about notliving up to the potential which
I think I could get behind as adefinition, as a meaning for
sin.
Do you think that thatpotential comes from within?
Is that something that isexpressed internally that you,
(35:09):
it's, whatever potential youbelieve you have for yourself or
do you think that there is someobjective potential for you
that you can either succeed atliving up to or fail at living
up to?
Speaker 2 (35:23):
Okay.
When I say succeed, I'm talkingabout in terms of us as humans.
Okay, Right.
Not so specific at that point,and so what I would say is if
you look at this world today,are humans living up to their
potential?
Speaker 3 (35:40):
Oh, hang on.
So do you think that sinapplies to an individual?
Ever, yeah.
Speaker 2 (35:44):
Oh, okay, so do you think that sin?
Speaker 3 (35:46):
applies to an individual.
Ever, yeah, oh, okay.
Speaker 2 (35:48):
So when you said not living up to the potential, Do
you think that we as humanscould do better than we're doing
?
Speaker 3 (35:57):
As far as this is funny, I don't, but I do believe
in that concept on anindividual level.
Okay, I like that on anindividual level.
Speaker 2 (36:12):
I think that we as humans maybe it starts at an
individual level, but I thinkthat we as humans could do
better.
And when I say do better, I'mnot talking about financially
better, I know, financiallybetter, I know I'm not talking
about like, uh, intellectuallybetter.
I'm just talking about like,could we, could we have, could
we be working towards creating abetter society for all people?
Speaker 3 (36:32):
what would it mean that?
What would be better?
And, and that's subjective okay, but wait a sec now.
How could I just do the?
Speaker 2 (36:40):
how could you know, bailey, yeah, yeah, how could
you know if you succeeded or ifyou were?
Yeah, there's a potential andthat's the problem, right?
How could?
Speaker 3 (36:43):
you know, Martin Bailey.
Yeah, how could you know if yousucceeded or failed?
If there's?
Speaker 4 (36:47):
a potential.
Speaker 2 (36:48):
And that's the problem.
How could you?
Know if we were moving towardor away from it, and that's the
thing that does become a problem.
Yeah, the more general you cankeep it, the more we can agree
to it.
The moment it starts becomingspecific is when it becomes
debatable how so?
Speaker 3 (37:06):
What do?
Speaker 2 (37:06):
you mean the more general.
If we can all say that we thinkthat as humans, we could do
better, 90% of the population isgoing to say, yeah, we could do
better at taking care of oneanother.
Speaker 3 (37:16):
At taking care of one another.
Okay At taking care of oneanother.
Yeah, let's just say it's that.
Speaker 2 (37:21):
Okay, nietzsche's going to argue with you?
Of course he is.
That's why I said 90%, becauseI'm wondering if Lucas is going
to argue with me.
So Nietzsche was a depressedindividual.
Doesn't mean he was wrong, well, it just means that he needed
to get out and have a littlemore fun.
Speaker 3 (37:45):
Needed to get over that girl?
Speaker 2 (37:46):
So wasn't Nietzsche the one that ended up never
speaking again and was likefound hugging a dead horse?
Speaker 3 (37:51):
uh, yes, and he has a uh, and he had a nightmare
about um, a horse being likebeaten and uh.
Speaker 2 (37:58):
Anyway, that yeah, that's yeah, yeah and he was and
he read like brothers karamazovor something like that, and he
believed that.
Who wrote?
That book Dostoevsky Dostoevskyyeah, that he somehow knew him.
Speaker 3 (38:12):
Yeah, he was writing about his life.
He was writing about his life.
That is a very, veryinteresting story.
Speaker 2 (38:18):
Oh yeah, absolutely, but it doesn't relate, no.
Okay, so you think, as humanity, we can be better I think that
I think, in general, humanscould treat each other better
than we do treat each otherbetter.
Okay, that there could be agreater kindness in this world
now greater kindness.
Okay, so now we're good allright, but the thing is, the
(38:39):
more I try to define it, themore holes that you're going to
find in it and the more that wecould debate.
Speaker 3 (38:46):
I'm not interested in debating, no, I'm just saying
that in general.
Speaker 2 (38:50):
Yeah, if you like, keeping that's when we begin to
break down, okay.
So, as a whole.
Speaker 3 (38:57):
Wait and sin.
Speaker 2 (38:59):
So then, sin.
Yeah, I'm going to get back tosin.
Okay, go ahead.
