The world outside our mind is actually glued together; relations are mind-independent; and patterns are objectively real. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Trying to envision life alongside AI. How will our culture change? What will the norms be around beloved robots?  Should we let the machines hijack our emotional circuitry?  Will AI become the highest-level decision makers within governments?

The world is ablaze with discussion about the risks and benefits of AI like ChatGPT I have not been persuaded by the doomsdayers concerns about rogue AI, but that doesn't mean the technology is actually safe. I investigate some philosophical concepts surrounding AI with Alexandros Marinos.

Wonderful conversation with my old friend Isaac Deitz who shares his personal religious journey. After decades of being a Christian, he no longer identifies with that label. In my opinion, that's only because "Christian" is a terrible term nowadays. By some metrics, Isaac is a raging Christian. By others, he is a heretic. In that respect, I am coming to many of the same ideas about religion and truth--spiritual truth is often at odds with religious dogma. Better to give up a label than give up the pursuit of truth. Isaac's website: http://www.isaacdeitz.com/

The best explanation for the current madness of the world is that we're in a dark age and have been for at least a century. The epistemic standards of the 20th century were not high enough to overcome social, psychological, and political entropy.

A couple of months ago, my friend Isaac Morehouse asked me to talk about the philosophy of mathematics and why I consider it so important. Appeals to mathematics are everywhere, from COVID lockdowns to NFL play calling, and if our concepts about math are flawed, we make the world a significantly worse place.  

What does scientific progress look like? Is it steady progress, getting ever closer to the truth? Or does it go through waves?   What about cases where we seem to have lost knowledge or the foundations of a theory we’ve been building on turned out to be wrong? Can that still be useful? Is that still progress?   These are some of the questions I explore with Dr. Geoff Anders.

A critical thinker must have the ability to zoom in and zoom out - to hyper-focus on cause and effect and to see how things interconnect in the big picture. It's a common and critical error to be too-zoomed-in or too-zoomed-out. The over-focused mind is like the mathematician who doesn't realize the assumptions of his model are non-mathematical and likely wrong. The under-focused mind is like the mushroom-enthusiast that's content concluding "All is one", with no finer-resolution of analysis. The careful thinker must be constantly zooming in and zooming out, gathering ideas from all levels of resolution.

Libertarians like myself tend to focus on the abuse of power hierarchies. The existence of a "ruling class" makes most of us uneasy. However, might these sociological structures serve a valuable purpose? Are they inevitable parts of human society? Samo Burja joins me to discuss.

For years, I've been making anti-Platonist arguments. Now, I think I was wrong. The universe seems to be composed of both concrete and abstract stuff.

Episode 100 of Patterson in Pursuit! Wow, what a milestone. Thanks to everybody who has listened to and supported the show. I hope it's created value for you. In this episode, I share my personal thoughts about the show, some of my motivations, the conversations that were impactful to my own philosophy, and some funny experiences along the way. And of course, more heretical thoughts about the philosophy of mathematics.

Do logic and rationality have limits? Are there ways to "get outside" of rational thinking? Do altered states caused by psychedelics provide true insight about the world, or are they illusory? These are the questions I discuss with Dr. Bernardo Kastrup, who shares some of his personal experiments and insights gained psychedelic drugs.

Is everything ultimately mental? Do we need a theory of a physical world at all? Dr. Bernardo Kastrup joins me again to talk about idealism. This time, we go into great detail, both put our ideas to the test, and the result was one of my favorite interviews ever. I end up asking Bernardo some of the most difficult questions in philosophy.     

Finally, after investigating for more than 20 years, I have a concept of God I can rationally grasp. The idea is one of the oldest in existence, and it turns baroque theological claims into true and important insights.

Dualism is an attractive philosophy with an Achilles' heel. Dualists since Descartes have never given a good answer to the problem of interaction. Finally, I think I've got one. I have a working resolution to the problem of interaction that I call a theory of indirect interaction, which allows effective interaction between objects in different ontological categories. Original article here: http://steve-patterson.com/mind-body-dualism-solving-problem-interaction/

Lots of confusion is caused by the nature of language. This is a narration of the article "There Are No Objective Definitions", which you can read here: http://steve-patterson.com/there-are-no-objective-definitions/

Dr. Doron Zeilberger is the Distinguished Professor of Mathematics at Rutgers University. He's also a math heretic who thoroughly rejects the orthodox conceptions of infinity in modern mathematics. So we got along quite well. We had a fantastic conversation covering a wide range of topics, including set theory, calculus and limits, pi, irrational numbers like the square root of two, real analysis, and Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. If you're interested in the philosophy of mathematics, this is a must-listen.

The most requested interview breakdown ever - my conversation with Thaddeus Russell about the postmodern theory of truth. Fun episode! Can we know that experience is happening? If somebody denies that they know, is it possible to convince them?

Christopher Langan is an independent intellectual known for having the highest IQ in America - somewhere around 200, which is six standard deviations above the norm. His story is fascinating. Chris is not working within the academy. Instead, he's splitting his time between ranching and philosophizing. We spoke about a wide range of topics, including the problems of modern academia, the concept of IQ, and his attempt at a Theory of Everything entitled "The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" - or the "CTMU". You can find more information about the CTMU at: http://hology.org/ You can also find Chris's work and support him on Patreon at: https://www.patreon.com/CTMU

Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? If you've been in the Bitcoin world for a while, you know that's the last question you should try to answer. However, I've recently come across a story that I find quite plausible, written by Phil Wilson (aka Scronty). Phil documents the thinking-process behind the Bitcoin invention, in addition to providing many historical details around the creation of Bitcoin. His story also explains the perplexing existence of Craig Wright. It's the only narrative that implies Craig is both a) Part of the Satoshi team, and b) largely fraudulent, at the same time. It explains how Craig was able to convince notable people like Gavin Andreson of being Satoshi, while also explaining his extremely poor writing and communication skills. It also fits the facts of Satoshi's extremely careful Op Sec - though not in the way you might think. The story isn't perfect - and Phil admits as much - but taken together, his story is the best I've heard, and worthy of 7 hours of interviewing.

