Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 31, 2017 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

03:09:53

3638 My Boyfriend Left Me For A Man - Call in Show - March 30th, 2017

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hey everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio.
	Please don't forget to drop by freedomainradio.com slash donate to help out the show most appreciated and most necessary.
	That's freedomainradio.com slash donate.
	Great show tonight.
	Old-timey debate on metaphysics and epistemology.
	Really wonderful.
	I was facing square off against two brothers who had done a significantly deep analysis of some of the arguments in my book against the gods, question mark, Which is available, of course, at freedomainradio.com slash free.
	Really great debate.
	I really enjoyed it.
	They made me sweat.
	And it was a good workout.
	I think you'll enjoy it.
	You might want to watch the video rather than just listen to it because it's very expressive.
	The second caller, well, she was with a guy for nine years and then he left her for another man.
	And she wanted to know how this might have come about.
	Were there any signs?
	And what might she be able to do to avoid such a situation again?
	And you'll see what happened.
	Third caller, he's in a band, but he's not part of my classified hatred of drummers subset.
	He's in a band, and he wants to know, you know, people into rock and roll, they're so rebellious, they're so anti-authoritarian, but they seem very cliched and lefty.
	Why is it that that is the case?
	And we had a good discussion about that.
	The fourth caller, he's called him before, he's a great guy, and he's written a philosophical science fiction novel that's receiving great and positive feedback, but he doesn't want to get behind and promote it, and success is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration, and you should spend a lot more time promoting your work than creating it in many ways, at least when you're starting out.
	Why would he leave his literary child abandoned in the crib, so to speak?
	Why would he write a book but not promote it?
	It's actually a pretty deep question, and we had some pretty deep answers.
	So, great callers.
	Appreciate your support.
	Don't forget to use our affiliate link at fdrurl.com slash Amazon, and follow me on Twitter at Stefan Molyneux.
	Alright, well up for us today we have Neil and Paul.
	They wrote in and said, Our names are Neil and Paul.
	We are brothers.
	Together we started delving into your work.
	When covering your arguments regarding atheism, we found issues with parts of your logic.
	We've built an argument which we hope clearly establishes a framework which highlights a distinction between, quote, that which we can relate to, end quote, and, quote, that which is unrelatable, end quote.
	In the light of this distinction, the contradictions of your arguments are manifest.
	Below you will find our argument, your arguments, our understanding of your argument, and a succinct articulation of the contradiction.
	We're very interested to start a dialogue in the hopes of contributing to the general progression of philosophy as a whole.
	So Neil and Paul, would you like to run through and read your syllogism, and then we can go from there?
	Yeah, that'd be great.
	We'll hit our first argument just for the relation versus the non-relation.
	And also, just not to be misconstrued as flattery, I just want to say we both appreciate your work, Stefan, and your commitment to philosophical rigor.
	Well, thanks, and I just wanted to praise you like I should, because you guys broke down arguments, you brought in syllogisms, it's a beautiful, beautiful...
	Like, the moment we got this, we're like, you guys are going to the front of the line, you guys are going to the top of the hour, and I just appreciate that.
	Naturally, I'm going to call you both Fritz, just for fun, but no, I appreciate that, so go ahead and break it down for us.
	Okay.
	So, basically...
	We're just trying to say that there's a limit to how we relate to reality.
	That human beings are limited by their faculties, and that when we apply this epistemological limit to metaphysics, that we draw this distinction.
	So, kind of first...
	So I'm not going to try and argue the point, which I don't want to do just yet.
	And let me know where I go astray.
	I just want to break it down.
	So there's this thing called reality.
	And what we are aware of or what we're able to process is a subsection.
	So reality is like this big circle.
	Our ability to process information is a subcircle within that big circle.
	Is that fair to say?
	That's fair.
	And we're trying to expand it through science and all that.
	And I'm not trying to argue.
	I just want to make sure we're starting in the same place and that the audience is following along.
	Okay.
	So we first think that it's most important to start epistemologically.
	Because if we don't understand...
	What it is we can't know or even what truth is or anything like that, how can we apply that to the metaphysics about reality?
	Well, and we can't talk about metaphysics directly because we have a human brain, right?
	I mean, God could probably talk about and demonstrate metaphysics directly, but we can't.
	We have to put everything through the filter of the senses, of consciousness, of thought, and of language.
	So everything that we talk about is necessarily a subset of that which is.
	Yep.
	Okay.
	Correct.
	Yep.
	So we built our argument, so we have as far as one.
	So truth is derived from necessity.
	This is essentially, we're just trying to say that, so we're trying to establish the, it's not an all-encompassing definition that But we just want to point out the minimal qualities of what truth would have to be, minimally.
	So if something is to be true, it has to be necessarily true.
	So logical rules and reason must be coherent.
	So truth is derived from necessity.
	Necessity is coherent.
	I'm sorry, I was a bit confused when I was looking over this today.
	Necessity, you don't mean...
	I need a stick to beat a saber-toothed tiger with, therefore the stick is true.
	It's not necessity like necessity is the mother of invention.
	It is that there are necessary prerequisites for the establishment of truth.
	I would assume we would at least go with reason and evidence.
	I would say that when we talk about evidence, evidence is how we relate to that evidence.
	But reason is not necessarily...
	So basically just logical rules.
	Okay, good.
	So truth is derived from logical rules.
	Logical rules, reason.
	I'd say that.
	Can I substitute?
	I would draw a distinction between evidence.
	Okay, that's fine.
	So truth is derived from necessity.
	Do you mind if I just retype that to be logical rules to make sure that I don't get bewitched, bothered, and bewildered?
	Okay, logical rules.
	All right.
	And then logical rules, in the next one, you say necessity is coherent.
	It means logical rules are coherent, right?
	Right.
	Necessity is not self-contradicting.
	So you can't have, you know, if A is A, it's always A. You know, I know it's real, shouldn't have to be said, but, you know, as far as building the argument, it's just that minimally truth would have to be coherent.
	Well, and you can't have truth unless you accept that A is A, because you can't have a proposition that is both true and false at the same time.
	So, truth is truth, and you can't just sort of mix in falsehood with it or vice versa.
	So, no, I have no problem with it.
	We can start with atoms and move up it if we want.
	Yep.
	So, the next point, our next line, you know, coherence is meaning.
	So, when we're starting to talk, so coherence is what allows meaning to even exist.
	And it's very tied into number four where we say meaning is knowledge.
	So knowledge is essentially the vessel by which you convey meaning.
	Okay, but see...
	As we speak a language...
	I'm sorry to interrupt, but meaning is one of these words for which there are many meanings.
	So I'm not sure what you mean by meaning.
	I know this sounds all like Bill Clinton.
	It depends what the definition of is is.
	But this seems like a very important supporting pillar for your argument, and I just want to make sure we're on the same page.
	So what is meaning for you?
	So meaning...
	Again, this is a...
	A minimalist quality for what meaning would have to be.
	So if meaning is to exist, meaning is essentially the...
	It's the information which...
	I guess we're using this language.
	So I say the word cat.
	That's the vessel for which I'm conveying some...
	Whatever meaning is, it's what is conveyed in that...
	That word.
	So if I think of a fuzzy little cat when I say cat, and you think of an elephant, there's not a coherence of that meaning, so we're not even speaking—it doesn't mean anything.
	Okay, so by meaning, you mean the capacity for language to accurately represent things in reality?
	That's fair.
	Well, no, don't let me move the definition by degrees.
	I mean, I'm not trying to, again, argue the point yet.
	I just want to make sure that I understand where we're coming from.
	So, is it fair to say that even if there were logical rules, if we did not have a language that was capable of identifying and communicating essence and patterns or whatever, consistency...
	Then we would not have any access to those logical rules in a social context, right?
	I mean, let's say that there's perfect gravity, but you're completely insane and think up is down and black is white.
	Well, the gravity exists, but your language being a word salad of incoherence would not be able to communicate it to anyone.
	So is it fair to say that logical rules are coherence?
	Coherence is meaning means that language is capable of reasonably accurately identifying aspects of reality.
	I would agree with that.
	Okay.
	And I'm just going to put little brackets in here.
	I want to make sure.
	And this is not any kind of catcher or gotcha.
	I just genuinely want to make sure I follow the argument.
	So, Kieran says meaning.
	Meaning is language accuracy.
	And we understand that the words are hard with this.
	I mean, that's why we're not claiming like we're the geniuses, you know, like, that's why it's good to talk about these things.
	Why not?
	Why not?
	Come on!
	Give me the honor of chatting with geniuses.
	Okay, so meaning is knowledge means that we can use language to accurately build impressions or reflections of that which is?
	Yep.
	So when we put all those things together, we're just basically saying that, hey, if something is true, true knowledge only exists if it's necessarily true, coherent, and it means something.
	That meaning has to be the same throughout.
	So we're just trying to tie all those things together so you can't have any self-contradictions, any things meaning a slightly different, less thing.
	Words mean things.
	And if they mean different things, then we're speaking different languages.
	Well, yeah.
	I mean, if two people disagree, either one or both are wrong.
	So here we've talked a lot about internal consistency.
	You know, if I have a mathematical theory that says one and one make three, we don't have to test that against reality.
	We don't have to get three coconuts, count them up, and find out if there's two or three.
	That's self-contradictory by definition.
	And we've touched on it when we come to the question of meaning, which is the attachment or association between language and things evident in the senses, like your example of the cat versus the elephant.
	So, so far, we've got a definition of truth that has only brushed past Empirical evidence, and I personally am not particularly comfortable with the definition of truth that merely references concepts, because the requirement for consistency comes out of the predictable behavior of matter and energy and its effects.
	So I just wanted to know where empirical evidence sits so far in truth.
	Go for it, Paul.
	What?
	So talking about matter and energy and stuff assumes the framework of Being within material world, right?
	So that would disregard the possibility of an existence of truth beyond that.
	Well, I know.
	I see.
	And because you're criticizing an atheist argument, my first assumption is that you're going to have a definition of truth that does not rest on or rely or intersect with empirical evidence.
	In other words, you're going to have an ontological approach, which is that if something exists in the mind, it therefore could exist in some form of reality.
	And that's one of the reasons why I want to figure out – before we go further, that's one of the reasons I want to figure out why, or rather where, empirical evidence fits in.
	In other words, you say, well – Truth has to be logical.
	But my question is, why does truth have to be logical?
	And my answer, which I'm just going to put in briefly and then turn it back to you, why does truth have to be logical?
	Why does it have to be consistent?
	Because truth is a statement about objective reality.
	Objective reality, empirical reality, is logical and consistent.
	We get three laws of logic because of the consistency of matter and energy.
	And therefore, since we say Truth has to be logical, and logic is derived from the behavior of matter and energy, the consistent and predictable behavior of matter and energy.
	We cannot abstract or remove truth from the need for empirical verification, because the very concept of truth and consistency comes from the predictable empirical information we get about reality through the senses.
	So, I would just like to say one thing.
	Don't disagree with any science, any empirical data, any of this.
	This goes back, you know, I've always, throughout all my school and all the philosophy that I've done, I've always had issue with Kant and Hume.
	They've had this metaphysical and epistemological kind of clashing.
	It's like, okay, well...
	We're subjective creatures.
	Everything's relative.
	How can we know anything if it's all relative?
	All this stuff is just the clashing tides of the metaphysics and epistemology.
	That's never actually been resolved.
	Sorry to interrupt, but just clarification for those who are following along.
	I appreciate everyone.
	This is very, very exciting but tricky stuff.
	Hume would not say everything is relative.
	He would say, though, that there's no ought from an is.
	You cannot get moral rules from the existence of physical laws.
	But he would not say those physical laws are arbitrary.
	Kant's whole process was an attempt to get to some sort of universal categorical imperative process.
	I don't think he succeeded, by the by, but otherwise I wouldn't have written my own book on ethics.
	But I agree with you, the everything is relative stuff.
	It's a real shame that Einstein named his theories general and specific regarding relativity.
	Because when I was a kid, it's like, oh, relativity has been proven by physics, therefore everything is relative.
	And it's like, no, no, no, that had nothing to do with consciousness, nothing to do with science, nothing to do with ethics.
	The thing that always stuck with me with that is when Kant talks about things in and of themselves, that is true.
	We are limited by our human faculties.
	The way in which we perceive and interact with reality is that you can't escape your own perspective.
	You cannot escape your own subjectivity.
	Well, hang on, hang on, hang on.
	Just because we can't see everything doesn't mean that what we do see is subjective, right?
	So if I... No, no, no.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Hang on, let me just get that.
	I want to get the point across again with sort of cognition of the audience.
	So one of the things that Kant was arguing was he said, knowing things in and of, things in themselves, we cannot do.
	And it's true.
	I mean, you hold up an orange and you see the outside of the orange.
	You don't even see the second layer of the orange.
	You don't see the inside of the orange.
	If you take the orange and peel it from the inside out, well, you'll see part of the inside, but you won't see all the bits in between the inside and the outside.
	And you won't be tasting it, so you won't experience the taste of the orange.
	And you can't Your mind cannot encompass the whole orange.
	We don't have x-ray vision.
	We can't put the orange upper nose and have it directly represented in our brain.
	I guess we could, but it would be a relatively brief experiment.
	So he would say, you know, the old thing, blind men all feeling different parts of an elephant.
	You know, one feels the tail and says, oh, I'm holding on to rope.
	And, you know, one feels the leg and says, oh, I'm feeling a piece of furniture.
	And, you know, but...
	So the fact that we can't mentally process every atom and every property of a particular object doesn't mean that everything's subjective.
	If I'm holding an orange, it's true.
	I can't put the whole orange in my brain and encompass and understand every conceivable element of that orange.
	However, it doesn't mean that whether it's an orange or the tail of an elephant is purely subjective.
	What we can see is subjective.
	That doesn't mean that we...
	Have to see everything in order for that objectivity to be sustained.
	Does that accord with what you guys are thinking?
	Granted, and that's not what we're trying to say.
	So, we're just saying this.
	Relative to being a human, there are certain things that can be necessarily true.
	So, there's an asthmatote.
	You know, everything up to that asthmatote.
	Yeah, we can know things about the orange.
	Sorry, do you mean an asymptote?
	Yeah, sorry.
	I'm just saying there's a limit.
	It doesn't matter where the limit is, how big or small.
	It's just saying there is a limit.
	That's all we're saying.
	A limit, sorry.
	Do you mean...
	I think you...
	Sorry, sorry.
	When you say there's a limit, I just want to make sure...
	Right, so the asymptote is the line that gets progressively closer but never touches, say, the y-axis.
	Sure.
	So when you talk about...
	This is great.
	I'm really, really glad we're doing these definitions.
	This is where everybody needs to start, and very few people do.
	So again, massive kudos to this.
	When you say we can get close but not get the truth, I need to understand what you mean by that.
	Because if you're going to reserve certain truths as unknowable, I'm not sure what the category of truth would be.
	Okay, so I guess maybe this would be a better way of putting it.
	If an objective reality exists, Okay?
	That's the whole, whatever it is.
	Whatever objective reality could be.
	We don't have access to it all, surely because there's just a limit.
	Well, do you mean the Kantian limit that we cannot directly perceive things in and of themselves, but we have to go through the medium of the senses and concepts and so on?
	Do you mean when I'm looking at an orange or do you mean the dark side of the moon in the 16th century or do you mean galaxies so far away that light hasn't reached us yet?
	I mean, I'm not sure what you mean when you say there's a limit.
	Do you mean the limit?
	That's just if you can help me understand what that means.
	So I think you hit on it earlier when we were talking about metaphysics.
	And you talked about how God might be able to look upon metaphysics as a toll.
	Well, sure, sure.
	I mean, God can...
	So that's the entirety of the argument.
	What can humans encompass, and what can they not?
	And we have no reason to say that there isn't anything beyond what we cannot relate to.
	Okay, but now, see, here we have, and this is a very interesting epistemological question or challenge, and for atheists, it's a different kettle of fish than it is for theists, which doesn't mean either one's right or wrong, but I just want to, again, sort of point that out for the audience.
	So, here's what I would say.
	We don't look at a human being and say, he's very short relative to a giraffe, right?
	We can say a human being is shorter than a giraffe, but we don't look at a human being and say, well, the standard for mammals is 20 feet tall, you're only 6 feet tall, so you're very, very short for a giraffe, right?
	Because we have different categories.
	A tall human being is, I don't know, what's the average, 5'9", or for adult males, 5'10", or something like that.
	So if someone's over that, we say they're tall, you know, they're very tall if they're 6'6", or very, very tall if they're 7', whatever, right?
	Now, if there was an adult giraffe who was seven feet tall, we'd say that's a very short, that's like a pygmy giraffe, like there's something stunted in that giraffe's growth.
	If we have a seven foot tall human being, we'd say that's a very, very tall human being.
	In other words, we don't have as our maximum something which an entity cannot attain.
	Like, we wouldn't say human beings can attain a height of 20 feet, and therefore everybody is ridiculously short.
	That wouldn't make any sense.
	We sort of have an average, and we don't have a standard that's over and above that which is average for the entity.
	And so for me, if—this is my problem with the Kantian argument—is if we say, well, true knowledge is God's knowledge, right?
	Right?
	Then if we say, well, human beings cannot achieve God's knowledge, and therefore human knowledge comes up short, that is begging the question.
	Because if we're trying to establish the existence of a deity, saying, well, human knowledge runs short because it doesn't reach a standard of knowledge that no mortal sense-based entity could possibly ever achieve, it's sort of like saying, well, human beings are short because they're not giraffes.
	Human knowledge is limited because it's not God's.
	Does that make sense?
	So, this is, I think, again, the distinction that we're trying to argue for, first and foremost, is just that the nature of human knowledge and how we relate to whatever reality may or may not be, that we have to put that clearly in the proper framework before you can even begin talking about anything else.
	And And I would argue that this framework has been wrong for...
