What's there? What's there? Echo eliminated. No radical fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is the Iran book show. All right, everybody, welcome to Iran Book Show on this Thursday, 25th, 2nd of the day. And yeah, this is gonna be fun. We've got Aaron Smith joining us. Hey, Aaron. Okay. Hi, Aaron. I don't need the headphones. Those of you who do not know Aaron, he is a philosopher at the Iran Institute. He writes for New Ideal for AORI, which is AORI's online journal. He's a regular speaker at AORI conferences, and he's a faculty member of Einren University. We'll talk to him about what he teaches there in a little bit. He's received his PhD in philosophy from Johns Hopkins University, where he worked focused on ancient Greek philosophy. Really, in recently, more recently, I'd say, Aaron has become kind of an expert on Stoicism and talked a lot about Stoicism, written some stuff for New Ideal on Stoicism. And there always seems to be a lot of questions about Stoicism. It seems like there's a lot of curiosity out there. It's clearly a philosophy that has real world applications. So people think it does and has spurred a movement around it. And it's more than just a movement because it's a movement. It seems a very influential people, particularly entrepreneurs and Silicon Valley type. So it's kind of curious, what is this philosophy? What is Stoicism? So I'm curious about that.  I'm curious. And then we'll go from there. So we'll start with, just if you could give us a basic 101, right? Philosophy 101 in five minutes or less. What is Stoicism? Let's start with really, who are the Stoics? Before we get there, philosophy, who are they? Sure. So they were a group of philosophers that, well, it started with a guy named Zeno. So Zeno is the founder, Zeno of Citium. It's in Cyprus. He was the founder of this philosophical school. And he started the school around 300 BC. So this is about 20 years after Aristotle died in the Hellenistic period. Yeah. So they call the Hellenistic period, it's basically the death of Aristotle slash Alexander the Great. That's just the year difference up to the founding of the Roman Empire in 31 BC. So that period was when all of the Hellenistic schools of philosophy were formed. And it went all the way through the Roman imperial period to the second century AD. But so Zeno, he was a merchant. Apparently he came to Athens and studied with a guy named Cretis. He was a cynic philosophy. So they were kind of the sort of back to nature. Get rid of all conventional conceptions of morality. Just do what's natural and so on. And he was very influenced by them. And they held the idea that virtue is the only thing that's good in the world. It's the only good. And that virtue is sufficient for happiness. So as long as you have a virtuous character, you have everything you need, whether you're poor or it doesn't really matter. So they famously would like the cynics would like to live on the street and so on. Kind of shunning all sorts of conventions. It seems like San Francisco has a lot of cynics. If only they were the thoughtful kind. But even getting down to the point where Diogenes would sort of like masturbate in public and it was really just like complete social conventions or everything's out the window. Just do what seems natural. Do it. Do it. Nature seems to prompt us to do and not worry about convention. And Zeno was very influenced by that. But you know, he thought I think they went way too far with that. But he made he really thought that we need to base our philosophy on living in agreement with nature so that that is the kind of the core of what stoicism preached. So living in an agreement with nature, which includes the nature of the whole cosmos and the nature of our own nature as human beings. And so a lot turns on, well, what is the nature of the cosmos as a whole and what is our own nature as human beings. And their view in effect, it's a very deeply religious view. It has a kind of a religious cosmology religious metaphysics where the universe is basically composed of inert matter. Through thoroughly blended with God, kind of a divine rational agency that creates forms shapes directs the whole cosmos in its ordering in its structure in its development. They called God different names. They called it God Zeus fate. Reason, you know, because he's in effect it's it's a divine reason that permeates and shapes everything in a inexorable sequence and structure. So the determinists in effect everything is faded and so on. But it's God is determined as well. So God is a deterministic being.  And our reason are a distinctively human faculty is a fragment of God's divinity within us. So the connection between us and the universe is reason. Our reason gives us the ability to understand the rational structure and ordering of the universe. And our reason is something we should develop and perfect, which they think of as virtue. And partly because it's part of God's plan it's part of how God made us part of how he structured us to become. You know what what we what we have within us to become. And they are they monotheists in that sense of a. Well it's it's because they'll talk because they're Greeks so they'll talk about God's or they'll talk about God when they mean to refer to this. Rational agency that kind of like informs everything but they do refer to God's in the plural so it's not really that clear. And then, yeah, good. Yeah, I was going to say so so Zeno is the first is this series of philosophers. Yeah, living at the same time or the sequential and how long, how long is the school in existence and, and then how influential at the time did they become. Well, after Zeno, he was succeeded in the school by a guy named Cleanthe's like immediately succeeded by Cleanthe's and then Cleanthe's was immediately succeeded by chrysalis so that he's 280 to 206 BC. And chrysalis is really the major architect of stoicism as a systematic philosophy. Moving it to, I mean, they dealt with metaphysics, epistemology, rhetoric, logic, ethics, theology, physics and effects so there was a whole systematic philosophy he wrote tons and tons. We don't have anything surviving by him except reports and quotes from other people so all of the early Stoics their works are lost 100% lost. And the only thing we know is, as chrysalis says in his book one of on causes you know some report from some later writer. So we have these kind of fragments. And the schools basically continued on into the Roman imperial period. So here you get more familiar names, people like Seneca. And Epictetus he was a slave, and they turned to philosophy teacher and the emperor Marcus Aurelius. So this is, you know, first century second century AD. And one of the reasons why these people are much better known to us today is we actually have a lot of their texts. So we have Marcus Aurelius his meditations. And we have Epictetus is what's not his it's his student Arian wrote down a whole bunch of his discourses and teachings and lectures and so we have what he called the discourses and his handbook, which is a kind of a digest, a very short digest of Epicure Epictetus is doctrines, and then Seneca we have a lot like letters, consolidatory letters philosophical letters, even works on natural natural science. And he was right as well as well as a major. He was an advisor to the emperor Nero. Basically a regent when the well, well, when the guy told him to burn down more. No, he was trying to restrain Nero, to the extent that that was possible. I think which led to his led to Seneca's forced suicide. So let's get into the kind of the ideas so if if this they have this idea of living consistent with nature and nature being in a sense God and God reason being God's manifestation within human beings and our understanding to understand nature. Okay, so that that's not what's made them popular today so so what is it about the ideas and about the conception of virtue that makes them popular and known kind of today what has passed down through the ages. I think the number one thing has to be how to deal with adversity. How to deal with what life throws at you with strength, equanimity, resilience, thinkers have turned to Marcus Aurelius's works for centuries for kind of reading how a man in his position of power as an emperor. And he was one of the much better emperors, but but he you could get the sense from reading the meditations he takes his job really seriously. He takes the empire very seriously. He's he you can tell all it's all over the pages he's committing himself to act with integrity. No faking no palm. No being fake in any way to people, always being honest being willing to speak plainly and be plainly spoken to not make a big difference between your emperor and somebody else isn't and it's a kind of a real you can does a real kind of nobility to him as an individual. And what the meditations is is his I mean that's a modern name. It's just a private journal that he kept to himself. You just reading how he reflected imagine if you kept a journal, you know, about trying to use objectivism to kind of remind yourself about some of the precepts remind yourself about some of the principles to, you know, am I am I getting too angry here is like should I really be thinking about this am I valuing the things in the way that I should or am I not honoring the things that I should or am I being distracted too much by this or that and he's reflecting and it's really interesting to read to see somebody actively trying to apply their philosophy to the day to day problems he faces, even the point of like he's in bed, and it's nice and warm, but he's on a military campaign is on the tent somewhere and he's like he's got to get up.   Yeah, amazingly positive and consistent with objectivism right I mean philosophy is a tool that you have to live it you have to and you have it has to be part of you. Yeah, you have to internalize the philosophy and part of internalizing a lot of these kind of reminders. The other thing that's related to objectivism is it's a philosophy that's meant to be lived. It's in your regular daily practical life, it's not, I mean, it's a whole philosophy you can actually go study and read texts and you work through the logical. They did a lot of work on like syllogistic logic and things like that and but in the end their view is that's not what it's about. It's in the end it's about how to live. And so their view about how you should live, in which we can talk about it's but it's underwritten their view about how to live is underwritten by a view about the nature of the cosmos as a whole in our relationship to it. And about the relation of reason to our lives and stuff so there's, it has definitely ties to a metaphysics tied to a view of the nature of the world and our relationship to it. So it's not like you just do ethics and you ignore metaphysics in effect but the purpose of doing the metaphysics and the epistemology is I have to know what's true if I'm going to know how to guide my life. I have to know the nature of the world I live in to know how to deal with it. And then it's how do I live. It has to be integrated with those two as we consistent with those two. I think that's, I mean that's true. Yeah, that all sounds good. So, so what is the view about how one should live what one should do in order to. Well, there's a number of different things but I want to give an image. There's a story told or an image given by, I think it was Hippolytus he's like a second century bishop or something but he collected a lot of sayings and quotations and stuff from the Stoics and other people but he said that the Stoics had this metaphor or an image of where a dog tied to a wagon like a moving wagon or a moving cart. And he said, the dog can either choose to walk with the wagon, you know recognize his place right he's being pulled along by the leash right on the wagon, and choose to go along, recognize his place and recognize where he is and what his relationship to the wagon is and walk along and he'll have a smooth life, or I'm embellishing a little bit but the same thing, or he can dig his heels in and try to pull back against the rope and but he'll get dragged all the same. And so, it's, again, things are faded, and you can either kick against reality shake your fist at the world and in fight and struggle and suffer, or you can accommodate yourself to fate, you can accommodate yourself to wherever the wagon of fate is pulling you and walk smoothly and that's the good life. Because their view is you have very little control over anything in life. So how are you going to find us a way to have a good life a serene life.  