All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 16, 2024 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
30:36
Leonard Peikoff Owns Me!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning, everybody.
Hope you're doing well.
Savannah Molyne from Freedomain.
Well...
Questions from Freedomain.locals.com as well as Facebook.
Freedomain.com slash donate to help out the show would be muchos appreciated.
Should parents force kids to attend when it comes to dinner time?
The argument that you should force them goes something like this.
If our kids don't sit down for dinner with us, how else are we going to have family time and bond?
Have you found...
Have you found this to be the case when it comes to dinner time?
Is force more appropriate when they're younger, below two, compared to when they're older, or more or less doesn't it matter?
No, you don't use force in your relationships, and in particular, you don't use force in unchosen relationships, right?
You don't use force in your relationships.
I'm sorry, I hate to be like, well, non-aggression principle, but yeah, you don't use force in your relationships.
Now, people will say, oh, but your kids want candy and you don't give them candy.
Well, that's not using force.
And it's not force if later on people thank you, right?
So if there's a blind guy about to wander into traffic and you grab him and pull him back, you know, he would be upset until he realized that you just saved him from wandering into traffic.
And so then he would say, I approve your action in hindsight, right?
So if you keep your kids from eating candy all the time, and as a result, they don't have diabetes, they're not obese, and they get to keep their teeth, then as adults, they will thank you for that, right?
So you can get permission after the fact for things, right?
Like, I mean, if someone's drowning...
And you grab a life ring or lifesaver and you throw it to them.
Well, the person would give you permission, whoever owned that lifesaver or that life buoy would give you permission to use that, but after the fact, right?
In other words, if you could call them and say, someone's drowning, can I use your buoy to save them?
They'd say, yes, of course, don't even ask, right?
So, if you get permission after the fact, that's equal to permission before the fact and so on, right?
So, parenting is to some degree doing the things for your kids that they may not love in the moment but that they will absolutely give approval Later on, right?
If you let your kids eat candy and stay up all night and their health deteriorates, they get obese, they get teeth problems and all that kind of stuff, then, you know, when they become adults and you've now set them up for a literal lifetime of battling obesity and so on, would they say, well, I'm really glad you let me eat all that candy when I was a kid?
They'd say, no, why the hell were you letting me eat all that candy when I was a kid?
That's not right.
So, no.
It is not force if they'll thank you later.
Now, force kids to attend when it comes to dinner time?
No.
Force is the laziest thing in the world, right?
It's really, really tough.
To develop all the skills to paint a painting, right?
It's really easy to grab a painting and run, right?
It's really tough to clear all the land, to plant your crops, to keep the birds away, to get the right amount of sun and light plant in the right place and shade and irrigation and then to harvest and to process the food in some manner.
That's massive amounts of labor, massive amounts of skill.
But it's just to produce like a loaf of bread or something like that.
It's just a huge amount of time, effort, labor and skill.
But it's pretty easy to grab a loaf of bread from a bakery and run away, right?
So laziness and force are two sides of the same coin, right?
And most violence rests on laziness.
So, if you want your kids to eat dinner with you, then what do you do?
I mean, it's not that complicated, right?
I mean, if you want a girl to go out with you, you don't kidnap her, right?
You don't do that.
That's immoral.
You don't force her.
You don't get some security guards to hold her down in the chair across from the restaurant table.
I mean, that's not right.
So, no, if you want your kids to eat dinner with you, you simply make it a fun and enjoyable experience for them to eat dinner with you.
You ask them questions, you tell stories, you make jokes, you play with your food, you flick food at each other from time to time.
You know, if the mom's not around.
Not that that ever happened here, but theoretically.
So, if you use force, you take away the fun and joyful challenge of enticing people to spend time with you, them wanting to spend time with you.
You lower your own requirements for quality and fun and positive interactions.
Right?
I mean, My daughter and I enjoy spending time so much together that, I mean, it happens, I don't know, half a dozen times over the summer when I've had, you know, there's a lot of fairly dull detritus in life.
