Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 26, 2020 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

02:01:36

HEGEL, NIETZSCHE AND THE BIRTH OF MURDER!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	all right all right good evening everybody Hope you're doing well. This is the Molyneux of Stephanas.
	It is Friday, July 24th, 7.06pm.
	Gosh, that's close to one month post-YouTube and two plus weeks post-Twitter.
	So, hi!
	How's everyone doing out there?
	And James, I know we've got a bunch of people floating around.
	We got...
	I guess we could have typed questions.
	We could have voice chats.
	Whatever is on the community's mind is something I am happy to chat about.
	Well, actually, let's find out.
	Let's find out. I'm sure I will be.
	All right. Well, so first up tonight...
	We have a question, a listener with a personal question, about his relationship.
	So, he writes, I have a question related to my relationship and, I guess, life in general.
	My girlfriend and I share a lot of values, but there are things we do not agree on.
	My girlfriend is religious and soon to be a government worker.
	I am not religious, but I love her religiosity and her tendency not to inflict that on others.
	We agree about the ideas of peaceful parenting about which we have talked a lot.
	The thing that I don't like is the fact that her dream job includes her to be a government worker.
	He is not sure how to approach the situation.
	Now, are we on voice for this, or do you want me to just give thoughts as they arise?
	I think we are on the voice.
	Whoa, dude. I think you have to lean in a little bit there.
	It's a little quiet for me. Can you hear me now?
	Not too bad, not too bad.
	Try it again. Now, is it okay?
	Yeah, yeah, that's good. Just keep your friends close and your mic closer.
	Sure, sure. Okay, so do you share the values that her religion, in general, I don't mean the nature of reality or the nature of knowledge and so on.
	You wouldn't share that. I would assume philosophy versus theology.
	But do you share the values that arise out of her religion?
	Yes, yes, definitely, definitely.
	She's a Christian, an Orthodox Christian, so I definitely share my values with her.
	Okay, so that's more important than...
	The end result of the values is more important than the methodology of how you get there.
	In other words, you're probably going to get along a lot better with a Christian who shares your values than an atheist who is a communist.
	Does that make sense? Yes, that makes actually perfect sense.
	But... But my big fear is that religiosity of hers may affect a child's rational view of the world.
	Let's say it like that.
	Well, okay, but can you get a child to objective morality without religion?
	I guess I will be able.
	Okay, let's give it a try.
	Let's give it a try. And I'm sorry, I know it's not your first language, but if you can just speed up the speaking a little, I apologize for that.
	Okay, so I'll be your kid.
	I'll be, you know, whatever age...
	The kids start asking these questions, actually kind of surprisingly young.
	So I'll be your kid, and I will say, you'll say, you know, tell the truth, don't steal, don't hit, and I will say, why?
	Because it's the universal rule.
	Why is it a universal rule?
	Is it a universal rule like gravity?
	Not like gravity.
	So it's a choice, right?
	It's a choice, yes.
	It's your choice. So if something's a rule, it's not a choice, right?
	Like if I have a rule that says, go to bed at 9 o'clock, and then you say, well, you also have a choice about when you go to bed, that's not the same thing, right?
	A rule is not the same as a choice.
	Yes, yes, that's true.
	So why should I follow these rules?
	No, no, no.
	That's a hard question, though.
	Because they are moral, I guess, but it's kind of hard to explain it to a kid.
	If you say that they're moral, you're just saying that they're good rules to follow.
	But why are they good rules to follow?
	And why is it that your rules differ from other people's rules?
	Like in other countries, in other religions and so on, they have different rules.
	So, why should I follow your rules as opposed to someone else's, right?
	I mean, they're not universal in the world, right?
	Yes, they are definitely not universal in the world.
	I guess the first thing that comes to my mind is you don't have to.
	Does this have any sense?
	I'm sorry, can you say that again?
	First thing that comes to my mind is you don't have to, like if a child asks that question.
	No, let's keep it the role play, right?
	So you have to explain to your kid, why be good?
	Why follow these particular rules?
	Because you want to be treated good.
	Oh, so what you're saying, Dad, hang on.
	No, I get that.
	So what you're saying is that if I follow these rules, people will treat me well.
	That's not true.
	That's not true.
	No.
	Okay. That's not objectively true.
	Will people treat me badly sometimes if I follow these rules?
	Like if I always tell the truth and so on, will people ever treat me badly because of that?
	Sometimes. Okay, so it's not about being treated well.
	what is it about then?
	Sorry, Stefan, I'm a bit stuck there.
	Well, see, now this is the trouble, right?
	It is a big trouble.
	There's no shame in being stuck on explaining morality without God to a kid, right?
	So, because, you know, you know what your wife would say.
	Your wife would say, you have to follow these rules because an all-knowing, all-perfect, all-moral good Gave these rules which are more important even than the rule of gravity.
	And if you break these rules, you will lose your soul, you will go to hell, and you will also be miserable.
	And if you follow these rules, that is the path to eternal bliss and eternal life with those you love.
	Right? Boom! Right?
	I mean, that's asked and answered.
	It's not complicated, right?
	Yes, that's a concrete answer.
	Much better than my mamaling and non-answers.
	Right. So, I mean, and I've had these conversations with my child, and if you're not good at having these conversations, you really need your wife, right?
	Because she can at least get these things across.
	You wouldn't agree with the reasons why, but you certainly would agree with the impact of those statements on your children's behavior, right?
	Well, that's the point.
	I would agree with most of the impacts, but my fear is that if religion is, let's say, brought to the children's life very early, that the child is kind of predicated to be religious.
	No, I get that. I get that.
	Let me ask you this, though. It's a very, very important question.
	is it more important to be rational or to be good?
	To be good?
	So if the transfer of religion to your children has a better chance of them being good, even though you say it's not rational, then you would be pro-Christianity because it would increase your children's chances of being good.
	although in the realm of morality, they would not be...
	Following reason, but since you can't explain morality to them, it's the only chance they've got to get it.
	Is that a fair way to put it?
	Yes, a very fair way to put it, definitely.
	But how can I explain morality to them without God?
	That's what I want to work on, definitely, if I can.
	Sure. No, okay. That's a great question.
	It's a great question. So the way that I do it, I have done it with children and with my daughter, is first of all, you have to model things.
	Good, consistent moral behavior to your children, right?
	So you have to keep your word, you have to keep your temper, you have to at least relatively keep your good humor, and so on.
	And so you first have to model the kind of behavior that you want your children to emulate.
	And if you haven't done any of that, or you haven't done it consistently, there's no point talking about morality with them.
	It literally is like saying you shouldn't eat too much sugar when you have half your day, your face stuffed in a...
	Bavarian cheesecake, right? It's just not going to work.
	So you model that kind of consistent behavior with your kids, right?
	And then let's talk about just keeping your word, right?
	So many years ago, when my daughter was very little, I was going to give a speech at Porkfest in New Hampshire.
	Boy, it feels like kind of a world away for that kind of stuff.
	And we stayed at a fairly, my wife and my daughter were with me, and we stayed at a fairly ratty motel, and we got in there kind of late.
	And my daughter loves pools, of course, she's a half dolphin like me.
	I was on swim team, water polo team, you name it, right?
	And so my daughter really wanted to go to the pool, but it was really late.
	I've been driving all day.
	It was a long drive. And so I said, I promise I will take you in the morning before we go.
	And she, somewhat grudgingly, as kids do at that age, was like, fine.
	Now, the next morning dawned, and it was very cold.
	I think it was rainy-ish or something like that, right?
	Now, I would have had every rational reason to say, you know, I'm Either cross your finger, hope your kid will forget that you made that promise, or to say, gosh, you know, it's really wet, it's cold, it's early, and so on, and I didn't want to go into the pool at that hour, right?
	Yeah. But what I did, of course, was I said, let's go to the pool.
	It's a little cold. It's a little wet.
	Do you still want to go? Of course, she's like, yes, yes, yes.
	So we went to the pool, right?
	And, you know, it ended up being fine.
	You know, just once you get in and once you get moving, it's fine, right?
	So that's sort of just one sort of tiny example.
	You just need that...
	Kind of consistency.
	If you say you're going to do something and it's really possible for you to do it, by golly, that's what you do.
	So you have that kind of consistency and you have that kind of good humor and you have that kind of positivity and so on, right?
	And that gives you the basis, the empirical basis for which to start extracting consistent behavior out of your child, right?
	Because then... Your child is going to make a promise to you, right?
	And children make promises like, I don't know, like politicians making promises.
	Yeah, yeah, absolutely, right? I totally won't have any sugar tomorrow if I had one extra piece of waffle today or whatever it is, right?
	And so you say, okay, so this is a serious business, right?
	You're going to keep your word, right?
	And then... If she doesn't keep her word or doesn't want to keep her word, which it will happen that she won't, then you say, then what you have is you have that whole list of things you've done as a parent, right?
	So say, oh, remember that time when, oh, remember that time when, oh, remember that time when, and did I keep my word?
	Yes, I did. Were you happy?
	That I kept my word or would it have been okay if I hadn't?
	No, it would have been bad if you hadn't kept my word.
	Why would it be bad if I didn't keep my word?
	Oh, I couldn't trust you.
	I wouldn't be able to be secure.
	Whatever, like you'll have those kinds of conversations, right?
	So is it a positive thing for you?
	Like, if I keep my word, and yes, right?
	And then... But you have to have all that evidence.
	It can't just be theoretical. You actually have to have the consistent evidence for the half decade or whatever until they start having these kinds of questions, right?
	And then... At some point, she will make a promise.
	She will acknowledge that it's better for her when you keep your promises and she won't keep her promise, right?
	And then you say, or you can say, okay, so is that the new rule?
	We don't have to keep promises anymore.
	Right? Okay, I kind of get the map of the...
	You get the whole map, right? So then you say, okay, like, is that a new rule?
	We don't have to keep promises anymore.
	Right? And I said, look, if I order a pizza and they deliver the pizza, should I pay?
	Or can I order the pizza promising to pay and then not pay?
	And she'd be like, well, no, right?
	Or can I say to you, here's your allowance this week.
	I'm going to give you an allowance this week and then just not give you the allowance this week.
	Oh, no. So... Is it fair if the pizza people bring me the pizza on the promise that I'll pay and then I don't pay, right?
	And let's say I don't pay, are they going to deliver a pizza next time?
	It's like, no, they won't deliver a pizza next time because you didn't pay for the last one, right?
	So if you break your word, should other people keep their word, right?
	That's an important question, right?
	So if you don't keep your word to me, should I keep my word to you?
	And this is not angry conversations.
	I hope you sort of understand that. These are just interesting conversations because it's worth exploring with your kids, with yourself, with everyone, right?
	And so at some point she's going to say or he's going to say, well, yeah, I guess you shouldn't keep your word if other people don't keep their word, right?
	And so then if you don't keep your word to me, should I keep my word to you, right?
	And at some point it's going to be like, well, no.
	Now, understand this is not total UPB or anything like that.
	It's not big giant theory of ethics.
	It's basic reciprocal ethics, but that's where you start.
	with kids, right?
