Ben Shapiro & Jordan Peterson (and a 12 Rules US/Canada Tour Update)

Hi, this video has two components: a three-minute announcement of the remaining venues of my American 12 Rules for Life tour and the new Canadian venues that will open up in July and August, followed by a lengthy discussion with Ben Shapiro on the narrative substrate of human commission derived from his new Sunday YouTube video and podcast.

So, hi there! I'm in Denver, Colorado today. It's May 7th, 2018. I'm going to give the fourth talk of my American 12 Rules for Life tour tonight—or maybe it's the fifth. The first one was in Toronto, then Washington, Chicago, and then Detroit. Now, Denver. So yes, I guess that's the fifth. I'm announcing the remaining venues today in the U.S. where tickets are still available and the dates and places for my Canadian tour—10 Canadian cities in July.

So there are tickets remaining to ten venues in the United States: on May 23rd, Philadelphia; on May 29th, Houston; on June 8th, Richmond; on June 10th, Charlotte; June 12th, Nashville; June 14th, Louisville; June 15th, Indianapolis; June 16th, Milwaukee; 25th, Portland; and 27th, Sacramento. In between all that, on Wednesday, June 5th, we will also be in Reykjavik, Iceland. So tickets are available for those, and then I'm going to be touring in Canada in July and August.

On the 19th in Toronto, on the 20th in Hamilton—that's July—on the 21st in London, Ontario; 22nd in Kitchener; on the 23rd in Ottawa; on the 26th in Vancouver; on the 27th in Calgary; on the 28th in Edmonton; and in August, on the 14th at Regina; and on August 15th in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. You can find out more about that if you go to JordanBPeterson.com and look up events—that's JordanBPeterson.com under events.

Also, in this video is a discussion that I recently did last week. In fact, it was just released with Ben Shapiro as part of his new Sunday podcast initiative, and I think we had a very good conversation. So the rest of this video was taken up with the conversation that I had with him. I think we got further on the issue of how human perception and cognitive function is nested inside a fundamental narrative substrate, and we related that to modern findings in neuropsychology related to hemispheric function. I think it was an excellent discussion, and so I'm very happy to bring it to you.

There's some ads in it because I took it directly from Ben's video. So anyway, that's the tour: Philadelphia, Houston, Richmond, Charlotte, Nashville, Louisville, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Portland, and Sacramento—that's all in June and May—and then Reykjavik in June as well, and then the Canada tour in July and August: Toronto, Hamilton, London, Kitchener, Ottawa, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, and Saskatoon.

As I said, you can find out about that at JordanBPeterson.com/events. Thank you very much, and I hope that you can come to one of the talks. They seem to be going really well so far. We sold out a very large number of them, and the people seem quite enthusiastic. I've been able to get farther in my thinking than I was in my book, and each of the talks is designed to illuminate a different element of the, let's say, the 12 rules and the topics that are associated with that.

So thanks very much, and I hope you enjoy the discussion with Ben Shapiro. There are lots of times in your life you're not going to be happy, and so that's not going to work. You want to have something meaningful—that's the boat that will take you through this storm.

[Music]

Well, here we are with Jordan Peterson, and I could not be more excited to talk with the best-selling author of 12 Rules for Life. I will talk with him, but first, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at Helix Sleep.

So there's nobody on the planet like you—so why would you buy a mattress built for everyone else? Working with the world's leading sleep experts, Helix Sleep developed a mattress that's customized to your specific height, weight, and sleep preferences so you can have the best sleep of your life at an unbeatable price.

Here's how it works: you go to helixsleep.com, fill out their two-minute sleep quiz, and they'll design your custom mattress. They even customize each side for you and a partner. In 2018, Helix Sleep has taken customized sleep to the next level with their Helix Pillow. It really is fantastic. Their pillows aren't fully adjustable, so you can achieve perfect comfort regardless of sleep position or body type. Helix Sleep has thousands of five-star reviews. Plus, you get a hundred nights to try them out. Go to helixsleep.com/ben, guest right now and you'll get up to 125 bucks toward your mattress order. That's helixsleep.com/ben, guest for up to $125 off your mattress order. Again, that's helixsleep.com/ben, guest. Get the deal with Ben, guest, and make sure that they know that we sent you.

Okay, so I could not be more excited to speak with Jordan Peterson. Well, as Jordan knows, before the show, we talked for an hour just about interesting things we should have caught on tape, but now we're actually going to get a chance to do it live.

So here is Jordan's new book. If you haven't bought it yet, everybody on the planet has bought this book. I was walking through the office today, and we didn't have a copy in the office. The person at the front desk had a copy of your book sitting on her desk.

Sup? That's the way this works: 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos. Fantastic book, obviously topping all the bestseller lists all over the world. Jordan, thanks so much for joining the show. I really appreciate it.

Thanks for the invitation. Well, you know, obviously, your prominence has just blown up in the last year and a half. When we were talking before the show about why that is and why there are so many people who suddenly are very angry about you, I noticed there's an article in Politico suggesting that young, angry white males—you are now their leader. So congratulations!

No, you have said—I want to ask you about that—why do you think that, number one, your profile has become so big of late, and number two, why do you think it is that so many members of the left are so angry about that? Why are they characterizing people who listen to you as angry, enraged young white men?

Well, we could look at the characterization to begin with. You know, because I think it speaks to the pathology of the radical left. They are absolutely incapable of viewing the world through group identity terms, you know? And so if someone comes out and disagrees with them, then they have to characterize them by their fundamental group attribute—whatever that happens to be. Maybe it's gender because that's a favorite, or maybe it's race, and so "angry young white men." There we go: sexist, ageist, and racist all at once, right?

They're angry young white men. Well, it has to be that way if you're going to play the leftist game because that's the only way that you can look at the world. And then if you can't make your opponent reprehensible in some manner—and it's strange that they would attempt to make them reprehensible on the grounds of race, age, and sex since that's precisely what they stand against hypothetically. But if you can't make your enemy reprehensible along some dimension, then you have to contend with them seriously.

And so, you know, if I'm not an all-right fascist like Hitler or Milo—you know, Alice, which is how I was characterized in Canada because the radical leftist can't even get their bloody insults straight. He's like Hitler or Milo Yiannopoulos. It's like because there's no difference between them, right? No obvious difference; it's just another attempt to pillory, as far as I can tell, and I think that it's dreadful. I really think it is.

There was an article written in by the, I believe, the editor of the New York Review of Books that was just republished in The Globe and Mail talking about the emergence of hyper-masculinity and how I was somehow responsible without or contributing to it, like Mussolini. And I read that, and I thought, "Yeah, like Mussolini."

