4162 Overcoming Meaninglessness - Call In Show - August 8th, 2018
|
Time
Text
Hello, my friends. Stephen Mullen, you from Free Domain.
Hope you're doing well. Four great, deep, and powerful calls tonight.
Thank you, everyone, so much, of course, for all of your support for the show.
Please, please help us out at freedomainradio.com slash donate.
That's freedomainradio.com slash donate.
Now, I love it if you buy the book, The Art of the Argument, at theartoftheargument.com, but don't forget to support the flagship show at freedomainradio.com slash donate.
First caller. Okay, so let's say that you raise your children peacefully.
Well, how does that prepare them to deal with crazy people in the real world?
It's a common question.
This one took a bit of an interesting turn, to put it mildly.
The second caller wants to know how you deal with a growing, creeping, tombstone-in-the-soul sense of nihilism.
And the word that he used to describe nihilism was powerful up front and took us on a very deep course through his life, through his history, and through the possibility of hope for us all.
The third caller wanted to know, and it's a typical question, like if you get rid of the state, Won't people just be desperately clamoring for a leader and that leader will then replace the state?
Sort of like a power vacuum or an authority vacuum in people's lives.
And so I tackled that question and I think you'll find it very important and very powerful.
The fourth caller, I think it's important to be patient with this caller.
He's got something important to say.
He does take a little bit of a roundabout way to get there, but it's an argument for the existence of God that is actually quite interesting.
So hang in there for that call.
Alright, well up first today we have Rodney.
Rodney wrote in and said, I'm a big fan of the peaceful parenting principles you advocate.
I had a rather unhappy childhood myself.
I was able to grow out of the misery and get my life on track.
Now happily married, and we are expecting our fifth child any day now.
We are part of a growing homeschool co-op with parents who just can't bear the thought of sending their lovely nurtured children into the sardine factory called public school.
At the same time, they have to grow out of the, quote, peaceful bubble, unquote, that my wife and I provide and deal with the real world in which they have to choose their friends wisely, choose their lifestyle, set and attain their goals, and so forth.
When children grow up in an honest and safe environment, will they recognize distrust or untrustworthy people when they grow up?
How can you best prepare them for the complexity of real life?
That's from Rodney. Hey Rodney, how you doing?
Hey, can you hear me okay, Stefan?
Yes. Okay.
Yeah, so the question pretty much says it, you know...
I'm thinking back of my life and I think of some of the junction points in my life where I could have taken the easy route, but I realized if I want to really get somewhere in life and get out of this situation that I'm not very happy with, then I really need to do my best and And really take the high road.
And so, you know, I'm thinking of my children.
I'm giving them a better youth than that I had.
But at the same time, you know, there comes a time where they have to plan for themselves and they have to, you know, figure out for themselves what they need to do.
And of course, you have a long time to prepare for that.
And there's puberty where, you know, children kind of do that automatically to some extent, right?
They kind of Want to go their own way whether you like it or not.
I think that mechanism to some extent is built into the human nature, if you will.
What is your disaster scenario?
What is the worst case scenario that you see coming out of peaceful parenting?
I think just a lack of motivation for You know, forming your own personality or really saying, oh, I'm going to, you know, have something that I really like doing that I'm, you know, going to make a career out of that.
I'm not sure what you mean.
Are you saying that children who are raised peacefully don't end up with an identity?
Yeah, or just, I guess I'm thinking of, you know, if you're very motivated to, you know, make your life better, then you will try harder than if your make your life better, then you will try harder than if your life is And you're not desperate to, if you will. You don't have that hunger.
It's like if you're not hungry, you don't go searching for food.
That's kind of it, I guess.
So then your abusive parents gave you a great gift by that logic, right?
Which was the gift of ambition and hunger and a real desire to improve, right?
Have you thanked them for that lately?
No, I have not.
Good. Yeah, no, that's not what we want, right?
Well, you know, I learned a lot from fighting that near-fatal illness.
Yeah, sure, so you got some good stuff out of a bad situation, but that doesn't mean we want to go and contract another fatal illness or near-fatal illness in order to grow, right?
Exactly. So how do you get better without having a nerve?
I mean, and that's a good point, right?
So you sometimes see these shows on TV where people can walk for the first time because they have, you know, what they call the prosthetic limb and they appreciate being able to walk, whereas a lot of people in the world that we live in today complain and they certainly aren't thankful that they're able to walk even though they are,
right? So how do you How do you instill those levels of appreciation, I guess, into people without them not being able to walk?
Why do they need that level of appreciation?
What's the benefit of it?
I think there's a lot of good things in life that people oversee.
You know, I came to the United States as an immigrant and life here is so much better than where I came from.
And I see a lot of people completely missing that and just complaining about the bad stuff.
You know, there's always bad stuff and most of it is pretty superficial and people...
No, no, no. That's bad stuff in America that is not at all superficial.
There's demographic replacement, there's imperialistic wars, there's national debts, there's terrible education, there's indoctrination, there's a commie media.
There's a lot in America and the West as a whole that needs to be fought for.
I mean, I get that relative to whatever hellhole you first came from, it's probably a huge step up, but I don't think that Americans are taking it all for granted.
A lot of them are fighting pretty hard to try and retain the values that they inherited.
Yeah. Yeah, I agree.
And I definitely would like to see my children on the list as well.
I mean, I'm fighting for it, and I want them to fight for it as well.
And so I want to, you know, make them feel really personally that this is something that matters, right?
I mean, I'm not trying to put my...
That's the thing, I guess, too.
Like, I'm not necessarily trying to put my beliefs...
But at the same time, they have to think about themselves as well, right?
So you can't really, you know, my parents had certain things that they wanted me to do, which wasn't necessarily what I wanted, right?
And maybe that's the answer.
Maybe that personality just comes on its own.
No, okay. So this is a lot of wandering around the verbal backwaters.
But the basic reality is that we do not do evil unto our children.
I mean, the effects of that, I don't know, maybe I'm missing something and maybe you've got a great point, Rodney, but the effect, I could care less.
I'm not going to abuse my child.
I'm not going to hit her.
I'm not going to yell at her.
I'm not going to call her names because that's wrong.
Now, the effects of all of that, who knows?
I don't know. You don't know.
We aim to do good because that is the universal moral of every moment.
Now, as far as, well, what are the effects going to be in 20 years upon their personality and interactions?
I don't care! Because there is no scenario under which I would morally countenance the abuse of children.
And if you just say, well, I'm going to act on principle, And forget about living in this mind-reading, future-traveling, imaginary fantasy world called the effects 10 years down the road.
Then just enjoy doing good and being a good father, which it sounds like you are, and congratulations.
I've seen your Adverse Childhood Experience score.
Good for you. Just enjoy the process of doing good as a parent, as a human being, as a father, in the moment.
I honestly could care less about the effects of moral parenting on my child when she's 25.
Because that's not how I'm going to judge My moral behavior in the here and now, because you can make up any scenario in the fantasy land called the future.
And you've heard me in this show a million times.
People say, well, if we have a free society, this terrible thing could happen.
It's like, you don't know. It's just a way of avoiding enjoying the pleasure of doing good in the moment.
We advocate for virtuous parenting.
We can make any kind of scare story we want about the effects of peaceful parenting.
I don't care. I'm not going to beat my wife.
Say, well, it might make her tougher in the huh.
I don't care. You can make up any scenario you want to justify deviations from good actions.
We just focus on doing the good actions.
There's an old saying when I was a kid, speak the truth, though it shamed the devil.
Do good, though the skies fall.
Just be good. I mean, why say, oh, well, it's going to be tough for your kids to deal with crazy people.
Well, good. You want it to be tough for your kids to deal with crazy people.
Or as my daughter said when I put this question to her, why on earth would I want to spend my time dealing with crazy people?
Right? I mean, if all crazy people speak Japanese and you don't teach your children Japanese, they're not going to have much in common with crazy people now, are they?
So, no. You get them used to good, virtuous, decent, kind people in their life and they'll recoil.
From evil people.
Like, we have this idea that virtue is sort of like the immune system.
You know, like, one of the reasons why kids have a lot of allergies these days is they grow up in these quasi-hypoallergenic environments.
The kids who eat dirt, they get stronger immune system.
Kids who grow up in the country, kids who handle animals, they end up with a less fragile environment.
Immune system, something that is, you know, more robust and doesn't keep confusing benevolent items for dangerous pathogens.
So I get the idea that if we mistake virtue for the immune system, then raising kids in a virtuous environment is like raising them in a hypoallergenic environment.
They go out into the world and they'll be beheaded by hay fever or something.
But that's not the way the immune system works, it seems.
But that's not the way the virtue works.
So... I think that what you're trying to do is grasp for some straw.
Let me ask you this. Let me ask you this.
What is the status of your relationship with the parents of your childhood who abused you?
I get along reasonably well with my dad.
I don't talk with my mom anymore.
I just decided that my life is better without her than with her.
It was basically the bottom line.
And why did your dad...
Get away with things. Why did your dad get away with things?
Why is your dad off the hook?
I think he did care for me very much.
I think his issue is that he avoids conflict, and so he avoided conflict with my mom, and even if I have a conflict with him, then he kind of retreats.
He says, okay, okay, okay, and he immediately Agrees on the surface, but then later on I find out actually he didn't agree with me.
He just kind of said he agreed to avoid the conflict.
So I would say that's the main issue I have with my dad.
But other than that, he did treat me well.
Wait, but who? So, let me just go through your Adverse Childhood Experience score.
You've got verbal abuse slash threats, no family love or support, neglect, not enough food, dirty clothes, no protection or medical treatment, parents divorced, lived with alcoholic or drug user, household member depressed, mentally ill, or suicide attempt.
Now, what was your father's involvement in this stuff?
So they divorced when I was four years old.
And he was definitely depressed, particularly after the divorce.
I think my mom is kind of a narcissistic personality.
So whatever happens in the world is exclusively everybody else's fault.
And I think he was kind of defenseless against that.
Wait, what do you mean he was defenseless?
Hang on, hang on. Rodney, Rodney.
What do you mean he was defenseless against that?
He chose to marry that.
Yeah. It wasn't an arranged marriage, was it?
Yeah, the word defenseless, I mean, he didn't defend himself against that.
No, no, no. He chose her.
He dated her.
He pursued her.
He proposed to her. He got married to her.
He gave her children.
How is he a victim here?
Maybe I'm missing something, some part of the story where maybe he was kidnapped and forced married.
I don't know. But how is he a victim in this?
I didn't say so much as a victim.
You said what was his involvement?
You said he was defenseless against this.
That's a victim statement.
Okay, yeah. I don't think he needed to be defenseless, but he put himself in that position.
And he put you in that position by choosing a narcissistic woman to be your mother, right?
Yeah. And who divorced who, do you know?
It was her.
She wanted to leave and, you know, I think basically because she'd already kind of had some, it's not proven, but most likely an affair and so she wanted to leave and so she left with me basically.
Wait, she left with you?
What do you mean? She left him and took me with her.
You know, the courts are pretty favorable to women in divorce cases, so she got to bring me with her.
Are you an only child? Yeah, I'm an only child, yeah.
And did he fight her for any kind of custody?
Not much. Why?
I guess they... Well, that's the thing.
She is a very kind of dominant, narcissistic personality.
And he was kind of in this basic, how do I say it, frame of mind that she was right.
So when she told him that she was in this state of mind that she was Right, or he would give in to her.
He did not have the willpower to stand up to her.
Was he scared of her?
I think it's a low self-esteem issue.
I think he just didn't have enough self-esteem to really say, no, I am fit to raise a child and, you know, there's no reason that you're more fit to do this than I am.
I think he was naive. Wait, who's there?
My wife is here too, by the way.
Sorry. Sorry, who's there?
My wife is here. Oh, hi.
How's it going? Is she listening in?
Sorry about that. Oh, no, that's totally fine.
It's going to go public, so I don't mind if people are listening to it.
That's fine. Feel free to jump in any time.
But I'm just trying to follow this, and I apologize if I'm Being slow, I'm on decaf in the evenings.
He gave way to your mother.
It must be because he was nervous or afraid of something, right?
He had really low self-esteem, so that's how I saw it.
He said, you're not fit to raise a child, this is a woman's job, that kind of thing.
He's like, oh, okay, I guess you're right.
And, you know, so he kind of went along with it.
So he couldn't handle your mother's assertiveness or aggression.
And so he handed over a four-year-old to her because we all know that four-year-olds can handle what grown men can't, right?
Exactly. Did he even fight for 50-50 custody or anything like that?
No, they married in a way that they didn't have, you know, shared.
How do I say it?
Like, he already had a house and some other assets.
And so they married without sharing, you know, what do you call the common law where they, you know, so he got to keep the house and everything that he already had, you know, before the marriage.
So that was something that she negotiated with him.
It's like, well, he gave you to a crazy woman in return for a house?
Yeah. What?
Come on. Are you aware of how this sounds?
Crazy woman, take my son, but I want the house.
I won't fight for custody for my son to keep him away from a crazy narcissistic woman, but I will fight for the house.
He didn't have to fight for the house.
That was part of their marriage clauses that he got to keep the staff in case they divorced.
Oh, like the pre-nup? Yeah, it's like a prenuptial agreement, I guess.
But did the pre-nup not talk anything about children?
No. Well, I wasn't there when they made it, but that's kind of the deal that they came up with.
And I guess they got partial...
I mean, a four-year-old doesn't really...
You know, understand prenuptials.
No, no, I get that.
I'm not talking about you as a four-year-old understanding the prenup.
You understand. So, what happened then?
Did you spend most of your childhood with your mother?
How often did you see your father?
Yeah, they lived close together, so I could walk to his house and see him.
And my mother didn't really prevent me from seeing him.
But I think with her, like, I mean, she got these kind of angry outbursts, and then whoever is closest to her is the subject of her angry outbursts.
So I think when they were married, then he was kind of the lightning rod, you know, that took all the hits.
And then after the divorce, then he wasn't there.
And then so I'm the one who took all her, you know, anger and criticism.
So he knew, sorry to interrupt Rodney, but he knew That his wife, your mother, was verbally abusive, right?
Yeah. Because he'd taken the brunt of it, right?
And he knew, I'm sure, that it would be almost certain that that would continue, except it would then be directed against a four year old little boy, right?
Yeah, I think that's a pretty reasonable thing to say.
He was probably going neener-neener or whatever, but that's his weakness.
Did you say neener-neener? Is this the new womp womp?
I don't know. What does neener-neener mean in this context?
I don't think he was allowing himself to think of it that way, even though he should have.
But I think that's his weakness.
I think he just, whatever. He's just weak.
He didn't treat his daughter-in-law nice either, I can tell you that.
Sorry, can you say that again?
Just lean in a bit, I couldn't hear. I said he didn't treat his daughter-in-law very nice either.
Well, let's hear about that.
But that's another show.
I don't want to jump around on you.
It's my show. I can at least ask the question, how did he treat you, my dear?
Well, yeah, my name is Ivy.
I'm sorry. Was it Ivy?
Well, yeah.
Okay, hi, Ivy. But anyway, yeah, he came over one day to the States to visit us.
And he had all kinds of assumptions, you know.
I don't know why, but when I got to know Rodney in the beginning, he was really nice.
He was nice, you know.
I didn't see anything.
Well, I didn't see that.
No, not at all. And then when he came over here to visit, I don't know.
He was just weird.
He had his girlfriend with him.
He has a girlfriend now.
And sometimes he would just go, take his girlfriend, go out at the door for a walk and not even say something to me and just disappear.
And I was like, Okay, well, that's weird.
