S5E3 - The Collective's Dogma (Objectivist beliefs)

0:00 Kayla: I don't want to spoil the topic, but some of the things that you and I talked about early on that had to do with this topic did help change and shape some values that I still hold. And even though I'm, like, super anti erdomic, there's still values that I hold. Chris: Wait till you hear some of the quotes that I. Kayla: Well, I think that. Look, I think that they're bad people, and you'll tell me. Chris: Hold on, hold on. Kayla: But there are some things that I derive great value from in a very small way that I'll be interested to share with our audience when we get there.

0:58 Chris: I might be sipping coffee throughout. Cause I still got the fatigues going on. I'm gonna leave all this in. Kayla: No. Chris: Yeah. Kayla: No. Chris: Yep. Leaving it all in to let our listeners know that we're a little under the weather. Sorry I'm so sick. We're still gonna try to put out a good show. Welcome to culture. Just weird. I'm Chris. Kayla: I'm Kayla. Chris: And we are sick. I'm a game designer and data scientist. Kayla: And I am a television writer who is currently on strike. That's it. I walk 6 miles a day, and then I get sick.

1:40 Chris: Yeah. So we're coming off of it. My fatigue is a little better. You probably can't hear too much of my sinus stuff up. Kayla: Sound good? You sound good when you talk. Chris: That's what I feel like. I sound like, though. Kayla: What? I feel like I'm nervous for this episode. Chris: Why are you nervous for this episode? Kayla: I know what it's about. Chris: Yeah. It's huge. Kayla: And I know how much you've been working on this, and I am afraid to even do any banter. Chris: Kayla, I've been working on this for 20 years. Like, or more like, this is. I talk about this, I'll just. I'll bring this bit up to the top. Like, I. This is a episode I've been wanting to do since season one, and I keep pushing it because it just kind of feels, like, too big to swallow. And we'll talk about how we're actually gonna end up swallowing it. But before we do that, how do.

2:31 Kayla: You eat an elephant? Chris: That's the exact metaphor I use. One bite at a time. Cause my mom always used to say that. Kayla: Oh, does she really? Chris: Yeah. That's okay. That's one of our favorite things. You can eat an elephant one bite at a time. Kayla: Sage advice. Chris: Yep. And yet I still procrastinate a lot, so, anyway. But we've already welcomed you to the show. So let's get to some of the bizness. First of all, we have a new patron. I hope I pronounced this correctly, Pernill Apastrand. I believe it's actually norwegian based on, like, you can actually see the currency they pay you in. Kayla: Hell yeah. Chris: And I think that person paid us in, like, norwegian cross. So I think it's a norwegian fan, so.

3:14 Kayla: Oh, man. Chris: Hell yeah. Shout out to Norway. So, yeah. Thank you to Pernil Epistrand for becoming our patron. I also want to thank another one of our fans that. And actually, this is. This is related to our patreon. Another one of our fans. Dakota sent us an email about how excited she was about the previous episode, the ecstatic dance episode, because EDM and that whole sort of scene is something that she's really into. And so it really kind of hit home for her. And then she also had a suggestion for a topic. Well, I don't know if she was suggesting a topic so much as just, like, telling us about some interesting stuff, but then you and I decided let's do a bonus episode for that. So we did our last bonus episode on Patreon. If you're a patron, go check it out.

4:01 Chris: We did it on a DJ by the name of Bassnector. Kayla: And now I keep getting sort of TikTok. Fuck Bassnector. Chris: Spoiler alert. It's less positive than the episode that's plur itself was. Kayla: There's no plur involved. Chris: No, it's sort of anti plur. I don't know. It's not great. If you know anything about Louis CK, it's kind of like the DJ of Louis CK's or the Louis CK of DJ's. CK. DJ. Kayla: The Lewis ck of DJ's. Chris: That's a mouthful. Kayla: Yeah. Chris: Okay. Anyway, go check it out. If you're not our patron, go pay us money because we like it. And that's it for my. Oh, wait, no, I do have more business, actually. Do you have business before the rest of my business?

4:42 Kayla: I don't. Chris: Okay. I have additional business, which is just, you know, like, this is totally, like, soapbox of me. Kayla: Oh, my God. Chris: Which is really dumb. Kayla: Which is the only reason we have a podcast. Chris: This whole episode. Yeah, yeah. First of all, the whole podcast is just soapbox. And then, like, this episode is like, extra soapboxy. Kayla: Oh, God. Chris: But anyway, I just. I saw an interesting video the other day on YouTube. I did some cursory background to make sure it wasn't, like, totally B's. But, you know, the whole thing where like, oh, ancient greeks couldn't see the color blue. Kayla: That's why they write about the wine dark sea. Chris: That's why Homer could only write about the wine dark sea. And you know how were kind. Kayla: Of, like, never sat right with me.

5:22 Chris: Never sat right. Yeah. I watched a whole. Kayla: Not having a 20 minutes video, specific name for something doesn't mean you can't see it. Chris: And that's actually one of the. One of the arguments that this guy makes. But the whole 20 minutes video is just this, like, absolutely crushing debunking of that myth, so. It is. It is a myth. I won't go into all of it. Like, I'll link it on our Twitter or something. I'll go link the video. But it's. There's. I mean, it's. He actually attacks it from, like, five different angles. Like, one is kind of the angle that you just said is, like, just because you don't have a name for it doesn't mean you can't see it. Like, and that's proved by, like, us every day. Kayla: Right? Chris: Like, we don't have a name for light blue, but we see it. We do have a name for light Redh.

6:05 Kayla: Right. Chris: We see it, like, call it pink. We call it pink. That doesn't mean, like, oh, man, I actually. The light blue was invisible to me. Kayla: Right, right. Chris: So that's just the, like, even if you don't look at any other evidence, there's that, you know, sort of personal experience evidence. And then he also looks into, like, the original claim. Like, the guy that originally made this claim was like, I forget that. I forget his name. But he was, like, pointing it out. But he wasn't saying that the Greeks were colorblind in any way. That was something that was tacked on later. Kayla: Gotcha. Chris: And this implication that he never intended. Kayla: Gotcha. Chris: And then he goes into things like, egyptian blue was this really well known, highly sought after, highly traded pigment in the Bronze Age. And so that was all over the Mediterranean, including Greece. So if they couldn't see blue, why were they using it in their art?

7:00 Kayla: Right? Chris: And Greeks even had their own pigment. I mean, it wasn't as, like, you know, it wasn't, like, ooh, egyptian blue. Like, traded across the Mediterranean, but they did have other shades of blue that they were using. So, like, if they couldn't see blue, then how did they have multiple shades of blue? Kayla: Right, right. Chris: And it's. He goes into more. He, like, talks about color theory and stuff like that. But anyway, I will link it. I thought it was interesting and the sort of thought behind the thought here, I think when we talk about, like, well, what are our own blind spots? I think that this sort of, like, secret knowledge, like, counterintuitive fact. Did you know the ancient Greeks couldn't see blue? I think that type of stuff is something that people like you and I are more prone.

7:45 Kayla: That's why freakonomics and Malcolm Gladwell gets so popular, because that's the whole conceit of, like, oh, you think it's this? No, it's actually this. And that feels like a secret, hidden knowledge that appeals to the yous and mes of the world. And now, you know, we've grown beyond freakonomics and Malcolm Gladwell. And if you want to join us on that journey, just check out Michael Hobbs podcast. If books could kill, it's all just. Chris: An ad for Michael Hobbs. Yeah, but, like, that's the thing, is, it's. I think it's useful to be able to identify your own blind spots. And I think that's definitely one where I'm, like, more inclined to believe crap like that. Oh, did you know? And I mean, like, honestly, that's part. Kayla: And parcel of podcasting, when you say this thing of, did you know that the Greeks could actually see blue? My instinct now is to go like, I know I won't trust that until I verify for myself, because I'm like, is that the counterintuitive knowledge now? I don't know.

8:38 Chris: Yeah, I know it's a little crazy making with the cycle that you can get into there. But, yeah, we ran into this, remember, with the blood is thicker than water? And supposedly there's like, oh, did you know that the original saying is the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb? So it actually means the opposite. It means that friends are more important than family if you actually look into it. That's actually a more recent interpretation put forth by one particular author. And then it sort of gained traction until it became a secret, special knowledge thing. And now people throw that back and forth. And we also want it to be true depending on, you know, whether we value friends or family or more, we know, whatever.

9:21 Chris: Like, that's something that, you know, you can kind of have some motivated reasoning with. Right? So that's. And I. And I, again, when I first heard that, I was like, oh, interesting. Oh, my gosh. How counterintuitive. Kayla: Well, it makes sense, because what the fuck does blood is thicker than water mean? Like, how does that mean? Like, family is more important than anything else? Like, what's water. What are you talking about? But blood of the covenant is thicker than water of the womb. That, like, I go, oh, that makes sense, I guess. Chris: Yeah. The womb has what? But the womb has blood. I don't know. Kayla: No floating and pee when you're in the womb. That's what amniotic fluid is. Chris: It's pee. Kayla: It's pee. Chris: Get the fuck out of here. Is that. What is this, a counterintuitive thing? I don't trust anything. Pee. Kayla: I'm not kidding.

10:02 Chris: Yeah, cite your source. Is gross. Kayla: Being pregnant. Chris: Anyway, so that there's my. There's my little soapbox is I have managed to sort of identify a blind spot for me, and now I'm a little wiser because of it. Kayla: There you go, maybe. Chris: Question mark. You ready to get started? Kayla: Yes, ma'am. Chris: Can I talk in this voice? The rest of the whole thing? Kayla: Sure. I won't stop you. Chris: Okay, now let's come back down to normal. So let's get started because this topic is big. Kayla: I'm scared. Chris: As I mentioned before, and as I mentioned before, this is like, I wanted to do this literally even, like the beginning of the season.

10:43 Kayla: Yeah, it's been on the table since day one. Chris: Yeah. Kept pushing it off, I think. Yeah, it's. The size of the topic is part of why I kept pushing it off. And maybe also because it's, like, definitely a personal journey for me. It's a journey I've been on kind of my whole life, almost like my whole adult life, certainly. And it's something I've been thinking about a little bit extra lately. Mostly been thinking about it because, you know, I've been producing this episode, but partially also because I had a recent experience that kind of got me in touch with my inner young adult. So I recently visited my alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania, for my 20th college reunion. Kayla: Ooh, someone's fancy. Chris: I am a geriatric millennial 20th college reunion. Anyway, that's a place I hadn't seen in basically 20 years. And I saw some people that I also hadn't seen in an equal amount of time. And so I had a sort of, like, tulpa adjacent experience whereby my 20 year old self kind of, like, manifested itself in my head and we had some conversations about, like, the last 20 years of my life. I actually talked to a cult of just weird superfan tulpa expert about this. And the word that they used, which I really liked, was interpretive Persona. Ooh, yeah, yeah. I really like interpretive Persona because it did feel like it felt like a Persona that was there to help me interpret my experiences. And this because, like, we kind of fucking humanize everything, right? It's like. Right, like, that's kind of like, what?

12:12 Chris: Like, you know, deities are. Kayla: Right. Chris: Well, what's the o? The ocean is really fucked up. Let's make up. Poseidon kind of felt like that. So, anyway, me and this interpretive Persona, we discussed events, changes in my life, and, of course, values and beliefs. So before we continue, Kayla, I want you to do your best in this moment. Kayla: Oh, God. Chris: To kind of do the same thing. If you could potentially access your inner young adult. See if you can speak with little 20 year old Kayla, because I want you to tell me broadly how much you feel like you two have in common. And I want you to kind of specifically focus maybe on more belief systems and how they've evolved.

12:55 Kayla: I feel like this isn't fair, because. Chris: I almost told you ahead of time to prepare for this question, but I. Kayla: Didn'T want to, like, not fair for that reason. Not because of that reason, but because, a. I've had less time in between myself and my 20 year old self, and I feel like I've also. I've had a lot of changes in growth, but I feel like I've had different. Chris: Well, that's expected. Kayla: It is, but, like, when you were 20. When I was 20, I was, like, dating the person I was gonna look. Living with the person I was gonna marry. You know? Like, it was just slightly different when you were 20. Yeah, slightly different situation, actually. Chris: I guess I could access your inner young adult. You know, I could just ask her. Kayla: I mean. Okay, how do you know.

13:35 Chris: Never mind. Kayla: How do you. Fuck you. I also feel like this is easier for me because I think that your values are a bit more, like, nebulous and nuanced when talking to your toys. Chris: Oh, nebulous. What? Kayla: I mean, nebulous in a good way. Chris: So I just. I don't have any integrity whatsoever. Kayla: No, I think it's more of, like, a word cloud versus a laundry list. There's not value over. You know, word cloud's not better than a laundry list or vice versa. Chris: I don't know. Kayla: I think it's just pretty easy for me to go, like, hey, little Kayla, you know how you're a little, like, lefty? Yeah, more of that. Chris: Yeah, that. Except more of that. More.

14:17 Kayla: You know how you think you're liberal? No, you're not. You're still a fascist because you think you're liberal. Chris: You're gonna be 20 year old Kayla was fasci. Come on. Kayla: 20 year old Kayla was. Chris: Had some assumptions that maybe had a. Kayla: Lot of growing had a lot of growing to do in terms of what left leaning politics meant and what left leaning values meant, to the point where I don't even consider my values left leaning anymore. I consider my values, like, humanist and maybe anarchist and maybe a lot of other things that don't really fall on this kind of, like, I got off the binary, and I don't mean that in, like, I'm a centrist. I'm not a shitty centrist. It's just, fuck centrists. It feels like we're presented with an arbitrary choice that doesn't actually reflect how humans relate to each other. Like, I think that the left right political spectrum and politics and values aren't the same thing, but it's really easy to use one in a shorthand for the other, the left right political spectrum.

15:13 Kayla: It kind of forces a system onto people that is very dehumanizing. And so my values now are just more based on humanizing and community and, like, how do we. How do we take action to be more in community with each other? Chris: Mm. Mm. Yeah, I kind of feel the same, actually. I was talking with one of my friends that I hadn't seen in a very long time about sort of like, our. Our changes. Part of why I was. This is top of mind for me, right. Is because I was talking to this person about our. Our political changes, our outlook changes or whatever. And that was one of the things that. That kind of came up for me, too, was like, yes, I have gone away from the right. Cause this person was like, were sort of like republican buddies in college, right? And I talked about, like, oh, you know, I'm not anymore. What about you? And she was like, oh, yeah, I still am. And, you know, some of the discussion was like, yeah.

16:12 Chris: But I also don't really even feel like I'm, like, I wouldn't say like I'm a Democrat, either. Kayla: No. Chris: You know, like, I. It's. It's hard to describe. I think the way I described it to her was like, I feel like now, especially after doing this podcast, honestly, like, that, it's. It's less about left right culture war, and it's more about, are you terminally online? Like, you believe weird stuff, or are you, like, a normal person? Like, I don't know. Kayla: Like, no, for me, it. Chris: I know it's different for you. That's just. Kayla: Well, the thing that I think has been really formative for me is living in a city that, from an outside perspective, is like, ooh, that's a liberal bastion. That's a liberal stronghold. Chris: That'd be Los Angeles.

16:53 Kayla: Yeah. Los Angeles is like, ooh, that's a bunch of liberals. And learning what that means, learning how that manifests in this city, that doesn't mean that we have a great social safety net and public transportation is awesome and homelessness is taken care of and you can just get healthcare on demand. It means none of those things. Living in a liberal city. Chris: Yep. Kayla: Means that, sure, some things are different than if you were living in, like, a conservative, quote unquote stronghold, but these really fundamental things of, like, having access to shelter, having access to food, having access to healthcare, having access to services that are needed, those are all still really shitty. The reason we have a quote unquote homelessness problem in this city isn't because of right wing politics. It's because of left wing politics. It's because. Sorry. It's because of liberal politics.

17:41 Chris: Right. Kayla: And that makes me. It is undesirable for me to identify with a type of value system that would allow 100,000 people to be sleeping on the street. Like, I just don't align with those values anymore. Chris: Yeah, I think I was too in the weeds, maybe with. If you're too online. Cause I'm like, think. When I said that, I was thinking about, like, our interviews with the QAnon people who were, like, most of them started on the left, and then they joined QAnon, and then they were like, what are they? Are they left? Are they right? Are they weirdos? Kayla: Right. And that takes away the fact that, like, there's plenty of right wing people that were QAnon, too. Chris: Oh, yeah, totally. Totally. But, like, it's more of just, like, a. How do you. How do we reorient? So I think that the thousand foot view there is, like, the orientation is a little bit different now than, like, just left, right, or just Republican, Democrat.