Oh, I have to submit this paperwork and I have to get the car cleaned and I have to, I have to go get my glasses fixed and like just a bunch of stuff that you have to do and it's not, like it's just a part of life and It's a lot better than war, but it's not super fun.
Now, what I do is I try to get them all done in a day because I don't want to just go and come back and go and come back.
So I will try to get them all done in a day.
And sometimes you just need a day, right?
You just need a day to get stuff done.
And my daughter and I enjoy each other's company so much that If I have a day of errands to do and she's not busy that day and I say, hey, I've got some errands to do.
Do you want to come?
She's like, sure.
Because we have chats.
We enjoy it.
It's funny and all of that.
And we love yapping and getting caught up and all that.
So she's got a pretty great social circle these days.
So it's great to hear about all of that.
So I don't have to say, you've got to come with me and do these errands.
Like, ew, right?
Ew, right?
And my wife has a bunch of errands to run.
If I have the time, I'd love to go with her, right?
I always sort of think, you know, I always think of my deathbed, right?
And it's a good thing.
Think of your deathbed.
And on your deathbed, will you, like, let's say my wife dies, you know, 20 years or whatever, right?
Am I going to sit there and say, well, I wish I'd spent less time with her?
No, of course not.
Once she's gone, right?
Or once I'm gone.
My daughter, you know, she's 16, she's going to be an adult soon, going to go off and do her thing.
Am I going to sit there and say, gee, I wish I'd spent less time with my daughter when she was home?
No, not in a million years, right?
I mean, I've got tons of time to do philosophy shows and write books.
I don't need to, you know, slice into my time with the people that I love too much, right?
I mean, some, right?
So, yeah, don't force your kids.
The challenge is to get them to want to have dinner with you.
Right?
Don't get lazy in your relationships.
And particularly when you have a monopoly, like you have a monopoly on parenting your children, and if you're married, you have a monopoly on romantic relationships, Relationship with your wife, right?
It's just you and your wife.
So people get this monopoly thing and they think that it means that they can lower their standards, right?
If you wanted your kid's friend to stay for a sleepover, you wouldn't lock them in the basement, would you?
That'd be monstrous and illegal and horrible and evil, right?
You'd try and find some way to get the kid to want to come over for a sleepover, right?
If you do sleepovers, I know a lot of people don't, but...
So...
People think that when they have a monopoly, that somehow their standards can collapse, right?
But no, no.
When you have a monopoly, your standards have to increase.
That's what pair-bonding is.
That's what love is.
So, no.
Don't force your kids.
All right.
Ike Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial-congressional complex.
It was in his last written speech, verbal, I think, but for some reason, he left out the congressional part delivering his farewell address.
Address?
Well, I mean, it's all nonsense.
I mean, it's, you know, people are the military-industrial complex.
He left out the congressional part.
So, I mean, the guy was president for quite some time, and what he did was he said, you know, there's this great danger And I'm just about to leave.
I'm sorry I don't mean to laugh, but it's like he was the president for many, many years.
Jeez, there's a lot of bugs around today.
I'm sorry I don't mean to laugh.
It's a serious topic, but it's hilarious to me that he would only talk about this just as he was leaving.
Why?
Why wouldn't he have dealt with it?
Before he left, well, I guess he didn't want to get JFK'd.
So, he gets all of the pluses.
Oh, well, I did warn us about this military-industrial complex, and it's like, yes, but he didn't do anything about it when he could, and he gets all of these kudos for talking about it when he was leaving.
Mmm, fantastic.
Fantastic.
Now that you've bought the car, I just wanted to tell you, it doesn't have an engine.
Could you not tell me that before you sell me the car and move to another country?
Anyway.
If you haven't already been asked, how do you deal with the passing of people close to you?
Well, for better or for worse, for right or for wrong, I've not had to deal with that.
I have not had to deal with the death of anyone I was close to.
