 And, you know, some of you might know, we're going to talk about Jordan Peterson today and some of you might have views and opinions about Jordan Peterson that are maybe even more informed than I than mine. So, to the extent that you guys want to have a conversation feel free you can also call in which is even better. I'll try to monitor the chats but if you want to call in with comments I'd appreciate that. 3-4-7-3-2-4-3-0-7-5, 3-4-7-3-2-4-3-0-7-5, particularly those of you who've kept track of Jordan Peterson, who've watched some of his videos. And if those of you who are, particularly those of you who are more knowledgeable about philosophy maybe than I am, because, you know, we'll get to it. I think there's a lot of interesting things to talk about. And I have to say I feel a little, I don't know, I feel a little, I won't say unprepared because I'm not sure I could ever be prepared for this topic. But, you know, this is not my issue so I feel about like I'm a little above this above my grade, my pay grade in terms of dealing with Peterson. And so let me just give you quickly a quick assessment of, quick assessment why I think that. I mean, I think he's an amazing thinker. I think he is smart. I think he knows a lot of stuff, particularly in psychology. But he's also incredibly well read in philosophy. He seems very well read in literature, particularly a certain type of literature. He's very knowledgeable about religion and has very interesting things to say about religion and don't worry, I've not turned religious. I found it interesting. Yesterday I did a show about universal basic income, and I'm explaining what it is and I'm presenting the advantages and disadvantages. And some objectivists were freaking out because they thought, I guess I'd become a socialist because I was I was presenting the advantages objectively and I was presenting. It was kind of funny. That's what you're supposed to do. A good educator presents the facts. Anyway, I find Jordan Peterson fascinating and interesting and obviously courageous. We'll get into that. And I just think he has an interesting mind and he has interesting ideas. And even when I disagree with him, he comes at things with an approach that I'm not used to. Now, again, maybe you guys know more, are more familiar with maybe if you're in psychology, you're very familiar with. But to me, you know, I listen to his stuff online and I'm blown away by a lot of it and we'll get into that. Now, let's start with just observing why it is that Jordan Peterson has become such a phenomena and how did he become just a presence everywhere. If you go to YouTube, I mean his videos, he's got thousands of them and and thousands of intellectual videos of deep, you know, meaningful commentary on things. It's, it's, it's, you know, this is not some he's not entertaining in a sense of doing stuff that's funny or silly or stupid or anything. This is him lecturing and lecturing and lecturing and every time I look at a video, it's something different. And he has now all his classes being videotaped and they're all being spliced up and put up and then the spliced up classes are sliced up even more to just have sound bites and they're being put up. And then he's been invited to lecture everywhere and all his lectures are being put up. And then he's doing interviews with everybody from Sam Harris to Mark Stein to all kinds of people are interviewed to Dave Rubin. Everybody is interviewing. Everybody's interviewing Jordan Peterson. So there's tons and this is part of my discomfort about even talking about him, I have to admit, but everybody's bugging me. You have to say something about Jordan Peterson is that, you know, I've only listened and watched a fraction of the totality of what he is doing. One of the things that he's doing is a lecture series on the Bible on the Old Testament. You know, I don't think he's going to get past Genesis from what I'm seeing. He's going kind of chapter by chapter story by story from the Bible and he's rented a theater in Toronto and he is, you know, he is doing two and a half hour lectures, including Q&A. And people are sitting there from what I can tell riveted the the this lecture room massive lecture sold out. He's selling tickets, right? He sold tickets to the series of lectures on the Bible. And it's completely sold out. And not only are people watching it, but then you get hundreds of thousands of hits or tens of thousands of hits on the videos. So there's something going on here. I mean, he has a phenomena right now. But the reason he really, he really kind of rose up and became a came to awareness of myself. And I think most of the other people, because if you look at most of the interviews, most of the stuff, it's, you know, about a year, about a year old. It's relatively new. It's happened relatively fast that he's become such a major intellectual force in our culture. And I consider him definitely that he is a major intellectual force in the culture that that one has to deal with. You know, he's anyway. So what caused it? Well, what caused it was him standing up for two things, two, two different things. One was free speech. So there was a bill in Canada. What was it? Bill C 16, I guess. That did a couple of things. One, it gave a variety of different legal protections to. I don't know what you would call it to a variety of different genders or the ability and it basically said in this bill that you get to decide what gender you are. And they're multiple genders that like 92 different genders or whatever. And it's all completely subjective. And