Why don't you ask me to come along?
Why can't we just go for a stroll together and chat a little bit?
Because I wanted to know, I wanted to get to know him better.
Because Rodney and I did not date very long, and then we got married, and I hardly knew his father, like in the beginning, you know, yeah.
I didn't meet up with him a lot.
So when he came over, I saw it also as an opportunity to get to know him better, as Rodney's dad, part of the family.
So he basically was a little bit ignoring me and later on when he got back and when he was back in Holland we became a letter in the mail And that was just a letter like you should send to a hotel stay you were not happy with.
Like a Yelp review, that's a one-star Yelp review, you know, where it's like, you don't actually call the hotel to figure it out, but you just kind of leave a one-star Yelp review without effort.
Yeah, well, that's not important. Let me just...
No, no, no, that's important.
No, no, Ivy, that is important.
So I'm bookmarking it, but please go on.
Yeah, help is important.
I know that. I can throw in some examples.
No, just one example. He would just accuse me of spending, of basically using Rodney's credit card for all kinds of spends.
He would say, yes, he was in front of the computer all the time and shopping.
That wasn't true, because when he was here, I was looking for a job, and I said, listen, if you all don't mind, I have to spend a lot of time before the computer because I'm applying for a job.
And it took me hours and hours, and sometimes I just needed a break, so I looked on Craigslist, just to relax a little bit, Craigslist or eBay, whatever.
And he interpreted that.
He interpreted it like, He probably saw that, and that pissed him off, I think, and accused me of spending all my husband's money, which I would never, ever do.
Well, okay, okay, hang on, hang on.
So... The issue is not primarily that he may have misinterpreted your time on Craigslist, Ivy.
The issue, and I really, really dislike this, so I'm just telling you it's a personal beef of mine, so take that for what it's worth.
I really hate the people who have an issue with you and then wait till they leave and then write you a letter.
You know, it's like, I was right here in the room with you.
You could have just sat down, asked me some questions, and we could have cleared it up right away, but it's no.
I'm going to wait until I get back home, and then I've got to write you a little letter, and you can't respond to it right away.
That's manipulative crap.
Yeah. And I tell you this.
We had some...
I told him a couple of times, I said, William, listen, I'm not a person that's holding stuff back.
If you want to talk about something, just clear it up.
No, I get that. I'm honest, and I'll tell you the truth.
And I'm not whining around stuff.
That's what I... I told him once because I could feel.
Sometimes I was walking on eggshells because I could just feel the tension.
He disliked me.
He didn't like me for marrying Rodney and I had the feeling that he felt that I stole Rodney from him.
That's the feeling I got.
Well, of course, he's such a wonderful judge of women's characters that, of course, he'd be objective about you.
I mean, just look at the woman. He chose to be the mother of his children.
Yes. And I'm not in touch with him anymore.
When he calls him once in a while, I don't want to speak to him.
I still feel...
I have to forgive him, I know, but it's very hard.
Wait, wait, why do you have to forgive him?
Well, I'm a Christian, but...
Well, no, but you have to earn forgiveness, right?
I mean, even God demands that, and God is morally perfect.
And so God says, I will forgive you, but first, before I forgive you, says God, you must be contrite.
You must repent. So sure, if he apologizes and says, you know what, I wasn't real nice to you when we were there, and then I wrote you this terrible letter afterwards, which is going to cause trouble between you and Rodney.
I mean, the guy threw a grenade into the tent of your marriage, right?
Yes, absolutely.
So, if he apologizes...
Sorry, go ahead.
I've never heard any apology.
Right. So, I mean, forgiveness is something to be earned, right?
Oh, I tell you this, there's so many stuff I could talk to you about.
It's Rodney that called in.
No, no, listen, Ivy, we are talking about it all, trust me.
What are the other things or two that you'd like to mention about Rodney's dad?
No, the fact that she, I mean...
Think one thing and say the other thing.
Like, we were...
I had...
We were...
When they were here, we said, you know, let's go on a road trip.
And we were going out of the state, so we had to spend a couple of nights in hotels.
And I said, Rodney, you know what?
The second night...
We actually booked a motel with a hot tub.
You know what? Let's give that to...
Well, they only had one room with the hot tub.
So it's like either we got it or they got it.
And I said, well, I don't mind.
They can have it. You know, it's your dad.
And they would say, no, no, it's okay, Ivy.
We don't need that.
I'm here to say that Ivy offered it to them and they declined it.
And then later on they said, oh, but we wanted the room with the hot tub and she denied it to us.
That's just like, you know, yeah, that's BS. Yeah, that kind of behavior.
I'm like, very manipulative.
Like you say, very manipulative.
Weird. Why would you do that?
If you would really like your daughter-in-law, you would not do that.
You would treat her with dignity.
Well, I've got to tell you, Ivy, I'm extraordinarily happy that you're on the call.
Do you know why? No.
Because, boy, you hear Rodney's talking about his father, and his father sounds like a sad, low-esteem person who, you know, is kind of like a victim.
But seeing it from your standpoint, where we see this kind of manipulative rewriting of history, this letter-mail abuse and undermining of his son's marriage and the ignoring of you, it's just a different view from what I was getting from Rodney, and not really much in line.
Well, I think they're both true, you know?
I mean, it's a sign of pointness, too.
No, no, no. They're not both true.
Rodney, if he treated your wife like this, where's your loyalty to your wife?
Oh, I am. I didn't talk to him for years after this happened.
I told him I'm not talking to you.
But he may have treated his wife like this also.
I remember, I recall one thing, because his mom visited us, right?
And I took a stroll with his mom one day.
When Rodney was at work.
And I must say, I had a feeling she came out.
She told me one thing that stuck with me.
She said, well, there was never any money for anything.
Well, always this and that.
And one day I had bought a little yard of fabric to make or sew something.
I don't know. Anyway.
And he would say to her, oh, that was an expensive little yard of fabric.
I'm like, what?
So he didn't...
I don't think...
I think she left out of the blue, but I don't think she wasn't happy at all in that marriage because his death, it's better now, but I know tales from Rodney.
There was no...
He didn't want to heat it on in the winter.
He wanted to save money on that.
Rockne had to sleep in an attic with ice on the blankets.
Every morning I could get up and write my name in the ice on the inside of the window.
You know, that's how cold it was.
And your father didn't want to spend the money on heating?
Is that right? Yeah.
Could he afford it? I think so.
I think so, yeah. Well, that seems like, I mean, it's Holland.
It seems like a pretty important thing to have some heat.
Yes, in the winter especially.
Yeah, I mean, especially because he got to keep the house, which meant that he had some assets, right?
So what did he do?
So you didn't talk to him for a couple of years because of how he treated your wife and I assume some other things.
So, Rodney, what did he do to get back into your graces to the point where you were willing to resume a relationship with him?
Well, nothing really I would say.
He did apologize, actually.
Not to her, but he did say, well, I'm sorry about what I did.
But then I'm like, well, let's talk about it because...
You know, just an apology isn't that valuable.
I want to know what you were thinking.
You know, how did you come up with this totally arcane behavior that doesn't make any sense?
You know, you say one thing one time, and then later on, after it's over, you say something else.
And he didn't want to talk about it at all, and so that's definitely a big dent.
Alright, so what did he need from you that he apologized?
Well, just because he...
So his girlfriend also, like their family, they were also kind of getting...
And I don't know why they did it, but they were getting him riled up against us somehow.
And so they didn't like us somehow, or like her somehow.
And I don't know who started it, but they kind of went off on their own thing.
So it was kind of a group behavior.
I guess that's probably the best...
Yeah. You know, sometimes people behave differently in a group than by themselves, so I think there was a group aspect to it.
Which is ridiculous.
Yeah, I mean, he should...
What have I done wrong?
I mean, I cannot recall anything.
And I totally...
I mean, I did stand with my wife on that, and that's why I said, you know, I'm just...
I mean, I tried to talk with him about it, and then when he didn't really...
It's like, well, I'm sorry about what happened, but then it's like, okay, let's talk about it.
He didn't want to talk about it. I'm like, well, I just don't really feel like talking to you at all anymore.
I mean, he's evasive.
He's evasive. He still is.
I mean, this happened like, what, six years ago?
Eight, seven years ago? Seven years ago.
So he still hasn't talked about it.
So then he didn't really apologize, right?
Especially if you've wronged someone and you apologize to someone else, that's not really apologizing, right?
No. Or I've thought about it for a long time.
Maybe he's jealous. That we have a good marriage, and that we have a wonderful family, and he didn't have that, or maybe didn't have the capacity to do it, or was too much tied up with himself, the way he grew up, maybe?
Well, listen, this is the thing.
This is a bit of a female habit, which is to try and mind-read other people.
Who knows, and who cares?
Who cares why people do crappy things?
Because every time people come up with an explanation, it's like they're reaching for an excuse.
One thing that I also really disliked, so he's got this weird attitude of like, well, women are kind of there to be, you know, enjoyed at your leisure, but no commitments.
And that's exactly how, for some reason, his girlfriend likes that.
You know, she also doesn't want any commitments.
So even though they're, you know, 70, 80 years old, that's, you know, they...
We have this really kind of uncommitted relationship with each other.
But that's not how I want to live my life.
That's just not for me. And so I love my wife and I want to make this thing work through better and through worse times.
And I definitely stand with her.
And when they were here, they were actually saying, You know, we're here together because we have fun and then maybe next time we go out with somebody else and so they're kind of like...
Joking about it. Yeah, making fun of us almost in a bad way, you know, kind of ridiculing us, I would say, for being loyal.
Having a solid marriage. Yeah, having a solid marriage, which I really disliked them doing that.
How long have you guys been married for?
Eight years? Eight years, yeah.
Okay, good. So, I'm close to double yours, so let me just be annoying and give you a tiny lecture about marriage and loyalty.
Now, I don't know what your marriage vows were, but a typical one goes something like this.
Will you take this...
I'm going to give this to you as the husband.
Will you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife?
To live together in the holiest state of matrimony, and thereby love her, comfort her, honor and cherish her in sickness and in health, and forsaking all others.
Keep you only unto her for so long as you both shall live.
Now the traditional wedding includes these three central words.
Forsaking all others.
Now that's very interesting when you think about it.
Because forsaking all others, they don't just say forsaking all other women, forsaking all other lovers.
It says forsaking all others.
Now what that means, and there's a reason why it developed this way, what that means guys is that anyone who comes between you and your wife It's toast.
Should be toast. That your loyalty is to your wife.
Forsaking all others.
Including parents.
Including brother and sister.
Including friends.
Including anyone who tries to drive a wedge between you and your wife.
Forsaking all others.
And it's right there. And it's the last promise that is made in the traditional wedding vows, forsaking all others.
Because your father has made his choices in his life.
He's had his life. He had his marriage.
He screwed it up, or she screwed it up, or they both screwed it up.
It's rare that one person is better than the other.
In a marriage, that doesn't tend to happen.
But Rodney, your loyalty is to Ivy.
Now, that means that in any contradiction between your loyalty to Ivy and your loyalty to anyone else, the vow is forsaking all others.
Your loyalty is to your wife.
And if anyone tries to get between you and your wife, well, a catapult to infinity is the standard response.
Yes, well I've had it with my parents too.
I'm sorry? Horrible, horrible experiences with my parents.
The caterpillar to infinity.
That always brought us to the brink of a divorce.
And I will not bring it up because it's too long for the show.
I think your parents got in the way more than mine did.
I didn't let my parents get in the way.
No, no more. No more, no more.
Yeah, no, you cannot, and I was very clear with this, with the people around me, that once I had chosen my wife to be my wife and to be the mother of my children, like anybody who tries to mess that up or anyone who gets in the way or, it doesn't mean we can't be criticized, it doesn't mean, no, that's totally fine.
But anyone who tries to undermine the bond, anyone who tries to crack the family, sorry.
No way. Not, I won't let it happen, but still continue to hang around.
It's like, put down your fucking drink and get out of my house and don't come back.
Forsaking all others.
And if it was my sibling, if it was my parents, if anyone who got between me and my wife, or who downgraded my wife, or who even didn't respect the relationship to the degree that it was warranted, put down your drink, get out of my house, and don't come back.
Yeah. Yeah. Everyone thinks that marriages break up just because two people screw it up.
No. I believe that the majority of times that marriages break up, it's because other people smash it.
Other people bring in their wrecking balls of bullshit and crack the damn thing.
Two people... Can find a way to get along.
It's when all these other people are whispering crap into their ear and undermining and sowing seeds of doubt and flirting with people and just cracking up the family unit.
The destruction of a marriage is usually a cooperative venture with lots of people around smashing at it one way or another.
Yeah. I've had it with my family.
They came over. We live in simple housing and basically what it comes down to wasn't good enough for them.
They would come hunting on it when Rodney was at work and whispering to me like, oh Ivy, this is another way to live.
You can't live in those mobile homes, those shitty old mobile homes you guys bought.
That's just not good enough.
And they would, yeah, I'm sorry.
And it's my fault.
I mean, I admit, we talked it out, Rodney and I, but I let them brainwash a little bit and then I said, I said to Robbie, I don't know about this housing.
I really don't like it.
And basically, well, we had a whole argument about it that almost brought us on the brink of a divorce.
I'm telling you, just because my parents wasn't good enough.
Now listen, let me just be clear about that.
So if someone around you, let's say it's your parents, Ivy, sit down with the both of you and say, we're a little bit concerned about the quality of the housing.
What's the long-term plan?
This is going to be where our grandchildren grow up.
That's fine. It's fine to get feedback.
And it's fine for people to say, you know, maybe you could do a little bit better with the gifts that God gave you or whatever.
The issue is when they talk to one person and sow seeds of doubt and problems and conflict and then step back and let it all play out.
That's manipulative as hell and incredibly destructive.
That's, yeah. They did not say it the way you said, we are concerned is that.
They were just, they were just gossiping, like, Yeah, it didn't come as...
Oh my god, it was just mean!
It was like... And there was nothing concrete there, really.
Like, oh, maybe the sewer is going to get plugged, or maybe this is going to happen.
You know, none of that.
I mean, nothing actually, like, genuine concern.
It was more of just kind of Ugly!
Seeding conflict, basically.
It was ugly.
On the surface, I wouldn't say no nothing.
My dad and my mom wanted to come over to just help her out a little bit.
Because we needed some stuff replaced.
I said, well, you know, while I'm here, I can just help a little bit.
That's fine. Well, I said, we don't need to do it.
We can also have fun. I said to my dad, I haven't seen you for quite a while.
We can go here, we can go there.
And it was right away, no, we're not going to do that because then we're not going to finish this.
Then I better go back home.
That was one thing. I was like, well, if you're not here for my relationship, where's the love?
That was one thing.
One evening, I was sitting in the living room, and Rodney already went to bed, and the walls are pretty thin, so I could hear conversations between my mom and dad.
And one of the conversations I heard was like, oh, I can't stand it, and I don't understand how Rodney can do this to my daughter, and yada yada.
Well, the housing is not that bad, I can say that.
It's just, in Holland, everything is pick and span.
But anyway... They were just behind their backs.
Badmouth Rodney.
And just this gossip, you know.
And then I heard a story.
You can't believe it.
My dad was talking about one day that he was helping out Rodney.
And Rodney had a bag that brought some chocolate.
He had it in the bag.
And he had told my dad, if you want some, you just take some.
That's okay. So Rodney comes out occasionally and takes a chocolate.
We went to the store and I asked him, do you want something?
He's like, no, no, no. And then I'm like, well, I'll take one and another one to go, you know, and then he didn't want any.
