Hello everybody, it's Glenn Scrivener from the Speak Life Podcast. Today we're considering the issue Epicurus Must Fall. And if you don't know what on earth I'm talking about, you will by the end of this episode. I hope that you find it an interesting deep dive into some ancient philosophies that have a very direct bearing on your life and on the world as we know it today. I think it will help you to understand things like why do people who suffer the most in life tend to believe in God the most as well? When you think globally speaking, those who suffer the most also tend to be those who believe in a good God. What's that all about? And why is it that those in the comfortable West are the least likely to believe in a good God and the most likely to cry foul that life is unfair? Why would that be the case? Epicurus is at the heart of it. And uh we're gonna see uh this ancient philosophy has been playing itself out, especially when times are good. But when times are bad, when there's scarcity, when there's war death and famine, when there are plagues stalking the land, then Epicurus must fall. I hope that uh this deep dive into some philosophy uh is very accessible for you. I I don't use any uh jargon that I that I hope is off-putting. Um I hope you will see the world with new eyes because you'll see some of the assumptions that people make, especially in modern Western affluent societies, and we'll see how actually God's purposes in suffering and through suffering are good and that he can be trusted even as we walk through the valley of the shadow of death. My great goal for you is for you to see the world with new eyes, to see some of the arguments that are made, especially by skeptics and unbelievers. But even deeper than that, I want you to see the goodness of the good news through this episode. So without further ado, here is Epicurus Must Fall. Hello everybody, Glenn Scrivener from Speak Life here. Epicurus Must Fall. That is the title for today's video. Epicurus Must Fall. You say, what now? Uh don't worry, everything will be explained. I just thought Epicurus Must Fall sounded like a really cool title for a video. I thought it sounded a little bit like a Marvel movie, maybe, you know. In a world where pleasure was everything, Epicurus Must Fall. Okay, this is what we're gonna have a look at. And I will explain who Epicurus is. He was an old Greek guy, um, philosopher. He's he's dead now. Um, but his his ideas are very much alive and have animated so much of particularly the West, particularly the affluent, comfortable West. We have followed in his footsteps whenever life has been easy, whenever there has never been much of a threat from war, famine, and pestilence, i.e., plagues, whenever we've been free of war, famine, and plagues for any length of time, Epicureanism, i.e., the philosophy that descends from Epicurus, has been very dominant. Um but Epicurus must fall, because there are there is always war, there are always famines, there is always pestilence stalking the land, even if we forget about it in times of plenty. And in those times, Epicurus gives way. Usually, Epicurus gives way to Stoicism, and we'll explore a little bit of Stoicism, especially in the second video. We'll explore uh what the Stoics believe. Um, and so you know, we'll we'll have a look at how Epicureanism um has been dominant when life is good, how Stoicism often comes to the fore when life gets difficult, and how Christianity and the way of Jesus is something else. And we'll figure that out especially in our second video. Um but who was who was Epicurus? Okay, um, Epicurus was a philosopher back in the day, and he didn't deny that there might be gods out there. Everyone in the ancient world had some kind of knowledge of the gods, some kind of belief in the gods, but the gods for Epicurus were far off. They had no interest in the comings and goings of little humankind, and therefore, life is about forgetting the transcendence and enjoying this life that you have. Who knows about the gods? We do know that we've been given this one life, and so let's enjoy it. Suck the marrow out of every every second of existence, okay? And this is Epicureanism. And of course, as I say that, you're saying, oh yeah, that's that's that's a very modern idea. It is. Um, we are all Epicureans now, okay? In modern, Western, affluent societies, Epicurus holds sway. We kind of think that there is no God out there, and we try to enjoy ourselves as much as we can. And in fact, the new atheist movement um pretty much took Epicurus' philosophy for its slogan when there was that bus campaign uh a few years ago. The bus campaign in London read, uh, there probably is no god, so stop worrying and enjoy your life. Spoken like uh a true Epicurean. This is what Epicurus's philosophy is all about. Um but like I say, that philosophy does very well when there is no war, no famine, no pestilence. But as soon as war or famine or plague strikes, we start to realize that just stopping worrying and enjoying our lives isn't really an option. And therefore the good life cannot simply be about maximizing pleasure, can it? These are the questions that are convulsing the West right now in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Okay, so first of all, let's let's go back 2,300 years and let's figure out what it is that Epicurus believed. And then what I want to do is I want to show you a modern instantiation of Epicureanism, which I think was very much on show in this debate called Would God Allow Evil? Um, and then in a second video, we'll we'll figure out is there an alternative? And what is it that's going to take Epicurus's place when Epicurus does fall? Um so, first of all, I've actually prepared slides for you. How thoughtful of me. Um, here is Epicurus' life philosophy. I'll I'll do it in three steps, okay? Step number one, happiness is man's greatest aim in life, okay? And at this stage, you might think, ah, Glenn, you're a Christian. You are going to object to uh premise number one that happiness is man's greatest aim. You know, Glenn's a Christian, he's gonna say, no, happiness isn't our goal. It's gotta be holiness, it's gotta be, you know, an abstract ethical goodness or something like that. Um, no, I agree. I totally agree with Epicurus. Happiness is man's greatest aim in life. Of course, the big disagreements come over what is happiness and how do you get it, but the fact that we can do nothing except move towards the action that we think will give us the greatest happiness, I think that's a a description of reality. I I don't think I don't think you can not go go towards happiness. You know, you might be mistaken about whether this option will deliver on its happiness, but that you think it will bring you happiness, um, that is inescapable. Whether you think it's happiness for yourself or for society, whether you think it's happiness in the now or with a longer-term horizon in mind, everyone goes for happiness all the time. And Christians have been saying this um all down the all down the line. So think of somebody like Blaise Pascal, uh inventor of the triangle. Um that's pretty impressive, isn't it? Um he invented Pascal's triangle. Um, what did you ever do? He invented the triangle. Um, what I mean is he gave his name to um that triangle because he is a mathematician. He was a mathematician and a philosopher and a theologian. And uh he famously said, All men seek happiness, which sounds exactly like what Epicurus was saying. All men do seek happiness. This is absolutely true. And Pascal said, This is true even of men who hang themselves. And you think, oh, you've gone a bit far there, Pascal. Really? I mean, the the guy who makes that tragic decision, is he really seeking happiness? Well, Pascal is is is saying um he thinks he will be better off that way. He thinks he will be better off dead, and so he makes that choice. Um, so when we say that all people work towards happiness, it's always relative to the other option. Okay, we will choose the option that we think will give us more happiness than the other option. We might be mistaken about the number of options that are available to us. We might be mistaken in the way that we're adding up those options, but the fact that we move towards the option that will give us the greatest amount of happiness, that is an inescapable fact of human nature. All men do seek happiness. So we've got