The content explores the relationship between desire, sacrifice, and personal responsibility, drawing parallels between philosophical concepts like existentialism and the human drive for self-improvement and meaning, while also critiquing societal notions of equity and the need for a modern transition to manhood.
Mind Map
クリックして展開
クリックしてインタラクティブなマインドマップを確認
a reference to the idea that if you ask
for something it will be given to you,
right? It was a very strange idea, but I
like that idea a lot and I believe my in
my experience that has been true. If it
was that I wanted what I was asking for
because that's the real issue, right?
Because the question is if you want
something, what does it mean to want it?
And what it means is to sacrifice
whatever is necessary to get it because
otherwise you don't want it. And so
there's an equation here, and I'm not
claiming its ultimate accuracy, but the
equation is something like you don't
want it unless you're willing to
sacrifice for it. And if you don't want
it, you're not going to get it because
you're scattered,
but if you do want it and you make the
proper sacrifices, then God only knows
what might happen. And that's a see one
of the things I really like about the
existential philosophers [snorts] is
their emphasis on personal
responsibility. You know that many of
them had an emphasis on the role that
people had in shaping their own destiny.
The exist for the existentialists and I
think this was a consequence of the
religious substructure of of
philosophical thinking. It was
self-evident that life was tragic and
and bitter, but and then fair enough,
but that isn't where it ended. The the
next issue was well, there are better
and ways better and worse ways of
dealing with that. And the better way of
dealing with the fact that life is
tragic and bitter is to
posit the self you could be and live
authentically in relationship to that.
And then [snorts] the next issue and
some this is something Kirkagard talked
about particularly when he talked about
the necessity of being a knight of faith
is that the thing is and this is I think
part of the life part of life that's the
intractable adventure. No one can take
the adventure of life away from you.
That that's they can't do it with good
advice, for example, because no one can
demonstrate to you that if you
straighten yourself out and aim at what
you want and make the proper sacrifices
that your life will turn out in the
manner that you might want it to turn
out. It isn't in anyone else's purview
to make that judgment. The only person
that can possibly figure that out is
you. It's something that can't be stolen
from you. I would say it's your destiny.
It's a destiny that cannot be stolen
from you. And you can forego it. You can
say, "Well, I'm not willing to put in
the effort because what if I fail?"
Well, first of all, if you don't put in
the effort, you will fail because life
is hard and it it takes everything out
of you to do it properly. So, you will
fail. And if you make the proper
sacrifices, you might fail. That's why I
like the ambiguity in the story of Cain
and Abel, because we're never really
told why God rejects Cain's offerings.
There's hints that Cain maybe isn't
doing as good a job as he should and he
certainly gets bitter about it, but
there's no smoking pistol. It doesn't
say, "Well, Cain is a bad guy and he
made terrible sacrifices, so God
rejected him." You never know. Cain
might have been working pretty damn hard
and things still didn't work out for
him. And I think that ambiguity is
appropriate in the story because that
ambigu ambiguity is in life. You you'd
you'd be a fool to say that everything
always works out for everyone if they
just do things right. I mean, I think
that's a very that's a very careless
thing to say given how much tragedy and
catastrophe there is in the world and
how much of it seems to be undeserved.
But that still has very little bearing,
I think, on on on your own individual
adventure and the necessity for the
necessity for opening the door to who
you could be and and the necessity to do
that seriously. And I do believe and and
I think I think that's why this most
impossible of verses, you know, knock
and the door will open. Why that's
believable is that I have never met anyone
anyone
who couldn't hypothesize
hypothesize
a better them in some manner.
All they had to do is ask. It's like,
well, how could you be better? Think,
well, here's three ways. It's like it's
no problem, right? You can think about
that no time flat. It's small ways, but
you can almost always at least think of
something stupid that you're doing that
you could quit. And so that means that
you do have this, it's a strange thing
in people that we have this built-in
capacity to posit a higher self and then
to move towards it. And maybe maybe
[snorts] that's part of where the
religious instinct really came from.
