Podcasts about philosophically

Dr Heidi Matisonn, Senior Lecturer at The Ethics Lab at the University of Cape Town’s Neuroscience Institute and Department of Medicine joined Clarence on air for our weekly Philosophically Speaking feature. Views and News with Clarence Ford is the mid-morning show on CapeTalk. This 3-hour long programme shares and reflects a broad array of perspectives. It is inspirational, passionate and positive. Host Clarence Ford’s gentle curiosity and dapper demeanour leave listeners feeling motivated and empowered. Known for his love of jazz and golf, Clarrie covers a range of themes including relationships, heritage and philosophy. Popular segments include Barbs’ Wire at 9:30am (Mon-Thurs) and The Naked Scientist at 9:30 on Fridays. Thank you for listening to a podcast from Views & News with Clarence Ford Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays between 09:00 and 12:00 (SA Time) to Views and News with Clarence Ford broadcast on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/erjiQj2 or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/BdpaXRn Subscribe to the CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/sbvVZD5 Follow us on social media: CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Last time on Philosophically Speaking we spoke about anger. South Africans certainly seem angry at the moment. Views and News with Clarence Ford is the mid-morning show on CapeTalk. This 3-hour long programme shares and reflects a broad array of perspectives. It is inspirational, passionate and positive. Host Clarence Ford’s gentle curiosity and dapper demeanour leave listeners feeling motivated and empowered. Known for his love of jazz and golf, Clarrie covers a range of themes including relationships, heritage and philosophy. Popular segments include Barbs’ Wire at 9:30am (Mon-Thurs) and The Naked Scientist at 9:30 on Fridays. Thank you for listening to a podcast from Views & News with Clarence Ford Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays between 09:00 and 12:00 (SA Time) to Views and News with Clarence Ford broadcast on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/erjiQj2 or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/BdpaXRn Subscribe to the CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/sbvVZD5 Follow us on social media: CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this profound exploration of Matthew 22:1-14, we examine Jesus's parable of the wedding feast—one of the most theologically dense teachings in Scripture. This parable reveals the magnificent scope of God's gospel invitation extended to all humanity, the tragic reality of human rejection, and the sovereign grace that ensures God's purposes will not be thwarted. Through the imagery of a royal wedding banquet, Jesus addresses the religious leaders who challenged His authority while simultaneously unveiling timeless truths about salvation, election, and the nature of the Church. This episode unpacks the parable's layers of meaning, from the universal call of the gospel to the particular grace of election, equipping believers to understand both the urgency and the sovereignty of God's redemptive work. Key Takeaways The Universal Gospel Call Is Genuine and Urgent: God's invitation to salvation goes out indiscriminately to all people, regardless of ethnicity, social status, or moral condition. This external call is sincere, well-meant, and accompanied by genuine offers of grace. Human Rejection Is Willful and Culpable: The parable demonstrates that humanity's refusal of God's invitation is not due to insufficient information but to volitional rebellion. This rejection often progresses from indifference to active hostility against God and His messengers. God's Sovereign Purposes Cannot Be Frustrated: Despite widespread rejection, the wedding hall will be filled. God's redemptive plan includes the expansion of His covenant community beyond ethnic Israel to include Gentiles from every nation. The Wedding Garment Represents Imputed Righteousness: The garment required for the feast symbolizes the righteousness of Christ, received by faith alone, not earned through human effort. This illustrates the doctrine of justification by grace through faith. The Visible Church Contains Both Genuine and False Believers: The parable warns that not all who hear the gospel and enter the visible church possess true saving faith, distinguishing between the external call and the internal, effectual work of the Spirit. Eternal Punishment Is Real and Conscious: The parable's conclusion soberly affirms the doctrine of eternal, conscious punishment for those who reject Christ, depicted as "outer darkness" with "weeping and gnashing of teeth." "Many Are Called, But Few Are Chosen": This foundational statement maintains the biblical tension between the universal external call of the gospel and the particular, effectual call of God that sovereignly draws the elect to salvation. Key Concepts The Nature of the Gospel Call: External and Effectual Reformed theology has carefully distinguished between two aspects of God's call. The external or general call is the sincere proclamation of the gospel to all without distinction, inviting everyone to faith and repentance. This call is genuine on God's part—He truly offers salvation to all who hear. However, due to total depravity, the natural person will not respond to this call on their own. The internal or effectual call is the sovereign, irresistible work of the Holy Spirit by which the elect are regenerated, have their wills renewed, and are infallibly brought to saving faith. This distinction preserves both human responsibility (we are culpable for rejecting a genuine offer) and divine sovereignty (God alone saves by His grace). The parable beautifully illustrates both realities: servants genuinely invite all they find on the highways, yet the King ultimately determines who is properly clothed for the feast. The Wedding Garment and Justification by Faith Alone The wedding garment represents one of the parable's most critical theological elements. In ancient Near Eastern culture, hosts often provided garments for wedding guests, making the lack of proper attire inexcusable. Theologically, this garment symbolizes the righteousness of Christ imputed to believers—a righteousness not produced by human effort but received through faith alone. This directly confronts any notion of works-righteousness or the idea that we can stand before God based on our own moral achievements, religious observances, or church membership. The man without the garment represents those who presume to approach God on the basis of their own righteousness rather than Christ's alien righteousness. His speechlessness before judgment illustrates that on the last day, no one will successfully argue their case on grounds of personal merit. This underscores the Reformation principle of sola gratia and sola fide—salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, clothing us in a righteousness that is entirely Christ's. The Tension Between Universal Call and Particular Election The parable's conclusion—"many are called, but few are chosen"—encapsulates one of theology's profound mysteries. This statement places two realities side by side without resolving the tension philosophically. The invitation truly goes to all (universal call), yet only some respond savingly (particular election). Reformed theology maintains this biblical tension rather than collapsing it in either direction. We don't limit the external call only to the elect (hyper-Calvinism), nor do we make the internal call dependent solely on human decision (Arminianism). Instead, we affirm that the gospel invitation is genuinely universal while the effectual drawing is sovereignly particular. This means Christians can proclaim unreservedly, "Christ has died for you" to any person, knowing the offer is sincere, while simultaneously trusting that God will infallibly save all His elect through that proclamation. Memorable Quotes "The most scandalous and tragic thing that could happen at a wedding or a wedding banquet is that nobody shows up. The guests don't come. Or in fact, not only do they not come, they don't want to come—they burn the invitations." "You don't bring anything to your salvation except the sin that made it necessary." "Many a man in this world will silence his own conscience with many a fair excuse. But in that day, there will be no excuse, no plea, no delay." - William Perkins Full Episode Transcript [00:00:58] Jesse Schwamb: Welcome to episode 493 of The Reformed Brotherhood. I'm Jesse, and this is the podcast where we will talk about every single parable. Hey, brothers and sisters. So when was the last time that you were at a wedding? I think weddings are one of the most glorious of all kinds of human events and celebrations, and I think the solemness of the vows and the promises that are exchanged between a man and a woman in marriage in that ceremony, or maybe only equaled by the joy of those same vows and promises. And of course, the whole point of coming together to celebrate a, a wedding. Is to make that joy consummate and complete by having others participate in it. The seeing the union of a man and a woman become one, the excitement of that love expressed in promise and commitment. It's an incredible thing. And I was thinking about this recently because our wedding invitation is actually framed in, in our living room because one of the guests that we invited gave that to us as a really thoughtful gift. And so our wedding ceremony and the party that followed, and it was a. Amazing and awesome party, especially thanks to my in-laws and my parents who generously made sure that that was possible was an exceptional event that we still talk about all the time. Actually, you know, in my wedding when we had this grand kind of wedding banquet afterwards, we had a friend of ours who actually performed the song that we danced to on grand piano and sang for us, which is amazing. We had a DJ in one room and we had a live jazz band in another, and I specifically recall. That when we left late in the evening, my new wife and I, that there were still people on the dance floor having a good time. And I thought, this is the way it's supposed to be. I mean, this is a wedding. This is a wedding banquet. [00:02:58] Why No One Comes [00:02:58] Jesse Schwamb: And so it also made me think recently, especially as we find ourselves in Matthew chapter 22, continuing to look at all these incredible parables that Jesus gives to us, that perhaps the most scandalous and tragic thing that could happen at a wedding or a wedding banquet is that nobody shows up. The guests don't come. Or in fact, like not only do they not come, they don't want to come, they burn the invitations. They wanna have nothing to do with the celebration or the ceremony itself. And so Jesus has been doing all of this teaching that we've been tracking, and he's been responding to these leaders in the Jewish community, the people we call the Pharisees and the scribes who have challenged his authority. And he's been progressing in the way that he's almost ratcheting up the language that he's using, the indictments that he's bringing to them. And now he's about to bring in weddings and specifically the wedding banquet. And that is where we're gonna find ourselves in a Matthew Chapter 22. Now, by the way, I should also mention that because my wife is super popular lady and super lovable. We had a pretty large wedding. I think we had over 200 guests, and so. Because my father-in-law is retired military, we were actually able to have our whole wedding banquet, our whole celebration and party on a local army base. But because of that, it meant that before you could actually get onto the base, all of our guests. Had to be searched. So it's nothing like, you know, basically just shaken down your wedding guests before they show up. So that also was super fun.  [00:04:32] Reading Matthew 22 [00:04:32] Jesse Schwamb: But let's go to the scriptures, everybody. So here's Matthew chapter 22. Uh, listen to this as we take a look at what Jesus has to say and why he brings in weddings. Actually, it might be helpful to say or to give you something, rather to listen to or listen for before you even hear me read the scriptures because. This parable of this wedding banquet, it is definitely one of the most theologically dense parables in the entire synaptic tradition. It is set like we've been saying within the final week of Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem, and it's embedded in the sequence of confrontational exchanges that he's having with the Jewish leadership because they have challenged his authority. And so as you listen to this being read, I want you to clue in, key in as they say to a couple of things. See if you can find the, like the Christological proclamation in this. There's a, a covenantal poll. I think there's some sociological instruction and there's an eschatological warning. All of this happens as is Jesus's jam in the short span of several verses where he illuminates all of these principles of the sovereign grace of God and the summons of the gospel. Total depravity and culpability of this, these rebellious people who refuse the call, the historical judgment of God upon the covenant breaking Israel. And then of course, the subsequent expansion of that covenant into the community include to include the Gentiles. All of this is happening. In this parable, and so I want you just to listen for that as we together read. Or in my case, I guess I just read, especially if you're driving, do not read the parable that begins in the first part of Matthew chapter 22. Here's the word of God. And Jesus answered and spoke to them again in parables saying The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, and he sent out his slaves to call those who had been called to the wedding feast and they were unwilling to come again. He sent out other slaves saying, tell those who have been called. Behold. I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fon livestock are all butchered and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast. But they paid no attention and went their way, one to his farm, another to his business, and the rest seized the slaves and mistreated them and killed them. But the king was enraged and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire. Then he said to his slaves, the wedding is ready, but those who were called were not worthy. Go, therefore, to the main highways and as many as you find there, call to the wedding feast. And those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all they found both evil and good, and the wedding hall was filled with dinner guests. But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who is not dressed in wedding clothes, and he said to him, friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes? And the man was speechless. Then the king said to the servants, bind him hand and foot and throw him into the outer darkness. In that place, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth for many are called, but few are chosen.  [00:07:50] Parable Context [00:07:50] Jesse Schwamb: Wow. So what an incredible. Story, what an incredible foundation or rubric or context in which so many rich theological concepts and pastoral concepts, doctrinal concepts are given to us from Jesus. And you'll notice that of course, chronologically here, this parable is following the parable of the two sons and the parable of the wicked tenants. Those are the vine growers that we were talking about over the last several episodes. And this one rounds everything out. It forms like a triptych of rejection parables directed against these chief priests and the Pharisees who keep coming after Jesus and his authority. And Matthew signals this kind of escalating tension. The Jewish leaders are now explicitly seeking to arrest Jesus. And Jesus responds not by treating their, not by retreating, of course, but by intensifying his indictment in this parabolic form. And here's where we arrive in Matthew 22. It's interesting to me, of course, that this is the approach that Jesus takes. He has already conveyed these two great stories, and at the end of the last one, Tony and I spoke about how this was where at least Matthew explains to us very directly that the, the Pharisees and the scribes, they understood, they discerned that Jesus was speaking about them, and yet Jesus says, I'm not done yet. I've got one more. And this is the culmination of all the things that he's been saying. And it starts again in verse one with Jesus saying, and again, he spoke to them in a parable. You know, it signals that the parable itself is still a reply. Not to a verbal question at this immediate moment, but to this ongoing posture of rejection exhibited by the religious leaders. You notice that what Matthew says here is very, I think, theologically significant in light of where Jesus explains that the parables both reveal and they conceal their instruments of divine judgment upon heart and hearts, even as they illuminate those with ears to hear. This is why I think it's just so important that as Christians. Even as we study God's word, as we participate in it, so to speak, as we let it read us, that we come with this posture of prayer, that we desperately need God's Holy, holy, holy Spirit to illuminate for us what the scriptures say, to lead us into the paths of righteousness and judgment, which are present in the scriptures, so that we may understand them with these spirit-filled eyes, with a spirit enabled brain with ears that have been unstopped by the spirit. So these parables are the mode by which Christ simultaneously honors and judges his audience. He shows indirectly what it would've been of no use to state plainly. And so the parable form itself is really part of the message here. I think that's something hopefully you picked up as we've been processing them all together, that Jesus opponents cannot arrest what they cannot fully comprehend, yet their incomprehension is itself their condemnation, right? This is, this is the mystery. Of the gospel of what God does, where there is this outward and full unbiased external call, and yet there is something that is efficacious by the power of the Holy Spirit for those whom God has chosen and called to himself so reformed to eus. Are attentive to the authorial intent in historical situatedness of each thing that Jesus says. That's one of the things I think is great about the way in which we kind of have organized our theological perspective and these parables function as a prophetic oracle of judgment. And certainly that's like in an Old Testament accent. I mean, that's the Old Testament jam. It's an Old Testament lawsuit kind of John. It's like law and order. If law and order were Moses, were doing it right. So notice that again, as Tony and I've said so many times before, what I kind of always find so phenomenal about these parables is that often we think of parables as having the main object of being a noun of some kind. It's a person, it's a place. It's a thing that is sometimes the case, but more often than not, it's one of those nouns associated with a verb.  [00:11:59] Kingdom And The King [00:11:59] Jesse Schwamb: And so we get that in verse two. The kingdom of heaven may be compared to what? To a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son. And so it implies that the kingdom is being revealed and likened in a definitive act. We got verbs, loved ones. This is the classic. The ultimate, God does all the verbs because you're gonna hear her over and over again. God is going out. God is giving. God is seeking. God is going after, and these verbs are really the center of the parable itself. It's not just that it's the wedding banquet as maybe the title in your scripture gives you, but it's more about this giving of this event and it's preparing of this grand feast. And so the recurrence of this allegory seemed, I think, pretty straightforward to us. The the king is God, the Father, the Son is Christ, and the wedding banquet, which by the way in the Greek here is plural, is really emphasizing that it's a totality of an occasion. This is the Messianic feast. This is the eschatological consummation of the Covenant of Grace. And that image imagery draws like so deep from this Old Testament well and background of God as the husband and the bridegroom of Israel. Again, how lovely and amazing for Jesus and his thorough knowledge of the scriptures to draw in something that the audience would've been like, yes, I know what you're talking about. I'm totally down with that. And so the son's wedding is therefore not some kind of like incidental entertainment. It is the central event of all history, the installation of the Messianic king and the gathering of his bride. And of course, the people hearing this would've immediately gravitated toward that. I think they would've leaned in maybe even like smiled or smirked at one another, knowing that this was now all that veiled. What Christ was drawing on here was the classic presentation. Of the family of God represented in the children of Israel itself, being drawn back into consummate harmony with God the Father, where there was peace and unitedness, and a celebration of this fact that all things were now made and brought together, that God was restoring and bringing all those back to himself in his true and true kingdom that could not be thwarted. So the fact that the king gives the banquet, prepares it, sends servants, selects the guests, underscores this incredible modernistic character of salvation. I think it's impossible to miss here that God is literally doing all the verbs. The initiative at every point is divine. There's no hint here of synergism. The guests do not arrange their own invitations, literally. And so that's why in verse three, we see God, he sending out his servants. And of course that's a familiar theme. It should be to us. If you've been tracking with us the last several parables we've been speaking of because the servants represent the prophets of the Old Testament and subsequently the apostles and the ministers of the word. The invitation had already gone out to quote those who were invited. So it's this perfect passive parable in the Greek, it's, it's indicating a prior and standing invitation. This is the external or general call of the gospel going out through the preaching of the word. And notice that there is always a response. Even here, Jesus moves directly and quickly to here's what the response was. In other words, as the scripture has told us that God's word never goes out in returns void, there's always, as it were, a response here, that's illustrated for us very directly because the response is not so good.  [00:15:32] Invitation Refused [00:15:32] Jesse Schwamb: I mean, this is what would, this is horrible like wedding etiquette. They were not willing to come. And this verb I think is critical because it's volitional refusal. It's not mere ignorance. And reformed theology is insistent here against any kind of constellation that makes man's rejection of the gospel. A matter of insufficient information or circumstances we know better, right? We as people should know that we as Christians who have been changed, know that the natural man here is not natural, merely because he lacks the certain kind of information as if he could be restored or regenerated or reformed if we just knew more things. The will is in bondage to sin. And so as the Westminster Confession, faith says, man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation. This is classic Jonathan Edwards, like, you don't bring anything to your salvation except the sin that made it necessary. For some reason in my head, I said that with kind of a, a weird, almost like southern attitude, which I did not mean to convey. But the point is that this refusal is total, it's willing, it's culpable, it's damnable, it's precisely that, which makes it all the more grievous. The invitation is genuine, the refusal is genuine, and the guilt here is entirely real. So the invited in verse three, represent all of Israel. I, I would say like particularly the leaders here, Tony and I have been talking about the responsibility of these, these leaders in particular to, of course, lead Shepherd, grow these people in faith and a love toward God in a way that is toward freedom and now toward more conviction around extraneous rules or heavy burdens that they set up for them that they cannot perform. And so we have these leaders who had received the covenantal promises and the prophetic witness. I mean, that's like classic Romans nine. The rejection of the servants echoes the pattern of prophetic persecution throughout all of Israel's history. So this is sad stuff. It's a sad beginning to have this grand wedding feast prepared by this king for his son set in motion with the invitations already gone out. And essentially all of those who have been invited have Ally refused.  [00:17:49] Feast Is Ready [00:17:49] Jesse Schwamb: But what's so incredible about God and his loving kindness is still represented here in verse four. The king does not relent after the first refusal, which is remarkable. I mean, this is, again, going back to our proper understanding that we love because God first loved us. That love always leads to giving. And so therefore, God so loved the world that he gave his only son. And when did he give his son? At the fullness of time when we were still at enmity, when we were enemies with him still, he sent his son for us and he sends, therefore a second embassy with an even more urgent and elaborate message that he gives them. He puts into their mouth. And the feast, again, is not merely planned. It's prepared. It's ready. The oxen and fat and calves are images of this lavish like sacrificial celebration. Everything's all slaughtered. Everything is ready to go. Now, I don't know the last time you've been to like an epic feast. I do mean like epic over the top feast. I want you to look up something for me. When you have a chance, look up, just go to your browser of choice and type in shady maples smorgasbord. Now, I don't know if you know what a smorgasbord is, but it's like a, I guess it's like a buffet, but like if you took a buffet and multiply it by a million and then only serve like rich, decadent food and more food than you could possibly really imagine and close to where I live, there's a very famous Amish style. Buffet called Shady Maple Smoker Sport. Just go look it up. 'cause it's gonna be possible for you to describe, but all I can say to you is this isn't just like your standard buffet, it's not just like a potluck where it's like, Hey, we got ham. And, um, we've got some salads and, uh, we've got that, uh, what's that? That weird stuff. You can I, the ambrosia, like we, we've got your hydrox cookies for dessert. This is the last time I was there and uh, actually I was there with my parents and my wife and they treated us. And because this was at a part of my life where my gallbladder was trying to attack me and kill me, I remember just being so ill while I was there feeling so ill, and yet just being so disappointed and bummed out that I couldn't eat all this glorious food because there was filet mignon and lobsters. And shrimp and fish and ham like glazed ham and like carving stations. And then for desserts there was like custards and pies and ice cream and cookies and whoopee pies. And it was this over the top celebration of food. And you couldn't help but just feel like, wow, this thing that we're doing right now is like incredible. I've also, I don't think ever seen my father sample so many different desserts because it was special. This was a, a lavish and incredible celebration for us, and it was prepared, it was ready to go. And we find the same thing here. And so the second sending corresponds to this ministry of the Apostles and the early churches proclamation to Israel. The urgency of the messages come now. It reflects this eschatological pressure of the gospel. A good kind of pressure as if like there's a tea kettle on the stove and it's heating up, and now it's starting to whistle and then to boil over. The kingdom has arrived. Loved ones, the feast is set, delay is inexcusable, and, and so the language of readiness, I think is this glorious language of the gospel. The atonement has accomplished. Christ has been crucified, risen, and exalted, and the feast of salvation is prepared. And what I love is that the reformed tradition consistently insists on the sufficiency of Christ's work for all and the genuine freeness of that gospel offer. I like this is what I usually go back to, is that the cannons of dort affirm this in this way. This is the quote. The promise of the gospel is that whosoever believes in Christ, crucified shall not perish, but of everlasting life. This promise together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and proclaimed to all the nations. The invitation is genuine and urgent. The feast is truly ready. [00:22:01] Mission To All [00:22:01] Jesse Schwamb: The church that I attend is part of the Christian Missionary Alliance denomination, and one of the many things I love about my church is that outward and continual focus on this very thing. That the invitation is genuine. It is urgent, and the feast is truly ready, and it is for all peoples. This freeness to, as we talked about before, scatter the seed of the gospel message unreservedly and without bias to all, all in your sphere of influence. All nations, all people, all tongues, all tribe. And my church is very serious about this. In fact, one of the things our pastor loves to do is oftentimes when he's giving it this kind of proclamation, in fact, just this Lord's day, he was speaking from Matthew 28 and about the Great Commission and the essential nature of that great commission is every Christian's promise to participate in that. It is something you and I are commissioned for and we ought to regularly evaluate our, what our prayers look like. What our finances look like and what our time looks like with respect to whether we are taking seriously that commission, which God has given to us. And so in reminding us of that very fact, one of the things he'll often say from the pulpit is he'll ask out to the congregation, he'll say, what is our middle name? And everybody will respond, missionary. And, and while it's a little bit trite, it reminds us that as part of like the essential ethos in DNA of who we are as Christians, and in fact in this particular year. One of the themes that the whole Christian Missionary Alliance nomination has been focusing on is all of Jesus for All the World takes all of us. I love that all of Jesus for all the world takes all of us. And so we have embedded in this parable here, so much of this intentionality of the gospel, of going out for all people, making this, this message and this mission available. Going out and speaking and preaching and witnessing and testifying of how great God is and what he has done in setting and preparing this gospel message for all people. But in verse five, we find out that even still with all of this, they paid no attention. They went off one to his farm and another to his business. In other words, the word here suggests this kind of contemptuous indifference rather than this active hatred that that actually comes a little bit later. But worldly affairs, a farm, some converse. All this displaces the invitation. And these are not wicked activities, of course, in themselves. Their wickedness consists in their displacement of what is the ultimate. And that I think is actually like very penetrating diagnosis of the human condition. The great enemy of the gospel, at least it seems to me, is not always, as you talk to people, like some kind of dramatic philosophical rejection, some well articulated hatred toward God. It's instead like a quiet absorption in the ordinary pursuits of life. It's like what I think Augustine called being curved inward upon oneself. The world is a great enchant. It be witches our souls, it distracts us. There are so many things that can pull us away from not only meditating on this gospel message, but coming alongside and appreciating. In participating in that great commission. There's so many things to distract us. It's, it's not as if we need a list. I think if I asked each one of you or you asked me, what are some things that you find distracting that pull you away from time and prayer time, studying God's word, time spent with my wife, time spent serving in my local church. I'm not gonna be hard pressed to find those things to say to you. So this idea that we have, whether it's the farm or this business pursuit here, I suppose it could be representative to at least great earthly loves. You have the land, kind of a agrarian rooted life, and then there's trade mercantile and acquisitive life. I mean, maybe these just suggests that the rejection spans all of our social and economic classes, both within Israel at the time and for us today. And so we move both from like this kind of cold indifference, this we'll have other things to do. I'm, I'm just too busy. And, uh, how many times do we really convince ourselves that we can justify our busyness when we feel the pull of the spirit that there is a need? We feel the pull of the gospel message because there's the gospel pressure to ensure that we are speaking truth and love to those around us. That we ourselves are responding to this invitation with our wholeheartedness, our mind, soul, and spirit, everything that we are, and we convince ourselves. Well, I just, you know, I have a lot going on right now. God, there's just so much that I need to do.  [00:26:34] Indifference Turns Violent [00:26:34] Jesse Schwamb: Now we get to verse six and things shift a little bit. Verse six reads, while the rest sees the servants and treated them shamefully and killed them. Now, what's interesting to me is the indifference, kinda just that cold lackadaisical ness of verse five escalates somehow into violence. In verse six, some of them invited not only ignore the servants, but actively persecute them. And so here we have them, basically are being told they treated them outrageously, shamelessly, they killed them, and, and that's really the language of the entire prophetic tradition, the killing of the prophets. In fact, this Greek word here is ris. It's a word for arrogance. Honor, violating, assault, a sin against the honor of both the messenger and the one who sent him both. Like the one who is the emissary and the one who grants power or vouch saves authority to that emissary. And so to assault the king's servant is of course, to come against the king, and this is an act of high treason. It's against the sovereign God of the entire universe. I, I like here something that Calvin notes about this kind of inexcusable aggregation of aggravation of Israel's sin. He writes, they not only rejected the grace, which was offered to them, but added cruelty to their contempt. That's incredible. Right? That's exactly what we do. We reject God. It's, it's of course like not only just taking all the gifts he gives us and pretending as if they're under our own authority or. Have been the result of our own talents or abilities. But instead, when we do this, we add cruelty to all of our contempt. And the reformed doctrine, of course, of total depravity is not merely the claim that humans are bad. It's the claim that following humanity left to itself moves progressively from the indifference. That we saw in the previous verse, verse five, two, hostility toward the living God in his gospel messengers, which we see in verse six. In other words, unless God constrain us, loved ones, that is the natural end of man to move from this place where I do not care about God till I hate him, and then I hate all those who represent him, all those who speak on his behalf. [00:28:46] Judgment On The City [00:28:46] Jesse Schwamb: And so the king's response here, as you might imagine, is one of anger. He's angry. He sends his troops and he destroys the scriptures, say those are murderers, and he burns their city. I mean, the verse is almost certainly this kind of pro prophecy filled in its intent and its content. It's I think, probably a transparent reference to the destruction of Jerusalem by Roman armies in 80, 70. And Matthew, even if we say he's writing after that event, or in like a conservative dating with prophetic anticipation, presents Christ as foreseeing and pronouncing the divine judgment upon the city. And this King's anger, of course, is not just, it's not anger that's looking for reciprocity. It's not just anger that's saying, this has made me upset and I'm responding viscerally and emotionally. It's not petulant rage. It is holy and righteous wrath of the sovereign whose grace has been despised and whose servants have been murdered. The destruction is complete. The murderers are destroyed, the city is burned to the ground, and there are foreign tradition kind of following. A covenantal hermeneutic, I think reads 80, 70 as this terminus of the old Covenant administration in many ways, and the judgment upon Nashville Israel for his rejection, for her rejection, rather of the Messiah, you know? While all of that is true, I think what this presents for us is a reminder of how serious our God's Holiness is. And that again, every time we sin, every time that we come against God and someone would challenge his authority as it were, either directly or indirectly, we put ourselves in the place of those who reject the gospel message. And in so doing, we ought to fall on our knees and ask for the kind of repentance that is necessary because we ourselves are putting our place, we're extending among. The murderers, and in this case, the, the message that Jesus has for those is only anger and again, is a righteous kind of anger. So one might imagine as we read in like the previous parables, that Jesus could have just entirely ended there. It almost sounds like we've drawn to a close.  [00:31:04] Invitation Rejected [00:31:04] Jesse Schwamb: Listen, there's a king. He has a wedding banquet for his son. He sent out last invitations. Nobody came. He goes to confronts the guests and not only do they say we're not interested, some of them are like, yeah, we burned all the invitations. And then the people that you sent to remind us, we killed those people. And it'll be right for the king to say. That's it. Everybody's done here. I'm shutting the whole thing down. And honestly, that could have happened in the garden. That could happen at the cross. Instead, we find something totally different. The parable goes on.  [00:31:33] Feast Still Happens [00:31:33] Jesse Schwamb: In fact, verse eight reads, then he said to his servants, the wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Notice loved ones that the feast does not get canceled. I mean, Christmas doesn't get canceled. It's just redirected. The king's purposes will not, cannot be frustrated, and this is a critical sociological and eschatological claim to me, at least. What we're seeing here is the refusal of the invited guests does not leave the wedding hall empty. Praise the Lord. It occasions the wider extension of the invitation.  [00:32:07] Gospel Offer Explained [00:32:07] Jesse Schwamb: And this idea of not worthy does not introduce a prior standard of merit by which the guests were found deficient. But instead, as you know, their unworthiness consists in their refusal To refuse the gospel is to demonstrate one's unworthiness of it. And so worthiness in this context is not some kinda like moral achievement, but it's a covenantal responsiveness. It's the openness of the creature to receive what the king graciously provides. It's why when we stand before God in the kind of judgment that we rightfully deserve, and he says something to the extent of, why should I let you into my heaven? Why should I let you enjoy eternal life with me? We should rightly say, because you promised. And because by the power of your Holy Spirit, through the faith you have given and instilled in me by this imputed righteousness, I can trust you at your promise. And so I think this verse is like so critical for understanding the well meant offer of the gospel. Again, we should together affirm that the gospel is offered to all without distinction, and that those who do not come are inexcusable. God does not will. The damnation of those who reject the gospel as a bare first intention, their damnation follows from their own culpable refusal.  [00:33:31] Mission To All Roads [00:33:31] Jesse Schwamb: And so the king says, listen guys, go out everywhere. Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding piece. As many as you find. I don't know how you're envisioning. If you were listening to this story and you were like setting the actual scene, but I don't know, to me, I just find them, the, the servants or the slaves that they look at it one another and they're just like s go time and they just turn around and start going everywhere to all the places, uh, to anyone who will listen to all the like, stops that there were on the byways. All the highways, all the roads. They're just going through all the places. Wherever the road takes 'em, that's where they're going. And all along the way they're spreading this mission, this invitation, and the mission now. Is universal in scope. The main roads, literally the, the exits, the outlets of all these places. The thoroughfares, where the roads branch out of the city and the highways diverge in the countryside. This is representing, of course, like the ends of the earth, the places where any and all may be found. And the command here to as many as you find to go to those is of course, like a command of universal scope. It's for you and me, loved ones there. There's no prior qualification, rich or poor, Jewish, gentile, moral or immoral. This is the missio day, breaking through all ethnic and social boundaries, and in this loving way, in this pastoral way, it underpins the free and indiscriminate offer of the gospel. Again, like going back to the Westminster Confession and the shorter catechism, affirming this covenant of grace that is administered by the preaching of the word. And no matter where you work, like reform theology from like William Cur, David Bernard, like to the modern missionary movement, we're drawing from this mandate of precisely this kind of universal commission. You know, it's like Spurgeon, I think once said something effect of like, Christ has done more than give a general invitation. He has given an urgent, pressing, commanding invitation to all something like that. And I always remember that because when I think about what it means to step into this role of fulfilling the great commission of understanding what Jesus is saying here, it's not just as if we're saying, listen, the world is in a dire place. This is an emergency situation. And so for all of us in our sphere of influence. To bring forward this message of the indiscriminate offer of the gospel is to take God at his word and then to deliver that word to all of those, all the highways, all the byways, all the outplace, every tribe, Tong, nation. What a glorious thing that our God has given us and put us on mission in this way so that no matter who we meet, we know we might say Jesus loves you, that Jesus has died for you. This is, I think, one of the things that those who maybe are new to the reformed tradition and the theological perspective. Find a little bit interesting to parse out, or maybe sometimes if you've had conversations like I have people think that we're parsing the words too much, but there's something to be said for the death of Jesus being sufficient for all and efficacious for the elect, that we're not simply splitting words. There we're describing very discreetly, very cogently, very crisply. This indiscriminate gospel message while at the same time recognizing that it's God's sovereign choice and will to draw those whom he will to himself. And so in verse 10.  [00:36:54] Good And Bad Gathered [00:36:54] Jesse Schwamb: These servants go out to the roads and they gather all whom they found both good and bad. And so the wedding hall, guess what was filled with guests, because this is God's sovereign prerogative because he can do all these things because even those who have denied him does not remove him from power. That he does all the verbs and so the servants obey and the results are comprehensive. They gather in all of these, and Matthew's quick to say both the good and the bad, and I think like the good and the bad pairing is significant. I don't think this is necessarily meaning that there's the morally virtuous and the morally depraved, though that probably is included somewhere. But I think this, this more, this reflection that, once again, it's all kinds of people. For God's to love the world that whomsoever, all of those who believe in him should not perish, but have eternal life. The wedding hall is filled, it was filled, and it's filled by God's sovereign action through human instrumentality.  [00:37:53] Visible And Invisible Church [00:37:53] Jesse Schwamb: And there is, like I'd say, if you're tracking with this, you should notice that there is a, a kinda a tension here. It sits between verses 10 and 11, and it's going to resolve the banquet hall is full. But you'll notice that it's not all within, well, not everybody who's within it are truly saved. And we'll get to why that isn't just a second. But the filling of the hall through the universal gospel summons does produce a mixed company. We've already talked about the parable of the terrors in the wheat before, so this, this should be news if you've been listening to us for a little while, but it's precisely the condition of the visible church in this age. Again, I just think it's fantastic that when we go to the scriptures, one of the reasons we know it's true is because God tells us the truth about the way things are. And we know that this is the way that the church is today. We would call this the visible versus the invisible church. And of course there's a distinguishing between the visible church, which consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion from the invisible church, which is the totality of the elect, those who God has actually called to himself. So the hole is full. But not all in the hall are clothed. And this is fascinating how Jesus brings in this idea of dressing of not, I mean, not what you put on your salad, a smorgasbord, but like what you're actually wearing.  [00:39:07] Wedding Garment Meaning [00:39:07] Jesse Schwamb: So in verse 11, but the king came in to look at the guests and he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. So notice that the parable scene here kind of shifts dramatically all of a sudden because the king arrives suddenly. He's present. He was speaking, he was giving instructions, he was preparing, he was a character, kind of chilling in the background. But now there's this eschatological moment the king's coming to inspect. The guests corresponds to this final judgment, and what he finds is there's a man without a wedding garment. He's at the center, I think of this parables, theological climax. So what, what is this wedding garment? I would put it to you like, as you're thinking through this and maybe interpreting listening for yourself, what do you think the wedding garment is? And I would say like what most reformed interpreters have been unified on is that this really represents that imputed righteousness, the the righteousness of Christ that's credited to the believer and received by faith alone. And so by a wedding garment, I would understand this to mean the purity and the holiness of that transforms and regenerated life, which is required of all those who are brought inside the true and invisible church. And though he immediately qualifies this as like righteousness, that is inseparable from justification. It is not earned, but it is received. In fact, I think, uh, I have my Logos Bible software up as I'm talking to you, and I see that Matthew Henry comments on this by saying, the righteousness of Christ is the robe of righteousness, the garment of salvation in which true believers are closed. I mean. That's a great turn of phrase, brothers and sisters. I love this idea of what the scriptures tell us elsewhere of putting on these garments of praise or worship, the garments of Christ, of being exchanged out as it were, for what is dirty and unsuitable for something that suits the occasion that is given to you to wear by faith alone. And of course, this wedding garment is not a work that the guest has produced, but it's a garment provided, uh, presumably like the king's servants actually supplied it. Uh, I, I think that's like a detail implied by the ancient custom and the severity of the guest condemnation for lacking it. It's almost as if the king is saying. Uh, like you were, should have been provided. Why did you not put this on? Why did by faith you not accept this? And this underscores the so gratia and so fide. The righteousness by which we stand before God on the last day is not our own, but Christ, it's received through faith. And the man without the garment represents those who presume to stand before God on the basis of their own righteousness. Whether that's religious profession. Moral achievement, charitable giving, mere church membership rather. And instead of. That alien and beautiful righteousness of Christ. So the fact that this man is inside the hall, you know, he's come in through the general call confirms that the parable addresses not only those outside the church, but those within it who lack genuine saving faith. It's almost, to me, kind of like an intra ecclesial warning. It's, it's not merely a missional observation. I think that is for all of us. It's why Paul elsewhere says. Check test, confirm to see whether you yourselves are in this faith because it is by faith that we put on these wedding garments which are appropriate and suitable for this great eschatological Messianic wedding feast with the lamb. [00:42:48] Speechless Before Judgment [00:42:48] Jesse Schwamb: So in verse 12, the king says to him, friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment? And notice the man's response. I, I almost find this kind of funny because he just says, and he was speechless. Like there was, there was nothing for him, uh, to, to say it all. And of course, like this question that's posed here, this, how did you get in here without the winning government? It's not a real question, right? It's not a question of genuine puzzlement. It's the same way in which when we find God walking in the cool of the day, in the garden after the sin of Adam and E, where he says, Adam, where are you? It's not a genuine question of a quizzical nature. It's instead, this rhetorical structure is God questions through judgments. And when he says to Cain, where is Abel your brother, where is Abel, your brother? He's exposing and he's condemning. He's not merely inquiring. And so this man in response, sensing this condemnation, discerning this condemnation, this judgment that's been brought against him, I think this is why the Greek says he was muzzled. He was silenced, his mouth was shut up. He had no answer. Uh, it's not because the question was unfair. But because there was just no legitimate words that he could bring there, there was no argumentation. In other words, there's no poll mic. There was no great debate that he could have. In this moment. Every mouth will be stopped before God. I mean, that's like Romans three. The silence of the ungodly before the Divine Tribunal is a consistent biblical theme, and we find it here. Again, this is the eschatological end to those who are condemned. No one loved ones is gonna stand before God on the last day and successfully argue their case on the ground of personal merit. I love William Perkins on this topic. He was apparently really moved. I learned by this verse and by what he saw in the silence as a profound warning against false assurance. So he actually wrote many a man in this world. Silence is his own conscience. With many fair excuse. Do you hear that? I, I love that turn of phrase. So we're talking about silence. It's about being silence, but I love how he says it's very easy to, to silence, not yourself, not like somebody coming against you with debate, but your own conscience. So he writes, again, many a man in this world will silence his own conscience with many a fair excuse. But in that day, there will be no excuse, no plea, no delay. So that time of plea is now, it's in this life. It's by faith and repentance, which is why there's an urgency to this gospel message. And so the king.  [00:45:17] Outer Darkness Warning [00:45:17] Jesse Schwamb: In hearing this and knowing that this man has no excuse for his outer attire, he says to him, listen to the servants. Bind him hand and foot, cast him into outer darkness. In that place, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. The sentence is severe. It's total. Of the command is given to the servants and attendance maybe in this parable and parabolic form, likely the angelic executors of divine judgment and it is binding. It renders the condemned utterly helpless. It's a picture of total divine control over the destiny of the ate. He has cast into this outer darkness, outside the light and warmth of the banquet hall entirely. And I think it's incumbent upon us to take a second and to grieve the repercussions of what is being said here. That the death and destruction of the ATE should make us grieve. It should compel us to go out into the highways, the byways, and to share this message. Unreservedly. One of the ways we know really the full anguish of what this entails is this phrase, weeping and gnashing of teeth, actually occurs seven times in Matthew, and it functions as this refrain, this chorus, this common language of this eschatological condemnation, it combines interestingly in this wordplay here, both the anguish of grief with the rage of frustrated pride. It's a portrait, not of this just like regret, but continuing imp penitent, hostility against God and eternal punishment. And I think if Tony were here, he would agree with me that we have consistently affirmed the doctrine of eternal conscience punishment. You know, the Westminster Confession says, the wicked who know not God and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ shall be cast into eternal torments. In other words, this outer darkness is not annihilation. The weeping and the gnashing continues. It implies an ongoing conscious existence. It's the image of a binding stands against the notion of this kind of postmortem repentance or universalism. The severity of that verse, I think, really must be allowed to stand in its canonical context without mitigation. The, the severity of this judgment ought to fill us with fear, not theological domestication. We, we shouldn't set this aside and be saying, well, this implies that there is nothing after that time. No, there continues to be only time with God in his presence, in eternal, consummate joy and harmony and peacefulness and celebration. Or there is literally. A weeping and a gnashing of teeth, an unresolved rage and anger where that is punished by God because he's absent where there's unmitigated pain and suffering because it is absent the presence and the mediation of God himself, who even now in this world, holds us back so that while we are sinful and we are not as bad as we could or ought to be because of his great kindness, all of us, even those. Who are not believers.  [00:48:37] Called Yet Chosen [00:48:37] Jesse Schwamb: And so because of that, it ends with these very famous in stock words in in verse 14, for many are called, but few are chosen. And that concluding aphorism is, I think, the theological linchpin of this entire thing. The contrast between this idea of called and chosen, you know, this is the vocabulary that is deliberately covenantal and elective, and we shouldn't shy away from that. Of course, it's referring to this external call, the universal proclamation of the gospel to all the hearers. The call is genuine, it's earnest, it's gentile, it's sufficient as an offer. It is the call that goes to all the highways, all who hear the gospel are truly called to repentance and faith. And for me, in my own journey of understanding what this means as God has allowed me to, that has been critical. This idea that this universal call means that it is sufficient as a call to repentance and faith for all those who hear it. And then it does become the responsibility of all those who hear it to respond to it. And so this idea then of this pairing then with the chosen and the elect is referring of course to those whom God has chosen from before the foundation of the world. The elect are those who not only receive the external call, but are effectually drawn by the eternal efficacious call of the Holy Spirit. We can look to Romans eight 30, those whom he predestined, he also called, and those whom he called, he also justified. And I say, because this is a Reformed Theological podcast, and this is what you came here for, I presume, brothers and sisters. Then it behooves us to at least mention again that the reformed tradition has classically distinguished between that external or general call, the sincere well meant proclamation of the gospel to all without distinction, inviting everybody to faith and repentance. That call is genuine on God's part and God's doing the verbs in that as well. And then again, we, we set that over in next two, the internal, what we call like effectual efficacious call. It's sovereign. It's irresistible work of the Holy Spirit by which the elect regenerated, have their will renewed and are infallibly brought to saving faith. All those whom God has predestined unto life and those only he's pleased in his appointed and accepted time to affectionately call by His word and his spirit out of the state of sin and death to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ. I was thinking recently of this idea of the narrow path and somewhere between like the scriptures there and pilgrim's progress, and paths and journeys. I had this image in my mind of the road on which we walk. And in this life, the natural man on that road encounters all these like intractable boulders, these things that cannot be traversed. These just great mountainous pieces of rock, which block the path. And so prevent us from at least accomplishing the thing that we would like. Like to live forever, to have peace with God, to be at peace with ourselves, to love our brothers and our sisters as much as we love ourselves to honor something that is greater than us. And those boulders are things like sin, death in the devil, which constantly invade us, which constantly thwart us, which constantly block us. And in Christ, what he has accomplished in salvation is not just, I think to remove those boulders, though that would've been good enough of course to just get them outta the way. Instead, it's as if he's taken them and he's crushed them, and now to the softest sand between our toes and we walk over them in victory by the power of his name through the Holy Spirit into eternal life. Into that grand wedding feast spoil, which we have been invited because he has done this because he loves us. And so verse 14 places these two realities side by side without resolving the tension. Philosophically, this is one of the great mysteries of theology. Uh, reformed theology does not collapse the distinction by limiting the external call to the elect alone as like maybe kind of a hyper Calvinist model, but it doesn't make the internal call dependent on a human decision. As like Armenian theology would instead, you know, the tension is, is biblical. This is here for us. It's here for us, because I believe that God wishes for us to submit our knowledge and our reasoning to him knowing that he is far and above us. And because this tension is biblical, it has to be maintained. The invitation is genuinely universal. The effectual drawing is sovereignly particular. How great is our God loved ones? There is no one like him. And so there's so much in this that I think we could spend all of the rest of our life thinking about, and that would be a noble, I was just thinking today that, um, you know, unless the Lord Terrys like, maybe this will be the last series me and Tony ever do, because there's so much that's rich and deep in these parables and there's so many of them, and the teaching of Christ is, is so complete of course, for us because it gives us everything that we need for life and salvation and godliness that. We find that the more that we look into them, the more that we ask the Holy Spirit to bathe us in a realization that comes from the spirit of God, the more that we will find. They challenge us. They encourage us. They equip us. So I'm thinking and praying for you all as I hope that you are for Tony and I as we continue to wrestle with these things as we continue to talk them out, because I'm asking God that he would equip us as we look at the teaching of his son in these parables with a firm understanding of the truth and equip us with his promises and with his encouragement so that. As he grows us in our faith, our faith for us would be like a thousand eyes and a thousand wings that we would find ourselves moving from glory to glory. Because we see in these parables the great work of God for us. What he has accomplished through his son and how he continues to be for us and the son who is given for us is with us. That we have his Holy Spirit within us and who discerns the mind of God, accept the spirits of God. So love us. Let's continue to get after what's being said in these parables here because there's so much for us here.  [00:55:14] Living The Commission [00:55:14] Jesse Schwamb: And might I add, just to tack onto the end, there's also so much for the world. I know that we're quick to say, or like colloquially Christians have said in the past like, Jesus is the answer, but you I think cannot necessarily fault the world for sometimes asking, well, what is the question? And unless we go forward with this proper understanding that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. That all are in need of this savior and that this gospel message is for, in fact, for all people without reservation. Full stop. I guess I ask for you and I and Tony who's editing this episode, are we going out into the highways and byways? What is the proof of the pudding in the eating look like when we examine our lives, but with specifically our finances and our time and our prayer closet and our service? Aren't we in fact concerned with the great commission that is reflected here? Are we concerned with the emergence and urgent need of this gospel message, which is for all people because God so loved the world that he gave his only forgotten son. That whosoever shall believe in him will not per but have everlasting life.  [00:56:27] Community And Support [00:56:27] Jesse Schwamb: So come hang out with us. Come talk about this parable. You know where to go. But I'm gonna tell you anyway because that's what we do. If you go to your browser, type in T Me Back slash Reform Brotherhood, t Me Back slash Reform Brotherhood, that link will take you to an app called Telegram. Telegram is just a messaging app. It's like, I dunno, iMessages for Apple or whatever you Android people are using these days. And there's just a little community that we've sectioned off there. And it's a community of listeners to the Reform Brotherhood who are talking about all kinds of things. You, you wanna be in that group? It is. It is a great group. Don't, don't reject the invitation. Don't reject it. Just, just come. I know you're thinking, listen, I got land. I got commerce I gotta deal with. That's fine. Come, come and join us. So go to t.me/reform brotherhood. One last thing. I would be remiss if I didn't thank all of those who make sure that this podcast still goes out to all the highways and the byways of the internet. That there is no Jericho paywall around it because it does cost money to put out there all the subscriptions, all the distribution. It's surprising, but there are. Intense fees with a lot of that stuff, and so I wanna say thank you, thank you, thank you to those who have listened and said, you know what? I would like to make sure. That this continues to go on. I've been blessed just by the conversation. God has done something here because again, he does all the verbs. Tony and I do zero verbs, and so because of that, they've gone to patreon.com Reform Brotherhood, and they've just decided to give a little bit of the kindness of their heart and generosity to the Lord. So if you're thinking, you know what? I've been listening for a while, and I do appreciate that this just magically, as it were, pops up in my feed and I continue to listen to it. Would you please consider helping us? Uh, Tony and I and so many other listeners who give a little bit just to make sure that together we can keep this thing going strong. And again, you can just go to patreon.com/reform brotherhood. There's also a website, uh, reform brother.com and all kinds of other fun stuff. But I will leave that to you. I, I didn't even bring it up. See, I'm just so glad that you mentioned it yourself 'cause it would've been awkward otherwise.  [00:58:31] Final Blessing [00:58:31] Jesse Schwamb: So loved ones. There are still so many more parables to go. They're all so good. So I hope that you all come back and join us next time as we continue to move through these parables. But until then, there's something that you should definitely do honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. 

