If you are not already a supporter checkout everything you are missing out on in the Preview Article.
Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Freedomain
Hi there, this is Stefan Molyneux - welcome to Freedomain, the Locals community! One of the last homes for real philosophy in the world!
Feel free to have a look around, chat with other members, share your thoughts, objections, arguments and memes!
This is a place where we strive to achieve the truth through consistent virtue - a great playground for innovative ideas and interactions!
Feel free to have a look around, chat with other members, share your thoughts, objections, arguments and memes!
This is a place where we strive to achieve the truth through consistent virtue - a great playground for innovative ideas and interactions!
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
Stefan Molyneux@freedomain
November 05, 2025
How to be CERTAIN! Listener Question
Hey Stef. I have been listening to you for around a year and this is the first time I have disagreed with you. So I’m probably wrong but I can’t see the flaw in my thinking and I’d love your take on it.
So it’s around your discussion about what is truth and if someone, say a madman says something that happens to align with reality before it can be proven is that a true statement?
My argument would be, yes it is a true statement, however this can not be known until it can be proven and the statement itself has no value other than vague interest.
So to take the example given a mad man happens to be recorded in say 500 AD saying the earth orbits the sun. He is dismissed as a lunatic. Was his random statement true? I would argue it was true however that could not be known until the point at which it was shown that the earth orbiting the sun fixed the irregular orbit issue. At that point however the madman would be proven to be speaking a true statement.
However it would be the first person to actually prove the theory that would get credit for the discovery, not the madman - who happened to guess correctly. At the point the theory was proven knowledge of the truth propagates both forwards and backwards in time and whoever said it, it would now be known to be true regardless of when or where they said it. It is still the case that although we now know that the statement was true when said they could not have known this as it was not yet proven.
So we have two things, objective reality that exists and our knowledge of it that can only be interpreted from evidence.
Another example is University exams. After the exam is sat the result is set. However that exam result can not be known until the exam has been graded and the result communicated to you. If you come out of an exam and say “I got 68.5%” then that could be true but it is just a guess. You would not for example be able to get a job on that assertion as it can not be proven.
When you open the envelope does not change the reality of how you did in the exam. It simply collapses the probabilities both backwards and forwards in time. At that point you know what your result when you took the test was. It has not changed since that point however you can only know it once you get the result at which point you can start using that result to say apply for jobs.
So in summary my argument is
1. Objective reality exists
2. Our knowledge of reality does not change reality
3. Things are true or false based on their agreement to reality
4. Statements are therefore true or false based on their alignment with reality, not our knowledge of it
5. However we can not know what it true or false until it is proven
6. We can only say of a statement was true or false after we have proven the reality, but when a statement was said does not change its truth.
SUBSCRIBE TO ME ON X! https://x.com/StefanMolyneux
Follow me on Youtube! https://www.youtube.com/@freedomain1
GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!
https://peacefulparenting.com/
Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!
Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!
You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!
See you soon!
https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025
00:42:39
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
SHARE PEACEFUL PARENTING!
All donors get the Peaceful Parenting book / audiobook / AI access to share with any and all parents you know who need help!
THANK YOU SO MUCH!
00:01:00
Maduro Has Been Captured!
In this Sunday Morning Live on 4 January 2026, Stefan Molyneux examines the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by U.S. Special Forces, an operation that prompts questions about sovereignty and international law. He discusses the divided reactions to the military action and draws parallels with earlier U.S. interventions.
With Venezuela as an example, he critiques the shortcomings of socialism against the outcomes of free-market systems and considers the effects on U.S. domestic politics, especially around the 2020 elections. He also touches on how culture shapes children's food preferences and looks at the difficulties for people who challenge common opinions. Along the way, he stresses the value of thoughtful discussion and backing those who speak out in public debates.
0:00:00 Introduction to Current Events
0:02:40 International Reactions to Venezuelan Events
0:04:12 The Impact of Socialism on Venezuela
0:06:00 Theories Surrounding the 2020 US Election
0:07:21 Military Strategy and ...
