541. Why We Stopped Progressing | Peter Thiel

Billionaire investor and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel sits down with Jordan Peterson for a powerful conversation about why real progress has stalled. Thiel argues that the last truly groundbreaking achievement may have been landing on the moon—and since then, we've slowed down. He explains how fear, red tape, and over-specialization have made us more cautious and less ambitious. They dig into how society has shifted away from building and inventing, toward digital distractions and endless talk. They also explore what’s been lost as faith and meaning have disappeared from public life. From broken universities to status-driven culture wars, this is a deep and thought-provoking look at the challenges facing the West—and what we might do to turn things around. Peter Thiel is a German-born entrepreneur, venture capitalist, activist, and billionaire who emigrated to the U. S. as a child, eventually settling in California after years of moving between countries. A Stanford Law graduate, he began his career as a clerk and derivatives trader before founding Thiel Capital with $1 million from friends and family. Despite early setbacks, he co-founded Confinity, which became PayPal, launching a streak of ventures including Palantir, Clarium Capital, and early investment in Facebook. Thiel is an openly gay supporter of the Republican party, advocating for both equal rights and certain conservative policies, making his political stance admirably nuanced. This episode was filmed on March 31st, 2025. | Links | For Peter Thiel: X https://x.com/peterthiel?lang=en Read “Zero to One: Notes on Startups, or How to Build the Future” https://a.co/d/fAfeXm8 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:01Speaker 00

  Born from the intensity of a night in the eternal city. Introducing Born in Roma fragrances by Valentino. Feminine perfume Donna Born in Roma features juicy black currant, central jasmine, soft cashmerin and warm vanilla. Masculine leaning but unisex Womo has notes of fresh violet leaf, aromatic sage, green vetiver and mineral salt. Shop holiday gifts at Macy's.com.

• 0:30Speaker 01

  Visible puts the ultimate wireless hack in the palm of your hand. With unlimited 5G wireless data and hotspot, designed to keep you connected, powered by Verizon's 5G network. And, no contract holding you back. Plans start at $25 a month. Or get the premium Visible Plus Pro plan and save $10 on your first month when you use promo code HACK. Make the switch at visible.com. Terms apply. See visible.com for details.

• 1:00Speaker 02

  Your sausage McMuffin with egg didn't change, your receipt did. The sausage McMuffin with Egg Extra Value Meal includes a hash brown and a small coffee for just $5. Only at McDonald's for a limited time.

• 1:12Speaker 03

  Pricing participation may vary. Promotion pricing may be lower than meal pricing.

• 1:15Speaker 04

  So this question of, you know, is there really progress? Used to move faster. We've stopped moving faster physically the last 50 years. We feel like we are in an apocalyptic age. There is a dimension of science and technology. It has a dark dimension and it's, you know, it's a trap that humanity may be setting for itself.

• 1:32Jordan B. Peterson?

  Much of the early science was done in the monasteries that turned into universities. You can think about that as concrete evidence of the underpinning of much of the scientific revolution in terms of, at least the offshoots of Christianity. But I think there's something deeper there.

• 1:46Speaker 04

  It wasn't just the theological metaphysics that drove it, but something like the Christian anthropology.

• 1:53Jordan B. Peterson?

  Okay, so let's delve into this a little bit.

• 2:10Jordan B. Peterson?

  Así que tuve la oportunidad de sentarme con Peter Thiel hoy y el Sr. Thiel probablemente es más famoso por el papel que jugó en la fundación PayPal pero ha sido un inversor tonto durante un periodo muy largo y en realidad no hablamos mucho sobre las practicalidades en el lado empresarial principalmente hablamos de la naturaleza de la transformación cultural porque su pensamiento se dirige en esa dirección, es una persona filosoficamente inclinada y nuestra discusión realmente pasa por uno de los argumentos fundamentales de Peter es que el progreso en el mundo material y no el mundo digital, digamos, ha seco substaniblemente desde tal vez los años 60

• 2:54Jordan B. Peterson?

  y que hay razones profundas para eso, parte de ellas es la miedo apocalíptico del esfuerzo científico otra parte es este deseo hippie de mirar adentro otra parte es escapar a un mundo de abstracción y así él señaló su teoría de la transformación social que también está profundamente influenciado por un escépticismo sobre qué status games de mímica de baja nivel predice lo cual creo que ha sido un objetivo muy sabio de escépticismo pasamos por sus pensamientos sobre la transformación social y tecnológica durante un par de cientos de años, concentrándonos más en los últimos 60

• 3:36Jordan B. Peterson?

  y también comenzó a flesh out una metafísica que podría ameliorar parte de esa patología nihilista y malas y eso nos permitió al menos comenzar una discusión sobre qué presupuestos metafísicos son necesarios para una sociedad y un psiquípico que permanezca bueno, no solo saludable pero no totalitario y catastrófico así que, únete a nosotros para eso So the last time we spoke was by distance at ARC. And you said a number of things there that were provocative. And one in particular that I wanted to follow up on.

• 4:20Jordan B. Peterson?

  It surprised me, although I think I understand why you said it. You're dubious about the rate of progress, so to speak, that we're making now. You feel, you seem to feel, I don't want to put words in your mouth, that the most innovative times are perhaps behind us, or at least temporarily so. And so I'm curious about. We've seen these revolutionary steps forward in principle on the large language model front in the last year. And our gadgetry is becoming much more sophisticated. There's tremendous advancements in robotics. And so how do you conceptualize quantifying progress, scientific and technological? And why are you skeptical about the benefits or the rate?

• 4:59Speaker 04

  Well, yeah, the variations of this that I've talked about for close to two decades at this point. And, you know, the big, and of course, there are all sorts of very complicated measurement problems. So how do we compare progress in AI with, let's say, lack of progress in dementia research, curing Alzheimer's? And so, you know, so all these different complicated ways of how you weight, all these different things. But there was a sense that the West, the Western world, was in this fast era of scientific, technological progress, where it was advancing on many, many different fronts.

• 5:41Speaker 04

  And, you know, in some ways, it started picking up in the Renaissance, early Enlightenment, 17th, 18th centuries. And then probably in important ways accelerated in the 19th, first half of the 20th. And then in some ways, I believe it's slowed down over the last 50 or so years. Maybe 1970 or so is an inflection point one could cite. It doesn't mean it's stopped altogether. You know, one way I've often summarized it is that we've continued to have progress in the world of bits. You know, computers, software, internet, mobile internet, you know, maybe crypto, now AI.

• 6:28Speaker 04

  But there's been much less progress in the world of atoms. And if you think about university setting, most of the engineering and scientific subjects had to do more with this physical material world in which we are embedded. And I was an undergraduate at Stanford in the late 1980s, class of 89. And it wasn't quite obvious at the time, but in retrospect, almost anything that was in the world of atoms would have been a bad field to go into. Physics, chemistry, mechanical engineering, certainly aero-astroengineering, nuclear engineering, people already knew was kind of outlawed and over by the 1980s.

• 7:13Speaker 04

  You could still maybe do electrical engineering, which was sort of the atoms that were used for semiconductors. But basically, the only STEM field that was going to be a really successful field for people to go into was computer science, which was kind of this marginal, almost fake field. Because I always have this riff where when people use... I'm in favor of science, but I'm skeptical when people use the word "science." So social science, political science, climate science are called "science" by people who have an inferiority complex and say, "Deep down, no, they're not really rigorous scientific fields." And something like this

• 7:57Speaker 04

  was true of computer science in the original day. It was people who were too dumb at math to be in mathematics or physics or electrical engineering, and they sort of flunked out into computer science. And weirdly, this was a field that worked and it had a decent amount of impact. I don't think it was... And then it worked on the scale of people building some fantastic companies.