18:29 Kayla: I value the library. That's what I value. That is my value. Chris: I'm pro library. Kayla: I'm pro library. Chris: It's funny. You will, for this topic today, some of the. You'll appreciate that they also really don't line up the way you would think on the sort of, like, left right spectrum. They're very counterintuitive unless you kind of look a layer deeper. But they would also be anti library. So, you know, let's. Kayla: If you're anti library, we can't be friends. I'm sorry. Chris: I know. I know. So do you think you've generally come to your current values and beliefs as being, like, absorbed from your surroundings, or do you think you've come to them by deliberating on the matter, by thinking on your ideas and experiences and deciding which things to accept and which to discard or maybe a combination?

19:18 Kayla: It's both, because I think, for me, it's like, I have also specifically sought out education on this, if that makes sense. I've read books that are. Chris: Oh, you've read books? Kayla: I've read books. Chris: You guys, again, pro library lady. Kayla: I've read theory on why. Why right wing libertarian ideals are good values. And I've read theory on, like, why, like, hardcore left wing, leftist, marxist, anarchist, whatever, values are good. So, like, part of it has been specifically, like, seeking out to think about these things. And then part of it is also making choices of who I take inspiration from. In terms of values, like who other than me? Okay. There was a really big shift from thinking of politicians in particular as where we get our values from. I don't get my values from politicians anymore. For me, there's no value to be had there in terms of morals. It's just. It's not where I derive my value system from. And instead, I tend now to derive my value system from organizers and activists who identify as, like, abolitionists.

20:37 Kayla: That's kind of, if I don't know what to think about something, I go look at, like, yeah, those. Those folks that I've identified as, like, I like the way that they think about these things. What do they think about this? How do I think about this? It's like, you kind of have to have a trust network for values. Chris: At least wait until the t word will come up. Kayla: Yeah, it's like, my value system is also similar to a trust network in that, yes, I've done my own research, quote unquote, but also I have to rely on the thinking of others. Chris: We all do. Kayla: Yeah. Chris: Yeah, it's. Yeah. Kayla: And I will say that my value system has been affected by you. You were one of the first, like, right wing, right leaning people in my life that I, like, took seriously.

21:18 Chris: That was a huge mistake. Especially. When did you meet me? I was 27. Kayla: Yeah. Chris: Yeah. No, that was stupid. Kayla: And you weren't even, like, right leaning at the time. You were a little bit, but, like, you weren't. You didn't identify as a Republican then, and you weren't voting that way then. Chris: But wait, when was that? Kayla: You voted for Obama. Chris: Right, but was Obama after Bush? No, after we met. Cause I voted for Bush and then I voted for Obama. Kayla: Yeah, but Obama was. I remember we sat down at a date and I tested you, and I was like, oh, so. Chris: Oh, you did? So everything how the crazy right wingers say about the, like, values litmus test. What if I failed the test? Was I gonna go to a gulag? If you were not, I've had to learn CRT.

22:03 Kayla: If you were voting for the McCain what's her face ticket, Sarah Palin, I probably would not have pursued things further. I was also a 20 year old. And you've changed a lot. I've changed a lot. I don't think me now would be interested in you. Then I'm sorry, but I don't want to spoil the topic. Chris: I'm not interested in you either. Kayla: That's fine. I don't wanna spoil the topic. But some of the things that you and I talked about early on that had to do with this topic did help change and shape some values that I still hold. And even though I'm, like, super anti erdomic, there's still values that I hold. Chris: Wait til you hear some of the. Kayla: Quotes that I, well, I think that, look, I think that they're bad people. And you'll tell me, hold on. But there are some things that I derive great value from in a very small way that I'll be interested to share with our audience when we get there.

22:59 Chris: We'll get to that. Kayla: We'll get to that. Chris: Our charismatic leader du jour has a semi well known essay about sort of this very thing we've been talking about, like how you come to your beliefs and is it important? What's important about it? It's called philosophy who needs it? Kayla: Okay, I'm so out. Oh, my God, I'm gonna throw up. Chris: Oh, yeah. Okay. Trigger warning. Cringe. There's this. Cringe abounds in this topic. I'm really sorry in advance, so just make sure you get your, like, cringe goggles on for the cringe splash. But she does have an essay called philosophy who needs it? Kayla: And philosophy who needs it? Ps, I'm a philosopher. God.

23:43 Chris: Well, of course she's gonna think of the thing that she does is important. Just let me speak. Okay. She posits in this essay that while most people and citation need it on most people, but it rings true to me. While most people view philosophy as ivory tower, fluff, impractical, superfluous, yada, yada, in actuality, philosophy is critically important to a life well lived. And where the rubber meets the road here is in the example I gave a minute ago, it's actually a good thing, an important thing to be thoughtful and mindful about what you value and why because that does underpin a lot of who you are and who you become and ideas matter. And that's a message that made a lot of sense to me as a young adult reading that essay. And it influences me to this day.

24:35 Chris: I like to believe anyway, that I am thoughtful about what facts, what ideas, what beliefs. I accept that I'm not just sort of like, going through life just, you know, absorbing, like, randomly things around me. Although other Republicans in my life definitely have blamed the California thing on my tip. But whatever, I which is just me. Kayla: Because, like, yes, again, California is, like, viewed as this, like, liberal bastion. But, like, if you wanted to be a Republican here, it's super easy. Like, there are oh, yeah, there are so many areas that are I grew up in Orange County. Chris: I spent half my time here in Orange county. Kayla: Yeah, hardcore republican area, like, competes with the quote, unquote, your ideas about, like, the deep south and that kind of shit.

25:17 Chris: Orange County, California is more republican than Orange County, Florida, which is where I. Kayla: Maybe not now, but back in the day, maybe. Chris: Well, yeah, that's true. It has leaned left lately. But, yeah, back to the point. Like, I like to think that I am deliberate and thoughtful about the things that I believe. Kayla: I think you are, too. That's one of the things that I like most about you. Chris: Thank you very much. The end. This has been called to just weird. Kayla: It is, though. Chris: Well, yeah. And I owe a lot of that, I would say, actually, to the author of this essay, and I think I owe a small but important chunk of my current values to that author as well. Some of her DNA is in this very podcast even now.

25:59 Kayla: Gross. Chris: Given everything that's happened. Kayla: Everybody knows who you're talking about by now. Chris: No, they don't. Oh, they will. But. Cause they're like, it'll be in the title. So whatever. This is why we do the cheeky titles. Kayla: The cheeky titles. Chris: Now, given everything that's happened over the last 20 years in our culture and our politics, probably not someone you'd expect. You'll expect it because you already know what the topic is. But if you didn't, you maybe wouldn't expect this. Like, after all, this author and her works have been well and truly absorbed by more and more radical right leaning factions. Specifically, the tea party fucking loves her. That was, like, a big thing with the tea party, as do some of the most epic shitheads this country has ever produced. Cough, cough. Donald Trump, Rex Tillerson.

26:47 Kayla: Who's that? Chris: That was the secretary of energy. That was like the Exxon war. Kayla: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Oh, God. Chris: Oh, yeah. He avowedly loves this person. If you recall Paul Ryan, if you don't recall Paul Ryan, I apologize for bringing that memory back. Kayla: How can I ever forget Paul Ryan and his, like, p 90 x glamour shots? Chris: So Paul Ryan is. It's funny. Like, he's obviously not as shitty as Donald Trump, but he's just. He was such a puke. Anyway, he loves her, by the way. Please don't stop. Listen. Please don't stop listening. If you're a conservative, if we even have any conservative listeners left, I do genuinely love you guys, too. And like, I. This really isn't meant to be anti, anti conservative screed.

27:29 Kayla: No, it's what you're saying is, like, the political, the politicians are not where we get our values from. We're going to talk about other places we get our values from. And, like, there are some. Chris: And I'm trying to highlight the unexpectedness. Kayla: Too, with all this. Chris: Right. She also has a bunch of celebrity fans. Only name a couple of them. Allegedly, though, among them are Brad Pitt. Kayla: What? Chris: Yeah, that was a surprise to me. Kayla: He sucks. Chris: Rob Lowe, less of a surprise. And of course, she's quite popular amongst the sea sweet folk and tech bro founders. Good example being Uber's founder, Travis Kalanick. Yikes. Kayla: Uber sucks. Chris: Yeah. Oh, speaking of Yikes, you know who else was a self admitted huge admirer of this person and modeled a lot of nexiums materials after their teaching? Yeah. Oh, I gave it away that it was Keith Ranieri.

28:23 Kayla: That's not good. Okay, maybe I need to, like, re examine the values that I still hold. But they're specific. The values. Chris: The world is complicated. Yeah, it's okay that you keep saying that because that's kind of theme. Now. I have to be fair here. Like, it would be a logical fallacy to dismiss someone's writings, philosophy, whatever, because of their most despicable fans. If were consistent with that rule, then it would wipe out everything and everyone. So I do have to be fair about that. Kayla: No, but like I said earlier of, like, you gotta look and see and you gotta see and you look. Chris: Yeah. Wow. I've never heard it stated better than that before. Kayla: It doesn't help. Chris: It's. Yeah, it's not a plus. Yeah, but it would also be wrong to categorically dismiss based on that. But it's a orangish yellow flag. Yeah, bread pizz. Definitely the worst person on the list. Being totally honest, I actually kind of just mentioned this. The reason I bring all this, like, this idiot fan club up is mostly a narrative choice to make it feel even more weird, by contrast, that this is something that I personally got into. This person and her works also tend to skew more popular with the youths than with the grown ups.

29:37 Kayla: Wait, really? Chris: Mm. And we'll talk about why that is. Sure. Okay, so what does that mean? Kayla: Like, what's a youth versus a grownup? Chris: It's younger. Younger people tend to, like, when you get into this person's stuff, it's like teenagers and college students more so than adults that get into it. Her audience skews younger. Kayla: This is interesting because everybody you named. Chris: Is older, and that's. Well, yeah. So not everybody discards it as they grow up. But what tends to happen, and this is confirmed both. Bye. People, critics and people that are, like, in the organization itself. Kayla: Right.

30:18 Chris: It does tend to skew younger. People do tend to find her when they are younger and kind of latch onto it then. And then as they grow older, sometimes they churn out. There's different reasons given for why that may be, but anyway, they skew young. And that, I mean, that goes well with my experience, too. Right? Like, that definitely tracks. I discovered her first novel, the Fountainhead, when I was a senior in high school. And again, we'll talk about why this is later. And her next novel was her magnum opus that outlined her system of philosophy she coined as objectivism. With a page count that makes you go and reinforce your bookshelves. And that book was Atlas shrugged.

30:59 Kayla: I feel like I wouldn't like that one. Chris: No, you wouldn't. Kayla: I like the fountainhead. Chris: Yeah. Kayla: I don't think I would have liked Atlas shrugged. Chris: I think you're right. Kayla: I never read it. Chris: I think you're right. Atlas Shrugged is much more on the nose. Kayla: The fountainhead felt like the fountainhead was. Chris: A piece of art. Atlas Shrugged was like a half a piece of crap, half art, half polemic. Kayla: The fountainhead felt like a guideline for how artists can value their work. Chris: Right. Kayla: And everything else. Like, I read that, and I was like, cool, great. And then I learned about everything else. I was like, I think I'm good. I think I'm done reading this stuff. Chris: As of 2022, Atlas Shrugs has sold about 10 million copies. The reason I'm saying that is because it's common to cite that Atlas Shrug is second only to the Bible in terms of popularity amongst readers. Whatever the hell, that means.

31:48 Kayla: What the hell does that mean? Who said that? Chris: But I actually couldn't find a citation to support that. And if you were measuring by total copies sold, then it's, like, kind of an absurd statement. Like, 10 million is definitely a lot. Kayla: Yeah, but Dan Brown kicks the shit out of it. Chris: But it's dwarfed by the Bible, is currently estimated at 5 billion and is currently. That's the top selling. Kayla: I think Agatha Christie, like, kills you. Chris: Yeah, Dan Brown is on there on the list. I think he's got, like, 80 million for DaVinci code or something. I don't know. And, you know, Lord of the Rings is on there, whatever. By now. Probably. Kayla: Maybe one day we'll do Lord of the Rings on this show. Chris: That's even worse. Maybe clear. Probably clear to most who I am talking about. So it is with sincere regrets, I must inform you that yours truly has been deeply influenced by none other than Nancy Reagan. Oh, Ayn Rand.

32:38 Kayla: You can do that again if you don't want me to do a joke. Chris: No, I mean Nancy Reagan. Yeah, totally. Her too. No, that was an appropriate joke. That's fine. No, Ayn Rand. Surprise. Kayla: You literally went wah in your voice. Ayn Rand. Chris: Okay, well, then maybe I should say that one again, because I don't want to give the impression that I'm, like, this is, like, entirely negative, actually, kind of the other way around. Kayla: I will. Ayn Ryan sucks, in my opinion, my personal opinion. Chris: Oh, good. Before we've even talked about it. Okay, got it. Kayla: I will also defend, you know, and this is total, like, white woman defense, but, like, she does get shit on more than men. Chris: Yeah, I think that's part of it. The critiques and reactions to her work is much later in this topic. Okay, so we'll talk more about that, for sure.

33:28 Kayla: Bad haircut, too. Chris: All right, come on. And this is an elephant of a topic. As we mentioned at the top of the show, we have a lot of ground to cover because Rand herself covered a lot of ground. So, as you said, let's eat this elephant one bite at a time. And I want to be clear that while I am indeed coming out here as an Ayn Rand fan, to our audience, she is an extremely mixed bag. And while I find the philosophy, who needs it? Bite of the elephant to be delicious and satisfying, there are other bites that are, let's just say, might cause an. Kayla: Upset tongue, tastes like poop. Chris: Let's just say that. Kayla: Hard to swallow. Chris: By the way, she's not the only person that says, like, philosophy is important. Like, I don't want to make that.

34:11 Kayla: I bet most philosophers have a similar creed somewhere. Chris: Yeah, exactly. So I don't mean to say, like, she's the only person that ever said that. Kayla: No, but it was where I was. Where you started. Chris: Right. All right, so let's. Kayla: Had you ever read anything like that before, besides, like, biblical literature? Chris: I don't think so. Kayla: That makes a lot of sense then. Chris: Yeah. So let's venture a bit. The Ayn Rand Institute, which we'll get more into later, but basically they're a 501 c three nonprofit. Irony. Kayla: I feel like that already is. Chris: Irony points there, if you know the topic content. But their goal is to promote Rand's ideas. Kayla: Their goal is to suckle off the. Chris: Government, teach what I hear, change the culture. And they smartly believe that the best bang for your buck is that, like, media free literature, and sending that stuff, especially to high school and college students, is the best way to do that. And they have a whole program for that, which I'll get into a bit more later as well. But right now, I just say this to set up a lecture series that was recently sponsored by Ari. That's Ayn Rand Institute, Ari, and an objectivist college club on a university campus. It was entitled the Defense of America Lecture series, Insert Grown here. I know. And the four lectures were entitled why are we losing the war on terrorism?

35:32 Kayla: What are you talking about? What is this? Chris: By Doctor Jerome Brook. Kayla: What? Chris: What does that mean? The war on militant islam. Are we winning? By Doctor Daniel pipes. Twin towers destroyed by the ivory tower. This is my favorite one. Twin towers destroyed by the ivory tower. How America's universities harbor ideas that spread terrorism by doctor Gary hall. Kayla: Are you kidding? That is so wildly disgusting. Chris: And then the fourth one is the moral case for supporting Israel by doctor Jerome Brook. And this one was actually even broadcast live on C SPAN. Kayla: They couldn't broadcast the other ones. I wonder why. Chris: Well, I just don't think they got interest. But there was. Kayla: I don't think you could broadcast something called ivory Towers. Twin towers. How academics bombed New York. Like, I don't think you would get much airplay for that.

