0:00 - Introduction
8:22 - The Straw Man Argument
11:59 - Apologies and Restitution
15:57 - Receiving Genuine Apologies
26:27 - Rationality vs. Practicality
27:08 - Justifications for Hitting Children
29:06 - Practicality vs. Rationality
35:22 - Respect for Competence
39:57 - Humility in Learning
42:24 - Surrounding Yourself with Competence
Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain delves into various philosophical and societal issues in this episode. He emphasizes the importance of self-awareness and honesty in communication. Stefan addresses questions about beliefs regarding the soul, the nature of genuine apologies, rationality, child-rearing practices, prepping, and competence. He critiques the notion of attacking integrity and competence without solid arguments, urging humility and respect for expertise. Stefan stresses the significance of focusing on what the world truly needs, such as philosophy, rather than imposing personal agendas onto others. He encourages listeners to engage in thoughtful discussions and to approach challenging topics with an open mind and a willingness to learn.
[0:00] Good morning, everybody. Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain. A little bit of time before the Sunday morning show. I hope you will check out the great content. We're going to do this on Locals, and I'm going to take the more spicy questions after the first hour. So I hope you'll come by and check it out. Also, don't forget that you can go to fdrurl.com slash meetup to see what's going on this winter. All right, questions. In the last couple of weeks, you have repeatedly reiterated your stance that you don't believe in a soul or any other sort of divine essence that could be dug out or set free and give people the ability to change.
[0:41] Oh, no. Okay, you know, this is just so you understand, right? So you understand what it looks like from somebody with a tiny smidge or two of wisdom. So when I read a question, What I do is I scan for triggered volatility, butthurt, defensiveness, aggression, manipulation, because what I want to know is, is someone genuinely curious and asking me a genuine question or is someone upset at my arguments and is kind of hitting back and usually below the belt? And so you need to have the self-knowledge you just this is just a basic basic thing to interact with anybody with any wisdom you need to have the self-knowledge to know why you are asking the question and be honest about why you are asking the question otherwise you look incredibly, manipulative and it's kind of annoying and um maybe this won't make sense until i sort of explain it right.
[1:58] So if something I'm saying is upsetting to you, that's totally fine. If it's any consolation stuff, arguments I come up with and data that I come across is upsetting to me sometimes as well. So if something I'm saying is upsetting to you, you need to have the self-knowledge to know that you're upset and you're angry and you're frustrated and you're annoyed with my arguments.
[2:25] Because if you don't have that self-knowledge, you are not in pursuit of truth. You are in pursuit of justification, right? It's an old line from the Song of Seven by John Anderson, that the great world is to be justified and just both together entwined, right? Justified and just. So if you're upset at something I'm saying, if you are, quote, triggered, just know that, and that's fine. Then just say, I'm upset at your arguments. Here's what I want to know, right your arguments have bothered me but if you don't even know that you're upset or if you feel that you're perfectly justified in being upset and you take this annoying aristocratic tone with me it's annoying and people of quality people of wisdom people of self-knowledge will not want to interact with you and i don't want that in your life i don't want you to only be surrounded by other no self-knowledge triggered acting out people because that's low quality that's you know, three degrees above trash planet. So when I ask a question, I'm scanning for, are you, do you want the answer or are you annoyed at the argument, right? Are you hitting back because you're triggered or are you genuinely curious about my position? So.
[3:37] So I'll tell you why this is annoying and manipulative. In the last couple of weeks, you have repeatedly reiterated your stance. Okay. I'm a philosopher. I don't have stances. I have arguments and evidence. I have reasoned arguments and evidence. I don't have a stance. So for you to diminish the 40 years work I've done in philosophy to say, it's just a stance, a position, a belief, right? You've repeatedly reiterated your stance that you don't believe in a soul. So the reason you do that is to diminish my perspective in the eyes of everyone who's reading the question, because it makes me sound defensive, that I just have some triggered position, I just have a stance, and I just don't believe in something, as opposed to I've made arguments from first principles according to reason and evidence. So what happens is, because you don't know that you're triggered, or maybe you do, but you're certainly not admitting to it, because you don't know that you're triggered and upset, what you do is you try to portray me as triggered and upset, which is annoying. I guess you've achieved your goal right now. That's fine. Right. So.