And I thought, "Okay, so what are you doing? I see you're defining masculinity or conflating masculinity and hyper-masculinity at the same time." Then you're virtue signaling by being against hyper-masculinity. But really, what you're trying to do is bring down whatever it is that's masculinity. And what masculinity is in this frame is something like competence.

And so, it's part of the radical leftist's general war on competence as well, which I think is one of the most pernicious elements of the culture wars—the dissolution of hierarchies, the assumption that every hierarchy has to be based on power and serve the needs of your group, whatever that happens to be—that there's no such thing as competence.

And then the other thing that's reprehensible about it—because that's not enough—is that it's just wrong. I've got tens of thousands of letters from people, and people come up to me all the time on the street. I'll give you an example: this is a great story; this is really touching.

So I was in LA about a month and a half ago, and I was downtown LA, and downtown LA is kind of rough. And I was wandering around with my wife, and this young guy pulled a car up beside us, hopped out, and he was kind of a stylish-looking 21-year-old Latino guy, something like that. He was all excited, and he said he asked me who I was, and I told him.

And you know, that’s what he had presumed, and so he was kind of excited about that. He said, "Look, I’ve watched all your lectures, and it’s really helped me. I’ve been straightening out my life and trying to get my room clean." And he laughed about that.

But you know, developing some aims and trying to tell the truth, and "look, I’ve really fixed up my relationship with my father."

And so then he said, "Wait, wait, just wait a minute." And I thought, "Sure, what—sure?" So he went back in the car, and he got his father out of the car, and he came over with his dad, like they had their arms around each other. And he said, "Look, we’ve really improved our relationship," and they were both smiling away.

And you know, that’s—man, if you’re going to target me for that, just go right ahead! And as a real white supremacist? Oh, yeah, yeah.

And it’s wherever I go now, and this is one of the things—that’s so wonderful about that, as far as I’m concerned, is that people come up to me all the time, and that’s exactly what they say. They say, "Look, you know, like I was lost, aimless, depressed, nihilistic, anxious, drug-addicted, alcoholic, wasting my time."

Masturbating too much—although they don’t generally use that particular example—you know, loss, essentially, and hopeless in some sense. And I’ve been watching your lectures, and they’ve really helped, and I’ve really been putting my life together, and I’ve been trying to say what I believe to be true and develop a vision, and it’s really helped.

And like—it's so overwhelming; you know, like if I'm doing book signings after a talk, then there'll be a dozen people or more who—and these aren't like—I'm only talking to people for about 15 seconds. But you can have a very intense conversation in 15 seconds, and they'll say, "Look, you know, like I was suicidal, man, like I was really hanging on to the edge of the earth by my fingernails, and I'm better," and they have tears in their eyes.

It's amazing; a little of that goes a long way. Well, I think that when I look at your eyes and look, I talk to people who love what you do. I mean, every time I go on the road and I'm speaking at a campus, you're the number one name that gets mentioned.

And people who come to my lectures—and I think that the reason for that, that I've seen, is really twofold. One is that one of the things that you really talk a lot about is the notion of self-discipline and purpose in your life and control and the idea that you are in control of your decision-making and your decision-making matters.

That's one. And the other reserves—you have a unique capacity to say no to things, and when somebody says something to you that is illogical but popular, then you have the capacity to say no. That's what happened in that Cathy Newman interview, that then somebody was saying something to you that made no sense, and you just said, "Well, no!"

And then you just stood on that no. I think it gives people a lot of courage.

Yeah, well, I mean, the gender issue is really an interesting one because one of my professional domains of expertise is individual differences. I'm a personality psychologist, and so I know the gender difference literature, and it's a very solid literature.

Well, first of all, it's very solid; it has a 30-year history—once personality psychologists got the personality models down. So that would be the big five model—all empirically derived, straight statistics, right? Brute-force empiricism. Nobody had a theoretical axe to grind with the big five except to say maybe there are human traits; maybe they're encapsulated in language. We can use statistical techniques to find out what they are—that was it. That is the whole ideology: so very, very neutral as far as ideologies go.

Five traits emerge, okay? Are there differences between the sexes? Turns out there are. All right, they’re not massive, although if you sum them across all the traits, you can separate men and women with about 75 percent accuracy, so it's not trivial. But you have to sum across all the traits.

Then another question comes up: well, are those differences socio-cultural or biologically? Okay, we can test that—we'll go around the world; we'll look at cultures; we'll rank order them in terms of the gender equality of their sociological policies.

We can do that with broad agreement from the right and the left. Then the hypothesis would be, if gender differences decrease among more egalitarian societies, then the gender differences are socio-cultural, or at least more socio-cultural. That's exactly the opposite of what was found repeatedly.

That's pseudoscience! It's like, "No, that’s mainstream psychology; those papers have thousands of citations." And right, the average humanities paper has zero citations, right? And then the next most common one has one, three thousand. That’s an unbelievable classic.

And here’s the other bit of evidence: like you say, "Well, how do you know that you can trust someone's judgment about a fact?" The fact emerges despite their ideological presuppositions, okay? So it’s well-known that the social sciences and the humanities have a left tilt, and a lot of that’s temperamental, and the tilt has become more pronounced.

But as Jonathan Haidt has pointed out, there are no conservatives among social personality psychologists—none to speak of. Yes, very few. Vanishingly few. If the field has a bias, it is definitely and indisputably a left-wing bias.

Okay, so you have to fight that if you're a scientist, right? Even if you're a left-wing scientist, you have to fight that because you want to get to the facts. It was these social scientists who generated the data that suggested that the gender differences not only were real but that they were bigger in egalitarian societies.

They didn't do that to grind their ideological axe because their ideological presupposition was, "No, no, you make the society—you yell at Aryan men and women get more the same." It's like, "No, they get more different."

Oh, isn't that something? And so then there's a corollary there, which is all right, you could still say—and they're kind of pushing in this direction—in Scandinavia, boys and girls are different, men and women are different; it looks biological. But because people are malleable, you could push the sociocultural structure harder and harder to minimize the biological differences.

Okay, well, first of all, maybe, and maybe not; you'd get a rebound and they'd get even—the kids would rebel. That could easily happen. But let’s say, okay, you could—the problem with that is, is that if you seed that much power to the state, like, you're basically giving the state the right to socialize your kids, right?

Like you really—you really—you really want to do that? I mean, the people in Israel couldn’t do that with the kibbutz, right? It didn’t work, so people aren't gonna give up their children to the state, and thank God for that.

Well, I mean, this is one of the big questions that we were discussing earlier—when we were talking about the polarization in politics between right and left—and obviously you're a psychologist; you're a philosopher, but you've been dragged almost kicking and screaming into this political sphere because everything has been so politicized.

