All Episodes
Previous Next
April 8, 2015 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
54:38
2945 Anti-Marriage Prejudice | YouTube Comments - Rebutted!

Stefan Molyneux dives into the hive mind of YouTube comments and responds to feedback. Do the laws of physics break down at the edge of the universe? Has Stefan joined the anti-platypus lobby? Does the world revolve around the opinions and power of white men? How much does Stefan really know about philosophy? Why doesn’t Stefan talk about analytic and continental philosophy?

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyne from Freedom Main Radio.
Hope you're doing well.
Time to dive into the hive mind of YouTube comments and provide some feedback for those who have taken the time to comment on the videos.
So, this is from a video or podcast called The Atheist's Burden of Proof, wherein Daniel says, As much as I love Steph, I think the caller owned him.
Staff kept insisting things that were provably false.
For instance, he made the assertion that two and two can never make five, or a square circle can't exist.
But physicists tell us that the farther out in the universe you go, the laws of physics break down.
Seeming impossibilities and contradictions become facts.
Well, that's not proving anything.
Saying that reason breaks down billions of light years away at the very edge of the universe doesn't have much to do with the debate occurring on planet Earth.
That's very bad.
It's like saying, I don't need An umbrella when it's raining because somewhere it's sunny.
Well, we deal with local conditions and philosophy deals with local conditions on the planet Earth.
People try to find a place to put irrationality and validate it, to make irrationality empirical.
Now, they used to do this in the realm of deities.
Now, they tend to do it in the realm of quantum physics and the edge of the universe where up is down, black is white, and so on.
But this has no bearing on the question of the validity of detecting a deity in the here and now on this planet, in this universe.
It doesn't make any sense at all.
Saying that there could be some realm in physics where rules may be different It does not invalidate any of the rules that are local.
Just to sort of give an example, I've never heard anyone say, well, you see, the KKK might have been a really great organization because right at the edge of the universe, perhaps racism and lynching Really great.
Morally good.
So we can't say anything.
We can't put anyone in jail.
We can't fail anyone who's trying to complete a test because in another universe or at the edge of this universe, the exact opposite could be true.
That doesn't...
Try sending that to your visa bill company, right?
Ah, you see, but at the edge of the universe where the laws of physics are supposed to perhaps break Maybe I did pay this bill, so we're going to call it even, right?
That's just not how things work.
And that's sort of the first thing.
Secondly, what's happening at the edge of the universe in theoretical physics has no bearing on the genesis of religiosity, which occurred during very primitive times in the development of human thought consciousness and a pretty anti-scientific attitude.
So Sunbaked Bedouin 5,000 years ago didn't know a whole hell of a lot about what was going on at the edge of the universe.
They thought the universe was basically like a pie shell with holes where light came through.
So I don't think we really want to look at the genesis of religiosity and say, well, somehow gods may exist because of the edge of the universe, opposite, maybe up and down, maybe black and white, and, you know, could be chaos and confusion and dogs living with cats and all that kind of stuff.
So, trying to find a realm wherein logic is invalidated and therefore saying anything could be true is not rational.
But of course, we're never going to get out to the edge of the universe anyway.
It's billions of light years away.
Nothing can travel faster than light, as far as I understand it, except Captain Kirk's nutsack.
And therefore, I don't think we're really going to have to worry about logical disproofs coming from the edge of the universe.
So he goes on to say, secondly, Steph is trying to impose man-made logic on God, God, God.
I'm not even a theist and am no peddler of religion, but I'm a believer in rational thought.
I think if you say reason invalidated by the edge of the universe, I'm not sure you're actually much of a believer in rational thought.
That being the case, even I concede that man-made logic is just that.
Man-made.
It's not objectively real, as much as we want it to be.
Steph made the comment, consciousness without matter cannot exist.
And the kid said, prove it.
Of course, Steph can't.
And his arrogance prevents him from seeing he just got owned.
Well, consciousness without matter is for the other person to prove.
Because the standard is...
That we never see consciousness without matter nearby, right?
You never see consciousness without a brain in the vicinity.
And yes, you can look at videos and so on, but you understand what I'm saying.
And so, if the norm is, if everywhere and forever we have only ever seen consciousness where there is matter, where there is a brain, the mind is in effect of the brain, just as gravity is in effect of matter,
And so if the norm is we always see consciousness where there is matter, if somebody says consciousness can exist without matter, they're the one making the claim outside of reality, outside of what is proven and logical and empirical and so on.
Like if I say, this rock, when I let go of it, it's just like all the other rocks, but it will fall upwards.
Well, that's kind of an extraordinary claim.
Therefore, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
So, this needs to be double-triple-checked, quadruple-checked in every conceivable way with every conceivable instrument because I'm making a claim that goes in direct opposition to the norm that the planet Earth, as having much larger gravity, will pull the rock down just as the rock will pull the ground up to a much smaller degree.
So, if I'm saying, look, if I have this rock And I let go of it, it falls down.
I think we're all going to accept that that's the case because that's the norm and that's what's been observed and that's what conforms with science and empiricism and rationality.
