 All right, we are back with philosopher Glick Salamieri, we're talking about self-interest. And one more thing I wanted to, before we move on, I want to talk about with regards to altruism. And that is the way people use it to sacrifice. And the reason this keeps coming back is, I mean, it's obvious because people use it in all kinds of mixed ways. But I've noticed Jordan Peterson is promoting the confusion about the term by using sacrifice to denote any delayed gratification. So for him, any delayed gratification equals the sacrifice, but also what Jesus did is the sacrifice, right? So he is creating this package deal of both of those things. And I see it all over the place. I mean, he had all the time of people confusing these two things. Talk a little bit about that, and again, about the kind of the cognitive confusion that creates about one's ability to think properly about self-interest, for example, about investing in the future. Yeah, that's a good point. I mean, Jesus is a little bit of a hard case because he's magic, and it's not clear to me whether he's supposed to know what's going to happen, that he's going to not really die, but fly away. But if we take Jesus at face value. I always say, you know, he's suffering and all this, and people say, no, no, he's God. I said, but if he's God, then it doesn't mean anything. And he can't get out of that loop of it's a very confusing example. But if you take Jesus as a guy who's on the cross thinking, you know, why have you forsaken me, God? And you take someone like Mother Teresa as a kind of this worldly example of something like Jesus, right? Then this is just a very different thing from somebody who, you know, buys Bitcoin because he rightly or wrongly thinks it's going to go up or buy something that he's got more reasons. Gives up nice dinners for a year to start a business or, you know, or to raise his child or whatever it is. Or just buys the iPhone, right? Gives a thousand dollars and, you know, gets the iPhone 10. I've got a 10. No, I'm jealous. You don't have the 10. You're the big Apple fan. So puts down a thousand dollars to buy the iPhone 10, right? Nobody calls that a sacrifice. Or if someone does, right, it's because they're using it as a gateway to get to really that's like what Jesus did. But if you really believe in sacrifice, if you believe in what Christianity preaches under the heading of sacrifice, at least what most Christian preachers do, certainly if you believe in what modern ethicists believe when they say, you know, there's some conflict between self-interest and being really moral. Then you have to make a distinction between doing what's a simple case of making a choice of something you want more rather than something you want less, where there's some time element involved often. And a case of giving up something you want more because of something that you don't personally want, that doesn't feel like it's for you, but which you think trumps you, trumps what's important for you. And it's that concept that I think is the concept of a sacrifice. And if you don't have that concept, then I don't think you have the concept of a sacrifice. I don't think you could understand what's meant to be noble about what Jesus did or what Mother Teresa did to people who really think it's noble. And if you're somebody who does claim that those things are noble and not just that they're noble, but they're the kind of epitome of nobility, right? Not just here's one nice thing. Then I think what you're doing is dishonest. You're trying to make that thing like standard cases of having integrity or even simpler than having integrity because maybe someone thinks integrity is a sacrifice because they think it's like what Jesus did. But simple cases of just, you know, having delaying, having the one marshmallow now so you could have two later in that test they give to the little kids to test whether they can, you know, hold off a media gratification. If you're thinking of that as a sacrifice, you're running things together. And I don't think it's what even you really mean by sacrifice. When you're talking about other cases. But it makes it so difficult because it's so ingrained in our language and on our concepts. I mean, think about sacrifice, fly in baseball, right? Or he sacrificed the shot to pass it. Or, you know, it's so part of the way people use the term that most people don't think, who don't think about morality are going to be confused by it because it's just used in all these different ways that that can't really integrate, but people hold somehow in their in their minds. I mean, if somebody wants to rob the term of any meaning and use it in a very loose metaphorical sense and say those things are sacrifices, I don't think it's good because I think we need a term for real sacrifices. And I think moralists who are serious about sacrifice would agree with that. But if they want to do that, then they need some other term for those things. And you could say there are two meanings to sacrifice. And in some senses, we use it this way and some kids to use it that way. But there's a difference between giving up your life, giving up what's important to you because there's something you view as more important than your own life and your personal values. And the thing that everybody does all the time, who that all thoughtful, which is thinking of two things that are appealing, which one is more appealing, especially long term, especially if you think in terms of not just what appeals to you in the instant, but you think causally about what will result in what and then decide that when I see this thing in context of its causes and effects, this one is the one that I find more appealing, even though if I drop or lose that context, the other one might seem more appealing. Yeah, no, it surprises me that people who seem to be semi-good thinkers cannot make these differentiations. And again, there's a certain fuzziness at the end of the day about their thinking when it comes to, particularly when it comes to moral issues. You know, this is harder with religious religious people because part of what religion does is and I think intentionally does is distort this. So it makes the long term heaven. And it makes religion is an anti-causal way of thinking, right? Things happen because God wants them to not because they have actual causes. And if they have actual causes in this world, they're the way God does what he does, even though that's incoherent because you only have ways to do things if you have a limit to your power. If you were omnipotent, you wouldn't need a way to do something. It would just happen when you wanted it. But religion is a kind of anti-causal way of thinking and that substitutes for thinking causally. And so on the one hand, it it gets you against thinking of the actual causes and effects of your actions. And on the other hand, it substitutes for that thinking of some fantasy effects that will have in the distant, non-real future after your death or whatever. And if you buy into that, then you can think of or counterfeit to yourself, thinking that what you're doing is getting for yourself a good life in the afterlife or contributing to some unintelligible purpose that God has or whatever other thing you might be doing, in which case none of these causal notions, you can't say what's good or bad long term.