00:37:32
God, Philosophy and Morality!
Stefan Molyneux looks at the difficulties in getting kids to understand morality, pointing out how dense philosophical ideas and religious lessons often fall short. He takes aim at old-school punishments that don't really build a true sense of right and wrong, and instead pushes for a straightforward approach that children can pick up on naturally. He stresses the need to focus on empathy, wrapping up with a call to create straightforward ways to teach morals that let kids tap into their own sense of agency.
"On the Nature and Existence of GOD!" is at https://fdrpodcasts.com/6244/on-the-nature-and-existence-of-god
0:00:00 Introduction to Morality and Children
0:02:44 Teaching Morality Through Consequences
0:04:18 The Challenge of Violence
0:05:40 Personal Stories of Bullying
0:09:30 Lessons from Bullying Experiences
0:14:42 Understanding Violence and Compliance
0:18:59 The Limitations of Traditional Morality
0:25:21 The Flaws of Authority in Morality
0:26:51 Reevaluating Historical Approaches...
00:33:09
NEW PREMIUM CONTENT - Why We Don't Judge Mothers! CALL IN SHOW
Stefan Molyneux speaks with a young woman about the abuse she endured from her father and her mother's role in allowing it. She describes dealing with a health crisis that leads her to end contact with him, while he encourages her to address her guilt and examine the family patterns, helping her move toward a clearer sense of self.
Preview at the Premium Content Hub: https://premium.freedomain.com/efa645e6/why-we-don-t-judge-mothers-call-in-show
Subscribers can access this content at:
X: https://x.com/StefanMolyneux/status/2007137028354519146
Locals: https://freedomain.locals.com/post/7567660/why-we-dont-judge-mothers-call-in-show
Subscribestar: https://www.subscribestar.com/posts/2269191
Freedomain: https://freedomain.com/why-we-dont-judge-mothers-call-in-show/
Not yet a subscriber?
You can subscribe on:
X: https://x.com/StefanMolyneux
Locals: https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025
Subscribestar: https://subscribestar.com/freedomain
Freedomain: ...
What we think of as basic arithmetic is Giuseppe Peano's axioms, not the universal standard of sanity. People can be sane even when they do not think that 1+1=2.
Peano Arithmetic (the "standard" answer):
To prove 1+1=2, you need roughly:
Axiom of zero: 0 is a natural number
Axiom of succession: Every natural number n has a successor S(n)
Definition of 1: 1 := S(0)
Definition of 2: 2 := S(1) = S(S(0))
Definition of addition: a + 0 = a, and a + S(b) = S(a + b)
Distinctness axioms: 0 ≠ S(n) for any n, and S(m) = S(n) → m = n
Then the proof:
1 + 1 = S(0) + S(0) = S(S(0) + 0) [by definition of addition] = S(S(0)) [by definition of addition, base case] = 2 [by definition of 2]
So ~6 axioms minimum for Peano, though this depends on how you count (some formulations bundle these differently).
But this is deceptive simplicity. Peano Arithmetic assumes:
First-order logic (with its own axioms and inference rules)
Set theory foundations (to even talk about "natural numbers" as objects)
Induction schema (infinite axiom ...
I don’t know who else might find this helpful, posting here bc the Freedomain Parents group on FB is fairly dead.
This video is a short book summary about communicating effectively with young children / toddlers and handling prickly situations, I think the strategies sound promising but have yet to try them (I’m trying to research practical peaceful parenting tips atm while reading Stef’s book):
Has anyone else heard of this book, or given these techniques a go?
Freedomain Premium Content!
In the vast tapestry of human experience, this collection of premium content stands as a beacon of reflection and introspection! Each episode is a journey into the complexities of our shared existence. From the intricate dance of self-forgiveness to the harrowing tales of personal adversity, these moments of life challenge, provoke, and inspire.
