 The radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rocks. This is The Iran Brook Show. All right, everybody. Welcome to Iran Brook Show. Tuesday evening, three days to O'Conn. And yeah, looking forward to meeting many of you at O'Conn. Hopefully many of you are coming. I hope so. One of you, I think, got scholarships. I think we arranged that through Iran Brook Show. We got a bunch of you scholarships. So please come up and say hello when you're at O'Conn. And yeah, I wanted to say, so today's show, Seven Deadly Sins, is sponsored by Adam Campbell. Thank you, Adam. This is the topic he chose. This is the topic that he came up with and he chose. And even though I've actually done a show in the past on Seven Deadly Sins, I think it's a good topic to kind of come back to. And it's a good opportunity kind of to discuss some of the objectivist contrast, kind of the Seven Deadly Sins with objectivist sins. We're talking about objectivist sins, right? And so thank you, Adam, for that. Adam also picked a topic that I think Andrew suggested, which is American exceptionalism. So we're going to do American exceptionalism, or we're going to do that on the 4th of July. So on the 4th of July, we're going to do a live show from O'Conn. Those of you attending O'Conn will be able to be in the room with me while I do the show. So hopefully that'll be fun. Hopefully you'll enjoy that. It's at 1.30. 1.30. Wait a second. I got the room. I think it's the Chopin room. Yeah, the Chopin room. It's near attendee services. At O'Conn, 1.30. Come on over. It'll be a great time to see who else is listening to the show. Meet maybe some of the people on the chat. You know, just say hello to me. Hang out a little bit. You know, I don't have a huge amount of time because I got something at 3. But we'll do 1.30 to like 3 o'clock. We'll do the show and we'll hang out. There might be other shows during O'Conn. I don't know yet. I'm trying to arrange them. I will let you know. Other shows. I also might do shows just for my room, for my hotel room. So we'll see. But we'll try to get as many shows in during the week as possible. But it's not going to be a lot. So I'm sorry for those of you who get withdrawal syndrome. When I travel next week might cause you some of those withdrawals. On the other hand, you'll be able to save up money for the super chat. So there you go. You know, I won't be tapping that as often. Or asking for that as often. All right. But I will ask today. All right. So today we have a goal of $650, which is our evening goal. So just because out of smarts of it doesn't mean we're letting loose on that. Please use it to ask questions. Use it just to support. There we go. So he already got us started. And he's got one. He's got a sinful one. He's got one on a sin. So that's good. Let's see. What else? Any other administrative stuff before we jump in with lust and gluttony? So let me just say. The seven deadly sins really come from Christianity. They have a history both in Augustine or Augustine. I don't know how you pronounce it Augustine Augustine and Aquinas. But theologians have talked about the seven deadly sins for 2000 years. There's a gazillion writings on it. There are all kinds of interpretations, modern, old, ancient, a wide variety of them. I am no theologian. I am no expert on the seven deadly sins. So we're going to we're going to use some just basic understanding of them. I do. I've got open here Wikipedia page on the seven deadly sins. I've also got there's a website called seven deadly sins, which has the sins. And we can use it as well for some it's a little I think it's a little humorous. But it does tell you what the punishment is in hell for the sins. And you guys should know this because well, you guys should know this because it's you want to know what you're going to get if you if you get this. And of course, you know, we'll use our own judgment about what these things mean kind of in common society. I'm curious what you guys think. So feel free to jump in if any of you are if any of you have a deeper knowledge of Christian theology and have a deeper knowledge of what kind of the deadly sins may be mean in your denominator in a domination of Christianity you grew up or your preacher your priest or whatever. Feel free to feel free to jump in with those because again, I'm not necessarily the experts on the sins. You know, I'm hopefully an expert on analyzing them and telling you kind of the objectives perspective on them. I usually when you when you do the seven deadly sins pride is number one, but we're going to we're going to leave pride for the last because pride is the most important of the sins just like in objectivism. There's a sense of which is the most important of the of the of the virtues. It's also the one that is most in contrast with objectivism. So, so we're going to leave pride for last. I probably have the most to say about pride and and we can talk about that. But so we're going to jump in with, you know, just arbitrarily, we'll jump in with greed. We'll do greed, lust, envy, gluttony, gluttony, wrath and sloth. All right. And then and then we'll go to pride and then we'll go to pride and we'll spend the rest of the time on pride. It's there is by the way a lot to say here. So it's hard to say how long this will take. This could take a while. So this will probably be a longer show. But feel free to jump in again with with questions, comments about the seven deadly sins or about anything else. But but open Q&A, it doesn't have to be necessarily on this. All right. So let's let's get started with with greed and greed is maybe the trickiest one. Because it really has kind of an open definition, or it has multiple definitions, and it really depends on what we actually mean by greed. You know, so so if we take, you know, it's a set of desire, right? It's similar to lust and gluttony that which will get to greed is applied to artificial, rapacious desire, as well as the pursuit of material possessions. So greed is applied to the pursuit of material possessions. Thomas Aquinas writes, quote, greed is a sin against God. As are all modern, as are all mortal, mortal sins in as much as man condemn condemns things eternal for the sake of temporal things. So greed for Aquinas says you're spending too much time on the material and not enough on the spiritual. You're spending too much time on accumulating material goods in this world, not enough on God, on, you know, on things that are eternal. In Dante's Purgatory, you're basically, you know, you're bound and laid face down on the ground for having concentrated excessively on earthly thoughts. So for Christianity, greed is to a large extent about earthly thoughts. It's about being materialistic. It's about caring about this world and wealth in this world. Let's see what seven deadly sins dot com deadly sins dot com has to say, greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called avarice. Oh, forget about the second one because I can't pronounce it. And the punishment in hell, by the way, you'll be boiled alive in oil. But the website goes on to say bear in mind that it's the finest, most luxurious boiling oil the money can buy. But it's still boiling. All right, so greed is the desire for material wealth or gain. In both of those, which is interesting, right? I think this is the proper Christian definition. I think the idea of excessive desire, excessive by what standard is something overlaid onto the Christian definition definition. I don't think it's a desire for the unknown. Greedy people are typically people who work hard to get what they get. When people say Wall Street is greedy, they're not saying Wall Street is not working hard to get it. They don't even necessarily say that it's the unknown. When in a modern context, when we talk about greed, we're talking about they'll do anything to get it. They'll do anything to get it. And in that sense, they mean excessive. But in the original Christianity, at least according to Aquinas and according to this website, greed is not excessive. Greed is just the desire for material wealth. It's the desire for material things. Specifically in contrast to otherworldly things, eternal things, the otherworld, sacrifice for God. You know, it's harder for a rich man to get into heaven than a camel to go through the eye of a needle. Christianity is very clear about its attitude towards wealth and material success. And to the extent that you have material success, give it away. You were given it by God to give it away. So greed in its essential characteristic, the pursuit of material wealth, not a vice in objectivism. Indeed, there is a chapter in Atlas Shrug called with the title of greed in it, right? I don't think Iron Man viewed it as necessarily evil as a vice because she understood that the pursuit of material wealth requires the use of reason, requires the use of rationality, that greed as properly understood requires long-term thinking, requires long-term planning and it requires trading and win-win relationship and