[4:48] Because you don't know that you are frustrated and annoyed and emotionally upset by my arguments, you then try to pretend that my arguments are the result of emotional triggers, not your question, quote question, being the result of emotional triggers. It's just a self-knowledge thing. You need to know when you're angry and upset. So for instance, I find the question and the framing and the language used to be annoying. It's kind of belittling. It's insulting to me to say that I'm just repeatedly reiterating my stance that I don't believe in something. So I'm just tensely reiterating some opinion based on some emotional trigger. That's belittling to the work that I do.
[5:33] That is belittling to the work that I do. It's like if I'm a salesman and I put in huge amounts of work qualifying leads and getting the pipeline set up and making sure I ask the difficult questions so I don't waste time. I'm finding the right people who need what it is I have to sell and do all of that work, right? And then you say, well, you just make sales because you wear a certain cologne. Like you just smell the way the clients want it. Like you understand that belittles all of my work. And belittling all of my work is a negative experience. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if people belittled your work, the work that you put in. And if you, you know, it's the 10-year overnight success, right? Oh, it just takes you five minutes to write that hit song, and I guess I could do that in five minutes, just belittling all of the work that goes into all of that. So I've done a lot of work. I've got a whole, I think, three or four-part series on the soul, so I've got a lot of arguments and a lot of evidence and a lot of reasoning behind it.
[6:35] And so when you just say you've reiterated your stance, you don't believe in the soul or any other sort of divine essence that could be, quote, dug out or set free and give people the ability to change. Deranged right so this in the sentence you've portrayed me as triggered and deranged right which is insulting now if i am triggered and deranged then you would want to make that case slowly and patiently so i understand it because i'm in a state of being triggered and deranged right so what you're saying is and we'll get to this right so what you're saying is because i make arguments against the existence of the soul i'm denying people the capacity to change.
[7:17] Oh, my gosh.
[7:45] More clearly and therefore make make better decisions to change for the better so you've created yes first of all you insulted me basically by saying i'm just repeatedly repeating a stance of disbelief as opposed to you've made recent arguments and then you say that because Stef because you don't believe in the soul, you don't believe that people can change right so now then i'm going to get charged with hypocrisy okay so yet empirical evidence shows that you spend an enormous amount of time talking to people attempting to do just that showing them the parts of themselves that have been hurt and giving them the tools to protect and nurture those parts in order to heal and improve their lives.
[8:22] Right. So it's a total straw man. Stef, without the soul, people can't change. Yet you try to help people to change for the better. Hypocrisy much? Right. So this is amateur hour and it's, I'll deal with this because I want to show people how not to engage. Right. If somebody, it's a bad faith argument. Somebody says, well, I'm just curious about this. You know, everybody knows when you ban some troll from a forum, the troll creates a new account, comes back, and says, you know, whatever happened to that guy? I'm just curious. I just want to know. I really enjoyed his arguments. Whatever happened to him? I mean, it can't be that you're into free speech and ban someone. Oh my. So that's just a bad, it's just manipulative bad faith. So bad faith is when you're not being honest about your motives. You're annoyed at my arguments about the soul and it bothers you and it upsets you. And I respect that. I do. We should take these things very importantly. They are very important. And I wouldn't want to get things wrong about something as essential as the human soul. So, I respect the fact that you are emotionally invested in the arguments. Just don't lie about it and pretend that I'm the one who's triggered and hypocritical.
[9:32] So, he says, you've also repeatedly used phrases such as selling your soul to the devil, soul murder, etc. Isn't that evidence that you actually do believe in a soul, even if perhaps it is not immortal and can be damaged beyond repair or somehow sold for material profit or some similar construct, because otherwise it would seem to imply that all your work is merely entertainment.
[9:53] I suppose this guy's a Christian, and let's say that I am doing something wrong by making arguments against the existence of the soul, then as a Christian, you're supposed to love your enemies and lead me with love, too. So you're a bad Christian, right? So you believe in the soul, which means I assume you're a Christian, which means you're supposed to love those who sin, who fall into error, and you're supposed to approach them with positivity and enthusiasm and love, and you're not. You're just being low-rent bitchy and calling me a hypocrite and saying that I'm a con man and all of my work is merely entertainment, that it has no actual philosophical value, that I'm just welding together a bunch of flashy syllables in order to, I don't know what. Well, obviously, it hasn't been to protect my reputation among the normies.
