Peter Thiel REJECTS Sacrifice - Watch Him Debate Jordan Peterson

I'd like to talk to you about sacrifice and then again about imitation. I'm

going to start with imitation. So

the psychologist that I know best who is most conversant with the ideas that you put forward is Jean Pia

and Pia prioritized imitation as much as Gerard but PG's view >> didn't concentrate so much on the violent aspect of it. He didn't

concentrate so much on how imitation can go wrong.

>> The way the way I believe was sort of this this somewhat optimistic uh you know just positive societies progressing through imitation.

>> Yeah. Well, he would he wasn't concerned precisely, I would say, with notions of progress from an economic perspective.

Like PJ's notion was that it's very much like Gerards, you know, is is that >> but the way that we organize ourselves

socially and and psychologically is through imitation. And so PE

through imitation. And so PE concentrated for example on games and so his counter to Gerard but without invalidating Gerard's point by the way is that but he was he was before Gerard

right or >> yes he was yes definitely definitely and so PE's point was that we actually organize ourselves into social

hierarchies with imitation.

>> Yes. We we when children, for example, when they're three or four, >> so for example, you can't do this till you're three. This this is how it works

you're three. This this is how it works developmentally. If a little boy asks a

developmentally. If a little boy asks a little girl to play house, >> she has to agree. And then what they do is they reciprocally imitate one another

in relationship to a goal. Okay. Now, so

the goal in that situation is >> to to abstract and model the domestic environment. But then there's a higher

environment. But then there's a higher order principle that regulates that which is that in order for it to be play both of them have to be voluntarily in

accordance with the aim and they have to be learning dynamically. Yes.

>> Okay. So now your point I think was that so now imagine a world where there's an indefinite number of these imitate imitation predicated games because there

is an indefinite number of them. Now

what you what I think happened in the religious framework particularly in the Christian framework that that multitude of games each of which is potentially a

little tower of babel is organized underneath a higher order principle. Now

you said that Gerard's answer was you you implied aim up but you also implied go back to church. Now see there's there let me just finish one thought. So

imagine that there are metag games under which imitative games could be organized. Okay, one metag game would be

organized. Okay, one metag game would be power.

>> Another metag game might be hedonistic self-gratification.

The Christian metagame is voluntary self-sacrifice.

Right? That's a radical that's a radical reshifting of the metagame territory.

And I think it is irreplaceable. And and

I think it has to be embodied and not propositionalized. So the the pagan

propositionalized. So the the pagan world, the Roman world, the Greek world, they're they were essentially predicated on power and hedonism, right? If I

could, then I had a right to. And if I could impose force on you, then I was the better man. And that was inverted in Christianity. But it was inverted in a

Christianity. But it was inverted in a way, I think, that matches maturation. I

mean your point seemed to be that the imitative capacity can go dreadfully wrong if the games degenerate into envious status competitions and the

other point I think was that they will degenerate into envious status composition competitions unless they're oriented towards something transcendent.

So then the question would be what would that transcendent orientation be? Well,

um, let me see. I there's many, many different threads here, but I would say, uh, Gerard's, yeah, Gerard would

reference people like Pia and said that, you know, they underestimated imitation massively, they whitewash it, it's, you know, I if you ignore this allimportant,

you know, runaway violence dimension and things like this.

>> Yeah. Well, P was not a psychopathologist, right? He was a study

psychopathologist, right? He was a study of normative development.

>> Yeah. And and then and then I think Gerard intuition was much more that uh you know in some sense um the so-called

normal case is is the less important one. It's the it's the extreme case.

one. It's the it's the extreme case.

It's where you know it's it's the madness of crowds. You know that's that's an extremely important case. Uh

and fair enough. It's not and you know and PJ also was PJ would have been like Malcolm Gladwell in the wisdom of crowds the crowds are wise because they imitate each other and this is how a lot of stuff works

>> right but he didn't he did bind it by the necessity of voluntary play right that's an important dist all these ways was still within some some structure but uh but you could you could always say

this is uh this is a basic difference between enlightenment rationalism and uh biblical revelation is you know um you know in in in in the Bible, the crowd is

always wrong. The crowd is always crazy.

always wrong. The crowd is always crazy.

