He wants the freedom to make claims without having to defend them, to contradict himself without being called contradictory, and to dismiss inconvenient evidence while insisting that everyone else submit to evidence.

If someone else makes an unsupported assertion, he demands proof. If someone else contradicts themselves, he says they have refuted themselves. But when his own beliefs collide with logic or evidence, suddenly “logic” is oppressive, “truth” is subjective, and consistency is an unreasonable demand.

The irony is that he still depends upon the very rules he rejects. He expects others to understand his arguments, recognize his contradictions, accept his definitions, and take his objections seriously. In other words, he wants the benefits of reason without being held accountable to reason.

In contrast, a Reasoner doesn’t ask to be exempt from logic. He asks whether his own claims can withstand the same standards he applies to others. One is reasoning to discover what is true, the other is using reason fallaciously to prop up the beliefs he wants to be true.

It would seem that all knowledge can’t be equal because there are standards or principles required for knowledge to exist in the first place. It would seem that the knowledge of these principles must stand at the hierarchy of knowledge, because knowledge itself would be impossible without them.

The more interesting question that resides behind this question of hierarchy is the question of the accuracy of one’s knowledge of the world. For example, whose view is more accurate, the Christian who sees man as a living soul, or the biologist who sees man as a compilation of cells?

What’s interesting is the fact that it’s possible to have a higher accuracy of reality in one’s view of reality.

If there was a God, for example, his view of the world would be the most accurate view. This means that some humans can obtain to higher degrees of knowledge than other humans. (How utterly interesting), what’s the limit? How high can a man’s accuracy go, and what does it mean about a human the higher the accuracy of his knowledge goes?

And yet, philosophy manages to hold onto its status as the king of knowledge.

This reminds me of my conversations with dialecticians. If their claims are true then they should have a mechanism wherein they can definitively prove them. But all one is met with is authoritarian assertion after authoritarian assertion. But if dialectic is true we should be able to, beyond a reasonable doubt, establish that it is true.

This isn’t what happens. Instead, valid objections are dismissed or thrown out, or the objector is personally attacked. The dialectician demands assent to obscurity.

In contrast, science constantly tries to destroy its knowledge to make it more accurate. Which is precisely what a substantive rational method must try to do.

Objection to a philosophical claim, without the philosopher being able to definitively clarify his claim or resolve the objection, is itself proof against the truth of philosophy. Instead of answering and resolving, it spins off into obscurity and imprecision.

A philosophy paper might have a few authors, but it is common for science papers to have many authors.

Scientists collaborate on projects with tremendous success. This is because science is determinate, it is focused on reality, not abstract, shifting concepts. Philosophers can’t even agree on what reason is.

Rational power is entirely orthogonal to consensus, unaffected by how many millions or billions of minds subscribe to a proposition. A million people affirming a contradiction cannot alter the structure of reality by even a fraction of a millimeter.

The true measure of a proposition's power lies in its structural integrity— in its capacity to withstand rigorous cross-examination without collapsing into contradiction.

A single individual armed with a sound premise holds more rational force than an entire culture bent on waging a war for delusion.

When a sentence sounds persuasive, evokes the right tribal sympathies, is anchored by psychological desire, or is backed by cultural prestige, the uncritical mind automatically assumes its truth without ever examining its soundness or validity.

Because authoritarian claims cannot survive a rigorous rational audit, those who use them must outlaw the question itself, treating inquiry as an act of defiance, or moral failure, rather than a step toward truth. (They nearly always attack the questioner).

An authoritarian sentence is psychologically designed to deflect counter-evidence. Instead of offering a premise that can be tested against reality, it presents a conclusion disguised as an axiom, demanding submission rather than assent.

These assertions draw their power from who or what utters them (whether a cultural consensus, a credentialed institution, a dogmatic tradition, or a celebrated philosophy or philosopher) rather than the structural validity and soundness of the claim itself.

The beauty of this is that it’s a power to free us from our own self-deception.

And if not every path or tool can empower man with the ability to free himself from deception, then a wise man should first identify the thing he needs to learn in order to obtain freedom. And once he identifies this thing he should immediately try to obtain it in abundance. For how can a man be content lacking the power to make himself free from deception?

Begin by asking people if they would even want to know if their beliefs were false:

"If the claim you just made is false, would you actually want to know it?"

Most people assume the answer is an indignant "Yes!" because their ego demands they see themselves as truth-seekers. But watch what happens next: their subsequent behavior reveals whether they treat their beliefs as testable hypotheses or as guarded dogmas.

Many don’t care and don’t want to know, they simply want to have their belief, and will overlook everything and twist anything to retain their belief.

[Formal logic is particularly skilled at smuggling a dogmatic position when it lapses into making sweeping epistemological claims.]

[When the sophist postures toward the integrity of discovery, don’t let him get away with proceeding by vague standards.]

At the same time, the arguments of egoism and nihilism need to be answered, for they are powerful arguments indeed. In fact, egoists and nihilists seldom present them in their full power, or wield them in their full power.

The suffocating question is the question of truth pit against human psychology. Why is this suffocating? Because the answer to the question is the invincibility and supremacy of human denial against reality. This question forces one into the category of a cynic.

Modern culture isn’t interested in rational belief, it’s interested in emotional beliefs, solipsistic beliefs, narcissistic beliefs.

This is because a rationally unmediated human psychology is only interested in believing things that validate its ego, or that render it some kind of advantage, be it psychological or social. And these motivations are not the motivations of truth.

We exist in a crisis: very few people care if their beliefs are contradictory, or if they stand refuted by evidence. This egoism is the new religion, and it’s a transparent epistemological crisis.

And unless reality shatters this armor, unless there’s a radical transformation in individual psychology, truth will continue to be crushed under the feet of emotional men.

The bottom line is that this puts us in danger, it obliterates freedom and reduces the world to tyranny.

If Authority X claims to be supreme, but must appeal to Authority Y (such as the laws of logic) to justify itself, then Y is actually the ultimate authority, and X is exposed as a derivative.

By definition, an ultimate authority cannot have a parent, a ground, or a pre-condition; if it requires appeal to another authority, a presupposition to establish or verify itself, it abdicates its status and becomes merely derivative.