It was kind of almost the same thing, right?
Where then he didn't want any and then after he didn't get any, then he complained to his wife that I didn't get him anything.
And that Ralphie was a bastard.
And that I was a bastard for not offering him any food.
And I'm like, well, you know, you...
And it's not like he never talked to me about it.
He just talked to her about it.
And what's the status of you guys with these delightful in-laws?
What? What is the status of that relationship at the moment?
I think we talk to them about once every four months.
I don't speak with them much often because I can't trust my mom.
So I can't trust her with personal stuff.
That's another thing. She's really...
I was pregnant with my first son.
And they came over and I... Well, I didn't want to tell my mom because my mom, as soon as she hears it, she brags it all over town and I didn't want that.
I wanted to announce it myself to family and friends whenever I'm ready.
Worse than that, like...
Ivy had had some medical issues with her first pregnancy.
Not much, but... We said, don't tell other people because our medical things are not somebody else's business.
And then they put it, not just at any time, but the day after they came back home and they had internet access, she put it on her internet blog that she had had this Medical issue and then by golly, they're still having a baby.
Who would have thought? That kind of thing.
Oh, I was so mad. That's like Gossip 101.
That's like the way gossip papers talk about Brad Pitt or whoever.
Yeah, publishing private medical information on a public blog.
I don't even think that's legal, to be honest with you.
Like, I really don't think that's legal.
And we specifically told him...
Yeah, I said don't.
I always have to say that to her.
Don't. If I want...
But then she does it anyway.
And also... And now we found out because what happened was actually we didn't...
Initially we didn't know and then we got a letter from her cousin or whatever...
Saying, oh, well, congratulations, and we really feel sorry for your medical issue.
Like, how did they know that, right?
And then we found out that he had put it there.
So, guys, guys, hang on, hang on, hang on.
I think I've got a pretty good picture, and I sympathize, I really do.
But hang on, hang on. So, what are you teaching your kids by still being in relationships with these people?
They don't even...
We don't get them involved much.
I mean, of course, my parents, they send birthday cards, but...
Yeah, I don't know.
That's a question I ask for myself.
If they grow up, how, what...
I mean, I don't want to have much involved with those people at all.
Why do you have...
What's the value of having any involvement with these people?
Help me understand that. No...
Right! Right. No, I've made that case, and so I don't talk to my mom anymore.
I talk to my dad, you know, once in a while on the phone, but I'll usually call him when I'm, you know, driving or something, so it's not, you know, something that involves the kids.
No, but it has mental space.
Listen, I can hear the emotional energy and frustration and anger that is going on with this.
Listen, I mean... I had a pretty terrible mom and I talk about her, but there's no pressure.
There's no emotional tension behind it.
Right? This is like raw emotion for you guys and it's very strong.
And I'm concerned that it's taking up your mind and taking up your heart, whether it's like a conversation every couple of months on the phone or whether, who knows, right?
But it's raw. And the degree to which you're tied up with this stuff is the degree to which you're less available emotionally for your children, right?
Because you're concerned about your kids' exposure to crazy people in the future, but aren't you the portal by which crazy people affect the family in the here and now?
Well, they don't talk to our kids, really.
I don't... Okay, you know, you're not listening to what I'm saying, though.
Right? Which is that it's strong emotional stuff for you guys, right?
And you'll hear it when you listen back.
You really want to make yourself heard.
You're very passionate. You're very wound up.
And I'm not criticizing you. This is all very frustrating and annoying stuff to be around.
But why be around it at all?
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Like, why don't you teach your kids?
Why don't you teach your kids? You don't have relationships with crazy people.
You don't have relationships with people who betray you.
You don't have relationships with people who try to fracture your relationship and drive you close to divorce.
You don't have relationships with people who take your private medical information and publish it on the public internet.
Because then you're keeping your kids safe.
Right now, you're not keeping your kids safe because you're telling them crazy people can be in your lives and be in your minds and be in your hearts and they can take up rent-free space in your brain.
Well, that's true. And, you know, the kids are very young.
But, you know, so it's It doesn't play a part in there.
It does. Well, he's saying that it plays a part in our minds.
Yes, I see what he's saying.
That still takes away from them.
You discuss it, you think about it, you're triggered again, you're concerned about it, you're worried if they call.
And trust me, guys, you know as well as I do, that as your parents get older, they get needier, right?
Yep. And what happens if they still have their hooks in you?
And you still, like, why are they willing to tread water?
Because they're keeping you around for when they need something.
Yeah, well, I thought about it at one sibling.
And I told Rodney, I said, at this point, if something happens, let him clear up the shit.
I'm not doing it.
I'm not even signing.
I'm like, I don't care.
They're out of my life, basically.
I don't call. I don't call them hardly anymore, I tell you.
I'm done with it.
Her parents somehow kind of favor him, and they help him with lots of things, whereas they're not helping her.
And so that was really bothering Ivy a lot.
And that's actually something I said.
I'm going to make the case again.
Sorry to interrupt. So here's the thing.
It's still bothering her a lot.
It's still bothering you guys a lot.
And that's the price you pay for staying in a relationship with people you can't trust who betray you and try and destroy your marriage.
So why would you want to have relationships with these people?
At all? Get rid of them.
I mean, look, if there's some multi-billion dollar inheritance, you say, okay, well, you know, whatever, right?
I mean, or, you know, well, you know, it's once every couple of months they try to destroy our marriage, but they make us laugh till we pee every other day, you know, like whatever, right?
That my dad's fine until he has his second scotch and then he's terrible for 10 minutes or whatever.
But where's the upside here?
Where's the plus? Correct.
Yeah. And I must say, since I haven't gotten any close contact with him anymore, I feel much happier.
I tell you, it's like a weight is off my shoulders.
I'm like, I'm gone. Right.
I'm thinking mostly about your kids, guys.
So your question was, how do we make sure that our kids grow up safe and secure from relationships with crazy people?
And I think we know how you teach them that, which is don't have relationships with crazy people.
If they get that model from their parents, they'll be bulletproof in the world.
Yeah, correct.
Correct. Yes, I totally see what you're saying there.
And I think we're on the way...
Good. I just want to be clear about it.
I'm not telling you what to do, but I want to always inform people of the costs and benefits, right?
And if your concern is that your kids may end up being susceptible to control and manipulation from crazy people, well, I think it's more the mirror you need to look at than the world or your children.
Yes. All right.
Yeah. We've already mostly been moving in that direction.
No, I get it. I get it.
Here's where you minimize and here's where you say it's mostly dealt with.
I'm just telling you where things stand.
All right. I'm going to move on to the next caller, but I certainly wish you the very best, and I really appreciate the fact that you both jumped in on the call.
That was extraordinarily helpful.
Yeah. Okay. Thanks, guys.
I appreciate it. All right.
Up next, we have Cody. Cody wrote in and said, Over the years, I have felt a deep sense of meaninglessness within myself, which has led to me adopting many different philosophies and lifestyle pursuits in order to attain a sense of self-worth.
Recently, it's been harder for me to move past these feelings, and I can feel myself slipping into a deeply nihilistic worldview.
How do I move past my childhood insecurities and my low self-worth and recognize that I can in fact provide meaning to a meaningless world?
That's from Cody. Cody, how you doing?
Hey, Steph. Thanks so much for having me on your show.
I really appreciate it. My pleasure, my pleasure.
When did you first start to feel that life was meaningless?
I think I've always had a lingering feeling of helplessness.
Even when I was a little kid, I always had a feeling like I had this sense of pain, and I felt like it wasn't described to me why I was experiencing this, so I was really confused.
My whole life, I've been into a lot of different things, like joining the military, for instance, or different sports, to try to mask my feelings and try to deal with it in pragmatic manners.
Well, first I'd like to thank you for what is perhaps the most efficient listener response I've ever experienced in 11 years of talking in public.
Cody, I love you.
In fact, I'm going to marry you.
I'm divorcing my wife and I'm going to marry you because you have given me the most efficient feedback of any listener ever in the history of the show.
And do you want to know what that is? What?
I asked you how long you had experienced meaninglessness.
And you exactly gave me the word back, helplessness.
You understand why that's so powerful and so clarifying?
Can you elaborate? If you can act in a purposeful manner and gain traction in your life, you very rarely worry about meaning.
And when we feel helplessness Then our will cannot affect positive change or any change in our situation or environment.
And then we start to feel that life has no meaning because our will has no traction.
As long as we can do something and work to achieve some particular goal or end, hopefully moral, but any kind of positive end, we don't really think about meaninglessness.
Because the meaning is the fact that we can manifest our motivations in the real world through actions.
But when we feel helpless, then we start to question life's meaning, because the meaning of life is expressed through decisive action in pursuit of a goal.
And so when I asked you about meaninglessness, you immediately came back with the word helplessness, which is incredibly rapid, and I just really appreciate that.
Oh, thank you so much, Stefan.
I really appreciate your description there.
And you also could not remember a time before this feeling of meaninglessness, which means to me that helplessness was most likely a characteristic of your childhood for as long as you could remember.
Does that seem true or no?
Yeah, it's very true.
All right. Do you remember a time when you could affect positive change within your environment as a child?
Never. What were the circumstances that made that so impossible for you?
Both of my parents had very bad lives.
My mom was like a victim of sexual abuse as a child.
My father, his father abandoned him basically and made him fend for himself and his brothers.
So they have this like very practical sense of viewing the world and it's like so crushing that any like Trauma or pain that I could have is like immediately dismissed because they didn't beat me with a belt every single day.
But you know in a sense that might have been if they had done that it might have been at least easier to process than what I have to deal with now.
Right. So what you mentioned a little bit about this Cody but what worldview did they develop as a result of the childhood or childhoods that they had?
You work hard, you keep your head down and you grind it out and you never open up about your emotions.
And whenever someone has a problem with the world or with institutions, it's simply an individual issue.
It's not an issue of like an institutional dysfunction.
Right.
Right.
And did that mean...
I'm trying to sort of figure out how that meant with regards...
Did that relate to school work for you or being in school or conflicts with teachers?
Yeah, so when I was in school, like up until like eighth grade, I was like in an area that was like totally different than what my demographic is.
I was in like a low-income black inner-city area.
I'm a white person, so it was very racial.
I felt always alone and I was picked on as a kid.
My teachers, even if they were white teachers, they would treat me badly, poorly for some reason.
It just felt like I was being unfairly targeted.
They would sit me alone in front of the class in one desk and make an example out of me and try to humiliate me in class.
Were you picked on in a racist manner by the black kids?
Yeah. And so what would they do?
They'd call me, you know, racist names and...
Like what? They would, you know, the usual honky, cracker, you know, those sort of deals.
And, you know, they would physically attack me because I'm white and...
So yeah, that didn't lead to a very good childhood experience.
And of course, when I came home, it was a completely dysfunctional mess.
My mom is like...
She...
Like the other caller mentioned narcissistic personality disorder.
Yeah, she's definitely that.
I mean, everything is probably my fault or my dad's fault.
And I have no respect for my dad whatsoever.
He just... Over the years, stuff I've learned about him has just solidified that even more, and they're completely dysfunctional people, and they never gave me answers or even asked me what's wrong, and that's a problem.
Yeah, I mean, I would imagine that you probably had thought at some point of talking about the racist attacks upon you, the lack of support from your teachers, But I suppose that the idea or the belief within you, which probably was perfectly justified, was that they wouldn't do anything to help.
Yeah. Yeah, that's what they call white privilege, right?
Yeah, it's funny how it works.
And what happened with the molestation or rape that you experienced as a child?
When I was like...
Five or six years old, I was molested by a teenage girl.
And what happened?
Sorry, I never have spoken about this, so it's kind of difficult to recall, but...
It's not your shame at all, man.
I mean, you were preyed upon by a teenage girl.
You were, what's it, five or six years old?
old it's not your shame damn it basically she just like forced me to touch her in different places and she reciprocated on me and um It's in the back of my head all the time.
What do you mean? I just feel like I can't get past it.
I feel like people are going to find out, and they're going to judge me for it.
Judge you how? See me as like weak or...
Or worse yet, lucky, right?
Yeah. And was this a friend of the family?
Was this a babysitter? I mean, the stories I've heard, let me tell you, man, you are not alone in this, Cody.
You are not alone in this.
I have heard the most appalling stories from men who as boys were preyed upon by babysitters or older women who And you are not alone in this at all.
Yeah, it was a half-sister.
Right. Oh my god, so she's like in the house.
Yep. And how did she initiate this?
It's always a huge risk, right?
I mean, for somebody to start praying upon a child.
In this manner, because, you know, you can go to the parents, you can go to the teachers, you can go to the priest, the police, who knows, right?
Although that's a bit of a big thing to ask from a five or six year old.
But how did this begin?
So the memories are a bit foggy, but certain details stick out.
Like, initially, like she was like, showing me like how she was changing clothes and stuff like that.
That's where it started, basically.
Oh, she would have you in the room while she was changing her clothes?
Yeah. And did she invite you or threaten you to touch her first, or did she touch you first?
I can't honestly remember.
And was it vaginal or anal or somewhere else where she put your hands?
Yeah, there wasn't any penetration or anything.
It was just my hands were vaginal, breasts, things of that nature.
And then she would touch your penis too, is that right?
Yeah. Good lord.
How monstrous.
And how long did this go on for?
Not necessarily each individual incident, but the stretch of time.
Um, it's really hard to remember certain details about this, but it might have been, like, two times or something like that.
It wasn't, like, over a long period of time.
Because she actually had problems with my parents as well.
Her stepfather, which is my father, they would argue all the time.
They'd get, like, violent and...
You know, screaming. Uh, so basically she was like in and out of the house and at that point she moved out and like, you know, I didn't really talk to her until like, I don't know, 10 years later or something like that.
Oh, you didn't have any contact with her then until you were in your mid-teens?
Early teens, yeah. Early teens.
And what, uh, did you ever talk with her about this?
No, never. Right.
And it's, uh, I would like...
It's like I interact with her and it's like she thinks that I don't remember or something, but I do.
And obviously I don't interact with her a lot.
I make it so I don't interact with her as much as possible.
Does she have children? She will soon.
She's going to... Yeah, she's planning on having a kid soon.
Hopefully she doesn't work with children.
Please tell me she doesn't work with children, Cody.
No, she doesn't.
So you said it's always in the back of your mind.
So what is it that you are concerned about with this in terms of keeping the secret?
Why? Or what is the fear, if people know?
That I won't be normal.
That I'm gonna be, like, damaged for the rest of my life and that I'll never find any sort of catharsis from this.
Which is not so much guilt or shame, it's hatred and fear of the people around you, wouldn't you say?
Yeah. I mean, this is one thing that people have a tough time understanding, that if you feel shame about being victimized as a child, if you feel that somehow you are damaged goods for being victimized as a child, it's not a judgment so much of yourself.
It's not even so much a judgment of the person who abused you, it's a judgment of everybody else around you.
Because obviously, Cody, every sane and decent human being on the planet would look at you and say, you were a five-year-old boy, you were a six-year-old boy.
In a chaotic and violent household, you said that there was violence between your half-sister and your father, right?
Yeah.
So what the hell were you supposed to do?
There's nobody you could go to for help?
You submitted to this because maybe, and it seems quite likely, that by the time she participated in this or initiated this molestation, that you had already seen her be violent in your household, right?
Yeah. So once you've already seen a person who is two to three times your size already be violent with someone even bigger than her, which is your father, how on earth are you supposed to say no?
You can't. You can't?
You can't. You can't.