And so when you say—when you cite social science statistics, and they're scientifically based, you're called a racist; you're called a sexist; you're called a homophobe. Exactly. So why is it that—why do you think it is that so many folks on the left, who purport to be all about reason and science and objective fact, are so willing to throw those out the window the minute that it becomes politically inconvenient?

Well, because you imagine that cognitive system—so an interpretation of the world has levels. There are axiomatic levels; some fundamental presuppositions are more fundamental than others. And you could say, well, the leftists historically—maybe because of their atheistic rationality—are more on the side of science than, say, the fundamentalism of any sort.

But when push comes to shove, you find out how the axioms are nested. There are deeper axioms underneath that, which is that all hierarchies are based on power and all power plays are based on group identity, tribal identity, essentially, and that the entire history of the world is nothing but a power play between these different identity groups.

It's like, okay, well, if the science indicates that some of that’s wrong, then do you alter those beliefs or do you alter the science? And the answer to that question is, well, it depends on how you’ve hierarchically arranged those. If the science is at the bottom, then you alter your beliefs, right?

If it’s the scientific facts or the axiomatic substructure, then you alter your beliefs. If your beliefs are the axiomatic substructure, then you alter the science. Well, we’ve seen how that plays out, and one of the things I’ve tried to do, so to speak, is to diagnose the axiomatic structure.

It’s like, “Okay, what’s the metaphysical presumption structure of the radical left?” Well, what it is is you’re basically—the groups are basically engaged in warfare, right? And the warfare is arbitrary except insofar as it serves your group.

Okay, I don’t buy any of that; I think that’s a route to certain disaster. I think it’s a degeneration into tribalism and that we will seriously pay for it—not only because it returns us to tribalism and tribes fight, as the anthropological evidence for that is overwhelming, right? Tribes fight. It doesn't even matter if they're chimpanzee tribes—even chimpanzee tribes fight.

So not only do you regress to a tribalism, but you also invalidate the one proposition that’s been able to help us arise above the tribal, which is the idea that the individual should be sovereign. And so I think the culture war is about what’s the proper framework within which to view human identity and what’s the relationship between the individual and the group in relationship to that.

I did—and the leftist answer is it’s all group and it’s all power. It’s like, okay, so in just a second, I want to ask you a little bit about some of the more enlightenment-minded thinkers who are out there right now because it seems like we’ve been discussing the big gap in Western civilization right now, which is between the collectivists and the individualists, if you’re input of broadly.

But I want to talk about some of the divisions among the individualists in just a second. First, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at Birch Gold. So with the uncertainty of the market right now, with all the volatility, a lot of Americans are increasingly concerned about the security of their savings, and the Federal Reserve obviously has a loose monetary policy—it’s been shoring up recently—but there’s a lot of volatility in the markets.

Well, this is the reason why I need to talk to my friends over at Birch Gold. So Birch Gold dot com is the place to go if you want to put some of your assets in precious metals. I'm not saying take all of your money out of the stock market and push into precious metals—that would be stupid—but you should have a little bit in precious metals as a hedge against inflation and volatility in the markets.

Birch Gold sells physical precious metals for your own possession. They'll ship the metal right to your front door. And right now, thanks to an IRS tax law, you can even move your IRA or eligible 401(k) into an IRA backed by physical gold or silver if you so choose.

It's a good option for people who want to ensure that their retirement savings are protected from the possibility of inflation or stock market volatility. Birch Gold Group—they have a really good long-standing track record of continued success.

They’ve been advertising with me for years, thousands of satisfied clients, countless five-star reviews, an A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau. Ask all your questions about precious metals investing, get all your answers, and then contact Birch Gold Group to request a free information kit on physical precious metals. Their comprehensive 16-page kit shows how gold and silver can protect your savings, how you can legally move that IRA or 401(k) out of stocks and bonds and into a precious metals IRA if that's something you're interested in.

Thinking that no cost, no obligation kit, head over to birchgold.com/ben—that's birchgold.com/ben. That also lets you know that we sent you.

Okay, so Jordan, one of the things that we’ve been talking about obviously is the big gap that I think we certainly agree on between the collectivists, identity politics, and the sublimation of science in favor of subjective politics that favors a power group. But I want to talk a little bit about a division that is also now breaking out among those of us who I think would consider ourselves friends of the Enlightenment.

So you consider yourself a friend of the Enlightenment-style thinking, at least in the essence that individuality matters and that the individual is sovereign; the scientific data matters and are useful—exactly. And in this group, you know, I consider myself as part of this group.

People have started to call it the intellectual dark web. Sam Harris is part of this group; there are a wide variety of folks with a lot of broad political differences that are part of this group. But there are some real differences that have broken out even among people who consider themselves part of this group, right?

Steven Pinker has a different perspective on the world than you do; I have a different perspective than Sam Harris does; you and I have our differences probably on some matters of philosophy. So where do you think the vulnerability lies in the—possibility of her vivifying Enlightenment mentality?

Because it seems to me that one of the big problems that’s popping its head up above the water now is the rejection of the Enlightenment in favor of this old-style tribalism that you’ve been talking about. We are now going to repeat history because we benefited so much from the Enlightenment that we forget that things don’t have to be this way.

We’ve got so much nice stuff; we live in so much freedom that we forget that if we just toss those Enlightenment ideals out the window, things get really ugly again. I think that's what unites—well, that's the question—is that what do you toss out the window before things get ugly, right?

And the Enlightenment proponents—you could say Harris; you could say Pinker—Charles Taylor in Canada; they trace back the development of the modern self, let’s say. Taylor wrote a book called Sources of the Modern Self. It’s quite interesting because, like, if you look at the typical academic psychologists, say their historical knowledge generally runs back about 15 years.

And so because they are all concerned with the modern literature—and there’s some utility in that—but the downside is they don’t have any historical context. So you read someone like Taylor and you think, “Wow, he’s stretching it back 500 years.”

But there’s reading that goes way beyond that to look at the sources of the self and the source of the modern ethos, and this is a huge bone of contention between people like me, say, and people like Harris, and I think between people like you and people like Harris.

My sense is that the Enlightenment values themselves are grounded in an ethos that’s much deeper and much less articulated, and that would be an ethos of metaphor, image, drama, ritual, religion, art, music—all of that, dance, even without matter—the nonverbal—the pattern recognition.

And McGilchrist has written a book called The Master and His Emissary, which lays that out quite nicely with regards to hemispheric specialization. It’s kind of predicated on Alcock and Goldberg’s observation that the left hemisphere is specialized for what we know, and the right hemisphere is specialized for what we don’t know.