• 8:23Speaker 04

  There were certainly some important cultural and social transformations that we had as we moved from the industrial age to the information age. I don't know if it's worked that well on, let's say, a broad economic level of well-being. So even if you... Measured in terms of material well-being for people. Uh, the um, the millennial generation, the US is probably in a lot of ways not um, not even doing as well as their their baby boomer parents. And so it's the first time we've had this sort of economic stagnation or even outright uh outright decline. And so, and again, the naive view would be that, you know, all this progress somehow translates into um a more successful economy.

• 9:05Speaker 04

  It's not the only way to measure things, but it's a it's a it's sort of a straightforward way to measure things. And then, and then when it doesn't translate, it's it's uh, my conclusion is maybe maybe it hasn't added up um up to as much. You know, one of the reasons it's very hard, by the way, to to have this debate and even figure out what's going on is because one of the features of late modernity, unlike early modernity, is hyper-specialization. And we have ever narrower group of experts who are experts in their field. So the cancer specialists tell us they will cure cancer in five years. They've been telling us that for the last fifty. Um, and um, and then the string theorists tell us they're the smartest people in the world.

• 9:43Speaker 04

  And it's very hard to, you know, evaluate these fields on their own terms, which is um, it's it's it's like Adam Smith had this uh concept of the pin factory, where you had a hundred different people working in a pin factory. And you can think of late modernity as the pin factory on steroids. Um, we're so hyper-specialized, it's extremely hard to have a picture of the whole. And so this question of, you know, is there really progress, is there isn't, is there not? It's kind of a hard one to get at. Um, but I think if you measure it in economic terms, there's a slowed sense. If you measure it in the sort of intuitive thing where, okay, we'll just look at a bunch of different fields, like cancer, supersonic aviation, you know, just all these different ways.

• 10:25Speaker 04

  We used to move faster, we moved faster every decade from, you know, fifteen hundred on. It was faster sailing boats and faster railroads, faster cars, faster planes. We've stopped moving faster physically the last fifty years. So, you know, that's one dimension. And so there's sort of a common sense way that we have stagnation. There is a uh There's an economic way to measure it. And then there's probably always a political intuition I have on this too, which is that perhaps if you have ideas that are taboo, that you're not allowed to discuss, my shortcut is to suspect they're simply correct. And so the example I always give is Professor Bob Loughlin, who's a Stanford physics professor.

• 11:09Speaker 04

  I think around 1998, he gets a Nobel Prize in Physics. And he suffers from the extreme delusion that now that he has a Nobel Prize, he finally has academic freedom and can talk about whatever he would like to talk about. There are all sorts of areas that are very taboo in the sciences. I mean, question Darwinism, or question stem cell research, or question, you know, climate change. These are very dangerous areas. But he picked one of those even more dangerous than any of those three. He believed that most of the scientists, so-called scientists, were basically stealing money from the government, engaging in borderline fraudulent science, or it was incrementalist, not worth much.

• 11:50Speaker 04

  You know, his area of special, his area of focus was high-temperature superconductivity. And he told me at one point, there were maybe 50,000 papers written in that area, and maybe 25 out of 50,000 had actually advanced the science at all. And, you know, I don't even need to tell you how the, and then, you know, he started by, yeah, it was not just the abstract replication crisis. He started by talking about naming people, and, you know, this person has stole money, and this person is a fraud. And, I mean, I don't even need to tell you how that movie ended. He promptly got defunded, his students couldn't get PhDs anymore. And so, and then my hermeneutic of suspicion is if you have an idea like stagnation in

• 12:33Speaker 04

  science, which immediately gets your deplatformed, that's an idea we should take very seriously. So that's a political intuition I have on this. So I have a few of these different ideas that we've been a lot more stuck. It doesn't mean, it doesn't mean that there's been zero progress. It doesn't mean that the progress we've had has been uniformly good.

• 12:58Speaker 04

  It doesn't mean that people's fears about the limited progress we have are unjustified either. Maybe all these things are actually part of the explanation for why the stagnation has happened. Now, there's a much harder question.

• 13:15Speaker 04

  And then there's sort of our cultural transformations that one can describe that at least coincided with us and were correlated. How causal they were is always hard to say. But if we sort of think of the Apollo space program as this last great technological scientific project, there's some sense where July of 1969, where we landed on the moon, and Woodstock started three weeks later. And with benefit of hindsight, in some sense, that's when progress, scientific technological progress stopped, and the hippies took over the country.

• 13:58Speaker 04

  And you can describe it in many ways, but in some ways you can describe it as a shift from outer space, from exploring the world outside of us, to inner space. And there were sort of all these different transformations. There was a, and I would describe yoga, meditation. I would describe psychedelic drugs. I would describe, I don't know, incels playing video games in basements.

• 14:34Speaker 04

  There was all this incredible, maybe continued atomization, the naval gazing of identity politics in a way. You could say that people often lump, for example, they often lump Marxism and cultural Marxism together. In my telling, these are opposites because Marxism at least was primarily concerned about the outside, objective, material, economic realities. And then cultural Marxism was like the shift from Apollo to Woodstock, where you just went into the sort of interior world. You no longer were thinking about this outside world. And...

• 15:20Speaker 04

  And in some ways, you stopped asking these questions about economic growth and basic economic prosperity, and then that coincided with, also with this lack of progress in these things. So I think there were all these kinds of cultural transformations that coincided with this shift. You know, I think the, people often ask, why, why the stagnation happened? My standard, or if you agree with this, and of course, people can disagree, you know, how much it happened, but if you agree with me that there's been, you know, a slowing down of progress, that in some sense, the singularity was maybe more in

• 16:02Speaker 04

  the past than in the future. And you always have these questions, why, why did it happen? And my cop-out answer is always that why questions are over-determined, and it could be, you know, it could be sort of a, our society became risk averse, or too feminized, or you could say that, you could say that there was too much regulation and bureaucracy, which is sort of a libertarian intuition I have. But I, I've come to think that one of the bigger factors that, was the sense that a lot of the science and technology was quite dangerous. It had a, at least in a military context, had a dual-use character.

• 16:47Speaker 04

  And, you know, this was, I mean, this was already, there was already some relentless acceleration of this stuff in the late 18th, 19th centuries, you know, Napoleonic Wars, Colonel Colt with the revolver, Alfred Nobel inventing dynamite, you know, World War I, you know, was sort of a breakpoint, where, you know, the sort of naive progressive narrative really got undercut. And, and then somehow, you can, you can say that the sort of Baconian science project, in some sense, ended, were ended, in a Hegelian sense, is both culminated

• 17:28Speaker 04

  and terminated at Los Alamos, with the building of, of, of the, of nuclear weapons. And then, again, it doesn't work perfectly, but my telling would be that it took maybe a quarter century for nuclear weapons to really get internalized by society. And then by, by the 1970s, you know, the, the energy...

• 17:50Speaker 04

  You know, the energy was, you know, we don't, we don't want to be doing this outside world. We're going to build ever more thermonuclear bombs. We want to be, um, you know, piecing out at Burning Man with psychedelic drugs. We want to, um, we want to, um, you know, or, or you, or you escape back to nature through environmentalism, you know, we are, you know, we want to be in a world not of change, but of stasis because the world of change has this apocalyptic dimension. Change is change for the worse. That's the, that's the sense that gets, you know, encapsulated in the 1970s. And so there's, there's a way that this sort of progressive version of science, you know, we, we try to, you know, we try to push, put the pause button on it.