And it's, well you have to conform to, you know what nature throws your way. And so they have all sorts of techniques for doing that. In terms of actual living. If you ask like well what values do you're supposed to pursue like what should you go after in life. And here it goes back to their view that virtue is the only good. So they made a really firm distinction. There's the good and the bad virtue is the only good vice or moral evil moral corruption or something is the only thing that's bad. Everything else, health, wealth, strength, beauty, all of that, what they call indifferent. And it doesn't mean you're completely indifferent to them, but it's they're neither good nor bad, and they're irrelevant to your happiness or well being. If you and I were to talk and say well, let's come up with a list of big laundry list of the kinds of things that make life worth living. We'd be talking about music and art and love and you know creative work and just travel I know whatever you could just come out with a non hierarchical laundry list. All of those things they would put in the category of indifferent that they're not relevant to literally saying you shouldn't care about love. I mean, Marcus really really believed that so did he live that that love didn't matter to him ought didn't matter to him. They don't actually live this right. No, someone like Marcus didn't so they're I think their view is that again remember whatever is whatever is natural whatever is natural for human beings whatever we're naturally inclined to is we're set up like that way by God so there's a kind of an inclination to and even an injunction in effect to live that way so we have a natural inclination toward our kin, a natural inclination toward our children and you can see this in the animal world as well, and they frequently pointed to that. And they said well so by nature, we love our children, you know, or we care for them we have affection for them we take care of them. And so that is something that we should do other things being equal, because nature has sort of prescribed it for us. And they recognize that if you do have children you're going to have an affection for them that's just natural for us to do. And Marcus, Marcus had something like I don't know 1314 children or something like that. I think he survived only about four of them. Okay, in mortality was horrible even if you're an emperor, but the so the view is, it's not don't go after any of these things. It's like it's proper to pursue the kinds of things that. It's just by nature, sort of support your life, you know, it's better to move away from pain and, and, you know, pleasure, it's right to prefer as they say. You can prefer pleasure over pain prefer health over sickness and so on because that's natural hence okay to do because God made us that way. But you shouldn't be too attached to those kinds of things, because they're ultimately not what matters in life, what matters in life is your virtuous character and your interstate. What is, what does virtue mean to them right I mean for an objective is what you mean certain principles and ideas and they don't contradict pursuing your personal values. What, what, in what sense, do they mean virtue and what is what you constitute. So virtue for them, I mean, in terms of in concrete terms they adopted the, the four traditional Greek virtues, you know, courage, wisdom, justice, moderation, you know the kind of things you find in play to. So the way they characterize virtue is, it's, it's a, each of the virtues are in some way a perfection of rationality. So each of them is a form of wisdom on on their view. So wisdom in general is knowing what's good and what's bad for you in general. So wisdom about what to fear and what to endure is courage. So virtues are forms of knowledge. A lot of this they pick up from Socrates. Justice is wisdom about how to distribute things to people, you know, so it's these are all forms of wisdom in life, and forms of knowing what's rational in life, but their view about what's rational would diverge sharply from the objectivist view about what we think is rational to pursue in life, because objectivism has a very different view about the value of material things, external things. So if your view is the reason you suffer you're on is because you care about all of these kinds of things. If you don't get them you're upset about it.  You're taking these things really seriously and thinking of these are important to my life they're important to my happiness I want to get them on a hang on to them, and their view is. They're not really that valuable. They're not absent of value but they're not, you shouldn't be attached to them. And so being rational about what to choose about rational about what to select and so on is going to be colored by their view that these things aren't that important. And so, so one should focus on what then on, you know, how does one just focus on one's own virtue, independent of action in the world.  And in that regard, they, at least the Roman Stoics, when they kind of adapted stoicism to the Roman culture, they adopted the notion that each of us has a certain kind of roles in life. So, if you're a father, you have a certain kind of role to play. It falls on you to be a father and now you have a certain set of duties that come out of that.  So you have certain kinds of duties to your country. So if you're let's say in a very politically connected family, you might be expected to run for office or something like that and that's a role to play, but notice the whole level of the unchosen often it's, you know, yeah, so it's come from the outside they come from external circumstances.  But some of your other duties fall from just an understanding of what human nature is. If we have a natural inclination to be social to have an affection for other people. We have to look for some of our duties there. If we have a natural affection for ourselves and for our own constitution our own physical health and stuff so we have some duties there. So is this kind of a. I mean, where do we get those natural inclinations from it's just it's just God structuring us God built us to be this way to have a so that we are interconnected with all other rational beings. It's kind of universalist view about mankind. We're all hands that within us. No, but we can subvert it so we can refuse to do what is natural to us and appropriate for us to do, given our constitution, or we can choose to ignore that and live an animal life in effect, but what's all you're doing is you're burying yourself off from the human community. You're failing to uphold. You know you're failing to like play the role God gave you in effect. And so this whole connectedness and kind of there's a kind of communitarian ethic that flows out of this fact. So I'll read you a quote from Epic Titus. This will give you a nice taste of it.  What is the job of a citizen, never to act in his own interest, and never to think about any matter as if he were an isolated entity, but to behave as a hand or foot would, if it had reason and was able to understand the natural order of things. It would never have inclinations or desires, except by reference to the whole. If a truly good person were to foresee the future, he wouldn't resist even illness, death or mutilation, because he'd realized that this is what has been allotted at the behest of the universe, and that the whole is more important than the part, the city than the citizen. So there's this idea that you are a whole of organic part, or you're part of an organic whole in effect.  No matter where you fit in and play that role as a sort of way of fulfilling the sole whole divine plan. So what is the PO. Yeah, good. Go for it. It's a little bit more. It's less self driven, less about choice less about personal values and more about what is incumbent upon one, given the cosmic plan and the nature of the design of the world and your social role that you happen to be in. If you're a cripple play that role well. If your emperor play that role well. So, so what is the appeal of this in a kind of our modern setting why I mean it's it is I've gotten this question I guess on on the show a number of times. Why is stoicism becomes so popular and Objectivism hasn't what is it about stoicism that makes it so appealing in the world in which we live, particularly for successful people I mean this is not a philosophy for losers. It doesn't seem no. Well, I would make a distinction because when it comes to successful people CEOs Objectivism has been very powerful. Yes, or some, right. Yeah, you get some some of the Silicon Valley people and stuff I mean this has been influential or at least inspirational for them in certain respects. That's a good question. But even some of them probably have been if you know of gravity towards stoicism it just seems like the in cool thing to be engaged with. Yeah, so there's the kind of the way. So, there's been the kind of techie fad that stoicism has become where you have people taking cold showers and hardening themselves against adversity and stuff like that. And that's not really what's serious about it what's what's more serious about it I think is that people in the tech world and the startup world, the entrepreneurs and stuff they live in a high pressure high stakes, high uncertainty, high predictability environment. And often what the stoics do will give you techniques and perspective for handling adversity getting yourself into a mindset where this doesn't bother you as much as it does, trying to reduce the anxiety, trying to get yourself in a mindset where you can reduce anxiety you can handle loss. And it's just for example, you pre pre meditate or pre rehearse some bad things happening. So like what's the worst that's going to happen. Like if you're worried about your company is your startup going to fail is it going to like are we going to get the funding that we need going down the tank. And sometimes you can say well, well let's think about this in advance what would it be like if we didn't get the funding just let's make it real to ourselves and see how scary it is, you know, okay we don't get the funding and maybe we even file for bankruptcy okay but if I'm looking at myself as an entrepreneur is that the end of the world or what would I do. Well I probably pick myself up find new funding and then move on it was like it's not the end of the world and so just different techniques for managing and handling the slings and arrows of life and the stress and the pressure. And I think they've extracted bits of that from stoicism techniques from that from the wider philosophy and I think that's partly why it's helpful for them. So these techniques get get extracted into psychology. Yeah, like cognitive behavioral therapy and things like that they used to their techniques like this. And I think those. So it's not really that it's not really that you know what's popular today is stoic philosophy but really kind of a self help. Manifestation of packaging. Yeah, I mean these are kind of hacks and tips and the hack where hacks isn't used disparagingly but just it's a. It's a trick it's a workaround it's a kind of a helpful thing that doesn't it doesn't come packaged with a whole bunch of other stuff you know. The whole idea of God and determinism and all of that. Is that part of the stoic movement today. Well, in large part the popularizers don't emphasize that much because they're popularizing it so their view is, well the Stoics thought that there was this God that infuses the universe or whatever.  