If that’s an order-chaos dynamic, and the rough idea would be that the left hemisphere generates paradigmatic systems—so that would be like the Enlightenment system actually imprinted, right? Even sustainable axiom predicated—but that entire axiomatic system is based in a non-verbal—in the non-verbal domain that’s associated with—well, it would be associated with deep motivations, biological motivations, and emotions.

And so because here’s one way of looking at it: you think, well, how do you validate an axiomatic system of ethics? And the answer is quite straightforward: Jean Piaget figured this out. You play it out in the world, literally; you act it out in the world, and then you watch each other’s emotional responses.

And if the thing that you’re playing out is the axiomatic system that you’re playing out satisfies the motivations and the emotions of the people who are engaged in that system, then the system is justified. And then you say, well, it’s not just that their motivations and emotions are satisfied; it’s more complex.

It’s that the motivations and emotions of each individual are satisfied, but not only now; now next week, next month, and next year. So you have to stay extended across time, and not only my emotions and motivations, but yours as well now next week, next month, and across time.

So there’s terribly tight constraints placed upon an axiomatic system’s validity. Now, the way Jean Piaget thought of that, he said, “Well, think about it like a child’s game—a bunch of kids get together, and they decide to play pretend.”

Okay? And pretend is—let’s mortal the world, right? And as a place to act because to pretend, you ever go right? So the kids get together, and they assign rules, and they say, “Well, you’re gonna be mom; you’re gonna be dad; you’re gonna be the dog, and we’re gonna play house.”

And then they act it out, and what they’re doing is seeing if they can regulate the manner in which they’re constructing the game so that everyone’s emotions and motivations are satisfied that they want to continue the game. Okay?

And so that’s so cool. So what it shows you is that’s how an ethical system is tested and justified. It’s like you play it out, and you see if everyone wants to keep playing. And so that’s a whole different methodology than the scientific domain, right?

So the axiomatic system isn’t justified by reference to the scientific method; it’s justified by reference to the emotional and moral wellbeing of all the players of the game. Now that game emerges—this is the second part of this—and this is so cool.

Then the question is, well, how does that game emerge? And the answer is the same way that children’s games emerge. So what Piaget noted is that kids would get together, and they’d play marbles. And if they were young kids, they could all play marbles, say six, six years old, they could all play marbles.

And if they were in a group, they were playing marbles, and it all worked out fine—squabbles, no, you know, the kids would keep playing, right? Validating the games. But if you took the kids out of the game and you said, “What are the rules of the game?” they would give completely disparate accounts.

So they knew how to do it; it was like the wisdom was in the group. The wisdom was fragmented enough among individuals, so if you pulled the individuals out, they’d give disparate accounts. But if you put them all together, they could play the game. But then if you waited until they were 11 or 12 and you pulled them out of the game, then they could tell you the rules.

Then at 14 or 15, they would be willing to—this is with more sophisticated games—they would be more willing to regard themselves as makers of the rules, okay?

So here's how it happens: in an evolutionary sense, people going all the way back to our primate forebears organized themselves into functional hierarchies, okay? And now the hierarchies are complex, and they’re not just based on power despite what the idiot Marxists say.

Even DeWall has noted that chimpanzee hierarchies are unstable if they're only based on power; they don’t last; they need to generate into violence. So you have a hierarchy that works, but it's acted out. No one knows why it works; it works because everyone seems to be happy with it.

Okay? And so those hierarchies get more complex and more sophisticated, and then people start to observe them and talk about them. It’s like, well, we’ve got this hierarchy here. What’s it like? And then they spin off dramas about the hierarchy.

Here’s a hero who climbed up the hierarchy, and here’s what a hero looks like. Okay? Then out of that, you get the idea of the hierarchy. And then you get the idea of the hero as the person who moves up the hierarchy and generates it.

Okay? Then this generates all sorts of different heroes because there are different ways of being successful. Then you have a panoply of heroes. Then you think, okay, well, now we’ve got all those heroes. That’s a set; we can pull back and say, okay, something about all these heroes is what makes them heroes.

That’s when you extract out the monotheistic religions. And so it’s like the procedure and the hierarchy come first; no one knows what the rules are; it’s all played out, the same way that wolves play it out in a pack or chimpanzees play it out in a troop.

Then we wake up and think, "Oh, we live in a structure." Here’s the structure; that would be Osiris in the Egyptian mythologies. Here’s the structure; here’s how the structure goes wrong; here’s what the structure does; here’s its tearing, its tyrannical aspect; here’s what you have to do to generate the structure and to thrive in it.

Okay? That’s even more important—the hierarchy is important enough, but what we want to know is how to master the hierarchy. Okay? That’s where you get the mythologies of the hero.

Okay? And then, so then this generates all sorts of different heroes because there are different ways of being successful. Then you have a panoply of heroes. Then you think, okay, well, now we’ve got all those heroes; that’s a set; we can pull back and say, okay, something about all those heroes is what makes them heroes.

That’s when you extract out the monotheistic Savior because that’s why in Christianity Christ is the king of kings. It’s actually—you can think about it as a literal statement for—forget about the religious overlay, it’s like, okay, you got a bunch of people; some of them are kind of king-like, okay?

So you admire them. It’s like, for whatever reason that is, it’s not easy to figure out why you admire someone, right? That’s complicated. But let’s say you got admirable people; you start telling stories about them—that’s why you go to a movie; you want to watch someone.

You don’t care about your board; you know, you want to go watch someone admirable and interesting or maybe the opposite of that, but it doesn’t matter; it’s the same thing. Then you think, okay, well, we’ve got all these admirable people; they’re generating the world properly; that’s what makes them admirable; there’s a principle they embody, and that principle is the process by which the admirable world is generated.

That’s the logos. Okay? That’s the thing that’s operative at the beginning of time. So here’s my—so here’s my question about all this because now we’re really not talking about 12 Rules for Life as much as Maps of Meaning, which is your first book, which are you doing me the audio.

It’s definitely a harder book than 12 Rules for Life, in a much more complex book in a lot of ways than 12 Rules for Life. So how universal are these systems? Meaning, why is it that the Enlightenment only arrives at one time in human history in one place in human history as opposed to if human biology is essentially consistent across, you know, across humanity?

Then why is it that, you know, if at the apex of the levels you have the Enlightenment idea—which is starting this particular question—then why is it that it only arrives in one place at one time, as opposed to arriving in a variety of places in a rock?

Right, it’s a great crystal. Okay, the first thing we would say is the process by which this—the hierarchy itself and success within the hierarchy—is generated—that’s to be accounted over millions of years, at least hundreds, thousands of thousands of years.

But I would push it back because you can see analogs in the chimps. So 20 million years, let’s say—that’s a long time on that time scale. The fact that the Enlightenment values arose in Europe 500 years ago before anywhere else; it’s like, well, who cares?