it's your choice. You can define your own gender. Once you do, you become a protected group of protected minority like the laws in the US that protect certain minorities. So you get that status. And he rebelled against that implicit in this was that there was no relationship between biology and gender. And the gender was a completely 100% subjectivist phenomena. And then the second thing was that the law. Basically required that people use either general neutral pronouns or pronouns to reflect this multiplicity of genders. Now, I never heard of this stuff. This stuff is completely new to me. And, you know, I don't know if you know this, but some some transgender people like to be referred to as Z or Z. And many of them like to be referred to as they, which I find psychologically fascinating that people would want to be referred to. Reminds me of Anthem. The eye disappears and there's only we, but they want to be referred to as they as if they are the embodiment of some group and there is no individual there. So that's that's a whole, again, a whole different other other issues that regards to to this. But basically what Jordan Peterson stood up against was this notion that he had to follow this that he couldn't copy people. He she, you know, or ask them even, you know, or transgender person who wants to be a she he could have called she but no you're not even allowed to do that. You have to by law, use this multiplicity of genders and and gender gender neutral. And he spoke up against the idea that the legal system had anything to do with it. And as part of that, he started speaking up against the whole craziness on campus. The post the kind of the the new left kind of attack on free speech, the idea that you had to be silenced and you know this started with didn't start with gender. But gender is just one aspect of it is the whole issue of race, the all these issues and suddenly he became an integral part of this. If you will free speech movement and I really do think that Dave Rubin is a part of the time Harris is a part of that many of these other intellectuals are part of. And you know against the kind of social justice warriors who want to tell you what you can say and what you can say and why you can say it and why you can't say it. And you really somebody who stood up and particularly the transgender issue I think, because it's such a tricky issue. It's such a tricky issue because there's so much we don't know. There's so much we don't know. And there's so much that people are going out of their way to try to, you know, try to accept the fact that there are people out there who are really confused and really do feel like they don't belong to the gender that they were born into or that the biology suggests. And that they would like to have a different gender. And, and I mean, it's a real phenomena. Whatever we think about it, philosophically, whatever we think about it, scientifically, there is a psychological issue here. People do feel that. And you don't, there's no reason to disrespect somebody. There's no, there's no point in putting somebody down in in offending somebody because they've got, you know, let's say it. You know, I'll say it. Some of you will object a psychological issue, a psychological problem, you know, where with their emotions, the psychology, something about the way they mind works is for whatever reason. And maybe it's hormones, maybe it's a psychological trauma. I don't know, but it's inconsistent clashes with, you know, the biological, the biological nature. Now, too many on the on the social justice site claim that biology is irrelevant. Jordan Peterson talks about this a lot, where he says that the political correct thing to say today is that biology has nothing to do with gender, which is kind of interesting. And the gender is all the same. But of course there's a contradiction. If genders are all the same, why do they care so much what pronoun you use, why they care so much and how you refer to them if they're all the same, then it doesn't matter, right? Everything is the same. It's like the feminists have this bizarre thing where they want to be treated different, but they want to be, they want to claim that they're exactly the same as men, that there's no differences. So I think the idea that there's no biological difference between men, women is bizarre and ridiculous and anti reality, anti scientific and anti, you know, what what one observes and what what experiences there certainly are differences between men and women. They're biological differences and the idea that your biological differences do not manifest itself somehow psychologically do not manifest themselves in the experiences you have in life. Now that does not say anything about some people, you know, the capacity, the capacity to reason it doesn't say anything about intelligence it doesn't say anything about those things. But it says that there are differences. We've spawned differently to circumstances, situations, you know, emotionally, psychologically, they have to be differences, given that they are differences in biology. How, you know, the physical manifestation of being a male and physical manifestation of being a female are different. The very fact that a female goes through a period, the very fact that a female can, and many females do get pregnant and give birth. Those experiences no male can relate to those experiences that are profound. They are not irrelevant. Even just the potentiality of getting pregnant and giving birth is substantial. It's not irrelevant to the psychology of a