Dr Heidi Matisonn, Senior Lecturer at The Ethics Lab at the University of Cape Town’s Neuroscience Institute and Department of Medicine joined Clarence on air for our weekly Philosophically Speaking feature. Views and News with Clarence Ford is the mid-morning show on CapeTalk. This 3-hour long programme shares and reflects a broad array of perspectives. It is inspirational, passionate and positive. Host Clarence Ford’s gentle curiosity and dapper demeanour leave listeners feeling motivated and empowered. Known for his love of jazz and golf, Clarrie covers a range of themes including relationships, heritage and philosophy. Popular segments include Barbs’ Wire at 9:30am (Mon-Thurs) and The Naked Scientist at 9:30 on Fridays. Thank you for listening to a podcast from Views & News with Clarence Ford Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays between 09:00 and 12:00 (SA Time) to Views and News with Clarence Ford broadcast on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/erjiQj2 or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/BdpaXRn Subscribe to the CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/sbvVZD5 Follow us on social media: CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

"生生不息 — translated here as Circle of Life — is one of the most profound concepts in Chinese philosophy, drawn from the I Ching (Yijing or Book of Changes), where it is expressed as “生生之謂易” (“the generation of life is what is called change”). Philosophically rooted in classical Chinese thought, especially interpretations of the Yijing, it views this perpetual becoming as the fundamental character of reality — the “great virtue” of heaven and earth, where change itself is the mechanism of ongoing creation rather than destruction. It's optimistic in tone: life doesn't just endure against odds; it thrives through inherent creativity and interconnectedness, producing ever more complexity and possibility. "This principle highlights resilience and harmony in natural processes — how fragility and strength coexist in endless regeneration, how intervention (human or environmental) can disrupt or restore the flow, but the underlying impulse toward generation remains undiminished. In the context of a river like the Lech, it manifests vividly: from its alpine source it flows onward, eroding, reshaping, nourishing, recovering from floods and human alterations alike, yet never ceasing to create — new channels, new habitats, new cycles of life. No matter the obstacles, the river's inherent vitality keeps generating, embodying this eternal, unstoppable renewal."My piece for the river Lech begins in serene, everyday harmony. It opens with the bright calls of birds — pure voices of the living landscape — joined by gentle flute notes that drift like morning light over water. Beneath them flows the soft murmur of the river itself, interwoven with the relaxed chatter and laughter of people eating and talking at a riverside restaurant. This is life along the Lech as it is today: ordinary, peaceful, and quietly interdependent."As the music unfolds, subtle dissonances begin to emerge and grow. They trace the long story of human intervention — the straightening of channels, the building of dams and embankments, the gradual encroachment of cities and farmland. At the same time, they echo the river's own restless nature: centuries of erosion carving new paths, floods reshaping gravel bars, the constant migration of the channel as it discovers fresh routes across the valley floor. Layer by layer, these tensions accumulate, reflecting countless transformations — both natural and imposed — that have sculpted the Lech into the river we see now."Yet after every wave of change, the music does not break. Instead, it circles back, returning to the same calm opening textures, now deeper and more resonant. The bird calls reappear, the flute line floats once more, and the river's voice flows on, gently carrying the sounds of human life with it. Through every difficulty and every alteration, the Lech remains unstoppable. It embodies 生生不息 — Circle of Life — ceaseless generation, endless renewal. No matter how much we constrain or redirect it, the river's vital force keeps creating new possibilities, new habitats, and new cycles of life. What appears as disruption is, in truth, part of an eternal becoming."Section of the river Lech reimagined by Anna Vienna Ho. -------Flow is a creative exploration telling the story of a river through the power of sound. The project is a collaboration between the University of Padova and the University of Würzburg, with support from Cities and Memory. Explore the full project at https://citiesandmemory.com/flow.