If I say this rocks like the other rocks but it's going to fall up, well then I'm making a claim outside the norm and therefore the burden of proof lies on me.
So when I say consciousness has never been observed and cannot theoretically or conceivably exist without the presence of matter, It's kind of axiomatic because to detect consciousness we are going to need to detect its effects on matter.
You cannot claim that something exists unless you can empirically observe Something materially, or at least the effects of matter.
Gravity exists in the presence of matter.
And so consciousness cannot exist without matter.
Where there is no matter, we will never be able to detect any consciousness.
But the moment that consciousness makes itself known to us, it's through creating tablets, or speaking to us, or giant thumbs writing in the sky, or something like that.
It's going to have an effect on matter.
So that's important as well.
The burden of proof lies upon the person making the extraordinary claims.
So, of course, Steph can't prove any of the things he's saying.
They're mere assertions.
So, when he says that the laws of physics may break down at the edge of the universe, and therefore 2 and 2 can make 5 or a unicorn or something like that, he's actually just making an assertion.
So, apparently making mere assertions without proof, because he hasn't proved that 2 and 2 make a unicorn at the edge of the universe.
He simply made an assertion.
So apparently for me to make mere assertions is really, really bad, but for him to make really, really assertions is logically responsible and so on.
So he says, Steph can't prove any of the things he's saying.
They're mere assertions.
And even those assertions he's making, like the laws of physics, as we understand them on Earth, must apply to the rest of the universe, have been debunked by actual physicists.
Well, I would really like to see how physicists say that the laws of physics only apply on the Earth.
And the moment you break orbit, or you get above the atmosphere, or whatever you consider the edge or the end of the Earth...
Oh, look, if I jump...
Wait, wait...
No, still going back down.
See, I was off the Earth for the moment, still happened to come back down.
I would love to see a physicist say that the moment you leave Earth or the local area, the laws of physics don't apply anymore.
I mean, nobody says that.
I mean, nobody with any brains or any understanding of science.
So, it's like quantum physics, right?
Quantum physicists will say, yes, some freaky stuff is happening down at the atomic and subatomic level.
However, at the realm of sense data, which is really where philosophy operates, physics is perfectly predictable and uniformly.
All of quantum effects cancel out by the time you get to anything that you can remotely see and touch, even in a microscope.
So, The idea that no physicist believes that the laws of physics, as we understand them on Earth, must apply to the rest of the universe.
Well, they do.
They do.
And that's how we know we can get a spaceship out past the recently demoted planet of Pluto and so on, because we know that the laws of physics apply universally.
If they're not universal, then they're not laws of physics.
They're culture or something like that.
So Steph's intellectual limitations were on display for all, all to see.
And reason is not...
Man-made.
Man-made.
I mean, a computer mouse is man-made.
A monitor is man-made.
Logic is not man-made.
It's not invented arbitrarily.
Like, I can make a painting.
That's nothing universal.
But logic is, as Rand called it, the art of non-contradictory logic.
Identification.
Logic is making sure that your thoughts about anything that is objective is as consistent as those things which are objective.
It is an attempt to conform human thought to the objectivity and empiricism and predictability and uniformity of rational principles that are universal, laws of physics and so on.
And so we have reason which is accepted and understood and propagated because it matches the consistency of sense data and matter.
So it's not invented.
Nobody invented that an object falls to earth at 9.8 meters per second per second or that gases expand when heated and nobody invented or merely created out of nothing the scientific method.
was created in an attempt to get human thought about reality to match the universality and consistency of reality.
And so it's not just made up by people.
It's a rational discipline that mirrors the objectivity of reality itself.
So, again, I'm happy to hear.
I find the edge of physics, the fascinating stuff.
It doesn't really have anything to do with philosophy, because we're never going to get to the edge of the universe.
I mean, it's expanding, what, almost at the speed of light.
We can't possibly catch up with it.
And, of course, the universe at its current state remains in hot debate among physicists, even as the Big Bang does.
So it's not really got anything, certainly got nothing to do with ethics or virtue.
What goes on at the edge of the universe has nothing to do with whether rape is moral or immoral in the world or in a spaceship going around the world or anything like that.
So the idea that we can find some place in science where we can put our irrationality and call it rational is a fantasy.
The whole purpose of science is to discover universal laws.
If there's freaky stuff going on at the edge of the universe, should we ever get there, then the purpose of science will be to figure out how to de-freak it.
Right?
I mean...
Things fall down.
A helium balloon falls up.
And the purpose of science is to explain why.
The helium is lighter than air and so on, right?
And so the purpose of science is to defreak stuff.
If stuff remains freaky, which of course it probably always will, because there's always further barriers of knowledge to be knocked down by the alliance of science, then the purpose of science is to defreak it.
But saying somewhere, somewhere in the universe, freaky, rational, anti-empirical stuff could exist.
Therefore, Every crazy statement that everyone says could possibly be true is not a rational use of science and certainly not anything to do with philosophy.
It's an attempt to evade the necessity of rational universals and rational thought and rational logic.
So I've read somewhere that the definition of a mammal is warm-blooded, suckles its young, gives birth to live young, not through eggs.