It is mad. It's, you know, the Tower of Babel. It's in part, it's it's the

Babel. It's in part, it's it's the unonymity. It's the unonyimity.

unonymity. It's the unonyimity.

>> It's um and um and uh and enlightenment rationality. It's always, you know,

rationality. It's always, you know, democracy is good. The more people vote for something, the more rational it is.

Although, you know, at some point you get 99.99% of the people who vote for something and you're in North Korea.

>> And so, And so you know it's very important question when do you go from wisdom of crowds to uh to the madness of crowds and I think >> yeah that's a very important question

the Gerardian and I would say Christian intuition is that it happens much sooner and in a much more representative way than than than you have to than than you

you think and that you know uh and this is yeah um and so and um so that's that's that's sort of one one dimension

I don't I don't know if I would um I would anchor it as much on sacrifice though as the as the the key feature. Um and again this is one of the

feature. Um and again this is one of the places where Gerard argued that it it's Christianity was in Gerard's telling is anti-sacrificial.

It is um it is a move away from sacrifice. you know all these theories

sacrifice. you know all these theories about um the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death but even if even if we go with a sort of traditional theological >> movement away from the sacrifice of

others >> Christ well it is it is Christ's death is supposed to be the last one he Christ made the sacrifice so we do not have to

make it and um and uh and and then yeah you can say it is a sacrifice of others versus the sacrifice of self. You could

say that >> but but you could say uh the way Gerard would put the stress would be that um you refused. It's it's not there was

you refused. It's it's not there was some virtue in Christ sacrificing himself. He's not like some I don't know

himself. He's not like some I don't know some some enlight some sort of silly hero saying you know please let the lions come and eat me up or something

like that you know giving some sort of dramatic announcement. It said Christ at

dramatic announcement. It said Christ at Gethsemane, you know, it it's still praying, please let this cup be taken away from me. It is. So, it is it's not,

you know, um this is um this is, you know, a wonderful necessary thing to do at all. It's it's it's quite the

at all. It's it's it's quite the opposite. Uh but um you could say it is

opposite. Uh but um you could say it is the refusal to sacrifice others that characterizes Christ. And well,

characterizes Christ. And well, definitely that because >> we're not willing we're not willing, you know, not willing to resort to violence.

You're not willing, you won't aren't willing to call down all the angels from heaven to stop the crucifixion. And so

um and so it's the refu it's it's a refusal to sacrifice others. But um and then and then yeah, may maybe in in some context you have to lay down your life, your friends. There things like that

your friends. There things like that that happen. But I but I think it's it's

that happen. But I but I think it's it's it's it's much more you know the anti the anti-sacrificial intuition and you have this already in you know a number of the Old Testament prophets. I think

it's Hosea where it's you know you know God desires mercy and not sacrifice you know the you know so so it's it's you know and and then this is you know these are sort of in a way in a way you can

think of the old testament law as a sacrificial set of laws centered on the temple and we have this sort of elaborate set of of of sacrifices and

then you know in some sense Christ replaces it with you know love the lord your god with all your heart and mind and uh love your neighbor as yourself

>> and um >> and then pay attention to the moment >> and and then we we we could say we could say it's and then you know he he says he's not getting rid of the Old Testament law not

>> but but if you just if you do those two things >> you don't need any of the Old Testament law anymore. You can

law anymore. You can >> you can even eat you can even eat bacon and pork.

>> Right. Right. Right.

>> And which was a really really bad thing to do under the Old Testament law.

>> Okay. So let's delve into this a little bit. I I want to make this psychological

bit. I I want to make this psychological and sociological as well as theological.

So it strikes me that the RA one of the radical characteristics of human beings, we talked about imitation, that's certainly one. Another radical characteristic is

one. Another radical characteristic is the willingness and ability to make sacrifices. So let let me define that

sacrifices. So let let me define that for a minute and and then we can see how it goes astray as well. So

the more immature you are, the more your attention and behavior is under the dominion of biological systems that have narrow short-term gratification as their

focus. That could be rage, it could be

focus. That could be rage, it could be hunger, could be temperature regulation.