Dr Heidi Matisonn, Senior Lecturer at The Ethics Lab at the University of Cape Town’s Neuroscience Institute and Department of Medicine joined Clarence on air for a “Philosophically Speaking”. Views and News with Clarence Ford is the mid-morning show on CapeTalk. This 3-hour long programme shares and reflects a broad array of perspectives. It is inspirational, passionate and positive. Host Clarence Ford’s gentle curiosity and dapper demeanour leave listeners feeling motivated and empowered. Known for his love of jazz and golf, Clarrie covers a range of themes including relationships, heritage and philosophy. Popular segments include Barbs’ Wire at 9:30am (Mon-Thurs) and The Naked Scientist at 9:30 on Fridays. Thank you for listening to a podcast from Views & News with Clarence Ford Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays between 09:00 and 12:00 (SA Time) to Views and News with Clarence Ford broadcast on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/erjiQj2 or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/BdpaXRn Subscribe to the CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/sbvVZD5 Follow us on social media: CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today, we check in a year after the first Unsupervised Learning x Latent Space Crossover special to discuss everything that has changed (there is a lot) in the world of AI. This episode was recorded just after AIE Europe, but before the Cursor-xAI deal.Unsupervised Learning is a podcast that interviews the sharpest minds in AI about what's real today, what will be real in the future and what it means for businesses and the world - helping builders, researchers and founders deconstruct and understand the biggest breakthroughs.Thanks to Jacob and the UL production team for hosting and editing this!Jacob Effron* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jacobeffron/* X: https://x.com/jacobeffronFull Episode on Their YouTubeWe discuss:* swyx's view from the center of the AI engineering zeitgeist: OpenClaw, harness engineering, context engineering, evals, observability, GPUs, multimodality, and why conference tracks now reveal what matters most in AI* Whether AI infrastructure has finally stabilized: why “skills” may be the minimal viable packaging format for agents, why infra companies have had to reinvent themselves every year, and why application companies have had an easier time surviving model volatility* The vertical vs. horizontal AI startup debate: why application companies can act as the outsourced AI team for enterprises, why some horizontal companies still matter, and why sandboxes may be the clearest reinvention of classic cloud infrastructure for the AI era* The “agent lab” playbook: starting with frontier models, specializing for your domain, then training your own models once you have enough data, workload, and user behavior to justify the cost and latency savings* Why domain-specific model training is real, not just marketing: how companies like Cursor and Cognition can get users to choose their in-house models, and why search, domain specialization, and distillation are becoming more important* Open models, custom chips, and alternative inference infrastructure: why swyx has turned more bullish on open source, why non-NVIDIA hardware is suddenly getting real attention, and why every 10x speedup can unlock new product experiences* What it means to sell to agents instead of humans: why agent experience may mostly just be good developer experience by another name, why APIs and docs matter more than ever, and how pretraining-data incumbents are compounding advantages in an agent-first world* Why memory and personalization may become the next big wedge: today's models mostly reward frequency of mentions, but in the future, swyx expects product choice to be shaped much more by personalized memory systems* The state of the AI coding wars: why coding has become one of the largest and fastest-growing categories in AI, how Anthropic, OpenAI, Cursor, and Cognition have all ridden the wave, and why the category may still have more room to run* Capability exploration vs. efficiency: why the industry is still in a token-maxing, experiment-heavy phase where people are rewarded for spending more rather than less* Claude Code vs. Codex and the strange stickiness of coding products: why first magical product experiences may matter more than expected, and why the bigger mystery may be why only a few names have emerged as real winners so far* What the end state of the coding market might look like: two major players, a longer tail of niche products, and possible disruption if Microsoft, Mistral, xAI, or the Chinese labs push harder into coding* Where application companies still have room against the labs: why frontier labs are trying to expand into verticals like finance and healthcare, but still leave space for focused companies that own the workflow and the last mile* Why coding may be a preview of every other AI market: the first category to truly go parabolic, the clearest example of foundation model companies colliding with application companies, and a template for how future vertical AI markets may develop* Why AI valuations now feel unbounded: from billion-dollar ARR products built in a year to trillion-dollar market caps, swyx and Jacob unpack how the AI market has broken traditional startup intuitions about scale and durability* Consumer AI vs. coding AI: why ChatGPT's consumer category may have plateaued on frequency and product design, while coding continues to feel like a daily-use category with real momentum* The next product frontier beyond coding: consumer agents, computer use, and “coding agents breaking containment,” with swyx's thesis that 2025 was the year of coding agents and 2026 may be the year they begin to do everything else* Whether foundation models are really killing startup categories: why swyx is less worried for early founders, more worried for mid-size startups and traditional SaaS, and why building something ambitious may now be the best job interview for a frontier lab* AI vs. SaaS and the internal culture war around adoption: the tension between AI-native employees who want to rip out expensive software and skeptics who think quick AI-built replacements create fragile systems* Why traditional SaaS may be under real pressure: swyx's own experience spending six figures on event and sponsor management software, the temptation to rebuild it cheaply with AI, and the broader question of whether teams will trust custom AI-native replacements* Biosafety, security, and frontier model access: why swyx raised biosafety at a dinner with Anthropic's Mike Krieger, why Krieger argued security is the bigger issue, and what restricted model releases reveal about Anthropic vs. OpenAI* The era of giant models: why 10T+ parameter systems may only be a temporary rationing phase before bigger clusters arrive, why labs may increasingly keep their most powerful models private for distillation, and why scale alone no longer feels like a complete answer* Memory as the slowest scaling factor in AI: why context windows have improved far more slowly than people hoped, why million-token context still has not changed most real workflows, and why memory may be the key bottleneck for the next generation of systems* What swyx changed his mind on in the past year: becoming more bullish on open models, more convinced that the top tier of agent startups behaves very differently from the median AI company, and more optimistic about fine-tuning and specialized model adaptation* “Dark factories” and zero-human-review coding: the next frontier after zero human-written code, where models not only write the code but ship it without human review, forcing companies to rethink testing and verification from first principles* Why RL and post-training may matter more than people assumed: even if the resulting models get thrown out every few months, the data, workflows, and domain-specific improvements persist* Synthetic rubrics, Doctor GRPO, and multi-turn RL: why reinforcement learning is becoming much more domain-specific and multi-step than many people realize, opening the door to much deeper customization* The next frontier after coding: memory, personalization, and world models, including why swyx thinks world models matter not just for robotics or gaming, but for giving AI something closer to lived understanding* Fei-Fei Li, spatial intelligence, and the Good Will Hunting analogy: the idea that today's LLMs may know everything by reading it all, but still lack the lived experience that turns knowledge into a deeper kind of intelligenceTimestamps* 00:00:00 Intro preview: AI coding wars, startup pressure, and market structure* 00:00:28 Welcome to the Latent Space × Unsupervised Learning crossover* 00:01:17 What AI builders are focused on now: OpenClaw, harnesses, and infra* 00:04:33 Why AI infra is harder than apps, and where startups can still win* 00:06:39 Should companies train their own models?* 00:09:28 Open models, custom chips, and the new inference race* 00:11:25 Designing products for agents, not just humans* 00:16:49 The state of the AI coding wars in 2026* 00:19:27 Capability exploration, token-maxing, and why coding is going parabolic* 00:21:41 What the end state of the coding market could look like* 00:23:50 Where app companies still have room against the labs* 00:27:02 Why AI valuations and market swings feel unprecedented* 00:28:56 Consumer AI vs. coding AI, and why sticky products still matter* 00:32:28 What the next breakthrough product experience might be* 00:32:53 2026 thesis: coding agents break containment and eat the world* 00:35:27 Are foundation models wiping out startup categories?* 00:37:33 AI vs. SaaS, vibe coding, and internal team tensions* 00:40:01 Biosafety, security, and the politics of restricted model releases* 00:42:19 Giant models, compute constraints, and the limits of scale* 00:44:30 Memory as the real bottleneck in AI* 00:44:57 Why swyx changed his mind on open models* 00:47:44 Dark factories and the future of zero-human-review coding* 00:49:36 Why post-training and RL may matter more than people think* 00:51:50 Memory, world models, and the next frontier of intelligence* 00:53:54 The Good Will Hunting analogy for LLMs* 00:54:21 OutroTranscript[00:00:00] swyx: Isn't that crazy? That number is just mind boggling.[00:00:03] Jacob Effron: What is the state of the AI coding wars today?[00:00:05] swyx: We're in a phase of sort of like capability exploration. The general thesis that I have been pursuing now is that the same way that 2025 was a year coding agents 2026 is coding agents breaking containments to do everything else.[00:00:16] Jacob Effron: Do you worry about the foundation models just getting into a bunch of these startup categories?[00:00:21] swyx: Mid-size startups. Yes.[00:00:23] Jacob Effron: What do you think the end state of this market is[00:00:25] swyx: for the market structure to, to significantly change? There would be[00:00:28] Jacob Effron: today on unsupervised learning. We had a, a fun episode and what's really become an annual tradition, a crossover episode with our friends at Latent space.Swix and I sat down and we talked about everything happening in the AI ecosystem today. What we thought of the various changes at the model layer, what's happening in the infra world, the coding wars, and a bunch of other things. It's a ton of fun to do this with someone I really respect and another great podcaster in the game.Without further ado, here's our episode. Well switch. This is, uh, super fun to be back with another unsupervised learning, uh, latent space crossover episode.[00:01:02] swyx: Yeah,[00:01:02] Jacob Effron: I feel like a lot of places we could start, but you know, one thing I always find fascinating, uh, about the way you spend your time is you obviously are like at the epicenter of this engineering movement and community, and you run these events and conferences and put on these.Awesome talks and, and I think just have a great pulse on the zeitgeist of what's going on.[00:01:16] swyx: Yeah.[00:01:17] Jacob Effron: Maybe to, to start just what are the biggest topics people are thinking about right now?[00:01:21] swyx: Yeah, so I just came back from London, uh, where we did a IE Europe and we're doing roughly one per quarter now, which Yeah, you've[00:01:27] Jacob Effron: really up[00:01:27] swyx: the, hopefully[00:01:28] Jacob Effron: up the, up the pace.[00:01:29] swyx: It's trying. We're trying to match AI speed, youknow?[00:01:30] Jacob Effron: Yeah, exactly. The tops would be completely different, I imagine. Uh,[00:01:33] swyx: yeah. You know, I definitely curate the tracks, like you can see what I think. When you see the track list and the, the speakers that I invite, obviously Open Claw is like the story of the last four or five months, and then be, be just below that.I would consider harness engineering, context engineering to be two related topics in agents and rag. And then there's a long tail of Evergreen stuff like evals, observability, GPUs, uh, and uh, LM infra and just general, just in general. We also have other updates on like multimodality and, uh, generative media, let's call it.Um, but I definitely, the, the first three that I mentioned are top of mind people. Yeah.[00:02:13] Jacob Effron: I think harness is particular like, so interesting. Um, you know, there was this tweet from Harrison Chase, the, the lane chain, CEO, that, that caught my eye recently where he said, you know, it finally feels like we have stability, uh, around the infrastructure for, uh, you know, around ai.And I think what. He basically was implying his like, look over the past two, three years as a company at the epicenter of AI infrastructure, it was a bit like playing whack-a-mole, right? You were constantly moving around with, however, the building patterns were evolving[00:02:36] swyx: for Harrison for sure. Right? Like he's basically had to reinvent the company every year since he started Lang Chain.Right? It was Lang chain, Ang graph and LP agents and like, uh, I think he's like one of the most nimble, adept sharp people about this. Yeah. Yeah.[00:02:49] Jacob Effron: Saying now, now is finally the time stability[00:02:51] swyx: this. Yeah.[00:02:52] Jacob Effron: Yeah. Um, do you buy that or what have you kind of make of that take?[00:02:56] swyx: I think that. It, it's very expensive to say this Time is different sometimes, but when you're just writing code, like it's actually okay to just like try to make a call and I think it may not even matter if this call is right or not.Like I just don't even care that much because you can be right on a thesis, but if you don't, you don't figure out how to monetize the thesis, then who cares if you said something first that said, um, it does feel like, for example. Uh, we went through a lot of different ways of passion packaging integrations up with, uh, with agents.And it feels like we've landed at skills, which is like the minimal viable format. Yeah. Which is just a markdown file, uh, with some scripts attached to it, and I don't see how it can be more simple than that. And so there is some justification for. The stability around harnesses. I feel like there may be more adaptation with regards to maybe like the real time elements or subagents or memory or any of those like agent disciplines, let's call it in, in agent engineering.Uh, but if, if the thesis is that, okay, you just want agents are LMS with tools in the loop with a file system, what they can do. Retrieval with, with skills and all these like standard tooling that now seems to be relatively consensus then probably. That makes sense. Um, I just think like there's no point trying to stake your reputation on this thesis that we're there because if it changes again, just change with it.It's fine.[00:04:33] Jacob Effron: Yeah. It's always, you know, I've always been struck by how that is. Much more challenging for infrastructure companies and application companies. Like obviously I think, yeah. You know, on the application side you've seen, you know, Brett Taylor from Sierra Max, from Lara. Like, they're like, look, we build, you know, what's ahead of the models and we're willing to throw everything out every three months, you know, as the models get better and better.Exactly. Yeah. But the thing you at least have there is you have. Uh, you have an end customer, right? That's like decently sticky. Um, you know, they will mostly stick, you know, they'll, they'll give you a shot at least of, of building these things. What I've always found more challenging, uh, at, at the kind of like, you know, reinvent yourself every three months of the infrastructure layer, it's like, you know, developers are definitely a, a pickier audience maybe than an accounting firm or, uh, you know, a bank.Yeah. And so it's definitely a, a, a more challenging position to be in to, to have to constantly reinvent yourself.[00:05:17] swyx: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And, and like when they turn, it's like. Very complete. Like, they'll leave to like the, the hot new thing, uh, because there's like no defensibility, I guess. Like e even, even if you are a database, like, uh, people can migrate workloads off databases.Like it's, it's a, it's a known thing. Uh, so I think like basically what we're talking about is the vertical versus horizontal, uh, debate in, in AI startups. And uh, the way I think about it also is just that like when you are. Um, Lara, when you are a bridge, like you are the outsource AI team, right? You, you are, your job is to apply whatever state ofthe art AI methods.[00:05:55] Jacob Effron: Yeah. Like this translation layer between model capabilities and your[00:05:57] swyx: own customers. Yeah. To, to the end customers and like, well, if they didn't have you, they would've to hire in house and they're not gonna hire in house so they have you. And like, I think that's like a reasonable, like very robust to any whatever trends and, and discoveries that people make in, in the engineering layer.I do think like there is, um. It like sort of useful horizontal companies being built, but they're all. Very much like, sort of like the reinventions of classic cloud in the AI era and the, the primary one being sandboxes. Yeah. Um, which like, it's another form of compute guys, like, let's not get too excited about it.But I mean, like the, the workloads are enormous.[00:06:38] Jacob Effron: Right.[00:06:38] swyx: Yeah.[00:06:39] Jacob Effron: It's interesting, and I feel like as, as part of this, you know, the questions that folks are asking around infrastructure, there's a lot around, you know, the extent to which companies should have their own AI teams and what they should be doing in-house.And, you know, uh, I think there's questions around should people be training their own models? Should people be doing, you know, rl, uh, in-house based on the data they have? I feel like, you know, one has to evolve their takes on this every, every three months with paces. But where, where are you at on this today?[00:07:00] swyx: I think, well, I mean actually all models have gone up. Um, and obviously I'm involved in cognition and also cursors doing, doing, uh, a lot of own model training. And I think that that is some part of the, what I've been calling the agent lab playbook, where you start off with the state of the art models from, uh, from the big labs and you, uh, specialize for your domain.But once you have enough workload and enough high quality data from your users, then you can obviously train your own models and like save a lot on cost and latency and all that, all that good stuff. Um, you also get like a marketing bonus of like calling it some fancy name and putting out some research[00:07:38] Jacob Effron: from my seat.I can't tell how much of it is like actual, you know, value that's provided to the end user. And how much of it is that marketing bonus? Right. It seems some combination of the[00:07:45] swyx: I think it's both.[00:07:46] Jacob Effron: Yeah.[00:07:46] swyx: Um, no, no. There, there actually is real value. Um, and you, you know that for a number of reasons. Like one, even when it's not subsidized, people do choose it as like one of the top four or five.This is both composer two and, uh, suite 1.6 I one of the top five models. Like in a, in a fair market? In a free market, yeah. In a, in a, in a model switch. Or people do choose it and like, it's not subsidized. Like, so that's as good as it gets. Uh, but beyond that, like domain specific models, for example. For search with, with both, which both companies have absolutely makes, makes a ton of sense.Everyone says like, yeah, we should always, always do this. And honestly like, I think the infrastructure for that is becoming easier with, um, like thinking machines tinker thing as well as primary like, uh, lab stuff. Yeah, I mean like, this is one of those like reversal of the, the bitter lesson where you first bootstrap on the large models and the general purpose models to get big.And as you get very well-defined workloads that are just high quantity but not high variance, um, then you just distill down to a smaller model and run that on your own. Right. Which like totally makes sense.[00:08:50] Jacob Effron: What I'm less clear on is the kind of DIY RL use case, which I think is really mostly around, you know, improved, uh, quality for, for different things.Obviously there's probably like more efficient ways to, you know, get a smaller model that's that's faster and cheaper. And it'll be interesting to see whether. You know, obviously you had, you know, uh, two, three years ago this whole case of companies that were, you know, pre-training and claiming better outcomes in, in their domains than getting kind of cooked as each model iteration improved.You know, I wonder whether that's a, a similar story plays out in the, uh, in, in the, our all space. Yeah, for the focus on, on on pure outcomes and quality, not the cost side, which clearly your own models for cost at scale makes a ton of sense.[00:09:28] swyx: I think there are this, there are two sides of the same coin.Like you basically always want to hold, uh, quality constant or trade off a little bit of quality for a drastic decreasing cost. And that's true for everyone. Uh, one element I wanted to bring out, which is very much in favor of open models, is custom chips. So this would be cereus, but also talu. And then there's a huge range of stuff in between.This has been a huge story this past year on just like everything non Nvidia is getting bid up, including like freaking MatX is working for, which is very, which is very rewarding for me, but I think one of those things where like, oh, like the suddenly, because the number of alternative. Hard, uh, hardware is increasing and the inference that you can get is insanely high.Like, um, we're talking thousands of tokens per second instead of less than a hundred. So the trade off for qua quality doesn't hold as much anymore because the speed is so high.[00:10:24] Jacob Effron: Have you seen a lot of companies go all in on the alternative chip?[00:10:26] swyx: So cognition has Yeah. On Cerebras, uh, and, and so has OpenAIUm, uh, and so no, I don't think so beyond that, uh, and that, do you think that's like a, that's mostly, that's foreshadowing of, that's, yeah. I used to be kind of a skeptic in terms of like, okay, so what if I get my inference at a hundred to a hundred tokens per second sped up to 200 tokens per second. It's only two X faster.It's not that big a deal. Um, but when you, uh, I think every 10 x does unlock a different usage pattern. Um, and you, we have proof in Talas and, and some of the others. That you can actually, um, drastically imp improve inference speed and what happens from there? I don't even really know, like it's, it's so hard to predict when entire applications just appear at once.Yeah. Uh, and it also isn't that expensive, right? So like, um, this is one of those things where like, I, I think the, the investment cycle is gonna be multi-year. Um, and I. Would caution people to not dismiss it too, too quickly.[00:11:25] Jacob Effron: Yeah. I mean, one other like infra question I was curious to get your thoughts on is obviously it seems increasingly a lot of the cutting edge infra companies are building for agents as the buyers of their product or users of their product, right?[00:11:35] swyx: Ooh,[00:11:36] Jacob Effron: and[00:11:37] swyx: another huge theme. Yeah. Yeah.[00:11:38] Jacob Effron: And I'm trying to figure out like what. What, what do you have to do differently about selling into agents? Um, are they just the ultimate rational developers? Uh, or is there, you know,[00:11:46] swyx: no, absolutely not. Um, I think they are easily prompt, injected and, uh, very tuned towards like, basically com compounding existing winners.[00:11:57] Jacob Effron: Yeah,[00:11:57] swyx: so like if, like, congrats if you won the lottery for getting into the training data right before 2023, because now you're like installed in there for the foreseeable future. But yeah. Uh, you know, one stat that Versal, uh, CTO Malta dropped at my conference was that there are now, uh, 60% of traffic to Elle's, um, like app arch, like admin app architecture for like configuring versal applications, uh, is bought.It's not, it's not human. Uh, so like your primary customer is agents now. Um, and it's mostly co like mostly coding agents, mostly people using CLI on CP or whatever. But yeah, I mean, I think. More. I, I think step one, if it doesn't exist as an API that agents can use, it doesn't exist. Right, right. Which I think is like, uh, it's a good hygiene thing anyway, to, to make everything API available, but not as like an extra, um.Push on like products, people to not only work on the ui, um, you should probably work on the on SCLI stuff. Beyond that, I think honestly there is like, so I, I come from the sensibility of, I think everything that you are trying to do for agents experience now, which is the term that Matt Bowman and Nullify is trying to coin, is the same thing that you should have been doing for developer experience.That you should have had good docs, you should have had a consistent API, uh, that is. Mostly stateless. Um, you should have, I guess, discoverable or progressive disclosure or like search or like whatever. And so now that people have energy in like finding these customers to do that, that's great. Um, do I believe in.Extending beyond that into something like a EO, um, for gaming The chatbots? Not necessarily, but obviously there's gonna be huge advantages when people who figure out the short term wins. Yeah. And short term wins can compound.[00:13:43] Jacob Effron: Do you think these compounding advantages to like the, the pre-training data cutoff companies, like, you know, obviously over some period of time, I imagine that doesn't persist.And so as you think about like. I dunno, three, four years from now what the, you know, selection criteria end up being. Do you think it still mirrors exactly what you were saying before? Like it's exactly what you should have been doing all along to sell a good product to developers?[00:14:01] swyx: It could be, except that I think in three, four years we'll probably have much better memory and personalization.So then general a EO or GEO doesn't really matter as much. So I think whatever memory or personalization system we end up with will probably d determine what you end up choosing much more. Than, than what is currently the case, which is just frequency of mentions, let's call it. Yeah,[00:14:26] Jacob Effron: yeah.[00:14:26] swyx: Uh, so you just spa quantity and I think that's, I mean, that's something I'm looking forward to.I do think, like, like, you know, I, I think that the fundamental exercise to work through for yourself is if you start a new, um, sort of. Uh, disruptor company. Now there's a, there's a big incumbent that everyone knows, like, like superb base. Super base is like, kind of like the Postgres, like database, uh, incumbent.If you wanna start like new superb base, how would you compete with them? And I don't necessarily have the answer, but I, I, I do think like people, like resend like relatively new. I think they would start like 20, 23 and still there was, there was a recent survey where like, people. Checked what Claude recommends by default.If you just don't prompt it with anything, just say, gimme an email provider and says, resent as in like 70, 70% of each cases. Like the fact that you can get in there with like such a relatively short existence, I think is, is encouraging.[00:15:14] Jacob Effron: Yeah.[00:15:14] swyx: I do think like. Um, you do want to do whatever it is to, to like to, to get in that Very short mentions this because, um, it's not gonna be 20 of them, it's gonna be like three.[00:15:26] Jacob Effron: No, definitely. It feels like, uh, you know, probably more, more consolidation than ever. Uh, or, or kind of like, you know, uh, a winner take most market than maybe the, the, the physics of go-to market in the past. Yeah. Might have, uh, enabled.[00:15:38] swyx: The other thing also is like, semantic association is gonna be very important, uh, in the sense that like, you want to do like the combo articles where you're like, use my thing with for sale, with blah, blah.And like that all gets picked up in a, in a corpus. And so that's. Probably one thing that you, you wanna do? Well, I don't know what else. Uh, it's, it's, it's, it's one of those things where like, I think I feel, I feel I'm behind, uh, I don't know how you feel about this, but like,[00:16:04] Jacob Effron: I think AI is just everyone constantly feeling like they're behind some, uh,[00:16:08] swyx: yeah.With,[00:16:09] Jacob Effron: I wanna meet the person that doesn't feel behind,[00:16:11] swyx: but like with, with ax, right? Like, so, so like, my, my stance was that exactly what I said before, like everything that you, that you should do for agents is something that you should have done for humans anyway. Yeah. And so. To the extent that you're just getting it more energy to, to do things for agents, great.But like, uh, it's hard to articulate what new thing apart from just like more spam, um, that you should be doing. Anyway, that would be my take right now. Um, I I, I do think like there, there will be more turns at this. I think the personalization turn that is coming, um, will be big. And I don't know what that looks like because like basically we're kind of, we feel kind of tapped out on the memory side of things.[00:16:49] Jacob Effron: Yeah. I, I guess since we last chatted, you know, you, you took this role over at cognition, um, and you've obviously have a, have a front row seat to the AI coding space today. You know, I feel like coding in many ways. You know, people view it as this, like, I mean, besides being like the, the mother of all markets and this massive opportunity, I think it's kinda a preview of like, what's to come for many other spaces.Both. Yeah. You know, I feel like agents are most advanced in coding. I also feel like the, you know, competition between foundation models and application companies, you know, and, uh, mirrors what we may see in other spaces. And so maybe for our listeners, can you just lay out like what is the state of the AI coding wars today?[00:17:25] swyx: Um, it is massive, right? Like, uh, and I don't think necessarily, last time we talked about this, we appreciated the size of what[00:17:32] Jacob Effron: No, I wish we did.[00:17:33] swyx: I state of AI coding wars today, um, both opening eye philanthropic have made it their p serials to competing coding. Um, and. Tropic is like 2.5 billion in a RR just from Cloud Code.The way they recognize a RR is. Opt for debate, uh, open ai. I don't think the, a public number is known, but let's call it 2 billion as well. And then cursor is like, rumored to be 2 billion, you know? And, and those, those are like the public numbers that are known? Yeah. Um, so like huge markets that have just been created in the past one year.Like, like anthropic, just like Claude Code just recently celebrated their one year anniversary, which is, yeah, pretty nice. Um, so, and then I think, like the other thing that I see is there's, there's some other people who are like, oh, here's like the, the sort of relative penetration of, uh, Claude use cases, right?Like, and it's like coding 50% and then legal, whatever. Health, uh, it's like the, the remaining ones. And there was a very popular tweet that was like, okay, I'll look at the, the empty space and all these other use cases. If you are a new founder today, you should be betting on the other stuff because on, on a sort of catch up Yeah.Theory and my. Consider my, my pushback is the same pushback that, uh, I had on app over Google, which is like, well, well why is this time different? Like, why, if it went from let's say 10 to 50% in the past year, why can't I keep going? Uh, and like getting that wrong is actually a very painful one because you could have just did, did the momentum bet.Instead of the mean reversion bed. So I, I, I think that that is the, the state of things now that people are very, very much into psychosis. Um, they're are getting rewarded for spending more rather than spending less. And I think we're not in that phase of efficiency. We're in a phase of sort of like capability exploration.So I think people who are more crazy, who are more. Uh, creative, um, get rewarded comparatively. Yeah.