And I repeated this foolishly without checking every conceivable exception to this rule, and I was mistaken.
There is apparently a very large phalanx of platypus fetishists who have taken a moment to From refusing to grease up their young furry creature lovers and have informed me a platypus lays eggs and is a mammal.
And apparently I said mammals, do they give birth to live young or do they give birth to eggs?
If it's eggs, not a mammal.
Somebody replied, Steph is clearly being paid off by the anti-platypus lobby.
That's true.
That is true.
I think the Koch brothers are branching out from conservatism to a hatred of the platypus.
Eggs from mammal?
That would be platypus.
Echidna.
Your ignorance of the natural world is abysmal.
As of right.
Pliny the Elder often wrote in natural rights.
So my ignorance of the natural world is abysmal.
That may be a little strong, given that there's some very odd exception that was not talked about by the biologist that I read about.
He forgot about the platypus.
The platypus would like a word with you.
For everyone out there, yes, a platypus is a mammal.
It's an egg-laying mammal.
So for all of those platypus lovers, I do apologize for standing between you and the object of your affection.
And I absolutely correct and will refrain from making that definition in the future.
I do actually appreciate the correction.
I'm not trying to be too snarky, but thanks everyone.
My statement, I've never met a white racist man, and this money said, and Sertephen, knowed as to say, I agree with you.
I stopped watching this pathetic video at that point.
Very sad.
Sertephen Molyneux.
And somebody replied, that's crazy.
He is playing lying there.
Let's be honest about things.
Well, I mean, I'm sorry if my honesty is troubling or upsetting to people, but I've traveled a lot around this world and I've never actually met a racist white man.
I've met very few racists as a whole.
I do see them online.
I was talking about people I've met in person.
But I just haven't.
I haven't had anyone I've ever met who has sat down with me and said, well, you know, this particular group is really inferior, and this particular group is really inferior, and we are the best, and in every conceivable way, and I just never met anyone like that.
I'm not saying racism doesn't exist.
Of course it does.
I'm just saying I've never been exposed to racism, certainly from a white man.
And...
The fact that people can't believe I haven't met a racist white man is kind of racist.
Because it's assuming that there just must be so many racist white men that I can't possibly have gotten to the age of 48 without having met a lot of them.
It's pretty racist, right?
Like, if somebody said, well, I've never met a black guy who steals, I'd be like, oh, come on!
What a liar you are!
Of course you've met a black guy who's confessed to theft!
Of course you have, because that's what black guys do!
So, naturally, you must have...
I mean, that would be pretty racist, right?
But it's hard to see racism against whites because propaganda.
So, yeah, sorry, stand by it.
Never met a racist white man.
I'm really trying to think of racists I may have met in my life from other genders and other...
I can't really think of any.
And...
So, I'm not saying it doesn't exist.
I was simply saying, I've not met it.
And you'd think for something that's supposed to be so systemic, like racism, particularly white male racism, you'd think I'd have caught a hint of it somewhere or other.
But no.
So, I was simply reporting my empirical experience, which I stand by.
I wasn't lying.
And the fact that people can't believe that I haven't met a racist white man, I actually think I've now met some racists, particularly against white men.
This was from a video called The Truth About Sex.
Rhodey wrote, The Heritage Foundation in Canada is a racist, right-wing, Christian think tank.
I would not trust the information in this video without double-checking it.
Um, okay.
I mean, anybody who cries racism without proof is a racist because you're using a generalization about someone or about this particular group and calling them racist.
If you don't provide evidence, then you are in fact racist.
A racist.
And I'm sorry to say that, but it seems pretty indisputable.
So this is data that we produce.
We use data from variety sources.
One of the sources was from the Heritage Foundation.
And of course, double check the data.
Absolutely double check the data that we use.
That's very important.
We try to get the best data we can.
But the problem, of course, with a lot of this stuff is up until the 90s, You could find very interesting studies on gender and on race.
And then in the 90s, the tight, neck-breaking noose of political correctness fell around academia.
And most of this stuff has simply vanished from the intellectual landscape.
You simply can't find it.
I wish that more people were studying.
Like people in this one, we talked a lot about the negative and dangerous effects of things like promiscuity on women.
And people are like, well, what about men?
It's like, we'd love to report on men.
We really, really would.
But in the software sciences, not really science, but in the sort of artsy disciplines and so on, there just doesn't seem to be that much interest in studying men.
And so we get the data where we can get the data from.
And if there's bigotry in the data, please let us know and we will rescind and we will apologize.
But just saying it's racist right-wing Christian and therefore discount the information.
I mean, that's just a smear.
Come on, people.
We've got to be better than that when it comes to making intellectual arguments.
You've got to be better than a smear.
Oh, he's just a nasty, smelly soul from hell and Hades itself.
Okay, so you don't like the conclusions, you don't like the information, and you're too lazy to get off your ass and discredit or disprove it, and so you're just going to do the monkey poop rebellion phase, right?
I reject this by scratching my ass, taking the poop, and throwing it at the canvas of thought in front of me.
All your...
Revealing is that you may not be quite right for the adult table when it comes to intellectual discussion.
You may discount this group, but there's far more reasons to discount what you're saying based upon your approach.