My conversation with Dr. Walter Block about abortion and natural rights, which is one of the trickiest issues in any political philosophy, libertarianism included. He's the creator of a theory called "evictionism," which tries to take a middle ground between pro-life and pro-choice positions. In my analysis, it's a reasonable compromise. I cannot think of any principled objections from the pro-choice side, and though a pro-lifer might have objections, the core of Block's argument is pro-life at heart and in the long run could result in the universal protection of pre-birth humans.

Julia and I have been dealing with a mystery illness for more than six years. It's progressively gotten worse, but finally, after seeing more than 50 doctors in multiple states and countries, we're finding answers. Our story is not unique. There are millions of people suffering with unknown illness who get misdiagnosed or dismissed by their doctors. Too often, when a conventional doctor does not understand your sickness, they conclude one of two things: it's either in your head, or you're making up the symptoms outright. This is an arrogant and irrational method of thinking. The medical world could use more philosophy and critical reasoning. If you're struggling with medical problems, hopefully you'll find our story helpful. We waited too long to step outside the conventional medical system, due to my own dogmatic thinking surrounding "alternative medicine." I had strong opinions about things I didn't understand, and now that my mind has opened, I see lots of high-quality work being done, and alternative treatments are finally helping us. Just like every other area of thought, "the experts" really are clueless.

Tom Woods joins me for a great discussion about Catholicism, papal authority, and his story of becoming an independent intellectual entrepreneur.    Was the Catholic Church really an anti-intellectual, anti-science organization throughout history, or is that simply a myth?   Does the truth stand apart from what the Pope declares? Can the Pope be wrong?   These questions and lots more.

The purpose of this article is to point out where my fellow rationalists are being dogmatic, in particular, with regard to Austrian Economics. Philosophers like Hans-Hermann Hoppe tend to drop the "ceteris paribus" condition, turning true-but-neutered claims into false-and-dogmatic ones.

This week's interview is with Jeff Tucker. We're talking about how capitalism fits into the bigger picture. Libertarians tend to assume that everybody values the creation of wealth, and therefore free markets are important. But why make this assumption? Perhaps free markets create wealth at the cost of personal or spiritual impoverishment. What to think about this objection? We also address the staggering beauty and complexity of free markets, illustrated in proper Jeff Tucker style: by telling the romantic story of tuna fish in a vending machine.  

Few things are as intuitively obvious, yet philosophically challenging, as the existence of free will. There’s a fashionable critique of free will that says, “The very concept of free will is incoherent; therefore, it obviously doesn’t exist.” This article does not make the case for or against the existence of free will. Instead, it defends its conceptual coherence. Free will is not a nonsensical idea, and it might exist.

This article was inspired by a life-size replica of the crucifixion within a church in Bergen, Norway. The church service was pointless, but the replica sparked some valuable thoughts about love and hate.

This narrated article is about using the Rubik's Cube as an analogy for philosophic paradoxes and problem-solving. There are no unsolvable scrambles...

Is a “whole” really something greater than the sum of its parts? Or, is a “whole” identical to the sum of its parts?   Dr. Andrew Brenner joins me for a fun conversation about mereology - the study of parts and wholes. While it might seem like an esoteric topic, it’s actually central to metaphysics, and the conclusions have implications on things as varied as the philosophy of mind, personal identity, and even the philosophy of mathematics and geometry.   Both Dr. Brenner and I agreed in this episode: the only things that exist are simple substances. There aren’t actually any composite objects, though we act like there are for easy navigation in the world.

Zeno's paradoxes are some of the most famous. Most modern philosophers simply dismiss them as "resolved" because of calculus. However, that's a logical mistake. Calculus actually does not resolve Zeno's paradoxes. What resolves them is a base-unit of physical reality.

I am joined again by Ryan Charles to discuss the current state of the Bitcoin Cash network. After the failure of the Segwit2x proposal to scale Bitcoin, a significant percentage of early adopters have moved onto the Bitcoin Cash network, and progress is happening fast. In fact, as of this interview, I've decided to only support Bitcoin Cash addresses for my work, and I've decided to write my next book on Bitcoin, called "The First Fork: From Bitcoin to Bitcoin Cash."

This is a narrated article from the 2016 campaign season. I was inspired by the rhetoric of Bernie Sanders to create some satire...

Imagine it's the late evening in Atlanta, and a small white woman is walking to her car in a parking lot. A black man she didn't see before walks up behind her. She gets nervous and feels like she might be in danger. She holds onto her purse a little more tightly. Is this a clear case of racism? Is it simply rational behavior? If it's racism, is it a moral problem? TK Coleman joins me to discuss these types of situations in Part Two of our conversation on race and colorblindness. Is it really possible to be colorblind, or is that naive to think? Are race relations improving or getting worse in America? We cover these questions, and many more, in this episode.

This is a narration of an article I wrote when the US Supreme Court made their famous ruling on gay marriage. When you step back and view the big picture, the whole situation is bizarre. Humans, themselves, are bizarre, as are their political structures.

TK Coleman joins me for another excellent conversation about race. This week, we focus on the concept of "colorblindness." Is it possible to be colorblind, or is that naive? Can we recognize differences among groups, while still judging every individual according to their own character? Is white supremacism a fundamental feature of white people's minds - so much, that they cannot spot it within themselves? Is the reason that so many people deny being racist is because of a lack of self-awareness? We cover these questions - and many more - in the next two episodes.  

Poker can teach us something profound about philosophy. Specifically, it can teach us about the relationship between theory and data, knowledge and experience, and the ancient debate between rationalists and empiricists.   

This week I’m joined by Dr. Bryan Caplan to discuss his new book, “The Case Against Education.” We cover the signaling model of education, whether college is always a good idea, and we got into an interesting conversation about doing interdisciplinary work - something very relevant to my own project.  

This is Part 2 of my conversation with Dr. Graham Priest. We talk about the history of logic and the great revisions that took place around the turn of the 20th century. When logic met math, both disciplines changed, for better or worse.

My conversation with Dr. Graham Priest, who is best known for his defense of dialetheism - the idea that some contradictions are true. We talk about logic, metaphysics, the relationship between the two, and focus on the liar's paradox in particular.

This is my breakdown of David Chalmers' interview on the Closer to Truth Series - about metaphysics and ontology. Are there entities in the world, or is there just stuff? Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0QPWQR5f9Q

If animals can suffer, does that make it immoral to eat meat? I'm joined again by Dr. Mike Huemer to help me answer this question. He has recently released a series of four dialogues on the topic, which address many of the issues we talk about in this episode. Also covered: free will, empathy, and whether the nutritional value of meat changes our ethical judgments. 

