The Truth About Animal Love! Listener Questions

Stefan Molyneux looks at how mysticism, philosophy, and communication overlap, in response to a listener's question about higher powers, emphasizing the use of reason and precise definitions to cut through vagueness in talks about belief. The discussion covers ideas like consciousness, love, and attachment, with him arguing that genuine moral love goes beyond basic instincts. He points out the problems vague terms create in society and pushes for common definitions to improve how people communicate. On dreams, Molyneux sees them as straightforward experiences from life, not as sources of mystical insight. He wraps up by noting the role of clear thinking and rational talk in dealing with complicated aspects of life, and encourages people to express their thoughts with care.

Emails:

Hello Stefan,

Following your most recent, as of today, FDR podcast.(6292). I wanted to hopefully offer you some perspective that may or may not be helpful. As before, I understand that your time is valuable. I do think though that my perspective, linked to IQ and seeing things very differently to you, might be of aid.

The reason I have added this onto an existing email is just for familiarity because I will mildly use this backdrop for additional thoughts. I did talk to you briefly on podcast 6147. But I wanted to offer you my thought process here because it might offer you some insight into your value in a way you had not considered.

Firstly, what I believe is important background as to my perspective on this entire mysticism thing. I do believe in the existence of something higher and more powerful and that has communicated with us. Certainly, a little through the bible. But mostly not through the bible. There is channeling, including the human design chart, to back this up. So I do believe the new age at its core has some good concepts. BUT, I also believe that there is a huge, and incredibly powerful toxic element of the new age. There is a mix of non complete understandings and such. For this reason, I do think that your perspective and that of many who have similar perspectives is valuable. In that keeping things to objective reality. To challenge said toxicity. There is more to this understanding. But I think that explains the core of my thoughts. People that are truly inclined to the spiritual stuff I look at will find it. But people that don't really commit and use the bare minimum of it to justify madness. It is good that that is challenged.

it is similar in some ways, if you imagine a society that has innovators and Socrates following philosophers. The innovators want to do innovating and the Socrates people want nothing to exist or be real or whatever. Even though philosophy as a discipilne is extremely useful and powerful. Some of those innovators might be best served in dismissing it as the ravings of lunatics and just getting on with Innovating.

So I want to describe the dream I had that stopped me talking further about mysticism. I fully acknowledge none of this makes sense since I have no following. But it still might offer an interesting perspective. It is of course not likely that if I offered a genuine challenge to your view on that that evildoers would pick it up and run with it. But apparently the dreams thought it was a suitable fear to highlight. So I went with it.

My argument on mysticism would be as follows. This is not something I am committed to or care about but it was what I was thinking. It is now the story in something else I want to express. Firstly, your original statement is that mysticism is the gateway to mental illness. Firstly of course, I wrote to you on the definition of mysticism. Which I would use my own after having defined it due to the problems with yours that I highlighted. I would further refine that now by defining a primary and secondary faith. But anyway, per your argument, I would say, if mysticism is a gateway to mental illness. Then that would assume it would not in general, be used to solve mental illness. I would further refine the use of symbolic things to reach understandings. Such as tarot cards. By asking why do we dream. Why does our subconscious communicate in such a way? I would answer this by saying what is the alternative? The alternative being that without the subtlety and indirectness. The subconscious would communicate more like a dictator. Even giving the information without veil would have this effect. Since once we know the right thing to do we have more responsibility and consequences than before we know that.

So what does this sound like? This sounds like schizophrenia! I would then talk about how a possible theory for it, is that if the problem gets too serious. If the subconscious mind is screaming too loudly. It busts through the conscious/ subconscious barrier too loudly, and that's where this comes from. (This is roughly what I think happened with my schizophrenic break, some of my ideas come indirectly from the psychologist Elinor Greenberg who talks about how dreams help low level schizophrenics)

This would then correlate schizophrenia, and that kind of non objective, symbolic understandings. More with the symptom of other problems than with it being the cause. I would also define mainstream faith based Christianity as mysticism. As per my earlier example. And show times when this has been used to help people. Such as when the Ukraine war used to go a bit crazy women on Gab used to put loads of Christian sayings out. Women cannot biologically deal with war, but they still have fear, so a tool like mysticism to reduce the fear is perhaps highly positive.

So now I get to the point. Like I said and strongly believe. It is unlikely evildoers would take such a reasoning as this and run with it to dent your power. But the dreams still responded like this was the case. The dream I had, (I do not like to tell others my dreams I prefer to interpret but I am making an exception here). I was about to make a few youtube videos on this. But I had a dream with Pearl Davis being aggressively tortured. She has mentioned a few times over the years how she has been sued and things. It was a pretty shocking dream. It felt kind of real. But what I think it could mean, is that your platform and output in this kind of social war, was significantly impacting people like Pearl by pushing back on intensely female and active toxicity we are currently witnessing (Taking us back to the point on mysticism and the Socrates philosophers analogy).

I realise you might not interpret it the same way. Like, you might believe that all individuals in our dreams are parts of ourselves along a Family Systems therapy line. But I just wanted to provide that feedback in case it does provide some perspective or help in some way.

Best Wishes,

Joe

---

It has been some years since I listened to your last podcast, 'Why animals can't love.' At that point, I quit Molyneaux.

It has occurred and re occurred to me that you continued to make consciousness or choice the mandatory when it comes to capacity to love.

This thinking backs exactly into a contradiction. We know that infants have neither consciousness nor choice, yet, any parent knows the infant loves. Toddlers are compelled to love, but they love nonetheless. Teenagers, etc. Not only compelled to love, but can be. Of course, Molyneaux would say, 'But that's no real love.' But some of it is. The child still wants to love the parent even when virtue (lack) seeks to negate. Some part of that child does still love.

I always believed that your false philosophy on animals and love conditions backed directly into the right, even obligation, to abort children. The threadline of your 'philosophy' justified abortion. Since the infant has no choice or consciousness. He is more animal, less human. The right to kill seems elementary.

That's always deeply concerned me that something is off center in your work. Mean spirited. Resentful. Death-loving. A hint of Crowley, even though 98% of your takes are good. I know you made your cash on bitcoin. Congratulations. Make an atheist like yourself proud. Your constant promise that you'd go down as a philosopher great, today and/or in 400 years from now, shows no evidence.

GET FREEDOMAIN MERCH! https://shop.freedomain.com/

SUBSCRIBE TO ME ON X! https://x.com/StefanMolyneux

Follow me on Youtube! https://www.youtube.com/@freedomain1

GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!
https://peacefulparenting.com/

Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!

Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!

You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!

See you soon!
https://freedomain.locals.com/....support/promo/UPB202