This comes from a video called The War on White Males.
And G writes, War on white males?
Seriously?
The world caters to white males.
Only racist imbeciles believe otherwise.
You know, if the world really catered to white males, it's hard to really understand how white males can be portrayed so negatively all the time, everywhere.
Just look at white males in sitcoms.
Look at white males in commercials and so on.
It's just terrible how white males are portrayed.
So the idea that, I mean, if white males, if we actually had all of this power, and we were so racist and sexist and so on, then why wouldn't we send women off to do all the dangerous work?
I mean, 95% or so or 98% of workplace injuries are male.
So if men have all these power, why aren't we sending all these women to go and do all this dangerous work?
Why aren't they the ones in mines and fixing hydropoles and cutting down trees and doing all the stuff that seems to shave significant numbers of fingers and limbs off the bodies of men?
Why don't we just have women go out and do these things?
Oh, well, no, maybe not quite as much power.
As we think, in the 20th century, just looking at Europe, I mean, millions and millions and millions of white males were killed in wars.
Why wouldn't we just send minorities?
Why wouldn't we just send women to go and fight these wars?
Because we're supposed to have all this power.
Right?
I mean, that would be very helpful.
If white males are so predatory and racist and powerful, then why don't white males band together and keep all non-white immigrants out of a particular country?
I'm not saying that's a good thing to do.
I'm just saying why, if we're so racist and so powerful, then how is it that whites are going to aim to be a minority within a couple of decades in North America, in America in particular?
It doesn't really make much sense.
So, the world caters to white males?
I don't really think that you can find a lot of empirical evidence for that.
And of course, if white males have so much power, then why is it in America that Asians have a higher per capita income than whites?
A significantly higher per capita income.
I mean, if we're all so powerful, why don't we just take all the Asians' money and Jabba the Hat style, drag around the Princess Leia of traditional victimhood feminists around by the chains and lick their faces with their gross patriarchal tongues and so on.
Well, the world seems to cater to Orientals or to Asians, by statistics.
And the fact that somebody would say, the world caters to white males, only racist imbeciles believe otherwise.
So calling me a racist imbecile for having some empirical evidence and data that goes against the narrative of white male patriarchy, white male power...
Saying that I'm a racist, imbecile, because I question whether there's a war, whether white males have all of this power, I mean, that's pretty racist, right?
It's funny, you know, it's funny because a lot of people who sort of criticize me for questioning the faith or the belief that the white males have this infinite power in society, they're not white and not male.
And that's kind of interesting to me because when white males talk about minorities, a lot of times people will say, well, you know, have you ever been a minority?
Have you ever walked?
Do you know the black experience?
Do you know the experience of them?
So you can't really speak for not your race and not your gender if you're a white male.
But lots of people who aren't white males tell me and tell lots of white males exactly what it's like to be a white male, how much patriarchy and power we have.
Well, if I can't appropriate other people's voices, it seems a bit odd that those same people can then appropriate my voice and tell me what it's like to be me.
So I just think in general we should listen to each other a little bit more.
And not jump to these horribly racist conclusions and be open to evidence, especially when it contradicts cherished beliefs, because cherished beliefs are a form of bigotry to prejudice, which we should, obviously in a philosophy show, we should attempt to cast aside.
Ah, marriage!
Post sex at dawn.
So Wes writes, Steph keeps missing the point that young men now look at the data and recognize that marriage is a bum deal for them.
I wish that the caller had kept him on that topic a bit more.
But I'm beginning to think that the think about the children rants when marriage and MGTOW, men going their own way, which is men moving away from dating and particularly relationships where there could be Well, um...
Marriage is not a bum deal for men if it lasts.
Men live longer, they report greater happiness, better health, greater life satisfaction, higher incomes, and so on.
So marriage is steroids to the joyful heart of masculinity when it works out.
Marriage when it doesn't work out is pretty tragic and disastrous for men economically, psychologically, emotionally, spiritually, and so on.
So Marriage is a bum deal.
Simply, it's just prejudice.
You're just looking at the one side of things.
Men who get divorced have a miserable time of it.
Absolutely they do.
Absolutely they do.
And, you know, skiers who ski into trees have a very bad time of it too, but skiing is a lot of fun.
So, saying that just marriage is bad, it's also kind of sexist because it's basically saying that There are so few decent women around that marriage is just impossible.
So, would you say, for instance, well, I would never hire a Chinaman because all Chinamen are lazy and steal.
Or, you know, maybe there's like 0.001% of Chinamen who aren't lazy and don't steal, but really, what's the point?
And it's the same thing.
I won't engage in marriage with the women because the vast majority of women are X, Y, and Z. And, I mean, this is because men have lost, or rather it's been denied, men have lost the wisdom that is required to find a good woman.
And therefore, men are going...
For looks.
The hot, the pretty, the cute, the whatever, the sexually available, the slutty, the whatever, right?
So men are going for ease of access plus looks.
And these are terrible ways to find a wife.
And this used to be very well known, right?
It's the Mary Ann versus...
Ginger versus Mary Ann in the old Gilligan's thing, like the glamorous woman versus...
