Jonathan B, welcome to the Jack Neil
podcast.
>> Thanks for having me, man. I'm excited.
>> Yeah, it's great to have you here. A
good place to start here. Jonathan,
you've given 10 hours of lectures on
Gerard and kind of this idea of mimetic
theory, copying someone else's desires.
But if you were to break it down for me,
like do you think men are only attracted
to women that other men want? uh I think
much more than they realize because when
we think about desire we think it's
because the object pulls us whether
that's a bowl of food whether that's a
life partner whether that's a career we
think it must just be between me
desiring something that will actually
satisfy me that's why I'm so desirous of
it and what Gerard says is that that's
not fully true in many circumstances we
desire an object because it's associated
with a prestigious model right okay so
the most obvious example is like
celebrity advertisement I don't know if
Remember when Kanye was selling like the
white t-shirts for like hundreds of
dollars? Clearly the t-shirt is not
worth hundreds of dollars. It's the
association with a celebrity that people
look up to. Now when uh I tell this to
people uh the most natural question they
ask is the one that you said which is
but surely ask something like animal and
primal as dating as as even sex like
surely that's when you just desire the
other thing or the other person for its
own sake right and I think to a larger
degree people even uh overlook how much
their romantic or even sexual interests
are because they want to become someone
or because the the woman or man that
they desire is prestigious in some sense
because they're the desired by other
people.
>> But I don't think this is a constant
fundamental law for kind of every man or
every person. And the degree to which
your desires are shaped by these mimetic
so like social forces tells you a lot
about yourself. And in fact I think one
of the most important ways a young man
can grow certainly the way that I grew
was being less and less influenced by
these mimemetic pressures. Um, when I
was 18, 19, I was in college and I was
seeing this girl somewhat casually. Um,
and I didn't really like her that much
and and she hinted at the idea of a
long-term monogous relationship and I
clearly wasn't interested, right? And
then, uh, she and my friend had one
great date, right? Because we weren't
seeing each other monogously. Uh, this
was a friend that I really looked up to
who was a model for me at that time. And
then they started dating and the girl
even asked me, "Hey, are you cool if we
do this?" And I'm like, "Yeah, yeah."
because I was sure that, you know, it
seemed like they wanted something
serious and I didn't. But as soon as I
saw how much my friend desired her and
valued her and treasured her, there was
this immense jealousy and also a direct
desire for her that I didn't even feel
prior to that effect, right? And so
that's a great example of how something
as intimate and uh raw and anim
animalistic as romance or sexual desire
can be mediated by our social
influences. But of course this
phenomenon spans much beyond um just
romance. And at the time I dropped out
of Colombia. I temporarily gave up my
full ride to build a startup. And the
startup eventually failed. And the
reason was because even though I
expended all this energy I had this
insane desire to build this company when
I was actually doing it day-to-day, I
regretted the decision and I was not
looking forward to waking up and working
on it. I was not actually interested in
the activity itself in the same way that
I wasn't interested in the girl itself.
It was the social circumstances around
building the company that made it so
alluring. And the reason is because when
you enter an elite computer science
program, the prestigious thing to do is
not to graduate, it's to drop out as
fast as humanly possible. And so I was
mediated by that into doing something
that I didn't want to do. And when I
realized, and those are just two
examples of incredibly important
decisions in my life, right, my career,
who I spend my time with, when I
realized how badly I can air, how badly
my own desires are a compass for what is
actually going to satisfy me, that was
one of the most frightening things ever.
I actually don't mind knowing something
is really important, a battle worth
fighting, trying, giving it my all, and
failing. But the idea that I could
expend my entire life
fighting a battle that I didn't want to
win like right whose win condition I
didn't want that was extremely
frightening and when I looked at all of
my most of my peers at Colombia who were
caught in this kind of mimetic prestige
kind of loop um I saw that they were you
know kind of building lives that
ultimately that they didn't really want
to live in they were working jobs
climbing career ladders and one of the
reasons that I'm so excited to talk with
you is I feel like the 18 19-year-old
Jonathan would have been a big fan of
your show because you constantly bring
on guests that teach especially young
men how to get certain things right
whether this is women with the pua stuff
whether this is uh uh social power
whether this is money
and that's what I was really interested
in at that age but when I learned of
this mimemetic fact that I could
fundamentally be going after the wrong
things I became solely interested in
philosophy because philosophy is not is
the only discipline that doesn't just
teach you how to get certain things but
what things are actually worth getting
and how do you discover that for self. I
think it's often been talked about the
phenomenon of Ivy League students uh
particularly from like immigrant
families only going down this very
specific path because their parents want
them to do it. Um
>> but are you kind of saying that the more
driving force over anything is just
their peer group wanting to achieve a
certain goal so it makes them themselves
want to achieve that goal. That's right.
Um, and that's one strand of mimisis,
right? Being being mediated by a social
group. But there's also an opposite
strand. In the same way, we want to be
like the cool kids and we want to wear
the the shoes that the cool kids wear in
in high school. We also want to make
sure we're not part of the uncool kids,
>> right? And so another way to talk about
why I decided to drop out is I was
trying to negatively distance myself
from people I thought I was superior to,
namely most of the the computer science
uh students at Colombia. And so there
there was a kind of double form of
mediation. On one hand, I was trying to
imitate and pursue models maybe like uh
Zuckerberg or or Gates who had
successfully dropped out. But also there
was a negative push as well. But but you
are right. I think the the the peer
group's influence on the individual is
tremendous. But I I think what I'm
trying to say here is that that doesn't
have to be the case. There is an art in
science of getting closer to your own
authentic desires and learning what that
truly is. And the last 10 years of my
life has been a constant wrestling with
that. And I simply found Gerard as an
important early first step on that
journey. So I guess from your view like
what's the easiest way to tell I want
something only because someone else has
it? I think you can take u um like a
historical approach to towards yourself
and really ask yourself where is this
desire coming from? Like for for example
right by the time I had dropped out I I
haven't even worked on a company before.
So how could I desire something that I
never had any experience whatsoever,
right? Um, and there if I had really
examined where that desire came from, it
was looking at, you know, Steve Job
videos when I was 15 or 16. So, there's
a historical way where you can reflect
and introspect and look at your own
story as a book and almost try to find
where it came from. Uh, I think you can
also run um kind of different thought
experiments where you say, "Well, look,
if no one else could know I'm doing this
thing, I'm dating this girl. I'm
building this career. I can't post it on
Instagram or LinkedIn. Does that change
my desire at all? And if you find that
that it does, then I think that tells
you about the social nature of your
desire. And one of the reasons I, and
this is a longer story, I ended up uh
building a company that was somewhat
successful starting from the founding
team. and I gave up a lot of the upside
to do what I'm doing now is when I
looked at the company and I asked myself
that question. If I spent all of my 20s,
even if the company became a decadillion
dollar company, I would have felt I
failed because I spent my 20s dating the
wrong girl. I spent my 20s working on
something that I knew I wasn't in love
with. But when I when I was thinking
about the project I'm doing now, the
philosophy project, it was the opposite.
It was even if I had failed, I would
have won because the activity itself,
right, the experience itself was so
nourishing and amazing that even if not
a single soul watched any of my content,
I would have been glad to commit the
time to do it. It's very hard to
articulate why this is so important
because it's quite subtle, but it's also
deeply profound, which is when you
pursue something for its own sake,
because of your enjoyment and experience
of it, there's a tremendous joy and flow
state that comes from that.
And whereas when you pursue something
for its external consequences,
especially for the social consequences,
even if you do you're doing what what
you love, you can feel kind of
alienated. It can become tiring. It's
it's not your life that you're living.
When that kind of intuition hit, um
that's that's why I realized I kind of
had to drop everything and and really
figure out this part about myself.
That's a fascinating framework for
evaluating like your genuine desires
versus your I guess mimemetic desires.
Uh, it kind of reminds me of,
have you ever heard people talk about
introverts and extroverts and they say
that introverts get the energy like when
they're by themselves and extroverts get
energy from being with other people? I
think that's just complete I
think what it actually is is extroverts
get energy from other people who treat
them well and introverts don't get
energy from other people because the
other people don't treat them how they
want to be treated. I think everyone
would be an extrovert if everyone
treated them exactly how they want to be
treated. You know what I mean?
>> And it's kind of interesting how that
ties to the concept of desire. Another
way that you can tell your desires or
beliefs are not formed for its own sake
is if you're trying to cope in some kind
of way. If your desires or your beliefs
makes you feel like very good about
yourself. This acquaintance in college
that I met who was the classic kind of
like social justice warrior like very
left-leaning economically wants like
help all all the poor people. And
initially I thought, wow, what a great
person this is that he cares so much
about about all of it. And then
he's now an investment banker.
>> Uh, and then he did a lot of internships
in finance as well. And what I
discovered was the desire for helping
the poor was simply a weapon that he
could use to batter the rich. And so
that desire was formed negatively away
from the group in order to act as a
stick to to kind of hit them. And again,
that might be funny or that might be an
interesting social phenomenon, but think
about how much life is wasted if that is
how you're determining every single path
that you're doing. If the girl you're
dating, if the career you're doing, if
your political beliefs are simply to one
up someone else on a social game, what
is left for the life that you're living?
I initially come to Gerard through a
place of failure. I I'd failed in a lot
of things and I came to it from a place
of suffering. I think after almost a
decade now, I've done a lot better in in
the domains that that I wanted to. But
even and and I think I've like a
heat-seeking missile. I've gotten a lot
closer and closer to figure out what I
want to be doing, which is the latest
iteration is this philosophy kind of
interview and lecture series. But even
then, when I'm too attached to the
social outcome of it, when I'm too
attached to the mimemetic outcome of
this product, even though I really like
it, I think it could still have a
corrupting effect both in where I'm
taking the project, but also my internal
experience of it. I I think um here's a
good good example. Many athletes um who
in middle school and high school really
enjoy the sport, but as soon as they
make it their thing, when they go
professional, when they go pro, they get
tired of it because they start viewing
the thing from the external kind of
perspective, the the kind of mimemetic
perspective. And so that's how kind of
dangerous this force is and I think how
important it is to be properly
positioned to it in order to live a good
life.
That's fascinating. So, you're saying
that they start caring more about like
money associated, fame associated, like
I don't know, being on TV interviews,
like all the incillary things that come
with like being an athlete at the
highest level. So, they stop caring
about the sport because other people
care about those things more. I'm saying
that's a very natural tendency. Yeah.
And again, I'll just use my own example.
I, as you can clearly tell, love
philosophy for its own sake. And I got
into philosophy to solve these problems
of figuring out what my true authentic
desires were. I spent again after these
experiences, I spent so much time just
in my room reading Gerard because I
thought I found this manual to help me
really figure out not just how to
achieve the life that that I want to
live, but what kind of life is kind of
worth living. And at that time, I could
not give a rat's ass about who knows
that I'm kind of reading this book. But
as I've slowly and slowly developed
philosophy to be my career or my public
persona, I'm now at a stage,
unfortunately, I just was thinking about
this in the middle of the summer where
when I'm reading a book, I care more
about the final lecture that I deliver
or the interviews around it and their
performance instead of how my life can
be changed through these books. And this
is something that again, this is a fight
that you're going to fight when you're
losing in life when I was 10 years, when
you're winning in life as I'm doing now.
Um, and this struggle kind of never
never goes away. And I think most people
don't even find out what it is that they
actually want to do. I think most
people's lives, they never had these
kinds of insights and never had the
leisure to really dig into themselves
and think, "No, no, no, not not what
society wants to tell me, what my
parents, what my peers want me to do,
but go into an deep exploration of what
kind of nourishes you." So approval can
also get out of control. And then I'll
add to that which is our current kind of
social media environment is is is uh
just adding fuel to the fire. Jonathan,
I think something I want to touch on
before we dive deeper into Gerard, the
philosophy you covered, and this concept
of mimetic theory, mimetic desire, is
like what's the most important part of
your childhood
to explain why you care about philosophy
and
kind of the person that you've become so
far. in some sense I am the least likely
candidate to be as interested in
philosophy as I am and the reason is
because I I grew up in Beijing. Um and
the the oneliner I like to say to my
western friends is often Beijing is the
most western city in the world and what
I mean by that is a specific strand of
the the west the modern western
enlightenment rationalist thinking that
has developed the furthest uh in China
and Beijing. Uh and one outcome of this
uh is China's emphasis on STEM education
over the humanities. This is a very new
thing in human history. Like like like
usually the humanities were very highly
elevated. When you say humanities, you
just mean like art. I mean philosophy,
art, culture. Um it's a distinctively
kind of modern western phenomenon to to
elevate the hard sciences. Uh science,
mathematic, uh STEM essentially, right?
Mathematics. So I grew up uh competing
in kind of uh math competitions. Uh that
was kind of what the the kind of Chinese
education consisted in. And I was also
the Chinese education is extremely kind
of um brutal
because it's so damn competitive. You're
tested on unlike um applying to colleges
uh in America. It's not a holistic
application. It's just can you do well
on a test and it's your raw score that
you're competing against. And what this
creates is a kind of test prepping
factory where ever since I was in second
grade, I would, you know, go to school
at 8, end school at 5:00. I I'd have a
bunch of like math classes after school,
and then I most of my friends uh
weekends were booked with like like uh
math tutorials as well. And that's also
very unlikely uh a candidate for
philosophy because the only way you can
get a kid to do math questions for as
long as we were doing them was to
completely make them lose touch of what
they actually wanted. Hey, really quick.
Do you ever feel like when you study,
listen to a podcast, or have an
important business conversation, you can
never remember what you learned? Because
if you're like me, you probably hate
taking notes in the moment, but later
regret it because you can't go back and
review everything that was discussed.
And that's why I'm so glad we started
working with Plaude. Right now, I'm
wearing their Plaude Notep S. It is a
wearable AI notetaker that you can clip
onto your shirt or wear like a necklace
and with a single tap, it can record a
class, a lecture, a podcast, or a
business meeting for up to 20 hours. And
here's the part you'll think is cool. So
after you're done, you just click this
button and Plaude automatically
generates you a full transcript with key
summaries straight into the app. So
instead of frantically typing or writing
down notes, Plaude handles all of it and
you can focus on the conversation. And
before you say, "Oh, I can just use my
phone." Like your phone isn't built to
record lengthy conversations. It gets
cut off by calls or notifications, and
you have to take the audio file and
transcribe it yourself and play with it
after. Plus, if you ever need to look up
a specific topic, you can literally
search through your entire history of
lectures, podcasts, meetings straight on
your phone. If you want to check it out,
just go to jackneil.com/plaude
or you can scan the QR code on screen.