[10:43] So it's just a massive attack and assault on my character, integrity, virtue, and life's work. So I really, anybody who has self-knowledge and a commitment to the truth is going to recoil from you. I'm just telling you this. Everyone, I mean, if I read this to anyone I know who's, you know, and the people who are in my life have self-knowledge and quality and so on. If I read this I guarantee you I could go through this experiment every single person in my life if I read this too would say like oh that's really manipulative and kind of gross right everyone like it's it's so obvious you don't know it because you're in it but you are absolutely driving quality people out of your life you're just driving quality people out of your life and it's blindingly obvious how upset manipulative and triggers you are and rather than I don't know if you're a man or a woman I think you're a man who was raised by a woman because this is masculine combativeness combined with female manipulation, and it's a really gross combo.
[11:47] So, I mean, if you want to know my answers, just do a search for soul, do a search for free will, and you can get all of that. All right. Hi, Stef. Thanks for the forum and time you give to the community. You've helped tremendously over the years. You're welcome.
[12:00] I'll do my best to support more of your good works when I'm financially better able. Onwards, my question is, what constitutes a genuine or acceptable apology from a parent to a child regarding verbal and physical abuse sustained during the childhood? For example, hypothetically, would a simple, I'm sorry, cover it? If genuine, if genuine. Or would you see it as necessary for a more detailed and context-based apology? If this has been asked and answered before, feel free to skip it, and if so, thanks again. No, I think it's fine. It's a great question. And apologies are three parts. One, the apology itself. Two, an offer of restitution. And the reason that you need the offer of restitution is somebody has made your life difficult through bad actions.
[12:42] And if they've made your life a hundred hours difficult, and then they take five seconds to apologize, it's asymmetrical. So they need to put some work in to show that they take the apology seriously. Because if they're just, if you're upset and you just say, oh, look, I'm really sorry. And then you move on, then you're just appeasing the person and you have no particular intention of change. So you need to put in, doesn't have to be an exact match, of course, but you need to put in some time and work over and above just saying, I'm sorry, because otherwise Otherwise, you can just wrong people and say, I'm sorry, and then just everything's fine. So if it is 100 hours or 1,000 hours of wrongdoing unto you, it's caused you a lot of stress and strain and problems or whatever, and then somebody gives you a five-second apology and wants to move on, it means that they're not taking your suffering seriously and they're not understanding how difficult or bad it was, the thing that they did.
[13:37] So you apologize to someone until the person you're apologizing to is satisfied it's not up to you if i wrong someone it is up to the other person to know when the apology is satisfactory right so people harm you uh either because they're callous or indifferent or cruel or or whatever it is right but you're not like a fully realized emotional person when someone harms you they They have to depersonalize you. So the way you know that someone is not sorry is they say, I'm sorry. And you say, I don't feel emotionally satisfied. And then they say that that's your problem. Hey, man, I apologized. It's your issue. If you can't accept an apology, you got to go and work on that. But you told me what was wrong. I said, I'm sorry. And you got to move on. So then they're still in charge and they're still denying your emotional needs, right? Now, of course, you could. There are people who will grind wrongdoing and apologies will never satisfy them. But that's a different matter. I'm talking to you. I'm sure you're a decent guy and you'll accept a heartfelt apology. How do you know when the apology is genuine?
[14:42] The hurt evaporates. The hurt, the upset, all of the problems, the pain, the loss, it evaporates in your heart. It's a gut thing. You can't just reason it. It is a gut thing. It's like saying, when are you full? When do you feel full when you eat? Well, when you feel full. When you feel full, you're full.
[15:05] How do you know if you're thirsty? I mean, you can't reason that out. You could say, well, I guess it's been a while since I drank or whatever, but, I mean, that happens every night I go to sleep. I don't wake up and drink in the middle of the night. So how do you know that the apology is satisfactory? Well, you feel relief, you feel release. There's a sort of gut-level processing of it. It can't be reasoned out. I mean, there's a bell curve, right? Excessive apologies can be manipulative. Deficient apologies can be usually almost always manipulative. So somewhere in the middle, there's a sweet spot. It depends upon the wrong that was done. It depends on the level of empathy you're getting. It depends on how long you've held on to the wrong or how long the wrong has hurt you. It depends how long ago it was. It depends for how long it went on. So I don't know. But if you've received genuine apologies, you feel your heart ease. You feel better. You feel good. You feel relief. You feel release. And you can then move on. And it's a good thing.