	We've never gotten it right.
	Wait, wait, hang on.
	Right now, we just had a very, very big disconnect in our conversation, right?
	So you're going off on a speech rather than responding to the point that I made, which is fine, but let's at least acknowledge that, right?
	Like, I made a point that says we can't have an idea of perfect knowledge and say human knowledge falls short, which is sort of like saying human beings are short for giraffes.
	And we can have that debate, but I don't want to just pretend that I didn't make that case.
	We're not trying to say that we can obtain that knowledge.
	So then, in what context is human knowledge insufficient or short, like the asymptote that you were talking about?
	What standard that you're saying, if the standard cannot be reached by human beings, then saying that human beings are deficient for not reaching that standard?
	Since human beings don't grow to be 20 feet tall, saying that human beings are short because they're not 20 feet tall is not sensible.
	And if we have a standard of truth that human beings physically, biologically, conceptually cannot possibly attain, Then saying that human knowledge is short, that particular standard which human beings can't attain, is like saying people are short for not being 20 feet tall.
	Does that make sense?
	Not do you agree, but does it make sense, the argument?
	So here's what I understand of that.
	And I think it assumes that we made an assumption that there is something beyond, which all of our arguments are not true.
	Are not about establishing theism.
	It's just saying that there's problems with the arguments.
	So we're saying that there might be things beyond the maximum human.
	We're not saying that there isn't.
	I'm sorry.
	We're not saying that there are things beyond.
	I think you said that human knowledge falls short, not that human knowledge could fall short, which are two very different arguments.
	Then we misspoke earlier.
	No, that's fine.
	Or maybe I misheard.
	I'm not going to lay it on your feet.
	This is like a lot to go on at the same time, which is great.
	I just want to make sure.
	So you're saying that there could be a standard of truth or accuracy that human beings can't achieve but still may exist?
	Maybe this answers it.
	So you said that we can't call a human short because they're not 20 feet tall.
	Right.
	Or something like that.
	That 20 foot tall is...
	That's a...
	So we have a measurement comparing to a measurement.
	You couldn't measure objective reality if it did exist.
	So that's the disconnect between that.
	We're not saying that the human being is short...
	Wait, sorry.
	You couldn't measure objective reality if it didn't exist?
	So that's kind of what we're getting back to with the rest of the argument, is talking about that there's a difference...
	Between that which we can relate to and what we can't...
	So I don't know, maybe it would be helpful if we got a little further down in the...
	No, and I don't want to get totally stuck here.
	But I don't know, let's say that, I don't know, what's the maximum IQ, like 210 or 220 or something like that, right?
	Now, we can imagine some space alien with an IQ of 1,000 or 10,000 or whatever it is, right?
	Now...
	If a space alien had an average IQ of 10,000, then if it had an IQ of 200, it would be ridiculously underperforming or retarded or mentally handicapped in that particular society, although that's a pure genius for a human.
	I think we'll have to say male.
	So...
	Again, this is the question, do we say a human being is a dumb alien?
	A genius human being is a genius human being.
	This doesn't mean that everything's relative.
	It means that we can't have a scale vastly outside capacities and then say people are short for it.
	It's comparing 10 to infinity.
	It doesn't compute.
	We can abstract about that.
	But see, that's the difference.
	Yeah, so 10 is an infinitely low number relative to infinity, but then so is a billion or a trillion.
	My daughter, when she was young, had a dillion quill was her favorite number for a giant, giant number.
	So yeah, everything vanishes to nothingness in comparison to eternity or infinity.
	And of course, all human knowledge would vanish to nothingness in the face of omniscience, just as all human powers would vanish to nothingness in the face of omnipotence, and so on.
	So we were building a case for truth, and then where we parted ways, not necessarily in the argument, but at least in terms of my understanding, was then when you brought in the asymptote and said that there are areas of knowledge That human beings cannot approach.
	And then my question is, if human beings can't approach it, how could it even be called knowledge?
	Because if we can't possibly know it, it's an X. You know, is there some physical property we can't figure out?
	Is there some physical rule or is there some entity we'll never be able to see or detect?
	I mean, that's what I... How on earth can human knowledge be short?
	Because that's conjecturing something beyond human knowledge which we can never verify, which I think is kind of where you guys are heading for deities, right?
	So...
	I guess the key thing here is being able to relate.
	So you asked for an example of something that humans cannot relate to, and a prime example is the concept of infinity, right?
	We can abstract about infinity, we can try to attempt to understand infinity, but can we ever truly know what infinity is?
	And you already said no, right?
	Talking about omniscience and omnipotence, the human aspect of that goes to nil- Really fast.
	Sure.
	Infinity is a concept that really is more of a denial of human capacities.
	In other words, well, everything we think about is finite.
	Although, you could really argue in many ways that physical rules are infinite in that they go the length and breadth of the universe through all time and so on.
	But again, question of whether the universe is infinite or not.
	But I would say that infinity is a concept that's more of an anti-concept than anything else.
	I'm not saying it has no utility or value.
	I'm sure it's used in mathematics somewhere.
	But that would be my approach to that, that infinity Is a kind of tagline for that which human beings can't process.
	We can have a conceptual tag for it and we can work with it.
	Like a light year.
	You know, 186,000 miles a second for an entire year.
	I mean, I can't even grasp 186,000 miles.
	I can't even grasp 18 miles or 1.8 miles fundamentally, like at an atomic level or like I can't visualize every inch.
	You know, we can...
	There's an old study.
	I don't know if it's still valid.
	Maybe it's changed since.
	Maybe it's gone down, but...
	I remember talking about this with my friends in high school saying, you know, you really can't hold more than sort of seven or eight, maybe nine entities in your mind at a time.
	And you can try this.
	You can close your eyes.
	You can pause this, close your eyes.
	And then think of one, close your eyes, think of one point of light, build another point of light, build another point of light.
	You can get to sort of eight or nine, and then you can't see the first one again.
	So what we're able to hold in our minds relative to...
	The numbers, we don't even have to go to infinity.
	Nobody can fundamentally hold 300 things in their mind, or 30 things, once we get over two hands' worth, which, for evolutionary reasons, I assume, once we get over two hands' worth, it's really hard for us to directly hold these things in our mind.
	But we still have knowledge of them, just as we have knowledge of infinity, even though we cannot directly encapsulate it within our mind.
	We have knowledge I mean, in a sense, it's the opposite of finite rather than anything that we've directly experienced, but we still do have a way of knowing about it, even if we can't directly hold it in our mind.
	So when we get to line six, we say humans relate to that which is discrete.
	That's what we're getting into.
	That's exactly what you just said.
	Our human faculties say, like, we...
	We directly interact with and process things in a discrete manner.
	Meaning there's a start and it's all measurements.
	It's all start and end points.
	It's everything that we...
	So the term relate, we're using that as that which we can process and work with, get our hands on in our brains.
	We can wrap our brains around it.
	But everything that we relate to is discrete.
	Okay, now that's an interesting question, because I would argue that infinity or eternity or omnipotence or omniscience are discrete, in that infinity, let's just pick one so I don't have to keep going over the four, and I'm sure there's more, or infinitesimal, but infinity is discrete in that it is a concept that's clearly differentiated from finity or finite, right?
	So we have finite and we have infinite, which are two discrete concepts or entities.
	I don't think we can hold much affinity or finite stuff in our head either.
	As I talked about, you know, it's like 4.3 light years to the closest star.
	Nobody can even understand one billionth of that distance.
	But we can still understand 4.3 light years.
	We could plan.
	Like nobody can figure out really the distance between the Earth and the Moon, let alone the Earth and Jupiter.
	But we can get people to the Moon and we can get probes past Jupiter.
	So, you know, that's one of the fascinating things is that we do have these amazing concepts that allow us to extend our mental capacities far beyond what we can hold in our minds and still be astonishingly accurate.
	All right.
	I think we're actually in agreement with what we're talking about.
	We just, in our discussion, have progressed further down the...
	Yeah, let's keep going.
	We're on six.
	Just keep going.
	And I think we're in the general vicinity of each other, which I'm happy with for now, because this is very good, challenging stuff.
	So why don't you go on from six, and unless I get any kind of allergic reaction to what you're saying, we'll go through further.
	All right.
	So with seven, we're saying that human faculties can directly process and derive meaning from what that is discrete.
	Wait, wait, wait.
	Sorry.
	You said from what that is discrete.
	And this language is very precise.
	Can you just read that again?
	From that which is discrete.
	No, no, give me the whole sentence just for the audience, too, because this stuff is so easy to break up in my brain.
	So go ahead.
	Our human faculties can directly process and derive meaning from that which is discrete.
	Right.
	Infinite blobs of undefinability we can't really work with, right?
	Correct.
	Okay, got it.
	And language is discrete.
	So even if we had something like that, we'd still have to use discrete language to describe it, which would be like, you know, trying to throw a boomerang into a windstorm.
	Exactly.
	Okay.
	So we're saying, so therefore, putting it all together, is that humans have direct access to true knowledge about that which they can relate, utilizing their faculties.
	So relative to human faculties, we can know necessarily true things.
	Okay, what do you mean by faculties?
	Do you mean reason, evidence, evidence of the senses?
	What are we talking?
	Faculties as, you know...
	That you have a perspective.
	We interact with the world.
	We have five senses.
	There's time, space.
	We interact with the world in a particular way.
	That's all that's saying.
	That goes back to Kant says, our human faculties.
	If you can't escape that you have a perspective, then you have a faculty.
	Then you're relating to the world in a particular fashion.
	Do you mean the entire operations of sense, evidence, and consciousness?
	Everything.
	Okay, I just want to make sure, because faculty is obviously good, right?
	Do you mean a university department?
	No, I'm just kidding.
	Okay, so sense, evidence, plus operations of consciousness?
	Yeah.
	Okay, got it.
	Is that good with you, Paul?
	Yep.
	Thank God.
	Okay.
	So then we go, now we're trying to build that which is unrelatable.
	So nine, that which is not discrete, humans cannot relate.
	That's just the modus tollens of six.
	Yep.
	Yep.
	So ten, truth is not contingent upon relatability.
	So that's why it's important that we built our definition of true knowledge the way we did.
	And it needs to be a little bit above what human beings are capable of, right?
	I don't know about needs, but...
	Okay, sorry, I apologize.
	That was actually mildly negative towards you guys, which you have not deserved or earned, so I apologize for that.
	Because I'm trying to figure out if you're working backwards from your conclusion, which you haven't shown any evidence of yet.
	We're trying not to.
	We all have the temptation, and sometimes I succumb, so maybe I'm just projecting.
	So you say truth is not contingent upon relatability.
	Again, that's having the giraffe versus human beings, right?
	That there's an aspect of truth out there Which is larger or beyond human consciousness or our capacity for the brain to process or for language to relate?
	Is that fair to say?
	So, I guess the...
	Go for it, Paul.
	Well, I would just point you to, like, maybe mathematics a little bit.
	So, mathematics uses infinity a lot.
	Is that what?
	No, go ahead.
	Oh.
	So, like, if you're talking about sequences and things like this...
	Mathematicians can derive truth from utilizing the idea of infinite sequences and arbitrariness and all these other things that require the use of infinity, right?
	And we can build knowledge from that, but we can't relate to what that is.
	So we can have truths such as the concept of infinity to which we cannot directly relate.
	And I would put a light year in there and so on.
	I mean, that's a finite entity or finite distance.
	However, it is something that we cannot process in our minds.
	You know, as Pascal said, like, the awfulness of these infinite spaces terrifies me.
	And if you ever look at, I remember when I was a kid going to the Science Center, you know, some of these exhibits are still there, like, I don't know, 40 years later.
	Anyway, they had this movie, this video.
	Sorry, I'm not trying to mess you guys up.
	I just sort of want to make sure the audience is with us.
	There was this video, and it sort of started with a guy.
	I'm sure it's on YouTube now.
	It started with a guy lying on a beach or lying on some grass.
	And the first thing I think it did was it zoomed out.
	And it zoomed out past him, went up through the clouds, up through the continent, the planet, and it went all the way out to the furthest galaxy.
	And it freaked me out.
	I remember sitting there.
	I lived pretty close to the science center.
	This is Ontario Science Center.
	I lived at Don Mill's.
	And Lawrence, and this was at Eglinton and Lawrence, so I could actually, I could walk there, and often did.
	And I would sit in there, and I remember watching this movie over and over again, freaking out at how awfully big the universe was.
	Like, oh, how could I possibly matter?
	And then I'm like, okay, well, I'm just going to keep making noise until I matter.
	But going that far out, and then what it did was kind of almost equally freaky, was it came zooming back Into this guy lying on the grass.
	And then I think it went into his nose.
	And it went into his nose.
	It went into his skin cells.
	It went into the DNA, the atoms.
	It went all the way down to the tiny little vibrating thing that's vibrating right in the corner.
	Electrons or nucleus, protons, whatever.
	And that was another, like, so all the way out to the edge of the universe, and then all the way into the tiniest components of matter, and that was pretty freaky, and nobody can even conceive of that, although it is one of these things that, you know, every now and then you watch those and you wake up at four o'clock in the morning saying, ah, where am I? Because, so from that standpoint, this question of whether or not we can encompass things in our mind, just because it's finite, I still don't think we can encompass most of what we talk about in our minds.
	I completely messed up the conversation.
	I apologize.
	I'm not trying to do a strategy here.
	We're not saying that humans can relate to all things that are discrete.
	We're saying the things that humans can relate to is a subset of all things that are discrete.
	Does that remedy your issue?
	Yeah, so things could be discrete.
	And of course, there are things out there that are discrete that we have not discovered, right?
	Human knowledge is what doubling every eight months, and that's, you know, 80% of that is just my podcasts.
	Okay, so I think that's fair.
	However, the question epistemologically of whether we can have a category called discrete versus non-discrete, and whether those two are discrete, like Things that are finite versus things that are infinite, those are two discrete categories.
	Does that fit into the concept that we have a definition of that which is not discrete, which we can still work with logically?
	I may not have followed.
	Could you rephrase that, please?
	Yeah, sorry.
	It's challenging for me to even figure out what the hell I'm saying, but I think I've got it.
	So let's just say we have, you know, you're sitting in a couch.
	And I don't know about you, but, you know, when I'm sitting down doing some work, I put my feet up on a couch.
	I like to have a coffee nearby and maybe even a snack or two because I'm a fairly constant eating machine.
	And so there are things within my reach and things outside of my reach.
	So I've got a coffee, I've got a little snack, maybe some apples or something, and I have my computer, and maybe I can close the curtain a bit if it's too bright or whatever.
	So I have things within my reach.
	I can scratch myself.
	Well, up until my knees.
	So I have things within my reach, and I have things that are outside my reach.
	So if someone's home, I can say, oh, would you mind passing me such and such or whatever, right?
	Yeah, so the other day I'm working away on this book, The Art of the Argument, and I plug my computer into the wall, but it's one of these weird, annoying wall sockets where you have a separate plug.
	Sorry, you have a separate switch.
	You have to turn it on.
	Why they built these things, I have not quite figured it out.
	But anyway, they're there.
	And the number of times I plugged it in and forgot to turn on the plug is ridiculous, right?
	So my daughter was walking past and I said, honey, would you mind hitting that light switch or the power switch for this, right?
	Because it was out of my reach.
	So I've got these two concepts sitting on the couch here.
	One is things within my reach and things that are not within my reach, things outside the radius of my little Tyranno arms to get a hold off, right?
	Okay.
	Now, I can't touch the things that are outside of my reach.
	However, I do have a concept for them being outside of my reach.
	So I have things within my reach, like you have things that are discrete, and then we have things that are outside of what is discrete.
	But they're still part of a concept.
	They're a concept called non-discreet in the way that when I'm sitting on the couch...
	I have a concept for the things that I can reach out and have a sip of, like a cup of coffee, and then there are things like the switch for my computer plug, which are outside of my reach, but I still have, these are still two discrete categories, things within my reach and things outside of my reach.
	Does that make any sense?
	So basically, you're talking about that you can make a dichotomy of basically any idea, that which is the idea and that which is not the idea.
	Well, no, no.
	Sorry.
	I don't know what not an idea is, unless you're talking about some direct, like, feel this ball.
	Is that an idea?
	It's not.
	But if we have something that is not discreet, we can still relate to it as something which is not discreet.
	Like, I can relate to something that is beyond my reach by not reaching for it.
	Does that make sense?
	Like, the switch from my computer plug was, like, 20 feet away.
	My coffee was, like, a foot and a half away.
	The switch on the wall, which is, I can't reach for it.
	I can't get there, right?
	So I still have a conceptual relationship to the switch on the wall, unlike my coffee cup.
	And that's why I reached my coffee cup to take a sip, but then I asked my daughter to switch on the switch to keep my computer powered.
	And we would call that the abstraction, which is an 11, which is our next one.
	Yeah, I just pointed to 11 and 12.
	Yeah, so that's where we're going.
	No, but here you say humans can abstract about that which they cannot relate.
	Okay, so this is like me having an abstraction called outside of my reach.
	I can't reach for it, but I still have an abstraction about it.
	You could, yeah.
	Okay, got it.
	Like, that's what we're, abstraction is, so with tin, essentially, when we're saying that the truth, for something to be true, it's just basically, all that's saying is that if P, then Q, P, Q, that that's truth.
	So it doesn't matter about whether or not you can relate to that or not, or you extract about it or not.
	It's necessarily true based upon the framework that you've set up these rules, and the logical...
	Following those rules to their logical conclusions is, you know, as long as everything is coherent, everything is, you know, all that stuff, and then the truth can exist.
	That's all we're saying.
	Well, except, and just want to make sure, because it seems like there's another category that human beings can't get to with regards to truth, but still has some sort of truth value to it.
	So...
	This is the asymptote that we talked about, about half an hour ago?
	Yep.
	This is, uh, So, we're fine with having relatability.