This is a form of sexual assault from a highly dangerous, violent person, and you have no Safety, no support, no comfort.
So... Right. I think what that kind of shame or fear, Cody says, is that you really need to rewrite your social circle to the point where you will have people around you who will react with the appropriate levels of basic human sympathy and decency to your reports of being terrified and molested.
Yeah. But you don't have that, right?
No. I'm trying my hardest to move out and get a room now so I can be completely self-sufficient and eliminate my relationship with my parents or at least make it so I can live life without walking on eggshells all the time.
Right. Right. Yeah, I mean, there are some things that are internal, and there are other things which are existential, and there are other things which are just relational.
So what I mean by that is that, you know, maybe if you had opportunity for courage, but you were behaving in a morally cowardly manner, that you might have some internal commitment to courage you'd need to make to overcome a sense of helplessness or meaninglessness.
There may be things which are existential insofar as you could be somebody saying, well, you know, Europe is in great deal of danger from the migrant crisis.
I have to find a way to fix Europe!
You know, that's existential insofar as, yeah, okay, I can understand how you might end up feeling just a little helpless about that.
That's finding out what you can and cannot affect and recognizing the power of Acting in a way that you have authority over rather than being stressed and frustrated about things you don't have any direct control over.
I mean, the more you see in the mainstream media That they're complaining that there's not enough money for homelessness, there's not enough money for shelters, there's not enough money for this and repairing the roads, and there's not enough money for...
It's like, but this is the mainstream media who shilled for and promoted and helped sell, if not directly sold, a war or two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that have cost over $7 trillion.
Just up to now, it's going to be probably more expensive, or it will be more expensive as time goes forward, and there's no particular end in sight for the one in Afghanistan is now the longest.
17 years now, the longest U.S. war in history.
And that's frustrating as hell, but it's not like you and I can have any direct control over the editorial policies of major mainstream media news outlets.
So as far as things that are personal and things that are existential, but this one appears to be social in that it's the people around you Who are unreachable by reason, unreachable by compassion, which makes you helpless in the relationship, right?
I mean, if you were to go to your family, sorry to interrupt, if you were to go to your family, Cody, and you were to say that this young woman or this girl, this girl in her mid-teens sexually molested you, what would their reaction be, do you think? I can't even imagine.
It's terrifying to even think about, but I think they probably would be in disbelief, and they would probably strip themselves of any sort of responsibility from it.
So the first defense is, it didn't happen, you're making it up?
Or maybe you had a dream so vivid you thought it was real, or whatever crazy-making stuff they would say, right?
Exactly. And if you stuck with that...
Then they would say, well, you never told us.
We never knew. What could we do?
Exactly. And then if you said, well, we've got to really talk about this as a family because she's going to have a kid, right?
Which means she's going to be around her own kids and a bunch of other kids.
And if this hasn't been dealt with, she's going to hurt one of them too, right?
Most likely. Then it would be, well, I'm sure she's better.
Even if it was true, it's a long time ago in the past.
Let's not rock the boat, blah, blah, blah, right?
Right. So you're helpless to achieve any empathy from others, any sympathy, and certainly helpless to directly achieve any kind of breaking of the cycle, if the cycle still exists with this girl.
And that is the price.
And I'm not saying that you're paying it willingly, and it sounds like you're working hard to get out of this environment.
But the price of having cold-hearted people around you is this sense of helplessness which then becomes nihilistic.
If your will cannot achieve virtue in your environment, your will gives up and says virtue is meaningless.
There's no such thing as the good.
Everyone's shitty. Nothing gets better.
And then, of course, you're going to feel nihilistic, right?
But the nihilism comes from the foundational indifference and selfishness of those around you.
Not out of anything philosophical, if that makes sense.
Makes sense, yeah. And I just wanted to say, it was terrible what was done to you.
It was wrong what was done to you.
But it in no way, shape or form, makes you damaged goods of any kind.
You were struggling to survive in a difficult and dangerous environment, a literally dangerous environment, not even psychologically dangerous, like physically dangerous with a crazy girl who fought your dad, physically, violently.
So, you were like a kid in a neighborhood who got winged by a drive-by bullet, not somebody out there in a gun battle, voluntarily.
It does no harm to your honor and your integrity to have been victimized at the age of five or six, right?
You understand that intellectually, right?
It's just hard to really need that into your heart muscle, right?
Exactly, yeah. Right.
And I think that the fear is not of what the girl did to you, but of how it would land on the people around you.
That is very illuminating.
But it does not make you damaged goods at all.
Because it was something that was done unto you, and it is no shame to suffer evil, particularly when you have no choice in the matter.
It is a shame to initiate evil.
It is a shame to continue to suffer evil when you have a reasonable capacity to avoid it, which you didn't have when you were five, right?
No chance at all.
What are you going to do? Pick up the phone, dial 911?
Come on. Can you imagine what that would have done?
It would have been hell.
Oh, yeah. I mean, who knows?
Who knows what horrible things would have happened if you had broken wide a secret of molestation in your immediate family.
But children will come for help if they believe any help is forthcoming.
They will always come for help if they believe any help is forthcoming.
Of course they will. And you didn't request help because that would have made things worse, right?
The shame is in those around you.
The shame is in your father Marrying and having a child with a woman whose child grew up to be a teenager who molested a little boy.
Your father brought this mom and this girl into your life, right?
Yeah. She was his child by this new woman, right?
Right. Before you came along.
You know, eight or ten years older, right?
So he had a marriage before, and then you came along with your mother.
And then what happened with your father's relationship with your mother?
It's... It's really a tough situation.
My mom is a wreck.
And even to this day, she's considering divorcing him at this point.
And something I learned recently, which completely was the nail in the coffin for how I felt about my dad, was because my mom was feeling depressed.
And so was he.
And this was like six months ago.
He suggested a murder-suicide.
Your father suggested to your mother that they engage in a murder-suicide?
Yeah. How the fuck did you find out about that, Cody?
My mom told me.
Your mother told you?
Oh, my God.
Well, Cody, I mean, isn't it time to call the cops?
Thank you.
I mean, he's threatening a murder-suicide.
You are knowledgeable of criminal intent, aren't you?
I mean, I know you said it was six months ago, right?
Yeah. I mean, isn't this a job for people with some kind of authority?
Don't get me wrong, I'm no big fan of the state, but you're a young man who has no particular authority in this area, right?
Right. I guess I just want to think that my dad, he's always been this type of person to just do something and then One time or like say something one time and then never follow through with it like he like lifts weights like once every six months or something and he acts like he's all motivated or something but I just don't really lend any any value to what he says so I don't really believe that he is I don't really believe that he has the cojones to do it,
you know what I mean? Well It's a hell of a risk to take, man.
Right? I mean, and the fact that your mom would say, okay, tell me in what context or circumstances does this conversation with your mom happen?
How did this come about?
I was in the car with her and she was talking about how she had a lot on her mind or something and then She brought up that I never have to worry about her doing something to hurt herself or anything like that.
And she said that her whole mind has changed on suicide and death recently, which piqued my interest, obviously.
So I said, what do you mean? And then that's when she explained that story to me.
How did she put it?
What did she say? She said that she was with my father and they were...
Like, sitting down and he just mentioned...
She was, like, mentioning that she was, like, in a lot of pain because she has a medical condition.
Also, she's got, like, a lot of psychological trauma, so she's in all sorts of pain.
pain and then he says well as such like as a matter of fact let's just commit murder homicide or murder suicide and then she Said that she replied, like, angrily, which is to be expected.
And she yelled at him, basically.
And what was with your father that this seemed like a course of action that could be open to him?
I don't know. My dad is, like...
My dad is a mess.
He doesn't... He doesn't open up about what he feels, and he's like...
He's always at work, and he's always been my entire life, so it's like he's been kind of absent, and he's like a workaholic.
I've heard you talk about this in a couple different shows, but fathers who are workaholics who escape the mother that they chose for their children, it's a very selfish act, and that's him.
Wow. Wow, that's quite something, Cody.
That is a terrifying thing to be around.
And has that kind of...
I know that you said the molestation is sticking with you, but did this kind of come and go, or does that circle you mentally?
The fact that he wants to do a murder suicide?
Well, that he talked about it, yeah.
Yeah. Assuming that what your mom says is true.
Right. Yeah, this is...
To me, it...
It feels like it's a reflection upon me.
Like, wow, this is my father and this is my DNA. This is what I'm from.
Look at the disgusting things that I'm capable of doing.
I kind of internalize it and get angry at myself or look down upon myself or my own potential.
Well, it would be a cruel universe if we inherited directly the sins of our parents, right?
Are you ready for a truth bomb or two, my friend?
Thank you.
Absolutely. Are you assuming crash position?
All right. Nihilism is very convenient for dangerous people.
Your nihilism is very convenient for dangerous people.
In other words, we naturally flourish towards having values, we naturally flourish towards achievement, and we naturally gravitate towards action, and in general positive action.
But what happens to your relationship with your parents if you adopt or accept meaning and virtue and value in your life?
What happens to your relationship with them?
It gives them personal responsibility and it shows that they've done something wrong.
What does that do to your relationship with them?
It probably would destroy it.
Right. So if you have nihilistic people around you, if you have depressed and anxious, manipulative, controlling, selfish, narcissistic, bullying, whatever, right?
Then your relationship, for want of a better word, with them can only survive as long as you Are nihilistic too, right?
So nihilism is a form of Stockholm Syndrome bonding to dysfunctional parents.
Because it's the only way the relationship, such as it is, can sustain itself, right?
And so if you, I mean, you say, well, I find myself slipping into a deeply nihilistic worldview.
No, Cody, you are pushed.
Into a deeply nihilistic worldview.
You are required to possess a deeply nihilistic worldview.
A deeply nihilistic worldview is the requirement for being in a relationship with your family of origin.
Because the moment you get meaning, you get out, right?
Because what on earth would you have in common with people like this if you accept meaning and courage and virtue and all those other good things in life, right?
You're right. You know, once the murder-suicide thing has happened in a relationship, I don't really know where you go from there.
Do you know what I mean? Now you've pulled the let's eat a grenade and hug together.
I mean, now you've pulled that.
Where do we go from here?
To the movies? I don't think so.
Once murder-suicide is floating through the air, I just don't know what you can really build on.
Hey, hope they haven't killed, murdered, suicided each other today.
Yay. Right?
The fuck are you supposed to do with that?
I mean, that's a job for a team of professionals.
A taser and, I don't know, something that frightens a cat like a watermelon or a cucumber for reasons I can't fathom.
Like, what are you supposed to do with that?
How are you supposed to relate to that or interact with that?
How are you supposed to bond with that?
How are you supposed to find joy in your life surrounded by that?
Oh, I got another one, Cody.
How are you supposed to invite the woman of your dreams in to that?
Hey, let's go visit my parents.
Let me go in first.
Just see what they're up to.
See where they are.
Hopefully they're sitting at the table, not spattered on the wall.
Yeah. It's, you know- Come over for a party, Cody!
We're gonna have a blowout!
Hey, wait, wait, wait. What do you mean by that?
Exactly. Jesus.
Yeah, it's funny how you said, what's that going to mean for, like, meeting a woman?
And so I've always had, like, this, throughout my life, like, this hesitance to form relationships with other people.
Of course you do!
Of course you do. Because she's at some point going to say, hey, Cody, love to meet your parents.
No, you just think that, honey.
You really don't.
What are you supposed to do with that?
I can only internalize it.
Well, I mean, to stay there, you have to believe that's all you're worth, right?
Yeah. That's the price.
Cody, I can't even tell you how desperately sorry I am that that is the price for this relationship or these relationships.
Nobody should have to pay that price.
Nobody should be asked to pay that price.
And I'm sorry that your parents made the kind of decisions that they made that have ended up with them in this situation.
I really am and I'm sorry about my own mom and the decisions that she made but you know she chose to smoke doesn't mean I have to give up a lung if that makes sense yeah and then of course there's this stickiness which is well let's say that I bail on this relationship will that be what pushes them over the edge It's like this bear trap of dysfunction.
You've got to chew your own leg off to get out if you even think about it.
Sorry, you said? Yeah, sorry to interrupt.
I thought about that so many times.
Like what happens when I leave?
Are they going to kill themselves?
Well, I don't know how many of my thoughts I should share on this particular matter because it's your family.
like, But it certainly is a consideration, for sure.
Because that's a heavy burden to live with.
Now, from an abstract philosophical standpoint, which may have some value and may not, if someone says, you know, if you have a girlfriend who says, if you leave me, I'll kill myself, well...
What are you supposed to do? Stay?
You know what I mean? Like, what are you supposed to do?
It's her damn choice.
I mean, I don't like suicide.
I think that most suicides are horribly cowardly and vicious.
Because if you have decided that your life is not worth living anymore, do everyone a fucking favor around you and make it look like an accident when you check out.
Don't leave people...
Like, don't fucking hang yourself.
Like, I mean, I've had callers who call and they found their blood-spattered parent on the ground with a gun by them.
Like, don't do it where your kids are going to find you and fuck them up.
That's like, let's just bring you back to life to fucking kill you again because that's just a horrible thing to do.
And to make the exit of your life A bully stain on the hearts, minds, and conscience of everyone around you is such a vicious thing to do.
I say good riddance.
Now, again, that's a very abstract perspective, and it's not my family, so, you know, please understand that.
I'm not saying you can just imagine.
But yeah, you got some girlfriend, oh, if you leave me, I'm going to kill myself.
It's like, oh, well, I guess we'll just stay and have a whole bunch of kids then, because I love to be bullied by the threats of demise.
But the reason that people want to kill themselves in those situations is because they're the kind of people who would make those kinds of threats in the first place.
It's not you who would end up with them dying.
It's the fact that your mom would tell you that she had a potential murder-suicide pact with your father.
You don't tell your children that when they're...
You don't tell your children that ever.
Ever. Ever. Part of me is like, meh.
Well, I can understand that.
You know, just from the outside, you know.
You reap what you sow.
It's... Bring a pedophile around your little boy.
Raise a pedophile girl around your little boy.
Yeah, you might not end up very happy now, mightn't you?
The people who raised a pedophile and exposed a little boy to that pedophile, well, they've killed themselves.
You know, again, I hate to be this blunt, but I'm just going to be as ruthlessly honest with you as I can be.
Eh, it's a shame.
Yeah. At least there would be a Finality to it, you know?
I wouldn't have to worry about, is it going to happen today?
I wouldn't have to worry about it anymore.
It would just be over and I could move past it.
I mean, I'm not wishing this, of course.
No, of course, of course. But I'm just saying, you know, there would probably be a relief to some extent.
And how can you...
And again, I'm sure there's a lot more.
I'm just hammering these two points because they're the most vivid.
Like once you've raised a pedophile and had your son molested by her, and then once you've had this kind of life, and then once you've verbalized a murder-suicide pact, and once you've informed your son of this murder-suicide pact, How can you fix your life?
How can you get better?
How can you flourish?
I don't think they ever will.
No, I mean, I... You know, there's stuff you can come back from.
And I think there's stuff you can't come back from.
You know, there are venal sins and there are mortal sins.
And I think it's Cody's survival time myself.
Yeah. Can I get your perspective?
Sorry, go ahead. Yeah, I just, in case we don't get to this, I just wanted to get a quick perspective on something so I can see if, you know, what other people think about how I'm finding purpose in my life and if it's a virtuous path.
Yeah, please go ahead. I have this...
Of course, it's no surprise.
I have this insatiable desire to be appreciated.
I see what people like you do and other political thinkers like Cody Wilson, for instance, created the 3D printed gun.