no beef with Epicurus's first premise, let's call it that. Um, but then the the beef comes with um premise number two. Premise number two is happiness is an absence of pain and suffering. At that stage, you go, what? Like, says who? On what basis are you saying that? By what standard? Um where has this assumption come from? Happiness is an absence of pain and suffering. Um what we're gonna get into um quite a bit with this video is the fact that so much of where we derive meaning and significance and joy in our lives is when we engage in suffering, when we dive into the trial, when when when we go on the quest and engage the things that are scary and have to exercise courage, um, where we actually engage with pain and struggle and the quest and the hero's journey and all those sorts of things, that that actually is where you and I will find the most amount of meaning and therefore the most amount of joy. So Epicurus's second premise, let's call it this. I mean, he he didn't lay he didn't lay it things out this way. I'm I'm doing this for him, but um, this second assumption from Epicurus is very questionable. Happiness is an absence of pain and suffering. Um, and one of the things that really calls into question whether life really is just about the maximization of pleasure is obviously the existence of death in the world. Um, death puts a question mark over everything that we seek after in life, and it really puts a question mark over the maximization of just these tiny, this tiny little fragment of eternity that we live out between our birth and our death. Um, the way that Epicurus dealt with death um was really a kind of a denial of death. Um, death does not concern us, says Epicurus. And you think, really, death it ought to. It is it is the one certainty in life. Death does not concern us, though, says Epicurus, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And once it does come, we no longer exist. So um there is there is no existence for Epicurus that is a dead existence, because death is the end of my existence, so why worry about it? Um and and this view of death uh was sort of re-vivified by David Hume very famously in the 18th century. Uh Hume said, I wasn't worried about, you know, I wasn't conscious of anything ten years before I was born, I won't be conscious of anything ten years after I'm dead. I'll be in exactly the same situation ten years after I'm dead as I was ten years before I was born, so why why worry about death? I won't be worried when I'm dead, so why worry about it now? Um that was kind of Hume's um way of putting Epicurus's point. Um but I've always loved the story of uh Samuel Johnson, the essayist from London. He was a contemporary of David Hume, and uh he was told by a friend, did you know that David Hume said, I you know, I don't worry about death because you know I wasn't worried ten years before I'm born, I won't be worried ten years after I'm dead, so I just don't worry about death. And Samuel Johnson said, press a pistol to his chest, see if he says the same thing. Um, which as a debating tactic I do not endorse, but it's an interesting thought experiment, isn't it? Um uh if a pistol is pressed towards my to my chest and I'm asked, do you fear death? Yeah, I fear death a heck of a lot. Okay. Well, we are in that situation. Okay, there is a there is a pistol pressed to our chest, and the the trigger will be pulled at some point, you know. So to to pretend that we don't worry about death and that that great inevitability ought not to impinge upon how I conceive of a meaningful life. That's that's just denial. That's just living in denial. If I told you that when you leave this room, you will definitely get mugged, you will worry about that. And you will ask, you know, what am I going to lose? Well, you'll lose your wallet, you know, and you'll ask, will I get hurt? Yeah, you'll get hurt a little bit. Um, but you will definitely leave this room and you'll definitely get mugged. Your wallet will definitely be taken, you'll be hurt a little bit. Are you worried about that? Yeah, of course you're worried about that. Well, friends, there is a great mugger out there. He's called the Grim Reaper. He will definitely take not just your wallet, but everything you have had and everything you ever will have. He will take it all. Will it hurt? Yeah, probably, quite a bit, okay. Um, and it's definitely happening, okay? There's there's no there's absolutely no question about that. You are going to die, okay? Um, the doors are locked, no one gets out of this place alive. Okay, that's that's the truth about planet earth. You know, the the the premise of every horror film is the doors are locked, no one gets out alive. Well, you know, we live in a horror, we live in a horror story, don't we? The doors are locked, no one gets out of here alive. And if you if you cannot develop a meaningful account of of life when facing that, then I don't think you're dealing with reality. And I'm just not sure that Epicurus is is fooling many people. Death does not concern us. Of course, death concerns us. And if death is not concerning you, then you're not thinking. You're really not thinking, you're you're in denial. So, but this is this is what Epicurus thinks, and this is what so many modern Epicureans think. Happiness is uh man's greatest aim in life, happiness is an absence of pain and suffering. We put death out of sight and out of mind. And then when we try to think about the big picture, when we try to think about God and whether God is there or whether he's interested in our lives, here is what Epicurus said. Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? And you know, here are his three assumptions. You know, God, the the classical definition of God, um, and and and here Epicurus kind of had Plato in mind, um, but you know, the classical Greek definition of God or he is all good, he is all powerful, he is all knowing. And if he is all those three things, then whence cometh evil? What place does evil and suffering have in a world where God is all good, all knowing, and uh all powerful? Now, the comeback to Epicurus for the last 2300 years has been well, there might be reasons why an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God would allow evil. There might be there might be reasons. And if God is really so all-powerful, then he, by the nature of the case, might have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil in this world. If he's big enough to have created a world that has evil in it, he's big enough to have reasons for allowing evil that you might not yet comprehend. Someone who predated Epicurus by about 300 years was the prophet Isaiah. And Isaiah writes that God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts. And if God is going to be God, then that is just the nature of the case, isn't it? That God's thoughts are greater than our thoughts. And so the comeback to Epicurus has always been yes, God is those three things. Um, and God might have reasons for allowing suffering and evil in this world. And that's what brings us to the YouTube debate that was held last week on capturing Christianity. It's a great YouTube channel. Why don't you check that out? And do check out Cosmic Skeptics' channel, subscribe to him, subscribe to Inspiring Philosophy. Um, those are three guys who are really going to help you think about the deep issues in life. What I want to do is um play to you 10 minutes from Alex O'Connor, Cosmic Skeptic, in that debate, where he basically comes back at Michael Jones, the Christian, in this debate, and he unveils his life philosophy. And what I want you to notice is just how very Epicurean Alex's assumptions are. And I think I think Alex um argues winsomely. I I think he is a persuasive apologist for his position. And I'm not even going to pick apart the logic of what he is saying. What I really want to do is to expose the assumptions that are just very much on show for Alex O'Connor as he's discussing the issue. You know, if God is real, would he possibly allow this much evil and suffering? Let's dive down into this and I'll make some comments along the way. And then in a second video, we're going to have a look at what are the problems with Epicureanism, what are the alternatives to Epicureanism, and how Jesus fits into all this. But let's dive down into Alex O'Connor responding to some of the arguments of Michael Jones.