36:18 Chris: So I'm gonna be. Kayla: I'm gonna vomit. I'm sorry. Chris: When I initially cooked this little reveal up, I thought it was super clever. But the problem is we're married, so you're probably expecting the following punchline. No, the college campus was upenn. And by recently, I mean actually 2002. Kayla: Oh, no. Chris: And the objectivist club that put this lecture series together was the one that I started. Kayla: No, I knew that you did this. I didn't know you were the one saying academics blew up New York City. Chris: This was my lecture series, baby. Kayla: I'm sorry. That's so awful. It's vile. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

36:58 Chris: So that's kind of why we're talking about evolution of beliefs here. Kayla: Is that what you still think that. Chris: Do I still think that ivory tower blew up New York? Kayla: Yeah. Chris: No. Kayla: I don't understand how you could be going to University of Pennsylvania and going like, yeah, that's. Chris: That is one of the dichotomies that is strange about objectivism is that it's like they are pro like intellectualism, but they definitely fall into that, oh, professors are destroying America thing. Kayla: What did you think about these topics at the time? And it's like, you know, everybody was fucking nuts after 911 and especially, like, you know, white people. Really nuts.

37:40 Chris: Yeah, so, I mean, this is. Yeah, this was 2002. I think that I was the. Let's ignore. Let's ignore the ivory tower one. Kayla: No, that's the only one I want to talk about. Chris: The ones that are more about, like, terrorism, yada. In general, I think I was more supportive of that at the time. I was pretty hawkish at the time. Kayla: Well, that also, when you said that this was recently, I was like, what are you talking about? Chris: Yeah, there recently was just to throw you off. Kayla: I know we're on terror. Okay. That at least that makes sense, given the climate of the country at the time where were, like, got super duper anti Islam, and we have always been and we continue to be, but that was, like, you know, the worst it's probably ever been. So at least, like, that makes sense. But still, like, the guts and the balls to have a lecture titled.

38:32 Chris: So I didn't title how teachers threw. Kayla: A bomb into the 911 table. Chris: These are, like, as far as I'm aware, like, canned lectures that some of these. Kayla: Right, right. This wasn't something that you set up. Chris: So it was like, what. I mean, what I wanted to do. Like, I remember my mentality at the time was like, I want to contribute somehow to, like, helping in this situation. That makes sense. Unfortunately, 21, 22 year old me felt like this was helping and this was helping. Like, you know, the fight, the intellectual war, blah, blah. I don't know how I felt about that third one. I really don't. Like. I. It. The title was incendiary at the time.

39:13 Kayla: I know values. Chris: I know the title I knew was incendiary at the time I probably did some, like, blanking out about, like, oh, well, it's just incendiary because of the title. Kayla: Right. It's just the content trying to grab attention, which maybe that is what they're doing, but it's just like, that is poof. The guts. And then I'm assuming that the one that was because I knew that you had something on C SPAN. I'm assuming the one on C SPAN was talking about the pros of Israel being a stabilizing western force in the Middle east. Chris: Almost exactly that. Yeah. With a little more of, like. So to this day, Ari is pretty pro Israel. And they do acknowledge that they're not perfect. Kayla: Gee.

39:53 Chris: But in general, yeah, they're pro Israel because they feel like they're the only true democracy that's respects rights in the region. Kayla: Rights such as bombing children. Chris: All right, all right. Let's not. This is. Okay, this is already too big of a topic. Already too big of a topic. We. Kayla: I'm just agreeing with you. I'm just agreeing with you. I'm not saying one way or the other whether I'm pro Israel or not. I'm just saying that is a true statement. Chris: Okay. And I might be misrepresenting, but I think that's generally what you said is why they're pro Israel. Actually, one of the things that I wanted to bring up is that a good muslim friend of mine at the time, I had a discussion with him specifically about the second lecture by Daniel Pipes, and he was basically like, you shouldn't have this guy on campus, man. Like, he's no good. Like, he doesn't. Like, his organization is, like, pretty islamophobic. And I ended up doing it anyway.

40:46 Kayla: Did that harm your friendship? Chris: It didn't. Like, this guy was pretty. He was, like, super chill. Kayla: He sucked in his own right. Chris: He totally sucked. I ended up doing it anyway because kind of at this point, like, first of all, I wasn't 100% convinced that he was right. Kayla: Sure. Chris: And this was also, like, it's also. Kayla: Pre, like, being able to. The gears were moved for anyone. Chris: Right, right. Well, Google was around, right. Kayla: But you couldn't get. You couldn't get, like, a million tweets about it. Chris: Right. Kayla: To help you, like, gather your opinions on this person. It was just like, what does Ari say about it versus what does. Like. Chris: Yeah, Munna Jones. And I did google it. I did google it. Sure. But, yeah, and also, like I said, the gears were sort of turning at this point. So, you know, like, ungearing those gears.

41:32 Kayla: Is like, there was something bigger than you at play. Chris: Yeah, exactly. And there was the whole time, really, too, like, because it wasn't just me. There was also, like, an older guy in the. In the club, and I think it. Kayla: Was like, you started the PED. Chris: Objection. His brainchild, or mostly his brain child. Yeah. So I started the club, okay. And then people, you know, I promoted it or whatever. And then, you know, anybody from the campus could join. He was involved somehow through, like, the hospital or something. He was, like, an older guy. I was a doctor. Kayla: Okay. Chris: And so he was the one that really kind of, like, spurred on this lecture series. Kayla: Gotcha. Chris: So, yeah, look, I've learned a lot in the past 20 years, right. That's why I bring this up. First of all, like, this. This podcast, I feel like, with our audience more or less a safe space, obviously, I know you hate me now because me or the listeners can't handle the titles. No. You.

42:23 Kayla: Me. Chris: No, the listeners probably still think I'm fine, but I bring it up because this episode is about that evolution of beliefs. And now, like, I also, like, I'm not, like, cool with extremism either. Like, I'm still anti extremism. Right. Like, that hasn't changed. Like, I don't care for religious extremism, whether it comes from Christians, Muslims, or anybody else. But I've just, again, I've learned a lot about, like, America and american history and, like, more context about all these situations that I would not. This is not a lecture series that I would organize today. No, obviously. Kayla: Yeah. I hate to break it to you, but you're, like, one of the more left leaning people I know.

43:03 Chris: Yeah, I know. It's like. It's kind of funny because, like, people. Kayla: Back, even amongst our friend group, the people back that. Chris: Well, it's. Again, it's what we said at the top of the show. It's like, yeah, but, like, I'm also kind of uncategorizable in the way that you feel. Kayla: Right. Chris: You know? Yeah, it's funny because, like, people back then are like, whoa. Like, I can't believe you're a liberal now. And I'm like, yeah, well, I don't know. And then people today, like, literally somebody was like, what? You used to be a Republican. I don't. What the hell, right? So the point I'm trying to make is that I just. I'm. I just go with whatever the way the wind blows, and you can't trust me for anything. Kayla: I disagree. I don't think that's what it is. Chris: No, actually, it's back to theme, the recurring theme for these episodes about objectivism and about my journey. How did I integrate all of this new knowledge and experience into my mental model for the world? By being thoughtful about it, by recognizing that philosophy. Who needs it? I do. And I'm going to be very carefully taking a look at my beliefs when I receive new information or new perspectives. By the way, I talk a lot on this podcast about how important diversity is. And here's another example. It's important to have a steady diet of new and different perspectives to examine and either discard or keep if you're going to be going through that, like, philosophy, who needs it? Process.

44:28 Kayla: Oh, so you're a proponent of diversity of thought? Chris: I am. Kayla: Ew. Chris: It doesn't mean that I'm not a proponent of other forms of diversity. Loser. Kayla: Yeah. Just diversity of thought is usually used as a cover for, like, let's get extremist thoughts in here. And I don't think you need extremist thoughts in order to. Chris: I know it's turned into a bad. Kayla: Thing to shape your political or, sorry. To shape your value system. Chris: It's like free speech. Like, are you for free speech? Yes. But, like, a lot of people now use that to mean, like, I want to say slurs. Right? I want to say slurs. Anyway, I want you to guess which criteria of ours you think this will probably hit the hardest on. Kayla: Charismatic leader. Chris: The answer might surprise you. Kayla: For me, I'm gonna think charismatic leader.

45:09 Chris: It'll score high there. Kayla: Dogmatic beliefs. Chris: Oh, the answer might not surprise you. I think it's gonna go pretty high on dogma. Kayla: I don't remember any of our other criteria. Chris: Good. I mean, those are the ones I. Kayla: Don'T think necessarily expected harm, unless you count making 18 year olds think that it's good to host lecture series, calling teachers, blowing up New York 911. Like, whatever that title was. Chris: Colleges are basically 911. That's the title. Kayla: Probably not safe for unsafe exit. You exited pretty safely. Chris: What I was digging for there was. Kayla: Actually what I said, dogma and charismatic leader. Chris: Yeah. Because it's a little weird that I have. Oh, well, some of my objective beliefs are the things that enabled me to discard other objectivist beliefs, which is weird because there's kind of a dogma.

45:57 Kayla: Right. How do you get out of a closed loop value system? Chris: Yeah, we'll get to that. Now, speaking of beliefs, I think you and I actually talked about this a bit in the source family episode. One of the things we rarely get to talk about regarding groups we cover on the show is the actual beliefs of the group in question. And for that, let's go ahead and listen to this interview you did with an expert. Kayla: Why are you laughing? So can you tell our audience who you are and why we're talking to you for this episode? Chris: Yes. Hi, I'm Chris. I co host a podcast called Cult are just weird. This is so stupid. At the time, this felt like a fun gimmick.

46:48 Kayla: I'm interviewing you. You're the expert. Chris: Yeah. Okay. All right. Kayla: You're an expert for this topic? Chris: Yes, I am the resident expert in today's topic, objectivism in Ayn Rand. I mean, sort of. I did start a UPenn objectivist club back in 2002, and for a long time, I did cite the fountainhead as my favorite book. Not sure why I'd answer to that now. Probably, like, velveteen rabbit or something. I've read it twice now. Fountainhead twice. Not velveteen rabbit. I'm not insane. And Atlas shrugged I've read once. Sadly, I couldn't quite get through anthem, but I did read some of Rand's other writings on objectivism. So, like, I guess good enough expert or the best one we're gonna get. Gonna have to make do.

47:33 Kayla: Well, why? Why are you the best expert? Chris: What do you mean, why? So I are. You're asking me if I tried to get someone from Ari to talk to us, and they said, no, thank you, and instead, they just. They sent me. Actually, they did send me a video of an interview between their chairman, Jaron Brook, you might remember, from such titles as the moral case for supporting Israel and that lecture series. So it's between him and Michael Shermer we've talked about on the show before as well. So it's kind of like they had an interview of guys I used to like. I don't know. I still like both of them. Right? They're just. They're just not. Come on, Kayla. Like, let's. Let's not be black and white about this.

48:14 Kayla: I am. Chris: Michael Shermer has some things that are really not good, but they. You know, there's other things where I think he is still good. So, anyways, I hate you. You know what? I fire. You're fired from podcast. Kayla: False. So, yeah, so we are talking the. Chris: Best you could get. Kayla: Ari refused to speak to us. Chris: Oh, my God. Kayla: Take that as you will. Chris: They didn't refuse. They were just like, we can't do this at this time. They weren't like, we're not going to go on your podcast. Kayla: We're too busy. Chris: No, hold on. Kayla: Series about how college professors are bombing the twin towers. Chris: Not only did they politely refuse, they sent me that video. And the video they sent it to was a timestamp where Michael and Jeron were talking about an essay that Shermer had written, like, a decade ago about, like, oh, the most unlikeliest cult in history. So they actually timestamped me on the spot that was talking about the thing that was relevant to our show. So they actually bothered answer to go.

49:14 Kayla: When there's accusations of cult levied? Chris: Yes, because there have been many. Okay. Kayla: And now it's us. Chris: That's. That's. Now it's, No, it's not us, because that happens at the end. Kayla: So, Chris, what is objectivism, and why is it called that? Chris: This is a. This is sort of the meat of the episode here. Objectivism is the philosophical framework developed by Ayn Rand. And she coined the term. She is quoted as having said she wanted to name it existentialism, which will make sense in a minute. Why. But that was already taken. So she went with objectivism because it places value on objectivity, and also, you know, everything is objectively true. That's in it. So, like, don't even bother disagreeing.

49:59 Kayla: That's the thing that's all objectively out. Chris: Well, I think that is one of the main squickers, so that's probably why it squicks you out. Now, I said philosophical framework. I actually think maybe framework is even wrong because it's like, it's extremely prescriptive, and it has opinions and recommendations on, like, everything. I think your co host in this podcast, Chris, maybe mentioned this already, but this is part of what makes. I'm so dumb. Such an idiot. I told you, this is the cringe episode. Kayla: Yeah, so you can be cringey. Chris: It's part of theme. This is part of what makes the topic vast. Is that, like, the objectivism, like, covers, like, fucking everything. Now I'm gonna tell you a little story. This sounds a little, like, mythological to me. You know, like, how those stories do. This is how the person founded this, and this is how the person talked. Anyway, there's a story that goes that a random house publishing salesman once asked Ayn Rand if she could summarize her philosophy while standing on 1ft, and she said yes. And the answer she gave was as follows. That's why it sounds like. Did that really happen? I don't know. Whatever. The answer she gave was as metaphysics, objective reality, epistemology, reason, ethics, self interest, politics, capitalism.

51:22 Chris: So basically, she goes through the four, which we'll talk about these, like, sort of like branches, these tiers of philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics. And what her. What objectivism's stance is on each of those. Stance on metaphysics is objective reality. That's what the name comes from. Stance on epistemology is reason, on ethics is self interest, and stance on politics, capitalism. Now, we'll dive into each of those in turn, but the first thing I want to call out is actually the structure itself, because. And now take note, this is another bite of the elephant that I still think is pretty tasty. And since I'm absolutely stretching that metaphor too far at this point, what I mean is, I like how she structured her philosophy, and I find it helpful. And that structure is hierarchical, right?

52:08 Chris: So each of the tiers that I just listed are essentially, like, one depends on the other below it, right? And the one above it is, like, abstracted from the, quote, the layer. The layer, quote, unquote, below it. Now, she's far from the only thinker to talk about hierarchies of ideas and, you know, structure of philosophy, like, literally could have learned this from hundreds and hundreds of other avenues. So just like I was saying before, I don't give the impression that she, like, invented this way of structuring philosophical thinking. She was just my on ramp to it. Anyway, to elaborate a bit, starting with metaphysics, which I'll just give you the Oxford definition, the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time and space, end quote.

53:02 Chris: So that's like why you start with that, right? It's like the first principles part of philosophy. Kayla: Yeah. And you and I got in a big argument over this. Chris: We did? Oh, yeah, we didn't we? Kayla: Yeah. And you were a dick. Chris: I don't think so. Kayla: And then, like, years later, you were like, oh, well, yeah, you know. Yeah, you were right. Chris: I doubt I said you were right. Kayla: We definitely got into an argument over whether existence objectively exists. And, like, to the point where you were telling people behind my back, like, how stupid I was gonna. Chris: Tell them that anyway, okay. Kayla: And then later on, you were like, well, I mean, yeah, like, you're making. Chris: Me sound really bad. Kayla: You were bad then. That was a bad argument you had. Chris: Why didn't you break up with me? Kayla: I don't know.

53:42 Chris: You should have. Kayla: I surely should have. Chris: Yeah. Well, now we have this podcast. Kayla: Anyway, that argument did get me to lean more into the idea of existence objectively exists. And for that, I thank you. But also, I wasn't wrong. So go. That's. Chris: We'll get to that. So you can see, though, why this is what you start with is because it's about, like the. The nature of being, right. You kind of have to start with the nature of being before you start talking about the things that are important in it. Kayla: Right. How do you get to the top of the pyramid if you don't build the base? Chris: And to be honest, as you were kind of alluding to this here, because this is such a base layer of philosophical thinking, I personally also find it to kind of be the most tenuous. And it's the place where, like, materialist philosophical systems, in my opinion, brush right up against that thing that they don't like. Ayn Rand included, especially Ayn Rand, which is faith. Axioms are by definition unprovable. And that's what you're starting with when you're in, like, the metaphysical layer. You have to start with axioms, because you have to start with something, right. At a certain point, you know, if you say, well, this is proved by this, that chain has to end somewhere. And so you have to end with something that is, like, unprovable. And that's the definition. That's what an axiom is. Now, unprovable sounds an awful lot like faith.