Does objective truth exist? Thaddeus Russell joins me for part two of our discussion about postmodernism. In this episode, we focus on the philosophy of truth. Can we know anything about the world? Can we know anything about our minds? Are the laws of logic objective or just a convention of language?

I am joined by Dr. Thaddeus Russell to talk about postmodernism. With the popularity of people like Jordan Peterson, who vocally criticize postmodernism, Thaddeus thinks most of the criticism is misplaced. We also have a great conversation about love, religion, and people's motivation for their actions.

Season 2 is here! The show starts up again with a fantastic interview with Dr. Bernardo Kastrup about idealism.  I've spent a lot of time arguing against physicalism and for a kind of "reluctant dualist" worldview, but I've not explained my position on idealism. So, I brought Dr. Kastrup on the show to give his case that only mental stuff exists.

I need to take a break from Patterson in Pursuit to focus on health and writing. I can't wait to return.

Consciousness is a hard phenomenon to explain in any worldview. We seem to be able to intentionally change the content of our experience. How is that possible? 

Who determines whether an individual or group has the right to govern themselves?  At what point does secession become legitimate? How many people need to get together in order to secede? I try to tackle some of these questions while giving my perspective on the imminent Catalonia independence referendum. I am unabashedly in favor of secession - all the way down to the individual.

Language is ambiguous. If you want to communicate effectively, you must understand that different people have different meanings for the same words.  Far too many rationalists waste their time arguing for objective definitions, instead of stating their intended meaning for words.

Can the whole be greater than the sum of its parts? Does consciousness require that we split the world between mind and body? Can free will exist in a naturalistic worldview? Dr. David Kelley joins me on this episode to give his Objectivist perspective on these questions. As Dr. Kelley explains, many ideas in Objectivism are heavily influenced by Aristotelian thinking.

Many thinkers are more concern with how their ideas look, rather than how accurate they are. They want to appear intelligent, rather than have true beliefs. I call them the "fashionable thinkers," and this is my rant against them. I've noticed many common traits among fashionable thinkers. Have you?

Do we see reality as it is? Or, are we stuck inside our own mental representations of the world? My guest this week is Dr. Donald Hoffman, who believes that there's a 0% chance that we accurately perceive the world. He believes that mental phenomena - consciousness, experience, qualia - is the real stuff that makes up the world, not physical objects.

It's tempting to dismiss anybody who claims they've been abducted by aliens or seen Bigfoot in the forest. However, simple dismissal might not be the most rational response. Extreme cases can actually help us understand the relationship between the mind and the world? What exactly do these people see/experience, and how can we know?

Part four of my conversation about race with TK Coleman. In this episode, we talk about the intersection of race, politics, and economics in America. It's impossible to understand how the world works without understanding economics, and once you grasp the fundamentals, economics will change your worldview - especially your political theory. TK understands economics and has a political solution that everybody should be able to agree on. We don't have to argue about the extent of racism anymore; we can agree on a solution, regardless of the severity of the problem.

Is the world composed of one thing or many things? Some thinkers believe that the universe is one object that our minds chop up into many pieces. I believe that the universe is many objects that our minds unify into one whole. It might seem abstract, but regardless of your conclusion, it's got big implications.

Is it racist to notice cultural differences among groups? Can we make judgments about those differences? Without a doubt, race is one of the most taboo subjects to talk about in America. To help me grapple with these sticky questions, I'm talking with T.K. Coleman. We spoke in episodes 40 and 41 about race relations, and we continue the conversation today.

This is the craziest time in Bitcoin's history, and it's mired in confusion and misinformation. To help give some context, I'm joined by a long time Bitcoiner and entrepreneur Ryan X. Charles, who is the CEO and co-founder of Yours. He breaks down some of the facts and history surrounding the network split and creation of Bitcoin Cash. If you're interested in Bitcoin at all, you'll want to listen to this episode. If you appreciate the content and want to donate Bitcoin or Bitcoin Cash, you can use this address:  1A3oPBkXU156c3NKqWpNdGfTizc8JAgwKZ

In this episode, I'm joined by Oren Sofer to talk about meditation and philosophy. We start by laying out the basics of meditation - what's going on, internally and externally - and then we get into some of the deeper questions in metaphysics like: "What is the mind?","What is the self?", "Do observations require an observer?"

How well-justified are the insights of feminist philosophy? What is the metaphysical status of the patriarchy? Is there such a thing as a "biological difference" between men and women? This is my interview breakdown of Episode 51 - my conversation with Dr. Michelle Boulous-Walker of the University of Queensland. Let's just say: we disagree.

Hegel is famous for being a difficult and controversial philosopher. His work comes up often in my conversations about paradox and contradiction - from those who argue that paradoxes can exist in the world.  Or, even more strongly, from those argue that "the world is paradoxical." I don't know much about Hegel, so I've traveled to Atlanta to interview Dr. Donald Verene of Emory University, who specializes in Hegelian philosophy.

The Silk Road case is filled to the brim with corruption, and the media has done a terrible job getting the facts out. Ross Ulbricht has been painted as a vicious kingpin, when in fact, he has no violence in his background, nor has he been charged with any violent crimes. New evidence keeps emerging that demonstrate Ross has been abused by the American legal system. My guest, Lyn Ulbricht, is the mother of Ross, and she shares some of this new evidence in our conversation. If you want to learn more about the case, or if you want to donate to their fund, visit freeross.org.

My conversation with Oscar Martin, a Catholic priest in Panama City, Panama. We cover many topics - the church, the sacraments, faith, love, hierarchy, and community. I don't know much about Catholicism, so this is my attempt to try to discover some of the basics.

Patrick Byrne is known as the founder and CEO of Overstock.com. However, few people know that he also has a PhD in Philosophy from Stanford. In this interview, we talk about ethics - both business and personal. He shares some of his most fundamental values in life. We also cover his analysis of the "social justice" phenomenon.

JP Sears is known for his "ultra-spiritual" satirical videos. However, he's not just a satirist. Turns out, he's actually a serious life-coach with interesting ideas who actually believes many of the things he satirizes. In this interview, we talk about his worldview and ideas about spirituality and religion, and I share some of my thoughts on the subject. If you can sort through the dirt and dogma, there is truth to be found in the spiritual side of life.

