Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:00 Welcome everyone who's joined and, um, we will, uh, we'll get started. We are going to do an, ask me anything, not an ask me everything and ask me anything. So, um, so if any of you have a question for professor hill, uh, please raise your hand. We, we've got a question already Trying to raise his hand, but let's see, we'll get Ricky up here on stage. Um, and I'm going to send an invite to professor,
Speaker 1 00:00:42 Sorry. I just knew her. I listen to.
Speaker 0 00:00:49 Okay, well, I'm welcome and welcome to clubhouse. So, um, Jason, I'd love to start with a question that, uh, I've been dying to ask, which was what was Peter teal? Like you probably got to spend more time with him than anybody at the Alice society, uh, at the gala last week you were at his table. So, um, any thoughts about him or thoughts about his remarks? Um,
Speaker 1 00:01:24 Well, I thought his remarks, I, unfortunately I did not get a chance to have as extended a conversation as I would have liked because he was just mobbed the poor. I joked with him. I said, you should walk with bodyguards. And he said, I do sometimes. So we had, uh, about a two minute exchange when I first got to the table. And then I was, we were both interrupted by about seven or eight people who just didn't even say, excuse me, they just busted blurted into the conversation. Um, so we didn't really get to talk, uh, at all. Um, he, he seemed like he wanted to talk to me and made overtures. And then as soon as we tried to have a conversation, people just, but I thought his remarks were incredible. I just, I really enjoyed his talk and he just laid things out systematically as they were.
Speaker 1 00:02:22 Um, so he was really not, um, in some sense, sugarcoating anything. Um, I sort of wished he would say a little bit more about China, uh, which he alluded to, but, um, I just, I enjoyed his talks. I enjoyed his remarks. I think he's quite brilliant. And, um, I've read some of his more esoteric writings. Um, people don't realize that he's also quite philosophical in his, um, outputs and, um, he writes in these journals that people don't really know about. Um, and he's quite, he's quite a philosopher in his own. Right. Um, and it has talked a little bit hard to follow because he was, he's kind of all over the map intellectual. So, um, I was able to put it, put, put the pieces together and, um, systematize them, but, um, quite a remarkable person, just, just awesome in the, not in the way college students use the word awesome. But, but, uh, in the way that we would use it oh, inspiring and having, um, synthesized so many seemingly disparate markets and phenomena and, um, vectors and, and brought them having brought them together in a way that just sort of coalesced and, and have come together. So I quite liked him. I would love the chance to meet him again at some point, um, and have a conversation with him. Um, but, but I was very, very impressed.
Speaker 0 00:03:59 Well, I think we will, uh, we we'll find that opportunity because, um, he, uh, he was the one who requested that you be, uh, seated at his table. So, uh, and if there are any of those more scholarly, um, papers that he's done that you think we should try to, um, ask for permission to reprint, uh, because you're right. People don't understand, you know, they, they see his success as an investor and as an entrepreneur, but, um, but he majored in philosophy at Stanford and would be interesting, um, to get his, uh, perspective. Um, I believe it's Renee, Gerard, who was, um, his professor and mentor. And so this idea of the medicine and, you know, where there may be divergences with objectivism or in terms of how it analyzes people's motivations, um, and, and how his philosophy, because he's very much an individualist and a rationalist how, how his philosophy may have evolved.
Speaker 1 00:05:11 Yeah. That would be awesome. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 0 00:05:15 So, um, so again, I want to invite anyone who has a question for professor hill, but, um, also we are nearing a milestone on, um, on the Atlas society, Instagram page. Uh, we are at 58,900 followers. Um, so we're about to crest 59,000. And one of the things that we do, uh, twice a week is we have, um, myself professor hill, professor Salzman, uh, others students, um, partners ask that they are asked questions by our followers. And then we record, um, one minute answers to those three or four, uh, one minute answers for each person. So, um, as professor hill has mentioned, it's, it's not easy because, um, these are big questions and trying to, uh, distill an answer down into one minute is, um, challenging. But, uh, we thought maybe we would take some of them to this forum and, um, maybe provide, uh, professor hill and some of our other scholars with an opportunity to unpack them. Um, are there any Jason that stood out to you or do you want me to just pick at will and hit you up?
Speaker 1 00:06:50 Well, I'm, I'm not for next week, right? My, my Instagram takeover begins next week, Sam, is that correct?