55:05 Chris: And that's something we wound up discussing in my dorky little club quite a bit. Kayla: How many people were in your club? Chris: Like, regular attendees of a stupid little, like, philosophy set? Cause we would just sit there and, like, discuss topics. It was so. Kayla: That sounds like what you and I would do now. Chris: It was so dorky. I know. We're dorky. Kayla: Yeah. Chris: I hate it. We sit here and talk about important. Kayla: Things we can't get into a car without, like, oh, my God, I hate talking with you in the car. Chris: Yeah, but you love it. Kayla: I know. It's something I want to do. Chris: Okay, so how many people? Oh, right. Between, like eight and twelve. Kayla: That's a lot of people. Chris: Yeah. Considering it was just like, kind of like out of nothing, it was pretty good. And like, those were honestly the level of. I would have not done this way with the lecture series is not nearly as present with the club meetings, because the club meetings were just a bunch of dorks talking about dorky stuff. You know, like, that was actually kind of fun.

56:03 Kayla: That sounds like a lot of fun. Chris: No. Okay, so I can't speak for objectivists writ large, but that being said, I'm gonna go ahead and try to do that. I think that they would contest that axioms contain any similarities to faith, because what they like to think of axioms as statements that must be invoked themselves in any attempt to contradict them. Thus they are uncontradictable. And then you don't really need to. Kayla: Kind of like the word of God. Chris: Right. But you don't. But you don't need to, in that case, invoke like, well, it's true because it's true. Because faith. Kayla: Right. Chris: You can say it's true because it's objective. Because it's true because you can't disprove it without using it.

56:48 Kayla: Right. Chris: So there's like this kind of like, loop there. Now we're starting to get into like. Kayla: Well, how can you have an argument over whether existence exists? We're existing to have the conversation. Chris: Yeah. So that's what they would say. Actually, I think that might even be the example that I wrote in my script. Oh, actually, no, I had a different example. So I was going to talk about the law of identity. Side note here. Like, I'll talk about a little bit more about this later with like, her influences, but Ayn Rand derives a lot of her philosophy from like a sort of combo platter, isn't it? Kayla: Like Aristotle. Chris: Aristotle, yep. Aquinas, Nietzsche, mostly, I would say she loves Aristotle. She's like, I am totally.

57:29 Kayla: Who's the one she doesn't like? Chris: She hates Kant. Kayla: Gotcha. Chris: She hates a lot of philosophers, but Kant is like the devil in objectivism. So a little bit too big of a topic to kind of go into, like the, I like these guys, and I hate these guys. But she does identify a lot with Aristotle and like, acknowledges that she, you know, gets a lot of her ideas from Aristotle. Kayla: Right? Chris: So the law of identity is like an aristotelian kind of idea, although it was actually first discussed in a work by Plato, who she doesn't like him either. But anyway, the aristotelian version says that a is a. And objectivism says that too. If a thing is a thing, it is not also, or instead something else, and it can't also not be a thing. And rand objectivists would say that this statement defends itself because any attempt to refute it necessarily involves referring to it, the statement, the law itself. And if the law itself is not itself, then what are you even trying to refute?

58:30 Kayla: Right? Chris: Like, you have to acknowledge that the law is a thing. It's not something else. In order to say, I think that I had to point at it to say that it's wrong. And so that's why they would say, like, that is an axiom. Does that make sense? Kayla: Yes, and I appreciate that a lot. And I think that there's a lot of good there. And then I can also see, like, that idea in the wrong hands just becomes, like, you could just say that about anything. Chris: Well, yes, but, like, it can become. Kayla: Very dogmatic and fascist. Chris: Yeah, for sure. Kayla: Like, if you use it for the. Chris: Powers of evil, if you allow that. Kayla: Well, men are men and women are women. Chris: Right. So if you allow that statement to percolate any higher than metaphysics. Kayla: Right.

59:10 Chris: That's where it gets problematic. As long as you're saying, like, this is about concepts. Kayla: Right? Chris: Right. This is about, like, if I refer to. It's not. I would say, like, an atom, but it's not even the physical atom. It's the concept of an atom. Right, right. Like, I would say, like, the concept of a man is something that we can define and point to. Kayla: How do you define that? Chris: Well, you would have, like, you'd have to sit down and, like, make criteria. Well, a man is something. This, this. Kayla: And you and I have talked about. Chris: That a lot and talk about that a lot. Kayla: And it does get metaphysical. Chris: But the concept is independent of whether I'm saying this person is a man or is a woman. And that's just how it is. Right. We're saying with the concept is, like, now that I've defined this thing, whatever it may be, now it's defined. And I can set that down as an item to be discussed alongside other items that I can also point to and define. It's basically just rejecting the idea that everything is nothing and indefinite. Does that make sense? So I think as long as you keep it at that metaphysical level, then you'll probably be safe. But as long as you start saying, like, well, that means that, like, you know. Yeah, a man is always a man. Like, no, you're only referring to concepts, not to physical things.

1:00:20 Kayla: Gotcha. Chris: All right, so with me so far, and we're kind of, like, getting, like, really in the weeds here, which. Yeah, kind of on purpose. Like, we can. Right. Kayla: Define with you. Chris: Define with. Kayla: So with you, what is the concept. Chris: Of with you, the concept that is. Is what it is. Are you? I don't even know anymore. This is actually, like, when you start getting down to, like, talking about some of this stuff. Like, your head does kind of spin sometimes. It's, like, not easy to think about this stuff because, like, you're really poking out, like really like base nature of reality things. Kayla: That's why I kind of think, like, I think that some of these ideas are a cope.

1:01:09 Chris: What do you buy that and keep it short? Kayla: It is defining something that is inherently indefinable, but we have to define it in order to operate and move forward. Chris: Yeah, sin eaters. Kayla: Existence must exist for us. Chris: Philosophers say, guys, can you go ahead and deal with the fact that reality does fucking make any sense? And can you kind of make sense of it for us, please? Okay, so metaphysics is all this kind of crap, right? It's all defining axioms and pondering your orb. And of course, I'm like barely scratching the surface. Barely. There's literally, of course, libraries worth of tomes that have been written about metaphysics. It's like a huge thing in philosophy. So it's way out of scope to keep getting into. But I will say that, and actually you brought this up earlier, one way you can categorize different metaphysical views of nature is into two camps. The existence is primary camp. That's existence exists, right? And the consciousness is primary camp.

1:02:11 Chris: So as you mentioned, we already had an argument about this at the beginning of our relationship because like the lower tier, like the bottom tier of the philosophy, the bottom tier of our relationship also has to be sound. And so we got into a big fight about it. I think that's great, you know, awesome. Good fight. Phone was over the phone. Who phones? Kayla: I know. Chris: Oh. Cause that was like before iPhones. Kayla: This was like 2008 or nine. Chris: Oh, so it was like before I had an iPhone. Yeah, you had a BlackBerry before my poor. You had a BlackBerry. Oh, man. That goes with the cringe theme. Okay, so you have existence comes first or consciousness comes first. So consciousness is primary says that humans conscious experience creates reality and is actually probably pretty familiar to listeners. That's where you get the shit. Like the secret, right? With manifesting. Like, if I believe it'll happen. Belief in twin flames, I would say, falls in this category.

1:03:07 Kayla: Anything. What the bleep do we know? Chris: That's my next example. But like with twin flames, you know, any belief that you are my twin flame makes it true whether you like it or not. Because I think it's true, right? There's no basis for agreement because as long as I think it hard enough, it's real, right? And like you said, what the bleep with its claim that you get with its many claims. Example, their claim that you can alter water crystals with, like, whether you're sad or not. Kayla: Like, your emotional say nice or mean things. Chris: Whether you say nice or mean things. Kayla: To it, your body is made up of 70% water. So if you say nice things to yourself versus mean things, yes, it'll be. Chris: That is totally how it works, is because of the water crystals in your own body. The best example, of course, is probably abrahamic religions, right? Ooh. There wasn't a universe till some guy thought it would be cool to make one. That's literally consciousness first. Right, right. Okay, so existence primary is the opposite of that. Everything exists as it is, whether you, I, or anyone else are here to give a shit about it terminally online. People like. Like you and me might call this, like, facts. Don't care about your feelings these days. Oh, man, there's, like, all these, like, loaded words. I know, I know. But to give its due, reality, as Rand puts it, must be obeyed to be manipulated. Wishing won't make something so.

1:04:34 Chris: And this is another place where I'll stick a flag and say, this has influenced me greatly and continues to do so. I will probably always be an existence first kind of guy. Like, never say never, but probably. And when I said at the top of the show that maybe there's even some objectivism DNA in this podcast, this is kind of the thing I think I'm talking about, because existence being primary, lends itself to science and an agreed upon reality, while the primacy of consciousness quite clearly does not. Like, it can be, again, it can be impossible for my twin flame stalking target to deny that they're my twin flame if I reject any objective standard and think that my feelings on the matter are the standard. All right, so, deep breath. That's metaphysics in a nutshell.

1:05:25 Chris: That's this gigantic, humongous field of a topic all in, like, a few minutes on a podcast. This whole episode is actually very randian, because I'm just grasping at teaching an audience philosophy 101 despite having no real background in it, which is exactly what she did with her life. Kayla: Yeah. What was Heinrand's background? She just liked to read Aristotle. Chris: Her education. She majored in history. She has a university degree from University of Petrograd, and it's in history after that she became, after she emigrated to the United States, became a writer from Russia. And that's so her background, if you ask, like, her educational background, history, if you ask her, like, professional background. Before she, like, made the big time, it was writing. She started as a screenwriter, actually.

1:06:12 Kayla: Oh, that makes sense. Chris: I know, right? So many of those. Kayla: God. Chris: But, yeah, her background wasn't in philosophy, which is, you know, that's one of the reasons why, including the reason you gave before and several others, she gets dismissed. But, you know, I don't know. Like, I'm. It's. Kayla: What was Aristotle's background? He's just a guy. Chris: Yeah, basically. Like, I don't think that philosophy is the type of thing where you can say, like, well, you're not trained in it, so you. Kayla: I mean, there's training, and obviously you need to, like, be reading and read up on shit and, like, have a background, but it's not like a. You need to know how to do calculus. Like, it's a different thing. Chris: Philosophical calculus, anyway, steamrolling right over my lack of expertise. Let's go to the next tier, epistemology. So, metaphysics is about, like, what is anything? And epistemology is, how do I know anything? So, again, I'll read from Oxford. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion, end quote. There's a little bit more to the definition than that, but I think that really kind of, like, crystallizes, right? It's basically the, how do we know that we know? How do we know that we know anything? Can I justify a belief as true and valid? And if so, how do I do that? That's epistemology.

1:07:33 Kayla: Okay. Chris: And I want to note that in the definition, it says investigation. There are a lot of smart thinkers whose position is that justified belief isn't even possible. Like, you can't know things truly right now. Rand is definitely not one of them, and she would probably call those other guys names. But her epistemology is, we'll say, r and r. Reason and rationality. Well, and logic. Reason, rationality, and logic. That's what she loves. Now, this is where the road starts splitting a little bit. A little bit for me on, like, the things that I like about it and the things that I rejected. I was actually surprised to think about this because I thought that I had to go one tier more before I was like, maybe sometimes. But one hand, I'm a huge fan of reason and logic.

1:08:23 Chris: If you listen to this podcast, you will already know that I'll tout the virtues of the scientific method all day. Like, for real, rah reason. Where I think I start to diverge with Rand a little bit is that she's a reason extremist. And to be honest, I think that's a source of a lot of my and other people's divergence or critique of her, is that she has a real bee in her bonnet for absolutism. Right? So her views tend to be extreme and inflexible. So what do I mean by reason extremist? Firstly, she thinks that reason is the sole method for humans arriving at knowledge, basically dismissing other methods entirely. And again, this is too big of a philosophical topic to cover in a podcast, so I'll just say that I think it's pretty clear that there are other methods for arriving at knowledge.

1:09:16 Kayla: Yeah. Chris: Intuition being, like, an obvious one right now. Big, big caveat here. While I appreciate the intuition is real and may arrive at real, true facts, capital f. I would also say that it's inconsistent at doing that. And here's the kicker. It's impossible to validate whether the fact that your intuition coughed up something real and true without using reason right now, that means I probably won't be accepting your intuitive fact without a reasoned argument. That doesn't mean we can't and don't act on intuitions. And some people's intuitions are very powerful. They're more strongly honed and better fed than others and produce better results than others.

1:09:59 Kayla: If you're gonna talk about me, you should let me know. Chris: No, I was talking about that. I was talking about Candace, the person. Kayla: That our psychic who's now, like, a boss babe psychic grifter in Mexico. It's great. Chris: I know. I can't wait. Wait till we do the episode on her. She obviously was very in touch with her intuition, but, yeah. So I'm not saying that, like, intuition isn't something that produces things or can and should be acted on. It just means that if it's crucial to validate a particular intuition, which it isn't always crucial to validate it, you still have to turn to reason honestly. Like, if I had a real objectivist on the show, like, if we actually could get an interview with someone, they might even agree with me here. Right? Like, they might agree with, like, that validation interpretation. So this might all just be semantics, but, like.

1:10:48 Chris: But Rand is pretty clear in her writing that, like, logic is the only right way to the exclusion of all else, to the point where it actually ended up kind of generating some disagreements with some of her former followers. Like, when they split off and had ideas of their own. Gasp. God forbid. Kayla: Well, just gets tough. Chris: Yeah, that was something where they were like, well, like, emotion, for example. She's like, emotion's fine to have, but it's not a method for getting information, which is, like, demonstrably false. Kayla: Yeah. Chris: In neuroscience. Kayla: And also, just, like, again, what we're talking about right now is humans making these definitions. And so when you go, like, well, logic, okay, but logic still has to be filtered through, like, a human filter. And there's, like, blind spots and biases and those kinds of things. Like, when somebody says, like, oh, well, I'm very logical and rational, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're more logical and rational than somebody else, because they probably have human biases in their logic. And so that's like, again, that's why something like a trust network is important, because you can think that you're behaving logically, rationally, because you're not seeing your biases and blind spots. Does that make sense?

1:11:59 Chris: It does, and I think that a lot of that is, again, keeping, by the time we actually talk about critical reception of Ayn Rand, we'll already have had an hour of content on it. But that's one of the, I think reasons that she gets dismissed is because of this. Like, well, my stuff is based on base reality and my logical analysis of it, and therefore, it cannot be wrong. Kayla: Like that to me. Chris: So it's like, how do you engage with that? Kayla: That feels like a fallacy. That feels like there's probably. There's probably a term for that kind of fallacy, but the fallacy of, like, well, what I'm saying is based on logical reality. I'm using logic, and you're not. So your stuff isn't right, but my stuff is. Chris: Or even sometimes, maybe the assumption is that we're both logical people and you're trying to use your rational faculties, but you're not as good at it as I am. You're being irrational right now. That's the only reason that you disagree with me on this, is you're being irrational.

1:12:53 Kayla: And, yeah, we see people use it all the time, and that's why something like the scientific method is important, because the scientific method must be used over and over and over in order to arrive at truth. Because one person doing the scientific method doesn't mean I. That you've arrived at truth, because the scientific method can also be influenced by our biases, our blind spots, all of that stuff. Chris: And I'll go one step further here, and this is another place where I feel like objectivism would diverge. Certainly, at least Rand's opinion. Obviously, objectivism now is many more people than just her, but I think that they would say that it is possible to arrive at objective truth. I think that's a big core tenet of theirs. Then the scientific method, the scientific process, if you ask most people. That's not the purpose. The purpose is to become less wrong about something over time. You'll never arrive at like, well, this is a perfect platonic truth, right? You are just going to hone your knowledge about that particular thing as long as you keep going and keep not proving it wrong, basically. So another kind of sketchy thing I'll point out here. This bothered me, like, from day one, actually.