Speaking like really reductionistically,
like as a materialist, as an
evolutionary psychologist, we we have
this notion of the transcendent ideal,
right? that that seems to be pervasive
across cultures. Well, maybe that's the
ultimate manifestation of the human
proclivity to be able to posit an ideal
at all and to move forward. You posit an
ideal. Okay, that you need that to move
forward. Well, if you can posit an
ideal, why can't you posit the ultimate
ideal? Well, if you can, then instantly
you've got a religious sensibility
instantly. And so maybe that's the
because I'm puzzled like as a biologist,
what the hell is the basis of the
religious instinct? Because the idea
that it's mere superstition, like we can
just dispense with that. That's wrong.
It's a human universal. You can evoke
religious experiences all sorts of ways.
So, we're not going to play that game.
There's there's some reason that that
instinct exists. And this the first
thing to do with it is to try to reduce
it to something that's biological and
leave it at that, not to mess with the
metaphysics, but it certainly could be
the case that it's the ultimate
extension of our capacity to posit an
ideal. And we also might say, well,
that's good enough because
well, the ideal moves you forward. It
fills your life with meaning. There's no
doubt about that because it is in the
movement towards your ideal that life's
meaning is to be attained.
And then the question is, well, how much
meaning is there in moving forward
towards an ultimate ideal? Well, more
meaning even though it's more difficult.
How much? Well, [snorts]
that's the open question. the the anti-hero
anti-hero NZ
NZ
NZ made the proposition that he said
that morality is cowardice. Now that's
not exactly what he said. what he or
what he said in a more elaborated form
is that very frequently people are
afraid to do things and they're often
things that other people regard as bad
and because they don't want to admit to
themselves that the reason they won't do
those things that are regarded as bad is
because they're cowardly they pretend
that it's because they're moral. And so
often conventional morality is a
consequence of conventional cowardice.
And the problem with conventional
cowardice is that it's not sufficient to
solve serious problems. And so, for
example, it's necessary for a man and
perhaps for a woman as well to become a
bit of a monster or even a lot of a
monster in order to move through life
successfully. And that doesn't mean
precisely that you have to act out being
a monster, but it means that you need to
be able to be a monster when the
circumstances demand it. And so the
reason that anti-heroes like Walter
White, for example, are so popular in
American culture is because the criminal
Walter White was by no obvious
was in no obvious way less moral than
the conventional and cowardly Walter
White. Now, you might say he went from
one extreme to another, which he did.
But it's also the case that in order to
expand past the domains of conventional morality/cowardice
morality/cowardice
from the Nietian perspective, it's
necessary to incorporate elements of the
shadow. And that's in some sense what
Nze meant when he said that we need to
go beyond good and evil. And it's
certainly what Jung meant when he said
that it's necessary for someone who
wants to burst forth from the
potentially pathological conine confines
of their conventional persona into the
the journey towards individuation and
and the development of the self was that
the the shadow had to be incorporated.
And that means often in part the
capacity for aggression, um the capacity
for sexual expression, the capacity to
divi defy convention, the capacity to
take your own road. That's all
predicated on the development of an
inner relationship with the monster. And
it's the same idea that's expressed in
Harry Potter. Harry Potter is actually
able to combat Voldemort who's
essentially Satan for all intents and
purposes because he has a piece of evil
lodged firmly within him and it's also
what makes him a a redeeming rule
breaker. Right? So so the anti-hero is
the shadow roughly speaking and the
shadow is the thing that the persona
needs to incorporate to become the hero.
Could you please tell the difference
between equity and equality? And why is
equity dangerous? Well, it's not
actually equity and equality. It's
equity and equality of opportunity.
Well, you know, it's a truism, I think,
that's agreed upon by liberals and
conservatives alike. that the interests
of individuals and society are best
served by opening the door to the
participation of all who are qualified
regardless of their a of attributes in
domains that have nothing to do with the
qualifications for the position. So
imagine that as a worker um and that
would include managers, executives, etc.
As as a worker, you have a function like
a tool. You're a tool and and I wouldn't
you know I wouldn't be too down on that.