I have an insatiable desire to bring upon good in the world and to get almost like a martyrdom from it.
And I'm wondering how you feel about that.
Well, I liked the first part until you got to the martyrdom bit.
Tell me a little bit more about that, because that was a, you know, that old internet phrase?
Well, that escalated quickly.
I want to do good in the world.
Yeah, I like that. Oh, I'd really like to be appreciated for bringing more virtue to the world.
Excellent. Martyrdom.
Wait, hang on.
Let's just back up a little and go over that once or twice more, if you'd be so kind.
Yeah, so not necessarily like a literal sense, but more like figuratively.
I... Like, every day, often I fantasize about, like, being in, like, a very large position of power, having, like, a large sphere of influence with a lot of people, and destroying it for, like, a political message, like, you know, writings or podcasts, for instance, and what you do.
But what do you mean by, you mean, like, turning it off kind of thing?
Like, building an audience and then turning it off?
No, I mean, like...
Getting a platform in an area that's not known to be political, like an entertainment area, and then destroying my own career for like a message or political philosophy.
Ah, I see.
So, professional suicide.
Yeah. Right, right.
Sort of a murder-suicide of your career, right?
Yeah, no, this is the blaze of glory.
Fantasy, which people have, and I fully understand it.
So this is the blaze of glory theory, that if you do something that is so extravagant and so destructive that somehow it's going to wake a bunch of people up to your cause.
Yeah. And you will be remembered.
Now, I understand you're not talking about a physical death and so on, but here's the problem with that.
Cody, I mean, there's lots of problems with it, but the big one is that whatever you do that is extravagant, you don't get to control the narrative, right?
Like, let me give you an example.
So there was a guy some years ago who was so broken, frustrated, tortured, and tormented by his experience with the family court that he set himself on fire in front of the family court, right?
Mm-hmm. Now, you've probably seen the picture.
I don't know if it's still common anymore.
There was some Tibetan monk who had put himself on fire to protest something, and he had the serene look while he was being burned up.
And this was publicized.
He was a Tibetan monk, so there was great sympathy for his cause and all that kind of stuff.
But most people have never heard of the guy who set himself on fire in front of the court steps.
To protest or to at least attempt to gain recognition for how terrible things were for men in the family court system, but nobody will report on it.
And if they do report on it, they'll say, well, this is exactly why this guy didn't get his custody, because look how crazy he is!
Like, they either don't talk about it or they twist it to the point where his gesture is derided as the actions of a crazy person, and it actually discredits The movement that he perhaps was trying to help.
Yeah. And so what's much more difficult than the extravagant gesture is the patient brick by brick building of a case, right?
Right.
And so when you recognize the power that the narrative has, I mean, just look at someone like Nelson Mandela, who was married to a thuggish woman whose gang killed people and tortured people, who himself was a communist terrorist who was married to a thuggish woman whose gang killed people and tortured people, who himself was a communist terrorist who, you know, like, I mean, but Nelson Mandela received every award known to that's not too surprising, I suppose.
But Che Guevara, right?
Who gunned down children and was a rapist and like just a horrifying human being all around.
Well, he's lauded.
I mean, Karl Marx is lauded and the narrative controls everything, which is so frustrating for those of us who try to deal with reason and evidence and opposing the narrative.
It's a big challenge because the narrative invades people and becomes their personality.
The narrative hollows you out and then becomes you and then to destroy the narrative feels like to destroy the identity, to destroy the self.
And so the extravagant gesture and the idea that the extravagant gesture can somehow transfer ideas and arguments to others, I think fundamentally misunderstands how people end up where they are in their minds and in their hearts.
So for instance, the mainstream media is always very hostile to the idea of privatizing the education of children, even for vouchers.
Well, why is that? Well, there's a number of reasons, of course, some of them having to do with Unions funneling money to the Democrats, although that's been diminished this last week with the Supreme Court ruling.
But even more fundamentally, the mainstream media has calibrated itself to supply information to people who've been utterly propagandized by government schools.
And I'm not talking universities, just your basic old kindergarten through high school.
And so...
The mainstream media has completely aligned themselves and everyone who's there has calibrated themselves to deliver propaganda to people pre-configured with propaganda by government schools.
Now, if school was privatized, then their audience would begin to drop off virtually immediately because people would then stop coming out pre-configured with propaganda.
Propaganda, which could then be reinforced by the mainstream media.
So it's a foundational business decision for them because that's their job is delivering bullshit, lies, slander, praise for idiots and evildoers and propaganda.
And the reason why they can do that is because people have been primed to accept that steady diet of mental junk food by all the junk they're force-fed in government schools.
So if schools get privatized, The market for bullshit exploited by the mainstream media will evaporate over time.
And so there's a slow and patient step-by-step building of the case and building of the argument and building of a narrative based on facts.
And evidence rather than greed, exploitation, and fantasy.
And the idea that we can have just one big grand action that is going to somehow wake people up is very tempting.
But generally these big actions tend to put people more to sleep than wake them up because people get a hold of whatever it is that you're doing and spin it in a way that is unrecognizable to your original intent, if that makes sense.
Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah, that's a very good point.
There's this fantasy that people have about therapy or self-knowledge or personal growth.
It comes out of endless numbers of movies that depict things this way, that there's somebody who's upset about something, but they're closed off from it, and then they have this big emotional outburst.
They cry, they wail, they throw themselves on the ground in Oscar-worthy scenes of scenery chewing, and then they're better, right?
This is the goodwill hunting.
Oh, he's closed off, and he's distant, and he's defensive, but then he cries about the abuse, and then he's all better.
Right? And there's this idea that there's one just big emotional shit that you take.
And then your emotional constipation is done and you're all better.
And it's a way of blaming the victim for remaining repressed.
Saying, well, if you only got in touch with your emotions and released all those emotions, you'd feel better and everything would be fine.
But the reality is the world has not been getting better as this myth has been around.
And the myth is fundamentally...
It fundamentally serves abusers.
Because the whole point... of trauma is to say you're in a dangerous situation and until you are in a safe situation you're going to continue to feel traumatized.
And being in a safe situation doesn't mean crying and weeping on the floor of a therapist's office.
A safe situation means get the abusers out of your life!
So that you're actually safe.
The point is not to adapt to living with a tiger.
The point is to either get you or the tiger to move out.
I've been so scared about living with this tiger.
Cry, cry, cry.
It's been so difficult, so stressful.
Now I'm going to go back and live with the tiger.
It's like, no, no, that's not what the emotions are for.
They're not just bottled up and you need to just throw them out somewhere.
You need to act to make yourself safe to prevent recurrence of the stimuli that's producing The negative emotions to begin with, right?
I mean, that's, you got your hand in a fire.
You don't just sit there and say, wow, that's really painful.
And then you leave your hand in the fire.
Your tears ain't going to put out the fire, right?
What you want to do is say, holy shit, my hand's in a fire.
I should take that out because it's really painful.
And I'm going to go see a doctor to get it fixed, right?
And the idea that you would look at a grand sacrifice as the path forward, I think is part of the nihilism.
First of all, you need to get safe and you need to get happy.
And you need to find meaning in your life before you start to try and fix the world, in my humble opinion.
I mean, you had a very difficult childhood.
You have a very difficult young adulthood.
You have some of the most dysfunctional people I've heard of in your life, and I've heard of a few, right?
And I just really wanted to extend my extraordinary sympathies for the challenges that you are facing from this Monstrous, hellish family of origin.
And the price for survival should not be nihilism, because that's barely surviving.
And to go from meaninglessness to extravagance in the pursuit of virtue is not finding that sweet Aristotelian mean.
Like, you don't want to be so helpless that you don't get anything done.
You don't want to be so grandiose that you do these extravagant gestures that can be twisted.
What you want to do is just...
Like, you want to build a house, right?
You don't just say, well, I can't ever build a house, it's never going to work, and just sit around getting rained on, right?
That's pretty tragic. At the same time, you don't want to just say, well, I'm going to get a giant can and fill it with bricks and fire it at a foundation, right?
I mean, it's just a slow, patient process of building up these bricks.
I mean, you're young, you're smart, you're verbal, you're interested in self-knowledge, you have moral courage.
You can have a great place in the world.
But I would think less about the world and more about getting to a safe place and starting to build my capacity for joy and reorient my alignment from attempting to manage craziness to attempting to build the foundations of sanity and happiness.
You had to sacrifice your happiness to survive with your parents.
I wouldn't say that it's now a good idea to sacrifice your career in an attempt to wake up the world.
How about not sacrificing at all and building something lasting?
Yeah. Do you still think I should push to create like a large...
Audience of people who are supporting me?
Do you think I should still go into a career in entertainment and make a stand but not self-sabotage and simply write a book or something like that?
Well, I would say, Cody, that you need to figure out what you can do that's good for you.
Because you had a larger purpose called survival.
And now you want a larger purpose called saving the world or making everything better.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not going to tell you not to do that at some point in your life.
But I wouldn't go straight from survival to saving the world.
Because there's not a lot of room for just you, Cody, in either of those scenarios, if that makes sense.
And I think it would be quite self-destructive...
To focus directly on going from appeasing the murder-suicide craziness of your parents to trying to manage a large audience in highly contentious areas.
I mean, you are a young man.
You've got some time. And I would do it...
I would pursue what would make you the happiest person.
That is, you know, rational and moral.
I would pursue that which makes you the happiest for a while because you're going to need a strong foundation if you're going to start wading into controversial public topics.
Yeah, I agree.
And also be enough of a Cody person to Get good friendships, a girlfriend, and the kind of support structure that you're going to need if you're going to wander into contentious areas.
But if you go straight from this to contentious areas without the support system, I think that would be not positive in the long run.
And probably not sustainable.
Yeah.
Build a structure that can handle the stresses that will come.
Yeah.
Just be yourself.
Be yourself. Be yourself, which you haven't had much of a chance to do, right?
I mean, you mentioned the army. You've got a difficult family and a very difficult family.
And the nihilistic is the opposite of identity, right?
Nihilism is saying nothing has any value, which is the opposite of identity.
And I would learn to love the truth and love virtue, which means that you, Cody, have to be there To appreciate truth and goodness and virtue before attempting to expand it to the world as a whole.
You can't push out from a vacuum, I think.
And the vacuum is not the vacuum of your identity.
It's the vacuum of meaning, this temptation into this nihilistic worldview.
But I think I would take some time to be...
Yeah, I think that would probably be good for me.
And if you could get to a good therapist, I mean, I think that would be...
And if you can't afford it, let me know.
We'll send you some... Money to do it.
But, you know, you deserve someone to listen and really care.
Because, man, you've been through a lot and a half.
Thank you. Will you let us know if we can help you?
Yeah. How are you feeling now?
It's hard to tell because, you know, you're a little hard to read.
That's like a... I don't know, defense mechanism, I guess.
No, I get it. I just, I know that it's there and I understand why.
I just wanted to, I didn't want to pretend that it wasn't and I just wanted to know how you feel or where you are in the conversation.
I feel relief, actually.
Good. I'm not conscripting you, right?
I'm not drafting you into the army of goodness.
Yeah. Yeah, I feel relief and like...
You know, it's ironic that my whole life, people that I don't respect have not given me any appreciation or, like, recognize my value, but you I respect tremendously, and you've had such kind words to say, so I'm very appreciative of that.
I really, really do appreciate it.
You are a great guy.
And to have gone through what you've gone through and to retain your thirst for virtue is...
An act of will that is astonishingly powerful, astonishingly strong, and something to be very, very proud of.
Thank you. Alright, will you stay in touch?
Absolutely. Alright, I appreciate the call.
Thank you so much. Thank you.
Alright, up next we have Tony.
Tony wrote in and said, I've heard you advocate for a society in which coercive force is universally forbidden and people orient themselves using free market principles.
When presented with this idea, much like everyone else, my tendency is to try and make assumptions about what that would mean and how it would play out.
But I hear you say that we can't do that because nobody knows.
And what's more, you don't care.
As long as everyone is acting voluntarily, then whatever happens is, essentially, right.
In principle, I don't disagree with that, but I believe that we both know intuitively and based on history at least how the first moments will play out.
We know this from witnessing revolutions throughout history, and more anecdotally, from watching TV shows like Survivor and The Walking Dead.
One, the majority of the people will look for a leader to follow.
Two, a small minority will vie for power and look for a group to lead.
Three, the remainder will go find a patch of land and insist that everyone else leave them alone.
So my question is, if we know, based on my assertion, that most people will try to form a leadership either by leading or by following, isn't it safe to assume that a government of some kind will naturally emerge?
How do you avoid the paradoxical notion that coercion would be required to get a group of people to adhere to the idea of a society free of coercion?
That's from Tony. Hey, Tony.
How are you doing? Good.
Thank you. I'm going to try to be patient because I've answered this about six million different ways from Sunday.
So let me just ask you how long you've been listening to this show.
Not very long at all, actually.
Six months. Have you read or listened to the free books, Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy that I've written?
I have not. And since I wrote this, since I sent in this email, I have looked for answers from you and from others, and I haven't Found anything specific.
I apologize if you haven't answered the question.
I should find it.
I thought it'd be fun to talk about it anyways.
Did you know that I have these books?
No. Oh, you didn't?
Okay, so you've not really been to the website and looked.
Because, you know, if somebody advocates a particular thing, just, you know, word to the wise, useful tip.
If somebody advocates for a particular thing, the first thing that you can do is say, hey, do they have a book out about it?
Because, you know, that could answer a whole bunch of questions.
I don't mind answering this question live.
So, but I'm just saying for other people, I don't want to, you know, I wrote these books and particularly made them free so that I wouldn't have to do this, but I haven't done this for a while, so it's fine.
I just want to sort of point out that people can get these free books.
You can read them online, you can read them in Kindle format, you can buy them from Amazon, or you can...
Listen to them in MP3 format or whatever.
So I just sort of wanted to point that out.
So why do you think the majority of people look for a leader to follow?
Do you think that's human nature or do you think that's to some degree how we're raised?
Well, let me say, first of all, that, you know, I'm not an anthropologist.
I've never studied these things.
That's my assumption. My assumption is that, and, you know, I've spent 20 years in business and I see people's behavior, at least in the Business world when people look for leaders.
They don't know what to do.
They don't want to have to think about what to do.
They want to be, and most people, not all people, maybe not even most, but they want to be told what to do.
Okay, I'll ask the question again because I don't think you quite got it.
Why do you think people look for leaders?
Do you think it's human nature or do you think it's how we're raised?
Um... I would, again, based on assumption, I would assume that there's probably some human nature to it, but you can avoid the fact that that's how we're raised.
Yeah, I mean, we're raised in families where corporal punishment, hitting children, is still the norm.
We're raised in families where a lot of superstitious nonsense is put into children.
We're raised in schools where we have to raise our hand to go to the bathroom and line up everywhere and have no say over the content or form of how we're instructed, and neither do the parents.
So, you know, how much free will, how much choice, how much self-actualization is encouraged in the hearts, minds, and souls of the young?
Well, precious little.
So, it's sort of like saying, well, you know, here's the problem, man.
Tony, you just weren't raised in Japan and you don't speak Japanese.
So, how on earth are we going to run a society where people speak Japanese?
It's like, well, I don't know, maybe we could teach Japanese to kids and, you know, maybe you could grow up in Japan or in a different environment, you'd have a different set of mental constructs and approaches.
So what I have talked about is that we start raising children peacefully.
We stop hitting them.
We stop yelling at them.
We stop bullying them.
And we actually talk about sensible things with them in a reasonable tone.