I think you do a lot of damage to physics to the Stoic philosophy, you do violence to the Stoic philosophy maybe for the better by extracting that because if ever because their view is everything is all for the best. So if I lose my leg God has prescribed that for me. It's part of the good of the whole, and I should embrace that with joy and effect or with peaceful acquiescence but it's like no, I was injured like somebody broke into my home and you know broke my leg or something it's like you should be angry about that's injustice not like let's welcome this with with piety. So it there's a lot of this, there's a lot of changes that are making I think in part for the better but then a lot changes in stoicism once you do that because if it's really just like, more like an Epicurean world where it's, it's just Adams and the void and the things happen the way they do the way they necessarily have to have to happen you have a very different view, like the, yeah, so. So, you asked why you asked why Stoicism was getting popular and Objectivism wasn't. That's a big topic but one point is this. Objectivism does not have the malevolent universe premise. And the Stoic philosophy feels very much at least the Roman Stokes it feels very malevolent universe explicitly it's the opposite because God does everything for the best everything's for the best of all possible worlds and etc. But it feels like what you have to try to do is like it's kind of like Jordan because life is going to hit you hard, you know you're going to suffer. And you have to find ways to manage reduce suffering anxiety, that's how you find what they call ataraxia you know it's the state of being unperturbed undisturbed. And by all the things that can happen to you it's other people, other people's opinions other people's actions.  They're pushing a much, much greater degree of detachment from those things. So, not all your books just don't don't be that don't think think they're that important. Yep. So so what extent do you think they're being helpful that is, to what extent do you think that for these entrepreneurs and startups where it is intense and it is difficult to what extent do you think they really do get a value out of all this. The question is, what's the value. I mean, so if somebody there are all sorts of ways in which you can reduce your anxiety by reducing the number or the degree to which you care about things that can be bad for you. Because maybe you should maybe with your life requires what your happiness and well being requires is that in fact that you care more of those things and be invested in them. And yeah, you might get hurt sometimes. But in some cases, I think there are techniques that you can actually extract. Which I think can be helpful in certain kinds of ways. But I think they're helpful. I think to the extent that you're the abstract them away from the philosophic system that they're a part of because the more you buy into the determinism. It's all fate. All I have to show basically what I have to do is accommodate myself to things and care more about what's under my control because they make a big deal about separating I mean that well this is what's super important. And this you get in Iron Rans essay the metaphysical versus the man made it the whole serenity prayer and you have to figure out what you can control and what you can't what's up to you. And what's not, and the kinds of things that are fundamentally not up to you, you just have to serenely accept and the kinds of things that you can change. You need to actively work to change for the better to shape your life and to make it better and so on and but it's essential to make that connection and to properly understand what is up to you and what's not. People like that they're like, wow, that's actually really helpful. You know, and so the kinds of things I can deal with or the kinds of things that that I can't control I can't affect I can't impact. I shouldn't be worrying about those things I shouldn't be banging my head on the wall about those things I should be trying to change the things I can. But if you have a deterministic view. At best the Stoics give you the the freedom or the ability to accommodate yourself to what happens, and to have a certain perspective on what's inevitably faded for you. At best. And so it's the more you accept that the more I think you would feel in fact out of control. To the extent that you're in control of your ability to have a perspective on yourself and where you're going and what happens to you so that you can try to be at peace. If you think about if you're just if you were trapped in a prison, and it were literally impossible for you to escape, and you couldn't do anything about it, you literally couldn't do anything about Stoicism works. But then it's always like what else would you do you have to find a way to just, you get up at eight o'clock and you go to bed at five and you go to the outside of the yard and for a few minutes and they bring it it's like, you just have to you're the dog tied to the cart and it's like, What else are you going to do you find a way to have a perspective on your situation that you can make the best bit, but we don't live in a world like that. We don't live in a world like that. So our focus and you hear talks from objectivists or you read articles or essays or you're giving talks wherever you are running around the world. And it's like what you're not talking about is suffering and how to deal with pain and anxiety you're talking about how to achieve your values and so it's very outward looking it's very action oriented it's very change change the world oriented. Not accommodate yourself to nature and focus on your inner character inner character you need character that's damn important. But you need it so that you can build the kind of life and the kind of person you want to become and that's a very active role externally out there in the world and not just character building. So, guys, you can use the super chat to ask questions Maryland thank you for the $50 really appreciate that about stoicism, or you can broaden it we can we'll take questions about anything. If you'd like. So feel free to jump in with questions I've one from Andrew. Andrew says my question is on many stoics, use it to cope with them a level and universe premise. There is rationally, there is rationality use but to deal with the faculty underlying base, a faulty underlying base. It's life is suffering and stoicism is how to make it less is is that how people are using it. That's putting it very starkly. I don't think it's far off from the way from what it amounts to. It's not life is great, let's reap as much as we can out of it like that's not stoicism it's don't care too much about the world or you'll get hurt. Or you can kind of care but don't care too much because it's not that important it's not that valuable. And there is a heavy element. So virtue is important and virtue is valuable for what what is the end result. Well, I mean it's it's valuable. So, in essence, it's valuable for its own sake. Okay, because it's the it's the perfection of our nature, our God given nature, so it's valuable for its own sake. They realize that it does help us attain certain kinds of ends. But the attainment of the end is not what's important for them. That's in fates hands you can attain it or not attain it. Some of these things would be more in line with what your your nature requires and some less in line with what your nature requires but in the end that's not what's important. So it does system have a politics or does this the modern stoic movement imply a particular, you know application of politics. So it's did have a politics of sorts, the Zeno following Plato wrote a book called the Republic. Now I believe chrysophist is also wrote in a book called the Republic. But as from what I remember from Zeno's Republic it's lost in their bits and pieces that reconstruct but it was a kind of community of stoic wise men, living with everything communally and so on. We have conventional laws, borders of nation states, we're all a cosmopolitan city of humanity and so on but it was his city was just populated by the perfect stoic wise men. So it was kind of an ideal community where we all live in a communitarian sort of way. Now the modern practitioner the modern stoics today will largely focus on the idea that we have a natural affinity for mankind we have this interconnected interrelationship with all human beings as such. And so it pushes you toward a kind of a collectivist view where you should have concern for all mankind. I mean, so Nancy Sherman, she's a professor at Georgetown wrote a book called stoic wisdom. And she one of her criticisms of the modern stoic movement is that the self help stoics the popularizers you know the Ryan holidays and so on. So four stove tips to supercharge your life you know that sort of thing she's like this is way too focused on you and your self development and yet whatever the real thing that you should be taking away from stoicism is this sort of. I call it cosmic collectivism but this sort of communitarian view where we're all these deeply interconnected humanity, and we should work for the common good.   It's more important than you. That sort of thing. So you know kind of modern liberal kind of. So, so there is a philosophical critique of kind of the self help stoic movements come from the kind of the philosophers the ones who who actually have studied the stories. Yeah, the more serious philosophers do have a bit of disdain for and I think understandably for the kind of self help things because you and Ryan holiday it's like, not only he'll give you like the five minute video and the four tips for your for today, but you can buy little coins and medallions with little stoic epigrams and a little thing where you can put them on you it's always all this marketing stuff and and you know and buy my book and it's just a lot of this sort of marketing sales stuff. So there's a certain disdain that academics would have for that. On the other hand, a lot of stoic philosophy is self help. I mean it's, it's a therapy for the soul. And there's no distinction between philosophy and psychology. So if you go to philosophy and you have problems you're depressed and you struggle with things in life and you go to the philosopher he should give you some perspective and some wisdom on that so they did both and didn't see them as distinct in any way. And a lot of what you get is, you're in a bad condition. If you're going to be happy, you want to be in a better position and I've got a lot to say about what you should be valuing how you should be approaching life, how you should care about okay somebody insulted you, or you got invited to a dinner and they didn't see you near the head of the table and what's the worst kind of disc you know, or it's just all these things that people the practical things that people come to like epictetus say for and like well what do you think about that he's like he's like why are you so worried about what other people think who cares where you sit at the table. Yep. It's like what you have to concern about is, are you are you dining and interacting with people with integrity. Are you a just man. You know, and so you can you see, it's on the one hand you look at it and you go like yeah the determinism this is kind of fatalism in effect and this kind of detachment from the world there's a lot that's really bad about it. And yet if you read their works, you can go. Yeah, I know people like that.  Yeah, reputation and you know that's a secondhand mentality of valuing how other people treat you, or do you value the company and you value what you learn from other people or do you value the interaction with other people so it's it's you can get to the same principle with, you know, through objectivism without without careening through this, you know, kind of in a sense anti values approach of stoicism.  