 You're new on book show. Who's this here Ron? This is Michael. Hey Michael. How's it going? Yeah, I think you remember me. We had a debate a couple months back Yeah, I know I went you called in No, we had a debate. I we being you got the DMs. We had a debate on Jordan Peterson. Oh, yeah debate on Jordan Peterson. Yes, absolutely. Yeah, I don't want to bring it back up But I've been well, I've watched it again, and I I want to follow up on a question I asked you that you never answered during the debate. Sure. I doubt I never answered it, but I'll try again Well, you didn't but I think you're about to I might I might be okay. Go ahead. Good Okay, well, we was talking about how the the relevance of suffering right and You was saying suffering and I quote is the relevant is the incidental and the point that I was trying to make See, you're very you're you're very well gifted verbally way more than I am and I was my first public debate So it was kind of hard for me to articulate what I was thinking But that is fine. This is what I was saying This is what I was saying There is no joy or happiness without suffering Because we use suffering to gauge goals and happiness It is it is crucial and just for an example The recognition of suffering is crucial to the human experience. For example in the 17th century, you know having indoor plumbing Well, I mean, I don't know if it was around then but it was a luxury. It was no indoor But okay, okay. Well, whatever indoor plumbing started. It was a luxury. Yep Now it's all part of the norm the feeling the feeling as it is Ambulance is ambivalent. Yeah nature. Yeah, the standards have changed. Yeah. So one could argue That daily recognition of suffering is required for human flourishing because without suffering you don't know what joy is You have to have something. Oh, I don't buy that look I don't buy that and it's what the argument you're making is not Jordan Peterson's argument You know, you're making it isn't it isn't I mean I've watched more Jordan Peterson since we talked and it's not So everybody's trying to whitewash Jordan Peterson And you know, I love the guy because I watch him all the time and he's really smart He's really good. So this is not a knock on Jordan Peterson, but and I think Jordan Peterson will agree with me I don't think I think I'm interpreting him right and and and you guys interpreting wrong You guys are trying to make him out to be Something he is not he's not an objectivist and he's not consistent with objectivism and he would reject objectivism He would throw the book out the window He does not agree with almost anything in objectivism and I think Jordan Peterson would say you're on you're absolutely right Because I don't think for a minute He is delusional enough to think that what he's advocating for is consistent with objectivism now Maybe he's right and objectivism is wrong. I'm willing to concede that that's a possibility But I'm not willing to concede the idea that Jordan Peterson is consistent philosophically with objectivism because he's not now Let me get to the suffering question Metaphysical Just act like act like you're right and Jordan Peterson doesn't believe that I would love to see you argue against that absolutely metaphysically metaphysically There are two things that exist for human being Pain And pleasure we have a pain pleasure mechanism built in One is not priming over the other It's not pain that makes pleasure possible or pleasure that makes pain possible They are two features that exist in human existence from when we are born We have the ability to suffer pain and we have the ability Of pleasure to have a joy. We have both abilities and and You know babies experience both and to say That what's fundamental what's metaphysical is not just suffering but the tragic that life Is fundamentally tragic is to give death And suffering Too much emphasis and let let me just be clear on about this Ein Rand would flip out To think that you would say that I mean Ein Rand considered suffering and she writes about this So this is not me inventing what Ein Rand said. She considers She considers suffering incidental unimportant Not relevant to life and and if you think about the first time Dagny sees John galt And and and what she sees him in his eyes It's the eyes of a man Who doesn't let suffering make any difference in his life suffering doesn't go deeper than the momentary It's insignificant in his life and that's what makes him John galt so You know agree or disagree That's not jordan peterson You know I didn't call them to debate with you nothing. I just want you to answer the actual question. I answered it. I mean I just did you didn't because you you said we can suffer and we can but i'm explained you why it is crucial And i'm explaining to you that it's not because it's so i mean i'm recognized suffering nobody is ignoring suffering But what jordan peterson does is it gives it primacy and i'm rejecting the idea of it being primary Suffering does not define joy joy and suffering come into being if you will When we open our eyes when we come into being they are equal parts of life One is not superior to the other one is not greater than the other one does not make the other possible They are both in our biology Relevant at the same time You you you can stroke a baby and you can give them pleasure and you can pinch him and give him pain and Biologically those are equal one is not superior to the other suffering is not what makes joy possible. That is absurd Not in the concrete. No, that's not what i'm arguing in any context In any context. Well, yeah, it does because you don't know what joy is without That's just not true. It's just a fact that is just it's a logical fact That's not true. You don't need the contrast with pain in order to Because because you get it from the pleasure mechanism, right? You get it from the fact that somebody caresses you and your baby and you feel good because of it because it's Feels good. It's an emotion. It's it's it's a sensation not even an emotion of pleasure That's what everything is based on the sensation of pleasure and pain. That's how we start with those And suffering is a consequence of Experiencing the pain and joy is a pleasure is a consequence of experiencing pleasure So and we experience pleasure as a primary not as a derivative of suffering So you you don't experience joy because it contrasts with with suffering You experience joy because it contrasts with nothing with with the state of just being i'm just being Now somebody caresses me. Ooh, that feels good. Cool. Somebody pinches me. Ooh, that feels bad suffering. That's how it works I think the explanation is a little convoluted Well, that's fine. You can think that second question. You can ask me one more question and then I need to go on I didn't call to make you mad you're on. No, I'm not mad. I get passionate I get passionate. I'm not mad, but but I think you're trying to resist my answer I think my answer makes complete sense And and if you if you think about it purely if you take a baby, just think about a baby Think about the experiences of a baby and think about what those experiences are and you think biologically that before suffering There's pain and that the fundamental the fundamental experience of of of an infant is that pain pleasure mechanism Then I then I think you really start gaining an understanding of what joy means and what suffering means And what implications they have and when you make the pinching the the suffering the focus of everything you talk about is Jordan Peterson does you make that primary? That is really bad. It becomes the equivalent of original sin I don't I absolutely agree with what you're saying And I'm not okay. You know trying to dodge it in any way I just think that you're parsing what I'm saying, but we'll move on I agree that pleasure and pain are the real thing I'm thinking this is completely separate and that's what I'm trying to make No, you you build up the concept You build up the concept of suffering from the concept of pain and you build up the concept of joy From the concept of pleasure. So the first thing you experience see concepts and again Jordan Peterson would not agree with what I'm going about to say concepts are in us or integration abstract concepts like like like like joy and and suffering abstract concepts that are built up from Concrete and the concrete you start with as a human being A pleasure and pain and if you build up the pleasure concrete you get joy If you build up the the the pain concretes you get suffering You can have those abstractions without the experiences that build them up And one of those is not more fundamental than the other I would actually argue that in a healthy human being The experience of pleasure far outweighs in terms of importance and significance and in life Far outweighs the importance of the pain and therefore the suffering But that's not the impression I get from Jordan And again, I say this with all the love to Jordan Peterson because I admire him and I think he's really interesting But I don't agree with Maybe I should have said happiness and suffering, but either way is my second question I would still disagree with you Well, I wouldn't because I see them differently, but we're never gonna get anywhere and I want to ask the second question I know you like to be right, but can I ask my second question? Well, it's not that I like to be right It's just that I am