And then children will, of all levels of intelligence, learn to think for themselves, learn how to analyze data themselves, learn how to come to their own conclusions and not be so reliant upon authority.
Because the question is, why do people need authority?
Because they have to get things done and they can't think for themselves.
So they turn to other people for how to get things done in a larger social context.
Whereas if they can think for themselves and understand basic principles, then they will need leaders less, right?
There's a reason why a hierarchical society like the one we live in with a coercive agent known as a state in the middle of it, there's a reason why a hierarchical society bullies children so much.
Because bullied children look for protection, they look for guidance, they look for leadership.
In very foundational ways, because their own sense of identity and certainty has not been allowed to develop.
In fact, it's punished. The kids are punished if they think for themselves.
So that's one thing.
If we raise children peacefully and rationally, Then they will not have that same hunger for leadership.
Now, those who still do have a hunger for leadership can get their leadership in whatever form they want, except the state, right?
Because the state is a violation of the non-aggression principle.
The government exists only because it can initiate the use of force against its citizens in the form of taxation and laws and so on.
And so if you do still have a desperate thirst for leadership, In a free society, you can join some group and do what the leader tells you to, right?
There's nothing wrong with that.
There's lots of groups that are out there, some of them more benevolent, like many of the Christian churches, some of them less benevolent in a variety of other groups that tell you what to do, but you can join a bowling league and have the bowling captain tell you what to do, and you can get your thrill of obedience from that standpoint, right?
You can join whatever group you want and surrender and Or sublimate some of your own will to the will of that leader.
As long as nobody's initiating force or fraud against each other, that's perfectly fine.
I don't have a problem with private individuals giving up their willpower to a charismatic leader.
I just don't want that leader to be armed with the power of the state in order to impose that group's wishes upon me.
So how do you distinguish between what you call the state, what we know as the state, because we're born into this condition, right?
Western society, we're born into this condition where we live under the stake.
As opposed to, let's just think of Sicily, you know, before the turn of the century, the end of the 1800s, was essentially abandoned by government and left to pen for themselves.
And what rose up out of that was You know, at least not what we know as the mafia, but the mafia rose up out of that.
A government rose up out of that.
Right. Are you saying that Sicily had no government in the 1800s?
No, I'm saying that they were abandoned by their government.
The government basically didn't provide their needs.
There was none of the services that the government provided to the rest of the country wasn't provided.
Well, hang on, hang on, hang on. So you're saying that the mafia has something to do with the absence of government.
Yes, I am. But then how do you explain the basic historical reality that there was virtually no organized crime in America until the government forbade the sale of alcohol through prohibition?
Well, I want to make sure that I'm clear on terms here.
When I say mafia, I don't mean the New York mafia.
I mean the original Italian mafia that came up in Sicily.
Well, listen, okay, dude, you can't start an argument off by bringing really obscure historical examples, right?
Because I don't know what the hell happened in Sicily in the 19th century.
Fuck, I mean, how the hell am I supposed to know that stuff, right?
I do know that there was virtually no organized crime in America prior to prohibition.
That prohibition drew the mafia and other elements of organized crime into America.
In other words, because the government created an artificial shortage, in this case in alcohol, the mafia could exploit it by supplying goods and services banned by the government.
The same thing, of course, as you know, happens with the drug war.
because drugs have become illegal, the mafia and other elements of organized crime have taken to the business of supplying it.
The same thing happens in gambling when the government bans it.
The same thing happens with prostitution and whorehouses, exotic dancing, whatever it is, right?
So when the government places a ban upon unsavory but voluntary transactions that would not be wrong to the point of being coercively forbidden Well, then the organized crime gains a toehold.
Like, why was there so little organized crime in the United States when cocaine and heroin and so on were perfectly legal?
Well, when these things became illegal, well, the demand still exists and the supply is granted by, or the supply is provided by, The organized crime.
So I'm not sure how you're going to say, well, somehow the absence of government provides the demand for organized crime, when every example that I've ever seen is that it's the presence of government that creates the conditions that allows organized crime to become so wealthy.
I understand. And I'm not saying organized crime.
I'm saying what was known as the Mafia.
And it wasn't organized crime. It didn't originate as organized crime.
It originated as people in the community who rose up to be leaders of the community.
What? Wait. Hang on.
Fuck. Hang on. Hang on. Hang on.
Are you trying to tell me that you're going to use the phrase organized crime and say it has nothing to do with the Mafia?
You can't just make up your own definitions, man.
Well, okay.
Well, let me take the word out then.
I'm not talking about organized crime.
I'm talking about organization of a community.
Wait, are you withdrawing the mafia thing now?
No, because it's where the mafia is.
Okay, so you're not talking about organized crime, but you are talking about the mafia.
Come on, man. You can't just make up things like this.
That's not fair. No, I'm not. I'm not.
I just don't know another term to use because if you look at the origins of the Italian mafia, it actually wasn't organized crime.
Oh, so now I have to know not just the history of Sicily when the government supposedly pulled out, but I also need to now know the origins of the mafia according to anthropologists or social historians, and that's how we're going to do the argument.
See, here's the thing. You have to argue based on principles because historical examples...
You either got to tell me ahead of time that this is what we're going to talk about, but bringing this shit up in the middle of a debate, it's kind of pointless, right?
Because expecting me to study and get up to speed on this stuff in the moment is ridiculous, right?
That's fair. I thought it was more well known.
I apologize. You thought that the history of social organization in 19th century Sicily was more well known?
Really? Yeah, it's coming crazy.
I'm not even all that knowledgeable about it.
Okay, good. Well, let's not talk about things that I don't know about and you're not very knowledgeable about.
How about we deal with the fact that there was no organized crime to speak of in America in the 19th century when most things that now are the profits of organized crime were legal?
Okay, your implication is that government is bad.
And as I said in my email, I agree with you.
I think...
It's not good. It's not the way we want to go.
I'm trying to, it's sort of a thought experiment, to understand how we would get there.
Not even necessarily how we would get there, but how would that arise?
Again, like a thought experiment where we say, okay, the American Revolution was just one.
Here we are. Let's do this the right way, instead of the way that it was done before.
How do you do that when If you have a group of people who decide that they want to follow a leader and choose to give up their freedoms to that leader in exchange for protection or whatever it is that they're seeking, an anarchy can't stop that without coercion.
Does that make sense what I'm saying?
So people might want to give up their freedoms in exchange for protection?
That seems to be a natural tendency, yeah.
What's wrong with that? Well, because is that not what the state is?
No. I give up my freedom to spend $100 a month so that I can get life insurance, which gives me protection in the case that I die, or at least gives my family protection in the case that I die.
I give up freedom to spend $50 a month so that I get insurance for my house, so if it burns down I get a new house.
I regularly will give up my freedoms in return for security.
It's voluntary, that's all.
That makes sense, and it's based on capitalism.
Why didn't that come out of the American Revolution?
Why didn't that naturally rise up as opposed to a republic?
What do you mean? Why was the American Revolution, why did it not result in a stateless society?
Yeah, I guess this is maybe a good question.
Obviously, there's not a single answer, but a question worth asking, I think, why did that not arise instead of a republic?
Capitalism was... That's like saying, why did physicists in the 19th century not talk about Einstein's theory of relativity?
It's because the concept hadn't been invented yet.
The concept of a state, the society, and how a voluntary anarcho-capitalist society could self-organize hadn't existed.
It's like asking, where was Marxism before Marx?
It's like, well, the concept hadn't been invented yet.
Why was there no communism before Marxism invented communism?
Well, because there was no concept of how to organize or disorganize society in that way.
And to my knowledge, there was a guy named Lisander Spooner who wrote The Constitution of No Authority, who was himself more of an anarchist.
But he was in the 19th century when the power of the federal government was already pretty well established, and they used it to destroy his free market alternative to the U.S. National Postal Service.
But no, I don't believe that there was any particularly strong theoretician, if any theoretician, of rational voluntarism or anarchism.
Like, prior to the American Revolution, so they wouldn't have even had a conceptual reference point by which to imagine such a thing.
I mean, I think a stateless society existed before a society ruled by a state existed.
You mean tribalism?
Something. Something existed before a state existed, right?
Yeah, but it was still coercive authority.
I mean, if you disobeyed the elders, they...
Probably would have you killed or tortured or tormented or ostracized or driven out.
Okay, so it's a small localized state, but it's still an oligarchical collectivist hierarchy that is enforced through violence.
I mean, we see this in primitive tribes all the time.
Okay, so it's not based on the principle of non-aggressions.
It's certainly, yeah, it's not based upon a universal understanding of ethics and property rights and all that, right?
Right, right. Sorry, Lysander Spooner's book is called No Treason, The Constitution of No Authority, came out in 1870, which of course is a hundred years, give or take, post-revolution, but...
Yeah. No, it's not.
Primitive societies are not, like the state is a step forward from primitive societies, although it seems like primitive societies are a little bit more sustainable than modern fiat-driven governments.
Right. So you don't think this type of society would arise naturally?
It's only going to arise out of choice?
What? It's not going to arrive naturally?
It's only going to arrive out of choice?
Do you mean in terms of inevitability?
Yeah. Oh, God, no, no.
Of course, you have to make the case.
You have to argue for it because it's not going to happen inevitably.
The state naturally accumulates more and more power and gets bigger and bigger until it drives society into the ground.
I mean, Zimbabwe didn't come out of nowhere, right?
I mean, the destruction of the currency around the French Revolution didn't come out of nowhere.
I mean, you have to make the case, make the argument and overcome the embedded interests that are currently profiting from the state in order to end up with that.
But it starts in the home with the peaceful and reasonable treatment of children.
Because if children grow up without being bullied, then they'll feel not at home in a coercive society.
Okay, well, I can't argue with that, because that answers my question, and probably I should read your book.
Yeah, do check out Everyday Anarchy.
You can start with Practical Anarchy, which shows that even the society as we stand operates.
Like they say, how is society going to operate if government doesn't enforce contracts?
But of course, lobbying, which is basically how governments run, is all enforced, not just in the absence of contracts, but with it actively being illegal, right?
Just look at the Clinton Foundation.
And if society, if the state itself can run on contracts which can't possibly be enforced, we can't possibly need the state to enforce contracts.
So, yeah, check it out and let me know what you think.
I will. I appreciate your time.
Thanks, Tony. Appreciate the call. Alright, up next we have Jan.
Jan wrote in and said, You, Stefan, keep talking on your show how God is impossible to logically prove.
You advocate faith to Christians, yet faith is an exercise in willpower, and you know that willpower isn't sustainable.
We also can't use reason and faith at the same time.
As you said once, human is halfway between God and animal.
So let's see how we can move closer to God and further from animal.
Science transforms our environment.
Ethics transforms our relationships.
But metaphysics transforms ourself.
My claim to defend is, I have found a way to access God via the objective definition and bodily senses.
I am not the first, but I am the best able to explain it as a philosopher of metaphysics.
In effect, this is a method to hardwire a person for reward of pleasure from ethics or philosophy.
Philosophy becomes an instinct instead of a verbal discipline.
The exertion of will becomes the ease of habit.
Let's make philosophy as rewarding to people as possible.
Why do you say that God can't be logically proven?
I think I just did, and that it's better than advocating for faith.
So would you hear it?
That's from Jan.
Jan, how are you doing tonight?
Hello, Stefan. It's actually Jan, but...
No, Jan, I appreciate that.
I don't want to Western Europe up your name.
So, Jan, I appreciate that.
Now, that was a whole series of flyby headlines without much of an argument or a question.
So, perhaps you'd like to rephrase it in a way that I can participate in.
All right, all right. I would love it.
I actually enclosed the link, but I thought I will be on the show in a month, and you will have like 15 minutes to look up the video.
But you don't, so I will tell you.
Wait, God didn't tell you you'd been moved up in the queue?
I thought you had access to omniscient knowledge.
What do you mean? You didn't know?
No. God is more of a support character, basically strengthening me for the conversation, but not talking in my head.
All right. I'm not letting any voices into my head, sorry.
When I formulated my arguments, I was referring to another show.
Where a guy very similar to me was talking about spirituality and I thought I can explain it better.
You were talking about metaphysics, so we need to use metaphysics to define God because that's the proper instrument.
And one thing you didn't get to last time was what is the standard of proof in metaphysics.
Any idea about that or can I continue?
Well, technically, the definition of God would fall more into the realm of epistemology, which would be the study of truth.
So metaphysics is a study of the nature of reality.
Now, if you want to say that God is, by definition, the nature of reality, then the proof of God would fall more into the realm of epistemology.
But as far as the nature of realities goes, well, so to prove the nature of reality, well, you need to have objectivity, you need to have definitions that are non-contradictory or non-self-contradictory because reality, objective reality, is universal, consistent, and non-contradictory because atoms follow particular laws, the physical laws are universal.
And so whatever statements you're going to make about Reality as a whole must be objective and rational and, of course, consistent with the evidence provided to us by our senses.
Of course, of course. To my knowledge, epistemology is the discipline of knowledge.
What methods of knowledge do we have?
It's not like directly about God.
This is why I am talking about metaphysics.
So, what is the standard of proof in metaphysics?
Yeah. You just asked that question.
I just answered it. Yeah.
Do you have any idea or can I continue?
No, no. You just asked that question.
What is the standard of proof in metaphysics?
I just gave you an answer.
It is simplicity.
It comes razor. We cannot access metaphysics directly, so we...
Wait, wait, wait. You asked me for a definition.
I gave it to you. Now what?
You said that...
You said that the area of God, the discipline responsible for God, like is epistemology.
No, no, no. After that. No, no.
That was the first thing we talked about.
Then you asked me for how we would know truth in the metaphysics, in the realm of metaphysics.
And I talked about empiricism, non-self-contradiction in, say, conjectures, and conformity with empirical evidence provided to us through the senses.
And that's where I think we may have lost the thread a little bit.
I agree.
I agree. While we have all of that, we cannot go against any of that, of course.
Now, we make some kind of statement and let's say we have two statements about metaphysics which are both non-contradictory and in accordance with science.
So, which one do we choose if we have two possible statements about metaphysics?
I will argue that we choose the simpler one because of a cancer razor.
So this standard of proof in metaphysics is also the simplicity, the efficiency.
So when we make statements about metaphysics, the simpler ones are the more probably true.
No, I would not agree with that.
No, because my definition was it has to be rational, consistent with reason and consistent with universality and consistent with the evidence of the senses.
Yes. So simplicity in no way, shape or form was part of my formulation.
Now, you can argue for a different formulation, but that wasn't what I said.
I did not contradict you.
I just didn't want to repeat all of that you said that is non-contradictory with itself, with senses, with science, and so on.
And Occam's razor says in any two explanations, the simpler tends to be true.
It doesn't mean that the only standard of truth is for this statement to be simple.
Yeah, yes, it tends to be true.
Right. But if we have two competing statements of high qualities that you mentioned, then we will tend to choose the simpler one.
Okay. I mean, that may be a rough guideline.
It's not a proof, but I'm certainly willing to accept Occam's Razor.
It can be helpful. So if you'd like to move on.
Very well. When you define things, then...
I have found a phenomenon.
When you define things, the simpler you get, the more true it tends to be, and the simplest statements of metaphysics are those that you mentioned, the first principles of logic, the identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle.
These are metaphysical statements.
The source on this is Steve Patterson, another public philosopher.
So, when we want to know something about, let's say, God that is hiding somewhere in metaphysics, then we need to say something very, very simple that is so simple that it has no alternative.
And I will introduce you to one such simple statement.
When you look at the universe, you see a lot of different kind of stuff.
