 Ευχαριστώ και ευχαριστώ πολύ για να μας επανατείτε. Εδώ είναι η δεύτερη ευκαιρία που έχουμε για Ιαρον Μπρουκ, να διεταλληθεί ένας ενδυναμός από Ευρώπη για ένας ενδυναμός τόπικ. Από την επόμενη ευκαιρία ήταν η Μαρξης, η επόμενη είναι η Τραδίσσια. Υπιστεύετε πίσω ότι γνωρίζετε Ιαρον, είναι ο κυρμός της Παρντίας της Ανρουρανς, και ο γνωρίος του Ιαρον Μπρουκνού. Και πιστεύετε πίσω ότι γνωρίζετε πίσω του Ιαρον Μπρουκνού. Ο Ιαρον Μπρουκ είναι ένα ράππο, είναι ένα ποδκάστρα, και είναι ένα άνθρωπο που είναι ενδυναμός στο Φιτνέσ. Έχει διεύτερη ευκαιρία called Strong Advice, και παρακολουθούνται στο Twitter, στο Ιαρον Μπρουκνού. Υπιστεύετε πίσω του Ιαρον Μπρουκνού, και είναι ένας πολύ ενδυναμός άνθρωπος του Ιαρον Μπρουκνού. Ούτε η διάφορα είναι η πρόσφυρξη του δημιουργίας. Πολλή ειδίμαστε να μιλάμε αυτό. Πολλοί άνθρωποι συγχώρησαν ότι υπάρχει αυτή η κόσμια και η δημιουργία λόγια στην Βασίδα, που δεν είναι καλύτερη. Πολλοί άνθρωποι πιστεύουν ότι το δημιουργείο μου, είναι ότι έχουμε ξεχθεί πίσω τα δημιουργία που δημιουργούνται τη Βασίδα. Και σε κάθε φορά ξεχθείμε τη δημιουργία. Πολλοί άνθρωποι που ακούγουν, που ακούγουν, πολλοί άνθρωποι που κρίνουν το δημιουργείο μου ή η δημιουργία που είναι κ συμγεδροχής, nor are there this being close to our roots, to our culture, to our extended families and to the place where we grew and where this tradition is rooted. And this is going to be today's topic of discussion, whether tradition in a way is good 10 μήνες παράδειγμα, then Zuby replies, you can send your super chats, Raz is gonna see your super chats and he's gonna forward them and we are gonna ask our speakers the super chats. So, without further delay, Yaron. She completely ignored my request that Zuby go first, okay? We have to go first. I'm happy to go first if you prefer, I know that. Okay, let's go with Zuby first then. Okay, sure thing. Well, I think the first thing that's important to do with a conversation like this, talking about something as broad as tradition, I think is to define the word and so I've just pulled this up. So what I'm seeing on the first sentence on Wikipedia under tradition is, a tradition is a belief or behavior passed down within a group or society with symbolic meaning or special significance with origins in the past. So that's a very broad definition, as we said. This could include national traditions, cultural traditions, religious traditions, anything from holidays to certain items of clothing, certain rituals, certain things people do on different days or at different times, etc. This could be an American citizen pledging allegiance to the flag, that could be considered a tradition, that could be any number of Jewish or Christian or Islamic traditions that are done, anything from celebrating Christmas holidays and gift-giving to Jewish people having Friday night dinners or whatever the case may be, it's a very broad topic. So to be frank and honest and open, my general position on tradition is, I think it's just the fact that an idea being old or an idea being new, I think we tend to have a novelty bias when it comes to a lot of things and certainly when it comes to ideas. There's this notion that because something is an old idea, that it's a bad idea and there's also a notion that if something is a new idea or that it's a change, that it's inherently a good idea. I don't think either of those things are true. I think something can be a long persisting old idea for a very good reason. It's something that's good and people should continue to do it for. For an example, I would say something like the institution of marriage is generally a good idea. That doesn't mean absolutely every single person needs to or must get married, but given that it's existed for several millennia, across cultures, across countries, languages, religions, no religion, whatever it is, there are many logical, of course there are religious reasons people may get married, but there are also totally logical, rational, individual, community reasons why people may get married. A great obvious example of something that was an institution that lasts for a very, very long time, but which we would all agree is bad, is something like slavery. So there was probably a time, I'm sure there was a time where people would have said, well, slavery is an institution that it's been around for millennia. We've been doing this for such a long time. So what's wrong with it? It's a good idea. Maybe someone could even say it's a traditional idea. And I think nowadays in 2021, virtually everybody, regardless of political orientation, would agree no slavery is terrible idea. It's a moral, et cetera. And then coming towards where we are now with the modern day times, I think it's clear that there are new ideas. I think there are a lot of new ideas that are floating around into our society and culture, which I would argue are not good, and in which case the older way of doing things perhaps was better. I think in some cases, absolutely was better to give an obvious example of this, which a lot of people do talk about would be a lot of what people now call, what people refer to as woke ideology, where you're actually starting to go back. It's very regressive in a way where people are starting to view people and judge people based on immutable characteristics again, such as their skin color, their sex, all these kind of things. And I think that's a bad idea. I think actually, no, you wanna go back to what we were doing in 1995 or 2000 and not looking at these and going back towards a more colorblind society. And then there are other new ideas whether these are certain aspects of technology or certain increases in people's diverse. The decline of overall racism, the decline of homophobia, the decline of sexism, all of these things, I think those are good modern, more modern thoughts and more modern social attitudes. So my view on this overall topic with all that said is it's pretty nuanced. I'm not really, I'm not a hardliner who's just like, okay, it's tradition, it's old. And so therefore it's good. But I'm also, I also don't think that, again, like I said, I don't think just because something is an old idea, that means that it should be jettisoned. I think that as modern human beings, I think the advantage we have really over our ancestors is that we can build on their knowledge, their achievements, their mistakes, et cetera. So I think actually it's, I think there's a certain arrogance in assuming that we know more than our ancestors and everyone who lived before us on everything. I think if there is something that stuck around for a long time, it's a good idea to at least look at that and think, okay, why do we even do this thing? Cause when it comes to traditions, I'll be honest, right? From a pure sort of reason perspective, I think there are certain things which, I'm sure Yaron will talk about this. There are certain things where it's like, okay, this is not necessary in a way. It might be symbolic, but I think that something being symbolic doesn't necessarily mean that it's bad or that it should be jettisoned, et cetera. So