Building Foundation of Philosophy-Anarcho-Yakitalism Podcast


We’re back with the 2nd cast of Anarcho-Yakitalism. We’re continuing with the series on philosophy, this time we’re diving deep into some tasty philosophy. There are some terms you may not know, here they are to refer to:

Epistemology: the branch of philosophy concerned with basic human knowledge.

Metaphysics: the branch of philosophy concerned with the existence of reality and what’s in it.

Munchhausen Trilemma: Hard to explain in a few sentences, this is the wiki article.

If I didn’t include something you didn’t understand, look it up, or contact me at,, or message me at Facebook. Remember to check out the Freedom Feens.



Filed under Philosophy

14 Responses to Building Foundation of Philosophy-Anarcho-Yakitalism Podcast

  1. Richard Hauser

    OK, I went back to Ep. 2 as suggested but still nothing new and good news, I am a Randian or at least a near-Randian, so bring on the debate.

    So I will again state my disapproval of your claim for nihilism, that I cannot prove anything, and I would say that “I am experiencing something”. This is not a matter of faith. This is an experience. Can I guarantee the authenticity of the experience, no. In fact, I can guarantee the in authenticity of the experience, but it is something. Can I guarantee that the “I” in the statement is an understood entity? No, but in this context there is an entity who is receiving the experience. Is part of the experience the experience of a podcast, yes. Is there a possibility that there was no podcast, yes, but that was part of my experience. If I take psychedelic drugs and hallucinate an erudite one inch tall neon orange elephant who recites me the full text of Proust, then I did experience it even if it had no external physicality or truth in any sense.

    This is not faith. This is truth within the experience. You can claim that it doesn’t hold true outside of my experience and that is true. My degree is in Physics and I can tell you the universe/multiverse/etc. absolutely isn’t the way we experience it, but that is just a view from a limited information set. Also anyone who has seen Brain Games will tell you that all of your senses lie to you and they are trying to pre-compile incoming data and can get things horrifically/comically wrong. Memory is also a mess of self generated memories, extrapolations, self aggrandizements and falsifications. But none of that changes that it was an experience.

    No faith required.

    • Nick

      I define “we cannot prove anything” as nobody can show that any point is 100% true. Because to prove something, you need a justification for that point. But that justification must also be true, and must be proven to be true. So it needs a justification. But that justification must also be proven to be true with another justification. Until you reach the Münchhausen Trilemma. Where you must either make up a foundation or admit you don’t know. But admitting you don’t know is a foundation too, I guess. Whatever foundation you come up with, it’s not based in reason, otherwise it would have a justification. Therefore it is based in faith. If we define faith as “belief without reason”.
      No matter what position you take, if we take a true skeptical line of questioning, we’ll reach the Trilemma.
      I think this will be an interesting show, Richard.

      • Richard Hauser

        Yes, I read Münchhausen Trilemma on Wikipedia, but as I already stated, I take the third leg or maybe third horn and state my observation from my perspective is truth. You claim this is not truth, but by definition truth is “that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality” and I would state that it is by definition my reality and it is 100% true within its context. This is all any fact can have for without access to omniscience you can only know fact inside a context. To deny facts within context would fall to the nirvana fallacy as it tries to define facts as unknowable because your knowledge is imperfect as all knowledge is imperfect. That does not make it false it makes it incomplete.

        Experiences within context are facts. If there is a crime and there are witnesses then the police will take down all of the accounts as they are facts within that context. If the testimonies disagree, that is fine. We know memory and senses are flawed, but each is a clue and has truth within its context.

        If four people look at houses and each see that it painted a different color. Then maybe they are looking at four different sides which are each painted different colors, or maybe some of these people are color blind, or the sun is setting so the source is skewed to the red or a thousand different reasons, but that still does not refute the truth of the observation to the observer. The truth is not that the house is blue, but that I observe a house with a blue side.

        The theory of relativity states that all motion must be defined relative to a frame of reference and that space and time are relative, rather than absolute concepts. This has many results, but one notable one being that the speed of light is constant no matter your frame of reference, so if you are in a space ship travelling at 90% the speed of light and shine a flashlight out the nose, the light will shine out at the speed of light, and not at faster than the speed of light. If an outside observer measures both they will find only a 10% difference in the speeds. This observation does not invalidate the first because it is performed from a different reference frame so both are true in their respective frames of reference. Some might look at this and say it is proof that things are unknowable because it shows how reality itself can deceive us, but the truth is that as long as we understand our context, the observation is true. The theory of relativity allows much of today’s technology to function as it shows how atomic clocks have to be adjusted on GPS satellites to correct for relativistic time distortion due to orbit speeds even though they are tiny fractions of the speed of light.

        • Nick

          What you are explaining seems to be relativism to me, which nihilism embraces. Truth is relative, rather than objective.
          I don’t want to respond to everything, we’ll have to continue this on Skype or FeenPhone.

          • Richard Hauser

            No, per Wikipedia: Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration.
            This basically states that a point of view has no intrinsic truth, just a passing perception. What I am saying is that a point of view is a part of a whole truth, a piece of the whole. The difference is repeatability.

            The difference is like applying the scientific method to find out something. If I wanted to find out about crystalline structures you might fire X-rays through a crystal and measure the scattering effects as the X-Rays strike the nuclei of the atoms in the crystal. If we don’t know the context such as the frequency of the X-Ray or the substance of the crystal then the results would be Relativistic, interesting in their own way but not holding any real truth. But if we understand the context, know the frequency, the angle of the light and the material that we are exposing, we will get a repeatable piece of the truth of the crystal. We will not have the whole truth, but with further experiments we can find lattice spacing, find impurities and other interesting truths.

          • Richard Hauser

            After further research, I believe I may be not a Relativist, but Positivist.