win-win transactions. Now, greed is not one of those concepts I'm willing to fight over. That is, it's not one of those concepts that I think it's important for us to use and to help with the way the common people or the culture have used it. I don't think it's that important, but it is important for us to know that essentially the way Christianity defines it, the way Thomas Aquinas defines it, the greed is the pursuit of material wealth and in that sense, it is a positive. Let me read your quote from Thomas Aquinas. It is a sin directly against one's neighbor, since one man cannot over abound in external riches without another man lacking them. Zero sum world. Now, understandable, given Aquinas 13th century, it's pretty much a zero sum world in the 13th century, but under capitalism and an ever-growing world, under a system by which, by which, the pie is growing, well, there's no pie, but wealth is growing and transactions are win-win, greed is not a sin against one's neighbor and then he goes on to say it's a sin against God. Just as all models sins, inasmuch as man contends things eternal for the sake of temple. So it's giving up the eternal for the sake of temple. Now, my view of greed is that it's a desire for material wealth again. I agree with the Christians and in that sense, it's good. Maybe desire is the wrong word. Greed is the seeking out. It's the pursuit because it's not just the desire. It's actually pursuit. Desire would be more like lust, right? Greed is more the pursuit of material wealth again. And maybe it's, you know, if you really wanted to push it, I would say greed is the single-minded pursuit of material wealth again. But there's nothing wrong with that. Now in the culture, I recognize in the culture that we live in, it is excessive. But what does excessive mean? Excessive by who's standard. So if I wanted to make it a vice, I don't want to make it a vice. But if I wanted to make it a vice, I would say greed is the irrational pursuit of material wealth of greed. Is made of greedy? I don't think so. Made of is self-destructive. Made of is envious. Made of is, what was the, somebody used a word here that was good. Yeah, I don't know. But excessive means nothing. Excessive is more than average, more than most people, more than some. Is wanting a billion too much? Wanting 10 billion, 100 billion, a trillion? I think irrational. If you want to make it a vice, then it's irrational pursuit of wealth. Then it's a vice. But I'm not sure that's true. I'm not sure that's the proper definition. I don't think that's the way I'm ran-viewed greed. And I don't think it's necessarily a bad word, although ever-riches. Yeah, somebody, thank you. Ku-ba-da-ba-ba. Ever-riches is a good word. I think it's ever-riches. It's materialistic in a sense that you value the material. But there's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing vice. There's nothing negative about wanting the material. We live in a material world. But the only way to get the material, the only way to achieve material goods is by using one's mind, is by using one's rational faculty. And in that sense, it's not pure materialism because it's not the material as the only thing. It's just the pursuit of material goods. It doesn't mean you're not going to pursue other things. Materialism, philosophy is a bad thing. Pursuing material goods is not a bad thing. You do it every day. You have to do it. You can't survive otherwise. Veracity. I don't know what veracity means exactly. We live in a material world. Absolutely. Yeah, I think you should change your screen name. Ku-da-ba-ba. Because I don't know what it means. I can't pronounce it. It strains my ability, my pronunciation ability, which you know is already challenged. So greed is an interesting one because greed, I think you can interpret it as a positive. The pursuit of material wealth or gain or even the single-minded pursuit of wealth or gain, that's fine. I'm dedicated to making money. Why is that a bad thing in your 20s on Wall Street? You know, that's what they pay you for. That's what you're there for. You're there to make money. Set yourself up. Now, you want how you make money. You want to do it rationally. You want to do it virtuously. But the culture views it as a vice in a sense of, well, let's stay back. The culture views it as a vice because the culture views the pursuit of material gain as a vice. You could determine it as a rational vice by saying that it's a rational desire, a rational pursuit of material wealth or gain. But I think that's trying too hard. I just think the pursuit of material gain is a good thing and that's fundamentally what greed means and greed is not a bad thing. But it's used as a bad thing in the culture so let's not fight over it. All right, let's see. What else? Whoops, what happened to my list? I had a list. There it is. Hidden behind the webpage. All right, after greed, lust. All right, lust. So notice, let me just say this. Notice greed is about the pursuit of self-interest, rational self-interest, long-term self-interest as it applies to the material world. That's how I think of it as a positive. What is lust? Well, let's take a look. How do they define lust? Lust is an ordinate and inordinate craving for pleasures of the body. An inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body. It's like excess, right? Inordinate by what's standard. Thomas Aquinas. Well, Thomas Aquinas is more confusing on this one. Cody, let me read you from Wikipedia. Lust or lechery is intense longing. It is usually thought of as intense sexual desire which may lead to fortification. Oh, my God, that would be horrible. Including adultery, rape, bestiality. These people go, they have wild imaginations. My lust will never, ever, ever lead to bestiality. And other sinful and sexual acts. Oftentimes, it could also mean other forms of a bridal desire such as for money or power, right? Dante defined lust as the disordered love for individuals. It is generally thought to be the least serious capital sin. It is as it is an abuse of a faculty that humans share with animals. And sins of the flesh are less grievous than spiritual sins. So notice the theme. The theme throughout Christianity is material, flesh, pleasure, material, pleasure of the body. Bad, evil, no good. Acting to achieve pleasure from the body. Bad, no good. So lust is this excessive or inordinate desire craving for pleasure of the body. What does objectivism have to say about this? Well, here again, what does excessive mean? Ashton. Wow, I haven't seen Ashton in a long time. Ashton, Milky, wait. Ashton, thank you. Thank you for being here. A hundred bucks Ashton just put down. So it's nice to see Ashton back. What does objectivism say about lust? Well, pleasure to the body, a good thing. Again, applied rationally. Not at the expense of one's reason, not at the expense of real virtue. But the pleasures of the body should be pursued. You know, fornication, sex in other words, is a value. It should be pursued. Both because it is a pleasure of the body, but also because it is a pleasure of the spirit. Sex is both a physical and spiritual activity, as are most things. So again, Christianity, religion, divorce you from the material world, divorce you from the reality, divorce you from your own life. They encourage chastity, restraint, obedience. No sex before marriage. Here's the big difference between me at least. I don't think I would ever say this, but I think she would agree with it, but I don't think she would say it. Here's the big difference between me and this view of sex. They say sex before marriage is immoral. It's supposed to dedicate sex to kind of a spiritual experience that God has sanctioned through marriage. And I say sex, I say getting married without having sex before is immoral, because it's not in your self-interest. Sex is an important part of marriage, and therefore you should know that marriage generally is a long-term contract with massive complications and difficulties, and it's really problematic. It's a real long-term contract. Around some of the most difficult parts of your life, having kids, living day to day, you better know the person you're getting married really well, and sex as being one of the most important parts of a marriage, one of the most important parts of a relationship. Yeah, you should get to know your partner sexually before you marry them. So, I have the exact opposite view. Chastity, bad. Restrains, well, depends. Obedience, never. Pleasure is a value. You should pursue it. You should pursue it as you pursue all values, rationally, with integrity, with honesty, but you should pursue it. Sex is something to be pursued. Again, rationally, honestly, means no promiscuity, but even now, be aware of how you define it. So, pleasure is... God, I wish I had Opa open right now, because Leonard Peacock has some great things to say about pleasure. But pleasure is essential to our understanding of values. Pleasure is the mechanism biology has given us to say this is good. This should be