Tip: click a paragraph to jump to the exact moment in the video.

1. 00:02 I have dedicated many videos to the speech of the narcissist, attempting as desperately as you to somehow decode it, make sense of it. I think the overriding principle is that the narcissist weaponizes language and speech in order to self-enhance somehow butress and protect the
2. 00:25 grandiose inflated counterfactual unrealistic self-concept that he uses in order to fend off shame and other life-threatening negative effects and in order to somehow introduce uce people into the shared fantasy as sources of narcissistic supply or as intimate partners.
3. 00:50 That’s an overview of the narcissist speech. But I would like to um delve a bit deeper to the philosophy of the narcissist speech and I would like to make use of my good lifelong friend Aristotle. Yes, I am that old. My name is Sanakn. I am the author of
4. 01:12 malignant self- loveve narcissism revisited. I’m also a professor of psychology. We start not with Aristotle but with the appropriately named Kant. Kant contrasted apodictic with problematic and asettoic speech. So
5. 01:35 he made a distinction between three types of speech. I repeat, apodictic, problematic and asseratoric. A s e r t o r i c.
6. 01:48 He made this distinction in his famous critic of pure reason published in the 18th century. Anyhow, Kant borrowed liberally, which is a charitable way of saying plagiarized aistotal. He the categories in Kant’s writing are copy paste from Aristotle.
7. 02:11 And here is what Kant had to say. Asserturic speech is a statement that asserts something and at the same time insist that the statement is true. So asseturic speech is when you assert something when you claim something and you say this is the case this is it.
8. 02:35 It’s absolutely 100% true but there is nothing in the statement that makes it inherently innately true or false. The statement can only be verified by reference to something outside the statement. For example, let’s consider the following. In Siberia,
9. 02:59 snow falls all year. Now, this is an assetric statement because it asserts something and it insists that this is absolutely the case. But is there any way for you to know whether the statement is Siberia snow falls all year, whether it’s true or false? Is
10. 03:21 there any way for you to know this except by boarding a plane and traveling to Siberia, buying usually a one-way ticket? There’s no way for you to do this. You need to rely on information outside the statement in order to decide the truth value of the statement. In order to make
11. 03:43 up your mind whether the statement is right or wrong, true or false. So the only way to verify the statement snow falls all year long in Siberia is to travel to Siberia and stay there for a whole year or to trust other people who have done this. The statement itself,
12. 04:07 although it pretends to be true, claims to be true, insists that it is true, is actually either true or false depending on external information. Remember this very subtle distinction. Then we have what K called the problematic statements. A problematic
13. 04:30 statement is a statement that indicates that something could be true, but there is nothing in the statement itself that prevents it from being true. In other words, you say something that could be true, but by studying the statement, you cannot actually make up your mind if it
14. 04:53 is true or not. Although it would make sense that it is true, it definitely could be true. And even one could say it’s likely to be true. Consider for example the following sentence. Rottweilers, my favorite type of dog, attack dog. Rottweilers run faster than leopards.
15. 05:18 Dogs run faster than tigers. Let’s say this is an a problematic statement because it could be true. It could be true, for example, that all dogs run faster than tigers. It could be true that certain types of dogs run faster than certain types of tigers.
16. 05:39 As in the example that I started with, Rottweilers run faster than neoparts. There is nothing in the statement itself that prevents it from being true. The statement is not evidently, manifestly, indubiously, absolutely, irrevocably, ostentatiously,
17. 05:58 clearly false. It could definitely be true. However, the statement does not contain a procedure to establish whether it’s true or not. In this sense, I think the distinction then that Kant has made between apodict between assetal I’m sorry between
18. 06:21 assettoric and problematic statements. I think this distinction is actually a nuance because many assetric statements are actually problematic statements and many problematic statements are actually asseturic statements. The difference between them is that astoic statements
19. 06:45 claim to be true. Astoric statements don’t say, well, I could be true. This could be true. Maybe it’s true. It’s reasonable that it’s true. That’s not an astoic statement. Astoic statements say, I am true. This is the way it is. This is the case 100%. No debate. Whereas a
20. 07:05 problematic statement says I could be true. Maybe I’m true. It’s reasonable that I’m true. So a problematic statement is an assettoric statement with a modicum of humility and doubt. And that leads us to the third type of statement, the apodictic statement
21. 07:29 or more rigorously the apodictic judgment. An apodictic sentence or apodictic statement or apodictic judgment is a statement that must be true or must be false. It’s not like the problematic statement. It’s not like maybe it’s true, maybe it’s false, it could be false, it could
22. 07:52 be true. No, that’s a problematic statement. It’s not a statement that says I am true. That is the case 100%. Don’t argue. That’s an asuric statement. The apodictic statement is either true or false, but it must be true or false. There’s no middle ground. So for
23. 08:13 example, if I were to tell you all triangles have three sides, that is an apodictic judgment or apodictic statement because it must be true. If I were to tell you all bachelors are unmarried, that is an apodictic judgment or apodictic statement.