Speaker 0 00:06:57 Yes, it does. But in terms of questions, we, you know, we, there, are there questions you may have answered in the past there's questions in the spreadsheet that, um, that we could draw upon in terms of, um, this AMA,
Speaker 1 00:07:12 Well, I, I, wasn't able to sort of locate my name specifically, so why don't you just go ahead and if there are any, if there are any I'm someone who really gives a lot of thought, I'm not one to really, um, what's the term that they use in America. Um, um, uh, things, I don't know, I never win anything. I'm a pro I'm a professional philosopher. So if I haven't thought about something, I'll say I'll pass on that and think about it. But, um, um, so why don't you just go ahead and then if I feel really, really confident about answering the question, which nine times out of 10, I, I usually do feel confident, but if I feel like I haven't really given it enough thought, I'll just say I'll pass on that one and give me some time to think about it some more research it some more.
Speaker 0 00:08:02 That, that sounds, that sounds good. Um, so here is, uh, there's a, there's a couple of questions that came in this week, um, having to do with libertarianism. Uh, and I think that we certainly strike a lot of, um, small government, uh, themes on our, on our Instagram page and through our memes and our, our videos. So I think it's understandable that people might sometimes confuse us with libertarians. Um, but, uh, but here's one, uh, app libertarian for means who, who does understand that difference. Uh, although I, I don't think he's quite getting where we're coming from. He says, why do Objectivists hate libertarians? Uh, I know we don't hate anybody. Well, um, certainly don't hate libertarians at the Atlas society, but what are your thoughts on, on that? Maybe what are some of the criticisms, um, that we might have of libertarians at, from an objectivist?
Speaker 1 00:09:11 Well, have you worked with the <inaudible> Institute and with the objectivist standard and, and having read extensively on what Iran ran said about libertarians? My sense is that a lot of Objectivists despise libertarians or don't like them for the following reasons. One is one is they thought that, uh, libertarians who were plagiarism that is they were plagiarizing iron Rand's ideas without giving proper attribution to the source out of which the libertarians libertarian ideology arose and, um, that I, and ran with in some sense, um, the Fountainhead of a lot of these ideas, people like Marie Rothbart and, um, other people who claim to be libertarians. And so they were plagiarizing radios, but more specifically, I think some of these disagreements arose out of philosophic, um, issues that is I've heard, I've heard diehard objective is say it, that it they've really brought down to something like journalistic minutia on the order of iron ran really was a hierarchical thinker who thought, of course, that epistemology was stockholder systemology was the most important branch of his philosophy and not his ethics and his politics and that, and the material sort of were piecemeal fighters in the battle, um, in politics and random horse thought that in some sense that that politics was too early, that we had to start with philosophy and, um, that the harder the bathroom read it lay in philosophy, and that libertarians were piecemeal that they was, they are political, like the fight from the position of political expediency.
Speaker 1 00:11:23 They will randomly snatch ideas here and there that will strategically or episodically solve a particular problem. And that rather than function as wholesalers in the realm of both, uh, there was systemology or politics or philosophy, they function as retailers and in the realm of cognition also. And so they were not comprehensive in their approach to philosophy and ended up in their approach to politics that were more like peace field piecemeal, battlers, and, uh, or fighters, if one could even attribute such a term term. And, um, they've given all sorts of other reasons on the order of, um, they really don't understand the fundamental role of the professional intellectual in the power of the transmission belt and the conveyor of ideas in a culture that is, they start really with politics. And I don't think I in ran thought that my understanding is that an ran thought that politics is really the first place to start.
Speaker 1 00:12:33 Um, so there are many schisms within the movement, but I know that reading ran that she thought that there were radical plagiarist of our ideas in that the proper attribution, but speaking with, uh, objectivist hardcore objective is coming out of, let's say the Enron Institute. Um, there were more principled, philosophical differences that they, uh, attributed to the libertarian movement. Most of the criticism were that there were just a lot of unprincipled people who just didn't really care. They were an intellectual didn't care about philosophy, uh, would randomly snatch, um, any snippet of an idea that could episodically or strategically win a position without looking at the philosophical antecedents or the foundations out of which that principle, um, gained its, its, its, its its its foundation or its traction. So to speak there's a lot more I could say, but I think those are that that sort of cover the basic, the basic thrust of the disagreement.
Speaker 0 00:13:46 Um, yeah, that, that does, uh, th there may also be sort of stylistic differences at least, um, during <inaudible> time herself when, um, there were, there was the anti-war movement. Of course she was vehemently opposed to the draft, but, um, when she called libertarians right wing hippies, I think there was a certain disdain for the presentation. And, um, also to the extent that anarchism was embraced by some libertarians that, that, uh, she was, she would have. Yeah. Um, I also want to recognize, uh, we have Jayla pear, who's the chairman of the board of the out society in the room and, um, Jay. Yep. Any questions for, uh, for professor hill, please raise your hand. We also have our senior scholar professor, Stephen Hicks, uh, as well as professor Richard Saltzman, um, and the NASA from associate dot Atlas. So, uh, professor salesmen come on up, making his way. There
Speaker 2 00:15:18 We go. Sorry about that. Here's my question. Um, considering the five branches of philosophy, what would you consider? What would you pick as the branch that objectivism is best at then the one that it's possibly weakest at and then what does the world most need now is see what I mean? So like if you said, you know, it's weak on aesthetics or something like that, but if the world wasn't really in great need of that, now wouldn't be an issue. So I would be curious, it's like a two-part question, the strongest and weakest branches in objectivism and then what the world most needs now in the kind of matching up of the two or maybe they don't match up at all.