pursued. It's how we learn what good and bad is, what's pleasurable and what's painful. The pain-pleasure mechanism is that the root, physiologically, biologically, of our values ultimately. So, again, excessive, irrational... Yeah, you can make anything into a vice by putting excessive or irrational in front of it. So lust... Yeah, I mean, it shouldn't lead to irrational sex. It shouldn't lead to betrayal. It shouldn't lead to dishonesty. It shouldn't lead to... What did they use in Wikipedia? Beastiality? But feeling lust is part of feeling alive. Part of feeling alive. All right. Envy. All right, there's one that, yeah, we should be agreeing with, right? I mean, objectivism. Envy is clearly a sin. Envy is one of the most horrible things you can think of. So let's define it, conventional definitions. Envy is the desire for others, traits, status, ability, or situation. The desire... Notice that a lot of the sins have to do with desire, right? Desire for others, traits, status, ability, or situation. The punishment in hell for this, by the way, is being put in freezing water. How does that happen in hell? Can anything freeze in hell? That seems weird. Let's look at, quickly, at Wikipedia. Envy. Envy is characterized by an insatiable, it's always insatiable, desire. Like greed and lust, right? Well, then why do you need greed and lust, if you have envy? That seems repetitious. It can be described as a sad or resentful, a conciousness towards the traits or possessions of somebody else. So it's wanting stuff that somebody else has, right? And it severs you from your neighbor. That's the real sin, I guess. Malicious envy is similar to jealousy in that both feel discontent towards somebody's traits, status, abilities, or rewards. Bernard Russell said that envy was one of the most content... One of the most potent causes of unhappiness. Being sorrow to committers of envy while giving them the urge to inflict pain upon others. So is envy the wanting of somebody else's, of traits that somebody else has? What if those traits are good? What if you see somebody of great character? What if you read Atlas Shrugged and you go, I want to be like Reardon. Well, I want to be like Gault. I want to be like Dagny. I want to have those traits. I have a desire for the traits of character that they have. Is that envy? No. It's not envy. If one sees somebody who's wealthy and you go, yeah, I'd like to be wealthy like that, that's cool. Or somebody, you see somebody as I do, often driving a car you would really like. And you go, wow, wish I had one of those. Is that envy? No, you might say it's jealousy. But is that a bad thing? Why? If the thing that they have is a value, if the thing that they have inspires you to achieve, inspires you to try harder, the fact that somebody else has it doesn't make you desiring it. It doesn't mean you have your envy or something. And Rand had a beautiful definition of envy that really gets to the heart of it. And I think, you know, and I think, you know, illustrates the extent to which this is a true vice, a true sin. Anybody know what Rand's definition of envy is? Envy is hatred for the good, for being the good. Yeah, one of them is right. Jealousy is not envy. The desire for somebody else's traits or stuff, you're not desiring of his exact stuff. You're desiring of stuff like that. Go get it. Go work for it. Envy is hatred. It's a particular type of hatred. It's hatred of good people for being good. It's hatred of good stuff for being good stuff. It's hatred of somebody's positive character. It's looking at John Galton saying, I hate him because he's so perfect. I hate Reardon because he could make a medal and I cannot. And that, that's a powerful definition. That's a powerful definition of real sin because you're rejecting the good. You're rejecting values, nothing for you to be gained from it. It's all about negativity. It's all about destruction. It's all about tearing down. And that's why envy is fundamentally what characterizes the nihilists. Envy is fundamentally what characterizes the people who would tear down society, who would make us all equal, egalitarians. What they want is not to raise people up. That's all positive. Raising people up is great. What they want is to tear people down. And who do they want to tear down? They want to tear down the able. They want to tear down the successful. They want to tear down the people who have the positive virtues. So envy is a vice. Absolutely. It is a deadly sin. It'll kill you. It'll kill you. It'll make your life miserable. I agree completely with Thomas Aquinas on this, right? Was it Thomas Aquinas? No, it was the philosopher. It was Bertrand Russell that envy was one of the most potent causes of unhappiness. Absolutely. People who are envious are unhappy. Because it doesn't cause them to strive. It causes them to hate. So this is one where you see at least agreement that it is a vice. It is a sin. But for very different reasons. And a very different definition. Very different definition. And for objective as somebody else's accomplishments, even if you don't want to emulate them, are wonders, are to be praised, are to be admired, are to be respected. And the envious person who hates the person because of that achievement are some of the most destructive people there. They're the people that one should avoid at all costs. All right. Gluttony. I mean, this one's interesting, right? Because you wouldn't name gluttony as a, like, if I asked people in the modern world to name the deadly, you know, the awful sins, I don't think gluttony would ever come up. Why does it come up in Christianity? It comes up because, and in a world of Dante and a world like this, it comes up because food was rare. Food was difficult to come up with. Food was, you know, you barely survived. You somehow worked all day just to feed yourself. There was no excess. It was rare, at least, that there was excess. And when there was, it was usually by the aristocrats, by the lords, by the exploitors, by, and you could see that you looked at them and you said, I'm starving here and I've worked all day and he's took all my stuff and he's eating like a pig. So the fact that there was a shortage of food, constant shortage of food, particularly in the dark and middle ages, where I think a lot of these ideas come from, is why I think overconsumption of food was viewed with such disdain. So gluttony is the overindulgence and overconsumption of anything to the point of waste. The word arrives in the Latin, glatiu, meaning to gulp down or swallow. One reason for its condemnation is that the gorging of the prosperous may leave the needy hungry, again, a zero sum world environment. And it wasn't, there was famine. It was that everybody was a subsistent farmer and it was a world in which the lord of the manna got everything. You just barely survived. Now, times equinistic, some more expansive view of gluttony, arguing that it could also include an obsession, obsessive anticipation of meals and overindulgence in delicacies and costly foods. Again, all focused on food, right? Eating too much, eating too soon. Let's see what the website has to say about gluttony. Gluttony is the inordinate desire, again, desire to consume more than that which one requires. What does require mean? You'll be force fed. In hell, the gluttoness of force fed rats, toads and snakes. So Thomas Aquinas says, gluttony denotes not any desire of eating and drinking, but in anordinate desire, leaving the order of reason, whereby the good of moral virtue consists. So, you know, it depends. There's going to a three-star Michelin restaurant and eating, I don't know, 20 courses of amazing food once in a while constitute gluttony, constitute a sin? No. No, quite the contrary. It's a massive pleasure and it's fun and it's interesting and, yeah, you maybe eat too much and maybe you're uncomfortable a little bit afterwards, but what the hell, you had a great time. But eating junk food every day, you know, getting fat on junk food, denying one's, you know, a sense of commitment to being healthy, be fit, all in the name of the desire to eat. Yeah, that can be a sin to the extent that it's short term, but short term, not just in the short term like the meal at the, what do you call it, at the Michelin restaurant, it's also short term, but to the extent that it is harming you, and this is the big issue, so gluttony is bad for you to the extent that it harms you, to the extent that it makes you unhealthy, to the extent that it makes you sick, to the extent that it might shorten your life, to the extent that it might make your life less interesting, less fun, less exciting, because it makes you unhealthy. That's what makes it a sin. The sin is the harm you're doing yourself. Again, the context is always self-interest. The context is always your rational, long-term life, self-interest. So if eating whatever it is you're eating, and it might be what you eat rather than how much you eat, is going to do you damage objectively, then it's sinful, then it's bad for