It's five old men long, right? If you put five 100-year-old men in line, it’s like it’s yesterday; it’s this morning. So we’ve evolved these hierarchical structures; that’s our culture. We’ve evolved ways of maneuvering within the hierarchical structures that are successful, and now we’ve started to evolve ways of mapping our adaptation—not just adapting, but mapping it.

Okay? So how does the mapping occur? First, admiration. Second, imitation of admiration. And that would be drama. It’s like you dramatize; Shakespeare extracts out what’s admirable and interesting and plays it out. So that’s the use of the body as a representational structure of the body.

So we act out what’s admirable. You think, okay, now we’ve kind of got the drama down; we’re all captured by this drama. It’s like, well, then the literary critics come along, the philosophers, and they say, "Oh, what are the principles by which the admirable people operate?"

It’s like chimps woke up and said, "Oh, well, some chimps are more successful than others. What are the rules of success?" It’s like, well, there were no rules because they weren’t running by rules, right?

There aren’t rules until you describe the patterns; then you have a rule. Okay? That’s what happens with Moses and the women, right? Moses has a revelation: here’s the rules, right?

Yeah, we’ve been living out those rules forever; we didn’t know what because they weren’t rules; they were customs, right? Okay, so you start by mapping your customs in drama and story, and that way you can represent them and you can transmit them. Then once you have them in your grip, say they’re represented—now, not just acted out—well then you can move one step backwards from them, and you can say, well, what’s the commonalities among these? What are the general principles?

That would be the development of something like the Code of Hammurabi. It’s like, well, we’ve got all these customs. What are they? Revelation! It’s like, “Oh, here’s how you map the customs.” That’s the Decalogue; it’s the same idea.

So it took human beings a very long time to evolve their hierarchies, to evolve their structures of success, and then to have enough people around with enough spare time to engage in the cultural process of the artistic-cultural process of mapping the adaptive structure that only emerges in mythology and drama.

Then that lays the groundwork for philosophy; then the philosophers could come in, especially once it's written, like in the Judeo-Christian pantheon. It’s like, “Oh, now we’ve got it written down. Oh, well, we don’t have to remember it, right? We can read it, and while we’re reading, we can think about it.”

And so then out of that starts to come the semantic codes. Well then you get the Enlightenment. It’s like, “Oh, well, here’s a bunch of semantic codes." It’s like, "Yeah, yeah, those are great."

So this is really interesting because, you know, if you read Pinker or Yuval Noah Harari's new book, essentially they attribute the Enlightenment to—in Jonah Goldberg’s term—calls it the miracle. It’s almost as though it accidentally occurred in a certain place in a certain time.

John doesn’t go quite that far, I think, to be fair to him, but I think that that philosophy—that this sort of sprang up randomly here—is very much embedded in a lot of Sam Harris’s thinking, a lot of Premier's thinking.

And you’re taking it further back, but I do wonder if this may be where you and I will disagree with—is it should be fun? Are you attributing the growth of the Judeo-Christian ethic that emerges into the Enlightenment as also accidental?

You’re just pushing a timeline further back, right?

Oh, I don’t think it’s accidental. Okay, I’m not making a reductionist argument. So the first thing is, I’m going to say this is how religion evolved. I’m not saying that this explanation exhausts the phenomenon because it’s a very strange phenomenon. It was very, very strange.

But that doesn’t mean we can’t generate a plausible evolutionary account. It’s like if you have a bunch of motivated, emotional beings occupying the same territory and competing and cooperating for the same resources, including the resource of cooperation which can generate more resources—it’s not a zero-sum game—there are going to be patterns of adaptation that emerge from that that are similar.

So here’s a way of thinking about it. If you put a bunch of kids together, they’re gonna evolve games, right? Well, which games? Well, a bunch of different games. Yeah, but they’re all games, right?

So even though—so that’s the moral relativist element: a bunch of different games. Okay, but the moral absolutist element is—yeah, yeah, but they’re all games and the games have to be playable, which means they have to continue, right?

In an iterated way, right? So that’s a big constraint; people have to want to play them. So not only do they have to be games comprehensible to everybody and enjoyable, but people—they have to be self-maintaining and everyone has to want to play them.

Okay? That's the answer to the postmodern conundrum, a plethora of potential ethical implications of the world—an infinite variety. Yeah, okay, fine, not an infinite variety of pragmatically applicable interpretations—you instantly constrain the universe to Walter.

Well, this is why there are commonalities in mythologies. It’s like if you put enough people together in enough different places, the commonality of the groups of people—because of the grounding in common motivation and emotion and embodiment—because we’re embodied means that they’re gonna generate hierarchies that are broadly similar with strategies of success within those hierarchies that are broadly similar, with descriptions of the strategies that are broadly similar.

And so you could say, in some sense, the ethic that gave rise to the Enlightenment is in place more or less everywhere. Now it’s tricky because not every hierarchical system is as functional as every other hierarchical system; some of them can degenerate into tyranny.

We're talking about the set of all voluntarily playable games, right? Or something like that, and that can degenerate. Out of that, you’re gonna get common hero myths, you have to, and then that lays the groundwork for even our ability to communicate, right?

So this is the Enlightenment guys—they just—they're not getting that. So—and this gets to, I think, the broader question that I know you and Sam went on for three hours about—the nature of truth.

Because particularly truth in the moral sphere, I think that, you know, I would be fair to say that you guys agree on the idea of truth in the scientific sphere—that there is such a thing as objective truth—or are you?

I would say we agree on a lot of that; the question is to some degree why do scientists accept the idea that objective truth is true? And then I would say we probably don’t agree about that because I would ground that in pragmatism right.

And Sam would ground out in the idea of an independently existing objective world, right? Which is a leap of faith more like my own actually than the pragmatist view, right? No, and if you believe that there's a God who's out there in the universe who created the structures in a particular certain way, then what he created is the truth, and it is apart from you.

That human beings didn’t exist, and they weren’t able to utilize the truth—that truth would still exist out there, whereas the pragmatism I’d say is truth is in the use that it has for you.

Well, that’s exactly—that’s the thing is that, you know, I don’t know if we would consider scientific truth true unless we are also simultaneously accepting the idea that scientific truth is good for people.

So there’s one other thing I wanted to bring up that’s relevant because you brought up the idea of God. So here’s a way of thinking about it, and I don’t know what to make of this because this is stretching me—this is stretching my thoughts out beyond where I've been able to develop them.

So imagine that there’s a very wide range of human behaviors, okay? And some subset of those are both admirable and not admirable. So let’s call them good and evil at this at the extremes.