that's sort of my general position on the topic of tradition. Thank you, Zubi. Yaron. So Nikos, I think you screwed up. This is supposed to be a debate and it's gonna turn out that we agree on much more than we disagree. So I agree with much of what Zubi said. You know, if tradition is beliefs and behaviors that have passed down from previous generations, I didn't hear anything from Zubi saying, okay, because of that, we should follow them. And I agree that if something's new or novel, that doesn't mean anything. I think the only standard that should guide us should guide what we hold, how we behave, how we act, is the standard of truth. Is this idea true? Does this behavior serve the proper function? Does this behavior, so slavery was an institution that Zubi mentioned, we both agree that it was horrific. It was horrific at any point in time in its long history. The fact that it survived thousands of years doesn't make any difference. It doesn't legitimize it in any way. One has to evaluate an institution like slavery is it right, is it just, is it moral? No, it's not, so we throw it out. It doesn't matter how many people did it. The same would be true of religion. The same would be true of marriage. Now it could be that every time we examine marriage, we go, yeah, maybe we should just send, let's see. Oh, I get it. I see why we have the institution of marriage. There's something about the nature of this relationship between two people that we want to have contractually binding and we want to institutionalize it. And yes, there's a certain symbolism that is meaningful and it actually has a purpose to it. Oh, okay, so this is something we should do, right? We should keep. Not because it's been used thousands of years, but because we understand why it's right, why it makes sense, why it serves its function. So I think what's important when we're advocating for ideas, let's say ideas like freedom, capitalism, individual rights in the proper sense and in the proper sense of the term, is not to say, look, capitalism is great because we've had it for a long time. What we should always be saying is capitalism is great because look at the amazing achievements we've achieved on the capitalism and here look at what it allows individuals to do and how it allows them to live and look, that's consistent. It's the only system consistent with a proper view of morality, at least that's my perspective. It's the only political economic system consistent with morality. We should hold it as that. And if we've got a history to help us prove the case, that's cool. Or if we advocating for freedom against, I don't know, world culture or whatever, it's not that we're saying, look, we've done this a long time, don't change things, don't alter them, it works. It's not a good argument, it's a failed argument and it's not true. We shouldn't advocate for something as positive because it's been tried in the past, but because we understand why it worked and why this new idea, woke culture for example, is awful, why we need to reject it, why it's racism, why it's the exact opposite of what the advocates are claiming it to be. So I think there's a, once we start using tradition and start using tradition as an explanation or as proof or as an argument, I think we lose the connection to truth and goodness and right and just. And I think that should be the basis for argument. I also think that we lose from the perspective of when we're trying to appeal to young people, young people, teenagers in their 20s, they want explanations. Kids when they're about two or three, they start asking why, why, why on everything. They don't really wanna know cause they don't understand causalities. They don't really, it's not a deep question but once you become a teenager, the why becomes a deep question. You're really starting to ask, why is this done this way? Why is they married? Why are norms this way and not that way? We better have an explanation if we believe in something that does not rely on faith, that does not rely on emotion, that does not rely on, that's how it's always been done, right? Whenever my parents said to me, we do this because that's how it's always been done, that's the point I rebelled against, right? Cause that was not an explanation. That was not, it didn't appeal to reality, it didn't appeal to fact, it didn't appeal to logic, it didn't appeal to reason. So we lose, I think, a lot of young people when particularly conservatives use tradition as the explanation for why things should be done. I mean, if we are advocates of capitalism and freedom, then we are the progressives, we believe in progress, we believe in change, we believe in you, we embrace new if it's good, right, the standard is goodness. And it's too often that the left gains a high up in a sense ground on us by they're the cruel ones, right? Because they embrace progress, they even have the name progressive, they have the name in America, they have liberal, which is just the travesty that they call themselves liberal. And it's a travesty that they call themselves progressive because they're the exact opposite. Many of them are anti-progress. They're, you know, they're for stagnation. We should call them stagnationists because that's what they're all regressives, which some people have come to call them, which they truly are. So I think tradition is a wrong basis on which to justify action. It's the wrong basis on which to justify institutions and the wrong basis in which to defend that which is good. If something is good, we should have a better defense of it than saying it's always been done like this. All right, so let me throw some questions that might make it a bit more nuanced discussion. So what about something which is so central to one's identity, but which many people would object? And the example is circumcision and it's already come up in the chat. So something which is so central to the Jewish tradition and it's so central to the history of preserving this tradition, but which many people say, no, this is a violation of the rights of the kids. So what about such difficult topics where it's a tradition which is not good, but at the same time it's very central to the identity of a person or of a group of people. That's interesting that you bring that up because I was thinking of that actually as because I was running through different traditions in my brain and thinking of, okay, what are some traditions that could be considered more controversial or contentious from a say a moral perspective? And that's something that actually is an interesting one and I guess is relevant to a lot of people here. So me myself, I'm a Christian. My family background is also from Nigeria in specific the Ebo tribe where circumcision, just like in Judaism, that's sort of a, it's a tradition, right? It's a rite of passage. I know with a lot of Muslim people it's actually the same lot of Christians, not all Christians. And then there are even people who for no fake based reason whatsoever, it's still, I understand in the USA far more than in Europe, for example, it's