Uploaded January 2018 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
In this episode of Functional Philosophy, I explain how values are neither subjective nor intrinsic, how they neither depend on feelings, as libertarians would have it, nor exist apart from any valuer, as the religious would have it. Values are objective.
Functional Philosophy is the show in which Objectivist philosopher Charles Tew helps you gain and strengthen the philosophical foundations required to achieve certainty, success, and happiness. If you're curious to see how Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism can bring revolutionary clarity to your life, give it a listen.
Website: charlestew.com
Podcast: itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/functional-philosophy/id1242722316?mt=2
Patreon: patreon.com/charlestew
In this episode of Functional Philosophy, I explain how values are neither subjective nor intrinsic, how they neither depend on feelings, as libertarians would have it, nor exist apart from any valuer, as the religious would have it. Values are objective.
Functional Philosophy is the show in which Objectivist philosopher Charles Tew helps you gain and strengthen the philosophical foundations required to achieve certainty, success, and happiness. If you're curious to see how Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism can bring revolutionary clarity to your life, give it a listen.
Website: charlestew.com
Podcast: itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/functional-philosophy/id1242722316?mt=2
Patreon: patreon.com/charlestew




![(1) Ship of Theseus (2) Obscenity Laws (3) Skepticism from Historical Error (FP Podcast #85)
In this episode of Functional Philosophy, I answer the following questions:
00:38 - The Ship of Theseus
04:58 - Laws that censor art because it is deemed obscene, what are your views on this topic. From my understanding, in the US, there is a Miller test to judge whether something is obscene and tends to classify art as requiring values to not be considered obscene.
08:01 - I hear a lot of people defending uncertainty and attacking objective knowledge with an argument that is in essence as follows: Thousands of years ago people were certain that X was true. Now we know that X is [BS]. Therefore we cannot be certain of anything we know, because future people will prove us wrong and view us as troglodytes.
What would your response to this argument be?
***
Functional Philosophy is the weekly Q&A podcast that helps you gain and strengthen the philosophical foundations required to achieve certainty, success, and happiness.
Subscribe to hear philosopher Charles Tew, an expert on Ayn Rands philosophy of Objectivism, answer your questions on philosophy, politics, career, and more. New episodes on Mondays.
Website: https://www.charlestew.com
Podcast: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/functional-philosophy/id1242722316?mt=2
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/charlestew (1) Ship of Theseus (2) Obscenity Laws (3) Skepticism from Historical Error (FP Podcast #85)](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/p5mMhd4_l-I/mqdefault.jpg)