you, then, yeah, it's a vice. All right, we're getting close. We did greed, we did lust, we did envy, we did gluttony, all right? Wrath, Wrath, ooh, Wrath sounds the Wrath of God. You don't want the Wrath of God on you, God, that sounds, that sounds, Abdul says, Michelin Guide is like a turn-by-turn direction to the pits of hell. Yeah, what is, yeah, and in hell, remember, you'll be force-fed rats, toads, and snakes, it's not, you know, delicious, I don't know, foie gras or whatever with blueberry sauce or whatever, right? So yeah, Michelin starts direct path to hell into force-fed rats, toads, and snakes. That's pretty disgusting. All right, let's go to Wrath, where's the scent of Wrath. Wrath is manifested in the individual who spoons love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Anger, Anger or Wrath. The punishment in hell, just so you know, I'm just letting you know what the punishment in hell is, so you can weigh your odds and decide whether these are things that are worth getting into, right? You'll be dismembered alive, dismembered alive. That sounds pretty bad, but I have to say much, much, much better than eating rats. I'll take the dismembered alive any day. Thomas Aquinas says Anger is the name of a passion. A passion of the sensitive appetite is good insofar as it regulated by reason, whereas it is evil if it has set the order of reason aside. This is where we love Thomas Aquinas. It's where he elevates reason, where he understands that Anger makes sense sometimes. Sometimes it makes sense to be angry, right? There can be rational reasons for anger. But sometimes anger is completely irrational. The void of reason, the void of rationality and therefore must be opposed. So I assume here that religion would say anger and rage in Thomas Aquinas at least sense are bad because they're irrational, they go against reason. They're not bad if they're consistent with reason. That's what Aquinas is saying. Let me see where is Wrath here. According to Wikipedia it says can be defined as uncontrolled feelings of anger, rage and even hatred. And here the key is uncontrolled. That's irrational. That's emotion driven. Generally a theme here is that behavior, actions taken on the basis of emotion, wrong. Emotions are not tool of cognition. Emotions is not a deciding factor for action. Thinking is, reason is. So for objectivism, pursuing one's emotion, independent of one's reason, or in contradiction of one's reason, that is the mortal sin. We'll talk about the other mortal sin that's related to that in a minute. So again, anger if it's rational, fine. Irrational, bad. Irrationality generally, emotionalism generally, bad. But Christianity can take this sin of anger a little too far, right? Because you get, for example, the virtue if you will of turning the other cheek. Now Christians don't often live up to that virtue. But then they don't live up to many of the virtues in the Bible. Objectivism rejects the idea of turning the other cheek as sacrificial and against one's own interest. And the whole idea of the other thing, the Christians are very, very big in. And you see this sometimes in the most horrific cases of murder, somebody's murdered your family, and then people forgive them. They forgive them. They go to trial and they say, I forgive you. Like God, I would never forgive somebody like that. There is no such thing as forgiveness for murder. Zero, nothing, never. And even forgiveness and dignity in life has to be earned. There's no automatic forgiveness. There's no unconditional forgiveness. That whole idea of turning the other cheek and forgiveness as anti-justice, they go against the fundamental virtue in objectivism of justice. So the extent that the sin of wrath means the virtue of forgiveness, the virtue of turning the other cheek, no, absolutely not. Absolutely not. It doesn't mean that objectivism holds that you should hold grudges and you don't mope around angry at people all the time. But it means that you don't deal with people that have done you harm. It means that you don't forgive them unless there's reason to forgive them, i.e. they've done something to earn your forgiveness. But you have to be selfish about this. We talk about this in some of Iran's rules. You have to be selfish about this and know how to deal with anger, how to deal with not forgiving other people, how not to let the grudge become an obsession, destroy your life, prevent you from focusing on the good and prevent you from focusing on living. Okay, one more and then we get to pride. This one is sloth. Sloth. Now, let's see. Let's see what Wikipedia has a lot to say about sloth. Surprisingly, it has more to say about sloth than any of the other deadly sins. That's weird. Sloth refers to a peculiar jumble of notions dating from antiquity and including mental spiritual, well, that's just somebody writing that. It may be defined as absence of interest or habitual disinclination to exertion. It's just kind of laziness, lack of focus, and the scope is pretty wide. It can be spiritual that is not doing what is necessary to do your duties and obligations to God. It can be mental. It can be physical, not doing the work. Let's see what the website says. Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work. The punishment in hell, you're thrown into a snake pit. I think of all the ones so far thrown into a snake pit is probably the least bad. You can charm the snakes. Of course, here, sloth really does seem like it is a vice. Again, the orientation, though, of Christianity is that the reason you should work is for the sake of God, or for the sake of your neighbor, or for the sake of others. Thomas Aquinas says, the sluggishness of the mind which neglects to begin good, it is evil in its effects if it so oppresses man as to draw him away entirely from good deeds. What are good deeds? Deeds that help other people, deeds that promote God, deeds that are primarily sacrificial. So, sloth is bad in an objective context that prevents you from doing, it's a vice, that prevents you from doing the things necessary for achieving your own self-interest. It is about lack of focus, it is about lack of effort, it is about lack of energy around the things that promote your life, around the things that make you happy, around the things that make your life a good life, that make your life flourishing, successful. Mentally, it's being unfocused, a major sin in objectivism certainly. So, Christianity has, into sloth and into really all the vices, has built in altruism, because you're working for the sake of the other, whether it's God or your neighbor. In objectivism, it's about you, it's about not achieving your values, it's not about doing the work, mental, spiritual, physical, to achieve the values that are yours, that are necessary for your own happiness, for your own achievement. It's like doing stuff halfway, super procrastinating, ignoring what needs to get done, laziness, procrastination. All right, what else do we have? Well, we are down to pride. So, what is the center pride? The center pride is said by some to be the foremost of the seven deadly sins. Hubris is the gateway through all other sins enter the mortal soul. This is the key to everything, according to Christianity. Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as vanity. The punishment is you'll be broken on the wheel. I don't know, I still have that eating rats in my mind. It's really, really bad. It's, according to Thomas Aquinas, inordinate self-love is the cause of every sin. The root of pride is found to consist in man not being in some way subject to God and his rule. And that's really the key. Thinking you're something. Pride is thinking you have a mind, thinking you can think for yourself, thinking you can live a life, thinking you can achieve happiness, thinking you can achieve, period. Thinking that you can be independent of a God, that you can be independent of an authority. Humility means not, I know I don't know things and I need to discover and there's limits to my knowledge. That's not what humility means, although that's how often it is used in the culture. Be humble, Iran, you don't know everything because I don't know everything. Humility actually means that you cannot know, that you do not know the important stuff, that that stuff is God's, that stuff is in a different dimension. It's the philosopher kings. Keep you in your place. Don't be too ambitious. Don't think you know. Recognize the overwhelming superiority of God's knowledge. Whereas in objectivism, that's pride for Christian. Not knowing your place. Not knowing how small you are. Not knowing how insignificant you are in the big scale of things as compared to a God, an all-knowing God, an all-knowing philosopher king in a secular sense. And again, that's the beginning of all sin for the Christian. Because as soon as you set yourself up for knowledge, as soon as you set yourself up as being able, as having ability, well, you're almost by definition rejecting the superiority of what makes all good good, which is God. What