It's it's good to be good for something
and um
we it's in society's best interest that
those who are able to be the most
efficient tools are the ones that are
placed in the position. And so you want
to open up the competitive landscape to
all players, not least so that society
can most effectively exploit the people
who are most productive. Now it also has
the side benefit of allowing individuals
to utilize their talents and to take
their place in the social world. But
people are very diverse in their
abilities like incredibly diverse in
their abilities. And that's mostly
evidenced for example in the domain of
intelligence you know because well the
the the range that includes the majority
of people runs from an IQ of about 85 or
let's say 70 to an IQ of 130. Although
there's plenty of people who are outside
those domains. It's like at 70 you're
pretty intellectually impaired, right?
You're not going to graduate from high
school with an IQ of 70 and except under
very very extreme circumstances with an
IQ of 83, which is about 10% of the
population. 85 is 15%. You're going to
have a hard time reading well enough to
follow instructions, you know, and with
an IQ of 115, you're going to do pretty
well at a a sort of mid-level community
college. And so an IQ of 145 is going to
prepare you for like high success in
complex domains say like law or or
managerial positions where the
environment is transforming very
radically. There is immense differences
between people in their cognitive
ability and so and in their
conscientiousness and in their negative
emotionality and in all and in their
energy levels and all and in their
creativity and all sorts of traits. And
because of that that individual
diversity, there's no reason to assume
that there is going to be equality of
outcome. And that's what equity is for.
You don't want to uh organize your
society such that every single category
of outcome has exactly proportional
representation from every single
possible category of person because that isn't
isn't
you. You have to use so much social
force in order to make that occur that
the consequences, the negative
consequences will far outweigh the
benefits. It's better to open up the
marketplace to allow a very large range
of hierarchies to emerge
and then to let people compete for their
position to compete and cooperate for
their own positions. And the other
problem with equity is like who the hell
is going to make the who's going to
decide which groups are going to be
categorized? You want to here's an
example for you. Let's imagine you
stratified the population by IQ which
which we do by the way although although
we don't do it as evidently and
obviously as we do say by sex or perhaps
even by race. Are would you actually
recommend that an equal number of people
be drawn from every category of IQ to be
surgeons? I mean that's palpably absurd.
So there's too much social engineering
required to produce equity of outcome.
Now having said that as well um the the
the historical data on equity are
absolutely clear. The societies that
have tried to aim at equity are the
terrible communistic societies of the
20th century and they were so goddamn
mis so unbelievably
um murderous and and counterproductive
that it beggars the imagination. And so
I can't even believe we have a
conversation about equity because it's
such a pathological idea. It's it's
completely invalidated by the historical
data. So, do you think that boys in our
society are in need of a concrete
transition to manhood like a modern-day
initiation ritual? It probably doesn't
matter whether they're in need of it.