1:14:05 Chris: Like, when I was reading her initial literature. Part of why Rand says reason is the only way for humans to know anything is because she confidently asserts that, unlike animals, human beings have no instinctual behaviors. Kayla: False. Chris: This is demonstrably false. If you know anything about newborns breastfeeding. Kayla: The first thing they do is go suck, suck. That's what they do. Chris: And they do that before you teach them how to do it. Obviously, there was no time to teach them to do that in between coming out of the womb and, like, suckling on the breast. And I'll also point out here, Rand, she's not a biologist. So, like, I never really knew where she picked that up. It always just kind of felt like a. Well, because I think it is, right. It just feels like the tail wagging the dog, and that's kind of a red flag. Like, if she does that here, does she do it elsewhere? Does she beg the question elsewhere? Does she, does she make assertions to support things that she kind of wants to be true?

1:15:04 Kayla: Well, it goes back to what were just saying. Chris: The answer is yes, by the way. Kayla: That'S a statement that, to her, I'm sure, feels logical, rational, objective, whatever, and is clearly influenced by bias. Chris: Right? Kayla: It is a human bias. Chris: Did she ask a biologist about that? No. Like, she didn't ask a biologist. Kayla: And even if she had, when was she alive? When was she operating? Chris: So she was doing her fiction writing, like, in the thirties, forties, and then her, like, philosophical writings in the fifties. Kayla: Even if she had asked a biologist at the time, like, what is the answer to human instinct? It would be more wrong than what we have access to now.

1:15:45 Chris: Sure, I agree with you. Kayla: Even if she got answer that was based on scientific method, whatever the scientific consensus was at the time, like you were just saying, the scientific method is a way to get us closer and closer. So even if she'd based that in scientific fact at the time, it would still not necessarily be right. Chris: And so I think this also comes back to kind of like her absolutism, right? Like, I think if she had said something in her writings, like, you know, generally speaking, humans use reason. They don't use, like, we still maybe have some instincts, but, like, for the most part, we need to use our rational faculties to survive in this world. Kayla: Right? Chris: Yeah. Like, obviously, like, totally can get behind that statement. There's this that's, like, unassailable, but, like, instead, she confidently asserts that mankind has. Man has no instincts. We are not like that. Just don't exist. And so just. It just kind of trips. Yeah, it's just weird.

1:16:40 Kayla: It's like that, to me, feels like you want to talk. Like, that's a metaphysical standpoint, that there's something mad, like, so magical about human beings that separates us from other animals. Like, that feels very magical. Like, that's magical thinking. Chris: It does feel magical thinking. Yeah. All right. I do. As we've discussed here, I do love reason, rationality, logic, science, and a lot of that is influenced from her. It's from objectivism. It's from Ayn Rand. It's from my love of some of the things that she's written. But it diverges in some cases because of little things. Like, I don't know if you can say that there's no instincts, or I don't know if you can base your further up the chain, if you can base all of the things that you're saying on the fact that you're a rational person. So that's kind of how I diverge there. So we talked metaphysics, the nature of reality. We talked epistemology, the study of how we even know anything. Next up in the hierarchy, at least according to objectivists, is ethics.

1:17:42 Chris: So you have, like, base level of reality. What is what? How do I know? And then how should I act? Right? So we're into territory now, right? Like, I don't really need to provide a definition. I think more than that, we all kind of have a good sense what ethics are, and the core kernel of objectivist ethics is self interest. So at long last, we get to the juicy bit. The thing that I think actually really kind of, like, defines Ayn Rand, defines randianism, the thing that breaks maybe the most with traditional ethical systems, with some exceptions. And also maybe the single biggest turn off for people who don't like Ayn Rand is the virtue of selfishness. And by the way, yes, I know there are many legitimate turn offs for people that don't like Ayn Rand.

1:18:30 Chris: I just think this is probably, like, the single biggest one that people have the most problem with. It's like, yeah, selfishness is great, but let me do it justice. So we have to, like, make sure that we're on the same page. And depending on who you ask, this is either, like, well, Ayn Rand likes to redefine things, and then when you disagree with her, like, attack you or whatever, I don't know if that's necessarily the case. Like, I just think that something like selfishness doesn't really have, like, it's a broad, sort of vague meaning term. Like, what does it mean? So. And she says, like, okay, well, it means this to me in this context. So I. Like, I think that's fine. So she's against moral hedonism, right? So she's.

1:19:12 Kayla: What does that mean? Chris: So moral hedonism basically means, like, do whatever you want, whenever you want, do it if it feels good. Like, that's moral hedonism, right? It's moral to just do the thing that makes you feel good in the moment. Don't ask me how exactly, because, like, I've read her rationale on why she's against that several times now, and it has yet to, like, really stick for me. So. Yeah, but the point is she is against that. So selfishness, to her doesn't mean do whatever you want whenever you feel like it, even if it hurts other people. Which actually kind of brings me to the next point. When she says self interest, or more commonly, rational self interest, she specifically means it is ethical to live for yourself, not to live for others, but also not to ask others to live for you.

1:19:58 Chris: So she's as against sacrificing others for your own cause as she is the other way around. This selfishness element of her philosophy is pretty heavily present in her literary works. You've read the Fountainhead. So, you know, and I actually remember maybe having a bit of a tough time with it when I was first reading the fountainhead, because, as I mentioned, she gets pretty extreme on it. I won't spoil the book in case you want to read it, but it's. She makes a pretty extreme statement about artistic integrity in that book. And then after finishing the book, I, like, I kind of got, like, super on board with it, though. Like, so I was like, I was kind of against it. Like, selfishness is bad. That's what you always hear. Don't be selfish. Kayla: And you'd grown up very. Chris: Religious, and I'd grown up pretty religious, which is, like, one of the main focuses of her ire, right? Is that, like a lot of people say, like, what? Everybody's selfish. There's no, like, there's no moral system that says like do self sacrifice. And I'm like, have you not looked at Christianity like, I don't know, like they're definitely, even if people behave.

1:20:59 Kayla: Selfishly, there is constantly a higher quote unquote higher power going, you should feel bad about that because we should be living for self sacrifice. You should feel bad. You should feel bad. Your selfish, you should feel bad. Chris: Right. And I watched a video recently about like I've been doing a lot of religious studies lately and the topic, well, it was about pride. It was about one of the seven deadly sins, pride. Right. And you shouldn't be proud of anything you do because it's all from God anyway. You should. It's all because of God. So when people say like, oh, Ayn wrote, Christopher Hitchens said this, right? Like, I don't think we need a moral system to tell us to be more selfish. And I'm like, yes, I get what you're saying. But also have you seen Christianity, which Chris with hitchens, like, he should know, Christianity does have that.

1:21:48 Chris: And I think that if you have a system that's saying like, you can't be proud of anything because a deity, a supernatural thing that we're saying exists, that's all because of God and not you. Kayla: Right. Chris: Then I actually do think that having a counterweight to that is pretty helpful. Kayla: I agree. This is something that when you introduced this to me, this eventually made a lot of sense to me and still is part of my value system. I just think that with a lot of the folks you talked about up top, I think that their definitions of what rational selfishness is differ greatly from what my definition of rational selfishness is. I think if somebody uses rational selfishness to get to a viewpoint of, well, it makes a lot of sense if I like, help my fellow man, because if I help them, then they'll help me. That's self interest. Great. That's a way to get to community. They're not mutually exclusive.

1:22:50 Chris: You'll hear a lot of arguments like that. As much as I'm saying it's dogmatic, there actually are quite a variety, even now, of objectivists and who they vote for, what they say and how they present themselves. And I think that the ones that I like the better will say things like, it's actually self destructive for you to do a murder. It's like it's actually self destructive for you to harm your fellow man. It's actually better for you in the long run to do something for yourself. Kayla: Now it's self destructive to have the value system that Keith ran, Erie had. It's self destructive to have the political value set that Paul Ryan has. Like, those things are self destructive in a lot of ways. Like you were just saying.

1:23:34 Chris: Now, I do think. I might mention this later, but, like, I do think that does start to get really tough, though, when you're saying that, like, that is somehow justified by as much as I agree with it, that it's somehow justified by, like, the previous two tiers, because, like, reality exists, and because logic, therefore, that. Therefore it's self destructive to be a shithead. I actually don't think that there's, like, a real easy way to prove those and to connect those two, right? Like, I can sit here and say, like, yeah, that feels shitty. Like, that. That feels pretty bad. So there must be some. If I'm gonna believe in the virtue of selfishness, then I have to connect the idea that feels shitty to selfishness. Right? I have to.

1:24:19 Chris: I have to say, while ultimately it's self destructive to murder people, but this is something we talked about in our club a lot, like, thought experiment. What if there was somebody that murdered people, took their money, used that money to go on awesome vacations, and had a wonderful life, and died and wrote a letter about how awesome their life was? They never got caught? That seems selfish to me. That seems like a rational almost. If you're saying rational, and you just. Kayla: Described Jeff Bezos, I'm not kidding. Like, no, I'm serious. He's literally on a $500 million yacht right now while people are dying on his warehouse floors. And I don't think he's sitting around going like, boo hoo, I'm so sad about this.

1:25:00 Chris: Right, right. So that's. Yeah, at the time. It's funny. At the time, Jeff Bezos was still like, man, I gotta sell these books. But, yeah, we talked about that a lot in our club. And there wasn't ever really, like, a great feeling answer to that. Like, and I don't think that the objectivist answer to that feels airtight to me either. Just to say, like, oh, well, that is self destructive. I'm like, yeah, I sure hope so. Kayla: But, like, I mean, if you're. Yeah, if you're like, is it quote unquote sociopath that maybe it's not? Chris: Right? Right. It may not be like it. So I think that there's something else at play here, and I think that's one of the things that, like, makes this tough. Kayla: I feel like it can be a really great stepping stone towards for some people towards ideas of, like, collectivism and mutual aid and community, I think it can be a great stepping stone towards that. For people who maybe need to step away from these kind of, like, top down deities watching you, like, God is angry that you're selfish or whatever, if you need to break away from that. Yeah. If you need to break away from, like, feeling guilted into things like tithing or, like, living for somebody else or sacrificing yourself for other people, if you need to step away from that. To be able to get to the idea of helping people is good, I think that this is a great path towards that.

1:26:22 Kayla: I think it can also be a bad path because I think it can take people towards the Paul Ryans and the keith or nearies of the world. Chris: I think another thing that this makes me think of, too, is, like, the whole idea within activism that you really have to find your own reason for doing it. Kayla: You have to find your personal stake. Chris: You have to find your personal stake, right. I think this really kind of, like, rings true for that. For me, too, because, like, I think that is something that we've talked about. This ad infinitum, two off the podcast, we just stopped drinking coffee. But if you don't find your personal stake, then you start. That is, you start being performative and you start having, like, funnily enough, if you don't find your selfish personal stake, you actually end up making it be about you more than it should be.

1:27:09 Kayla: It's one of the differences between something like charity and mutual aid. It's one of the differences between something like, well, I'm a nice person. I'm not racist, versus, like, I'm actively working to dismantle racism, right? Chris: Am I. Am I tweeting about how anti racism I am, or am I actually, like. Kayla: Putting myself in this, decarcerating, putting myself in the fight with my fellow man, right. Finding my personal stake and where you and I came to that idea. Chris: And it's inauthentic, too. That's the other thing I think, is that with, if you don't have that personal stake, it's inauthentic. And, like, you can't hide that shit, right? Like, inauthentic is, like, kind of a cancer that will eventually, like, rot you out, right? So, yeah, so our conversation kind of mirrors, like, my journey with it. Like, I got super on board with it, rah, selfishness. And now I'm sort of, like, mellowed on it, but I still think that it has a lot of merit. In the ways that were just talking about, basically.

1:28:02 Kayla: I definitely don't think it's inherently immoral to act in one's own self interest. Chris: Right. We already kind of went over pros and cons, but I listed some here. I think it's psychologically healthy to treat your own person with the highest level of dignity, respect, care, and attention that you can muster. We talk about on the show a lot. We talk about self care. That's part of this. In fact, one of Rand's followers, Nathaniel Brandon, was a psychologist. He died a few years back. He was a psychologist who is sometimes credited as the father of the self esteem movement. And also, what's not to like about attacking the idea that you owe others pieces of yourself? What's not to like about attacking the idea that it's okay to sacrifice others to your own dream? Griffith, that's an inside joke. If you have ever watched berserk, there's.

1:28:57 Kayla: A reason why you're supposed to put your own mask on in the airplane crash before you help somebody else with theirs, right? Even if you can't take the step towards, like, I'm too steeped in the idea that self sacrifice is moral, okay? But you have, in order to be of best service to others, you have to serve yourself. You have to make sure that you are healthy and well and taken care of before you can go off and be of your best service to others. Chris: All of those things I just mentioned, I think, are ideas that I maybe first encountered with Ayn Rand. You know, like, before that it was just Catholicism, really. And they continue to be part of my sense of life to this day. But I think her Ydez expression of rational self interest definitely contains flaws. Not that you should believe me, because I'm just some dipshit, and she's a best selling author, maybe also a sociopath, but best selling sociopath. But here are my inconsequential criticisms. First, and this criticism is one of the, like, core valid criticisms of objectivism that we've already been talking about in this episode. But, like, really, we started with reality exists. That sounds good. And then we said, reason and logic are awesome. They are what you should use to acquire knowledge. Okay, I like that for the most part.

1:30:08 Chris: And now we're saying, therefore you should be selfish. And not only are we saying, therefore, you should be selfish, we're also doing a dirty little trick that is the source of the extreme dogmatism at play in objectivism. We are saying that this must be correct because it is based on the facts of reality. And I have used logic. Kayla: It's like completely ignoring, especially if Miss Rand is going to say, human beings are not instinctual creatures, blah, blah. We're kind of ignoring the reality that part of why humans have gotten to where we are is not necessarily based on the idea of self interest and selfishness. That's ignoring the component of community and communal living and working together.

1:30:52 Chris: Yeah, it's really interesting because this comes up a lot, too, where she'll make some extreme statement, but then there's enough caveats that go, that even that she, or certainly followers of hers or people now that are objectivists will say, like, yeah, but, okay, but she didn't mean this. She meant it this way. Kayla: Like, right. Chris: She doesn't mean we don't need people. She just means that, like, this is a moral way of acting within a group, you know, interacting with another rational human being. Sometimes, though, it feels like those caveats, like, kind of, like, drain the meaning out of it, though. Kayla: You know? Chris: Like, you caveat it enough. That's like, okay, well, what were you saying then? Kayla: Like, we'll get to that. It's. Again, there is a logical fallacy there of, like, my philosophy is based on logic and reason and existence existing. And because of those things, then selfish is good. It's like there's a leap there that wasn't like, we're missing a step in the proof, but we're glossing over that and connecting selfishness to reasoning existence. So it's like. Feels like a logical fallacy.

1:31:59 Chris: Yeah. That problem actually rears its head at every tier in the hierarchy above metaphysics and epistemology. Right. And actually, what's funny is that there's actually, like, this has been talked about before. Like, this is not a new thing. Objectivism runs into the same wall, or rather, I should say the same guillotine that everyone else, that every other philosopher does. It's called the is ought problem. Now, you might be familiar with the is ought fallacy, and if you're not, it's something you probably, like, intuitively know regardless. But it basically just states that just because something is a certain way, it is a logical fallacy to conclude that it also ought be that way. Kayla: Right. Chris: And also vice versa. But the original formulation of the is ought problem, which was by the philosopher David Hume, states something slightly different, and it's what's relevant here. So Wikipedia, I'll just read from, has an excellent summation of it. The is ought problem, as articulated by scottish philosopher and historian David Hume, arises when one makes claims about what ought to be that are based solely on statements about what is. Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between descriptive or positive statements about what is and prescriptive or normative statements about what ought to be, and that it is not obvious how one can coherently transition from descriptive statements to prescriptive ones. Hume's law or Hume's guillotine is thesis that an ethical or judgmental conclusion cannot be inferred based solely on descriptive factual statements. End quote.

1:33:40 Kayla: I'm very stupid. What. Chris: And that's the show. No, so what he's saying there is that, like, you actually can't do what rand is claiming to do. You can't start with these. What. What is called descriptive or positive statements, right? This is. What is. That is a bed. The color blue is blue. Like, you can't start with that stuff and wind up at. And this is how you should act as humans. Like, you can't wind up at prescriptive statements from it. There's just a. There's a logical. There's a. Yeah, I would say logical gap there that cannot be crossed, basically, no matter how hard you try.