[00:19:27] Jacob Effron: Well, it's interesting. I mean, it feels like behind these like token maxing, leaderboards and whatnot is this, it's like the first phase of this transition from a workforce perspective is you just gotta show your employer like, Hey, I, I use these tools.[00:19:37] swyx: Here's my nu number of tokens I cost, and that's it. They don't care about the quality. Right. It is, uh, maybe distasteful to someone who cares about the craft and, and all that. Um, but directionally everyone just wants you to go up regardless. And so, um, there it is not very discerning. It's, and it's probably very sloppy, but I think it's net fine because we're still probably underusing ai just in generally.Yeah. Um, and so I think that's like very interesting. Like we had on the podcast, uh, Ryan La Poplar from OBI, who spends a billion tokens a day. Yeah. Um, and that's for those county home, it's like something like 10,000 worth, $10,000 worth a day of API tokens. If they, they did market rates, um, and like most of us can't afford that.Yeah. But like. And, and, and probably a lot of what he does is slop.[00:20:25] Jacob Effron: Right.[00:20:25] swyx: But like, he's going to dis, he's like, if there were a new capability, he would discover it first before you because he was, he was trying and you were not trying. Right. And like, you only do things that work like, well, good for you.But like the, the people who are going to discover the next hot thing are living at the edge.[00:20:42] Jacob Effron: Right and increase in living at the edge of just having the compute budget to like run these experiments. I mean, kind of similar to what living at the edge on the research side has always been. You know, it was constrained in many ways by the amount of compute you had to run these experiments.It feels similarly on the, almost on the builder or like actualizing these tools now.[00:20:56] swyx: Yeah. The other thing that's, I mean, very obvious is philanthropic is kind of like the high price premium player. Um, that where, you know. Restricting limits or restricting model releases even is like the name of the game.Whereas Codex is like, come on in guys, use our SDK, use our login and we don't care. We're gonna reset limits. Whatever you do want to try to exploit the subsidies where you can get it. And definitely Codex is super subsidized right now. Gemini also very subsidized. Um, and. Comparatively, like, I think you should make, Hey, I guess while, while that's going on, it's not that bad to be a capabilities explorer on just the $200 a month plan from Cloud Code or from OpenAI.Um, and, uh, I I, I, my sense is that people aren't even there yet.[00:21:41] Jacob Effron: How do you think this, like, market ultimately plays? I mean, it's obviously such a big market that, you know, any slice of that market is interesting for, for anyone going after it. But I think what, what makes people so interesting in the coding market particularly is it feels like it's kind of this.Foreshadowing of what will happen in other, you know, any other kind of application market that the foundation models eventually turn to and are all their models against and gather data around. And so how do you think, you know, like does there end up being room for lots of different kinds of players or like, what do you think the end state of this market is and is that, do you think that's applicable to other markets?[00:22:10] swyx: I feel like there will be, I mean. Status quo is probably the most likely outcome, which is there are two big players and there's a small range of longer tail people that, um, fit other use cases that the, the two big players don't. That feels right to me. I think that, um, for it to, for the market structure to, to significantly change there would be, there needs to be significant change in like the economics or like the, the brand building or like the, the, the, the value propositions of the, of the companies involved and I.Haven't seen any in the last six months that, that have really changed the stories materially. So I feel like they would just keep going until something, something else happens. Something else happens, meaning like Microsoft wakes up and like goes like. Guys, we have GitHub, we have, uh, you know, we, we, we'll, we'll do something much bigger here than other, other than just copilot.Um, and, uh, that would be a big change. Um, MSL has put out a model now, and I was in a breakfast with, uh, Alex Wang, where they were like, yeah, like, we, we really, really want to go after the coding use case. We haven't done anything yet, but like, don't underestimate them. Right. Um, and, and similarly for the Chinese labs.Um, I think they're trying to go after it. Like ZAI is doing stuff. GLM uh, ZI and GLM is same thing. Um, uh, and, and so it's, so like everyone's trying to get a piece of that pie. I, I feel like the, the status quo has been pretty stable for the past, like almost a year I'll say.[00:23:39] Jacob Effron: Yeah. And is the room for the, not like, you know, for, for the application companies more on like the enterprise side or like where do the, where do the, like what surface area do the model companies leave for application companies?[00:23:50] swyx: Yeah, that's a good one. Um. It's very much evolving. Um, it, I, I, I will say because opening I did not have this, the, this level of attention on coding. Yeah. Uh, a year ago. We just don't have that much history. Right. Um, and it seems like, for example, so the big push at Open I now is the Super app. Um, is that a consumer thing?Is that like a products like. Portfolio rationalization thing, how much is that gonna take away attention from coding at the time when they actually do want to put more coding? I think it's, it's very unclear. So I do think like there's, there's all these, like in both big labs, there's. Uh, sorry. Both of the, and, and drop and, and deep minus and XAI are are separate cases.Um, they are trying to see the other time expansion areas. So cloud code for finance. Yeah. Um, uh, cloud cowork, all those, all those things. Whereas I think cursor and cognition are like comparatively just focused on coding and so I, I do think they leave space and I do think for the other verticals that also means the same thing.Right. That, uh, that they're not gonna be that. Um, intensely focused on, on, on that domain. Except for, I, I think I would mark out finance and healthcare as like the next ones, um, that they're clearly going after. Uh, I, I would say comparatively, healthcare seems more thorny. There, there, there've been some announcements about it, but like, I would respect the, the finance work a lot more just because like the, the path to money is a lot clearer.[00:25:12] Jacob Effron: Yeah, no, I mean, obviously like, I, I think, you know, maybe similar to, to the space that's being left in these other domains, you know, there's obviously. Uh, a lot that's required to actually implement these tools in enterprises, uh, versus, you know, maybe just giving them, uh, giving model access to, to folks outta the box.[00:25:27] swyx: Yeah, yeah. Yeah. So the, the agent lab thing is like, we'll do the last mile for you. Whereas I think the model labs tend to just trust the model and, and be minimalist about it. Both of them work.[00:25:38] Jacob Effron: Yeah.[00:25:38] swyx: I, I don't, I don't necessarily think one, uh, beats the other, uh, for every, for every use case. Um, all I, all I do know is that it does seem like.Uh, the large enterprises do want a dedicated partner that isn't just the model labs, which is kind of interesting.[00:25:55] Jacob Effron: We, we've been in this phase of, of pure capability exploration. And so I think nothing has been, you know, better for the large labs, right? I mean, they're always gonna be, uh, uh, the frontier of, of capability exploration.And so I think have a very good relationship with a lot of these enterprises. But ultimately over time, like. The, uh, the incentive structure of these labs is always gonna be maximal, you know, token consumption for, uh, for the end customers they work with. And there's just, I think, so few companies that have actually gotten to massive scale.Maybe coding again is the most interesting. So it's the first space that really is just completely gone, you know? Yeah. You must love it every day. Like absolutely insane. And. I think it[00:26:32] swyx: gets even. Okay. I mean, like, I think we, we say good things about crystal cognition, but the sheer liftoff of like both end UPIC and open ai.‘cause they, they, they have independent valuations. I mean, let's throw an XEI in there because it's now I ping at 1.2 trillion. That number is just mind boggling. Like I, I feel like in normal investing or normal startups, there's kind of like a ceiling market cap or valuation. Totally. That, that like you, you reach and you go like, all right, let's, it's gonna be chiller from now on.And these guys are not slow down. No.[00:27:02] Jacob Effron: Well, I also think the dynamic is fascinating about some of these later stage companies is, is, you know, in the past, I feel like in, in venture world, if you got to a certain level of scale, the question around you was really more a valuation question. And this is like why there was different phase, like, you know, types of venture people did and like the late stage growth people were just incredible at like, you know, a little bit of what's the ultimate market opportunity of this company, but also what's the right way to, to value it.Like we know it's, it's in some bands of an outcome that is like. Sure there's some variance to it, but it's like relatively understood what that bands is and then maybe you get over time surprised to the upside. Whereas any kind of like later, even the labs themselves, any later stage company, the bands of which that company might be worth right now, even in a year or two years are so massive because of how fast the ecosystem changes that it's like.Even for later stage companies, every three months could be an existential level event to the upside to the downside. Yeah. Um, and I think that, like, you are obviously seeing it in the, in the positive with code, which, you know, if you think about a company like philanthropic, you know, that. For a while, it was like unclear if they were going to have access to enough capital, um, to really stay in the, in the race, right?And then coding hit at the exact right time. They had the perfect model for it. They executed brilliantly. Um, and you know, now are, are, you know, uh, you know, one of the most valuable companies in the world.[00:28:13] swyx: Uh, at the same time, I, I don't find, I, I have zero sympathy for opening eye because they're crushing it and they're all rich.You know, this is like a high class champagne problem to have to, uh, to be number two at coding or whatever. Like, who cares? Like, you're, you're doing great.[00:28:27] Jacob Effron: Yeah. It's funny though. I can't even, I mean, you would be closer to this, uh, you know, even that you're in the AI coding space, but it's like a lot of people I talk to think Codex is just as good, if not better than Claude Code.Right. I think one thing that I've been really surprised by, and maybe, maybe Cloud Code is a better product in some ways, I'm curious your thoughts is just in consumer AI with chat GBT. You saw this big first mover advantage, right? Where admittedly today, like, I don't know, Claude Gemini. Great products.Not sure, not abundantly clear chat GBTs any better, but like. People stick with chat, GBT, it's the first thing to introduce them.[00:28:56] swyx: They stay, but they're not growing anymore. I don't know if you've seen[00:28:59] Jacob Effron: Right. But that to me is more of like a, a, a product problem than it is. They're not like, it's not like they've like lost share to someone else.My understanding is the overall problem with consumer AI today is much more of a how do you take this tool and, you know, for, for folks like us, like knowledge workers, it's like this incredible magic tool, but it's not necessarily a daily active use tool for a lot of people around the world today. And what are the like products?It's, it's kind of a category wide problem. Like in coding, for example, like. The entire space has gone parabolic. There may be some relative growth in, uh, in other consumer AI players, but it's not like consumer AI as a category is like going parabolic and they're not capturing most of that thing. I think it's actually the larger problem is much more, hey, the category has kind of hit a bit of a plateau of people haven't figured out how to bring, you know, tons more users on board.Yeah, yeah. Or increase the frequency of those users. And so it seems more of a category wide problem than it is, you know, a massive market share of change. I was gonna draw the comparison to, to the coding space where Claude Co is the first product, obviously, to introduce people to this magical experience.You know, by all accounts, codex is, is pretty damn close to as good, if not better. Um, but like still that first product, you, you would've thought that would not be a super sticky, uh, you know, product surface area. And it actually has, it turns out, I, it feels like the first lab to introduce you and experience really does, uh, keep a lot of, uh, a lot of the focus.[00:30:12] swyx: I, I think. M maybe it's like still, still early days. You know, Chad, BT is like three plus years old and Yeah. Cloud code is only one. Just turned a year. Yeah. So give it time, you know? Yeah. Like, yeah. I mean, definitely sometimes a lot of people have switched from to Codex. Maybe that will keep going. I, it's like really hard to tell.Uh, yeah. I, I, I do, I do think that. Because we are in this like, high volatility, high temperature phase. Um, the loyalty and stickiness to first movers and category creators, I don't think is as high as it might be in some other, uh, areas in our careers that we've looked at.[00:30:47] Jacob Effron: Yeah. Though, I mean, I've been surprised by the cloud code thing.I, I would've thought that, like, in many ways I always worried about the[00:30:52] swyx: enterprise. You think you would've been gone by now?[00:30:53] Jacob Effron: Not gone. But I would've, I I always worried that the, that the consumer business of these companies would be quite sticky. And then the enterprise API business. Uh, was actually like, you know, in some ways like your least loyal buyers, like they would, they would move to,[00:31:05] swyx: right, right.But, but they worked out that it wasn't the enterprise API it was enterprise product.[00:31:09] Jacob Effron: Totally. And maybe that was the, that was the secret that like, but the amount of lock-in or just default behavior that has happened in that space, uh, is, is more than I might've imagined with two products that by all accounts are pretty damn similar.Yeah.[00:31:22] swyx: No fight there. Uh, I will say I do think that Codex is still in like a catch up. Like in terms of personal experience. Um, the only thing I like out of, out of Codex is the, is like Spark and like yeah. Uh, the, I, I feel like the skills integration is a little bit better. I feel like, uh, the, the speed is a bit better.Maybe ‘cause it's in, is written in rust or whatever. Um, very minor things that you like. Almost like telling yourself rather than like objectively assessing between two, two of them. I, I, I do think, like vibes wise, I think that's going on. Um, the, the, you know, I, I feel like the, the missing questions, uh, in, in this whole debate is like, why is this so concentrated in only two names, right?Yeah. Like, um, how, where, like, where is the Gemini? You know, presence, where's the Xai presence? Um, and like they are trying, it's just they haven't made that much progress yet.[00:32:12] Jacob Effron: But what the, what the Claude Co moment does show, and it actually in some ways makes you a little more bullish on the potential for someone else to catch up because it does feel like if you're the first person to introduce some magical net new product experience, that that actually might be stickier than one might have imagined.[00:32:27] swyx: Right, right, right. Okay. Yeah.[00:32:28] Jacob Effron: And so it's, everyone can believe they have shot[00:32:29] swyx: that. What do you think that new product experience might be like? I, I, it's, it's like, and this is a failure of imagination on my part. Like, I always wonder, like, people always say this like, well, the, the thing that will save us is like being first to the next new thing.Like what is it?[00:32:41] Jacob Effron: Yeah.[00:32:42] swyx: It's like,[00:32:45] Jacob Effron: I dunno, something around like, uh, consumer agent, computer use, like hybrid. I think, obviously, I think we're like scratching the surface on the consumer side.[00:32:53] swyx: So my, my current theory is like the. Open claw is like a vision of things to come.[00:32:58] Jacob Effron: Totally.[00:32:58] swyx: Um, and uh, it's good that O open I has like the association with open claw, but by no means do they have the rights to win it.The general thesis that I have been pursuing now is that the year the same way that 2025 was the year of coding agents, 2026 is coding agents breaking containment to do everything else. Um, and so coding agents continue to still win, but because they generate software and software eats the world, so like, it's kind of like the trans.Associated property of like software, eat the world, coding agents, eat software, therefore coding agents eat the world. Um, which is like an interesting,[00:33:30] Jacob Effron: yeah, and breaking containment always an easier phase phrase in the consumer context than the enterprise one. You've seen people run these really cool, uh, experiments in their own personal lives.I think like,[00:33:37] swyx: yes.[00:33:38] Jacob Effron: Figuring out, you know, how you, obviously everyone's focused, you know, on the enterprise side now around how you create these experiences. I feel like the vibes, you know, people love to have these narratives of like, everything is completely shifted. It's like I actually, you know, open AI.Organizationally, uh, you know, volatility aside is, you know, great products, great team, great models like everyone else in the world is incentivized for there to be. Two, three more. Everyone would love more like great model companies. And so I feel like the, the natural forces of the world revolt when any one company, you know, is too much the star of the show, right?There's so many people in the ecosystem that are incentivized for that not to happen. And so I think I'd be shocked if we don't have. Uh, uh, reversion of vibes, not maybe completely the other way, but at least a little bit more equal at some point over the next six, 12 months.[00:34:24] swyx: I, I think there's just a kind of different stages when, when you talk about the world, one wanting more model companies, I talked think about like the neo labs.[00:34:30] Jacob Effron: Yeah.[00:34:31] swyx: And I mean, I don't know, is it fair to say none of them have really broken through in the past year?[00:34:35] Jacob Effron: I think that's totally fair,[00:34:37] swyx: which is rough. Um, and well, how are we gonna, how are we gonna grow that diversity in, in, in choice, like. Um, that's, this is it.[00:34:46] Jacob Effron: Yeah. It'll be really interesting to see what, what, what ends up happening with that.And you've seen, you know, folks like Nvidia, you know, very incentivized to make sure there's, there's a broader platform of, of other model providers.[00:34:57] swyx: I think, uh, I don't know people say this, but I, I, I don't think they try it hard. Nvidia tries harder to build neo clouds[00:35:05] Jacob Effron: Yeah.[00:35:06] swyx: Than neo labs.[00:35:07] Jacob Effron: Well, they try pretty damn hard to build neo Cloud, so[00:35:09] swyx: that's,[00:35:09] Jacob Effron: yeah.[00:35:10] swyx: But like, you know, let's call it like the, the core weaves of the world, much happier place in the, you know, than any neo lab built on top of them.[00:35:18] Jacob Effron: Yeah. That one might argue it's, it's easier to, to enable a neo cloud to be successful than it is. Uh, you can't will a neo lab into existence the same way you, soNvidia[00:35:25] swyx: has more direct control over it.Uh, for sure.[00:35:27] Jacob Effron: What else is kind of catching your eye today on the startup side? I mean, you worry, there's obviously this whole narrative of like, you know, the foundation models, you know, they announced a product and every stock goes down 15%. Like[00:35:36] swyx: Yeah.[00:35:37] Jacob Effron: Do you, do you worry about the foundation models just kind of eating into to a bunch of these startup categories?[00:35:43] swyx: Not really. I, I think actually like. As, uh, there's, there's, okay, there's, there's, there's the, there's the point of view of like being an investor in startups, and there's a point of view of like, do you wanna start something? And I think honestly, like the, the downside for all these is so. Minimal in, in a sense of like, the worst you do is you just get hired into one of these labs anyway.So I, I think the, the market for people who just do things and try things and try to execute in like a competent way, even if like it doesn't work out commercially, even if it just wasn't that great anyway. Like, but like that's your job interview to go into, into one of these things anyway, so, um, I don't feel that.From a, from a very, very small startup perspective, mid-size startups. Yes. Uh, I will say there's been a lot of dead, um, LM Infra, a lot of LM infra consolidation like the, the, uh, lang fuses of the world getting absorbed into, into click house. And I, I think. Like people have maybe worked out the domain specific playbook, uh, and like, I think that's okay.Um, and, and yeah, I'm not that, not that worried about, uh, okay. So, um, I, I would say I'd be more worried about traditional SaaS, like low NPSS. This is the whole AI versus SaaS debate that has, that's been going on. Uh, and, and like literally I'm going through that exact thing in my company where, so I like kind of.Thinking through this on a very visceral, visceral level, right? On one hand you have the people who say you vibe coders don't appreciate the amount of work that goes into A-A-C-R-M and like, yeah, you think you can rip out Salesforce? So did the 30 entrepreneurs before you, right? Like, like, you know, you classically underestimate the things that you don't.Deeply, no. And, and, and target audience is not you. Uh, at the same time, like we have never been able to build software so easily and customize software so easily and like Yeah, you're not gonna use 90% of the things in Salesforce. So like, yeah. What's the typical, so what have you, what[00:37:33] Jacob Effron: have you done internally?[00:37:34] swyx: So we have there the main SaaS that we do for event management and sponsor management. That's, and we paid 200 KA year for that. Not, not huge, but like chunky for, for, for my, my scale. Um, and like, yeah, I could probably spend 2000 and, and build like a custom version of that. Um, the, the, the trick has been dealing with my, the rest of my team and getting them on board.Yeah. ‘cause I'm the most ethical person on my team, but like, I can't make that decision myself. And I think in the same way I've been telling with other CEOs team leaders as well, it's like, well you can be super cloud pilled. You can be super LM psychosis and that you think that's okay, but you like you have to bring your team with you.And I think like there, the sort of widening disparity in LM psychosis in companies is causing real s real riffs because. And on one hand, on one hand, the people who are less AI native are not getting with the picture. They're not, they're actually like behind, they're actually not waking up to the fact that like you, everything you think is necessary is not actually that necessary.And in fact, exactly would be better of you if you just like held your nose and went in and when came out the other side. Yeah, only talking to agents in natural language and like your life would actually be better and you just, you're just like close-minded. There's that perspective. The other perspective is, oh, you vibe coder.You, you did this in a weekend and you got the 80% solution and now the rest of your employees. Have to pick up the rest of your s**t, right, that you, that you thought you were, you were such hot, amazing, uh, uh, at, but like, actually you didn't figure it out. And like, actually LMS are still useless at this and blah, blah, blah.So like, I think there's this huge debate going on in every company right now. Um, and like, um, you know, I have a small microcosm of it, but like, yeah, it, it's making me hesitate to, to pull the trigger. But like I will at some point, it's like maybe I've put it off for one year, but not like five. Yeah, but like, so, so like SaaS is definitely getting squeezed.Um, it does make me wonder, like, I, I do think that there's an opportunity for a more AI native, um, system of record thing that is not just Postgres. Um, or not just MongoDB, although both are very good. Maybe it's like a convex or like people Yeah. Bring up convex a lot. I don't know, like, like, I, I just feel like the sort of quote unquote firebase of, of AI apps isn't really a thing yet.Um, beyond what we have. Uh, which, which is fine. It's, it's, it's just. We could probably start in a more sort of rapid iteration cycle first before scaling up to like a Postgres or MongoDB, which are more sort of old tech. I was at a dinner with, uh, Mike Krieger, the CPO of en philanthropic, and, and he, we were just kind of going around the room going like, what are people most worried about?Yeah. And, uh, for me, uh, I, instead of security, I brought up biosafety. Yeah,[00:40:21] Jacob Effron: classic.[00:40:22] swyx: Um, actually, like I said, it was. Cliche and classic, and the rest of the table were, were like, what do you mean? Someone sitting at home can manufacture a virus that wipes out half of humanity,[00:40:32] Jacob Effron: almost like the OG Jeffrey Hinton.Like, this is why you should be scared.[00:40:35] swyx: I'm like, yeah, like the read the, you know, risk reports. Like this is like the thing. Um, I think, and Mike was just sitting there knowing he was sitting on Mythos and going like, actually it's security. Um, and I think like, um, I think the, there's, there's, part of it is.A very good marketing. Like too good. Yeah, like I would actually advise and topic to tune down the marketing because also it's, it is just a very good model and you don't have to make so many marketing claims around it. At the same time, it is not really a private model. If you give it to 40 companies.Each of whom have like 10,000 employees or whatever. Right. It's not, it's not private, it's, it's like there's bad actors in there.[00:41:18] Jacob Effron: Yeah. Hopefully, hopefully not as, uh, as bad as releasing it widely, but, uh, no, I mean, it's an interesting. You know, it's an interesting case study for how all, I mean, many model releases might, I mean, you know, this might be the first model release that looks like the rest of ‘em from from now on, right?[00:41:31] swyx: It, it, so it's, it's the, there's an overall product strategy, uh, for anthropic of like bundle, uh, you know, restrict access bundle, uh, product with model maybe.Whereas, uh, OpenAI has definitely been a lot more sort of. Philosophically aligned on like, we will just enable access everywhere and we don't know what you, what will come out of it. Right.[00:41:51] Jacob Effron: Right. Though, I mean, this current moment, uh, obviously the cynical take is also just ties to the amount of compute that both companies[00:41:56] swyx: Yeah.Right, right, right. Yeah, I think, I think that's true. I I do think like the, the, this is the, the, the scale, the dawn of like larger than 10 trillion parameter models is very interesting. I don't think it, I think it's a temporary phenomenon because we have much larger compute clusters coming online for everyone over the next like three, five years.It's, and this is like already written in, in the cards.[00:42:18] Jacob Effron: Yeah.[00:42:19] swyx: So to the extent that like, you know, will we have rationing of models, uh, above 10 trillion, uh, in like two years? I don't think so. I think everyone will have no, we'll just[00:42:29] Jacob Effron: have rationing of the next phase.[00:42:30] swyx: Right. Right. But like, that's as it should be almost like, um.My, my classic example, which I, this is just me theorizing, not anything confirmed by Google. When Google announced Gemini, they actually announced three sizes, which was Flash Pro Ultra. They never released Ultra. They only have Pro and Flash. Um, so my theory is they have ultra sitting in a basement and they just could distilling from it for, for flashing pro.Um, which like, yeah, I mean, I, I actually think that's. As it should be for any lab that they, that they do that.[00:43:02] Jacob Effron: Yeah. Just because those are the models that people actually wanna end up using. And it's just like cost prohibit.[00:43:06] swyx: It is more, yeah, it's cost. Yeah. It's, it's not the want, it's just, just, just the cost.Um, I do think, like, uh, it is interesting that, uh, for a while I was, I was considering the theory that models capped out at two, 2 trillion, and I think that's proving to be wrong. And well then if I'm wrong, how wrong? How wrong am I? Do we do 200 trillion? Do we do two quarter trillion, whatever? Um, and I don't think we have the straight answer to that, but like, uh, it's interesting that we are continuing to scale number of pers when everyone kind of assu like can see that we're not going to get like the next thousand or 1 million x from this paradigm.So like the others, like the alias of the world are working on other. Um, model architecture improvements. We need a different scaling law, I guess, because like, we're, I, I feel like people already already feel like we're tapped out on this. Like the, the end, the end state of this is we turn most of the world into data centers and like, I don't know.I don't know if we want that.[00:44:08] Jacob Effron: Yeah, I mean, uh, if the, if, if, if the return of intelligence are there, maybe, uh, maybe not so bad.[00:44:13] swyx: I, I, I think there, there's just a sheer amount of like, like un scalability that like is wrangling people's sensibilities right now. Um, especially in terms of like context lengths.Um, my classic quote is that context length is like the slowest scaling factor in, in lms.[00:44:30] Jacob Effron: Yeah.[00:44:30] swyx: Um, we, like, we took maybe. Three years to go from like 4,000 context length to a million and that's about it. Yeah. Like Gemini has had a million token context length for two years now. Um, and no one's using it.Like, so like yeah, it's memory. Memory is probably gonna be the, the biggest limiting constraint on all these things.[00:44:50] Jacob Effron: Yeah. Certainly seems that way. I guess I'm curious over the last year since you recorded last, like what's one thing you've changed your mind on?[00:44:57] swyx: I feel like I was kind of bearish on open models like last year.Um, in a sense of, like, I, I had just done the podcast with an Al[00:45:07] Jacob Effron: Yeah.[00:45:08] swyx: Of Braintrust where he, and he, I mean, you know, he has a good cross section of all the top AI companies and he says market share of open source is 5% and going down. Um, I think that's changed. I think it's going up. Um, and even if,[00:45:22] Jacob Effron: even though the capability gap does seem to be increasing.Spending on the[00:45:26] swyx: time. It's hard to tell. Yeah, it's, it's really hard to tell. ‘cause like, okay, for, for listeners, capability gap increasing is like on public benchmarks. And let's say you're comparing mythos versus like, I don't know, G-T-O-S-S or like GLM 5.1. And, um, it's, it is really hard to tell. ‘cause even if they were closing, you will also not believe that they were closing that much because it's very easy to gain the benchmarks.Yeah. So you just don't really, really know. Um, all you know is like. Uh, there's somewhat objective open router stats on like what people choose in a free market. And people do choose some of these open models in significant volume, except that a lot of them are heavily discounted. So you need to kind of like price adjust, uh, these things.So even if, even if that were true, which I, I'm not sure, like I, I, I feel like the numbers just up now instead of down. Uh, I think the. Separation between what the top tier agent labs

