- 5 months ago
This lecture explores the existential crisis in the West, attributing primary significance to statism and the misconception of government as a solution to complex social issues like poverty and education. The speaker argues that reliance on government often exacerbates problems rather than solving them, illustrating this with historical data on poverty and personal anecdotes. The discussion addresses how government intervention can create dependency, undermining personal responsibility and self-sufficiency, and emphasizes the importance of engaging with societal complexities rather than seeking superficial solutions. The lecture calls for a return to authentic efforts to address systemic issues, advocating for thoughtful, culturally aware approaches over ineffective governmental fixes.
FOLLOW ME ON X! https://x.com/StefanMolyneux
GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!
https://peacefulparenting.com/
Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!
Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!
You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!
See you soon!
https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025
FOLLOW ME ON X! https://x.com/StefanMolyneux
GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!
https://peacefulparenting.com/
Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!
Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!
You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!
See you soon!
https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025
Category
📚
LearningTranscript
00:00All right. Hello, fellow ex-denizens. Thank you for your warm, robust, and occasionally manic
00:05welcome back to the greatest social media platform in the world. Ex, formerly known as Twitter,
00:13formerly known as formerly censorious. Thanks again, Elon. Now, for those of you who can't
00:18make the live streams, I begged on my hands and knees, Bruce's on both my knees for you,
00:25for questions that I could put my philosophical brain towards. These are the questions. Here are
00:32the answers. Why do you think the West has fallen into this existential crisis? And what's the way
00:39out? See, I like to start with the easy questions. You know, the two-in-two-make-four questions.
00:44So, the existential crisis fundamentally is fueled by statism. Statism is the idea that the government
00:53is an effective arbiter or solver of complex social problems. State is an agency of force,
01:00which is to say the complexity is able to be solved by a force. Using the government to try and solve
01:07social problems is like using a gun to make someone write a great poem. It doesn't work.
01:14And the people who confidently talk about the government being able to solve complex social
01:18problems like poverty and discrimination and so on, or lack of education. The idea that the
01:25government can solve these problems is a drug. And I'm not kidding about this. It is a drug.
01:33Dopamine is a very powerful human motivational biochemical. And what happens is people say,
01:43let's say they say, well, I want to help the poor. I want to help the sick. I want to help the old who
01:47don't have enough to live on. And, you know, these are all worthy and fine things to do.
01:54And they're very hard to do. It's hard to help the poor. And all of the people who say, well,
02:02just have the government do this, that, or the other. I absolutely know for sure. Those are people
02:06who have never actually dug in and tried to help the poor. When you dig in and try to help the poor,
02:14it's really complex. It's really complicated. And if you give resources to the poor, you are,
02:22in a sense, rewarding them for being poor. Now, this is not to say don't give any resources to the
02:26poor, but it's challenging and it's complicated. And what happens is people don't understand
02:34how other people's decisions change when the resource application and government programs are
02:43applied. So, as I've mentioned before, poverty was lowering itself by one percentage point a year,
02:48every year, for blacks and whites in America after the Second World War. And people were like,
02:53well, great. So, poverty is being solved. We've got a lot of wealth. So, you know, basically all we
02:56need to do is just throw a little bit more resources into helping the poor and then we'll be
03:04fine. We'll have eliminated poverty. But then what happened, of course, is that poverty increased
03:10after social programs were put in place. Now, the absolute percentage of poverty remained about
03:18the same. In other words, poverty was declining and it sort of ended up kicking in at a particular
03:24percentage point, something like 15 or 20 percent of the people were poor. And then it hasn't budged
03:28since. But the problem is that poverty has actually increased because debt has increased significantly
03:35as a result of poverty programs. And what that means is that we now have an entrenched underclass
03:40of people who are very poor, who are now three or four generations removed from productive work
03:45skills. I mean, my mother was not able to transfer to me any productive work skills. I mean, sister's
03:53been unemployed for what it is now. What it is, something like 30, 35 years. And so, I had to sort of
04:02learn to make my way in the business world largely on my own. It's a very complicated
04:07thing. Whereas, a friend of mine whose father was the head of a university department, he
04:13himself navigated, of course, with relative ease his way through how to become a university
04:18professor because his father was not only a university professor but was also head of
04:24the entire department. So, he could, of course, go to his father and say, hey, I want to become
04:28a university professor. And his father would be like, would spend countless hours stepping
04:32in through the process and so on. And so, when you lose work skills, when you lose how to deal
04:37with boss skills, when you lose how to help customer skills, when you lose financial literacy skills
04:42and budgeting and planning skills, it's really bad. So, the poor now are much worse off than the poor
04:48in the 1960s. They've become entrenched. And because we have in the West, particularly in America,
04:57massive unfunded liabilities, deficits and debt, and so on, then the poor have lost a good deal of
05:04their skills, have become entrenched in a particular mindset that is bad, and the programs are utterly
05:12unsustainable. So, I mean, you really couldn't design a worse situation for the poor in the long
05:19run, which is why people who talk about the welfare state as helping the poor are basically in the same
05:24category as saying that heroin helps heroin addicts. Well, I guess, briefly, but at enormous
05:31future cost. So, I mean, I grew up with friends who were, you know, poor and broke. And, you know,
05:40my, one of my best friends, his mother was a bookkeeper, but she only worked like in a day or two
05:45a week. And I don't know exactly where she got the rest of her money, but I assume it was something
05:50to do with social programs. And she didn't really have any advice for him in the workplace. So, he
05:56kind of struggled to find his place. Now, I gave him work because I, of course, started companies and
06:02was able to hire people. So, I gave him work. And it's tough. It's tough to transfer those skills.
06:07It's tough to make people enthusiastic, particularly, not that he was, but particularly depressed people,
06:13right? Depressed people, you want to come in and help them. Oh, let me come in and clean up your place.
06:16Oh, you know, come on, man, let's go to the gym, or let's go for a walk, or let's catch some
06:19sunshine, or let's catch a ball game, or something like that. But the more that you do for depressed
06:24people, the more inert they become. I mean, you can't work out for someone else. You can't eat for
06:29someone else. You can't go for a walk for someone else. So, it's tricky. It's complicated. It's
06:35challenging. And you really want the best and most creative minds working on these problems.