is pride for objectivism? Pride is a commitment to be good. A commitment to morality. A commitment to live the best life one can live. It's the action necessary to take to achieve moral perfection. To achieve the good life. To achieve happiness. It's not an emotion. It's a virtue. A virtue is an action taken to achieve values. What is the action here? The action is here, the taking of your morality, the taking of your life seriously and doing the things necessary to achieve your success at living. And it assumes the exact opposite of what Christianity assumes. And that's what makes it the exact opposite of the approach of Christianity. It assumes that you can know. It assumes that you have ability. It assumes that you can achieve. It assumes that you are a valuer of values that you can achieve. That are not out of your reach. That are not impossible. And in that sense, pride is the culminating virtue. It is the virtue that says, go practice all the other virtues. That's what leads you to a good life. That would give you self-esteem fundamentally. That's what makes the good life possible. So, you know, for Aristotle, I guess, pride was the queen of the virtues. The crown of the virtues. Because it was the culmination of them all. If you were courageous and if you're this and if you're that, what does it look like? It looks great. It looks like you're having a great life. Yeah, I did that. I pursued that. It's a consequence of my actions. I built that. Wonder Freeman says, absolutely. It's about building it, recognizing that you're building it, patting yourself on the back and recognizing what it took. What it took. And it was made possible by your virtues, possible by your character, possible by the positive actions you took. Bravia's a virtue, Edward asks. Yeah, it's under, it would be under integrity. And why am I answering? I shouldn't be answering. Edward, put a five bucks on or two bucks or something. You can afford it. And ask in the super chat. Great. So, pride is the one where there's, you know, this is exactly the opposite. Now, boastfulness, irrational confidence. In red, we're not defined that as pride. That is certainly advice, but so is anything irrational. But that's not pride. That's boastfulness. That's irrationality. Pride, again, is the recognition of and embracing and pursuit of your virtues of what is good about you. All right. That's a good hour. That's cool. All right. Got a lot of super chat questions. We're doing well on the target. We're past halfway. So, but there's plenty of time to make it up. We've got a few people who put in a lot of money. But of course, let's thank Adam for sponsoring this show. He's the one who got me to do this. So, this is great. It's a good topic. It's a good topic. By the way, the consequence of pride is self-esteem. That's the value you achieve. And it's not the self-esteem of, you know, the cult of self-esteem that exists today in the West. Like, give a ribbon to everybody. Feel good about yourself. No, self-esteem is a value. It's something you achieve. And you achieve by achieving your moral values. It's by achieving and by living virtuously. Virtues, virtues lead to self-esteem. Knowing you can deal with the world out there because you're rational, a virtue. Knowing you can handle other people. Virtue of justice. Knowing you're worthy to live in the world. The virtue of pride. So, self-esteem is not superficial. Self-esteem, the kind of self-esteem they sell today is fake. It's a massive achievement. All right, let me take Adam's and then we'll take some others. Adam says, I try to pick topics that may strike a chord with non-objectivists and that are good intro to Rand's philosophy and how it vastly differs from modern morality. To those watching, listening, please share the link. Yeah, I hope you do. I mean, I think these are great topics. So thank you, Adam. And yeah, if you guys would like to sponsor a topic for a show, it's $1,000. You get to choose the topic. I will deliver it and we can have a great exchange. But yeah, thank you, Adam. It is a great topic and hopefully you guys do indeed share it. By the way, let's do only $20 in plus questions. We can do a few smaller ones, but let's do the majority 20 so we can, within a reasonable time, make it to our goal here. All right, Ashton. Ashton, who I haven't seen in a while and who came in with $100, says, Your Honor, I have to agree with you in saying the right is a bigger threat to Western civilization than the left because of Christian irrationality. They use intellectually in order to fight the left. But how can we use Reinhard's ideas in order to fight Wokeness? Well, everything about Reinhard's ideas is anti-Woke. Everything. So what is Woke? Woke really is a rejection of objective reality. Well, the right can't fight against Woke because the right also rejects objective reality. The right's religious arguments are all based on a God, religion. Reality is molded by him, is chosen by him as malleable as he wants to make it. Remember, you know, the sun goes around the earth, not the other way around. Why? Because in a battle, Joshua asked God to extend the days so he could defeat the enemy. He didn't want to go home at night not having defeated the enemy. He said God stopped the sun, stopped it in the middle of the sky so Joshua could have a few more hours. But so what is religion fighting when they're fighting Wokeness? What tool are they using? Well, fairy tales. Mysticism. They reject science. They reject evolution. So even when they talk about what is a woman, what do they really know? Other than, you know, kind of what's written in the testament. And a big part of what is a woman for them, because you watch Matt Walsh and he does the documentary of what is a woman and then he tells you, well, a woman is the one who stays home and cooks dinner for you. That's what a good woman is. Can you fight Woke with a Middle Ages attitude towards what women are and what women should do? And can you fight the whole trans thing without acknowledging evolution, without acknowledging DNA, without acknowledging what actually is going on? No. Can you fight Woke, which includes things like intersectionality and CRT, right? Race theory. Can you fight them with altruism? With Christian altruism? No. You can't fight them with Christian altruism? Because they are Christian altruism taken to its logical extent. What is it? Well, all the Woke people are saying is, look, if you believe the Meekshil and Him at the earth, if you believe you should be sacrificing to the poor and they're oppressed and they're suffering. Well, here are people that are oppressed. Here are people who are poor. Here are people who are suffering. Where's your sacrifice? What does objectivism say? You shouldn't sacrifice. My central focus in life is not to poor the suffering, the Meekshil. Every one of them will be better off if they were self-interested, but self-interested rationally. If they pursued rational values, if they took their lives seriously, if they were willing to use their minds in pursuit of their values, that is a proper attack on Wokeness. Wokeness is the rejection of individual agency, of individual autonomy, of the individual's reasoning mind. Critical race theory is racist, an objectivist would say. But only an objectivist can say that, because we're the only ones who believe in free will and individual's ability to guide his own life and as a consequence that you're not predetermined by your genetic makeup or by the hell of your skin or by the environment in which you grew up in. You determine your fate. You as an individual. And that's your rejection of critical race theory to rejection of all of Wokeness. Woke doesn't want to define anything. Nothing is solid. Well, where does religion get its definitions? Who knows? Objectivism actually has a methodology, an epistemology of looking at reality and defining things properly. Again, in every aspect, objectivism is a far superior way, far superior because objectivism is true. To argue against Wokenism than anything else, aren't they? Christianity is like weak. And it's why it can't succeed through reason and what's scary about the religious right is that because they can't succeed through reason, how will they succeed? How will they succeed? They'll succeed by crushing their opponents with physical force, by forcing it down their throat, by using the same tools as the left does. The tools of big government, of oppressive government, of limiting free speech, limiting behavior, that's the right. And that's why they're a threat to Western civilization. And that's why the left and right, the combination of the two and feeding off of each other can only lead to violence, can only lead to authoritarianism and oppression. So we need to use objectivism to fight it. It's true, one of the freemen said free will goes beyond objectivism. It's true that others hold free will as real. But it's rare in the modern world. It's rare. A real understanding of free will. Not kind of a Christian free will, but God is