Speaker 3 (39:01):
So then, sin is the not living up to that potential
as an individual or as the raceBoth.
Speaker 2 (39:08):
I think that there is such thing as systemic, I think
that there is institutional, Ithink that there is individual.
We could use the word sin, sin,but the best way that I can
identify what I might call sinis those moments where am I
(39:38):
building up or am I tearing down?
And I think it's in thosemoments when I'm tearing down
right.
Am I contributing to good,which, whatever?
Speaker 3 (39:48):
that like I don't think and then see that's where
good and bad and that could bebuilding up or tearing down
yourself, then yes, yeah,absolutely, it can also right.
Speaker 2 (39:54):
Am I, um?
Am I, am I improving the thingsaround me myself, or am I
tearing them down?
Um, like in individuals?
And that's where, like the ideaof of just sort of a general
good or bad, I struggle with.
Because let's just take this,for example I just had this
(40:17):
conversation yesterday withbucky, by the way, um, and bucky
just looked at me and said I Ican't go there with you, which
is fine.
Um, bucky, by the way, is veryself-deprecating and he's
brilliant.
Speaker 1 (40:32):
He is very brilliant, he's brilliant and he doesn't
think so, which is just blows meaway.
Speaker 2 (40:37):
But, um, okay, so think about this.
Let's just say that we, weagree that feeding people is
good.
Okay, let's just say that we,we agree that feeding people is
good.
Okay, we say, we say that'sgood, Okay.
However, let's say that I have afriend who struggles with
(40:58):
obesity and has no self-controland he comes over to my house
and he goes into my pantry andhe takes out my son's cookies
and he starts eating the cookiesand I take it away from him and
I tell him you are not allowedto eat while you are at my house
.
Well, if feeding people is good, then I have.
I'm not being good, right, andthat's where I think that I I
(41:21):
can't buy into like just sort ofgood and bad I.
I think that it all is relativeand that's where I have to come
away with.
Is it building somebody up oris it tearing somebody down?
So allowing someone whostruggles with obesity and has
no self-control to just eatwhatever they want while they're
at my house, that's actuallywhat I would define as bad if I
had to use those terms.
Speaker 3 (41:42):
Okay, but you just defined it, you just said that
it was bad.
Speaker 2 (41:45):
Yeah, and that's why I said if I had to use those
terms, okay, but you justdefined it.
You just said that it was bad,yeah, and that's why I said if I
had to use those terms.
It's better to think, though,that what I'm allowing that
person to do is tear themselvesdown.
Speaker 3 (41:52):
So okay, so that's fine.
What I'm saying is it soundslike— it's destructive to that
person.
Speaker 2 (41:58):
Is it destructive or is it constructive?
I think those are better termsthan good and bad.
Because then?
Because I think that we could,you know, to just say like this
is what is good and this is whatis bad, it depends.
So I just so, but, and so Ilike descriptors better.
Speaker 3 (42:17):
How's that?
Okay, but it sounds.
It sounds to me like when Ihave not removed good and bad
from my line, from my vocabulary, of course, because you're,
because you are still describingit Mm-hmm, because you're,
because it sounds to me like.
What you're saying, though, isthat it just needs to be a
higher resolution, meaning itneeds to be, it needs to be kind
(42:37):
of in a moment I can determineif this is good or bad Mm-hmm,
but it's based on something,it's based on it's's, so then
you're just saying there's ahigher good than giving a piece
of food to somebody.
Speaker 2 (42:51):
Yes, there is a good which you can use, the word good
trying to keep somebody healthy.
Speaker 3 (42:54):
Somebody else could easily say it is good to be
polite.
Somebody else could say it isgood to not make someone feel
ashamed of themselves.
Someone else could right.
So so what's?
Speaker 1 (43:08):
so what's?
Speaker 3 (43:08):
interesting is that I don't know that we're getting
away from the concept but youcan even say bad, but you can,
okay, right.
Speaker 2 (43:13):
And again I'm just saying that, yeah, okay, that's
a fine way of putting it.
And that's where I'm saying,like it's, to me, it's hell.
It's more healthy to use likesort of descriptor words than
just, than just good and bad.
Because you want to get moredetailed, I do, I want to know
exactly what we're.
And so to me, I don't thinkabout well, is that good?
I think about, will that buildsomeone up?
Will that tear someone down?
(43:34):
Is that constructive, is itdestructive?
So go back to the obese friend.
Yeah Right, there would be aconstructive way to keep them
from raiding your pantry everytime they come over, and there
would also be a destructive wayof doing it.
