https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=uIW7nhUKiDc
Why is the idea of submission of a woman to a man in the context of a marriage socially repulsive? Well, I think it’s because it’s, first of all, distinguishing between submission and involuntary slavery isn’t simple. And the word submission has connotations of involuntary slavery. And if you believe that involuntary slavery is wrong, then insofar as submission indicates that, it’s also wrong. I also think that it’s an inelegant way of conceptualizing the relationship. So I was writing about this today. So the, this is quite interesting. So in the second chapter of Genesis, Adam is characterized as, in part, as the spirit that conceptualizes and perceives categories. So he names the animals. He names the distinguishable creations of God. He applies conceptual order to them. So Adam gives the animals the names. And so that’s the construction of an epistemology, let’s say a conceptual representation of an underlying reality. That’s Adam’s domain. Now, as soon as that’s announced in the story, another announcement takes place. And that is that Adam, who’s characterized in this manner, lacks, he’s lacking a partner. So the mere ability to impose order in that manner, let’s say with verbal categorization, is insufficient. And as soon as it’s announced as the domain of Adam, then his lack of a counterpart is instantly brought into the story. And the term for his desirable counterpart in the King James Version is help meet. And that’s an English, an archaic English translation of a Hebrew word, a phrase which I can’t remember at the moment. It’s Ezer. And then there’s another word. But it means something like beneficial adversary. And Ezer actually has the connotation of warrior as well, which I just discovered today. So in the Old Testament, for example, the military powers upon whom Israel calls to aid them in times of battle are described with the word Ezer. And so the application of the word Ezer to Adam’s help meet is the attribution of something like the spirit of the warrior to the woman. And so and then this idea of beneficial adversary, I was talking to Ben Shapiro about about this issue. And he was the one who told me that the Hebrew from which the word help meet was derived means something closer to beneficial adversary. And I’ve been thinking about this a lot. What that means. Hey, Reagan, I know you’re picky when it comes to skincare products. So tell me, what did you think of GeniaSale skincare? That’s exactly right, Garrett. I’m the type of person who wants to know exactly what ingredients I’m using in my skincare routine, which is why I’m loving GeniaSale. Their products are made with antioxidants and formulated by a compounding pharmacist. And they’re all about preventative skincare. With summer coming up around the corner, I’ll be using GeniaSale’s powerful retinol alternative, which is safe to use on your skin in the hot summer sun. They also have a dark spot corrector, which helps reduce the appearance of dark marks and sunspots. Right now, you can get them both in GeniaSale’s most popular package at GeniaSale.com slash Jordan. You heard it here first. Don’t miss out on this amazing deal. Just in time for warmer days ahead. Go to GeniaSale.com slash Jordan to get 70 percent off their most popular package. Every order subscription includes a luxury gift box with two free springtime essentials. That’s two free gifts plus free shipping. Go to GeniaSale.com slash Jordan. GeniaSale.com slash Jordan. So imagine you’re playing a game. Okay, so let’s try to figure out what a game is first. And one of the things that characterizes a game is you want to play it. Right? If it’s a game, it has to be voluntary. You have to have signed up for it. And so that’s useful. If it’s enforced, if you have to play it, it’s not a game. It’s certainly not a good game. So voluntary participation is the indicator of a good game. And then you might say, well, what’s a good game apart from that? And you might say, well, it’s a good game if I can win. And that seems obvious because one of the… What you will strive to do if you’re playing a game generally is to win. And so then you might think, well, that’s the point of the game. And… But then you might think, well, if that’s the point of the game, when you set up a game, like let’s say you’re playing chess, you want to find someone who’s never played chess in their life, and you just want to kick the hell out of them. And you might object, well, that wouldn’t be any fun. And that’s pretty interesting because if the point of the game is the victory, then why not set yourself up with an opponent that you can just stomp, and then you win. And it also doesn’t even require much effort, so so much the better. But everyone knows that’s not desirable. It’s not any fun. It’s not a good game. And so what do you need for the game to be good? And so then imagine instead that you’re playing something like one-on-one basketball. And you could pick your opponent, your optimal opponent. And you might think, well, who would my optimal