A 2-year-old is a collection of unruly competing short-term motivations.

It takes 18 years for the cortex to develop. And you could think of the

develop. And you could think of the cortex as an inhibitory structure. So

that's kind of a Freudian model. Or you

could think about it as an integrative structure. And that's a better model.

structure. And that's a better model.

Part of PJ's model is useful in that regard because we integrate within the confines of imitative games. But but

there's more to it than that. So

>> as you become more mature, this kind of a definition of maturity, >> you focus more on the tomorrow and next month and next year. So your temporal

span of apprehension increases and you regulate your behavior in the present in relationship to the future. That's a

sacrificial move because you're sacrificing immediate gratification for the stability of the future. As a

spouse, a parent, or a leader, people count on you. But if you're constantly tired, unfocused, and just not feeling like yourself, how can you show up the way they need you to? That's where

Merrick Health comes in. Merrick is a premier health optimization platform that uses comprehensive lab work, not guesswork, to uncover what's really going on in your body. Hormones,

thyroid, inflammation, nutrient levels, the markers that matter. Their expert

clinical teams build a personalized researchbacked plan just for you.

Whether it's lifestyle changes, supplements, or prescription treatments.

When you know what's going on inside, you can leave with clarity, show up with energy, and stay sharp for your family, your team, and yourself. Head over to mealth.com and use code peterson for 10% off to join their guided optimization

program with your personal medical team.

That's mealth.com code peterson. Stop

guessing, start leading and start with me health.

>> And then there's another >> Let me push back on on just that description. Is it a sacrificial move or

description. Is it a sacrificial move or is it a rational move? Because there's

there's some way in which >> I think it's both.

>> It's both. It's rational once you can see the future, >> right? It's but it's it's it's sort of

>> right? It's but it's it's it's sort of very um it's to the extent it's rational, >> it may not be that sacrificial. You

know, you save you save money in order to buy a house.

>> But I don't imagine but I don't think you believe that people can regulate that with mere rationality. Like it has to be deeper. I would say part of that regulation of short-term impulse that's

so limbically driven mere rationality won't do the trick and the rationality itself would have to be encapsulated within a concept of what actually constitutes rationality. So, cuz like I

constitutes rationality. So, cuz like I could ask you, what's worth sacrificing your short-term pleasure for? Now, the

pleasure speaks for itself, right? There

has to be something that you're giving that up for when you work, for example, that you regard as worthwhile. And it

isn't also clear to me that that's a purely rational move. Now, there's one more sacrificial element. It's like as you mature, it becomes less and less about what the

motivated subcomponents of you of you want now and more about how you find harmony and competition and cooperation in social groups. So for example, one of

the things children have to learn between two and three to be social is to take turns. And that's also a sacrifice

take turns. And that's also a sacrifice because this the the default is it's always my turn. That's what it is like for non-social animals, for example.

>> Man, I um but if this is where I want to push back a little bit more, man, where >> I I don't I don't think you tell a two or threeyear-old this in the language of

sacrifice. And um

sacrifice. And um >> no, you probably act it out for them.

>> You It's It's if you don't take turns um something and you won't have friends and >> or the kids the other kids tell the kids that. Yeah, there are some there's

that. Yeah, there are some there's there's some very >> pretty fast immediate consequences to it.

>> And um and again, you don't say it's rational, but but it is um it's it's sort of uh you you you learn pretty fast to to to do these things. And then the

place where I'm uncomfortable with using the sort of language of sacrifice is that um that the the evidence-based

nonrational part of it if that's all we have left you know I I I wonder whether those are the sacrifices that uh that we should make for I can give lots of

examples but um um you know there you know there's always a question about you know what should be done about academia they're you know, all all the conservative academics are being expelled. It's so hard to do

this >> right here.

>> And and there's sort of a there's a version of a debate I've had with a lot of um right of center people over the last

20 years where it's well, we just, you know, we we need to just train more people with PhDs and they we need and then they have to keep trying to sneak into the system and have to somehow break in.