Again, that's jackneil.com/plaude.
Use the code jackneal for 20% off your
first order. They have a risk-free
30-day money back guarantee, so now's
probably the best time to check it out.
But anyway, guys, back to the podcast. I
think what the Chinese education does,
uh, it certainly did to me is to
completely remove your ability to to
even ask the question, what do I
actually want?
>> Because no kid actually wants to do 30
hours of math puzzles since when they're
eight. Um, and it's growing up in that
environment almost, I think, to an
extreme and playing out that social
prestige logic to its extreme until I
collapsed effectively when I was 18 19
and realized it has ran its course. That
made me think like I simply cannot
operate this way. To answer your
question, I was meandering a bit. To
answer your question directly, it was
because I was raised in the complete
opposite way in in the most mimetic,
prestige seeeking, social,
non-intuitive, non-authentic way
possible that
I saw the limitations of that much
sooner than maybe someone growing up in
the west and then it's going to take
them a midlife crisis when they're, you
know, made partner at a prestigious law
firm and they realize life is empty and
meaningless. Um and I think it was
because I was kind of ahead of my
western peers because of how prestige
seeeking and mimemetic the the the
environment that I grew up was. Um that
it forced me to ask these questions a
lot earlier on. The analogy I make is uh
philosophy is the API document for human
nature. The API document is the in kind
of the instruction manual that engineers
create for a certain codebase. And I
felt philosophy was this condensed
ability to kind of figure out where I
wanted to go. Um it's it's a longer
story of how I got to where where I was.
But the long short of it is when I
looked at my so I I finished my CS
degree quite quickly. Then I got another
degree at Columbia in philosophy. And
when I was looking at
my kind of uh the people who were ahead
of me, PhD students and eventually the
professors, I realized that almost none
of them came to philosophy with my
desire of wanting to live a good life.
For them, philosophy had become a
mimedic thing. And this is this is a
another great example of how something
so authentic can be turned into this
mimemetic thing. Because in the academy,
right, in these elite universities, it's
the same thing as climbing the corporate
ladder. There's certain KPIs you have,
there's certain goals you have to hit.
You you have to publish certain amount
of papers in the right journals. You
have to socialize with the right
professors because they're they're the
ones who are going to be making your
tenure decision. And I realized that
that was also not a game I wanted to
play. And so I both realized that I
probably wanted to do Phil. It was the
only thing I wanted to do for the rest
of my life. And I realized that um I
didn't want to do in university. And so
I decided, well, I I I don't know how
I'm going to do philosophy, but I I
might as well make some money first. And
so I I started a this is the second
company um that I started, a fintech
company with a gentleman by the name of
Joe Lonzale, who was a co-founder of
Palunteer and a group of others. I was a
junior partner on the kind of founding
team. Um and this time I was very
explicit. So the first time I built the
company, I dropped out. I was just
trying to be cool. It was vain. It was
like, "Look at me. I'm 19. I raised some
money. I dropped out." This time I was
just completely honest with my desires.
I just want to make money. Not here to
save the world. I'm not I hate that
about Silicon Valley, by the way.
There's a there's a whole breed of
people who are like, "Oh, my company is
about to save the world." And but but
they're deluding themselves, right?
They're they're really saying that by
saying, "No, no, I'm here to save the
world." And that's another version of
that mimemetic drive that we're talking
about. And when you look at how they
operate their companies, it usually
suffers because they don't get their
their desires right. Anyway, so I was
the second time around I was just very
explicit about what my desires were. I
just wanted to make money. Um, the
company has gone to do quite well.
However, 3 years in in what should have
been like a six-year long kind of
campaign,
I just had this burning desire um to go
back and and do philosophy. And that's
when um
I I came to this mental framework where
even if this company worked, even if
this game worked, I would have failed
because I would have spent my 20s
dayto-day doing something that I
ultimately didn't want. I'd accomplished
my goal of I think making like an
initial kind of financial base. And then
I looked at this current project that
I'm doing now. I had already made the
kind of Gerard lectures. I knew that
there was going to be some kind of
resonance, but I didn't know it would be
nearly as successful as today. How
successful were slash or your companies?
Like uh I know that's it doesn't appear
to be something that you care about, but
I think the viewers would be interested
to know like how successful it was slash
is um before you transitioned.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So um the the company is
called Opto uh Opto Investments and
again I'm a kind of small shareholder on
the on the founding team. So I'm I'm I
wasn't CEO or or or chairman or anything
like that. Um we were a group of five
that we started it. Uh and a year in we
raised about I think 150 million at a
half a billion kind of dollar valuation.
Um and by the time I left we had hit
good product market fit. Uh and right
now it's um it's it's going it's um it's
definitely not a radical breakout like a
ramp is but I I expect it to do quite
well. And so, uh, when I left it was
kind of ridiculous because we had, you
know, we're hitting product market fit
and that's when you stay in Silicon
Valley, right? Like that's when the
equity actually becomes worth something.
And the way that these equity structures
work in in founding teams is you get as
much equity as long as you stay, right?
So my initial vest was about six years
and I I stayed for three of them. So I
was giving up effectively half on the
table. But, you know, it's kind of like
going through a divorce. going through a
divorce while you know there's a woman
you actually love that you're not
married to, right? Um the company was
the prestigious thing to do. It was the
most it was the more lucrative thing to
do. Again, I decided even if the company
succeeded Waldest imaginations, you
know, hundred billion dollar company,
I would have failed because I would have
spent my most energetic years doing
something that I didn't really want to
do. But even if the current project
fails, I would have succeeded because
the day-to-day is so nourishing. Having
conversations like these and being able
to think in the way that that I do is so
nourishing.
>> So would you say you've kind of turned
down millions, tens of millions of
dollars to talk about philosophy on
YouTube?
>> Um yeah, sure. In terms of equity value,
right? Because um these companies are
illquid. The stock cannot converge
directly to to kind of cash but but in
equity value certainly millions. And the
the crazy thing is once you do something
that that you love, um I I'm actually
now presented with even more lucrative
opportunities than building the company
>> really
>> because I think people can tell that I
actually love what I'm doing. And then I
have I've had a lot more success um than
doing that something I was good at, but
I didn't love doing it. And now I'm kind
of partnering with different kind of uh
investment firms and to to do deals,
make hiring decisions. And so but but I
wasn't expecting that, right? Like I was
expecting to almost take like a vow of
poverty to do what I loved.
>> Now I feel given this kind of success,
especially in the in the last year, um
I'm kind of behaving like those
academics that I kind of look down upon
where it's become slowly more and more
about well let's grow my fan base. Let's
do a lot of work on the thumbnails.
Let's maybe pick a guest that I don't
really like but I know my my viewers
would really resonate with. And I can
slowly kind of feel that creep until I
read Nietze with two good friends of
mine, one of which you've you've met
yesterday. And I was so moved by his
story uh in August that I decided I need
to step back away from this for a bit
and I need to think about a reset.
Initially, I couldn't give a a rat's ass
about who knew I was reading Gerard or
not. It was just about solving questions
in my own life. And now to the extreme
that I have I've had a certain resonance
with the market. I care when I read a
book I care a lot more about producing
the best final lecture right that that I
possibly can. Not in terms of growth but
in terms of the best like scholarly
tight interesting um philosophically
sound.
Now I want to go back to the previous
mode. I I I want to be doing it more for
my own for my own sake. When you look at
the greatest philosophers, none of them
actually wrote books
because none of them fetishized books.
They cared about living the good life.
Socrates never wrote a book. Jesus never
wrote a book. Buddha never wrote a book.
Epictitus didn't write a book. Marcus
Aurelius wrote a journal that he ordered
to be burned. He wasn't caring about
legacy with his meditations. Confucious
didn't write a book. The list just goes
on and on and on and on. And the reason
is because they cared about living the
good life and not writing a damn book
about it. And so as important as
philosophy is, there's a way that I was
and still am, and I'm wrestling with
confusing the map for the territory. You
know, I'm like fetishizing uh these
books. And and I think again, if this is
if this is uninteresting for a lot of
the audience cuz they're not as addicted
to philosophy as I am, this applies to
every single thing you're doing. You
might be an artist who's making great
music, but once you get more and more
famous and you get more and more
success, it becomes about the other
things in life, right? Um, and I think
that's a really important thing to first
be aware of and then to combat.
>> How many philosophy books would you say
you've read?
>> I don't know. I I I don't really keep
track. And I'm very suspicious of people
who are bragging about the number of
books that they read.
>> Like if you just gave me probably 10
books for me to read over and over
again, I think I'd be fine.
>> Would you say you've spent a thousand
hours reading philosophy?
>> Uh, definitely more than that. Yeah,
definitely more than that. So, at least
uh probably close to 10 years at this
point. And after that, would you say
that philosophy
more often than not keeps you from
living your life?
>> No, no, no. I just the opposite. I I
think um more often than not, it's been
the most effective tool for me to
diagnose what is wrong with my life.
What should I be doing instead? And it's
giving me models of artistic kind of
bravery like nature's life to to
imitate.
>> Right. I guess just when you gave the
example of like Jesus Marcus Aurelius
the key takeaway was just that they
weren't writing it down that they
weren't speaking about it they were just
living or like what's kind of the
takeaway the takeaway is something like
they primarily cared about living the
good life and their examples of living
was so astounding that other people
wrote wrote it down for them. Whereas if
you look at authors today or if you look
at philosophy professors today, they
care more about publishing the final
work because
it's it's external. It it goes back to
the mimedic versus the authentic
relationship,
>> right? Their creations are like
pedicured or manicured and like uh
manipulated for like result as opposed
to just that's who they are and people
wrote it down. or or or another drive
within myself um that I found to be
somewhat suspicious is a desire for
legacy. You know, if you had asked me
point blank um what I was doing like two
months ago, I would have told you, you
know, I'm trying to read the great books
uh and one day hopefully I'll contribute
a great book to the canon that will
still be read for hundreds of years from
now and then I'll die a happy man. And
then now looking back after I was
reading Nietze, after I had this like
revelatory experience reading Nichze in
Switzerland just a few weeks ago, that
just seems so silly that I would treat
leaving behind a great book
as even close to what what a man should
aim for in living a good life, if that
makes sense. And and again, this this
isn't only tied to books. It it ties
with all forms of different kinds of
legacy. When someone needs legacy to
justify their existence in this life, it
means that they're not fully living
congressly and living authentically.
Now, that doesn't mean you can't have
legacy, but your relationship with that
legacy changes. So, for example, some
people need legacy. They say my books
will be read 200 years, 300 years from
now because they haven't given it all in
this life and they're resentful. They're
upset that they haven't achieved the
success in this life. Now when NZ says
uh Darthra his is one of his most
important books there will be entire
departments created to read this book
I'm tempted to say
NZ was just giving a predictive kind of
thing like he didn't need that to
validate his own life. Does that make
sense? What I'm trying to say is not
that legacy or the desire for legacy is
always bad, but a needing of legacy to
justify your life, I think means that
something probably is missing and you're
not living fully Congressly. And
conversely,
if you lived every moment of your life
fully
going all in in every every moment in
the most authentic and Congress way, I
think the desire for kind of legacy will
evaporate. Yeah. In the same way that if
you're dating the girl that you actually
should be dating, any desire to tell
people about it, you might still do
that, but the zar goes away. Whereas
any couple who overposts that they're so
happy on social media like like you know
it's not going to work. You know that
the thing in itself does not give them
enough joy. So they need some kind of
external thing to make up for it. And
this kind of phenomenon between the what
we can call like the external validation
and the internal reward uh just
manifests again and again and again.
Just to give people context on Gerard
and some of his importance.
From my research on him, it seems like
he was a mentor to billionaire Peter
Teal who was behind PayPal and
Palunteer. And I think JD Vance had
attributed Gerard to his conversion to
Catholicism. Like why is there such an
interest in Gerard's philosophy
specifically and is like among the
billionaire class uh do they have a
particular affection toward him in his
work?
>> So Gerard is actually not very taken
seriously um in the academy.
>> Um so i.e. no really philosophy
department teaches him. He's taught a
bit in literature which he started. Um,
and all of his interest, I would say,
just comes from Peter Teal's attribution
of his success and his worldview to
Gerard. Some people use this as a
critique of Gerard, that people only
desire Gerard because Peter Teal desires
him. People often criticize Gerard that
he's only famous because Peter Teal's
interest in him, that people aren't
actually interested in Gerard's
theories, but because of Peter Teal as a
model's like association with Gerard.
But of course, that's deeply Gerardian.
And if anything, that phenomenon
validates one of Gerard's key ideas
about mimetic desire. And so, I think
most of the interest to Gerard has been
through Teal's influence. Um, I can't
comment too much on on Vance's
conversion, which I don't know much
about. But with that said, I think there
are unique aspects where Gerard is very
relevant to the tech culture, the
billionaire culture outside of just
Teal's influence, which is that Gerard
captures very well the psychology of
someone who's very prideful or someone
who's very ambitious, who wants a
greater degree of being in his own
words. So like who wants to feel that
he's bigger than life, right? And you
can see this uh of course within the
tech entrepreneur crowd. Another
correlary with how strong you're
determined by the crowd and mimemetic
desire is is how prideful you are and
how much you want to become um greater
than life so to speak. And so of the
people and this is totally me included
who are attracted to Gerard, I find that
they're actually naturally quite mimedic
people again including me. Remember the
answer I gave you about why I was
interested in philosophy. It wasn't
because I was non-mimedic. It was
because I was hyper mimemetic in terms
of my upbringing. And I think the same
probably is true for Teal as well,
right? If you look look at Teal in his
20s, it was an extremely mimedic
conventional path. After Stanford, he
did a JD. Then he went to clerk with
some a famous judge, I think, and then
he went to one of the most prestigious
law firms. And then he was a trader. I
think I credit Swiss. It wasn't until he
was in his early 30s that he started
PayPal that he became non-imemedic. And
so I think that a lot of people are
attracted to Gerard. Uh uh it tells you
a lot about about them that they see so
much of themselves in this theory. And
the other thing I'll say is I think an
early mistake, a beginner's mistake of
reading Gerard is to think that now that
you know how this thing works, you'll be
less mimedic. Usually what I find is
that people almost tend to be more
mimedic after they read Gerard be
because they think they've conquered it
that they're not even fighting it
anymore. But of course uh the smart ones
after a long time can realize that and
then find ways to combat that. That's
fascinating. Yeah, I think uh Teal had
attributed some of his investing
philosophy to Gerard and mimetic theory.