kind of something that is just done. It's a default. This is a topic where I don't honestly, maybe I can do some thinking out loud. I don't really know my, I don't really know my position on it that well. It's not something where I can very, very much understand both sides of it. And I don't really have a, because in my view, I understand the, it's also something I think people can be very, can be very hypocritical on as well, actually. My view on it, I guess would be that I don't think it's, how would I put it? The actual act of it is not, it doesn't, generally it doesn't, it doesn't like harm and damage people for life, right? If this were something that we're being done where it very clearly objectively, okay, this, you know, this is destroying the function of like the male body or it's really harming boys, it's really harming men, et cetera, then I think it would be more clear cut to make the obvious harm argument. Like, okay, this person is now incapable of doing X, Y, or Z or if they've had this injury, they've sustained whatever it is, because it's not like that, it's realistically benign. I can understand why people have a, some people have, you know, strongly oppose it or have a visceral reaction to it, but I think that because it's actually benign, say with, say for example, with something that people talk about more openly, I think like FGM, right? Female genital mutilation, right? There's a much clearer harm argument where it's like, okay, this actually hurts the girl as she grows up into a woman, this procedure has damaged her, right? It has like a real, there's a clear cause and effect right there. So even with those things, I think there, I can see why people make an equivalence there, but again, I don't even think it's a totally honest equivalence in that case, in that situation. There aren't a lot of men, you know, I don't know what, how many billion men in the world are circumcised and I know that there can be botched procedures in which case of course there is damage, but 99% of cases there's, you know, there's no lifetime problems or anything with it. So I don't, I don't really know on that one. I don't really know, I don't have a strong, I don't really have a strong position on it. I'm kind of rambling a bit because I'm thinking out loud here, but I don't know, I'd be interested in hearing people's perspectives on that. Oh, that's honest, thanks. Yeah. Yeah, so my view is, it certainly is not like female genital mutilation. I mean, that is horrific, that's evil in my view. I don't care what your tradition is, that has to stop because it clearly damages the woman's ability to enjoy sex forever and it's not reversible. And it's, I can think a few things that are as evil as that. With men though, from everything I've studied, and again, this is to some extent a scientific question, there is damage that is particularly as you gain old, as you get older, you know, the idea is that the skin loses sensitivity there because the circumcision leaves it exposed, that it dries up and it's much more difficult. So you lose some level of pleasure. And to the extent that that is true, then I think it's wrong. And to the extent that a community, let's say the Jewish community, holds on to a tradition that causes damage, then they're wrong and they should change it. They should abandon the tradition. Now they can't because God told them they have to do it. So they're kind of stuck, right? But if you have, you know, so I would argue that individuals should ignore that tradition and reject it. If what I'm saying about the science is true, now if it's truly benign, which I doubt, I mean, you're cutting a piece of it, it strikes me that it's probably some negative outcome. But why do it even if it's benign, right? I mean, clearly the baby, they say the baby at seven days doesn't feel pain. Then why do they give him wine so that he say, you know, why do they try to drug the baby so that if they don't feel pain anyway, why is that? Why are you causing pain? What's the purpose of this? It's just some mimicking some, from my perspective, primitive barbaric ceremony that maybe had meaning a long, long time ago. People come up with explanations that it's more hygienic and there's medical reasons to do it. Maybe that was true when we didn't shower every day. Maybe that was true 200 years ago. It's not probably true today. So I'm very much opposed to that tradition because I don't see what good it does today. That is in the context of life in the modern world, given our scientific knowledge, given what we know about potential harms. No, it fails that test of truth. Would you want the state to intervene in banning it? Wow. I mean, the tricky part there is the status of a baby and to the extent that the state intervenes, is it child abuse? Does it rise to the level of child abuse so that the state would intervene? Probably, that is, if the parent were cutting off a piece of any other part of the child, let's say some sect somewhere had a ritual where they chopped off a piece of the thigh muscle when the baby was three months old, right? Would we support the state intervening for them to stop that as kind of barbaric, even if it didn't cause long-term damage but it was just painful at the time? Yeah, I mean, that strikes me as abuse. So I think the answer is yes, but that one I hadn't thought about. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. Yeah, I'll jump in on that one. I mean, it's a complicated one because this is very multifaceted and layered and this is one of the issues where, religious belief does play a big role. If somebody is a practicing Jew or in many cases even Christian or Islamic and that is God's command to them and to the people, even from a cultural perspective, I know with many Jews, even if they themselves are not super religious from a cultural perspective as a tribe and as a people, obviously that's God's command to do that to separate yourself as a tribal aspect. So one could argue that there are benefits to that even from a societal or a social perspective. Maybe someone may think that there shouldn't be, but given just where we are and how people do hold on to traditions, then there is because if a, I don't know, a child is growing up in Israel, let's say, and they're in a Jewish community and they don't wanna do that, then there, I don't know, I'm not an expert on this topic, right? But there could be some potential social stigma or repercussions or something with that. It's also interesting, because I mean, there are lots of different aspects to consider here. For example, people do ear piercing on babies and toddlers. You know, a baby girl may have her ears pierced. I've don't think I've ever heard anyone even suggest that that is a form of child abuse. Like it definitely hurts, absolutely hurts. It's not necessary, but people will pierce the ears of their baby daughters. Yeah, right? And I think if someone suggested the state should intervene with that, you'd look at them like, wait, what? Like no, of course not. That's not a, it's not harming them. It's