Speaker 1 00:16:06 Wow. That is on the most fascinating questions ever been asked for this Africa about objectivism. I, well, there, there, it's a, it's a, two-pronged answer that I'm going to give here. And, um, so I'm going to give what I think I in Rand was best at. Um, and I think that having taught her ideas know having read, or since I was 17, 18, and gone through a PhD program and studied her really formally and thought her ideas. Um, I find her a piston Margie and having taught her full introduction to objectivist epistemology in conjunction with Aristotle's the Organon. And more particularly with the pasture analytics, I find her, her, her theory of concepts and abstractions to be very, very revolutionary. Um, I find her rational egoism, uh, that ego is an existed before and ran talked about it the way she formulated it is very interesting and unique and her politics, um, are not completely original.
Speaker 1 00:17:19 That is, I think when you look at LOC and you look at some of the classical 19th central liberals, there are vestiges of, of, of, of politics, of Rand's politics there. But I think her epistemology is very, I'm just bowled over every time I teach introduction to objectivist epistemology and I read Aristotle very carefully that I think her theory of concepts are very ferret, revolutionary having read Aristotle's epistemology very, very carefully. Um, so I think objective as in is really, really best at this might surprise a lot of people in the theory of concepts. Um, I think they're weakest at aesthetics in the sense that, um, Rand did not properly develop. I think she tried to do it in the romantic manifesto and I think there's one single essay art and cognition that I think is, is almost genius. But I think that because she didn't work out something like of a capillary of the conceptual of a cabaret of music, which she alluded to, and she made statements about music like Beethoven and, but which had more to do with sense of life, but she issued severe value judgements in the realm of aesthetics in the non-conceptual around like having to do with classical music, uh, in which there is no conceptual vocabulary that we can use to appraise classical music.
Speaker 1 00:19:00 It's more of a sense of life issue. Um, there issues of tonality and so on that she, when she talked about Stravinsky and I think it's, it's most weakest, uh, objective is most weakest in talking about aesthetics, but wonderful in talking about the sense of life and the sort of evocative, uh, or the emotions that they invoke evoke in us, what the world needs most, I think is what rent was really, really good to say. Uh, what w w what was about Ron was really wonderful at doing, which was providing in moral defense of capitalism without that ethical base of capitalism? I think the left and I think the religious far right will read havoc on capitalism. Ron was a genius, um, in, in that realm, in the sense that she really, really provided on multiple fronts showing that capitalism did have a moral base, that it did not just raise a standard of living of individuals, but even went further than that, that even if capitalism did not raise the standard of living for millions of people, which it certainly did, and the quality of life that was pure gravy as she called it, it, it was proper because it was consonant with man's rational nature.
Speaker 1 00:20:35 And that each person is an end in himself and has a right, a sovereign autonomous right to do with his life and dispose of his property as he sees fit, or she sees fit. So I think that's what the world is most in need of a Memorial defense of the free market of capitalism. Um, so is, are, they're three very different answers, but I'm just shocked when most of my students either are defenders of socialism or defenders of capitalism, and don't have any clue as to the moral justification of capitalism. And sometimes let me and I'll end here. Or sometimes when I introduce rants moral defense of capitalism, I little bit embarrassed. They all been embarrassed to say that capitalism could have a moral basis because they're taught to defend it based on the principle of social utility on its utilitarian value and not on this kind of robust, um, model that, that ran predicates. Add-on.
Speaker 2 00:21:40 Thank you, Jason. That was great. Thank you.
Speaker 0 00:21:44 And, uh, we have up on stage Jayla pear as mentioned, he's the chairman of the board of the outlet society. Myrna. I also see you, I'm going to bring you up if you're still here. So Jay, you have a question or,
Speaker 3 00:21:58 Yeah. What a great question and what a fabulous answer I'm interested, Jason, whether you would put that moral defense of capitalism in the category of politics, or whether you would move it to aesthetics. Um, I'm sorry to, um, yeah. Ethics and, and, and really build that. It starts with that personal ethics and that's upstream from, you know, culture, uh, uh, how, how do you, how do you sort of categorize those two? I'm not sure it matters, but I'm just curious.