I don't know if you know the story
there, but how did Peter Teal use
philosophy to make a billion dollars? He
attributes his investment into Facebook
because of understanding Gerard's
desires. Uh, and I I believe when when
Teal saw the like button, he said it was
a mimisis of mimisis where liking
something is already mimedic because
you're getting external validation. But
now that like is displayed for other
people to see. That's kind of like
doubly mimedic. And so I think um Peter
saw what a lot of people didn't then
about the tremendous kind of power of uh
prestige and status and that's probably
one of the reasons that he put uh what
is it 500k into Facebook. Yeah. You've
previously noted that Zuckerberg his
mission statement is quote bring the
world closer together. Uh what does the
philosopher Gerard predict happens when
the world becomes so interconnected with
something like social media? Hey, really
quick. Have you ever wondered why US
politics are so toxic? Like with the
midterms coming up, everyone online is
so certain that one party is going to
win, but if it later turns out that
they're wrong, they just kind of move on
like nothing happened. And that's why
I'm so glad we have Koshi. It's a CFTC
regulated US exchange where you can
trade real world events straight from
your phone. Which party will win the US
Senate? Which party will win the US
House? In the midterms, what will be the
overall Congress balance of power? Will
Democrats sweep or will they just take
the House and the Republicans keep the
Senate? So instead of listening to some
guy in a podcast rant about how his
party's going to win, you can actually
see people putting money behind their
predictions. And that's honestly the
part I love about it. You can jump on
the app, track live shifts as they
happen, learn where General Consensus is
leaning, and see if you want to put your
money where your mouth is. So if you
want to check it out, you can use my
link in the description and pin comment.
trade $25 and get $55 back when you use
my link or you can use the code Jack.
But anyway guys, back to the podcast.
What does the philosopher Gerard predict
happens when the world becomes so
interconnected with something like
social media? Apocalypse, the end of the
world. Literally his books are building
up to an argument for why the world is
going to soon end, why revelations, why
the antichrist, why all of these things
that the Bible has predicted is coming.
Now, it's not very theological. It's not
kind of angels coming down from heaven,
but Gerard explains all of these
concepts which we can get into in terms
of uh deeply social and political uh
influences. We've talked a lot about
mimemetic desire, right? And how it can
lead you astray.
A consequence of mimemetic desire is
that people end up desiring the same
things. They end up converging the same
things. And so whereas most people think
scarcity precedes competition, Gerard
actually says competition precedes
scarcity.
In other words, um competition is
primary and then when we end up
competing over the same things, that's
what creates scarcity. So in other
words, most of the scarcity is
artificial, right? Look at like West
Village or, I don't know, Beverly Hills
real estate. There's a lot of other
places you could build just as beautiful
houses, but it's the immense
competition. It's the desire of that
real estate that creates that kind of
scarcity. And of course, when everyone
converges upon one thing, they they
fight. And so this explains naturally
why homoid groups um like apes, humans
tend to go degenerate into what he calls
mimemetic contagion or frenzy. So this
is a battle of of all against all,
right? This is when the community is
just erupting in chaos. And Gerard says
one continuous trick that cultures have
found to save communities from this
chaos is they would find a scapegoat
that everyone would attribute blame to
the same person or to the same small
group. In western society that's usually
been the Jewish community or a common
scapegoat has been the Jewish community.
They get expelled and then everyone else
reunites around that. They say the evil
group, the evil person has been expelled
wrongfully, but because of that lie,
they're able to come closer together.
>> And what comes out of that event is not
just peace, but a lot of rituals and
prohibitions develop. So festivities
that kind of recreate this expulsion
event where where you can let off steam
for communities every once in a while.
And then also ritual prohibitions. And
so for example, the cast system that
Dart says is an example of this where it
tries to prevent people from imitating
each other's desires by saying you are a
different person in kind from that
person. Like what does the cast system
do? If I tell you you're a Brahman and
you're an untouchable and you're a I
don't know merchant class, your your
warrior class, what it does, it prevents
mimetic desire and jealousy from
spreading too fast.
Because when the Brahman when the
warrior cast makes a bunch of money or
or or is given these rewards or given
these sexual favors then I as an
untouchable I think well that's just how
the the the way that it is. And so when
you look at the transition from
aristocratic society or cast societies
where there's clear distinction
to democratic societies where everyone
is an equal
mimemetic frenzy is inflamed. It creates
the perfect conditions to create more
kind of wars of all and all all against
all. And in the similar way before
Facebook, Instagram, uh, newspapers,
photos were invented. I don't even know
how my lord lives in my village. I don't
go to his castle. I don't see how things
operate. But now, anyone from one side
of the world, no matter how poor you
are, you're able to see the lifestyles
of many people who are billionaires,
decad billionaires, centillionaires on
the other side of the world.
And so this idea of connecting the world
for Gerard is extremely terrifying
especially in our equal age because now
it means that we're bring everyone a lot
closer
both uh like spatial temporally right I
can now see everyone but also morally
now I think well why does the
billionaire deserve this whereas I can't
even feed myself in a way that Gerard
would say that desire is less strong
between in a cast structure because they
think about themselves as just very
different and so it's not unfair to use
your language. Does that does that make
sense? Yeah. How would you I guess to
explain it differently if you wanted
everyone
to feel like they were the same to cause
just absolute chaos? Like what would be
the things that you made them feel the
same about? Like would you not discuss
things like some people are smarter than
others? Like would you say that everyone
has the same opportunity? Like what
would be the idea?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean all of that and
this is actually a great analogy that uh
there's actually a great uh thing to
bring up that ties to your questions
about Peter there. I think uh Peter said
the most pathological way to run an
early startup is to not have any
different roles and to have everyone do
the exact same tasks.
And therefore the the the least
pathological way to run a startup, the
best way to run a startup is to have
very clear roles where you do this, you
do this, but don't look left and right.
This is your task and you are
fundamentally different from them. And
so to answer your question, I'd say all
those things. I tell you, we're all
equals. We all have the same rights. We
all deserve the same things. No one is
better than than another person. Um I
would try to push people away from
reading too much like like great man
kind of kind of history. And if you were
going to prevent crisis, you would tell
people like, "Oh, these billionaires,
they're just aliens." Like you might say
something like that, right? Yes.
However, we can no longer say those
things because Gerard thinks of the
Christian revelation. What Gerard called
the scapegoat mechanism, right? This is
when and uh I gave the kind of canonical
western example, which is the Jewish
community being scapegoed. I'll give you
the classical Greek example of Edipus,
the guy who uh killed his dad, married
his mom. um in thieves. If you read the
story of Edipus as told by Sophocles,
there's a plague and there's deep social
unrest in thieves when Edipus is king
and ruling.
>> And then I believe an oracle says the
reason is because one of you
killed their dad and had sex with his
mom.
Of course, Edipus goes seeking, seeking,
seeking and he finds eventually that's
him that he wrongfully killed his dad
and he wrongfully had sex with his mom
because of some kind of childhood story
thing which we don't have to to get to
get get into. He was he was kind of
downed and then he didn't didn't realize
he killed the old ruler, married the old
ruler ruler's wife who's trying to be
his mom and then Edipus gets exiled and
that's the scapegoat mechanism and then
thieves gets peace again.
And Gerard would say that that is a
social mechanism. That is a
psychological mechanism. It wasn't
actually because Edipus was guilty. Even
as bad as incest and patricide is, how
can that explain plagues? How can that
explain every kind of rivalry and issue?
So Gerard wants to say, "No, no, Edipus
was guilty, but it's the extent of
attributing every single blame to Edipus
that's the problem." and he would say
the same things about for example how
the treated the Jews it wasn't that the
Jews were completely innocent in way
republic who is but it's to say this one
group of people is to be blamed for
everything and to push that away that's
the scapegoat mechanism and once that
happens when Edipus goes roaming around
he becomes deified and there's a myth
that goes around that says wherever
Edipus's bones are buried they shall
know lasting peace. So he's become
deified in a certain way because people
attribute him as having a p a power to
both cause plagues and end plagues. So
people over time saw him in a positive
light. Is that what you're saying?
>> Exactly. That's what that's a really
interesting thing about what Gerard
said. So the scapegoat first is bad evil
pushed out. The community comes
together. But then Gerard thinks the
community needs to explain where did
this this force of of alleviating things
come from? Where did this saving force
come from? And Gerard would say in the
same way they mistook the scapegoat as
causing the problem, they will also
mistake the scapegoat as solving the
problem. And this according to Gerard is
how gods are made. And and this this
fact this this thing becomes ritualized.
So for for example the pharmicon ritual
of Greece. So pharmicon is um where we
get the word pharmacy from but in in
Greek it means both poison and cure.
>> And in times of social unrest they would
symbolically exile
a person or a group. Sometimes they
would stone them to death and that would
that would cure the society. And so
that's the key thing to realize which is
that Gerard thinks that the evil person
who is expelled
eventually becomes deified by the by the
community and that's how he thinks pagan
gods and like pagan rituals are made.
>> However, as you can tell, Gerard is
ambivalent about this process. On one
hand, it protects society, right? It's
the only reason why people aren't
killing everyone. But on on the other
hand, I mean, think about the Jews.
Gerard would say this is a deeply unjust
this is deeply unjust because the Jews
aren't to be blamed for all of Whimar
Republic's evils because Edipus isn't to
be single-handedly blamed even if he
committed incest and patricside for all
of thieves troubles. So this is both
worldly not just good but necessary
and ultimately evil. And that's the
tension in Gerard. And this is where the
Christian revelation comes from. But did
you have any questions about that before
we get to the Christian revelation?
>> Yeah, I I did want to ask about just the
modern scapegoats that I think the
audience is thinking of in their head.
>> So, I think there's
four. Uh, and I don't know if you want
to break down your thoughts on one of
them or all of them quickly, but the
four I think of are
2018 Jeffrey Epstein dies. Uh, and all
of the crimes
of that he committed and the people he
was associated with committed were kind
of put on him. Yeah.
>> And now we're seeing Tik Tok edits of
him being super cool. uh and the
deificification. Yeah.
>> Right. Uh we think of co 2019 2020 uh
it's scapegoat as China and then we
think of the death of Charlie Kirk
>> and now you have China maxing in the
Yeah.
>> Right. And then you have the death of
Charlie Kirk which is an interesting one
because that seemed to divide more
people than unite more people. And then
the modern example seems to be a lot of
uh
blaming Israel for America's problems.
Yeah, that that's the kind of canonical
and um maybe I'll just comment on the
last one because I I need to actually
explain to you what Gerard thinks Christ
does to the scapegoat mechanism in order
to understand these modern examples. But
maybe I'll just comment on the last one
because I've been speaking a lot about
it in Western history and why the Jews
are often blamed. There's a there are a
few marks for what makes a good victim.
>> The best victim has to be close to the
community. Why do they have to be close?
Because if if I'm blaming, you know, if
let's say we're going to college,
there's a hu huge like Greek like frat
war and I'm blaming some other guy who's
going to school in Shanghai who doesn't
know anyone, you're like, well, this is
not believable, right? like like indeed
the group mistakes the extent of the
blame but the group still needs to
believe in order for this thing to work
right that's one they need to be close
to the group but number two they also
need to be far from the group because if
they are too close to the group and this
is a great example you gave of Charlie
Kirk that doesn't end the mimemetic
conflict if that person that you chose
who as scapegoat is like on one side and
and not the other. That's simply another
jab during the the war of all against
all. It doesn't end the war. Does that
make sense? So, if everyone can get
around pointing to the scapegoat as the
issue, that can end the war. But if only
half the people say this guy's bad, the
other people say this guy's good, then
the war kind of continues. And that's
the kind of Charlie Kirk example. Um and
the third thing is that they need like a
kind of special mark that differentiates
them from the group so that people's
eyes like naturally converge towards
them. And I think those three reasons
are probably why for
um most of western history the Jews have
been the the kind of canonical
scapegoats at least in Christianom,
right? They're very close to society
because they're integrating. They they
literally live in Christian societies.
They're far from society because
everyone can gather around and just
blame them. No one has their back and
then they have a special mark. They have
a different religious denomination that
marks them. And that's why they've been
kind of the natural scapegoats according
to Gerard for kind of Western history.
>> But before we can talk about what's
going on in modernity, I I need to
explain the kind of what Christ does to
this. Right. Right.
>> Because what Gerard just told you,
you're like, well, this seems to go
against religion, right? Like this seems
to be an explanation for why religion is
just a mimedic phenomenon. People are
making this up. And then the second
question people usually ask is well
doesn't this explain Christianity,
right? Think about the turmoil in
Jerusalem when Jesus goes there. That's
the contagion. Think about his
scapegoating. Everyone literally turns
upon him. Even the disciples, even Peter
turns upon him. And then there's the
reconciliation, right? There's uh I
believe uh the Jewish leader and Pontius
Pilate or or like the Roman leader, they
reconcile because of the death of Jesus
and then Jesus is divonized. Like isn't
Gerard just giving us a theory about why
Christianity is also a hallucination
like the pagan religions? You see the
concern that I'm raising, right?
>> And Gerard's answer, I'm not convinced
by this, but we can we can talk about
that why later. Gerard's answer is that
Christianity is different from all of
those pagan stories like Edipus in one
key detail, which is that it's told from
the perspective of the victim and not
the persecutor.
When you read Edipus at Colonus or
Edipus Rex, the the the thean trilogy,
when you read about Edipus, it's told
from the perspective of thieves, it's
saying, "We had this ruler. He did this
messed up stuff. We exiled him and now
we're uh we're saved.
And that preserves the myth. That's what
makes the myth. But what is the
Christian story told from the
perspective of the people who were
ultimately martyed for the their belief
in
>> Exactly. They're told from Edipus'
perspective. They're told from Jesus's
perspective. And what does that do? That
reveals the truth of what's actually
been going on in human society.
And this is why and I think this is this
is the thing that kind of convinced
Vance I think uh which is
Gerard's defense of Christianity
basically is something like there's a
key mechanism that is responsible for
the foundation of not just human culture
but all of human religion and Jesus came
to destroy that founding mechanism. Why?
Because it's evil. It's unjust. But
think about how ambivalent this is.
We said this was the only mechanism that
has prevented humans from from killing
one another in allout warfare.
Even if it's unjust, it guarantees
worldly safety.
So think about what destroying that
mechanism does.
It might be truth truthful. It might be
just, but it will cause apocalypse
effectively. So when Jesus says in
Matthew, I think it's 13:35, "Think not
I am come to bring peace. I bring not
peace, but a sword." Most Christians
will explain that away. Most Christians
will say, "Well, he's talking about uh
there's going to be religious factions
that that's the sword he's bringing."