But they're also values to be achieved and maintained so it's part of the end, not just a means that's not just a ladder you can kick away once you got your character and so the idea is you know you're trying to develop yourself into the kind of person that is fit for existence to fit for reality it's like there's this guy in my neighborhood he's got this big pimped out Jeep it's got like all the bells and whistles on it it's got extra gasoline tanks and it's got it's all it's like he's totally got this out thing out for desert, you know, driving and stuff. It's like you're trying to outfit yourself for life, like virtues, virtues is kind of like that you're trying to equip yourself to outfit yourself to the person I now have the kind of character that I need to function successfully and optimally in life.  Oh, they make a big deal out of virtue, you should make a big deal out of virtue, but you don't need to sever virtue from value. You know, as they do yourself from the world to reach tranquility, you should embrace external things and want success from the world. And Ali asks, or says he says most of things in life out of our control, divorced, losing a loved one, etc. It is part of nature. This is my understanding of the outside of our control how does objectivism deal with these events. Well, so I, you have to be careful about what's outside your control and what isn't. So there are lots of things that we can impact. You don't have, let's say the fundamental like ultimate control over it. So I don't have ultimate control over like when I'm going to die, but I can take my health seriously. There's a lot that I can do to take my health seriously to maybe exercise more and you know, things like that. So there's a lot of things that we can impact. And same thing with a relative. I mean you can take a, you can really research like which doctors you're taking to do I need to switch doctors to get a second opinion and there's a lot of things that you can actively do. But the things that you ultimately can't control. I think one needs to accept. That doesn't mean except without caring, like someone, let's say someone an older relative or something that you care about passes away and it's sort of. It is what it is. But you don't want to say well people die, you know whatever like that you don't want to have that perspective because if you really cared about the person you realize you have lost something that's important to you and you know and grief is appropriate. I think if that means that's, it's an important value. You don't want to grieve for the rest of your life. So you don't want to make it to the point where it takes over and prevents your ability to pursue your values and enjoy the rest of your life and so on. So you have to have a rational outlook on, on these kinds of things but there are lots of things that you can't control but like, yeah. Yeah, I mean I'd be, I'd be careful Ali of saying most of things in life out of control I don't think that's true divorce is not out of your control.  It was in my control and yet I screwed up and it happens so or they approached divorce and then they got to the point where they said the things I can fix you and things I can do to avoid divorce and. The problem with having kind of this deterministic view in life is it makes you way too passive about problems that exists in your life and not devoting the kind of energy and passion and and and thought into trying to fix them because hey, I can't control what can I do. It just isn't this is the point and it's making about even your own health or people dying and so on. The things that can be done and not always sometimes it cannot and sometimes you you're not connected the person, the loved one that you have any kind of control of what happens to them, and they and they die. So, yeah, at the end of the day in that sense the Stokes are right, you can't fight the metaphysical right you can't fight the fact that somebody somebody's dead, they're dead, that's a fact. You have to learn to accept it you have to put it in the right perspective in the context of your own life which means that's what it means to be rational to put it in the in the context of your own life. And to move forward and and to orient and but that can only be done if you have values that can only be done if you can create a hierarchy of values and say okay, yeah this value unfortunately I've lost, but hey I've got 25 others. Right and and and there's still, I can still pursue those. It is true that sometimes you lose such a high value that life is not worth living beyond that point. And that's unusual in rate. And the way I ran makes this distinction in the metaphysical versus the man made, I think the Stokes can't make that distinction in the way she makes it, because there is no distinction between the metaphysical and the man made. If you're a determinist there, everything is metaphysically given in effect because everything is fixed and free for ordained and and all the outcomes that happen are going to be what they are irrespective. But all they will just happen necessarily. So there are things that some people do, but in effect that goes in the category the metaphysical because it had to be. So there isn't really a category of, at least not in the way I ran draws it because I ran says, you made the category that man made is the things that didn't have to be what they are. They happen as the result of it because people make certain kind of choices which they did not have to make. They could have chosen otherwise, but Stoicism rejects the idea that you could have chosen otherwise, because nothing else could happen otherwise that it did so. Yeah. So where is the essay the metaphysical versus the man makers I think Ali would benefit enormously from reading that. Yeah, it's in philosophy who needs it philosophy who needs it it would generally is a great book of essays. And the other really important one in that essay that's directly related to Stoicism is the essay called causality versus duty. It's about the basic approach to ethics are you basically focused on duty doing your duty and your inner character and keeping your inner character clean and pure. Like like the Stoics, or you focused on a goal. Like are you focused on the causal means to reaching the goals that you are after. And the really different mentalities. She talks about the different mentalities of the which goes the disciple of causation you know the one who's after a goal and after the means to the goal. You know which like objectivism versus the sort of duty premise approach to morality and what that's like so that's really helpful. I mean if people are interested in issues that Stoics is still with and ran talks about as well. Okay, so Ali Ali has a follow up doesn't catering to people's needs and society make us more successful. It is a mark of successful product or invention is the return for the whole society. You have something to say about the two year on but it's what do you mean catering to their needs. If you're trying to develop if you're trying to develop a successful business by developing successful products that meet a market need.  No, I don't I mean you could do it that way but it's not it's so this mother Teresa and there's Steve jobs and it's like, are they both catering to the needs of other and some sense. One devotes herself to the needy and doesn't really produce anything, and one produces some things a lot of people didn't even know they needed. But I mean he needs right he taught people what they needed. So yeah, yeah, which is massive and it's not true that a mark of successful product or invention is to return for the whole society. There's no such thing as a return for the whole society. We measure a return for the whole society who is the whole society where is this entity called the whole society that I can measure the return to that person. A market successful product is, you know the return to the investor, and the fact that the investor is gaining a profit means that enough people are better off because of this product that they're willing to pay for it. And they're willing to, in a sense, compensate the entrepreneur the investor for it but there's no such thing as a return to the whole society. Whole society isn't a thing that has the profits that benefits that is is that has well being. And there's a lot of false alternatives under underneath these kinds of issues when the question is dealt with like this because when people are rational and productive and pursuing their own interests and pursuing their own lives and productive careers, people benefit. Other human beings benefit as a result. But that doesn't mean you're prioritizing the needs of others, or you're working for the needs of others exactly you're working for your own goals, I think properly speaking you're working for your own goals but if you if you're in a productive line of work. I mean am I working for the needs of my students when I teach. Yeah, but it's like, I'm a teacher because I love teaching and I love the philosophy that I'm teaching and I'm pursuing advancing my goals in a way that I'm capable. And part of what you do is meet the needs of so there's no clash, I think, when you do that sort of rationally and productively other people will benefit from it.  Yeah, and speaking of ancient Greece that's a bit of a Trojan horse to because I've heard that used as you talk to people that are self interested. And then you try to get them to be more altruistic collectivistic more other focused by saying you'll benefit. If you work for the benefit of the whole, you know, and it's, you know, the whole psychological orientation of it is make others first others primary in your mind and then they promise you that you'll benefit from it. And I don't think that's true. Right, let's see Ali has a third one. Frederick Nietzsche was not deterministic but he to ask the love fate a more for fatigue. It doesn't mean we should reach. We doesn't doesn't mean we should reach our potential. But there is always stuff outside control. Well, just a correction there that's important for the whole question is Nietzsche was a determinist like fall on. He thought the idea of free will is ridiculous. And he wrote about that so the Amor Fati, you know, love your that also true for the for the woman is he also free of free will. Yeah, I think I mean I think you reject the notion of free will just across the board like it's doesn't make any sense. And so I haven't studied much of Nietzsche but I know I know that much about him. I think he talks about that in what he probably talks about lots of places that he comes back to many themes but I think I remember in Twilight of the Idols. I love reading each but now he's now he's a determinist so maybe that just end the question about Amor Fati is like loving one's fate. My fate is awful. Perhaps I haven't I haven't studied Nietzsche that much. What would the stoic say if my fate is awful if my fate is to suffer is my fate to be crucified on a cross should I love that should I enjoy that you just made a mistake you're on. You said it was awful. Life and death pain and suffering and these are not the neither good nor bad. They're not a component of or required for your happiness and well being. So it's a kind of the mistake.   So the idea of judging that it sucks so that it doesn't happen again evaluating failure and assessing it so that you learn so that next time you won't fail feeling the pain now so you learn not that you don't like it that doesn't play a role for the stoics. Yeah, I mean they they certainly talk about kind of hardening yourself against adversity. Like, I mean people now will talk about that. It's like I read this book by William Irvine's a really popular book called the art of stoic joy or the ancient art of stoic joy or something like that. A terrible book I think but he recommends all sorts of techniques that you know go out. I find this stuff ridiculous, but go out in the winter with no coat. Instead of driving to the office take the bus or walk. Take a cold shower and set a warm shot.  