>> Yeah. And um and I there's sort of a lot of reasons to think this is hard to do or might not work. Um but um but uh the

way I push back on it is it strikes me as an irrational kind of sacrifice. And

so from the point of view of a young person who is going to be a right-wing academic with a PhD and will be completely unemployable, um that's not a

that's not a rational sacrifice they made. It's a very foolish choice that

made. It's a very foolish choice that perhaps this language of sacrifice confused confused things and um and then the non-sacrificial move you know is

roughly like what you yourself did with you know the University of Toronto where you you were where it's at some point I am not putting up with these silly sacrifices they're making me make in

academia. I'm not sacrificing

academia. I'm not sacrificing my mind or I'm not, you know, I'm not playing by all their silly rules. And um

and I think that was the correct thing to do. But again, I would describe it as

to do. But again, I would describe it as as the anti-sacrificial move. The

sacrificial move would be, >> you know, you have a tender position there and you you might be unhappy about it, but you know, for the greater good, you have to stay there.

>> Okay. So So I there were things I wasn't willing to sacrifice to stay there.

There's no doubt about that. But I would also say that >> and and and I think those were irrational things that you should not have sacrificed.

>> I think I think I think you made totally the right decision. I would also say I would describe it as >> the way I would describe it and maybe maybe this just shows how the language of sacrifice is confusing. But

>> but I would I would describe it as um you refused to make the sacrifices that were demanded of you because they were silly irrational crazy.

>> In relation to what? See, that's the issue because I think that's true. But

in relation to things that again maybe can't be fully rationally defined but in relation to some of the alternatives you could do in in relation to um you know

maybe even even maybe even something as stupid as what you found hydonically enjoyable right it's again it did you find it enjoyable sitting on silly

faculty committees as a tenure professor or did you find it boring and um and it wasn't fun the boredom wasn't on and it's not the only reason to leave. It's

not maybe it's not a sufficient reason, but but and from my perspective, it's it it's a good partial reason.

>> So, there were probably a lot of things like this that added up.

>> I was unwilling to sacrifice my tongue.

And so, what I sacrificed was my job >> and my clinical career so I could keep my tongue. But there's a Christian

my tongue. But there's a Christian element to that too because the Christian insistence is that the truth oriented word establishes the order.

That's good. And so but but it I don't think we can escape the sacrificial language because I had to give up my job both of them. I had three because I had

a private business. But but but again I um I don't want to make this too arrandizing to you, but but I I think what you're doing is far better, far more important now.

>> I I'm certainly not unhappy about it. So

if if um if you had if you had sacrificed your job and you were completely unemployable and had no economic prospects um you know you could

describe it as sacrificing your job so you could express yourself but if nobody's listening to you um that might that might be a pretty irrational thing to do. again I and so it was I think it

to do. again I and so it was I think it was a yeah it was it's it's rational for you to focus on reaching a much larger audience for you to do all these things

and um and I think I think those were good decisions. You didn't let you you

good decisions. You didn't let you you didn't let um let's say um the moralizing left-wing people in academia academia

get to you. You didn't let their value system control you. their value system is that you know there's nothing more important than academia. This is the this is the world that really matters.

This is this is where you have to fight the battles. He said um no you you you

the battles. He said um no you you you didn't let that morality control you. So

I I would yeah I would I would describe it as Christian or maybe Nietian but anti-sacrificial what you did in a very good way.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Well, I I I understand I understand what you're saying, >> but then then the metal layer would be this is where um maybe just the language of sacrifice is is is often more

confusing than helpful.

>> Well, I think it it also to some degree it it stems it likely stems from your saturation in the Gerardian view because you're you can correct me again if I'm

wrong. you're likely and especially

wrong. you're likely and especially given what you said about Christ's sacrifice making further sacrifices in some ways unnecessary your view is is is going to be to

concentrate it seems to me on the more pathological end of the sacrificial process and like I think that the terminology can be confusing because I

would say what I gained was far greater than what I lost now that doesn't mean that what I lost was nothing because it wasn't nothing and it took took a fair bit of reconstruction to make things

work. And so you could say, well, if you

work. And so you could say, well, if you gain more than you lose, is that truly a sacrifice? Now, the biblical stories are

sacrifice? Now, the biblical stories are replete with paradoxes like that because the most intense one obviously is what happens with Abraham and Isaac because