[15:58] So, yeah. So first is apology. Second is restitution. Third is a plan or program by which you can be reasonably assured that the wrong will not happen again. So, I mean, if it's apparent and they wronged you for 20 years, it's going to take years for the apology to take hold. That's why you don't wrong people and leave it lying, because it just gets worse and worse and worse. And, you know, every step you take in the wrong direction is two steps, right? It's the step away and then the step back. And the tiredness, it's three steps, right? You go a mile south when you should have gone north. you've gone south, you've got to go back and you've already walked two miles and you're tired to go north. So don't go in the wrong direction.
[16:35] Personally, I don't think a wrong of 20 years can ever be solved. I mean, I guess it could be in some theoretical way. I've never seen it really happen. But you apologize and make restitution until the other person feels better. It's tough for people who wrong others to apologize because wronging others is a form of dominance. And then apologies is a form of submission, and it's very tough for that person emotionally. All right.
[17:02] Hi, Stef. I've been thinking recently about the idea of living a life guided by rational and moral principles, at which point the question emerged. What does it mean to be rational? I think you've done some great work on elaborating on what it means to be moral, but I still find myself unsure about rationality, perhaps due to my lack of research. Well, you can read my book, The Art of the Argument. You can read Aristotle's Laws of Logic. It's about a way of making sure that your thinking is clear and consistent and universal.
[17:33] Clear and consistent and universal. Which means you have to root out contradictions, right? You have to root out contradictions within yourself and expose those contradictions to your mind and then deal with... Like all trauma causes contradictions, right? And all contradictions... And whenever I see somebody contradicting themselves, right? Like the guy, the first part who said, I'm the one who's upset, but he's the one who's upset. There's trauma. Our minds are naturally clear and consistent And if you've ever been around children who are growing, you know how incredible the human mind is at unraveling contradictions and finding consistencies. You know, when your daughter, my daughter, when she figured out what a ball was, she almost instantly knew what every ball was and then every spherical shape. And there's no contradictions, right? And she's unbelievably great at figuring out contradictions. They're just instinctive to her because I've never asked her to accept a contradiction. And so when they show up and because she's untraumatized when they show up she's immediately able to identify them even in me or especially in me perhaps and that's great it's fantastic I've got this Dradis radar that works beautifully for contradictions so I'm.
[18:43] All contradictions in thinking result from trauma, because the natural state of the human mind is universality, rationality, and consistency. So, if you show up in the ER with a broken arm, the broken arm is evidence of some force that broke your arm, or some situation, or some pressure that broke your arm, or even if it broke from some disease, some disease that weakened your bones.
[19:09] So you understand as a doctor you say what what happened right oh no i just woke up this way nothing happened and the doctor won't believe you that's like that it can't be true it can't be true that a broken arm is no physical trauma or ailment right because the natural state of arms is to not be broken like like if you uh your tooth enamel is what this is the hardest substance on your body right so if something breaks through your tooth enamel it's got to be some external thing or if If you go in to your dentist with a bunch of bloody teeth in a bag and they're all ripped down, what happened? Nothing. They just, this is what happened. It's like they can see the trauma, they can see the teeth. So when contradictions arise, that's the result of trauma. And that's why it's hard for people to resolve contradictions. Because when they start to resolve their contradictions and they start to look for consistency and universality, the person who hurt them arises and tells them to stop. Because what they're doing, when you are examining your own contradictions, you are examining the scene of a crime, just so you understand that. You are examining the scene of a crime. So you think you're just going in and having a look around, there's a contradiction, that's interesting. And then as you start to poke around the roots of that contradiction, it's a scene of a crime, and the crime was child abuse. Almost always, could be adult abuse, but usually it's child abuse. So contradictions result from child abuse. So when you start to unravel contradictions and poke around the root of the contradictions, all the criminals who harmed you, arise as one and tell you to stop.
[20:37] They provoke anxiety, sleeplessness. Criminals don't want to be caught.
