Alex O'Connor and Vsauce

A Pretentious But Interesting Conversation

Introduction:

Recently, Alex O’Connor featured Michael Stevens — better known online as Vsauce — on his popular podcast Within Reason. Over the course of a ninety-minute discussion, the two venture into some deep philosophical territory — territory that Vsauce seemed unprepared for. Before I diagnose some problems with the conversation, I’d like to say something positive about the two influencers. Both interlocutors are obviously intelligent and touch on some very deep questions that are rarely explored within the community. For that reason, I already view this episode as a cut above the average, especially with such an elite guest like Vsauce. To anyone reading who hasn’t watched it yet, I’d definitely suggest you do so — it’s overall an entertaining talk, if nothing else.

This by no means absolves it of its many sins, however. And I can’t believe that this, of all things, is why I’m dragging the blog out of semi-retirement. The first thing you’ll notice if you search the video on YouTube is the provocative thumbnail and title card, labelled, “Hey Vsauce, does anything exist?” Now, do I blame O’Connor for the the extreme click-bait? Not necessarily: it’s certainly an effective method to attract viewers. Regardless, I couldn’t help but roll my eyes at it.

---

Does Anything Exist?

The first section of the video (from approximately 00:00 - 10:32) poses the same question as the title card: “Does Anything Exist”, and starting at about the six minute mark, they get into the real meat of the discussion: what does it mean for something to be an object. Vsauce puckishly frames the question by asking whether the table positioned to his right actually exists. I suspect most people would gawk at the question, but Vsauce does a good job at elaborating on what he means — for the most part…

First, he makes the observation that the table itself is nothing but the sum of its parts, which can be continually subdivided ad infinitum. What, specifically, allows one to characterize a table — or a chair for that matter — as something more than a bundle of atoms, themselves bundles of electrons, protons, and neutrons — which ultimately dissolve into quarks. You get the idea. The fundamental point he’s getting at is this: what makes a thing a thing? Does a table objectively exist, beyond our idea of it?

Vsauce’s answer is surprisingly simple: nothing exists. For Vsauce, there are no things — no houses, people, trees, boats, cars, etc. — just vague “stuff” arranged in different ways. If the reader is skeptical of my characterization of his position, I encourage him to go watch the video. Of course, this isn’t a new idea. People have adopted this “mechanistic materialism” since the time of Democritus. Both O’Connor and Vsauce seem to tentatively agree on this subject (although O’Connor is hard to pin down on anything).

Vsauce, specifically, points to paradoxes like the infamous “Ship of Theseus” to make his point. For those unfamiliar, the Ship of Theseus was a thought experiment devised by ancient Greek philosophers. In essence, it asks how long a thing stays the same, even if all its constituent parts are replaced.

Imagine a boat captained by the legendary king of Athens, Theseus, whose individual boards are replaced over its many voyages such that, by the time we see it, all its parts are different than the original. Nothing is the same as it was — everything from the mast to the rudder has been changed. This raises an immediate question: is the Ship of Theseus still the same Ship of Theseus it was on its maiden voyage?

Vsauce’s answer is a resounding no. He thinks that the only way to avoid these strange situations is to deny the existence of nouns (which is definitely a take of all time). Your beloved Grandma Sally? Just a temporary arrangement of atoms.

Of course, Vsauce clarifies that we can’t treat this as true in every-day life. He admits that, even though a chair might not actually exist as anything over and above its individual parts, it’s not really practical to say otherwise. To this end, he suggests that the only reason we see things as things is because of the survival benefit it imparts to us. He theorizes that somewhere in our evolutionary history, it must have been advantageous for humans to think of objects as nouns.

Although many would characterize Vsauce as inquiring into a thing’s identity over time, I think this isn’t necessarily the case. In my opinion, Vsauce is going deeper: he’s ultimately questioning the very makeup of reality, in a very literal sense. By this I mean what makes a thing a thing? It’s a seemingly simple question with profound ramifications. In order for something to be, it must be a thing. If it weren’t a thing, it would be nothing, but this is a contradiction: nothing cannot exist precisely because nothing is the absence of reality.