God calls on Abraham to sacrifice his son and Abraham is willing to do so, but the consequence of that is that he gets his son back, right? And so

>> that that points to the ambiguity of what sacrifice I want to push back on all of these things. You know, I'm yes, I I I will uh confess to being an

unreonstructed Gerardian. Um and there

unreonstructed Gerardian. Um and there were probably ways Gerard modified his views more than I have. And so he probably towards the end of his life was more open to sacrifice. And I I stick

with the Gerard of the 70s and 80s who was more categorically uh uh skeptical of it. Um, you know, I think

of it. Um, you know, I think let me let me do an alternate cut on on on on on one one story. And there's a

one of these Bible stories. And I always think one needs to interpret the Old Testament through the New Testament.

This is sort of the that it this is sort of again a Christian bias I have that it doesn't fully make sense on its own. You

need to interpret it >> through uh in the light of the New. And

so there's there's a passage in the New Testament. I might get the ver I don't

Testament. I might get the ver I don't have the verse memorized, but um it's it's basically where Christ says one must have faith like a child.

>> Mhm.

>> Um um and then there's it's again you can think it's like an abstract thing, but maybe it's maybe it's again we should always think more concretely. And the

concrete question I would have is, is there a faith of a child that's being highlighted as um especially noteworthy

and worthy of of um emulation? And I I think there is in fact one child whose faith gets described in uh the Old

Testament um and we never seem to talk about it. Um, and it's Isaac because um,

about it. Um, and it's Isaac because um, as they're as they're going up the mountain, you know, yeah, >> Abraham tells Isaac this fictional

story, you know, maybe God will provide something else and, you know, that's that's that's what might happen. And

then Isaac just believes that Isaac believe Abraham believes he has to make sacrifice. That's that's the that's the

sacrifice. That's that's the that's the delusional faith of an adult who's read too much Kirkagard or something. And um

and um Isaac's is the true Christian faith that uh God will figure out a way where um where the sacrifice doesn't need to happen. God is not a violent

God. The violence doesn't come from God.

God. The violence doesn't come from God.

He's a loving God. And there is a way to do this without sacrifice. And I'm I'm always Yeah. What I find so odd about

always Yeah. What I find so odd about the the Abraham Isaac story is that um we've written endless amounts has been written on the

faith of Abraham or Abraham is seen as the iconic person with faith and it's it's again >> linked to a certain conception of sacrifice and uh and yet we have the line in the New Testament where Christ

tells us to look at the faith of a child. Um maybe you can come up with a

child. Um maybe you can come up with a better example. I think the concrete one

better example. I think the concrete one is Isaac >> and um >> and it is interesting and it's not written from his perspective the end >> but we get we get enough of Isaac's perspective implicitly in the story but

it's all the reviews all the we talk about you know whose faith should we emulate yeah the theologians the philosophers they always tell us you

need to emulate the faith of of Abraham um the way I I understand Christ uh I understand him to be telling me to emulate the faith of Isaac which I think

is is is is very different and maybe maybe also very different on this on this question of sacrifice. There there

always are questions how one interprets uh the the Christian account and I I believe in the physical resurrection of Christ both as an event that happened

historically but also as a promise um and in some sense uh you know um following Christ there may be all sorts of bad things that happen to you but um

it's a rational trade for saving your soul and for having eternal life and so if you if you think of it in the context

of saving your soul and eternal life uh you know we can call that a sacrifice but it has a very different character >> right that's why he says his yoke is light

>> which is a weird thing to say when it's an invitation to the cross >> but but but you have to you know the non-sacrificial way I would say it is yeah if if you believe in a literal you

know eternal life that's that's one sort of thing if you think these are just some sort of Jungian archetype story,

then you end up with uh much more of um sacrifice quas sacrifice as as uh as a really high value. But that's that's why

I I would always interpret uh the Orthodox Christian message as as very anti-sacrificial, very non-sacrificial, and you know, maybe I don't like the

word rational, but um just uh you're you're you're making a good choice, a wise choice.

[Music]