	So, are we fine with the idea of the possibility of unrelatability?
	And just remind me what relatability, what the definition of relatability is.
	I may have had, you know, the nine things, the nine definitions of my mind in my last one.
	Sorry.
	So, that is like our being's fundamental interactions with what we're around and what we immediately process.
	Things within my reach, you mean?
	To put it in your example, yeah, that would be fine.
	Okay, so human beings can abstract about that which they cannot relate.
	Sure, so we have an abstraction called infinity or eternity, which we cannot directly experience, of course, because we're mortal, or at least our physical bodies can't.
	Ideologies, ideas, imagination, anything that can't be empirically interacted with, that's an abstraction.
	Oh, absolutely.
	Yeah.
	I mean, there's a made-up language in Lord of the Rings and several of them and made-up races and made-up all that kind of stuff.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Capitalism.
	It's an abstraction.
	You know, it doesn't exist outside in of itself.
	You know, it's just – but it's not any less real.
	Well, truth is an abstraction that does not exist in reality.
	Correct.
	Yeah.
	There we go.
	Thanks.
	Okay.
	Got it.
	So then, when we put all that, we say, so humans have indirect access to true knowledge about that which they cannot relate to, utilizing necessary truths about abstractions.
	So we can create abstractions, and if they follow all the minimal qualities of truth, then, yeah, you can know true things about abstractions.
	So, you know, mathematics, ideology, values, morals, all those things.
	And the first, of course, would be internal consistency, which goes back to the very first point, first and second point that you have.
	So we have to have internal consistency, logical constructs.
	And certainly to the degree to which your concepts are describing or making predictions about consistency, Empirical reality, there would be some testability pushback as well.
	So one of the standard arguments that economists put forward is that free trade is beneficial to the economy.
	In other words, people's wealth goes up and social resources go up and savings go up or investments go up.
	The total amount of wealth in society will increase if there's free trade because free trade comes with it, the deficient of labor and specializations and so on.
	So is that true?
	True, well, it's internally consistent in that everyone can achieve free trade.
	If you have controlled trade or the government running trade, then some people can choose over which they trade and some people can't.
	And other people can order each other about who they're allowed to sell to or not sell to, and they can't order those people back.
	Like bureaucrats can say to people, you can't sell to Cuba.
	But those people can't sell.
	Those people can't say to the bureaucrats, well, fine, but you can't sell to Siberia or whatever, right?
	So there is a consistency to the free trade argument, and it does make predictions about the effects of free trade upon—I'm just waiting for Vox to come in here— It does make predictions about the effects of free trade on a society, so there's an internal consistency to free trade, logical consistency, and because it's making predictions about the empirical economy over time, overall, right?
	Particular individuals or businesses may be harmed by free trade, but overall...
	The general idea is that the economy grows.
	And so we would have internal consistency, and since it's making predictions about that which is testable, that's a null hypothesis in the objective world, we would then look at societies that pursued free trade versus those which did not, and we would see how their economies did over the long run.
	This is just one particular example, but again, I'm not trying to be overly naggy, but to me, the empirical evidence stuff is fairly important.
	And I don't disagree.
	I don't think we disagree with what, like, empirical evidence is very useful and true, and that's fine.
	But, so, this whole argument is just basic.
	Essentially, we're trying to say, like, okay, if an objective reality exists, right, Based upon the limit of being a human being, there's some limit.
	So whatever the all-encompassing objective reality would be, human beings don't have access to some part.
	You can't even make a claim on that size.
	It's just saying that the limit exists.
	So therefore, necessarily, we don't have access to the entirety of the objective reality.
	We can only know things that are relative to our human condition.
	That's all we're trying to say.
	But here we're back to the asymptote, and here we're back to the short giraffe argument, which I knew we were going to come back to, because I know that what you guys are doing, it's very important to your argument, which doesn't mean that it's not true or anything like that.
	But...
	If there is aspects of truth that are valid or exist or have some utility beyond what human beings can ever discover, then we cannot say anything about them.
	Like, you can't say there are truths beyond what human beings can discover, because you're a human being, and you're saying that there's something that human beings can discover which has the property of truth, which is a human-derived and human-enforced property, a conceptually-enforced property...
	So you're saying that there are truths out there, and truth is a human-defined entity that human beings can't achieve.
	Well, then you can't use a human-derived entity or process called truth to describe something which human beings and human truths can never encompass.
	We're not talking about knowing about it.
	We're talking about relating about it.
	So we can know about the abstractions, which we can't relate to, And we can know about empirical...
	Okay, I understand.
	So I apologize for that.
	Can you give me an example of a truth that we can...
	that falls into the category you're talking about?
	Okay, so...
	we'll talk about time.
	Okay?
	So...
	time, as we relate to it, is a measurement.
	Right?
	So 60 seconds is a relative, discrete amount of time from...
	The present to, you know, 60 seconds out.
	So that's something that we relate.
	We relate to the discrete measurement of time.
	But the present, what is the present?
	Well, that's something we cannot relate to.
	You can't measure it.
	You can't prove it empirically.
	Like the demarcation problem.
	So the present, time now, is something which we cannot relate to.
	But that's all we are.
	All we are is consciousness in the moment.
	What do you mean we can't relate to it?
	It's the whole, that's all you are.
	If I was to say to you, as a human being, you can have everything except the present, you'd know that I was going to do something rather sinister to your continued life and existence in this world, right?
	Everything that we are, everything that we, this entire conversation is a whole series of the present, right?
	Exactly.
	But can you measure that?
	Can you prove it empirically?
	What do you mean prove it?
	Can you prove that the moment exists?
	Define existence.
	I'm not sure what you mean here.
	You and I are both relying on our continued processing and conversation in the moment in order to have this conversation.
	So if you have to assume that I'm listening in the moment and responding in a series of moments by which I string together my thoughts and syllables, you can't say, can you prove something which you require in order to have a debate?
	So we come to that We abstract about the present and we know necessarily true things about it even though we can't relate to it in the sense like you can't empirically measure the present.
	I'm not sure what you mean by empirically measure the present.
	The present is something that we all three and everyone who's listening to this is experiencing in a continual flow through time.
	What do you mean like you can't prove it?
	I mean the very existence of this conversation proves the present because we're both processing and conversing in the present.
	Do we?
	Okay.
	I mean, you can't deny that which you require to have a conversation, which is both of us existing and flowing through time in simultaneous presence.
	Like, I'm not answering something you asked five minutes ago or, heaven forbid, five minutes in the future, which would be pretty cool.
	But you're not calling from Australia, which, as far as I understand it, is in a different space-time continuum with spiders the size of dinner plates.
	But anyway...
	So I can't go with we can't define or understand the present.
	That's in fact the only thing I can understand because I can't directly experience myself from five seconds ago and I can't directly experience myself five seconds from now.
	My only direct experience is of me flowing through time.
	So I guess I'm not trying to say that it doesn't...
	I guess I shouldn't...
	I misspoke or whatever.
	I wasn't trying to say that it doesn't exist or it doesn't mean, but I'm just saying we don't relate to it in the same way in which we relate to things that are discrete.
	An hour of time, we relate to that differently than the present.
	There's some distinction there.
	Are you saying that an hour of time is different from the present?
	Well, sure.
	A bucket of water is different from a river.
	The river is flowing and the bucket of water is a contained, stagnant, discrete chunk of the river, right?
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	But I'm not sure that this, I mean, you were providing this as an example, so I don't think it's essential to the argument as it goes.
	But it's, to me at least, and this could be my limitation of understanding the argument, but it's not for me an argument, it's not for me an example that illuminates.
	It has actually obscured more than it has illuminated, which again could be my limitation.
	Oh, I apologize.
	No, that's fine.
	That's fine.
	I mean, we all take a swing and a mess, whether it's the fault of the picture or the bad or us.
	Is there another example of indirect access to true knowledge about which we cannot relate, utilizing necessary truth about abstractions?
	We can talk about the entirety of mathematics, essentially.
	Everything that relies on any sort of concept of infinity.
	So if you take calculus at all, right?
	Calculus is all about limits.
	Limits require the concept of infinity.
	Limits require the concept of infinity.
	I don't believe that's true because we had limits long before we had a concept of infinity.
	So I'm talking about mathematical limits.
	So you look at a, say, talking about continuity of a function, right?
	How do you say a function is continuous at a point?
	You say every limit or every sequence that converges to this point, right?
	A sequence is a...
	A series of points, infinitely long, right?
	And we have definitions for convergence.
	So a function is continuous if for every sequence converging on this point, the sequence of the functional values converge to the functional value.
	I'm afraid we're going to, and I hate to pull, I'm very artistic, gentlemen, but I'm afraid we're going to have to move for something that's not hardcore calculus and mathematics.
	I did functions and relations and barely, barely got out of that alive.
	So if we could try something else, I'd appreciate it.
	Sorry, that's my limitation completely.
	I'll try it as simple.
	Hello?
	Hello?
	Yeah.
	All right.
	Just want to make sure we're not cut off.
	Take your time.
	OK. How about something a little slightly different?
	So here we're going to just talk about sets.
	So you'll agree that the natural numbers has infinitely many sets, infinitely many objects?
	You mean the sort of 1, 2, 3, minus 1, 2, 3 set?
	Right, so the natural numbers are just the positive ones.
	Yeah, okay, natural numbers, yes, they go in forever.
	Then the integers are the ones that you were then citing.
	You would then say, okay, let's think about how many objects do these guys have, right?
	So both of them have infinitely many, right?
	But do they kind of have the same number of elements?
	You mean they're all sort of one unit of numeracy away from each other?
	Uh...
	I don't know what you mean by numeracy, one unit...
	Well, you're saying they have similar properties or they have similar...
	Do you mean...
	So tell me what you mean by...
	So I'm meaning how many elements do they have in their set?
	So both of them have infinitely many, but are they comparable?
	So the mappings back and forth, you can say, oh, they actually have the same number of elements, right?
	Because you can have maps from natural numbers into the integers...
	And back.
	I don't know what maps means in this context.
	So you take an element from one, and you send it to an element in the other.
	And it's one-to-one, meaning each input has one output.
	And it's onto, meaning each in the range gets mapped to.
	So basically there's a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of the sets.
	You mean the positive versus the negative values?
	I'm meaning the natural numbers versus the integers.
	So you could be like, oh, they clearly can't have the same number because one's a subset of the other, right?
	But they're both infinite, right?
	So they have the same cardinality.
	Okay, so let me, sorry, let me just, I need to back up for a second.
	So the natural numbers are the ones progressing forward from zero to infinity?
	Yep.
	And the integers also include the negative numbers?
	And zero.
	And zero.
	Thanks, Arabs.
	Okay, so we have infinity going forward, and then we have infinity going forward and backward.
	Is that right?
	Right.
	But they have the same size.
	And then we say, okay, let's introduce the real numbers.
	The real numbers are a continuum.
	Oh, these are the 1.1 or 1.11 or whatever it is, right?
	Right.
	Okay.
	Rational numbers and irrational numbers.
	So, do these guys have the same size?
	Well, they're all infinity, right?
	I mean, you can subdivide any two integers to an infinite number of times, right?
	They all are infinite in size, but they have different sizes.
	So there's no way to map the real numbers into the rational numbers.
	I'm sorry, not the rational numbers, the natural numbers.
	So both of them are infinite, but the real numbers...
	Have a size cardinality that's bigger than the natural numbers.
	But bigger and smaller, as we talked about earlier in the face of infinity, are meaningless concepts, right?
	So...
	It's like if I say I have infinite money and you say, well, I have a dollar, well, you still have infinitely less.
	If you say you have $10 billion, you still have infinitely less, right?
	So when you're facing it, as you know, when facing infinity, any limited or any bound subset vanishes and is conceptually equivalent to infinitely small.
	All the sets that we're talking about are infinite in size.
	So basically what we're talking about is different sized infinities.
	Well, no, hang on, hang on.
	I mean, no...
	If you're talking about numbers marching forward from zero, and then you're talking about numbers that both march forward and backward in zero, then we have one infinity that's bound on one end, and we have another infinity that's not bound on that one end, right?
	Right, so we're not talking about minimums or maximums.
	We're just talking about number of elements in the set.
	Sure.
	No, I get that.
	I get that.
	But what I'm saying is that there is one limit on the one set, right?
	Which is that the ones that march forward from zero are bound by not being able to go to zero or below zero, right?
	Whereas the other ones go forward and backwards from zero.
	So there is a bound on one, quote, infinite set, but there's not a boundary on the other infinite set, which can go forward and backwards from zero.
	So I fail to see how putting a qualifier on one of the sets distinguishes the idea of...
	Number of elements.
	So yes, are the two sets different?
	Does that argue anything?
	I don't see how it relates to what we're talking about.
	But you were the one who talked about that there's a boundary on one set but not on another, right?
	Which is the positive numbers versus the positive and negative numbers?
	So if I said boundary, I did not mean to say that.
	We're just talking about the number of elements in the sets.
	All of them have infinitely many sets, infinitely many elements.
	But they don't have the same cardinality.
	Right.
	So if I'm standing somewhere in the universe, and let's take a silly example, just, again, so people can follow and correct me if I've misunderstood what you're saying.
	If I'm standing somewhere in the universe, and let's say the universe is infinite, and I say, I'm going to head north, and I'm going to go north for infinity.
	And then you say, well, I'm going to head north, and my brother's going to head south for infinity.
	Then we have you and I going north for infinity and your brother going south for infinity.
	Well, it's all infinity, right?
	Right.
	Right.
	So we all have infinity, even though you and I are starting at a point and going forward for infinity and your brother's going the other way for infinity.
	So he's, in a sense, going in a different direction.
	But since we're all going in infinity, our directions become somewhat meaningless because it's compared to infinity.
	It's like the sort of division by zero error.
	So...
	So let me put your example in a slightly different fashion.
	So imagine that you don't get to walk infinitely, whatever direction you want.
	You have to hop.
	Right?
	But Neil and I have to slide our feet.
	You shuffle, right?
	Right.
	So we have to shuffle.
	What I'm saying is your infinity and my infinity that Neil and I encompass are different.
	Because one's hopping and one's shuffling?
	Continuum versus discrete.
	Yeah.
	The real numbers are a continuum, and they have a different cardinality than the natural numbers, because the natural numbers are discrete.
	But again, any subdivisions in the face of eternity become infinitesimally unimportant, don't they?
	It's just drawing the distinction.
	So we're just drawing a distinction about something that is totally unrelatable, but you can have truth about it.
	Which is what you wanted an example of, right?
	And I'm sorry, just because we've gone into a bunch of theoreticals.
	If you can plug the example back into point 12, then that would help me, I'm sure, put the plug in the socket, so to speak.
	Okay, so what are we utilizing here?
	We're utilizing the idea of infinity and how many elements are in a set, right?
	And what can we then access true knowledge about?
	We can access true knowledge that the cardinality of the natural numbers and the reals are different.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	All right.
	So let's keep moving.
	If you'd like more references on that, I could send you books or something if you'd like.
	I think I understand it.
	I'm still, I mean, I sort of reserve the right to sort of come back and say that when we're talking about infinity, divisions don't particularly matter.
	But nonetheless, let's keep going on.
	So for us to explain, okay, so how about this then?
	We'll just asterisk and we'll say there's a distinction between that which is relatable and unrelatable.
	All right.
	It is contested.
	Uh, but, but from here on, we'll just, we'll move on.
	Contested is a nice way of putting that I just may be confused, but anyway, go on.
	Well, I'm just saying, so we haven't like, you know, quote unquote, won the, you haven't granted us our argument entirely.
	Right.
	But we'll proceed with the assumption that there's a distinction.
	Yeah, assuming this is true, we'll, we'll go on.
	All right.
	Yeah.
	Assuming there's a distinction between that's which we can relate and that's which is unrelatable, we'll, we'll move on.
	So, uh, we go to, uh, Your first self-contradiction in your book, and you say, first of all, we know from biology that if an eternal being could exist, it would be the simplest being conceivable.
	So, our understanding of that is just saying, so, okay, given our knowledge of biology and evolution, an eternal being would fail to be classified as a god because of forced simplicity.
	The forced simplicity is due to the inability to develop the complexity through reproduction slash evolution.
	Yeah, a human being doesn't evolve into a paramecium.
	Yep.
	Okay, so if that's our understanding, so when we apply this distinction to that assertion, so biology and evolution, they're built upon empirical data.
	It's something that we relate to, And these concepts can't be expanded to the realm of the unrelatable, immaterial, material.
	So as finite beings, we're incapable of relating with the eternal being.
	So we can't restrict the unrelatable to a related norm.
	Well, then, in which case, you're saying that this kind of knowledge or definition is utterly beyond the scope of human knowledge or human language, right?
	Are you talking about saying that an immaterial, eternal being cannot be restricted to the ideas of biology and evolution?
	No, what I'm saying is that if you have a category of truth that is unreachable by the human mind...
	then we can't say anything about it.
	We can't say whether it's true or false.
	We can't ascribe it any characteristics.
	Because the moment you start ascribing characteristics to knowledge or facts or truth, which is beyond the human mind, you're contradicting yourself.
	Because you've just said it's beyond the human mind.
	It's sort of like me saying, well, I can't reach anything that's 20 feet away from me, so I'm just going to reach over and flip the light switch that's 20 feet away from me.
	Only one of those things can be true.
	If you have a category of knowledge that is beyond our ability to discuss, differentiate, define, or anything like that, then you can't say anything about it.
	Because it's really just a negation of knowledge.
	It's saying we can't say anything about it, and therefore you can't describe eternality or beingness or consciousness or anything like that.
	You're saying it's beyond human knowledge.
	And it's like me saying, listen to this wonderful song that I have put together, which is far beyond the range of human hearing.
	I mean, you can't listen to it if it's far beyond the range of human hearing.
	And if I say to you, what kind of song was it?
	You'd say, well, I don't know, because I couldn't hear it.