06:40So, the reason why the West, in particular, has decayed is that people have a feel-good mechanism,
06:46a feel-good magic wand, a literal drug, called, I support this government action. I care about
06:55healthcare for the poor. Therefore, I care about, you know, Medicare, or Medicaid, or the NHS,
07:02or socialized medicine in Canada, or wherever, right? So, people say, well, there's a problem in
07:08that some people don't seem to have easy access or can't afford healthcare. Now, to actually solve
07:15that problem is a big challenge. Because, you know, second-order effect, public choice theory,
07:23the more free healthcare you give to people, the less care they take of their health. I mean,
07:28it's just, in general, it's true, right? I mean, people say, ah, seatbelts save lives,
07:33and so on. It's like, well, no, no, they don't. They don't. Because when people have seatbelts,
07:38all they do is adjust and drive more dangerously, right? There was an economist who suggested that
07:42if you'd get the same effect if you had a giant spike coming out of the steering wheel pointed
07:46right at people's hearts, then they'd drive very carefully. So, oh, you know, we put all these
07:51safety features on cars and so on. That just means that people drive more dangerously, which means
07:56pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists tend to take the brunt of people's poor driving. So,
08:01you need very smart people to solve complex social problems, not idiot bureaucrats with the power to
08:08tax and spend, right? That is not what is going to solve these problems. But people want to feel good
08:16about solving problems, of course. I mean, you get a rush, you get a... I mean, I'm not... One thing
08:22that almost never makes me feel smart are escape rooms. I've done a couple, and I always feel like
08:27a bit of a mouth-drooling idiot. It's not the way my brain particularly works. I get some of them really
08:32easily, but some I can just stare at for like 10 minutes. So, you want smart people solving these
08:40problems, of social problems. How do kids get educated? How do we take care of the elderly
08:45who failed to save for their retirement? Because, of course, if you just give a bunch of money
08:50to the elderly who failed to save for their retirement, then people will stop saving for
08:56their retirement. I mean, you know, people respond to incentives. Most people act on incentives, not
09:03on morals. So, if there's a single mom, and you say, oh, we should give money to single moms because
09:09they need help. Okay, well, you've just turned children from a cost into an asset, which means
09:13that a significant portion of women will have children in order to make money, and you have now
09:20increased the incentive to be a single mom. So, what happens is, it's really hard to help people.
09:30And, of course, you know, sorry, I forgot why I was talking about the escape rooms back now. So,
09:34I'm not particularly good at escape rooms. So, when I figure something out, I get a rush. Oh,
09:39got it, right? You get that rush. You get that sort of happiness, right? And nature has programmed us
09:46to have that kind of rush from actually solving problems. Because, you know, it's hard to solve
09:52problems. And so, the more effort that we put into solving problems, the more difficult the problems
10:01are, the happier we tend to be when we solve these problems, right? I mean, you've heard of these poor
10:09guys who put their crypto on some locked hard drive, which only allows 10 password guesses, right?
10:17So, if they get the right password, they feel a huge flash of relief and happiness and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
10:22And so, the more difficult the problem is, the happier we are in solving it. We get a rush. We get a
10:29ah, I think you get a full, a real rush. Now, the government allows people to say, well, I support the
10:37government solving these problems, and then they feel good. And liberalism, in its essence, is a drug
10:44addiction to the appearance of solving problems, rather than actually solving problems. It would be
10:53like, if you have a bunch of people coming over, and you want to lay out a fruit tray, but you only
11:01have plastic fruit, right? And you put out the fruit tray, and people are like, well, hang on, this isn't
11:06real fruit. It's like, no, no, no, but I have a fruit tray, and I feel good about that. It's like,
11:09but it's not real fruit. It is an addiction to the fruits of virtuous problem solving without
11:19actually having to go through the difficult process of virtuous problem solving. And also,
11:26then, it becomes about removing negative consequences from people and thinking you've done society an
11:31eternal good by removing negative consequences from people, which is, again, sort of like a new mom
11:39with babies and toddlers mindset. Babies and toddlers should not learn to navigate the dangers in life by
11:46trial and error, by brute consequences, right? You don't let your kid who's a toddler learn about how
11:52dangerous stairs are by letting them fall down stairs, right? Consequences are too dangerous, and so on,
11:57right? But at some point, you have to let people start learning from their own bad decisions.
12:03Otherwise, there's no incentive for people to make a good decision. So, if a woman has children with
12:10the wrong man, her life becomes complicated and difficult. If you take away those complications
12:14and difficulties, she's happier. Sure, sure, she's happier, because she doesn't have to live with the
12:20consequences of her own bad decisions. She's happier. But then, you undermine everybody's
12:25ability to make good decisions. At an extreme example, just sort of to hammer the point home,
12:31if a policeman catches a robber, you know, he's got the Hamburglar hat, he comes out with a
12:39big bag of Looney Tunes loot over his shoulder, and so on, right? And the robber, and the thief is
12:45caught, the robber is caught by the cop. Now, the cop decides to let him go. Well, how happy is
12:51the thief? The thief is delirious with joy, right? This is the scene in Les Mises, where
12:57Jean Valjean takes the candlesticks, the silver candlesticks from the priest, and then the priest
13:02says, no, no, no, I gave them to him. Now, go forward and sin no more. And Jean Valjean becomes
13:07a really great guy, and mayor of the town, and I am the master of hundreds of workers. They all look to
13:14me. So, that's the fantasy. So, people who've done bad things really, really, really want to get away
13:22with those bad things. People who've made bad decisions want to escape the consequences of
13:27those bad decisions, and yet, so we get happiness from the people, immediate, right? Immediate
13:33happiness. Oh, the thief is, like, thrilled that the cop isn't going to charge him. But then, of course,
13:38the more the cops let thieves get away, the more thieves there are, and the worse society becomes.
13:45So, it's a real challenge, real balance. So, solving corruption, solving poverty, solving people
13:51making bad decisions is very complicated. I mean, a lot of it has to do with better parenting, which
13:57I've talked about for, like, 20 years, but it's very complicated. And so, if we genuinely help someone
14:02overcome their desire or the fact that they make bad decisions, we feel greatly thrilled and happy
14:10we've saved a soul, so to speak. And that requires a lot of personal knowledge, a lot of personal
14:14wisdom, a lot of personal investment, a lot of trial and error, and a lot of rejection and failure.
