Not that I agree with everything you’re saying, Bonnie. 😂

That is actually quite arguable.

The left hates the fact that Hicks draws a comparison and the analogies directly with what was happening in Europe, particularly in the Weimar Republic in the 30s, and what’s happening with these doofus so called ‘students’ on campuses today in the 2020s. Get over it all you idiots, Hicks nails it!

Oh yes it’s mentioned ☺️

@@MaidenMonster I was gonna say, Just wait for it! :)

I tried to be that figure in this conversation. Have had on guests more pro-postmodern than anti, though, for sure. James Cussen, Jason Storm, Sophie Strand, Jeremy Johnson. Have any recs?

@@BrendanGrahamDempsey You probably can get an inkling of my thoughts on that. I can think of some people who wouldn't agree with Jason Storm as pro-postmodern! I am thinking the Pill Pod guys. Obviously you have had metamodernists on the show, all of whom would, I imagine, claim to have integrated postmodernism or, perhaps more impressively, humbly aspire to do so. My point, I think it was clear, is that you have invited on a guest whose entire project is anti-postmodern (edit: appears to be full-blown Randian erm wow) and really didn't say anything he wouldn't have said elsewhere. With all charity to the people you have mentioned, they are not equivalent figures from the other side. I appreciate you have to get the people to actually come on, but 'postmodernists won't come on my show!!' sounds a bit Dave Rubin, as uncharitable as I appreciate that might come across! So hopefully you wo'nt play that card. It's early and I am writing on my phone before I attend to other things, so regret if this is too sharp but this is what I have the time to produce rn.

"You know those truths you can't reach? Choose another axiom set and increase your coverage of the truth space." Aren't axioms supposed to be self-evidently true? Is it legitimate to "choose" something else to be a fundamental given truth that we base our system on, the system that is used for determining what is true? What does it say about "truth" If we can change just choose a different set of axioms and thereby alter what we can prove to be true? I guess personally I find these questions to be worth asking and interesting to think about but de gustibus non est disputandum 🤷‍♀️

@@alykathryn No axioms are not self-evidently true. They are language constructs. There is nothing magical about axioms, the crucial part is "do they work" There is no capital T "Truth" - we have provisional models that more or less correspond to our measurements of reality. Some exist just as neat mathematical toys. Reinmann? geometry was one such intellectual exercise until it was show to be useful in describing space-time effects of mass. You're mistaken in thinking these were chosen as fundamental truths (yes some folk present them as such, and Godel did show you can't have a single set - which pretty much eliminates the notion that there are fundamental truths!!!) The ones you think as fundamental are the ones that have withstood testing and have been shown to be useful and/or predictive. These axioms don't exist as entities on their own - there are squiggles on a page, noises in the air, or patterns of neuronal firing. And if that isn't Zen, I don't know what is!

@@alykathryn Hi! No, axioms are not self-evidently true - they are assumed, then used to see what follows according to whatever rules have been created for that system. There is no capital "T" truth. Only models that more-or-less correspond to our measurements of reality. Those are the useful ones, those where the disparity is low and/or have predictive power. Ones that don't are discarded, or might be kept around because of interesting mathematical or philosophical properties. Godel demonstrated we can't have just one set of axioms to encompass one formalism (like arithmetic), but we can have overlapping ones that are internally consistent and have overlapping and non-conflicting conclusions. This is the notion of consilience in science, e.g. modern evolutionary theory is consistent from every angle, biology, chemistry, physics, geology and so on. Math abounds with systems that have little practical use, though sometimes they are discovered to be useful. Like Reinmann? geometry (which breaks the axiom that the angles in a triangle must add up to Edit 180… not 360… brain fart) that found a home in describing the effect of mass on space-time IIRC, but also accommodate planar trigonometry if you set the right parameters. That testing against reality, that inter-subjective discipline of the scientific method, is essential because Axioms (logic, math and so on) are not magic, not special, not divine. Axioms are mental constructs - squiggles on paper, noises in the air, patterns of neuronal firing in the brain. And if that's not Zen, I don't know what is! :-D

@@Zirrad1 "the angles in a triangle must add up to 360" What?

@@Uberrheogenic Damn….

Thanks for the advice. As it happens I have written a number of books on Buddhism along with most other spiritual traditions. Glad you enjoy Wishu.

I just interviewed Tim Freke on the podcast, actually. As for Jesus as allegorical myth, there is scant evidence to suggest early Christians interpreted the materials in those terms. Allegory became one of the 4 hermeneutic lenses (anagogical), but the literal reading was always original.

@@BrendanGrahamDempsey Oh no, that's not true. You need to read those books. The information has been suppressed.

@@BrendanGrahamDempsey Hey maybe you can have Tim on again and have a discussion about this issue; was Jesus an allegorical myth or an historical person. I would watch that video several times.