Of course, Mary Ann was very pretty.
I was always drawn to the Mary Ann's, like I like good women rather than flashy women.
Not that the two can't be co-joined, but in general, if you think with your penis you are feeding yourself into an endless estrogen cliff, Of self-sacrifice and exploitation in general.
Not always.
Power corrupts.
Beauty is a kind of power.
And it's not like...
Beauty is like being very, very wealthy.
And you can be very hardworking.
If you grow up as a trustafarian, you got a huge...
You get $10 million in the bank by the time you're 18.
Yes, maybe you'll be very hardworking and maybe everybody will be your friend just because you're such a great person.
But it's...
Not necessarily the norm, right?
If you grew up with a huge amount of money, then oftentimes, you know, some aimlessness and some parasitical, quote, friendships can be there.
And for women, beauty is a great power, and that great power has only increased with the increased hypersexualization of our culture.
So, men don't know how to choose good women, which is incredibly frustrating to good women, right?
I mean, you know how men in the MGTOW community will often complain that the women in their 20s, when they're at their most attractive, will go out with these terrible guys just because those guys are hot.
And then in their 30s, they want to settle down with someone and they're willing to forego the physical attractiveness and so on.
And they're just like, oh, come on, I'm a great guy.
Maybe I'm not six foot four with a washboard ab, but I'm a great guy.
You should not just go chasing after these idiots.
And I mean, I get it.
I get it.
I mean, I remember when I was in my 30s, a guy I played squash with when I was in my 30s was very good looking.
And a completely empty, vacuous, mean and exploitive guy.
And he once played to be a tape.
This is back when you had recording tapes for your answering machines.
God, I'm old.
Anyway, he played me this tape.
So he got the flu.
So he went out with a girl, brought her back to his place, and forgot that there was another girl coming over.
To have sex with him.
And so then the other girl came over and he suggested a threesome.
And then the first girl was really offended and left.
And the second girl stayed and had sex with him.
And then he got a cold or he got a flu.
And he just was in bed.
And the girl who'd stormed out kept calling him back.
Calling him back, yelling at him, really angry.
And then worried, like, I can't believe you suggested a threesome, you pig.
I'm so offended.
I'm so disgusted.
And called back a couple hours later, like, well, I'm still angry, but I want you to call me back.
You know, let's talk about this.
Because he was just basically half out of it on the couch.
He didn't call her back.
And then a couple hours later, hey, I'm really concerned.
Can you call me back?
Please call me back.
Please call me back.
And then a couple hours later, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry I got angry at you.
I didn't mean to yell at you.
Please call me back.
I really care about you.
Let's work this out.
And it just got rid of it.
And it's like, oh my God, this guy is like soulless.
He's like an automaton of seed spraying.
But these women were like, ah, because he was high status and arm candy and so on, right?
And so I get it.
I get it's frustrating to watch hot women go for idiot guys.
Not that they all do.
These are just generalizations.
But try and walk a mile in a good woman's shoes and just see how incredibly frustrating it is for good women who aren't necessarily as hot as the hot women, for good women to see guys constantly chasing after hot women who are crazy.
I'm just saying, think about it.
It's not all complaints on the male side about female nature.
There are a lot of valid complaints from the female side about male nature, which is stop chasing the hot crazy and come to the good woman.
The movie star will lead you off a cliff.
I will help you build a happy home.
I just really want to point that out.
These possibilities do exist.
I'm living it, although I find my wife physically lovely, but it is possible.
But you have to change what it is you're looking for if you want to find something better.
So, a person whose first moniker is stoned said to a listener to the call, Well, nobody
has to have kids, of course.
Not having kids is not a violation of the non-aggression principle.
You're not initiating force against anyone.
But...
I've read a lot of Jung, Carl Gustav Jung, a fairly famed psychoanalyst.
And he said something that I read in my 20s.
This is me in my 20s.
I went on vacation for two weeks with all the books I'd wanted to read that year.
It was just great.
And Jung was saying, so your first half of life is around striving and creating and working hard and being ambitious.
But you also have to prepare for the second half of your life.
Which is to some degree about accepting where you are.
You know, you get to sort of 40 or 50, and after that, you're not going to be a ballet dancer, you're not going to be a linebacker, you're not going to be a rock star, you're just, you know, there's just an acceptance of where things are.
And one of the great challenges of youth is not being able to see over the hill to the other side of life.
And When you're young, you get a lot of socializing from going to school, from going to work, from going to clubs, from going to restaurants, from dating.
You just meet a lot of new people all the time.
In the second half of your life, when you're like 55, you're not going to a lot of clubs, right?
And it's really hard to meet Especially really good, high-quality people, because the good, high-quality people already have a circle of friends, they're already married, and they don't necessarily want to invite someone that they don't really know that well into their circle.
So the second half of life, you know, without marriage, without kids, can be a pretty bony, stony, and destitute affair.
Lonely, and we're social animals, right?
I mean, to be alone is very painful, and to be ostracized is extremely painful for a lot of people.
And so it is important to try and work in the first half of your life to build relationships that will sustain you in the last half of your life.
You know, in the last half of your life You get sick.