To shoot down an initial objection to this (generally iron-clad) principle: some might distinguish between an object and a thing. The former is usually defined as some vague, “concrete” existence whose constituent parts are all material. This has effectively achieved nothing though, since I would ask these philosophers one simple question: is the object itself something? If it’s something, then the philosopher has already implicitly assumed its thinghood. This can even be seen when we use the word something. Now to consider the other horn of the dilemma: if the object isn’t something, is it anything at all? That is to say, is it nothing…? But this is impossible. As I pointed out earlier, nothing cannot exist.

Ironically, his framing of the question comes back to bite him… By denying the existence of nouns, Vsauce is essentially admitting that “nothing exists”, whether he realizes it or not. What is at first meant to be a “thought-provoking” and “deep ©” answer to the question of whether distinct material objects exist, immediately backfires in his face. Don’t get me wrong, his answer isn’t uniquely terrible. But it is posed in a way that overestimates its own profundity, which is kind of amusing.

Although I’ve shown the prima facie absurdity of Vsauce’s position that “nouns don’t exist”, I haven’t actually built anything useful to go off of. A lot of important questions still remain: what makes something a thing; is the Ship of Theseus the same as it was when it was first built; is dear Grandma Sally really there for my birthday, or is she just a random assortment of atoms? None of these questions are immediately obvious just by pointing out the absurdity of Vsauce’s position, and I hope I can give the reader some insight into them as we continue…

Let’s start with the first, and most important, question: what makes a thing a thing? Answering this is our first step to unraveling this tangled web of interconnected paradoxes. One might think that to be a thing is to have reality. And this is trivially true. To be a thing is to be real (and vice-versa). So although this seems like a promising development, all it really does is restate what we already knew — it doesn’t give us any new information to go off. For this reason, we’ll have to look deeper.

Consider for a moment a thing that is completely unknowable. Is this possible? On first analysis, we might venture to say yes. After all, there are plenty of things in the universe that we don’t know. Is it really that far-fetched to conclude that something unintelligible (i.e., unavailable to knowledge), might exist? Many philosophers — including Kant — think so. But let’s not be too hasty in our analysis. First, let’s examine whether “nothing” — the negation of something — can be known. If you’re familiar with classical metaphysics, you might know where this is going…

This question of whether “nothing” can be known is nonsensical. In the words of Vsauce, it’s a “pseudo-question”. To know nothing is to admit that nothing is known, since “nothing” cannot be an object of knowledge. Knowledge, as an activity of grasping what something “is” (i.e., its being/reality) cannot consist in nothing, precisely because there is no content to latch onto. Therefore, in order for something to be, it must be “perspicuous” to the intellect, so to speak.

But how does this help with understanding what makes a thing a thing? Simple, it hints at the criterion we’ve been assuming for reality all along: the fact that it is knowable. This is by no means uncontroversial. There are many thinkers — like the aforementioned Immanuel Kant — who would accuse me of implicitly assuming something that isn’t necessary: the identity of thought and knowledge. This is going a little outside the scope of the article, however, so I’ll be writing a follow up article on this question later.

Regardless, we have stumbled upon our chosen criteria: intelligibility (i.e., the ability to be known). So not only is Vsauce denying that anything exists (whether he realizes it or not) he’s denying that anything can be known at all, which is a kind of absolute nihilism. And it’s important to stress that I’m not accusing him of this lightly. I want to be clear that by “nihilism” I don’t mean an edgy fourteen-year-old who pretends to read Nietzsche…

When I say that Vsauce is toying with nihilism, I mean it in a hyper-literal sense. He is implicitly denying the very essence of what it means to be real. Let’s note that although we’ve answered our first question, we haven’t really saved dear Grandma Sally from the clutches of non-existence. In the meantime, let’s put a pause on that and focus on the next section of the video — but don’t worry, we’ll save Sally yet!

