All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 7, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
17:15
Fighting Arthur Schopenhauer to the Death! Freedomain Dial In Show
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain.
Hope you're doing well. Welcome to our intermittent dial-in show.
Always a great pleasure to chat with you, my dear, delightful and lovely listeners.
Please don't forget to help out this show in these challenging times for philosophy.
You can go to freedomain.com forward slash donate to help out the show.
That's freedomain.com. Yes, I am.
Hello. Hey, I'm doing well.
Stefan, I'm sure you get this often.
Long time listener, first time caller.
Hey, I feel like I need a Tom Likas orgasm noise for you or something like that, but I won't be providing that tonight, but feel free to use your imagination.
What's up, my friend? Sure.
Yeah, so the topic I want to discuss, Bronze Age Pervert, author of Bronze Age Mindset.
Do you know who that is and do you have any opinions?
I have heard murmurings on the internet, but I have not myself looked into it.
Do you want to give me the lowdown?
Yeah, sure. I guess the best I can to compress it.
If we're on philosophy, I guess I'd start.
He's a Schopenhauerian first and Nietzscheian second and kind of the evolution of their ideas.
And like his Major concepts, I guess, are that men, especially men, really, men, should live a vitalist life, a life with a vital energy in as many ways as imaginable.
Physically, obviously, lifting a semi-nude bodybuilding post he's popular for, Handsome Thursday.
But like celebrating the male body, like the male body is an expression of beauty and truth and an ideal to aspire to.
It's like a big part of it, but then using that energy throughout life.
And then there's other political things very, you could use the word fascist if you want, and I think you wouldn't be offended if you did.
But much, much more complex than that.
But authoritarian, military style, kind of Spartan political philosophy applied to the modern day, which makes sense.
It's Bronze Age mindset.
And obviously very pro-Trump.
That's a big thing. And the way you read him and the way you listen to him, because he has a podcast as well, the way he speaks and the way he talks is just literary reference after literary reference, historical reference.
He's incredibly well-read.
And he was reviewed by, I think, Mike Anton in the Claremont Review, something like that.
But it's very serious ideas he writes about.
And the life vision that like for a lot of men, I'm in my 20s, it's something that would be an ideal for us to want to reach and to want to live up to and it's kind of possible in some ways.
So that's a quick lowdown on Bronze Age mindset and Bronze Age pervert.
Does that make sense or am I turning picture there?
Well, I mean, it's aesthetically pleasant, I suppose.
You know, like body of the gods and vital energy and so on.
It doesn't seem to me to be overly philosophical.
And, you know, that may be because that may be just not his gig or maybe that's something I'm missing.
No, no, no, no.
I think it is something you're missing. I mean, that with no offense.
I guess you have to read the book and take a picture with you reading the book.
It is philosophy.
It's very Nietzschean in how he writes.
It sounds like the genealogy of morals in a lot of ways, but the genealogy of morals if it mentions Mitt Romney, basically.
I mean, if you haven't read it, it's hard to talk about, especially when it's as heavy as what he writes about.
Okay, okay.
So let's rather than just sort of skirt around stuff, right?
So if somebody kind of skims through what I do, I mean, assuming that they're actually listening to me and not freakouts on the internet, if they're actually listening to me, they'd say, oh, you know, non-aggression principle, private property, free markets, moral responsibility, free will, anti-determinism, you know, that kind of stuff, right?
It wouldn't take too long to get the elevator pitch for my show, like the elevator pitch being you suck in an elevator with someone who might invest in your business wildly.
What would you say to that person to get them to invest in your business?
You've got a minute and 30 seconds. Okay, so give me his very brief – give me the brief of his basic principles.
Um, let's see.
I think I did give you the elevator pitch in the first part that was about a minute and 30 seconds.
Yeah, but there was no actual philosophy in that.
That was like, you know, it's good to work out fascism and vital energy.
I mean, that's not really, that's like a laundry list.
That's not philosophy. Very fair, very fair.
I'm actually taking a class on Schopenhauer right now.
I'm inspired a bit by you and a bit by him.
So I guess that's a good place to start.
Like in Schopenhauer's philosophy, there's the concept of the will, the will and representation, but the will being the thing in itself, the Kantian term, the will being like the real thing behind the mask of the representation of everything we see in the world, including our corporeal form.
It's German idealism, buy it if you want, I'm not, you know, I don't really believe it that much, but it starts from that, like, There's some truth within that concept itself of some vital energy, some urging, some striving being behind everything.
That's Schopenhauer's basic idea.
And he takes that to you in your life.
And then I guess filters it through Nietzsche where it's like you create the meaning in your life.
Like, that is your responsibility to do that, and you should use everything to your ability to do that.