• 18:35Speaker 04

  The places, the places where it's still allowed, you can say, are the most inert. So in a way, the world of bits was seen as incredibly inert because, you know, you're not building bombs, you're not building weapons with it. And, um, and then of course, even there, there's, you know, some sort of, some sort of way in which the ideas on the internet, maybe, maybe they do translate into reality every now and then. You know, what happens on Twitter or X doesn't always stay there. Most of the time it stays there, so it, it feels like it's this extremely angry, intense conversation, but every now and then it still translates to the real world. So the, the internet, you could say, was allowed because it was, it was, it was sort of a safe space. It was, it was a, a place where the sort of violence could be, could be, uh, could

• 19:20Speaker 04

  be contained. And then, um, even there, probably not, not totally, and even there, people felt it was like, maybe, maybe too much. But yes, it's the, this sort of apocalyptic background of late modernity where, you know, you know, every microaggression has the potential to escalate to Armageddon is, is, is in the background. And I, and again, I, I don't, I don't like the stagnation and the risk aversion and all these responses, but there's, there's, there's a part of it that I think is understandable.

• 19:52Speaker 00

  Born from the intensity of a night in the Eternal City. Introducing Born in Roma Fragrances by Valentino. Feminine perfume Donna Born in Roma features juicy black currant, central jasmine, soft cashmerin and warm vanilla. Masculine-leaning but unisex Womo has notes of fresh violet leaf, aromatic sage, green vetiver and mineral salt. Shop holiday gifts at Macy's.com.

• 20:22Jordan B. Peterson?

  So it sounds to me, now that you've clarified that, it sounds to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that what you're grappling with is more of an attempt to account for where we are now and how it's different from, let's say, the post-war period or maybe even the Enlightenment to the post-war period. Like, things have shifted radically. And it sounds to me like what you're outlining is a, what, it's an attempt to characterize the nature of that shift, perhaps even more than an attempt to deny the idea that there's any progress. You said yourself when you were laying out your argument that it's very difficult to measure progress,

• 21:04Jordan B. Peterson?

  but it's also undeniable that many, many things have shifted and we're not where we were, let's say, well, 10 years ago probably and certainly not 30 years ago.

• 21:14Speaker 04

  Well, I would say we are broadly progressing more slowly than we were 100 years ago. We are still progressing in some dimensions. They're maybe still too fast and too scary for people, but the big thing that has shifted, vis a vis, let's say, the world of 1913, pre-World War I, is that we feel like we are in an apocalyptic age, that there is, you know, there is a dimension of science and technology that, you know, it has a dark dimension and it's, you know, it's a trap that humanity may be setting for itself. And, you know, I don't like Greta and I don't like the full precautionary principle, but, you know, her argument that we have just one planet

• 21:58Speaker 04

  isn't entirely wrong. And so...

• 22:01Jordan B. Peterson?

  You see this shift in part as a shift from the ethos of progress, that a priori assumption of progress.

• 22:09Speaker 04

  Yeah, but I don't want to abstract it too much. It is actually, it's the specific nature of the progress that happened. It is we got thermonuclear weapons. We, you know, we are powerful enough to affect the environment. I'm not sure whether, you know, carbon dioxide is the most important dimension, but you know, I mean, there are probably a lot of dimensions where the environment can be impacted in very, very radical ways. We can probably build very dangerous bioweapons. You know, maybe that's even what was going on in the Wuhan lab. We can, you know, there are, there are dimensions of AI that are, you know, potentially violent and very dangerous. And you don't have to necessarily believe the, the, um,

• 22:50Speaker 04

  all these sort of weird pictures where it's this super intelligence that's somehow completely disembodied and is going to kill every last human being on the planet. But there are, you know, there are natural ways to combine it with weapons, technology that, that feel.

• 23:06Jordan B. Peterson?

  Unsettling.

• 23:07Speaker 04

  Unsettling. So just a, you know, a simple example is that, you know, we have, we have these, this drone technology. That's, that's again, a new form of technology that's, that's come to the fore in the, in the conflict between Russia and the Ukraine. And, uh, and the, um, you know, it's, and you have a human in the loop, but the human can get jammed. And so the natural fix is to put AI on the drones and turn these into more autonomous weapon systems. And that's, you know, that's.

• 23:39Jordan B. Peterson?

  Seems inevitable.

• 23:40Speaker 04

  That seems like the natural, logical thing to do. And then, um, even, even I as a, you know, pro-tech person have to say I find that somewhat unsettling.

• 23:51Jordan B. Peterson?

  Okay, so let me lay these, okay, so let me lay these ideas out again and summarize. So one of the threads that you were developing was let, we'll do two at the same time. One was that. The scientific process, in terms of physical reality, maybe in your view peaked in the 1960s. And then you could imagine that there, you kind of outlined two maybe reasons for that. One was fear of the apocalyptic consequences of that technology, and then escape into various forms of abstraction. Like, so some of those abstractions were psychological abstractions, inner journeys, but some of it also was escape into digital abstraction.

• 24:35Jordan B. Peterson?

  And then you also made a case that the avenue for exploration in the digital realm was still open. And so, maybe we could, we could understand this, so...

• 24:45Speaker 04

  And then, and then, and the digital realm, and then in some ways, even, even these escape weren't full escape. So, AI, yeah, that's a, it seems to be just about bits, not atoms. But then, if you combine it with a drone, you know, the AI comes back to the physical real world.

• 25:01Jordan B. Peterson?

  Yeah, well, we can, we'll get back to that, back to the overlap. But, so you could imagine that, okay, so the scientific approach, the method, produced an explosion of technological consequences. Many of them were dramatic in the physical world. There was kickbacks against that. One of the kickbacks was the apocalyptic element. The other was the turn away from spirituality, you might say. But then there was also the counterposition that always develops in any, after ever, any revolution is that things get tangled up in red tape in weird ways. Like, the scientific, hmm, I was just in Uzbekistan, you know? And they developed a pretty sophisticated industrial economy in the last five years.

• 25:45Jordan B. Peterson?

  And part of the reason that they could do that was because there was nothing in the way, right? Because Uzbekistan was kind of devoid of impediments to radical entrepreneurship in the aftermath of the communist default. Now, you could imagine that, for a good time, the scientific method was so powerful that it was producing revolutions, nonstop. And the legal and bureaucratic frameworks were lagging it. And so, they caught up quite remarkably by the 1970s, and that left the digital... Digital space still open and it is kind of a free for all space.

• 26:19Speaker 04

  Yeah, but the way you're telling the story, this is it has too much of this timeless and eternal character. This is just what always happens and.

• 26:26Jordan B. Peterson?

  Yeah, right. Well, that is what I'm wondering.

• 26:27Speaker 04

  You always whereas the the story I want to tell has more of a one time and world's historical character to it where it is, uh, you know, there were lots of inventions where, you know, people figure out, you know, cures for diseases. That didn't say, okay, now we have to take a step back and cure fewer diseases. It that actually encourages you to double down on that and do even more. Or, you know, we have, you know, we have all these machines that replace humans in in factories. And yeah, there's some downsides to it and there are labor problems with the Industrial Revolution and there's a lot of pollution, but on the whole, the good way outweighs the bad. And it it it there was no big regulatory counter movement in in Victoria.

• 27:10Jordan B. Peterson?

  Okay, let me make a counter example.