1:34:24 Kayla: I feel like that's what we see a lot of times with really shitty arguments of, like, well, men are just stronger, so they should be able to do this, that, and the other. Or, you know, women are better at taking care of babies, so they should stay at home. Like, we. We see that used in, like, really shitty ways of, like, well, it is this way, so it ought to be this way. And so that makes. And we go like, well, that's wrong, and that doesn't make sense, and blah, blah. So to see that applied here, that makes sense. That makes sense. Chris: And there's a reason it's called Hume's guillotine, right? Like. Cause it's. It's a. It's a trap waiting for you there as a philosopher. Right? Like, now, maybe you're the guy that figured out how to dismantle the guillotine, but, like, great claims require great evidence, right? So I've seen written claims by objectivists that rand actually solved the is ought problem, but this strains credulity, kind of, like, in the. In a meta sense of, like, our leader solved the unsolvable problem. Like, did. Did she. Like, I could believe it if I saw some extraordinary evidence to that fact. But, like, I just. I just haven't. Now, if there's a randroid out there. Oh, by the way, randroid is sort of like a pejorative that I found, you know, randroids, people that are into rand.

1:35:37 Kayla: I don't like that. Chris: You don't like it? Yeah, I don't like it either. If there's a rand fan, I mean, like, I'm a, I would be a randroid. I'm a self proclaimed one. But anyway, if there's someone out there that thinks that they actually can convince me that she did solve the is ought problem. And you're listening, unlikely as it may be, please email us. I would love to hear the argument. And I would actually, that would be big, right? So, cultorjustweirdmail.com. Send us an email. Okay, just to wrap up the ethics tier, I want to elaborate on the idea that, like, you can caveat this stuff till it kind of loses meaning. We talked about that with the whole, like, well, you know, you totally shouldn't murder, even if you get away with it, because XYZ reasons. Caveat. Caveat. Why that's actually selfishly bad for you.

1:36:26 Chris: I'm probably also, like, making a, you know, I'm not doing like, a good job being devil's advocate here, but there's also a converse to that kind of thing, which is like, well, what if it makes me happy to give money to the poor and spend time at soup kitchens? Doesn't that satisfy the selfishness ethic, even though it's like, self sacrificing and doing that kind of thing? An objectivist clear answer to this is, yeah, great, do it. You should do what makes you happy. And if that's giving money away, by all means do it. It just doesn't make you just can't claim, like, an ethical thing from it. Like, well, I, I give the most money to the poor, so I'm the best person. Kayla: Right. Chris: But you could maybe claim, like, I'm doing something that makes me happy, so that makes me the best person. But, like, the problem with that line of reasoning to me is that, like, it kind of makes me wonder, like, what are we even discussing here?

1:37:12 Kayla: Sure. Chris: You know, like, what are you positing? Like, if it's just you should do the things that you are motivated to do, then, like, that's an is statement, not an ought statement, right? That's just an observation that people do things they like. I didn't need objectivism for that. I, and it's certainly not like, a prescriptive statement about, like, ethical behavior. So I just, I kind of feel like sometimes it runs into that of, like, yeah, well, no, we're not saying don't donate to the poor. We're just saying you should do things you like. And if that. I don't know. It's like, okay, well, I know that. All right. I don't know. It just sometimes I feel like I kind of run into that, like that mire a little bit with this stuff. Kayla: I also gotten the sense of, like, over the years of. There's a little bit of, like, and this is not necessarily coming from rand, but maybe just, but from randroids, even though I don't like that. Just the idea of, like, although I.

1:38:02 Chris: Got the randroids, I got that from. We'll talk about it in the sources. But rational wiki. So rational wiki has a entry on objectivism that is, that makes sense. They don't like. They don't like it. They really don't like it. Kayla: I feel like there's a little bit, it can be used to try and undermine folks who maybe do engage in activities that are like, quote unquote charitable. Chris: Right. Kayla: By saying, like, well, you're doing that because it makes you feel good. It's selfish, too. And it's like that kind of. Chris: Yeah, it's like, how are you using. Kayla: How are you using the thing that you say is good as an undermining thing? Chris: Right. Kayla: And also, like, I don't know. I just don't like that gotcha. Chris: Yeah. Yeah. It's like that gotcha kind of feels like this, like, the converse of the gotcha on the other side of, like, well, you know, you should do it like it because it's selfish. Like, okay, but I don't know. Like, what are we prescribing then? Like, we can't just be prescribing. Do what you feel like. Because, like, we're against moral hedonism. I thought. I don't know.

1:39:00 Kayla: And I think I do think it's unfortunate that, again, going back to the Keith Ranieris and the Paul Ryan's of the world, they're able to use that idea to extrapolate into, like, some objectively bad shit. Chris: Right? Kayla: Like, Keith Ranieri gets to go, like, selfishness, selfishness. It was just acting in my own best interest when I, like, raped everybody. Chris: Like, that's an objectivist would say, well, now he's in jail forever. So that actually was against his own self interest. Kayla: Yep. Chris: But then the counter to the counter of that is like, what about all the Keith Ranieres that didn't get caught and have documentaries made about them by rich people? Kayla: There's plenty of those. I mean, Paul Ryan's not in jail. Chris: Well, I mean, I wouldn't put him on the same tier as Keith Richard. Kayla: They're all war criminals. Chris: Jesus Christ. Kayla: Politicians are war criminals.

1:39:41 Chris: Not all politicians are war criminals. Kayla: I don't know if that's true. Chris: All right, let's move on to the fourth and final. Just kidding. There's so much more, but we won't talk about it. Kayla: Oh, God. Chris: This is the final. This is the final tier that we will talk about. We're onto the fourth tier. Final one. We'll talk about of Rand's. Objectivism tenets a layer above ethics, which I agree, this is a layer above ethics politics. After all, you need to know what your society's standards of behavior and social interaction are before you can organize a government for that society. And don't worry, this one is super short. It's just that objectivism promotes capitalism, which has never come up on this show before. And we aren't in any danger of spending multiple hours discussing. No siree. Actually, I'll tell you what.

1:40:34 Kayla: Literally physically biting my tongue. Chris: We've been promising our listeners to put capitalism on trial since, what, like, season one? Since the beginning. So if you want to have that discussion. No, let's put it on our Patreon as a bonus episode this time. Kayla: That sounds good. Chris: And for now, I'll just try to give you the brief summary. Let's start with being on the same page as to what capitalism is so much like. Selfishness. There's a specific thing that objectivists are talking about when they say capitalism, so we have to have meeting of the minds here. Kayla: I do not meet minds with capitalists. Sorry. Chris: Well, you have to meet minds with me, so I'm sorry you're going to come away from that tainted. Objectivists don't think that we have capitalism right now, okay? I think we have a. I don't disagree with them.

1:41:20 Kayla: I agree with them. Chris: You agree with them just in the opposite direction. Kayla: Yeah, yeah, I. Chris: So when they advocate capitalism, they very much mean laissez faire, hands off. Kayla: Any sort of regulation is bad, right? Chris: Pure blue meth capitalism unfettered by pesky regulations of any kind. Kayla: Are they okay with monopolies? Chris: Hold that thought, because we're gonna play a little game later. Kayla: Okay. Are they okay with unions? Chris: Hold that thought. We're gonna play a little game later. Not to speak for you and other dirty socialists, but I assume that sounds kind of crazy, because if what we have right now is bad, and objectivists agree that it is bad, as you just said, then more of the same would be worse. Right.

1:42:05 Kayla: Wait. Chris: What if half capitalism bad, right? Then whole capitalism real bad? Is that. Kayla: No, they want whole capitalism. Chris: No, I'm asking if that's your thought on it. Kayla: Well, I don't know if I. Okay, there's a lot. I don't think that what we have is even half capitalism. I think that we have all, like, oligarchy. Chris: That's true. It's like. It's not even really, like, on a spectrum of capitalism. It's like capitalism with technocratic feudalism. Technocratic feudalism. Kayla: I kind of think. Chris: I like technocratic feudalism. Kayla: Have that. I don't think we have, like, whatever kind of. Look, I'm not a capitalist, but whatever kind of capitalism allows mom and pop stores to thrive. That's the good kind.

1:42:54 Chris: Well, the thing is, I think that, like, we'll get to how this, like, again, if they tend to caveat things enough or when you have enough context, like, you end up kind of agreeing anyway with a lot of the stuff. So I think they would agree with that. Kayla: I'm pro regulation, though, unfortunately. Chris: Well, we'll get to that. Kayla: When it comes to this shit, I'm pro regulation. Chris: When I say that, like, more, you know, if half capitalism bad, then whole capitalism real bad. I'm also referring to, like, I've seen that sentiment. Like, maybe not from you, okay? But I've definitely seen the, like, you know, funny tweet where it's like, you know, oh, well, we don't have capitalism. This is late stage capitalism, so that's why it's so bad. And then the reply is like, oh, you don't have cancer. You have stage four cancer.

1:43:34 Kayla: Like, right. Chris: So that clearly that person is saying, like, the more the worse. Kayla: Got it. Chris: Whereas objectivists are basically just saying the opposite. They say, no, the problem isn't too much capitalism. Not enough capitalism. It's that all of these things that you're saying are bad because of capitalism. We are saying are bad because there's, like, too many restrictions, too many regulations, blah, blah, blah. And unfortunately, I think it's good when. Kayla: Truck drivers are regulated to not drive 24 hours straight. I think that's a good thing. Chris: Well, you don't think they should take the nodos and crash into people? Okay. We love truck drivers, by the way. I'm not saying people crash. We just think that you shouldn't have to fucking like, no, I can kill yourselves doing it.

1:44:15 Kayla: Yeah. Chris: Anyway, unfortunately, at the end of the day, we don't have any windows into alternate dimensions to empirically test who is right. Like, it would be great if we could look at an alternate America where it's like, fully socialist or communist and see how they're doing. And then we can look through another portal into another ultimate in America where it's like, completely hands off capitalism and see how they're doing, but we can't. So we're stuck in this, like, endless loop of socialists saying, why can't we just be like, Denmark and objectivists and other conservative weirdos saying, if the government pays your medical bill, the next stop is gulags, commie. Kayla: God, I wish the government would pay my medical bill. Chris: Yeah, but then the next stop is gulags. Death committees. Kayla: I don't. Okay, false. But sure.

1:44:59 Chris: Now, personally, and I know I'm skating dangerously close to going down the capitalism discussion rabbit hole here, so I apologize. But this episode is partially about my personal journey, so I'm going to remain up here on my soapbox for now. But personally, I do think that either extreme does seem unwise. Again, note Ayn Rand with her absolutism. Right? Like, the only. The extreme, like, absolute capitalism is what is good. One of the things that I have observed time and time again over the past 20 years of my life is that not curating things that we care about is fucking stupid. I worked at Blizzard for nine years, and most of that time I was with the team tasked with systematically combating the worst things that you could do in World of Warcraft.

1:45:46 Chris: I'm like, I'm not talking now about the thousands of customer service reps that Blizzard also employed that were necessary as, like, ground troops to curate that game. That's a whole other thing I'm talking about. I was on a smaller team that was like, the anti hacks, anti exploit, anti harassment. Guys, let's just group it under, like, security. They were like, the security for World of Warcraft, the cyber security. And let me tell you, without all those quote unquote, regulations on World of Warcraft, it'd be an utterly unplayable cesspit, right? Stealing accounts, illegal third party item trading, communication channel spam of the worst kind that you would like. Trust me, I have seen. I have seen the things people say, right? The stuff that gets filtered out. It's not good. Hacking play experiences, exploiting bugs and loopholes to ruin the play experience for everybody else.

1:46:34 Chris: Nobody would rightly play that game. Could do a whole episode on the curation of online spaces. In fact, we actually have talked about it on the show already. There's a reason that radical laissez faire free speech on eight chan makes it the asshole of the Internet. And that's where, like, mass shooters like to publish their manifestos. There's a reason why Reddit and Twitter sort of Twitter are at least, like, usable, right? Far right, not jobs. Leftist provocateurs, purveyors of disinformation, racists of all kinds, nazis. They don't like curation, of course, because it suppresses their speech and the so called quote unquote marketplace of ideas. Chris: But the thing about marketplaces is that if you don't keep out the people that flood the zone with shit, and yes, I'm using that phrase on purpose and make a tremendous effort to clean up all that shit, then the marketplace becomes unusable. And I think you see the analogy also with World of Warcraft. Between that Twitter and our economy in general, the marketplace, if you really do value it like you say you do, needs to be protected with rules. Our whole setup here, everything, more than just the marketplace civilization is, it's based on trust. And people engaging in transactions with other people need trust. And the bigger and the more complex the transactions, the projects, the more important trust becomes. So objectivists might answer this, I think, in two ways.

1:48:01 Chris: First of all, they love private property, huge into private property, again, believing it to be derived from the facts of reality. And they might say private property solves this because you're motivated to curate something you own. This goes back to the whole tragedy of the commons thing, which we debunked. Which we sort of debunked. Kayla: Go Google tragedy of the commons and we'll tell you something that you were shocked to read. Chris: It's a real thing. Look, just go read it. It is a real thing anyway. So objectivists might say, yeah, private property, solve this because you're motivated to curate something that you own, which, you know, that's definitely one way cool. That's exactly why Twitter, owning Twitter should be able to ban people. That's correct. That the people that own Twitter should be able to kick people off of their commons. Private property is also not the only way to curate something. But I said objectivists might answer this in two ways. One is private property. The second way is, I think, that objectivists would also say, yes, that is why we are not anarchists, which they very much are not. And that's why the police and the courts of law are two of the functions of government that we see as valid, the third being the military.

1:49:11 Chris: So according to them, the courts of law exist to protect free individuals engaging in mutually agreed upon trade to protect them from true initiations of force, like just theft, like somebody mugging you or whatever, or implicit force, like fraud. That's how you build trust in the marketplace. And like, yeah, so we're in agreement then. Kayla: Well, not necessarily with the military and. Chris: The police, but forget the military and police. I'm talking about specifically. Like, they're saying, yeah, we need to curate the marketplace with laws, but we. Kayla: Don'T want regulations are. Chris: That's what I'm saying. And, like, this kind of feels, again, similar to me, to the, like, to the selfishness thing where it's like, well, people are gonna do what they want to do. And I'm like, okay, so we agree. Like, I'm not sure what you're saying.

1:49:58 Kayla: It also feels weird to me to reduce everything down to government equals capitalism. It feels like you're having such a small piece of the conversation there. Chris: Well, yeah, they do have a bigger piece of that conversation that we're just kind of not getting into, but, yeah, it's just like, what are you saying then? Okay, we want laissez faire capitalism, accept where it makes sense to enforce rules. How is the court of law not conceptually the same as regulating the marketplace? I truly don't know. And I don't particularly care how you curate the lifeblood of our economic life, whether it's with lawyers or lawmakers. I just care that it happens. Kayla: Right, right. It sounds to me, and maybe this is just the way you're presenting it, but it sounds to me like we want individuals to be bound by law and regulations and not the corporations, you.

1:50:47 Chris: And me, or them. Them, absolutely nothing. They want them to be bound too, do they? That's what the. That's what the courts exist for, in their opinion. Kayla: I'm saying the. What? Chris: You like a way to differentiate, like, law from, like, regulations? Is it, like, regulations? Kayla: No, I'm saying. You said getting mugged. Chris: Oh, yeah. But that was just like, an example to differentiate between, like, are Ayn Rand. Kayla: Capitalists as worried about employer wage theft as they are about retail theft? Chris: I don't know. Kayla: Are they, as said about regulations that involve making sure our bosses can't steal money from us as they are about.

1:51:29 Chris: The regulations otherwise, yes, they are. They. I will grant objectivism this, or objectivists. They do tend to be very consistent. Okay, so I would say, based on. Kayla: My knowledge, that sucks, then, because their representatives in our government are nothing. Chris: Yeah, that's part of why I don't consider them like, right. And that's why, like objectivists, like fucking hate libertarians. That and like the whole, like the person that's closest to you, like, you hate them the most. But like objective, like the libert, it's like this, it's like the square. Kayla: Interesting. Because libertarians are all like, rah ayn. Right. Chris: It's the square rectangle thing. Libertarians derive a lot of their beliefs from Ayn Rand and from objectivism. But like, objectivists who aren't also libertarians are like, they hate it. And then Ayn Rand herself hated libertarianism.