Okay? Then we might say, well, there’s a pattern that characterizes all the actions that are good and a pattern that characterizes all the actions that are evil. And that’s a transpersonal path because it’s not just about you or me; it’s about everyone, okay?

And so then that gets personified, and that’s Christ and Satan, let’s say, or Cain and Abel, right? That gets personified—all the time it’s personified; it’s Thor and Loki, you know, in the Marvel movies.

So now you have the alleged state; you take the idea of Christ, and you think, okay, so that’s the abstraction of everything that’s admirably good about the set of all human behavioral.

Okay? And then you think, well, what sort of reality does that have? And this business pulls back into the reality of the idea of the logos and the idea that it was the logos that God used at the beginning of time to extract order out of chaos.

So you think, well, it’s transpersonal, the goodness, because it’s not just characterized stick of any one person; it’s more like something that inhabits a person rather than that a person is. You can really see this, for example, on the other end, to the satanic end, because if you read the writings of people who do absolutely horrific things, like the shooters, you can see that possession extraordinarily clearly if your eyes are open.

It’s shocking, right? So people don’t usually look at it, and they even say that themselves. Like the Columbine kids, their writings are hair-raising, you know? And they were clearly possessed by an evil that you only encounter if you sit in a dark place and brood on your hatred for months and years, right?

You go places where all the dark people go, right? And then if that takes you over, okay? So the good can take you over as well. Okay? So there’s this—there’s the spirit of good, let’s say.

And what the spirit of good does is act in the world on the potential of the world to generate the actuality of the world, and the Judeo-Christian proposition is that if you confront the potential of the world with good in mind, using truthful communication, then the order that you extract is good.

And then that’s echoed in Genesis when God is using the word, and he creates cosmos out of potential. And every time he does that, he says, "And it was good."

Which is, I think, it’s so interesting because there’s a proposition there. And the proposition there is that if you encounter potential with truth—the cosmos you create is actually good.

Well, that’s just an absolutely overwhelming idea. It’s like, if it’s true, it’s the greatest idea there ever was.

Ya know, your thoughts on this, actually from Maps of Meaning, helped generate what we in Israel’s in clubs of our Torah in Hebrew leading, they thought about that—the mystical notion of the Tree of Good and Evil in Eden—what is that supposed to be? What did people do wrong by eating from the Tree of Good and Evil?

And my feeling is that what they did wrong is that God created a universe in which the value was embedded in the object, right? That in the same way that you, in your book, talk about if you’re teaching a child about an object, the rules of the object are embedded in the teaching about the object.

So you use the example of a vase. We were discussing this earlier, but you use the example of a vase where you teach a child, "Don't touch the vase because the vase will break." So that the rule is embedded in the object in the same way—in Aristotelian thought—the rules for behavior are embedded in the nature of the universe.

Meaning what makes a man good is what makes a man unique, which is the reason—they—the reason is what makes man unique.

So acting in accordance with right reason is what makes something—what makes an action good. So if you believe that God created the universe along these lines and that what natural law is, is just the human attempts to understand the lines along which created God created the universe—then where human beings went wrong is when they decided to separate values from the universe.

When we decided to take values and say, "This is a completely separate thing." So this vase has no rules attached to it anymore; it’s just a vase, and we can construct the rules arbitrarily as to what to do with this vase.

And so eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil changes the nature of good and evil from the universe, comes along with a set of rules to human beings who think that they can use their own intuition to supplant God’s rules and to supplant universal rules with their own particular vision of what the universe ought to be.

And at that point, they have to be expelled.

Yeah, well, okay. So that’s also associated to some degree, I would say, with Milton’s warning in Paradise Lost because Milton basically portrays Lucifer, who’s the bringer of light—weirdly enough—as the spirit of unbridled rationality, which accounts for—to say the Catholic Church antagonism—the Catholic Church’s antagonism towards rationality.

The idea was the same idea in the Tower of Babel—that human beings have a proclivity to erect their own dogmatic ethical systems and then to expand them into a grandiosity that challenges the transcendent, and that that’s a totalitarian catastrophe.

And for Milton, Satan was the spirit that eternally does that, right? Who says everything I know is enough, and that plants—what I don’t know—that’s the plants that transcendent, and that—that's a catastrophe.

How that’s tangled up with the knowledge of good and evil—while you’re making some headway towards sorting that out, I mean, there is a cataclysm that’s explained in the story of Adam and Eve, right?

The cataclysm is the coming to wakefulness, and it’s associated partly with recognition of nakedness—which is recognition of vulnerability and mortality and the discovery of death—and then also the discovery of good and evil that goes along with that.

So you say, "Well, that’s partly the cognitive division of ethics from the facts of the object." So I have to think that through. I would also recommend to people—I think I mentioned this before—is in McGilchrist’s book, The Master and His Emissary, because he looks at this neuropsychological right and looks at the left hemisphere as the hemisphere that’s dealing with the explicitly axiomatic systems and the right hemisphere that’s dealing with what those systems are embodied in.

Okay? So part of what happens with the emergence of good and evil is, as far as I could tell, it took me a long time to think about this. And this is different than the hypothesis that you laid forward, which is why I can’t reconcile them exactly.

Yes, you recognize you’re naked; you know you can be hurt; you know you’re vulnerable and insufficient; you hide from God because that’s what happens next. And the reason you hide from God—say God is your destiny, or God is the—you’re walking with God—is a manifestation of your ultimate proper destiny.

You doubt whether you’re capable of that because now you realize your embodied finitude, your nakedness, and insufficiency. So you hide in your shame.

So there’s that. You also realize that you can be hurt and suffer, and that kind of goes along with God’s command that you’re going to work in the sweat of your brow and that you’re going to die and that women are gonna be subjugated to men—which is put on as a curse, not as a moral imperative.

Right, right. But then what emerges out of that is that as soon as you know that you can be hurt, this is what differentiates us from animals—and you really think that through, here are all the myriad ways I can be hurt.

Then you’re angry about that because you can be hurt, but even worse, you can figure out how to hurt other people, and so that’s part of that knowledge of good and evil. You associate it with this dissociation of the object from its ethical container, right?

Now the universe is created by God from our interpretation of the universe, that there is a gap between the two. And that once human beings begin to supplant their own rationality for a TOS, right, in the—or Cicero at least—you know, we end up doing is creating all sorts of awful systems that end up destroying us in the other stuff.

But there’s something about that that’s right. I mean, part of what happens in the New Testament, as far as I can tell, is that what Christ says—so he’s trying to transcend the rule structure, right? Not because there’s anything wrong with the rules; they’re necessary preconditions for discipline, which is actually why I wrote 12 Rules, right? It’s like you need rules, but they—but rules conflict, and they don't always apply.