You're trying to harden yourself. What are you a Navy SEAL. Like if you're a Navy SEAL and you're in buds training or something like that. Yeah, you probably have to do a lot of that go without food get in the cold ocean just endure a lot of hardship because that's what you're going to need to be able to endure when you're in the field, or at least potentially endure when you're in the field and if you can endure that you better get out of the program because you somebody's going to get killed if they have to rely on you so. Life isn't that life isn't suffering it's not a bag of pain that you have to harden yourself against. It's like the distrust of pleasure that comes across in that book. I like food I like cuisine as you know. He's like, we have to be careful of the attractions of pleasure like like suppose you. You start getting into into fancy food and like appreciating wine and things like that and then you can't just enjoy a mac and cheese at home or something like that and. I don't really gravitate to mac and cheese but pick your concrete toast and butter just something something simple. That's not true. It's just not true that you somehow get trapped into this luxury treadmill and you just you can enjoy something simple, you know who enjoys things that are really really really simple chefs. Yep. Yep, my first job I worked in this executive chef is in a restaurant, and he came to me, you know iceberg lettuce it's got the white part at the bottom, this really crunchy and firm and people always throw that out. He's like, I love this part of the lettuce. He said Aaron, they taste this and it was like it's just like this fresh bright crunch and a little bit of liquid and it just sort of really interesting and he just a lot of chefs will appreciate really simple things, you know, but it's about discrimination and expanding the range of things that you can appreciate and enjoy, not wrapping you into some treasure. So Gail asks great discussion Aaron, I'm wondering if the popular self help seminars called landmark is based on stoicism. I don't know the seminars. Okay. I know a little bit and there seems to be some influence but I don't know that. Landmark goes back to the ESTS something from the ninth from the 70s, where they'd lock you up in a room and you could go to the bathroom. I mean, there were all these weird psychological things. So it goes back to that. It might have some stoic influences but I don't think it's explicitly stoicism. Although I'm, you know, I might be wrong. I'm not an expert on that either. I know some people have gone through landmark and like it and I'm sure it has some positive psychologically for people. Yeah, no, no, no bathrooms it was the 70s, you know, I don't know what that means. What is the stoic view of death and how does it contrast with the Epicurean Epicurean view the death means nothing to us. I think so there are differences in their, their metaphysics that relates to death but I think both in the case that death is nothing to us I think both would share for the Epicureans. Death is simply the dissolution of our atoms. I mean we're just sort of made up of atoms and death is just the dissolution of that. One of the reasons why they made a big deal out of that was, again, part of trying to reduce people's suffering. And I think the Epicurus thought one of the major reasons people suffer in like is religion. And they're afraid of the gods and what the gods will do how the judge them or punish them they'll go to the underworld or kind of the afterlife and effect. They go to the underworld and it's a dark and gloomy and who knows what happens there and it's like a big boogeyman hanging in the background of their lives. And he says you need to get rid of that garbage.  You know, it's like I think that you would like where death is you're not, you know, it's like so the only thing you're going to know is life. And so they have this statement, death is nothing to us.  And again, death, life and death is part of the, the category of indifference. Yeah. But it's about having a right character in the response to death he's like Socrates can get the hauled off to prison and they can put him to death but he doesn't have to go groaning and moaning. He can go with dignity and in a clear head. You know, Jennifer says in the past there were plenty of things thought to be uncontrollable like disease. But it turned out these, those things were controllable. If you just give up, you will never know. So some some things that we thought were metaphysical turned out that can be changed by man. Yeah, the beauty of science minutes. Yeah, I mean that's certainly true. I mean, I would imagine that, you know, the more of this kind of thing is known a philosophy like Stoicism could adapt to that. But the point of the question is probably like, don't be too passive about thinking well, I mean, but again, if you're, if you're more of the determinist more of the things are already preset. I think it induces a kind of passivity. Now, one of the reasons why the, I mean, because if you say well they're all determinists everything's preset. Why don't you just lay on your couch. Right. There's that sort of thing but Epictetus has had a response to this which I think he's drawing from precipice he says, everything is faded everything that is going to happen is going to happen, but I don't know what's going to happen. So I have to face the world as if you know, I have to make the choices in my life that seem to make the most sense that seem to me most in agreement with nature or whatever that I can make and so, I don't know. Right. Yeah, a little bit like practice. Yeah, Andrew says, an Atlas shrugged when Dagni says we never had to take it seriously did we. The world is crumbling. How would one maintain a benevolent universe. If existentially there was evil all about. Okay, how do I answer this quickly. I think that if you were in a kind of. horrific circumstances where most of what your environment is is evil it's geared toward evil it's geared toward the destruction of the good. I don't know that you would ever form that as a perspective on the world I think your view would be a very sort of a darker metaphysical perspective I think because your view would, you know, because you don't have a perspective like take Kira, you know, Kira grew up in a time before the revolution. Did she. I can't remember no oops. Anyway, but she's seen better life she's seen more successful life she knows about the world abroad. The people in Europe and people in America and people in England they live different life she's seen movies like life doesn't have to be like this life doesn't have to be this swamp. of evil, and then you can say look, human beings can live a better life they can live a successful life they can live a happy joyous life a carefree benevolent life that this is possible to man. So metaphysically you wouldn't make the judgment is life's a foxhole and let's hunker down and you know deal with it, but I could imagine growing up in an environment where that's exactly how you feel. It needs to be, it needs to be formed. Yeah, I mean, people react very differently to even, you know, be in a place like a concentration camp or gulag, you know, and some people do indeed just accept it and give up or conclude something about the malevolence of the malevolence of man and other people somehow managed to sustain that memory of what life is what what is possible for life and and and how to, you know, and how to survive and and and maintain kind of a benevolent view in spite of the horrors around you. Dagny, but Atlas shrugged is not that kind of the world is crumbling but within Atlas shrugged universe that you know the reason she can maintain the benevolent universe because she's looking into the face of John Gold. And she knows she's looking into the face of John Gold. So, you know the universe is in that sense the world is not crumbling. No other word there is crumbling right here. Dagny gold. Yeah, I mean everything's good. And that's and that's what's important and that's what she's trying to say. This is what's important. Everything else is nonsense. And I think even if she hadn't. This is speculation about about the character but even if she hadn't met John Gold. He's the final integration of it. We never had to take it seriously like the here's the fully real made real. And it's like, like so she always kind of knew it but this in a way just sort of it made it fully fully real to her. But even if she hadn't I don't think she would have gone malevolent universe. I think she would have known we were the good. We made everything good and what's possible and other people because of the way they function they ruined it. But it's not that the universe is inhospitable to human happiness is that people's people aren't thinking and they're they're not thinking they're conforming they're evading they're all sorts of things that are ruining things. But I know who are the movers I know who are the good I know who are the productive and I've been I am one of them and one of them. Yeah, that's important. All right. Merlin has a question on different topics so let's let's finish up on the Stoics before we get to food. Hook him asks, was this philosophy in Roman law. If so, how did they deal with criminals that exploited the philosophy. No, the philosophy wasn't codified into Roman law, even though it was, it was popular in the Roman period among the people who had time for philosophy, it appealed to them. But no, it's never codified into law. And it was that so it's never applied in that way politically. No, although there were people that were very politically active that were very influenced by stoicism and they drew on their stoic principles to deal with all the intrigue and although upset you know that was going on in during the period I mean the main example that Kato the younger. I mean Kato was taken as one of the real heroes and models of a stoic man and man of action, a man of integrity and so on. And he was really universally sort of an inspirational figure for so many people I think that was it Valley Forge I think Tom George Washington had a play about Kato. He was a model of the troops because he's a model of inspirate of integrity. Yeah, but you know how how much she absorbed from stoicism what exactly is he practicing or is he just a, you know, but so a lot of people were influenced by this kind of kind of like people today there are a lot of people today they're influenced by this it's in various kinds of ways it doesn't mean they accept the whole philosophy and I don't know much about his life really. Nobody is stoic. Like Frank says, do you think Amish people are stoic. Do you think oh oh he also says Gary Cooper characters in high noon is stoic. Do you think that's true I don't think I don't think Gary Cooper was high character and I knew is all stoic.  