also omniscient and knows everything, right? Knows the future. That rejects free will, even though while you're asserting free will at the same time supposedly. So, yeah, Einwand is the way to fight wokeness if you're serious about it. Ashton hopefully that answered your question if you're still there. And yes, I mean keep asking about ways in which we can use objectivism to fight the irrationality of the left. But think about reading Einwand's nonfiction essays. That's what she's doing. A lot of the essays there are making arguments against the left and wokeism is just the latest manifestation. There's nothing particularly original about it. Of kind of a postmodern denial of reality, primacy of emotions, and now primacy of skin color. But it's all there in the 60s and 70s and Einwand is commenting on all of it. And that's what you need to do. All right, let's see. Thank you, thank you Ashton for the support. Wes, $50. Are the sins an example of a frozen abstraction? People holding them without taking into account context, intent, means, et cetera. I don't know if frozen abstraction is the right term for it. Yeah, let me just respond to Ashton and men. Christians also claim to represent reason, but they don't. By the very fact that they're Christian, they're not representing reason. By the very fact that they're Christian, they're representing faith. They're representing God. They're representing otherworldly. We are, you know, to be a true representative of reason, you have to reject that which is unreasonable, that which is arbitrary, that which is mystical. That was just fairy tales. And while Christians might claim they represent reason, we must, while we're fighting woke, also fight them for what reason actually means. They do not represent reason, and they are not reason. They do not have a methodology for, you know, concepts and coming up with definitions. They have a kind of intrinsicist view. That's why even when they, I don't know, do documentaries on what is a woman, it's shallow and superficial because they can't get into depth because they don't have it. They don't have the content. Objectivism has it. I don't think it's a frozen abstraction. I think the sins are examples of just one conceptualizations. And they're not wrong in the context of their own moral code. That is, once you accept a moral code of altruism, once you accept a moral code of superstition and mysticism, and once you accept that the primacy is your relationship with God and the sacrifice you engage with with God, then the sins are not that ridiculous. So I don't know that frozen concept is the way to think about it. And again, good question for a philosopher, and maybe next time we have a philosopher, we can go into greater depth into what is a frozen concept. Thanks, Wes. Michael, 50 bucks. Bernie Madoff might ultimately be self-destructive. But he thought he was getting over. He thought he was winning. His intention was to promote his well-being. It is right to label both Bernie Madoff and Mother Teresa self-destructive. Yes, they're self-destructive in different ways, but there are lots of terms like that where you're self-destructive in different ways. And Bernie Madoff, his problem is not that he thought he was winning, is that he didn't think. He didn't think. He acted without thought. He acted irrationally, which means without thought. His intention was not to promote his well-being if by intention you mean rationally thought it through. He emotionally desired. So he took. Very early he discovered it was bad for him. Very early he discovered he was miserable. Very early he discovered he was obsessed with fear and disgust. Did he stop? No. The guy is irrational. He is self-destructive. Everything he did is fundamentally irrational. And of course, for objectivism, the fundamental vice is evasion. It's ignoring reality. It's pretending reality is something else but you know it is or you should know it is. And he is evasive throughout. Irrational and evasive. The two cardinal vices in objectivism. As is Mother Teresa. She's evasive and irrational. And in that sense, both of them are self-destructive. Both of them are immoral. Both of them are leading horrible lives. Now it doesn't matter that emotionally he desired it so did Mother Teresa. They both wanted it. They both believed they were in some deep way. I mean, Mother Teresa believed she was promoting her own well-being in another life maybe. But it's self-destructive. And the fact that he had a lot of money didn't make it any less self-destructive. All right, so we're like $240 short of a goal. What is that? $12, $20 questions? We can do it. We can do it. All right, Liam. Not a lot of time though. What sin are you guilty of the most? Wanting to view people as better than they actually are. That's being my go-to sin I'm working on. It comes from a positive place. It comes from connections with relational good people. Yeah, I think generally that's probably one of the sins. One of the things that I'm least objective about. But I'm learning. But not so much on a personal level. I mean, I've obviously made big mistakes with people on a personal level. But also just on a global level. I generally have a benevolent view of the world and a benevolent view of people. And the evidence suggests, with regard to people generally, is that I'm wrong. The evidence suggests that people are unbelievably irrational. I mean, it really is stunning what you kind of discover and how people don't think, can't think. I don't know what it is. So I'd say I still have this... I still think it's... I still don't realize completely how early it is in the evolution of our culture. Our culture is so irrational, that irrationality is so much a part of it. And that even people who purport to be rational are tempted by irrationality all the time. Tempted by it all the time. Thank you, Aptin. Aptin says, I've built an incredible community. And yet I still feel like... I still see the things that people come up with and some people from this community, some people outside of it. But just the irrationality out there, it's the thing that I find most difficult to overcome. The conspiracy theories, the silliness, the ridiculous ideas, the lack of any kind of intellectual depth that you see out there, very discouraging, very discouraging. My sin is having, you know, is not being discouraged enough. I don't know what it would be. Okay, Adams says, Rand also opposes original sin, sins without volition, to hold man's nature as his sin is a mockery of nature, to punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. Yeah, I mean, this is the biggest one, maybe the biggest one of all, and hugely important because original sin, while controversial even among Christians, original sin is ingrained in our culture. It really is ingrained in our culture. It's one of the reasons why you get millennial cults, you get this constant, every few years it's different, but you get this constant desire or constant belief that the world is coming to an end. Why? Well, because we're bad, and therefore we need to be punished. So we're bad, we industrialized, and we spewed CO2, so it has to kill us, because we're bad, we're inherently bad. Inherent, original sin, right? AI, it's going to kill us, why? Because, you know, it's smarter than us, and we're too smart for our own good, and we're doing things we don't understand, and we have no control of ourselves, and it's going to kill us all. Or it's just Christianity, and Jesus is going to come, and we're all going to go to heaven to hell, and go on and on, right? So this notion of original sin is deeply ingrained in the culture, deeply ingrained in the culture. I think a lot of the conspiracy theories are like that. It's like things can be good, there must be something going on. Some, you know, we're inherently bad, Ted Kosinski, sure. You know, we're destroying the planet. It's always, I mean, every single time you think of one of these, the world is going to end things, the source of it is original sin. Woke, woke. What is woke? What's the original sin? Well, it's being human. It's being rational. It's being born with white skin. So that is, you can have a sin that was not chosen. You can have a sin just by the very nature of being. So they all have this, you know, all flawed, some more flawed than others. Armin, wow, thank you. It's been a long time. It's nice to see you back here. Armin just gave $100. Thank you, Armin. So that gets us much, much closer to meeting our goal for today. Only six $20 questions left. All right, let's see. Shahzad, the operative from Serenity incorporated, the operative from Serenity incorporated the seven deadly sins, huh? Into his justification for all the horrible things he did in the name of the Alliance. Yeah, I mean, it was, I mean, yeah, I need to rewatch that because it's very good because the operative, he incorporates the whole idea of, I think there's original sin there. I think there's also, there's certainly the duty premise, the duty premise and the collectivism. And, you