	It's something that only dogs and Madonna sound engineer can hear.
	If you're going to have a category called beyond human knowledge, then nothing can be said about it in any way, shape, or form.
	So we're saying biology and evolution as the mechanism, like empirical data as the mechanism, can't speak to that.
	You could make abstractions to say things about it, but essentially there's a limit between the Using empirical data to talk about immaterial.
	But I'm not talking about something that's immaterial.
	I'm talking about an eternal being.
	Right?
	So I'm not saying this is beyond the scope of human knowledge to describe, because I just described it as being, as consciousness, and with the characteristic of immortality or being eternal.
	Now, if you're going to say, well, you can't use human concept, human language, human knowledge to describe that which it is impossible for human language and human knowledge to describe, well, that's a tautology, right?
	Of course.
	I mean, it is impossible to accurately describe something which it is impossible to accurately describe.
	But the moment you're going to bring any characteristics into that which you claim cannot be described, it falls under the umbrella of potential human knowledge and classifications.
	So if a divine, eternal being did exist, there's nothing that says it necessarily must fall within...
	All the rules of biology.
	All the rules of biology.
	That's all we're getting at.
	So you're making a claim about what it has to follow, which we don't actually know that it has to follow that.
	So you're making a claim about that which you don't actually know, which is one of your self-contradictions later in your book.
	Is that...
	Does that make a little more sense or no?
	So you're taking a being and you're stripping that which creates beings or allows for beings to exist out of the equation biology and evolution.
	So you're claiming that there's an entity or a being which is defined by mechanics of biology and evolution and you're saying, no, no, no, no, it's the opposite of biology and evolution.
	But that, to me, is making a claim about some eternal being that is also invalid, right?
	I mean, you're saying, well, no, no, we have an eternal being, and beingness is the result of biology and evolution everywhere that we have seen life.
	It is the result of biology and evolution.
	And you're saying, no, no, no, there's beingness, which is the complete opposite of biology and evolution, or could potentially be, right?
	So aren't you making knowledge claims as well?
	Again, right now we're not arguing for theism.
	We're just addressing your comments, right?
	We never assert that there is a being that is not bound by biology and evolution.
	You're saying that if an eternal being exists or could exist, it would be bound by biology and evolution, which is an assertion that you can't make.
	Why not?
	Because there's no reason that an eternal being would have to be biological Be biological and evolutionary.
	Well, are you saying that it would have existed prior to and post-universe?
	We're not saying anything about its existence or non-existence.
	We're just saying that the biological implications of biology are it's a restriction on things that we relate to.
	And we can't relate to an eternal being, so you can't put a—you can't bound the boundless.
	So it could be that it has to follow biology, and then your argument would stand.
	But we don't know that it has to follow biology.
	It's not necessarily true.
	No, but you're making a knowledge claim about—like, the moment you say eternal being, you are creating an entity or you're positing an entity which has two characteristics.
	One, eternality, and two, beingness, right?
	Right.
	We're making an abstraction about a divine being.
	Right.
	So you're ascribing characteristics to that which you claim is unknowable.
	So the moment you start ascribing characteristics, like if I say X, that clearly is unknowable, right?
	Like in mathematics, right?
	X is at least the unknown at the beginning of an equation, or N, or whatever it is.
	Let's just say the word X means unknown, right?
	So if I say, what is X, and I give you no context, you would say, I don't know, right?
	Now, if I say, x is green, then I've ascribed x a characteristic, right?
	Yep.
	And so, it is no longer x.
	It is no longer undefined.
	I've made a knowledge claim about x, which is that it is green.
	Now, given that I've said x is green, I've also told you a whole bunch of what x is not, right?
	It's not yellow.
	It's not purple.
	It's not blue.
	It's the infinity of everything that's not green.
	And I understand there's wavelengths, but just for simplicity's sake, right?
	Okay.
	So if you were to say to me, there's such a thing as X completely outside of human knowledge, right?
	Then, of course, I would say, well, biology and evolution would not necessarily apply to X because X is completely undefined.
	Does that make sense?
	Hang on, hang on, hang on.
	Does this part make sense?
	If I have a concept called X, which I have ascribed absolutely zero properties to, then it would be completely invalid to say that evolution and biology should apply or not apply because X is a complete unknown, right?
	Yep.
	But the moment I say that X is a being, then I'm making a knowledge claim about X, right?
	That it is a being.
	Right.
	So I've already removed it from the category called unknown.
	So when you say eternal being, you are making a knowledge claim about something that you claim to be outside of human knowledge.
	In other words, it's eternal, I know that for sure, although how you'd know that, I don't know.
	And it's a being, which I know that for sure, although how you'd know that, I don't know.
	So when you say, well, Steph, you can't make knowledge claims about something That is outside of human knowledge.
	But the moment you say it's an eternal being, it's you guys who are making the knowledge claim that it's eternal and a being.
	And therefore now you're dragging it outside of X and into the realm of human knowledge because you're making specific claims about the entity.
	It's no longer X. It's an eternal green X, so to speak.
	Can you explain why your argument that you just presented to us does not apply to your argument in the book?
	I'm sorry?
	I don't quite understand.
	So you just made the argument about making knowledge claims, and that's exactly what we're arguing that you did.
	So can you explain to us why you did not make a knowledge claim in your argument?
	Why I did not make a knowledge claim in my argument?
	Right.
	Well, I'm not arguing for an eternal being, but those who do argue for an eternal being are making knowledge claims about something called X, which is that they're calling it—I'm not ascribing you guys to this argument.
	I'm saying that those who argue for an eternal being are making specific knowledge claims about an entity, and therefore they can't complain when I make specific knowledge rebuttals to it.
	So I guess I would say that maybe this is a good way of clearing out.
	So if we have— So you're saying, okay, you have this circle, right?
	And you're saying, this is the knowledge.
	And then as soon as you draw another circle around it, okay, you have two distinct circles.
	Two distinct categories.
	Wait, hang on.
	Is it around it or separate from it?
	Because if we're talking about something outside of human knowledge, it can't be around.
	It has to be outside.
	Okay, I guess what I'm trying to get at is...
	Well, you're trying to say as soon as we make a knowledge claim about it, we create a separate category.
	A distinct category.
	You can have a category called beyond human knowledge, but you can't say anything about it.
	Because the moment you say anything about it, you're making claims about it, which brings it back into human knowledge.
	So, I guess, what is the justification in if somebody else uses knowledge that they can't actually use?
	Why does that enable you to use that in your argument?
	I don't understand.
	It's like saying if somebody attacks me, what gives me the right to use violence?
	Or if somebody breaks it, if somebody doesn't ship me the iPad, why do I have to ship them $500?
	If somebody introduces specific knowledge claims about something that they claim to be outside human knowledge, they can't claim both.
	You can't claim something is utterly indescribable to human language and way outside human knowledge and then give it specific characteristics.
	That you claim to know about.
	Not you guys, but one, right?
	One can't do that.
	So if you just like limit to the discussion between us and you right now, right?
	And you present the argument in your book.
	We have never made any claims about the...
	Yes, but I'm not saying you did.
	I didn't write this book with you guys in mind.
	I didn't even know you.
	I know.
	So that would mean the way that you present it in your book is invalid because you said, I can do this when somebody presents it first.
	But if somebody doesn't present it first, then you can't make this statement.
	Of course not.
	Because then it would happen.
	The book is called what?
	Against the Gods.
	It's not against the X. Right.
	So, when people forward examples of an eternal being, And say it's outside of human knowledge, it's outside of human experience, which is sort of one of my arguments in the book, then you are positing an X with no characteristics whatsoever.
	In which case, I don't care.
	If you say there's an X out there which we'll never know about, which is completely incomprehensible, which will never have any effect on human life, which has no reality, it's to me that you're saying X is synonymous with non-existence.
	So I don't care.
	You can redefine non-existence as X. I don't care.
	It doesn't matter.
	It's never going to affect me.
	But the moment that people make a claim about...
	I.e., it's a god, it's eternal, it's omniscient, it's omnipotent, or whatever it is.
	Then they can't take refuge in X and say it's outside of human knowledge, because they're making specific knowledge claims about X. Once they make specific knowledge claims about X, they've opened up the gates for people to rebut those specific knowledge claims.
	So you can't, not you, but one can't make specific knowledge claims and then say, well, nobody else can make specific knowledge claim rebuttals.
	Yeah, so this also goes against...
	Applying that distinction between that which you can relate to, which you cannot relate to, it affects the theist the same.
	It literally is just saying, we're positing that relative to the assumed existence or potentiality or whatever of a divine being, or anything, God, or whatever you want to call it, it would be outside of that little circle of which we can relate to.
	In which case one cannot ascribe a characteristic called divinity or intelligence or omniscience or omnipotence or God or anything like that.
	It's a pure X. Equally valid or equally invalid.
	Well, it's synonymous with non-existence.
	Okay.
	And if I say to you, I have something that does not exist and it's green, what would you say to me?
	How can something that doesn't exist have a characteristic called green?
	Right, so if people say there's entities outside of human experience, outside of human knowledge, outside not just of existing, but our capacity to have knowledge of these, and then they say that those things are green, they're contradicting themselves, because they're saying something is outside of human knowledge, or our capacity for knowledge, outside of our capacity to process truth, but I know one of its characteristics.
	It's like, no, no, no, you can't have it both ways, right?
	Correct.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Let's do one more, and then I've got a lot of callers tonight, and we've had a good chunk.
	Listen, by the way, love the conversation.
	I really appreciate you guys bringing this stuff up.
	You're making me work, and I think we've had a great debate, and I leave it to the audience to sort of give us feedback on who's where in it, because I'm in the thick of things.
	I don't see the big picture.
	So let's do another one, and you're certainly welcome to call back.
	It's a completely joyful conversation for me.
	Okay.
	Which one do you...
	Is there one that you would like to cover?
	I'll let you guys choose.
	I'd be okay with three.
	Oh, the Omnipotence and Omniscience?
	Or even...
	Five is okay, too.
	But I think five is closely tied to what we were just talking about.
	Yeah, I think five is a repetition of what we've done.
	Let's go with three.
	Because, again...
	Okay.
	So, the third.
	So, you say, thirdly, omniscience cannot coexist with omnipotence.
	So...
	Since if a god knows what will happen tomorrow, said god will be unable to change it without invalidating its knowledge.
	So, our understanding of your argument is that if the events of tomorrow are known, then they cannot be changed.
	Hence, the omniscient being is not omnipotent.
	Right.
	So, and just to break that down again, I know you guys get it, but for the audience, that if...
	If a God knows that someone is going to die tomorrow 100%, 100% is absolutely certain because they have omniscience.
	So they know that someone is going to be hit by a truck tomorrow, then that person, the God cannot change that that person is going to be hit by a truck tomorrow.
	Because if the guard is able to change that the person is going to be hit by a truck tomorrow, then the guard cannot know for certain whether or not the truck is going to hit the person.
	If the guard can't change it, then he gains perfect knowledge, but he loses the capacity to change the future.
	yep Yep.
	So I guess what we say, so if you apply, if you grant that there is a distinction between You know, that which we can relate to and that which we cannot relate to.
	So, when we use the words omni, we're already dealing with limitless.
	We're dealing with, you know, we cross over into that realm which we can't relate to it.
	We can only abstract about it.
	So, we're, again, we're applying, we're saying, we're applying a restriction to the limitless thing.
	So, this Can God build a rock so big that he can't pick up or whatever?
	So, like, the rock is a discrete thing.
	It's, you know, it's a bound.
	But when we're talking about the unrelatability of, you know, infinity, the unrelatability of, you know, forever and ever, just whatever, like, omniscience, omnipotence, like, that's in a...
	Those words are unrelatable to us.
	So we can't just throw on some restriction.
	So you're saying that the whole concept is beyond our capacity to understand, process, comprehend, or communicate about.
	Is that right?
	I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.
	I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying.
	It's an X. It is an X. Okay, right.
	Now, there are three characteristics which are ascribed to this X in your quote from page 16 of my book.
	Number one is...
	God.
	Number two is omniscience.
	Number three is omnipotence.
	These are very specific characteristics.
	It's like saying a green X, right?
	Although here I'm saying the X is green and heavy and shaped like a cube.
	It's like, well, now it's no longer X at all.
	Now you're talking about something specific.
	So if people do propose that there's a God who is both omnipotent and omniscient, Then they are bringing that entity into the realm of description.
	They're bringing that entity into the realm of it now has characteristics and powers and abilities which are subject to rational examination because they've been brought into the realm of truth.
	It's true that it's a god, it's true that it's omniscient, and it's true that it's omnipotent.
	So they can't say, when I rebut the illogic of that, they can't say, well, now it's beyond comprehension, because they've made clear statements about the properties and characteristics of this entity, that it's God, omnipotent, and omniscient, and therefore they have made positive knowledge claims about this entity, and therefore they can't say that the nature of the entity is beyond human comprehension, because they've made clear statements about that entity, which can be comprehended by human beings, God, omniscience, and omnipotence.
	Again, just one final run for it, mostly for the audience.
	If I say, well, it's green, it's heavy, X. X is green, heavy, and shaped like a cube.
	Right?
	Then if you rebut something about it, or if you describe...
	I can't say, well, no, X is completely incomprehensible.
	X cannot be described or understood in human terms.
	It's like, well, no, no, no.
	You just said it was green.
	You just said it was shaped like a cube.
	And you just said it was heavy.
	Or if I say X is a square circle, well, I've made claims about X that it's a square circle.
	And if those happen to be self-contradictory, I can then say, well, no, X can't be described by human language or can't be understood in human terms because I just said it was a square circle.
	Right?
	So if there's an X that's out there, the moment that you say something about the X, you bring it into the realm of human knowledge and it is then subject to the laws of identity, the laws of non-contradiction, the laws of empirical evidence and so on.
	If you want to keep the X out there, you can't use the word God, you can't use the word, like you can't ascribe it any characteristics whatsoever because it's beyond human knowledge.
	The moment you bring it into human terms of knowledge, it's subject to rational analysis.
	So one of the things I'm not fully sure how to think about, but in all of the examples that we're giving, and it makes sense in the examples and stuff, but the characteristics in the examples are never unrelatable.
	And I don't know if there's a distinction there between unrelatable characteristics and relatable characteristics.
	Well, if there are characteristics that are provided that we can have some comprehension of, then they're relatable, at least in terms of concepts, right?
	So omnipotence, all-powerful, we have some understanding of that.
	I mean, basically, it's...
	Power with the restriction of limit removed, like infinity is finity with the restriction of finity removed or something.
	Or eternal or living forever is mortality with the restriction of mortality removed and so on.
	So omnipotence is a comprehensible category of human thought.
	And you can be omnipotent, but you just can't then be omniscient at the same time.
	Because omnipotent means you can do anything you want And omniscient means that you know everything, past, present, and future.
	Now, of course, we're all helpless to change things that we've done in the past.
	So we could be relatively omniscient relative to the past, but that omniscience comes at the expense of any kind of potency, right?
	So I know what I did yesterday.
	100% relatively.
	I mean, some of it's recorded.
	You know, at least I know I did certain portions while I was doing a show.
	So I have 100% knowledge about the past, but that comes at the cost of 0% potency to change it.
	Now, I have some idea what will happen tomorrow, and there are some things I can predict and some things that I can't predict.
	So I have more potency with regards to changing tomorrow, but that comes at the expense of my knowledge.
	It's kind of like, think of these two sliders, like you slide one up and the other one goes down.
	You slide one down, the other one goes up.
	That's omnipotence and omniscience.
	So they are categories that we can comprehend.
	So I think what's going on here is...
	So we draw and make that hard distinction between relatable, abstraction, and unrelatable.
	So when we say the omniscient, all those eternal, limitless type of things, the examples that you're using, you say, as soon as you bring an abstraction into the realm of relatability, that the That the unrelated thing comes with it.
	So knowledge, so we can know things that are relatable, and we can know things about abstractions of unrelatable things.
	So that's the distinction we're saying.
	So by bringing up, as soon as we talk about it, you say we're ascribing a characteristic of No, no, no.
	I'm not blaming you guys.
	You guys are quoting from my book.
	And you're then pretending that I'm saying you're saying this stuff.
	No, the book is called Against the Gods, not against two brothers who are great to chat with on Skype, right?
	And so I'm not blaming you guys.
	I'm just saying that if you were going to ascribe a characteristics called a deity who's omnipotent and omniscient, this is self-contradictory.
	Like if I said there's an X that's green and the opposite of green at the same time.
	Well, then you can say, well, those things are not possible.
	I can't then say, well, no, it's X. You can't say anything about it.
	It's like, no, I just did say something about it.
	There's green and blue at the same time.
	Okay, go for it, Paul.
	This is kind of stepping away from the framework, but talking directly about omnipotence and omniscience.
	So imagine that you have a writer who is writing a book that he never plans to publish.
	Actually, we have one of those coming up in the show later, but I'll ask him, but go.
	So, he writes a scene, right?
	So, he knows what's going to happen in that scene, right?
	He writes a scene so he knows what's going to happen in that scene?
	Right.
	So, he wrote the scene so he knows exactly what's happening.
	No, no, but there's nothing that's happening because there's no scene.
	So, nothing has happened, but...
	Nothing has happened, but he knows what is going to happen.
	I'm a fiction writer too, although some people think a little bit more fiction than I think, but nothing's happening.
	Like if I say, Bob walks into a bar, Bob walks into a bar, nothing's happening.
	I've just written some words on a page, nothing's happened in reality, right?
	Right, so he knows what would happen in the story, right?
	Sure.
	No, no, he doesn't know what would happen in the story.
	He's creating what happens in the story.
	He's not a narrator.
	He's not a documentarian of his own imagination.
	Okay, so he's creating what's happening in the story.
	Yes, he's creating what happens in the story.
	He then has the ability to change what is going to be happening in the story by erasing what he wrote and writing something new.