So ultimately— At least intheory there would be.
So ultimately, the constructivething very possibly would be do
(43:57):
not allow them to eat a bag ofdonuts at your house, right?
But it would be destructive ifyou said, hey, fat ass, don't
eat the donuts right.
Because you're tearing themdown.
But if they're a good friend ofyours and you're like, hey, fat
(44:17):
ass, I would say don't eat themIf they're a good friend of
yours.
Speaker 3 (44:21):
maybe that works.
Maybe, who knows, who knows?
Speaker 2 (44:24):
right.
Speaker 3 (44:25):
Yes, but that is the point.
We are applying principlesthere for different things, to
determine a good and a bad.
Speaker 2 (44:32):
It's just more precise Something as dumb as
that's a bad word.
Yeah, that's not dumb.
Speaker 3 (44:38):
That's not dumb.
That is dumb.
No, it's not.
See, this is the thing.
Okay, here's the deal.
Is dumb a bad word?
It might be it depends.
Speaker 2 (44:46):
And what do we mean by bad?
Is it offensive?
Is it not well used?
Is it not a good enoughdescription?
Speaker 3 (44:53):
It's socially not acceptable, and we all know when
something's socially notacceptable, unless we don't,
because we need to learn moreabout what's socially acceptable
.
Listen, it is true.
Speaker 2 (45:09):
There are some people , by the way, that will never
learn what's socially acceptable.
Speaker 3 (45:12):
Yes, that is true, which is why I think there is a
place for a low resolution goodand bad.
I think for maybe 70 to 80percent of the human population,
it's not a bad thing thatreligion crafts kind of a low
(45:34):
resolution vision of good andbad.
Just don't do this.
Just don't murder, okay, justdon't beat your wife.
I hear what you're saying don'tmurder, okay, just don't beat
your wife.
I hear what you're saying Justdon't have sex until you get
married, just don't.
You know what I mean.
Like sure, I hear what you'resaying.
However, and I'm still gonna Istill disagree that the term bad
(45:56):
word is dumb.
I think that it is true.
I think it absolutely has aplace.
Speaker 2 (46:00):
I would want to know what you like to me, don't say
(46:28):
bad word.
Speaker 3 (46:29):
there are people who would say words in places that
are inappropriate because theyalmost dropped an F-bomb.
They frigging know it'sinappropriate and there's some
part of them that gets a littlecathartic enjoyment out of
dropping an F-bomb aroundgrandma and Okay and I'd say
that's bad, that's inappropriateRight, because I think that
(46:52):
there's sometimes when droppingthe F-bomb is the appropriate
thing to do.
Speaker 2 (46:57):
Absolutely Right.
I don't have a problem withthat.
Speaker 3 (46:59):
That was a good word to use.
That's right, that's right,absolutely Right.
Yeah, okay, that's right,that's right.
Speaker 2 (47:06):
Absolutely Right.
Yeah, okay, that's right, sogood and bad, but it is bad.
Speaker 3 (47:08):
It's still a bad word .
Speaker 2 (47:10):
No, it's a good word.
Speaker 3 (47:12):
And it's a good word here.
Yes, and also, by the way, I'mgoing to say a few things, which
is why it's more important tobe able to say was it
constructive, was it destructive?
Speaker 2 (47:28):
destructive, did it lift up, did it tear down, like
what I just think?
And here's why I just want realquick yeah, because it is, we
got to wrap this up.
Yeah, because, um, you've gotthings to do, um, and I've got
episodes to edit, okay, but um,um, the problem that I have is
then, when we, when we justcreate these categories of good
and bad, yeah, and we don't howdid you put it?
(47:50):
I really liked the way you justdescribed that a moment ago
when I was talking a higherresolution, yeah, okay.
Is that when someone doessomething that we have
determined is bad, yeah,something that we have
determined is bad, yeah, even if, even if, then what?
Then?
(48:13):
The next step is that somehowwe have to ostracize them or we
have to shame them because theyhave done bad.
And what I'm saying is thatwhen you do that, when you begin
to inappropriately shamesomeone, or you begin to
ostracize them or villainizethem, you have now done bad
(48:38):
Because you have torn somebodydown Right.
And so that's why the verysimple of this is good or this
(48:58):
is bad, mm-hmm, I feel like itneeds to be a little more
nuanced.