human being. They are biology. Now, do I understand how the biological differences manifest themselves psychologically in men and women? No, I do not. I mean, I grand had a certain theory of femininity and masculinity. And one, you know, I understand, you know, to the extent that I understand the theory, for the most part, it makes sense to me. But I, you know, my understanding is very limited, you know, we can talk about finance sometime that I understand. But the psychology of gender, I do not understand. So, but I do know without any doubt that men and men and women are different. So that's that's really what brought him to the forefront. And he was an interesting, he was an interesting, interesting voice in this whole issue of social justice warriors, the whole issue of free speech, the whole issue of gender, which was made ridiculous by the social justice warriors, the whole issue of this law in Canada that basically restricted speech, whatever you think about ZZ, ZZ, whatever. The idea that that would be in legislation is just bizarre and evil and wrong. And, and, and he says, and I think absolutely correctly, that there is the potential that you would be charged. That if in the classroom you refer to somebody by the wrong gender identification, you could be charged. And now, of course, he says that people always say, no, no, no, we would never do that. This is just to indicate our intention and, but it's in the law. So, so he says these are slippery slopes and he's absolutely right about about this that it is fundamentally a slippery, slippery slope. And I see a question about, about Jordan Peterson's relationship to religion, believe me, we're going to get to that. We're going to get to that right now. I'm just, right now I'm just talking about why I think he's reached the prominence. So he was a man who stood up against this and it took some courage. It took some courage to stand up against the social justice bastards and it took some courage for university professor to do it within the context of the university today in Canada. At least in his university, it really, you know, and he stood up and he was harassed and he was discriminated against at the university and he got into a lot of problems. And he was courageous and he stood up for free speech and he speaks up for free speech continuously. And whatever you think about his views, he is a champion of free speech. And, and he is generally, you know, again, he doesn't, he doesn't defend speech free speech like we would. He doesn't defend it philosophically as we would, but he brings it a dimension that I think, I think is interesting and important and I think woke up a lot of people. I think he was willing to say things about psychology that I can't say that I don't think Sarah Havas is necessarily a qualified to say that a lot of people say he he's a psychologist, if you will, that stood up and spoke. And he knows, at least my senses, he really knows the stuff he knows the studies. He knows the thinkers. He knows the stuff. So, I think he gave everything instant credibility when he spoke up so give him a lot of credit for doing that and speaking up against and taking the risks and fighting the social justice bastards. Go ahead. I would, I've listened to a couple hundred hours of his lectures, since this whole thing kind of broke in October and I think the more that you listen to him talk about morality, the more he's thought about it. And just in my interpretation of listening to him, he seems to, you know, because he is stuck in like an ethical loop of, you know, where does this question of ethics go? Yes. And he keeps coming back to this altruism and to me it seems like his views on morality have actually moved towards altruism more than away from it. But again, I agree. It's a very convoluted ethical system that he has in his mind. And I'm not surprised. I'm not surprised because I see, I see him struggling with the idea of individual human flourishing and wanting to strive towards individual human flourishing and wanting individuals to have hierarchies of values that lead them towards that. But then he can't, because he can't actually come up with why, why would individuals want to flourish and he can't come up with the azad. He can't have, okay, what are the values that they should strive towards to achieve human flourishing other than minimize pain, minimize suffering, and minimize neuroticism, right? Minimize the neurotic. So I think you're right. I think what happens is he, I think he's drawn by the kind of Aristotelian idea of morality is there to improve the individual and to live a better flourishing kind of happy life. But he can't answer the question of why, possibly because he doesn't have objectivism. And, and therefore he gets stuck with going back to the altruism because it's the only alternative there is. And, you know, it's interesting. He has, he talks about sacrifice, right? He talks a lot about sacrifice. But when he actually gives examples of sacrifice, then never examples of actual sacrifice. So all his examples with relate to sacrifice have to do with delayed gratification. So sacrificing, in his term, sacrificing the present for the future. And that's not sacrifice. That's investment. Right. So, so you know, you might invest in something today, know, you know, and spend a lot of time on it, knowing that the reward will only come sometime in the future. That's what it means to be conceptual, almost the ability to think long, long term. Right. To him, somehow he presents that as if it's, as if it's a sacrifice and you