	Right.
	Right, so he has the power to change whatever is happening, and he has the power to change whatever is going to be created.
	Yes.
	He has omnipotence with regards to the language on the page.
	Exactly.
	So, he would be omniscient and omnipotent.
	Wait, wait, wait.
	No, no, no.
	Not at all.
	Not at all.
	I'm sorry.
	Mostly, I'm like, no, this one is not the case.
	Because if you're in the process of writing a story, you are not omniscient about how that story is going to be in its final form.
	Because if you were, you'd just write that.
	It's a process of writing, because I'm going through this at the moment, right?
	It's a process of writing.
	Sometimes you erase what you've written, sometimes you move stuff around, you get an editor, and you get feedback from other people, and it's in a state of flux.
	So I'm working on a book called The Art of the Argument at the moment.
	I don't know how it's going to look.
	I'm not omniscient with regards to the final 40,000 plus words that it's going to be.
	So because I have the capacity to continue the editing process, then I do not have...
	Perfect knowledge of how the book is going to end up.
	Because if I had perfect knowledge about how the book would end up, I'd have just written that from the beginning, right?
	That's fair.
	So let me do this.
	First of all, great work.
	I mean, fantastic stuff.
	And you'll be surprised when we publish this how many people...
	On either side of this debate, think we were both perfectly right.
	I just wanted to point that out.
	That is going to happen for sure.
	There are going to be people who are like, man, those guys are killer, which you are, and they're fantastic debaters, which you are, and they totally kicked Steph's butt.
	They wrecked him, and they'll be R.E. They'll be all over the place, right?
	Thank God, finally, Steph was beaten by...
	And there are other people who'd be like, man, Steph wrecked those guys.
	So don't listen to any of that stuff, right?
	Let's just, you know, enjoy the debate, which I really did.
	And hopefully you guys can come back and we can either do this or continue on this or do another one.
	But fantastic.
	Really, really enjoyable.
	This is what it is to be in a civilized society.
	So I love you guys for calling in.
	Thank you so much.
	But I will move on to the next caller just so I don't end up with like a 3 a.m.
	Thank you very much.
	Thank you guys so much.
	I really, really appreciate it.
	And let's move on.
	Right up next, we have Rebecca.
	Rebecca wrote in and said, As a woman in my early 30s, having recently had a nine-year relationship, come to an end when my partner came out as gay, I am very quickly getting up to speed with my own self-knowledge and an understanding of my childhood through therapy.
	I am increasingly aware of the huge pressure I am under should I wish to have a future with marriage and children However, I can still see that I have a ways to go in regards to building my self-esteem and therefore my ability to have a stable and intimate relationship.
	I would like to know your thoughts on the inverse relationship between my self-knowledge and my quote-unquote market value.
	As I am aware that the longer I take to build my self-esteem, the more my market value is in decline.
	How do I approach this going forward to ensure that I get what I want from my future?
	That's from Rebecca.
	Oh, hey, Rebecca, how you doing?
	Hi, I'm good, thank you.
	Oh, boy.
	Nine-year relationship.
	Now, looking back, it's a staple in comedy, and I'm sure this is not the case, and I'm not trying to sort of say that your relationship was comedy, but there's a staple in comedy, which is The boyfriend who everyone else thinks is gay, but the woman who's dating him doesn't.
	You've probably seen this in movies, if you can stand seeing that.
	When he came out as gay, were all your friends like, what, you didn't know?
	We thought you were just his beard.
	Or were they like, I had no idea.
	Was he like all the village people ground up together with a side dish of Milo Yiannopoulos?
	Or was he someone who nobody guessed?
	I would say he was a very alpha guy, so...
	I would say on the side of very few people knew.
	Or suspected, is that right?
	Yes, correct.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	And how shocked were you?
	I think at the time.
	I suppose it was a gradual...
	There was a period of about a year in our relationship where I suppose the first...
	A bit of information that came out was that he thought he might be bisexual.
	And then obviously that transpired into actually, no, it was, I just prefer, I prefer men.
	So that was over about probably a year's period.
	But again, I think I've opened my eyes a lot to a lot of things that I maybe didn't see previously.
	Looking back now, I probably knew that much, much earlier than I would have cared to admit at the time.
	What with the science, do you think?
	I remember us having a conversation maybe even three years into our relationship about him potentially being bisexual.
	And I think...
	Oh, three years in?
	Three years in, he thinks he might be bisexual.
	Yeah, a long, long time.
	No, no, he completely denied at that time.
	And I think he was in such denial about it.
	Oh, you thought he might be bisexual three years in?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Was that because he kept screaming Russell Crowe during sex?
	Or was there something else?
	Um, I remember, I remember there being some kind of communication that, um, with another guy, a friend, um, that wasn't, um, strictly in the, I suppose it's the realms of friendship that I questioned at the time.
	You mean sort of sexual flirting or?
	Yeah, I think so.
	I'm, I'm not, Fully aware of the situation, but something along those lines, yeah.
	Right.
	And he said, no, there's no way.
	I'm all man.
	I'm all about the vagina, right?
	Correct, yeah.
	And how did you guys meet?
	Well, we both live in the UK. We just met in a bar in London.
	Right.
	And with regards to your own particular femininity, where would you say you lie on the continuum of, you know, cliche on either side, right?
	Like sort of girly to butch?
	I would say I'm fairly feminine.
	I suppose in terms of personality traits, maybe more masculine.
	So As in, I'm feminine in terms of the clothes that I would choose to wear, how I wear makeup, I make an effort with my appearance.
	But then in terms of my personality, I've always been, I suppose, quite career focused, quite driven.
	I play a lot of sports, so I'm quite competitive.
	So I suppose if you're looking in that arena, then those are generally more masculine traits, I would say, perhaps.
	Yeah, I mean, you have a delightful voice.
	It's a little on the deeper side.
	Not full on Eartha Kitt, but I just wanted to kind of know.
	Sultry, as the phrase goes.
	I just wanted to kind of know where that may have fit in.
	Has he since graduated to having boyfriends and all that kind of stuff, or is he still wrestling through it?
	He has a boyfriend at the moment, yes.
	Well, I am...
	I am sorry for your experience.
	I mean, it's hard to say, well, I'm sorry he's gay, because if that's who he is, that's who he is.
	But it's not what, obviously, you wanted, and it's not what you expected.
	And it's a big investment to walk away from, particularly at your age, right?
	Yeah, I mean, I think I'm fairly pragmatic about the situation and that, you know, the There's nothing that I could do about it.
	Neither of us cheated, neither of us were unfaithful.
	So in a lot of respects, I suppose the end of the relationship was done in a respectful way as it could have been in that given circumstances.
	Why do you think you don't remember, like, you wrote in, and you said, I have almost no memories from early childhood before the age of nine or ten.
	Now, tragically, I have my memories of my childhood from before then.
	I shouldn't laugh, because, you know, there's some good, some bad, but very vivid for me.
	And what do you think, why do you think you don't have these memories?
	And again, to be honest, it's not something I'd really even considered until quite recently.
	Again, after the end of this relationship, I did start going to therapy.
	I know that you're a big fan of that.
	And again, through listening to a few of your shows, I was very aware that, you know, you talk a lot about whoever you meet is a mirror of your own Like self-confidence or insecurities or however you want to put that.
	So I suppose that's something that kind of pushed me into going into that process.
	One of the things that came out of that process was it is highly likely that there was some form of sexual abuse took place in my early childhood.
	Again, I don't have any memory of it.
	It's just, I suppose...
	The therapist I've been seeing describes it a little bit like a black hole.
	So you see all of the events around, you don't necessarily know what's in it, but you can see the things that have happened that are pointing towards that being the conclusion.
	But you don't have any evidence, it's just that given the blanks, you think that may be the case?
	Yes, I would say that In terms of the arguments that he's presented, they're very logical, structured arguments.
	They make an awful lot of sense.
	So I think he's along the right lines.
	Right, right.
	Okay.
	Have you talked to your family or your parents or your extended family about any potentiality for this situation, for this kind of abuse?
	Yeah.
	I have there, I've spoken to my mother about it.
	My dad is no longer alive.
	He died about three years ago.
	My mum was very shocked.
	You know, I think from, you asked us to fill up a questionnaire, from my history taking, I have a pretty stable, I had a pretty stable family life, although I would say very practical, not in any way emotional.
	But I don't think it was in relation to, I don't think it was, if it did happen, it wasn't a family member.
	That much we have concluded.
	Right, right, okay.
	Was he very handsome, your boyfriend?
	Or is he, I guess?
	Yes.
	Right.
	And was he very fit?
	Yeah.
	And did you guys work out together?
	A little bit, yeah.
	Yeah, are you a workout person?
	Yes, I am.
	How much?
	Because, you know, I'm a workout person too, but I'm, you know, I'm guessing that most people could take me.
	But what do we do?
	I train a lot.
	I train a lot.
	Right.
	And has this been the case throughout your relationship?
	Yeah, I used to, I suppose in my 20s, I was more of your typical female cardio bunny.
	I used to I used to run a lot.
	Now I do a lot more gym training, so CrossFit-type stuff.
	That's my main sport now, I suppose.
	How many hours a week do you work out?
	You can tell me.
	Don't worry.
	It's just you'll be in the world.
	At least six or seven.
	Six or seven hours a week?
	Yeah.
	That's impressive.
	Do you work out to the point of trembling muscle-building exhaustion, or is it mostly maintenance?
	That's a good question.
	I just train because I like to be strong.
	I train hard, but I think, again, that's something I probably would have done in my past.
	I would have really pushed my body to It's absolute limits.
	I've done that on many, many occasions.
	I'm probably more sensible in my approach now.
	And have you ever taken any supplements for working out?
	I have in the past, yeah.
	Not for some time now.
	Right.
	And supplements like more than just vitamin water?
	We don't have to get into details, but...
	Yes.
	Right.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	And how do you find men respond to your muscularity or your physicalness?
	I think there's probably quite a big divide, I would say.
	There's some people who don't like it at all.
	And then there's a bunch of guys who absolutely love it.
	And it's normally guys who are...
	I guess quite into the physical stuff themselves.
	So people who are involved in sport or even just, you know, training to look good, I guess.
	But there is definitely a cross section of the population who are big fans of it.
	Right.
	Do you, is it a hobby?
	Do you compete?
	I have in the past.
	I don't anymore.
	Why is that?
	You're getting soft!
	No, I'm sorry.
	Just kidding.
	I think I'm just a little bit more sensible now with my approach to everything in life.
	Like I said, I think everything I've done in my life, I've taken probably a bit too far.
	I've really pushed the limits just on everything.
	I had an eating disorder for a couple of years when I was in my teenage years.
	I was far, far, far too skinny at that point.
	You know, I've trained really, really hard to compete.
	I'm going to get fit, so I need to be able to lift a locomotive.
	Right, right.
	There's not a lot of middle ground, is that fair to say?
	Correct, yeah.
	Right.
	You do want to have marriage and kids?
	I think so.
	Again, it's only something which sounds really stupid, but it's only something quite recently that I've even...
	Being pushed to consider.
	I don't think I even really had an awareness.
	Sorry, what do you mean pushed to consider?
	I'm not sure.
	I'm not criticizing.
	I'm just curious about the phrasing.
	Okay, so I listened to one of your shows actually maybe a week or two ago, which is what prompted me to write it.
	Was it the show generally entitled, Breed!
	Breed!
	Sorry.
	No, because I have occasionally made that mating call to the planet.
	Was it one where I was sort of talking about the joys of motherhood or parenting or kids and all?
	Yeah, so you had a young guy, I can't remember his name, I think he was about 21, and you were talking about his relationship with his mother and how you asked him if his mom knew if he wanted to have children.
	And he said, no, she's never asked me that.
	And I think I had one of those lightbulb moments where I realized that that's not something that I've ever had from my parents either.
	You know, no cues to the other things that I need to consider in my life if I want a particular future.
	None of that kind of, you know, what do you want from your life that I suppose a lot of people get from their parents intuitively, I didn't have that.
	You know, and I gotta tell you, Rebecca, it's to me bizarre.
	How many people in the West, and I think this is particularly true among white people, could be others.
	I mean, I wouldn't necessarily know in particular, but it's weird to me just how parents as a whole seem to have completely given up on guiding their children post-puberty.
	Well, I got you to puberty.
	Good luck.
	I'm going to retreat to the TV and the gramophone.
	I mean, it is weird to me that...
	I mean, did your mom...
	I know you said your dad died three years ago.
	I'm sorry about that.
	But did your parents, when you were in your 20s, say, hey, you know, time's ticking away.
	How are those eggs doing?
	Are you thinking about it?
	I mean, I know definitely some parents who were pushing hard for friends of mine.
	You know, I remember one friend of mine, his mom was like, I want grandchildren.
	You don't even have to marry the girl.
	Just get me some grandchildren.
	And I remember being over at his house...
	I guess this is when his mom was in her probably early 60s.
	And there were these biddies.
	It was a biddy convention.
	A stitch and bitch.
	And one of their daughters was over with a baby.
	And my friend, who was and still is a bachelor, was sitting on the couch.
	And the baby was sort of fussing and crying, and one of the women was holding him, and then passed the baby to my friend, because the woman had to go to the washroom or something.
	And all of the other women jumped up and said, no, no, no, you don't give a crying baby to a bachelor?
	No.
	You know, like, don't let him find out about the truth.
	Don't let him find out about the facts.
	Don't give a crying baby to a bachelor.
	And I just, like, I remember being quite struck by that.
	That it's like there was this focus on the continuation of the species from the other generation.
	Dear God, Rebecca, I mean, it sounds like the case for you.
	It certainly was the case for me, and it's a case for a lot of my friends, and this friend accepted, and it's a case with a lot of people who've called in.
	It's like, well, we became parents, but we frankly could give a shit about what happens after this.
	We don't care whether there's another generation we don't seem to care about.
	Having grandchildren we don't seem to care.
	I'm just completely hands-off to the point where basically my arms have been amputated.
	And it's like, why does this not matter to anyone anymore?
	I mean, my daughter gets older.
	Knockwood.
	My daughter gets older, not for her, but for me.
	My daughter gets older, and I'm going to talk to her about this.
	You know, do you?
	I mean, I'm talking about this with friends of mine's kids.
	They're 14.
	Hey, you want to have kids?
	Not now, but you know, I mean, what are your thoughts about it and so on?
	And it's like, I will really want to try and help facilitate if my daughter wants kids, you know, the steps that are empirically necessary to go about that process and have it work out well.
	But maybe this is just my particular observation, maybe it's not as common for you, but doesn't it sort of seem like families in the past generation have just kind of given up on helping kids, their kids, their adult kids become parents, or even bringing that up?
	I mean, did your mom nag you?
	It's like, well, you know, you're in your mid-20s, you're in your late-20s, you guys start thinking about this stuff, does it happen at all?
	No, we've never had a conversation like that.
	Isn't that weird?
	If anything, I would say it's probably the complete opposite where they've openly said, you know, there's no pressure from us to have grandchildren.
	You're free to make your own choices.
	And that's kind of been the end of it.
	Can't imagine why white people seem to be dying out on the planet.
	That's so weird.
	Look, if you're a parent out there, please, I love talking to parents.
	If you're a parent out there, And this has been your perspective?
	Please, please, call into this show, explain to me, because you obviously became a...
	Because there's something implicit.
	Like, if you're a parent, and you say to your kids, don't have kids, or you're indifferent about whether your kids have kids or not, isn't that kind of an insult to your kids?
	You know, I'll say to my daughter, have kids, because having a daughter was the second greatest thing after meeting my wife that ever happened.
	And...
	Since I love being a father and love having a kid, I'd love to have more, but that wasn't up to me.
	That was up to nature biology, which didn't cooperate.
	But I will want her to have the joys of parenthood if she's open to them and if she wants them.
	If she doesn't, that's another matter.
	But there's something weird about parents not trying to encourage their kids to have kids because it basically says...
	Parenting sucks.
	Or I'm indifferent to parenting.
	Or you could be here or not, I don't really care.
	And that's just, to me, kind of sad and kind of heartbreaking in a way.
	Yeah, of course.
	I wish that someone had brought these things to my attention and I could have made better informed decisions some time ago.
	Right.
	Now...
	The longer you take to build up your self-esteem, the more your market value is in decline, right?
	So you're in a kind of a race, and correct me where I go astray here, Rebecca, but you're kind of in a race, because you do want to have the kind of self-knowledge that isn't going to have you enmeshed You know, in another guy who ends up being gay or some other non-procreational problem shows up, right?
	So you really want to be able to choose a good guy, but you had not enough support systems or self-knowledge to choose a guy who was right for you for nine years.
	So you really want to develop yourself to the point where you can choose a good guy, but you're kind of in a race against dino eggs, right?
	Exactly.
	Right.
	Right.
	Well...
	I would take at least as much time if not more to pursue self-knowledge as working out or other things like that.
	I mean, I'm quite an all-or-nothing guy in some ways.
	If I'm in, I'm in.
	If I'm not in, I'm not in.
	And I just find that's easier for me.
	This sort of one foot on the boat, one foot on the pier shit just has never worked for me.
	I just, I don't like it.
	Like, if I'm studying something, I'm going all in.
	If I'm learning something, I'm going all in.
	If I love someone, I'm all in.
	If I don't love someone, I'm not in.
	Because there have been a few times where I've done that wishy-washy stuff.
	And, uh...
	I wish it had just given me hives and made my toes fall off so I could have made a quicker decision.
	So when I went into therapy, I was all in.
	I was all in.
	I'd do three hours of therapy a week.
	I would do at least two hours of journaling a day.
	I was reading books.
	And I was not in a relationship.
	At the time, and I had my career, but I had, you know, you know what it's like, right?
	You're in a relationship, you're busy all the time.
	If you're single, sometimes, well, you've got more hours in the day than you know what to do with.