also not necessary. A lot of the arguments could be made that same way. So it's a complicated one. I don't think it's, I think it's good for it to be out in the open and for these discussions and conversations to be had. But I think it's so multi-layered and multifaceted that it's pretty complicated. And you know, to bring in an elephant in the room as well, as you know, a lot of people who would be, you know, opposed to circumcision, you know, would define themselves as so-called pro-choice, right? They'd support abortion. So they'd be okay with that child being killed a few months earlier. Let's put it, say it what it is. But then the notion of them being circumcised, they are then on the moral high horse of, oh my gosh, that's horrible. And I'm kind of like, well, you thought that same boy could have been killed a few months ago and you'd call that a woman's right to choose. But now, so there's, I think there's a lot of layers to it. You know, I think it's complicated. It's not, you know, I don't think, from a moral perspective to me, like those things are all, that's a whole different scale. But it's complicated here. I don't know. Yeah, you just described me. So I'm probably supporting abortion. But yeah, I do think it's complicated. Part of the question is what has the harm done? And to the extent that there is a science that shows that. And if you're right, it's benign. It's like piercing the ear. If it was just like piercing an ear, no, yeah, I agree with you. You know, the state clearly shouldn't intervene. So you'd have to define what the harm is and extent of the harm and it would not be an easy one to go into. Okay, before we move to the topic of traditional architecture and beauty and whether the West is becoming very ugly, let's have a look in the chat. So too many super chat. Thank you, Robert. Marilyn says eating ethnic food is very different from circumcision or parent deciding who their kids can marry. I think we'd all agree on that. Someone with a super cool name, Gotham Butt says, nothing gives me hope like people arguing for reasonable philosophy in the dying world. Thank you very much. Also thanks to Jeff, Jonathan, Brian and Kirk. Jonathan says, thank you, Zoubia and Yaron. And okay, Jeff says, can we talk about the harm of family tradition such as the paternal honor which means honor the father system in many religious families? Sure, I think there's often a lot of harm done there. I think the whole honor that father and the mother without any caveats is, I mean, generally commandments are dangerous, but that's an example of one that is dangerous and has been taken out of context to the point where you should honor them no matter what. And many parents don't deserve honor, unfortunately. It's sad when that happens, but some don't. And there are cultures in which the word of the father is the word of God. That is, it's the final authority. It is all or it's everything. And I think that is incredibly harmful. Again, I mean, what we should be seeking is truth. Fathers can be wrong. I certainly was many times as a father. So fathers can be wrong. And they need to be called out when they're wrong. And they need to be told when they're wrong. And we need it particularly when a child is more of an adult. Conversation needs to be had. And it's not about an authoritarian kind of institution, an authoritarian methodology. So I think there are a lot of traditions associated with family that are dangerous and wrong and cause children to feel guilty and to feel like they owe their parents far beyond what they actually do. And I think that does a lot of harm to individuals. This to individuals in a variety of cultures where they live for the parent, they do what the parent wants them to do. And they don't dedicate the mental space and the thought to figuring out what they want and to live by their standards and by the judgment of their mind. That's interesting. Again, I think it's a nuanced one. I think the concept of honor your father or mother or when people say things like respect your elders. I think I'm pretty traditional in that regard. Whereas I think that for the most in general, as a general rule, I totally agree with that. Does it mean that a parent should be a tyrant and there should be no, they should have the fight, you can't question them and you can't question authority and they can just run rough shot over their children? No, I don't think that's what, I don't think that's what it means, I don't think it's what it's meant to mean. I think with anything like that, there is an unwritten and understood caveat there. Obviously as a parent, I'm not a parent yet, but obviously as a parent, as an adult, generally as a senior, of course you have more life experience. Children don't know anything, right? Children are brought into the world, they don't know anything, it's the job of the parents to raise them and to teach them, et cetera. As we all know, there are certain things that your parents probably told you, which you did not understand the purpose of until you got older, right? Maybe you were even as a teenager, your parents say something, you're kind of like, I don't know about that one. And it's good to challenge, it's good to question, but then maybe as you get into your 30s and older, you start realizing, okay, I get why they said that, I understand it, et cetera. So I think that those, that concept of honor and respect should be there. I also think that parents should be aware of the responsibility that comes with it. With every right, I think in the West we talk a lot about rights. I think we don't talk about responsibility enough. I know Jordan Peterson's brought that up before and I think that's very much true. So I think, sure, we have rights, we're all freedom advocates, we want people to be free and not have a heavy hand of the state coming in, stopping impeding us every way of the way, every step of the way, sorry. But with that come responsibilities, right? So you have a right to do this, but just because you have a right to do something and it's not illegal, doesn't mean that it's good even or that it's moral or that you should do it, et cetera. So I think it's, again, it comes back to that balance and I think a level of humility as well. I think everyone is seeking their own way in the world and I think part of the power of tradition is it gives a guideline of certain things that, okay, this is what this idea or this concept or this way of doing thing has survived for centuries or for millennia and in the majority of cases there is some logical and reason behind it, even if that's not necessarily how it's presented. And in some cases it's bad. I think there are certain things where, I think we can all think of traditions, which would just be objectively bad, right? Someone is being just directly physically harmed, right? Every Friday we whip our children, right? I think everyone would agree that it doesn't matter how long you've done that for, right? That would be a bad tradition. And then there are some which I think are sort of just neutral or they're