You forget things.
You are less physically attractive as time goes forward, especially if you buy high-def cameras to reveal all of your ancient Martian liver spots on your forehead.
So you just need to build your relationships up in the first half of your life, invest and create Those relationships and pour your heart and your soul and your love and your care, your concern, your support into those relationships.
And then you reap the rewards really in the second half of your life.
And I think that's really, really an important thing.
And when you're young, I mean, that all just seems like forever and a day away.
I get that.
I get that.
I remember when I was growing up thinking, wow, you know, the year 2000, I'll be 34.
That just seems like forever away.
And now, I'm almost 15 years past that.
And time marches on.
And if you're lucky, it drags you by the hair with it.
So, just remember about the second half of your life.
Plan for the second half of your life.
And there is, of course...
It's easier.
You know, I haven't written really a long book since my daughter was born six years ago because I'm plowing time, energy, and effort into being a parent.
And would it be easier sometimes?
Sure.
Yeah.
My daughter woke up last night at 1.30 in the morning and I had to sit with her and help her get back.
I mean, yeah, you get tired.
And...
So, these are investments that you make, though, like saving your money for retirement, that you make in order to have a happier and more fulfilled and better companioned life when you are older.
The number of quality people you can have relationships with goes down over time.
So, when you're young and have all the time in the world and you're at the peak of your physical attractiveness and so on, yeah, I mean, you can meet, but those quality people, they get hoovered up.
By others and get into their own relationships and just don't be that cat lady in her 60s.
Don't be the guy who goes to Starbucks because he needs to be around Carbon-based life forms that exhale carbon dioxide.
I mean, just don't be the person who is lonely.
Because, you know, if you haven't gotten married, you don't have to have kids.
I mean, I think it's great to have kids.
Kids are, like, amazing and wonderful and fantastic and challenging and time-consuming.
But...
And of course, everyone who's alive has benefited from their parents' desire to have children.
So saying, well, four billion years of evolution stops with me.
The DNA ends here.
My parents sacrificed for me.
I can sacrifice for no one.
Well, I don't know.
Seems a little selfish.
I'll just be honest with you.
I'm just being frank with you.
It's not immoral.
It's not bad.
It's not wrong.
But if you like being alive...
Pay it forward.
Bring life to someone else.
Not with electricity and zombie juice, but bring life to others.
The degree to which you wish to enjoy your life is a degree to which Other people would like to exist.
The degree to which you would feel sad if you were about to die is the degree to which you are, by denying life, you're creating, in a sense, a loss of happiness in the world.
And again, it's not a moral issue.
I'm not trying to guilt or pressure anyone into having kids.
It's just that you like being alive, so why not bring that gift to other people?
You know, it's sort of like...
If you're passing a joint, I've never smoked marijuana, but if you're passing a joint, you know, don't bogart it, man.
Pass it on down the line.
Pass the duchy on the left-hand side, I believe, as the ancient Gregorian chant goes.
And it's like life, you know, don't bogart that life.
You know, pass it down, pay it forward.
And I think it will make things better for you.
And it's hard to see when you're in your 20s or maybe in your early 30s.
But if you haven't settled down and got some deep, meaningful relationships, and the romantic one is pretty key, and certainly co-parenting is even deeper.
you know you're gonna live to 80 or 90 if you haven't got those things by your late 40s early 50s certainly for women it's too late you got another 40 years to go man you got 40 years to go and most other people are paired off and there's only so much screen time you can do before you just don't feel like getting out of bed anymore just prepare for the second half of your life we do that with nutrition try not to get weight we do that with exercise to keep our bones strong Just prepare a little bit for the second half of life.
And I'm sorry to be a nag about it.
I'm not trying to guilt or pressure.
I'm just telling you the facts as I see them.
This is a response to a video I made on Fifty Shades of Grey, which we can link below.
Fleet said, Remember, boys and girls, it's perfectly okay to be a sexual predator as long as you have tons of money.
It's easy to see why so many feminists love this book.
Well, that is, you know, for those who don't know Fifty Shades of Grey, it's about a woman's sexual subjugation to a sadistic sadomasochist fellow who's incredibly rich and young and hot and powerful and this, that, and the other.
Yes, there are significant proportions.
I think it's two-thirds of women have rape or ravishment fantasies where a man overpowers them.
and has sex with them and that is giving the man dominance and power is part of the dominant submissive aspect of S&M and this of course can happen in a reverse gender as well but the reality is that it makes sense biologically you know like it or not it makes sense biologically The R versus K reproductive strategy is really hard to look at society without that lens and have it come into focus.
So the R reproductive strategy, which is fairly well established and I think is the norm, is spray and pray.
Sex with a lot of people and Don't invest much, if anything, into your kids and just hope that they reach maturity and that's how you reproduce your genes.
And that's highly appropriate to a situation of war, of conflict, of scarcity, of disease, of famine, and so on.
So if there's a plague going on, We're good to go.
Is have fewer kids, but invest more into them.
And that's a different kind of strategy.
Now, our society has been moving from the K reproductive strategy, which is fewer kids and more investment into the kids, into the R reproductive strategy.