• 27:12Speaker 04

  But then then we get to something like thermonuclear weapons and that that that specifically has a very different character. It has a really different character. And probably, I don't know, by the 1950s and 1960s, you know, baby boomers got, um, you know, you're a kid, you get brought up on Dr. Seuss and not on adventure stories. And it probably it probably changes childhood education. It changes the way we form and develop human beings. Um, and and so it, yeah, and then it and it leads to a a society where, you know, science and technology no longer have quite, uh, have quite this former valence. There's, there's

• 27:55Speaker 04

  always sort of an interesting big picture history question of how much, uh, science and technology, you know, were they, how they were entangled with Christianity in the West and were they sort of, they were somehow entangled, but was it meant as a compliment? Where, you know, you, you know, you're you're sort of encouraged to understand God's creation? And this is sort of a way that it's, um, you know, it's a, it's a fulfillment.

• 28:24Jordan B. Peterson?

  Furtherance.

• 28:25Speaker 04

  Of a furtherance of of this? Or was it meant to be a substitute where it was an alternate way to build heaven on earth without without? Um, requiring God, you know, radical life extension was sort of an important part of the early modern project. Benjamin Franklin, Condorcet, all these people thought that you could perhaps indefinitely prolong human life. And, uh, and, you know, and, uh, and, uh, and so I think early modernity, you know, it wasn't the only thing, there were a lot of complicated things going on, but, but a lot of it had, had sort of an anti, um, anti-biblical valence.

• 29:06Speaker 04

  And you could say that, um, 17th and 18th century scientists, you know, uh, and again, this is where I think someone like, um, Francis Bacon needs to be interpreted as a hardcore materialist atheist, and it is, we need to, we need to stop religion because it's slowing down this wonderful scientific progress. And then I've, I've had this Bacon discussion with a number of people lately, and they all think, no, no, that's can't be right. Bacon was just this somewhat heterodox Christian. And, um, because in late modernity, where we find ourselves, again, it's complicated to describe what's going on culturally, but in late modernity, um, it's the atheist liberals

• 29:49Speaker 04

  that are anti-science at this point. And, um, and so if you think about Hollywood-

• 29:54Jordan B. Peterson?

  Much to Richard Dawkins' despair.

• 29:55Speaker 04

  Yeah, you have to think of Richard Dawkins as a representative of early modernity.

• 30:00Jordan B. Peterson?

  Yes, definitely.

• 30:01Speaker 04

  He is like a fossil from before 1789.

• 30:03Jordan B. Peterson?

  He's the last of the Enlightenment.

• 30:04Speaker 04

  He's the last, he's, he's a fossil from before 1789. And, uh, and Greta is more representative, or, you know, everything about the Hollywood atheist liberals, the movies are all about technology that doesn't work, it's scary. And, um, and so to the extent, um, the, the way the anti-Christian argument gets made in late modernity is that it's, yeah, it's God's fault, but this time it's God's fault for putting us on this whole dangerous project in the first place. And it's like, yeah, it's like the lines in Genesis, you shall have dominion over the earth. Um, and, uh, and, and so, so in, um, in the 17th and 18th century, you know- The Christian God was blamed for slowing down the scientific technological project.

• 30:49Speaker 04

  In the 20th and 21st century, the Christian God gets blamed for speeding it up, starting it, speeding up, keeping it going. And so the invariant is the Christian God always gets blamed. But, you know, the fact that it's the exact opposite tells us something very interesting about how this is.

• 31:09Jordan B. Peterson?

  What does it tell us? Now, that's interesting, because you're making the point that two opposite arguments are making that are both directed towards furthering Nietzsche's death of God, let's say. So then that begs the question, what's the actual motivation?

• 31:23Speaker 04

  The only point I'll make is that we're, again, in a we're in a very different place with science and technology than we were in the 17th, 18th century. 17th, 18th century, I don't think people would have said, "Yeah, we're going to make all this progress, and then there's going to be a lot of pushback, and it'll get regulated." I know the thought was, "We'll make a lot of progress, and it'll be so good that it will actually then accelerate, and it will, you know, it'll smash religion even more, and then we can go even faster, and it'll go even better." And it's going to have this sort of unraveling, accelerating effect. And then, and then in the 20th, 21st century, we make, you know, we make the opposite argument as there are some things in this project that have gone somewhat haywire.

• 32:07Jordan B. Peterson?

  Okay, so let's pick up on the religious thread for a moment. I've been trying to understand the relationship between Christian Europe, let's say, and the dawn of the scientific age for a long time. And so let me outline something for you, and then I'll turn back to exactly what you said. So it seems to me, I mean, much of the early science was done in the monasteries that turned into universities. And so there's certainly a trail. From Christianity through the monasteries to the universities. And so you can, you can think about that as concrete evidence of the underpinning

• 32:49Jordan B. Peterson?

  of much of the scientific revolution in terms of, at least the offshoots of Christianity. But I think there's something deeper there. And so I've tried to make this case with Dawkins, for example, not least after he called himself a cultural Christian. So it seems to me that for science to get going as a motivational project, there are some assumptions you have to make that aren't scientific. So there are axioms before the game gets going, and I think they're faith-based axioms. One is that the cosmos is intelligible, that it's intelligible to the human mind, and that diligent investigation of that intelligibility produces an increment in knowledge, both practical, both conceptual and practical, and that that increment in knowledge is good.

• 33:33Jordan B. Peterson?

  But then there's a, there's maybe a deeper presumption, which is that increment in knowledge can be good if the point of the knowledge pursuit remains encapsulated in something like the underlying Christian ethos. And then I would say that fractures in a way, perhaps Bacon's a, a turning point, where the reliance of the scientific endeavor on these metaphysical presuppositions is questioned, or like when I presented Dawkins with that argument, he just waved his hands over and he said, he doesn't have any metaphysical assumptions underlying his brand of science.

• 34:14Jordan B. Peterson?

  But, but, and I think that that is what the more radical Enlightenment, French Revolution types thought, is that, no, we've escaped from the underlying religious ethos, okay? The problem with that is, it seems to me, and I think this might have to do with this apocalyptic kickback, is that once you unmoor yourself from the underlying ethos, which is even the ethos that defines what constitutes knowledge and progress itself, then the Luciferian element of the scientific endeavor can begin to loom extremely large.

• 34:44Speaker 04

  Well, uh, well, again, let's, let's, let's start with the, you know, the early, the early modern history. And I'm, I'm always a sort of hardcore Girardian, this, uh...

• 34:57Speaker 04

  Great thinker, intellectual, sort of, in some ways, Christian polymath that I studied under Stanford in the late 80s, 90s, and influenced me tremendously. And, you know, these things are, again, very complicated intellectual history questions, but certainly one intuition that's odd about your telling would be that you would say that, you know, we had sort of a law-centered monotheistic tradition, also in Islam, also in Judaism.

• 35:37Speaker 04

  And if we say there was something about Christianity that, where this really came, and it was not in the Islamic world that you got the scientific revolution, for example, it suggests that maybe it wasn't just the metaphysics, not just the theological metaphysics that drove it, but something like the Christian anthropology. Girard was fond of always saying that, you know, people focus too much in the Bible on what it tells us about God, but there must also be something it tells us about.

• 36:09Jordan B. Peterson?

  Man.

• 36:09Speaker 04

  About man.

• 36:10Jordan B. Peterson?

  Yeah, okay.

• 36:10Speaker 04

  And certainly the Girardian intuition is that one of the, you know, one of the things is always that, you know, there's this really big problem of violence and scapegoating, that in some ways, some sense Judaism and then Christianity, it's the same story. It's the same story of, you know, sacrifice, but it's told not from the point of view of the violent community, it's told from the point of view of the innocent victim. And there's a certain way where it sets in process, this gradual...