Science has flaws. We must discover and acknowledge them if we want to avoid dogmatic thinking. Too many people dismiss skepticism about the rigor of modern science as “anti-intellectual.” They overlook serious problems with the scientific method in practice. I am joined this week by Brian Earp, the author of the excellent article "The Unbearable Asymmetry of Bullshit"

It's easy to dismiss any insights while gained in an altered state as "crazy". But there might be more going on. Drugs seem to make people naturally more philosophic; they shake you from your regular framework, which might be what people need in order to grasp the truth from a new direction. But of course, drug use comes with its own risks. I've seen too many people whose wires have crossed after taking a few too many magic mushrooms. Use at your own risk.

Are there exceptions to the so-called "non-aggression principle," which says that it is never justified to initiate force against a peaceful person? In some circumstances, could it be justified to use physical force on somebody that doesn't consent? What qualifies as "consent" in the first place? This is part 1 of my breakdown of Episode 50 - my conversation with Stephan Kinsella. In the future, I'll release a second breakdown of our conversation about argumentation ethics.

Ambiguity is part of language. Words do not have objective definitions; they mean whatever you want them to mean. You don't hear or see words - you hear sounds and see blobs of color that qualify as "words" by your own conceptual criteria.

What if a technology existed that allowed anybody in the world to trade with anybody else in the world - whatever they want, whenever they want, and without permission from anybody else. What would the world look like? What would the political and economic implications be? That technology is currently being created, and my very own brother has co-founded a company to develop it.

100% of the space that we experience is space within our representation of the world. Does that imply space is only in our heads?

Should Ayn Rand be taken seriously? She created a philosophy called "Objectivism", but until recent years, it hasn't been gotten much attention from professional philosophers. How does Objectivism answer basic questions in epistemology and metaphysics? To help me learn, I've invited Dr. David Kelley to come on the show. He's the founder of the Atlas Society and has been promoting Objectivism for more than 25 years.

Do you see the world, or do you see your representation of the world?

What's the purpose of meditation? What is the nature of the mind? What is the nature of the self? I got to ask these questions to a Buddhist monk while in Chiang Mai, Thailand.  

The most popular resolution to Zeno's paradoxes is to say, "Calculus solves it!" But, as I've written and spoken about before, the logic of calculus might be dubious. Can we really complete an infinite series? My guest this week is Dr. Michael Huemer, who has recently written a book called Approaching Infinity, where he claims that the modern theory of infinities do need to be revised - that calculus does not solve Zeno's paradoxes - and that we have to distinguish between completable and non-completable infinities. Though Dr. Huemer and I disagree on the metaphysics of mathematics, and I have an even more radical position on infinities, we agree that more work needs to be done to place modern mathematics onto sounder footing.

What's more likely: a precise description of an ambiguous world, or an ambiguous description of a precise world? This is the modernist fallacy: to think that conceptual blurriness correctly describes a blurry world. To me, this is silly and irrational. Ambiguous theories are flawed; they aren't positive arguments for "true ambiguity".

Postmodernist philosophy is famous for being paradoxical. Claims like "the truth is that there is no truth" or "everything is relative" are popular - especially among academics. Many proponents are even OK with explicit contradictions in their worldview. To me, a contradiction is a demonstration of error, and not caring about intellectual consistency is a sign of dogmatism and irrationalism. But according to Dr. Stephen Hicks, that's because I have a certain psychological response to contradictions. Postmodernists have a different psychological response, and so they aren't as bothered by inconsistency. Dr. Hicks thinks it's possible to be intellectually respectable while defending internally-inconsistent views. I don't think it's possible. What do you think?

Tai Chi master gets beat up by an MMA fighter; Chinese think it was "disrespectful" to demonstrate the truth - the Tai Chi master's "expertise" was a sham. This kind of thing happens all the time in the martial arts and in the world of ideas. "Masters" and "experts" are frequently convinced of their own knowledge and superiority - allthewhile being deluded about the basics of their own subject matter.

This is my interview breakdown of Episode 33 - my conversation with Dr. Jody Azzouni about the metaphysics of mathematics. The first half of our conversation was about existence, the nature of language, and whether we can say true things about objects that don't exist.

The economic principle is clear: you cannot borrow money indefinitely to pay your bills. Eventually, the bills come due. You can only delay the inevitable. This is a law of economics, and it applies to every country on earth, including the United States.

What are the fundamentals of Zen Buddhism? What is the purpose of meditation, or zazen? Is the philosophy or the practice of Buddhism more important? I asked these questions to Keiho Nishigaki, the head monk at the Nan'yoji temple outside of Osaka, Japan. He was kind enough to work me through the basics, in addition to giving me a guided Zen meditation session.

How fundamental is the conflict between science and religion? Is it true that the history of the church is filled with anti-intellectualism and the suppression of scientific inquiry? Is religious fundamentalism to blame for the tension between science and religion? I've got my own suspicions about these questions, but I decided to ask Dr. Peter Harrison, who teaches History at the University of Queensland. He specializes in the topic of "Science versus Religion".

Rationalists are far too quick to dismiss anecdotes as being "non-scientific." They are also too quick to accept all official-looking "data" that comes from scientists - when, in fact, anecdotes might sometimes be more trustworthy than scientific data. On the other hand, many people are far too likely to accept the theoretical claims of anecdotal evidence - rather than accepting the data while remaining skeptical of any theoretical claims.

For thousands of years, people have ingested psychedelic drugs in order to alter their consciousness. They report having profound experiences - many of which are life-changing. But is this just simple delusion? Can you really learn important truths while on drugs? I think it's a grave mistake to dismiss the possibility out of hand. To help me answer, I'm joined by the World Wanderers: Ryan Ferguson and Amanda Kingsmith, who have traveled to more than 45 countries together. While in Peru, they both had an ayahuasca experience that they consider to be life-changing in a positive way.

Continuing the commentary on hierarchy from last week. Seeking status, wealth, and prestige - for their own sake - is not a recipe for happiness or human flourishing. It's a recipe for pettiness and division. Playing power games within a social pecking order is an attempt to compensate for a lack of self-confidence.

A year ago, I started Patterson in Pursuit. Ten countries later, I want to share some thoughts about what I've learned. 