But Gerard says, "No, Jesus is cutting
the very foundations of the world with a
sword." And that is both good in the
ultimate sense
and will bring about incredible amount
of war and worldly violence. Just to
clarify on the Jesus portion, like why
is Jesus as a scapegoat like what people
call the ultimate sacrifice, the
ultimate scapegoat? Like what was the
key different thing about him? The key
thing that breaks the scapegoat
mechanism for Gerard is the fact that
the story was told from the perspective
of the victim. So, it's as if a
conspiracy theory has been going on in
human society for millennia and then
Jesus comes and exposes it through his
own sacrifice. Think about uh I don't
know what a good example would be. You
know, the CIA are are are hiding UFOs
somewhere and they're killing off all
the scientists who let's say that that
was a conspirac conspiracy and then one
scientist films himself getting getting
shot by the CIA for trying to uncover
the aliens, right? I'm just making up a
hypothetical. That's kind of the
intuition
and and and this is the thing I I really
>> media reporting on it versus the
scientist himself filming it.
>> Exactly.
>> Yeah. In the case of Jesus, the apostles
who wrote the stories, they were not a
part of the media.
>> They were not a part of the the empire.
They were not they wrote the stories and
then
>> three of the four of them themselves
were martyed for the belief in the
thing.
>> Most of the most of the 12 I think were
martyed. They all they all suffered
persecution. But that's that's a great
way to think about it. again, take my
kind of weird conspiracy theory thing
and say the pagan myths, they're the
empire, right? They're the media
reporting on it. They're the ones there
CNN or Fox News saying, "Oh, no, this
was just a crazy scientist."
Whereas you're getting Jesus's vlog
getting shot by by, you know, who
whoever the deep state is or something,
right? And the another thing I want to
point out very clearly,
Jesus truthful, just is bringing about
ultimate destruction. So literally Jesus
engenders apocalypse. Apocalypse
literally means the word revelation. I
it's there's a there's a there's a
there's we we think about it as
negative, but there's there's a positive
dimension to it.
And what is the scapegoat mechanism?
It's unjust. It's untruthful, but it
maintains worldly order. That's Satan.
>> So, the scapegoat mechanism for Gerard
is literally what Satan is. And Satan is
the world. Satan is the deep state,
right? Like Satan is the thing that um
preserves worldly order, but does it in
a deceitful, lying way. Whereas Christ
is the one who wrecks worldly. He's the
anarchist. He destroys worldly order.
>> But he's truthful. He's ultimately just.
And then the question is, well, but
clearly Jesus didn't destroy
all of sacrifice, right? Think about
World War II. Think about scapegoating.
That's always gone down.
The scapegoat mechanism has been
weakened by Jesus.
But in many ways, that's a bad thing.
So, I'll just give you one example. When
the scapeboat mechanism was fully
intact, you could say, "Edipus, you
patricidal uh incestral bastard, you're
the one who caused all of this. We're
going to exile you. Only one man's exile
or death is needed to solve the entire
community to to keep the entire
community at peace." But now we don't
believe that anymore, right? We can't
say, "Oh, Donald Trump committed XYZ.
We'll exile him away." all of America
would be that that's that doesn't work
because now we see through how people
are persecuto through Jesus. What
happens? Gerard says we need larger and
larger groups of people to be scapegoed
in order for us to be convinced that
they're responsible for the crimes like
identity over the individual.
>> Exactly. And so for him in the 20th
century, think about the Soviet Union,
an entire class needs to be identified,
right? the boogeoisi they're the ones
and they're the ones that needs to be
expelled in the fascists
they're the ones entire race needs to be
identified so whereas before a singular
Jew a singular pagan a singular wealthy
man could be identified to save the
whole group now to get the same effect
the dose needs to be a lot higher
according to Gerard and that's just one
of the consequences of Christ working on
the world
throughout history. There are attempts
according to Gerard of Satan trying to
make a comeback. Like Christ has already
mortally wounded Satan, the scapegoat
mechanism through his own sacrifice,
through revealing the mechanisms that
Satan works, right?
However, there are attempts to bring
Satan back in the sense that there's
there are attempts to recreate a pagan
world with cast structures, with class
structures, with identifying a victim
and expelling them. In the 20th century,
Gerard identifies that with the
fascists, right? The fascists, they're
much more hierarchical. They have a
sense of there's the master race,
there's there's the lesser races, and
we're going to try to expel. They're
trying to recreate the scapegoat
mechanism.
But there's a second and much more
dangerous impulse in modernity and that
Gerard calls the antichrist. And the
thing that we have to be clear on is
that for Gerard and for classical
Christianity, the antichrist is not
Satan at all. Completely different. In
fact, they're going to appear completely
different at all. What the Antichrist is
is someone who is hyper Christian, who
takes on Christianity's rhetoric, but
uses it actually to persecute.
And in the 20th century, Gerard maps
that on to the left, to like Soviet
communism.
>> Think about why that is. The fascists,
they're the ones who want to establish a
rigid order. This race sucks. This is
the master race. They're the pagans.
They're doing what what Sophocles and
Edipus are doing. They're just
explicitly anti-Christian. They're not
about love and compassion. They're not
about equality. Right?
Think about what the let's say Soviet
communism does. Soviet communism says,
you know, we are more compassionate than
even the liberal Christians.
We're going to completely flatten
society. We're going to have no cast
structures.
And Gerard says, "Okay, well, how do you
differentiate the Antichrist from from
the true Christ, which is that the
Antichrist is going to use the rhetoric
of protecting victims to persecute
victims." And Gerard says the Antichrist
is much more dangerous in modernity
because we are inoculated against Satan.
In other words, if you wear a swastika
around,
you're going to get just kicked out.
People are going to are are going to
say, "Well, I don't want to associate
with this guy." Right?
>> But if you say we need more equality, we
need more justice, we need more love and
compassion, in the Christian frame,
that's celebrated. But Gerard says a
large group of people use that rhetoric
in order to continue persecution.
Remember my acquaintance that I told you
about who wanted to effectively
persecute his richer peers by protecting
by saying, "I care for the poor."
That's an example. In the modern west
today, the only way you're allowed to
persecute someone is to say you're doing
it in the name of protecting victims.
It's the white male that can be
persecuted. It's the straight. It's the
able-bodied. It's the wealthy.
So, you see what the antichrist is for
Gerard, right? The antichrist takes the
rhetoric of Christ. He affirms the same
values, protecting the victim, love,
compassion, equality, but then he uses
it to accomplish satanic goals to turn
to to continue the persecution. I think
an important note here is I'm glad that
you clarified that the Antichrist is not
synonymous with Satan, but as far as
you're aware, like how does Peter Teal's
version of the Antichrist, because he's
given several lectures over the course
of the last year, year and a half, and
JD Vance's version of the Antichrist,
I'm assuming they're fairly similar, he
said recently on an interview that he
wouldn't be surprised if the Antichrist
was here right how like how do you
segment out these two things or are they
the same?
>> They're definitely not the same and I I
have to full disclosure I'm not that
familiar with certainly not Vance and
not even Teal's kind of Antichrist that
much. I there's actually lectures going
on I think right now in Nashville. I
haven't been to any of the Antichrist
lectures. Um but I I can like roughly
speculate which is for Gerard,
Satan is not an entity.
Satan is not a fallen angel. He's simply
the scapegoat mechanism. Like whenever
we persecute people unjustly to create
worldly peace, to maintain the group's
peace, that's that's just Satan
manifest. The act itself is Satan
manifesting or the individual is just
paired with Satan. I wonder how
different they are. But let's say for
now the act itself is what Satan is
called. So Satan is simply this
mechanism that works through history.
And therefore, I think he would say the
antichrist is not an entity. The
antichrist is whenever you use Christian
rhetoric of protecting the victim to
persecute more victims. Right? This is
what woke was doing. You white male, I'm
going to persecute you because uh I
don't know, you're racist towards
minorities or you're straight person.
I'm going to persecute you in the name
of uh one thing or the other. That for
Gerard is just the antichrist. So, I
don't think Gerard is in the business of
identifying, oh, the Antichrist is here,
the Antichrist is there. And as far as I
can tell, it seems like both Vance and
and Peter are interested in like putting
their finger on on something, which
which by the way, that's the much more
canonical reading. Gerard's reading,
some Catholics, I think, is even
heretical, saying that Satan is not a
being. He's just he's just a mechanism.
So I think what Peter and Vance are
doing is probably actually more orthodox
um smaller orthodox. So, so that's kind
of one one big distinction which is
Gerard isn't looking for a specific
institution or something like that. When
what Gerard points to in his time,
right, his 20th century, the fascists
are satanic, the communists are
anti-Christian.
>> So, he's describing a behavior
essentially.
>> He's describing a psychology, a trend, a
social mechanism and a behavior. Yeah, I
think so.
>> Right. And and just to break that, the
antichrist behavior is the idea of
promising
whatever Christ himself kind of promised
in a way, but actually using it to
oppress. Exactly. If what what Satan
does is
just persecuting the victim, going
directly against Christ, right? Again,
think back to the fascist rhetoric of
hierarchy, master race, going against
equality, love, compassion, which Gerard
thinks are all core ideas coming out of
Christ. What the antichrist does is
using the name of protecting victims in
order to persecute their own victims,
>> right?
>> And it doesn't take a genius to see
which one the West today is much more
susceptible to. It's the latter, right?
Like you can actively persecute a white,
straight, able-bodied male in the name
of protecting victims. You can't really
persecute directly the old victims
anymore,
>> right? So I think that's probably the
biggest difference which is I don't
think Gerard is in the business of
trying to say this is the antichrist and
in fact in the Bible I can't remember
where it was the antichrist comes in the
form of plural many antichrists will
come uh but then there seems to be this
final kind of antichrist so again I
think what Peter and um Vance are doing
is almost more biblical and more
orthodox
>> on niche I believe he called himself the
antichrist in a joking way. He wrote a
book entitled the Antichrist.
Have you read any of his work on the
Antichrist?
>> Um, if I have, it's been a long time.
Yeah.
>> But I can give you a sense of of why he
might say that if that's helpful for you
and our listeners. Nze like Gerard
identifies this Christian turn as the
protecting of victims. So we talked
about how in pagan religion for Gerard
is about persecuting victims in order to
build a good world and the Christian
narrative uh exposes that deep state
conspiracy theory. Right?
N makes a similar observation and he
does it in a book called the genealogy
of morality and he uses a subtle change
in language. So he says in the pagan
world people evaluate things good and
bad.
That which is good is that which is
aristocratic. That which is masterly.
You're handsome. You're you're strong.
You're you're conquering. You are yes
saying to the world. And that which is
bad is whatever that's not that. What
the Christians did was they flipped the
meaning
because Christians appealed to the
victims. And you see this in how
Christianity spread. It spread initially
I think in the lower classes in the
middle classes among women. The Roman
elite were the last to convert. Why is
that, by the way? It's because the
Christian rhetoric is all about the meek
will inherit the earth. It's more
difficult for a man to enter a rich man
to enter in heaven than a camel through
the eye of a needle. Right? That kind of
rhetoric not only protects victims, but
it almost elevates the victim. And Nietz
says that this appeals to victims. This
appeals to the lower Slavish classes to
slaves effectively. And what the slaves
did is they defined what the masters
called good, which is themselves, as
evil because they were resentful of it.
So being wealthy, that's bad. That's
that's evil. Being uh conquering, that's
evil. Hurting others and taking things
from them, that's evil. And then the
slaves define whatever the opposite of
that as good as themselves.
Meekness is good. Humility is good.
Being patient is good. We're not going
to try to avenge ourselves in this world
because Christ will avenge for us.
So like Nietze, like Gerard, Nze reads
Christianity as um completely the
flipping the script.
But for him, it's not a completely bad
thing. This Christian morality, there's
some improvements on there. And he's not
just saying we need to return to the
masterly morality, but he is heavily
criticizing this Christian term. And the
reason is because it encourages people
like my college acquaintance
who use their resentment to to combat
what is actually good. And so it's that
subtle change in language from good to
bad to good to evil that Nichzche
attributes to Christianity. uh and and
or one of the things he attributes to
Christianity. Uh and that's again one of
the things that I think he is
anti-Christian to. Yeah.
>> Do you think Christianity is a slave
religion?
>> It tends that way in the sense that and
this is Gerard's response to to Nietz,
right? Because Gerard came after Nietze.
You you want to ask well what does he
think about Nichze about because Nichz
is very similar to saying oh no
Christianity is one who's focused on the
victims and that's bad. That's the
TLDDR. What Gerard says is
Nze got the common form of Christianity
right. In other words, Christianity
usually spreads because of this slave
morality because the lower classes want
a value system. Remember how you asked
me, how do I tell if I'm desiring
something or believe something for its
own sake? And I said, well, is it
because of cope? Is it because you want
to make yourself feel better? The meek
shall inherit the earth. I think Nietze
is right that that is that tends to be
how Christianity spreads and why it
appeals to certain people. Of most of
the people that I've known that have
converted to Christianity, they've
converted Christianity in a very low
stage of their lives.
>> Right?
>> And I think that's really suspicious.
I'm not saying that's wrong, but I think
you should be really suspicious if you
find yourself grabbing a an existential
blankie effectively. That's my biggest
grievance with Christianity personally
is I think that most people turn to
Christ when they're at their lowest
instead of a different frame which might
be wow everything in my life is so
exhilarating and wonderful I could never
attribute this to myself but to God you
know what I mean exactly there there's
some of that right but almost everyone I
meet is what you said that at their
lowest they cling to this thing that
makes them feel better and that's why
niche dislikes it so much. NA dislikes
it because it prevents a certain subset
of people who should become who actually
need to actualize themselves. It
prevents them from doing that because it
gives them a safety again a blankie to
existential blanket to hold on to.
>> Right?
>> Gerard would actually agree with Niche
there. Gerard would say and I think he
does say this tends to be why
Christianity has spread so much. So
Gerard is actually quite critical of a
lot of what he calls historical
Christianity. In fact, if you think
about it, the antichrist is a manif
manifestation of this, right? The
antichrist is saying the rich are evil.
Let's go persecute the rich. Instead of
saying, well, no, well, how about all of
you, me, all of us together, we should
we we just get rich, right? That's what
it's preventing you from saying it's
rechaning that desires into persecution.
But Gerard would say nse confuses the
essence of Christianity. I.e.,
even if that's how Christianity usually
spreads, that's not actually the core of
what Christ has to teach us. And so
that's where he would kind of disagree.