	Which is you model the consistent behavior you want them to internalize.
	Then they will try and break it because, you know, kids are weasels of nihilistic power mongering.
	And that's exactly how they should be because they're evolving, right?
	They're evolving through the layers of lizard brain to human brain.
	And they're going to try and slime you.
	They're going to steal candy.
	They're going to hide things.
	They're going to whatever, right?
	Like you'll be cleaning out the vents and you'll find a bunch of candy wrappers.
	And that's inevitable.
	And I did it.
	I used to take quarters from my mom's purse to go play video games.
	And you just experiment with these things, right?
	Because you're kind of amoral when you're younger, right?
	I mean, it's kind of natural, right?
	So you model the behavior and then you build the rules and the reciprocity from your behavior to your kids, right?
	Now, it was a little unfair for me to say, well, how would you theoretically justify ethics to your kid?
	Because you do have to have that breadcrumb trail through the dark woods of nihilism of your own good behavior.
	And then the last step is that just ask the logical question.
	Ask the logical questions, right?
	So if your kid steals something, and I don't think my daughter ever did.
	I think she wandered out once while holding on to something in a store and we went back or whatever.
	But if your kid steals, oh no, she stole some candy, I think.
	Yeah, anyway. So you say, okay, well, what would happen if everyone stole?
	Like, what would happen if everyone stole?
	Like, my daughter runs a candy store.
	And what would happen if people just took your candy without telling you?
	She'd say, well, I wouldn't have a store.
	It's like, yeah, exactly. So she makes these candies, and she arranges them, and she's got prices for them, and there are sales, and, you know, it's really...
	She's got to keep inventory moving because it gets stale and so on.
	And so you would say, okay, so what would happen...
	And if she doesn't have a candy store, you can just refer to Halloween.
	You say, okay, well, what would happen if you went out for Halloween, but before you came home, a bunch of kids Took your candy, right?
	So I'd be really upset. It's like, if you knew that was going to happen in advance, would you even bother going out?
	It's like, well, no.
	So you wouldn't. This actually happened to me once.
	I was dressed up as maybe 12, and I was in a pretty rough neighborhood in Flemington Park with my, no, I was 13 or so, with my, quote, girlfriend, which was very platonic at the time.
	And I was dressed up as Rocky, the boxer.
	And, of course, some kids came and were trying to Take my candy from me.
	And I, of course, resisted with great energy.
	And my girlfriend's sister, who was probably at least 250 pounds, came running down the street.
	I remember that slow motion, Auntie Bo Derek run down the street.
	And she chased the kids away and she commended me for hanging on to my candy and so on.
	And it actually kind of worked out because the kids dropped some candy as they ran away from her because she was a big girl and pretty aggressive.
	So you would say, well, you know, like if nobody paid for any pizza, would there still be a pizza store to deliver food, right?
	I mean, if nobody paid for their houses, would anybody bother to build a house, right?
	So you'd have to say, and you sort of teach, the only reason we have stuff is that most people don't steal.
	Like that's the only reason there is stuff.
	It's the only reason that farmers send food into the city.
	It's the only reason that oil is dug up from the ground.
	It's because most people don't.
	Steal. So if you steal, you're kind of relying on everyone else not stealing so that you have something to steal, right?
	And so you can have all of these kinds of conversations and then you get straight to UPB at the end, right?
	Which is, is it possible for it to be good for everyone to steal, right?
	And so again, you just go from empirical to personal to reciprocal to consequential to UPB. You just build these layers, right?
	And it works really well.
	At least it certainly has in my household.
	Does that give you at least a sense of how to build those foundations?
	Definitely, definitely.
	It removes the fear.
	Let's say it like that.
	It removes the fear of child raising a bit.
	Right. Now, you can of course say that God gives us reason.
	God gives us both a rational universe and not just the capacity for reason, but the desire for reason.
	So serving philosophy is not defying God.
	God built this whole universe.
	Knock on the camera, knock on the wall, knock on the door.
	It's all solid. It's all predictable.
	Mom and dad aren't different every time you wake up.
	Your room doesn't reverse itself and gravity doesn't flip around like some crazy spinal tap dial going up to 11.
	We are given a stable, rational universe.
	And we are given stable rational brains that not only have the capacity for reason, but the thirst for reason.
	Reason works really well in understanding God's creation.
	So the idea that philosophy is the enemy of God would be to say that God is a sadist who creates a rational universe, creates rational brains, creates a thirst for rationality, and then says rationality is evil.
	Well, God is not sadistic.
	God doesn't just create this environment.
	It would be like taking—I mean, imagine if I took you to a play center.
	And you always try and get kids involved in these discussions.
	So the way I do it is, well, imagine I'm taking you to a play center.
	Okay, let's picture the greatest play center in the universe, like better than anything we've ever seen in our lives, right?
	And then you spend 20 minutes or half an hour or an hour— Drawing out, making lists and just making the greatest, you know, get them enthusiastic because, you know, kids love to break.
	My daughter had a, we had designed the most incredible restaurant in the known universe where like parrots would bring you your food and there were like chocolate fountains and trampolines where you could eat and it was really wild.
	So get them all involved in that kind of stuff where, and then I said, okay, so imagine that I say, you'll never believe this, son, but the Play center that we designed actually exists.
	And believe it or not, it's right down the street.
	And then I took you down to that play center.
	I paid for you, for both of us, for the whole day.
	You know, we took our shoes off.
	We got all of the keys out of our pockets.
	And we're looking at this most glorious play center in the known universe.
	And then I said, yeah, but we're not going in.
	Like, we're not going to go play. We're just going to watch it.
	Like, what would you think? You said, well, that was cruel.
	Why would you take me to the play center and then not let me play?
	Right. And so why would God create a rational universe, rational brains, a thirst for rationality in our minds, and then say, yeah, but whatever you do, don't reason.
	That would be sadistic, and God is not sadistic, right?
	So there's lots of ways that you can work with philosophy in the realm of theology.
	You may not necessarily think that if you listen to my very early shows, but I have ripened.
	Matured? Softened?
	Cocked? I don't know. There's so many different words for it over time.
	But that would be my suggestion about that.
	Now, then, of course, you know, a kid's going to say, well, mom believes in this and you don't believe in this and so on.
	And that's, you know, we can maybe have another conversation about that.
	Yeah. There's lots of roads that lead to Rome, so to speak, right?
	And you don't know.
	I mean, maybe your wife will change her mind.
	But the reason why your wife probably remains as religious as she does is because you couldn't answer the question early on about how you teach kids about morality, and she wants her kids to be good, and you couldn't do the job, if that makes sense.
	Definitely, definitely have a sense, but I guess when they start asking questions like, okay, mom believes in this, you don't believe in that, what's this all about, then it can be explained to them a bit more in nuance, let's say, like that.
	Well, okay, so, yeah.
	So, I mean, the way that I would work with that is I would say, look...
	I'm going to give you two scenarios, right?
	One is, where did the universe come from?
	And someone says, God made it.
	And another one is, where did the universe come from?
	And you say, I have absolutely no idea.
	It seems completely self-contradictory, right?
	Well, certainly for kids, one of them makes more sense than the other.
	Again, that doesn't mean that it's right or anything like that.
	But when it comes to ethics, when it comes to virtue, when it comes to being good, mom's answer is by far the most common answer in the world because God commands it, because God orders it, because God is moral, and that's where morality comes from.
	And people who aren't religious...
	Have a really, really, really, really, really tough time answering that question.
	I mean, there's this one guy in Canada who thinks he's done it.
	I think he has too. But it's not exactly spread like wildfire for a variety of reasons.
	We'll talk about it another time. But if you're hungry, really hungry, you don't wait for the perfect food.
	You eat what there is.
	And human beings are hungry to be good.
	And philosophers for 2,500 years have generally sucked...
	At bringing palatable food to people who are hungry for morality.
	They can't do it.
	You get, I don't know, the pursuit of excellence.
	You get reciprocal altruism.
	You get Darwinian helpmates.
	You get just a whole bunch of crap that...
	It's so contradictory, it's ridiculous, right?
	Or you get the golden rule, like do unto others as you would have them do unto you, which, you know, if you're a big mean sadist, you're fine with big mean sadism being the way that you resolve social conflicts because you're a big mean sadist, so you're going to win those kinds of situations, right? So, you know, people need the most fundamental food that human beings need is virtue, right?
	Because it's the one thing that differentiates us from the animals, right?
	I mean, dogs... Well, you know, but reciprocal altruism and UPB and this, that and the other, they'll just, you know, chase the mailman and try and chew his leg off or whatever, right?
	And, you know, cats don't sit there and say, well, I don't really need to eat this bird, but, you know, so it's not really sporting, right, or anything like that.
	You know, a hawk drops on a turtle and rips its back off just because it's hungry.
	And, you know, there's no, oh, well, I hope it doesn't, I should really put this thing under so that it doesn't suffer so much.
	You know, there just isn't that kind of stuff at all, right?
	There's no negotiation, almost no negotiation in the animal kingdom and so on.
	So animals don't really think about virtue.
	They may have some sort of packed loyalty, but they don't really think about virtue.
	Human beings, that's That's what differentiates us from the animals, is we have the capacity for abstract, universally preferable behavior.
	And God gives us the best food for our greatest hunger.
	Now, is it the best possible food?
	Does it really matter? If you're starving to death and somebody puts a plate of food in front of you and it's only your second favorite meal, do you sit there and say, no, no, no!
	I'm holding out for Pad Thai.
	You know, you don't. You say, oh my gosh, second favorite meal.
	It's going to be the best tasting meal I've ever had because I'm starving to death.
	So I really need that food.
	So religion gives humanity, which is hungering for virtue, it gives humanity second, third, fourth, fifth favorite meal.
	And philosophy is like, don't worry, it's coming right up.
	It'll be here soon.
	It'll be your first favorite meal.
	You haven't tasted it yet, but trust me, you're going to like it even more than your second favorite meal.
	Because I don't know who really likes deep fried mac and cheese.
	But anyway, so...
	And you sit there and you say, wow, I'm really starving to death.
	Like, I'm on my last legs, you know?
	I'm like anorexia, trembling on the edge, need to go to ER. And there's my second favorite food right there in front of me.
	But the philosopher is saying, don't worry, we're just about to give you your first favorite meal.
	And then you say, okay, well, how long have you guys been working on cooking this meal?
	And they say, you know, probably close to 3,000 years.
	I say, well...
	So I'm starving to death. Second favorite meal is in front of me.
	First favorite meal has been on order for 3,000 years.
	It still hasn't arrived.
	What the hell am I supposed to do?
	I definitely understand the mechanics of that, but I guess if I model the right behavior and the rational resolution of the conflict in the family and such things that a child would not be stuck in the religion of After it grows up.
	Because in my life I saw a lot of people that got stuck on the religion and that kind of closes their mind for any other philosophy.
	Well, sure, but look, you can...
	You can work to make the world a more rational place while your child is growing up.
	So there's a place to go to that is...
	Not religion. Do you see what I mean?