Okay, okay. That's, you know, sorry.
I'm sorry to be interrupting, but I, you know, I have to be fairly brisk with this stuff, because that all sounds like narcissistic, pleasant-sounding nonsense to me, right?
And again, you know, we'll just talk about your thoughts rather than this Bronze Age guy, because he's not here and I haven't read his stuff.
So my sort of fundamental question when encountering A philosophical perspective is, you know, you've got the big four, right?
You've got your metaphysics, you've got your epistemology, you've got your ethics, and you've got your politics, right?
So with regards to metaphysics, the question is always, okay, what is reality?
Now, German idealism says that sense reality is a sort of imperfect reflection of this ideal, perfect, pure reality, whether it's the nation will or the world spirit or the common good or something like that, this sort of platonic idealism.
And so, for me, the first question is around metaphysics.
Now, once you have your metaphysics down, what is the nature of reality?
Then you have your epistemology.
What is the nature of knowledge, right?
And the nature of knowledge, of course, is conditioned by the metaphysics.
So, if you believe...
And I'm sorry to use these terms.
It's, you know, kind of goofy, but...
I understand. Yeah, those are the accepted terms, right?
So, if your metaphysics is what I would call...
Empiricism, or I call it sensualism, which is basically your sense data accurately processes reality itself.
Like you look at a tree...
And it's a tree by God.
Of abstraction. It's just a damn tree.
It's the goddamn tree right there.
And there's no ghost in the tree that you're not seeing.
There's no perfect tree.
This is a fucking tree right there.
That's what it is. It's the effing tree.
tree that's that's the tree now if if you have as your metaphysics okay there's an objective empirical reality out there and you are able to accurately not necessarily perfectly but accurately perceive it with your senses and there's no freaky shit that's further out or back or deep or beyond or whatever like you look at a bunch of people and it's a bunch of people and you have a concept called a crowd but the concepts in your mind it's not some out there floating in the world kind of thing right
and so if you've got the metaphysics of sense data then you have the epistle epistemology of reason and evidence.
And then you have the ethics of individualism and UPB.
And then you have the politics of voluntarism.
That's kind of how the dominoes fall, right?
So that's the stuff I'm looking for when I hear about a philosophy.
Now, does Nietzsche deal with things in that way?
God, no. Nietzsche was to some degree a revolt against Socrates, because Nietzsche said that Socrates is the demon that every philosopher battles with his whole goddamn life.
Well, I don't think you have to fight the guy.
It's the meme, Socrates had it coming.
You only understand philosophy when you realize Socrates had it coming, and then you're a Platonist and it's all the way down.
Right. So I would say when you say there's philosophy in what this guy does, and you've read a fair amount of his stuff, so then I would say, okay, well, philosophy has to start with the nature of reality.
It has to start with the nature of reality.
It can't start with the nature of the mind, because the mind is in reality.
And so starting with the nature of reality, it has to do two things.
It has to identify the empirical nature of reality, and it also has to Deal with the problem, and it's a very, very, very big fucking problem that philosophy has to deal with, philosopher has to deal with.
If you say that sense data is not the ultimate truth, then you have to explain to me, as a philosopher, or as somebody who likes a certain philosopher, if you say sense data is not accurate, then you have to explain to me why you're explaining your philosophy to me using sense data.
That's the foundational problem.
What's the nature of reality?
Oh, well, it's not sense data.
Sense data is an imperfect blah, blah, blah.
It's a mirage. It's a fantasy.
Okay, then why the hell are you using sense data To communicate to me your philosophy.
Why? It's like me saying to you, well, you know, there's a much better way of communicating than sending carrier pigeons.
Like we could just email each other and you say, great, well, let's have a conversation and let's email each other and I say, oh, no, hell no.
We're using carrier pigeons, right?
And then you say, well, wait a second, Steph.
You just told me, you just told me that carrier pigeons are a vastly inferior method of communication, so why don't we just email?
I'm like, hey, man, it's carrier pigeons or nothing.
So if you're going to say sense data is imperfect, then you have to explain to me why you're...
Telling me your philosophy using my ears or printing out and using my eyes to communicate your philosophy or, I don't know, you could be drawing it out in my hand Rayman style.
Hang on, hang on. You could be drawing it out in my hand Rayman style.
So that's the foundational problem.
Now, if this dude or your perception of this dude, what is the nature of reality according to this guy and how does it affect his theory of knowledge?
I would say that, yeah, his metaphysics would start at like a German ideal Schopenhauerian perspective, where there is...
It's so hard to condense, so hard to summarize, because it's a bit all over the place.
Well, it's German. It's supposed to be confusing, so that you give up and say, fine, you have philosophy.