24. 08:34 In a way, apodictic judgments are about identity because the very word triangle implies three sides. The very word bachelor implies an unmarried state. So it’s like what we what we call in philosophy a tology or a something that is essentially eating its own tail. A
25. 08:58 snake eating its own tail. It’s apodictic judgments are cyclical. They don’t provide um anything from the outside. They don’t access anything from the outside. They may elucidate and elaborate certain features, certain dimensions, certain elements. So
26. 09:22 for example, when I say all triangles have three sides, you have learned something. You’ve you have an added bit of information. You have learned that triangles have three sides. If I say all bachelors are are unmarried, you have learned that the word bachelor means an
27. 09:39 unmarried state. So there is added value or added information in apodictic judgments but they are cyclical. They are just elucidations and clarifications and demarcations and delineations of pre-existing concepts without reference to the outside the way astoric
28. 10:03 statements must must do. In other words, these distinctions have to do with the truth value of statements. Astoric statements can be judged true or false only by referring to external information. Similarly, problematic statements could be true or could be false. But in order
29. 10:28 to decide whether whether they are true or false again we have to refer to external information from the outside added information. Apodictic judgments or apodictic statements are absolutely true or absolutely false by their very nature. They do not have to refer to the
30. 10:50 outside. For example, if I were to tell you all triangles have three sides, you don’t need to go and begin to count triangles all over the world for eternity because triangle, the very word triangle, the lexical definition of triangle is a shape with three sides.
31. 11:08 Okay, got it. These are the distinctions. In Aristotilian logic, apodictic is opposed actually to dialectic. So an apodictic statement would be a scientific proof whereas a dialectic statement would be philosophical reasoning. And there is a huge debate in
32. 11:27 philosophy to this very day about the truth value of singular statements about future contingents. Aristotle in chapter nine of his treaties the interpreter perhmanius Aristotle said that statements about the future cannot have truth value by definition they don’t need to be false
33. 11:56 necessarily but they can never be true there’s no way for us to ascertain the truthfulness of statements about the future because we don’t have access to the future. A satoric statements about the future are meaningless because the only way to verify them is by time
34. 12:14 traveling to the future. And similarly, problematic statements about the future are problematic because only the future can decide their truth value, whether they’re true or false. A predictive statements or a predictive judgments about the future are nonsensical
35. 12:30 because we have zero information about the future. We can predict, of course, we can anticipate. There are people who do this for a living. Futurists, scientists, that’s what they do for a living. They predict the future. But um these predictions have zero truth
36. 12:50 value. They may be 100% falsified and often are actually falsified uh by the future, by the inexurable um passage of time. In chapter seven and eight of the same uh unpronouncable treaties, Aristotle has dealt with the contradictory pairs of asettoric statements which divide
37. 13:13 truth and falsity so that one is true and the other is false. And in chapter nine, he raised the question of whether this holds for all assetric statements or whether there might be an exception concerning statements about singular future events or states of affairs which
38. 13:31 are neither necessary nor impossible. And hence these kind of affairs, these kind of events may take place and may not. And any statements about them may be true and maybe not. And there is no procedure to decide. So these are undecidable. There are many famous undecidables. For
39. 13:52 example, does God exist? That is an undecidable question. No proposition can settle this. No proposition can say yes, God exists and no proposition can say no, God does not exist. So this is an undecidable proposition. Similarly, what is consciousness? That’s an undecidable
40. 14:13 proposition. Never mind philosophers and physicists that claim otherwise. There are many undecidable questions, undecidable statements, undecidable propositions. And what Aristotle tried to say is that all statements about the future by definition are undecidable.