I mean, there's some reason for that that are vaguely good, some that are just accidental.
The people that I care about, I mean, we're not all exercise fanatics.
I mean, I would say I'm halfway to an exercise fanatic, but we all exercise, we eat well, we have close, loving relationships, we have good friendships, all the things that, while imperfect, will shield you from Early death.
Again, there's some accidents and some bad luck and so on, but we're all bucking the odds as a whole.
I would say the only immediate family member that I was at all had any kind of relationship to really as an adult who died was my father.
But of course, that didn't...
I mean, the guy left when I was a baby, and I did spend some time with him in Africa and some time with him in Ireland when I was younger.
I saw him every couple of years.
I'm trying to think.
Every five years, he'd be passing through North America or something, and we'd meet up.
But it was never a close relationship, and I tried talking to him about what happened with My mom, and he didn't really want to talk about it.
And I can understand that.
I mean, he was battling depression his life over or so.
So I have not had to deal with the passing of people close to me.
And I was really thinking about this, and I'm like, it's true.
I mean, a friend of mine, two friends of mine from junior high and high school died, but I was no longer close to them when they died, so that was not a huge impact.
Other than that, I mean, I've known some people who've died over the course, but not people I was close to.
I've never had a really close friend to die, never had a really close family member die.
So, I think I'll have to get back to you on that.
I would not want to give advice in the absence of evidence.
I mean, sorry, asterisk, other than to say, when somebody goes, when somebody dies, What you don't want to be left with is regret, which means be as honest, be as close, put as much into the relationship as possible.
I mean, I know we've all got to work and make some money and get things done in life, and so you can't, you know, stare at your partner 24-7, but as long as they know how much you loved them, as long as they know how much you delighted in spending time with them, as long as They died in the knowledge that they were truly loved for a long time.
Really, that's the only thing that takes death's sting away to some degree.
And as long as you're honest about the people you care about and you know why you love them and you tell them why you love them and they know what a net addition they are to the happiness and joy and virtue and integrity of your life, that really is the best that can be done.
Do not hoard your heart.
It's not, you know, the heart is meat that goes off, right?
There's no freezer where you get to freeze something and then eat it later.
The heart decays on a regular basis, and hoarding your heart, hoarding your emotions, hoarding your connection, hoarding your affection, it does not last.
It does not stay frozen for you to unpack later.
There is no later.
It dies in your heart, right?
The heart, unexpressed, dies in itself.
And unpack your heart with words.
Be vulnerable.
Tell people how much you need them.
Give them power over you by telling them how much you are devoted to them, how important their presence is to the happiness of your life.
Be vulnerable.
Now, there will be some people who take advantage of that vulnerability and that hurts.
But when you are vulnerable, when you are open, when you're honest, you reveal how people handle power over you.
Are they gentle, kind, considerate, and thoughtful?
Do they respect your vulnerability and treat you with care?
Or are they smoke superior and gain vanity points from your vulnerability and dependence?
I mean, I'll tell you this, my wife, my daughter, they are in absolutely no doubt whatsoever how important they are to the absolute central joy and happiness of my life.
So, just don't have regrets.
Don't hoard for something that ends.
Right?
Like, what is it in that movie?
Where the guy goes hiking, gets lost and lives in the wilderness.
And he gets a bunch of meat and then he stores it, but he can't store it well.
They end up with flies all over it and he can't eat it.
The heart decays in isolation.
The heart generates language which only survives in the speaking.
The unspoken language the heart generate decays and rots away in its hidden chambers.
So don't do that.
Alright.
My husband has a serious gambling problem and it's ruining me.
Alright.
He doesn't think he has one.
We have two daughters.
One's picked up on it.
I don't know what to do.
I've been in bed for three days, three straight days.
All the joy and happiness I had is completely gone.
We just agree.
This hasn't been the first time.
So, this is very tough, and I really sympathize.