But it's an aesthetic, that's kind of what it is.
And I guess that actually starts from his metaphysics, because it is Schopenhauerian.
There is this will that is behind things, and I guess it could be described as a vital energy, however you want to describe the will.
But it is behind things, and his metaphysics are that, you know, he talks about reincarnation in parts of the book, and it's the mirror Schopenhauer's perspective on reincarnation.
Right, so that's not philosophy.
Like, you are reincarnated as your will rather than duality.
Saying that there's this ultimate will behind everything and calling it, you know, exciting energy or essential energy and talking about reincarnation, that's mysticism.
I mean, German idealism is just mysticism with an umlaut.
And to some extent it is. Yeah.
Yeah. To some extent, it's supposed to be that way.
He talks about things in this world, too, and politics, and it's all a very interesting perspective.
All the politics can be very interesting, but here's the fact.
The fact is that if you as a philosopher or you as a thinker, if you have some metaphysics other than objective, empirical, sense-perceived reality, Which I think does.
You're not in the realm of philosophy.
Like, you know, I used to work at a bookstore.
One of my very first jobs was working in a bookstore.
And the first thing, of course, you get all these books in these big boxes and these big crates and you have to take the books out and you have to put them in the right section, right?
Like all the self-help books in the self-help section, all the geography books and geography history, you go all the same...
My wife worked in a library when she was a teenager, and we had talks about, you know, you've got to put things in the right section.
You've got to put things in the right section. Now, the moment that you're talking about essential energy and ultimate will and anti-empiricism, anti-sense data reincarnation, it's like, okay, you go in the mysticism section.
You can put the book in the philosophy section.
It's just in the wrong direction.
So, yeah, this guy may have some very interesting insights.
And, you know, maybe I'll have a look one day.
But it sounds like a bunch of nonsense masquerading as philosophy, at least as far as the metaphysics and epistemology go.
And I think that'd be a fun debate.
I would recommend you read the book.
It's very, very funny. But then a question I would ask is, what about Schopenhauer, then?
What about Kant? What about people who are widely regarded, maybe correctly, maybe not, as philosophers?
Would you put Schopenhauer...
In the mysticism section, because that is also what he talks about.
Well, you know, if Schopenhauer were around, I'd ask, first of all, I'd ask him about his mom.
I mean, that would be first and foremost, because Schopenhauer and his relationship to women, not exactly copacetic.
But no, I would say to Schopenhauer, I would say, okay, what's the nature of reality?
And if he said, well, there's this will, and there's this alternate reality, and this new or meanal reality, and this higher reality, and this whatever, right?
It'd be like, okay, then why the hell are you using mere sense data to transfer your arguments to me?
Like, why are you using carrier pigeons when you claim there's email?
That's the best tool we have. Sorry?
But that's like trying to stop the conversation at the first go, which is a very good objection.
It kind of does stop it at the first go.
But assuming the response is because it's the best means we have and because we already are kind of questioning it and we're already not really trusting it from the get-go, from this first interaction, then that might mean that our sense data is, there is something inherently trustworthy about it and let's explore that rabbit hole.
I guess that would be the rebuttal.
Well, no, but you see, if Schopenhauer, hang on, if Schopenhauer says that sense data is the very best we have, then what the hell is the point of this higher reality?
Like, if you're saying, well, sense data is the best we've got, then that is perfect.
The very best that we have is perfect, right?
So it's sort of like saying, well, you know, this guy lived to be 120 years old.
Man, he had a really long life.
And it'd be like, well, it's not really a long life if human beings live to a million.
And it's like, but human beings don't live to a million.
So it's a long fucking life.
No, no, okay, that's a long life.
I understand that in reality.
But if in another realm human beings live to a million, it's like, what the hell is your problem?
Why the hell are you talking about human beings living to a million when human beings don't live to a million?
And 120 is so long a life that you show up in the voter rolls in San Francisco to vote Democrat.
Like, that's how long that life is.
So, anyway, let me move on to another caller, but I appreciate this.
I've heard about this guy. I will definitely have a look.
Thanks so much for speaking with you. Real pleasure.
Yeah, thanks, man. Real pleasure.
Talk to you again. Thanks.
Yeah, do look at Babby.
I think you would like him and you would have a lot to discuss there.
I think that he's going to make me want to do sit-ups.
Yeah, absolutely. I remember seeing a picture of a guy called the Golden One who, you know, was really, really beefed up.
And I remember thinking, and I think I said this in a show, you know, like if I had a torso like that, yeah, you couldn't catch me dead in a shirt either.
Mm-hmm. All right.
Thanks, man. I appreciate it.
Talk to you again. Thank you.
▲
Export Selection