The Partial Examined Life relies on your support.

To find out how to help in ways that are cheap or even free,

please visit partiallyexaminedlife.com slash support.

You're listening to Partial Examined Life episode 187 on Free Speech Part 2.

So I was hoping we could get more in depth on the specifics of the fish article

because that's the weirdest thing that we read that he's making some sort of,

I want to say across between hermeneutics and the social contract

as Wes was characterizing it, that he's using fancy philosophical like language

to make an analogy to incoherent speech in certain contexts,

to speech that you would want to limit in political context.

And that Wes thought was a complete bad analogy.

Complete sophistry was the one he used.

Yes.

Yes.

So to say something, yeah, is meaningless right?

You put the wrong words after each other.

There are certain rules to the game for it even to be coherent.

And that's kind of built in that's not about, there's no way around that.

It's not like I have the freedom to utter gibberish, I wouldn't be understood.

I think he wants that analogy to say there are these background restrictions anyway

on what would be meaningful speech.

Those background restrictions are inherently political, inherently normative.

...