41. 14:33 And he gave a famous example. He says that he described a sea battle, a battle at sea which would take tomorrow. He says tomorrow there will be a sea battle and this is a prediction. But is it necessarily true? If it is true and does the truth entail
42. 14:53 that this sea battle is inevitable? For example, if we say a statement about the future is true, does it mean that the event the event predicted absolutely inevitably inelectably must happen? And is this reasonable to make such a claim? For example, we have a theory in
43. 15:12 physics, relativity theory. And relativity theory predicts that light bends as it passes near massive objects such as the sun. This is a prediction. It’s a statement about the future. But does it have a truth value? The answer is no. until we have conducted an experiment.
44. 15:37 Future sentences, sentences about the future cannot be judged true or false unless we verify or falsify them. They require action on our part. And so this leads to major debates about deterministic arguments, the absurdity of fat fatalism and so on so forth. Aristotle himself
45. 16:00 got bogged down in this debate and ended ended up spewing a lot of nonsense in his own treaties. But I will not go into this. Why have I been boring you for 16 minutes with deep profound philosophical issues? Because we can apply this model easily to the narcissist.
46. 16:19 First of all, the narcissist claims that his statements or her statements about the future are inevitably true. The narcissist says, “I am all knowing. I’m omnisient and I’m omnipotent. I’m all powerful.” So if I make a statement about the future, for example, if I give
47. 16:39 you a promise, it’s bound to happen. It’s bound to happen because there is nothing I cannot do. It’s bound to happen there because there is nothing I do not know. I am godlike. I’m divine. And so my statements about the future are true by definition always and never
48. 17:02 false. Aristotal would have found these claims laughable, reasonable because Aristotle said that no statement about the future can possess a truth value. Second thing with narcissists, narcissists are never likely to engage in problematic speech. They’re never
49. 17:22 likely to introduce doubt into whatever it is they’re saying. When a narcissist tells you something, a narcissist would never say, “Listen, that’s what I think. That’s my opinion and maybe it’s true and maybe it’s not. I may be wrong. No way. Narcissist would never say this.” A
50. 17:41 narcissist would use assettoric speech. A massist would make statements, propositions, claims and would insist that they are true without any external verification or falsification. We could generalize and say that narcissists engage in assertatory speech 100% of the time.
51. 18:07 And finally, narcissist, a lot of the speech of the narcissist is apodictic in the sense that the narcissist gives the impression of genius and brilliance and insight and amazing innovations and revolutions in thinking and and new concepts and so on. when actually what
52. 18:31 the narcissist is doing is just redefining and reframing old concepts. He’s adding nothing meaningful to the conversation. All he’s doing is saying, “Do you know I’ve had an amazing discovery. All triangles have three sides.” And then everyone says, “Wow,
53. 18:51 what a genius. This is a discovery that’s going to revolutionize the world.” Charismatic cult leaders. Charismatic, magnetic politicians, scientists who are very good with public relations. Suffice it to mention the names of Freud and Thomas Edison. These
54. 19:10 kind of people engage in apodictic speech or apodictic judgments. They actually add nothing or little to the conversation. But by redefining things, by applying new labels, by coining new phrases and new words, neologisms and so on, they create the distinct but
55. 19:30 erroneous impression of revolution, revolution in thinking, of innovation, of inexurably moving the human race forward and inducing progress. These are the hallmarks of the narcissist. Whatever the narcissist says can be immediately divided to assetric
56. 19:52 speech. I know best. What I’m saying right now is 100% true. Don’t bother to verify it. Or aictic speech. I just came
57. 20:04 across this amazing thought, this amazing innovation, this amazing way of looking at things, this amazing theory, when actually it’s nothing but a rehash and recycling of old ideas and a redefinition of terms and phrases and words that require no definition.
58. 20:24 Because you know what? I have a surprise for you. All triangles have three sides. Whether the narcissist concurs or not and whether the narcissist cla trumpets it or