	Not really. Can you explain it?
	So, you've got 20 years until your kid grows up.
	I mean, you're not even a father yet, so maybe it's a quarter century, but you've got 20 years, right?
	Now, 20 years ago, I was still five years before starting this show, right?
	So there's a lot that you can do To make the world more rational over the course of your child's growth so that by the time your child gets out into the world 20 or 25 years from now, that there's going to be better answers for morality, there's going to be better answers for the state, there's going to be better answers for UPB. We're working to spread it, right?
	So it's not just you facing your child.
	If you want your child, let's say you say the child is growing up in a church and the church is kind of rickety and it's creaking and the foundations are shifting and the windows are half broken and it's chilly and there's bats in the belfry and all that, right?
	You say, man, I don't want...
	I don't want my kid to live his whole life in this rickety old church, right?
	Well, you can sit there and say to your kid, hey, man, this church is kind of rickety.
	Look, I push against these stones.
	They kind of bend. The roof is half open and so on.
	It's not really a great place.
	You can do all of that, and that's going to have an effect and all of that.
	Or what you can do is you can go and work with other people to build a better structure.
	And that way, you don't have to kvetch, so to speak, at the church.
	But you can sit there and say, come over here.
	You know, this house, you look at the foundation to firm, the roof is all on, it's warm, it's comfortable, it's cozy, it's strong.
	But if there's no place for your kid to go, then it would seem kind of odd.
	So build better structures around the church, right?
	And go out in the world and make sure that there is as much reason in the world as Humanly possible.
	You know, it's kind of funny to think that some of the young activists in social media companies now, they were 10 years old when I started doing this show, right?
	15 years ago, right?
	So now they're 25 or whatever they're on the social media companies or other places or whatever, right?
	But when I started this show, they were...
	They were 10 years old, right?
	So, you know, the world changes, of course, over time.
	It's kind of a useless thing to say, but it's important to remember.
	Be part of that change.
	Work to make the world more rational, and that way there's going to be a place for your kid to go if they become discontented with theology.
	But if the world is like, okay, well, I can be with theology, or I can be with...
	Crazy leftism, well, you know, I mean, this is back to the summer and the fall two years ago, right?
	2018. The summer, Lauren Southern and I were touring Australia and New Zealand to which there were riots, there was attacks, there were threats, there were bomb threats, there were death threats.
	And I remember with my family, we were being hunted through the streets by a bunch of socialists and we had to kind of...
	Run and hide. We had security and all of that, but we didn't want to obviously get into some big fracas or anything like that.
	And yeah, a couple months later, I'm out there in Poland and didn't need security.
	We could post on social media, hey, let's get together and talk philosophy.
	And I remember talking to a redheaded Caucasian Muslim about the theology of Islam and so on.
	And that's kind of different.
	So if your son is like, oh, okay, well, Australia, New Zealand, much less Christian, Poland, more Christian.
	Hmm. Right?
	You've got to try and build a world, not just in the mind, but in the practical realm, that is going to be not just appealing or attractive, but also somewhat safe.
	So work to make the world more rational, and I think that's the greatest gift you would give to your kids rather than abstract conversations about the existence of God, if that makes sense.
	That makes total sense.
	But can you help me a bit with the second part of the question about my girlfriend, soon to be...
	Oh yeah, what does she do in the government?
	Literature. Like, she wants to work in a college, like a professor or assistant professor in literature.
	Ah, so, okay. Does she not want to do literature rather than teach literature?
	In other words, has she ever thought about, I'm sure she has, obviously everybody who studies English does, thought about writing books or poems or plays or...
	I think we haven't talked about that a lot, but she generally likes to read a lot, like...
	Really, really much she likes to read.
	But she never kind of mentioned writing aspirations.
	Okay, well, I mean, that's probably something that's worth talking about.
	And you don't have to tell me in the world, of course, where you are, but it sounds like it's important to be aware of just how crazy politically correct and leftist and volatile...
	Academia is becoming?
	Eastern Europe. Oh, so yeah, you guys are alright.
	You guys are fine. For now.
	For now, but I'm afraid that if I do nothing, Balkans will become, or Eastern Europe will become like US or Canada today.
	I don't want to see that happen.
	No, I can... Certainly as far as the U.S. goes, yeah, you definitely don't want that kind of stuff there.
	So, okay, so, I mean, if it is a job that would be in the free market, then to me it's not fundamentally objectionable for someone to do it for the government, right? So, I mean, to take a silly example, right, I mean, garbage collection is usually run by the government.
	Now, There would be garbage collection in a free market, and the government usually prevents competition in that realm, right?
	Yes, definitely, but I believe that for her there is, even now, a possibility for working That job, but not for government, like on the private faculties and such things, private colleges.
	Right. And why does she want to work for the government?
	Is it like the job security or the tenure or whatever?
	I believe that it is the job security.
	The thing is, when we talk about that, she's like, but the only way I can effectively do this is...
	If I work in the government structure.
	Because she wants to work on the national literature, in a sense, something like that.
	And it's really, really good if you want to work in that type of literature to be near the...
	Government-controlled colleges for that.
	Okay, I'm not...
	I don't know what all of that means.
	And it's not because of your English, which I hugely appreciate.
	I mean, given how bad I am at other languages, I always appreciate people who can speak English, so it's nothing to do with that.
	But job security is simply stating that People shouldn't have a choice about whether I am their teacher.
	People shouldn't be able to fire me.
	Now, that's a profound statement of insecurity.
	You could ask her, I suppose, or if she speaks English and wants to call in, that would be fine too.
	But it's like, would you want to get into a marriage where the government chose your partner and you couldn't get divorced?
	Because that would be marriage security, right?
	But she would say, gosh, no, that's terrible.
	I need to be able to A, I need to be able to choose my husband and B, I should have the right of divorce should he go crazy or become violent or a drunk or something like that, right?
	And so job security simply is denying the choice of other people as to whether you're there or not.
	And the only, you say, what kind of person would want the government to choose their spouse and forbid divorce?
	Well, somebody who felt profoundly unattractive.
	Somebody who felt that out there in the free market of dating, he or she would do very poorly, right?
	Why do you want... Why do you want job security?
	Why do you want dating security? Because you don't feel like you could earn it on your own.
	And I assume that she has the same distaste for communism as you do, if not visceral dislike of communism.
	She kind of...
	She's like, yeah, violence is bad, but when I say, okay, this tendency of government, the thing that the government is doing now is leading to communism, she's like, yeah, but I don't know a lot about communism and such things.
	When I say to her, okay, Christianity says no stealing, and this will lead to more and more stealing and violence, she's like, yeah, but I don't know about communism.
	I haven't read about it a lot.
	And that kind of comments I really don't like, because they show a kind of lack of interest.
	Well, it could show a lack of interest, It could also be that she wants job security, she wants to be paid by the state, and she senses, assume she's an intelligent woman and she wants to become a professor, she's probably a very intelligent woman, so she probably senses deep down that...
	If she listens to what you say about communism, that she's not going to get what she wants, right?
	She's not going to get tenure.
	She's not going to feel good about it, right?
	Because if she's Christian and you can convince her that government teachers are paid through theft and competition is eliminated through theft and through violence and through control, Then she's going to have a crisis of conscience and she's going to say, well, either there's only a couple of possibilities, right?
	Either you're wrong and the government stuff is not funded through theft, which she's not going to be able to sustain because taxation is theft, or she wants the products of theft, in which case she has to give up at least one of the Ten Commandments, which she's not going to want to do, or she cannot morally or logically Take a position in the government that's funded by theft.
	So she, right now, she's in this mental goo where she can have her cake and eat it too, right?
	Sounds like I'm about to say, she's in this mental goo where she can have her cake and eat it too, right?
	Yes, I understand that.
	So the reason why she's fundamentally incurious is because she knows exactly where it's going to lead, right?
	Yes, that's kind of my fear.
	Well, you can talk about it in terms of fear, but that's to abstract yourself from the same issues.
	We all want to have our cake and eat it too.
	That's a fundamental human characteristic.
	We all, hey, I want to talk about controversial things and not get in trouble.
	We all want to have her cake and eat it too.
	That is absolutely, completely and totally inevitable.
	You want it too. And I know this because you said, well, you know, I can't believe my girlfriend, she's religious and blah, I raised my kids and so on.
	Then I ask you to explain morality to your kids.
	You can't do it. Your girlfriend can, but you can't, right?
	So you want to have your cake and eat it too.
	You want to have skepticism regarding religion, but you haven't put the necessary work in to understand morality, which is the most important aspect of religion.
	The most important aspect of religion is morality.
	And it's the second best meal, Christianity in particular, right?
	It's a second best meal for human beings.
	Philosophy first, but philosophy is still working on that.
	Working on the ingredients there.
	So you also want to have your cake and eat it too.
	I want to have my cake and eat it too.
	And there's nothing wrong with that.
	Wanting your cake and eating it too...
	It's perfectly natural. It sort of reminds me of...
	I don't know if you've ever done this if you like to fish, right?
	But if you like to fish and you're sitting out there on a rocking boat on the lake and you've got your little anchor down and it's really warm and there's this low buzzing of bees on the shore and the water is just lapping up against the side of your boat...
	And, you know, maybe you've had a beer or two and, you know, that kind of wave of, ah, I'm feeling pretty mellow right about.
	Now, you still want to keep fishing, right?
	So what do you do? Well, maybe you tie the fishing line to your toe so that if a fish bites, you can feel it.
	Or maybe you kind of tuck it under your armpit and then you just close your eyes.
	You want to fish and nap at the same time, right?
	And there's nothing wrong with that.
	That's what you understand. That's where technology comes from.
	That's where efficiency comes from, is wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
	I want to play guitar while the corn is being ground.
	Okay, so you create some, you know, big giant windmill to grind your corn while you play guitar.
	So wanting to have your cake and eat it too is perfectly natural, perfectly healthy.
	It's where progress in technology comes from.
	I want to have a conversation with someone without having to walk over.
	Okay, well, first we'll get a horse, then we'll get a car, then we'll get a telephone wire, then we'll get a TCP IP cable or whatever, right?
	So, please, my friend, do not...
	Say that the only fears you have are the possible lack of integrity matrices of your girlfriend.
	Because you have them, I have them, the humility of knowing that you're not perfect and she's not perfect.
	But if you're like, well, I am perfectly rational and philosophical and logical, but she's got this big giant flaw called religion, it's like, hmm, that's not going to work.
	Because it's vain, right?
	Okay, so she's got, you know, philosophically speaking, we would say, okay, she's got a hiccup there called religion.
	But at least she could explain morals to the kids, right?
	You can't. And I don't mean this as a criticism or there's something wrong with you or it's bad.
	It's just humility is really, really important in relationships.
	You know, half the time my wife is doing stuff, I don't have any idea what's going on.
	But I trust her completely that it's all good decisions.
	That's the division of labor stuff, right?
	You know, like I want to start recording...
	A couple of my novels is audiobooks, right?
	Now, I don't want to sit here in the studio.
	It's not that comfortable and it's going to need to get comfortable.