This has really been the effect of the welfare state.
And I won't go into all the reasons for that now, but I just want to make that sort of correlation.
And so a book which would be unfathomable, In the 1950s as sort of popular, it's 100 million downloads or readings or whatever.
It makes perfect sense now.
And the degree to which women have rape fantasies or ravishment fantasies is the degree to which they're biologically programmed to go through the R strategy, right?
To go through the...
A short-term investment, a little low investment, and lots of kids' strategy.
This, of course, has a lot to do with growing up without a father.
If you grow up without a father, then your body, as a woman, as a girl, your body is then programmed for an R reproductive strategy.
That's just part of the way that the body evolves in the moment, not intergenerationally, but based upon environmental cues.
This is why girls without fathers experience High rates of promiscuity and also achieve menses or menstruation earlier and so on.
Because if there's no father around, the body assumes we're in a time of conflict or war and you simply can't expect for a male provider to be around and therefore you need to get a lot of men interested in you.
The hypersexuality of all of this has gone on.
Anyway, it's a long, complicated topic, but it makes sense that this is where female sexuality is, and of course there have been problems for male sexuality as well, but this book really seems to be appealing to women, so I think this is why this is happening.
So in a video I did on the fall of Greece, Haunted wrote, you are so arrogant, so sure about your economical dogma.
Actually, economic dogma.
Economical dogma would be a tiny dog.
Well, guess what?
It failed.
Neoliberalism is a dead horse, and people in Europe are starting to recognize that, whether you like it or not.
Greece once shined the path to humanity.
We will do it again.
It's time to be proud for ourselves once again.
Well, this is a common question.
Misconception.
And it's understandable.
It really is understandable.
But it's a common misconception that somehow what we have in the world today has something to do with the free market.
And because people are buying and selling stuff, because there are banks, because there are financial instruments, people say, aha, buying and selling stuff and having money and having financial instruments, that's capitalism.
That's not capitalism.
That's not the free market.
There's really only one fundamental thing you need to ask about a system to figure out whether it's a free market or not, which is, is there a free market in money?
Money is really the foundation of the free market.
If there's a free market in money, in other words if there are competing currencies, if people can introduce currencies without being jailed for counterfeiting and so on, then You have a free market.
If control of currency is in a multitude of private hands, then you have a free market.
If it's not, then you don't.
You have fascism with A minor in trade.
Major in fascism, minor in trade.
And this is really important.
The European Central Bank is not a free market institution.
The financial instruments being bought and sold are in general not financial institutions.
The amount of money that's being forced into the stock market through tax policies has nothing to do with the free market.
So I do get and understand That it's very tempting to look at this and say, freedom has failed, but that's exactly, it's exactly what the banksters, our lords and masters, want you to think.
Because then, the governments can rush in with more power and say, we'll save you from freedom, because that's freedom, right?
And it's like, that's not freedom.
It's not freedom.
And the idea that it is, is very convenient to those who wish to extend and expand their power over you.
How to become a legend?
Nick wrote, I always make it a habit to listen to or watch something inspiring before I go to bed, so I have epic dreams and I wake up with a hard-on to do something amazing with the day.
Thanks for the inspiration boner, Stefan.
Well, you're welcome.
That's why we like to categorize this show, at least those aspects of the show, as oral sex.
A video that I did, a conversation, Friedrich Nietzsche, was he a philosopher?
Steve wrote, It is disgusting that Stefan didn't explain the distinction between analytic and continental philosophy, which would have easily answered his question.
Stefan doesn't really know that much about philosophy, though, so he doesn't know what first-year philosophy students learn.
Well, I mean...
Analytic and continental philosophy, interesting stuff.
And we can have a conversation about that at one point.
I think that they're interesting distinctions.
But don't know that much about philosophy.
Well, to me, and I think it's pretty reasonable to say this, philosophy is the act of thinking for yourself according to universal principles.
That is philosophy.
Philosophy is not reading about philosophy.
Other people who have thought according to some principles.
It's sort of like saying being a musician is playing your instrument.
Watching other people play their instruments does not make you a musician.
And the idea that I don't know much about philosophy, I mean, my graduate degree was taking a major thesis on the history of philosophy and taking major philosophers and running them through a particular thesis, which is that those who believe in higher realms almost always end up advocating dictatorship as their ideal political model,
whereas those who believe in It was a pretty big thesis that took a long time to write, and I did get an A, which, you know, doesn't mean that it's right.
It just means that, you know, try being at that time an objectivist and getting through the socialist hell of Canadian graduate school, and it was not the easiest thing I've ever done.
Anyway, so I do know quite a bit about philosophy and the history of philosophy, but I don't see how that helps people live better lives in the present.
So that's why when they do these call-in shows, Steve, if you want to call in and talk about the distinction between analytic and continental philosophy, I think that would be fantastic.
I'd love to do it.
I guarantee you that very few people will listen to it, and it really won't change anyone's life for the better, and I've really dedicated and committed myself on my intellectual energies and capacities.
Two, making people's lives actually better in a tangible way, which I think is kind of a bridge between analytic or nitpicky logic-based philosophy and continental philosophy, which is more socially and historically and politically engaged philosophy.