You see space, you see time, matter, light, heat, and so on.
These are very seemingly very different things.
And what is the simplest statement that we can say about these things are that they all are derived From one thing, one basic thing, one basic substance that is responsible for them all, that is unchanging, that is like invisible, but is maintaining everything, the identity of everything.
Now, we have this metaphysical statement.
Now, we ask, is there anything in empirical sciences that supports that?
And why?
Yeah, there is.
There is.
The equation that everybody knows, it is the E equals MC squared that you of course mentioned in your book, Against the Gods.
And what does this equation says?
It says that energy equals mass times the speed of light.
It means... Speed of light squared.
Speed of light squared, correct.
Sorry. So it means that mass, the speed of light squared is like a multiplicator.
So it means that the mass is made of a lot of energy.
You get a lot of energy from a little mass.
That's basically what the equation says.
Now, but what is energy?
You see a lot of types of energy all around you, but a pure energy, the E in the equation, It's like nowhere to be found by a bare eye.
This is very...
and yet everything is made of it.
Even scientists claim that...
Sorry, I'm just a little lost.
You're saying energy is not available to the naked eye?
Pure energy that is like a non-observable thing.
Everywhere you see some kind of carrier particle or wave that is a form of energy that is convertible to other forms, but Nowhere you see this E, letter E, that equals mc squared.
But you can see energy in a lightning strike or a match or a fire or a nuclear explosion or a water wheel.
Yes, that is some kind of matter like an electron or an ion or, yeah, electron, ion, that's a carrier particle, lots of carrier particles together carrying some kind of energy.
But you can even store it somewhere.
But all you do, you transfer it to some kind of other carrier particles.
It's like... But it's visible.
That's why energy sometimes is visible, isn't it?
I mean, the sun is energy.
It's a giant bomb.
And it's very visible.
Again, it's matter. It's matter, which means it's matter, it's carrier particles together.
And there is a large, let's say, Is it important to the argument that energy be invisible?
Because I'm willing to move on. Yes, yes, yes.
Oh, it is. Okay. Well, then we have to figure out why I can't figure out why energy is invisible when I feel like I see it all the time.
I mean, I got studio lights here that are shining photons into my brain and under the camera.
And I would certainly know if there was a power failure, I would know because things would get pretty dark.
That's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that you see many forms of energy and you can see that they seem to be convertible to each other.
So I can see energy.
You said I see many forms of energy.
You can see forms of energy, but you cannot see the one universal primordial substance that is called n equals mc squared.
A primordial substance?
What is that?
All of the forms of energy that you can see, they require space.
They take up space.
But energy is not the same as substance, is it?
That's the one that is in the equation.
I mean, it can't be, because energy and mass are on opposite sides of the equal sign.
They can't be identical.
Yes, yes, yes, yes.
Good, good. Well, that you noticed, because there are two basic concepts of energy.
First one is a formless one, and the other is everything else on the other side of the equation.
And we can see the scientists have noticed this electric energy and heat and light and so on, and they postulated this one central concept of the universal energy that is responsible for all of them somehow.
So there's two kinds of energy.
There's the one that Einstein is talking about, and then there's another universal one that other scientists have talked about.
No, no. Einstein didn't come up with this equation, but this is the universal one.
This is that you can find in matter, you can find it in everything.
And then there are forms, but it takes forms.
But you can see the electric energy and you can convert it to heat.
Sorry to interrupt.
I understand how electricity works.
I guess my question, Jan, is how do we know the presence of this universal energy if it doesn't show up empirically?
How is it measured? How is it detected?
How is it known? Yes, yes.
That's why I was talking about One of the standards of proof in metaphysics which is the simplest possible statement.
Yeah, but it's not a simple statement to say that there's a universal undetectable energy.
It is the simplest way for the universe to be.
We see lots of forms of energy and we see that they are converted to each other and the scientists have postulated this one No, but that's not a simple statement at all.
I mean, if there's a vacuum, there's a vacuum.
It's empty. That's pretty simple.
But if you say it's filled with undetectable energy, That's not simple at all.
That's saying that something which is undetectable exists.
That's a contradiction to everything else in science.
The whole point of something that's undetectable is it doesn't exist.
If you can walk through a doorway because there's no door there, saying there's no door there is a pretty simple statement.
Saying that there's a universal energy door there that you can't detect doesn't seem to be simple at all.
It seems to be confusing and complicating things enormously.
Well, but it is the simplest way for the universe to be.
Let's say if Let's say you need to explain why the universe exists.
It is simpler to explain one kind of substance, like a basic materia, than explain a dozen or a half dozen of them.
Well, no, not if you're wrong, right?
I mean, I think that the correct answer at the moment, according to science, about why does the universe exist is we don't know.
I think coming up with answers that involve universal undetectable energy is not an answer, neither is it simple.
It's science that comes up with E equals mc squared.
I'm just telling you what it says.
Yes, but energy is not everywhere in the universe and undetectable.
Well, I wasn't saying that it's...
What do you mean by undetectable?
Because... Well, there's energy you can detect, like potential or kinetic energy.
There's nuclear energy. There's strong and weak atomic forces.
There's lots of different kinds.
There's water power. There's wind power.
There's the motive power that gets you up the stairs when you're finished recording in the basement.
There is lots of energy that we can record.
And we know the difference between energy and the absence.
Of energy. You turn to flick on a light.
If the light gets bright, well, look, you've got electricity running through.
Hey, dude, let me finish talking.
I'll finish talking. I gave you a lot of space to talk.
Let me answer the damn question.
With you talking in my ear, that's an unwanted energy I don't want to have in my ear.
Okay, let me finish, and then I'll shut up, all right?
So you turn on the light, and if the light goes on, then the electricity is running through that magic filament that goes between the whatever, right, in the light bulb.
And if the light doesn't go on, well, either the light bulb is broken or the electrical connections in the lamp are broken or the cord is broken or it's not plugged in or if it is plugged in and none of those are broken, then the socket isn't supplying electricity.
So you know the difference between the presence of energy and the absence of energy in something as simple as turning on.
A light bulb.
And so we know when energy is present, we know when energy is absent.
Saying that there's some universal energy that is present always, but which is generally undetectable, or is undetectable as a whole, is not a simple explanation, neither is it an empirical explanation.
And if the question is where did the universe come from, the correct answer right now is we don't know, but we're looking.
Alright, so you mentioned how these forms of energy are converting to each other by what we do.
So, and what is controversial?
I know it may seem like an explanation out of nowhere, but when scientists see that all energy forms are convertible to each other, we do some things, we lose some energies, lost of course, but they know that The energy cannot be created or destroyed.
That is thermodynamics. That is the basic of logic.
And because the energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted, they have postulated this concept, this Einstein's energy, as you said, this basic one.
And also, because of Big Bang theory, they say that the universe was in a single, like a very small point at the same time, all of it.
Which is why at this point, space could not exist and all of the forms that we know, they take up space.
So where did these forms come from?
They had to come from some basic stuff.
This is all I'm saying. I'm sorry, which forms?
I lost what we were in terms of forms.
Well, pretty much anything.
As I said, all forms of energy take up space, also objects take up space.
But the scientists say- You mean like an asteroid or something?
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, so yeah, asteroid.
Okay. Yeah, and the scientists said that in the beginning, the universe was basically almost practically one tiny point.
It is as if all that stuff that the universe is made of did not take up space back then.
So, This is why there had to be only one.
Sorry. Oh my goodness.
Sorry, there's something to cut out.
Hang on. I just had a sip of a decaf latte and half of it went up my nose for reasons I can't possibly fail them.
Oh my god, the universal stuff is attacking my brain!
Hang on a sec, sorry. Well, that was one of the worst drink blowbacks I've ever had in my life.
I apologize, Jan. Please continue.
No problem. So, this is why they say that there was one universal primordial stuff that the universe was made of that differentiated later into particles and so on and so on.
This is not controversial according to scientists, but if there is anything controversial about it, I would like to hear it.
Well, yeah, listen, as far as the origin of the universe stuff goes, it's not a philosophical topic.
It's a topic for physics and physicists.
It's not a topic for a philosophical show because nobody knows what the hell's going on down there.
They're still working on all this kind of stuff.
It's like saying, do you want to go and live in a house where there's barely a foundation?
It's like, well, I can't live there because it's really, really a work in progress and they've only just started.
So I'm not going to bring philosophy to bear on what is a problem of physics because nobody knows the amount of contradictory statements, the amount of uncertainty, the amount of roads less traveled as far as knowledge goes is far too wide and deep and prodigious for philosophy to have anything to say.
About 14 billion years ago, what happened in the origins of the universe.
It doesn't really have anything to do with how philosophy deals with the universe as it stands at the moment.
Ethics and perception and free will and all of these things.
So I can't take philosophy back to the origin of things and say, well, a philosophy that is developed from an objective and rational universe, what would it have to say about a theoretical construct that may have nothing to do with reason?
It's like, I don't know.
I mean, it's not valid at all.
It's like saying what color is correct.
I'm sorry. Hang on, hang on.
No, no, no. Still talking.
Still talking. Sorry. Still talking.
Still talking. Let me finish, and then you can talk, okay?
But this talking in my ear stuff is more annoying than I can tell you, all right?
I don't mind being interrupted by a latte coming out of my nose, but I can't say much about that.
So saying how does philosophy work at the origins of the universe is like saying how does the color of the font affect the truth of the mathematical theorem?
It's like, well, it just doesn't apply.
Now, but as far as that goes, when the universe began to expand or whatever the hell it did, well, there's stuff, and then there's nothing, and then there's more stuff.
Like if you think of an asteroid field, there's an asteroid, and then there's a void with a couple of bits of hydrogen in it, and then there's another asteroid.
And you know you're not hitting an asteroid when you can fly between them and not explode, you know, if you're Han Solo, right?
So you've got stuff, you've got space, and then you've got more stuff.
And so there's nothing universal about it all.
And then there's a sun, which is a giant nuclear bomb going off for like 20 million years or whatever.
There's a sun, and then there's not a sun, right?
Like you look up into the night sky, there are stars, and there's a whole lot of nothing in between those stars.
So there's energy, And then there's not energy, which is the space in between the stars.
And then there's another twinkly little thing that is not a firefly, but it's something Betelgeuse 300 light years away or something.
And so the idea that there's universal energy would mean that the whole night sky would be the same color.
That would be sort of universal energy.
Or to say that there's universal energy means that the daytime sky would be nothing but the sun.
The sun would be everywhere.
We would be the sun. Like, there is the sun, which is the disk about the size of a dime held at arm's length, about the same size as the moon.
There's the disk. And then there's a whole lot of not sun, which is like blue sky.
And then at night, there's the moon.
And then there's a whole lot of not moon.
Which is the rest of the night sky.
There are stars and there's a whole lot of not stars which is the space between the constellations.
So saying that there's universal energy when energy is concentrated and then not present in the case of say a star or a sun and then a non-sun and that matter is there and then not there and then there again if we think of doorway.
To say it's all universal when the whole thing is that it's differentiated seems to me contradictory.
Alright, I will start from the end.
Just to get this out of the way, I wasn't saying that the energy is uniformly spread all over the universe.
There are obviously concentrations and so on.
I was just saying all the forms of energy are made fundamentally of the same basic stuff of energy.
Dan, you mentioned the day and night differences.
You know that the human eye can see like 300 nanometers of light, but there are kilometers and kilometers of light wavelengths below and above that.
So we don't really see the night sky as it really is.
No, we do.
Sorry to interrupt. I mean, I know that, but I need to...
But we do.
We don't see the entire spectrum, but what we see is valid.
Yes, yes, yes, of course, of course.
What we see is valid, yes, and what we can detect by machines also.
But then you also raised objections like the pursuit of metaphysics and physics together.
Firstly, it's not possible, and secondly, it's not useful.
I can concede that it's not as useful as your great work in ethics.
You are changing the world and this is the main reason why I am calling so late.
You are doing so useful stuff that this is not as important, but lately you are talking much more about God, so I thought I will bring my five cents.
God is a very, very important topic, and that's why I appreciate you bringing it up.
Yeah, thank you.
If you can talk about God with precise knowledge, what it is, it might help.
I had some success.
Me and Steve Patterson have had success applying philosophy, basic logic to physics.
We find this topic doable.
Basically, one point, just an example.
If scientists say there is multiverse and parallel universes and so on, then I will just raise the Thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed, so how can we create whole universes by our decision in like a split moment?
That's nonsense. I agree with you on that, just for the record.
I think that this alternative universes thing is complete bullshit and could only arise out of a government program called pseudoscience.
That's just my amateur opinion, but the idea that we are creating, like there are more galaxies in the universe than there are grains of sand.
On the beaches of the world, and each one of the galaxies has, what, 100 billion stars?
And the idea that, oh, I've scratched my right cheek instead of my left cheek.
Oh, look, we've just created an entire alternative universe with all of that energy.
Come on. I mean, it takes a crazy person to even imagine that that could be true.
Yeah, that's why you need philosophy when you go into science.
And now, oh, let me tell you why...
Well, maybe we can even get to the basic definition of God.
We are very close to that.
Yeah, God has to have consciousness, right?
Yes, I would certainly agree with that as the definition.
Yeah, so where does consciousness come from?
You're right that the consciousness is an effect of matter, but I would argue that consciousness is the effect of the electricity that is passing through the brain because there are plenty of dead brains that have no energy or consciousness in them or no passing electricity.
But it's all part of the same stuff and that means that the Primordial energy, let's call it, had to have already this aspect within itself, so it had to be conscious in some sense.
So we cannot say it is completely unconscious.
Can I go through the basic three stuff like omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence?
Or should I rather answer the three objections that you have against the gods?
Yeah, I would say the objections in the book would be good.
Maybe just pick the first one, the most important one that you think.
Yeah, yeah. This is basically the argument from biology.
The gods are portrayed popularly as very complex and very complex Things need evolution, a whole population to evolve, to get from the cells, unicellular organism to basically a person.
And we don't have any populations of gods or ecosystems of gods, so it cannot be.
Well, you see, I was arguing by very, very basic physics.
Biology comes very much later in the age of the universe.
So if a god is possible, it has to be this primordial basic substance.
It cannot be like a guy on a cloud.
And if you look at some medieval or not, or Renaissance philosophers like Baruch Spinoza or Yeah, yeah, Baruch Spinoza.
And he was talking about what I'm talking, basically a panpsychist hylozoist God.
I will, for the audience, panpsychist hylozoist means that matter, there is no fundamental difference between living and death matter.
All matter is in some sense alive and if it's put together in the right way, it will be basically living.
Penpsychism means that if it's living, it's also to some degree conscious.
A rock is as conscious as a rock can be.
A person is as conscious as a person.
The only weird implications it has There is some electricity on the Sun or in the planet and to that degree a planet or a Sun would be somewhat conscious.
It simplifies things a lot but has just this one consequence.
I cannot follow what you're talking about here, Jan.
I'm trying my best. I'm sorry.
No, I'm trying my best.
You've got to get in the habit of building some syllogisms or something because it's just like there's no difference between living and dead.
There's electricity in the sun and the sun has consciousness.
That's kind of what I get out of this, but I don't really know what to make of any of that.
No fundamental difference.
Like... You don't want to be a dualist, that there is a spirit and matter mixed together, because then we got matter, but we cannot prove spirit.
Yeah, no, I agree with that.
So the way to do away with dualism is to say, basically, Where does the life or the consciousness come from?
We say that it has to be already there.
The only problem is that the matter was too simple and there wasn't this nerve electric current passing through it.
So once we have that, there is consciousness.