Dr Heidi Matisonn, Senior Lecturer at The Ethics Lab at the University of Cape Town’s Neuroscience Institute and Department of Medicine joined Clarence on air for a “Philosophically Speaking” conversation on who belongs in SA and who does SA belong to? Views and News with Clarence Ford is the mid-morning show on CapeTalk. This 3-hour long programme shares and reflects a broad array of perspectives. It is inspirational, passionate and positive. Host Clarence Ford’s gentle curiosity and dapper demeanour leave listeners feeling motivated and empowered. Known for his love of jazz and golf, Clarrie covers a range of themes including relationships, heritage and philosophy. Popular segments include Barbs’ Wire at 9:30am (Mon-Thurs) and The Naked Scientist at 9:30 on Fridays. Thank you for listening to a podcast from Views & News with Clarence Ford Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays between 09:00 and 12:00 (SA Time) to Views and News with Clarence Ford broadcast on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/erjiQj2 or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/BdpaXRn Subscribe to the CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/sbvVZD5 Follow us on social media: CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk56See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You can listen wherever you get your podcasts or check out the fully edited transcript of our interview at the bottom of this post.In this episode of The Peaceful Parenting Podcast, Corey and I explore the pressure of intensive parenting and the idea that “just because you can doesn't mean you should.” We discuss burnout, productivity culture, and how letting go of unrealistic or unnecessary expectations can help us be the parents we truly want to be.Know someone who might appreciate this episode? Share it with them!And if you love the podcast, FREE ways to help us out:1- Rate and review the podcast in your podcast player app 2- “Like” this post by tapping the heart icon ♥️ 3- Share this with a friend. THANK YOU!We talk about:* 00:00 — Intensive parenting and unrealistic expectations: “Just because you can doesn't mean you should”* 03:00 — Cultural expectations and productivity mindset and the “perfect parent” standard* 06:00 — How parents get overwhelmed: Sports, activities, food, and overscheduling* 09:00 — Choosing what actually matters- “Does this spark joy?” and letting go of unnecessary tasks* 13:00 — Doing less to feel better* 15:00 — Productivity, burnout, and rest* 17:00 — Letting go of control and accepting help and why independence isn't everything* 21:00 — Questioning parenting norms* 25:00 — Why care and interdependence matter* 30:00 — Corey's injury story + the cost of overdoing it* 34:00 — The importance of receiving care* 36:00 — Rethinking what it means to be a “good parent”Resources mentioned in this episode:* Rejecting Impossible Parenting Standards: What Disability Teaches Us About Care and Community with Jessica Slice: Episode 220 * Ditch Special Time? Connecting with complex kids when connecting is hard: Episode 212 * Episode 60: Hunt, Gather, Parent with Michaeleen Doucleff * Yoto Screen Free Audio Book Player* The Peaceful Parenting Membership* Evelyn & Bobbie bras* Strong-Willed Kids WorkshopConnect with Sarah Rosensweet:* Instagram* Facebook Group* YouTube* Website* Join us on Substack* Newsletter* Book a short consult or coaching session callxx Sarah and CoreyYour peaceful parenting team- click here for a free short consult or a coaching sessionVisit our website for free resources, podcast, coaching, membership and more!>> Please support us!!! Please consider becoming a supporter to help support our free content, including The Peaceful Parenting Podcast, our free parenting support Facebook group, and our weekly parenting emails, “Weekend Reflections” and “Weekend Support” - plus our Flourish With Your Complex Child Summit (coming back in the summer for the 3rd year!) All of this free support for you takes a lot of time and energy from me and my team. If it has been helpful or meaningful for you, your support would help us to continue to provide support for free, for you and for others.In addition to knowing you are supporting our mission to support parents and children, you get the podcast ad free and access to a monthly ‘ask me anything' session.Our sponsors:YOTO: YOTO is a screen free audio book player that lets your kids listen to audiobooks, music, podcasts and more without screens, and without being connected to the internet. No one listening or watching and they can't go where you don't want them to go and they aren't watching screens. BUT they are being entertained or kept company with audio that you can buy from YOTO or create yourself on one of their blank cards. Check them out HEREEvelyn & Bobbie bras: If underwires make you want to rip your bra off by noon, Evelyn & Bobbie is for you. These bras are wire-free, ultra-soft, and seriously supportive—designed to hold you comfortably all day without pinching, poking, or constant adjusting. Check them out HERESarah: Hey everyone. Welcome back to another episode of the Peaceful Parenting Podcast. Today, Corey and I discuss an idea we've been thinking about a lot lately and talking to each other about: intensive parenting, the choices we make, and the impossibly high standards we're up against, and how these things affect our mental and physical health as parents and as humans.After I interviewed Jessica Slice, disability activist and author of the book Unfit Parent, who talks about these things and what she's learned from disability culture and being disabled herself, Corey captured all of these complicated ideas about productivity, care, and how we can sometimes drive ourselves too hard as: just because you can.I'm going to say that again: just because you can doesn't mean you should.Listen in to our conversation about how this idea can inform the choices we make as parents and how we can make changes to make life feel easier and more connected and fun.If you find this episode useful, please share it with a friend. That's actually only one of the no-cost ways you can support the podcast. You can also take a minute to rate and review the Peaceful Parenting Podcast on your favorite podcast player app. Sharing with friends and rating and reviewing us helps us reach more parents, and we all know that parents need all the love and support they can get these days.You can also support us by becoming a supporter on Substack. For the cost of a latte a month, you not only help us offset some of the costs of making this podcast, you can also get the podcast ad-free. Just search my name on Substack and you'll find us.As we near our five-year podcast anniversary, we really appreciate the support and the love of our listeners.Here's our conversation.Sarah: Hey Corey, welcome back to the podcast.Corey: Thanks for having me again.Sarah: Do you remember last year when that report came out from the U.S. Surgeon General that said that parents are suffering from intensive parenting?Corey: Yes.Sarah: Yeah, and I think people consider peaceful parenting intensive parenting, right? And we do often say this kind of parenting is a lot of work. It requires a lot of us. But I wouldn't say that it necessarily has to be intensive parenting in all aspects.Corey: I agree so much. I had a lot of mixed feelings when that report came out.Sarah: Yeah, me too. I felt like writing some sort of a defense of peaceful parenting after I heard that.So let's tease this apart a bit. We started talking about this after I interviewed Jessica Slice. If you all didn't catch that, she is a disability activist, and she talked about disability culture and what it tells us about the impossible standards of parenting, and I guess the impossible standards of parenting in general, not just intensive parenting.And you said it reminded you of one of your favorite quotes. So tell us your favorite quote, and that's the anchor of our episode today.Corey: One of my favorite quotes, though I'm not even sure if it's technically a quote, is from one of my favorite movies, Jurassic Park. I recently actually read the book because I was talking so much about how I love the movie. The big theme is: just because you can doesn't mean you should.Now, when you and I were talking about this, honestly, we could have a really long conversation about the way they were talking about it in the book, which was maybe questioning science and where we want to take that, but it actually applies really well to parenting.Sarah: Yeah. And the idea that Jessica Slice brought in, and we're going to play a quote about this, is that there were things that she couldn't do as a disabled parent, and she felt a lot of guilt about that.So let's just take a second and listen to that quote.Jessica: Yeah. I do sometimes feel self-conscious when I see the way my peers parent, when I see them making these perfect little lunches and these divided-up lunch boxes or doing Elf on the Shelf, these kinds of versions of parenting that I just don't have the energy or capacity to have as part of our lives.And I can feel like, are my kids missing out from this type of parenting? And maybe in some ways they are. Nothing is simple. But I know I would have done those things. The version of me in my twenties would have done those things, but she would've also been a lot less patient. She would've had a lot less time for just sort of wasting hours and being together.I have an ability to be present with my kids that I wouldn't have had before.Sarah: Okay, so one thing that's interesting to me in that quote is that she talks about how she probably would have done all the things if she could have, like herself when she was in her twenties. She didn't become disabled until she was in her late twenties, and she said the person she was in her twenties probably would've turned into the mom that was trying to be the perfect mom.The example she used was the little bento box lunchboxes. And just to be fair, if that brings you joy, then that brings you joy, right? The bento box lunches. But if you're doing it because you feel like you should do it, and you can do it, that doesn't mean you should do it.So what are your thoughts on what she was saying?Corey: This really struck me because I think, gosh, I have made lunches that she would consider the little bento box ones, and not because it made me happy. I did feel like this is what I was supposed to be doing in order to be sending an appropriate lunch for my children because of that pressure.That really, really stood out to me, and I couldn't help but just feel the weight of all those pressures we are handed as parents. And because, for most of my parenting journey, I have been able-bodied and can do endless amounts, I often find myself doing way more than I should because I feel like that's what I'm supposed to be doing.And then when you take a step back and you try to question it, you just get crushed by the weight of those expectations of, well, what are the reasonable ones? What should I be doing? What is intensive parenting, and what is taking a step back?Sarah: I think also there's so much value in our culture, and this is one thing that Jessica talks about in her book and in the podcast, is how much of what we do is informed by the values of capitalism. If we don't feel that we're being productive, and what's one more thing? When is it enough? When can you just sit down and rest? Or when do you think, I've got to make those bento box lunches?Now I am done for the day, and I could go to sleep and get some rest, or I could read or watch a show with my partner or whatever, but I really should. So that's a perfect example of I can, but should I? Where do you draw that line? How do you question yourself about what you should do, what you can do, and what you shouldn't do, even if you could?Corey: Yeah, it's true. And I think every stage that I've been through in parenting, and honestly any stage of life, whether you're a parent or not, you're going to be hit by this list of conflicting advice that's coming at you for what you should be doing.I typed out a list of what I'm experiencing right now. I have a 7-year-old and a 10-year-old, and right now I'm getting this conflicting stuff coming at me, telling me what I should be doing. And it sounds something to the extent of: you should have your kids in sports because kids are on too many screens and not getting enough exercise, but don't push them too hard because then they won't love movement. Register them in music lessons or get them extra tutoring. They must have a second language, but not too much because after-school activities can drain your children and then they're not getting enough free, unsupervised time. And don't even get me started on food.With the whole bento box thing, I ended up there because of all the conflicting advice about not letting them have too much of this, but needing to have that, and you don't want to give them an eating disorder. It's just all of this. How do we find that line of what we should be doing and what is too much?Sarah: I think some of it is asking what actually brings joy. Sometimes it brings joy to you, and sometimes you're willing to do it because it sparks joy in your child. So just looking at the sports thing: does it spark joy in your child to play hockey? Does it spark joy in you to be involved in that? Maybe this is one of those things you do for your kids because it sparks joy in them.But the whole idea of “you should do it because it's good for kids to be in sports,” yes, that's true. It is good for kids to be in sports. But that's a perfect thing of just because you can doesn't mean you should. You've got to look at your own life and how it fits into your life and what your kids want to do and what their interests are.Corey: That's so true. And when you think about what we do when we're coaching, almost always we have this discussion with our clients of, okay, what does your daily schedule look like? What does your week look like? And then we're like, okay, now what can you take out?We're almost always telling them this message of: just because you can manage all this doesn't mean you should. What of this can you take out so that your life does feel less intense? I think this is something naturally that we do end up spending a lot of time coaching, because everyone does end up finding that they can't find that line for themselves.Sarah: For sure. And there's also the things that people think they need to do. One thing I hear parents talking about is arguments with their kids about putting their laundry away. You know, “I folded all their laundry and put it in their room, and all they have to do is put it in their drawer.” And my first thought is always, oh my gosh, why are you folding their laundry?And I don't mean that in the sense that they should be folding their own laundry. I mean, who cares if the laundry's folded? Maybe that's your own personal thing, that you love a neat drawer, and okay, do that for yourself. But is it worth the battle to get into that with your kid? Plus, when they go and look for things to wear, they're just going to be rooting through the clothes anyway and throwing them on the floor and unfolding them.Sometimes there are just these shortcuts that people feel really guilty about taking, and they think they're not living up to the North American perfect family standard. Another good example of that is baths every night.Corey: Yes.Sarah: In the summer, maybe your kid needs a bath every day because they've got sunscreen and sand and they're sweaty. But in the winter, at least where we live, it's cold and kids don't get that dirty. A bath a couple of nights a week is totally fine. But parents have this idea, well, shouldn't I do the same thing every night because that's part of the routine? Well, maybe that's good. Maybe that works for you, or maybe you can let it go.Corey: Yes. And I've heard you say this so often too about food. Just because you can make these amazing, crazy meals doesn't mean you should be. It's totally acceptable to be eating scrambled eggs and baby carrots every night.Sarah: Yes, unless it sparks joy for you. And then you might want to do it. And even if it sparks joy sometimes, and you can do it, it doesn't mean you should do it because it might make you too stressed.There were things that I had to give up when my kids were small that I really liked doing, that did spark joy, and that I could have done, but the tradeoff was too great because it would've made me too tired. So that's another thing. Sometimes there is something that sparks joy that you could do, but then you think about the tradeoff: how is this going to make me show up as a parent? Can I be the parent that I want to be?An example I'm just thinking of now is I really wanted to homeschool my kids. Philosophically, that was super aligned for me, and I loved the idea of it in theory, of all of us learning together and doing all the things. But when it came down to it, I could have done it, but I decided not to do it because it wasn't letting me show up as the kind of parent that I wanted to be. Being with my kids 24/7 was not good for me. I just thought, I shouldn't do this because it is not making me show up as the kind of parent that I want to be.Corey: Yeah, exactly. I felt the exact same way about homeschooling. Hats off to people who find ways to make it work for themselves. It truly does work for some families. We just have to look at our individual resources, literally and figuratively, and what that is going to look like in practice for our family. And just because you can doesn't mean you should.Sarah: Yes, and please check out our podcast that we did about how I decided to ditch special time.Corey: Yeah.Sarah: Because that's also a really good example of this.Corey: I agree.Sarah: Of course I could do it. I just realized it wasn't working for us, and instead I chose following what made my family feel joyful. We'll put a link to all the episodes we mention in the show notes. So that's a really good one if you want to hear practically how I followed what made my family feel joyful.Corey: Yeah, I love that.Sarah: So we talked about that sort of drive for productivity. The drive for productivity tries to convince us that if we can do something, we should do it—that more and more and more, like we're always striving to get all the things done and check all the things off the to-do list.One thing that Amanda Diekman talks about—and she's also been on the podcast; she talks about low-demand parenting, and she had a podcast where she talked about something she learned from what she called her superwoman self. And I think that's what we're talking about, like the push, push, go, go, go. “I can do it, I can do it, I can do it.” But can you? And should you?I'm going to read a quote from her. She says, “I'm newly trying to actively love on my amazing superwoman.” This is us appreciating, not beating ourselves up for that go-go-go part, but appreciating, you know, this has probably gotten me to where I am, and there's a lot of life squeezed out of having those sorts of impulses to do more. But also it causes what she calls extreme exhaustion.So she says: “Because it turns out that superwoman holds both my vast trying and my extreme exhaustion. She's trying to protect me from how very tired I am by hyping me up. But when I make her feel safe and tell her that she can let go, she can slow down, I can see how very tired she is and how long she's been hustling to keep me safe. She melts into my arms. She's my most hardworking part, and it turns out she needs a rest too.”Corey: While you were reading that, I got full-body goosebumps.Sarah: Yeah, I love that. So really appreciating that part of us that wants to do more and get stuff done, not villainizing it, but recognizing the good in it and also holding that part of us and recognizing how exhausted it makes us too.Corey: Yes.Sarah: I think there are some things that do exhaust us that we don't feel we can let go of. I remember I was talking to a client, and she was saying how she was feeling so exhausted and sort of resentful by her 4-year-old's bedtime routine. She said, “First I help him get his pajamas on and I brush his teeth, and then I read him stories, and then I lie with him, and it's just so exhausting.”And I said, “Totally. That does sound exhausting. And you don't have to do any of it.”She was like, “What? What do you mean?” I said, “You don't have to do any of that stuff. You could just let him fall asleep on the couch whenever he falls asleep, without his pajamas on and without brushing his teeth. And you don't have to lie with him, and you don't have to read him stories.”And she was kind of like, “What are you saying?” And I said, “You don't have to do any of it, but you're choosing to do it because it's important to you to do that nurturing in that bedtime routine.”So I think that's another thing to think about too, is that when there are things that we're doing, there's this sorting mechanism: what am I doing because I feel like I have to do it, when I really could let go of it? What am I doing because the superwoman is driving me to do it because I'm trying to attain this impossible standard of parenting? And what am I doing that might still be hard, but it's just really important to me?Maybe it doesn't spark joy. Probably no one's bedtime routine sparks joy, but maybe it's just too important to let go of.An example of that for me, and I was just reminded of it this morning, is with my daughter. As you know, Maxine is now in college and she doesn't have to be at school every morning at nine the way she used to. But when she was still in school, she had to get up at seven and get out the door by 7:45 to get to school on time.And I am not a morning person. I may have mentioned that before, but I really hate getting up early. Like, 7:00 a.m. is just way too early for me. But I got up every day of her high school years at 7:00 a.m., and I did with my sons as well.And all of them were like, “Mom, you don't need to get up. We can get out the door on our own.” But I felt like it was supportive to get up, and it was important to me to be supportive of them. If they had to get up early, I wanted to be supportive and get up early with them.I make Maxine a cup of tea in the morning, and she pretty much gets her own lunch now, but I used to make lunch for them when they were in high school. I was doing it even though it felt intensive to get up early when I didn't have to. But it felt important to me to show up and nurture like that.Corey: Yeah, that makes so much sense. It's interesting—as you were saying that too, I was thinking about how every day when all the kids are getting off the bus, my son used to throw his backpack on the ground. Then instead I started just asking him, “I'll take it.”And now, to this day, he would never throw it now because he's not this tiny little kindergartner who can barely get himself back home again. But I still naturally love that moment of being able to be like, “Hand me your backpack.” I don't know, something about it. I take it and I put it on my back, and I feel like I'm letting him know, you can let those weights go for the day.There are these moments where I'm choosing to do that, and I can, and I'm happy to do it. It's very different than that feeling of resentment as I'm trudging along.Sarah: Yeah. It's something you're choosing to do because that nurturing of taking the load off of him, literally and figuratively, is important to you.I think the theme we're coming to with “just because you can doesn't mean you should” is looking at what are the outside forces that are making me think that I should do something—cultural forces or capitalist forces or the parents-next-door forces—that are making you feel like you should do something, and really questioning, what is the reason? What's the drive underneath this thing? Is this something that I believe in and something that I can get behind?And sometimes there may be things that you look at and say, well, maybe I would drop this if it was just up to me, but it sparks joy in my child, or it's a nurturing that I'm choosing to do, or it's a way that I'm choosing to show up. Sometimes you might choose to do something because it does spark joy in your child, even if it doesn't in you. That's something where you have the resources to give them.So just not taking everything at face value of what a good North American bedtime routine looks like or what the other people are doing. I remember when my kids were little and there was always, are you putting them in soccer? Are you putting them in tennis? And I was like, I'm not putting anyone in anything. Partly because they didn't want to, but partly because I didn't want to. I didn't feel like going to all those practices when people weren't begging me, “Please, please, please, can I join a soccer team?” I'm fine with not doing that stuff.Corey: Yeah, that's so true. This is all reminding me of—please go back and listen to one of my favorite podcast episodes you've ever done—with Michaeleen.Sarah: Oh yeah, yeah.Corey: Did I say her name properly? The Hunt, Gather, Parent one.Sarah: Doucleff.Corey: She's the one I first learned about the idea of North American parents being weird.Sarah: Right.Corey: I can't remember—do you remember what she meant by that?Sarah: That weird is Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic. It's sort of like we have all these ways of parenting that are very much the intensive parenting thing again.One thing she talks about is having your weekend organized around kid activities, going to the special science center and birthday parties and all that. She really encourages parents to live their lives and involve their kids in their lives. So instead of going to the science center, you might go to Home Depot and your kid helps you get the things you need for the little mini bathroom renovation you're doing, and then they work with you.Which of course, in itself, is another way things can feel intensive, having a child helper. But she really talks a lot about the benefits of involving your child in your life. One benefit is that they turn out to be good helpers because you've let them help when they want to. But really, it's about living your life as opposed to trying to arrange your life for your child.Corey: Yes. And if I'm honest, I didn't necessarily agree with everything I read in that book, but I think it might be one of the most influential parenting books I've ever read in that it really fundamentally informed how I show up. I just decided that I don't have to do what everyone else is doing.And I think that's a big theme we're saying here too. Look, if we're peaceful parents, if we're being honest, our listeners are already choosing to parent in a way that's different than a lot of their society around them.Sarah: That's true.Corey: So we're basically saying, now take it a step further. Just keep questioning everything. You don't have to do anything you don't want to.Sarah: Yeah, for sure. Question everything. Is that like a sixties slogan?Corey: I don't know, but I feel like I would've done really well living in the sixties.Sarah: “Question everything.” Okay, so another thing that came up from reading Jessica's book and the interview with her was how, if someone is disabled, they often automatically need a level of care that a non-disabled person—and I was going to say doesn't need, but I'm going to change that to doesn't think they need.Yes, there is often physical care that a disabled person needs that a non-disabled person doesn't need, if they have legs that can walk and so on. But the care part of caring for each other in community is something that Jessica talks about disability culture as being really good at, and that community care that we need to choose is in itself going against the sort of rabid individualism of capitalism that is encouraged around us.I think that's why so many parents are so uncomfortable with doing things for their kids, because our culture is so hyper-focused on individualism and independence. Like, why should you carry Big C's backpack if he can carry it for himself? Aren't you just coddling him, and he'll never learn to be independent if you carry his backpack for him?People have probably heard me tell this story before, but I had the same thing with Maxine when she was little, carrying her backpack. And now, when she's 18, she won't let me carry anything. We'll be coming from getting groceries and coming from the car, and she's carrying like five bags of groceries and I'm carrying nothing. I'm like, really? I can carry that. And she's like, “No, Mom, I've got it. Let me carry that for you.”My middle son, the other day, offered to carry my purse for me. I was like, “It's okay. I can carry my purse.” He was like, “Mom, do you want me to carry that?” I'm like, “No, it's okay. I can carry it.”I got a little off the tangent there of care and hyper-individualism, but that's one thing that Jessica said non-disabled parents can learn from disability community: that we all actually need care, no matter how much we try to convince ourselves that we don't.Corey: Yes. And okay, I have a story I really want to tell about this. It just happened recently. Keep in mind, I had been planning this podcast with you. I had listened to this. I knew all of this academically.Last week—once again, we chose something that we really love. My son entered ski racing this year, and it has been the most joyful thing for everyone in our family. We're like, wow, look at us in a big organized sport and loving it.So it's been wonderful. And last Sunday was the last one of the season. My son had been off the entire week with the flu. I hadn't slept properly in about seven days. And he still was sick on Saturday, but by Sunday morning was full of beans and like, “I can go do my last race.”This is the definition of just because you can doesn't mean you should. It was also daylight savings time.Sarah: Oh goodness.Corey: So we lost an hour, or however it works. Daylight savings time should be banned as far as I'm concerned.That morning, as we're all so exhausted and struggling, my husband goes, “Did you know more accidents happen on this day than any other day in the year?”Anyway, race days are chaotic. I had all these 7-year-olds all over the place. They were running out to go do their last run, and I realized in the chalet they'd left some garbage. I was like, I'm just going to clean up after them. I don't want to leave this mess.I pick it all up, walk over to the garbage can, and suddenly I'm on the ground. It was a huge scene. Everyone stood up. People gasped. People ran over to me. I threw garbage in the air, almost had it land in the garbage can, which would've been amazing.It was just a total scene. I'm actually laughing because I didn't realize anything serious had happened, but within a couple of minutes I realized that I was actually hurt.So after my son's next—I still waited for him to finish his race—we went home, and I realized by that evening I had to be taken to the emergency department because I could not walk.Sarah: Oh my goodness. Before you get to the part you want to get to, do you think this all happened because you probably shouldn't have gone to ski racing that morning?Corey: Yes.Sarah: Okay. So this is like a two-moral story. There are two morals to this story. The first moral is: just because you could go to ski racing with all those things that were happening doesn't mean you should have gone, and maybe you wouldn't have gotten hurt.Corey: Yes. And then part two. I could have not gone because we have a wonderful community there, and they all would've helped all those little 7-year-olds if I hadn't been there. So I should have also just let people help me.After not sleeping for a week, and then at the emergency department, I could barely walk. I was limping everywhere, and every turn, someone was offering me a wheelchair, and I kept saying, “No. I'm fine. I've got this.”Sarah: Mm-hmm.Corey: By the time I had just been limping all over the place, a mom there with a teenager literally forced me into a wheelchair.Sarah: Mm.Corey: She was there with her sick child, and she was like, “You know what? You need this.” She got me in the chair and started pushing me around until a nurse noticed and was like, “Oh, I can do this.” The nurse had been offering all along. It wasn't their fault, it was me. I would not accept help.And then while I was there, I was texting with a friend, being like, “I'm just sitting here bawling by myself in the emergency room because I'm really hurt. I'm supposed to be going on a ski trip next week.” Spoiler alert: it's next week. I'm not on a ski trip.And she offered to come and be with me, and I told her, “No, I'm fine.” She offered to come pick me up at the end of the day. I told her, “No, I'm fine.” I just kept telling everyone I was fine, and I wasn't. I could not accept anyone helping me.Sarah: So you didn't end up letting her come or letting her pick you up or anything?Corey: No, nothing.Sarah: Aw. And she told me afterwards that she was like, “Corey, this is a sign that you need to slow down and accept more help in your life.”Well, and also ask for help. It's really hard for a lot of us to ask for help. People listening have probably heard it said, we weren't raised—people listening have probably heard it said that we didn't evolve to raise children in the nuclear family. We evolved to raise children in a village, or at least in a small community of people—grandparents who could help, cousins, younger and older siblings helping with younger siblings.This hyper-independence, small family, nobody else helping, is such a recipe for burnout and exhaustion and all of the physical and mental health problems that people have. I think those things really could be healed if we did what we're talking about in this episode: asking for help, accepting help, and not doing everything just because you can.Corey: Yes, and it's interesting because we talk to people about self-care. Self-care is a big buzzword now, but I often think it gets turned into just another thing that we're expected to do. Instead of what I think is at the heart of self-care, which means just being honest with yourself about capacity.Sarah: Mm-hmm.There was some research done about problem-solving, and I forget what book I read this in, but when there's a problem, people often want to add things on—do this, add this, add that. There actually was research done about this, about what people tend to do when there's a problem.What the research showed is that often the answer to a problem is to take something away or stop doing something. If anyone knows what that study is, shoot me an email, because I don't know where I heard that. But actually, taking something away is often much more effective than adding something in.Corey: Yes, that makes so much sense. Honestly, until I sat down this morning to write some notes for this podcast, I didn't even realize what I was doing.I couldn't get over it. I've been going to physio now for a week, and I can walk right now, which is nice. But literally, she gave me a giant list of stuff, and I'm like, I will do all of this. I'm going to add all this in. I am going to be the best rehabbed-knee person that ever existed.Then I realized that's actually probably what got me into this jam.Sarah: Yeah. And I think sometimes we like to be in control too, right? It makes us feel safe. It makes us feel it's familiar. Especially if we grew up with that sort of push to be independent, not needing people is the safe alternative, or not letting people help.Just on Sunday, two days ago, my middle son and his girlfriend were over for dinner, and I had made this fancy dinner because it was her birthday, and I really had been cooking for the whole day. At the end of the dinner, I had piled all the dishes in the sink, and my son was like, “Let me do the dishes.”And I was like, “No, that's okay. I'll do them tomorrow.”And he was like, “Mom, I'll do the dishes before I go. You've been cooking all day.”And I had to force myself to let him do the dishes, because I'm so used to “I've got it, I'll do it, I can do everything.” And not necessarily in this case, because my kids are grown up and I could have done the dishes tomorrow or whatever, but I just noticed how uncomfortable it was in my body to let him do the dishes.And also I was really proud of him for insisting. I was like, oh, he's such a nice boy. He's such a sweetheart. And he did the dishes, and he did a good job, and I was grateful.Corey: Yeah.Sarah: Well, any last thoughts about this “just because you can doesn't mean you should”?Corey: Go read Jurassic Park. It's fascinating. It was a fascinating book. It made me think a lot about AI.But no, when it comes to this, definitely check out the podcast we did with Jessica. This would be another one of the landmark podcasts that I think you've done where I just can't stop thinking about it. I really think what we need to start doing is realizing we just can't do this all on our own.Do you have any last thoughts, Sarah?Sarah: Well, I was just thinking, I want to leave people with—maybe we'll leave them with a quote from the Jessica Slice podcast.Again, if you haven't heard it, go back and listen to it. We'll put a link in the show notes. But we'll let her close out with some thoughts about care.I think it's just a really nice thing to think about, that aspect of care and what it means to be a good parent, and what it means to think about all of the things that we've just talked about.Corey: Absolutely. I think she's the way to end this.And just in case anyone's wondering, this week my children all cared for me without me ever asking them to. So many times when I got myself too low, they were coming over and helping get me back up again. They were running up and down everywhere in the house to get me everything.So just remember that you are modeling beautiful caregiving, and they're going to just give it back to you, and they're happy to give it back to you.Sarah: Yeah. And I just also want to say that I think this quote we're going to end on from Jessica talks about how the care things that we've talked about don't have to mean that we are living up to these impossible standards or doing the intensive parenting that leads to burnout.I think everything we've talked about in this episode are the antidotes to that burnout and intensive parenting and impossible standards. And I think the last piece of it is just giving yourself compassion for when that's hard because you feel like people are judging you, or that people aren't going to think you're a good parent. So just giving yourself compassion around that.Thanks, Corey. We'll let Jessica close it out.Jessica: I think for all parents there's this sense that you should be able to provide what your kids need without assistance, and that there is a distinction between people who give care and people who need care. And that a mom, in particular, is a person who gives care and doesn't need it.And I think what disability forces to the surface, particularly for those who have some care needs like me, is: I give care and I need care, and that is part of my daily life. Needing care does not hinder my ability to be a valuable member of my family or a good mom.I think it dispels that myth that you have to be one or the other. But I think if all parents could reject that binary of caregivers or care receivers, then it would mean that parenting didn't feel as impossible or didn't have such an impossible standard—that weakness were allowed, or dependence weren't allowed, or interdependence.I think it would just change how we think about parenting in general, because there's this feeling, I believe, that particularly moms have to be all-powerful and limitless and perfect, and that it is a failure in the very definition of what it is to be a parent to start to need support and care.Reimagine Peaceful Parenting with Sarah Rosensweet Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sarahrosensweet.substack.com/subscribe