Your husband's gambling problem is not what is ruining you, and I'm not even saying that you are ruined, but the unhappiness that you are experiencing is the result of your addiction to your husband, not your husband's addiction to gambling.
Because, of course, the very tough question is, it's a very real question, something that you need to answer within your own heart and mind.
Why would you have two children with a gambling addict?
Why would you have two children with a gambling addict?
You must have known that he was a gambling addict.
You must have known that he had dysfunction.
You must have known that he had a bad childhood, right?
Now, if you never talked to him about his childhood, then why would you have children with a man you never vetted by asking him about his childhood?
That would be like the head of surgery hiring some guy who claimed to be a surgeon without checking any of his references or his education.
That would be savagely irresponsible.
I mean, that would probably be criminally irresponsible.
I'm not putting you in that category, but that particular example.
So you think that you are just stuck with a guy who has a gambling problem and you feel enormously victimized by his gambling problem.
But the fundamental question is, why is that gambling problem in your life?
Why do you have a guy in your life who has a gambling problem?
That's on you.
Thank you.
You chose him.
He pursues you.
You pursued him.
You had a chance to date, to vet him for months or years.
You got engaged.
You knew his family.
You knew his history or should have.
Ignorance of people's history is no excuse, right?
It's no excuse.
If you choose to date someone for years and never ask them about their childhood, that's on you, right?
You have no excuse for that, especially if you listen to this show.
So you chose a guy who was highly dysfunctional.
You chose to date him, get engaged to him, get married to him, and have two children with him.
So then you need to look at your own childhood and say, why would you voluntarily bring this level of chaos and dysfunction into your life?
Now you can say, but how does this help me now?
Well, the way that it helps you now is you have two daughters, right?
So you, as a mother, have a choice when it comes to parenting.
You can either model responsibility or you can model victimhood.
And right now, what you're doing is you're modeling self-pity and victimhood.
And that is going to transfer down to your daughters and your daughters are going to repeat the cycle of picking bad people and feeling victimized.
You must break the cycle.
And the only way to break the cycle is to take 150% responsibility for everything in your life.
150%, to go for 1,000%.
It's way more than you think it is, and if it's any consolation, it's way more than I think it is for my own life.
So, you have to take 1,000% responsibility for the situation that you're in.
You're lying in bed because you're feeling like a victim, and you are not a victim.
You chose this man.
You chose to date him, get engaged to him, get married to him, stay married to him.
You chose to have two children with him.
These are all the results of your choices.
And if you model victimhood, you are going to cripple any sense of self-ownership and personal responsibility on the part of your children.
You're there because you chose to be there.
You're staying there because you choose to stay.
There.
And if it turns out that you have to leave this guy because he won't get help, he won't get therapy, he won't deal with the bomb in the brain stuff, his childhood stuff, he probably had an extraordinarily risky childhood where he had a few victories but lost overall.
And he's replicating that situation in his gambling.
All he knows how to do is to manage the anxiety of An incrementally losing hand.
Right?
So he probably had a couple of victories with his parents where he won against the abuse.
But overall, it got worse and worse.
And so he's addicted to managing occasional victories and long-term decline.
And that's his childhood.
And if you guys want to do a call-in show, absolutely.
You can both do it.
Might be a great idea.
Probably would be a great idea.
Freedomain.com slash call.
But, no, it is your addiction to his addiction that is the issue.
And you can say, well, he didn't deal with his addiction.
Well, did you deal with your addiction to chaos?
What about your family?
Did they say, don't marry this guy?
He's got severe problems and dysfunction.
If they didn't say that, then you have problems in your own history and with your own family.
And if they did say that and you didn't listen to them, that's another reason why you shouldn't feel self-pity.
All right.
I think that might be...
Oh yeah, there's one question, what would I call the government that is emerging from Western democracies?
I mean, the inevitable progress of statism, right?
Have you ever asked Leonard Peikoff to come on the show?
I still think he'd kick you into a cocked hat.
All right.