What's the core thing?
>> The core is revealing the scapegoat
mechanism. So, so I the core is there's
this deeply unjust worldly process that
Jesus destroys and he teaches us how to
properly love and how to properly access
truth. So Gerard as well as Nichze
actually believes that science comes out
of Christianity that it's because we've
given up all of these myths because we
aren't as convinced by these myths
according to Gerard that science is able
to develop. I think is like really
interesting oneliner is it's not because
we develop science that we stop
persecuting witches. It's because we
stop persecuting witches that science
developed. I actually don't know if
that's historically accurate. But what
he's trying to say isn't rationality is
so powerful and we figured out witchers
wasn't a thing we stop persecuting. He
said instead it's like no no no Christ
taught us how to properly love. And from
that perspective when we don't have
animosity to certain things or certain
subjects that's the only place where
truth can be pursued. So for Gerard what
Jesus was actually trying to do was to
teach
the most important kind of truth and
love. However, he would concede to NZ
that this rhetoric of protecting the
victim tends to be perverted into
worldly ways. And that's kind of what
the Antichrist manifests as.
Does Jard view
Christ story itself as something that
was like well preserved or something
that was corrupted by empire?
>> That's a good question. So there's a
whole um uh tradition of biblical
criticism that looks at all the
different Bibles, look at their
differences, is there this Q source, how
accurate is this story? Gerard, I don't
think is that interested um in that
question. He thinks the core is correct.
Yeah, basically he he thinks the core is
correct. Um and even Jesus performing
the miracles for him are not that
interesting. Um because pagan gods
perform miracles all the time. In fact,
pagan gods get resurrected all the time.
For him, what was really interesting was
the perspective that I was told from.
And by the way, if you're interested, I
can go into why that didn't convince me.
Um it didn't convince me very shortly
and I can elaborate
because I think he probably exaggerates
how important the scapegoat mechanism is
for forming society. Like I think it
tends to happen. And it's probably one
of many things that form society and
culture where he he attributes it as a
singular thing where all of culture and
even language comes from. And the second
thing is there are many stories even in
the west that is told from the
perspective of the victim. Caesar that's
told from the perspective of the victim.
When Caesar's adopted kid Augustus
founds the Roman Empire that's told from
the perspective of the victim. But
importantly we have another story that
predates Christ. told from the
perspective of the victim. I mean,
Caesar's predates Christ as well, but I
think he's even more close. And that's
Socrates. Socrates is told from the
perspective of the victim.
>> It's shown this unjust Athenian
persecution of philosophy. Now, we can
actually get into what the Gerardian
response is, but I think Gerard kind of
o overexaggerates how just how unique
that is. And that's before we enter into
other religious traditions. You said
that Nietze was largely responsible for
your
I was going to say come to Jesus moment,
but uh
>> yeah. No, literally it's it's a
religious kind of conversion kind of
moment. Yeah. Almost
>> for like your sudden change of how you
feel about life.
>> Do you think N was an incel?
>> Um
uh he might have had se sex sex with
prostitutes. So I don't know if that
takes away his incel badge of honor. The
one woman he seemed to desire greatly
Lou uh rejected him and so in that sense
he was an incel. He was a volel in a
different sense that he was extremely
extremely picky because he was so
individualized and he had such
sensitivities about what kind of woman
was right for him. Um so in that case
he's a ball. So it's quite complicated.
Another way you can ask this question
was Nichzche an incel of life. Was he a
loser effectively? Right?
>> On one hand he was. And when I was
giving my genealogy of morality lecture,
I kind of gave a nichian critique of NZ.
I played up the loser aspect of his
later life that he had no sane
readership, no strong readership in his
sane years. Um that his work was over
overlooked and then that I think that
tormented his psyche right when he went
crazy. Um so he had the early Nichzche
kind of like the the mid late Nichze and
then when he went crazy
he started claiming he had all of this
readership across Europe right someone
who doesn't care about that aspect
probably wouldn't have so I'm saying not
only was he a loser in the later life
but he clearly I think also cared about
it again that needs to be caveed with
the fact that he was a winner earlier on
he was the youngest professor uh at at
Basel Um and then he wrote birth of
tragedy which is his first book that got
him completely exiled from the academic
community. Um but it it he dedicated it
to his friend at the time Richard
Vagner. So Vagner was one of the great
uh opera writers artists of his time and
he chose Nichze as effectively his
prodigy
>> as Vagner was building up to the first
bro festival. This is the first festival
where I believe his famous ring cycle
this like grand theatrical uh experience
was composed. And so Nietze when he was
roughly my age already had tremendous
success in his original field of uh of
academic philosophy and then he had
tremendous success. He he he left that
he gave that all up not unlike me kind
of quitting that company of course much
grander and much more interesting scale
and then he he got success again he
found another kind of family that that
took him in Vagner think about it right
the greatest kind of artist of your time
handpicking you and then he left Vagner
because he realized that Vagner was
slowly starting to cave to the crowd
that Vagner's own history to make it
short was one of late success and as
soon as and as he got the success exile
because of his political actions and he
would be fearless in creating the art in
creating the content that was truly
authentic to him and Nze loved that
about Vagner. But as Vagner became more
and more successful Nietz saw how Vagner
was starting pandering slowly and slowly
to the crowd and Nichze realizes that
that he needed to break from Vagner
again. So I mean think about how not of
a loser NZ could have been if he just
stuck with Vagner. He would have been
the prodigy of the greatest artist. He
was already the university professor
like he could have had the the best like
intellectual uh and culturally
interesting life
>> but he chose not to. He chose to follow
his authentic path effectively chose a
life of poverty and alienation because
that was where his art was taking him.
So I think we have to caveat the
loserness of his second part of his life
with the fact that it's kind of like the
girl again. Yes, he was an incel because
of Lou rejected him, but he was also a
volcell who was very very picky.
>> And that moved me so much because it
really put me to shame, I think. Um, it
made me think about the compromises I
was making in my content, which is
nowhere near what nature was writing uh
kind of uh in my age. and made me
realize sometimes the sacrifices that
needed to be made and that in addition
to two of my friends, one of which you
met last night,
them leaving living in in a really
authentic fashion, comparing that with
how I was living my life, I was like I I
I like this is just like night and day.
It's not even like a degree difference.
I I need to kind of take a step back and
straighten the ship and um think about
Yeah. re reorient myself. By the way,
every time I've tried to communicate
this, it's completely landed flat. So,
I'm not sure if your if your audience is
going to get it, but I I'm at least
struggling to try and uh say something
profound here that I think was really
relevant for me. That makes a lot of
sense.
I think it's an idea that a lot of
people forget about is that
the whole reason they made art in the
first place or spoke in the first place
was because they just liked it, you
know. Um, and usually no one even liked
it at first.
>> Yeah.
>> So it's like why did they do it? Because
they liked it so much that they kept
doing it.
>> Do you feel that with your work?
>> I think I'm at a season of my life where
I
charging ahead. don't consider
ideas around am I doing the right thing
or am I not doing the right thing in
terms of my work. Uh I more so just care
about can I do my work and do things
that I like and keep doing things that I
like doing you know i.e. you separate
this your work from your life that you
do. Is is that right? Like you think
about this more as like a not a 9 to5
but as something that sustains your life
or I try to take as many actions as
possible
that enable me to keep taking actions
that I want to take and that often means
that
>> the actions that you're doing are
actions
that maybe if you overintellectualize it
and overthink about it maybe you
wouldn't be taking them.
if I don't know it it's it's hard to
look back and regret hard actions that
enabled you for
>> more actions that you want to do, you
know, like I would much rather be in a
position where I have the ability to go
on a yacht or uh eat a hot dog on a
beach.
>> Very different, you know.
>> Oh, you want the option rather than the
the the actually doing it,
>> right? because I I often think that
people don't actually enjoy like leisure
itself. Um and I and I often know that
desires fade, right?
>> So you just want to collect as much
optionality for whatever.
>> I'd say I I optimize for optionality.
Yeah. Resilience and optionality.
>> I found that um when I was saying
similar things uh actually not not too
different. You're 25 now. Yeah.
>> Um around your age. That was because I
was too timid in figuring out or in
owning up to what I actually wanted to
do. If you had asked me what I was
doing, building the company with
Lonsdale, uh I would have said I was
optimizing for optionality. And my plan
then was I'm going to do three more
years of this company. I'm going to do a
six-year PhD because that's going to
give me more optionality and then I'm
going to do what I actually want to do,
which is what I'm doing now. And for me,
that was an expression of timidity that
I wasn't kind of willing just to first
find out what it's act what I actually
want to do
and then pursue that with kind of a full
force.
And when I look at a lot of I'm not
saying you're doing this or you're not
doing but when I when I see a lot of
people who are kind of collecting
optionality
it's very much a running away
>> right
>> and running away for the highest
achievers look nothing like you know
playing Xbox um in the basement. I just
had two conversations with two of my
friends over the past weekend. One of
them was is one of the greatest athletes
alive. And the other one was uh one of
the greatest businessmen in his
generation, Deca Billionaire. And when I
asked the the business or one of my
friends asked the billionaire, how uh
how satisfied are you? Not h how happy
are you, but how satisfied are you as a
businessman? He said, uh you know, okay,
but but not great. Uh and and the same
thing my friend said as an athlete, you
know, good. I I could have been so much
more. And I think um you know as a young
man I mean I'm I'm barely two years
older than you.
Let me put it this way. Before reading
Nietze, before being exposed to Nichze's
life and my friends who are living very
authentically and who are pushing me
very hard on what I could be doing to
live more authentically, I thought as
you did like things are already going
great. You have millions of subscribers.
You'll be able to eventually do. And now
I feel like I I can't really delay a
single a single day. Um, so I guess what
I'm trying to say is
for the highest achievers, you, me, my
friends, the businessman, the athlete I
was talking about, timidity can actually
look like very fervent action,
>> right?
>> And for me, I think it's the same with
you because you're you're a very hustler
as I am. I just want to pull a le like
as soon as the lever is working, content
lever's working. Let's let's double down
in the content thing. Let's pull it. And
there's an inertia I get into where I
where I stop asking myself what kind of
content do I actually want to be doing?
And even the content I want to be doing,
what is my relationship with it? Yeah.
Well, well, I mean, we're going to keep
the conversation going and I'm curious
to see, you know, after 6 months, a year
or two, whether you have a uh how you
reflect on this part of the journey. But
I'm not sure if I said this to you last
night, but this was the initial
challenge that came to my head when you
had said uh they had said that they were
they could have done better. Right. I
think that that's just a character trait
of highly successful people is always
feeling as though you could have done
better and always could be doing more.
That's what made the people successful
in the first trip.
>> Yeah. Right. What what what made it a
bit different is you can see the regret
in their eyes when they said that.
>> You could see them saying could not but
not great. And these people dedicated
you know decades upon that activity. In
the case of the businessman uh he chose
the high option safe lucrative option
>> whereas perhaps in the back of his head
he was like I should have gone I should
have swung for the fences. Maybe I
should have built SpaceX. Right.
>> But you don't think people are doing I
think people are doing exactly what they
want to be doing at all times.
>> No. No. No. No. I think so few people
even know what they actually want to be
doing because of the mimemetic thing.
>> But but you only realize that you don't
want to be doing something when you put
thought into it. If you just take the
action without intellectualizing it or
philosophizing about it, uh you don't
find a problem with it in the first
place. Right.
>> Well, let me ask you this, Jack. Is
there any action that you've taken where
it was successful, but then you look
back on it and you're like, well, I I
don't know if that's satisfied me or I
don't know what my motives were. Um, was
there any moment in your life like that?
>> I only see the past as either not
existing or educating the present and I
don't think the future exists.
>> Does that make sense? I I see where
you're getting at. Yeah. Yeah. But but
um
give me one sec. By the way, I think
this is excellent. I hope you keep this.
I I think this part might be the best
part of the whole conversation when
we're um I believe you can alter your
memories as well. like you can remember
that you just did the exact thing that
you wanted to be doing and you can make
that belief about yourself and that's
kind of magical in a way. I found that
at least for me whenever I try to uh
perform these illusions on myself that I
might get an initial pulse of energy but
it slowly kind of dissipates away. I
mean what were you doing um before
before podcasting? You were you were uh
you were also into business, right?
Starting various enterprises and
>> Yeah, I I largely ran a crime channel
and then we did like a Snapchat business
and an an agency for like was it was it
a did it take a lot of bravery to to to
stop that and jump jump to do this or I
would say so. Um but this wasn't meant
to be the business. This was actually
the method to finding the business. Uh,
and what I was doing throughout the
entirety of like the first 15 episodes
of this podcast was trying to figure out
what the highest leverage thing I should
be doing with my time was. And so I
actually came to the moment that you are
describing right now resonates with a
version of myself that started this
podcast. And through the podcast itself,
I realized that
>> right
>> the the demon uh in me that was like
looking for the highest leverage was me
myself looking
>> sorry was not looking at the present
moment. Does that make sense?
>> Yeah.
>> Like I was like I
>> What were you looking for? What were you
looking Yeah. And tell me about what
what do you think specifically resonated
or would have resonated with your
younger self?
>> I I think it it's just the the idea that
the thing you're doing is not the right
thing. Uh, and that was when I started
the podcast. But I realized that the
right idea to have about it is to just
assume you're doing the right thing. And
it'll be so obvious when you're not
doing the right thing.
>> Yeah.
>> That you don't even have to make a
decision about it. Because me, I'm
someone who I don't know if you happen
to watch the one interview that I've
done, but it was so clear to me in my
life, and maybe this is just the story I
tell myself that when I was doing the
absolute wrong thing, I actually had
like a physical paralysis in my body for
18 days, both times, two years apart,
and
it hasn't come back. So, I can't tell
myself a story that I'm doing the wrong
thing. You know what I mean?
>> Yeah. Um maybe you're one of the lucky
few who just has such an allergic
reaction in this case a physical
reaction um to not living so
congruently. I I I think most people are
not like that. I think most people maybe
have a s here's a great example last
night or no two two nights ago um before
I came to LA I was having dinner with
another kind of billionaire friend of
mine who started a decacorn
and it was clear that he wanted to start
a company uh but he was kind of caught
up in investing or or caught up as a
role as an investor and so maybe for you
there's an even higher leverage thing
that you could be doing or or there's a
specific way you could be running this
podcast in a way that you're not doing
>> because you are so committed to a
certain way that things are are done.
Does that make sense?
>> I think that totally makes I think your
habits themselves can trap you. Like a
habit that I'll admit traps me is I stop
working at 7:00 p.m. every single day.