---

Are Philosophers Overcomplicating Function Behavior?

Thus begins my least favorite part of the episode by far. Although it’s a rather short section, it flies by a lot of really important concepts and manages to be very condescending in the process.

The section begins with O’Connor pointing out that we define things by their functionality — which is broadly true in the modern literature I’ve read. This segues into another portion of the discussion: the question of whether philosophy overcomplicates an otherwise simple subject matter. And this is where Vsauce really goes off the rails, in my opinion.

His answer is rather inoffensive on the surface. In essence, he thinks that philosophy is an art rather than a science, which is a common form of derision in modern academia and a sentiment I wouldn’t usually care about. Unfortunately, this isn’t the end of his thoughts on the matter.

Vsauce continues with a rather pejorative tirade about how philosophy is “fun” and essentially an intellectual pastime rather than a rigorous arena of academic study. Again, I wouldn’t care in the least if he attacked a specific branch of philosophy such as metaphysics (which itself often falls into extreme excesses), but instead he trivializes the entire field (and ironically philosophizes as he does so). In essence, he uses philosophy to infantilize herself — a strange sort of anti-intellectualism promulgated by otherwise intelligent people.

Instead of ridiculing philosophy, Vsauce patronizes it in the worst possible way, repeating the tired — and frankly self-contradictory — adage that philosophy doesn’t provide “answers” to any meaningful questions. Instead, its object is to find (and ask) questions that might not have an answer. To me, this is absolute bunk, because philosophy has historically produced the conceptual frameworks that every science depends on.

It’s the equivalent of getting told to sit at the “kiddie” table at Thanksgiving with your weird cousins (I’m looking at you, Philology), while the others — math, biology, physics, etc. — sit at the “grownup” table and find real answers. Not only is this the height of anti-intellectualism — it’s irony par excellence, since it participates in (bad) philosophy to minimize her own role in the history of intellectual development.

Jokes aside, philosophy is the engine of a functional society — not some trivial afterthought. I’d argue that the measure of a successful society is its philosophy. Of course basic needs are met before anyone begins to question “why something exists”, but once people are comfortable enough to begin wondering, it indicates a high level of prosperity within a society. This is not to say that philosophy is ignored before basic needs are met — a person’s philosophy is the animating principle behind his actions. Whether someone lives as a hedonist, fights for his family, lays down his life for the good of the collective, or advocates for the rights of others, is determined by his philosophy.

Philosophy is the very essence of what it means to be human. Without it, we’d be nothing but smart animals — aimlessly eating, drinking, and screwing each other only to one day die, never to be remembered. This principle is also true on a macro-scale. Individuals aren’t the only ones who participate in philosophy: entire societies do. Without a coherent philosophy, a society isn’t really a society — it’s merely a collection of people. Just as a person’s philosophy animates him, the philosophy of a society animates its spirit.

If you have a cursory knowledge of history, you know this to be true. Think of American exceptionalism and its consequences. Whether or not you consider them good or bad, it is what characterized the United States from the mid nineteenth century onward. Likewise, lofty ideals such as freedom, liberty and order were the principles driving Enlightenment thought, the effects of which are still felt today. What about the Romantic and Gothic periods? Don’t we still revere authors from them today? Yet, it is their distinctive spirit that makes them significant — an animating force driven by philosophy.

Philosophy doesn’t always produce good outcomes, though. Everyone agrees that society is enriched by the art, music, and media shaped by its philosophy — but the reverse can be equally true. Consider the long arm of Fascism and Communist dictatorships such as the Soviet Union and Maoist China. How much devastation was wrought in the twentieth century because of bad philosophy?