	These are long books. So I say to my wife, I need a microphone.
	I don't want to disconnect this microphone, take it upstairs, then break it down because, you know, it's very inefficient, right?
	So she's like, okay.
	Now, she could, of course, have said, another microphone?
	How many microphones do you need, man of mine, right?
	But she's like, okay, you need a microphone.
	Let's go get a microphone, right?
	We went to get a microphone.
	And so that's what I mean.
	So there's strength that she's going to bring to bear in the relationship.
	And as far as...
	Well, listen, she wants job security and she wants to believe in God and I don't have anything like that.
	Well, you do. You absolutely do.
	I do. Everyone does.
	Everyone does. And so if you come to her with, I'm perfect, you're broken, you need to be fixed.
	Which is kind of how you portrayed it to me.
	You didn't say, well, you know, she has this thing with God, but I have this thing where I don't really understand ethics and can't explain it to anyone, right?
	So she's at least ahead of me on the ethics thing, because she might have the wrong diagnosis, but she's got the right medicine.
	I may have the right diagnosis, but I have the wrong medicine, which is worse, right?
	So, yeah, just with humility, say, you know, hey, it troubles me.
	You know, the religious thing troubles me, but, you know, I just had a conversation with a guy and I couldn't even explain ethics.
	So, I clearly have some work to do as far as that goes, because she could call me up.
	You know what she could say? She could say, you know, I'm really, really concerned I'm marrying this guy.
	He's a good guy. He's a nice guy.
	Doesn't believe in God, which is not my thing.
	But, you know, I asked him, why be good?
	He didn't have a clue. How am I supposed to raise my kids around a nihilist who can't even explain why you shouldn't hit people and steal?
	That's, that's, that's, that's revealing.
	And you want, you want that mutual journey.
	Because if you're perfect and she's flawed, why are you, why are you there?
	She's got a nice rack. I don't know, right?
	But, but we're all imperfect.
	We're all striving.
	She's going to have some strengths based upon her beliefs and her perspectives.
	You're going to have some strengths based upon your beliefs and your perspectives.
	And I know that there's philosophy and there's rational truth and objective things and so on and all that, right?
	That all makes, you know, of course, I mean, I'm a philosophy guy, so I understand all of that.
	But especially given your limitations with regards to ethics, she's further ahead than you are.
	Because I don't think you even know how little you know about virtue, and that's going to be alarming for her.
	Now, if you want her to not take a government job, sure, you can talk about the ethics, but the first thing you have to understand is you have to understand why she wants the government job.
	You can't talk people out of things when you don't even know why they want them.
	Because then you're just basically...
	It's like, hey kids, there's a big pile of sugar-free candy that tastes exactly like candy.
	You can eat as much as you want. It won't be bad for you at all.
	And then just lower a gate in front of it so they can't get there.
	What are they going to try and do? They're going to get really mad.
	Like, what? Why would you show me this candy and then just lower a gate?
	Right? So first thing with kids, right?
	They say, my daughter would say, I really want to eat a candy bar.
	And I'd be like, oh... I would like to eat a candy bar every day.
	I would like to eat five candy bars a day.
	They're so good. I love candy.
	I love chocolate. And it's just fantastic, right?
	So you've got to get in the same place.
	So why does she want this government job?
	There's a reason for it.
	There's a reason for it. And if you don't understand that reason, then you're just lowering a gate in front of what she wants, which is just going to make her mad at you.
	Do you know what I mean? Yes, so we should work on the job safety thing if I understand it well, I guess.
	The most important three words in a relationship, it's not I love you, it's tell me more.
	Not like why on earth would you want this government job, but like help me understand the government job.
	There's something around it for her that's really, really important.
	And she doesn't feel safe enough to tell you, which is why she just kind of fogs up when you start talking about communism and so on, right?
	And so you've got to, I mean, whether you're with her for your life or you get married, to have a relationship, you must be curious.
	Curiosity is the foundation of a living relationship.
	Because if you're just going in there to lecture her and you're 100% right and she's got to be fixed, it's not going to work.
	And it's only going to keep a woman around who's got low self-esteem.
	If you care about her, if you love her, do you love her?
	I do. You do?
	Okay. So if you love her, the first thing that you need, the first and many layered thing that you need to understand is what makes her tick.
	What is motivating her?
	Why does she want the job?
	What does it mean to her?
	What is the value to her?
	And what are her fears if she doesn't get it?
	And you've got to understand.
	I'm sorry. Here I am.
	You've got to understand, man.
	But to understand things from a woman's perspective, does she want to have kids?
	Oh, yes. Yes, definitely.
	She wants to be talked about.
	Okay. So if she wants to have kids, this is femininity 101, right?
	If she wants to have kids, then she's going to need job security.
	Do you know why? Definitely, I understand why, yes.
	Explain it to me. Well, she has a second husband that she doesn't have to care about.
	That's kind of judgmental, but okay.
	Yeah, so if she has kids, let's say she wants two or three kids, right?
	Something like that. Okay, so she wants a couple of kids.
	So she's going to be 10 years dependent on someone, right?
	Yes, definitely. Now, you could get hit by a bus.
	You could become a drunk.
	It's more possible than you think.
	Are you a bus driver?
	No, no, no. I'm a delivery guy on a bike.
	Oh, okay. So, oh my God, are you kidding me?
	Of course you want job security because you're about to be turned into pound cake on the sidewalk by anybody larger than a motorcycle.
	I hope that when that time comes that I won't be doing this job, but yes.
	Well, you won't be able to teach her much about the glories of the free market if you remain a delivery person.
	But, you know, you're listening to this show, I'm sure you're going to do fine.
	But, so for a woman...
	Imagine how you would plan your life if you knew for sure you were going to be physically disabled for 10 years.
	Just imagine that.
	Just imagine that in all seriousness that you knew that for 10 years of your life you were going to be physically disabled and you were going to be unable to work.
	You were going to be tired.
	You were going to feel physically weak.
	Your body was going to go through big changes.
	You would become less attractive and you would never regain your former attractiveness.
	Oh, that's a big one. So imagine that you knew for sure that for 10 years you were going to be tired and sick and weak and kind of homely.
	You were going to lose your hair or you were going to gain 30 pounds and never really lose it.
	And that was going to be your life.
	Now, if you think about that 10 years, 10 years of your life, you're not going to be able to work.
	Ah, but you see, if you work for the government, you'll still get paid.
	Yes, and my first thought when you start describing that from the female perspective was like, okay, fuck ethics.
	Give me the government job and all the welfare possible.
	Yeah, of course. And then you're sitting there saying, yes, but communism in 30 years, you're like, yeah, well, but, you know, food on the table tomorrow, right?
	Yes. So, like, this is going out to all the men out there, right?
	Because we don't get this calculation.
	Because, you know, you see the stuff of the libertarian community.
	All women, they just prefer security to freedom.
	And it's like, but we men, we're...
	Boring and bulletproof.
	We just stride around like, yeah, okay, I'm getting a little creaky in my mid-50s and all that, but we just kind of stride around and nothing really changes.
	For men, it's like from 15 to 60, we're kind of the same thing.
	We're just this lump of masculinity.
	And we can run upstairs and we can carry things and we're just kind of the same.
	We don't go through The same puberty.
	Okay, yeah, I got balls drop and voice drops and we get hair and size and strength and all of that.
	But we don't have that...
	Monthly metronome of the period, like blood, blood, blood.
	It's like, you know, like how they milk cows.
	Well, the same thing with the period.
	It's like a month gone by, a month gone by.
	You know, when I was younger, I barely even knew what the hell month it was.
	You don't care. You're just achieving your next goal as a man.
	You're just doing your thing. And by the time we hit sort of 14 or 15 or 16 or whenever...
	We hit our adult maturity.
	I was kind of a little kid and then I got into above average size for a guy.
	I'm like 190 and almost six foot tall.
	So then we just sailed through life like we're just Sherman tanks.
	And the women are like these wobbly bicycles.
	And we don't ever have to sit there and say, well, what if I have to carry around two watermelons in my baby and excrete them through my butt?
	And then have to breastfeed another human life and get up four times in the night for month after month after month.
	We don't process that.
	I mean, we get it, like, yeah, if you ask, yeah, but we don't really get what that's like to be small, to be weak, to be vulnerable, to be dependent, which is exactly what women are if the human race continues.
	Oh, why do women want...
	Security over freedom.
	Because they love their children. And they don't want to see their children die from lack of medicine, die from hunger, die from lack of shelter.
	They need, they need, they need.
	We men, we can do without, right?
	We've all done it, you know.
	I mean, I've certainly done it, you know.
	I don't really have enough money for food today.
	I'll eat tomorrow. I'm not talking like Newt Hansen style, but you know, we can go without.
	Kids can't go without. I didn't go to a dentist for like years when I was a teenager.
	So it didn't matter. When I went, I had two cavities, no big deal, right?
	But you can't go for years without taking your kids to the dentist, right?
	You know, I just went to, you know, now I have an eye exam every two years.
	Why? Because I'm married, right?
	And when did I ever go to for eye exam before I got married, right?
	You know, this is beautiful. I mean, she loves me, of course, right?
	But she also wants my vision to be healthy, right?
	Because, you know, I get crappy.
	And I'm pretty much a sight-based life form for what it is that I do.
	So you can't just look at a woman like she's a dude with tits.
	It's just not the way that things are.
	And you've got to kind of get inside that mindset.
	Being disabled, being smaller, being weaker, being dependent.
	They have a whole series of calculations that wouldn't organically cross your mind or my mind.
	But if you want to have a successful relationship with women, you kind of got to get that whole thing.
	And lecturing her about communism, listen, I get it.
	And look, you and I as dudes will talk communism all day and have a perfectly satisfying time.
	But it's not about communism for her.
	Yeah, I definitely understand that.
	But if I understood that, so the thing would be like, okay, let's talk about it and let's try to improve my economic and financial let's talk about it and let's try to improve my economic Well, see, that's the thing, right?
	Sorry to interrupt, but the idea that you're going to lecture her that she doesn't need financial security when you're a bicycle courier, you know, the better argument is a better job.
	Definitely, definitely, yes.
	That's what crossed my mind while you were talking.
	Like, sure, that would give her a bit more safety, I guess.
	Oh, she's got no safety with you at all.
	Yes, yes. I mean, I assume that you're not making much money.
	I don't know if you have life insurance, but life insurance is certainly very important, and I've always urged people who become parents, please, for God's sakes, get some life insurance.
	But life insurance isn't going to make being a single mom okay for her, right?
	So if you want to, if you want a woman to commit to you rather than to the state, you've got to be better than the state.
	Like, I'm sorry.
	It's just, again, we can make these abstract moral arguments and they're not unimportant, but they're also not going to hit women where they live, which is, okay, that's all well and good.
	But what if my child needs something expensive?
	What if my child needs inhalers?
	What if my child needs a specialist to check a bone spur or something like that, right?
	What if my child is born with a hairy lip?
	What if, what if, what if, right? It's great, but your critique of the Communist Manifesto isn't going to fix anything about my kids, right?