Speaker 1 00:22:40 Well, this isn't, yeah, yeah. This is an interesting debate in philosophy that I have with my colleagues, whether morality supersedes politics, or whether politics comes first. And I work in a postmodern department that thinks that, uh, that is choose morality and, and then cast aspersions on morality because morality by nature tends to be universal unless you're a moral relativist, but in the proper sense, morality to command and to usher, um, or to, to make prescriptive and normative claims has to have a sort of universality of fixed to it. So I, my, my view is that I would put it in the realm of, of morality, superseding and proceeding, um, politics that as we gain or political principles based on the moral, um, what Ram would call the irreducible primaries and the moral axioms that we established. And then we did use a host of the relative principles from that, from those principles, we then derive a set of political, uh, subsequent political principles, but those are parasitic, or that's a bad term to you.
Speaker 1 00:23:59 That sounds negative, but those are dependent on the antecedent moral principles that secure and foundation lies and justify the political principles that we have. So I would say that any political principle that we hold to be on a salable it's on a sale. Well, because we can hit past certain philosophic, meaning tests that are traceable back to antecedent, moral principles that are in some sense, traceable, back to first principles that are, that are axiomatic. And even those moral principles that we take to be axiomatic are then traceable back to, you know, metaphysical, um, principles like grant identified, uh, the three principles of, um, uh, axioms, existence, identity, and consciousness. Um, those have to be in place before something like an ethics or moral moral system could even be in place. So I would place metaphysics prior to ethics because you can't have an ethics before you have a proper, um, metaphysics that's secure in place that secures the axioms of existence, identity consciousness.
Speaker 1 00:25:14 Um, but, but, so I, I agree with the hierarchical ordering of her system, um, epistemological metaphysics are up there first, and then you have the proper ethics that, um, will secure the prescriptives that govern human relationships. And then you have a politics, a political system, the ride from, from morality. I think those who tend to establish politics before morality are always going to be flummoxed by the question. Um, but what moral principles, like someone who says, you know, you violate my bodily integrity, that's wrong as a political principle. Um, you're, you're going to say to them, well, where that, where does that question of wrongness come from? What, what, what that's, uh, that's a, that's a normative, that's a, um, it's not just a normative claim. It's a value judgment that you're making is an ethical claim. What foundation license it, what, what undergirds it, they're going to have to always fall back on some sort of moral, um, principle that has to be answered before the political claim itself. The political claim itself can't is not can't stand is not a freestanding claim that can stand on its own without being a fixed to adjust the secretary ethical principle that undergirds it. And foundationalists it. So that, I think that's, that would the answer that we give.
Speaker 4 00:26:57 Yep. Thank you, Scott. You have a question. Yes. Thank you. Great to hear. I came in just a few minutes late, but, um, I, uh, so stop me if you already answered this, but I was curious, uh, your thoughts on, uh, the national conservatives and their potential to be swayed over, to be someone that a coalition could be formed with in terms of, you know, if they can be supportive of individual brights and also, uh, tangentially people like ion Hirsi Ali, or, uh, so hub tamari were, uh, there and also part of this Austin university. And I was just curious about your thoughts on that. And if you, uh, might consider joining, uh, the staff at some point,
Speaker 1 00:27:47 Well, I am Lucy, Allie is a dear friend of mine. Um, I just, um, I just wrote her actually yesterday and I'm going to be appearing on her podcast and her husband, Neil Ferguson is also dear friend. I actually gave a talk at the national conservatism conference in Orlando last week. And, um, you know, I did have mixed feelings about it because, um, nationalism is, uh, there are two forms of nationalism. There's cultural there. Okay. The nasty gas lift form of nationalism, I find, um, that we've phoned hunter Hitler. And that we find we found on the Slobodan Milosevic is what we call cultural or ethnic nationalism, which is exclusionary by nature, which you have to trace your belonging is traceable to ethnicity or blood or lineage. And the criteria for membership in the nation is something like blood or ethnicity, uh, which seems arbitrary and seems quite gasoline to me.
Speaker 1 00:28:50 And then there was civic nationalism. So there's a healthy form of nationalism that we have in America. And we have encountered, and that we have in the Republic of France where, you know, in France, if you, so now, as you matriculate through the list and you played a thin allegiance as you do in America to the value of the Republican values, um, and in Canada and in Australia, um, then membership is not just theoretically, but it's empirically open to all persons, regardless of ethnicity, race, sexual orientation background. It wasn't always that case in America, of course, but we were progressed, um, to the state where anyone, regardless of ethnicity and race and so on can become members of the state. My sense is that the national conservatism, um, organization is trying to advance, uh, kind of nationalism that is clearly not based on ethnicity or race or that sort of thing, but to sort of dare I say, advanced something that Anne Ryan would Iran would call it a textbook of Americanism.