Dr Heidi Matisonn, Senior Lecturer at The Ethics Lab at the University of Cape Town’s Neuroscience Institute and Department of Medicine joined Clarence on air for a “Philosophically Speaking” conversation on euthanasia & suicide. Views and News with Clarence Ford is the mid-morning show on CapeTalk. This 3-hour long programme shares and reflects a broad array of perspectives. It is inspirational, passionate and positive. Host Clarence Ford’s gentle curiosity and dapper demeanour leave listeners feeling motivated and empowered. Known for his love of jazz and golf, Clarrie covers a range of themes including relationships, heritage and philosophy. Popular segments include Barbs’ Wire at 9:30am (Mon-Thurs) and The Naked Scientist at 9:30 on Fridays. Thank you for listening to a podcast from Views & News with Clarence Ford Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays between 09:00 and 12:00 (SA Time) to Views and News with Clarence Ford broadcast on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/erjiQj2 or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/BdpaXRn Subscribe to the CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/sbvVZD5 Follow us on social media: CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk56See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr Heidi Matisonn, Senior Lecturer at The Ethics Lab at the University of Cape Town’s Neuroscience Institute and Department of Medicine joined Clarence on air for a “Philosophically Speaking” conversation. Views and News with Clarence Ford is the mid-morning show on CapeTalk. This 3-hour long programme shares and reflects a broad array of perspectives. It is inspirational, passionate and positive. Host Clarence Ford’s gentle curiosity and dapper demeanour leave listeners feeling motivated and empowered. Known for his love of jazz and golf, Clarrie covers a range of themes including relationships, heritage and philosophy. Popular segments include Barbs’ Wire at 9:30am (Mon-Thurs) and The Naked Scientist at 9:30 on Fridays. Thank you for listening to a podcast from Views & News with Clarence Ford Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays between 09:00 and 12:00 (SA Time) to Views and News with Clarence Ford broadcast on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/erjiQj2 or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/BdpaXRn Subscribe to the CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/sbvVZD5 Follow us on social media: CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk56See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this message from our Why series, Rev Dominic De Souza shares a personal and honest reflection on the question: Why Christianity? Throughout the sermon, Dominic explores four key reasons for why Christianity is compelling:Historically – examining the historical foundation of the Christian faith and the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.Philosophically – considering how Christianity offers meaningful answers to life's deepest questions about truth, morality, and purpose.Existentially – reflecting on the human search for identity, meaning, and hope, and how the message of Jesus speaks directly into our personal struggles and longings.Experientially – sharing how faith in Jesus transforms lives, drawing from both his own story and the lived experiences of countless believers.

This special episode is an inside look at AI music from three very different vantage points: the builder, the investor, and the industry insider.Andreas is joined by Sundar Arvind, CEO & Co-Founder at Mozart AI, building a collaborative generative audio workstation; Daniel Waterhouse, General Partner at Balderton Capital; and Ash Pournouri, Co-Founder of Belong, entrepreneur, producer, and former manager of Avicii.Together, they unpack how AI is reshaping music creation, how serious investors underwrite risk in a litigious industry, why “one-click songs” miss the point, and whether AI expands creativity or commoditizes it.If you want a grounded view of where the real fault lines are — rights, training data, authorship, collaboration, and the psychology of creativity — this is it.ShareWhat's covered:00:40 Mozart AI's vision: a collaborative generative audio workstation05:10 DAWs, EDM, and why tech has always expanded music creation06:35 Why “one-prompt songs” optimise for quantity, not craft09:20 Underwriting AI music: how VCs think about billion-dollar incumbents13:00 Is this a new instrument or a 100x larger market?18:45 Are professional artists already using AI tools?21:00 Copyright, training data, and legal diligence in AI music25:15 Philosophically: what are “rights” when machines learn from music?33:40 Diffusion models explained simply: how AI generates sound36:30 The return of the band? Multiplayer music creation40:00 Ash Pournouri joins: the industry's instinct is protection44:10 “You can't stop development”: why demand always wins48:50 Packaging matters: AI as tool vs AI as replacement51:20 Lowering thresholds and democratization across decades56:30 Five-year predictions? We're on the vertical part of the curve58:10 The “vibe coding” moment for music

