The Parasitic Mind & Evolutionary Psychology - the Mislaibeled Podcast (THE SAAD TRUTH_1789)

[@GadSaad]

My book The Saad Truth about Happiness: 8 Secrets for Leading the Good Life is available for order: www.amazon.com/Saad-Truth-about-Happiness-Secrets/dp/1684512603 _______________________________________ To subscribe to my exclusive content on Twitter, please visit my bio at twitter.com/GadSaad _______________________________________ If you appreciate my work and would like to support it: subscribestar.com/the-saad-truth patreon.com/GadSaad paypal.me/GadSaad You can also click on the "Heart Thanks" icon immediately below the clip. _______________________________________

[@Reziac]

Hey Prof, that's a great look today. Very elegant. Not being consequential :)

[@mislaibeled]

Thank you Dr. Saad for coming on! It was a true honor to have you!

[@shmosel_]

I'm a consequentialist when it's useful.

[@cosmichouseofrose9788]

Thank you Dr Saad!

[@docequis9796]

This is the sequel to Plato's Allegory of the Cave.

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

Sings: “It ain’t necessarily so...” 🎤 philosophy: the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous! An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”. One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.

[@CactusLegzz]

My man!!!

[@delicious_crepes]

Finally.

[@shmosel_]

WORLDS COLLIDING

[@mortenlund4828]

Soslam dont like satire.

[@RickDelmonico]

Evolution occupies a small part of reality. We cannot use it to explain most things.

[@Derolo808]

Wrong.

[@Ux1.73c]

Discount your own biology to your own detriment.

[@hermitcard4494]

You obviously CANT use evolution to explain most of the things because MOST the things are inorganic, and the living organisms occupies a small part of reality.

[@joesnake2882]

GROOVY MAN THANKS