You always talk about bringing philosophy to the masses by using colloquial language and real-life applications, which is great.
But Leonard Picoff's lectures and Q&A sessions from the 80s and 90s are just superior to Free Domain.
Have I ever asked Leonard Picoff to come on the show?
Um, I don't think...
I can't remember.
Maybe back in the day.
I'm a huge fan of his, or was a huge fan of his back in the day.
Ominous Parallels was a great book, and meta-energy puffs from Introduction to Objectivist Thought, or whatever the book was, was great.
But...
I've never warmed to the guy personally, which doesn't mean much.
It's not like that matters with regards to the quality of his thought, but he is a brilliant guy, a good writer, though not a great writer.
His writing was best when he was still in contact with Ayn Rand.
So, his lectures and Q&A sessions from the 80s and 90s are just superior to free demand.
So, you're not very good at philosophy if you just talk about something that's superior.
Right?
Is 2 and 2 equals 4 superior to the claim that 2 and 2 equals 5?
No.
The claim that 2 and 2 equals 5 is wrong and the claim that 2 and 2 equals 4 is right.
So, superior is an aesthetic judgment and an aesthetic judgment Doesn't have much to do with what philosophy actually is, right?
So there's the content of philosophy, and then there's the form in which it is presented.
Now, you can say, of course, you could say Leonard Peikoff is a far better public speaker.
He's more charismatic.
He's more funny.
He's more engaging.
Okay, that's fine.
So he's a superior public speaker.
Could be the case.
I wouldn't argue with that in any particular way.
But philosophy is not fundamentally about the quality of its presentation.
It's sort of like saying, well, physicist A is better looking than physicist B and is more charismatic.
It's like, yes, but physics is not about looks and charisma.
Physics is about the accuracy of your mathematical statements about the nature of matter and energy.
So, if you say, uh, he'd kick you into a cocked hat, then you have, or he's superior, he's better, and then you have a win-lose mentality when it comes to philosophy.
Which means you don't understand philosophy.
And I'm not saying this is true of Leonard Peikoff, but I'm saying this is true of you, without a doubt.
So, he'd kick me into a cocked hat?
So, what you're saying is, I have fundamental errors that Leonard Peikoff, or someone like him, would, um...
So, if I'm fundamentally wrong about something, and Leonard Peikoff can set me straight, why would that be being superior to me?
Why would that be kicking me into a cocked hat?
Which is a phrase I don't really understand, but sounds a little gay.
So, why would I lose out on someone correcting me?
Why would I lose out if somebody corrects me?
You know, as the old analogy goes, if I'm going to Vegas and you tell me, hey man, this is the wrong way to Vegas, you're going to end up in Anchorage, Alaska, and I'm desperate to get to Vegas because I got a speech or something like that, and you tell me, hey man, this is the wrong way to get to Vegas, Have you won and I've lost?
No.
I get to go to Vegas.
I mean, if somebody corrects me on something that I'm wrong about, how is that being superior to me or kicking me into a cocked hat?
I mean, I've constantly, what do I say every time I do a live stream?
Corrections, issues, you know, people who disagree with me get to the front of the queue for talking to me.
I'm constantly inviting people to come in and debate and correct me.
I can't do it all myself, and corrections are fantastic when it comes to philosophy, right?
It's a collective concept.
It's why I do live streams and have conversations with people all the time.
And of course, you hear me all the time say in call-in shows, if I've got this right, if I'm characterizing this correctly, and I say to people, don't ever take my theories over your life, or I say, is this the right way to characterize this person?
You know them infinitely better than I do.
I'm constantly seeking for correction and course-correcting to make sure that I maintain accuracy.
So this two-bit gungslinger bullshit about how I'm somehow going to lose if someone corrects me on an error is really sad.
It's pitiful, really.
I mean, it's really pathetic.
That you would think that I would somehow lose if I was corrected by someone about an error.
I mean, I've done countless debates and had conversations and people criticize me continually.