They're not going to get it because you
can't really just invent something like
that, right? It has to be it's something
that evolves over a very long period of
time. I do think that what they need and
I've really observed this interestingly
enough in the response that young men
have had to my public talks and probably
on YouTube as well with regards to what
I've been saying because you know young
people have been fed this pabum since
the 1960s that the pathway to happiness
and freedom in life first of all that
those are the things that you're really
supposed to be after especially
happiness and that they're to be found
in in like rights and untrabled freedom
and that's complete uh that's completely
one-sided because for every right there
is a corresponding responsibility and
freedom can be chaos just as much as it
can be um you know blissful lack of
responsibility and the ability to make
hedonic choices one after another. Now
I've been speaking to young men in
particular and they're the ones who keep
coming to my talks by the way about
truth in action and responsibility and
like they're eating that up. It's
they're I can see their eyes light up
which is so cool. I I've been talking to
the people who ran for the Conservative
leadership in Canada um about the fact
that when I go talk to male audiences,
especially young men, that they're
unbelievably enthralled by any
discussion of genuine responsibility and
truth. And so the conservatives have
something to offer young men. And I
would say that's roughly akin to an
initiation. You know, the idea is that
at some point you have to tell young
men, look, grow the hell up, take on
some responsibility, straighten yourself
out, uh, act honestly, make yourself
into an admirable and powerful
character, not because you're um
domesticated like a bloody puppy or a
sheep, but because that's the way to
genuine authority and influence and and
the capacity to do great good in the
world. And that's like an exciting call
to adventure. And I think that that's a modern
modern
sophisticated intellectual equivalent to
something like an initiation ritual. And
so I hope to be like promoting that
message more and more. I I was speaking
to member of uh like one of the leaders
of the indigenous communities in Canada
today about maybe getting the high
school version of the future authoring
program. That future authoring program,
I've talked about that a bit before on
Patreon. You know, it's a program at
self-authoring.com that enables people
to generate a vision for their lives and
also to uh and to detail out that vision
and make a plan of it. I think most of
you Patreon subscribers have got links
to that already and usernames and
passwords and has a really remarkably
positive effect on young men who are
disenfranchised who tend to be ethnic
minorities and so initiating them into
the idea that they need to take control
of their own destiny and that that's the
[music] proper pathway to authority and
stature and and not self-esteem but
self-respect which is a completely
different thing I think is [music] a
reasonable modern equivalent to
initiation ritual. Did I fail any
classes in university? I had to retake
stats. I wasn't good at stats. I I got
it eventually. Um I needed to know
well I'm no mathematical genius. We can
start with that. But I also needed to
know I couldn't take the assumptions on
faith which was really quite
problematic. And so and I couldn't just
memorize, you know, I had to understand.
And that didn't work out so well for
stats. And I also didn't understand at
that time that I had to keep up with it
sort of rigorously. But I got to be a
pretty decent statistician. At least I
understand the statistics now. So yeah,
I didn't do very well in statistics. But
most of my grades otherwise were in my
my grades in high school except for
grade 10 when I bet my dad that I could
get straight 80s and I think got exactly
that. Uh my grades in junior high and
high school were pretty dismal because I
absolutely detested school partly for my
own reasons you know because of my own
problems but and immaturity but also
because I found it painfully
unchallenging let's say um but in
university college and university I got
very good grades and which was a good
thing because I would have never got
into clinical graduate school without
that. So yeah, it's your responsibility
to get educated at university and sort
of despite the university, we could we
could say that um there are great books.
You can find out what they are and you
can read them and you know what the
university does and society is offer you
an identity for four years. You're a
student. You're a university student.
And so that's a credible identity and it
offers you a lot of freedom. And so you
might say you might have to get educated
despite your courses. And you know, you
think, well, that's a bad deal because
the courses should be educating you.
It's like, well, you got to look at it
from a more realistic perspective. You
can't expect the university to be a
perfect institution anymore than you're
a perfect person. And at least it offers
you an identity to shield yourself with
while you're undergoing the difficult
process of educating yourself. And so I
would say um you know um
um
take responsibility for education. Find
professors that you respect and who's
who and who who who who
challenge you and and don't and don't
fall prey to the to the to the cynical
attitude that you know you take the
course for the grade or that you should
write what the professor wants to hear.
I mean, you have to be a real corrupt
professor before you'll mark a student
for for producing an opinion contrary to
yours that's high quality. I mean, even
the more corrupt professors, even in the
more corrupt disciplines, I think are
fairly rarely guilty of that sort of
thing. So, um, you can figure out what
the great books are, you know, in half
an hour, you could make a list of 50
great books. I have one on my website.
You could read all those. You know,
that'd take you about two years probably
to really do a proper job of it. You
read the great classics, scientific and
literary, historical, all of that.
You'll get educated and then you'll be
sharp and coherent and articulate and
powerful and able to formulate arguments
and able to negotiate and able to
formulate problems and solve them. And
you know that's exactly what you should
be doing when you get educated. It has
tremendous tremendous economic value and
that includes education in the
humanities. So, well, if you're if
you're going to be a police officer, you
should be very emotionally stable. So,
low in neuroticism and very high in conscientiousness.