	If they need that stuff.
	I definitely understood it.
	And listen, this sounds like it's negative towards women.
	I don't mean that at all. It's absolutely essential.
	Because if you were just able to stay in the realm of abstract arguments rather than me saying from a woman's perspective...
	You're a – you must be a very good-looking guy or maybe you're great in bed.
	I don't know. But you are very risky for her at the moment, right?
	And we need that empiricism from women.
	We need that empiricism from women because we tend to get lost in the abstract arguments rather than the practical consequences.
	It's something that Doug Casey said a bunch of times, which is like, you know, stop talking about the free market and go make some money.
	And that empiricism from women is really...
	It keeps men grounded. It keeps us, you know, not just head in the clouds stuff.
	The curse of the smalls and the stars, right?
	So, you know, from my perspective...
	Like, honor and respect that perspective.
	Like, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	But you're a bike courier.
	Do you know what I mean? And so, like, her hesitancy to say...
	Well, you say... Why do you need to state, I will provide for you with bike couriering?
	She's like, hmm, don't think you will.
	Don't think you will, right?
	And so she's urging you to get out of theory and get into practice.
	If you love the free market so much, why don't you start a business?
	Yeah, that's kind of my plan, but...
	Good. Well, now she's saying, get your plans ass in gear, brother.
	Definitely. And the more you talk about the abstractions without achieving the material...
	The tougher it's going to be to convince her.
	And frankly, I'm on her side with regards to this.
	Because if you're simply working in the abstract without creating in the practical, it's kind of an insult to philosophy.
	Do you know what I mean? I definitely understand.
	If you're like, you know, somebody released a call, somebody, I don't know, somehow got a recording of me screaming blue murder at my child or something like that.
	I'd be like, okay, a little less theory, a little more practice of peaceful parenting and so on.
	Not that such a thing would ever exist, but you know, if it did, right?
	So you've got to love women for their practical, yeah, yeah, yeah, but.
	That's all well and good, but.
	I love women for that.
	Because you and I, we're like helium balloons.
	We just love to bump up around the rafters rather than having actually anything on the ground, right?
	Anything rooted, anything solid.
	We love to design cloud castles down to the last detail, but we live in an outhouse.
	Do you know what I mean? I understand.
	Love, worship, and respect her practical yes-but stuff around your theory.
	Sorry, I know I've been talking a lot, so please share me your thoughts.
	No, I totally understand you.
	She's kind of a reality check, evolutionally reality check, let's call it like that.
	Yes, and we need men's abstract planning and we need women's practical consequences.
	That's the yin and yang of the dance of the sexes, right?
	I mean, we need both of those things and that's my suggestion to you.
	That you've got to woo her away from the state.
	Lecturing her about communism isn't going to do it.
	Yeah, yeah. That's obviously my fault.
	No, no, no. That's not your fault.
	No, no. Don't blame yourself.
	Don't blame yourself. It's just, you know, if you've not heard the argument before, it's just new, right?
	Yeah, but I'm thinking how I didn't think about her perspective in that view.
	Oh, right. No, listen.
	Unfortunately, we're just not given that sensible grounding in female nature.
	Because, you know, certainly in some of the manosphere, not that this is specifically the manosphere, but there is this...
	Women are gold diggers or women are hypergamous or, you know, Broufault's Law and there's all of this stuff that's kind of hinky around women, but women and men, we are...
	Designed to really, really complement each other.
	And men's abstract abilities, again, very much a generalization, but men's abstract abilities are fantastic.
	Women's grounding practical consequences are also very, very powerful.
	And the two combined on average, you know, can be the other way around in some relationships, but the two combined on average are virtually unbeatable.
	And if you get this perspective of your girlfriends and she gets your perspective The power that you guys will have as a couple is, oh!
	It's incredible.
	Like, you will be virtually unbeatable in the market.
	Okay. I understand now that what I should be doing more.
	Not what I should do, but what I should be continually doing more, I guess.
	I think so. I think that she is trying to spur your ambition.
	And I think that she's saying, Hey man, you beat the state, I'm yours.
	And that's good. Don't you want to beat the state?
	That's good. It's a good plan.
	It's a good challenge. It's a good enemy to have, so to speak.
	Not her, the state, right? Yes, yes, yes.
	I definitely couldn't imagine a bigger run.
	It's nothing that spells don't work for the government than a giant stack of money on the table.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	That's true. That's true.
	And insurance and such things.
	Yeah, yeah. Insurance and all that. Yeah. Yes, yes, yes.
	That's true. That's true.
	And a bit...
	I really don't want to start a new topic, but one more thing is, like, she comes from a single mom house.
	And her mom, too, was a government worker.
	And... Well, that's where she's going to get from, right?
	She didn't have a dad to provide, right?
	Yes. There were two of them, so that was a problem.
	So I guess that there is a bit of modeling there, too.
	Right.
	And do you know what happened to her dad?
	Abusive drunk cup, I think.
	So she's not going to have a lot of confidence in her ability to pick a quality man, which is another reason why she wants the government, right?
	I don't mean you are not that quality man.
	I'm sure that you are. But what I mean is that Has she ever talked about her mother saying, okay, sorry, this is really, really important when you're dating, right?
	So her mother chose a really bad guy, right?
	Yes, yes. I mean, her mother chose kind of an Eastern European stereotype.
	Oh, definitely.
	Right? Was he also a potato farmer?
	Did he? Okay. No, no, no, no, no.
	So that's a very, very interesting question, right?
	Which is, what lessons have been learned from the past in that family?
	No. Well, I don't know.
	I mean, you know. We talked about that.
	Oh, you've had that combo with her?
	Yes, yes, many times.
	And it was kind of a few lessons, but not really convincing to me.
	That doesn't mean that I'm right, but I kind of felt like that.
	Now, there's going to be a lot of tension potentially between, if the lessons haven't been learned, then the problem that's going to happen is if you turn into a great guy, I'm sure you already are, but let's say you sort of go even further, right?
	So you turn into a great guy, then your girlfriend is going to face some tension with her own mother.
	Because if her mother chose a bad guy and her daughter chooses a great guy, the mother is going to experience quite a lot of unhappiness.
	Can you kind of give me a few details about that?
	I don't really make a connection.
	Sure. Have you ever played the lottery?
	A few times, not really.
	Okay, so imagine that you and your friend go to buy a lottery ticket and yours loses and his wins a million dollars.
	Okay. So, you know, you're kind of happy for your friend, but also what do you feel?
	Yeah, why didn't I get that?
	Yeah, if I'd have been two feet in front of him, I'd be a millionaire, right?
	Yes, I understand that.
	Yeah, so when your friend wins and you lose, I think it was Gore Vidal who said, it's not enough that we succeed, our friends must also fail, right?
	But if your friend succeeds at something big, I mean, of course, you're happy for him, but it's also like, come on, why wasn't that me, right?
	Okay, I understand.
	So there would be some tension, definitely.
	Unless the lessons have been learned, right?
	So if the mom says, look, here's all the bad stuff I missed about your dad.
	Like, here's all of the warning signs that I ignored.
	Here's what you've got to look for.
	Then she would take her sad story and turn it into somebody else's happy ending, right?
	Yes, yes, yes. And turning your sad story into somebody else's happy ending...
	It's the whole business plan of this show.
	I turn my sad story into other people's happy endings, including my daughters and my wife's, hopefully.
	And that's the whole business plan of the show.
	Because that's how you say, fuck you to the bad times, right?
	You take that shit, you turn it into gold, and you make the world wealthy.
	That's why I said, have the lessons been learned?
	If the lessons haven't been learned, what that means is that the mom...
	Doesn't accept or understand that you can find good people relatively easily.
	Now, by that I don't mean that good people are common, but you can still find them relatively easily.
	Like if you think of looking down at a street.
	I used to have this picture many years ago.
	I never even know what happened to it.
	Look down on a street from a balcony and there's like 2,000 black umbrellas.
	Down on the street, everyone's got a black umbrella.
	And then you see one, it's a bright red umbrella, right?
	One out of 2,000.
	Is it common? No.
	Is it easy to see?
	It certainly is, right? So, the mom doesn't, is like colorblind or the sea of green and red umbrella, she can't tell them apart, right?
	And so then if her daughter ends up with a good guy and the mom ended up with a bad guy, then it's going to be like you with your friend and the lottery ticket.
	Bad luck! I'm happy for you, but man, I wish that were me, right?
	And so if none of the lessons have been learned, then the mom is going to perceive it as merely accidental and she's going to be I mean, obviously happy for her daughter, like you're happy for your friend who wins a million dollars, but it's not a simple emotion.
	Like your friend wins a million dollars, and it's complicated, right?
	It's a complicated emotion, and it's the same thing with the mom, right?
	Yeah. Why does she get a good guy and I don't?
	I understand that perspective, definitely, yes.
	So that means that the daughter, your girlfriend, has not been given the lessons, right?
	The sad stories haven't been turned into the happy endings.
	And so, the daughter doesn't know how to choose a good man consciously.
	Now, I think she probably gets things unconsciously because she saw, I don't know, her dad around or her dad gone.
	And she, you know, she's kind of absorbed how things shouldn't go, if that makes any sense.
	But she doesn't have it as a conscious thing.
	Like, here's what you look for. And here's like all of that stuff, right?
	And so, but she, and she also understands that if she chooses a really good guy, it's going to be really tough for her mom.
	It's going to be painful. For her mom.
	In a way that you and I can't really understand.
	I'm sorry? I don't think that she understands that.
	No, no, no, of course. Of course.
	Yeah, listen, of course, right?
	Of course. And, you know, but, you know, whether people understand things consciously or not, it's not relevant in terms of the first questions that we try to understand about them, right?
	Trying to sort of follow, right? Yes, yes, yes, yes.
	So if she doesn't know how to choose a good man, she's also going to want job security from the government, right?
	Because she doesn't know how to choose a good man.
	Now, when I got married to my wife almost 18 years ago now, you know, we said at the very beginning, no matter what, we're together.
	Like, we're sticking it out.
	we are totally together, right?
	And, you know, I know when I've talked about this, people are like, oh, that's, you know, that's, what if she does divorce?
	Like, it's not going to happen. We're in it forever.
	It was very serious for both of us, and her parents stayed together.
	My parents didn't, but, you know, that was...
	That was the rule, right?
	That was the deal. No matter what.
	And that's how it is.
	Lord knows she's been through some excitement with me.
	Been through some excitement with her, mostly the other way around.
	So when I got married, I knew it was going to be.
	I still remember. We were out on a hike.
	We'd been going out for maybe two months or whatever.
	And I was just like, you know what? I'm never going to be able to upgrade from her.
	I'm not saying she's the best woman in the world.
	I personally think she is, but she certainly is the best woman for me.
	So there was no upgrade.
	I remember watching her, you know, we were having a great conversation.
	She's smart. She's funny.
	She's educated. She's, you know, she's just loyal.
	She's a very sunny disposition, which is good.
	I have my occasional storm clouds.
	And so I just remember very clearly looking at her going up at the hill.