But yeah, but I just plays it pretty cool. Yeah. Yeah, so if you look up like an addictionary stoic like lowercase s, you know, where it's just an adjective. It often means, you know, kind of looking like emotionless or like strong under adversity and stuff I mean people sometimes people will characterize Rourke it's stoic. Now he's not remotely a stoic but there's a way in which he has a kind of he has a kind of inner serenity. He has a deep sort of inner well of like I know who I am. I know where I'm going. I know what I want. And he has that peace with himself. And, you know, he's not an emotionalist or something like that and so he comes across as very kind of hard to categorize somebody who's in a piece with himself as stoic. Is that a good no good. No, I don't think so it's more. It's the it's like Spock is like what you think. Yeah. You know, unperturbed, but unemotion, not not, you know, showing emotion. And that's the kind of a common adjective. And the stoics didn't think you should eradicate your emotions. But they thought you should get rid of a lot of them, because they thought most of them are irrational. Suffering joy is sorry no sorry suffering grief distress anxiety sadness. Things like that they're all irrational because what you're up the reason why you feel them is you thought you were going to get something good and you didn't get it or you lost something you thought was good but you're you shouldn't be labeling those things as good anyway. That's your problem. And so they thought a lot of your emotional life you should sort of You have you in the Amish in this context. Oh, I don't know if I know much about the Amish. I mean I know some about the Amish but are they still it. I don't know what to say about that. Yeah, I certainly don't think Gary Coopin high noon historic. No. I mean he's a value value and he takes action he doesn't just accept his faith. He's takes takes action he pursues his values and I'm not sure stoic would throw the the sheriff's badge down to the ground at the end of the movie and walk off with with his girl quite the way Gary Cooper does. Anyway, that's that there's a whole analysis to high noon. I mean it's a interesting movie. Movie with no plot. All right. Let's see okay Michael asks stoicism is a miserable soul sucking philosophy without the aggression that comes with cynicism and nihilism comment.   If what you do is you read the Stoics and you pull out some things that you think yeah that's a good point or something or this is a good technique I could use you know it. That's a different kind of thing or if you read Marcus Aurelius and there are things that you can respect about how he thinks about life and how he faces life I mean this. I enjoy reading the Stoics and I it is all sorts of things in there you can take away, but you think about is.   What is it about Marcus Aurelius' meditations that you like reading so much? His focus on authenticity. His focus on integrity. Of being the opposite of a Peter Keating. And the seriousness which which he takes, it's unfortunate I think the morality who holds, but the seriousness with which he takes morality. He doesn't spare himself. It's very, but it's also very close to the whole duty approach to ethics. You know you're hard on yourself and you know you gotta, you know, but I think it's not hard to become sympathetic to him as an individual when you read this, but also it's a sad book. Because at the same time where he says, you know, basically everything is all for the best and he has some very nice passages about that to kind of like poetically kind of talking about how God structures everything and nature is beautiful and so on. But at the same time you get him saying a lot about how fleeting and unimportant everything is. And I think that's important actually. It's that it's, you know, emperor one day dirt tomorrow. Yeah, what's what's it all for. And then the Stoics have this view that the universe universe cyclically returns back to God and it's sort of into fire, which is God. And then everything all happens exactly the same way again and in these cycles and he's like, you know, one lifetime a million lifetime what's the difference, you know, and so there's a real sense of the pointlessness of everything. And I think you would probably adopt that. Yeah. All right, just super chat wise we're about halfway to our goal. A goal is 650 so we're at about 320 something like that. So if you've got a question as a good time to ask. We've only got about three questions to go so yeah it's already an hour 20 in time is passed really quickly and while I'm being pretty stoic about my, my missing the Celtics game. I am curious about what's going on so at some point we'll have to go see the second half. All right, Michael says Michael asked us to tell it to me systems designed to make people stoic, or do people adopt stoicism in order to survive to tell it to me and systems. You to tell it to me and systems turn people into Stoics. Yeah. Well, I think to, well, not stoic philosophers, not people who adopt the philosophy of stoicism but there is a sense in which the more your life is out of your control and dictated by forces outside of your control. The more you would move into a mode of acceptance. So what else you do.  You have to sort of comply and accept that things are the way they are. And that's why I think people this Soviet Union became just very passive as people saying people adopt stoicism in order to survive a totalitarian system. Not stoic philosophy, they wouldn't necessarily doc Stoke, but they might be lowercase stoic about, you know, what can I do. Yeah, what can I do. Acceptance. All right, Michael. Okay, this this is a relates food to stoicism. Do you like Gordon Ramsay, because he is the opposite of a stoic. Have you ever eaten at one of his restaurants. I've seen Gordon Ramsay on TV. And he's always yelling at people. And I find that just unpleasant to watch I don't enjoy people getting shouted at and humiliated and stuff on TV. I don't, I don't like that kind of thing. He's probably a really good chef I don't you know I don't have a view about that. I did see him once I was at a restaurant, we were at a restaurant called Woodbury kitchen my wife and I in Baltimore, and he and some people is on to Roger whoever was with him was dining at the same restaurant. I didn't go say hi or anything but I just like, Oh, that's Gordon Ramsay. But I think that I think this the question was partly in in jest, but the kind of anti stoic wouldn't mean the you know the angry emotionalist.  But it's more of you about. Yeah, good. That sounds right. I mean Gordon Ramsay is. I mean he makes great television because people enjoy his screaming you don't. And I don't. But obviously they enjoy it because they keep coming back to him more. And it makes good drama. What's that. Have you eaten at one of his restaurants. I have. I think it to the one I remember is he had maybe still has I don't know. He had a was it a two Mr. Stolls a three Mr. Stoll restaurant in in France in Versailles, Versailles. And I remember eating at that restaurant because I remember at the end of the meal, the, the waiter, I guess asked, Well, what did, what did I think, and, and I said, Do you really want to know. He said, Yeah. And I said, I said honestly that that the first dish was the best the second dish was the second best the third dish you know it kind of deteriorated as the meal went out. And so I thought generally, it was, it was good.  He's not there of course he's not cooking but, you know, right. But it was but it was it's over. He's generally overrated I think it very. You know stuffy Michelin star you can you can go to Michelin star restaurant and it's fun and it's, you know, it's friendly and, and you can go to Michelin star restaurants and the stuffy and this was a stuffy French one. And yeah, and white table class and super stuffy and he's known for cooking John Dory, the fish. Oh yeah. Yeah Mediterranean. No, I, no idea why anybody would want to eat John Dory fish. It just doesn't taste that good. It's it's pretty bland in my view. Yeah, you could with a good sauce you can make it a little better but it's just not. So we have very tall and I have a joke about John Dory fish because every time we've tried it it's like, why, why are people go crazy about this why is this like the featured menu item on a Jordan Ramsay restaurant. I think I've eaten at a more casual restaurant of his in London. So they're always good look that he's a pro. In a sense that they it's always meets a certain standard and services grade and everything's everything's clicks and the food is good. But is it memorable is it some of the best meals I've ever had no I mean I've eaten at restaurants that are that experiences right that they are where you remember and you you relish kind of every bite. Here's not that what not like that. That's my my sense. Hey guys, we just opened up a whole on Maryland says I think some of us ate at a Golden Ransom restaurant during iron ran con 2022. So is that in London, Maryland. I don't know. All right. Let me just see. All right, so I. Yeah, I don't know who those people will. Maryland also asks. Let's let me just let me just do something here. And it's an amazing cook. I would like to hear about how he got interested in cooking and what are some of his favorite dishes, who is mentors. Wow, I don't have any mentors. I grew up in a kind of small rural meat and potatoes town and a couple moments though one was my mom used to make us these grilled cheese sandwiches you know you put a little butter on some bread and put it on the skillet little cheese and whatever. And at some point my brother was making one for me my older brother, and he put a little bit of Dijon mustard between the two pieces of cheese. And I remember tasting I was like, this is really good and I just occurred to be like, wait you can change stuff, you can just sort of just change stuff. And I was like, oh man so this opened up a whole world so we opened up the cupboard and the spice cabinet and we're just going through tasting all the spices trying to get a sense like what can you do with things. And then, you know, not much happened after that but I was, I tried I think sushi for my first time. I was about 11. We were in a field trip from school in Washington DC. And they let us loosen you know the old post office pavilion there it's big. It's all retail and shops now and went up to the top. Everyone ran to the Chinese restaurant or they went to the pizza place and I went upstairs and found this sushi place I spent all my money on like three pieces of sushi. So this is really cool. But then later it was just, I didn't have any money, and I needed to find ways to make things taste better. And so I started experimenting with what can I do with ramen noodles. And really, I think it was more under like COVID where I'm like cooking all every meal all day at home, and I started to kind of reconnect with. Oh yeah I love cooking I love the the whole creative focus on cooking and and so I really got connected with it again and now it's just like I won't give it up. I just I love cooking. My favorite recipes Oh I don't know, like today I just sliced up this funny random but but today I toasted some hazelnuts in a pan to get them nice and warm and toasty and it's really aromatic.  But stuff like that just that sounds great. Yeah, that was just today's lunch but yeah but it's just it's fun. Yeah, I mean it's it's a steady stream of creativity. What's that I had so many homes. Okay. I think what it's funny is just a steady stream of creativity what can I do with this how can I well I'm going to do this differently. What looks good at the store today. We shop daily just sort of just at the end of our workday and you know at some point we go out we run around and take a look and what seems good and what's cool to out where it's Southern California. I have access to Japanese grocery stores to Persian markets, you know a lot of Iranian people shopping there and just all sorts of just different options for ingredients that I wouldn't get if I just had like a safe way and just, you know, so yeah. I'm also lazy when it comes to like cooking so it's like, I like things that are like really good quality ingredients but fairly simple like they don't take all day in the kitchen and you're slaving away like, yeah I don't then I got things to do, you know, simple and quick. Yeah. Yeah. So Justin asks my one year niece was recently diagnosed with a horribly disfiguring and learning behavioral this debilitating disease with no cure a place for store stoicism in the future. I don't think so I mean throw stoicism out the window 100%. That's what I would say to that. What's required, I think is if this is someone you care about or you have a relation to where it's kind of you want to do something. I think you would continue to try like is it really incurable and if it really is then it's kind of it is what it is.  