• 36:49Speaker 04

  This dynamic revelation that has, that leads to this sort of gradual unraveling. And there are, and as you stop believing in scapegoats, you're forced to come up with other explanations, and that includes science. So for example, you can, you can ask, "Why did the witchcraft trials come to an end?" And the atheist scientific explanation is, "We got science to prove that witchcraft is impossible." And I don't think that's even been proven in 2025, because we don't know everything. Maybe it's a lost art that's been lost. Maybe, I mean, you can go to a bookstore in Berkeley, buy a book on how to be a witch.

• 37:34Jordan B. Peterson?

  There's not a lot of difference between placebo effect and magic.

• 37:36Speaker 04

  And so that, but, but then the, you know, the Girardian alternate story of why the witchcraft trials ended were that at some point, people realized that this sort of collective scapegoating in some ways was, it was like a version of the, of the death of Christ. You know, the witches were not absolutely innocent like Christ, but they were relatively innocent. It was a community that, that went crazy. And then you, you know, and then, once you know that the witches are innocent, or are relatively innocent, then, then you steel yourself and force yourself to find natural explanations. You know, if you don't think that it was, you know, I don't know, the Jews that poisoned the wells in the Middle Ages.

• 38:20Jordan B. Peterson?

  Or some devils or...

• 38:22Speaker 04

  Eventually, or, you know, this was during the Salem witch trials, there were these, you know, you had these competing sermons on Sundays. And, you know, the initial ones were sort of that, that, yeah, the, these women weren't, had made a pact with the devil, but then the way it got reconstructed, because it was right afterwards that the witchcraft trials ended, and people sort of realized pretty fast, they'd kind of collectively lost their minds. And the, the alternate one was, you know, the devil had entered the whole community, and had possessed all of Salem. And those were the sermons you gave in the aftermath of witchcraft trials. And, and then, and then in that sort of a context, you know... Maybe, maybe science was also a way, a way to find,

• 39:06Speaker 04

  you know, you can steel yourself to find natural explanations. When you're in an archaic, you know, thing, scapegoating is always an explanation. It's a, you know, this person did this, that person did this, it's that person's fault. And when you, when you say those explanations won't do, maybe you're forced to do, do a scientific explanation. So there are all these different threads one can, one can stress.

• 39:29Jordan B. Peterson?

  I wonder if that was also...

• 39:31Speaker 04

  I think you have to always ask this question.

• 39:35Speaker 04

  What was, what was specific about the, the Christian message that, that really enabled this? You know, I mean, I, I think the, you know, there was, there was, there was a way the, you know, there was a way the Jewish context was extremely learned. And people, you know, I don't know, if you, if you compare the Talmudic abilities already in the Middle Ages to, you know, understand the Bible, to read it, you know, it was as good or better than, you know, any, anything, anything that the, the Christian scholastics were, were doing. But somehow it, it, it, it never really got a part of society to orient in this, in this other way.

• 40:18Speaker 04

  But again, it's, it's, you know, it's obviously a complicated history.

• 40:21Jordan B. Peterson?

  Well, so one of the things you pointed out there that's very interesting is that Christianity, the rise of Christianity destroyed the pagan world. And that's a great mystery. But one of the epistemological consequences of that was the notion that deities weren't widespread. That, that idea had to disappear. You know, the Romans had gods for their archways, right? So there was an idea that there were invisible spirits, so to speak, that were operating behind the scenes, that were, could easily be interpreted as causal mechanisms. But you can imagine then, I'm also trying to integrate this with what I learned from Jung. You can imagine that as the world's desacralized at the pagan level

• 41:06Jordan B. Peterson?

  and the kinds of interpretations that you just described are no longer tenable, right? There are these invisible agencies, some of them personalities, that are operating. That isn't working anymore. That gets all aggregated into a monotheistic deity and the magic gets pulled out of the world. See, Jung, Jung also pointed out that as the Christian...

• 41:29Jordan B. Peterson?

  Revolution transpired. The elchimical mythology started to become widespread and that there was a idea that developed that there were mysteries lurking in the material world that had redemptive capacity. And so you could imagine that as the spirits are taken out of the world, the suspicion, you already said this, the suspicion that there are other causal forces at work starts to make itself manifest in at least the imaginations of people who are on the cutting edge. And so I wonder if that's a... Is that an inevitable consequence of the victory of Christianity over the pagan world? Because it gets desacralized merely because everything that's divine gets united into a single figure.

• 42:15Speaker 04

  I think it was somewhere in Karl Marx where he says that, you know, "All social criticism starts with a criticism of religion." And then the Christian addendum, I would always say, was that Mark, Jesus Christ, was the first person to actually do that, really, and started that whole process where, you know, you can think so much of it was, you know, calling into question the social institutions, the religious institutions, you know, in a way, deconstructing them, you know. What, you know, and... And there's something about this that is, you know, I think is true. I think, I think there is something about it

• 42:58Speaker 04

  that has an unraveling character. And I don't think you can go back. We can't go back to these pagan institutions once they have been deconstructed. And, you know, maybe the gods get re-characterized as demons or psychosocial phenomena.

• 43:14Jordan B. Peterson?

  Or, yeah, unconscious manifestations.

• 43:16Speaker 04

  But, you know, that doesn't sound like, you know, the way you really bring Zeus back, you know, into the way it would have been, you know, understood by, you know, the average person in ancient Greece or something like that.

• 43:32Speaker 04

  But yeah, I think, you know, there's a, one of the other, you know, dimensions that Girard, I mean Girard, it was sort of this combination of literature and anthropology, but also, there was always a psychological dimension to Girard, and the psychological intuition in Girard is that there's something about human beings being imitative that's very deep, very important, very underexplored, and it is, it is that, you know, you have, you have something like, it's something like, I believe it's in Aristotle, "Men differs

• 44:17Speaker 04

  from the other animals in its greater aptitude for imitation."

• 44:21Jordan B. Peterson?

  Yeah, it's a huge, it's a huge difference between us and other animals.

• 44:24Speaker 04

  And then, and then you could say, this is, like, you know, and of course, Darwinism says our closest relatives are the apes, and the apes, they ape, they imitate, and so we differ from the apes and being more ape-like than the apes. If you sort of combine the Aristotelian and the Darwinian, that's kind of a very, very strange thing in a way. And then the problem, the good thing about imitation is this is how culture gets transmitted, this is how you learn language, without, you know, without imitation, you know, you know, nothing like this sort of cultural edifice that we have would work. And then, and then the thing that's dangerous is it's not just on a representational level, it's

• 45:07Speaker 04

  not just on the level of ideas that people imitate, it's also on the level of desires, of things they want, and when everybody wants the same thing, this, you know, this becomes this, you know, incredibly, you know, incredibly violent thing, and then, and then Girard's understanding the, the point of, you know, or a major point of a lot of the Laws, divine laws in these archaic societies was to, in some sense, stop imitation.

• 45:34Jordan B. Peterson?

  Okay, okay.

• 45:35Speaker 04

  Prevent imitation, to, you know, you will, the job you do will be the same job that your father did. If your father's a baker, you will be a baker. And this creates a guild system where you don't have this sort of free-market competition between everybody. And it all goes, everybody's at everybody else's throats. And then somehow, you know, what's happened in late modernity in Girard is that as these institutions have unraveled, there has again been this freedom to imitate like we did before we had anything cultural at all, before we had invented, you know, when the apes hadn't yet invented religion

• 46:19Speaker 04

  or, you know, these sacred structures that somehow channeled the violence. And then, and so in late modernity, it's again, the mimesis is, you know, it's what makes our society dynamic, but there are no, there are no natural barriers. And that's also, you know, we can give it an apocalyptic dimension or, you know, this, and again, there are ways it doesn't, it doesn't fully spiral into thermonuclear war all the time, but, or hasn't yet, but, you know, it has this, it has this super open-ended dimension where it can go in all these different ways, you know.

• 46:56Speaker 04

  There's probably, again, you know, we're throwing out a lot of different ideas here, there probably is, you know, some, some kind, something about the loss of the transcendent, where, you know, if you have a transcendent, some transcendent reference, you're not in memetic competition. So...

• 47:19Jordan B. Peterson?

  Yeah, okay. I want to return to that.

• 47:21Speaker 04

  And so, and so one of the, you know, one of the intuitions Girard always had on the Ten Commandments is that the most important were the first and last on the list. The first commandment, you know, you should... Only worship one god. There's one god above you, that's who you worship. The 10th commandment is the one about, you know, not coveting the things that belong to your neighbor, not being too your neighbor's ox or wife, or, you know, this whole set of things. And it's basically, when you, you know, when you stop looking up, you start looking around. And when you look around too much, it's not, it's not a wisdom of crowds, it's a madness of crowds. And it's, and then that is-

• 48:05Jordan B. Peterson?

  That's the envy issue.

• 48:06Speaker 04

  And then that is sort of where, again, you know, we're not even talking about what to do about this, but this is just sort of a-

• 48:12Jordan B. Peterson?

  Well, kind of, looking up is partly what to do about it.

• 48:15Speaker 04

  As a description, I would say, there is something about late modernity, a society that's not dominated by a supernatural being, that's sort of, you know, it's atheist, the liberal atheist society we live in is one where people look around a great deal. It's a lot of very unhealthy status competition games that end up driving it.

• 48:42Speaker 04

  You know, and that's, that would be sort of a a Girardian description of this world where mimesis is far more out of control than ever before. Don't think we can go back. But there are all these ways, it's, you know, it's frustrating, unsatisfactory. You know, it may have, it may be apocalyptic. But that's, yeah, that's a way to, again, understand this history. And it's, it's in some ways, you know, downstream of Christianity, it's downstream of these things being revealed. In some ways, it's, it's the opposite to it. You know, because one of the questions, you know, Girard, if you ask Girard, you know, you have this theory about mimesis, and there are all these

• 49:25Speaker 04

  bad forms of mimesis, we have the wrong role models, and you, you know, you, and then isn't, isn't it just, okay, you should be less memetic?

• 49:34Jordan B. Peterson?

  Yeah, no.

• 49:34Speaker 04

  And then, and then, of course, Girard was, no, that's, this is just the nature, and you can maybe choose your role model, you can choose Christ, but you can't choose not to be memetic. That's, by the way, that's the Ayn Rand answer. Where in, you know, Atlas Shrugged-

• 49:50Speaker 04

  The bad people are all the people who imitate. They're the second-handers. They're the people who don't know what they want and just copy everybody else. And then the really great people are the unmoved movers. They're like Aristotelian gods. They're not influenced by anybody, and it's all from within.

• 50:08Jordan B. Peterson?

  But they're united by the same ethos across the entrepreneurs.

• 50:13Speaker 04

  But the Girardian critique of Ayn Rand would be, people like that don't exist. We all grow up deeply in a social context. There's a developmental part to human biology. Ayn Rand doesn't like to talk about children, because children are incredibly imitative, and for both good and bad. This is just the way we are. But so, yes, Girard's answer was never that you could get rid of mimesis or anything like this.

• 50:41Jordan B. Peterson?

  Yeah, no, that's not gonna happen.

• 50:43Speaker 04

  Or even that some kind of psychological approach would be, that you talk about your memetic stuff with your therapist. That might make it worse, right? Because you'd focus on it even more, and then you'd conclude, as in so much therapy, it gets marketed as self-transformation, and it crashes out as self-acceptance. And then you'd probably just conclude, "I'm just a really memetic person, I can't help it."

• 51:05Jordan B. Peterson?

  Degenerates into self-worship.

• 51:06Speaker 04

  Into self-acceptance, let's say.

• 51:08Jordan B. Peterson?

  Yeah, I wish it'd stop there, but it doesn't.

• 51:12Speaker 04

  And then I think Girard's answer would still be something like, "You should just go to church."

• 51:18Jordan B. Peterson?

  Okay, so let me pull apart. I'd like to talk to you about sacrifice, and then again about imitation. I'm gonna start with imitation. So the psychologist that I know best, who is most conversant with the ideas that you put forward, is Jean Piaget. And Piaget prioritized imitation as much as Girard. But Piaget'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.

• 51:52Speaker 04

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

• 52:01Jordan B. Peterson?

  Yeah, well, he wasn't concerned precisely, I would say, with notions of progress from an economic perspective. Like, Piaget's notion was that...

• 52:16Jordan B. Peterson?

  It's very much like Gerard's, you know, is that the way that we organize ourselves socially and psychologically is through imitation. And so Piaget concentrated, for example, on games. And so his counter to Gerard, but without invalidating Gerard's point, by the way, is that...

• 52:36Speaker 04

  But he was before Gerard, right?

• 52:38Jordan B. Peterson?

  Yes, he was. Yes, definitely, definitely. And so Piaget's point was that we actually organize ourselves into social hierarchies with imitation.

• 52:50Speaker 04

  Yes.

• 52:50Jordan B. Peterson?

  We, when children, for example, when they're three or four. So, for example, you can't do this till you're three.

• 52:56Speaker 04

  Yes.

• 52:57Jordan B. Peterson?

  This is how it works 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.

• 53:10Speaker 04

  Yes.

• 53:10Jordan B. Peterson?

  So the goal in that situation is to abstract and model the domestic 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.

• 53:33Speaker 04

  Yes.

• 53:33Jordan B. Peterson?

  Okay, so now your point, I think, was that... So now imagine a world where there's an indefinite number of these 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 implied aim up, but you also implied go back to church. Now, see, there's, let me just finish one thought. So imagine that there are meta-games under which imitative games could be organized.

• 54:17Jordan B. Peterson?

  Okay, one meta-game would be power. Another metagame 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 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.

• 55:01Jordan B. Peterson?

  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 compositions, competitions, unless they're oriented towards something transcendent. So then the question would be, what would that transcendent orientation be?

• 55:28Speaker 00

  Born from the intensity of a night in the Eternal City. Introducing Born in Roma Fragrances by Valentino. Feminine perfume Donna Born in Roma features juicy black currant, central jasmine, soft cashmerin, and warm vanilla. Masculine leaning but unisex Womo has notes of fresh violet leaf, aromatic sage, green vetiver, and mineral salt. Shop holiday gifts at Macy's.com.

• 55:57Speaker 04

  Well, um, let me see. There's many, many different threads here, but I would say, uh, Gerard's, yeah, Gerard would reference people like Piaget and said that, you know, they underestimated imitation massively, they whitewash it. It's, you know, i- i- if you ignore this all-important runaway violence dimension and things like this.

• 56:22Jordan B. Peterson?

  Yeah, well, Piaget was not a psychopathologist, right? He was a study of normative development.

• 56:26Speaker 04

  Yeah, yeah. And, and then, and then I, I think Gerard's intuition was much more that, uh, in some sense... The so-called "normal" case is the less important one. It's the extreme case. It's where, you know, it's the madness of crowds. You know, that's an extremely important case.

• 56:48Jordan B. Peterson?

  Hey, fair enough.

• 56:49Speaker 04

  It's not, and, you know...

• 56:51Jordan B. Peterson?

  See, because PJ also wasn't an abnormal psychologist.

• 56:53Speaker 04

  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.

• 56:59Jordan B. Peterson?

  Right, but he did bind it by the necessity of voluntary play, right? That's an important distinction.

• 57:05Speaker 04

  Sure, there are all these ways. We're still within some structure. But you could always say this is a basic difference between Enlightenment rationalism and Biblical revelation is, you know... You know, in the Bible, the crowd is always wrong. The crowd is always crazy. It is mad. It's, you know, the Tower of Babel. It's in part, it's the unanimity.

• 57:29Jordan B. Peterson?

  The Israelites in the desert.

• 57:31Speaker 04

  It's, and Enlightenment 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, you know, it's this very important question. When do you go from wisdom of crowds to the madness of crowds?

• 57:55Jordan B. Peterson?

  Yeah, that's a very important question, that's for sure.

• 57:58Speaker 04

  The Girardian, and I would say Christian intuition, is that it happens much sooner and in a much more representative way than you have to, than you think, and that, you know...

• 58:11Speaker 04

  And this is, yeah.

• 58:14Speaker 04

  And so, that's sort of one dimension. I don't know if I would...

• 58:23Speaker 04

  I would anchor it as much on sacrifice, though, as the key feature. And again, this is one of the places where Girard argued that Christianity was, in Girard's telling, is anti-sacrificial. It is a move away from sacrifice. You know, and all these theories about the substitutionary atonement.

• 58:46Speaker 04

  Of Christ's death, but even if, even if we go with a sort of traditional theological

• 58:51Jordan B. Peterson?

  Is it a movement away from the sacrifice of others?

• 58:54Speaker 04

  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 the sacrifice of others versus the sacrifice of self. You could say that, but, but you could say, uh, the, the way Gerard would put the stress would be that, um, you refused, it's, it's not there was some virtue in Christ sacrificing himself. He's not like some, I don't know, some, some enlightened, 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.

• 59:38Speaker 04

  It said, "Christ at Gethsemane," you know, 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 quite the opposite. Uh, but, um, you could say it is the refusal to sacrifice others that characterizes Christ.

• 1:00:02Jordan B. Peterson?

  Well, definitely that, because he's

• 1:00:04Speaker 04

  And we're not willing, we're not willing, you know, you're not willing to resort to violence, you're not willing to

• 1:00:09Jordan B. Peterson?

  Use power.

• 1:00:10Speaker 04

  You 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, maybe in, in some contexts, you have to lay down your life, your friends, there, there are things like that that happen, but, but I think 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 Hosea, where it's, you know, God desires mercy and not sacrifice, you know, the, you know, so, so 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.

• 1:00:53Speaker 04

  It's centered on the temple and we have this sort of elaborate set of, of sacrifices. And then, you know, in some sense, Christ replaces it with, you know, "Love the Lord, dear God," with your heart and mind, and, uh, "Love your neighbor as yourself."

• 1:01:11Jordan B. Peterson?

  And then pay attention to the moment.

• 1:01:13Speaker 04

  And, and then we, we could say We could say it's, and then, you know, he says he's not getting rid of the Old Testament law.

• 1:01:20Jordan B. Peterson?

  Yeah.

• 1:01:20Speaker 04

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

• 1:01:28Jordan B. Peterson?

  Okay, so, okay, so let's delve into that.

• 1:01:30Speaker 04

  You can even eat bacon and pork.

• 1:01:31Jordan B. Peterson?

  Right, right, right.

• 1:01:33Speaker 04

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

• 1:01:37Jordan B. Peterson?

  Okay, so let's delve into this a little bit. I want to make this psychological and sociological as well as theological. So, it strikes me that the rat, one of the radical characteristics of human beings, we talked about imitation, that's certainly one. Another radical characteristic is the willingness and ability to make sacrifices. So let me define that for a minute, 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 hunger, it could be temperature regulation.

• 1:02:22Jordan B. Peterson?

  A two-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 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. Part of Piaget'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.

• 1:03:04Jordan B. Peterson?

  That's a sacrificial move, because you're sacrificing immediate gratification for the stability of the future. And then, there's another sacrificial.

• 1:03:13Speaker 04

  Let me push back on just that description. Is it a sacrificial move, or is it a rational move? Because, there's, there's some way in which...

• 1:03:22Jordan B. Peterson?

  I think it's both. It's both. It's rational once you can see the future, right?

• 1:03:28Speaker 04

  But it's, it's, it's sort of very...

• 1:03:32Speaker 04

  To the extent it's rational, it may not be that sacrificial. You save money in order to buy a house.

• 1:03:39Jordan B. Peterson?

  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, because 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.

• 1:04:22Jordan B. Peterson?

  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 in 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, because the default is, "It's always my turn." That's what it is like for non-social animals, for example.

• 1:04:52Speaker 04

  Man, this is where I want to push back a little bit.

• 1:04:57Jordan B. Peterson?

  Push away, man.

• 1:04:58Speaker 04

  Where, I don't think you tell a two- or three-year-old this in the language of sacrifice.

• 1:05:07Jordan B. Peterson?

  No, you probably acted out for them.

• 1:05:09Speaker 04

  It's if you don't take turns, something bad happens, and you won't have friends.

• 1:05:16Jordan B. Peterson?

  Or the other kids tell the kids that.

• 1:05:18Speaker 04

  Yeah, there are some very, pretty fast, immediate consequences to it. And again, you don't say it's rational, but it is, it's sort of, you learn pretty fast to do these things. And then, the place where I'm uncomfortable with using this sort of language of sacrifice is that the evidence-based, non-rational part of it, if that's all we have left, you know, I wonder whether those are the sacrifices that we should make. For example, I'm going to give lots of examples, but...

• 1:05:59Speaker 04

  You know, there's always a question about what should be done about academia. They're not, you know, all the conservative academics are being expelled.

• 1:06:09Jordan B. Peterson?

  They're sitting right here.

• 1:06:10Speaker 04

  And there's sort of a, there's a version of a debate I've had with a lot of right of center people over the last 20 years, where it's, well, we just, you know, 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.

• 1:06:31Jordan B. Peterson?

  Yeah, right.

• 1:06:32Speaker 04

  And, and I, there's sort of a lot of reasons to think this is hard to do or might not work. But, but 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, that's not a, that's not a rational sacrifice they made. It's a very foolish choice that perhaps this language of sacrifice confused, confused things. And, and then the non-sacrificial move, you know, is roughly like what you yourself did

• 1:07:14Speaker 04

  with, you know, the University of Toronto, wherever 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 my mind or I'm not, you know, I'm not playing by all their silly rules. And, and I think that was the correct thing to do. 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 might be unhappy about it, but, you know, for the greater good, you have to stay there.

• 1:07:45Jordan B. Peterson?

  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-

• 1:07:53Speaker 04

  And, and I think those were irrational things that you should not have sacrificed.

• 1:07:57Jordan B. Peterson?

  I'm fully on board.

• 1:08:00Speaker 04

  And I think you made totally the right decision.

• 1:08:02Jordan B. Peterson?

  But I would also say-

• 1:08:03Speaker 04

  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.

• 1:08:17Jordan B. Peterson?

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

• 1:08:21Speaker 04

  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, maybe even something as stupid as what you found hedonically enjoyable, right? It's, again, it was, did you find it enjoyable sitting on silly faculty committees as a tenured professor, or did you find it boring? And, um, and it wasn't fun. The boredom wasn't fun, and it's not the only reason to leave. It's not, maybe it's not a sufficient reason, but, but in, from my perspective, it's, it, it's a good partial reason.

• 1:09:01Jordan B. Peterson?

  So, I was...

• 1:09:02Speaker 04

  And, uh, there were probably a lot of things like this that added up.

• 1:09:05Jordan B. Peterson?

  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 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, I, because I had a private business.

• 1:09:33Speaker 04

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

• 1:09:44Jordan B. Peterson?

  I'm certainly not unhappy about it.

• 1:09:46Speaker 04

  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 be a pretty irrational thing to do. Again, and so it was, I think it was a, yeah, it's rational for you to focus on reaching a much larger audience, for you to do all these things. And, and I think those were good decisions. You didn't let, you didn't let, let's say, the moralizing, left-wing people in academia,

• 1:10:31Speaker 04

  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. You said, no, you, you, you didn't let that morality control you. So I would, yeah, I would, I would describe it as Christian, or maybe Nietzschean, but anti-sacrificial, what you did, in a very good way.

• 1:10:57Jordan B. Peterson?

  Yeah, yeah, well, I, I understand, I understand what you're saying.

• 1:11:01Speaker 04

  Then, then the meta-layer would be, this is where, maybe just the language of sacrifice is, is, is often more confusing than helpful.

• 1:11:11Jordan B. Peterson?

  Well, I think it also, to some degree, it, it stems, it likely stems from your saturation in the Girardian view, because you're, you can correct me again if I'm 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 a fair bit of reconstruction to make things work.

• 1:11:56Jordan B. Peterson?

  And so you could say, well, if you gain more than you lose, is that truly a 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 points to the ambiguity of what constitutes a sacrifice.

• 1:12:25Speaker 04

  I want to push back on all of these things. So, you know, I'm, yes, I, I will confess to being an unreconstructed Girardian. And there were probably ways Girard modified his views more than I have. And so he probably towards the end of his life was more open to sacrifice. And I stick with the Girard of the 70s and 80s, who was more categorically skeptical of it.

• 1:12:50Speaker 04

  You know, I think, let me, let me do an alternate cut on, on, on, on, on one, 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, 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, in the light of the new. And so there's, there's a passage in the New Testament, I'm not get the, I don't have the verse memorized, but it's, it's basically where Christ says, "One must have faith like a child."

• 1:13:31Speaker 04

  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 especially noteworthy and worthy of emulation? And I think there is in fact, one child whose faith gets described in the Old Testament. And we never seem to talk about it. And it's Isaac. Because as they're, as they're going up the mountain, you know, Abraham tells Isaac this fictional story, you know, maybe God will provide...

• 1:14:17Speaker 04

  Something else, and you know, that's, that's, that's what might happen. And then Isaac just believes that. Isaac believes, Abraham believes he has to make sacrifice. That's, that's the, that's the delusional faith of an adult. Who's read too much Kierkegaard or something. And, um, and um, Isaacs 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. He's a loving God. And there's a way to do this without sacrifice. And I'm, I'm always, yeah. What I find so odd about the, the Abraham, Isaac story is that um,

• 1:15:00Speaker 04

  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, 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 better example. I think the concrete one is Isaac.

• 1:15:22Jordan B. Peterson?

  And um, And it is interesting that it's not written from his perspective, the analysis.

• 1:15:27Speaker 04

  We get enough of Isaac's perspective implicitly in the story. But it's all the reviews, all the, when 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 understand, I understand Christ. Uh, I understand him to be telling me to emulate the faith of Isaac, which I think 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. I, I believe in the physical resurrection of Christ, both as an event that happened historically, but also as a promise.

• 1:16:10Speaker 04

  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.

• 1:16:34Speaker 04

  You know, we can call that a sacrifice, but it has a very different character.

• 1:16:39Jordan B. Peterson?

  Right, that's why he says this yoke is light, which is a weird thing to say when it's an invitation to the cross.

• 1:16:44Speaker 04

  But you have to, you know, the non-sacrificial way I would say it is, yeah, if you believe in a literal, you know, eternal life, that's one sort of thing. If you think these are just some sort of Jungian archetype story, then you end up with much more of sacrifice qua sacrifice as a really high value. But that's why I would always interpret the Orthodox Christian message as very anti-sacrificial, very non-sacrificial. And, you know, maybe, I don't like the word rational, but just you're making a good choice, a wise choice.

• 1:17:28Jordan B. Peterson?

  Okay, okay, got it, got it. Okay, so I'm gonna stop us here. And so this is what we're gonna do on The Daily Wire side. All you watching and listening know we do an extra half an hour. I want to continue our conversation about the faith of a child. But I also want to ask you why you think, if you think it's true that you are temperamentally inclined to focus on the dark side. And I'd like to know what the consequence of that has been. Because that's something we actually share in common. You know, unlike Piaget, I'm a psychopathologist.

• 1:18:03Speaker 04

  Yes.

• 1:18:03Jordan B. Peterson?

  He was a developmental psychologist. And I've always been interested in the extreme case. And so I'd like to talk to you about this faith issue that you just described. I'd like to talk to you a bit more about Christianity. And I'd like to talk to you about what it is you think that it is about you that's focused you on that, on the more apocalyptic and dark edge of things. So, all right, so everybody who's watching and listening, while this part of the conversation has come to a halt, and thanking for everybody here in Scottsdale for making this possible and The Daily Wire. We're gonna continue for another half an hour on The Daily Wire side with the topics that I just described. Thank you very much for coming to see me today and to talk. We obviously just barely got going.

• 1:18:44Speaker 04

  Just started, just got started.

• 1:18:45Jordan B. Peterson?

  Yeah, but it's a good start. And we've got another half an hour and maybe some time in the future. So thank you very much.

• 1:18:51Speaker 04

  Awesome, thanks for having me.

• 1:18:51Jordan B. Peterson?

  Much appreciated. Thanks, everybody, for your time and attention.

• 1:19:06Speaker 02

  Your sausage McMuffin with egg didn't change, your receipt did. The sausage McMuffin with egg extra value meal includes a hash brown and a small coffee for just $5, only at McDonald's for a limited time.

• 1:19:18Speaker 06

  Price and participation may vary. Promotion pricing may be lower than meal pricing. Sam's Club is the club for every holiday club. Guess who's joining the club this season? Walmart Plus. Yep, Sam's Club Plus membership now comes with Walmart Plus at no extra cost. Two memberships, one great price. Just $120 a year can save you time and over $700. Want to get in on the membership duo of the century? Visit sam'sclub.com. Come join us. Sam's Club.

• 1:19:42Speaker 07

  Annual plan only. Auto renews. T and C apply. Estimate based on average combined Walmart Plus and Sam's Club Plus savings among members of both for one plus year versus non-member or club member pricing/fees. Excludes membership fees. See Walmart Plus terms and Sam's Club terms for more info. Now at Kroger, your points add up to more ways to save every trip. Use them your way to take dollars off groceries at checkout or save at the pump. You can even save up to $35 on your next fill-up. Same points, more choices. And with low prices on fresh, quality food, plus digital and personalized offers tailored to how you shop, your dollar goes further. Redeem your points online or in the app. Kroger, fresh for everyone. Restrictions apply. See site or store for details.