SPEAKER_00Um of the arguments I found quite bizarre, for instance, the argue about the rainforest.
SPEAKER_01So Michael Jones made an argument that uh the rainforest is a rich ecosystem brimming with life. It also includes a heck of a lot of suffering. There is death, pain, and struggle woven into the great circle of life. Um, but we don't want to raise the rainforest to the ground just because there might be an excess of suffering within that ecosystem. There is something inviolable about life that is worth it, isn't it? Isn't the the rich diversity of life of the rainforest, isn't that worth it, even if there is death, pain, and struggle within it? Um Alex says no, actually.
SPEAKER_00You say, you know, we'd rather keep the rainforest, uh, despite the fact that it's uh harmful to life on earth because of something like its aesthetic beauty. I would absolutely reject that out of hand.
SPEAKER_01Notice the passion. Absolutely reject that out of hand. And it's the first thing that Alex um wants to say in response to Michael Jones's argument that there is a good God who might have sufficient reasons for allowing evil in this world. He absolutely rejects it out of hand that life has value in and of itself. Um if it involves more suffering than there is joy, um, then I guess the rainforest needs to go. Um Alex O'Connor is very much Epicurean in his assumptions. It's all about the maximization of pleasure versus pain.
SPEAKER_00Um the reason why I think it's worth keeping the rainforest is because if we get rid of the rainforest, it will cause ecological disaster that will cause more animals to suffer than if we kept it. If that weren't the case, if it were really the case that if we just got if we just tore down the rainforest, it wouldn't produce more evil, wouldn't produce more suffering, more ecological disaster. Um, but the only downside was that we wouldn't have something like the aesthetic beauty of the forest, then I would be on the first plane over there, chopping it down with an axe.
SPEAKER_01That's a strong statement. And you can see it's it's coming from some very deep-seated convictions from Alex that it is all about the maximization of pleasure versus pain. Um he he slightly uh mischaracterizes Michael Jones's position as though Michael Jones is saying it's simply the uh the aesthetic value of the rainforest that we want to preserve. Um Michael's making a deeper point about the inviolability of life, the goodness of life in and of itself, even if it entails pleasure. Um but the fact that the fact that Alex thinks that aesthetics is also a kind of a category that does not submit to hedonistic calculus, um that is that is true as well. Um, there is an aesthetic beauty to the rainforest, and there might be an inherent beauty or an inherent value to the things that are beautiful that actually means that the struggle, the strife, the striving that is at the heart of the creation of that beauty is still worth it, nevertheless. Um aesthetics is indeed an area that does not really submit itself to utilitarian calculations of does this produce more pleasure than pain? Um, but it's not the only thing. Beauty is not the only inviolable value. There are things like, as Michael says, there are things like life, there are things like Um there are things like virtue, there are things like courage that we're going to get to, um, that are inviolable, that are worthwhile in and of themselves, even before you figure out the trade-off uh between pleasure and pain that they might produce. But not so for Alex. For Alex, it is, it is about that calculus. Will it produce more suffering or will it produce more pleasure?
SPEAKER_00I wouldn't allow the rainforest to uh stay up because of its aesthetic beauty if it meant that billions of human beings were dying and suffering as a result. And so I'm certainly not going to allow a rainforest to stay up just for the sake of its aesthetic beauty uh because a bunch of animals are dying as a result. Um I absolutely don't think that it has any intrinsic worth.
SPEAKER_01So the that ecosystem does not have intrinsic worth. And this will be something that we return to again and again. Um if everything's about the maximization of pleasure versus pain, um then nothing has intrinsic worth. Things are only ever instrumental. They're only ever good as means towards the great goal. And what is the great goal? Maximizing pleasure, minimizing pain. And at that stage, you trade off everything, everything is merely a means towards a different end. Even relationships, even something like love, um, even something like virtue, morality, good and evil, um, these these are all traded off as instrumental towards the greater goal. And the greatest goal for Alex, the greatest goal for Epicureans, is the maximization of pleasure.
SPEAKER_00Outside of the effect that it has uh on suffering, except for maybe a minimal worth with things like aesthetic beauty, which are nowhere near as important as the suffering that it's inflicting. Um besides, I've never seen the rainforest in person, uh, and and so kind of I doubt how much the aesthetic beauty of the rainforest or something like that actually should play into a consideration like that. Um you asked about uh my concept of kind of preferring no bravery and no fear.
SPEAKER_01So um Michael wants to make a case that all the great stories in life involve bravery, involve the hero's journey, as Joseph Campbell um puts it. Um Joseph Campbell kind of studied all the great stories and said that you know they contain the hero's journey, in which the hero confronts the void, confronts the abyss, confronts the valley of the shadow of death, and engages it, and in that struggle somehow overcomes, and through pain and strife and striving, and maybe even through death, but somehow out the other side comes the great hero, and the journey has been worth it. The destination is greater than the origin because of that striving, because of that struggle. And along the way there is heroism, along the way there is bravery. Isn't that a good thing? says Michael. Aren't all the great stories about that? And therefore, if you want to eliminate suffering, you'll have to eliminate the hero's journey. You'll have to eliminate story, you'll have to eliminate redemption, won't you? Uh well, it's interesting where Alex takes this.
SPEAKER_00You brought up an example from Lord of the Rings. Now, as an oxonian, it's quite embarrassing to admit that I've never read nor seen The Lord of the Rings, but it was similar to another example.