can't get away from that language, which is surprising because he's a smart guy. Yeah. Anyway, so I think he struggles. He struggles. His views on, I know he's doing that. Old Testament series gets the cane and able how that would relate to, I think that'd be illustrative on his views of sacrifice and what that means for human, human morality. I think that'd be a very illustrative. Yes. Yes. I did that. I'm in the middle of the Garden of Eden, which, which I find, I find really interesting listening to his Garden of Eden stuff. But, but yes, I think part of the cane and able is also his belief in conflict and the fact that conflict is part of life. And it almost a metaphysical part of life. And so yeah, he's a, he's a confusing thinker, but I find very interesting. He has interesting psychological observations that I seem to learn a lot from, even though philosophically he is thoroughly wrong. His metaphysics are bad. His epistemology is bad. And his ethics are bad. And he's a conservative when it comes to politics. He's certainly not. And, and, and, but it's amazing to me how somebody that smart can be that bad at the same time. But he, you know, and he's red-eyed and he has a very positive view of the novels. Because I think they, he responds to the superhero, the John Galt, he responds to hierarchy of values. He responded emotionally, but I don't think he's ever read the philosophy and I don't think he took the philosophical issues brought up in Atlas Rock seriously. And he didn't certainly didn't integrate them. Or maybe that's what keeps tugging at him in terms of why he is attracted sometimes to the, to the less altruistic moral views. If you read, I've done a search on, if you read some of his Twitter posts or people have asked him about Ayn Rand. What he says about, literally, you know, his, the characters is that they're almost two one dimensional and that they're presented as, you know, thoroughly good. And, and, you know, there's no nuance in the, in the good versus evil. And I think that's, again, a confusion where he views morality as morality as a mitigation of suffering or evil. Instead of a life affirming force. Yeah, but it's also the good, the good is Jesus and the good is God. So the good is manifest in God. And we as human beings cannot be the good. We as human beings unnecessarily flawed. So, I mean, that's part of his inability to see the heroes and Atlas shrugged his heroes, because they're not Jesus. Right. So they have to be flawed. There has to be a flaw there because they're not God. Right. And so it's, you know, that's what partially I think what what he's challenged with in order to do that. But again, sophisticated, complex, wrong, but interesting. I had a thought, but it escaped me. Good. Well, thanks for the call. And, and, you know, it's really easy to get caught up in listening to hundreds of hours of Jordan Peterson. Something out of it. So don't make it an obsession. And don't get caught up in his own, you know, confusions. We've got it. We've got enough of our own confusions not to get too involved in Jordan. But, but if you want to confront your ideas with, you know, some of the best opposition, I'd say he's the guy to talk to, though it would be interesting to have him and an objectives philosopher actually debate some of these philosophical issues. I think that would be fascinating and really interesting. And I suspect that what I enjoy about Peterson, Sam, how is Dave Rubin and a lot of these people is the indication that there's an audience for what they have to say. Because no matter what you think at the end of Jordan Peterson, the fact that so many people are interested in listening, I think is a good indication. This is intellectual stuff. This is not the garbage that goes for intellectual stuff on some university campuses. It's not the garbage that goes to some intellectual stuff. Some videos on YouTube and cat videos and whatever. Here's people really, really talking about real issues in an intelligent way with vast. I mean, this is the thing. I think I said this early on about Jordan Peterson. He knows history. He knows philosophy. He knows psychology. And he's integrating them all and it's fascinating to watch. Agree or disagree. It's fascinating to watch. And in a pro values way, he's not a nihilist. He's the contrary. He's trying to escape. He's trying to fight off nihilism. So I would love to see, you know, one of our philosophers really get into a deep debate with him. And it would be good for some of our philosophers to comment on some of the philosophical issues they see with Jordan. I think it would get them a lot of visibility on YouTube and other places. If they took on Peterson on some of the philosophical flaws, mistakes, problems that he has and provide answers to them. Better answers that I'm providing here to a different audience. I'm speaking to mostly objectivist and mostly people who agree with me, but to a general audience. That would be, you know, that would be terrific. So objectives philosophers out there. I think we'd get a lot of publicity for objectivism. If that were done. So on call Greg Salamieri. I think that would be that would be right up there, Ali. All right, we got one more caller. Hi, you're new on Bookshare. Who's this? Aloha. It's Stuart. Hey, Stuart. It took you long enough to call. I want to mention the reform. Nothing. Go ahead. Go ahead. I want to mention that, you know, this relates to what you said earlier about dialogue. Because I noticed that Jordan Peterson has repeatedly recommended very enthusiastically. A