So you honor that aspect of things you don't treat it as an indifferent. And again to the extent that this matters to you there's something important to you you would want to think like, well are there other treatments that can be done are there different opinions, what kind of evolving pharmaceuticals or techniques or being a thought about or sort of in the in the in the pipeline in some way for trying to address these kinds of things now I have no idea about the condition or I mean so I could just completely wrong and there's nothing at all you can do about it you just have to accept. And what values can she pursue in spite of this what values given this what what way can she find joy in spite of the condition she has. Yeah, you know and that that is the point is to always be pro values orientation. Yeah, like I when I was teaching gymnastics I got one guy came in wanted me to do a private lesson with his kid. In gymnastics he just wanted to take a use of the mats and the safe environment stuff but he was really autistic. And he couldn't communicate very well, like at all, like a few words and kind of you can kind of get a sense of what he's talking he was about I don't know 10 or 11, you know, but he was clearly had a blast when he was there, you could tell him he was really having a good time and you know it was his dad would sit up in the stands and just you know, I think he drove truck or something like that so he didn't have a lot of time but he would just really try to get his kid to have some joy in their life and to enjoy themselves and even though it's much more limited. And you know he knew the situation. You know he was he would sort of accepted it this is this is what his life will be like to the extent that you know he can live a life and I'm his father, and I want him to live as good of a life as he can, you know and, however that ratchets up or ratchets down for the civil girl, I mean I think it. Yeah, but yeah but yeah. So we have two final questions from Mark. What ancient philosophers do you enjoy or would recommend to new objectivist thought and then thoughts and peacocks analysis of Western philosophy. recommend to new objectivists depends what they're aiming at. I really enjoy reading Plato. I ran hated reading play I enjoy reading Plato. I think it's sort of funny, stimulating. I think they show you what it really looks like to try to really grapple with a problem when you don't know what the answer is, and to try to work through the kinds of questions that you need to ask and all the dead ends and fall starts and circling back around it's like no wait let's question that again and I think this, there's a real value in that when you're if you're trying to think philosophically and appreciate philosophic thought. I enjoy reading Aristotle but Aristotle is a more difficult philosopher I think to read. When I heard I read a bunch of I ran and then I heard she was interested in Aristotle I started with the categories it's a very, very dense, difficult kind of work but I really put in the work to try to understand what was going on there. And once I saw one that came to understand what was going on in there. I thought wow this guy's a genius. You know it just took me a long time to figure out what the hell is going on here, but there are other works that are more accessible. That just depends what their aim is if they're looking for something closer to objectivism or they're looking for something to learn more about Greek philosophy. The first place to start is where most people start in intro one oh one philosophy and start with Plato's dialogue with you the pro, you know, because it's really it's really about the idea that we operate with these concepts all the time and we function on our lives using them and we often don't have a clear grasp of what those concepts refer to what they really mean. And it's really important to interrogate those concepts you want to use it that way. And figure out, are we really taking these our ideas seriously are we taking our lives seriously, you know, and that's a good one. So thoughts on now pickups analysis of Western philosophy. In the in the I assume he means in the course. I love that course I think it's a really good course for. I'm trying to get I mean you might have a quibble here and there about like it like how do you interpret this philosopher that philosopher but welcome to philosophy right that's that's that's the world. But I think what's great about the course is well a bunch of things are great but one thing I want to point out to get a sense of the arc of the ideas and the development and ideas from supplatinism to the Hellenistic philosophers to Christianity and you get this sort of sense of the history of ideas and the interconnection and why things one things led to another I think it's invaluable. So I took that course before I had my first course in university course in philosophy. So I came in there like, no, I probably held a lot of these. They have peacocks use a little secondhandedly because I didn't I mean I hadn't read these people yet, you know, but I had this real sense of there's a logic to all this. Yeah, and a sense of a scope and a sweep of it so by the time I read the start reading play though it's like I can already see where this is going. And I know that. Yeah, we don't know the other people in the class might not know where this is going but it's like you can see how this relates to other things and just I found that super valuable. So Frank asks, for Plato is Atlantis a real place of fiction. I would say fiction. So he talks about Atlantis in his dialogue, the critias. It's a short little dialogue. So if you if you're interested in that take a look at the critias dialogue, it's short, but he talks about it in one more dialogue but I can't remember which is is but the critias is the main source. So I don't think it's meant to be real. Right. Last question from Mark is he asked, what led you to objectivism and where can we find your work. What led me to thank you for asking that by the way, but what led me to objectivism. It's the kind of who I was before I read I ran thing. And that was a very independent minded person who hated conformity, and just wanted to go his own way. And I hated faith and I'd given up religion, and I thought that that was false. And at some point, a friend of my brothers gave me or told me recommended the fountainhead he thought I would like that book I couldn't stand this guy, but he recommended the fountainhead for me for some reason. And I finally got around to reading that when I was about 1919 turning 20 around there. This is like 92. And I read this and I fell in love with it. And I hadn't heard of the author so I didn't know who I called her and ran for like two years that never heard her name pronounced. And this is before internet so what knows it. Yeah, maybe, but so anyone is right. Yes. Yeah, on the back of the thing it said she wrote another book called out the shrugged. So I read that. And then I was like, Okay, my whole world is different now and I need to think about what I want to do. So I quit college. I went back to coaching gymnastics like for the next two years I just read everything by iron and started thinking about and she sold me on the subject of philosophy. And it's like, no, this is where I wanted to be. And I found out about ari because you there those little tear sheets. Yep. And in some of the anthologies and I kind of wrote it out and snail mailed it out and I get this little second Renaissance book catalog and I tell all of these lectures by Peacock and Dr. Benzmeyer stuff that you could order and it's like, I can afford them but it's like every once in a while I would get one. And yeah, and it just, yeah, she just and so I went back to school to study philosophy, you know, eventually became a professor and joined ari. The way can people find more of your work. Well, if you just Google Aaron Smith, I ran, you'll find my my expert page how they call it an expert page on ari's website. And that'll. Yeah, and if you simply if you Google Aaron Smith I ran on YouTube, you'll find a bunch of the things that I've done there. Like I don't have my own website. Maybe I should. Well, this has been great. Thanks, Aaron. I've had a lot of questions over the years on stoicism so now hopefully I'll have some way to point people and send them to because we've covered the topic. Really appreciate the time. And I'll see you at OConn, I guess. Oh yeah. Okay, see you in Miami. Thanks everybody. Thanks all the super chat is really appreciate the support. Thanks for all the questions and I will see you guys tomorrow morning. For another you run book show. Thanks guys. Bye.


Hey everybody, it's 2024 here in the solar system. I've got a lot to talk about. Let's get started. Although there were some funding sources that seemed quite interested in the idea of a global phase war, the scientists and engineers thought there really ought to be a less wasteful way to build BV's brain. Rather than trying to figure out a single global phase for everything, one team decided to just develop lots of small little diamonds, each one that could be associated with a single sensor or a single motor, and they got that working and then they didn't even really care about the phases. They could move over each other and in and out of each other and took care of each other fine. Of course, there was one question about how are they going to accomplish the communication between those little diamonds, which was the purpose of the global phase to begin with. So that stumped everybody for a while, but then one of the senior scientists remembered there used to be a thing called a swap worm that didn't need a phase or a grid, it just moved around in free space, it could grow longer, and maybe they could take the head of a swap worm and stick it inside a sensor diamond, and the tail of a swap worm and stick it inside the corresponding motor diamond, and then it wouldn't matter where the diamonds were actually in space because the worm would conduct the signals from one to the other. So that sounded like a good idea, there was lots of patents filing and a flurry of implementation, and at first these new free worms looked really good. They could connect a pair of local diamonds and if the local diamonds moved, the free worm moved with it. But the problem was when there were multiple free worms connecting pairs of diamonds, then things got nasty. The free worms are very flexible so they would route around each other, creating tangles and knots and bigger tangles, and the engineers just couldn't figure out how to get rid of it. They tried and tried, but nothing worked. And since the monthly report out to the funders was only a couple days away, tensions were running high. But finally one of the interns said, well if we can't do a global phase because of phase war, but little teeny diamonds are too small to communicate within, why don't we do one big diamond? If there was, ended up being two diamonds, well then we would just let them move in and out of each other. We'd expect that there was only one, maybe we could try to get them to separate with each other, but we don't have to solve that problem ahead of time. Why don't we give peace a chance? And everybody looked at each other and said, could we do that? Is that possible? And the summer interns said, well I've already implemented a lot of it and it seems like it could work. And at that point the big cheese with an eye on the calendar said, make it so. So we will have part two of BV's adventure later in this episode. Here's what we were supposed to have done for today, mixed bag as usual. BV's distributed oolong brain running on the T2 matrix, changing its mind using subsumption. Well, number one, it's still not on the T2 matrix, it's running on MFMS, the simulator. And I'll talk a little bit about a couple other asterisks that come up there. So that's definitely a plus or a minus. On the other hand, funnest fundamental, I enjoyed this. Getting to the point of maybe can BV actually change its mind in a way that is non-trivial, in a way that kind of means something, is something that we've been aiming at for, well, I mean for all of this six month run for starters, but even much longer than that in some sense. So there was a lot of struggling, stuff that didn't work, like the free worm Alzheimer tangles or whatever the heck that was. But still a lot of fun. Okay, so the schedule, just to quickly remind us, we are down to the next to the last one. May 7th, the next update is the final one of the T2 matrix brain challenge. None of it has been on the T2 matrix. Fix that. The goal this time was to get the sensory motor homunculus, which we don't even exactly know what that is. Although I think we're getting closer. Even though at this point, the Breitenberg vehicle heritage is clearly still there and will be there all the way through. It's not like we're now going to switch and have a, you know, data the Android robot that looks an awful lot like a person. So we're probably going to push the stretch goal of growth and healing. Although I mean, we have some of that already just because we're doing bottom up, we're doing robust first. But so demo of the sensory motor homunculus will again be coming around next time. So, oh yes, subsumption architecture. So I'll circle back around to say why there's a question mark there now that there wasn't in the last update. But let's find out what happens with BV.  