	So if I were in your situation, I would say, okay, well, if I'm going to be buffing my soul, so to speak, or pumping up my self-knowledge, then that needs to be what I'm focused on.
	So, you know, when I'm not at work and I'm not at the gym, and maybe I can combine it to the gym in some ways, but when I'm not at work and not at the gym, I need to be working on self-knowledge.
	I need to be working on figuring out what happened.
	And the resentments, too, as you point out, or as I would point out, you didn't really have a support system that helped you not waste this time.
	This is the thing, too.
	I had a seven-year relationship that was one of these, ugh, can't fully commit, can't break up.
	Just one of these...
	Can you imagine seven years of putting a bandaid on and off the same wound?
	And I went into therapy shortly after the end of this because I'm like, well, I'll do that again.
	And what I sort of learned or what came out of that for me, Rebecca, was that what I needed was a support system of people who were going to tell me the truth.
	And my mom wasn't telling me the truth.
	And other people in my life weren't telling me the truth.
	They weren't concerned about my future happiness.
	They weren't concerned about my present happiness.
	They just didn't seem to care.
	How could I be in this relationship that wasn't really working?
	And sometimes it did.
	Don't get me wrong.
	Sometimes it was great.
	It was one of these good enough to stay, not good enough to commit.
	Bad enough to not commit, not bad enough to leave.
	Oh, the null zone of doom.
	Well, you know, wherein you can lose a decade easy peasy.
	Right.
	And so it's not just about self-knowledge and you muscling in to figure out what you need to know about yourself, Rebecca.
	It's also having a group of people in your life who understand your goals and who really, really want to help support you in the pursuit of your goals, just as you want to help support them in the pursuit of their goals.
	And, you know, people in my life who didn't believe I could do what I'm doing now, Sorry.
	Like, I mean, sorry.
	Philosophy, the truth, the virtue, the good of the world, the salvation of Western civilization is a little bit more important than your irrational skepticism is to my abilities.
	So you need people in your life who are going to support you and who you're willing to support, who are going to ask you the tough questions, who are going to give you the tough answers, and who aren't going to just sit there idly by as you droop away through a near decade with not much to show for it other than heartbreak and being behind the starting gun.
	Yeah, that's good advice.
	I guess one question I have on that is, and I know that you talk about this on a lot of your shows as well, is the shift in the female mentality now where women in today's society think that casual sex is okay.
	And of my circle of friends, I can probably count one, maybe two of the maximum who Don't think that that is okay.
	You know, it seems to be widespread that it is acceptable.
	Widespread.
	I get it.
	Yeah, that it's acceptable for women to do that.
	And that, you know, that that's how it's supposed to be.
	You know, I think it's very, very difficult to find people who support your views on this.
	You know, it's a very small...
	It's still, although it shouldn't be, it's still a very small percentage of the population, I think.
	Right.
	But at least you can find most of them at the gym.
	Mostly celibate.
	Mostly handshakes.
	Everybody has a three-month rule.
	Well, wait.
	Oh, I dropped something.
	Oh, wait.
	I'm being mounted.
	So, yeah, no, I agree.
	And listen, just before everyone freaks out, it's like, oh, you think that you should never have casual sex?
	And it's like, well, you know, I mean, sometimes it can be hard to get all the bacteria you need from a toilet seat.
	But, you know, certainly at your age, you want to focus on...
	I mean, I would argue for at least a three-month rule, like get to know someone and so on before going into that, because you want to be wanted for who you are.
	Not for your body, not for your orifices, not for your capacity to lubricate on demand.
	You want to be wanted for who you are, because that's the only way to sustain a long-term relationship.
	There's a whole lot of time in marriage, particularly when you have kids, when you're not, you know, banging together like a gong and a drum.
	And so...
	The people who are into the casual sex, how's that working for you?
	And for more on this, people can look at the Amazon series Fleabag, which should illuminate people in particularly terrifying ways.
	But how is it working out for the people who are into casual sex?
	Are they happy?
	Are they going to get what they want out of life, particularly after their sexual market value declines and they move from, you know, hot chick that people want to have sex with to, you I would say on the whole it's not working out too well for them.
	It's not called the walk of shame for nothing, right?
	I mean, any woman who gains self-esteem from the fact that a man wants to have sex with her is, I mean, it's a pitiful confession of a lack of self-esteem.
	Oh my goodness, you found a penis that's willing to ejaculate.
	What a miracle!
	That's amazing!
	That's like Livingston finding some doctor in the middle of the world.
	In the middle of the African jungle.
	Dr.
	Livingston, I presume, I mean, this is not a needle in a haystack, so to speak.
	A willing penis is, you know, I walk up to a man, he's willing to shake my, hold my hand out, you know, 99 times out of 100, he's willing to shake my hand.
	I don't go, woohoo, I got a guy to shake my hand.
	Wow, I got a guy to have sex with me.
	What a miracle worker you are.
	So, yeah, that's not any way to gain love.
	It's a way to gain fluids and penicillin, but it's not a way to gain love.
	So, particularly, you know, if you're buff and fit and all that, then there will, of course, be the body narcissists who just love to take selfies together and, look how many muscles we have!
	It's like, yeah, I'd actually like one of these lumps to grow into a child, so the fact that I'm...
	You know, I'd like to pump something other than iron in a more permanent relationship.
	So, yeah, remember, self-knowledge is not something you pursue.
	Like, there's this argument or this idea where you see self-knowledge is something you climb to the top of the mountain, you sit in the lotus position, you journal, you go to therapy, you sit with your thoughts, you meditate, and so on.
	No, self-knowledge is that.
	But in general, self-knowledge is a social thing.
	Because we can't see ourselves.
	We can't see ourselves.
	I mean, try to put makeup on without a mirror, right?
	It's a challenge.
	I mean, for me, I just end up looking like the Joker, but that's probably fair enough.
	But you need to have people around you who are going to help reflect you accurately back As who you are and help you achieve your goals.
	We can't do it alone.
	We are social animals.
	We are a tribal species.
	We are pack animals.
	Self-knowledge is a social process as well as a process of individuation.
	And the process of individuation may substantially change your social values and it may in fact change your social context as it did with me.
	But that's important.
	Don't just sort of crawl away into a hole and think you're going to keep everything the same but gain a huge amount of self-knowledge.
	It's going to have a ripple effect and you're going to need people around you who are committed to helping you achieve your goals, just as you're committed to helping them achieve their goals.
	And if people aren't 150% behind you achieving your goals, it's going to be a hell of a lot harder to get there.
	Yeah, I hadn't thought about it in that way before, actually.
	That makes a lot of sense.
	You know, self-knowledge is like being on a A football team, right?
	If you're the only one going to practice, you're never gonna win.
	Everyone needs to be going to practice.
	Everybody needs to be doing their best.
	Then you can hit the championship.
	But look at it as a communal sport.
	Self-knowledge is a tribal sport.
	It is not a you, a hanging flashbulb, and a deep mirror.
	And that means it's part of it.
	But there's the training and then there's the team play.
	And self-knowledge is team play if you really want it to be sustainable and work.
	Otherwise, people are going to be fighting against your self-knowledge, right?
	Yeah.
	All right.
	Will you let us know how it goes?
	Yes, for sure.
	Was this helpful or useful?
	It was great.
	Thank you.
	Much appreciated.
	Well, thanks, Rebecca.
	I appreciate your call.
	And let's move on.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	Up next, we have Ferdinand.
	He wrote in and said, If rock and roll is usually associated with freedom and rebellion, why do artists and fans have a tendency to be on the left?
	Isn't that an indication that people don't really know what they stand for?
	That's from Ferdinand.
	Hi, Ferdinand.
	How you doing?
	Hey, Steph.
	Great talking to you.
	Are you in a band?
	Yeah, I'm in a band.
	Ah, I knew it!
	Probably the band.
	I write the songs, I do all the solos, and I try to find people to play with me.
	But right now, my band is in California, and I'm back in Brazil because I couldn't get a visa renewal, so it's a whole situation surrounding that.
	Right.
	Well, so you're the songwriter.
	What do you play?
	What do you do?
	Yeah, I'm the songwriter.
	I am the singer and the lead guitarist.
	Oh, right.
	So you basically get your first pick of the groupies, right?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	I wanted to concentrate everything on me so it would be easier for me if I needed to change band members easily.
	Yeah, I was just watching an interview with Dennis DeYoung of Styx.
	I just heard on a song, I'm sailing away, you know, the Come Sail Away.
	Ah, man, that's a great song, even with that goofy prog rock stuff in the middle.
	But yeah, that's an incredible thing.
	So rock and roll, they're generally on the left.
	Is this what you find with your bandmates and other people in the music industry?
	Yeah, I've been navigating among these people for a long time, both in Brazil and in the US. I have friends from all around the world, and they're always criticizing the right, and they're always voting and campaigning for whoever wants to take away their freedoms.
	So I think those people are libertarians at heart, but they don't really know it.
	And I think the problem is that They fail to understand how wealth is generated.
	I think that's the main point.
	Wait, are you saying that there are musicians out there who aren't good with money?
	Oh, come on.
	You've heard of this, right?
	Just off the top of my head...
	A list of musicians who've been exploited by business managers or ripped off by accountants or other people.
	All of them!
	Pretty much, you know.
	Sting didn't have to take his accountant to court.
	Billy Joel.
	Freddie Mercury wrote a whole song called Death on Two Legs about some horrible person in the music industry and so on.
	I don't think that a lot of artists are particularly good with handling or managing money.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	You're right.
	The thing is the idea, you know, like authority.
	They don't understand that they're actually asking for more authority on their lives.
	For example, in California, the shows have to start at 6 because bars have to shut down at 1.30 a.m.
	So, and people are perfectly fine with that, apparently.
	Seven and a half hour set?
	What are people like Beatles in Hamburg?
	That's pretty intense.
	Because there are so many bands, so everybody has a 40 minute set.
	And so a lot of times it's like still daytime if it's in the summer.
	Okay, but let me ask you this.
	So how many people in the music industry are in it for the direct love of music and a deep passion, an abiding passion for the music?
	And how much are in it to avoid life, roam around, never grow up, and have sex?
	I would say probably 70% of them are in it.
	I mean, if it's fans or artists, there's a difference in there.
	A lot of artists are in there because they want to get laid, right?
	And also they can't do anything else with their lives.
	So I would say that a higher percentage of those, so probably 60% of artists are in there, not for the love of music and lifestyle, but to do those things you just mentioned.
	But the fans, it's like they are mostly in for the music and the feeling.
	Wait, hang on.
	I thought you said most people were in it to get laid, and now you're saying most people are in it for the music?
	No.
	The artists, the ones that are actually...
	You know, in bands, so probably the majority of those are there because they think that's an easier way to get laid.
	But then the fans, the people that aren't involved in the industry, they're just buying tickets and buying t-shirts and they're in the lifestyle, probably they are more honest.
	Right.
	Now, I don't know if you've seen the presentations that I did a while back ago called Gene Wars about R versus K selection?
	Yeah, sure.
	Right.
	So this is not true in general, I mean, for all, but I think that there's a significant proportion.
	Musicians, it's just this big R selection thing.
	It's about living for the moment.
	A lot of time, it's about consuming the appetites of the moment, whether it's drugs or sex or rock and roll.
	It's not about thinking for the future.
	And so they just are selected.
	Now, are selected.
	You know, freedom and rebellion, it's just opposed because they're actually slaves to their appetites.
	You know, in the same way that rabbits don't know when to stop fucking.
	Like, they just don't.
	They can't figure it out.
	Turn off the porn that's playing forever in the rabbit mind.
	Put down your tiny rabbit penis and stop having babies, for God's sakes, because there's like one grade of grass left in the entire region.
	So, I mean...
	Being a slave to your appetites is not being free.
	It's not being mature.
	Appetites are something which we need to manage.
	And I don't just say this.
	I mean, I still have massive appetites, and I'm 50, so I'm not just saying this as like, oh, I'm old, I've outgrown my appetites.
	No!
	I still have massive ambition and massive appetites, but learning how to manage and control and work with your appetites so they serve you and serve virtue, rather than Then, just fulfilling your needs in the moment.
	Now, my sort of experience with bands, I was in a sort of garage band very, very briefly when I was younger and a friend of mine was in a band and I ended up being part of their stage show once or twice for, and it was, you know, Fairies and Boots was the name of the song.
	I came out and went nuts on the stage and all that kind of stuff.
	And I remember jamming with the band a bunch of times.
	So my, you know, I know like two songs on the guitar and know a little bit of piano and played violin for 10 years.
	So my, you know, my music stuff is not...
	But oh man, it's rough.
	It's rough.
	These celebrities, these...
	Famous, their lives are so elementally disorganized.
	I mean, look, the number of marriages, the problems that they have with infidelity.
	You know, I've heard of rock stars who've, like, adopted underage kids for easier acting.
	Like, just, ugh, gross, gross stuff.
	I mean, their lives are personally pretty horrifying and...
	You know, the Aerosmith, what they call the toxic twins that claim to have snorted up most of Brazil.
	Peru's, Peru's.
	Yeah, Peru, Peru.
	So it's, I mean, their lives are, they're personally complete giant messes, massive insecurities, bundles of neuroses, and so on.
	And so they are people who can't go out and get stable jobs and build resources and manage their money sensibly.
	So they roll their whole dice on being talented.
	And of course, most of them fail.
	In the music industry, 98% of the money goes to 2% of the people.
	It's the standard distribution of competence and rewards.
	And so, if you are not particularly good-looking, if you are not particularly wise, if you're not necessarily particularly intelligent, and if you aren't good at managing money, if you aren't responsible, but you still want to have a lot of sex...
	Then you roll your dice on talent.
	Talent is the big dice roll, the rabbit fucking of reproduction strategies.
	Oh, I'm going to be talented.
	I'm going to be talented and I'm going to stand there and the crowd's going to cheer and women are going to throw their tops at me and I'm going to get panties strung in the head like Tom Jones in his prime and I'm going to screw like there's no tomorrow.
	I'm going to screw like some guy with a Phillips putting together a house.
	Except I'm mostly going to be disassembling other people's households and marriages.
	And so talent is like the big dick of the incompetent.
	It is the giant resource gathering, let's just roll the dice and see what happens.
	It's like people who don't want to earn a living but they just want to go out and win money at the casino.
	People who don't want to go out and build some sort of stable life, they just go out and they throw themselves on this giant fire of talent and hope it's going to burn enough pussy to knock them out.
	And that, again, don't get me wrong, I love music and musicians can be responsible and they can be sensible and all that kind of stuff, but a lot of times it's like...
	The music is the only thing holding me together, and I'm really going to go down this strategy, and it does drive a lot of ambition.
	I mean, if you can drive sexual insecurity and lust together with hard work, at least in the music department, you can get a lot of talent.
	You can get a lot of things going.
	But, oh yeah, I mean, the amount of promiscuity, particularly, I mean, you know, I mean, people like Elton John and people like Freddie Mercury, if you combine gay with talent, like wasn't, Elton John at one point was like addicted to food and addicted to sex and addicted to spending.
	And I mean, the man is just like a completely overflowing bucket of manic insecurities, combined with an enormous amount, at least when he was younger, of talent in songwriting and performing and had an absolutely beautiful, beautiful It's nonsense.
	I don't find them to be free of their own appetites, their own sexual lust, their own desire.
	They're usually addicted to some damn thing or another.
	And remember, they're focused on people.
	Focused on people.
	Being focused on people is the fundamental R selection metric in many ways.
	Because if you're K selected, you're focused on reality.
	But if you are selected, you're focused on people in general.
	So if you're out there trying to please people and write songs that are catchy and get people to come to your concerts, you're focused on manipulating people with your talent.
	You're focused on people.
	So how free can you be if you're really dependent on people?
	Now, people say, well, Steph, you want donations and so on, which I do, freedominradio.com slash donate.
	But my goal is to get donations by bringing people the truth.
	And that, I think, is really, really important.
	Freedom from rules, freedom from standards, freedom from wisdom, freedom from responsibility, freedom from maturity.
	That's not freedom.
	The life of the perpetual adolescence is truly tragic.
	And I remember when Dr.
	Peters was on the show talking about just how if you have an addictive personality, if you're immature and you're talented and rich, it is an unholy combination.
	And I remember thinking this when I was younger.
	You know, the great unholy trinity of early deaths in the 60s, right?
	You got your Jim Morrison, you got your Janis Joplin, and you have Jimi Hendrix, right?
	All died of drug overdoses, you know, Jimi Hendrix choked on his own vomit, and like, that's...
	That's an ugly way to go out.
	And I don't think any of them made it to 30.
	And Janis Joplin was famously promiscuous.
	And it was just wretched all around.
	So the lives of, like, wow, you see them up on the stage.
	They look so grand.
	They look so powerful.
	But they are completely the slaves of their own appetites in so many different ways and in so many different cases.
	They're completely dependent upon the approval of the crowd.
	They're ridiculously insecure, no matter how much money they have, a lot of them.
	And their personal lives are just full of one terrifying dysfunction I really enjoy music, but I try not to have any illusions about the wisdom and maturity of musicians.
	And this goes back to...
	If you listen to, well, Plato's writing about Socrates, when Socrates was trying to find wise people in societies, he said something like, he said, I would go to the artists, because the artists, the poets, the musicians, the songwriters, they all had wonderful wisdom in their songs or in their poems in particular, you know, deep insights, wonderful wisdom.
	And I would go and ask them, About their thoughts, their wisdom, their understanding.
	And they knew nothing.
	And I was forced to conclude, regretfully, because I really hoped that this is where I was going to get my wisdom from, I was forced to conclude that a talent for the arts is kind of like a random thing.
	Like your pen is animated, you write things down, you have no clue what the hell you're doing.
	And you can't explain afterwards why you wrote what you wrote and you don't have any particular wisdom.