book on the history of philosophy by a professor who was well known for being sympathetic to iron ran. That's explained post modernism by Stephen Hicks. You have Oxford University, you know, and it doesn't make it doesn't make it a secret. You know that he is very influenced by iron ran, but Jordan Pearson has never I don't think he's elaborate exactly and why he likes that book. So it's very confusing to me because I haven't gotten to reading it yet. But from the synopsis, I keep seeing Stephen Hicks actually attributes post modernism to human haunt. Sorry, to human con. Yes. So he blames a lot of it ultimately on human con. Well, and I think that in the context, Jordan Peterson might agree that is again. Peterson is not a consistent content or consistent any anything he he's to some extent there's a hodgepodge of ideas there that he's trying to make sense of. And you can tell as he's lecturing sometimes he's trying to make sense of them as he's talking because he doesn't have it down yet. So I don't. I think he read Stephen Hicks's book and and particularly responded to Hicks's attack on post modernism. But also Hicks does a very good job of outlining how we got from con to marks to to in a sense the rejection of Marx because Marxism had failed to post modernism. And one of the things that Hicks does is he doesn't just talk about the philosophical chain. He also talks about the psychological chain. He also talks about why it was at the Marxist when they realize what had happened in the Soviet Union and how bad things were turned to post modernism in order in a sense as an escape. So they rejected all knowledge. They rejected all truth. They became nihilists as a consequence and he and he discusses that psychologically Stephen Hicks does. And there's some really good stuff. You can look it up. You can get the book but you can also look it up online. There's some good lectures by him on this post modernism stuff. I can see why Jordan Peterson would would see that and responds favorably because again he is not anti he is pro values. He believes in order out of chaos and the post modernist chaos. And you know the lying about reality and the lying about the truth that's in reality. I wouldn't say objectivity because I don't think Jordan Peterson really recognizes the concept of objectivity again. I think he's in the subjectivist intrinsicist. So he rejects post modernism for being the subjectivist that they are but he adopts an intrinsicist view. And you know I think when he reads Stephen he can see the progression and buys into it. That doesn't prevent him from them adopting a certain parts of the methodology of let's say a Kant or something. Right. So again the way people apply philosophy that's a whole interesting topic. How do people actually integrate philosophy and apply it and integrate it into into their belief system. And Peterson is primarily a psychologist and he's a younging psychology J. U. N. G. I know nothing about young psychologists. I know I know nothing and he knows a lot. He talks a lot about Freud. He's an admirer of Ford. So there is a mess there. There's so much going on. He's a psychologist who's trying to be a philosopher and to comment on the culture and and and explain history. And again you have to admire him for being ambitious. But it's going to be a mish-mash and some of the mish-mash is going to be good stuff. And the Stephen Hicks post modernism stuff is good stuff. Well you know it confuses me a lot because it seems to me that he fundamentally agrees with Hume and Kant that ultimately conductive reason, observational reason is not adequate. It can't tell you absolute truth. You know you can't get morality from it. It's not good enough. So to me in the end he is a skeptic after all. Yeah but you see philosophy doesn't manifest itself in people in that way. It's not like you're a Kantian therefore you're Hitler. You know people take some of that and then in other parts of their lives like in his psychological, in his psychology he's an absolutist. He knows what's true and he accepts that truth. I mean it's true that you know every intrinsicist is a subjectivist ultimately because he has to get the truth from somewhere and emotions in the end of the only place to get it. So you have to mix up some reality and he does use objective reasoning constantly. If you look at the stuff on psychology and you look at how he analyzes things. I mean he says some stuff on psychology that I think is absolutely brilliant and I agree with completely. But people are not all right. I've adopted this philosophy therefore this is the outcome that's going to happen. That's not how it works. People are mixtures of a lot of things and they're not just manifestation of one line and I can hate Kant and yet have a Kantian view of the world. I can reject Kant's epistemology and yet have ingrained pieces of that epistemology into my own epistemology. So he can be anti Kantian, anti human, anti subjectivism and yet be a subjectivist to some extent. Contradictions everywhere you know and they live in human beings. They live in human beings all the time and to the extent that they are contradictions they suffer the consequences of those contradictions and he cannot achieve real knowledge of truth. What he wants to achieve which is real knowledge of truth because he's torn between contradictions but he is not a skeptic in the same sense as modern skeptic self. Or even he wouldn't explain his skepticism in the same way Hume explains it. Well I do think it's a good precedent that he liked Stephen Hicks book and