14:19When you say to people, you should do these better, you should make these better decisions,
14:23and they just kind of reject you and don't make these better decisions, it's kind of frustrating.
14:26So, by creating this massive vending machine dopamine dispenser called, I support the current
14:32thing, I mean, the war in Ukraine is complex. And Western powers are involved, you know, they
14:39said they're not going to go east with NATO in the early 90s, and they continue to go east.
14:44Ukraine did some pretty bad things to the Russians in eastern Ukraine, and, like, it's complicated.
14:50But, no, it's just, like, the heroic, scrappy, blah, blah, blah, evil Russia.
14:56So, then there's just this vending machine that if I just trust the government, if I just
15:03support the government, if I just praise the government, then I get the rewards of solving
15:10complex social problems. We have had poverty programs in the West for, I don't know, let's
15:20say 65 years. And have we solved the problem of poverty? Uh, no.
15:26Now, in fact, again, if you count the unfunded liabilities, the deficit, and the debt, poverty
15:31is almost infinitely worse than it was when we began these programs. So, it hasn't worked.
15:37And it's crippled the poor, and it has stripped valuable skills from the poor at a time when
15:44the system can't possibly continue. So, it's really, really bad. It's getting people addicted
15:50to a drug and then yanking that drug away from them. It's going to be brutal when the money
15:55runs out. So, people get a lot of dopamine from doing good, supporting the government,
16:04now feels like you're doing good. And so, people have become addicted to their support for government
16:11programs to the point where they don't care whether the government programs achieve their
16:16stated goal or not. They don't care. It's like somebody who starts marijuana for, quote,
16:22medicinal purposes, becomes addicted, and continues to take it long after the problem
16:28is resolved or cured, right? Like somebody who gets addicted to opiates, they start taking opiates
16:32because of a back problem, and then the back problem gets solved, but they're now addicted
16:36to the opiates. So, their purpose is to not solve a problem, but to get more drugs.
16:42And it's the same thing. People are addicted to feeling good about pretending to solve problems
16:49by handing money and power to the government. They're addicts. So, when you say these programs
16:58are not solving the problems, in fact, they're making the problems worse, they react in the same way
17:04as a guy who gets on opiates because of a back problem and goes to his doctor, keeps asking for more
17:12opiates. And at some point, the doctor says, listen, I've looked at the scans. I've done the exam.
17:17You don't need the opiates anymore because your back is better. I mean, there are people who go
17:22into hospitals and they go into emergencies complaining of, you know, terrible pain just so
17:29that they can get given some opiates. So, if somebody started taking a drug because maybe they needed
17:35it for some reason, and then that reason has gone away, but now they're addicted to the drug,
17:40when someone comes along and says, you know, this is not healthy for you anymore. This is not
17:44working. This is not needed. I'm going to take you off it. They get really angry. It's the same
17:49thing when libertarians or anarcho-capitalists come along to mostly leftists, although it happens
17:54on the right as well, and say, well, these programs aren't solving the problem. People need to feel
17:58that they're, or they now feel that they're good because they've supported government programs.
18:02And if you take away the moral and practical validity of those government programs,
18:09they're going to get very angry because they are, and again, I know this sounds like hyperbole. I
18:15don't mean this as actual, in my mind, literal fact, right? I know in my mind, literal fact is a bit
18:19of an oxymoron, but we certainly know that monkeys are addicted to dopamine, right? So, this is the
18:26pathological altruism. This is the virtue signaling and so on. People want the rewards.
18:32Of doing good without the challenges and difficulties of doing good. And through
18:38their fantasies about the power and virtue of the state, they get their vending machine
18:45dopamine drip of virtue without actually having to solve problems. And then when you come along and
18:50you say, what you're addicted to is not good, their entire identity, their sense of being a good
18:55person is not just threatened, it's reversed. Like, you think you're a good person by supporting
19:02poverty programs that harm the poor. You're a bad person for supporting these programs.
19:08And so, this addiction is facilitated by the state, it's facilitated by, of course, politicians
19:16and the media and so on. It's facilitated by all the people who want the power. So, yeah,
19:21we have made, you know, billions of people around the world utterly addicted to the pretend
19:28virtues of supporting government power and trying to take away that power or trying to question
19:34the moral and practical utility of that power. People react exactly the same way that any drug
19:43addict reacts when you threaten the supply of their drug. So, I don't, I don't debate with
19:50drug addicts. And so, people who are addicted to the dopamine of pretend virtue, if you start
19:56to question that virtue, they're going to freak out. It's going to be highly destabilizing. And
20:00they're going to catch a glimpse of themselves in the mirror, not as, you know, beautiful,
20:05wonderful, compassionate, wise, and benevolent souls, but of, you know, Gollum-style, heavy
20:12betrayal, amoral or immoral drug addicts. And, you know, people, they don't want to see that stuff,
20:18right? They don't want to see the truth about themselves. If they're bad people, I get it.
20:22I wouldn't either. So, all right. Does God really get mad if I kill myself? Don't kill yourself.
20:27It does unbelievable, staggering harm to others. And your ancestors certainly did not suffer through
20:34everything they suffered through for you to jump off a bridge. So, please get the help that you
20:38need and don't kill yourself. There's tons of hotlines that you can get a hold of who will
20:42help you. All right. Is it morally wrong, asks someone, to make short-form content on scrolling
20:48platforms like TikTok, Instagram reels, etc., if it makes one money but contributes to the low-impulse
20:53control and dopamine harvesting of the general population? No. So, it might be aesthetically
20:58negative behavior, you know, like being rude or being late or whatever it is, but it's not evil.
21:03You're not initiating the use of force and so on. I mean, there are lots of ways that people can make
21:08money that don't contribute much to the values and virtues of society, but, you know, may contribute to
21:14happiness or a sense of contentment or whatever it is, right? So, you know, like, I have no problem
21:20with makeup as a whole, but, you know, when it's really caked on and filters and this and that and
21:23the other, that's a delusion. And it's one of the reasons I don't use makeup or filters,
21:29because this is just who I am and this is how I look. I'm not going to pretend otherwise.