benign. Every Wednesday night we have this thing for dinner, right? It's not really morally good nor bad. It's just, we do this thing. I'd say something similar with, I don't know, some of the things to do say with a flag, okay? Flags are handled in a certain way. A flag is viewed as a symbolic object, not even necessarily in a religious context, but if you have a flag of a country, it's not supposed to touch the ground, right? You absolutely shouldn't burn it. Why do people burn flags? Because that's known to be a major act of disrespect, et cetera. From a purely worldly perspective and materialistic perspective, it's just a piece of cloth, right? It's just a piece of cloth, but we all know and have sort of accepted as a society that it represents a lot more than that. And I think that's where the concept of tradition and symbolism actually is very interesting because it doesn't purely exist on this sort of totally objective and rational level. There is something deeper there, which I think even people who are not religious also recognize there are still certain things that they may consider symbolic or sacred. And I guess that's an important part of the fabric of our society as well. And that's right, although I do think that there's some flags that should be burnt. What they represent, right? Because the symbol of what they are, they need to be burnt. I think that I'd point out this one danger that is the fact that something has been done for millennia. We have to remember that human history is such that for millennia, nothing changed. For millennia, life sucked to be blunt about it. Life was not great generally. We life expectancy was very short. We were very poor. We didn't have much fun. We didn't do anything that was very worthwhile. For most of humanity, for most of history, that is the case. Life is very different today. Life over the last 250 years has changed in ways that it had never changed before. And I think that's why people are questioning traditions. It's why people are questioning because a certain way of living that fitted, you know, for millennia, you were born and died with the same amount of wealth and the same plot of land and the same place over and over and over again. Nothing changed. That's not true anymore. We can actually live free. We can actually, you know, apply our skills and our talents in ways that we couldn't as a species before. And I think that requires us to rethink a lot of those traditions. We think a lot of what works and what doesn't, what is true and what's not. I mean, and I think the rethinking is what's important and the throwing out the things, not just that don't do harm, but much more importantly is do they do good? Because I don't believe in neutral in this life. Life is too short to do neutral stuff. Like every second you waste doing stuff that's neutral is the second you're not using to do something good, to do something to further your life, to do something to make yourself more productive, to enjoy your life more, to move forward, to start a family, whatever it is that you want to do in life, you're not doing it because you're doing something neutral, right? You're sitting down to dinner, a five hour dinner every Friday night that feels like the kids are being whipped because they have to sit still over dinner and over a prayer book for hours and hours. You can see the trauma of my childhood now. You know. So I'm much more focused on the positive. What drives people to be the best that they can be and live the best life that they can live? And I think that to do that, we need to think, we need to allow people the freedom to think fresh, to think new, not because new is better, because new challenges, traditions that might have nothing to do with furthering their lives. That's an interesting point. I mean, with that said, I mean, that's interesting what you brought up about the concept of things not being neutral. I used the example of a family dinner being neutral. But I mean, I guess I would actually argue that that would be a good, right? I do think a family dinner, whether or not it's a tradition, right? I think a family eating together is a good thing. I actually think Americans standing together before a sports match and singing the anthem and putting their hand on there on their chest. I actually think that's a good thing. I think that's community bonding. It's social bonding. It's bringing people together for something that they have in common. So I would actually argue, from one perspective it can seem benign, but I guess I would actually argue that that's a good thing. And there's likely a reason, again, there's likely a reason that it has persisted for such a long time. Like we say, just because I think, I think that's the nuance of it, right? I think I'm open to virtually everything being questioned and challenged. But I think often what we find is that you ask those questions, you can do those challenges, but then you then come back to the reason and understanding of why something is done, which I think was a great point you're on made. I do think simply saying we do it because we've always done it, isn't always, in many cases, it's not a reason in itself, right? But I think it's good to think about these things and think about them in depth because, as we've said, there have been things in the past where it's like, okay, you really think about them and you do reach a conclusion that, okay, maybe this thing's not a good idea, is it? I do think that in the long term, I don't know in the short term, in the long term I do think that better ideas tend to win out. I think that's kind of the story of human history. Peer force, sometimes can win out as well. And sometimes there are a lot of, there's a lot of bad that happens in the short to mid term in seeking that. But I mean, even if you're looking at, say, the 20th century, which is an obvious period where there were a lot of catastrophic, evil, immoral, genocidal ideas, they did still get defeated. Eventually, I know for the time, people living at that time and who suffered under that, that's probably not much consolation because they didn't live to see that. But in the long term, those ideas were actually defeated. And yeah, there are certain people who still are holding onto them and think they're good ideas, but the majority of people push back against it and say, no, in fact, that was tried back then. And these are the results. So, no, let's go with this path. I know, I'll just say on that last point and then I'll give it to you because some of them were defeated, but they keep reappearing in different, I mean, the whole world culture is in some sense a reappearance of bad ideas from the mid 20th century. So they need to be defeated more thoroughly, I think. We haven't quite gotten it yet. And it's important when you follow a tradition to know why you do it. So for example, I remember in the first day in the army, there was this second lieutenant who was shouting to us, when you talk to me, you're gonna be abrupt and with a loud voice. They were like, ooh, what a loser. And