Two-hundred and thirty-one million people were killed in the twentieth century from wars and genocide alone. This doesn’t account for unintentional man-made disasters and other tragedies. How many lives could’ve been spared if good philosophy had prevailed over evil? Of course, life is not always this simple. There are shades of grey everywhere. But I think most people are united against the horrors of the twentieth century — and God forbid they ever happen again. It’s hard to even imagine the death toll philosophy has inadvertently caused when she’s perverted by bad actors. That is why good philosophy is essential not only for individuals but for societies.

To wrap this section up, Vsauce trivializes philosophy not just as “intellectual play”, but as a quaint craft that can’t provide any answers — an attitude I fundamentally reject. Not only is it just plain wrong, it fails to realize that philosophy is what undergirds man’s identity as man — the rational animal.

---

Do “You” Really Exist?

That last section was a little intense, so let’s dial it back for a bit of lighthearted fun. Fresh off the topic of whether philosophy overcomplicates things, O’Connor and Vsauce think that the natural next step is questioning their own existence. That’s right, they don’t see any irony in this at all.

To his credit, O’Connor makes a rather salient point in the defense of the common-sense view that individuals do, indeed, exist. Specifically, he quotes an interesting argument from the aforementioned Peter Van Inwagen — one of the most prominent metaphysicians of the twenty-first century — about the distinctness of minds entailing their immateriality. Although I’m not entirely certain of Van Inwagen’s beliefs on the topic — or whether O’Connor is accurately representing him — the argument is genuinely thought provoking within the context of the episode.

A quick online search revealed that Van Inwagen’s book “Material Beings” is probably where the argument comes from. O’Connor presents it as follows: no material entities are distinct (a premise that Vsauce accepts, at least according to the beginning of the episode); minds are distinct; therefore, minds are immaterial. Although a hard-core materialist could plausibly run a symmetrical argument against the existence of distinct minds by accepting the first premise and denying the second, most people — atheists included — would take a minute and pause before accepting such a radical conclusion (I hope).

This is where Vsauce does something rather inconsistent and most interesting for the purposes of this article: he implicitly affirms the distinctness of material objects. He couches this reversal by pointing out that material things are distinct in virtue of their different properties. This, of course, is a common-sense take and aligns with most people’s intuition, which is why its an effective sleight of hand. Most people wouldn’t notice that he’s contradicting his earlier supposition that material objects don’t really “exist”. Let’s explore why.

By arguing that material things don’t exist, Vsauce is denying that objects (or things, as I explained earlier) exist outside the mind. A chair, for instance, is nothing but what we make of it — it’s a socially constructed category. This immediately raises the question of how minds, and thus people, can be distinct, since minds are nothing more than complex arrangements of atoms, according to materialists. To be consistent, I think the materialist who affirms the first premise (that objects don’t exist as distinct things outside the mind’s understanding) ought to stick to his guns and deny the second premise (that minds are distinct).

This obviously puts the mechanistic materialist in a bind, since admitting that minds aren’t distinct is absurd and so evidently false that he loses credibility. Vsauce, of course, wants to avoid this. And so he appeals to an object’s distinct properties to avoid saying minds are all the same. The first thing I’d ask Vsauce, if I got the opportunity to interview him, is what these supposed properties are and what they’re being predicated of…

Obviously properties must be said of something. But as we saw earlier, Vsauce admitted that material objects (and consequently “things” in general) are constructions of the mind. The existence (or should I say non-existence) of nouns is literally the focal point of the episode. In order to argue that properties are real (and thus capable of distinguishing different parcels of matter), Vsauce has to assume that the properties aren’t constructions of the mind. In doing so, he smuggles distinct things back into the discussion, since real properties can only be said of real things. Put another way, if you want to say that a chair exists only in the mind, you can’t also say that the chair’s property of being, say, brown is also something objectively real. It can only be something subjectively real — something that’s true to the individual observer.