Um or I I stop doing like any kind of
deep work at 7 p.m. every single day.
But the issue with that is that I have
perma trapped myself in a space where I
can't open up those hours um to work and
I know that that's like a crutch for
instance
>> or or or even this the stronger thing
might be um again we talked about uh two
episodes a week um that's your kind of
goal and for me I had a goal before I
said for me it's only one episode a week
because they're much more scarly and and
then I said well why is that well it
it's just a number that I that I put up
for myself. It has nothing to do with my
revenue. Like it actually has nothing to
do with the actual growth of the channel
because it's so powered. So you much
rather do one great one every 3 months
than do one like bad one like every
week, right?
>> 100%.
>> And and so my point is
there are a lot of like clearly you and
I are already doing things that are very
close to the ideal. But when I talked
with the best performers and they really
thought about where they were being
timid, where they were still not going
allin,
they could usually point to very quickly
like, I don't know about this. Like it's
never it's never like, you know, you're
flipping burgers at McDonald's and you
have a physical paralysis, right? That's
not the level that I'm talking about
here,
>> right? I'm seeing someone who's already
performing at a high level like you are
who maybe because he's performing at a
high level you're getting all of this
encouragement society is saying this is
great this is this is great this is the
Vagner example this is niche example if
you looked at Nichza when he was our age
you would have said what a great high
performer he's youngest professor at
Basel he's writing all these things with
with Vagner but he was only he would
have been an ant to compare to the
intellectual giant that he became given
that he followed
what he was called to authentically.
Does that make sense? Like I'm not
saying you there's a radical shift in
your life coming necessarily and you got
to drop the podcasting tomorrow.
>> I'm saying even for the highest
achievers that I found, they're still
letting some mimemetic forces determine
either what activities they do or how
they're approaching the certain
activities that are
blocking them. and not just blocking
them 10 20%. But blocking them from
achieving something that could be
extremely unique and individualized. I
think my healthy prescription to this
antidote and I often don't offer
ideas like this, but uh I think it's
just chase being the best at the thing
that you want to be the best at and then
surround yourself with people who do not
tell you that you're the best at the
thing. Right? Because the trap that
people often fall into which makes them
question what they're doing is people
telling them that they are the best at
the thing instead of telling them that
they could be doing better. Right? But I
think a large question that our audience
will have and maybe my question for you
is how do you like what do you choose to
be the best at? Like this is this is my
my my proddding for this entire kind of
discussion which is where do you want to
row? We're not talking about how, right?
All the guests that you have on or the
popular guests that I've seen teaches
you how. Women, money, fame, power. I'm
asking the where. Where do we want to
go? How did you set up your goal of
becoming a YouTuber? Is that the right
goal? Is that the only goal? Should you
be doing other stuff instead? Should you
are you blocking enough enough time for
creativity to emerge so that this thing
can really grow in a unique way? But the
most unsatisfied people I've met are not
rowing
on anything.
>> Uh yeah. Yeah. And maybe the second most
unsatisfying because they're a bit older
are people who wrote at the wrong
things. There's a kind of Okay, so I I
definitely agree with you. Not rowing
bad,
>> right?
>> But I'm also saying rowing on the wrong
thing can really get at your soul. And I
saw again a early version of this when I
was at Columbia when I saw people at
Goldman um McKenzie, they were just
climbing a ladder they didn't want to
climb. And by the way, and I'm not I'm
not going to name any names. I was just
been talking to some of the biggest
creators in our space.
>> And they told me a rougher similar thing
that the magic is kind of gone. They're
just trying to increase their numbers.
That the love and spark they had for
their project is slowly kind of dying
out.
>> But that just it just feels like red car
theory to me. Like meaning what?
>> Like it's it's just because some they
had someone in their life identified
that they might not be doing the right
thing because they weren't getting
rewards from it in the first place,
which is
>> Oh, but but they are these people are
extremely successful. The people I'm
talking about are like at the peak.
>> I'm saying the people they're
surrounding themselves with weren't
getting appropriate rewards from the
activity they were doing. So they made
them think that they weren't working on
the right path. It's like if I said,
"Jonathan, did you did your head kind of
hurt today?" Like there's a chance that
you kind of start to like, "Did my head
hurt a little bit today?" Because it's
so common. Like it probably did hurt
like maybe it was the sun on the way
here, but like it's not real. It's a
fantasy being brought on to you by
others. I don't think people would have
any grievances with the actions that
they're taking if they weren't being
like reprimanded by the people around
them.
What do you say to
>> because it's mimetic, right?
>> But again, mimedic is just one layer of
how things influence us. There's also a
deep kind of like a deep intimate
experience we have,
>> right? But can you argue where that
comes from?
Uh well, let me ask you, let me ask you
this way. What do you say to the trope
of like the Goldman or the cons Goldman
or the consultant married to a trophy
wife clearly isn't interested in this?
He just keeps the job because that's
what what will keep him in his social
circle with friends that he doesn't even
like. What do you say about that life?
Do you say good for you cuz you're
rowing every day?
>> I can't imagine a person whose life is
going better. Honestly,
>> you can't imagine a person whose life is
going better than than an archetype of a
person that is super successful and has
all the material desires of the world.
>> Um, have you watched American Psycho?
>> Do you think you trade lives with
Baitman?
>> I think that's kind of like an extreme
example.
>> It is an extreme example. Yeah, I don't
think it's the most common example.
>> It's not the most common example, but
again, maybe this is just a difference
in experience.
when I've met these people very close up
and uh as I'm sure you have as well,
people who are extremely successful in
their fields, but they've rode in the
wrong direction for too long. It's
they're almost always miserable and they
have this deep regret. You actually gave
me one quote, maybe you can read it or
if not I'm going to try to paraphrase it
where Nichza says the most desolate
people that he's met are the people
who's ignored their genius.
And and there's two ways to ignore their
genius. One is to not row. That's what
that's what you're suggesting, and I
totally agree with you. You have to row.
But another is to row in the wrong
direction. A lot of people, most people
I would say, are rowing in the
directions that society and people
around them have told them to. That's
safe. Um but but they know that they
shouldn't be. Yeah. I I also, you know,
I find it a bit astounding that that
you'd uh that of the the person that I
described, right, let's say he's a sent
he's a decillionaire. He's a partner at
Goldman. He kind of doesn't really like
his day-to-day job. He's going through
the motions. He has a trophy wife. Do do
you like hang out with your wife?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Imagine if you didn't like
hang out with your wife and like like
she was just there because everyone
would congratulate you and say, "Jack,
you really you really like you really
did a good one there." Like like you see
what I'm trying to say? So So maybe
maybe
>> I thought this was under the assumption
that he was making a bunch of money and
he chose to do that and he likes it and
he has a good wife and has good kids and
he likes them all. Oh, no, no, but but
but I'm I'm giving the thought
experiment and saying, "No, no, no. This
is a guy who chose it not because he
liked it, but because that was the path
that he was put on." And then I'm just
saying most people today choose their
activities not because they actually
like it, but because uh you know that
that's where inertia was carrying them
towards,
>> right? Right. And so would you agree in
that kind of thought experiment where
trophy wife doesn't really like talking
to her, a bit annoyed, doesn't really
like the job he's going, but he's
extremely successful. He's on Forbes
covers all the time. Would you say that
is a life kind of worth living or do you
think there's something wrong with that?
>> I think the happiest people are
contrarian.
Yeah. So it would be the people who
don't fall victim to mimemetic desire.
>> Yeah. who are pursuing kind of their own
thing or or or their authentic kind of
kind of thing. Right.
>> Right. But that in of itself, I mean,
that's just that's a character trait
like like you can't argue that they're
chasing like some kind of free will, you
know,
>> in what sense?
>> Because I mean that behavior is still
like either genetic or uh like nurture
influenced. Well, I I just told you that
I I was an extremely mimedic kid kind of
like growing up. Um, but through a lot
of this, I mean, I'm still quite heavily
mimedic now and prestige seeeking, but I
think I've changed considerably the
thing that I'm I'm going after. And I
think there's a lot of free will in even
deciding.
>> But you're chasing genius, which is
mimedic itself, right? You're you're
just changing what the goalpost is.
>> No, no, no. Well, I I think the life I
want to live is a life in which uh even
if nothing survives from it, legacy if
if no one um it's like what I told you
between building the company and doing
my uh doing what I'm doing now even if I
win externally I fail building the
company
>> I want to live I'm not fully there I'm
more and more there I want to live in a
life in a in a way where me living it
like my life is so enjoyable and
affirmable
>> that even if I don't succeed I can
totally affirm
And this is one version of what NZ says
calls the eternal recurrence that if a
if an angel or a demon popped out into
existence and said you Jack you have to
live your life up until now the exact
same over and over again would you call
this this being an angel or a demon and
I think you'd want to live a life that's
so intrinsically meaningful in every
moment
that you say it was an angel that that
you can will this eternal recurring Oh,
let me let me try another angle of this
if you don't mind.
>> Right.
>> Before your wife, whom I met um last
night over dinner, you've had other
relationships before that were less
exciting or this there was less sparks
and stuff like that, right? Or or was
the first one?
>> I would say I'd had other relationships
that weren't uh as good. Yeah.
>> Yeah. And that's kind of a version of
what I'm saying. Like like think about
the difference between being with your
wife now who you actually love and and
and interact with who and who you enjoy
just spending time with them
irregardless of how successful it
becomes, right? You just like hang out
or with your friends who you just like
hang out with them regardless of the
kind of outcome. There's a way where
one's work or whereas one's career has
that relationship developed. And that's
what I'm trying to get at. I I'm trying
to find something that I that I love and
that is so authentic to me that I'm just
willing to just do the activity. C can I
give you another example that the
Tibetans have this creation of art
called the sand mandela where they
create this most beautiful and in
intricate work of art through sand and
they spend sometimes weeks creating it
and then they brush it all away and it's
for them it's a teaching of of
impermanence right now I don't have that
this is in stark contrast to how I want
my content to be right now right now I'm
living life to create that permanent
video that lecture that will live after
me you see I'm trying to say this is
almost a religious thing. I'm I'm giving
existential weight to something far off
away from me and I'm saying that
there's a way to live life in the other
way.
>> So are you optimizing for happiness or
peace?
>> Uh definitely not peace. Uh and uh also
not happiness in the traditional sense.
I I I think I'm just optimizing for
and the most simple way is like just
living a life that I'm so excited to
wake up and do the activities in
themselves. You know, think about how I
described me pursuing my first failed
company. I was waking up. I was
dreading.
>> So, you're optimizing for energy.
>> Um,
you know, if I can just if I can just
pinpoint to one thing.
>> Zero regrets.
>> Uh, not not not really. Again, if I can
point if I can just point to one thing,
it it wouldn't be that that kind of
interesting. It it's more of the feeling
that that I'm trying to communicate,
like something that I'm so willing to do
and that is so uh authentically uniquely
mine that I don't even care about what
the external kind of consequences are.
And it could look very different. It
could be, you know, today I'm going out
with a girl, tomorrow I'm traveling, the
other day I'm making a movie about
something or I'm I'm reading a book. But
I'm trying to um
kind of like re reclaim my own life if
that if that makes sense. I've almost
lost the life. And again, I don't think
I'm alone here. I think I'm just the
canary in the cold mine.
I think so many people live their lives
externally, whether that's projecting it
outwards towards legacy or that's caring
about how it would be perceived and I'm
trying to turn that inwards. Okay, let
let me ask you a question here.
How many of the previous conversations
you've had would you still have had on
your podcast if it weren't uh published?
If it weren't published.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Or if you couldn't publish
it. If you couldn't publish it. Gosh, I
hate to go hormone mode on you. I just I
just reject that premise. That doesn't
seem worth considering.
>> Just entertain the thought experiment.
What I'm trying to say is
>> is this a world where money doesn't
exist?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Let's say Yeah. or or like
like how many of the conversations that
you had in the past uh let's say 10 20
episodes would you have had had
regardless if it went on air?
>> I just don't think that's a fair
question because it's not the game we're
playing.
>> Okay. Well, maybe I can answer it for
you where that number for me has slowly
decreased and decreased. And this is
remember how you asked me how do I know
if I'm doing a desire for my for its own
sake versus for the social effect. This
is a thought experiment you can run on
yourself. like if this conversation
wouldn't have happened, wouldn't be
recorded, would you still have gladly
had that? And for me, the answer is yes,
because I think I'm talking to a friend.
I think I worked out a lot of the things
that I'm wrestling with. Um, but for a
lot of the interviews I was doing was
no, because what I cared about was the
ultimate publishing and getting the the
the rewards from that. Do you think
anxiety is just not knowing what to do?
>> I I don't I don't know. I I
>> would you describe yourself as an
anxious person, a person with OCD?
>> Uh not particularly and less and less so
even if I were. Yeah.
>> What tendency do you think you have?
Megalamomania like like ego mania. H
>> yeah that's the pride part. That's why
the Christian the Christianity was so
helpful for me because it it it poked it
poked in my pride as well as Buddhism.
And by the way, that pride is what
causes me to externalize my life so
much, to care about people's opinions um
and what I'm trying to wrestle away
from. So, when do you feel most
productive?
>> I don't know if I'm trying to go for
productivity. Um because productivity is
about the kind of the kind of outcome
here. I think like what's the kind of
day that you look back on and you're
like, "Okay, that was good."
>> Yeah. You know, it's it's it's days when
I'm
it changes. It changes like like and
there's there's uh seasons for
everything. Sometimes I want to off
in the woods and I just want to read by
myself. Sometimes I want to spend all of
it partying at a rave. I had such a
great time two two weekends ago at
Experts Only Partying with a few
friends. It's different. But this the
similar thing for all of them is
that day in itself, regardless of the
consequences of what comes out of that
day, the deals, the the money, the
posting on Instagram is worthwhile in
and of itself. And whenever I have a day
where I feel exhausted, I feel only
validated on on a film shoot, if the
thing eventually goes out and does well,
that's when I know my life is getting
hollowed out. Does that make sense?
Think back to the couple. Every couple
that I know who posts like overly loving
stories and an overly strong frequency
on Instagram almost all the time they
break up
>> because it's because the reason they
post that is that the relationship
itself is not strong enough to validate
them. And I think this goes for many
things in life. If the thing in itself
is not motivating enough for you, most
people need to look at the external
things. This could be money. This could
be uh uh the consequences. It's an
interesting idea. Yeah, I
I don't think that that concept
particularly resonates with me at this
season. Yeah, maybe maybe we'll later.