then we had another officer who said, look, people, you need to do this because imagine we're under fire and that's why we do it like that. You have to talk abrupt and short so I can hear you from the radio when there's like rockets flying. And then we're like, oh, okay, now that makes sense. So here's another question, another supercell from Nathan. So, which is basically what is close to what Zoubi mentioned. What do you think about the tradition of the plagues of eilidzians at schools? Yeah, I'm not American, but I did go, I wasn't the American school system from kindergarten up until fifth grade. So I'm actually much more familiar with it than most British people are. I lean towards thinking it's a, I think it's a good thing. I think it's a good thing. I don't think it should be, I don't think it should be mandatory, right? I think that if a child for whatever reason, off their own accord or anything else decided that, I don't wanna participate in this, then they shouldn't have to. So I used to, in fact, I used to be a boy, I was in a Cub Scouts and then Boy Scouts. And because I'm not an American, I didn't do it, right? Cause I'm not an American. And there was a little bit of pressure that, hey, everyone else is doing, you should do it. I was like, I'm not American though. So the words I'm saying, it doesn't really make sense. But I think it's cool, you know? And people respected that, I respected them for doing it. And I do think that, I do think that people of a nation standing together, I do generally think is a good thing, right? I think Americans, especially with all the division, I think it's cool to have something where everyone's like, you know, regardless of their political orientation, religious orientation, whatever, they can all go, actually, we're all Americans. This flag, despite what some radicals are saying, this flag does represent every single citizen of this country. So cool, right? Like that's, to me, that's a good thing. That's a unifying thing. And I, yeah, I'm generally in support of that. But like I say, I don't think it should be, I don't think it should be mandatory, whether you're a sports player or you're a student or whatever, I don't think you should have to do it. But I think it's a good thing to do. I mean, I don't disagree with any of that. I mean, I think I particularly like the sports thing. I think seeing the national anthem before a sports event, it's fun. It reminds everybody that we got two teams on the field that are gonna go after each other's throats, but you know, we all share certain values. We're all part of this nation that means something. I'm a little bit more skeptical about schools only because I generally don't like government schools. And I don't like taking children and requiring to do something they can't understand. Adults, great. You can always sit it out if you're singing the national anthem. Hopefully you know what it's about and what the context is. A child doesn't really have that and always trying to teach them to be patriotic no matter what the country stands for. I would be against that. I mean, I'd like them to learn the facts about the country and come to a conclusion about whether they like it or not. And what I'd like them to learn is the foundational ideas of the country and what it represents and whether we still live up to those ideas. So when I sing the national anthem, it's more of a, I wish we were that America rather than I'm celebrating this America because I don't think America is what the national... I think America's moved away from the national anthem. The anthem still represents America as it could and should be. I think that's interesting. I think the USA is a really fascinating country to me because I think it's a country where you can tell a lot of different stories. And there are, you see those different narratives and people stick to different ones and they all have a kernel of truth, right? They all contain facts. And I think that following on from what you're on said there is, I think part of it actually is the power of affirmation and a reminder and also something aspirational, right? I think the USA, from its inception, it's clear that at the beginning of the USA, it did not live up to all the values that it claimed to uphold, right? A country that's supporting, that's enslaving black people is clearly not abiding by everything that some of those words are saying. But I think that there's an aspirational aspect that's always been there and is still there, which is saying that, okay, the USA is not a perfect country, as no country is perfect, but we have certain aspirations and hope and a desire for it to get better. So it's that seeking towards an ideal rather than simply saying, oh, okay, I agree with everything that the US government does or I approve of every policy and everything is perfect. I don't think that's what most people, I don't think that's how most people view it, although that's how it's sometimes framed. So when you get a lot of people, why were people kneeling for the flag in sports? It's because, oh, you know, well, there's still racism in this country, so I don't wanna support the flag, shall we say, which is, I get it and there's a kernel of truth to it, of course, but at the same time, I think to me anyway, it's sort of missing the point. So I fully support someone's right to do that, I support the right for someone to kneel for the anthem, but I also support people's right to criticize it. Absolutely, yeah. Right, one last issue I want to throw on the table is the issue of identity. So quite often, people who support the need for stronger traditions are saying that without them, we have no identity and without identity, there's no way to resist bad tendencies such as walk culture or the tribalism that we see nowadays. So, and one example that often comes up, particularly on Twitter, is architecture. So there are all these accounts that post these beautiful photos from cathedrals and all that stuff, which I follow them because they're aesthetically pleasing to the eye. But then, and then they show some modern buildings and they say, this is what we had and this is that we have now and we were never asked and this is the decline of the West. So how do you see that? Yeah, Ron, I know Howard Rourke wouldn't agree architecturally, but what's your take on that? I hate cathedrals. I mean, when I see a cathedral, when I see Notre Dame or any one of these cathedrals, I mean, yes, there's a certain beauty to them. But I think of all the equivalents of slave labor that went into building them, the same with the pyramids. I mean, yes, the magnificent, but slaves built them, the same with a lot of these things. Think about the poverty. Think about the church confiscating money from poor people, confiscating their time to build these massive, massive buildings. Most of the people who built them are not gonna benefit from them because some of them took generations to build, right? And the injustice and the horror of people starving during this period of time and yet the church is building magnificent buildings to itself. Where's the beauty of modern architecture is partially it's paid for itself and it's not on anybody's backs. It is transactional, which I think is good, not bad. And I think much of it is beautiful. Now, aesthetically, we can disagree, but the point is that I think, again, we're in the 21st century and this is how it worked, right? We're 21st century materials. 