know, and he's conscious of it, which makes him an interesting character, right? He's doing his duty and after we count, I have to watch it again to catch the seven deadly sins, but I remember that he's a really interesting bad guy, right? Because he's intellectual as a bad guy. He's thinking about what he's doing while he's doing it. And he's willing to kill and slaughter and no matter how many people it takes to achieve his aim. Yeah, you should all rewatch the Firefly. As I mentioned in the member's only show, which is about favorite TV shows, Firefly is one of my top, I don't know, five favorite TV shows. I think it's fantastic. And, yeah, it truly is fantastic and fun and serenity. Firefly TV, which is kind of the, follows the show is, I think is excellent. I think it's really, really good. I know a lot of people didn't like it, but I really, really liked it. So I think Firefly plus Serenity, definitely worth watching. One of the best sci-fi shows ever, like a Western. All right, on the leeway, honest question, why are we wasting time on the Christian nonsense and giving any credit whatsoever? What next episode personalized astrology reading for members? Well, this is the big difference, that most people, poor astrology, most people reject astrology, but not only do most people take Christianity seriously, and Christianity dominates the thinking of most people out there in the culture. But I think that a lot of us, a lot of the people who've rejected Christianity as a religion, haven't necessarily rejected the particulars. It takes time and it takes work and it takes effort and it takes chewing, chewing, chewing, chewing to actually get rid of them over time. And that means bringing them back because you grew up with them. They were all around you. Even if you grew up in a secular world, they were all around you. So one of the things you have to do, one of the things you have to do is devote time to understanding why it's so evil, why it's so bad and why you're rejecting it. So your rejection is not superficial and therefore your rejection reaches deep. It integrates into your other ideas. You have a fuller understanding of why you're rejecting these ideas and that will lead, again, to a better integration of your knowledge, a better integration of your knowledge with your emotions. But given that we're always Christian, given that so much of the culture is Christian, we need to constantly reinforce why they are wrong. We need to constantly provide ourselves with the intellectual fuel that they are wrong because like when you're fighting woke, you might find, oh, you know, Walsh is pretty good on this issue. Is he? And look at all the bad stuff and you have to keep that bad stuff. You have to know it's there because it's your only defense against it. Your only defense against the bad stuff is knowing it's there, understanding it and knowingly, knowingly rejecting it. Thank you, Underly Roy. It's a good question. Fender Hopper. I've come to observe the most moral concept. Oh, one more thing, one second, before I answer Fender Hopper's question. One more thing to Lee Roy, to Underly Roy. One of the ways to gain a better understanding of your own views, i.e., let's say in this case, Ayn Rand's views, is to contrast. Contrast is a great way to deepen your knowledge of your own beliefs. What do I think of this? How do my views differ from this? Differences, seeing differences is an important cognitive activity in better understanding and better integrating your knowledge. And it's not, again, most of my focus is not find some Christians and show them they're wrong. Most of my idea is for you, those of you who've already, let's say, rejected Christianity one extent or another to deepen your understanding of the positive and deepen your understanding of what you've rejected so that you become more committed to these ideas and better understanding and better apply them in your own life. All right. I've come to observe that most moral concepts have at least two meanings. Depending on the morality one holds to be true. Egoism and altruism. Views of justice, love, equality, and the good all come to mind. Yes, defining your concept is important and what the framework is. What you're trying to achieve. But at the end of the day, justice doesn't mean the same thing to an altruist as it does to an egoist. It's a completely different context. Concept. Saying that justice as objectivists do is giving people what they deserve. Wow. An altruist doesn't know what that means. He doesn't know how to start with that. He doesn't know how to deal with that. What does love mean to an altruist versus an egoist? It's a different concept. It's a different experience. All right. Paul. Do you think that Christian vices are integrated or disintegrated or mixed? It seems that some of the some of the virtues would be rationally contextualized to be real vices. Yeah, I mean, I think that they are, as Lena Peacock would say, misintegrated. They're definitely integrated. They definitely have a particular conception of man and a particular conception of his role in the world. And that is they have as man as inferior to a God as playing purpose to do God's bidding to sacrifice for God. And therefore the material that this worldly is insignificant and therefore the vices all add up to that lust and gluttony and all the things that relate to the material world greed, a bad, wanting stuff that other people want, bad, being ambitious, which is what greed is to some extent. And what their understanding of envy is to some extent. Being ambitious, bad. You're not supposed to be ambitious in your worship of a God. So it is integrated completely but around a false irrational principle. So Lena Peacock calls this misintegration. Integration around wrong principles. So the virtues and vices they have make sense within, make sense in quotes in that context of how you view man. If you view man as having original sin then yeah all these vices make sense. Thank you Paul. Andrew, how does the Christian view of sin create the sense that fun is had in being bad? Well it absolutely creates that view, right? Because sin is the obliteration of all the things that might lead you to have fun. And virtue is boring. Virtue is dull. Virtue is anti your interest. Virtue is what do you call it? Sacrificial. Virtue is painful. Virtue is the denial of pleasure. Virtue is that's what virtue is. Virtue is altruistic. Virtue is suffering. So if you are kind of a normal human being and you kind of you want to have fun then you know you have to come advice. And therefore having fun is bad. It's a bad that we all do but it's bad. It's a forbidden fruit as Jennifer says. You know and this is why if you go to the movies like in the movies if there's a good guy and a bad guy in a movie. Heat, anybody see heat with Robert De Niro and Al Pacino? Cop and criminal who has fun? Who is enjoying life? The criminal always. The criminal gets the girl. The criminal gets the money. The criminal lives in a cool condo. What does the cop have? A horrible marriage on the verge of divorce usually. He's generally depressed. Drinks too much. Lives you know if he's not fighting with his ex-wife or with his wife about to be divorced lives as a single. If you watch almost oh if you watch Scandinavian I don't know what do you call it? Detective stories. The cop is always miserable. The good guy is always miserable. The good guy is always suffering. Always. And the bad guy? Having a good time. Living it up. Living it up. You remember Face Off with I like that movie a lot. Face Off with I think it's a great movie acting wise. John Travolta and oh god Nicholas Cage again cop miserable struggling can't be happy bad guy having the blast good time. And that comes directly from this Christian morality to be virtuous is to suffer. If you're having fun it's a sign you're bad. By the way Continent ethics. Same thing. Continent ethics is the same thing. If you're happy probably being too selfish and therefore immoral. Now there are exceptions. James Bond is an exception. Absolutely. But it's rare. Kim A is making money for the sake of making money wrong. Yes, mostly. Why would you? What is the value in money? But I don't think very many people make money for the sake of making money. You make money for the sake of having a lot of money in the bank account because you want security. So making money for security is not a bad thing. You want to make money to be financially independent. That's fine. You want to make a lot of money so you can buy beautiful things. That's fine. So I don't know what making money for the sake of making money even means. It doesn't really mean that much. And I don't think many people make money for the sake of money. The sake of the things they can do with the money. And that's great. There's no problem in that. Now what about the people who have so much money that making money is not for anything beyond? What do they make money for? What does Jeff Bezos make money for? What does any of these billionaires, what