[20:42] Criminals don't want to be caught. And if you start poking around the backyard of some guy who's got bodies buried in there, he's going to have something to say about it. So that's why we talk a lot. In philosophy, people don't really understand. A lot of people don't understand. Well, why do you talk about people's contradictions and personal issues? Because all of the call-in shows demonstrate that contradictions arise from trauma. And if you unravel the contradictions you get to the trauma and if you can't deal with the trauma the contradictions will simply reform and you won't be any more rational in fact you'll have skepticism for rationality right so this is why people are so angry at me out there in the world because i'm telling people to go examine the scenes of the crimes that were inflicted upon them as children and the criminals don't like it so the criminals create all of this hysterical language around me so people don't go digging in the dirt to find the bones all right is it right so as such here's my question is it rational for parents to hit their children if rationality is seen as behaving in such a way that you make a perceived outcome more likely are parents acting rationally in this case if what they want is their children's obedience or to socialize their children to be able to fit into the world as it is is it irrational for them to hit their children uh so rational if rationality is seen as behaving in such a way that you make a perceived outcome more likely? No. No, that's called consequentialism, maybe pragmatism, utilitarianism. No, that's practicality, right? But that's not the same as rationality.
[22:10] Rationality is.
[22:13] Universality, non-contradiction, and consistency. I can tell you that doesn't always make a beneficial outcome more likely. I can tell you that one for absolute sure. So no, rationality is not behaving in such a way that you make a perceived outcome more likely. So if a serial killer is stalking his victim, it makes practical sense for him to creep along in the dark and all that kind of stuff, because his perceived outcome to murder his victim will become more like these. It's not rational or moral. So I just wanted to do that quick thing. I'll get to the other ones later. Oh, no, I've got time. I lie. Sorry, I thought it was 10.30.
[22:50] Part two. So no, it's not rational. So rationality is, and I go into the Peaceful Parenting book in this, the rationality with regards to hitting children would be it's okay to hit people smaller and weaker than you, but we don't allow that in society. It's okay to hit people who are cognitively deficient, like those who have mental retardation or those who have Alzheimer's. We don't allow that in society. So there's no rationality that justifies the hitting of children that doesn't also justify hitting other people with the same characteristics. We can hit people we have power over. We can hit people in order to make them fit in. We can hit people because they're cognitively deficient. We can hit people in order to instruct them, but you wouldn't ever allow that in the workplace. I mean, there are oddballs in every work face. Do you get to beat them up until they fit into the general culture? No, you just don't allow this. Violence is wrong. The initiation of the use of force is wrong. That's what we accept in society. So why do we make an exception for children? And no other group that shares the characteristics of children. That's a contradiction. So we can't allow it, right? Okay. I must admit that I still haven't made my way into the Peaceful Parenting book. So if I'm exploring settled territory, then I apologize. Otherwise, there are some more thoughts, blah, blah, blah. That telling children is sometimes rational, although immoral. No, it can't be both rational and immoral. You could say it's practical, right? But rationality includes morality, right? Morality is a subset of rationality, right?
[24:17] So it's like saying you can go generally north, but partly south, right? No, so if you're acting irrationally, then you can't say that you're acting rationally. So if you're acting immorally, you're acting irrationally or anti-rationally, and therefore you can't say you're acting rationally. It says, no action is rational in isolation. Eating isn't rational, nor is sleeping. It all depends on the goal and context. No action is rational in isolation. Well, I'm not sure exactly what that means. All animals, you have to be rigorous with yourself, and you have to be skeptical with your own formulations. Don't be lazy and put all the work on me. So if you're saying what we're judging is actions, then, well, animals act, don't they? And are animals subject to morality? No. So it must be something other than action that we're judging. So UPB judges moral theories.
[25:12] So, rationality doesn't judge actions. Rationality judges propositions, theories, concepts, arguments, syllogisms, hypotheticals. That's what rationality is, an abstract thing. And abstract things judge abstract things. They don't judge particular actions, if that makes sense. You know, guy stabs another guy. Is that good or bad? Well, it's bad if he's robbing the guy. It's good if he's giving him a tracheotomy that's going to save his life or surgery that will cause him to survive, right? I mean, I got a stab wound on my neck here from a great surgeon. But, you know, he wasn't stabbing me. I mean, he was cutting me open with a knife. So, no, you don't judge particular actions. You judge arguments. It's a category error to say that reason should judge individual actions, right? Eating isn't rational. rational, nor is sleeping. It all depends on the goal and context. Well, okay. Yeah, I mean, I make this case in UPB, right? So yes, eating is rational if you want to survive. Sleeping is rational if you're tired and want to be refreshed. Two, if no action is rational in isolation, it depends on the goal that the person has in mind, then it is possible that hitting children is rational depending on the goal.