Speaker 3 (49:04):
I think this somehow in some ways goes back to a
previous episode where you hadmade kind of a side comment of
how you can't help but thinkabout your faith intellectually
and parse it and dissect it andcontinue to think about it.
Continue to think about it andtry to keep it in the front of
your mind Deconstruct,deconstruct, deconstruct and
(49:27):
construct and deconstruct again.
Speaker 2 (49:28):
Yeah, and I got thoughts about just the word
deconstruct, by the way.
Speaker 3 (49:33):
And yeah, we should talk about that, and that's I
mean just to be clear, like thatwas something I like about you,
I know.
I know that is it, didn't botherme it.
I know, I know that is it,didn't bother me, it, it, it.
It's part of what I like aboutyou, right, it's part of the
reason that, part of the reasonyou and I are friends, I think,
is that we connect on that level.
(49:54):
What I'm saying is, though, Ithink the vast majority of
people don't, and and that's not, I think that's- just a
personality thing, and so Ithink that it's useful.
For a lot of people to godrinking too much is bad,
(50:14):
whereas I would go.
Why, in what circumstances?
Did you cause any other harm?
Did you debase yourself?
You know, like there's a lot ofother right, but I think that
it's.
It's useful and good and finefor a lot of people just to go
drinking too much is bad.
Dropping an f-bomb is just bad.
What it?
Is it ever going to hurtanybody to never drop an f-bomb?
(50:36):
No, probably not.
Probably not.
Now there's some you could getdown the road of.
Like there's some correlationbetween somebody who would never
drop an f-bomb, um, and alsowould be really rigid and maybe
cause other problems in otherareas.
We could have that conversation.
I think that'd be interesting,you know.
But I'm just saying, like, thereason I don't have a problem
(50:57):
with the, the good and bad, uh,concepts and and even lower
resolution probably than youwould have a problem with, is
not because, because I thinkthat it makes any sense to say
you know, pick whatever.
Dropping F, like an F word is abad word.
Like in and of itself,obviously it's not.
(51:18):
I'm going to say a word joder,that's nothing to you, right?
If anybody from Spain 20 yearsago maybe the idioms have
changed this in 20 years heardthat they'd be like.
I can't believe that.
You just said that on the likeyou got to get a explicit rating
.
Speaker 2 (51:33):
That's don't need to put the e on this, yeah it's,
it's, it's essentially an f-bomb.
Speaker 3 (51:39):
It's not exactly, it doesn't translate, but it's, uh,
it's like their harshest, itwas their harshest um word, but
it means nothing to us.
So obviously these are justmouth sounds, yes, on a
fundamental level, but I justthink that there's.
There is usefulness in theselow resolution ideas of good and
bad.
Just don't have sex till youget married.
(52:00):
That's going to help a lot ofpeople.
Sure, right, a lot of teenagers.
Now people are going to pointout it's going to cause a lot of
shame.
It's also going to cause a lotof people Sure, right, a lot of
teenagers.
Now people are going to pointout it's going to cause a lot of
shame.
Speaker 2 (52:08):
It's also going to cause a lot of people to go out
and have sex because they'vebeen told not to and they're not
going to have.
Speaker 3 (52:15):
I know that.
That's the argument.
I know that's the argument I'mnot, we're going back to a
previous episode, anyway.
Speaker 2 (52:28):
All right, so do we have common ground.
Speaker 3 (52:29):
That's the first thing.
The other thing is what does?
Speaker 2 (52:31):
it.
Say about me that I'm havingthis sudden urge to just yell
out the F word.
That's some of our commonground.
Speaker 3 (52:36):
I could beep that.
All right, go ahead.
So what's?
Speaker 2 (52:38):
our common ground Is our common.
Well, you tell me.
Speaker 3 (52:40):
Because, remember, our topic was actually
postmodernism.
Speaker 2 (52:41):
Yeah, is our common ground, that Applied
postmodernism.
That you've got to stayconsistent with your
philosophies.
If you're gonna, if you'regonna apply that absolutely, you
gotta stay consistent.
I think we both agree that,ultimately, you need to strive
for consistency and a moderndaily.
I'm gonna start using it nowbecause I know it.
Speaker 3 (52:58):
Uh, that's cheating so is straw man.
Speaker 2 (53:02):
Absolutely Yep, yeah, all right.
Speaker 1 (53:07):
Thank you for listening to Living on Common
Ground.
Please follow wherever youlisten to your podcasts and
share it with your friends.
You can also find a link to oursocial in the description.
The more people we have livingon common ground, the better the
world will be.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.