At least Van Inwagen is consistent, even if I think his views — at least as represented by O’Connor — are impossible. Vsauce just seems to pick and choose from a variety of different systems, paying no mind to their consistency. This, of course, would be forgivable, if he wasn’t so dismissive of philosophical inquiry. For reference, after hearing Van Inwagen’s (rather interesting) argument, Vsauce frames it as a “funny little” trick — nothing more than smoke and mirrors, which is almost worse than calling it stupid, in my opinion. Not only is he treating the work of a professional philosopher as something that can just be hand-waived, he’s acting like the argument is a joke that poses no real threat.

Some might think I’m taking this too seriously. But I don’t think that they would share the same opinion if O’Connor went on Vsauce’s upcoming podcast, “The Rest is Science”, and argued for fringe scientific ideas, like, say, a perpetual motion machine, while discrediting the work of physicists in the field. Yeah… not a great look.

---

Conclusion:

To send off this long (and one-sided) discussion, I want to tie everything back to something real. Philosophy matters. Whether the world is intelligible matters. It’s not just intellectual tomfoolery — it determines everything about how we live our lives. I don’t know about the person reading this, but I must stand for something. Like I said earlier, humans need philosophy, and likewise, philosophy needs us. There is something deeply human about engaging in philosophy — the culmination of everything that makes us who we are.

Just as a thing is real because of its ability to be “seen” by the intellect, what makes man human isn’t that he’s a collection of atoms arranged in a particular way — it’s the ability to order his life according to higher principles, principles that are guided and made intelligible by philosophy. In a way, that makes philosophy the most human thing you can possibly do. Ultimately, it reminds me of a painting I saw at my school. I was wandering around the art gallery observing some very interesting pieces when one caught my eye…

I walked closer to get a better look. I had to squint at the painting because the whole thing looked like someone had taken their paint brush and smeared it all over the canvas. I could see what looked to be a bridge and some trees, and some water, but most of it was obscured deliberately. At first, I thought it was a rather strange effect and didn’t think much of it — “just another pretentious art piece,” I remember repeating to myself. But then I noticed the title: “The World Without Philosophy” — this made me pause.

At that moment, everything made sense. The painting wasn’t supposed to “look good” or “be pretty” — it was highlighting the importance of philosophy. In a very literal way, it was saying that what it means to be is characterized by philosophy — by the ability to know something. And if that’s not something worth taking seriously, I don’t know what is.

---

Final Thoughts:

With that, it’s time to wrap up. I want to highlight that I’ve only covered a fraction of the episode’s content (about 1/3), and a full review isn’t something I’m really interested in writing. Regardless, I think that everyone reading this should go give it a watch. The episode is a strong addition to the Within Reason podcast and certainly has given me a lot of content to think about over the last few days.

I also don’t want the takeaway to be entirely negative. Let’s end on a positive note by saying something nice about both O’Connor and Michael Stevens (Vsauce): as I said earlier, they are both extremely intelligent, sharp, and witty — their popularity and success already demonstrates this. And I’m sure you can recognize that without some random kid on the internet pointing it out. To zero in on O’Connor, although I disagree with a lot of his videos, he is obviously a very sincere person, someone who is dedicated to finding the truth, no matter where it might lead. Likewise, Vsauce is a genuinely entertaining figure whose brand is not just recognizable — it’s iconic.

Finally, I want to say that I’m not exactly sure where I’ll go with this Subtack in the future. I want to continue it, but I’m not sure how active I can be with school and all the other pressures of life. However, since it’s Christmas break, I’ll definitely be working on one or two major projects (like a defense of thought and being). In the meantime, I want to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. And to anyone who’s reached this far, I want to say thank you. It’s hard to say I really have an audience. I mostly do this to unload my ideas into the public sphere — it’s a lot like shouting at a wall: therapeutic but a little silly. If one or two people learn something by reading this, that makes it all worth it.

Thanks for reading, and hopefully there will be some more content soon! Also, don’t worry about Grandma Sally. I promise you I haven’t forgotten about her, and I will make it my life’s mission to defend her existence — no man left behind.