21:34So, if you're making entertaining videos, and my daughter will sometimes show me videos on social
21:41media that are very funny. And generally, what's even funnier than the videos are the comments.
21:46And I've actually laughed so hard that I have tears of run down my face, and it is enjoyable.
21:52I don't think there's any, it's not exactly, you know, morally elevated stuff, but life isn't all
21:56about moral elevation. Sometimes some goofy fun is fine.
22:01What do you think of the work of C.G. Young? This would be Carl Gustav Jung, or Young, J-U-N-G,
22:07Young at Heart, Forever Young. So, I've read quite a bit of his work, and I find it very
22:15interesting. I find it very thought-provoking. I'm not sure I find it entirely practical in terms of
22:21living a virtuous and moral life. So, the animur, the animus, the shadow, the collective unconscious,
22:28this work, it's got a bit obsessive with the Mandelas, in my view, not the Nelson kind,
22:32but the intricate design kind. So, I would not consider myself any kind of expert on Jung.
22:39There were a couple of things that stick out for me. People's self-destructive tendencies,
22:43his story about how his patient, who was a mountain climber, kept dreaming about climbing
22:50up past the mountains into the clouds, and Jung said, oh, you're going to kill yourself,
22:54you've got to be careful, and then the guy ended up dying in the mountains. Again, it's a story told by
22:59Jung, so I'm not sure exactly how honest it is. I read the biography of Jung, and at one point,
23:06he got a whole bunch of people killed by trekking through Africa for reasons that never made any
23:10particular sense to me, so it seemed a bit odd that way. And did he focus heavily on child abuse
23:18and parenting? I mean, I think like most psychologists, he certainly did to some degree, but not in terms
23:25of abstract ethics. So, helpful, useful, interesting. But, you know, modern psychology, I compare things
23:34to physics and computers, right? I mean, I'm no physicist, but I sure as heck know computers. I was
23:39a computer programmer for decades. So, if I look at the progress that is made in, let's just say,
23:46engineering, technology, physics, of course, is government-funded, boondoggle for the most part,
23:51but I compare things to the progress in engineering and technology. So, I mean, however you count it,
23:59sort of Freud, you know, we've had 140 years, give or take 140, 150 years of psychology,
24:08modern psychology, if you want to count it, but the founding of Freud. So, we've had 150 years of
24:15psychology, and how is it done? Compared to, say, electricity, or motors, or not that we've had
24:25150 years of computers. I mean, I guess you could go back to Pascal's calculating machine and all of
24:30that kind of stuff, but, or an abacus, but even if we just look at the, you know, giant room-sized
24:35computers of the 1950s, you know, we've had 70 years since then, and a computer is a zillion times
24:42more powerful than a room-sized computer fits. I mean, you can get these rings now that are,
24:46like, even smaller than the smartwatches, they're just rings. So, what I do when I look at these
24:52sciences is I compare them to excellence. Now, I don't believe there's any foundation or reason why
24:59we couldn't have, maybe not the exact same, it wouldn't be like Moore's law, but we could have
25:05similar levels of progress in the humanities as we have in other disciplines and areas. I look at
25:143,000 years or 4,000 years of philosophy, and there's no particular consensus on either the
25:22most basic of answers, which means 3,000 to 4,000 years into philosophy, the discipline literally
25:29sucks ass and blows wind. It is a absolutely tragic, complete and total mind-frack waste
25:37of near-infinite human potential, and it is embarrassing to me to be even associated with
25:44a discipline that has made so little progress in its, you know, tens of thousands of practitioners,
25:50hundreds of millions of dollars of funding per year around the world through universities and other
25:54things. The most brilliant minds, you know, philosophy, those who study philosophy rank number
25:59one in graduate school, basically IQ tests. So, you know, the most brilliant people can't come up
26:09with an explanation as to something like a baby's development of object constancy. You know, like
26:17you roll a ball under the couch, babies first pretend it's disappeared or believe it's disappeared,
26:23after a while they'll go and look for it, realizing that it's still there. It's just under the couch.
26:27So, if you look at the progress made in engineering, in computers, in physics, in empirical,
26:36particularly customer-oriented science as a whole, it's massive, staggering. And so, you then look at
26:43the progress made in other fields and areas, and it's worse than pathetic. And this to me is,
26:51it's been really embarrassing. Now, one of the things that really helped me as a philosopher was
26:55being in the business world, where you actually have to produce things and things have to have
26:59value. You can't just frack around from here to eternity, mucking about whether nouns exist more
27:06in the Aristotelian empiricism or the Platonic mind space. It's all a bunch of bullshit, and it's
27:11embarrassing that the field has not resolved these questions. I view, in general, philosophy as a place
27:19to capture and trap brilliance so that it doesn't threaten the social order. And you can see this
27:25happening all the time on X, by the way, right? And people are trying to catch me with questions
27:31that philosophy has just been unable to answer. And no, you can answer them. And you should.
27:36Because the only way that I was going to stay in philosophy was if I got some GD answers.
27:41In the business world, at some point, your code has to compile and satisfy the customer.
27:49And I will not do this hooky-cooky circle joke of abstract nothings that lead nowhere,
27:56waste my entire lifetime existence and the gifts that I've been given. So I view, like anybody who's
28:03into philosophy or psychology and so on, should be cringe-embarrassed at the lack of progress.
28:11I mean, psychology's been around for 150 years. In its modern form, arguably, and certainly
28:18statistically, people are more anxious. They're less happy. They're less contented. Pair bonding
28:24is down. Marriages are down. Fertility is down. We're all acting like a bunch of depressed emos.
28:33And, you know, this is the argument Robert Whitaker has in his book, Mad in America, which is,
28:37if we have all of these drugs to treat mental illness, then why is there more mental illness
28:42now than ever? Well, again, this goes back to the first question about incentives. When people
28:46make money for being crazy, well, there'll be a whole lot of crazy around, right? You're just paying
28:52for it. So, yeah. So with Jung, I mean, there should be a devotion to measurable progress,
29:00right? You cannot manage what you cannot measure. So there should be robust theories,
29:07rigid experiments, and a relentless focus on doing that which is good and that which works.