Speaker 1 00:29:58 That is a kind of American uniquely set of American values around which any number of Americans from different walks of life, different ethnicities can, can, can call us and can sort of ascribe to. And that it's an attempt to heal the divisiveness that exists in this country that can put a stop to the pernicious and nefarious identity politics that is contributing to the divisiveness in this country. Um, there is a problem of illiberal values that are, suffusing this great nation of ours, um, liberal people with illiberal values who come to this country who do not want to assimilate quite the opposite as we face seeing in Europe who want to inundate this country with their liberal values, um, Sharia law, uh, for example, um, we've seen in the past couple of years have been, um, has been, I should say, um, making its way through various states.
Speaker 1 00:31:10 I was trying to make its way through various states and we don't want to parallel society as we have in certain parts of France and certainly the Netherlands. And so I think the national conservatism organization is trying its best to sort of assert something that seems like Americanism, like a set of values that, um, we can extensively point to and say, these are uniquely American values that all persons it's a thin set of values. It's a thin occult prescribed to a thin set of Republican values. I mean a constitutional Republic, not the Republican party. Uh, although most of them are Republicans, uh, can endorse and can give us a solid, robust American national identity. I don't see anything gasoline. I don't see anything exclusionary around about that. Um, if it's, if it ever were to become exclusionary and sort of fall along racial ethnic lines, I'd be the first to open my big mouth.
Speaker 1 00:32:18 And I do have a big muddle factually and, and, and, and shout from the rooftop that this is ugly and pernicious. My sense is that that's not the case as far as the university of, um, Austin is concerned. Um, I've been investigating it and, uh, I hope it, I hope that it's all that it's cracked up to be. It seems to be a wonderful idea, um, and an analog to something like Hillsdale and, uh, but not without the sort of religious, um, you know, um, aspects or the religious connotations. But, um, and I, I heard that up to 2000 academics from all over the world are applying on a daily basis that university, um, I'd like to be a part of it. I think it's a very, very long shot, but, um, you know, so I just wanted to point out these two different aspects of nationalism, the cultural ethnic, and the civic nationalism that we have in America. And that's quite healthy and that's actually indispensable for a Republic to, to have, but we have to have, uh, a sort of patriotism and a kind of nationalism, but I think Rand herself was supportive of in her own way when she talked about the healthy kind of patriotism and not some sort of mindless flag-waving Shingo ism.
Speaker 0 00:33:49 Brian, thank you, Scott. Brian, do you have a question for professor hill?
Speaker 5 00:33:54 Yes. Thank you. Um, my question is about the Izzat gap. So I've been on clubhouse for a couple of months, and I've been in a lot of wonderful conversations with theists and non theist. And my primary motivation is the moral relativism, uh, you know, across the world. That, to me drives a lot of our, um, uh, disharmony dysfunction conflict. And so I want to better understand how, you know, how to ground a moral framework from a non-theistic perspective. So, I mean, from a thesis perspective, I think it's easy to ground the, the morality of, let's just say God's given word, right? The Koran, the Bible, et cetera. It's easy to bridge that gap if you inject God into that gap, or, you know, as the, as a necessary cause of the, of the contingent universe, but from a non-thesis perspective, I have not been able to come up with anything better than the value that you have to ascribe to life.
Speaker 5 00:35:01 Life has meaning, um, you know, I deserve to live and the non-aggression principle, but, you know, just like you can, as a theist re not the, his perspective, you can also reject the notion that life has value in the non-aggression principle. But it seems to me from the theist perspective that there is still an easier grounding of the moral framework because God, you know, because God therefore morality, but from a non theists perspective, I want to be a moral realist, but I just can't get there. So I'm hoping maybe you can, you can help me to bridge that gap. Thank you.
Speaker 1 00:35:49 Well, as far as it's a dichotomy, I mean, Rand, in a little passage, I think it's in the iron ran lexicon. And I don't know where my memory is failing me now, but I think Rand had, she spent a long, long essay addressing this. It would have been a remarkable piece of work, but, and is our tech economy has been taken care of by moral psychologists, but here here's what it ran said basically about his art dichotomy. I think she said something on the order of the law of identity in some sense, makes the, is odd dichotomy, a moot point that is every entity. Every phenomenon has a specific identity with a nature that has its own requirements. And the nature of that thing will designate how it ought to behave. So let's take a human stomach that has a human stomach that has a particular identity and identity is an Axiom.