Dr Heidi Matisonn, Senior Lecturer at The Ethics Lab at the University of Cape Town’s Neuroscience Institute and Department of Medicine joined Clarence on air for a “Philosophically Speaking” conversation on who belongs in SA and who does SA belong to? Views and News with Clarence Ford is the mid-morning show on CapeTalk. This 3-hour long programme shares and reflects a broad array of perspectives. It is inspirational, passionate and positive. Host Clarence Ford’s gentle curiosity and dapper demeanour leave listeners feeling motivated and empowered. Known for his love of jazz and golf, Clarrie covers a range of themes including relationships, heritage and philosophy. Popular segments include Barbs’ Wire at 9:30am (Mon-Thurs) and The Naked Scientist at 9:30 on Fridays. Thank you for listening to a podcast from Views & News with Clarence Ford Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays between 09:00 and 12:00 (SA Time) to Views and News with Clarence Ford broadcast on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/erjiQj2 or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/BdpaXRn Subscribe to the CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/sbvVZD5 Follow us on social media: CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Host | Matthew S Williams For more podcast Stories from Space with Matthew S Williams, visit: https://itspmagazine.com/stories-from-space-podcast ______________________Episode Notes Asteroid Mining: The Promise, the Problems, and the Philosophy Asteroid mining is one of those ideas that cycles in and out of public fascination — generating enormous excitement, then fading when people realize it won't happen within the next news cycle. But the concept never truly disappears, and for good reason. Near-Earth asteroids, numbering in the millions, contain staggering quantities of precious metals, rare earth elements, and water ice. Ironically, those same materials — iron, gold, platinum, nickel, and dozens of others — were originally delivered to Earth by asteroids during the Late Heavy Bombardment period some four billion years ago. We're essentially talking about going back to the source. The three main asteroid types — carbonaceous (C-type), silicate (S-type), and metallic (M-type) — each offer distinct resources. Beyond metals, the abundance of water ice in the solar system could relieve pressure on Earth's increasingly stressed freshwater supply and fuel deep-space missions. Philosophically, the implications are profound. Thomas More and Nietzsche both wrestled with why scarcity drives human value systems. Flood the market with space-borne metals and the entire economic architecture built on scarcity begins to crumble. Orwell saw it too — abundance erodes hierarchy. The first trillionaires born from asteroid mining might find their wealth meaningless almost immediately after making it. But the darker scenarios deserve equal attention. Redistributing consumption off-world doesn't eliminate it. Space debris, environmental degradation beyond Earth, and the very real risk of exploitative labor structures in off-world operations — echoes of colonialism and indentured servitude — are not science fiction. They're logical extensions of human patterns. The enthusiasm may ebb and flow, but asteroid mining remains an inevitable chapter in humanity's story. The real question is what kind of story we choose to write around it. ______________________ Resources   ______________________ For more podcast Stories from Space with Matthew S Williams, visit: https://itspmagazine.com/stories-from-space-podcast Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Host | Matthew S Williams For more podcast Stories from Space with Matthew S Williams, visit: https://itspmagazine.com/stories-from-space-podcast ______________________Episode Notes Asteroid Mining: The Promise, the Problems, and the Philosophy Asteroid mining is one of those ideas that cycles in and out of public fascination — generating enormous excitement, then fading when people realize it won't happen within the next news cycle. But the concept never truly disappears, and for good reason. Near-Earth asteroids, numbering in the millions, contain staggering quantities of precious metals, rare earth elements, and water ice. Ironically, those same materials — iron, gold, platinum, nickel, and dozens of others — were originally delivered to Earth by asteroids during the Late Heavy Bombardment period some four billion years ago. We're essentially talking about going back to the source. The three main asteroid types — carbonaceous (C-type), silicate (S-type), and metallic (M-type) — each offer distinct resources. Beyond metals, the abundance of water ice in the solar system could relieve pressure on Earth's increasingly stressed freshwater supply and fuel deep-space missions. Philosophically, the implications are profound. Thomas More and Nietzsche both wrestled with why scarcity drives human value systems. Flood the market with space-borne metals and the entire economic architecture built on scarcity begins to crumble. Orwell saw it too — abundance erodes hierarchy. The first trillionaires born from asteroid mining might find their wealth meaningless almost immediately after making it. But the darker scenarios deserve equal attention. Redistributing consumption off-world doesn't eliminate it. Space debris, environmental degradation beyond Earth, and the very real risk of exploitative labor structures in off-world operations — echoes of colonialism and indentured servitude — are not science fiction. They're logical extensions of human patterns. The enthusiasm may ebb and flow, but asteroid mining remains an inevitable chapter in humanity's story. The real question is what kind of story we choose to write around it. ______________________ Resources   ______________________ For more podcast Stories from Space with Matthew S Williams, visit: https://itspmagazine.com/stories-from-space-podcast Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In our brand-new feature “Philosophically Speaking”, Dr Heidi Matisonn, Senior Lecturer at The Ethics Lab at the University of Cape Town’s Neuroscience Institute and Department of Medicine joined Clarence on air for a conversation on why You don't have to be a philosopher to do philosophy. Views and News with Clarence Ford is the mid-morning show on CapeTalk. This 3-hour long programme shares and reflects a broad array of perspectives. It is inspirational, passionate and positive. Host Clarence Ford’s gentle curiosity and dapper demeanour leave listeners feeling motivated and empowered. Known for his love of jazz and golf, Clarrie covers a range of themes including relationships, heritage and philosophy. Popular segments include Barbs’ Wire at 9:30am (Mon-Thurs) and The Naked Scientist at 9:30 on Fridays. Thank you for listening to a podcast from Views & News with Clarence Ford Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays between 09:00 and 12:00 (SA Time) to Views and News with Clarence Ford broadcast on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/erjiQj2 or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/BdpaXRn Subscribe to the CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/sbvVZD5 Follow us on social media: CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On Wednesday, January 28, 2026, Ian Hamilton announced on Bluesky that "I've been fired from UploadVR." He was the editor in chief at UploadVR, and he wrote a Substack post titled "Ian is Typing" on January 30th detailing how is co-workers were pushing to do a test of a "clearly disclosed AI author for UploadVR," and that he had three specific concerns that it be brief, for the ability for readers to turn off and hide all AI-authored posts, and for human freelancers to have the right of first refusal. Hamilton claims to have tried to raise these concerns in the context of Slack, but that the experiment was going to proceed regardless. He writes, "Unable to shift the direction of my colleagues and out of options to affect what was coming, I stepped out of Slack and sent a final email to them on Wednesday morning with a number of my contacts in the industry copied, raising some of these concerns. Not long after, I was called by my boss and fired." I spoke with Hamilton last Friday after his Substack post in order to get more context that led to his departure. Hamilton claims that UploadVR Editor & Developer David Heaney and UploadVR's Operations Manager Kyle Riesenbeck were behind the push to test this clearly disclosed AI author on UploadVR, and that ultimately the proposed test was a business decision made by Riesenbeck. It was a decision that Hamilton ultimately disagreed with, and he cites it as the primary factor that led to behavior that ultimately led to his firing. (UPDATE Feb 5, 2026: It is worth noting here that UploadVR has yet to run this AI bot author test, but that it was the proposed test that was the catalyst for Hamilton's behavior). The specific reasons and circumstances around Hamilton's firing are publicly disputed by Heaney, who reacted on Twitter after Hamilton's Substack post went live by saying, "It is indeed only one side of the story. And an incomplete telling of it, with key omissions and wording choices that serve to paint a misleading picture." In another post Heaney says, "I can't get into it more at this point for obvious reasons, but don't believe everything you read, especially a single side of a complex story." I asked Hamilton for his reaction to Heaney's claims that he's being misleading during our interview, and he did provide more context in our conversation that lead up to his firing. Ultimately, it does sounds like the proposed AI bot author test was the primary catalyst for Hamilton, and that this disagreement may have led to other behaviors and reactions that could also be reasonably cited for why he was fired. UploadVR may have a differing opinions as to what happened, but no one from UploadVR has made public comments beyond what Heaney has said on Twitter. I have extended invitations to both Riesenbeck or Heaney to come onto the podcast for a broader discussion about AI, but nothing has been confirmed by the time of publication. My Personal Take on AI: Technically, Philosophically, Legally, and Culturally Public discourse around AI has split into a binary of Pro-AI vs Anti-AI, and while my personal views can not be easily collapsed into one side of the other, I'd usually take the Anti-AI side of a debate if given the opportunity. I do think some form of AI is here to stay, and will be around for a long time, but that right now there is a lot of hype and deluded thinking on the topic. I see AI as a technology that consolidates wealth and power, and so a primary question worth asking is “Whose power and wealth is being consolidated?” Karen Hao's The Empire of AI elaborates on how the past patterns of colonialism are replaying out within the context of data and the field of AI, as well as how scaling with more compute power has been the primary mode of innovation in AI, and that Gary Marcus has been pushing against the "Scale is All You Need" theory for many years now. Technically speaking, I'm more of a skeptic in the short-term around LLMs along the lines of Stocha...

The doctrine of the imago Dei is grounded on one verse in Genesis chapter 1. From Genesis 1:27, Brent Strawn observes, “The image of God (Latin imago Dei) is a familiar, even fraught, biblical notion because it has served as something of an empty cipher that countless interpreters have sought to fill.” Strawn continues to highlight how much of a lacuna there is in trying to define and explain the Genesis 1:27 reference to imago Dei: “Despite a great deal of spilled ink, what, exactly, the imago Dei is remains no small mystery because the notion goes largely undeveloped and underdeveloped in the Bible.” Despite Strawn's highlight of the lack of biblical development of this motif, he is not suggesting that it cannot be developed from the scant biblical data we do have. This is where biblically informed philosophy can be helpful.

Ceremony: The Emperor as Collective Focal Point and Sacred Kingship — Gaius & Germanicus — In the "freezing darkness of Londinium," Gaius and Germanicus reflect philosophically on the spectacle of the new American"Emperor" (Donald Trump) attending the Army-Navy football game, with Gaius describing the theatrical pageantry of Trump's entrance flanked by enormous military officers and the overwhelming orchestrated cheers from assembled military cadets. Gaius argues that for a transcendent moment, the United States embodied the full confidence, unified purpose, and absolute power characteristic of the Roman Empire at its zenith. Germanicus analyzes this ceremonial moment through historical lens, positing that the Emperor functions as a "collective focal point" for national identity and institutional legitimacy, embodying "sacred kingship" roles that unify the entire nation in ways that republican governance structures fundamentally cannot achieve. Germanicus compares this modern ceremonial spectacle to Roman imperial tradition wherein the Emperor's physical presence at the Coliseum or the Hippodrome served vital ritualistic functions transcending mere entertainment, instead melding the Emperor, the Senate, and the populace into a singular apotheosis of unified national identity and sacred authority. Germanicus suggests that this ceremonial gathering simultaneously demonstrated American military strength while affirming the psychological necessity of embodied leadership and collective ritual in maintaining national cohesion and ideological purpose.

Imagine that you are about to tackle a new project that will take more than a year. This might be a new system, perhaps a cloud migration, or maybe it's rewriting something that doesn't work well. You don't have enough employees to undertake the project without overloading everyone. Your team needs to grow. Would you rather hire a more senior person from outside the organization or pick a junior person that's already inside your company and teach them what they need to know? Think about this as if you were the one making the decision about the future direction of your software team. Philosophically, do you want to buy experienced people or train/build new ones from your internal staff. Read the rest of Internal Staff Growth

Burnout recovery isn't about doing less—it's about leading from peace. Discover how to hold ambition and contentment together without striving, and why true success begins when your pursuit flows from presence, not pressure.If you've ever wondered whether peace and ambition can coexist—this episode is your answer.In Ambition Without Burnout: The Paradox of Peaceful Pursuit, Julie Holly explores how high-capacity humans can pursue growth without losing the stillness they've fought to find. This conversation reframes the tension between gratitude and desire—not as conflict, but as confirmation that you're evolving.From a psychology lens, this episode unpacks Cognitive Dissonance Theory through an identity-level lens: that internal friction you feel isn't failure—it's feedback. It's your nervous system asking for congruence between who you've become inside and how you're living outside.Philosophically, Julie draws on Stoic wisdom, reminding us that peace isn't the absence of activity—it's the absence of attachment. And inspired by Ryan Holiday's Stillness Is the Key, she reframes stillness as precision, not passivity.Through the story of Anne Mulcahy, the CEO who led Xerox from collapse to resurgence by leading from calm instead of chaos, we see how peace and pursuit don't compete—they complete one another.At the heart of this episode is the soul-level truth that drives Identity-Level Recalibration (ILR):When your identity is anchored, your ambition becomes an act of gratitude. Because you're not striving for worth—you're stewarding what's already been entrusted to you.ILR is not another mindset tactic or productivity hack. It's the root-level recalibration that makes every other tool effective—because it doesn't just change your habits, it changes the who beneath them.Whether you're facing burnout recovery, decision fatigue, or a quiet sense of success without fulfillment, this episode will remind you: You don't have to choose between stillness and expansion. You can pursue without performing. You can build without burning out.Today's Micro Recalibration: The Both/And BreathFind a quiet moment—wherever you are.Take a deep inhale and whisper inwardly, “I am.” Exhale slowly and say, “I'm becoming.”Repeat this ten times.The inhale anchors your identity; the exhale activates your becoming.Because peace and purpose were never meant to compete—they were designed to coexist.If this episode gave you language you've been missing, please rate and review the show so more high-capacity humans can find it. Explore Identity-Level Recalibration→ Follow Julie Holly on LinkedIn for more recalibration insights → Schedule a conversation with Julie to see if The Recalibration is a fit for you → Download the Misalignment Audit → Subscribe to the weekly newsletter → Join the waitlist for the next Recalibration cohort This isn't therapy. This isn't coaching. This is identity recalibration — and it changes everything.

About JonathanJonathan Grant is a creative director at Zynga, founder of Orbital Games, and co-host of We Thought It Would Be Easy with Jordan Weisman. His career spans startups, acquisitions, and AAA environments, where he's pitched ideas in Zynga boardrooms, built risky new projects, and collaborated with legends of the industry. Jonathan's work is defined by his willingness to experiment, his honesty about failure, and his belief that great games hide secrets waiting to be discovered. In this episode, we dive into what it means to make the right bets, how to use criticism to grow, and why experimentation and mystery are essential tools in game designThink Like A Game Designer is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Ah-ha! Justin's Takeaways* Your Critics Are Right About You: Jonathan challenges us to let go of ego by acknowledging that criticism often contains truth. Instead of fighting it, use it as fuel to grow. Accepting this mindset helps designers take risks, embrace feedback, and move forward without fear of failure.* The Power of Experimentation: At Zynga, Jonathan saw firsthand how structured experimentation can refine ideas—sometimes running a dozen tests at once. The key lesson: experimentation validates and sharpens vision, but it should never replace it. Use data to guide improvement, not dictate creativity.* The Purpose of Gameplay is to Hide Secrets: Jonathan believes the most memorable games invite players to discover hidden layers. Secrets create mystery, turning mechanics into worlds worth revisiting. As designers, we should craft experiences that reward curiosity, giving players reasons to return again and again. Show Notes"Pain isn't bad. Damage is bad." (00:17:57)This framing really resonated with me. Creative projects often hurt, the late nights, the tough feedback, the near-misses, but that's not the same as damage. Damage is when you burn out, ruin relationships, or risk your financial stability. Learning to distinguish between the two is essential. Pain can be a teacher or a compass; damage is a warning sign."Your critics are right about you." (00:27:14)It's a hard truth, but Jonathan is right. The ego wants to believe that critics don't understand us, yet their words often hold a kernel of truth. When I apply this mindset, I can let go of defensiveness and see criticism as fuel for growth. Its a reminder to use feedback to sharpen both my work and myself."The thing that Zynga was incredible at was experimentation… sometimes a dozen experiments at once." (00:50:37)At Zynga, experiments weren't random, instead they were structured, frequent, and scaled. As a designer, I take from this that experimentation should validate vision, not replace it. Numbers can guide us toward sharper solutions, but they can't generate the spark that makes a game truly special."Philosophically, the purpose of gameplay is to hide secrets." (01:08:29)I love this idea. Secrets are what keep players coming back: hidden interactions, unexpected depth, and little discoveries that reward curiosity. A great tip for RPG game masters is to place a secret in every location so players always have something to unravel, with each secret offering a way to draw them back on track. In my own designs, I've found that the best games aren't the ones that reveal everything up front, but the ones that invite players into a world where there's always more to discover. That sense of mystery is what makes play feel alive. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit justingarydesign.substack.com/subscribe

In this week's encore episode, Drs. Redd and Sutanto talk about the Bible, Christianity, and philosophy. Topics include philosophy defined, biblical philosophy, and engaging with other philosophies. Enjoy! Have you considered taking a class with us during the upcoming academic year? Time is running out to register for Fall classes. Explore our degree programs and find one that's right for you: www.rts.edu/washington. Email admissions.washington@rts.edu to get started. Follow us on Instagram: www.instagram.com/rts.washington/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/RTSWashingtonDC X: x.com/rtswashington

A philosophical approach to overcoming disappointment involves accepting that setbacks are a normal part of life. This strategy allows us to navigate challenges with greater resilience. Philosophical inquiry invites us to examine depression, anxiety, and disappointment through a broad perspective. We can learn to explore life's challenges as opportunities for meaning-making rather than battles to be won or lost. By cultivating perspective, self-inquiry, and acceptance, we can transform emotional turbulence into a deeper understanding of ourselves and the world. For a philosophical perspective on relieving disappointment, Harvesting Happiness Podcast host Lisa Cypers Kamen speaks with author, philosophical counselor, and professor emeritus of philosophy at Brooklyn College, Samir Chopra. Samir offers insights into how acting in service to others can mitigate the sting of disappointment, how life is an exercise in staving off depression, and how self-care can ease anxiety and restore sanity. Like what you're hearing?WANT MORE SOUND IDEAS FOR DEEPER THINKING? Check out More Mental Fitness by Harvesting Happiness bonus content available exclusively on Substack and Medium.

Humans have always tried to augment and enhance bodily flaws, from eye glasses to prostheses and pacemakers. But something qualitatively different is happening today. The transhumanist movement basically sees humans as biological algorithms.They want to break into the genetic code and the brain and change what a person is into something else. They believe nature has come as far as it can, and now it is we who drive evolution. We are the ones in charge of creating the next version of Homo Sapiens.“It's a new religion”, says psychologist and philosopher Harald Walach, who has written a comprehensive report about transhumanism.It's a staunchly materialist, godless religion.Seeing the body as a machine and the brain as a computer are metaphors that can be useful in some instances, like when we have had an accident. But it is a category mistake to take these metaphors to be the whole reality.“It's like taking the menu for lunch. You can't eat the menu”, says Harald Walach.A crucial and tricky question is whether the interventions transhumanists envision might mess around with consciousness. Harald distinguishes between psyche and soul.“These interventions can definitely change the mental state of people. But the soul is very likely untouchable.”The transhumanists are a heterogeneous collection of people.“They are various groups with different intentions. Some dedicate their efforts to abolishing death and aging. Some are more on the tech side, connecting human and machine. Others have a more philosophical approach reminiscent of the Nietzschean übermensch.”“A common theme is that they all want to create a transhumanist being with enhanced faculties that are greater than in current humans.”Interestingly, transhumanists aren't particularly good at science.“I don't think many scientists are transhumanistic, because scientists generally know about the intricate problems associated with what transhumanists talk about”, says Harald.“Transhumanists are science fanatics who don't really do science. Many are in the tech industry.”At the core of the transhumanist agenda are medical interventions, in particular genetic manipulation.“We've already seen it happening during the pandemic: Genetic prevention technologies masquerading as vaccines”, says Harald.Was there a nefarious agenda?“That's irrelevant. The thinking, the ideology and the technology were there. As I see it, it is like mushrooms. If you walk in a forest you may not see any mushrooms, but the mycelium is there, under the surface. When the conditions are right, they pop up everywhere.”To materialists, death is the ultimate catastrophe. There are transhumanists, like Aubrey de Grey, who want to abolish it.Ethical and logical objections aside, abolishing death would lead to absurd consequences, Harald points out: The population would quickly increase. By default one would have to prohibit procreation. This in turn would lead to fascistoid governing. Without young people, there would be no new ideas.“Philosophically speaking, life's finiteness creates meaning. If we don't die, we don't need to make any important decisions:, says Harald.He thinks it's imperative that we have an open discussion about the transhumanist agenda now. The proponents are a minority, but they are influential.“We need to ask ourselves: Are we willing to accept a transcendent realm that is beyond our human grip, that we cannot control?”Harald's websiteHarald's Transhumanism report

A philosophical approach to overcoming disappointment involves accepting that setbacks are a normal part of life. This strategy allows us to navigate challenges with greater resilience. Philosophical inquiry invites us to examine depression, anxiety, and disappointment through a broad perspective. We can learn to explore life's challenges as opportunities for meaning-making rather than battles to be won or lost. By cultivating perspective, self-inquiry, and acceptance, we can transform emotional turbulence into a deeper understanding of ourselves and the world. For a philosophical perspective on relieving disappointment, Harvesting Happiness Podcast host Lisa Cypers Kamen speaks with author, philosophical counselor, and professor emeritus of philosophy at Brooklyn College, Samir Chopra. Samir offers insights into how acting in service to others can mitigate the sting of disappointment, how life is an exercise in staving off depression, and how self-care can ease anxiety and restore sanity. Like what you're hearing?WANT MORE SOUND IDEAS FOR DEEPER THINKING? Check out More Mental Fitness by Harvesting Happiness bonus content available exclusively on Substack and Medium.

For the first time ever, we've lost an episode. And while I'm ashamed that I cannot bring you the joy that comes from Kyle's enthusiasm for Superman, I can at least bring you his love of thinking about philosophy stuff.Also, please support the show so we can afford a producer: patreon.com/tbbtt

When multi-media artist Javiera Estrada speaks about her work, it's not just about aesthetics or technique—it's about transformation. Born in Acapulco, Mexico and raised in the United States after emigrating in 1989, Estrada brings a rich cultural memory of vibrant color, ritual, and mysticism into everything she creates. Whether working with photography, photograms, textiles, or mixed media, her art bridges the seen and unseen—merging earthly material with spiritual inquiry. Her work doesn't divide the physical and metaphysical, the beautiful and the chaotic—it unifies them. Philosophically, Estrada rejects the idea of separation. Artistically, she explores this through layered, immersive processes that slow time and call her deeper into presence. From sculptural explorations of the female body in communion with nature, to cosmic fields of ink and color that evoke the prima materia of existence, her pieces are meditations on unity, consciousness, and becoming. Estrada describes her process as both frenzied and laborious, embracing mess and unknowing as necessary steps to uncover what lies beneath the surface. In a world defined by speed and distraction, her work is an invitation to move differently—to let intuition guide and to give the sacred a place in the mundane. It's bold, beautiful, and deeply human. Resources: Javiera Estrada Instagram Altadena Photographers Support Ibarionex & The Candid Frame Websites Sponsors Charcoal Book Club Frames Magazine Education Resources: Momenta Photographic Workshops Candid Frame Resources Download the free Candid Frame app for your favorite smart device Contribute a One-Time Donation   Support the Show Monthly on Patreon You can also support the show via . Follow Ibarionex on and .