opponent be? And we know the answer to that. We know what people will pick if you give them the opportunity and what they will generally pick. Here’s a side example. Parents speak to their young children at a level that slightly exceeds their current level of comprehension. They do that without even knowing they’re doing it. And they do that because they want the child to understand what’s being communicated, but at the same time they want to facilitate the development of the child’s ability to communicate. So when they communicate to the children, they push them to the edge of their capacity for comprehension. The Russian psychologist Vygotsky called that the zone of proximal development. It’s the optimal zone of the acquisition of skill. That’s, I believe, where our notion of in the zone comes from. And if you’re playing a good game, you’re in the zone. And to be, and that’s where you’re transforming optimally. You’re developing more and more skill. So you have a shot at winning the particular game. But while you’re attempting to win the particular game, you’re expanding the domain of skill that makes you a skilled player in that game. And to do that, you need a beneficial adversary. And a beneficial adversary is someone who’s matched against you at approximately or slightly exceeding your current level of skill. And that’s what you want in a partner. That’s what you want in a marital partner. That’s what you need is you need to be set against each other in something like an iterating dynamic of cooperation and competition. Both of those. The competition, in some sense, drives you forward. And the cooperation makes the entire enterprise sustaining and productive. Now that’s conceptualized, by the way, and this is extraordinarily interesting and very much worth knowing. It’s conceptualized in the, this is one manner of mythological conceptualization. The Christian sacralization of marriage is predicated on the idea that the union, the proper union of a man and woman, offers the opportunity for the emergence of something like the spirit of the logos. And so that’s the word made flesh. And so what that means is that a dynamic can be set up between the participants in the relationship. And that dynamic is something like the truthful exchange of redemptive information aimed at maximizing the quality of the relationship. So that would mean that if you’re a wife, you’re subordinate to the aim of maximizing the relationship abetted by the willingness to exchange truthful information. And so then there’s an emergent spirit that characterizes the interaction of the two people in the marriage. And that is symbolically represented by the logos. And that’s the sacralization of marriage. Then you might say, well, what does the logos mean in some deep sense, which is a very good question. So one of the, for better or for worse, right, that’s the ethos of marriage. And so what does that mean? Well, it means that you and your wife or your husband will face the ultimate catastrophes of life together. And that if you do that properly, you’ll face them together voluntarily. And if you do that in the right spirit, then you’ll face the ultimate catastrophes of life voluntarily aimed at the good with your eyes open, well interacting in a truthful manner. And that will, if you do that, that will be the best antidote to the catastrophe of life that you can possibly manage. And so that’s a way better vision than, and what did you call it when the question was that the woman be? Submission. Submission, yeah, submission to her husband. Now, each of you should be joint, each of you should jointly submit to the spirit that makes your relationship redemptive and dynamic. And that’s a much better way of thinking about it. So there’s an element of submission in some sense that’s involved, but it’s not unidirectional and it’s never been conceptualized that way in classic thought, not by people who thought deeply about such things. And you submit in a marriage, but to what? Well, both of you, if you have any sense, submit to the absolute necessity of maintaining a positive relationship over the longest possible term in the most diverse possible situations, right? Because you’re going to experience great joy together and also great catastrophe. And so, and you’re in it for the long run in principle, and so both of you have to submit yourself to the necessity of acting toward one another in a manner that makes that long-term iterated play most productive. And there’s a submission in that, that’s the submission of maturity, that’s the adoption of voluntary responsibility, that’s putting away childish things. It’s not doing today what you know will damage you or your partner tomorrow. It’s not doing what you know will cause you to be in a situation where you’re going to be in a situation where you’re going to be in a situation where you’re going to be in a situation where you’re going to be in a situation where you’re going to be in a situation where you’re going to be in a situation where you’re going to be in a situation where you’re going to be in a situation