do they make money for? I think it's primarily as a way to score. As a way to know that you're still producing value. Money reflects value. So it's a reflection of the value you're creating. And particularly when you are super successful, how do I know that I'm still got it? How do I know that I'm still creating value? How do I know that I'm still being productive? Oh, I'm still making money. I'm still providing values. I'm still trading in a win-win relationships. And so it's a way for them to score. Now, of course, it's also a way for them to get more money so they can engage in bigger projects like going to Mars. But I think to a large extent it's about keeping track. Keeping track. Uptin. Movie recommendation to indulge in gluttony. Delicious. A story based on the founding of the first restaurant. Yeah, I really enjoyed Delicious. It was a wonderful movie. It's actually based on a true story, but it's kind of loosely about the first restaurant in France. The first restaurant in France I think was in the city and this is in the countryside. But it's very good. It's very enjoyable. I second Uptin's recommendation. It's called Delicious from two years ago. French movies, subtitles. Definitely worth the effort of reading the subtitles. I can't remember which of the streaming services it's on, but it was on one of them. I like movies about food. Mostly. Mostly. All right. Money is a tool and money is a scorecard. And a scorecard that's important because it's scoring your productivity. All right. So, yeah, Adam says don't be greedy. Donate or feel Iran's wrath. I lust for our ability to take pride and that we've met the dollar goal. I envy shows that have raised more. Thank you, Adam. Remember, the show is sponsored by Adam so he has a vested interest in this being a massive success. So don't forget to like the show before you leave. Let's get the like numbers up. They should be close at 100. And it really helps with the algorithms. So it's really good. Don't forget to share the show. And yeah, if you can still support the show, if you can do a sticker, pretty much everybody right now doing a dollar or two gets us the way we need to go. So if you can do a sticker for a few bucks, please do it. Or if you can ask five $20 questions and we've made our goal. So if you can ask a $20 question that'd be great. I've got five more questions. This will go pretty quickly and we're done for the day. Upton just got us the goal. Upton says, what do you look forward to the most in Okon? In Okon's huh, good question. What do I look forward to the most? I think it's seeing friends it's seeing people I haven't seen in a long time it's hanging hanging out with people I mean I don't get a lot of time to socialize unfortunately which is kind of unfortunate because they've got me busy working and I sit in a lot of the lectures I've got to give feedback and so I'm working right but I guess what I really enjoy is getting a chance to talk to people and to see people I haven't seen in a long time and to engage with them I like the poker game for its social aspect I usually lose a lot of money but I like it because it's an opportunity to hang out with people you know banter with people it's a lot of fun so yeah I think that's the main thing I enjoy about Okon's is being in an environment where everybody's basically shares the same values doesn't mean they agree on everything but basically shares the same values and you can feel kind of relaxed and at home with that I like to give my talks on the first day so I don't have to think about it anymore and I can just focus on having fun during the conference thank you Uptin for getting us to the 650 we've since gone over that you made Adam's day you made my day so thank you alright Martin from Sweden just finished reading out a shrug yesterday wow I'm so jealous for the experience of having read it for the first time what a true masterpiece no kidding next up I'm off to Miami for my first Okon wow this is quite a week and in the meantime watching YBS livestream to adapt to the US time zone good times absolutely Martin looking forward to seeing you in Miami looking forward to seeing all of you in Miami it's going to be a blast to see you guys Michael asks what day is the show on at Okon July well the one I know the one that's scheduled and it's got a room we're going to be in the Chopin Room 1.30pm on the 4th of July 4th of July X-Rana says I think the Seven Deadly Sins were originally for the sin for the sake of the sin for the sin for the sake of the sin I'm not trying to understand that sorry I'm missing something there Andrew do you think the Christian view applied in forms Matt Walsh's view that self-esteem is fake yes definitely definitely but it's also in forms the fact that Matt Walsh is superficial and shallow because you can't conceive of a notion of self-esteem that has any reality to it but yes absolutely I think the Christian view permeates that in a sense how do you have self-esteem how could there be such a thing he also defines it defines it as the left defines it and therefore it's easy to but he can't conceive at least not in that video of a different definition maybe one that's more consistent with human life Frank says why is wrath so prevalent in our society from the left with trans protesters the right on January 16th driving down road rage criminals on subways well I mean it's pretty obvious you know with the decline of rationality with the decline of reason what are you left with all you're left with is with emotion once reason exits what enters is emotion and emotion can't give you guidance in life it can actually show you the right way it just leads to bad decisions and disasters and frustration and then you get angry and the only way then because you can't actually convince anybody and you can't control the anger is to lash out physically because once you give up on reason all you have left is physical force emotion and physical force Andrew Rand is criticized by some who claim Dagny was lustful yes she was and by others who claim she was subordinate to men really Dagny in fact Dagny was sexually healthy absolutely in a way that Christians and feminists can't comprehend I think that's absolutely right I mean it drives me nuts when people think she's a, I don't know a slut, she sleeps around I mean think of the men she sleeps with Francisco Rieden, Gault I mean God how could you not sleep with those guys she she sleeps with the best men in the world she sleeps with these unbelievable masculine and general values values and value is they are values to her so no she's exceptionally discerning in terms of who she sleeps with right and then recognizes that there's a difference between a man and a woman in the act of sexual, in the act of sex and she accepts that she doesn't reject that, she doesn't deny that she doesn't escape the nature of the sexual activity where it's experienced definitely by a man by a woman and a man which it does so yeah I agree with you completely Paul says the movie Chocolat the people were gluttonous about eating Chocolat in the Towns of Sponsor the Baker, yeah a beautiful movie I have to see that movie again, I haven't seen it in a long time that is a beautiful movie about yes the power of sensuality the power of material pleasures of both lust and gluttony and to some extent greed yeah I mean what a what a beautiful movie because it's all about the joy of eating chocolate of eating something delicious Steven Harper says the 1954 movie Executive Suite yes one of my favorites is an excellent illustration of many of the points made here William Holden's character is very admirable especially in regard to pride absolutely I love that movie it's one of my favorite movies one of the best movies about business ever made it's a movie about values it's a movie about and think about it the movie doesn't really have any bad guys I mean they're better and more heroic people but they're no bad guys it's more a question of values it's all about who should be the the CEO drops dead in the first scene in the movie and it's all about a drama of who should be the next CEO and the William Holden character is just super really really super thank you Steven excellent recommendation Executive Suite if you can find it watch it if you can find it watch it alright thank you thank you particularly to Adam thank you to everybody else thank you Abton for getting us over the goal thank you for Ashley for getting for doing a hundred dollars thank you for coming thank you for doing a hundred dollars and thank you to all the superchatters we beat our goal which is fantastic I will see you all tomorrow morning for another news roundup I think that'll be the last one for a while for a while unless there's breaking news and we have to get married we have to get some Dagny never marries John Galt I mean I assume she does ultimately but not in the novel so she has basically in one novel alright everybody I will see you all in the morning thank you again Adam great topic thank you to all of you bye