And so there has to be an ethic underlying the rules, and you should have more respect for the ethic than for the rules, right? Okay? Christ’s idea—and this is part of the idea of the reestablishment of paradise—is that you should orient yourself towards the good. And that’s something like an alliance with God.

And then that you should tell the truth—and that’s—that’s the ethic that generated the rules to begin with.

Okay? And then we could be serious about this, you know, and we could say, well, how do you adjudicate the reality of that claim? All right? So then we might think—we already walked through the fact that the heroes of the past acted on potential to extract out the world of actuality, and if they did that properly, then the world they extracted was good.

And that that is a divine principle, and then we might say, well, is it a divine principle? And you might say, well, what is it that’s acting through people in the good? The Christian theological answer to that would be the logos, right?

Right. That’s the idea; that’s the idea of the Holy Spirit, roughly speaking. Right? You might think, well, is that a real thing? It’s like, well, to me it’s real the same way that consciousness is real, and we don’t know the role of consciousness in determining reality even, but even if you’re an evolutionary biologist—and this is so interesting because the evolutionary biologists actually discriminated themselves from Darwin on this point.

Like Darwin was very, very forthright in his claim that sexual selection was as powerful as natural selection or even more so. And so here’s where this goes, and because that was because that brought consciousness into the world as an active player.

The materialistic evolutionary biologist ignored that for like 150 years and only concentrated on natural selection, where they could play—well, this is all chance, right? It’s like sexual selection is not chance.

Okay? So here’s a hypothesis: human beings separated themselves from chimpanzees. One of the reasons they did that was because human females are sexually selective; chimps aren’t.

Chimps will female chimps in estrus will mate with any chimp; the main chimps—the dominant ones chased the subordinate males away, so they’re more likely to have offspring. But it’s not because of female choice, right?

Now female human females have done this whole different thing—that they’ve hidden fertility, and they’re much more likely to go after guys who have climbed up the hierarchy. So let’s say heroes will give the women some credit for intelligence, right, and say that’s what they’re after, even if they’re using wealth and so forth as a marker.

They’re actually using those as a marker for competence, and I think that’s—I think the evidence for that is clear.

Okay? So you might say, “Oh, well, it was human female conscious choice that selected us.”

Okay? And you think, well, that’s not random; that’s not random at all; it’s the farthest thing from random that there is, and that means consciousness is making its choices with regards to what propagates.

But then it’s even more complex than that. So here’s what happens among men: the men all get together in their hierarchy; they positive valued goal—they all accept that goal because otherwise, they wouldn’t be cooperating, right?

Then they arrange themselves into a hierarchy, and they let the most confident guys lead because they want to get to—they want to get to the promised land; they want to get it—most competent leaders leading them, defined by that value.

Okay? So here’s what happens: essentially, the men all get together and vote on the good man, and the good men are then chosen by the women, and those are the people who propagate.

And so it’s like men are voting on which men get to reproduce, and women are going along with the vote and being even more stringent in their choices, let’s say. And so then what you get is that the consciousness, through its active expression, transforms the potential of the world into actuality—also selects the direction of evolution, right?

And that’s where the meme darkens—turns into the biological reality; it’s not so—it’s something that’s so cool about Dawkins. It’s like I’ve often thought this about Dawkins—if he would push his thinking to the limits, he would fall right into Jung.

Well, he’d be lost; that’s a whole other universe. But if you think that meme seriously—like, and I mean really seriously think, yeah there’s some ways of conceptualizing that becomes so all-encompassing.

Yeah, that’s right; they start to become an actual force of evolution itself. And so then here’s the case you could make: consciousness extracts the proper world of being from potential through truth, and then it’s good this way.

Okay? That’s our hard-won man that manifests itself in human beings at the individual level of individual consciousness; that’s the logos within; that’s the metaphysical foundation of the idea of natural right and responsibility.

That’s a bloody killer idea that’s expressed in the hero of heroes; that idea—that hero of heroes is the driving force behind human evolution. So not only do you get the action of the logos metaphysically as the process that extracts order out of chaos at the beginning of time, you also get it as the major driver of evolution.

And so then you’ll ask, okay, then what kind of reality does that have? Because you chase consciousness back, and like it disappears into the mystery of our past, and we have no idea what its relationship is with matter.

But it’s the force that gives rise to the cosmos and drives evolution. It’s like, you’re getting pretty close to God there.

Yeah, even just pragmatically speaking, and you’re certainly, you know, not close to, but in the midst of an argument about free will because obviously, if you if you make the hard determinist argument that free will doesn’t exist and consciousness is merely a sort of trick that your brain is playing on itself, then how exactly does—how do culture propagate?

How do we—how do these memes propagate? How are people choosing? Sexual selection and natural selection become one of the same as soon as you boil sexual selection down to natural selection.

Oh, you know, so I think the free will argument—I mean, I see why Harris gets tangled up in that, you know, because, well, first of all, deterministic arguments are unbelievably powerful, and when we use deterministic models for many things, they really work, right?

So you could say, well, we’re going to use that by default. It’s like, fair enough, we’re going to deviate from that with care. But I don’t see people as driven like clocks winding down. First of all, we don’t wind down in any simple way—we’re dissipative structures, to use Harold’s point of view—what is life?

A human being is a dissipative structure; we’re not an entropic structure; like a clock running down. We are in some sense, but as living beings, we pull energy in, and so we’re not winding down like a deterministic structure or something other than that.

And the way we treat each other is as logos, as far as I can tell. The way I treat myself, right, if I’m going to be good to myself in the proper sense, is that I’m an active agent of choice confronting an infinite landscape of potential and casting that potential into a reality—for good or for evil, okay?

And if I treat myself that way, then I have proper respect for myself and proper fear of myself because I can make bad decisions and warp the structure of reality.

And I think if you read Frankl, for example, or Solzhenitsyn, and you see how your bad decisions could warp the structure of reality, then that wakes you up, right?

Okay, so there’s that. If you don’t treat yourself like an active imbued with logos, then your life doesn’t go well. But more, if you don’t treat other people that way—they do not want to play with you.

If we set up societies that aren't predicated on the idea that people are like that, then the societies become—they dissolve or they become totalitarian almost instantly.

So then I would say, well, you’ve got the problem of determinism. It’s like, fair enough, man, how do you reconcile the fact that if you lay out a society at every level of analysis on strict deterministic grounds, it fails?

So doesn’t that mean your hypothesis has a flaw? I mean, maybe not. Maybe you could say no, the facts are independent of the ethical contract.

Exactly. This is where the truth-determinism—this is where the truth pragmatism question moves back into being pragmatic.