21st century potential. Why would I use 14th century materials to build a building in the 21st century? In the 21st century, beauty is about using the materials that we have available today, glass, metal, I don't know, carbon fibers. I don't know what they are to build the most beautiful and amazing things that we can build. And in that sense, you know, I go to, I've been to a city like Shanghai. Shanghai, to me, is a magnificent city. Now, parts of it have 19th century European architecture. You go to the Bundin. But what makes it magnificent, these skyscrapers, they're just astounding in their magnificence and beauty. And they were appropriate for 21st century culture. To build something today that matches the architecture of the 12th century is regressive. It's a denial of the reality of what's available to us, from which we can build, from which we can create. Yeah, we're going to disagree on this one. I'm a big fan of cathedrals and I do generally think older architecture, which is far more plentiful here in the UK than it is in most of the US and throughout Europe. I think that's a lot of what gives certain cities and towns in the UK and in Europe in general, their beauty. I can understand that it might not be feasible to consistently be creating stuff in that style. But I think that, yeah, I know some of the pages you're talking about on Twitter, where they'll have an old cathedral and then, or even in the same location, they'll show what a building was replaced with and have some comment about it. So from an aesthetic perspective, I do, yeah, I am strongly in the cap of the older stuff, tends to, not in all cases, they went through some very ugly periods with brutalist architecture and things like that. But going back further, I think that, yeah, older architecture was more beautiful. And if you're building a cathedral or a temple or a mosque, et cetera, obviously these buildings are built, not for the church itself, but they're built to honor God, which is the, for a believer, is the optimum. So they have to be beautiful, they're supposed to be beautiful. And as someone who goes to church, or I, yeah, when I have been to some very modern day churches, where the architecture styles very, very different compared to being in an older building. And I have to say that I do prefer the older ones there. It's not a sterile, there's just more, it's more beautiful. Beauty is something that is partially subjective, but I think also partially objective. It's a bit like that in art in general. I think a lot of modern art is, it's ugly, right? A lot of modern art is just ugly. If you're comparing old paintings and statues and things which took a lot of skill and then you see some modern art and someone's just flicked some paint onto a piece of paper, I'm kind of like, come on, these things are not comparable. I'll go further than you. I'll say it's not art, it's a con game. You know, anybody flicking paint on a canvas calling it art is a con artist, that's what they are. But I think architecture is different and I think architecture is different because it's not a pure art, it's a utilitarian art. It's kind of a borderline between an art and an actual utilitarian function. And I think that, yeah, I mean, there's ugly modern art just like there's ugly old art, right? Sorry, ugly modern architecture, just like there's ugly old architecture. It's more question of defining beauty and I will take a building designed by Frank Lloyd Wright over anything designed anywhere at any point in time in history. And it's not cold and it's not, I mean, most modern architecture is very cold and very, but it doesn't have to be. That's not what defines modern architecture. But Frank Lloyd writes a good example of I think what defines good modern architecture. But I don't think architecture, and I've found a timeless principle in old architecture that's always beautiful, right? Then I get it, but then you have the challenge of evolving materials and that you can do different. I have no question in my mind that the Greeks would not design Greek temples the way they did. They wouldn't design them today, the way they did 2000 years ago. The stones would be different, the materials would be different, the shapes would be different, the symmetry. They'd still focus on symmetry, they'd focus on universal principles. But the fundamentals would all be different based on their knowledge and based on what's available to them. So Razis, texting me, we have too many superstarts in a few times. So many thanks to Christopher, Bonnie says, the roar quote, I stand at the end of no tradition and may perhaps start at the beginning one. Yay for rational traditions, cool. So what I'm gonna do is we have three questions. I'm gonna throw them on the table and you decide how much time you allocate to them because we only have six minutes. So one question is not very on topic, but it's interesting so I want to throw it on the table. One Super Chatter says, what is masculinity and how it's expressed in individualism? What is masculinity and how it's expressed on individualism? Second, another question, another Super Chat. Hayek, Friedrich Hayek has written about tradition and institutions in providing rules for people to orient themselves in society. His argument is that we should be humble in the face of centuries of knowledge embedded in these institutions. Agree or disagree? And the last question, in regards to the dismissal of tradition, what would you think of Chester Tone's fence? Chester Tone's fence, I would say the extent to which rejecting tradition is warrantied follows the extent to which we understand the moral entropy it causes. Okay, we need five more episodes for all this, but pick your battle and address as much as you can in the remaining, let's say, two and a half minutes, two minutes each. Who wants to go first? There's a lot. I'm happy to go first, fine. I'll give you the final word. So I obviously disagree with Hayek. I do not think, and Zubi gave the perfect example of slavery as an institution. Obviously we rejected it and threw it out. And I think the sooner we did that, the better. The British did it before the Americans. Good for them. And it would have been great if we could have done it even earlier than that. So as we gain new knowledge, as we gain new moral understanding, as we gain new, you know, new advancements, we need to constantly be rethinking our institutions, constantly rethinking our traditions and dump the stuff that doesn't make any sense and only keep the stuff that actually furthers human flourishing. The standard should be human flourishing. If it doesn't help human flourishing, what's the point? Now I agree with