Leo's DemystifySci Podcast Appearance

[Tech36363]

On 23/02/2026 at 5:09 AM, Leo Gura said:

My attitude for podcasts is to just keep it chill and go with the flow. Not to over-think it or try to control it. I have given up on that idea.

I am satisfied with how I answered all their questions. If their questions were not deep, that's on them. I am not going to fret over it because that kind of depth is only possible on my channel -- which is why my channel exists.

I literally just logged in to say that the interview was really bad and all over the place . 
You (leo) were excellent as always but they were really terrible at interviewing , not as good as that indian guy you interviewed with few years ago. he was a great listener 

[Human Mint]

It is still important to engage in rationalist thinking sometimes.

[Yimpa]

 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Tech36363 said:

I literally just logged in to say that the interview was really bad and all over the place . 
You (leo) were excellent as always but they were really terrible at interviewing , not as good as that indian guy you interviewed with few years ago. he was a great listener 

I still enjoyed it.

[Joseph Maynor]

I feel like this is a profound video regarding morality although I am an intuitionist regarding morality.  It's a good argument regarding the limitations of moral relativism.  

 

[zurew]

5 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I feel like this is a profound video regarding morality although I am an intuitionist regarding morality.  It's a good argument regarding the limitations of moral relativism.  

What do you think is precisely at stake if moral realism is false?

[Joseph Maynor]

8 minutes ago, zurew said:

What do you think is precisely at stake if moral realism is false?

I think people like to take morality thru the back door in spiritual enlightenment.  Obviously all this stuff is highly moral.  The purification theme and even the Man on the Cross subtext is dripping with a moral realist assumption.  It's just stylish to try to hide your morality for some reason, which I don't yet understand.  

[zurew]

I think you have a different idea what moral realism means compared to the philosophers who endorse the view.

Being highly altruistic and dying for others (if you wanted to bring up Jesus dying on the cross) are all compatible with moral anti-realism.

Moral antirealists can also agree with you that enlightened people usually are highly altruistic people and they probably have a natural impulsive to love and help others -  all of that is compatible with moral antirealism being true.

[Joseph Maynor]

2 minutes ago, zurew said:

I think you have a different idea what moral realism means compared to the philosophers who endorse the view.

Being highly altruistic and dying for others (if you wanted to bring up Jesus dying on the cross) are all compatible with moral anti-realism.

Moral antirealists can also agree with you that enlightened people usually are highly altruistic people and they probably have a natural impulsive to love and help others -  all of that is compatible with moral antirealism being true.

I did major in philosophy in college if that matters here.  Moral realism means you think ought statements are real.  E.g., One ought to value Truth for example.

[zurew]

18 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Moral realism means you think ought statements are real.

Its the thesis that there are moral facts about whats right or wrong  independent from stances (standards, intuitions,goals, preferences, desires)

But again, there is no special entailment by moral realism being false.

Even the video that you linked there , that video describes a highly specific moral-antirealist view, where you need to tolerate and be okay with the views other cultures have, but thats not entailed under all antirealist views.

There is no line from "there are no moral facts that are stance independently true" to "you need to be okay and you need to tolerate whatever others want to do or whatever views they have".

Edited 4 hours ago by zurew

[Leo Gura]

The biggest problem for moralists is normativity. They don't understand that normativity is their own fiction.

Notice that all moralistic people expect everyone to adhere to their personal morality. That is the delusion. This happens because they are so self-absorbed they never even considered relativity.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Joseph Maynor]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

Its the thesis that there are moral facts about whats right or wrong  independent from your standards, intuitions,goals, preferences, desires.

Actually this thesis about morality has a split in philosophy.  There are those who think morality is something social.  And then there are those who think morality comes from an individual.  This is a major issue in Ethics, which is the fancy term for morality in philosophy.  Many philosophers don't even notice this when they frame morality as a social issue.  They cut off the other half of ethics -- which is what ought I do?

The solution around this confusion IMO is: Morality (or ethics) is just about ought statements.  This can be for an individual, for example, how ought I live my life?  That's a moral (ethical) question. 

[Joseph Maynor]

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The biggest problem for moralists is normativity. They don't understand that normativity is their own fiction.

Notice that all moralistic people expect everyone to adhere to their personal morality. That is the delusion. This happens because they are so self-absorbed they never even considered relativity.

But moral relativity cannot prescribe any universal moral realist claim.  This is what Bernard Williams' point is.  

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Joseph Maynor said:

But moral relativity cannot prescribe any universal moral realist claim. 

Of course. So what?

[zurew]

4 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

But moral relativity cannot prescribe any universal moral realist claim.

1) Why would you need to prescribe any universal moral claim?

2) Why would any individual be motivated by what you prescribe?

Edited 3 hours ago by zurew

[Joseph Maynor]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course. So what?

Okay.  This is just his argument.  What he is saying is moral relativity is untenable.  And he takes an anti-realist conclusion from it.  So he assumes there is no sense at all to moral relativism, and thus no need to consider it as having anything to do with what one ought to do.  

[Leo Gura]

Moral realism is untennable, since bad is relative to having a finite self.

Moral realists are like children who believe up and down exist in the universe, independent of them.

Up and down exists FOR YOU.

Edited 3 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Joseph Maynor]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Moral realism is untennable, since bad is relative to having a finite self.

Moral realists are like children who believe up and down exist in the universe, independent of them.

Up and down exists FOR YOU.

Here's a question for you.  Does Truth exist only for you?

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Here's a question for you.  Does Truth exist only for you?

Of course not.

Truth is an Absolute.

[Joseph Maynor]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

Of course not.

Truth is an Absolute.

But it's also a relative too right, we associate truth with some ego taking right conduct in the world.  Honoring truth from a human perspective as well.