Maybe we planted a seed. I've always
been such a
I don't want to say laser focused
because it sounds self agrandizing, but
like uh mono focused individual and I've
met a lot of individuals who remind me
of you. And for those types of people, I
think the best advice I've heard was
just do everything. Uh, and I think
something you said as well was like
people who are competent should just do
what is fun and then people who are
incompetent should do what is normal.
Something like that. Uh, and I think
that's pretty wise advice. I me I have a
bias toward thinking that people aren't
taking enough action uh largely. But
that's and and um I I'll just say I'm
extremely kind of uh monopocused, but I
think I'm overly monop focused. I mean,
if I wasn't mono focused, I wouldn't
have, you know, gotten the full ride to
Columbia. I wouldn't have been able to
build the kind of content engine that I
have now. I wouldn't have been able to
start the company. But the only thing is
that maybe this will resonate you um in
in another season is that people who are
so monopocused there,
they we can tend to miss the forest from
the trees sometimes. Yeah. as it
pertains to your uh truth-seeking
journey. Jonathan, you said, quote, "I'm
desperately trying to be religious for
reasons that I won't go into."
Why are you desperately trying to be
religious? I'm desperately trying to
find out religious truth. Um,
you know, growing up effectively atheist
in in high school, being again a science
STEM kid, most of us think religion is
this silly thing that that we can just
safely toss into the trash bin. And
given my struggles and seeing Gerard,
how important that was for me. And then
reading other Christian thinkers like
Augustine was my other other favorite.
Augustine and Dante Kurkagard
and then also being exposed to Tibetan
Buddhism. That was the other strand that
I really went down on. Um I eventually
practiced for a few months uh two months
at a Tibetan monastery in Nepal. I
realized that there was something there
that this is not the simple easily
dismissible thing that people like us
who are taught in the scientific age
make religion to be. And I suppose if
the if there really is the next life or
the afterlife, if one of the religions
are true, it would probably one of the
most important things to figure out,
right? Like eternity in hell or or or
reincarnating in the hell realms for
eons. Like that's a that's a big thing.
I will say one caveat that I'm going to
eventually circle back to but and then
I'm going to continue telling the story
which is
my interest in exploring religion has
gone down drastically in the next life
since reading na partially
there was a small part of me that was
using the next life as a crutch
to avoid doing what I need to do in this
one and this is nch's concern about all
kinds of religions
beyond whether they are true or not. If
you have a next life, you might not live
as vivaceiously in this one. And for me,
again, this is a small but but but
noticeable part. A large part of my
directions were pursu were to pursue
questions of the next life because I was
avoiding action kind of in this one. And
by the way, that's another part you
should have a lot of grievance or
concern to as I do looking at my
Christian friends that they can almost
delay, right? like delay doing what
they're actually supposed to be supposed
to be doing. But I still have a very
strong drive. And so long story short,
if I had just encountered Christianity
through Gerard or Tibetan Buddhism, I
would probably have converted
immediately. But the issue is I found
both of them deeply compelling, deeply
relevant with things that the other one
didn't have or couldn't even touch upon.
And that becomes a problem. And it also
becomes a problem that there are other
major world traditions, Judaism, Islam
that have competing claims.
And at a certain point, the Abrahamic
religions just say, "Well, you need to
have faith." And my question was not
whether faith was valid. I I think it
is, right? We exercise faith every day.
You tell me come here at 1:30. I I have
to have some faith that you're you're
going to be here. But whether or to leap
and then I started doing one particular
interview that really shook my
worldview. It's with Carlos. If you
haven't interviewed him, I strongly
suggest him. He wrote wrote a book
called They Flew and that's the thesis
of the book. He's one of the most
wellrespected historians uh tenured at
Yale and he wrote a book defending
levitation in medieval Europe. He thinks
he has a pretty knockown argument for
why most rational people after reading
his book should believe that a certain
small subset of monks uh levitated. Uh I
I I'll maybe I'll briefly reconstruct
the argument just so people don't think
I'm completely crazy. Uh it was
published by Yale University Press.
Basically I think this is the 18th
century the process of Catholic
canonization. This is in order to become
saint of a saint became extremely
rigorous in response to Protestantism.
And so when you start doing miraculous
activity, when you start like levitating
or first of all, most people try to hide
it, right? Like we think, oh, these
religious people, they're just trying to
show off or they're they really want to
promote this. A lot of them try to hide
it. And the reason is because you start
attracting the the inquisitors. And the
Catholics are almost more interested in
weeding out false miracles because for
them it's not only like miracle or a
scammer, it's miracle scammer demonic.
>> Mhm.
>> And so the Protestants and the Catholics
had this big battle over like our like
your miracles are demonic. No, no, no.
Your miracles are actually demonic even
if they're legitimate. And the TLDDR is
um there's a this process of
interrogation weeded out a lot of
frauds, scammers, but it preserved um a
few a handful of monks uh and nuns. St.
Terresa Vavala, St. St. Francis uh St.
Joseph I think of Certino where everyone
claims that they levitated and we have a
direct paper trail of that. So after
they they died, I think the Inquisition
would interview as many people as
possible that that has seen these
people. And these would be across
continental Europe. And um they would
say, well, you know, tell me. And the
people would swear on their souls,
right? The believers swearing on their
souls. I saw XYZ. And this weeded out a
lot of frauds, but for again a handful
of monastics, people were saying I saw
them levitate in places where it could
not have been faked. Are you convinced
that people have levitated?
>> Um,
yeah, I think so. I think I'm quite
compelled by that argument. I I now that
I've investigated more of the what would
you call serious empirical
investigations into the supernatural,
I'm I'm actually going to go back to
Yale and I think I'm going to grill
Carlos a bit more. But as a first stab,
I think this is data worth considering.
This is not just like easily
dismissible. like or or to put another
way, you have to give an alternative
explanation of why these thousands of
people in the inquest swearing on their
souls would all say that they levitated
to no benefit of themselves to to
interrogators who were deeply critical
and suspicious. And so um anyways, I I
encountering that further deepened my
push into the oh my god there could be
something here, right? Because in
college I was attracted to these
religions because of their ethical and
psychological teachings. But now I'm
like well no metaphysically there might
be something here. But that didn't
convert you to Christianity.
>> No for the simple fact that I there's
all kind all the traditions have
miracles like and a lot of them are very
well attested.
>> What's the miracle you're most convinced
has happened?
>> Uh probably reincarnation. So, uh,
University of Virginia, again, I kind of
focus my my my research into these like
very credible labs run by like
non-religious people. And the founder of
Xerox endowed a lab at UVA called DOPS,
DPOS, and they've studied two things.
They studied near-death experiences and
they studied cases of reincarnation for
the past 60 years. On the reincarnation
side, it was founded by a gentleman
called Ian Stevenson. What they what
they did was they would collect anytime
they would hear of a reincarnation case.
They would go there and investigate it.
And they've collected about 2,300 cases
in their database. And these this is not
like I was a firefighter. I was like
this is like my name is Brad Lee. I
lived on XYZ Street. I'm like now you're
like okay well this must just be the
parents wanting to be famous or you know
people misremembering stuff. There's a
subset of that database where the
children make claims, specific claims
about their past lives and then the
researchers get there before the
previous personality was identified. In
other words, there they can be right or
wrong. This is like a this is like a
test, empirical test. And there's about
I think 33 cases where there's written
documents,
some from the family, but a lot of them
from the researchers themselves that
would then again be true. 33 cases of
kids saying, "This is what happened to
me." And then them later going back and
saying, "Oh, this was a real person."
>> Exactly. Like like like like there being
written documentation of what the kids
were saying before the person was
identified. So most of the cases, right,
that they hear about is the person
claimed this and in that circumstance
they would kind of interrogate everyone
around it. And you got to keep in mind,
so first of all, a lot of this happens
in non-reincarnating cultures, America,
Europe, and even in reincarnating
cultures, a lot of the times the parents
don't want
this to be true because usually the the
kids will say, "You're not my real mommy
and daddy." And like there would be a
sense of like distancing.
>> And on the other side, a lot of the
families don't want to identify the kid.
They have pressures not to because
they're worried about like inheritance
and like financial support. So there are
social forces where people are
encouraged to play the case up. There's
all there's a lot of social forces also
to play the case down. So anyways, if
you look at the majority of the cases
which again a lot of them are well
doumented, the the researchers would go
and ask like all the 20 or 30 people
about what the kid said, try to verify
the testimony just like the gospels,
right? Testimonial account. But there's
a small subset, less than 1% of the
cases where the researchers managed to
get to the kid first and they record
like 50 statements. My name was XYZ. I
was in this movie. If people are
interested, one of the most compelling
cases called Ryan Hammond, which is a
kid uh who claimed that he was uh like
an extra here in Hollywood. And he
identified a person. He pointed to a
person of an extra, a movie extra um and
said, "Uh, mommy, this was me in like a
previous life." But no one knew who that
person was because he was just an extra.
And he rattled off like statement after
statement like, "Uh, then I founded a
really creative agency. My wife drove a
black car." Um, like very specific
things like uh the street I lived on had
rock in the name. And and again, not all
of these things would be true. like some
would be like misremembering, but a
surprising amount of details would would
hit for a lot of these cases that I
think go beyond chance. I want to
clarify on these cases that you looked
through, was it typically like a one
generation separation, a multigeneration
separation, a multi- I don't want to get
too woo on my show anymore, but uh like
dimensional planetary separation like
was there a common theme?
>> Um, it was usually one life away. It was
usually just the previous life that was
remembered like they died and woke up as
the kid. Yeah. Yeah. But but there's
usually an an intermission period that
that was let's say few few months to a
few years. One of the cases that I
looked at was like uh like 50 years. Uh
and that was like hundreds of miles away
like a kid from a more rural part of
Turkey saying that he was from Istanbul.
And there he listed his neighbor's name.
He listed the exact house that he was
in. He listed his own name. He said that
his his wife's family was Greek
Orthodox, that he was Armenian. That's a
very unlikely combo. And he would rattle
off all of these details where I think
Chance is out of the question. You you
have to say something like the the the
experimenters are lying. And given my
again, I've spent three or four weeks
investigating that data. I don't think
that's the case. Mhm.
>> So again, for each of the cases I point
to, I can give you an explanation for
how this comes to us normally. In the
case of the Turkey case, I would point
to the interpreter. The the interpreter
wants to get paid more, so he made all
this up. In the Ryan Hammet case, I
would point to the fact that out of the
200 details that he listed, uh, about 50
were verifiable, like 40 were true, 10
were like not right or almost right. And
I would say, well, but if you match it
to 200 200, you'd probably find that in
other places, but there gets to a point
where like there there's so many of
these that that you really have to like
like saying that it comes from normal
means would almost be more miraculous
than saying that than just saying that
the phenomenon which it suggests
indicates that it's true. The other set
of phenomenon that they really explored
at uh uh UVA was near-death experiences.
Oh, can I say one more thing about the
reincarnation thing? So one of the
things that's really convincing is that
that small subset of 1% where the
researchers arrive uh first in destin on
destination. Um another set is about 10%
of the cases has a birthark or or birth
defect that matches
usually a the death wound of the
previous personality. So if their hand
was cut off during the f kind of fatal
wound then they would born be born
without uh like an arm or something like
that. It's usually not that drastic.
It's usually like the birth mark matches
like the gun wounds or or something. And
so again, that that's something where
you're like, okay, well,
people aren't making that up. You can't
just create birtharks, right? Uh and
then on the other side, there's an
autopsy that these researchers
investigate. They get oftentimes they
get the autopsy from the medical
records. And so the the room for fudging
the data there is is much smaller. So,
so but but again for investigating these
things and there's so much I haven't
investigated like uh the parasychology
research coming out of Duke uh JB Ryan's
lab there's remote viewing stuff which
I've only barely investigated but you
really need to have your wits about you
when you investigate these things
because there's so much probably sciops
people like like people who are just out
there for sensationalism and however
it was through my exploration of these
That deepened my desire initially for
answering the religious question.
If it's true that there's going to be a
next life, I sure as hell want to know
how to prepare or what's going to happen
to me. Again, the issue has always been
I find too many religions convincing,
not too few.
>> Right?
>> And in their orthodox explanations, they
can't all be right. When you ask a
Christian what's going on with the other
religions, they usually say, I mean,
they don't really do this anymore, but
they tended to say they're demons.
They're hallucinations.
Now, they might say they're lesser
revelation. But guess what? That's what
the Buddhist says about the Christian.
Not that they're demons, but they're
lesser revelation. That Jesus was merely
a bodhic sappa. This is what the Indian
uh says about um uh uh Jesus, that he
was a you know, he was a incarnation of
Vishnu or something like that. But you
know you have to differentiate right is
Jesus the tri you know the trinitarian
god or not
I've made a lot of progress I think
studying comparative religions I I think
one issue that especially a lot of
people in the west make when they try to
convert to Christianity or usually it's
Christianity because it's the west is
that they only investigate the
convincing data from Christianity like
the resurrection of Christ and there
it's going to be really convincing
because again I I'm pretty sure
something happened there that was like
supernatural. But guess what? Every part
of the kind of Jesus story has a kind of
corlary like uh forgetting sins. This is
something that happens in shamanic
religions. The body disappearing, that's
a phenomenon somewhat well documented. I
haven't looked too much into it. Rainbow
bodies with Tibetan llamas when their
bodies shrink and like evaporate. After
death apparitions when when people tend
to see a person who who just passed
away, that's been again well documented.
I I haven't looked deeply into any of
this, but my point is you don't have to
say the Christians are lying. Agreeing
that some of the miraculous things
happened as the Bible says does not
necessarily make you a Christian.
Certainly not a trinitarian Christian.
Um because there's of course a big
debate about whether Jesus is actually
God. There are some passages where it
seems like he says he is, some where he
he he explicitly says we're we're two
different kind of kind of entities. And
you know it wasn't settled until the
council of Nika when people uh you know
concluded that the other the other
interpretations were heretical when most
of my friends before they convert to
Christianity. I mean one issue is that
they convert in their lowest time and I
think they're coping in some way. Uh
another issue is that they only properly
explore the convincing things about one
religion. Uh and my push is well have
you looked at the other ones? Because in
the same way a Jesus a Christian would
look to a Jew and say, "No, no, you're
you're you're almost right, right?
You're almost there, but we have the
final kind of revelation." That that's
kind of what the Muslim says to the
Christian that look, your texts have
been corrupted. We have the final text.
Or that could be what a Buddhist says to
the Christian as well. Like Jesus was
telling you a lower version of the truth
because the people then couldn't handle
it. We have the full truth. So if you
haven't really looked into that and
again these aren't like fringe cults
then how can you comfortably make that
that leap of faith?