SPEAKER_01Look at Michael's face. Michael Jones, what? You know, it's I I knew you didn't believe in God, but you you don't even believe in Tolkien. Um actually, uh I've I've never read uh Lord of the Rings either. I read The Hobbit and I was just so bored by it that I couldn't make myself. Sorry, I I know this is sacrilegious, but I'm I'm with Alex on this. Um but I've seen the films at least. I I know the story, and you know the story, and actually Alex and I are in the minority because it's one of the greatest sellers in in the history of literature. Um, alongside, you know, what are the great works? What are the great works of fiction from the 20th century? Um, Lord of the Rings, the Narnia Chronicles, Harry Potter. Like, literally, like, and and what do you notice about all these? They they are all the hero's journey. They they are all about engaging pain and death and struggle and striving and you know, fighting and victory snatched from the jaws of defeat, and somehow, you know, as in in Tolkien's phrase, there is a you catastrophe. That first there is a catastrophe where everything falls apart, but then there is a you catastrophe. The the you prefix in Greek means good. There's a good catastrophe. There is the the turning on its head of everything um that had gone wrong. Is is everything sad going to come untrue, right? Is a line from Lord of the Rings. Um I know this because I've seen the film. Um, right? But isn't isn't that good? Isn't that such a good that that actually um this maximization of pleasure must must kind of take a second place to the goodness of virtue striving, struggle, the hero's journey. And therefore, might might one of God's morally sufficient reasons for allowing suffering is that the story of creation is a richer, better story because it involves the Valley of the Shadow. Right? That's I mean that that might be one of one of the morally sufficient reasons that God has for allowing suffering. Here's what Alex says.
SPEAKER_00Uh that was that was brought up by Vince Vital on an episode of Unbelievable uh uh that Norsene, The Lord of the Rings, but it was similar to another example uh that was that was brought up by Vince Vital on an episode of Unbelievable, um, which is one of my favorite radio shows to listen to. Uh there was a debate about the problem of evil, and Vince Vital brought up a really interesting point that that stumps me for a minute. He said, This is great.
SPEAKER_01I mean, if you if you want to learn about persuasion, if you want to if you if you want to learn about just uh being a personable advocate for your position, you you must learn from Alex O'Connor. He's doing a tremendous job. If I was just a neutral coming to this conversation, I would be warming to him massively. Do you notice how he's getting you on board the train? He's saying, look, Vince Vitali made this excellent point, and I just had no comeback to it. And I was really stumped, and I was compelled by this. But then I thought, eh, you know, this is this is just a textbook. Like, no, no wonder Alex O'Connor is like one of the biggest um YouTubers like in this in this sphere, in in terms of does God exist or not. Alex O'Connor is um right at the top for a reason. He's very good at what he does, and I think this is exemplary. I think Christians, non-Christians, everyone, everyone can can learn from Alex here. But so back back back to this. He's saying Vince Vitali told the story about how heroism tells a greater, more compelling story about human existence. Um, this is what Alex is saying.
SPEAKER_00Think of all of your inspirations, think of the heroes of your time. So you're thinking of the Martin Luther Kings of the world, and you think, take whichever hero you personally admire. Now remove the suffering from their life. Take that suffering away, and what are they left with? They're not they're no longer a hero. You know, if Martin Luther King never suffered, then he wouldn't have overcome that suffering, he wouldn't have become the forefront of the civil rights movement, he wouldn't have been a hero. And so the very thing that made him admirable is the fact that he's suffering.
SPEAKER_01Isn't this brilliant? Like he is steel manning the other position. You know what steel manning is? It's the opposite of straw manning. Strawmanning, you put the other person's um position in the weakest form possible, and then you just, you know, flamethrower it. Um here, he is steel manning the Christian position. He's doing a brilliant job of it. Again, kudos, kudos to Alex O'Connor. Hey, well done for making it this far. You're halfway, okay? And we're we're just gonna take a little breather now and we're gonna swap ends, you can have some oranges. You'll you'll be kicking with the breeze in the second half. Don't you worry about that. Um, but just for now, I want to pause and just ask you a question. Do you know what's happening at Speak Life? Uh, because there are all sorts of great developments. We've got videos galore, we've got songs coming out, we've got podcasts coming out, we've got an internship program that it would be great for either you or perhaps someone you know to come and join us on. Uh, but you'll be kept out of the loop if you're not on our email list. So that's that's all I want you to do. Could you go to speaklife.org.uk slash sign up and just add your email address there so that we can just keep in touch with you and let you know about all the great stuff that is coming down the pipeline. Why not even press pause now? Go to speaklife.org.uk slash sign up, and we'd love to keep you abreast of all that's happening. Okay, are you ready for the second half? Here we go. Um here he is steel manning the Christian position. He's doing a brilliant job of it. Uh again, kudos, kudos to Alex O'Connor.
SPEAKER_00And this is kind of the point that I it seems you were you were implicitly making that it's worth having this kind of suffering so that a world of virtue can exist. But I think we're conflating two topics here, and I don't know how well I'll be able to tease these apart. But what we're talking about when it comes to the problem of evil is why it's kind of the existence of suffering versus the existence of pleasure, not the existence of of virtue. I mean, if you say something like, without evil, virtuous lives wouldn't exist, okay, fine, but that's not strictly a problem for the argument that I'm making, because I'm trying to argue a case that there could be a world in which people are uh, you know, experiencing less suffering, experiencing more pleasure that is.
SPEAKER_01Notice he's trading off the entire category of evil and then the flip side virtue, he's trading off that entire category because there is the maximization of pleasure that's possible. Do you see? I mean, he he considers this to be um a worthwhile trade-off. You know, if if Alex O'Connor is offered the choice between two worlds, one in which pleasure is maximized, and one in which there is the possibility of virtue and heroism and courage and the hero's journey, Alex says, give me the pleasure any day of the week. Um which, okay, that that makes Alex an Epicurean. Um but I I don't think it's obvious that that that is the choice that we should make, and it's definitely not obvious that that's the choice that God should make.
SPEAKER_00Sure, there might be no virtue, but that's not a problem if it still results in more pleasure.
SPEAKER_01No virtue is no problem if it results in more pleasure. Once again, I mean that's that's this is why I I selected this ten minutes from Alex O'Connor. Um, not because I don't think he's arguing well, I think he's arguing incredibly persuasively, not because I think he's got logic wrong, I'm not trying to pick apart the steps of his argument. I'm just I'm just exposing the assumptions. And the assumptions seem so obvious to Alex, they seem so non-obvious to me, but they seem so obvious to Alex that of course you would trade off vote. Let's get rid of the category of heroism, of moral striving, of of of morality. Let's let's get rid of the concept of the inviolability of life. Let's let's get rid of, as we'll see later on, let's even get rid of um relationships for relationships' sake.
