Podcast #310a: Thaddeus Russell Q&A (Part 1): Why Libertarians Should Absolutely Be Relativists

Play

Part 9 in the survey series, A Renegade History Course. This is a live discussion with historian Thaddeus Russell, the author of A Renegade History of the United States. Thaddeus addresses questions and objections from the audience regarding our previous shows. Carlos Morales (http://www.truthovercomfort.net/) and Wes Bertrand (http://www.completeliberty.com/) are the co-hosts.

Discussed Today:
Our entire discussion in this first half of the Q&A is built off Harold's question - "Do you agree with the correspondence theory, which states an idea is true if it corresponds with reality?"

-What is truth?
-Is it knowable?
-Objectivism vs. Relativism

Video:

Bumper Music:
"Express Yourself (Instrumental)" NWA
"Big World" moe.

Look Closer:
Thaddeus Russell's Site - www.thaddeusrussell.com

Previous School Sucks Show With Thaddeus Russell - http://schoolsucksproject.com/category/podcast/a-renegade-history-course-with-thaddeus-russell/

Please Support School Sucks

Our Amazon Wish List
Donate With Bitcoin
Or Join the A/V Club

Your continued support keeps the show going and growing, which keeps us at the top of the options for education podcasts and leads to new people discovering this message. This subscription also grants you access to the A/V Club, a bonus content section with 200+ hours of exclusive audio and video. If you are a regular consumer of our media, please consider making a monthly commitment by selecting the best option for you...


Join the A/V Club! $6.00/Month



Join the A/V Club! $9.00/Month



Join the A/V Club! $12/Month




Check Also

[PODCAST] #480: Thaddeus Russell vs. Academic Conformism – Part Two – Does the Plot Thicken Or Is There Actually No Plot?

Podcast: Play in new window | DownloadHistorian and Professor Thaddeus Russell returns for a three-part ...

One comment

  1. Question for Thad: Do you ever mess with something to figure out how it works? If so, do you make any progress? If so, do perform the same testing later on in order to reestablish that progress, or do you rely on your memory under the assumption that what you discovered hasn’t changed? If you rely on your memory, aren’t you relying on a trace of an objective reality, however poorly you may have perceived it?

    The issue I want to address is the danger I see in the claim that there is no objective reality. Why bother trying to discover it if it isn’t there? I agree that we can’t have a perfect concept of any particular piece of reality, but we can get close enough for it to be useful, and then we can go even further to make it more useful. The idea that there is no truth with the capital T suggests to many people (much to their detriment) that such a search is a waste of time. The idea that we can’t know that truth absolutely perfectly is used to suggest that it doesn’t exist. The assumption that it does exist motivates me to search to improve my understanding of it.

Leave a Reply