[26:27] No, so hitting children.
[26:32] Children, it is not the individual act of hitting a child or causing pain to a child that makes sense. You cause pain to a child when you give them an inoculation for smallpox. You cause pain to a child when you take them to the dentist. You cause pain to a child, emotional pain to the child when you refuse the child candy. You cause emotional pain to the child when you say no. So the idea that you don't cause pain to children, that's not rational. The question is not hitting children, you just look at the goal. That's not it. You look at the justifications. Why do you hit children? Well, you hit children because they're smaller, they don't understand, you're instructing them, they need to fit in, blah, blah, blah.
[27:08] Okay, in which case, you're making an argument. And once you make an argument, you're subjected to rational analysis, right? And if you have an arbitrary distinction, that's called absolute bigotry, right? If you say, red-headed people can't have human rights. They're human beings, but they can't have rights. Well, why? They're human beings. They have red hair. That's not an essential characteristic of whether you're a human being or not. So if you say red-headed human beings can't have rights or don't have the right to property or self-defense, you're making a category error because you're saying there are human rights, these people who have a characteristic inconsequential to their essential humanity, either color of their hair. And so you're saying all human beings have rights, but red-headed human beings don't have rights. Well, then you're just prejudiced.
[27:55] Right? And you're saying that they are human beings. All human beings have rights. Color of your hair is not consequential to your status as a human being, but I'm going to make this exception for redheaded people. That just shows that you hate and fear redheaded people. Right, so that's irrational. And so if you're saying you can hit people you need to instruct, okay, can you hit in an HR training seminar? No. Well, there's a lack of knowledge and you're trying to instruct them. Okay, can you hit people who are doing dangerous things? Okay, some guy wants to go ride his motorcycle in the rain, can you beat him up? Some guy wants to do some sort of MMA that could result in brain damage or wants to go into the NFL where he could get concussion syndromes or whatever. Can you beat him up if people want to do risky things? Can you beat them up? No. Well, okay, so that's not the category. Can you hit people who are cognitively deficient? No, you can't. Okay, so you just go through these things and you say, well, if you can't hit any characteristic of a child, how can you hit a child? Right? So that's important, right? Ah, all right.
[29:07] So, let me just see your example here. If someone wanted their children to have a capacity for antisocial behavior, such as bullying, because they have been successful in gaining a mate and resources through using these methods, are they irrational for creating a home environment that turns their children into bullies? So you're saying practicality. It is practical for a lion to creep before he runs or a tiger to creep and hide in the bushes or the tall grass which is what the tiger stripes are for it is practical it is it further achieves the tiger's objective it is rational for those crazy birds in the amazon to build those big giant nesting displays to attract a female it's practical for them to do all of that so if you're going to say practicality is the same as rationality practicality is goal-oriented right if you want to kill a guy and you take the steps necessary to kill a guy, you're being practical, but evil. Right? So practicality is taking the steps to achieve a goal. Morality is universally preferable behavior. So if you're going to conflate the two, you need to read my book.
[30:13] So, blah, blah, blah, okay, that's just, so you have to, I'm going to, you're going to need to figure that one out, right? It's like saying, well, the witch doctor, by convincing people that his dancing changes the reins, gets a really, really good living, so it's practical for him, and therefore that's science, right? So, a witch doctor lying to everyone and saying his dancing creates rain, and therefore he gets a good living without having to work, well, that's practical for him, right?
[30:44] And therefore that's science, because science is all about practical outcomes, and it's like, nope, nope, nope, nope. All right, so the DEI stuff, there's a big emotional thing about DEI, and yeah, you're going to have to deal with the fact that society is getting less and less competent, and people who want me to become preppers, I, you know, that's not my gig. I'm a philosopher. If you want to go look up prepping, there's tons and tons of people who do great work in the realm of prepping and if you are interested in prepping which i think is not the worst idea in the world then you should go and look at that but asking me to do everything is lazy on your part i mean and it's just it's honestly it's kind of annoying a little bit you know i didn't wake up on the wrong side of the bed but i've decided to be more honest about things that bug me and not that i've ever been particularly dishonest but i've decided to be a little less diplomatic as i age out of this mortal sphere here. So, oh, Stef, I'm really interested in X. You should do X. Why? Do you not understand opportunity cost? Let's say I become an expert in prepping. Well, that means there's less philosophy. Are there more great philosophers or are there more great preppers? I mean, you just have to think through these things for a moment. Stef, I have a pain in my side. It could be appendicitis. I really need you to become a doctor.