SPEAKER_00Let's get rid of love for love's sake. In my view, uh, if something like the development of a relationship is good, it's good insofar as it brings people pleasure, right? Um this is kind of a it's a very basic psychologically utilitarian point to make, but I think it roughly holds, which is that it doesn't make much sense to talk about intrinsic goodness of something like a relationship. Um I think what we mean to say is that we derive goods from having that relationship, right? My relationship with my friends, my relationship with my family. The reason I value those things is because of all the things that flow from them, because of the conversations that flow from them, the pleasure I get from that, from the from the feeling of safety and the feeling of friendship that I that I feel, the pleasure of that. But not that the thing itself, the act in isolation of just two people entering into a social contract by which they say they both like each other, intrinsically doesn't have any moral component to me. It's just a descriptive fact from which moral goods can be um can be taken.
SPEAKER_01Let's even get rid of um relationships for relationships' sake. Let's get rid of love for love's sake. The maximization of pleasure is everything. Well, that's spoken like a true Epicurean, but I don't think that's the obvious assumption to make about life. I don't think it's obvious that we should be Epicurean, and I certainly don't think it's obvious that God ought to be Epicurean, and God ought to maximize our pleasure and leave out of all consideration virtue and heroism and love and the inviolability of life. Um all those might be part of God's morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil.
SPEAKER_00The only way to kind of make it relevant is to say that virtue is a good in and of itself. But that to me is is obviously false. No, it's obviously true. Virtue a virtue like Martin Luther King overcoming racism is only good in so far as we have the evil of racism to be overcome. Without the evil of racism, why is it that Martin Luther King Without the what of racism?
SPEAKER_01Let's go back. Without the remember, we've traded off virtue. Okay? We've traded off um moral absolutes of good and evil, because the good is just maximizing pleasure. So um Alex doesn't have a category for evil.
SPEAKER_00The evil of racism.
SPEAKER_01Now I understand why Alex wants to say that racism is evil. He thinks it's evil, I think it's evil, but I'm I'm just not sure his Epicureanism allows him to say that it's evil, right? Um even in the way that he is arguing, he is assuming you know, um, moral realism. He's uh he's a he's assuming these objective moral values of good and evil. Um because you can't really navigate this world without that. When you when you look at racism, um certainly when you when you look at racism, you don't just see uh a society that's um poorly structured for the delivery of maximal happiness, you see something that's wrong. Wrong with a capital W. But Alex Alex doesn't really Alex cannot allow for the category of wrong, um, because really he's traded everything off for the maximization of pleasure. And we all want to call racism evil, he wants to call racism evil. Um but it's not evil, on Alex's view, if it delivers maximal happiness for a society. And the thing is, like, think of whatever instances of racism there have been down through the years. Um, whatever else you want to say about those horrific regimes, um, they did work for the majority, or else they wouldn't have persisted. Okay, racist regimes always work for the majority. It's the minorities that we want to protect. Why do we want to protect minorities? Well, we inherited that from this guy called Jesus, and we'll get to him later. But um these inequitable structures um always work for the majority. They always work for the powerful. And if the powerful are in charge of the metrics of what pleasure and pain look like, then they're always going to value the slaves in their society at three-fifths of a human being, and their suffering isn't as as as bad as the good that our racism achieves, right? If you're just nakedly utilitarian about things, then racism itself ceases to be an evil. It's just one way of structuring your society. And, you know, may maybe you could make the argument that um there are more people suffering because of that racist environment. Um, but my goodness, you you're then gonna have to hold a symposium about, you know, and and that you're then gonna have to assign values to the different kinds of suffering and different kinds of pleasure. And the wrongness of slavery or the wrongness of racism will await the the findings of the symposium about you know whether whether or not this society um should have this particular structure to it. Whereas not even Alex thinks that, Alex just thinks racism is evil, which is interesting. You cannot, you cannot consistently be Epicurean, I don't think. I don't think you can be, I don't think you can have a human heart and a human sensitivity to the evils of this world and remain Epicurean, because there is a category of evil and it and it bubbles to the surface even with an Epicurean like Alex.
SPEAKER_00To be overcome. Without the evil of racism, why is it that Martin Luther King wouldn't be a virtuous hero because his actions would have been meaningless. Like i i the virtue is the virtue of what he did isn't good of its own accord.
SPEAKER_01So let's imagine a world in which the there doesn't have to be a racism which Martin Luther King overcomes, that hero's journey becomes meaningless. And and this is a trade that that Alex is willing to make, but I don't think it's an obvious trade that everyone ought to make, and it's certainly not obvious that Gott ought to make that trade, that meaning is um sidelined so that pleasure can be maximized. And look, Martin Luther King Jr., if he wasn't fighting against racism, he'd fight against something else, because that's the kind of person he is, that's the kind of campaigner he is. And there is a good, there is something good about that moral striving, isn't there?
SPEAKER_00I think so. It's only good by virtue um of an evil. So yeah, I think I really would prefer that there was no racism, even if that meant that Martin Luther King would no longer be a hero of mine, even if that meant that he was no longer able to demonstrate virtue, I'd rather a world in which he didn't have to demonstrate virtue in order to overcome the evils of racism. Again, evils of racism, okay?
SPEAKER_01I would I would rather a world in which he didn't have to overcome the evils of racism. Well, Alex, your Epicureanism has done away with racism because it's no longer evil, okay? It's it's only evil to the degree that it minimizes happiness in s in a society. Okay, but that that's that's not it's not an evil with a capital E, and not even you can live like that. Like even with your Epicurean assumptions, you can you can't consistently speak like an Epicurean because you know that there are there are these categories of right and wrong, right? That you've traded that all off for the maximization of happiness.
SPEAKER_00I hope that makes sense. Um makes perfect sense on his assumptions.
SPEAKER_01You kind of gave that as a more uh detached, kind of less morally wrapped-up example because So the example of science is Michael Jones says, Look, we have gone on a quest for knowledge, and that quest has involved strivings and struggles, and there have been paradigms and a clash of paradigms, and then a paradigm shift, and that has been the way in which knowledge has progressed. And there's something wonderful about that scientific endeavor, right? There's something wonderful about that journey, okay? That that yeah, the the struggle itself is good, don't you think, Alex? The struggle for knowledge as science has progressed, that in itself is a good thing, wouldn't you say? Alex says no.