It's already there, it just was latent in the matter.
Yeah, so to go back to the light analogy, if I switch on a lamp, It's not like the soul of the lamp has come alive.
It's just that there's now energy passing through the filament of the lamp that wasn't before, and when I switch it off, it stops.
But saying there's no fundamental difference between the light being on and the light being off, to me, is not helpful.
I mean, there is a difference. It just wasn't put together in the right way to show the lamp as...
No, but there's a difference between the lamp being on and the lamp being off, which is why we buy lamps to have light.
And this difference is that one moment electricity is not in there and the other moment it's in there.
So there's a difference. So saying there's no difference between light and death, if life is animated by a particular energy and a dead person is not animated by that energy anymore, saying there's no difference between life and death is like saying there's no difference between a light being on and a light being off, but there is.
Yeah, I'm sorry if that's how it sounds.
I meant that...
If you put together two things, you have life, like a lamp and electricity.
It's not like you must have a supernatural component in the lamp to make it on.
Right. So there is a difference between life and death, and there is a difference between the lamp being on and the lamp being off.
Yes, yes, there is a difference.
But then why are you telling me there's no difference between life and death for five minutes?
Oh, I hope I wasn't.
I hope I wasn't, but...
But you do remember talking about life and death.
Yes, yes. I'm sorry then if I misunderstood.
What point were you trying to make about life and death, that there is a difference?
There is a difference, but this difference is not the most absolute difference that you can imagine.
It's a difference of a degree, not a kind.
It's like a big difference, but it's not like you would need to postulate a completely different supernatural substance.
I'm sorry to interrupt. Why are we talking about unmeasurable extensive differences between death and life?
All right, because we are trying to get to understanding that all the universe is made of one kind of stuff.
This stuff is basically everywhere because even the space itself is like a form of energy, some scientist says, most scientists actually, and this universe or this basic substance cannot be said to be unconscious or dead.
It can be said conscious and living.
Okay, but if everything's made of one kind of stuff, why is there a periodic table of the elements?
That's the introduction of space.
In space, all this basic substance It arranged itself according to some mathematical rules into atoms, and these atoms are in the periodic table.
So atoms are the most essential elements of matter, right?
I mean, you can go to subatomic particles and so on, but as far as differentiation goes between different kinds of matter, atoms are the big fork in the road, right?
So that's the most elemental difference between stuff.
So what is the stuff that's more foundational than atoms?
That is all one thing.
That's the Einstein's energy.
That's the E in the equation.
That's the reason why various forms of energy are convertible to each other.
But convertible means that they're not the same.
Convertible means, like, if I say I want to go and change my money into American dollars from Canadian dollars, they'll say, well, this amount of Canadian dollars will buy you this amount of American dollars.
I can convert between the two.
But saying that they're identical, that they're the same, would mean that there'd be no reason to convert between the two.
If I say I want to convert American dollars into American dollars, they'll say, well, we don't need to do that because they're the same.
And so if you have things that are not on the same side of the equation, they can't be identical.
Well, this is philosophy.
When you have in philosophy something different, If it's not identical, then it's a very big difference.
It's an absolute difference. But in physics, when you put together things like in extreme pressure, like inside the star, then what we see, then helium becomes carbon or iron.
What we thought is different, it suddenly looks convertible to each other.
In physics, everything is...
Yeah, they combine. Yeah, the atoms combine into new materials, for sure, with the pressure of heat.
I mean, coal turns into diamonds with enough pressure and time, right?
Yes. In physics, everything is convertible and everything is variable, and there are differences, but they are relative to same temperature and pressure and so on.
And time, yeah. Yes, and time.
Like living creatures become bones become fossils, right?
Yes, yes. But there is only one primordial law, and that is basically thermodynamics.
The energy cannot be created or destroyed.
It's eternal, and it's responsible for life.
Well, no, energy can be converted to matter and back.
Yeah, right. But it's still the same amount of energy.
Well, it is the same amount of energy if you can do 100%, right?
Which is, I don't know how, I guess that's added.
When matter and antimatter collide, then you get that 100% conversion.
But I think it's even pretty small with a nuclear weapon, which is like 1% or 2%, if I remember rightly.
And it's tiny, tiny when it comes to burning wood.
Sorry, go ahead. No, all that means we get some kind of leaks or byproducts that we didn't want, but it's still the same amount of energy like in total.
No, I agree with that. Yeah, of course.
Yeah, of course. But when matter can be converted into energy and then back...
Sorry, when energy can be converted into matter and then back into energy, it may be the same amount of energy, but that doesn't mean that energy and matter are the same thing because there is that whole conversion process.
Or to give an example, let's say that I have a friction-free currency exchange.
In other words, they will exchange currency without taking any overhead whatsoever.
Then I can convert a dollar Canadian into, say, 75 cents US, right?
And then the next day I come back and I say, I want 75 cents US and they'll give me back a dollar Canadian because they are idiots and don't come up with any profit, right?
So then we have a conversion back and forth with no loss.
But no one would say that the Canadian and the US dollars are exactly the same because there would be no reason to convert them otherwise.
I see. If you use this analogy, it's like you go to the exchange and you exchange US dollars for euro and you get like half euro for one dollar and you get a bunch of other currencies, like a little bit of...
Ruble or Yen or Lira and so on.
And you do that a bunch of times and you end up with lots of different currencies and very little euro or dollar.
That's the losses, but you still get the equivalent.
In total, you still have like one US dollar.
The total amount is still there.
Right, but they're different. The currencies are different.
If you put them into really high pressure, there are all the same stuff.
That's what it says.
They can all be converted back to the primordial stuff.
But convertibility doesn't equal the same stuff.
Otherwise, there'd be no such thing as convertibility.
A hydrogen atom is a hydrogen atom because you don't need to convert.
If I give you a hydrogen atom and say, I want a hydrogen atom back, You can just give me back the same hydrogen atom, nothing has changed.
But if I give you coal and say I want a diamond, you've got to expend a whole bunch of energy in order to turn the coal into the diamond, and what comes out is different, which is why you don't see a lot of women with a chunk of coal on their wedding ring, right?
So they're not the same.
Convertibility is not the same as identity, you see?
Yeah, I mean, you can't claim that everything's the same if they have to be converted.
Yeah, it's a very good question.
You would love a conversation that Jordan Peterson had with Duke Pesta, I think.
They were talking about this stuff.
This is like a very high-level question.
How can this primordial substance be converted to basically these various sub-currencies, let's call them.
But all right, it's not the same.
It's not the same, but it was the same.
It used to be the same in the beginning of the universe.
Can we agree on that? I'm sorry, could you just repeat that again?
Alright, the various currencies or the forms of energy, they are not the same.
They are convertible, but not the same.
But they used to be same in the beginning of the universe, in the Big Bang.
Well, see, again, I can't take philosophy back to the Big Bang because it's too much uncertainty, too much flux, and it's a question for theoretical physicists that they're still working on, so I can't take philosophy back.
Alright, alright. I thought that's actually necessary because you need to be able to assert the first principle of identity so that you can go and do ethics with it.
There's no doubt about the configuration of the universe in the present.
The configuration of the universe in the Big Bang is not determined at the moment and is irrelevant to philosophy because philosophy is about the analysis.
Of the current universe and truth, reality, virtue, and so on.
Like, the configuration of matter at the Big Bang 14 plus billion years ago has no relevance on universally preferable behavior on Earth in the present.
I will tell you what relevance it has.
You have to be, you can assert the principle of identity, but if you want to be really sure about it, not just like a Language.
You cannot make language that goes against the principle of identity.
But if you want to make it stronger in your awareness, you will find a physical equivalent of it.
If you know physics, you will find somewhere in physics where it applies, which is basically one of those of thermodynamics.
But why do you need to go to the one area in physics that is the most in flux in order to establish your conjecture?
That's my question. You know, because this is the god of the gaps.
Which is to say, well, I'm going to go to the one area where physicists are still poking around trying to figure things out, and that's where I'm going to find my proof of God.
It's like, well, no. A proof is going to have something to do with the universe as it is.
Not the universe that is indeterminate and still under hot debate 14 billion years ago or more.
That's my question. Why on earth would you need to go to that one area of hot contention and confusion and no layperson can conceive of what the hell's going on?
Because I was just now talking about the law of energy preservation and to my knowledge that is the least controversial area.
That is the one that the physicists are very, very certain about.
That's all established and detectable and measurable and understandable in the present.
So why are we going back to the origins of the universe?
Because when something is a fundamental law, then it will be valid in all time, for all eternity.
That's the basic of reality.
Reality doesn't change because time goes on or you are in a different place.
Well, that is certainly true for every aspect of the universe that philosophy is dealing with in the present.
But nobody knows with any certainty what's going on with the origins of the universe.
The Big Bang may not even be true.
So, who knows?
I mean, why would it be relevant?
All right.
Now, let's say we have some idea now.
What do we use it for?
Well, Stefan, let's go back to 2013.
I was learning philosophy.
I wasn't learning yet this God stuff.
But, basically, how Aristotle gave me superpowers.
I learned the trivium, the first principles from my physics teacher, and I found that I got an enormous, enormous boost in my meditation practice.
It gave me a strength then to go to therapy.
It was like an influx of energy, like basically a religious experience for every day for a year.
Wait, I'm sorry to interrupt.
Meditation? Yeah, yeah.
If you expressed a lot of uncertainty.
No, no. Why are we talking about meditation when we're talking about scientific proofs?
Because you are asking how this is relevant right now today.
Boy, you bring up meditation after we're talking about universal principles.
The relevance cannot be established that way, my friend.
Come on, you understand that. If I go for why is the origin of the universe, why are the physics of the origin of the universe relevant to present discussions of reality and you say meditation, you understand?
Well, yes. You got to step me through that.
Don't just drop that because it just looks ridiculous from the outside.
I'm sorry. All right.
All right. As I said, the metaphysics is your idea about the world.
What is the world? Where are you?
What are you in it?
I know. Metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality, not your idea about the world.
I don't know what that even means. All right.
So, let me take a brief in and breathe out.
All right. You build your worldview and the more precise and closer to reality that the worldview is, the better it is.
This is why we have philosophy.
That is why we do our best to get closer to science.
But it's not my worldview.
Philosophy is not about my worldview.
It's about the truth.
Yes, yes, yes. The more objective that is, the more we meet together in reality.
Now, the question is, what is that reality that we are trying to get to together?
You got enough to establish Universal Ethics and I took it and ran away with it.
It's awesome. The ideas, how you know this world is basically, it is a part of you.
If you build a very good idea about the world, it's like a part of your brain that is very well built.
And that improves you as a person, as a thinker, and so on.
Like an exercise.
You can do crossfit.
You can do trivium, like Aristotle's principles, verbal philosophy and ethics.
And that's like a crossfit.
You get to be a very fit person.
But then there is a way to do it a bit more thoroughly, like bodybuilding.
You get a better idea of what the universe is and what you are in it.
And you add more and more information, and then you simplify it.
And you find the common denominator for all of that.
And I have found a great benefit in this exercise, this so-called bodybuilding.
Wait, we're still talking about meditation, right?
Wait, is bodybuilding an analogy for meditation?
Yes, yes. Or are you trying to explain the relevance of meditation with reference to bodybuilding?
Bodybuilding is an analogy to building philosophy, applying philosophy beyond what you need right now, right here.
It is like applying philosophy to physics.
The more you learn about the universe, it's a lot of stuff, and if you learn a lot and if you manage to simplify it, Into the most basic principles, then that is the analogy to bodybuilding.
And there are some benefits from that.
All right. So the problem here is that analogies are not arguments.
They're fine to illustrate arguments, but they're not arguments.
And the problem I guess I have, Jan, is, you know, we've been batting this back and forth for about an hour.
I frankly haven't learned anything.
And it's not because I'm resistant to, man, if I could get a proof for God, that would be pretty, pretty fantastic.
But... The problem is I don't know how what you talk about is translatable to the average person.
You know, the whole point for me of what I do is, what the hell is going on with your microphone?
Are you moving around? I'm sorry, that's my chair.
Oh, okay. Yeah, if you could not make loud sounds when you're on air, that would be great.
But for me, the point has always been to try and find a way I'm aiming for 95 to 100 IQ. And if I can go a little bit below that,
fantastic. You know, if I can get down to, I don't know if I can get much below 90, but, you know, 90, you know, I'm trying to find ways to engage people and to make arguments about reality and about virtue and about politics and so on, boiled down to really simple things, kindergarten philosophy.
And if people want more theoretical justifications behind this, fantastic.
But finding ways to get the basic ethics and basic nature of reality across to people, that's the job.
It doesn't make much sense if you can invent a very complicated medicine that no one can figure out how to take in any reliable way.
You know, like you take three drops on the second full moon and then you do a dance and then you do this and it's like nobody can follow that.
So it's like you've got a medicine that can't help people because it's too complicated to administer.
And so...
The challenge is that even if through another hour or two, which I'm not going to do, but if through another hour or two I could get close to some sort of understanding, I'm a smart guy.
I've studied philosophy for over 30 years.
I don't know what you're talking about.
And if I don't have a clue what you're talking about, how on earth is the average person who's never studied philosophy supposed to benefit from the wisdom that you're bringing?
So my suggestion is, like, I enjoy these conversations.
I like the challenge.
Don't get me wrong. But here's my challenge.
So read The Art of the Argument or whatever you like that's going to help you understand.
Just start working with syllogisms.
Just start working with simple direct language.
You know, you've studied your Aristotle.
Just review... The dialogues of Plato are fantastic, like when he has Socrates make these arguments.
They're in simple language. They're in easy-to-understand examples.
They're simple arguments, which are very, very powerful.
Because if you're right, then you owe it to humanity to translate your very complicated and technical arguments or statements into something that's digestible by the common man.
And if you can't do that, I don't really know what you're doing.
Because you're coming up with very, very complicated stuff that either people kind of just have to nod and say, well, Jan is really smart, and you are.
And Jan is really verbal, and you are.
And Jan is really well-educated, and you are.
And just say, well, he must be right.
But that's not the same as convincing them.
That's just kind of intimidating them or using an argument from authority.
So my challenge to you is, you know, I really want to understand what it is that you're talking about.
Boil it down to some syllogisms.
You know, you've seen the parts in my books where I just boil it right down to syllogisms or I make a simple argument in one paragraph.
I've got a new book that I'm working on that's even better that way.
But you need to boil it down to the point where people can understand it, because if I don't understand it, then the idea that the average person untutored in philosophy is going to understand it is not comprehensible.
And if your argument also relies upon knowing exactly what's happening in the origins of the universe, You're going to have to wait a long time because people have been working on that for thousands of years.
They still don't have it resolved.
So I would not rely on the origins of the universe.
I'd rely on what is in the world and in the universe right now.
And I look forward to...
I mean, it's a good exercise for you and it'll be a much more productive conversation for both of us if you can find a way to boil it down to simple and easy to understand arguments because...
You're talking about God and virtue and reality.
And if you can't explain it to the average person, it's very elitist.
And the whole point is to take philosophy out of the ivory tower, put it into the hands of the people so they can make better decisions.
So I really thank you for your time.
Thanks everyone so much for listening.
Don't forget. Hang on, hang on.
Don't forget to pick up your copy of the aforementioned The Art of the Argument, which you can get at theartoftheargument.com.
And you can, of course, do some shopping at fdrurl.com.
Help out the show at freedomainradio.com slash donate.
And don't forget to sign up for our newsletter at freedomainradio.com.
Thanks, everyone, so much for a wonderful evening, as usual.