Regardless of where people fall on the social hierarchy, they like and reinforce the system. They seek camaraderie with other people in social classes - even if they're in the bottom class. This is a difficult part of human psychology for me to deal with. For those of us who don't like this system, it can be difficult to opt-out.

Does infinity really come in multiple sizes? According to mathematical orthodoxy, some infinities are bigger than others - but that's awfully hard to wrap your mind around. So, I've asked Dr. Toby Meadows from the University of Queensland to help me out. He specializes in the philosophy of mathematics and set theory.

Why is the history of ideas dominated by male thinkers? Is it because women are discouraged from intellectual life - or is it because women tend to choose other careers? If we go even deeper: why do women (and men) make the choices they do? Is it because they are influenced by overwhelming societal pressures - or are they acting freely? These are the questions I've asked Dr. Michelle Boulous-Walker, who teaches at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia.

Can we say true and false things about Harry Potter? If so, does that mean he exists? If not, then how can we talk about a non-existing thing? I've gotten different answers to these questions in my interviews so far. Here are some of my thoughts on the topic.

If we choose to argue, have we presupposed an ethical framework? Is "self-ownership" a concept that cannot coherently be doubted? To help me answer these questions, I'm joined by Stephan Kinsella, who is one of the most prominent supporters of "argumentation ethics." He claims that ownership is inescapable.

Don't take my word for it, but the experts might not be so expert...

Does consciousness "emerge" from physical phenomena? What does "emerge" even mean? If we grant that consciousness emerges, and that it has a distinct ontological status, doesn't that imply dualism? To help me answer these questions, I spoke with Dr. Braddon-Mitchell at the University of Sydney.

I grew up in a Christian Evangelical household. This is my experience with religious fundamentalism.

Are the foundations of mathematics rock-solid? Are we allowed to doubt them? How central is the concept of "infinity" to modern mathematics - and has the logic of infinity been fully worked out? To help me answer these questions, I've traveled to Sydney, Australia to interview an unorthodox mathematician on the topic. Dr. Norman Wildberger is also skeptical of the modern foundations of mathematics - even though he's a teaching professor at the University of New South Wales - and he has a popular youtube channel where he's laying out new foundations for the field. You can find his youtube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/njwildberger

There are no infinite things - no infinite sets, magnitudes, densities, shapes, distances, or anything else. Every thing is exactly the way it is. It has boundaries and is therefore finite. If this is true, then we have a great amount of work ahead of us, re-founding modern mathematics on a more solid logical ground.

Breakdown of the interview I had with Dr. Patrick Girard about paraconsistent logic. Nothing is both true and false at the same time. Any logical theory that suggests otherwise is catastrophically flawed. There are no true logical contradictions, and if we get this wrong, we eliminate any chance of internal incoherence in our theories.

How to replace one theory with another. You must accomplish three things: 1) Explain where the dominant theory is wrong. 2) Explain why your theory solves the problem in #1, while preserving its explanatory power. 3) Explain why the incorrect theory still had predictive power. Do those three, and you've made a compelling case for a paradigm shift.

Are all boundaries artificial? Is "the self" a real thing, or is it just an illusion? Does anything have essence? These are the questions I'm breaking down from my interview with Dr. Janet Gyatso from Harvard.

This is the most personal article I've written. It's about love - but it's not meant to make you feel fuzzy. I believe love is the highest state of human existence, but getting to a loving state of mind is incredibly hard, and it comes coupled with a great deal of pain.

Resting at the heart of modern mathematics is the concept of infinite sets. It's a notoriously difficult concept, and in my own evaluation, it strikes me as logically contradictory. So, I accept an invitation to talk with an ex-mathematician who specializes in set theory - perhaps he can set me straight and help me understand the basic ways of thinking about these "completed infinities."  

I can't help but notice the West's reaction to the Charlie Hebdo massacre. It's so abstract. If I were to be cynical, I'd say that people's reactions are fake. They don't really care about the tragedy; they care about social signaling to their peers. Original article here: http://steve-patterson.com/charlie-hebdo-excuse-take-selfies/

Great show this week covering the social justice warrior phenomenon - the origins, causes, and damage that could be created if these people gain political power. We also talk about the liberalisation of New Zealand during the 80's, "trickle-down ideologies", and the impact of relativism in higher ed. My guest is Dr. Jamie Whyte, who has a background in philosophy, studied at Cambridge, and saw first-hand the popularity of irrationalism within the academic system.  

What were the indigenous beliefs of the Māori people of New Zealand? How did they view the world? How did they react when met with the first Christian settlers? I'm joined by Dr. Hirini Kaa to help me answer these questions. We talk about the Maori worldview, history, religion, and impact of colonialism on New Zealand's indigenous people. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

What is truth? Can we know anything about it? Is truth about propositions, or is it about the world? Can a proposition be true and false at the same time? What about the infamous liar's paradox? My guest this week thinks that logical contradictions are unavoidable - but also that they aren't as big a deal as classical logicians make them out to be. I think contradictions are a very big deal, so naturally, we have a great discussion. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

This is Part II of the conversation I had with T.K. Coleman about race relations in the United States. We continue talking about the importance of intention versus action - focusing on people feelings versus focusing on their behavior. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

A timely interview on the subject of race in America. Ideas matter, and some of them matter urgently. This is one of those topics where respectful, honest, and reasonable conversation is in high demand and short supply. I hope my guest T.K. Coleman will spend a few more episodes diving into the subject with me, because we only scratched the surface here. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

The theory of physicalism does not fully explain all the phenomena that I experience. The toolbox of concepts must expand. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Omnipotent. Omniscient. Omnibenevolent. These are the descriptions that theists often give when talking about God. But are they the only conceptions of God that are possible? My guest today is Dr. John Bishop, who has written about non-standard conceptions of theism. We talk about his criticisms of the OmniGod, in addition to some fundamental concepts about faith and belief. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Do we live in a post-truth world? What does that term even mean? I'm joined by Dr. Robert Nola, who has been teaching at the University of Auckland for almost half a century. We discuss fundamental questions about truth, talk about what "post-truth" means, and also cover the methodology of "faith" in the philosophy of religion. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

What is the cause of somebody's stroke? Is it the laws of physics? The mechanics of biology? Or perhaps it's caused by the choices that they made? Is it all of the above? My guest today is Dr. Mario De Caro, who has an interesting answer to these questions. He is a metaphysical pluralist, who believes in multiple categories of existence and causation, each of which is not reducible to the other. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