SPEAKER_00But take the issue of science. You say, look, science wouldn't exist in a perfect world in which kind of there was no ignorance. Um but again, the same point can be made that science is only good or useful in so far as we are ignorant, right? The argument is kind of that without ignorance, we wouldn't have the good of science. So we it it's justifiable that we have the badness of of uh of ignorance because it allows this higher order good of science to exist. Um but what is the goal of science? The goal of science is to remove ignorance. That's what science tries to do on a daily basis.
SPEAKER_01Now really because I mean, surely what we've discovered about science is that as soon as you kind of get to the edge of your current understanding of things, you realize that the edge is nowhere near the edge, and that there are huge vistas of of ignorance that are out there. And surely a scientist, surely, even Alex, having gotten to that frontier, then realizing that that frontier wasn't a frontier at all, but that there are you know huge vistas of knowledge to be explored, Alex, like all the rest of us, rub their hands in glee and go, hooray. Okay, there is more striving ahead of us. Is uh isn't that what the scientific endeavor is all about?
SPEAKER_00Now, why would it be the case that the goal of science is to undermine the very reason for its ex its existence?
SPEAKER_01Well because maybe the reason for its existence is not that you have you know a scientist who's discovered the grand unified of uh theory of everything, and she puts on the board, you know, there's the equation, and uh and as soon as she you know finishes the equation, she puts the chalk down, everyone just like applauds, and they go back to watching Netflix, and that and that's it. Science is done, everybody. She's figured it out. It's all all like we we don't think that that's we don't think that's the goal of science, do we? We we think that there are infinite depths to this world. This world is mysterious, and you know, it's the you know, it is glorious to investigate, to dig deeper, and the striving for that knowledge is part of the goodness of science. It's not it's not just you know, we don't just want information downloaded frictionlessly into our brains. And would you would you prefer a world in in which that really is is how life operated? That the knowledge is just down, you know, like in the matrix where you learn how to do kung fu by just downloading the program into your brain. We realize that there's the there's something good about Mr. Miyagi teaching you, right? And even though it seems really worthless for you to be painting that, you know, that fence, um, to be waxing that car, that that's all meaningless, isn't it? Ah no, but Daniel DeRusso, he discovers he discovers that it wasn't meaningless at all, that the struggle, the striving, the pain was a part of the story. It was a part of the journey. Um and The journey was made richer because of the struggle. I would rather life be like that, let alone God. I mean, God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts. So, like this thought experiment of would I rather this kind of world or that kind of world? In one sense, it's it's irrelevant because what you know, what does God think about this? But even at the human level, I don't think we would prefer a society in which knowledge is just downloaded frictionlessly. We all we we wouldn't prefer to learn kung fu in the way that Neo learns kung fu. We we would prefer to learn karate the way that the karate kid learns karate, wouldn't we? I would anyway.
SPEAKER_00How would it be that the goal of science is to remove ignorance if it's known that science, the good of science, only exists because of ignorance? Because we recognize that we'd rather have no ignorance and no science. Okay, the goal of science is to no longer need science.
SPEAKER_01No, no, no, because we we we're not gonna get to the position where the scientist just finishes off the equation and sits down and we all applaud, and then you know we we go and get high on on some kind of novicane bliss for eternity. That's like that's that's no one's conception of of the goal, is it? I hope not.
SPEAKER_00Somebody uh in the same way that I'm I'm a vegan advocate, and the goal of veganism is for veganism to no longer be a a thing, right? Like, yeah, sure, I've got this this good thing that I can do advocating for veganism. But I think we admire you for it.
SPEAKER_01And we admire you for it, definitely.
SPEAKER_00But rather a world in which I didn't have that good, I didn't have that virtue. Right. But look, the whole thing that I'm aiming for is a world in which the very reason for me being a vegan activist doesn't exist.
SPEAKER_01But then if everyone turns vegan, we all know that Alex O'Connor will campaign for some other human rights abuse or animal rights abuse, right? We we we know that he will because he is that kind of morally courageous person. And we all think that that is valuable. We we all do, and and Alex thinks it's valuable. I don't think that the evil of the animal agricultural industry is the what of the animal agricultural industry? Again, again, he wants to he wants to borrow language from another thought world, evil, because because he's living in this world and he and he can't he can't navigate this world without the categories of good and evil. They don't belong to Epicureans. Which means I I think he should ditch his Epicureanism and he should listen to those instincts that look at the world and say, this is right, this is wrong, this is virtuous, this is vice, this is good, this is evil, right? He should he should listen to those instincts because Epicureanism doesn't allow him to have instincts that make sense of this world.
SPEAKER_00It's worth the virtue of somebody fighting against it. I'd rather have neither. The virtue is only good by virtue of the evil existing. And so, yeah, I really would rather have neither. Um and I think that kind of making a point about how, but we wouldn't have virtue, um, we wouldn't have triumph in a world without evil, it's like intuitively we want to think, yeah, no, that sounds bad. You know, it would be bad to have a world without triumph and ver and virtue. But if you if you think about it for a moment and recognize that the only reason virtue and triumph are good is because there's evil. If you remove that evil, triumph and virtue are no longer good and therefore no longer desirable. So it's not a problem that we don't have them either.
SPEAKER_01There are ways of removing evil and ways of removing evil. And one way that Alex wants to remove evil is by removing the category of evil. And here's a thought experiment for Alex. Okay. Um, Alex strives against the evil of uh animal rights abuses. Okay, let's imagine that he strives, he gives himself wholeheartedly to that cause, and he doesn't shift a single opinion on the matter. He doesn't change anything in the world about that. Is that a good use of Alex's time? Is Alex a hero or an idiot for giving himself to the cause of veganism, even if his efforts ultimately fail? Is he a hero or is he an idiot? I want to call him a hero. But I fear that Alex, on his own argument, has to call himself an idiot for giving himself to a cause that is not ultimately successful. Whereas I think that there is virtue in the striving in the struggle. And I think intuitively, even Alex sees that that giving yourself even in a doomed cause, giving yourself in sacrificial love for the redemption of an evil is itself a virtue, is itself a good, and it doesn't make you an idiot. It makes you a hero.
SPEAKER_00I think so. Um also there was a reference you made to Augustine. Um I'm kind of picking these out of thin air because I I had to kind of make notes. I'm I'm less used to the the formal environment. Um the He's so good though.