he has his dialogue going on. I was curious if you think this might mean he might be willing to have a dialogue with say you? I think he'd be willing to have a dialogue. I don't think he's going to change. Again, I mean this is a guy who's thought about this integrated those ideas into a system, a system he believes in. It's an integrated system. It's a misintegration but it's an integrated system. It's founded on psychological observations which he is deeply committed to because he is a psychologist and he knows that literature and he studied it and he knows the empirical evidence and he thinks the empirical evidence and everything else justifies his philosophical conclusions. I don't think you're going to change Jordan Peterson's mind about fundamental philosophical issues and that's not why I would suggest a debate. The only reason I suggest a debate is to use his platform to reach a lot of the people listening to him because a lot of the people listening to him I think are interesting people and people we can reach. So no, don't assume that he can change because I don't think he can. I think very few people beyond a certain age change and the more intellectual they are the less they change. It's very hard. He spent, what's he, in his 50s probably? He spent 50 years integrating a particular system that he is clearly unequivocally committed to and it's full of contradictions but I don't think his psychology can accept or reject. Now, you know, people are free. Well, I could be wrong but I think the challenge of somebody like that accepting the contradictions that exist there, I think are probably just too great. Anyway, that's my view. It's hard to speculate on other people's ability to change their free will and so on. But that's where we are. I mean, so let me, we've got about 10 minutes or 13 minutes and I'm still open. Thanks to it. Thanks for calling. I'm still open for calls if you want to call. Now remember, if you call, you have to press the 1 so that I know that you're not just calling to listen to show but you're calling to actually ask a question. So if you press 1, I get a little question mark over here and I can do that 347-324-3075. Just generally, I encourage you to follow me on Facebook and Twitter and Facebook and Twitter and SoundCloud and YouTube and, I don't know, everything else. I don't have Snapchat, so you don't have to follow me on Snapchat. I mean, it would be interesting if some of you knew something about Union psychology, Jungian psychology because I know nothing about it. But you know, somebody here in the chat says that it's fundamentally mystical. I guess I wouldn't be surprised but it depends what you mean by fundamentally mystical. Hi, you're on the book show. Who's this? Hi, come here, man. Is that Will? I couldn't quite capture your name. That's Will. Well, go ahead, Will. I really enjoy your shows and one of the, I've listened to a lot of George Peterson's videos and lectures and lots of different things I like to say but basically what I like to think of him is like a traditionalist. He likes to, he likes tradition. So when people latch on to gender issues that he talks about, I think that, like, he worries that everything's going to decay into chaos. Why do you think he likes tradition? Archipelago. Why do you think he likes tradition? Well, he thinks that, and I noticed this with Douglas Murray who wrote The Strange Death of Europe, like with Islamic, like with migration and that. They think that if there's no religion that, you know, like there's no structure, like morality, ethics, and when he looked at gender things sort of dissolving, like he talks about one of those personality types and he said that he likes order and stuff like that. And I think that he looks everywhere and sees like any reduction in tradition. Like he talks about marriage should be men and women and women should have kids and, you know, all that kind of thing. And that bothers me a lot and all that type of thing. Yeah, but he has some interesting psychological things to say about women and men and working long hours and what it takes to kind of have a high stress jobs and stuff, which I find interesting. I don't agree with him, but it's fascinating. But I think he's a traditionalist and I, you know, this is kind of a Hayekian Hayek was the same way. He views tradition as a sense evolutionary. So tradition is weeded out the bad stuff because certain institutions like marriage, let's say between a man and women have survived to 2000 years. It means it must be good. It's serving a certain function for society to be able to function. So he values tradition because it is being tested. Right. This goes to kind of the pragmatism. It's been tested. It works. And we know it works because it's survived. And if it's survived, it must be good. And this is part of his argument for religion. Religion must be good because it's survived because everybody has it because it exists in the East and the West and, you know, every continent has religion. So therefore it must serve a crucial human function. He can't abstract away from that to philosophy. But instead he abstracts away to the idea of God has to be there. But he's a traditionalist because it provides order. His biggest fear both psychologically and philosophically is chaos. Is is is, you know, and this is why he hates the nihilist because the nihilist whole purpose in life is to bring about chaos to destroy order. And tradition is established order. And yeah, you know, and it's terrible, but they are glimpses of truth in there, right? Go ahead. You