	And it was like this huge rush of feeling.
	I never experienced it before in my life.
	It was just like, yeah, this is it.
	This is it. This is it.
	This is it. And I've never... I mean, the idea that it would be regretful, I mean, I've never regretted it, never like anything like that.
	In a million years, it could never happen, right?
	So, if your girlfriend doesn't know how to choose a good man...
	Then she's kind of rolling the dice with you, right?
	And that's going to mean that she's going to be more tempted for job security and from elsewhere because she's not going to know whether you're going to stick around.
	She doesn't know how to...
	You know, if everybody could choose the winning lottery ticket, well, by golly, that's what they do, right?
	Definitely, yes.
	I don't now understand her perspective and...
	And why she came to that conclusion?
	So she's uncertain, right?
	So, you know, a good question is, how do you know if someone's the right person?
	Like, how do you know if someone is the right person for you or a good person in general?
	Yeah, that's a good question.
	That's a good question.
	And if you can, if she can at some point kind of get how you choose a good person, then she'll feel more secure with you.
	Okay, I guess that means more...
	Work on the self-knowledge.
	I would say, yeah, work with self-knowledge with regards to her.
	But you see, this is the level that I sort of invite you and the audience as a whole to work with in terms of relationship conflicts or relationship challenges.
	Right? Which is, okay, so if she's feeling uncertain, if she feels like she needs the government, well...
	Why? Say, ah, well, maybe she just doesn't understand the true nature of the initiation of force and taxation and so on.
	It's like, yeah, okay, maybe.
	So you tried that, right?
	You tried, well, you know, taxation and communism and blah, blah, blah.
	But she kind of fades out.
	And what that means is that she ain't buying what you're selling.
	And so repeating yourself doesn't work.
	In fact, it tends to make things worse because then she feels like she says, look, I'm clearly not buying what you're selling, so why do you keep trying to sell it to me?
	Like if I go in to a car dealership and I've got six kids, right, with me, and he says, I've got this great new sports car.
	It's a two-seater. What am I going to say?
	Yeah. Not helpful.
	I can't get a car that's a two-seater.
	I got six kids. You know, I see these six kids.
	And then he says, no, no, no, but it also has really good air conditioning.
	It's got a V8 motor and it's got GPS. And it's like, yes, but I don't – not what I need.
	I got six kids. I can't get a two-seater sports car.
	It doesn't make any sense, right? Four more seats.
	Yeah, yeah. Unless it's going to come with some sort of roof rack and a bag in the back or something, right?
	Yeah. So you go and you say, yeah, taxation theft and government monopoly and communism.
	So she blanks out with regards to that.
	So our temptation as men is, oh gosh, I don't even remember who did this.
	It might have been Howie Mandel who did this old joke about, you know, you go to some foreign country, go to Hungary or something like that.
	And you say something in English and somebody doesn't They don't speak English.
	So you say it again, but louder, you know, like that's somehow going to pierce through the Babelfish Tower of Babel split, right?
	Like, you know, can you imagine someone coming to the couch and you say, I'm sorry, I don't speak your language.
	It's like that does not, you know, just going louder doesn't, and this is kind of what you're doing, right?
	So you say, well, I've got these intellectual arguments.
	So, they work for me.
	Therefore, they must work for my girlfriend.
	So, if she doesn't seem to respond to them, I'll just keep repeating them until she responds.
	It's like, that's not going to work.
	Because you haven't figured out how philosophy solves her needs.
	How does philosophy solve her needs?
	And this is why the great gift of this show, both for me and I think for the world, has been, you know, 15 years of thousands of conversations like this one, where I'm trying to figure out how philosophy serves you and serves your family and serves your girlfriend and serves your life, right? And you've got to do that with the people in your life.
	What problem... Let me sort of back up for a second here, right?
	So this is the big tension for me, just, you know, because I don't want to make this about me, but just so you understand the challenge that you face with your girlfriend.
	So... I really love abstract philosophy.
	Like I did a show the other day on collectivism versus the conscience.
	I haven't released it yet. It's great.
	I love it.
	UPB was one of my favorite books to write.
	Essential Philosophy was a great one to write and so on, right?
	For me. Because that's a sweet spot for me in philosophy is this super abstract stuff that I just...
	I think I'm good at it. It really works my brain, and it's so uniquely satisfying when it hangs together and all of that, right?
	Now, the one thing that is unique, though, about this show with regards to philosophy is these kinds of conversations.
	Now, I love the abstract stuff.
	Do you know what the audience loves?
	Yeah, yeah, I can guess.
	I mean, you know, you're asking me some abstract questions in a way, but it's kind of about your girlfriend, right?
	Yes, with my girlfriend in general in my life.
	It is very important in your life, and you need the abstractions that help you with your girlfriend.
	Like, imagine yourself being disabled for 10 years, right?
	Depending on someone else and getting uglier in the process, right?
	So, you need the abstractions to connect with your life.
	That's what you're calling me for, right?
	Yes, yes, yes. Your girlfriend needs the same thing.
	Like if I had simply repeated to you that taxation is theft and the government is a monopoly in force and it's immoral, blah, blah, blah, right?
	Then you would wander out of this with all of your abstract ideas reinforced, but without any practical way to solve the problems with your girlfriend, right?
	Yes, yes, yes, that's true.
	So what you want from me, your girlfriend wants from you.
	Which is a way for philosophy to solve the actual problems in her life.
	Her problems.
	Now I kind of feel guilty how I haven't seen or seen that problems from her perspective.
	Okay, let's open this up to the audience.
	We got... People listening in on this, I guess we're on the maximum that it can do, right?
	So feel free, if you like, to unmute yourself and talk to our good friend here from Eastern Europe.
	With all of this stuff that I'm talking about, was it obvious to everyone else in the call except for our good friend here?
	Or is this, I assume people are listening because it's somewhat new, but feel free to unmute yourself and just throw yourself into the convo.
	I mean, was he uniquely blind to this or is that...
	Go ahead. One of the things that jumped out to me is that if you teach your partner what the better things to look for in a relationship and that she's With someone who is in a certain sort of unstable position,
	I guess, financially for the protection of eggs, etc.
	Then there's the possibility that she'll start learning that and think, oh, perhaps someone else might be better.
	And so part of the fear in confronting someone about that might be the illumination of potential I guess what could be viewed as faults with oneself.
	Well, yeah, one example would be if she says, if you say, well, a good man is able to provide for his family and he's a bike courier, then that may not be ideal.
	But just in terms of the general approach to all of this about looking at it from the female perspective and disabled for 10 years and this and that, is that relatively new to people or is that stuff that seems kind of done and dusted?
	I've heard it from you before, but it is essential.
	It's necessary. I don't think you can really look at a relationship without I'm examining the male and female differences that way.
	I think that is important.
	What about other people? Is this relatively new-ish stuff?
	Or does this feel like old hat?
	Because it could also be that he hasn't listened to the show much in the past.
	I don't think I've done the Disable for 10 years thing before.
	And I haven't done the, you know, build a more rational world for your kids rather than just lecture them about the evils of theology and so on.
	So there's some stuff. I mean, this is why I do these kinds of calls because it at least feels like there's new stuff for me.
	But what about for you guys?
	From my perspective, I grew up a Christian, and so from this caller talking about his fiancée or girlfriend there, the fact that she's a Christian, I know from my own personal experience, I was always taught that, you know, a man needs a woman, a woman needs a man as a helpmeet, but there's always some pie-in-the-sky stuff.
	It was never this down-to-earth, like you mentioned, being disabled for 10 years, needing a man's resources to take care of you, and yeah.
	Yeah, like the woman loves her family by being there and the man loves his family by going out and getting some food, right?
	Yeah, exactly. All right, good, good.
	Anyone else? Yeah, I'm familiar with his ideas, but that's mostly because I've been listening to you and Jordan Peterson for several years now.
	I think a lot of people are actually really unaware of that.
	I think that may have been one of the bits of culture that's somewhat dropped off in the last few decades.
	Like, it just doesn't get passed down to the next generations as much now, I think.
	I certainly didn't get it from my parents.
	No, I think that's true. And there is, of course, a certain amount of cultural sabotage in not talking about these things, because the more uneasy and fractious male-female relationships can get, the more women will depend on the state and could be reliable votes for socialism, right?
	Yeah, definitely. I think because isn't the reason why that's dropped off.
	Alright, is there anyone else who wanted to jump in or shall I keep going?
	I'm happy to hear people's thoughts.
	All right, I'm not sure if people have no more to add at the moment or have forgotten how to unmute.
	Either way. Alright, so listen, don't feel bad.
	This is not stuff that we've been taught.
	And it is really tragic.
	You know, I mean, what was it my daughter was asking me the other day, like, what was the least valuable thing you learned in school?
	And I'm like, oh, gosh.
	It's hard to even alphabetize that list John Travolta style, but, you know, geometry, algebra, calculus, functions and relations, and all of that.
	Even a lot of the geography I learned got kind of useless after the fall of the Soviet Empire and so on, but it's also useless, and this is the stuff we should be learning.
	This is, of course, what is still being taught to some degree in history.
	Well, Christian churches are becoming increasingly woke and infested by this modern leftist stuff, but we should be learning this stuff.
	And it's really kind of a shame...
	Jordan Peterson has a very good way of dipping his toe into this stuff and then moving on.
	And I unfortunately sit here until the airstrike comes.
	That's all right. I like to go through the topic in good detail.
	So yeah, just back to you, my original Eastern European friend.
	I would not feel bad about this stuff.
	I mean, we don't know before we know.
	And we can't know in general what's been withheld from us.
	Yeah, yeah, understand it.
	Definitely. So, I guess I have renewed knowledge to increase the depth of our relationship.
	I guess. Good, yeah.
	I would definitely focus on that and really just try and understand where she's coming from.
	You know, you've heard me in these call-in shows.
	I'll sometimes spend an hour just listening and absorbing information before even hesitantly putting forward a potential thought.
	So relationships are...
	You want to have someone whose thoughts you're interested in exploring for the next 60 years.
	And... Whenever we impose solutions, we are denying curiosity.
	And curiosity, you know, if you want to sell, you have to ask.
	You know, there's so much marketing that goes into sales and identifying issues.
	You know, before Donald Trump ran for president, he paid someone to spend a year listening to talk radio to create a list of everything that people called in about and what their interests were.
	Like, he didn't just wander in, hey, I think I'll run for president.
	I mean... He's a marketing guy, right?
	I mean, if you want to build a resort, you have to do a huge amount of, okay, what's the traffic flow and what's the competition and what's the expectation and what's the price point?
	You have to do a huge amount of work before you...
	Have a building.
	And it's the same thing. You want to build a relationship, you've got to do a lot of questions first and never assume that the answer to an emotional problem is purely ideological.
	That tends to work a little bit more with men than with women.
	And thank heavens we have women to remind us that there's food for the body as well as food for thought that we need in this world.
	All right. Thanks very much.
	I guess we have time for another short-ish question or comment if somebody wants to jump in.