I would say, well, it’s true regardless of what the effect is, and you would say, well, it’s obviously not true if morals aren’t constructed for a pragmatic reason. And if this fragment doesn’t work, if it falls into nothing, it also depends, to some degree, on what you’re willing to—how you’re willing to test your hypothesis.

Because I might say, well, if your hypothesis is factually correct, wouldn’t you assume that if people based their behaviors individually, family-ally, and socially on that set of facts—which is basically what Sam claims about facts to do in with—if you base your ethos on that, those facts, wouldn’t it work?

Right? Well, he claims that—that’s a test. You know, I would say, well, then it fails that test.

Yeah, it doesn’t work. We have to treat each other like divine centers of consciousness in order for society to work.

Yes, I think—well, I can’t see any way out of those arguments.

Yeah, I can’t see them, obviously, which is why you and I agree on so much about this kind of stuff. And I think that it’s also the reason why people find your work really inspiring.

You know, while the left wants to claim that you are an angry person, they’ll claim similarly that I’m a deeply angry, too. Pressed. I don’t think it’s been quite an angry conversation.

I’m pretty sure it has not been. But I’m horrified by what the radical left is capable of, but that doesn’t make me angry. Exactly.

And I think that it’s demonstrative of why so many people find what you’re doing inspiring because unlike the radical left, which is consumed with the idea of victimhood and victimology, and we’re victims of the system, like Marxism makes the claim that the only way that people suck is the claim that Marxism makes.

But the only way to cure people of sucking is by changing the entire system, which will, in some magical fashion, transform the nature of humanity.

Yeah, the proper direction. Right. There, exactly! The claim that you’re making, and I hope that I’m making as well, is that human beings do suck unless they decide to stop sucking.

Right? And then—and your whole goal is to tell people exactly how it is that they can clean up their rooms.

You’ve raised guns, yeah. Well, they might as well start with what’s right in front of them. It’s a lot harder than it looks because to clean up your room means to accept that it’s actually necessary for you to take that little bit of chaos that’s in front of you—that chaotic potential—and cast it into habitable order.

And then you have to develop the right attitude towards that. It’s like, okay, well, I’m gonna put my room in order. Well, what do you mean order is in relationship to something?

You know, like if your desk is ordered, it means you’ve ordered it because you’re going to work there, and you’re working there on something valuable. And so the order is conceived of in relationship to a telos.

It’s like, okay, you’re gonna order your room? Well, what are you gonna do in it? Like, what’s your room for? What’s the purpose?

You can’t order your room without falling into purpose, and I would say, well, if you’re gonna fall into purpose, it’s like, try it out on a local scale first, right?

You don’t want to go out there and change the system. It’s like, what the hell do you know? Leave the system alone; see what you can do locally; see if you can put yourself together; see if you can put your immediate environment together.

And you’ll find, if you’re in a chaotic household—and a chaotic household would be one where no one has any discipline, no one has any aims, and there’s a terrible battle between Cain and Abel going on all the time, right?

So, life sucks, and everything's miserable and more cynical; and that’s what wisdom is—it’s like—and there’s no point in trying anything because everything is meaningless, and who the hell is gonna care in a million years and you’re a fool to move forward in any case.

It’s like, there’s your household, okay? And so now you decide no, despite all that, I’m going to put my room in order. It’s like you will have a war on your hands because the first thing the people around you who are aiming down will do is think, “Oh, you really think you’re so much better than we are, do you? You really think that you and your fancy goddamn plans…”

It’s like, we’re gonna put every psychological obstacle we can possibly think of in your way because if you succeed even in something that trivial, you shed a very dim light on our existence.

And so we’re gonna do everything we can to take you out. And so this—people think, “Oh, well, it’s cleaning your room”—now it’s just too cliché. It’s like, “Yeah, really? I just—go ahead and try it.”

You see how much of a cliché that is? And if you’ve got your room in order, then put your office in order, see? And then you’re going to encounter—the as soon as you do that, you step out into the social world—you’re gonna encounter the antipathy between men and women; you’re gonna—identity politics in the workplace; you’re gonna encounter how you regulate your sexual morality while you’re working with people of the opposite sex; you’re gonna encounter the ethics that are necessary to move your business forward.

It’s like the whole—it’s a microcosm! It really is!

And so to take those micro causes means to take them seriously. Well, that’s what I’m asking people to do, and I’m saying, look, it isn’t only about you being happy.

It’s like, yeah, whatever happened, there are lots of times in your life you’re not going to be happy, and so that’s not gonna work. You want to have something meaningful—that’s the boat that will take you through the storm, right?

When you batten down the hatches, but there’s more. It isn’t even that; it isn’t even me—a meaningful, engaged life will see you through the catastrophes, even though that’s a big deal.

Right? That’s a great proposition, and I really believe it’s true because you can say to yourself, “Yeah, it’s worth it!”

Right? And it’s great; but there’s the other part of it too, which is, don’t be thinking that your errors aren’t linked to hell because they are.

If you look at what happened in the 20th century, the brilliant commentators on the 20th-century totalitarian states and all of their atrocities said the same thing over and over—it isn’t top-down evil leader manipulating innocent masses. That’s not it; it’s the moral failings of every single individual unwilling to say their truth, unwilling to act out what they know to be right, that accumulate and produce the catastrophic state.

And so when you’re fussing about with your life—when you're not manifesting your potential—when you’re falsifying your speech and your actions in the service of short-term expedience, you are working to bring about hell on earth.

And that’s true; it’s true literally. And then it’s true—it’s—I suspect it’s also true metaphorically, and that’s a real truth, man. When you get the literal and the metaphorical working at the same time, it’s like, that’s—that’s real.

So it isn’t just that you have to fix up yourself so that you know you can have a better life.

It’s like, who cares about you for a moment? You know, you have to fix up your life because if you don’t, every time you make a mistake that you know to be a mistake, you're leading the world toward hell.

And I believe that; I think it’s true.

Well, Jordan Peterson’s book has 12 Rules for Life. Honestly, I—we could do this all day long, and we’ll certainly have you back. I really appreciate the time. There’s a reason so many people follow Jordan; there's a reason so many people are buying this book.

The book is fantastic, and his other book, Maps of Meaning, is also fantastic. So get a copy of that as well.

Jordan, thanks so much for stopping by. I really appreciate it.

Thanks, Ben; it was great!

Yep!

[Music]

The Ben Shapiro Show Sunday Special is produced by Jonathan Hay; Executive Producer Jeremy Boring; Associate Producers Mathis Glover and Austin Stevens; edited by Alex Singara; audio is mixed by Mike Carmina; hair and makeup is by Jess Wawall Vera. The Ben Shapiro Show Sunday Special is a Daily Wire Forward Publishing Production. Copyright Forward Publishing 2018.