29:13And the fact that the psychological profession is not in a complete panic over rising rates of
29:18mental illness, despite the fact that they're getting billions and billions of dollars from
29:22governments around the world. Well, if there was a, I don't know, how harsh should I be?
29:29That was a tough question. Because, you know, blunt feels like harsh to the dissociated.
29:33But there should be a clarion call for, like, what are we doing? We're taking all this money,
29:38and we're not providing the kind of value that we need to. You know, in fact, that which we claim
29:42to cure after we take, we've taken now hundreds of billions of dollars over the decades,
29:48and that which we claim to cure is now worse. So this should provoke an existential crisis
29:53in the profession, if they were genuinely concerned with making people better, as opposed
30:00to getting their hands on government cash, which, you know, seems to be empirically supported,
30:04at least to some degree. All right. How badly, says somebody, or asks somebody, how badly have we
30:09sinned by presuming ancient philosophers were dumber than we are and forgetting crucial lessons from
30:13such wise people and their respective traditions? Well, the ancient philosophers in general believed
30:19in slavery and so on. So I don't know that they were massively wise in these areas or productive
30:26in these areas. So I do think that we should not get rid of ancient customs without having a pretty
30:33robust examination as to why they existed. But all right. Since you don't trust studies,
30:39yet cite them regularly, what's a worthy study and what isn't. So a worthy study generally tends to
30:44be something not funded by the government that just coincidentally happens to fulfill a leftist
30:50agenda, right? That would be a study that I would trust more. A study that goes against prevailing
30:57leftist orthodoxy would be something I would find to be of value. And there are ways of cross-referencing
31:04studies to determine their validity. So for instance, if you look at crime statistics,
31:11you know, crime statistics by ethnicity are very different, as we know, right? So Asians have very
31:18East Asians, not South Asians, but East Asians have very low crime rates. And as you know, Hispanics and
31:25blacks have higher crime rates. So this could just be prejudice in terms of policing. However,
31:30there's a victim impact surveys, where they say to people, have you been the victim of a crime? And
31:36what was the race? And so on. Now, if the victim impact surveys match the arrest records to a large
31:40degree, then you have two cross-references. And it's, it's most likely valid, right? So, all right.
31:47Because people don't report crimes, and then they don't say, oh, I was robbed by a guy and then change
31:53the race or the ethnicity of the person who robbed them, because then that person won't be caught,
31:56right? All right. Question, how do you square your correct belief that nobody really changes,
32:02and you're trying to get your followers to change and embrace your philosophy? Oh, man.
32:07You know, this, this girly estrogen insult to women passive-aggressive crap is really tiresome.
32:16It's a, you, you want people to embrace your philosophy? Come on, man. Would you say to a math
32:22teacher? Well, you're just trying to get people to engage, to engage with them, to accept your
32:27mathematics. A competent physics teacher is not trying to get people to be hypnotized by his
32:34physics. It's like, well, it's true if it's false. It's valid or it's invalid. That's it. It's true if
32:38it's false, valid or invalid, supported by reason and evidence, or self-contradictory and denied by
32:43evidence. So, trying to get your followers to change and embrace your philosophy. I don't have
32:51followers. I don't tell people what to do. I can teach people how to think, both through example
32:58and through theory. I've got a whole book called Art of the Argument, which you can get at
33:01artoftheargument.com. So, yeah, so your followers embrace your philosophy. I don't want people to
33:07embrace anything other than their own robust capacity to process facts and theories through
33:14reason and evidence. So, just, if you have this habit, see, this is the thing that people need to
33:22just understand. I mean, I haven't done this speech in forever in a day, so I suppose it's needed. I
33:30suppose it's time. So, look, bro, if you're annoyed at me, you need to figure out why. This is basic
33:40self-knowledge 101. The unexamined life, according to Socrates, is not worth living because you're
33:46just an NPC. You're barely functioning as a cognitive entity. So, if what I'm doing just
33:53rubs you the wrong way and it bothers you and it frustrates you and it annoys you, well, you have
33:58a choice. A mature choice and a toddler choice, which again is an insult to toddlers because they
34:06can't really choose better. So, if you're annoyed, and the annoyance is coming off, right?
34:13Steph, I've caught you in a contradiction and you're trying to get your followers to change and
34:18embrace your philosophy. That's so passive-aggressive. It's ridiculous, right? So, clearly, you're bothered
34:24by what it is that I'm doing in the world, right? So, you have a choice and this is not particular to
34:30the person who asked this question. This is, in general, good self-knowledge and reason and
34:37evidence, all that kind of juicy, lovely, good stuff. So, if you're bothered by what it is that
34:44I'm doing, please, for the love of God, for the love of all that is holy and unholy in this and
34:49every other world. Ask yourself, why? I'm not threatening you. I'm not aggressing against you.
34:57I'm not taking your money by force or fraud. I'm not cheating you. I'm not lying to you.
35:03I mean, I may make mistakes, but I'm not lying to you. No, I may make mistakes, I do, right? But I'm
35:07not lying to you. I am trying to make rational and empirical cases for virtue, reason, facts,
35:16and evidence in the world because I know that we either resolve our disputes through reason or
35:24we have to use force and I would rather there not be force in the world that my daughter has
35:29to grow up in. I think it would be a big plus if the world were less violent and the only way the
35:34world becomes less violent is through the strict application of philosophy, reason, and evidence.
35:41Like, there's no third option, reason or violence. That's all you get. So, by promoting reason,
35:46I'm trying to diminish violence, and by scorning and being this passive-aggressive, gaseous,
35:54estrogen, pseudo-ghostly viper trying to strike at my nads, you're just being gross and weird.