Speaker 1 00:37:04 Everything has an identity, whether we deny it or not, it has an intensity. So the human stomach has an identity. And in order for that stomach to survive as a stomach, we as human beings, haven't thought to observe, uh, the laws that are conducive to the survival of that stomach. We can't do anything that is inimical to the health of that energy. So we can't ingest things in that stomach that a shark or navigator would also die. Um, so the nature of the stomach, the nature of a thing as it is, will determine how the thing ought to behave. So, and I think that was a very clever part on the, on the, on the pirate rant. Now, if we extrapolate from that to morality, we know that we are rational creatures and that our rational faculty basically is the considered for feature that defines us as human beings and that to think, um, and to act upon the judgments, um, that are ELD from rational thinking, uh, those thoughts and those judgments, I'm sorry, those judgments and those conclusions based on a series of deliberations and so on and so forth, um, are conducive towards survival are necessary for our survival.
Speaker 1 00:38:32 So in the realm of morality, um, we know that we cannot live without thinking. We know that we cannot live on mirror, whim, edict, Fiat short-term desires. So the relativists seem, um, to be rather short-sighted because I know that as a rational person, if I want to achieve what Ron would call, not just happiness, but my rational happiness, I have to understand the things that are conducive, not episodically, not short-term, but that are sustainable over time to my nature as a rational person. And that involves a long process of introspection, of knowing who I am as a person. So it's knowing my biological nature, but it's also knowing my nature as an individual and those values that I choose that are conducive to the long-term flourishing and wellbeing of my nature as a human being. Um, I can't choose values and I can't choose, I can't act on principles that are inimical to my nature as a human being.
Speaker 1 00:39:51 I can't act irrationally. And one doesn't really, I think, have to appeal to a God. I think all one has to appeal is to the law of identity that every human being has a specific nature with specific requirements. And we discover what that nature is. It's perceivable it's, doesn't take a genius really to determine what that nature is and what the requirements are. We also know that values are contextual. That is so here's an example. We know that we have around and rent talked about this. We know that we have to live by productive work. That is no human being should have being parasitic on the efforts of another person. And if that person withdraws his efforts or her efforts, you're going to starve each person or live has to produce efforts on behalf of his or her life to sustain that life. And that's in the form of productive work.
Speaker 1 00:40:53 That's a given that's unassailable. No, what's contextual is a line of work that you do. I chose to become a philosopher, no right. Or one person can choose to become a surgeon and other person can choose to become a janitor of a building. Those are values, but what's, what's not debatable is the fact that you have to choose work, productive work, to sustain your life as a human being, because that's a built into nature because your survival is not guaranteed. Your survival is not something that nature provides you with automatically. So I don't think that we have to appeal to a God in that sense, too. Um, to fulfill the requirements of, let's say, um, a part of human nature that is given to us, all we have to do is consult reason and realize that if I want to survive as a human being, I have to work. The kind of work is open to the kind of nature I have. That's unique to me. I have an orientation that is predisposed to philosophic, reasoning, and to doing philosophy and writing, and another person might, it might be woodwork or carpentry. Those are where values become contextual. Um, is that a little bit helpful?
Speaker 5 00:42:15 It is. And I've, and I've, and I've made those exact arguments, you know, uh, very, uh, very similarly. So my, I guess I would back up like 30 seconds, uh, and T uh, at, towards the end of your comments. And you said, if I want to survive from a thesis perspective, it's a given, it's a, it's an absolute, if you will, that God created me in order to survive in order to worship him and, you know, do all that stuff. But yet from a Randian or a non theist perspective, even you said, if I want to survive. So that's where I was stating from my opening that you have to assume that life has value. And that is an assumption. That's a value, that's a premise that can be rejected. So, um, I think we're very closely aligned. I'm just saying, um, and I don't know if there's an answer to be honest, because then that would imply moral realism, which I, I think I've kind of gathered from her writings that she believes like what you just said. Um, but I just, when I've made those arguments, there have been to me plausible credible counterarguments, that kind of break that chain based on that assumption that some societies full societies, not just individuals, a full societies have existed where life did not have value.
Speaker 1 00:43:48 Well, Brian, I would love to see someone who pauses disease and putrefaction and death as a value. I mean, I think she's right. Life, life as a standard of value is an unassailable, um, tenant. I mean, I guess there are primitive and backward cultures or individuals. I mean, we don't even have to point to cultures. We just have to point to a heroin addict or someone who sits watching Netflix consuming four pints of alcohol or vodka a day and shooting up heroin and smoking Coke and saying, this makes me feel good. And so, because it makes me feel good. Um, uh, and we know that the, of toxicity that has, and the damage to the liver and the kidneys and ones and the heart and one's organs, we, but, but we can simply say to that person, no, you're just wrong. That is nature does not posit disease and death as values are as or as goods.
