TBD

TBD

TBD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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