SPEAKER_01He's so good at this, just off the fly. Like I say, he's he's like one of the best YouTubers out there. And this is this is why he's such a a popular guy. He's just he hasn't got notes and he's just riffing, but his riffing is uh better than most of our scripts uh any day of the week.
SPEAKER_00The the reference you made to Augustine and the point that kind of preceded it, that God in his omnipotence and omnibelevolence wouldn't allow evil unless it was justified. And to me, this came across as an appeal to mystery. Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying, but it seemed like you were essentially saying, um, well, look, if God is all powerful and if God is all loving, then we can trust that he wouldn't allow evil unless it was justified. So if there's evil, there must be a justification for it. Which is to me kind of like throwing up a hand and saying, Well, look, I want to keep my belief in God and I know there's evil, so there's there's got to be some reason for it.
SPEAKER_01Right, which which has been the comeback to Epicurus for 2,300 years. Epicurus has said, look, God is all good, he is all powerful, he is all-knowing, so why is there evil? And the comeback has always been for a millennia, for two and a half millennia, it's always been, well, okay, if he's that big, then he he must have reasons that that, you know, e even if we don't know what they are, um, we can assume that he has those reasons. Now there is an appeal to mystery at that level, but I think even deeper the Christian comes along and says, um, it's not so much um that God is mysterious, it is that God is trustworthy, and he's trustworthy because he has proved himself to be trustworthy in other ways. I look at at the trustworthiness of God in the things that I do know, and I apply that knowledge to the things I don't know. What I do know is that God has come and valued us at the cost of his own life, that in Jesus we see God saying to the world, I love you more than my own life, I'd rather die for you than live without you. And if that is the definitive revelation of God, which is what Christians believe, then what we do know about God is that he is trustworthy, he is loving, and when we look at Jesus, you know, Jesus seemed to feel that going to the cross was worth it for the heaven that was coming. You know, there's a there's a verse in Hebrews chapter 12 that says, you know, Christ for the joy set before him endured the cross. So uh it seems like God incarnate has this thought process. There is suffering in this world, there is there is the the ultimate kind of suffering of the cross, which is worth it for the joy that is coming. And a Christian looks at uh God and says, Okay, if this is who God is, then I guess suffering is worth it in the end. I trust him because he gives himself, I trust him because he made the calculation that that his heaven was worth his hell, therefore, whatever hell I'm going through going through, it's gonna be worth it for his heaven. We all trust God because of how we know him in the gospel, and therefore we apply it to the things that we don't know in life. It's not just a point about mystery, it's a point about trust.
SPEAKER_00I don't know what that reason is, but there's got to be a reason. That to me is like me standing over the floor of my murdered dead friend and somebody else kind of saying, Yeah, there's probably a reason for it. You know, I I have this belief that um, you know, the person who killed him is an intrinsically good person. You know, the person who killed your friend is a friend of mine, and I think he's a really good person. So like I'm sure there must be some explanation as to why he murdered him and stole his wallet.
SPEAKER_01So this is the thought experiment that Alex has. You're walking down the road, and your friend just gets murdered by a stranger. Um and he says, you know, obviously, the evidence of your eyes and the evidence of everything you know is that this person was killed unjustly, and there can be no good reason for your friend to have been killed that way. Um, whereas, you know, the Christian seems to be saying, you know, people get taken out randomly, and we've got to assume that that person getting killed was was just and there was a good reason for it. It would be like telling yourself, as you see your friend bleeding out on the ground, oh, maybe my friend was actually a spy for the Russians and he just got taken out by MI6, and there was a good reason for MI6 to take him out, and maybe um, of course, this is not a good analogy because, right? Um at that at that stage, what you know in that analogy is your friend, and what you don't know is MI6, and what you don't know is is the stuff that's out there. Whereas with God, if you've come to know and trust God, if you've come to know who He is as revealed to you at the cross of Jesus Christ, then what you know is the goodness of God, and what you don't know is the randomness of this world, the seeming randomness of this world. So a good analogy would be um I'm reading um The Horse and His Boy with my daughter, and uh uh you might know that it's the it's the next book after The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe in the Narnia series. And Aslan is this this very distant figure within The Horse and His Boy. He's peripheral. All of life kind of happens without the lion. The lion did his great act of sacrificial love in the lion, the witch, and the wardrobe. He gave himself on the stone table to redeem Edmund. You know, he gave his life. Um, and that was, you know, that was his goodness. You know, you see his goodness displayed in suffering love. Okay, interesting. Um in The Horse and His Boy, Aslan is this peripheral figure, and you and you you don't really meet him very often. But at one point, Shasta and Aravas are escaping from Calaman, and a lion is after them, and he actually scratches the back of Aravas um quite um painfully. And you know, she she's you know, she has to be taken care of for a number of days. And my daughter Ruby said, that can't be Aslan, um, because it's just described as this lion randomly, you know, takes out the companion. And this is why this is why I think it's a it's a good analogy, uh, it's a better analogy than the one that Alex gives us. Um so your companion lies bleeding on the floor because this lion came out of nowhere and scratched her. And what are you meant to conclude? Well, my daughter, the first thing she concluded was that that couldn't be Aslan. I said, Why do you say that? He says, Because Aslan's good. How do you know Aslan is good? Well, he gave himself for Edmund. He would rather die for Edmund than see a hair of Edmund's head perish. We got we we trust, we trust Aslan. So there's no way, there's no way that it could have been Aslan that harmed her. And then she said, What do you think that? And I said, Well, if it was Aslan who did that, I bet he had a really good reason for it. And we went back and forth, and and and Ruby kind of concluded, yeah, that's right. If it if it was Aslan, Aslan would have had a really good reason for scratching Aravas in that way. And as it turns out, Aravas had actually caused the equivalent pain to a servant girl of hers. And Aslan, in recompense for that, says that said that Aravis she needed to know the harm that she had caused that other girl. She needed to know it, she needed to feel the harm that she had caused. And so it was indeed Aslan who caused that pain to Aravas. But in the moment, you don't know what's going on, and you don't you don't know why on earth, why on earth did Aslan allow such suffering in the world? In fact, she caused that suffering. Why on earth would this be the case? Well, I don't know all the ins and outs, and we're not told the reasons for it at the time. But one thing I do know, he gave his life for Edmunds, and I trust him. There are some things I do know about him, and on the basis of those, I entrust to him the things that I don't know. That's that's how a Christian reasons. So back to Alex. Alex is making the case that you're walking along and your friend has just been like murdered and his wallet stolen, and you're trying to figure out, you know, what possible explanation there could be for this random event happening.