And there was plenty of room to spread out the sensors and the motor terminals that were required. In addition to the left and right yellow sensors that BV had always had, the engineers added left and right red sensors as well to make more complexity possible. But they all were connecting to just two motors, the left and right motor. And the Breitenberg vehicle 2B format had the left yellow and right yellow cross connected to the left and right motors. It should work just the same as it had before. But there was a problem. Now BV had always been exuberant, but with this new brain, it was like BV was on drugs. BV was very sloppy, switching balls, spinning around, missing things. And it didn't take too much analysis to figure out what was going wrong. The signal times between the sensory terminals in BV's brain and the motor terminals where the signals came back was taking too long. And as a result, the motor commands were outdated by the time they reached the motor terminals. It didn't look very good. Displaying the simulated tiles in the MFMS simulator made the problem more apparent. With spreading everything out for the big diamond, some of the signals had to cross three tiles to get from the sensory input to the motor output. It was taking too long.  Through a couple of iterations, eventually the engineers put all of BV's sensors and motors on a single tile. And then it worked like it had before. But if anybody was curious in what sense this was a distributed computation, nobody said anything at the time. So now the plan to demonstrate BV changing its mind was to let it push balls around but not jump into the void itself. And to do that, they used the red sensors which they added and they added a big red warning track around the edge of the world that BV could be sensitive to. But in order to do that, it would need more controls than it had before. And in particular, it needed a new terminal. It was like a sensor to take input like a motor. It could generate output, but also it could retain information about what it was doing. It needed state. The engineers called it a grip. The idea was each grip could determine the routing between sensors and motors. Instead of having that be hardwired, if you change the grip, you can rewire the brain. So the BV2B was just one grip. And the engineers wanted to create another grip that would help BV avoid jumping into the void by looking out for those red signals at the edge of the universe. And it took a while, but they got it working. So that's it. So BV changes its mind from pursuing yellow balls to stopping on red. Seems alright. A couple of things that I just want to add to that that I fluffed over in the BV's adventure, in the BV's demo. So I keep thinking about what I want to call these cartoons, but they're really not cartoons because they're demos. I can't actually make BV do anything particular. I can't have him run off a cliff, but not fall unless that's what the physics does. These are demos of what the code actually does. But subsumption architecture distributed computation. So, you know, let's talk about the subsumption architecture just for a minute here. So the idea of the subsumption architecture, which is also the idea of the Breitenberg vehicles generally, was that, you know, you'd have a bunch of wiring that would cause the robot, the agent, the creature, the living thing, whatever it is, that has a stake in the universe that has a physical thing that it's capable of operating and sensing through. And that it would have a default behavior and then it would have other more complex behaviors that were built on top of the default behavior. And they would come in and subsume it and say, don't do the default behavior, do this instead. And the point of it, the key of the subsumption is that the default behavior hardware is all still there. And then there's other stuff that comes in and subsumes it if it wants to. And otherwise the lower level behavior just keeps popping up automatically. And working the way that I did this demo that we just saw, the second one, here comes Mr. State, is not that. Because the changing of the grip actually rewires the brain. The yellow sensors that used to be going to the motors now go up to the grip to let it know if there's an opportunity to go chase a ball. And the red sensors which had been going to the grip now actually go to the motors and so on. And I went back and forth about whether I really wanted to do it that way. But the point is, is that I don't actually want the wiring to be fixed. I want the wiring to be programmable so that we have all of this artillery, the software, this grid that we're building up. Which we can now route to any of the terminals, basically all of the motors, the things that need input. They all have gradients so that anywhere in the grid you can figure out how to head towards any of the motors or the grip. The grip counts as a motor. It's a motor and a sensor. So it's modifiable, persistent state inside the creature, inside the agent. And as I've been working through this, it really feels like that is kind of the essence of mind. The essence of mind is it's a decision that you can make, number one, and you can change. Number two, persistent, modifiable state is the essence of mind, I think. Or at least that's what I'm thinking this month and I've been enjoying thinking it. It feels like it's got a little piece, a little germ of truth for sure. So that's the one question, that's the point on the subsumption, the point on the distributed architecture. This is pretty embarrassing, right? The entire sensory motor homunculus is on one tile. Why on earth would I even bother porting it to the T2 matrix when I could just have it sit on the desk?  But on the other hand, I feel like, no, actually this is right. Because the point is the direct connections between the input and output like the spinal cord, the kicking the knee up when you hit it with the hammer and all that stuff, that wants to be as fast as we can do it. And of course in the T2, nothing is fat. But in the T2, nothing is fast, but the point is it's as fast as we can get. So our reflex arcs are as short as we can get. And, you know, the previous stuff was using one big tile, and that's why it didn't run into the over control delay lag problem that we saw today. But what are we going to do with the rest of the matrix? And I think the design is, is that, well, no, this is kind of right. And it's kind of a symmetrical sort of thing that we have little BB in the physical world, all the world around it.  So the important that the reflexes, you make them close together. But the stuff that can afford to take a little bit more time, you surround that. And what it does is it comes up with computations about what should the next grip be. So that feels good. And we'll see how it all goes.  I don't care if it's only one tile, it would be nicer if it's maybe a little cluster if we can figure out some way to work around it on the outside. And once again, fun is fundamental. I got to keep reminding myself of that. But a lot of it is like, you know, I really enjoyed doing this. I just keep forgetting to talk about it. Okay, that's it. Thanks so much. I hope I see you next time.


Hey y'all, welcome to what Chelsea eats. Thank you so much for joining me today in this video I'm going to share with you this potent green juice recipe. I know it's red, but it is a green juice recipe and The reason I'm preparing you with these recipes is because the beginning of the year is coming And I know a lot of you are going to be reached reaching out to me asking me what juices can you take? For the new year and this is a good juice for you to add to your repertoire So if you want to see how I make this juice stay tuned The first ingredient is burdock root. It is a blood purifier Then here comes the hot pepper. I'm using jalapenos I would have used a whole one, but I didn't have one available at that time But you can use other peppers as well or if the pepper is too much you can just leave it out Next is the lime Which is has the vitamin C which helps pull the iron out of the Food to absorb into your system Then we've got ginger and turmeric, and then we've got these two beets Yeah, did you ever notice or ever hear the expression that beets look like ovaries? There's English cucumbers. I prefer English cucumbers because they are bigger than normal cucumbers then I had a Small head of romaine or red leaf lettuce in my refrigerator that I wanted to get rid of it Just adds a lot of water to the smooth to the juice Then there's celery which is mineral rich, and then there's the dill weed You should always add some type of herb to your juice. It just packs a punch The day I'm using my Nama J2 juicer You all know that I prefer the green star, but if I'm trying to make things fast The Nama is great So I'm adding as much as I can to the hopper so that I can get this juice to juice The best thing you want to do with a juicer is buy the one you can afford and Buy the one that you're going to use whether it's a Nama or a green star or some other type of Juicer just be sure that it's going to be the one that you can use for your own particular healing journey But I do recommend do not buy cheap juicers because you will waste money by Wasting produce so I just wanted to share that with you It's a beautiful day out today as I'm making my juice so throw all the rest of your ingredients in your juicer and juice Until your heart content and then once you're done with your juice I Strain my juice Once I'm done juicing. I strain my juice and I pour my juice into glass Mason jars is important that you use glass because when you put these juices in plastic It leaches the plastic so you want to go to the dollar store To Walmart and buy yourself some glass containers so that you can be safe with your juice and I pour my juice into The Mason jars if I'm not going to drink them that day What I'll try to do is fill it all the way to the top of the Mason jar So I can have as little air in it as possible. You can also vacuum seal your jars Which I don't have a vacuum sealer. I'm thinking about getting one but the key is That you drink your juice within three days after that it pretty much loses all its nutrients It's not bad But this batch juicing that they're talking about keeping juice for a week. It's not doing the same thing It that one to three day old juice is doing for you So anyway, I hate to pop people's bubble with that, but that's the truth Anyway, if you liked this video, please give it a thumbs up share it with a friend Comment below. Don't forget to look down in the description box for resources That can help you on your healing journey And if no one told you that they love you today Chelsea in North Carolina loves you very much and I'll talk to you soon Take care