Tom joins us to discuss his book Speaking Philosophically: Communication at the Limits of Discursive Reason (Bloomsbury, 2023). Western philosophy has often claimed for itself not just a distinct sphere of knowledge, but a distinct form of communication, set against ordinary speech. For some philosophers, authentic philosophizing demands a specific manner of speaking or writing, adoption of which enables one to gesture toward truths that propositional speech will never grasp. Drawing on a variety of thinkers – Heraclitus, Plato, Kant, Fichte, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Weil, Foucault, and Irigaray – Sutherland argues this emphasis on the form of philosophical communication can function as an exclusionary mechanism, determining who is deemed capable of speaking philosophically. We discuss Plato, Nietzsche, Weil, Laruelle and applied philosophy in Hadot. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Tom joins us to discuss his book Speaking Philosophically: Communication at the Limits of Discursive Reason (Bloomsbury, 2023). Western philosophy has often claimed for itself not just a distinct sphere of knowledge, but a distinct form of communication, set against ordinary speech. For some philosophers, authentic philosophizing demands a specific manner of speaking or writing, adoption of which enables one to gesture toward truths that propositional speech will never grasp. Drawing on a variety of thinkers – Heraclitus, Plato, Kant, Fichte, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Weil, Foucault, and Irigaray – Sutherland argues this emphasis on the form of philosophical communication can function as an exclusionary mechanism, determining who is deemed capable of speaking philosophically. We discuss Plato, Nietzsche, Weil, Laruelle and applied philosophy in Hadot. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/language

Tom joins us to discuss his book Speaking Philosophically: Communication at the Limits of Discursive Reason (Bloomsbury, 2023). Western philosophy has often claimed for itself not just a distinct sphere of knowledge, but a distinct form of communication, set against ordinary speech. For some philosophers, authentic philosophizing demands a specific manner of speaking or writing, adoption of which enables one to gesture toward truths that propositional speech will never grasp. Drawing on a variety of thinkers – Heraclitus, Plato, Kant, Fichte, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Weil, Foucault, and Irigaray – Sutherland argues this emphasis on the form of philosophical communication can function as an exclusionary mechanism, determining who is deemed capable of speaking philosophically. We discuss Plato, Nietzsche, Weil, Laruelle and applied philosophy in Hadot. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications

Tom joins us to discuss his book Speaking Philosophically: Communication at the Limits of Discursive Reason (Bloomsbury, 2023). Western philosophy has often claimed for itself not just a distinct sphere of knowledge, but a distinct form of communication, set against ordinary speech. For some philosophers, authentic philosophizing demands a specific manner of speaking or writing, adoption of which enables one to gesture toward truths that propositional speech will never grasp. Drawing on a variety of thinkers – Heraclitus, Plato, Kant, Fichte, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Weil, Foucault, and Irigaray – Sutherland argues this emphasis on the form of philosophical communication can function as an exclusionary mechanism, determining who is deemed capable of speaking philosophically. We discuss Plato, Nietzsche, Weil, Laruelle and applied philosophy in Hadot. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dr. Erik Ellis is Assistant Professor of Classical Education at the University of Dallas. After graduating from the University Scholars Program at Baylor University with concentrations in Greek and Latin, Dr. Ellis received an MA in History from the same institution and served as a middle school and high school Latin teacher for five years in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Along with Latin, Dr. Ellis was privileged to teach history, logic, and French, the last of which had a decisive effect on his teaching of Latin. Two years into his teaching career, Dr. Ellis began researching and investigating communicative language pedagogy and its application to classical languages. After attending and offering workshops with the Oklahoma Foreign Language Teachers Association, SALVI, and Fr. Reginald Foster, Dr. Ellis left secondary teaching to continue his education. He received an MA in Classics, a Master of Medieval Studies, and a Doctorate in Medieval Studies at the Medieval Institute of the University of Notre Dame and studied at the Polis Institute and the Vatican Library in Rome. One of his research specializations was the history of education with a focus on the history of classical language teaching. Upon graduation, he worked for a year at Notre Dame's Center for the Study of Languages and Cultures, where he received a certificate in Second Language Acquisition Theory and Methodology. Following this, he taught Latin, Greek, and general humanities courses at Universidad de los Andes in Santiago, Chile, and Hillsdale College before moving to his current role in the program in Classical Learning at the University of Dallas.Show NotesI had a delightful discussion with Dr. Ellis last year and invited him on to the show to discuss some really important concepts within the classical education movement. In order to rightly understand the tradition of a liberal arts education, we need to rightly define and understand the meaning of particular words. We discuss some wonderful words that are important to our understanding of the tradition which impacts how we teach. Some topics included:Expanding on how the mind works while teaching the liberal arts.Fascinating word studies on Greek and Latin as spoken languages.The inclusion of a wealth of material from Constantine VII, Historically, Philosophically, and Theologically. Explaining anamnesis ( recollection): How this recollection through dialogue, song, and habituation, brings or makes things present. Writing; Is the focus on analysis and understanding, or is the aim to be able to speak wisely with an idea or account of a story that is understood and will bring about a greater reality? The meaning of the word "Logos."UPCOMING SUMMER ANCIENT LANGUAGE WORKSHOPS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF DALLAS Join Dr. Ellis at the University of Dallas for their summer intensive courses in Latin and Greek that they are hosting in partnership with the Polis Institute in Jerusalem.More info here:https://www.polisjerusalem.org/programs/international/Resources(Dr. Ellis's dissertation)  The Historical Semantics of the Contemporary Classical Education Movement: Principia: A Journal of Classical Education, Volume 2, Issue 1, 2023- https://www.pdcnet.org/principia/content/principia_2023_0002_0001_0025_0041What is Classical Education? By: Erik Ellis - https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2023/07/what-is-classical-education-erik-ellis.htmlAre the Great Books Enough to Revive Our Education System? By: Erik Ellis - https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2020/04/great-books-enough-classical-education-erik-ellis.html_____________________________________Beautiful Teaching online courses:BT online webinars, interactive courses, and book studies registration: https://beautifulteaching.coursestorm.com/2025 Annual Online Classical Education Conference with the Beautiful Teaching Team - October 24-25, 2025Reading Josef Pieper with Dr. Fred Putnam will take place on Thursday evenings Sept-Dec. Space is very limited. This is a seminar experience. Interaction with Dr. Putnam is essential for this online course. If you are interested in having this immersive experience with him, you can enroll here: https://beautifulteaching.coursestorm.com/course/reading-josef-pieper-with-fred-putnam________________________________________________________This podcast is produced by Beautiful Teaching, LLC.Support this podcast: ★ Support this podcast ★ _________________________________________________________Credits:Sound Engineer: Andrew HelselLogo Art: Anastasiya CFMusic: Vivaldi's Concerto for 2 Violins in B flat major, RV529 : Lana Trotovsek, violin Sreten Krstic, violin with Chamber Orchestra of Slovenian Philharmonic © 2025 Beautiful Teaching LLC. All Rights Reserved.

THE SOUL 01: Introductory Issues, Defining the Soul biblically and contrast to doing so philosophically, The necessity of studying the biblical testimony about the soul by looking at all of the examples of that term in the original languages, and Why we must be both truly spiritual and technically studious in our examination of the subject of the soulSend us a textSupport the showThank you for listening to our podcast!If you have any questions, subjects you would like to hear discussed, or feedback of any kind, you can contact us at: mansfieldgac@yahoo.com or through the links below, where you can find additional information about our work as well as other materials: https://mansfieldgac.com/ (church website)https://www.facebook.com/MansfieldGAC/ (church Facebook page)

The 2025 NFL Draft is just 1 week away! We bring in the expert of everything mock draft data, Ben Robinson, to talk to us about the mock draft data he's accumulated. His website, Grinding The Mocks, shows mock draft data for the top 50 players on the board, with more being revealed after the draft is over: https://grindingthemocks.shinyapps.io/Dashboard/We begin with our 1st round pick. Philosophically, do you draft for need or best player available? Ben goes with best player available…. but with a caveat. We go through names that are likely possible with that 1st round pick, including S Malaki Starks out of Georgia, EDGE Donovan Ezeiraku out of Boston College and James Pearce out of Tennessee, amongst others.The 2nd round pick is an intriguing conversation, with Amit and KDot being interested in RB at that spot (assuming it's a guy like Ohio State RB TreVeyon Henderson), but Ben pushes back and says it's important to continue bolstering the defense or going with a more premium position like WR in this spot. It would be the 4th round where you'd like at RBs like Bhayshul Tuten out of Virginia Tech or Damien Martinez out of Miami.We also talk NFL more broadly, asking about draft risers and fallers as we're just 1 week out from the 1st round.We touch on the Commanders stadium news, with it looking more and more likely that RFK is going to be the site for the team. The Commanders will put up $2.5 billion, while the city would pay up to $850 million on their side.The Comment Mailbag features 7 comments. Thank you all for the comments! We greatly appreciate them as always.AFTER THE POD discusses growing the podcast, not editing it, and how cool it would be to one day get press passes.Please LIKE the video + Subscribe to the channel!Follow us on Twitter/X at https://twitter.com/DistrictDividedTIMECODES0:00 Intro0:55 Ben Robinson2:44 1st Rd Pick Analysis15:33 Deepest Draft Position19:15 Running Backs22:28 Trade Back Thoughts26:11 2nd Rd Pick Analysis30:34 Draft Sliders Risers35:50 Player Slide To 29?43:19 Stadium Talk46:51 Comment Mailbag1:00:15 AFTER THE POD#nfldraft #commanders #commandersrfk

(We had an issue with the audio from 08:00-11:00)The 9 Reasons: 00:00 - Intro08:13 - Philosophically16:11 - Scientifically22:32 - Ethically28:35 - Existentially30:59 - Historically40:24 - Culturally43:06 - Religiously 46:42 - Experientially 48:00 - Pragmatically

(We had an issue with the audio from 08:00-11:00)The 9 Reasons: 00:00 - Intro08:13 - Philosophically16:11 - Scientifically22:32 - Ethically28:35 - Existentially30:59 - Historically40:24 - Culturally43:06 - Religiously 46:42 - Experientially 48:00 - Pragmatically

It's one of the great paradoxes of our time: individuals who claim that God does not exist often spend immense amounts of time, energy, and even money trying to refute Him. Some go so far as to write books, give lectures, and debate endlessly against a Being they insist is no more real than a myth. From a theological perspective, this aligns strikingly with Romans 1, that truth isn't merely denied; it's actively suppressed. The human heart, made in the image of God, cannot help but respond to Him, whether in worship or in rebellion. Philosophically, this obsession with disproving God betrays more than skepticism. In fact, it suggests an unease, a disquiet in the soul that perhaps, just perhaps, what they reject is actually true. After all, we do not rage against things we find truly irrelevant. The question must be asked: are these arguments born from intellectual inquiry, or are they the conscience's attempt to silence the God it cannot escape? Listen to this episode to hear more of our thoughts!

Onámuh, 22min,. Mexico Directed by Miguel Ángel Vives Ponzanelli Onámuh, a humanoid marked by past abuses, searches for resources to survive. Árret, a deity of the earth, helps him and takes him to her lair, where Onámuh finds the energy he needed. However, his need turns into an addiction, leading him to abuse Árret and make her his prisoner. As the environment rapidly deteriorates, Onámuh must make a fatal decision due to his accumulated guilt. https://www.instagram.com/pm.a.v/ Get to know the filmmaker: What motivated you to make this film? Philosophically, I've always loved the ideas Nietzsche had around nature and the way Humans perceive it in terms of an ego out of proportions. We humans tend to try and trap nature in our supposed “reason” but, in that futile attempt, we unleash a destructive force that tries to compensate the shameful fact that we understand almost nothing in the greater scheme of the natural universe. I wanted to portray that struggle with visual metaphors, symbols and allegories. This brings me to the social part of the motivation to do the film. I'm mexican and, inside my country, we have deep problems concerning the destruction and exploitation of the natural environment. So, I saw an opportunity to try and create awareness of the problem that affects Mexico but also the entire planet as well. A good film can change perspectives and put people into action. Hopefully, this short film generates a bit of that in the audiences that watch it. What were your initial reactions when watching the audience talking about your film in the feedback video? I cried. Really, I did. I felt like the film directors that inspired me to do films. My sole purpose has always been to give audiences something worth watching you know? Good quality, good script, performances and attention to detail! The feedback video gave me validation to do more without compromising. Subscribe to the podcast: https://twitter.com/wildsoundpod https://www.instagram.com/wildsoundpod/ https://www.facebook.com/wildsoundpod

On this episode of the Lead With Purpose podcast host, Tze Ching Yeung talks to Noah Miller, CEO and head of ESG Advisory Services at Rho Impact about what ESG is and what it means for business and the world as a whole. KEY TAKEAWAYS ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) refers to a management frame work – a structured approach to managing the risks and opportunities of a changing environment and environmental conditions, changing society and stakeholder expectations, and what that requires of leadership in order to manage that from a governance perspective. Clearly with the billions of dollars of climate destruction, the governance blunders of corporate leaders, labour strikes and walk-outs that are costing economies billions of dollars, now this work has become front and centre to the finance/capital discussion. Philosophically we're all here from a similar compass that guides us; this work is important, we want to support the natural world and society. But the professional in me still says we live in a capitalist society and an economy that requires an attention to margins. From a professional context, we always focus on the commercial elements of this work because if it doesn't create commercial opportunity/financial incentive it's really hard to sustain. Carbon emissions used to be peripheral to running a business but in the past few years ESG regulations, net zero commitments, and mandates coming from capital providers means that businesses have to show their receipts now and have assurable, transparent, traceable data to show they are doing and have done what they say they have. It's gone from a ‘nice to have' to a necessity. You can't do business without showing your ESG credentials in today's market. BEST MOMENTS ‘The shifting tides of the environment, society, and the broader economy requires a company to address issues that, up until this point, were considered non-financial issues.'‘A significant shift in the past five years has been from carrying out carbon offsetting to now denouncing them and moving into legitimate emission reduction planning.'‘Rho Impact is completely focussed on the numbers first and then the narrative, to make sure we avoid any box-ticking which can lead to greenwashing.'‘People are realising that there's a massive financial opportunity in creating these solutions. We're lucky to move away from too much corporate performing and into the real work where the solutions are being made.' ABOUT THE GUEST Noah Miller is the Chief Advisory Officer and Head of ESG Advisory Services at Rho Impact. With over a decade of ESG consulting experience, Noah has held multiple leadership roles including Senior Director for Summit Strategy Group's ESG Consulting Services practice and serving as interim ESG Director for multiple public and private companies. Website ABOUT THE HOST Tze Ching started her entrepreneurial journey back in 2007 with the launch of a sustainable clothing & home furnishing ecommerce business. Next, she created a sustainable fashion brand. In 2019, she launched a social enterprise to help raise awareness about the negative impact of fashion at schools & colleges.  Through the 15-year journey, she learned so much, but easily the most meaningful lesson learned was about the importance of marketing. She now focuses on channelling those insights to help others succeed through We Disrupt Agency, a business coaching, mentoring & digital marketing company.  Tze Ching's mission is to create a community of global change makers and to contribute to positive change in both people & planet. CONTACT DETAILS Website Facebook Instagram Twitter LinkedIn

Existence and Perception in Medieval Vedānta: Vyāsatīrtha's Defence of Realism in the Nyāyāmṛta (de Gruyter, 2024) focuses on discussions of metaphysics and epistemology in early modern India found in the works of the South Indian philosopher Vyāsatīrtha (1460-1539). Vyāsatīrtha was pivotal to the ascendancy of the Mādhva tradition to intellectual and political influence in the Vijayanagara Empire.  This book is primarily a philosophical reconstruction based on original translations of relevant parts of Vyāsatīrtha's Sanskrit philosophical text, the "Nectar of Logic" (Nyāyāmṛta). Vyāsatīrtha wrote the Nyāyāmṛta as a vindication of his tradition's theistic world view against the Advaita tradition of Vedānta. In the centuries after it was written, the Nyāyāmṛta came to dominate philosophical discussions among Vedānta traditions in India. The Advaitins argued for an anti-realist stance about the empirical world, according to which the world of our experience is simply an illusion that can be dispelled by a deep study of the Upaniṣads. This book reconstructs the parts of the Nyāyāmṛta where Vyāsatīrtha argues in favor of the reality of the world against the Advaitins. Philosophically, it focuses on the concept of existence in Vyāsatīrtha's metaphysics, and on his arguments about knowledge and the philosophy of perception. This book is available open access here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Existence and Perception in Medieval Vedānta: Vyāsatīrtha's Defence of Realism in the Nyāyāmṛta (de Gruyter, 2024) focuses on discussions of metaphysics and epistemology in early modern India found in the works of the South Indian philosopher Vyāsatīrtha (1460-1539). Vyāsatīrtha was pivotal to the ascendancy of the Mādhva tradition to intellectual and political influence in the Vijayanagara Empire.  This book is primarily a philosophical reconstruction based on original translations of relevant parts of Vyāsatīrtha's Sanskrit philosophical text, the "Nectar of Logic" (Nyāyāmṛta). Vyāsatīrtha wrote the Nyāyāmṛta as a vindication of his tradition's theistic world view against the Advaita tradition of Vedānta. In the centuries after it was written, the Nyāyāmṛta came to dominate philosophical discussions among Vedānta traditions in India. The Advaitins argued for an anti-realist stance about the empirical world, according to which the world of our experience is simply an illusion that can be dispelled by a deep study of the Upaniṣads. This book reconstructs the parts of the Nyāyāmṛta where Vyāsatīrtha argues in favor of the reality of the world against the Advaitins. Philosophically, it focuses on the concept of existence in Vyāsatīrtha's metaphysics, and on his arguments about knowledge and the philosophy of perception. This book is available open access here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Existence and Perception in Medieval Vedānta: Vyāsatīrtha's Defence of Realism in the Nyāyāmṛta (de Gruyter, 2024) focuses on discussions of metaphysics and epistemology in early modern India found in the works of the South Indian philosopher Vyāsatīrtha (1460-1539). Vyāsatīrtha was pivotal to the ascendancy of the Mādhva tradition to intellectual and political influence in the Vijayanagara Empire.  This book is primarily a philosophical reconstruction based on original translations of relevant parts of Vyāsatīrtha's Sanskrit philosophical text, the "Nectar of Logic" (Nyāyāmṛta). Vyāsatīrtha wrote the Nyāyāmṛta as a vindication of his tradition's theistic world view against the Advaita tradition of Vedānta. In the centuries after it was written, the Nyāyāmṛta came to dominate philosophical discussions among Vedānta traditions in India. The Advaitins argued for an anti-realist stance about the empirical world, according to which the world of our experience is simply an illusion that can be dispelled by a deep study of the Upaniṣads. This book reconstructs the parts of the Nyāyāmṛta where Vyāsatīrtha argues in favor of the reality of the world against the Advaitins. Philosophically, it focuses on the concept of existence in Vyāsatīrtha's metaphysics, and on his arguments about knowledge and the philosophy of perception. This book is available open access here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Existence and Perception in Medieval Vedānta: Vyāsatīrtha's Defence of Realism in the Nyāyāmṛta (de Gruyter, 2024) focuses on discussions of metaphysics and epistemology in early modern India found in the works of the South Indian philosopher Vyāsatīrtha (1460-1539). Vyāsatīrtha was pivotal to the ascendancy of the Mādhva tradition to intellectual and political influence in the Vijayanagara Empire.  This book is primarily a philosophical reconstruction based on original translations of relevant parts of Vyāsatīrtha's Sanskrit philosophical text, the "Nectar of Logic" (Nyāyāmṛta). Vyāsatīrtha wrote the Nyāyāmṛta as a vindication of his tradition's theistic world view against the Advaita tradition of Vedānta. In the centuries after it was written, the Nyāyāmṛta came to dominate philosophical discussions among Vedānta traditions in India. The Advaitins argued for an anti-realist stance about the empirical world, according to which the world of our experience is simply an illusion that can be dispelled by a deep study of the Upaniṣads. This book reconstructs the parts of the Nyāyāmṛta where Vyāsatīrtha argues in favor of the reality of the world against the Advaitins. Philosophically, it focuses on the concept of existence in Vyāsatīrtha's metaphysics, and on his arguments about knowledge and the philosophy of perception. This book is available open access here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/south-asian-studies

Click To JOIN! Just Keep Learning Newsletter I WILL HELP YOU GET CLARITY, BUILD YOUR GROWTH MINDSET AND OWN YOUR BIG DREAMSIn the last episode I talked about walking in Like The KING.The fact that you should walk in as a boss because someday you will be there if you believe in it first.And how anybody that we look up to as other big creators of success stories seem like overnight successes but actually figured out their belief and then built confidence over the last 10 to 20 years and they just kept going.I want to build on that a little bit because Philosophically it's really helpful to realize that but how do we actually accomplish it?You know the next time you post something, create a landing page, go into a meeting, or walk into your gym, or sports field, how do you walk in like you are the Queen, or King?Swagger Sells, Humans Sell TooYou are a human right?I know it's a stupid question.But if it's true, then you are a salesperson.Whether you like it or not you are selling who you are to the world.You are selling what you believe in and the important messages that you need to share.To sell is human.And this idea of showing up like a king, showing up with swagger sells better than anything else. **For the full written version of the episode see the transcript. FOLLOW JustinInstagram – @JustKeepLearning.CaYouTube –@justkeeplearningpodcastTwitter – @JustinNolan_JKLTiktok – @justkeeplearning.caPinterest – JustKeepLearningcaFacebook – JustKeepLearningLinkedIn – Justin I'm so happy you found this podcast. I am here to serve you, the creative solopreneur & aspiring content creator to get clarity on how to create content, teaching, build a business and design the life of your dreams without burning out in the online learning, creator economy.Want to get every single secret, tip, or idea I learn about channelling our emotions into success in this new creator economy, be sure to subscribe to the newsletter: https://newsletter.justkeeplearning.ca/main

Brim, Kim and Mr. Greer are back at it again. Apart from all the usual shenanigans, the gang chats about everything pop culture with all the trimmings and the cast discusses space, the final frontier, and why light years away is a crazy idea to grasp. The cast chats about how scientists know more about outer space than they do about the deepest depths of the ocean, why aliens are real, and why unless Disney can find a real life alien that looks like Stitch - they should not be making a live action version of Lilo and Stitch. They discuss the rise in the rat population on Long Island, how Brim caught and released one earlier in the day , and how awful NYC rats happen to be. They chat about the Eddie Murphy vs David Spade situation, get annoyed about waiting until November to watch the Tyson vs Jake Paul fight and they discuss a couple of interesting Tyson stories. They discuss how Inside Out 2 just hit over a billion at the box office, how Brim will be signing at San Diego Comic Con 2024 and how Brim and Kim are bad gamblers. The crew chats about entertainment news, opinions and other cool stuff and things. Enjoy.Wherever you listen to podcasts & www.thegrindhouseradio.comhttps://linktr.ee/thegrindhouseradioThe Grindhouse RadioFB: @thegrindhouseradioTW: @therealghradioInstagram: @thegrindhouseradiowww.thegrindhouseradio.com

Presented with a porous board and sepsis for everyone we've ever met. Suffer not one exception. What is it about 4:10pm on a Friday? A return to herbs and bank culture. The unitard is not sweaty, it's completely soaked. The dream of Hag Serum and the chore of good TV. Planes are where you do what cannot be done on earth. Upsetting evidence against good habits when the walk doesn't take. Jacqueline massages her face, Kate sees the sunset and draws the blinds. Getting Max-ed and manicured the Russian way. Confusion at kids buying PDFs. Philosophically good, aesthetically great. The God you don't believe in... I don't believe in that God either. It's time to integrate the shadow. That's exactly the vibe! Earnestly Begging For: Hurom, Almond CowBrands Mentioned: Purity Vodka, Catbird, KitchenAid, Caraway, Erewhon Edited and mixed by Allie Graham.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Locals Questions - answered!What were the most frustrating jobs you had working for someone else, and what were your experiences there that were mind boggling? Did you develop your business plan for your own venture while working with them?I'm curious what the most frustrating experiences you had were - incompetency, lack of planning, lack of communication, irrational behaviors or decisions - and how you may have used them to motivate you to build something for yourself.Seeing your gifts and intelligence, I assume it's been true for you for a long time that you knew you'd be happiest building something yourself, which is what lead to your entrepreneurship and of course Freedomain.As only when one starts something and runs it does one have full responsibility, creative freedom, etc.Hi Stef! Is there a connection between the increasing popularity of celebrating Halloween and trauma/child abuse? Many thanks.Any tips on journalling organically? How can one know when the subconscious is speaking directly without corruption?What are your thoughts on the Shroud of Turin?In your recent video, you said that women who return to childhood mannerisms when flirting are incredibly dangerous. Can you please elaborate on this? Why exactly are they dangerous and can you perhaps give us some examples? Thank you.Do you hate the Virtue of God?Why do I become a Troll? For reference, Paranoid Schizo Mother whose parents fled Hungary, Father was Metis born. Both did drugs and alcohol.What are your thoughts on a family constitution? Have you ever sat down with your family and negotiated on the guiding principles and how the family should be composed?Hi Stefan, perhaps you have some words about this problem I have since you are the description of philosophically fit human.Similar to a body builder, I know what to do. I know how to have 6 pack abs. Infact, I think most people know how to. But why don't they?Becoming "philosophically" fit in my eyes is to embody your values. Philosophically, morally, ethically i know what to do. I know what's right. and similar to eating fatty foods, I know how to really destroy my own progress.This is where the question comes in. The difference between me working out is that my body is submissive. It does not question the decision my brain makes. It follows my lead and has given up it's resistances for me gong to the gym. I don't have any problems creating scenarios around eating healthy or working out my body. How can I apply this principal with other pd arts of my life? I find a part of me can loudly resist decisions I make and i use this as my steering wheel for life. I'd like to hear your thoughts around "controlling the vessel / body" and why my decisions / body are functioning on 2 different but connected... idk, cords?TL;DR: When I know whats right, why do I sometimes find my body makes it hard to generate energy / feelings toward completing the task and other times it can find infinite energy?What is your opinion on Daniel Macklers idea that we shouldn't have children unless we are "fully healed of our trauma".Is such a thing even possible?Can you share some thoughts on the human need for transcendence? Can art replace the abstract benefits of religion?Hi Stef. My best friend's wife tried to murder him. He was in a coma for over two months after she shot him five times in the head in front of their child while he was coding at his computer. Everything indicates she did it because she didn't love him anymore and wanted money. For example they had $500,000 in savings, a paid off house, and she tried to take out a new life insurance policy without him knowing of course a week prior to the shooting. She is out on bond awaiting trial. He still loves her and sometimes says he wants to have her back in his life just so that she can be a mother to their child. How do I convince him that their relationship is over and irreparable?Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!Get access to the audiobook for my new book 'Peaceful Parenting,' StefBOT-AI, private livestreams, premium call in shows, and the 22 Part History of Philosophers series!See you soon!https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2022