Speaker 1 00:44:53 That is your whole orientation from the minute you were born is towards self-preservation, uh, that's built into nature and it's, and, and you're, you're actually going against your nature, which is towards self preservation. I think Hobbs got this right. Um, I think all the social contract theory has got it. Right. I think Aristotle got it right. And simple self reported. We don't have to take us at face at face value in some sense. Um, so I mean, just because I think just because some, just because some people say, Richard, could you mute yourself? Thank you. Um, just because some people say to the contrary that they don't posit health or life as a value, we can stand to the point and say everything that's built into nature into human nature points towards self preservation. Um, we could point to the little pup, um, that is born Fitzwater, that inches towards the breast.
Speaker 1 00:46:04 Um, not away from the breast. We could point to all sorts of ways in which from birth human bees are here towards preserving their lives, not geared towards self-destruction that we do have a choice towards self destruction, but they'll seems to be aberrations and anomalous cases that that is most people don't commit suicide. Most people don't tend towards self-destruction those who do seem, they seem to be some sort of mediating factors or phenomena that propel them towards self destruction that self-preservation really does seem to be the norm. And we would just say that you're simple, you're simply wrong. I don't know if that helps, but I certainly think that nature establishes self-preservation as given and that most of us, most of us who are healthy work towards that T loss. Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 0 00:47:03 Um, Richard Bird, a couple of other people. I just want to also give everybody a bit of a, a time. We have 11 more minutes, and I know that professor Hill's got other things to go through. So I'm going to have to call on people that have raised hands. If you come up on the stage, please meet yourself until we have time to answer your question, um, that we'll be able to get to,
Speaker 6 00:47:35 Uh, yeah. Hi. Um, I just wanted to emphasize the point on the, with the questioner in the, in the questioners question that he's questioning, uh, professor, uh, professor hill. I can't remember if it was Scott or something, uh, and, and the issue of, uh, evil, uh, you know, as, you know, uh, going, you know, uh, volitionally or explicitly towards destruction, you know, versus, uh, rants conception. And I just want to emphasize the point that religion and no philosophy postulates, you know, let's go towards destruction set Nylas and what they do is they postulate of fantasy and they, and they th they essence, there are the important point I think, is that the fund, what they consider the they're fundamental. So if God is the fundamental than life is secondary, your life is secondary. So if it's, if the issue is, you know, God, then, you know, you have to sacrifice because he's the fundamental, what ran did was the first one to make it, um, you know, life, the fundamental period, you know, as an absolute moron morally. Uh, so I mean, uh, I just wanted to emphasize that point that you know, that religion, doesn't say, let's go towards destruction. They, they postulate the fantasy world that, uh, as a fundamental, and that, uh, reduces the impact of any belief you may have in the sanctity of life, because if you consider it secondary, you know, that's, that's the sacrifice. So that's my point. Thank you.
Speaker 6 00:49:20 That makes sense.
Speaker 0 00:49:22 There's not enough. He had to comment on Richard's observation or thoughts.
Speaker 1 00:49:27 I just breathe. I don't think ran was the first, I think Aristotle made a very, very robust case for, for this. And, um, and in all his works, that life was a value life with a Supreme value. And I actually think rant picked up on this grant. This is something that ran inherited. Um, my close reading of Aristotle's suggests that ran, inherited this from, from Aristotle,
Speaker 0 00:49:57 Josh.
Speaker 8 00:50:00 Hi, Jennifer, thank you for having me on stage, Jason, I've talked to you in the past, and you're one of my favorite personalities on this platform. I'm really grateful for hearing you and meeting you and having discourses with you. You probably don't remember, but it is what it is. Uh, okay, so I'm sorry. You know, I asked me anything. All right. Well, first of all, we'll just sort of the subject at hand, uh, with respect to virtue outside of deistic religions, I thought Benjamin Franklin had a really good conception of this is 13 virtues that were incredibly insightful and, uh, with respect to, uh, his reasoning, um, you know, it's quite possible that people could find some, uh, solace, uh, within that. I think it applies to everybody in a way, um, Benjamin Franklin was a great thinker and he, you know, he, he was, I wouldn't say atheist, but he, he, you know, he, wasn't a man of the faith.
Speaker 8 00:50:52 Uh, Jason, um, the university of Austin has come up now and I'm curious what your thoughts are on this particular chess move. Moving forward by Neil Ferguson is an explanation on, uh, Lex Friedman's podcasts was incredibly insightful, and he really does have a nice bastion of, of, of, uh, intellects that are going to teach at this particular university. Um, first number one, do you, do you, do you see this, uh, this particular trend, um, uh, extrapolating to the, to the, to the greater populace, could you see replicas of this? Um, you know, does, does it have potential for scale and number two, maybe within these, uh, post-secondary institutions, how do you feel like conceptions of virtue will be disseminated to the students that go to these schools? Uh, I'll leave it there, Jason, uh, again, pleasure to speak.