When have I ever objected to that?
When have I ever been petty or vengeful if I've been proven wrong about something?
I'm usually apologetic and spread the message and work to improve.
So this idea, well, he's superior to you, and he beat you, and it's like, well, if you're a follower of Leonard Peikoff, then he's obviously failed to instruct you on something, right?
So if you're a follower of Leonard Peikoff...
Sorry, I've just got a little wasp here.
Actually, he seems like a rather biplane-y wasp, the Red Baron with a stinger.
So if...
You are a follower of Leonard Peikoff and you think philosophy is win-lose and people get kicked into a cocked hat and he's superior and he'd beat me and he'd humiliate me, he'd own me, he'd destroy me.
Either he's failed to explain to you what philosophy is or he's explained it to you and you don't understand it at all.
Philosophy is win-win.
Philosophy is win-win.
If you get corrected, you're better off.
If I'm taking some medicine that's essential, like I've got some infection and I've got to take some antibiotics, right?
And I'm taking some medicine and my wife says, oh, no, those are vitamins.
That's not your medicine, right?
Have I lost?
No.
It means that my infection doesn't spread and I don't get sepsis and lose a finger or something, right?
If somebody corrects me about something I'm wrong about, I don't lose.
I win.
I win.
I don't know.
We both win.
So I don't know the idea that this is some sort of wrestling thing where someone wins and someone loses and they own you and destroy you and kick you into a cocked hat.
I mean, you just, you don't understand philosophy at all.
And so, if you follow Leonard Peikoff, and this is your view of philosophy, and he's accurately...
Made this impression on you, then he's terrible at that.
And if you claim to follow philosophy, and Leonard Peikoff has not told you any of this, but this is what you think, then you don't understand philosophy, and you don't really follow what Leonard Peikoff says, or anyone who's got any sense for that matter.
So, I mean, I just find this win-lose shit, this owned, destroyed, and wrecked, and schooled, and, you know, it's like, it's just sad.
It's just this aggressive win-lose, I win, and you lose.
Now, that's appropriate to abuse and violence, but philosophy is the opposite of abuse and violence.
Philosophy is win-win.
It is all of us thrashing and exploring our way to the truth, to virtue, to reason, to happiness, to love, to consistency, to integrity, to courage, and to making the world a better place.
One syllogism, argument, person, and interaction at a time.
It's a team project.
And is it really bad if one team member says to another team member, here's how we can all win better?
No.
Not at all.
Not at all.
If You're in a relay team and one team member says, I found this stretch that totally prevents us from cramping up.
And he shares this with his teammates.
Has he owned and destroyed his teammates?
Has he kicked them into a cocked hat?
No!
He's sharing that which helps the team achieve the goal as a whole.
And the goal of our collective endeavor is to define the truth and find a way to live it.
If I'm corrected on something, I will receive that correction with great thanks, even from some jerk who thinks he's kicked me into a cocked hat.
Whatever that means, I still appreciate.
I mean, if I'm taking vitamins instead of life-saving medicine and somebody says, you're taking vitamins, idiot!
It's like, okay, well, I don't appreciate the idiot thing, but I certainly appreciate the fact that you're saving my life by telling me that I'm taking the wrong pills.
So, yeah, I'm sorry, like, you don't understand philosophy, and you think it's win-lose, and you probably, I mean, if Leonard Peikoff doesn't argue for that, then you should probably stop dropping his name, because you're making him, and you, look absolutely terrible, so...
Just look into your own history.
Why do you think that it's win-lose?
He's superior.
He'd wreck you.
He'd kick you into a cocked hat and so on.
That's just the footprint left by the massive dinosaur bones of verbal abuse as a child.
Verbal abuse is win-lose.
Philosophy is win-win.
And as long as you're talking this kind of way, no quality person is going to want to spend any time with you and nobody's going to really want to interact with you who has any sense at all.
Thanks everyone a million fold for your contributions.
▲
Export Selection