          • Richard Hauser

            I will do a Skype call if you want to.

          • Nick

            Awesome! Email me and we’ll work out the details.

  2. Anonymous individual

    I’m impressed with your ability to make your beliefs clear and understandable. I don’t listen to podcasts often because I find that the speaker expects the audience to know the material too well, but maybe I just shouldn’t be listening to something I don’t understand. I am intrigued by your level of skepticism and I am excited to hear more.
    I am very hard headed about my opinions, but I love to have those opinions challenged. Now, as much as I enjoy debating political subjects I am most passionate about education within society. I’m hoping you may include this in future episodes.
    Nice job Nick

  3. Alan

    Okay I am not quite through the second episode yet its a bit thick. I have to comment though. I like what your doing and think we need more of it. We need more under 18 podcasters in the anarchist movement. I fully believe that it is the youth which drives the future.

    That said I need to point out 2 crucial mistakes you made on foundational principles. I think for the most parts you have it right with Nihilism. You go way off track though when you say Ethics and Morality are the same thing. A lot of people make this mistake, and it is something that even many philosophers get wrong. Ethic’s is NOT Morality. Ethics is the underlying principles which inform our individual morality. It is like saying that a tree is the ground because the tree grows out of the ground.
    Ethics properly defined is the scientific field of study pertaining to human interactions. Stefan Molyneux gets stuff right and he gets stuff wrong. He gets UPB (the basis for ethics) right.
    Morality grows out but is not a part of ethics. “I should not steal because I do not want to be stolen from” is ethics. “Don’t eat pork.” is morality.

    The second thing which you way to easily dismiss is Aesthetics. It is not only about formal study of art. It is not only about painting. Aesthetics applies to everything. The music you listen to. The podcasts you listen to. The beauty you find in a face. The art we consume from looking out our window at a beautiful scene of nature, to the music we listen to, to the movies we watch all of it programs our subconscious to some extent.
    This is why listening to dark music while we are in a dark mood can make us even darker. This is why a truly radical song can change someone view on an issue.
    It is also why a beautiful essay or debate can sway peoples opinion. Rhetoric as much as movies is art, it is Aesthetic.

    I will throw politics in here for you too. Politics also grows out of ethics. Political philosophy deals with the structure of human societies and how they apply ethics.
    *more on Aesthetics
    The human mind is drawn to symmetry. Aesthetics is the reason why so many people reject Anarchism. I myself am a perfect example of this. I came to Anarchism within the last 2-3 years. Before that I was a “minarchist-Anarchist”. Or as I used to put it “I personally am an Anarchist. But I do not trust the rest of humanity so I am a minarchist. The reason why is because Anarchy in my mind was not symmetrical. The “picture” (if I can use that word) I had of anarchy was missing pieces. These missing pieces made the picture “ugly”. It wasn’t until one particular action with a cop that I realized the symmetry of Anarchy, and how unsymmetrical all monopolies of force are. The cop proved to me that it is exactly because I DID not trust humanity that I could not support The State.
    I am trying not to write 50 pages so I hope the analogy made its point.

    • Nick

      Alan, you’re right about the difference in morality and ethics, I’ll concede. Ethics is deeper than morality.
      You’re also right that I demeaned aesthetics, which was not cool. I do have respect for aesthetics, and it’s not just about paintings. Everything is art, and everything we know of is known by the senses, aesthetics is all about that. I shouldn’t dismiss aesthetics like that, I obviously do care about it, I took as much advice as I could for improving my audio and website design, as well as speaking and writing skills, to make my work pleasing to the senses.
      I will correct my mistakes next show. Thanks for your critical feedback.

      • Alan

        Thank you for the consideration Nick. I’ve heard that there are not a lot of under 20 crowd that listen to podcasts. In the grand scheme this is true although there are more than people think. But I think the biggest reason why more under 20 don’t listen to shows is because there aren’t many under 20 content creators. Your not that much younger than me, yet the difference in the world between when I was your age and now is huge.
        Fifteen years ago palm pilots were smart phones, and few people had them. My generation had to wait until we were in front of a computer if we wanted to know something. Your generation pulls out its phone. It is harder for us old fogies (I am almost 30) to draw in younger listeners because there is a gap. Your show will grow, and it will influence the way young men and women view the world. Something I would suggest that you look up on Wikipedia is Anchoring.
        Anchoring is important to be aware of not only so you know what the affect of your content on others is, but so that you are aware of it’s tendencies in yourself.

  4. Darwin

    I’m sure you’ve heard of the really crummy jokes, so I’ll not make it here. My philosophy is similiar to objectivism, in that I believe reality as our senses experience it is the only relevant reality (If there are ghosts, and I can’t interact with them, it’s best to behave as if there are no ghosts). A thing is always itself with certain properties that it brings with it (A man is a man, not a goat. And no amount of wishing it will make it so). It’s not quite Randian Objectivism, as I am responsible for my own pleasure, and should I decide to give money to hobos because it gives me a happy, then I’m free to do so. I do not do it because they have a mortgage on my work (as Rand might claim the beggar’s bell gives them), but rather because it pleases me to alleviate suffering. Like an objectivist, I don’t believe that those that ask for alms have any claim on them. Unlike an objectivist, I realize things are tough all over, and while I do not believe in Karma, I do think the golden rule is generally better practiced than not. An objectivist might call me a traitor to all that is noble in a man. I believe that I live in the real world, not a just one, and that there is nothing ignoble in life so long as it pleases the person who performs the act, and harms no one in the process.

    It was good to hear this cast, nearly twice as long as the first, and it’s great having your voice added to those raising theirs for Liberty.

    • Nick

      My nihilist in me replies, prove all of that. But when I move past the paradox of knowledge being impossible, I agree with you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *