Olympian Method

TBD

TBD

TBD

Imagine you are a child playing in their own fantasy world. You are negotiating an identity of who you are. It can be a giant robot, a princess, a warrior, a wizard. When you play by yourself, you are essentially in complete control of your identity (Until your parents told you to go to bed because you had school the next day). Now, imagine that you're playing with another child. You may be able to be a giant robot, but they claim to be a bigger robot with even more powers! What happens then? Negotiations proceed. Child 1 "Yeah but I have more power than you, I have an Iron Man Battery!". Child 2 says "Yeah but I have the laser to disable your battery, and it's the only one!" Child 1 "Nuh uh! I have a secret armor shield that blocks all your attacks!" Child 2 says "Well you're just a dummy head". And from that point, the imaginary game is most likely to morph into some form of mortal combat (kidding, but you get the idea). The point of this example is to illustrate that even in the case where we can't agree on what the rules are, we fall back into primal modes of behavior (particularly when discussing males) of using competition of force to determine who's idea is right or not. In the words of Jordan Peterson, you can't negotiate with someone without telling them to "screw off". And at its most primal abstraction, the ability to rebuke an individual rests on the ability to exert physical dominance over them. In meditation, Sean realized that several aspects of the current conflict in the world today, particularly in the west, is the result of people playing different games with each other, or trying to assign identities onto other people that they don't agree with, or taking on identities for ourselves that other people cannot agree upon. Rather than engaging in violence like children who cannot agree on which imaginary robot persona is stronger, we should be discussing the rules for how we negotiate the rules of the various games we play. It is only when communication breaks down that we are left with the desperate feeling that physical, economic, and social power is the only game left to play. So, in the interest of us forming identities that are in everyone's best interest, let's open up a broader discussion on how to appropriately negotiate our identities with other people.

Identity is more than merely an intrapersonal, subjective entity. It is based on the roles that we play in interpersonal connections with others. It is an agreement. It is a bond. For example, the bonds between a husband and wife are mutually agreed upon roles. It cannot be any other way. Otherwise, you should probably call the cops because anyone who claims to be something relative to you without your consent is living in a delusional fantasy realm. And we've all heard the crazy r/Tinder stories about those who claim to be one's significant other, only to have the proposed party say "Huh? who even are you?". But I digress with my poor attempts at humor. Defining what identity isn't can be just as useful as determining what identity is. What it isn't is a solipsistic role that we assign ourselves. That is one end of extremes that we wish to avoid. But we also wish to avoid the other extreme, which is being given roles or forms that are imposed upon us without our consent. Essentially, identity is a game. It is an ever-changing form that we attempt to play out with ourselves and others. Some questions that arose from the discussion of this game of identity come from setting the boundaries and rules of the game. In a business setting, not everyone can identify as the "boss" or the manager, and so other games are designed to determine which individual should be in a said position (ideally, at least). In simplest terms, identities are agreements that we make with other people are who it is that we are.

In our last chapter, we dissected one of the four primary platonic virtues: practical intelligence. Is all practicality virtuous? Can something be virtuous and not practical? In the Job thought experiment, we analyzed whether a supreme being in charge of the universe would be expected to create challenges for mortals as a means for them to grow. If a parent doesn't challenge their children, don't the children grow up weak?

When we go through hardships, where do we draw strength from? Marcus Aurelius, one of the fathers of modern stoicism and one of its finest exemplars begins his private journal entries with platitudes of gratitude toward his closest mentors, family members and peers. We outline the 4 primary virtues in Platonic influenced stoicism: Self-Control, Practical Knowledge, Courage, and Justice. We then ask: Is there, or can there be, a single unifying virtue under which all of these constituents reside?

Sam Harris makes a non-fatalistic case for a lack of free will. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g

What is determinism, but a fatalistic play in motion? What is causality? Humans like to resolve causality down to one factor, even if it's only correlated. Causality is an abstraction. But is it understood through inductive reasoning or deductive? We tend to think as certain functions of our body happening autonomously, without a decision in our mind, but then we think of "choices" we ascribe that to a decision that's made regardless of some of the parts that influenced it. So, if we have so many aspects of our body that happen unconsciously, how can we say that our conscious decisions are anything but controlled by things outside our control?

Did you choose to listen to this podcast? If so, then why? Are you conscious of all the reasons why you choose to do anything? what are the pragmatic implications of free will or lack thereof, and how do we even determine what freedom or will are?

What does post-modernism aim at exactly? Is it simply rebellion against any system regardless of its functionality? Regardless of its system (or lack therof) of thought, we both largely agree that all systems can be improved, but those improvements do no always require construction in a vacuum. New systems, whether they be centered around economics, law, technology or art, are always modified out of pre-existing structures. To completely do away with the past and discard its usefulness is to risk our future.