36:02So, I mean, I can tell you the answer. So, if you're bothered by what it is that I'm doing,
36:07really bothered by it, it's because either you or people in your life are bullshit artists'
36:15sophists. So, the enemy of the philosopher is not the theologian, it is not the ignorant. The enemy
36:22of the philosopher is the sophist. And the sophist is somebody who pretends to have knowledge
36:26that he just doesn't have. So, if you're bothered by what it is that I'm doing, it's because I'm
36:35focusing on reason and evidence, and there are things in your life, and people in your life,
36:40and things in yourself, and yourself, there are things in your life that cannot survive the
36:46scrutiny of reason and evidence. You have counterfeit bills that you know deep down are
36:52counterfeit, you're passing them off as real money, and when I come along with my instantaneous
36:56magic wizard counterfeit detection machine, you get bothered and alarmed because your interests as a
37:03sophist, or the interest of those around you who are also sophists, are threatened by
37:06a philosophical dedication and devotion to reason and evidence. Now, you can't say this directly,
37:13so you just have to be bothered, irritated, and passive-aggressive. Because why would I answer
37:19a philosophical question from somebody who thinks that I can invent philosophy and make it personal
37:27and not have to prove it rationally and empirically? Why would I entertain a question on mathematics
37:34from someone who thinks that I have somehow invented my own mathematics and want people to follow my
37:41math, my reason, my evidence, right? Why would you entertain an answer, or why would you entertain a
37:51question and provide an answer to somebody who said, well, you're a scientist, but you're just trying
37:56to get your followers to change and embrace your science. Like, that's retarded. It's dumb. And I
38:04say it's retarded and dumb, not because I think the guy's retarded and dumb, because it's just so
38:07transparently manipulative. Because it means you don't understand philosophy, you don't understand
38:11reason and evidence. And because you're only pretending to understand philosophy and reason and
38:16evidence by making these petty tween girl estrogen strikes of passive aggression, well, you can get
38:25lost. All right. And of course, the point is that I have a responsibility, since I have a strong
38:31ability to process and communicate reason and evidence and philosophy, I have a responsibility
38:35to do that. I just do. I mean, if you had the magical ability to heal cancer patients by touching
38:43them, I assume you wouldn't spend your whole day staying home and touching yourself, right? Although
38:47I guess that would mean you wouldn't get dick cancer, but you would have a responsibility, you
38:51would have an obligation, right? It's not foundationally moral, but you're kind of a dick if you don't at
38:59least go and help some people you can cure by cancer. Even if only 5% of the people you touched got
39:04cured of cancer, you'd still go and do it, right? So, I don't know. How many people are positively
39:09changing their lives as a result of philosophy? I don't know.
39:13I mean, by this point, I've had close to a billion views and downloads, right? Let's say
39:19people listen to 10 shows, that's 100 million people. Let's say 5% of people radically change
39:27their lives for the better through philosophy, that's 5 million people. If it's 10%, it's 10
39:32million people. If those 10 million people have 2.5 kids, that's 25 million people. Plus
39:40the 10 million, that's 35 million people, that's almost the entire population of Canada.
39:44So, you may not be able to do this kind of math. I mean, literally, I think it's a bit
39:49outdated now, but on my, I think I have 750 million views and downloads, it's kind of been
39:54tough to track post deplatforming because people share stuff without me knowing it. It's all places
39:58I don't know. But, so, it's fairly easy to do these calculations, right? It's fairly easy to do
40:07these calculations. Now, of the 100 million people who've listened to my show over the last 20 years,
40:13well, how many people have, I said, radically changed their life? Maybe 5 or 10%. But let's say
40:18that 50% of people have gotten significant benefit out of philosophy. They've got some problem solved,
40:24right? They've listened to conversations where I promote self-knowledge and they've worked with
40:28self-adapted knowledge. They've gone to good therapists, which I recommend on a constant basis
40:32and so on, right? Okay? So, that's 50 million people. That's 50 million people, bro. To which
40:39I would ask, what would you, what have you done? Purpose of life. Question is, what is the purpose of
40:45life? I did a whole show recently, just this last couple of days called The Meaning of Life. You can
40:49find this at fdrpodcast.com. The purpose of life is to thwart evil and promote virtue. All
40:54right. Have you ever, I simply can't remember, had a chat with Sargon or would you be open for a
40:59long-form chat with Sargon on Philosophy Fella? Yeah, I mean, maybe. Honestly, I think I provide
41:04so much value and I think the maximum value that I do provide is in call-in shows, live streams,
41:10and these kinds of solo shows where I'm answering questions. I'm fine to do conversations with people,
41:16but, and I think I did do a show with him once before, so it wouldn't be the end of the world,
41:20but anyway, I think he might have trouble because he's in England, right?
41:23Now, somebody says, I believe there is value to be found in suffering. Assuming this is true,
41:28how do we balance the necessity of overcoming adversity against the desire to avoid becoming
41:33callous? I don't understand the question. You're going to need to reframe it. So we've got suffering,
41:39overcoming adversity, and avoiding becoming callous. So let's see here. I'm going to have to aim at the
41:46foggy target here because this is not very precisely done, which is fine. But so you do have
41:54to overcome excessive empathy in order to help people. Because when you say to people you're
42:04doing something wrong, you've gained weight, the song you sang was really bad, you know, when you say
42:10to people these things, it upsets them, right? It upsets them. And if you're not willing to upset
42:17people, you can't tell them the truth, because the truth often will upset people, because most people
42:22go through their lives on this foggy, weird, ghost horse chariots of delusions. And the longer they hold
42:30on to those delusions, the more brutal the truth is, if and when it finally emerges. So yeah,
42:36you do have to tell people the truth. I mean, at least as you see it. And they will get upset with
42:43you, right? So I mean, you've heard these in my recent X spaces where people come in with their
42:49theories. You know, there was a guy who called in yesterday, who was saying all about how the United
42:56States government has all these assets. And so we had a conversation about whether these assets could
43:02be sold. Now, of course, some government stuff can be sold, but a lot of it would face significant
43:06legal challenges in being sold. So somebody had a theory, which had not been thought through
43:13particularly well. And listen, this is no negative. So I just happened to have been involved in corporate
43:17sales a couple of times. And I have a pretty good understanding of, you know, the differences
43:22between liquid and illiquid assets, between goodwill and tangibility, and so on, right? These are just