I like to think I've sort of bridged those gaps to go from first principles to actually changing your life.
It's kind of a merger between these two approaches.
So...
I don't really think that philosophy is studying other philosophers.
Doesn't hurt.
Can certainly help.
It's not like it's the opposite.
You know, you may want to study another violinist technique in order to improve your own violin playing, but you study other people's violin technique in order to improve.
Your own violin playing and being a musician may include studying other people, but the purpose is to actually play better yourself.
So if all you do is study other people's guitar techniques or whatever techniques, if all you do is study other people, you're not actually a musician.
Now, the question is, of course, when it comes to our finite resources and time in this world and in this life, how do we spend it?
What do we do with our precious short time?
You know, we are fuses going to the detonation of blank non-existence.
Gone.
Not even the word gone is there, because the brain that can conceive of it is gone too.
And so what are we going to do?
And just ask yourself, Would you like Mozart to have spent more time studying the history of music or more time composing music?
I think if you love music, as I do, you're pretty happy that Mozart didn't spend a whole lot of time studying the history of various musical movements, but instead sat down and wrote his music.
So I could spend more time And we've talked about it a lot in this Free Domain Radio team.
History of philosophy, I'd love to do it.
I'd love to do it.
I think it's fascinating.
I've got some experience in it and certainly it would be a lot of fun for me to do.
Would it make the world a better place?
It seems unlikely.
And I don't get a lot of...
My big feedback mechanism is obviously emails, comments, but the people who call into the show, what kind of questions do they have?
And the kind of questions they have are around personal life events or choices that will really affect Their capacity for happiness and virtue.
So that's what I focus on.
A history of philosophy would be great fun, great intellectual wankery for me.
I love that kind of stuff, but I am, of course, trying to serve the world and the future by bringing as much practical, tangible, actionable philosophy to people as possible.
If you like Van Gogh, sorry, dated a Dutch girl once, and was told it's not Van Gogh, it's Van Gogh.
Apparently, he was named by Darth Vader, who, eh, chokehold.
But Van Gogh's paintings, would you rather he said, well, I'm not going to paint self-portraits, I'm not going to paint this kind of stuff, I'm not going to paint Starry Night, what I'm going to do is I'm going to study how pointillism developed in Poland in the 17th century.
I think we're all pretty happy that he put I think we're happy when people create rather than study the creations of others.
So, Steve, I mean, I understand that, and I sort of have two minds about this, so I guess I'll just do two minds about this.
Number one is the sympathy one.
You're paralyzed.
You're paralyzed because you think if there's a gap in someone's knowledge about history, they have nothing valid to contribute to a discipline.
And what that does is it points everyone back to the past and it castrates them from their intellectual fecundity, from their intellectual virility.
It is passion, excitement, curiosity, and reason that drive one's pursuit of wisdom.
And if it's like, well, I can't say anything about philosophy unless I have really done a PhD thesis on the differences between analytic and continental philosophy, what you're basically saying is, go back to the library, stop changing things, stop improving the world, because you just don't know enough about what other people think in order to have your own thoughts.
The more time I invest in learning how other people think, the less time I'm learning how to think myself!
Compare and contrast into oblivion.
So, no, I don't think it's valid.
And I sympathize with that, right?
So part of me says, you know, this is what you've been taught, and this is how you've been castrated, and this is how you were told to be ineffectual in your life, and I really sympathize with this.
Part of me feels that, and part of me always feels, well, you're just kind of a dick.
I mean, you're just kind of a dick.
Because what you're doing is just showing sort of fear, uncertainty and doubt by saying, well, Steph doesn't even know what first year philosophy students learn.
You're not actually making any arguments.
You're not showing your knowledge of these things.
You're just showing you know a couple of words and you're trying to downgrade and put down other people because you're kind of a dick.
So I don't know if I feel sympathy for what you've been taught that's made you...
Freckly, castrated and ineffectual.
Oh, I don't know if you're just a dick.
Who knows?
But that is the reality that I am going to go and bring philosophy to the world as best I can.
And the idea that I'm going to sort of turn around and I mean, You could look at his influence.
You could spend your whole life studying Hegel, but that's not what Hegel did.
This is so funny that we study people and then we don't do what they did.
Hegel did not study Hegel.
I mean, of course, he studied philosophy, just as Nietzsche did philology, I guess, as it was called back then.
But Socrates did not spend his whole life studying the pre-Socratics.
He was out there thinking for himself.
So saying, Steph, you should go and study people who spent their time doing philosophy rather than studying other people's philosophy.
So you should go and study other people's philosophy rather than doing your own philosophical work.
And you should study the people who didn't study other people's philosophy but did their own philosophical work is obviously so contradictory that to point it out is to show the naked absurdity of the position.
Anyway, keep your comments coming.
As always, I really do enjoy having them cherry-picked by the person at Free Domain Radio who faces the tsunami of prejudice and ignorance and occasional wit and insight that comes in from the internet.
So please keep your questions and comments coming.
Thank you so much for listening.
Please help support the show at freedomainradio.com slash donate.
▲
Export Selection