	Hey Steph, I got a Skycastle question for you back into the world of abstract.
	You use a very precise definition of philosophy that may exclude some popular historical figures generally considered philosophers.
	For example, Hegelian dialectic is not a conventional form of logical argumentation, yet Hegelianism is a popularly considered philosophy.
	Friedrich Nietzsche uses a lot of mythological symbolism in his writing, which really is an argument.
	Do you accept their work as philosophy?
	Do you accept the concept of schools of philosophy?
	What is the boundary between philosophy and other forms of thinking and intellectual investigation?
	Do you consider forms of thinking or intellectual investigation other than philosophy as valid or valuable?
	So... The Hegelian dialectic, it's a form of...
	That's it. Yeah, yeah.
	Oh, sorry. I'm muted.
	Yeah, sorry. So the Hegelian dialectic, I'm sure you guys all know, but just for anybody who ends up listening to this, well, not that a lot of people will.
	The Hegelian dialectic is sort of a description of the form of an argument, which is thesis, antithesis, and then synthesis, which is...
	It's really more of a negotiation situation than the pursuit of absolute truth.
	So to take a silly example, you want to go buy a used car.
	The guy says, I want $5,000.
	You say it's only worth $3,000 and you settle on $4,000 or whatever, right?
	So, you know, his thesis is 5,000, your antithesis is 3,000, the synthesis is 4,000.
	So, that's not philosophy.
	That is a description of negotiation, if that makes sense.
	Now, if you hand in a test, you know, as a kid, and you say, two and two make five, That's your thesis, right?
	Now, your teacher doesn't sit there and say, I'm going to counter that with 2 and 2 make 4, and then you sort of say, okay, well, let's just meet in the middle, 2 and 2 make 4.5, right?
	That's not how it would work in any, I don't know, maybe with the new math, but that's not how it would work in any objective pursuit of truth, right?
	You say, well, my thesis is the world is flat, your thesis is the world is banana-shaped, so it's kind of a half-squished banana, that's our synthesis, right?
	That wouldn't make... Any particular sense, right?
	Or, you know, I'm sorry to overburden with examples, but, you know, let's say mass attracts mass against gravity, right?
	Okay, well, my thesis is that it rejects it.
	Okay, it repels it. Okay, well, let's just say that it's stasis, right?
	That's not how science works.
	So when there is a negotiation about non-moral resource allocation, right?
	Sure, there's thesis, there's antithesis, there's synthesis.
	The problem is, it's kind of like the left-right spectrum, right?
	So the left-right spectrum, as we all know, is incredibly toxic to any rational moral examination of political organization.
	Why? Ah, because you see on the extreme left...
	You have communism. On the extreme right, you have fascism.
	And therefore...
	So, you know, thesis, communism, antithesis, fascism, synthesis, social democracy, or, you know, whatever it is, some mob rule garbage that goes on for politics in the modern world.
	So, it is the same thing with the dialectic.
	It's a way of saying, okay...
	A thesis is an absolute statement.
	The antithesis is the opposing absolute statement.
	But there's no way to mediate these two claims or to find a third position that's more accurate or accurate at all.
	And therefore, you just kind of have to dissolve your spine and go into this general tapioca porridge goo of compromise, which is terrible, right?
	And it is a description of the kind of oscillating...
	Roly ball lava goop that goes back and forth in those glass cases in the 70s where this is compromises sloshing back and forth.
	And it encourages everyone to dissolve an absolutist position into the general goo of always dissatisfying compromise in the long run, right?
	So the Hegelian dialectic to me is a description of...
	A non-moral, non-absolutist negotiation of resource allocation.
	Because you wouldn't sit there and say, well, there's a guy who wants to rape a woman.
	There's a woman who doesn't want to be raped.
	So his thesis is to rape.
	Her antithesis is to not be raped.
	So the synthesis is mild sexual assault.
	Okay, well, okay, so you could describe that as a process that would occur in the world, right?
	Like maybe he tries to rape her and then she fights back and he manages to do something untowards to her, but it's not full rape and then she gets away.
	So the description of what occurred in that horrible immoral assault where you have a thesis, antithesis, synthesis formulation, that would not be philosophy.
	That would be a description of what was occurring.
	That would be like an eyewitness testimony rather, okay, he wanted this, she wanted the opposite, they got kind of half and half and then parted, right?
	Or to go back to the example of, you know, the guy wants $5,000, you want to pay $3,000, you settle on $4,000.
	The description of that process, which falls into the Hegelian dialectic, is not philosophy.
	It's the description of a negotiation for non-moral resource allocation.
	Now, The sexual assault example, the rape example, that's a description of what happened when there was no morality, but rather the will to power and the will to self-defense that was occurring, and so on, or the woman defending her honor, as you would say, or as I would say.
	So if you take morality out, it is a description of how the pendulum swings back and forth in negotiations.
	It certainly is a description of politics as a whole, right?
	And it is something that is used, because Hegel was...
	Kind of a monster, philosophically speaking, right?
	I mean, Hegel was the guy who believed in sheer collectivism.
	Hegel was the guy who believed that the world spirit or God manifested itself in particular nation states, which gave them the right To use violence to dominate other races, other nations, and he really gave,
	in a sense, carte blanche to collectivist domination throughout the 20th century on both the left and the right, the traditional communist and fascist divide, which is really just loops around the back, as we all know, communism and fascism are just two sides of the same coin.
	One is, in general, collectivism based upon Well, it used to be class, then it was gender for a while, now it's race.
	And on the fascist side, it's collectivism based upon nation or race.
	But he was kind of a monster as far as his effects on philosophy.
	It doesn't give anyone an absolute to stand on because it's like, well, you know, you got to give a little, you got to get a little, you know, in order...
	You can't just get everything you want.
	You got to negotiate.
	You got to find common ground with people.
	You got to... And so, of course, what happens, as we know, is that the left keeps moving, right?
	The conservatives of this generation are conserving the radical leftism of the last generation, and that just keeps ratcheting forward.
	It keeps ratcheting forward, right?
	And so now it's considered highly conservative, you know, when things like unemployment insurance and welfare and old age pensions go in, they were considered pretty radical collectivist and very much against.
	I mean, certainly Churchill fought against a lot of this stuff early in his career.
	But now the conservatives would never dream of touching that stuff, right?
	So what was radical originally then becomes conservative within a generation or two.
	And so Hegelianism just allows for this slow ratcheting up.
	You've got to compromise with the left, right?
	It's like, well... Okay, so we get a welfare state, but it's not as big as the left wants.
	Okay, but next they want to expand the welfare state.
	Well, okay, so they only got half the welfare state they wanted for the first ride because we got, you know, thesis, huge welfare state, and synthesis, no welfare state, so the synthesis is half a welfare state, right?
	And then what happens is they say, okay, well, we want to double the size of the welfare state from half to one, which is what we originally wanted, and they say, okay, well, let's go into that battle, and then the thesis, the Hegelian dialectic says, okay, well, the compromise you see is, Well, they want a welfare state of one from a half.
	You don't want it that big.
	So the compromise is that they get three quarters of their welfare state, right?
	And you understand. They just get what they want, but it just takes a little longer because of this Hegelian dialectic, which is you've got to meet people in the middle and all that.
	It's not the way morality works, right?
	It's not the way. I want to steal 10 candy bars from you.
	I don't want you to steal any candy bars from me.
	Well, let's just meet in the middle.
	I'll steal five. I mean, come on.
	That's not how morality works at all.
	So the Hegelian dialectic is not philosophical.
	It is a description of a spineless negotiation with regards to ethics or a description of a process in the market of negotiating price, which is kind of boring.
	Yeah, yeah. People meet in the middle.
	Ooh, big whoop. That's understood by any kid who's trading candy, right?
	You've got a big candy bar.
	You want at least two or three little candy bars.
	Ooh, I'm a genius for pointing out that people meet in the middle when it comes to negotiating price.
	Ooh. So...
	With regards to Nietzsche, well, Nietzsche, of course, is more of an aphorist, and Nietzsche is a stimulant to thought, and not a moralist, and he would be the first to talk about that, because Nietzsche wrestles with Socrates, as we all do, endlessly almost.
	So Nietzsche was, again, a describer of things.
	So he would describe, as he viewed, Christianity founded upon resentment and the...
	The resentment of the lower to the higher, as he would say it from the average or the resentment, it was the French word he used, to the ubermensch or the higher form of life, very dangerous stuff, right?
	There's very dangerous stuff that, again, not to overquote crime and punishment, but I did just read it again recently.
	But this idea that there are higher and better forms of people who are immune from the moral laws that restrict the mere bourgeois average.
	That is incredibly dangerous and incredibly toxic.
	And Nietzsche, of course, is also to some degree an appeal to vanity.
	Well, who doesn't want to be the overman or some Napoleonic world historical figure and blah, blah, blah, right?
	Especially for youth, this idea that Christianity specifically opposes, of course, the idea that you should trade virtue for vanity.
	And that's not the way that Nietzsche works.
	Nietzsche is very much like that vanity is something that you can overleap virtue.
	Virtue is a ploy invented by the strong to get the weak to attack themselves and each other should they challenge the strong.
	That's sort of one of the basic ideas of the overman.
	And it's very dangerous.
	Now, Nietzsche did get a lot right, but he also made it right through his own arguments, right?
	Because he said that when God is dead, human beings will turn to tribalism, they will turn to the state, they will turn to, you know, and will end up probably in a worse situation, particularly he predicted quite well.
	the brutality of the 20th century.
	And so now a description of how things go from a sort of quasi-anthropological standpoint, which is what Nietzsche was particularly skilled at, very skilled at, brilliant, brilliantly skilled at.
	But a description of how things work, to me, that's more anthropology than it is philosophy.
	It's, To me, the philosophy stuff is what is the nature of reality?
	What is the nature of truth? What is the nature of virtue?
	What is the nature of ideal or moral, political or social organization and so on?
	That to me is the philosophy stuff.
	And descriptions are very powerful and very helpful.
	They're very useful for understanding the effects of philosophy.
	But describing, like if you sort of look at what's going on with COVID, right?
	Or coronavirus. You have a lot of people out there who are describing the spread and this, that, and the other.
	But they're not the same people who are doing the analysis of the DNA and trying to figure out a vaccine or a cure or whatever it is that might come down the pipeline at some point.
	Or trying to figure out how you get to herd immunity and so on.
	So the people who are describing are not the same as the people who are analyzing it.
	And so for me, the Hegelianism and the Nietzschean and so on, they are...
	But they're also descriptions that create the future, right?
	So if you accept the Hegelian dialectic as the fundamental back and forth pendulum of human negotiation, then he doesn't sit there and say, ah, yes, but when it comes to the initiation of force, that's an absolute and should never be subject to the Hegelian dialectic.
	Well, he couldn't say that because he was a collectivist and somebody who believed that certain nations had the moral right and obligation to use force and violence to subjugate and rule other nations.
	I mean, he basically was...
	Genghis fucking Khan and Lederhosen.
	So a description that also creates the future.