SPEAKER_00I I would think, look, it it's it's gonna need more than that, you know? And I don't think, although technically, I guess philosophically you could say that the burden of proof would be on me to say that there's no way that there could be a justifiable reason that my friend is now dead on the floor.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, the the burden of proof is definitely on the atheist, okay? The burden of proof is has always been, for 2,300 years, ever since Epicurus, the burden of proof has always been on the atheist to prove that God could not have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil in this world. That's always been the logical comeback from theists. Okay. But what Alex wants to do is not just make the logical case, he wants to make the evidential case. Um, okay, maybe logically there might be some kind of weird explanation as to why God would allow suffering. But just evidentially, it just doesn't seem plausible. Like there just don't seem to be good reasons that God would allow suffering in this world.
SPEAKER_00Sure, if I was making that claim, but if I'm just making an evidential claim, that it's probably quite unlikely that there's a good reason for my friend to have been murdered. Um, I think the burden would be on the other person to show me why there was a good reason, not for me to show why there can't be such a good reason. Um, analogously, I don't think I should have to show why there can't be uh some good reason that may exist, as Augustine refers to, to allow evil. It should rather be on Augustine or yourself to show what that reason is, turn the defense into a theodicy, in other words.
SPEAKER_01Which is what Michael has been trying to do, and trying to sort of say, look, even on a human level, we understand that things like life and virtue and courage and love, these are inviolable values that Alex, you're you're trading away for just this maximization of pleasure. Um, but maybe that's a bad trade. And maybe God has valued things differently. Certainly, I would value things differently, let alone the God of the universe. And then when we bring in Jesus, you start to see evidence for why God and suffering are not these inimical values. Um and this is where Alex turns now to the question of Jesus.
SPEAKER_00Um one minute and 15 seconds. Can we talk about the suffering of Christ? Sure. Again, I just I'll refer to something I said earlier. Um, you said, and I think this is a direct quote, the answer to a world of torture and murder is a God who was tortured and murdered.
SPEAKER_01And what Michael means by that is um is not answer um in the cure sense, um, but rather what he what he's doing is saying, okay, here are three truths about God. God is all good, God is all powerful, God is all-knowing, and God suffers at the cross. And once you add that fourth truth into things, what you can never then do is say that God and suffering are inimical. What you can never do is just say that there can be no coming together of God and suffering, because at the cross there is the suffering God, right? Um so answer, not in the sense of just this instant salve, but in the sense of the deepest revelation of who God is is that he engages suffering and that he himself goes on the hero's journey. So if he goes on the hero's journey, we should definitely have a place for struggle and striving and getting through the Valley of the Shadow because the feasting joy at the end is worth it. Um, but you've got to factor that in if we're talking about the Christian God.
SPEAKER_00Again, another solution is to not have the suffering and the murder in the first place. Saying we can't understand suffering without Jesus, which is how you open that segment, you said we can't understand this problem of evil without Jesus, would be kind of like me saying we can't understand cancer without chemotherapy, right? The answer to a world of cancer is a world of chemotherapy. Or the answer to a world of cancer is a world without cancer.
SPEAKER_01He's very good, he's very good at what he does, right? If I'm on his side right now, I'm punching the air. Or a world without uh, yeah, a world of cancer. You know, the answer to a world of cancer is a world without cancer. Um absolutely, absolutely true. Um, but uh the analogy is not that Jesus is like chemotherapy. Um Jesus allows a world of cancer, comes in and suffers that cancer, and in himself somehow redeems cancer to a point where there is uh a greater good that going down into the valley actually purchases for us uh a greater mountaintop feast than we ever had in our original states. That that is the picture, not not just that there's this um impersonal thing called Jesus, who like chemotherapy just brings us back to zero. Um that's that's not the way in which Jesus is the answer to suffering and death. Jesus is the answer to suffering and death in that he enters into it. He doesn't simply end suffering and death, he enters suffering and death in order to be a champion, a pioneer, blasting a hole through death and coming out the other side glorified, renewed, better. That the end point is better than the beginning point, and that the valley was a part of the journey. That's the way in which he's an answer to cancer. Not just that there's this negative that's just brought back to zero in this impersonal way, as though Jesus was was chemotherapy.
SPEAKER_00That seems to me preferable. Um you can see that all of the points that I'm making here in rebuttal, um, and the reason that it's all coming back to the same point is I think it's the same underlying assumption that actually, yes, it does make sense to say that if there's some great good justified by a by some great or lesser evil, let's say, but the only reason why that great good is good is by virtue of overcoming the evil, then I do think it makes sense to say we'd rather have neither. There can still be goods without there necessarily being virtues. There can still be goods without there necessarily being evils that have to be overcome. I'm sure we'll miss out on some of the goods that we would have had if evil did existed.
SPEAKER_01Like like virtue, like love, like the inviolability of life as a value in and of itself. This is all part of the trade that Alex is making in order to have his maximal pleasure.
SPEAKER_00Like virtue did exist, like virtue, but I think we can do without them.
SPEAKER_01There are Alex's assumptions, and they're out there um for all to see. And uh and again, I'm not picking apart his logic, I'm just showing you what he takes to be obvious, but I take it to be non-obvious. Um, and if even I don't want to be Epicurean, um, I wonder why we assume that God should be Epicurean. And this is at the heart of um the objection to God allowing evil in the world. We assume that God would be, like us, simply interested in minimizing suffering. And then we come across God or we come across Jesus, the suffering God, and we think we we can't make head nor tails of it. Um but I don't think we should be Epicurean, and we should certainly not insist that God is Epicurean. Uh in the next video, we're gonna have a look at how everyone in modern 21st century affluent societies is kind of Epicurean. Um, we'll see how in times of scarcity, war, famine, and plague, um, how that Epicureanism is unsustainable. We'll look at some of the uh competitors to Epicureanism, we'll look at Stoicism uh in particular, and we'll see how Jesus actually is an answer that's different to Epicureanism, it's different to Stoicism, but it's actually what you and I most want. Stay tuned for that video.