43:27things that I have had some experience with. So it's no negative. It's just that, or the woman who
43:32called in the other night, I think it was Friday night, and was talking about structure versus chaos,
43:37and trying to sort of understand what that means. Stuff that feels true, but doesn't have a rigorous
43:43basis for believing that it is true. So you do have to become somewhat callous, right? To know when to
43:53switch from significant enthusiasm for when little kids do stuff, to less enthusiasm when they get
44:02older, right? So, you know, the first time your kid draws a little painting, or draws a little
44:07painting, it makes a little painting with the crayons and so on with, you know, the sun and the
44:12people, and it's a mix of two and three dimensions. Like I remember being in kindergarten and doing war
44:17planes. And of course, the war planes, it was kind of like Egyptian thing, where they have the
44:21profile, but the eyes are looking at you. So we had the war planes, and then the wings went up and
44:27down, like a sunfish, rather than from side to side, because we didn't really get, I didn't really
44:32get that perspective as yet, right? So, so you say, yay, great picture, I love the picture, blah, blah,
44:37blah. But then if they want to become an artist, you have to criticize them. So, so improvement is
44:44suffering, to some degree. All right, how does believing that we live in a simulation change how you
44:48should live your life versus common alternative beliefs? We do not live in a simulation. And the
44:54very brief proof of that is that it's a problem of turtles all the way down, right? So it's a problem
44:58of infinite regression. So if we live in a simulation, then there's some external beast, or being, or God,
45:04or devil that created that simulation, which means they exist in a non-simulation. So if there are these
45:13robots that have programmed us to live in this matrix so that they can take our energy through
45:19batteries, well, then those robots live in the real world, and we live in a simulation. So if we
45:27accept that there are beings out there that don't live in simulations, then we have no reason to say
45:33that we live in a simulation, because we've already accepted that there are beings that live outside of
45:36simulations. There is no disproof for living in a simulation, so Occam's Razor would be, since you
45:43can't disprove, sorry, since you can't prove or disprove the idea that we live in a simulation,
45:50even though we do have simulations such as VR, which are different from the world that we live in,
45:57and we can tell that and check that and so on, right? Because the laws of physics are whatever the
46:01programmers decide to make, and so on, right? Like the end of Half-Life Alex is like a fun,
46:06house mirror of impossible physics. It's kind of trippy, actually. Probably the closest thing to
46:11my experience of drugs I'll ever have. So we know the difference between a simulation such as VR and
46:15what goes on in the real world. We know the difference between dreams and the waking world,
46:19and the waking world is perfectly uniform and consistent and objective and rational in terms of
46:24the physics and behavior of matter and energy. So yeah, there is no reason to believe in any way,
46:31shape, or form. In fact, Occam's Razor demands that we accept that we do not live
46:36in a simulation. So I don't even toy with these ideas. It's really, really toxic.
46:42Okay, so somebody else asked, can the ability to express intellectual humility and admit your
46:47ignorance be taught to anyone, or is it the domain of a special type of person, and if so, who?
46:51Well, if you align yourself to the goal and purpose of achieving truth, no matter what,
46:58then you will have humility. Well, it's funny, because you will have humility,
47:01and you will have certainty. And certainly, certainty is always called manipulation by
47:07manipulators. Certainty is always called arrogance by people who want to bully you. So humility,
47:15for instance, I did not know the true source of rational ethics, even though I had studied philosophy
47:23for 20 years. And so in my 30s, let's say early, in my early 40s, I began to work on my theory of
47:37universally preferable behavior. So I had studied it, I'd never been quite satisfied, but the answers
47:43provided, they weren't airtight, and I need things to be airtight. I need things to be beyond dispute,
47:49which is why UPB is beyond dispute. So, oh, sorry, I forgot to mention, for more on the simulation
47:56theory, www.essentialphilosophy.com. It's free, the book is free, you should listen to it. So,
48:03because I was humble and honest about my lack of knowledge or certainty about foundational philosophical
48:13concepts, like I remember reading, I think it was in the Psychology of Self-Esteem, Nathaniel Brandon was
48:18talking about free will, and I was like, oh, here's the answer. I got huge respect for Nathaniel
48:22Brandon in the past. And so, because I had humility and accepted that I did not have a proof of rational
48:32ethics, I worked on a proof of rational ethics, which has now given me certainty. And certainty
48:38is really annoying to people who want to bully, manipulate, and control you. Because bullies,
48:44manipulators, and controllers rely on your uncertainty and your greed, and so on. And so, people are
48:51constantly annoyed by trying to bully, manipulate, and control me, and I have certainty. Because, you
48:56know, what is free will, right? Like, I'll have really good answers to that, right? What is morality?
49:01What is truth? What is goodness? What is virtue? I have good answers to this. And, you know, a pioneer in
49:06that, right? So, we need to hammer people to some degree. I mean, we need to encourage people to pursue
49:14truth. But we also need the social mechanism of hammering people who are sophists, right? And you
49:21can hear me doing this on my live streams, right? When I'm trying to have a conversation with someone,
49:26and they're not listening, I'm going to point out, that's pretty freaking rude. And if you don't even know
49:32that you should listen to someone when you're debating with them, why would I listen to you
49:37about ethics at all? Would you accept lessons on etiquette from a guy who showed up to a formal
49:43ball wearing no pants or underwear? No, you wouldn't, of course, right? Just don't instruct me on the big
49:50things if you can't even deal with the little things. Don't try and instruct me on virtue if you
49:56yourself can't even listen and be polite in a conversation, right? So, why do people concern themselves
50:02with philosophical inquiries at all, mostly to look smart and to create uncertainty in others
50:06and feel dominant? Do you think sacrificing authenticity for the sake of being social
50:11and avoiding conflict that feels unnecessary is valid or cowardice? I don't hide from the people
50:17around me. I don't want to. I have no interest in it. And I just want people around me who know me for
50:22who I am. And I don't, in particular, want to deal with anything else. When is it the right time to
50:28stop being strategic and stand for your principles? Well, I think you should pursue the goal of maximum
50:33honesty and truth. Now, if being 100% honest and truthful is going to get you thrown in prison
50:39or killed or ostracized or whatever it is, right, then you should probably pull back a little so that
50:45you can do the maximum, right? Like, you know, if you're exercising and let's say you want to be a
50:49bodybuilder, you do the maximum exercise before you injure yourself, right? That way you're going to get