The bittersweet paradox is another popular irrationalist argument, which claims that two mutually exclusive things can be experienced together - happy and sad, black and white, bitter and sweet. Once again, this type of argument falls short, and precise language clears up any confusion. It conflates the appearance of mutual exclusivity with actual mutual exclusivity. If two things are mutually exclusive, then they cannot be experienced together. If they are experienced together, it's a demonstration that they aren't mutually exclusive. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Merry Christmas and Bah Humbug! This is an analysis of my interview with a Christian theologian from Cambridge. I wasn't a big fan of his argument, which ultimately rested on a dubious distinction between "who" and "what." Also in this episode: my attempt at rationally explaining the connection between Jesus and the Christian God. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Drug prohibition causes more harm than good - that's the argument from libertarians like Dr. Jeff Miron of Harvard. He analyzes the topic from an economic and practical standpoint. In this episode, we also discuss the role of government in providing a social safety net. Can private charity do a better job than public charity? Jeff thinks so, and I agree with him. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

For the last decade, I've been searching for certain foundations, and finally, I've found them. Logic represents the foundation for all knowledge, and it's the subject of my first book on philosophy: Square One: The Foundations of Knowledge. If you are interested in objective truth, certain knowledge, and logic, then pick up a copy. Anybody can read it and understand - it's not written for academics, and it doesn't contain useless jargon. All of my work - present and future - draws from the ideas in Square One. If I've made a mistake here, you can confidently discard the rest of my worldview without hesitation. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Though it's bound to upset people, I don't think being in the military is honorable. I think it's a sign of weakness, and in most circumstances, it causes more harm than good. Submitting to orders is not noble. Killing people because you were commanded to isn't courageous. Believing propaganda is not respectable. Soldiers are how they've been used: as political pawns for ambitious men. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

What are numbers? What are concepts? Do they exist, or do we just act like they exist? I'm joined by Dr. Jody Azzouni of Tufts University. He's a philosopher who has been arguing for nominalism for years - the idea that numbers and abstract objects don't exist at all.  His position is a wonderful contrast to the previous interviews I've done on this topic, where the guests have been Platonists. My own views sit in-between nominalism and Platonism. I think abstract objects exist, but they do not exist in a Platonic realm. They exist in our minds. When we stop thinking about them, they stop existing. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

If consciousness can't be explained within the conceptual toolbox of physicalism, then what's an alternative theory? Are we stuck with dualism? This is my breakdown of the interview with Professor Bram about consciousness, machine intelligence, and the implications of rejecting reductive physicalism. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Since recorded history, people have been talking about "religious" or "spiritual" experiences. It's a shame that intellectuals are no longer able to discuss them openly. It's become taboo. Fortunately, my guest doesn't care about taboos, and he shares some details about his own religious experiences, and I do as well. We're not the only intellectuals with these experiences, and it's about time we start talking about it. The ideas are too important to leave unexamined. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Cultures are not delicate flowers that must be preserved until the end of time. Cultures emerge from different individuals trying to best navigate life. Cultures have positive traits and negative traits. As humans, we should steal the positive and leave the negative behind. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

It all started with mashed potatoes... Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Buddhist philosophy focuses on some of the most difficult questions in philosophy - what is the "self"? What is the self's relationship to consciousness? Are there meaningful boundaries in the universe, or is everything a mental construction? To help me answer these questions, I'm joined by Dr. Janet Gyatso of Harvard University, who is the Hershey Professor of Buddhist Studies.   Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

What's the difference between sex and gender? Is "being a woman" different than "identifying as a woman"? I suspect that a great deal of controversy surrounding transgender people comes down to the way we use language. If we keep a sharp distinction between sex and gender, any tension resolves itself. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Is the Trump phenomenon reactionary? Is it a cultural movement? What do conservatives think about Trump? I'm joined by the distinguished Dr. Harvey Mansfield, who has been teaching political philosophy at Harvard for more than 50 years. He has a distinctive conservative voice, and he shares his analysis of the 2016 election. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

I have basic questions about Christian theology - What is God? Who is Jesus? What's the connection between humans and God? What does it mean to be "saved"? Does Christianity imply dualism? To find answers, I spoke with the theologian Dr. Ian McFarland at the University of Cambridge in England. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Where are the meaningful boundaries in reality? If there are none - if boundaries are a construction of the mind - then there is no difference between "self" and "not-self", or between "the perceiver" and "the perceived". In this way, mystics claim that "all is one". It's a beautiful idea, though I don't think it's quite accurate. Regardless, it needs to be rationally defended and grappled with. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

It's no secret that I'm a curmudgeon. My rule of thumb is that "everybody is wrong about everything all the time." However, this extreme skepticism might be a methodological mistake. To challenge me, I'm joined by T.K. Coleman, who is one of the most positive thinkers around. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

  Slavery was an injustice. Nobody disputes that. However, it's not clear that reparations will correct the injustice. In my view, reparations have rhetorical power, but they will not fix the problem. In fact, they will cause additional injustice. Reparations are theft in the present to pay for theft in the past.  Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

The world of ideas is moving past academia. We're in the midst of it. More and more people are realizing that the "experts" aren't as knowledgeable as they've been told - and that formal credentialing doesn't guarantee you a job upon graduation. The community of dissatisfied intellectuals is growing, and I want to be part of it. Let's build the community that we'd like to see. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Not all certainly true propositions are logically necessary. I discovered this several years ago while laying in bed, thinking about steak.  Who said philosophy should be confined to a classroom? Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Is the brain a computer? Do machines calculate the same way humans do? Can artificial intelligence ever be conscious? What does it even mean to be "intelligent"? To help me answer these questions, I spoke with Dr. Bram van Heuveln of RPI. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Statistical anomalies: are they divine, or merely coincidental? One-in-a-million events are consistent with two mutually exclusive theories - so how to choose between them? Questions like this throw us inescapably into the world of philosophy and theoretical reasoning.  Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Breakdown of John Searle's philosophy of mind. His own resolution to the mind/body problem is called "biological naturalism".   In my analysis, Searle is a closet dualist - even if he despises the title.  Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Religious people have a certain quality that I've noticed over the years. It isn't about their beliefs. It isn't about their methods for reasoning. It's about something else: their commitment to the truth as they perceive it. If that's true, then religiosity isn't a bad thing itself. In fact, if it's coupled with philosophy and critical reasoning, it's something to admire. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