	Like if Nietzsche is saying, well, there are these – and Hegel is saying, well, there are these extraordinary world-crashing spirits that arise and have the perfect right to take over, blah, blah, blah, and use force to this and that and exempt from morality and so on.
	It's like, well, if you describe that enough, you're going to create a whole bunch of people who are going to do just that.
	And so to me, it is almost – There were such compelling writers.
	And remember, of course, that they did also serve the powers that be, which is – I said this before.
	We don't know philosophy like we just have philosophers from the general run of the mill of history.
	Like, oh, it was just a meritocracy.
	It's like, no, in order to be taught in government universities, you had to serve the state.
	Like, why do we know so much about Socrates?
	Because Socrates cursed mankind by saying obey the state even though the state was corrupt and killed him.
	That was his revenge upon the mob was to curse them to obedience to the state.
	But that's also how he secured his legacy.
	Because if a philosopher like myself had been around back in the day and had talked about the evils of the state, well, it wouldn't have lasted very long, of course.
	But he – I would not have been taught in government school.
	I mean, I would have been burned possibly physically at the Library of Alexandria.
	So sorry for that fairly lengthy thing.
	It's a big topic. What do you think?
	Sorry. I wanted to get your perspective on things.
	I see the Hegelian dialectic a little different.
	As I recall, when Hegel describes it, there's always a synthesis, so it's not necessarily always settling on a negotiation, but there's always something new that comes out of it.
	For example, the conflict between Capitalists and labor may create labor unions.
	So there's a sort of new creation.
	Because he starts out with just being and not being and produces something new, which is actually sort of...
	And builds up this whole cosmology from there.
	But it's actually sort of worse because it's...
	It really ends up being like a post hoc description of what's happening because anything follows from a contradiction and he's just noticing all the contradictions in the world and saying, well, then this contradiction happened and then something else happened, but it ends up just being a way to construct a narrative.
	So I've always sort of seen it as not a very useful form of reasoning at all.
	And I agree completely that he did a lot of damage to philosophy and the world with the dialectic method.
	Yeah, it's not philosophy to describe negotiations, and it also doesn't give you something which is not a negotiation, right?
	So yeah, I would say when it comes to price or other resource allocations that are not moral, sure, there's thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, for sure.
	I get it. But to me, that's not important to philosophy.
	Philosophy is where you draw the line in the sand.
	Philosophy is where things are not Up to negotiation.
	That, to me, is really the essence of philosophy.
	Philosophy has to be where, you know, like with physics, right?
	I mean, in the original conception of theology in many places, the world was in the mind of God, and miracles occurred on a Absolutes, because, you know, God or whoever could break the rules of physics or even biology at any time, right?
	A burning bush and parting the waters and walking on water and so on, right?
	And so then physics comes along and says, the age of miracles is over, right?
	The age of miracles is over.
	And what happens then is physics has to say, no, there's no...
	Here's where the line in the sand is, there's no...
	There is no negotiation in this area.
	It's just a basic fact, right?
	It's just a basic fact.
	And if you don't have that line in the sand where there is no negotiation, right?
	When it comes to the initiation of the use of force or property, right?
	There's no negotiation, at least for me, right?
	So with something like What I would say is, okay, what is non-negotiable here?
	Like, where is the line drawn where you say, okay, well, the...
	So dialectical theory is a description of a negotiation that's not moral, but once you get to morality, it's not negotiation anymore, right?
	It's like, oh, well, you know, should there be slavery?
	Well, yes, no.
	Well, the synthesis is serfdom, right?
	No, that's not it, right?
	That's not how it should be.
	And I don't know where in those guise, and I, you know, I don't think that there is a place where they say, yeah, but when it comes to this Moral standard, there is no negotiation, and that's why to me it remains essentially theological, in that it's a description of a negotiation in society, but that negotiation in society can only occur if people don't have a line in the sand where they draw morality and don't move.
	I would almost describe it as a narrative style.
	It's like poetry.
	It's a way of writing.
	I got the impression that Hegel saw where things were going in the Enlightenment.
	He was a Christian and he couldn't make...
	He couldn't make philosophy or argumentation do what he wanted it to.
	He couldn't get to the conclusions he wanted to get, so he basically tried changing the rules of the game.
	Sorry, could you just say that again?
	Well, I feel like my impression was that he couldn't...
	He couldn't develop the moral philosophy that he wanted to, using standard reason and argumentation.
	So instead, he just tried coming up with his own game and getting there that way.
	Here is a little bit of a quote.
	I mean, I absolutely love the Russians.
	Oh, those Russians.
	I love the Russian writers.
	19th century. They are, I mean, just about the greatest that there is.
	Now, I absolutely command everyone to read Crime and Punishment.
	It really is just the most amazing book.
	I've told the story to my daughter, obviously a little bit cleaned up and all of that, right?
	But The dance that goes on between Porfiry and Raskolnikov is just incredible.
	So here's Tassel's speech that Raskolnikov, the student, this is not a spoiler, that Raskolnikov is talking about his theory of crime.
	He says, let's see here, So, Porfiry is an examiner, a police examiner, and he's talking about an article Raskolnikov wrote.
	And he says, in his article, all men are divided into ordinary and extraordinary.
	Ordinary men have to live in submission, have no right to transgress the law because, don't you see, they are ordinary, but extraordinary men have a right to commit any crime and to transgress the law in any way just because they are extraordinary.
	That was your idea, if I'm not mistaken?
	Raskolnikov smiled. He saw the point at once and knew where they wanted to drive him.
	He decided to take up the challenge.
	That wasn't quite my contention.
	He began simply and modestly.
	Yet I admit that you have stated it almost correctly, perhaps if you like perfectly so.
	It almost gave him pleasure to admit this.
	The only difference is that I don't contend that extraordinary people are always bound to commit breaches of morals, as you call it.
	In fact, I doubt whether such an argument could be published.
	I simply hinted that an extraordinary man Has the right, that is not an official right, but an inner right to decide in his own conscience to overstep certain obstacles and only in case it is essential for the practical fulfillment of his idea, sometimes perhaps a benefit to the whole of humanity.
	You say that my article is indefinite.
	I am ready to make it as clear as I can.
	Perhaps I am right in thinking you want me to very well.
	I maintain That if the discoveries of Kepler and Newton could not have been made known except by sacrificing the lives of one, a dozen, a hundred or more men, Newton would have had the right, would indeed have been in duty bound to eliminate the dozen or the hundred men for the sake of making his discoveries known to the whole of humanity.
	But it does not follow from that that Napoleon had the right to murder people left and right and to steal every day in the market.
	Then I remember I maintained in my article that all, well, legislators and leaders of men such as Lysurgis, Solon, Mahomet, Napoleon, and so on, were all, without exception, criminals from the very fact.
	That making a new law, they transgressed the ancient one, handed down from their ancestors and held sacred by the people.
	And they did not stop short at bloodshed either.
	If that bloodshed, often of innocent persons fighting bravely in defense of ancient law, were of use to their cause.
	It's remarkable, in fact, that the majority, indeed, of these benefactors and leaders of humanity were guilty of terrible carnage.
	In short, I maintain that all great men, or even men a little out of the common, that is to say, capable of giving some new word, must from their very nature be criminals, more or less.
	Otherwise, it's hard for them to get out of the common rut and to remain in the common rut is what they can't submit to from their very nature again.
	And to my mind, they ought not indeed submit to it.
	You see, there is nothing particularly new in all that.
	The same thing has been printed and read a thousand times before.
	As for my division of people into ordinary and extraordinary...
	I acknowledge that it's somewhat arbitrary, but I don't insist upon exact numbers.
	I only believe in my leading idea that men are, in general, divided by a law of nature into two categories, inferior, ordinary, that is to say, material that serves only to reproduce its kind, and men who have the gift or the talent to utter a new word.
	There are, of course, immeasurable subdivisions, but the distinguishing features of both categories are fairly well marked.
	The first category, generally speaking, are men conservative in temperament and law-abiding.
	They live under control and love to be controlled.
	To my thinking, it is their duty to be controlled, because that's their vocation, and there's nothing humiliating in it for them.
	But the second category all transgress the law.
	They are destroyers or disposed to destruction according to their capacities.
	The crimes of these men are, of course, relative and varied.
	For the most part, they seek in very varied ways the destruction of the present for the sake of the better.
	But... If such a one is forced for the sake of his idea to step over a corpse or wade through blood, he can, I maintain, find within himself in his conscience a sanction for wading through blood that depends on the idea and its dimensions.
	Note that. It's only in that sense I speak of their right to crime in my article.
	You remember, it began with the legal question.
	There is no need for such anxiety, however.
	The masses will scarcely ever admit this right.
	They punish them or hang them, more or less, and in doing so fulfill quite justly their conservative vocation.
	But the same masses set these criminals on a pedestal in the next generation and worship them, more or less.
	The first category is always the man of the present, the second the man of the future.
	The first to preserve the world and people in it, the second move the world and lead it to its goal.
	Each class has an equal right to exist.
	In fact, all have equal rights with me, and vive la guerre etienne, till the New Jerusalem, of course.
	Anyway, it's a great speech that he comes up with, and you can see for a young, wildly ambitious man, usually man, it's pretty tempting.
	Do you want to be Napoleon, or do you want to be a petty bourgeoisie?
	It's dangerous, dangerous stuff.
	And we have that now as well.
	You understand, this is not 19th century Russia.
	This is 21st century West.
	This is the people in Portland and Seattle who are willing to blind people with lasers and wade through blood and set fire to buildings and trap people inside.
	Because they are willing to destroy the present for the sake of what they perceive to be a glorious future.
	It's the oldest story in the world.
	The saddest story in the world.
	This is what has been weaving its way like a shark through the reef of Western consciousness for 150 years.
	This is the rebellion of the devil.
	This is morality is a trick played upon the powerful to subjugate.
	The weak. It is what makes the weak weak.
	And those who are in love with what is can't stand and will call criminals those who want what is next.
	And those who are willing to use violence to create the new world will find that the new world is composed of almost nothing but violence.
	Unless We can fight these beasts with philosophy.
	Alright, I hope that helps.
	Was there anything else you wanted to mention?
	No, I think you covered most of it.
	Thanks, Steph. All right.
	Well, thank you very much. And I really, really do appreciate everyone's time.
	Look at that. We did a two-hour show.
	Isn't that remarkable? Thank you, guys, everyone, so much for your support, for your kindness, for your positive thoughts in these troubled times.
	And I am fully committed to this community, to philosophy.
	This is my gig.
	This is my stand.
	We will fight. Thank you again.
	I really, really enjoyed the conversations tonight and lots of love from up here.
	I'll talk to you soon.
	Bye.
	Well, thank you so much for enjoying this latest free domain show on philosophy.
	And I'm going to be frank and ask you for your help, your support, your encouragement, and your resources.
	Please like, subscribe, and share, and all of that good stuff to get philosophy out into the world.
	And also, equally importantly, go to freedomain.com forward slash donate To help out the show, to give me the resources that I need to bring more and better philosophy to an increasingly desperate world.
	So thank you so much for your support, my friends.

▲