Speaker 1 00:51:54 Thanks Josh. I do remember you very well. Thank you. And thanks for the nice words that you just said. Look, I think that the university of Austin is part of a backlash of that when I was years ago, four or five years ago, when I was writing about defunding the universities, shutting them down, uh, causing, you know, alumni and the federal government stopped funding. The, these, these, these, these social science and humanities departments that were bastions of left wing and Marxist ideology, ideological centers. And I said, there, there, there, I, I wasn't hopeless because I think that I thought that there was going to be, um, a set of new academies that would arise because students and faculty members were, who were being terrorized by these, um, totalitarian bureaucrats, the provost, the presidents, the deans, and the associate deans and the, and, and the executive Dean and the executive provost.
Speaker 1 00:53:00 So I think that we're going to see more university. We've seen Ralston college in Savannah, Georgia. Uh, we're S we're seeing the university of Austin, uh, Hillsdale college stands as a beacon. Uh, they don't accept money from the federal government. I think we're going to see more universities like this. I was very moved by some of the professors who described their experiences in some of these universities as being in an insane asylum. Um, they're part of what I've called in some of my writings, the silent majority, who, unfortunately I have a loud mouth and I, and I am not afraid of speaking out. And, and, um, um, I'm unstoppable and I, I I'm, I don't give a crap what people think, which is what I've been censored and punished and canceled and centered. Again. Um, people don't have the courage of their convictions quite often, and they're silent and they're afraid of ostracism.
Speaker 1 00:53:50 But to answer your question, we're going to see a lot more of these universes spread arising, because people are sick and tired of being bullied and held hostage by the people who weighed in assault against our first amendment and against the white supremacists and, um, the trans activists and, uh, the cancel culture cancer called, I don't know what you call them. People are part of cancel culture. Um, so I, I, I, I, as far as virtue is concerned, I do think that, you know, the university, Josh is the last place where the students are in a university and especially in the liberal arts and the social sciences, where they are in the university for among other reasons to learn, to be autonomous sovereign individuals who can learn to matriculate and navigate their way through life. And I think part of what you get in university is a purchase on the big questions that have to do with the meaning of life.
Speaker 1 00:54:58 And it's the last place. I know some people don't like the term socialization. I kind of like it, cause I think that's actually what happens in institutions. Your sensibilities get refined and you are socialized, you're inducted into the Pantheon of higher learning. And you're, you're, you become more of an elite. And I like that term in the best sense of the term, you become more of a, I don't use the word elitist, but you become more of an elite in terms of your sensitivities. You become more refined, you become more, less vulgar, less crass and more high-brow in your tastes. Um, and so I think along with that will come a set of virtues, uh, civic, mindedness, individualism, um, a cultivation of the soul into the finer things of life, like reasoning, like critical thinking like contemplation. So I think these are all virtues that have been lost, uh, when, um, activism, crude activism and pure advocacy have superseded.
Speaker 1 00:56:10 What we found in the universe is years ago when students were inducted in the Pantheon of the, or the domain of the ethical in which they were thought to be ethical persons, they were taught to be ethical persons who were taught to think critically and ethically about various things, aspects of living and what it means to be a human being. The big question is what does it mean to be a human being in the world? What is the meaning of my life? Um, even if there's no such thing as the meaning of life, what does the meaning of my life? What is my purpose here on earth and the cultivation of various virtues of character? Uh, what does it mean to live among human beings, where there are multiplicity of different meanings and how do I want the great questions I, in Rand wrote in an asset, how does one live a rational life in an irrational society? How does one live as a refined person in an increasing level of Holger crass and mediocre culture? So I think these are virtues of character that these universities are going to face because people are sick and tired of the vulgarity. People are secondary of the crassness. And, um, and not just that they personally can tired of being bullied and having their lives ruined by just speaking the truth.
Speaker 0 00:57:36 That is a beautiful place to end it. Uh, we're here at the top of the hour. I want to thank professor hill, thank, uh, professor Salzman and everybody else who joined. Thank you for all of your spectacular questions. Uh, we have a busy week next week. Um, for those of you who have participated in our philosophy of education, um, campaign, we're going to have an exclusive, um, Q and a, uh, on zoom with professor Stephen Hicks. Um, you can check out our events page or check out our Instagram, um, to, to look into that. Uh, there are special perks for that. Then we're back on clubhouse or on a Tuesday, every Tuesday, we're going to do an ask me anything with <inaudible> senior fellow at the Atlas society. Uh, and then on Wednesday we have our webinar on all social media platforms. Um, some zoom, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, we're having a current events discussion with professor Stephen Hicks and Robert Cresinsky and then another AMA on clubhouse on Thursday. So look forward to seeing all of you then, and again, thank you for joining us.