"The truth is that there is no truth". That roughly summarizes postmodern philosophy.  To my mind, this is an elementary error. It is a self-evident contradiction. However, I admit that I'm biased towards logic and rationality.  To help me understand postmodernism better, I am joined by Dr. Stephen Hicks, who explains the history and ideas of postmodern philosophy. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Progressives are masters of indignation. But before talking about how things "should be", it seems wise to first understand how things actually are. Worldviews not guided by economics are inaccurate at best, and dangerous at worst. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

For nearly a century, the concept of "infinite sets" has rested at the foundations of modern mathematics. I have a tough time grasping this concept, so I asked Dr. Daniel Isaacson of Oxford University to help me out. We cover two definitions for infinity, discuss the metaphysics of mathematics, and cover some basic "intuitionist" concepts. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

I've always been fascinated by so-called "crazy" people. Why do they believe what they believe? Could they be right? What if I'm the crazy person, while they are the sane ones? Perhaps they only appear crazy to me because my mind is broken? After worrying about these ideas for years, I've settled on an answer. There is only one objective standard for sanity: logic. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

The mind-body problem has been discussed for thousands of years. Does consciousness require the supernatural?  Dr. John Searle emphatically says no. He's known for his own resolution to the mind-body problem, called "biological naturalism", and that's what we discuss today. It fits somewhere between eliminative physicalism and dualism. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

We cannot overlook the boundaries of our concepts. If our concepts are fuzzy, then our thinking will be fuzzy. Continuums present a serious logical challenge to many ideas. As far as I can tell, the best way to overcome the problems of continuums is to eliminate them altogether. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Breaking down my interview with Dr. Bruce Cain of Stanford University. He and I both agree that more democracy isn't always a good thing - but we disagree about everything else. We go from talking about the foundations for democracy to examining the foundations of all government - and inevitably end up talking about anarchism. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Is logic just a Western convention? Do other cultures have other logics?  No and no. Logic is the inescapable rules of existence, and those rules do not depend on our conception or understanding of them. They are presupposed by every thought and every proposition. I didn't invent the laws of logic, but I've discovered them, along with many other philosophers throughout history. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

An increasing amount of "experts" do not seem to understand the basics of their field. Economics is no exception. To understand the world, I am convinced one must understand economics - and you have to start with the basic concepts. If the basics are wrong, your analysis will be foundationally flawed. I'm joined by Dr. Donald Boudreaux, who writes a lot about the basics, and we cover some of the important ideas that have to be understood before analyzing anything more complex. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

When two people disagree, their ideas are not automatically equally plausible. Some ideas are superior than others.  Proposition X is not equally reasonable as proposition Y simply because they are both propositions. I call this an "abstraction error", and you see it everywhere in the world of ideas. Cultures, ideas, political theories, epistemologies - we cannot evaluate them in the abstract. We have to dive into the concrete. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Democracy is almost universally seen as a good thing, but it has serious drawbacks. Is there any alternative to democracy? Are there any constraints on democracy? Is there any recourse a minority has when a majority wants to oppress them? What makes democracy - and government in general - legitimate? To help me answer these questions in political theory, I'm joined by Dr. Bruce Cain of Stanford University. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

"You've just got to have faith!"  I heard that a million times growing up, and it never sat well with me. Once I understood the methodological error of faith, the world of rational analysis opened up for me. If you value the truth, there is no room for beliefs without reason. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Physicalism does not escape from absurd conclusions.  Indeed, many physicalists have found a new kind of spirituality by understanding the implications of hard-determinism. If humans are essentially part of the universe, and humans are becoming aware of the universe, then - in a very real sense - the universe is in the process of becoming aware of itself. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

What is logic? Can something be true and false at the same time? Can we ever have perfect certainty? Those are some of the epistemological questions I asked the philosopher Dr. Timothy Williamson of Oxford University. We also dove into the metaphysics of concepts and mathematics - and here we had the greatest disagreement. Do concepts have any existence outside of our conception of them? He says yes, I say no, and the consequences are very large. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

"Trivial, dogmatic, and useless" - that's the professional reputation of tautologies. I don't think tautologies deserve their reputation. In fact, I think they are profound and foundational to any critical worldview. Here are three reasons why the orthodox philosophic position regarding tautologies is mistaken.   Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Logic has been called many things - "the rules of language", "the rules of reasoning", "the rules of existence", and so on. I want to know what logic is, so I spoke with Dr. Timothy Williamson of Oxford University to help me find out. We cover a ton of great topics - the nature of logic, language, paradoxes, and the metaphysics of concepts and numbers. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Imagine a hungry donkey standing exactly between two identical bales of hay. Could it choose between them? The paradox of Buridan's ass is an old, famous paradox going back thousands of years. I think it contains a mistaken premise, but if we're careful, we can formulate it in a way to paralyze our donkey. The example helps us think clearly about what it means to be "identical" and "different." Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Anarchism is a scary word, but it's a sensible political philosophy. Over the last several years, I've been persuaded by libertarian anarchism, and I think it's important to cover the basic ways of thinking about political issues as an anarchist. In this episode, I want to give you the groundwork for an anarchist's intuition. Note: by "anarchism", I am referring to "market anarchism", not "socialist/communist anarchism." There's a big difference between the two. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

This sentence is false. Is that sentence true or false? If it's true, it's false. If it's false, it's true. This is the liar's paradox, and philosophers have been debating it for thousands of years.  From what I can tell, it's tricky, but it can be resolved with a little inspection. We don't need to throw out classical logic. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

A great deal has been written about how "weird" quantum physics is. Many wild and radical ideas are drawn from the field. However, few people seem to understand the basic concepts. Before we evaluate the different theories in quantum physics, we need to grasp the fundamentals - the theories, data, and philosophy surrounding quantum events. I am joined by Dr. Simon Saunders of Oxford University, who is a professor of the philosophy of physics, and he lays out the basic ideas. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Logic is the secret to all critical thinking. It is the root of every philosophical tree. When you understand what "necessity" means, you'll start grasping the most fundamental principle in the universe. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