[32:14] Stef, my roof is leaking. I really need you to become a roofer. Stef, I'm interested in X. You really need to become an expert in X. And then there's all of this emotional manipulation nonsense about how it's responsible and good and right and decent and generous and moral. And it's like, no, no, no. You just, you want to take away, you like the way that I communicate. So you want me to communicate something to you. You want me to do the work. You don't want to find out who the good prepper is. You already trust me. So you want me to become a prepper? No no so in order to be good to the world you have to understand opportunity costs right i mean you just have to otherwise you're lazy and chaotic and it is lazy it is lazy go find yourself a good prepper go find someone you trust asking me to become a prepper is asking me to take hundreds or thousands of hours away from philosophy, right so no the world needs philosophy, See, if I've got a toothache, you should really study to become a dentist.
[33:12] The world needs philosophy. Everything that serves philosophy is what I do. That is the North Star by which I guide my public life. My private life, it's the good of virtue, family, friends, right? So what is good for philosophy? What does the world need more philosophers? It's why I quit my really high-flying job as a software executive and chief technical officer and board member and entrepreneur. Why did I quit all of that? Because the world needs great philosophy more than it needs another software guy.
[33:47] There are hundreds of thousands of software executives, maybe millions, I don't know, but certainly hundreds of thousands of high-flying entrepreneurial software executives scattered throughout the globe. How many great philosophers are there who are going to solve the problem of ethics and focus people on the hypocrisy of the rank prejudice in society that destroys the world repeatedly called childism, bigotry against children?
[34:09] How many people have a unique ability to communicate these things in a user-friendly way with a pleasant voice and a decent demeanor and how many people are really, really competent at having these kinds of ferocious debates and dealing with trolls in a positive and productive way. I mean, how many people are good at that? I have a unique set of skills that can advance philosophy massively. And what does the world need? Another prepper or more philosophy? Think about what you're asking for in the world and remember that everyone you ask to do something is not doing everything else, if they agree with you. And you need to not be selfish. And you need to think what's best for the world, as I do. I have to not be selfish and think about what's best for the world. So saying, well, Stef, you're hypocritical if you're not a prepper, if you're not helping prep, is selfish. You want me to tell you how to prep. When there's already thousands of people already doing that, infinitely more experienced and competent than I am. So you don't sit there and think, I think, gee, well, if I can convince, if I kind of have bullying stuff because your appeals to hypocrisy or you're a hypocrite if you don't believe in the soul and still want people to change, this sort of aggressive assault is pathetic. It really is. It's beneath all of us. You should stop doing that stuff.
[35:22] It's really sad. It's driving good people away. Like this guy, I won't read the whole thing, but it's like, you know, if you really believed in your philosophy stuff, you'd be a prepper and you'd tell your audience about prepping. And it's like, don't tell me. Don't tell me.
[35:36] How to do what you want and call it integrity. Don't say, Stef, you're a bad person if you don't do what I want. That's sad. That's pitiful. That's gross. That's repulsive, honestly. And I say this forcefully because I want you to stop doing this so you can have quality people in your life and not all of the losers who will succumb to such obvious and pitiful emotional blackmail and manipulation. It's sad. It's sad. And it is a big calling card and a big siren and a big come-hither look to all of the crap people in the universe while all the good people edge away. I think I've earned some respect for my integrity. And if you attack my integrity, you better come at me with a great fucking argument. Because I've earned some respect for my integrity. And if you say I'm a bad person because I'm hypocritical that all my shows are just entertainment, and I'm a bad person if I'm not telling my audience about prepping and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, If you attack my commitment to virtue, the benefit of the audience, and the beneficence of philosophy, if you come at me with that, you better have a damn good argument. Because I'm pretty strict about what I do in the world. I'm pretty strict about how I present myself and the arguments I bring forward. And I'm pretty strict with my own integrity.