mentioned sacrifice earlier. He actually because I, you know, I like I've watched a ton of his stuff. He actually mentioned like when farm, he justifies everything like he said with tradition and like, well it was important and that's what they knew at the time and like he talked about farmers killing animals like as an animal sacrifice, which would be something valuable to that farmer. And to me if that's really sick when you start to justify even human or animal sacrifice because it's something valuable to you. And it goes in with all the religion and and that's why I'm saying is he justifying or explaining it with human. Well, I mean, he's doing both planes that to me I interpret. Yeah, I mean he he's sort of saying that's what they did because that's what they had at the time that had value. But, you know, that's when I think that when people look at the, you know, human sacrifice and they value that as something. Absolutely. I mean, to go with Europe. Yeah. With your objective is I'm like the fact that you guys talk about having a moral base like for capitalism to replace the religious morality and the structure and the ethics like he said Sam Harris is a Christian even though he says he needs it because he doesn't go around killing people. I mean this belief that everything is Christian because of the past that we're all Christians, whether we think or not like, and I know like I totally agree. I do. His fear of like breakdown of society is what he wants to keep all these traditions to when people latch on to his gender thing. They love that or if Sam Harris talks about Islam, they people love that they don't understand that it's coming from a rational like just the overall, you know, search for the truth and reality and a lot of people just grab on the one thing and they might have ulterior motives or religious backgrounds or whatever that they like to hear certain things, right? No, I agree with you. And think about the fact that the ultimate sacrifice right the ultimate sacrifice human sacrifice is Jesus. Jesus on the cross dying for all of us. And he is of course in in in Jordan Peterson's terms he is the, you know, the meta hero the the hero of all heroes the essence of heroism. And why is he at the end of the day the essence of heroism, the essence of perfection, the essence of truth, the essence of order is because he's willing to give up everything right to sacrifice everything. So yes, he has this strong altruistic element at the same time. You know when you listen particularly to psychological talks is also very interested in human flourishing and people being successful and overcoming their psychological problems and overcoming their psychological fears. And being successful in living and in life. And he talks about this. And so he has this contradiction and all these guys do. I mean, Sam Harris has the greatest contradiction, right? He's anti free will and he believes in morality that can be derived from reality. He believes the is odd gap doesn't exist. And but yet he doesn't believe in free will and how can he hold morality but not hold free will. And he believes in reason. But again, and I think the reason Peterson is likely to call Sam Harris more of a Christian is not so much that he doesn't. It's also that he doesn't go about murdering people, but also because Sam Harris is morality. Ultimately, this is why his politics is screwed up is somewhat out is altruistic, right? He can't escape the Christian morality because it's all he knows. He can't use reason. He hasn't been able to use it to come up with an alternative to the Christian morality. So Jordan Peterson justifiably looks at him and says, Yeah, morality, you're just a Christian, right? Whereas I ran is discovered a whole new morality, an alternative to Christian morality and a complete rejection of altruism and alternative to Christian morality. So I think Peterson would still say we're religious in some sense because he believes the only reason I mean he has this. He has this Freudian malevolent view of human nature. It goes back to his Cain and Abel thing. We are motorists. We are committers of destructive activity. The nihilists see his view. I think this is true. His view is that nihilism is what's natural chaos. It's what's out there. The achievement is the rejection of nihilism is system is the system is religion. It's philosophy. It's psychology and that chaos and nihilism is the default. If we just left people out there without religion, they would slaughter each other than Cain slaughter Abel, right? It is Cain that slaughter Abel, right? Not the other way around. I think that's right. Anyway, so religion is what allows us to be human because it's what allows us to reject this nihilism, this animalistic. Think about it evolutionarily. It's the discovery of religion that destroys the animal within us, right? I think he would agree with that statement. Something like that. Does that make sense? I think I like to push the fact that we humans have a, you know, like you talked about with objectivism and even evolutionary psychology where we have benefits to helping each other in trading things and exchanging. It doesn't have to be just because we're worried about going to hell or some 10 commandments or whatever it is. Well, the real value of being moral is that it benefits your life. That it's the only thing that benefits your life. The moral is that which allows for human flourishing and that which allows for human flourishing is what's moral. The moral is the practical, the practical is the moral. So, you know, it's