1:52:16 Kayla: I had absolutely no idea. Chris: Hated it. Kayla: Wow. Why? Chris: It's very unexpected. Kayla: Why? Chris: Because it's inconsistent. Kayla: Because it feels inconsistent. Chris: It feels inconsistent. Right. Like libertarianism allows in, it's kind of the dogma thing in one sense. Interesting. Libertarianism is a political movement, not a philosophical system. And so, you know, libertarianism will allow in things that objectivism might not like. You know, like libertarians are like, there's much more of like a hodgepodge that would be like an objectivist would not like the fact that they're like, you know, it's fine if you practice religion. Kayla: Right.

1:52:58 Chris: Again, I don't want to be putting words in people's mouths, but they do hate libertarians. Kayla: Interesting. I did not know that. Chris: Yeah, it's weird. And that's why I also say that it's like the interne thing, like where you kind of like hate the thing that's closest to you the most. Kayla: Right. Chris: They wouldn't say that, obviously, but I think that's, there's some of that in there. Right? Like, well, they're misrepresenting, like, everybody thinks that they're objectivists, but they're misrepresenting in these ways. Right. I think that's part of it too. So anyway, and certainly, like tea party type people, like those guys aren't properly representing. Kayla: Right? Right. Chris: I don't think so anyway. Capitalism, am I right? Yeah. I'll say one more thing before we move on, because I think it's important. This is something you'll also hear libertarians saying. Some folks, let's call them minarchists, will say the government is the entity that we have trusted with the use of force. They have a monopoly on it that we have given to them as the people. We've given them this monopoly on force. But that also means that the government shouldn't be involved in anything else other than enforcement. Hence their support of police, military, and courts, the police to protect from domestic threats. Military to protect from foreign threats, courts to mediate conflict. And I actually think that, like, that's a pretty wise sentiment. There's definitely a danger every time you entrust the guy that has the gun to also take care of something else.

1:54:26 Chris: Right. There's, like, a control risk there, which. Kayla: Is why something like the way socialism or universal healthcare works in a country like Denmark that is going to be inherently different than the way it works here. We are a country very much like we have. Like, we have one of the biggest military presences of all time. We have one of the biggest police presences of all time. It makes inherently our government more dangerous than a place like Denmark. Chris: Right. But again, I've moved away from some of the absolutism of objectivism. Right. The absolutism with objectivism is like. Whereas before, I might have said the government should be hands off of everything because it's just too dangerous. Now, I would say something more like, there are things outside of enforcement that I think it makes sense for the government to handle. But every time we entrust the government with a function, we should proceed with an abundance of caution because of the force monopoly thing.

1:55:23 Kayla: Right. Chris: So that's kind of where I am now. It's really just a matter of, like, absolutism versus, like. Yeah, you're right. That's, like. That's a red flag that we should watch out for. Kayla: Right? Chris: Okay. I think we should stop here with our detailed rundown of the objectivist philosophical. Kayla: Hierarchy 2 hours into it. Chris: God knows this is far more detail than we've ever gone into about a group's beliefs before. But I figured, like, you know, well, we have an expert in the house. Might as well get in the weeds, right? That's why we get paid the big bucks. Kayla: Oh, yeah. Chris: Right? Anyone can read an article about the cult of objectivism, but here at culture, just weird. We give you the meat, by the way. Like, that whole interview gimmick just totally got lost. Kayla: I asked questions. There was two of them.

1:56:04 Chris: You did? But then the problem is I wrote too much of the script to have it feel like an interview. And so then I got kind of the end of it, and I was like, oh, yeah, we're at the end. That gimmick is gone. Whoops. Kayla: I. Bye. We did an interview. That's all that counts. Chris: All right, so to recap the beliefs, we discussed in detail, the first four steps of the philosophical metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics. But know that objectivism does go further, irrespective of whether you agree with or disagree with Rand. In my opinion, her philosophical system is quite an intellectual achievement, if for nothing else other than its scope. How much scope, you say? Well, the next philosophical tier that we might talk about that we won't, because we're gonna cut it short here. But is art. That's right, Kayla. There is a right and wrong type of art to appreciate as well.

1:56:55 Kayla: Okay. I hate that. Chris: Don't forget what the root is. Objective reality and logical deduction. So if you appreciate art that isn't romanticism, then I'm sorry, you're just objectively wrong. Kayla: I hate it. I hate that I hate it so much. And especially the reason why I hate it so much is because I think that the philosophies outlined in the fountainhead are specifically the most applicable to an artistic philosophy. Chris: I know. Kayla: And then just the bullshit of, like, there's only one kind of art is good. Just shut up. Get out of here. Oh, my God. Chris: Yeah, I know this episode is rife with caveats, but I really do want to treat the subject matter fairly. So I do have another caveat. From my perspective, this is something that objectivists seem to have chilled out on a bit since I got into it. Anyway, when I started foraying past the fiction works and learned all the philosophy stuff, I don't know, I definitely had a sense of romanticism or gtFo, and I feel like I see that less now. Now it's more like art is important. Kind of the same way that they advocate for, actually, philosophy is practical. And they would say the same thing about art. You know, art. Art isn't just foofy, it's actually, like, important to the capital I.

1:58:10 Kayla: Right? Chris: Rand herself said of art that it was a way to make concepts tangible to humans and thus much more readily digestible, which. Kayla: Cool. Chris: I agree with that. But then again, this is why we can't have nice things. Objective is poop in their own oatmeal. They go from art is important to modern art, and postmodernism aren't art and are probably also destroying America. Tm. Kayla: I just. Oh my God. The fact that fascism is linked to hating modern art is so fucking weird and fucked up. It's distressing. I am distressed. It's strange, but really easy red flag. If somebody hates modernist and post modernist art, interrogate that.

1:58:54 Chris: I kind of talk about this. They definitely have that. I don't even know how to put it, but it's like there's a bunch of dog whistly, like, usually far right absolute dorks online who are always like, blah blah, western civilization, blah, classical music, blah. Turn off that rock and roll, you damn commie. Like, you know I'm talking about, why. Kayla: Don'T we make statues anymore? We do. Chris: Like, Jordan Peterson, guys, bros with the JP disease. And ladies, plenty of ladies with that disease too. Anyway, objectivist beliefs are, like, annoyingly, very much, in some cases, very much on a Venn diagram chart with all of that, like, rah, western civilization, classical statue yada stuff I never really quite understood.

1:59:40 Kayla: I'm not anti that stuff. It's just I don't have to be the only one. Why is it indicative of a fallen society if somebody likes a Rothko painting? Chris: I know. Yeah. This is basically what I'm saying here. I never really understood why she felt like she needed to prescribe artistic taste and justify it. Because facts and reason, that was never. Kayla: A value of yours. Chris: It just feels a little bit like a power trip. Yeah. Even at the time. Like, okay. Like, I tried to kind of. Like. It was weird. Like, I tried to kind of be like, I get what you're saying, that there is, like, maybe some unique value here, but I'm not gonna not like other art. You know, it was like, I tried to kind of reconcile it that way by saying, like, maybe there's some. Like, there's some thing about romanticism that, you know, makes it more amenable to the philosophy somehow, but it's just like. But I'm not gonna not, like, think that, like, other shit is cool to me.

2:00:37 Kayla: It feels like you're putting an emphasis on an artist's ability to recreate an objective reality rather than. And denigrating an artist's ability to recreate a subjective or metaphysical or philosophical feeling. Emotion idea. Like, that, to me, is what feels, like threatening about, like, a Rothko painting versus, like, a Michelangelo statue. Chris: Right, right. Also, like, Howard Roark. Like, he designs modernist buildings. Like, so I'm like, yeah, wasn't he. Kayla: Like, based on Frank Lloyd Rock? Chris: Allegedly. I don't know if that's. That could be one of those, like. Well, everybody thinks that, but it's not actually true. But I think it's true hard. Kayla: Roark is the protagonist in the foundry head and he is an architect because.

2:01:21 Chris: Everybody'S obsessed with architects, because architects are just like the Uber. Everybody thinks that they're the best, which I guess they kind of are. Anyway, we're getting to. What time are we at? Great. So I think that means that we need to have some mercy on our audience and move into wrap up mode, and I'd say I'm, like, about a third of the way done. Kayla: Well, what do you mean, we're wrapping up, then? Chris: So here's the plan. Kayla: Oh. Chris: It's only our third episode of the season, and I'm already breaking the rules. Kayla: The rules are made to be broken, baby. Chris: Not very rational of me. I know. So this is actually gonna be a three parter. Kayla: Wait, what? Chris: So today's episode about objectivist beliefs. Kayla: Oh, God. Chris: The next episode, which will be more about Rand herself, and I'll get into some of the more, like, juicy, dirty stuff that you cretans are actually here for. And then a third episode to kind of talk about the rest of the world's reception and reaction to rand and objectivism. Because who cares what I think? What's important is what famous people think, and then that'll segue nicely into the cult discussion. Actually, there's gonna be a whole lot more of what I think. So buckle up, losers. This soapbox is reinforced steel. I am not stepping down from it.

2:02:32 Kayla: Oh, my God. Chris: Anyway, I'm not a total jerk. I'm not going to stretch out three episodes over three months. So here is where the rule breaking comes in. We're gonna do our next two episodes on two week breaks, like we used to do, rather than four. So we're basically just adding an episode in the middle of the two were going to do anyway. So, like, there's this one, and then part two is going to be in two weeks, and then part three will be two weeks from then. Kayla: All right. Chris: Because this elephant is just too big to eat. And fewer than three meals before we go. Today, though, now that you know a lot more about objectivism, I want to play a fun little game to illustrate just how weird and non intuitive objectivists are in terms of their positions. They take on all sorts of issues. I told you we'd get to this. I will say, though, they are. I said this before, they are consistent. So their positions only seem weird because we're kind of programmed, especially in 2023, to think about everything in terms of very specific culture. War lines and objectivist positions tend to just bulldoze right over those lines.

2:03:32 Chris: When I was reading the Conservapedia article about objectivism, I was almost physically getting whiplash from the love hate, love hate editorial point of view, whipping back and forth conservapedia, by the way, being very stupid and not comprehending the idea of objectivity, even a little, does have an editorial point of view. If you didn't pick that up from the title Conservapedia. Anyway, the game is, I am going to give you a list of issues, and I want you to guess what objectivists think about the matter. Kayla: Okay. Chris: For the purposes of this game, treat objectivists broadly, like it could kind of mean Ayn Rand herself or what the Ayn Rand Institute's official positions are, or like, opinions issued by their contributing members. I have culled these answers all from those places.

2:04:20 Kayla: Okay. Chris: Which, thanks to the dogmatism, like, they're all pretty much in line with each other. But don't think of it as, like, what my positions are, like, a rank and file person broad, but still within the dogma. Are you ready? Kayla: Yes. Chris: Also, this is kind of cheating because, like, I've talked to you a bunch about this shit over the years, so. Kayla: I feel like I may have insight. Chris: There's some. You might have insight, but I also. Kayla: Have a lot of biases. So. Chris: All right, we'll start with the softball here. What do you think is objectivism's stance on government regulation of companies? Kayla: I think they don't like it. Chris: They're against it. Good job. Okay, now we talked about how they're minarchists. They don't like government. Right. Small government. What do they think about courts of law? Kayla: Well, you said that they like them.

2:05:01 Chris: Yeah, we already went over that one. They do think that the courts of law should exist. All right, what about subsidies for companies, big businesses? Kayla: I think they don't like those. Chris: Ding ding. Good job. Yes. So this is where it's kind of. Kayla: Like, like including the farmers? Chris: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Kayla: Like a little farmer. Chris: No subsidies. Kayla: No subsidies for anyone ever. Chris: Zero. Kayla: And I'm not saying I like a subsidy. I'm just interested to know. Chris: But this is the thing is, like, in the sort of normal, like, you know, right, left, fighting. That feels weird. But if you look at it through the lens of, are they being consistent with the laissez faire thing, then it makes total sense. So they are against subsidies for big business or anybody else for that matter. Monopolies.

2:05:44 Kayla: I already asked this. I don't know. Chris: What's your guess? Kayla: They like. They are. They don't like them, but they're okay with them? Chris: I think that is accurate. Kayla: Okay. Chris: They are. I'll say this. They are against antitrust. They think that the market should decide whether the monopoly should break up or whatever. Kayla: But that's not how it works. I'm gonna have a fucking brain aneurysm. Chris: I know. That goes back to the whole, like, you gotta curate the system for it to work well. And, like, they see kind of pick and choose whether they want to or not. Kayla: How do you capitalism your way out of a monopoly? Like, how do you do, like, market forces out of a monopoly? I can only buy I can only buy soap from big soap Corp. Then. Chris: Somebody'S gonna start a little soap.

2:06:25 Kayla: How do they do that if there's a monopoly? Chris: No, I agree with you that I think that cornering a market on something can give you, like, an indefinite sort of advantage there. But let's move on in the game. Kayla: Welfare, they don't like it. Chris: Against welfare. No, welfare. Charity. Kayla: They like it. Chris: They do like charity because. Kayla: Because they are one. Chris: And also, that's individual choice, right? You can choose whether you want to do that or not. It's not through the government. The government's not taking money from you to give welfare and money to somebody else. You are choosing. What do they think about taxes? Kayla: I don't like them. Chris: They're against. They're like, basically, they're like taxes. Taxation is theft.

2:07:07 Kayla: Do they drive on roads? I'm going to ask you a really important question. Do no, do answer me this. I'm answering all your little questions. Chris: Riddle me this. Kayla: Do these assholes drive only toll roads on roads? Chris: Only toll roads. Kayla: Do they drive on roads? Chris: Of course they drive on roads. Kayla: Well, then they can shut up about taxes. Chris: This is something that I think we'll talk about a little bit at some point. But, like, I think both sides are a little unfair with the, like, do you exist in society? Then you can't have those ideas. Kayla: Oh, oh, you're gonna say I'm wrong? Chris: No, I'm not saying you're wrong. Kayla: Tell me that I'm wrong. Chris: But I am gonna say that, like, they would say, like, yeah, we have to because, like, that's the way society has been set up. Kayla: You're welcome. Chris: What we are trying to do is move towards something where that's not the case. We would prefer that all roads be owned by private companies.

2:07:52 Kayla: Gross. Chris: And then we would have less of a problem driving on. Kayla: I think they should all go watch Erin Brockovich. Chris: But I think that's also true of, like, we hear that a lot, too, with, like, socialists. Like, oh, you're gonna protest this company or whatever, but then you have to use their services. You have you're gonna protest airlines, but to get there, you had to use an airline ticket. Kayla: Wait, where do you hear that from? Socialists? Chris: No, you hear that as a criticism about people that are protest about socialism. Kayla: Right. Right. Chris: You hear the criticism of, like, oh, you. You know, you're against all these businesses, but you use all our products. Kayla: You have an iPhone. Chris: You have an iPhone. You drink water to survive. Kayla: Right. Chris: So I think that, like, I'm kind of on both sides. That is not. I think it's a logical fallacy.

2:08:34 Kayla: Gotcha. Chris: Okay. Taxation is theft. Actually, Rand said about taxation, too, that, like, it's. You know, if. If were to ever get to the point where we could, like, eliminate taxes, it would probably have to be, like, one of the last things that we do, and that's sort of like, laissez fairening of the system. Kayla: I don't know if I care about what she thinks of these things, given how she lived her life. But I guess we'll get to that in different episodes. Chris: We will. All right. Kayla: Public education did not like it. Chris: Boo. Yep. Public infrastructure. Kayla: That I don't know. Boo. Chris: Still. Kayla: Still. Still. Boo. Chris: Still. Boo. Private. Gotta do private, man. Single payer healthcare. Kayla: Don't like it. Chris: Obviously don't like that. Nationalization. So if you don't know nationalization is. That's when, like, a company, a country comes in, like, you know, like, Saudi Arabia says, we own these oil fields. Now get out of here.

2:09:20 Kayla: Exxon, they don't like that. Chris: They really don't like that because they love the companies. And also, they think that the basis for property rights is based on, like, are you gonna work the land or not? Kayla: Right? Chris: Not. Do you happen to live there? Kayla: So they were pro extermination of Native Americans. Chris: I don't know if they would say they're pro extermination, but we'll get to that. That's one of their. That's one of the darker bits of. Kayla: Ms. Rand that makes sense. Chris: Yeah. Collective action. Kayla: I don't know what that means. What's collective action? Chris: So, like, let's see if I have. Kayla: This, like, a boycott or a protest or. Chris: Yeah, like a boycott. A protest, or, like, let's say somebody's farm burned down and, like, the whole town got together to, like, help them out.