>> I guess one thing is when I look at
multiple religions and when I look at
also secular versions of the miraculous
phenomenon that a lot of them use to
prove their divinity. Um, I tend to
think that
there's there's there's probably
materialism is almost certainly wrong.
There's probably some kind of
supernatural framework that the
religions are accessing, but then they
turned their specific culture into this
dogmatic kind of kind of thing. Um, and
then we can talk about
why I've moved further away from each of
the specific religions that that pulled
me most, which is Christianity and
Buddhism. So for Christianity, I spent
uh I think a couple of a couple of weeks
almost a few a few months earlier this
year looking at the book of Daniel. So
the book of Daniel is an Old Testament
text. And I'm pretty convinced now that
the book of Daniel is actually a 2
century BC text disguising itself as an
older text from the 6th century BC. And
the reason this is important is because
uh I think this is in Daniel 10, but
Daniel perfectly elucidates events that
that happen from the 6th century to the
2nd century. If this is a sixth century
text like like it basically predicts
Alexander the Great, it tells you
exactly how Alexander the Great's
Macedonian empire kind of kind of breaks
up. It tells you the battle between the
Egyptians and the Seucids.
If this is actually a sixth century
text, like this is just literally
prophecy. Like like there's no way
around it. This is just like
cold-hearted accurate prophecy. If this
is a second century text, what this
means is that they disguise it's called
exeventu prophecy. They they disguise
history as prophecy. And importantly, if
it's a second century text, and we don't
have to get into why, they got a key
part of the prophecy wrong. Namely,
Antiochus Epiphanies does not die where
he's supposed to. So, not only do you
have wrong prophecy in the Bible, you
let in like a a wrong prophecy and like
a fake book essentially that's not from
Daniel at all.
Jesus also quotes Daniel quotes this
false prophecy. He says something like
when you see the abomination of
desolation that the prophet Daniel
speaks of like run for the hills. He's
talking about the apocalypse. But if
this book is a second century book, that
prophecy is not only wrong, it refers to
events in the second century. And so
that means Jesus also got the prophecy
wrong. And so I because this is such an
important kind of a issue for me as a
Christian seeker. I spent a lot of time
talking to all the apologists like all
the Christian apologists who spent their
lives on Daniel and all the critics. And
I've come pretty squarely on the side of
the critics. This is a sec second
century text. And so I mean because of
that I my conclusion there isn't Jesus
didn't perform his miracles or even that
he didn't come back to life. But is he
the type of God the singular kind of God
who's who's supposed to be uh omniscient
that the Christians that Christians
today say he is? I highly doubt that.
I'm probably very far from that thesis.
Um
>> but it would be possible surely that
that someone just misattributed his
quote. Right.
>> Okay. That's totally fine. But that
creates a lot more issues which is what
else is misattributed. Right? If you're
willing to say and that the Catholics
aren't mo most Catholic Catholics aren't
that look someone just misattributed
this quote. Jesus didn't say the exact
same things. Well then if you take out a
few verses from the Bible
Jesus suddenly isn't the triune God.
What I'm trying to say is books
specifically
>> not just two books specific passages
within those books. I I think if you
give me the ability to take away 10
sentences from the New Testament, then
suddenly your ground to argue that Jesus
is the Trinitarian God substantially. So
if you're willing to say, "Oh, but don't
worry, someone just got got this thing
wrong." First of all, you still have to
deal with the fact that there's false
prophecy in your holy book, right? Which
is what the Muslims claim.
>> They were the last books written as
well, right?
>> Daniel.
>> No. So, uh, the ones that said that
Jesus said he was God essentially.
>> Uh, that is the historical claim. I I I
haven't really looked into that but but
yeah one of the claim is what is called
chris uh I think it's called
christologology um the christologology
gets higher and higher meaning like in
the beginning Jesus doesn't really say
that I'm god in fact he has statements
saying look me in the like for example
um this actually relates to the
apocalypse he says something like the
time and the hour something like the
week and the hour where the apocalypse
comes no one will know not even the son
but only the father okay that that
creates a pretty big problem, right?
Like like if they're trinitarian, then h
how does that work? Um and there are
passages where he explicitly says uh not
not I but the father is responsible
there,
>> right?
>> He prays right in his in his uh
execution uh oh god, oh god, why have
you forsaken me? Uh or father, father,
why have you forsaken me?
>> But in the later books, he simply he
seems to suggest that that he is the the
trinitarian god. And so again, that's
also like suspicious, right? like that's
like hm I I could see how social forces
kind of created something like that. So
I I guess what I'm trying to say is my
investigation into religion and I can
talk a bit about Buddhism there has both
given me considerable appreciation for
the the rich intellectual tradition that
has come out of it. It has led me to
believe that I think our current
materialist world is wrong and I'm going
about exploring this through these kind
of empirical methods and I've only
really properly explore the UVA data.
But it's also made me realize the
incredible social psychological forces
built that have built these religions.
Um that makes their orthodox forms I
think very suspicious. Yeah, I can touch
upon Buddhism and and my kind of brief
relationship with that if if you're
interested. But so just to pose a loop
on religion, do you believe in God?
And which religion do you think is
closest to the truth?
Uh yeah, terms are kind of so tricky
here. Uh I think
God, uh it totally depends on what you
mean by God. I I'm I'm almost certainly
convinced against the materialist
worldview. If you want me to be a bit
more precise, I'm intelligent design.
Supernatural. I'm
somewhat certain that I I'm as certain
that we're going to have a financial
crisis in the next 10 years as I am uh
that parts of consciousness precedes us
after death or something like that. to
like 70% kind of certainty, a 60% kind
of certainty, like not something I know
for a fact, but given all the data that
I've seen, um, I'm quite convinced. And
does that imply God? Not necessarily,
right? Because personality subsisting
after death, it could be we're in a
video game and then we just load into a
new character. Reincarnation,
classically conceived, for example,
Buddhism doesn't really have a god. Um,
the Buddha is not really a god. You and
I can can become Buddhas. uh in the way
that we can't become Jesus.
>> Um so I'm pretty convinced that
consciousness is not not localized to
the body. Um and
I'm pretty convinced that certain
empirical methods, I'm not saying that
science is the end all beall, but even
just through certain empirical methods
can tell us a lot about what this space
is. Um i.e. for example, uh what is our
telepathic abilities if anything looks
like? Well, you can run an experiment.
people have run experiments. That's one
of the next things I'm going to going to
look at which is um all the empirical
research uh for like card counting and
stuff like that done out of serious
labs. Um that's what the shape of my
religious interests are right now.
The two religions that pulled me most,
Christianity and Buddhism, I think
I'm somewhat distanced from them in
terms of their orthodox manifestations,
like the the classically conceived
Buddhism and classically conceived
Christianity. Um, I'm going to keep
investigating them. Um, because I think
there's a lot of wisdom to be found
there in the same way that I don't think
Gerard is right about everything or even
maybe the most important things, but
there's a lot of wisdom there. Um, and I
can't wait to explore the other
religious traditions. What's one thing
that Christianity taught you and what's
one thing that Buddhism taught you?
>> Christianity I think the key thing is
pride. Uh Augustine I think says
somewhere the city of God that pride is
the root of all of all sin. Um, and I
think its diagnostic of pride is very
interesting. And for Buddhism, I mean, I
found all of its analysis of suffering,
um, as well as the solutions around
suffering to be not just true, but deep
and profound. The meditative practices,
it's uh, metaphysics around emptiness,
right? This idea that things don't exist
in a solid way as as we think they do.
That's a very short version of it. Um,
but the issue I have with Buddhism is
that it projects that out to become
everything. That the four noble truths
is the existence of dooka of suffering,
the cause of suffering, the resolution
of suffering, and the path away from
suffering. But to me, a good life is not
just the removal of suffering. Um, and I
think Buddhism overemphasizes that. And
again, it it overemphasizes compassion,
I think, as it overelevates it. Not that
compassion has no role to play, but it
exaggerates it. So, it's a different
problem I have with Buddhism than I have
with Christianity. But I will emphasize
that even though I'm extremely excited
and it's one of my key interests of
continuing pursuing this religious path
both by looking at the classical
religions but also looking at empirical
investigations into the supernatural. My
desire for this has taken a much
secondary level to me trying to be live
a much more authentic life given
everything we talked about about
refinding a relationship between myself
and philosophy that has taken the key
prior key priority. Um Jonathan, why
does America produce so many
billionaires and so many school
shooters?
I think the entrepreneur and the
criminal is much closer than people
think. That both revel in deviating from
tradition and breaking molds. And in
some people who are competent, who have
the right life circumstance, that energy
directs them into entrepreneurship and
some in destruction. And you know, one
can point to things like therronos,
right? And people who are literal
criminals and previously great
entrepreneurs. And I think that's
actually a lot more revealing of the
archetype than people think. Peter Thiel
said in 0ero to1 that of the founders of
PayPal only two of them, so that means
four out of six built bombs in high
school.
So I think if you look at what the
school shooter is trying to achieve, if
you look at the manifesto of Elliot
Roger, right, one of these incel school
shooters, they are upset that they are
not properly being recognized by society
that they think of themselves so much
higher and greater and they want to do
some kind of in this case monstrous act
in order to get that attention. That
that is how I would describe that
psychology. And of all the founders that
I've met in Silicon Valley, it's very
similar. It's usually someone who did
not have success early on, certainly
romantic success, who was feeling that
they were being undervalued by society,
but because they were on a different
path, on a right path, because they had
skills that someone like Elliot Roger
never had, that avenue of proving
themselves, but through building a
decillion dollar company is open to them
in a way that they aren't. Another way
to frame this is if you live abroad from
America for a long time, what you'll
find very weird about what America tells
its youth is that you too can be the
president. You too can be a billionaire.
You too can be an Olympian. This idea of
encouraging
social mobility I think is very rare in
history. Right? Usually it's know your
place, know your cast, you're a
merchant, stick to that. This idea of
encouraging everyone that that you too
can become XYZ is not only rare in
history but is still rare today. And
however, when you tell an entire
population that it encourages
grandiosity, great dreams, a great
subset of that are going to be just just
be disillusioned because they realize
they can't achieve it.
>> A small subset is going to say, "Well, I
can actually do it." and those become
the the entrepreneurs or you know and
then a perverted set is going to say
well I too deserve that kind of
recognition and I'm going to win it by
hookah by crook. So that's why I think
it's uh they're much more that the
criminal and the entrepreneur are much
closer. Jonathan, what is the best piece
of advice you've ever received or read?
The best advice I've been consistently
given is to be less timid, to be more
courageous, and to follow authentically
what I want to be doing. And this is
returning to our conversation today over
and over again. However, I'm really
scared about sharing that too broadly
because I think advice is way too
personal um before you really know
someone. So whether someone is running
away towards something or running from
something, you can only really know
after you've spent a lot of time uh as
we did towards the end of the interview
today unpacking why someone believes
something.
So
I believe that what is good for one
person could be terribly damaging for
another or what might be even good for
one person in one stage of their lives
in one season of their life is terrible
for another. For example, uh as a
student, if you told me just be
courageous and do what do what you want,
I probably would have rebelled and
played video games all day and I
wouldn't have developed a fundamental
skill set that allows me to do what I'm
doing now.
But right now, I think I'm plagued by
too much of the timid habits that I had
back in my my student days where I was
just mono focused, grinding on one
thing. In some ways, this is a very
deeply inegalitarian intuition, a deeply
machine intuition, because I think
there's fundamentally different kinds
and caliber of people. For example, if
someone is of great talent, I usually
always tell them just follow whatever
their heart does, even if they want to
be a clown, because if they're really
good, they're going to be the best clown
in the world. And that's actually going
to net out great benefits, not just for
themselves, but for society as well. But
for most people, uh, I wonder if the
best advice is simply, you know, follow
the herd, do your 9 toive job, secure,
make ends meet. Um, simply simply
because, uh, you know, if you're not
extremely competent and you become a
clown, you're not going to be the best
clown in the world. And you might be
better doing your 9 to5 as an accountant
and then being a clown in on the
weekends. And so I think advice is way
too personal um to be just t taken and
given uh without applying it to the
person. The most common repeated message
uh or idea in the Bible is do not fear.
It's often quoted that it's repeated 365
times. I don't think that's the case.
Uh, from all the great philosophy books
you've read, what is the one universal
human truth that you think they have in
common? Man, I think I think
philosophers kind of disagree with each
other much more than they agree. I think
if you wanted to, you can find someone
who almost believes in anything that
there are time is infinite, time is
finite, there is free will, there isn't
free will, people are equal, people are
deeply inequal.
Maybe the common thing that I've drawn
from all of them is
the importance of philosophical inquiry.
the meta kind of level learning which is
all of this deep introspective work that
we we've been doing today and thanks for
for humoring me here when I was asking
you questions is ultimately some of the
most productive things we could be doing
especially for people like us who are
mono focused because philosophy is the
only discipline that tells us where to
direct our rowing whereas every other
discipline just tells us how to row
harder and I think every unit of my time
spent authentically engaging in those
questions
have just been um again, I don't even
want to say they've been productive or
fruitful. They've completely shifted
what I felt like I should be doing. And
uh yeah, maybe you'll get to a season of
life where where uh that resonates more
deeply with you and we'll have this
conversation again. I love that. I think
that's a great answer.
Yeah, I think a common theme among all
the religious texts as well besides do
not fear is
religion's useful. Um yeah or yeah yeah
philosophy is useful debate's useful.
Yeah useful is almost again playing it
too safe. Useful is like productive like
oh I'm going to get something out of
philosophy but it's it's it's really
that you know philosophy is going to
change me in some way. You get something
out of pickup artistry. you get
something out of uh investing.
The philosophy is supposed to change
you.
And that's that's the exciting and also
terrifying part about it that you have
to give up a lot about yourself. Like if
this thing could radically change your
life, then it's almost necessary to be
involved in it
for the better. Yeah. If you suspect
something could radically change your
life for the better, I think it's uh
you'd be a fool for for not uh for not
for not taking the the invitation.
I like that. Well, everyone, uh, this
has been your guest, Jonathan B. This is
the Jack Nail podcast. Where can people
find you? YouTube, probably. Jonathan B,
if they want long form stuff. Uh, my
Jonathan spelled in a very weird way. J
O H N A T H A N. Um, yeah, but I'm also
on major platforms, X, Instagram, Tik
Tok, all the good stuff.
>> Beautiful. Awesome. See you guys.
Appreciate it. Thanks, man.