50:53the strongest. If you injure yourself, it doesn't work, right? All right. Somebody else writes,
50:57huge fan of yours. Thank you, friend. My wife and I would listen to your podcast,
51:00helping individuals one-on-one regularly led to many breakthroughs, including leading us to have
51:05having a bunch of kids with full confidence. I still can't get on board with your position on
51:09how difficult it is to have kids. I don't understand that. I keep telling people that
51:12having kids is a whole lot easier than you think. So I'm not sure what you mean by that,
51:16but I'm certainly happy to hear more if you could clarify. Next question, if consequentialism
51:20shouldn't be used to judge morals, hence, is not useful for many of our daily decisions that are
51:26often moral. What? If consequentialism shouldn't be used to judge morals, hence, is not useful for
51:34many of our daily decisions that are often moral, what is the alternative? Do we not judge most things
51:38on cause and effect? So yeah, consequentialism is just mysticism because nobody knows the long-run
51:44effects of moral decisions. You don't. You don't. I mean, nobody who was an advocate for the end of
51:53slavery said, well, you know, when we end slavery, we're going to enter into a new world of technological
51:59and capital formation, technological innovation and advancement in humanity that will dwarf in 10
52:07years what's been done in the last 10,000. Like, nobody made that decision, right? Nobody had that
52:12perspective. You just did it because it was the right thing. Consequentialism is mysticism because
52:15nobody knows the future and you can make up whatever you want, right? So you can say, well,
52:20you know, if we, the consequences of privatizing healthcare will be that people will die in the
52:27streets, right? Or, well, the consequence of privatizing healthcare will that people will
52:31start to lead more healthy lives and will be, have an industry much more interested in the prevention
52:37of disease rather than the cure, right? Because the last thing you want is a medical system that
52:41makes money off cure, not prevention, right? So you can make up both scenarios. Now, is it true
52:46that some people might die if you privatize healthcare? It's true. Some people might die
52:50if you privatize healthcare. I think if you care about that, then you should alleviate that problem
52:55by giving to charity and so on. But yeah, it's true that some people might die, but it's true that
53:00people are dying because we have socialized healthcare, right? So if you focus on the benefits and
53:05not the costs or the costs, but not the benefits, you can program yourself to believe any other,
53:09any, you know, pile of stegosaurus awful crap. All right. Somebody says, I have one, a question.
53:17Do you ever think about the dominance of aesthetic even in domains where most people would instinctively
53:22say reason and logic prevail? Yes. So you do have to have some proof of your theories if you're going
53:29to lecture others, right? So if you say, I have a foolproof way to lose weight and get abs, you should
53:33be relatively slender and have abs, right? If I'm going to say reason equals virtue equals happiness,
53:38then I should have, you know, some happiness in my life and some rationality and so on, right?
53:42And, and, you know, this is, this is back to this pretty ferocious thing that happens on X,
53:46right? When people tell me, Steph, you're not very good at social media. Steph, you're not very good
53:52at social media, man. And I'm like, well, you have 82 followers. I have 425,000 followers or whatever,
53:58right? And I'm regularly pruning followers and blocking people who are, you know, douchebags and so on,
54:02right? So, so if you're going to tell me how to be good on social media, I expect you to have some
54:08proof. And then people say, well, I'm not here to gain followers. It's like, well, then don't tell
54:12me how to be successful if your goal is not to be successful, right? Right? If you, if you tell me,
54:17Steph, you, you don't exercise enough and you eat poorly and you look blobby and out of shape,
54:23right? And then you're 400 pounds, I'm just not going to listen to you. I'm not going to listen,
54:31especially if you say, Steph, you should switch your diet out for this, this, and this. And then
54:35I look at your profile and you're 400 pounds. I'm just not going to listen to you. I'm not going to
54:39evaluate because we're mortal, man. You have to make decisions. You have to make decisions. Now,
54:45it could be the guy who's got leprosy based pizza skin has a fantastic way of getting rid of acne.
54:53It could be, but you're not going to bother because life is short and you have to make
54:56decisions on a relatively abrupt basis. Now, of course, if someone were to say, Steph,
55:01I recognize I don't have many followers, so it might seem kind of silly for me to lecture you
55:05on how to be successful on social media, but here's blah, blah, blah. And here's why. Okay.
55:09That's one thing. But if people just lecture me without even noticing, like if somebody lectures me
55:13on how to fix my diet and that person is 400 pounds and doesn't even reference that fact,
55:18then they're kind of crazy. And I don't want to interact with them. Like I don't,
55:22I don't want to interact with people who are 400 pounds who can lecture me on how to be trim,
55:26slim, and healthy. I mean, it gets deranged, right? So anyway. All right. Hi, Steph. My wife
55:33mentioned this to me. What do you think? What incentive do people who don't have kids have to
55:38improve themselves? They don't have anyone to mentor, to model behavior, to educate. Do you think
55:42this is contributing to the current general social dysfunction? Yeah, for sure. I mean, if you can
55:46convince people to not have kids, you take away their long-term planning, right? But this is the
55:50John Maynard Keynes thing, right? John Maynard Keynes was a famous socialist or semi-socialist
55:54economist who, when he was asked about deficits and was said, well, what about in the long run?
55:58And he just snapped, well, in the long run, we're all dead. Now he was gay and didn't have any kids.
56:02Did this have an effect on things? Sure. I mean, almost undoubtedly. I do a lot of what I do because
56:11I want the world to be a better place, or at least not a worse place, or at least not a much worse
56:17place for my daughter when she goes out into the world, which is, you know, coming up. So yeah,
56:22you care about the future. When you have kids, you care more about the future. All right. What's the
56:28meaning of life in your opinion? Well, you shouldn't ask for my opinion. So again, I just did a whole
56:32show called The Meaning of Life. Explain Heidegger, one sentence. No, you didn't say the magic word.
56:38It's funny, you know, when people give me orders, I just ignore them, honestly. Explain Heidegger,
56:43one sentence. Like, you're not signing my paycheck. I don't have to pass your class.
56:48So you can take a long walk off a short pier, as they say. You know, you can ask people nicely,
56:54and so on, right? Right. Grand Inquisitor, I think I'll stop here. I've got some more questions to
56:59go, but it's been a long old chilly chat. I did a show this morning. So I do appreciate that.
57:04Freedomain.com slash donate to help out the show. Really would appreciate it. Just do it now. You know,
57:07it's the right thing to do. Freedomain.com slash donate. And lots of love from up here,
57:11my friends. I'll talk to you soon. Bye.
Be the first to comment