	In other words, art is not something that is like the vapor boiling up from a big bubbling cauldron of wisdom and knowledge and intelligence.
	It's just some random fly-by thing.
	It's like the shape of a cloud.
	You don't ask the cloud why it looks like a dragon.
	It just is doing what it does.
	And...
	That is really the case with a lot of artists who may write very powerful things, very insightful things, but who live lives of such excruciating anti-wisdom that one can only look at them as particular kind of artists who can write down wise things while living no embodiment of wisdom whatsoever.
	Yeah, well, I totally agree with you.
	What I wanted to point out is that the fans, the people that are into it and that are not artists, Apparently, they are more engaged in politics, or they want to be, than other communities.
	I'm also a pilot, and so I have a lot of pilot friends, and they're not as engaged as my rock and roll friends.
	Same thing is, I'm also a farmer, and those people are not engaged at all.
	They only understand the business they're in.
	For some reason, the people that are into rock and roll, that kind of heavy music, that are not artists, apparently they kind of seek something and they're in there for a reason.
	They're looking for something, they're studying, a lot of them are always watching the news and making comments, but I think Because of the comments they make and because of...
	That's general, like everywhere in the world.
	Because I have a lot of Facebook friends and they like to share stuff, right?
	So they're generally on the left.
	And now with Donald Trump and all this normalization of...
	A bit of normalization of the right, I would say.
	Some people are coming out of the closet as being a bit more on the right.
	But I think people just are not sure.
	They don't even know what they're standing for.
	They don't know that they're asking for more authority.
	And the thing with rock and roll that I wanted to point out is just that apparently those people are more interested in politics than others that I know, other groups.
	Right.
	And there can be some surprising stuff that comes out of musicians.
	You, of course, know about the Sex Pistols.
	And Johnny Rotten, known for the state of his teeth back in the day, although now he lives in California, I think his teeth are all fixed.
	But he's, you know, he's like, yeah, the working class has spoken.
	He's sort of pro-nationalism, anti-EU stuff.
	And He actually tried to blow the whistle on Jimmy Savile in the 1970s, right?
	This British guy died a little while back ago, and he says that he heard a lot of confessions from the victims of Savile's abuse, tried to raise the alarm, tried to get...
	Things done and ended up being banned from the BBC, which seems to have spent decades protecting this absolute monster of a human being.
	And this, to me, is astounding.
	Absolutely astounding.
	That you have a punk rocker singing about, you know, being the Antichrist, like, whose bandmate dies at the age of 21 from a heroin overdose after being accused of murdering his girlfriend.
	And this is the guy who did the right thing with regards to Jimmy Savile.
	Johnny Rotten is the guy who had to do the right thing and was blacklisted by the oh-so-hoity-toity and well-made-up BBC. This is where it came to that it took a guy named Johnny Rotten with his teeth half hanging out of his eardrums from a band called The Sex Pistols that sang about every nasty thing that you could imagine.
	It took him to be the moral conscience of the British establishment and try and blow the whistle on Jimmy Savile.
	That is the very strange world that we live in, and it's hard to tell.
	All right, well, thanks very much.
	I appreciate your time, and let's move on to the next caller.
	Alright, up next we have James.
	James wrote in and said, I've come to realize many things about myself, the most recent discovery being that although I am someone of high intelligence and industriousness, I have low conscientiousness, particularly when it comes to tasks that I feel have any obligation attached to them, even if it is self-imposed.
	For example, as a professional musician, I recorded my third solo album, Then procrastinated on releasing it for six months, then released it with no promotional effort.
	I built a freestanding recording studio with my own hands, with no prior trade skills, and as soon as I moved in and started using it, I started losing interest in recording, even though it's been a lifelong dream of mine to have this facility.
	I then wrote my first philosophical science fiction novel and recently self-published it.
	Although I am immensely proud of the book and getting overwhelming positive feedback from readers, I'm finding it hard to find motivation to promote it properly and give it its best shot at success.
	I would like to try and gain a greater understanding of the part of me that puts up motivational roadblocks and prevents me from taking my visions all the way to the success that I believe they deserve.
	Why do I work so hard, come so far, and then quit and move on to the next big dream?
	That's from James.
	Hey James, how are you doing tonight?
	Nice to chat with you again.
	Yes.
	Hi, Steph.
	It's good to be back.
	Thanks for having me on.
	And yeah, for your listeners, I am calling from the Australian space-time continuum.
	Look out for the spiders!
	Yeah, okay, good.
	Yes, yeah, I've got my pet spider here.
	I assume you're riding it like a horse.
	So you wrote a philosophical science fiction novel and recently self-published it, but you're not...
	Promoting it.
	I mean, yeah, have a baby and then don't feed it.
	Oh, that hurts.
	Because, you know, it is so hard to write a book.
	There's a saying when I was younger, and it had a big effect on me.
	I was saying to somebody who was actually a writer, This is before I wrote.
	I guess I'd written, let's see, I wrote my first, I started writing my first novel when I was 11, by the light of an alien son.
	And my English teacher actually read it out.
	And there was a very thin disguised female love interest who looked exactly like one of the girls in my class who I had a big crush on.
	And there was a kissing scene in a space station and everybody was embarrassed and laughed.
	And anyway, it was actually quite an enjoyable, quite an enjoyable time.
	I wrote something in solitude that moved people in public.
	And anyway, so I was, In my mid-teens, I want to write a book about this.
	And the writer said to me, it's bullshit.
	If you want to write a book, you'll never write a book.
	If you have to write a book, if you really feel compelled, then you've got a chance.
	But if you just want to do it, it's never going to happen.
	And I thought, you know, that's a very, very good point, a very, very good perspective.
	So what's...
	What's up with not promoting it?
	Do you think like, well, I'm too much of an artist.
	Why should I want to mingle with the common folk in the marketplace?
	I'm up here in my ivory tower inscribing my fiery letters of wisdom from the skies.
	It's not like a deliberate concerted, you know, decision to not promote it.
	I'm doing little things, but I just, I feel like I could do so much more.
	But when it comes to the sort of, I guess the follow through and the business end of I feel like I'm stabbing in the dark and that feeling tends to overwhelm and demotivate me.
	I've got no idea really where to begin.
	I had a couple of ideas and I exhausted them.
	Now, rather than using my industriousness and my creativity to go out there and build a marketing plan and fill the holes in my knowledge, Yeah, I'm just finding myself, I feel the creeping desire to move on to the next creative project, which would happen to be the sequel because this is the first book of a trilogy and I'm still really excited about the story.
	But I also, I think it's kind of ridiculous of me to get started on the sequel before I've even given the first book a real chance of being noticed.
	Right.
	So, James, do you think that your book is important?
	Yes, I do.
	Do you think that your book will bring people wisdom and pleasure?
	Yes, I do.
	And it has already.
	The people who have read it have given me feedback to that effect.
	And that was the intent of the book.
	Do you think that the world needs your book?
	Yeah, I do.
	So why do you dislike the world to the point where you're withholding food from the hungry?
	There's passive aggression in creating something, dangling it in front of the world, but not telling people about it, not making it happen.
	Which means that, in my humble opinion, you don't like the world enough to feed it.
	You'll dangle food out there, you know the world's hungry, but you're just not telling the hungry people where the food is.
	Why?
	Why make food for a hungry world and then not tell the world where the food is?
	You get that's kind of an elaborate dick move in a lot of ways?
	Yeah, I do.
	I do.
	That makes sense.
	I obviously haven't considered it that way, but that makes sense.
	Let's go big picture.
	What is your relationship to the world?
	If you want to know why you're having trouble with the world, look at what you think deep down.
	And we all have this.
	And some of it's open to change and some of it's not.
	What is your relationship to the world?
	What do you think the world is like?
	What do you think the people are like who were in it?
	And what is your relationship to the world and its possibilities?
	Um...
	That's a very big question to try to encapsulate.
	And you should be doing this before you write, by the way.
	I did all of this stuff before I started going public as an intellectual.
	Why do I think the possibilities of the world are?
	Because if you're going to create something that the world needs to consume or the world should consume, if you're going to create a medicine, you should know the market, right?
	Yeah, yeah.
	And I guess, for me, it's probably...
	I definitely distrust...
	You know, the world as a whole and feel that, you know, by really putting myself out there fully, not in, you know, small, safe measures, that there is a significant chance of finding out that my book is nowhere near as important as I thought it was to others.
	So that's...
	So you think it's important?
	Do you think that if the world doesn't find it important, is the world wrong?
	Well, no.
	No, that would make me wrong.
	Why?
	That's a frightening...
	Hey, that's very interesting.
	Why would it make you wrong?
	Surely you know of artists who are ahead of their time.
	There's actually a guy who was a writer.
	I can't remember his name.
	Hang on.
	I can't remember his name for the life of me, but...
	He wrote a comic novel, couldn't sell it anywhere, couldn't sell it anywhere.
	He ended up killing himself out of despair because he's just like, ugh, I'm really terrible.
	The novel ended up being famous and winning huge amounts of awards and so on.
	Why do you necessarily think that if the world doesn't appreciate your work, that it's your fault or the fault of the work itself?
	Um...
	That's a really good question, and I don't know exactly what's at the bottom of that.
	I suspect it's probably got something to do with my relationship with my parents.
	Maybe, maybe, maybe.
	Okay, let's just run through a couple of basic questions about this.
	If you're going to take the world's aesthetic and artistic judgments as superior to your own… Do you find that in the world that you know, sorry, that's kind of redundant, there's no world that you don't know, as we talked about with the first callers, but do you find in your environment that the people around you and the artistic endeavors that are successful are of high quality and deep meaning?
	No, no.
	No, I mean, unless you find the 12 millionth remake of a cartoon or a comic book hero to be of high artistic value, right?
	We're not exactly in the world of Shakespeare at the moment.
	There's a lot of lowest common denominator stuff going on in the realm of art, right?
	Absolutely, yeah.
	Which is, I guess, part of my impetus.
	But you wrote the book.
	So you wrote the book with the idea that somebody, somebody, or enough people to make it worthwhile will be out there.
	I mean, you know, Atlas Shrugged is a philosophical novel which has science fiction elements to it, certainly futuristic for its time.
	Yeah.
	And it sells well.
	My show does huge, huge numbers of views.
	And my books, I mean, it's not the same as charging, but my books are downloaded 100,000, 150,000 times a month and all that.
	So there's certainly a market, so to speak, for what it is that I do.
	So I guess my question is, again, back to what is your relationship to the world and its potential for appreciating your art?
	Yeah, I'm sorry, Stefano.
	I can't really sort of...
	I'm drawing a blank there and I'd be happy to sort of drill down to more specific stuff, but I can't I can't really encapsulate that.
	I guess it's in my book a bit, in the content of the book.
	It's a post-apocalyptic science fiction novel that is set in two timelines and it looks very much at the world today.
	Through one of my characters, it looks at the fears that I have for the world today of creeping socialism and You know, the rise of Islam in Europe and that sort of thing as sort of being the road to the end.
	And then it's got this sort of post-apocalyptic redemption other story to it.
	So I guess in a way I'm ambivalent about the world because I do have this real feeling of hope and love for humanity and what we're capable of and that we will get through all of this.
	But I'm also, you know, pretty terrified of all the things that are going on in the world right now.
	And I guess, yeah, I'm not...
	Sure that we'll make it, you know, through that as a civilization.
	So it hangs in the balance.
	The future hangs in the balance.
	Will your book help tip it one way or the other?
	I hope so, yeah.
	And I really, I think it can contribute to that.
	Then you are being enormously irresponsible.
	Because now it's not just about you.
	Like, I wrote...
	I wrote something similar to Harry Potter and I'd like to make a billion dollars and end up being legitimately insulted by Paul Joseph Watson and Mike Cernovich, right?
	No, none of that.
	So, if you have a cure in a time of illness and you don't promote the cure, there is a kind of irresponsibility in that, right?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, there is.
	And I guess...
	Whatever is sort of psychologically underpinning that, for me, I definitely want to explore and get to the heart of.
	But that said, you know, there is also just a practical...
	I've written a book that I can really easily target.
	An audience who are interested in these sorts of ways of thinking and this kind of knowledge.
	So I'm trying to tap into those audiences.
	And that's part of why I'm coming on here to talk to you is to expose the ideas and my work to your audience.
	And I've gone through...
	The Free Domain Radio group on Facebook and I actually managed to get a whole bunch of readers excited about it there and I've had some really great feedback from them and that sort of the ball has started rolling.
	But yeah, there's this feeling of overwhelm in me about how do I alone maintain that momentum Whilst also balancing all of the other things in my life, you know, I've got a wife and two children and I need to sort of pay the bills and I've got a career as a musician that does pay the bills.
	So there's plenty of excuses racked up for not gaining momentum, but there's also a lot of holes in my knowledge and in my self-knowledge.
	Right, right.
	If you have worked hard to contribute something positive to humanity, there is, and this is, people think that being an artist is the creation, and I don't believe that to be the case.
	I believe that being an artist is 10% creation and 90% promotion.
	Yeah.
	I mean, Shakespeare's plays weren't found in his attic after he died, right?
	He went out, he got the funding, he got the players, he built the globe, I mean, or participated in these particular things, and he probably worked as hard to get his plays out as he did creating the plays.
	Yeah, yep.
	And everyone wants to do the creation, and very few people want to do the promotion, but that is the difference between success and failure as an artist.
	It is about the promotion, right?
	I mean, all the bands who play live to build up a following, this is back in the day when you could just put your stuff on YouTube or whatever, but all the bands who played live to build up a following weren't writing songs while they were playing live.
	They were out there.
	That's promotion, that's promotion, that's promotion, right?
	Yeah, yeah.
	And if you have time to write another book, you sure as hell have time to promote the first one, right?
	Yeah, exactly.
	And that's why I haven't started, although the temptation is there.
	I've become increasingly aware of this aspect of myself and I'm resisting that appetite to just sort of lock myself away and keep creating, make the next thing, make the next thing, make the next thing.
	And I guess this book is the place where I have hit the brakes on that.
	Because I've been doing it for my whole life with the music and writing and other creative projects, filmmaking and all the things that I've sort of dabbled in over the years.
	I've always just kept moving forward and make the next thing.
	But this is the point where I've sort of, because I've been growing...
	In my self-knowledge through therapy and, you know, reading your books and listening to Jordan Peterson's Maps of Meaning at the moment and really delving into trying to understand the world and myself and my place in it.
	And writing this book was a huge part of that self-knowledge journey.
	So now I'm at this point where I go, okay, I can feel the temptation to just jump into the next project and move on.
	Now I have to hit the brakes.
	And sort of tame this beast within me because I do want this book to be the thing that gets noticed and read and I do want it to have the impact that I believe it could have.
	Right.
	My guess would be...
	And I don't think I'm projecting here, but let me know if you think I am.
	But my guess would be that you are ambivalent about...
	The reception of the book.
	In other words, we tend to be paralyzed in life when we are ambivalent.
	I don't want to become a ballet dancer, so I'm not torn about it.
	I would be torn if I tried, mostly in the ligaments, but I don't want to be a ballet dancer, so I'm not, like, paralyzed with regards to...
	Now, if I desperately want to be a ballet dancer, but I'm really nervous and scared, then I'm kind of paralyzed, right?
	In other words, when we have two pluses and minuses, a big yes and a big no, they tend to shoot us into procrastination land, dissociation, distraction land.
	Now...
	When it comes to this book, there's three possibilities.
	It's successful, it fails, or it's mediocre.
	And we all know this instinctively, right?
	It's successful, or it fails, or it's mediocre.
	Now, let's just go through these, because you already have this mapped out in your brain, which is why you're not taking these particular steps.
	Let's start with, it fails.
	You put a lot of work into it, and people just aren't interested in the book.
	You just can't get any traction outside of friends, family, and occasional people, right?
	Yep.
	What is your...
	It's not about you.
	I mean, artists get confused.
	I think it's about them.
	It's not about you, your insecurity, your ego, because you listen to this show, and so you're in the big picture category or people.
	So let's say that the book fails.
	And you put a huge amount of work and effort, maybe even time and money, into promoting it.
	What does that mean for you?
	James said the book fails.
	Not you personally, like, oh, maybe I'm not as good a writer.
	I mean, you and the world.
	Well, yeah.
	Yeah.
	I'm finding it hard to separate those two things, you know, because my head keeps going to, well, I need to, you know, hone my craft more and, you know, create a, make my next work be, you know, greater so that it is not a failure.
	But that's, you know, very much coming back to it being about me.
	And then the other view is that if it fails in the world, then, you know, with all due effort and Well, again, you're making it about you.
	And I don't think it is.
	I don't think it is.
	So the book is going to fail either because the book is not good enough for the world or the world is not good enough for the book.
	Right.
	Now, you know that the book...
	Is good enough for some, right?
	Because you say you've got fantastic feedback, and I assume this isn't from people who want something from you, right?
	I mean, you're getting positive feedback.
	No, this is from Total Strangers.
	Yeah, Total Strangers.
	So the book is good.
	The book is good.
	Now, I mean, William Hung was this not very good sort of pseudo-singer who now I think is a...
	I remember.
	Yeah, I think he's now a forensic lab squint in the crime pool or whatever.
	But he came out and did a horrendous version of She Bangs by Ricky Martin.
	Yeah.
	Now, there's nobody who thought that was good.
	Now, there may have been a few people who loved it, ironically, so to speak.
	It's so bad, it's good.
	But, you know, he's never going on tour and doing headline shows and stuff.
	Like, he was bad.
	He may be good as being a crime technician.
	He was really bad as a singer.
	And if someone loves what you do and genuinely loves what you do, right, then it's good, at least for someone.
	And if you have a small sample size, let's say you give the book...
	and really loves it, well, that's 10% of a potential audience that loves the book.
	That's all you need to have a bestseller if you get it out there.
	Now, if no one loves it, that's a challenge.
	But if one person loves it, then that's all you need.