Zubi that sometimes the way it helps is subtle. That is a family dinner. How does that help? Well, you can think about ways it helps. You can think about, you know, the kind of bonding it creates, the atmosphere it creates, the spiritual values that it emboldens. So I don't want to sound materialistic in evaluating these things. You have to think about them. You have to think about their full implications. I don't know what moral entropy is. You know, this is one of these modern ideas trying to bring in physics into morality. Entropy is hard enough to understand in physics. Don't mix it up with morality. You know, if you have good moral principles and if you have two right moral principles, then I think people can stick to them. And I think morality, just like tradition, is a field that needs to be understood. It needs to be approached scientifically. It needs to have rational explanations for it. Say, if I tell you this is moral or this is immoral, I should be able to tell you why it's immoral not because somebody said so, even God, but because this is why it's bad and this is why it's good and what's the standard for good and bad? Individual human life. So I don't think we need these God rails because morality is some entropy, expanding thing constantly. No, some things are good, some things are bad, stick to the good stuff, avoid bad. I'm leaving masculinity the last because it's the hardest. I don't know really to fully define masculinity. You know, Rand viewed masculinity as in a sense and a paraphrasing, the ability to deal with the physical world, the reality out there, the confidence and the competence physically and psychologically and cognitively to deal with external reality and to shape it to your image. In that sense, women have can be masculine or part of them is masculine because it's not like they're incompetent to dealing with the world and you shouldn't equate masculinity and femininity with man woman or any man woman. So masculinity is that competence to physically deal with the world out there and physically with everything that entails. That's what I think. And every individual chooses the extent to which they're masculine, right? I mean, you see a lot of men who can't deal with the world and to that extent, they're not masculine. Awesome. I'll jump in there. So I'll start out with following up on masculinity. So masculinity is the traits, behaviors and roles associated with being male as we know that biologically, males and females are different and we're much more similar than we are different but those differences do very much matter for biological reasons, social reasons, individual collective, so on and so forth. So I think it's a combination of nature and nurture. So both the effect of testosterone and the impact that that has on male biology and male behavior and then some of the social aspects of it as well which are also biologically influenced and traditionally influenced and culturally influenced so on and so forth. If I were to think of typical masculine characteristics which again, it doesn't mean that purely males have them. I would think about things such as competition, especially physical, I'd actually say aggression. That doesn't necessarily have to be violent aggression but aggression is definitely more of a male trait than it is a female trait. The desire to build, conquer and destroy, again, not necessarily positive or negative but I often say that boys and men are usually we're either building something or destroying something and that manifests in all sorts of different ways whereas on the flip side more feminine traits would be include things such as more social aspects, a tendency towards cooperation rather than competition, what people may consider motherly traits and caring traits which again, it doesn't mean that men do not have these things but they're typically more associated with femininity and then of course there are more basic things like how we dress and certain roles in society, et cetera. So that's a general way of how I'd view masculinity. The second question, can you quickly remind me what the second one was? Hayek, Hayek. So the Hayek one, I think you already addressed it when you said we should be humbling the traditions but test them. And the third one was a chesterton and moral entropy which to be honest, I don't know what it means. Okay, I don't think I know what moral entropy means in itself but that's about having the fence and is that the person who said, you know, a conservative sees the fence and they, you know, the liberal wants to remove it and the conservative wants to ask why it's there. Yeah, I think that's a, I don't really know exactly what to say on that. One point I would bring up though, which I don't think we've really mentioned is that I don't think that in the absence of certain traditions, I think we also have to remember that this goes with all ideas is that there doesn't tend to be, we don't tend to be left with a vacuum, right? Something else tends to come in. So I think for example, a lot of people who are more, you know, antithiistic tend to have a view more that, okay, if we could somehow get rid of religion then people won't sort of, people will be purely rational and objective, et cetera, whereas I think it's very clear, actually, you know, what tends to happen is something else comes in and fills in that gap. It could be political ideology, it could be, you know, you could see, it manifests in all sorts of different ways, all different types of ideologies can kind of fill in that space of purpose and meaning and community and even an appeal to something bigger than yourself, something a bit supernatural, right? I'd say there's, you know, the belief that a man can actually be a woman or a woman can actually be a man and you can just switch over like, that's a more religious belief than it is a scientific one, you know? It's much more ideological. So there are a lot of things. So I think again with tradition, I think again, as a sort of final point, we should also be considering in this humility, in the absence of certain traditions or certain ideas, what are they replaced with? Whether it is intentionally or unintentionally? What's the gap that's being left there that people need and want and are gonna gravitate towards and is it going to be better than the old way of doing things? And I think sometimes the answer is yes, sometimes the answer is no, but we need to be cautious and humble approaching that. Gentlemen, thank you so much. So before we say goodbye, a quick piece. So what makes Zubi and Yaron specialists? Not only that they have these ideas, these fresh and correct most of the time ideas, but it's also that they're great communicators. So in the last words, Zubi and Yaron, thank you so much for your time. This was a very good discussion. Civil, we agreed on some, disagreed on some, but I think we had a good time and I got value out of it. Hopefully also the audience got value out of it. So next, thank you very much everyone. Have a good evening. Thank you. Thanks Nikos, bye. Appreciate it.