how we interact with other people, interacting with them in a just way is moral and leads to a flourishing life. It leads to success in life. It leads to good life. So, yeah, I mean, you don't, it's absurd that you need God in order to have morality. And it's absurd that the only morality possible is a morality of altruism. I mean, that's just all upside down. And this is what Ayn Rand does to a lot of philosophical thinking is turn it upside down. I mean, she really challenges it. She really, really, really deep deeply challenges it. All right, let me thanks for calling really appreciate it. And I find it interesting that so many of you have listened to so much of Jordan Peterson. And I can't blame you. I listened to a lot of him too, because I find him fascinating. And this leads me to, you know, I think an important point that that is as objectivist those of you are out there who are objectivists. I don't think everybody is, but many of us are. It is interesting to be confronted with alternative ideas. It's interesting to be challenged by those ideas. It's interesting to try to figure out what truth there is in these other people. I mean, as I said, I'm not a psychologist. I don't read psychology. I don't listen to psychologists, but I find a lot of what Sam Harris says Sam Harris Jordan Peterson says about psychology. Really interesting. I mean, he had a whole thing about authenticity and what authenticity means. And a lot of it was kind of fuzzy and weird to me, but some of it was really true. And he talked about the fact that a lot of the ideas we hold in our mind. We don't actually own them in a sense is some of my terminology. We don't really believe them because we haven't made them our own in Iran's terminology. We're not first handed about them. We have these ideas in our minds because our parents told us because because our professors told us because we've just accepted it from a smosis from people around us. And you know, and he says, wait a minute to be authentic. An authentic human being psychologically authentic, psychologically real, psychologically true. You have to make the ideas in your mind yours. So I ran would say concretize them, you know, prove them, you know, make them yours in a first handed way. Not yours because you heard I ran say them not yours because you're on Brooks say them or anybody else say them yours because you understand them to be true that you are proven them in reality to yourself that you've you've reduced them to reality. You know, all the techniques that ran and pick off have taught us on how to prove our ideas. And then I thought, wow, he's telling this to people. And this is great. He's telling them to be real to themselves to confront their own ideas to try to now he doesn't really give them techniques to how to do that. But but he talks about being really, you know, really, really authentic about that. Some other things that I that I wrote down here. You know, he's, he's very attracted to Dostoevsky and which is which which is fascinating. And it makes complete sense. He loves Dostoevsky, because Dostoevsky is exactly struggling with the kind of issues that he Peterson. Now he's a great writer, of course, but he also struggling with the same kind of issue. Can you have morality without God. And Dostoevsky is a very, very psychological writer. He deals deeply with psychology with psychological questions and psychological issues. And when Jordan Peterson talks about psychology, it's often fascinating. You can tell he's read him. He's thought about him. It's really, it's really deep. Anyway, you know, there's a lot of anytime I listen to my jot down notes. I think his interpretation of the Old Testament is fascinating. In terms of the kind of the psychological lessons he wants us to draw out of the Old Testament. That's where I find it interesting psychological observations about the purpose that these stories, the function these stories serve in people's lives. What have they learned from them? What have we, in a sense, culturally internalized from those stories? What is it about the structure of society and the beliefs and society today that comes from the story of Adam and Eve and other stories. I think there's a lot there because these are ancient stories. We've told them over and over and over again. Every generation reads them. They have a huge impact stories as we know because we've read our stories stories as a huge both psychological and ideological impact on people. And and I think Jordan Peterson realizes that that's why he talks about the Bible as a story as metaphors. And he talks about Dostoevsky a lot and he really gets. He really gets the role of literature and storytelling culturally and in shaping the individual psychology and in shaping the individual's thinking. So, I don't know, I, you know, I think I think that often objectivists don't read or listen or engage with ideas that are not objectivism. And I encourage you to do so. Now be careful with Jordan Peterson. Don't get, don't get dosed. You know, keep a critical mind. Think about what he's saying. Tested against reality. Tested against your own knowledge. One of the concepts that he is really, really missing is objectivity. You know, at some point maybe we'll bring on a philosopher to talk about what does objectivity mean and differentiating objectivity from subjectivism and intrinsicism. I think Jordan Peterson is clearly, strongly in the intrinsic side of that trilogy and he sees the danger of subjectivism and that's great. What he doesn't get is the alternative of objectivity.