[36:58] So, have a good argument, do some research. Well, Stef, it's rational to beat children. I guess you've just missed something super obvious in 40 years. Do not think that you get to be a smart guy by pretending other people are stupid as a bag of hammers. Dumb as a bag of rocks. Don't imagine that I've just missed something blindingly obvious in 18 years of public, incredibly examined and pushed back on philosophy, 40 years of working philosophy. I've just missed the most obvious thing. Well, I guess I'm a determinist who asks people to change. Well, I guess I'm hypocritical because I don't talk about prepping. Well, I guess I'm just not practical because sometimes it can be totally rational to hit children. Like, the idea that I've missed something completely obvious after 40 years.
[37:57] No. No. It doesn't mean I'm right about everything, of course. us. But don't assume that I'm just some dumb guy who's missed something completely obvious and ask people to change while being a determinist. Have some respect for competence, like seriously, because this is Dunning-Kruger. You're saying, well, I'm not competent in philosophy, but Stef must be even worse at it after 40 years. Don't do it. Don't imagine Imagine that you can be the smartest guy in the room by pretending that everyone else is a complete idiot. You need to work to contribute. And I appreciate these questions. I really do. And I do want people to ask questions. And sometimes the answers are meta, right? I'm answering about the question rather than answering the question directly. Have some respect for competence. Have some respect for people who know what they're doing. Have some respect for people who've gone through close to two decades of intense fire. If somebody's been a soldier.
[39:01] For 30 years, and has been under fire for 18 years in full-on world combat, asking them basic questions about basic training. And, you know, maybe you missed that you need to point your gun at the enemy. Maybe you missed that you need to take cover when you're under fire. And maybe you missed that a battle that seems to be going too well might, in fact, be a trap. And maybe you've missed the fact that the enemy's side attack could be their main attack. And maybe you've missed the fact that you need extra bullets. And maybe you've missed the fact, like when you've never been in battle and i've been at war for 40 years and you've never been in battle questioning my fundamental and not only have i been in battle in the most foundational elemental battles of the modern world i've survived, so then coming to me and like well Stef you've just missed some absolutely basic and obvious thing. Bro. Bro.
[39:58] You need to have some humility. Not humility to me, but humility to competence in general. Can you imagine going to the best surgeon in your region, your best surgeon in your state, and lecturing him on the fact that he needs to use a scalpel, and he needs to make sure he doesn't cut through a vein and he needs to make sure that he cuts the person where the person actually has the problem and not some unrelated part and if he has to amputate a leg it's really really important you don't amputate the wrong leg this is a guy with 30 years 40 years experience as a surgeon and 20 years at the very top of his profession.
[40:40] Sometimes it's good to just shut up and learn and not intrude with these kind of insulting questions when the answers are already out there. And again, I appreciate that. I don't want people to hesitate asking me questions at all. I mean, maybe it sounds that way, but what I'm trying to do is to get you to be humble, because if you're not humble, you can't learn anything. And if you think that I've been a philosopher for 40 years, and I'm somehow a determinist who wants people to change, that that foundational error has never crossed my mind. It's never crossed the mind of any of the millions of people who've cross-examined me in comments and message boards and email and debates. It's never crossed. And you're the first person to say, gosh, isn't there a bit of a contradiction if someone is both a free will and a determinist? Huh, I am super smart. I am giant brain. I am giant brain. If somebody has never even thought that somehow there could be practical approaches to things that are immoral, I am super giant brain. I am super smart.
[41:54] If the guy who writes a book called The Art of the Argument, which is all about what rationality is and how to be rational, If that guy hasn't thought about basic contradictions, I am super smart.
[42:13] Competent people who aren't respected for their competence don't want to spend time with you, which means that you're going to be surrounded by incompetent people. And being surrounded by incompetent people is hell on earth.
[42:25] They can't help you. They can't clarify your thinking. They can't put back on your mistakes. They can't watch your back. They can't help you to a better place. They can't do any of these things. You're down there in trash planet, trading giant brain non-thoughts back and forth and thinking you're solving all the problems of the known universe. You are witch doctors thinking you're changing the rain and insulting all the scientists for not being scientific enough. Try and elevate yourself. Have some humility, learn stuff, and then ask the questions. That's totally fine. I appreciate the questions. All of these were great questions in many ways. So thank you everyone so much. Have yourself a wonderful day. Lots of love. I'll talk to you soon.
Support the show, using a variety of donation methods
Support the show