2:10:05 Kayla: Pro. Chris: They are pro. So I think they might even be, like, pro mutual aid in that sense. Kayla: Sure. Chris: Workers unions. You asked me about this one before. Kayla: I'm gonna say no. That they don't like them. Chris: Is that your final answer? Kayla: Does that mean they do like them? Chris: They do like unions. Kayla: They do like unions. Chris: They very much like unions. So. And this. This. My first exposure to this was just like, there's a positively portrayed union boss in Atlas Shrug. Kayla: Atlas shrug. Right. Chris: But even if you, like, look it up in the Ayn Rand lexicon or whatever, it's part of the belief system that they're like, yeah, unions are cool because it's like people are voluntarily getting together to negotiate for a better stake.

2:10:46 Kayla: Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Paul Ryan. Chris: Now, what they would probably say is, oh, as long as the government doesn't get involved. Right. They would probably say, as long as the unions don't invoke government, blah, blah. Kayla: I don't think unions have, then it's okay. And we've seen historically that it's been the other way around. Government has been union busting. Chris: Right. So. And I think that they acknowledge that. And that's, you know, again, part and parcel of, like, rah, unions, theism and religion. That's another softball. Kayla: They don't like it. Chris: They don't like it. Kayla: How do they feel about, like, religious freedom stuff? Chris: Yeah. Oh, they're very much religious freedom. Like, they're the separation of church and state. And in fact, they also, it's just. Kayla: Interesting because those lectures series that you had were very, like, islamophobic.

2:11:30 Chris: They were. But they would say that it's. They would say that those things are all anti militant extremism, Islam, not Islam as a whole. Kayla: Have they ever done a lecture series on other religions and their militant extremism? Chris: I don't know. They definitely do talk about other religions extremism, but I don't know that they've done that because the focus. I know this is me saying this, not them, but the focus has been in this country on terrorism from militant Islam since 911. That's been the focus. Kayla: Right. Chris: Has there been other kinds of terrorism? Yeah. I mean, like, we know that. Like, did they do a whole lecture.

2:12:13 Kayla: Series after, like, the Oklahoma city bombing? Chris: I don't think they did. I doubt it. Kayla: Okay. I guess ivory tower wasn't responsible for it. Chris: I. But, like, and this is me not defending them. This is me just saying, like, they're part of society. Like, I feel like that's a broader criticism of american society as a whole. And that's just a wave that they also rode. Kayla: Right. That makes sense. Chris: Police, do they think police should exist? Kayla: They like them. Chris: Yeah. What about police brutality? Kayla: They love it. It's their favorite. No, of course they don't like it. Who says they like. Chris: They don't. Kayla: Like, no one's gonna come out say they like police brutality. That's. Chris: Well, okay. Yes. So let me make this different then. Do they think it exists.

2:12:55 Kayla: Yes. Chris: Yes. They acknowledge that police brutality is a thing and they don't like it. Kayla: Okay. Chris: Although they also don't like the people protesting because they destroy property. Destroying properties. Kayla: Destroy property. Chris: Wrong. Okay. Immigration. Kayla: They. Oh, I don't know. They like it. They like it. Chris: Well, let's say freedom of immigration. Let's not say immigration. I think they're neutral on whether, like, you immigrate here or nothing. Kayla: I think that they think that people should be able to move around freely. Chris: Yes. They are very much anti wall. Kayla: Yeah. Chris: Yeah. Kayla: Like, that's a very, like, anarchist belief. Chris: I recently watched. Actually, it was the same. I think I brought this up earlier, the interview between Shermer and Euron Brooke, and he actually described the. Like, the anchor baby situation. He described those people as heroic.

2:13:42 Kayla: Ooh. Chris: So, okay, let's talk about wars. Just talk about a few us wars. Are they in favor of the revolutionary war? Kayla: Yes. Chris: Yes. We should have done that. The civil war. Should the north have attacked the south? No, wrong. The north absolutely should have attacked the south. Why? Kayla: Yeah, I don't know why. Chris: American citizens were being denied their individual rights and the government has a responsibility to remedy that. Kayla: Got it. Chris: World War one. Kayla: I don't know enough about world War one. Chris: For the most part, anti. They think that, like, we. That was definitely, like, a european thing, that we shouldn't have gotten into world War two.

2:14:22 Kayla: I mean, by that argument. But by the other argument, I don't know. I don't know. Chris: Take a guess. No, this one's a little bit of a yes and no, for the most part. Yes. And depending on who you ask. Kayla: I think I was saying no. I refuse to take to. Chris: Oh, you're saying no to me? Kayla: Yeah. Chris: Oh, fuck you. No. So their position on World War two. I say they, but let me just say, rand. Yes, we should have been in World War two because were attacked specifically and because then Germany declared war on us. But if we hadn't been bombed in Pearl harbor, she would say no, because they actually do tend to be, they being objectivists, non interventionists. They're like very dove like in that man. That.

2:15:05 Kayla: I mean, there's a reason why Rand Paul is named Rand Paul. Because Ron Paul was super non interventionist, right. He named it after Rand, right? Chris: I believe so, yeah. That's the story. Last one, Vietnam. Kayla: They know. I don't know. Because it was against the commies. I don't. Shit. I'm gonna say no. Chris: Really don't like commies. They were against Vietnam. Kayla: Oh, I was right. Chris: They're non interventionist. Trump's the, like, I don't like. Right case, which I think is intellectually consistent, in my opinion, in general. Yeah, they're non interventionist. Unless it serves the interest of the citizens of the United States. That's the common thread there. It serves the interests of United States citizens to free them from slavery. It serves the interests of the United States citizens to protect them from Imperial Japan.

2:15:57 Kayla: It's interesting to be so, like, we're non interventionists, really care about the citizens of the United States and also be pro, like, free immigration. It's an interesting. Chris: Yeah. Kayla: Duality. Chris: Because if you come here, then, like, you, they also want you to assimilate, though, right? Kayla: Okay. Chris: Right. They're very, like, melting pot. Not melting pot, not salad bowl. In terms of immigration. Kayla: Well, what's. What are you assimilating into american culture? What's that? Chris: You're learning English. You're. You're doing american stuff. You're talking like this in New York. I don't know. Assimilation, which is hard because, like, american culture. Kayla: Like, yes, there is american culture, but also, it's like. It is made up of, like, so much. Chris: I know it's cultures. I know it's hard.

2:16:38 Kayla: I don't know what that means. Chris: I know it's too much to get into here. The other thing I'll say about wars is they think that any free country, any whatever that, you know, whatever you have that to mean has a right, but not an obligation, to invade any non free country. So, for example, they're not like, oh, no matter what the government is in a country, they have a right to self determination. They're against that. So they think that if you're a dictatorship, if you're a Hitler, then you have what's coming to you. But they don't think that you're obligated to invade that country. Kayla: Gotcha. Okay. Chris: All right. Anarchism. Are they anarchists? No, I already answered this kind of. So good answer. Yeah, they're minarchists. They're very much against anarchism because they think that in anarchism, everything just goes to shit, which is kind of what I'm saying about the curation thing, which is why I don't really understand exactly what they mean about regulations. But anyway, let's talk about some specific political candidates here.

2:17:38 Kayla: Oh, God. Chris: Okay. And this, of course, they differ. So, for example. Well, okay, I'll get to that. Bush, like, for the most part, they were against Bush because of the religious stuff. He was very religious. Kayla: Oh, he was. Chris: He was very religious and they were against that. Kayla: Yeah, I forgot about that. Chris: Obama. Kayla: Disliked. Chris: Yes. And Obama, because I think for this. Kayla: One, and again, I was going to say healthcare. Chris: Got to say this again, gay marriage stuff. Kayla: Different bombing. Chris: Another pro. They're pro gay marriage. Kayla: They're pro. The government being like, you have to do. Chris: No, they're actually. No, they would prefer the government not be in marriage at all. Yeah, they would prefer the government not have any. Kayla: Are they like states rights guys or do they not care about them?

2:18:19 Chris: That. I don't know. Kayla: Okay. Chris: So, yeah, Obama, they would not let. And again, there's a diversity of opinion within. Sure. Of course, the group, but yeah, because largely because of Obamacare, I think even. Kayla: More than bombing, like, libyans, but also. Chris: That, you know, he was also way more interventionist than they would, like, a lot of guys. And I would agree with them on that. And there. And they also had, like, the sentiment of, like, you know, Obama is just increasing the, like, the power of the presidency past where it should. And, like, you know, despotism, yada, yada that you hear from right wingers. Trump, like, split. Kayla: I just figured, like. Cause he was kind of non interventionist.

2:19:01 Chris: So there's definitely some, like, really, like, douchebaggy people that are objectivists. So there's definitely some people that are. There's this guy. I was gonna actually read you the quote, but running out of time, but basically, like, full on, you know, like, right wingy, like, still touting the, like, colleges are destroying America thing. Like, I think he described universities as, like, they do the, like, kids these days a bit, you know, like, well, no, there's, you know, the intellectually vapid people that are being produced by, like, our prisons. Camp slash, like, universities now. Yes. And I'm like, really? That's a. That's rational. That's rationalty. You think that's a rational statement that you just made. But then there is also a lot, like, you'll read some of the stuff that people that objectivists have written about.

2:19:53 Chris: Trump mirrors the same kind of fears that we had about his authoritarianism and the populism and the blah, blah and all that stuff. Kayla: Yeah. As much as he wasn't interventionist, he was also super anti immigration. Chris: Yeah, exactly. So it's a bit of a mixed bag, but for the most part, I would say anti Trump. And then I, Biden, I can only find one person's opinion on this. Kayla: But what would early. Chris: Who would he have voted for in 2020? Who would who have voted for this person. This is the only person I found an opinion on was from Yaron Brooke. Kayla: I think he would have voted for Trump. Chris: Biden. Kayla: Biden. Why? Chris: Because of the. He was anti Trump guy. He thought that Trump was too dangerous and had demonstrated that during his. You know, for them, it's like they hate both sides, and it's always a lesser of two evils. It's just like, what you want to cite as is the lesser. But he was like, well, I hope that it's like Biden, but then, like, a republican congress, so that, like, he can't do any of his things.

2:20:50 Kayla: Cool. That's what love, to have a government that can't do anything. It's great. It's worked out really well for us when the government can't do anything. Chris: Okay, art, would they like Frank Lloyd Wright? Kayla: I don't know. Yes. Yes. Chris: Yeah. What about, let's say, les miserables? The Victor Hugh? Kayla: Yes. She loved him. Chris: She did. See, this is where the cheating comes in. Kayla: But that's common knowledge. Victor Hugo. Chris: That is common knowledge. Kayla: I just saw a tweet about it. Chris: Right. It's just funny. Kayla: She loved Victor Hugo, and Victor Hugo's seminal work was about, like, the French Revolution, so. Chris: Right. It was about, like, things that she just really did not like. Kayla: Yeah. Chris: And not only was it his seminal work, it was his. Her favorite work of his.

2:21:31 Kayla: So weird. It's great, but so weird. Chris: What would they say? Kayla: I don't think that she would think that a starving man should steal bread to feed his family. Chris: Yeah, I'm not sure about that, actually. Kayla: I'm not sure that's the whole crux of this book. Chris: Yeah. All right. Slavery. Kayla: Did not like that very much. Chris: Did not like that racism. Kayla: Do they care? Chris: They do. Kayla: Why? Chris: Well, I mean, like, do they think that. I guess nobody's pro racism. Kayla: Well, the world church of the creator is. Chris: But do they think. Well, sure, but, like, are they think, like, do they think it's a problem? Do I think. It's not a problem. Kayla: They think it's a problem. Chris: They do. I think there's some, like, there's definitely. But I don't think it got fixed during civil rights. Kind of like.

2:22:11 Kayla: I don't think they're into, like, affirmative action and, like, diversity. Chris: They're very. Actually, that's a good. I don't have that on here. But they are very much against affirmative action. Kayla: Okay. Chris: Yeah, but they. I have heard them acknowledge systematic slavery, though. Kayla: Interesting. Chris: There's not systematic racism. Systematic racism. Slavery was, of course, systematic. What about abortion? Kayla: You and I have talked about this, and I forget because you had a specific feeling about abortion when you encountered this. I think that they are pro. A woman's right to choose. Chris: They're very pro choice. Kayla: Okay. Chris: Yes. Yeah. And, like, me coming from Catholicism, that was like, yeah, kind of butted up against that. We've talked about this, I think, on that abortion episode that we did last season, but this was one of the first things I was like, huh. Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. But it comes down to, like, the individual rights, government keep out, blah, blah. So they're very much pro choice. Israel Palestine.

2:23:08 Kayla: Sounds like they're pro Israel. Chris: Yeah, they're pro Israel. Kayla: But are they pro, like, two state solution or, like, what are. Chris: Yeah, too complicated. What about imperialism, colonialism? Kayla: I don't know. I think that it's like, they're probably gonna be like, yes and no. Chris: Yeah. It's hard to say pro or against for something so broad, because I feel. Kayla: Like they're probably pro colonizing the Americas, kind of. Yeah, but I feel like they're gonna say, like, but it's also bad in other. Chris: I think that they would probably say things like, oh, it's really bad that, like, all those people died and blah, blah. Like, government force shouldn't have done this, shouldn't have done that, but in general. And, like, we'll go over some pretty unsavory statements made by Ms. Rand next episode when we talk about her. But basically, the idea here is that, like, because native peoples don't respect. Don't have the same conception of individual property rights that Europeans do. That is the thing that Ayn Rand likes.

2:24:04 Kayla: They just. They don't have that same. Their values are different. Chris: The values are different. They don't have that same. Yeah, they don't have that, like, european style. Kayla: Right. Chris: Individual property rights. That's the thing that she. That she likes. And therefore, if you don't have that, then, like, the people that do have that can just take stuff. Kayla: Right. Chris: And she definitely used, like, savagery. So anyway, gender equality. Like, yeah, their gender. Yeah, pretty. Pretty much with that. Although with Ayn Rand, she was like, Ayn Rand sucks. She's weird. She's, like a feminist. Iconic product of her hate feminism. Kayla: And she hates women. Chris: Kind of hates women. Environmentalism. This is the last one.

2:24:44 Kayla: Dislike. Chris: Yeah, they're really against the whole environmental movement. They think it's irrational. It's based on. Kayla: That's psychotic. That's a psychotic stance to have. It's irrational to care for the planet that we live upon, psychos. Chris: Because the way you care about the planet is individual rights. Kayla: No, sorry. Chris: Property rights. Kayla: Okay, well, what do they think now? Chris: We're about to all die. Don't regulate. I mean, we can get into things like negative externalities, but every single thing we talk about here could be its own episode, and we're already almost at 3 hours. All right, so that's it. Your score was five to seven, so you lost. I'm sorry, Kayla. Kayla: I'm sorry. Chris: I absolutely wondez. You can't argue with cold, hard logic.

2:25:28 Kayla: I absolutely. Chris: I have reason on my side. Kayla: Go back and listen. Chris: I objectively won. You know, you did pretty well. You did pretty well. Thanks for. Kayla: I have secret knowledge, so I. Chris: You have the secret knowledge. All right. And thanks, as always, for coming on this journey with me. I'll end on the note. I began the episode with the note that we have talked about several times, and I hope to carry through to both next episodes as well. For all of Rand's and objectivism's many faults, several which we will get into next episode, she and objectivism also did a lot for me. It gave me an alternative worldview to consider beyond the Catholicism on which I was raised. It set me on the path that I'm still on with regards to staunch belief that reality is real and other people exist outside of my own consciousness.

2:26:16 Chris: It taught me to value reason and logic, that truth is important, and that I damn well should value myself and my own well being, and that humans are at their best when they are free to act and free to express themselves, and that beautiful things are still possible. And finally, it taught me to be thoughtful about which of these beliefs I ought to keep and which I ought to discard, which, after applying my own evaluation, an evaluation that I really, truly strive to be rational and based on logic and evidence. A lot of those discarded beliefs have ironically turned out to be other pieces of objectivism itself. Kayla: This is Chris, this is Kayla, and.

2:26:58 Chris: This has been cult or just weird objectivist version? Objectively.