	That's all you need.
	Because now the book is good for some people.
	And, of course, the book's never going to be good for everyone.
	There are people who pick up The Fountainhead, which is one of the greatest books ever written, and hate it.
	I love it.
	Yeah.
	No, it's one of my favorites.
	I like it more than Atlas Shrugged in a lot of ways.
	No, I agree with that, too.
	Atlas Shrugged was a hell of a big cud to chew on.
	But anyway, so...
	So if the book is good, for some people, but the world as a whole rejects it, it means that the people who like what you do are exceedingly rare.
	What does that do to your hope and faith for the future?
	People who share your values are exceedingly rare.
	Very, very, not even rare, like, so rare that you can't even sell 50,000 books around the world.
	Yeah, well, I mean, the place my head goes to immediately is that if the people who are interested in this message are that rare, then, you know, the apocalypse that I prophesize in my book is inevitable.
	So, in avoiding market feedback, you may well be avoiding despair.
	Right.
	Yeah, I think so.
	How long did it take you to write the book?
	Um...
	The actual writing took six months.
	The, you know, sort of kicking the ideas around and planning and researching was, you know, done fairly casually over about two years, but I really knuckled down for six months.
	A lot has changed in the last two and a half years, right?
	Yeah, including the theme of the book, because I was a socialist environmentalist when I started the idea, and then by the time I actually got around to writing it, I'd been fully red-pilled and had a very different worldview, so it was easy to adapt my story to suit that.
	But yeah, the book became so much greater, I think, through that than it would have been if I'd gone ahead and written it in my previous state.
	Well, and the world seems to be coming to a head, so to speak, right?
	I mean, the challenges in the world seem to really be coming.
	I thought we had more time up until about a year and three quarters ago.
	I thought we had more time, and we don't.
	So you launch the ship with what you got.
	Start planning, start doing, right?
	Yeah.
	So the book itself is going to be a litmus test for...
	in the world.
	And if they're rarer than you think, then you're going to have to deal with the emotional fallout of that isolation and impotence in the face of a world that is not exactly heading in the right direction in many ways, right?
	Yeah, and I think, moreover, I need to find those people because the rarer they are, the more we need to sort of stand together in this battle of...
	The only shot we have, you know, is actually sort of teaming up.
	You know, a minority can only win if it's working together.
	Unless it's so rare that it's hopeless.
	I'm just talking about worst-case scenario that may be going on in your brain.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Yeah.
	No, I... That might be lurking in my subconscious, but I don't consciously believe that that's the case.
	I do, and that reflects in the book too.
	It's not a hopeless book.
	I really, as I said before, I really have a great love and hope for humanity.
	Okay, but then your behavior is incomprehensible.
	If you think that you can succeed, if you think your book is part of that success, but you're not working to promote it, then it's something else.
	Is there any personal relationship that you think might be negatively impacted by the success of your book?
	No, no.
	I can only think of positives in my personal relationships if the book succeeds.
	There's a lot indirectly about my parents in the book through the characters.
	A lot of my experience of life is in there, but I've shared it with my parents.
	And, you know, I'm being fully open with them about that.
	Oh, my God.
	You're so optimistic.
	I have to be more blunt with you.
	I'm sorry about this.
	Have you ever known anyone who's taken a stand for virtue in this world who's suffered as a result?
	Okay.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Now I get you.
	There's one that starts with S that has three syllables and one that starts with S that has two syllables that just come to mind.
	But yes, I mean, you see this, right?
	You see that when people start to do good in the world, they attract negative attention from people who are doing evil in the world.
	Yes.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	And I have had a taste of it through my philosophy website and YouTube channel that I've been running for the last...
	Six months with my two good friends here in Australia, we've started a channel up called The Rational Rise and we've been publishing pretty prolifically on that, writing and making videos and having a really good time of it.
	We've already had a taste of controversy when we brought up the human biodiversity topic.
	Wait, that's controversial?
	Well, particularly so in Australia, you know, we brought up the topic of Indigenous Australians, which is a bit of a sacred cow, to put it mildly.
	And we copped some, yeah, pretty serious attempts at doxing through that process within our music scene.
	But I think we navigated it well, and we've set it straight.
	There's a few people who hate us, and I'm fine with that.
	But...
	Yeah, it was certainly emotionally jarring and gave me a taste of, well, wow, the more I go out on a limb here, the more I am putting myself and my family at risk.
	And that is definitely, definitely a concern.
	And I guess it didn't register in my head just then when you were asking about it because I haven't even really...
	fully considered the possibility of the book being so successful or being so noticed that it would cause me risk well see this is the thing right so if if the book is mediocre it's scarcely worth investing in terms of its sales i don't mean in terms of its quality if it fails it's not worth investing and and and if you invest time to make yourself full of despair and and lose the will to write the next book i assume you enjoy the writing process so then like if the book fails and it's good there's no good reason to promote it right
	in fact there's every good reason to avoid promoting it right right Yeah.
	Now, if the book is averagely received, then it's averagely received either because it could do a lot of good, but there aren't people interested in doing a lot of good, or it really can't do much good at all, and people aren't interested in it because it lacks a particular or it really can't do much good at all, and people aren't interested in it because it lacks a particular call to In which case, promoting it is, you know, it's not really worth it, right?
	Now, if the book is very successful, but nobody understands the virtues that it's trying to engender, then you will gain some monetary success, but it won't be spiritually or artistically satisfying.
	I love the font!
	You know, whatever it is, right?
	I mean, that's...
	To be profoundly misunderstood and successful is a special kind of hell for an artist, right?
	if the book is very successful, promotes people to a significant commitment to virtue and impacts, like convinces people to be good, to be outspoken, to be moral, which is going to negatively impact the interests of evil people in the world, then they're going to respond, right?
	That's, it's, you're not the only one in the boxing ring with, you know, you're just the only one with your gloves on, right?
	So if you achieve what you want to achieve, which is to actually make the world a better place, then you're going to provoke the negative attention of bad people.
	Yes.
	So tell me in which scenario there is a strong incentive, a non-ambiguous or ambivalent incentive to promote the book.
	Well, the way you put it, I don't see one, you know.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I really would like to...
	I mean, the choice I am making here now, you know, and moving forward, and I want to make it with my whole heart and all of my will is to proceed with the assumption that the latter will be the case, that it will be a big success, it will have a big impact, it will change hearts and minds, and I will make enemies, but I will be able to weather that storm.
	That's what I'd like to be able to...
	You know, as the path forward.
	And I kind of see that as the only way forward.
	So you would like to have a very positive, strong, impactful effect on making the world a better place, but not really accrue any negative consequences for harming the interests of evil people?
	I would like to be able to weather the negative consequences.
	I know they're unavoidable, but I'd like to be able to have the- Oh no, they're avoidable.
	Just don't promote the book and they're avoidable, right?
	Yeah, no, but I mean, they're not avoidable with success.
	And if I make the impact that I want to make, I get that part and parcel of that is the negative response from the haters and my enemies, intellectual enemies.
	And what I would like is to To have that success, to make that impact and to be able to, I guess, have the foresight and the wherewithal to withstand the negative impact and survive it and make it a net positive for my life as well as for the world.
	Maybe that's a ridiculous level of optimism.
	I don't know.
	Well, no, but I mean, if you had that level of optimism, you'd be out promoting the book.
	We have to examine not what the sales pitch would be if you were optimistic, but what you're actually doing.
	And because I'm an empiricist, I judge your deepest thoughts by your visible actions, right?
	Sure, yep.
	So you are ambivalent, I would assume.
	About the success or failure of this book.
	If the book fails and it's good, then the world sucks and probably can't be fixed, right?
	If the world is...
	If the world is meh and the book is meh, then it's not really worth investing in getting it out there.
	If the book is great and people hate it and it doesn't make you any money, then it's a net negative.
	If the book is great and it makes you a lot of money and people hate it, then you're going to be a target.
	And this is the world that we live in.
	I hate to say it.
	This is the world that we live in.
	Listen, you can write stupid stories about owls carrying shit around and about little boys fighting guys with no noses, and yeah, nobody hates you for that because it doesn't change a damn thing in the world, right?
	I mean, especially if you end up being very pro-migrant, but...
	But actually doing good in the world, actually making people better, well, that is going to incur the wrath of bad people.
	There's just no way around it.
	For example, it did not escape my intention recently.
	That Dr.
	Phil put out a story about sort of international sex trafficking rings and had this woman, my heart just went out for her.
	She was sold by her parents into this pedophile trafficking ring and he had another woman come on who was talking about her experiences with this situation.
	And...
	The fact that so many sex trafficking rings are being busted and people are being arrested and so on comes directly, I think, out of the Trump administration and out of the new approach that the DOJ and others are taking around this kind of stuff.
	And I think this is going to, like, there is a lot of panic, I think, in some areas of the deep state where this stuff may be embedded that they're coming for you.
	And thank God people are coming for these guys now, these men and these women.
	Yeah.
	And so, yeah, I think this is a lot of the hostility that is being kicked up towards Trump comes from this kind of panic.
	Also the panic of people, of course, dependent on the state and people who are dependent upon affirmative action.
	And not that he's threatening any of these things, but there's a sort of principle involved that less state means more standing on your own two feet.
	And if you've got two...
	on state crutches for 20 or 30 years, change is terrifying and you'll fight like hell to resist it, even though it is the right thing for society as a whole.
	It is really, really brutal.
	And genuine success in the realm of ethics carries significant penalties and prices.
	It's inevitable.
	And this is why most people avoid it, like the plague.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I don't want to avoid it, you know.
	I want to...
	No, you do.
	Right now, you do.
	Right now, I think you instinctively grasp that there's no unambiguously good outcome to promoting your book.
	Yeah, I do.
	I do grasp that.
	Which makes perfect sense.
	Like, your behavior is perfectly comprehensible.
	This is basic self-knowledge.
	Not that it's basic, but it's 101.
	Your empirical behavior is perfectly comprehensible when the principles behind it are understood.
	Yeah.
	Yep.
	So that is what you need to unpack with regards to, are you going to love the world enough to try and save it?
	This is the fundamental question we all have to ask ourselves.
	Are we going to give up on the world and let it slide into the pit that awaits our inertia and our inaction?
	Or do we love the world enough to try to save it?
	Do we love the future?
	Do we love the truly innocent, the children who are born into the world, who are not protected by their elders, but rather exploited by their elders?
	In just about every conceivable way.
	Do we love the world enough to save it?
	And it is an act of love.
	It is an act of optimism.
	It is an act of fuck you to the bad people among us.
	And it is necessary.
	I mean, you know that every good thing that we have In this life and in politics and in our freedoms, diminishing as they may be, every good thing that we have in our life, we have because people stood up and fought for it and took outrageous arrows, some from ahead, some from the side, many from behind, in order to make the world a better place.
	They loved the world enough to sacrifice their immediate social comfort, maybe even their long-term social comfort, In return for paying forward the great gift of freedom and integrity and virtue and honesty, truth, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of property, freedom of movement.
	All of these things had to be bitterly fought for by people who loved the world enough to put just about everything on the line to achieve it.
	And that's part of the obligation that I feel, that the freedom that I have To be able to do what I do, such as it is, is a freedom that was granted to me by people who had to face a lot more trials to bring me that freedom than I have to face to bring freedom to the future.
	People who were poisoned by hemlock, who fled, who were sold into slavery, as Plato was, who were burned at the stake, who were tortured, who were killed, who were imprisoned.
	Who were hit with the kind of slander and an inability to respond that destroyed their economic lives, destroyed their social lives, may have destroyed their family lives, I don't know.
	But that's where my love comes from.
	I'm so immensely grateful for the men and the women who took much harder blows than I have to, to bring me the freedoms...
	To pay it forward.
	I'm so grateful to them.
	And it's not that the world is so particularly lovable at the moment.
	The world seems to be on a self-sacrificial orgy of mass delusion at times.
	But it is out of love For the gifts that I've been given and the desire to extend and expand them that I am motivated by, that's what.
	And a sense of, if not me, who?
	I mean, who's better at this than me?
	Well, no one I know of, otherwise I'd go work for them.
	There are people who are fantastic at complementary things and other people are better at other things than I am.
	But as far as this goes, this particular wheelhouse, I'm the best there is.
	And when you are that good at something...
	You have an obligation.
	To me, implicitly, I didn't earn all of this.
	I mean, I've worked hard to achieve it, but I have a lot of innate gifts.
	And the noblesse oblige of great giftedness is something that I feel a sort of very strong responsibility for.
	If you're the only guy who's tall enough to reach the fruits, then hand it to the short who are starving.
	I mean, this is, to me, a kind of obligation that comes from knowing about the bell curve and knowing about IQ and genetics and so on.
	I mean, a lot of my abilities were not earned by me, but rather given to me by the great God of nature.
	And that gives to me an obligation to share the wisdom that I have been able to generate partly through my own efforts and partly through genetics.
	The intelligence, the verbal skills, the communication skills, all of that.
	Hard one, but...
	Innately gifted as well.
	And so I am in possession of a great deal of good fortune when it comes to genetics, and I did not earn some of it, so I pay it as much as I can, use my gifts for the betterment of the virtuous among us as best as I can.
	It is a great act of will to act positively in a world that seems so hell-bent on delusional self-destruction.
	We have to Overlook the immediate world and look for the world that we can create by loving it.
	You know, there's this terrible myth that is out there, which is, he's an abusive guy, but if I love him enough, he'll be a great guy.
	Right?
	I mean, I've read stories of this woman who's like, he beat me up for the 12th time this month, and every time I struggled back to consciousness, I told him I loved him, so that my love would overcome his evil, and I would heal him with, it's nonsense.
	I mean, that's not healthy.
	That is not healthy.
	However, I think I don't have that kind of subjugated relationship to the powers of the world, so that's not a direct analogy at all.
	But I love the world that our love of virtue can create.
	I love the world that I can create through the act of loving the world.
	Loving the world's potential can be to help bring that potential into being.
	In a way that loving the, quote, potential virtue of your immediate, sadistic, brutalizing boyfriend is not going to bring into being, but rather enable the worst aspects of his behavior by continually giving him a victim that won't leave him.
	You are enabling his torture all the more.
	But I believe...
	That the man who sails an icebreaker creates a new channel that other people can go easier afterwards.
	He creates passage by willing passage and by being in possession of a strong ship.
	And I can will passage to people by being in possession of strong will, great virtue, mental constitution, courage, all the things, both innate and one, that I can will in the world.
	And if your book is part of that process, I don't mean part of my process, I mean part of the process that all good men and women are engaged in, of making the world a better place, you have been gifted by nature with great intelligence, artistic ability, commitment, work ethic.
	Some of it is earned.
	Don't get me wrong.
	I'm not saying it's all genetic.
	Some of it is earned, but a lot of it you were gifted with.
	And I genuinely think...
	That if we sort of all understood this, it's not an accident to me that as genetic explanations for human behavior receded, the welfare state Rose up.
	Because if we think everything about us is willed, we don't have any obligation to the rest of humanity.
	Because, well, we just worked harder and other people didn't.
	No.
	Have I worked harder than other people who've wanted to create YouTube channels based on ideas?
	Maybe, but certainly not everyone.
	And there are other people who've worked harder who have failed.
	Not everyone who writes a hit song just happened to work harder.
	Some people just have that luck or have that ability or have that whatever.
	And so...
	If we understand, those of us who are gifted with significant intelligence, communication skills, however it is that we are gifted in the fight to make the world a better place, if we understand that we're just kind of lucky in a lot of ways, then I think that creates a kind of obligation, as I talked about.
	If we think it's all environmental, we actually become less charitable, we become less kind, then we kind of need a welfare state.
	Because we think, well, we're just working hard or they're not working as hard.
	They could do everything we could do.
	They just don't get around to it.
	They just don't get off their asses.
	They just whatever, right?
	Or they're too broken or whatever.
	We can't fix them because the environment broke them and so on.
	No, there's genetics and there's environment.
	And as the environmental explanation has taken over, I think some of the noblesse oblige among the gifted has diminished.
	But if you understand that if enough good people...
	Love the world that can be.
	We actually will create a world we can genuinely love.
	Yeah.
	Well, I will.
	I will.
	Do you want to mention the name of the book?
	Do you want to tell people where they might be able to get a hold of it?
	Yes.
	Absolutely, because how can I not after that speech?
	I have to promote this thing, you know?
	I was compelled to write it and I am compelled to be part of that process of making the world a better place and I really believe that this book can be part of that.
	The book is called The Ghost of Emily.
	It's the first of the trilogy and it's available on Amazon as a paperback and on Kindle.
	The audio book is coming soon.
	I've just launched, while I was listening to your previous callers, I just launched a new website to promote the book, a trilogy called theghostsofmen.com.
	So it's all available now, and I really appreciate any FDR readers who want to check it out and leave a review on Amazon in particular.
	And also, I mentioned my philosophy podcast before, which is sort of tied up with the publication of this book, and that is therationalrise.com.
	And I would love anyone to come over and join the conversation that we're having there.
	And, Steph, can I send you a copy of the book somehow through Mike?
	Yeah, please do.
	I'd love to have a look.
	Excellent.
	I'd love to maybe one day hear your thoughts on it if you enjoy it.
	All right.
	Well, thanks very much for the call.
	A great pleasure to chat again, and congratulations on the book.
	I look forward to having a look at it.
	Thanks, everyone, so much for calling in.
	I did put out a denotion request today, so please check it out, and also...
	Don't even bother checking it out.
	Just go to freedomainradio.com slash donate to help us out with a donation.
	Don't forget to follow me on Twitter at Stefan Molyneux.
	And last but not least, the affiliate link is fdrurl.com slash Amazon.
	Please like, subscribe, and share everything you can get your hands on because YouTube doesn't seem to be doing much of that these days.
	So thanks everyone so much for listening and for watching.
	Have a great, great night.

▲