Did Post-Modernism influence the enlightenment? In this Chapter, Sean and Wolf unpack the benefit of creating hypothetical new structures to replace the preexisting ones BEFORE tearing them down; we look at the pitfalls of too much vs. too little skepticism; we remind ourselves that the main impetus for changing any existing structure is based on survival of not only the individuals but community as well; we ask ourselves what structures are built in the absence of a daily influence and stress of survival situations, and how can we ensure that they are not counter to our survival in the process; if too much comfort leads to decay, and too much stress leads to death, what is the eudaimonic approach to stress, and how does postmodernism help or hinder this search? Sean's personal reflection: After listening to this I was really struck by the fact that nothing about postmodernism as far as I know in its current state, aims at offering any solutions to existing problems, other than that the structures already in place (which provide protection against problems only experienced by individuals that lived prior to those structures) are the cause for the new problems. To me, this is similar to a lot of the criticisms of capitalism that you hear today. There is much evidence that capitalism has actually reduced abject poverty in the world. Yet, the people who are the most benefited from capitalism criticize it as being responsible for suppressing the lower classes.

"Does post-modernism shoot itself in the foot by being skeptical of logic's and of reason's abilities to be good tools to map reality? how can it assign value, whether it's good or bad, to anything if postmodernism itself inscribes that such valuations can never be based on truth, but on mere power?" But an even better question, or series of questions, are: What is a healthy amount of skepticism? How can Eudaimonia be applied to Post-modernism? How can we avoid "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" (or isolating the most probable cause of a systemic problem) without slipping into Nihilism? In Wolf and Sean's most challenging topic to date, we ultimately attempt to understand the judgments made by our organic instruments... by using the instrument that makes judgments... while also questioning whether the instruments are doing the judging and not societal power structures. Libertarian Postmodernism: A Reply to Jordan Peterson and the Intellectual Dark Web https://youtu.be/VLzJFh-7daQ

In our most compelling chapter on Good vs. Evil, Wolf and Sean discuss The Golden Rule, Silver Rule, The impact of intent, and is utopia even desirable; Can humans know what is good without the aspects of evil; Can humans grow without gravity? We thank you for joining us in these thoughtful discussions. We hope that they get your cognitive wheels turning and inspire you to philosophize more yourself!

The gold standards of modern moral philosophy have been established either through religion alone or through thinkers heavily influenced by its teachings. Our desires are often not commiserate with some moral axioms, such as the "thou shalt not" variety; knowing what not to do can be just as important if one doesn't know what they should do, to begin with. But is knowing what to do without knowing what not do commiserate with any system of morality?

Welcome Olympians! Have you ever wondered why you consider some actions to be good and others to be bad? Have you doubted your own intentions when making a decision?

Do the terms "Good" and "Evil" only exist in dualistic relativity to one another; Can one be defined without the presence of the other? Does the mere act of thinking evil thoughts cause one to act in a way that brings one closer to that outcome? Is nature evil? Is reality evil? Is everything "Good!" #JockoPodcast? Wolf and Sean begin this 4 part series on "Good vs. Evil" by analyzing natural phenomena that exist outside the realms of human social structures.

Wolf and Sean unpack and analyze the meanings of the words "strength," "power," and "competence." How might these terms be understood from a societal standpoint? But then, our podcast took an unexpectedly personal turn, and we began to relate these terms to our experiences in coping with the COVID pandemic. What does strength mean if there is no adversity? We found that stoic philosophy has answers. Wolf's blog post on his isolation experience: https://words.okwolf.com/working-remotely-well

Science has led to many great discoveries, but what are the limits of knowledge available to us through our perceptions? What does it even mean to have perceptions in the first place? This episode includes a deep dive into how our experiences influence the nature of our reality, why we should be skeptical of them, and what some potential solutions to that problem look like.

Things like Dogma, perhaps? Totalitarian regimes of secular and religious nature alike? Groupthink? Mob mentality? The outsourcing of one's own ability to think for others? Do not get us wrong, the infinite regress that is possible in philosophy can be counterproductive in the absence of pragmatic approaches to finding solutions to problems. Speculation without an end goal and without others present is a good starting point, but it is not enough to create change in other's views, which is the transcendental 4th step in Wolf's doctrine. First, we must take our own internal assumptions and have the courage to debate, converse and exchange with others in the spirit of good faith. Wolf and Sean use Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris' 1st Pangburn debate as a springboard into an analysis of belief itself. Spoiler alert: All 4 parties agree that dogma is bad... but to assume anything as good or bad without rationale or reason is to allow the pathological state of Dogma itself. Join us, Olympians!

Wolf's hypothesis for the 4 levels of philosophy. https://words.okwolf.com/assuming-assumptions