The Austrian School of economics is outside the mainstream, but I find their arguments compelling. Specifically, their claims about the epistemological status of economic theory - the philosophy of economics. My guest is Dr. Peter Boettke from George Mason University. He is an Austrian School proponent, and we dive into some of the deeper questions surrounding the nature of pure logic in economic theory. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Can you judge somebody's intelligence by their beliefs? The polite answer is "No! Of course not!" But my own experiences make me think otherwise.  Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Coming to you from London, England. Was the Brexit a good idea? As a libertarian, the situation is mixed. On the one hand, decentralizing power is a good thing. On the other hand, a Brexit might lead towards higher tariffs and protectionism. On the whole, I think the pro's outweigh the con's. The principle of self-governance is more important than short-term economic gains. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

I used to be a conservative, and then I was introduced to the libertarian political philosophy, which slowly turned me into an anarchist. It sounds like a radical conclusion, but it comes from basic principles in economics and ethics. This article covers my personal intellectual journey. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

This week is another breakdown episode, where I focus primarily on the interview about logical contradictions at Columbia. Dr. Justin Clarke-Doane was arguing that logical contradictions can be understood and incorporated into our worldview. I couldn't more strongly disagree, and I wasn't too impressed with his argument. This is why. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

When people talk about nothing, what are they really talking about? How can you talk about nothing - unless nothing is actually something? Many Eastern philosophies (Buddhism, in particular) believe that nothing is something, and a few Western philosophies do as well. But they are mistaken. If we value a rational and logically consistent worldview, we have to understand exactly what nothing is - or more precisely, what it isn't. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Religion is too quickly dismissed by modern intellectuals. Religious or spiritual experience is a relatively universal phenomenon, and it deserves the same level of rational analysis as the rest of our worldview. My guest today is Dr. Bob Murphy, who is a professional economist, author, and a self-described "born-again Christian". We talk about his beliefs, justification, and personal experiences with the faith. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Everybody is wrong about everything all the time. That's my life motto. You can't simply believe something because somebody told you so. You have to doubt. The deeper you dive into philosophy, the more you realize how important the fundamentals are, and the more you realize how few people understand the fundamentals. Therefore, it's better to simply assume people are wrong about everything from the start. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Can something be true at false at the same time? Some philosophers think so. I don't, but my guest does. Questions of logic and epistemology are at the foundation for everyone's philosophy, and the stakes couldn't be higher. If contradictions are possible, that's a big deal. If contradictions aren't possible, that's also a big deal.  You have to decide for yourself. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Do our minds have access to objective reality, or are we stuck inside our own heads? Do we need to "get outside our minds" to verify whether our claims about the world are true?  These questions have enormous implications for our entire philosophy. They are about the fundamental relationship between the mind and the world. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

"Completed infinities" are at the center of modern mathematics. Their existence is taken as a foundational axiom. I must admit: I think this is an error - a logical mistake. Infinity, by definition, cannot be completed, right? I am joined by Dr. Gary McGuire, the head of Mathematics and Statistics at the University College Dublin. To my surprise, Gary also expresses skepticism about completed infinities. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Most ethical questions are framed incorrectly. Morality isn't about actions and consequences. It is about intention. Thinking this way avoids a number of popular ethical dilemmas, like the infamous trolley problems. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Selfish or simply honest? Egoist philosophy doesn't win popularity contents, but it does claim to be intellectually consistent. The self, they claim, is at the center of all moral values. I am joined by Michael Malice, who is a best-selling author and self-described egoist. We talk about the philosophy, his thoughts on atheism, and some problems with Ayn Rand's Objectivism.   Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

The physical world is made up of particles, not objects. Objects are abstractions - they are conceptual boundaries we put around clumps of matter. Without the mind, those boundaries wouldn't exist. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

My analysis of the philosophies presented so far - covering pragmatism, anarchist legal systems, objective truth, the philosophy of mind, and autodidacticism. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

It's taboo to criticize democracy. However, if we want to have clear political philosophies, we need to look at both the theory and the practice of democracy. Voters in New Hampshire freely chose a self-described socialist and a thinly-veiled fascist as their #1 picks. That should trouble us. With a little effort, we might be able to construct a superior political system that doesn't allow foolish politicians to enact foolish policies. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

American Pragmatism is a philosophy that's been around for morethan a century. It's recently seen a renaissance in the last fewdecades, and I'm talking this week with Dr. John Stuhr, who haswritten several books on the topic.We cover pragmatism from the basics to more advanced concepts,and I get to ask Dr. Stuhr a ton of questions in my own pursuit ofunderstanding the philosophy.  Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

A central question in philosophy is "Can we know anything with perfect certainty?" Either way you answer - yes or no - has big implications. Here's my answer in five minutes. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Do democracies really make the best decisions? Should weencourage everyone to vote, even if they don't understand theissues?I am joined today by Dr. Bryan Caplan, who is a professor ofeconomics at George Mason University. He's also the author of "TheMyth of the Rational Voter" (http://amzn.to/1Wn9xi4), which takes askeptical look at the reliability of voting.We also discuss the educational establishment, from K-12 toHigher Ed, and Dr. Caplan proposes what he calls the "signalingmodel" of education.  Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Skepticism used to be a way of thinking, but nowadays, it's turned into a fashionable clique. Calling yourself a "skeptic" today means you identify with three core ideas - atheism, physicalism, and empiricism. The "skeptics movement" has crowded out people who dissent, and in the process, they've become more dogmatic than those they criticize. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Consciousness remains a metaphysical mystery. Scientists don't understand it, philosophers don't understand it, and neither does anybody else. Is everything in the universe fundamentally physical, or is there something more? Is the physicalist worldview incomplete? Why should first-person experience exist in the first place? Dr. Emrys Westacott is a professor of philosophy at Alfred University. You can read his great introductory book here: http://amzn.to/242NO1B   Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Is there objective truth, or is everything ultimately subjective? Can we know with certainty? These questions are central in philosophy, and it's where we begin the series.  Dr. Emrys Westacott is a professor of philosophy at Alfred University. You can get his excellent introductory book Thinking Through Philosophy here: http://amzn.to/242NO1B Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Introduction to the show. Who I am and what the show is about. Philosophy and interviews across the world. Talking with intellectuals and professors about big ideas. Covering philosophy, science, religion, politics, economics, mathematics, libertarian theory, and much more. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe