Disagreement with Jordan Peterson | Sheldon Solomon and Lex Fridman
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ส.ค. 2020
- Full episode with Sheldon Solomon (Aug 2020): • Sheldon Solomon: Death...
Clips channel (Lex Clips): / lexclips
Main channel (Lex Fridman): / lexfridman
(more links below)
Podcast full episodes playlist:
• Lex Fridman Podcast
Podcasts clips playlist:
• Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
Podcast website:
lexfridman.com/ai
Podcast on Apple Podcasts (iTunes):
apple.co/2lwqZIr
Podcast on Spotify:
spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
Podcast RSS:
lexfridman.com/category/ai/feed/
Sheldon Solomon is a social psychologist, a philosopher, co-developer of Terror Management Theory, co-author of The Worm at the Core.
Subscribe to this TH-cam channel or connect on:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
"You should always listen to other peoples arguments because you're not all you could be." ~Jordan Peterson
@Edwin Horan You clearly haven't listened to the man for very long then.
Meme Review LOL.... no, he’s clearly listened to him and sees through the word salad, lack of evidence and style madness.
So is that why he wanted to create a black-book of universities that he labelled as subversive?
iconocast To know he’s dogmatic means you’ve seen through the word salad and actually understand what he’s saying. Seems maybe you haven’t quite comprehended yet.
You know if you believe you should listen to other people’s arguments Peterson should perhaps actually read Derrida or Foucault rather than relying on Stephen Hicks’ disastrous self published history of philosophy. Reading Marx past The Communist Manifesto when you were 19 might help too. Doesn’t mean he’d agree with any of it but at least he wouldn’t keep misrepresenting them. Well he might not...
rugbyguy59 The only people who call his words “word salad” are people who can’t understand what he is saying. Give me an example of this word salad. Ill be waiting
A conversation between two men respectfully disagreeing while beginning from a position of good will, moderated by someone with pragmatic and positive intentions is sorely missed in our society right now. I would love to hear this discussion extended with the addition of Dr. Peterson! I wish him well and for all of our sakes, hope that he finds his way to this venture. Thank you for your work!
could we have more of this, please:
"A conversation between two men respectfully disagreeing while beginning from a position of good will, moderated by someone with pragmatic and positive intentions..."
What has happened to jordan peterson?
@@paulhennessey3454 He has gone through a roller-coaster of problems the last year. He has some kind of insane autoimmune disorder that has caused all kinds of problems. He was prescribed some kind of benzodiazapine and it helped some of his symptoms until his wife was diagnosed with a life altering cancer at which point the symptoms got worse so the doctor upped the dosage at which point he had some kind of reaction to that...so he had to go all over to find a clinic that would taper him off of the benzo's as some kind of inpatient procedure and he is just now after almost a year of this getting back to normal. His daughter has a podcast that he appeared on and explained it all. Im sure I missed or butchered something lol
@@joshshepherd5660 our health must be monitored carefully, through diet, exercise, and good sleep.
Life is very messy. I do hope Dr Peterson overcomes his medical issues; I believe he has done much for young men, that will allow them to be stronger and courageous in seeking their identities.
Respect is a sign of both intelligence and wisdom. Sadly, these are rare commodities in modern leadership and discourse. It makes you wonder if human beings posses the capacity to chose good leaders.
well, it depends on what you mean by *jordan peterson*
This should get a lot of likes ;)
That about sums up my conclusions as well ;)
well, it depends what your presuppositions is, roughly speaking
@@jonathanengdahl1886 If there's a disparity between our axiomatic foundations then we would engage in a conflict with a result approaching the sum of nill. And that's not a good place to be
I'm not sure I get it... Someone explain plz?
I love the fact you could encounter Solomon on the street and just think he is some super wise surfer grand-dad, without even realising he is one of the foremost social psychologists of the latter half of the 20th century.
see Carol Tavris
Lex's podcast is the "JRE Podcast" I've actually always wanted/needed.
LFP is like a fork of JRE.
Lex = Joe Rogan minus Joey Diaz
@@Thrawns_Office In software development fork means that the original project is cloned by a 3rd party, and then that 3rd party continues development on it. It's usually done to continue support for dead projects or to pursue a new vision for existing projects
@@Optimistas777 or if you want to contribute to an already active project
Saknar dig
This guy looks like a combination of richard feynman and tony hawk
tonard hawkman
Liked for the React.js logo
Lmfaoo
Wait, that's not Tony Hawk?
@@snackentity5709 Richie Feynhawk
Would love to see him and Peterson have a dialogue together
Yes. And Lex has to be there too.
Yes, would be great to see them discuss their disagreements. I love Peterson, but his devotion to religion influences his rational thought too much. On other subjects he is incredible. You can't argue with all the people who call him their "internet dad" because he inspired them to get their lives together and be a better person.
Be better if they spoke with Dr. Greg Salmieri
@@toobnoobify You should watch Peterson’s conversations with Sam Harris about religion. His attachment to religion is not an impediment to rational thought, it gives room for it. The absolute position of religion not providing enough value to be worthy of anything other than a historical reality is the irrational belief, and one that he managed to flesh out the failures of in those conversations.
“He’ll eventually be here to defend himself”......is he coming to your podcast? I hear he is recovering gradually.
It sounded more hopeful than concrete to me
He was recovering until he got corona
@JT Raven Hes recovering from both ,now in Croatia..Hes become quite the involuntary medical globe trotter.
Its the second time he has pneumonia this year according to his daughter.
I had a feeling all is not right with all these diagnoses coming loose and fast,I was thinking Munchhausen by proxy for short a time by one of the caregivers close to him,but then a familiar bell of a willfully forgotten time in my life rang in my head.
Full disclosure: I was undergoing the same Russian treatment in Moscow and St.Petersburg after I developed a benzodiazepine and opioid dependency after I got discharged from the army a time after an IED blast.
The language barrier made it difficult for me to communicate,otherwise I could have told them from my admittedly unfinished pharmacology education, that the kind of opiates I were on would not be able to be rapidly detoxed by administering nalaxone/naltrexone in a heavily sedated state(artificial coma) setting and had an abnormal high half life,and it would do little for the benzo dependency since propofol is itself a GABA antagonist.
Even if they would have been able to it was pure quackery,I was brought an ICU not updated since the soviet era of the late 60/mid 70s.
It was a racket for desperate westerners disillusioned with western medicine and its system of safeguards.
Of course I was talked into it at a weak point by a well meaning close relative too.
@JT Raven Please do not write about something you clearly know nothing about. He got COVID and he is worse now than his recent podcast with his daughter according to her.
@@Lobos222 Dr. Jordan Peterson is neither alt-right nor a "tool bag".
Alt-right figures hate D.J.P. for a number of reasons, including not being ethnonationalist and having worked with the U.N. They see D.J.P. as a threat because he appeals to many of the same people that they are trying to persuade, but ultimately leads them down a completely different path.
The "tool bag" insult was really quite petty, so I won't address that.
Finally a criticism of Jordan from someone who is actually familiar with his work.
I still get the feeling that he was missing some of the finer points of Dr. Peterson's opinion. Most of what he said he disagreed with from Jordan seemed to really be a disagreement of degree, on the behalf of both of them.
For example: for everything Jordan says about the individual, he does say that an individual's proper place is within their family, their community, and their country. His point with individualism is that the only thing you can hope to directly influence is yourself and the things around you, and if there is going to be any hope to influence the world, it's going to be because the _individuals_ that make up the members of various _communities_ galvanize them into doing those things. I think the implicit thing here is that those individuals inspire that by action, by doing the hard work(whatever work that may be, "cleaning your room" is the metaphor, but it applies to many different realms), so that others may follow them.
Dr Solomon seems to disagree with Jordan's emphasis on the individual... because individuals have always been members of families, tribes, communities. Which is something Jordan would agree with, based on the above. The real reason that Jordan rejects collectivist politics is far more nuanced than he's just buying some Hobbesian/Lockean falsity.
@@TrumpeterOnFire I wish i understood more of what you said.... Curse you too much pot!!
@@jeremyfisher8250 just look up the names he dropped, it's just learning terms and what other people thought. None of it's super complicated conceptually
Thanks for watching
For more tips on how to grow your portfolio
Send a direct message on Whats App
There was a great profile Peterson in the Atlantic from an ex colleague of his, it describes his talents but also his major character flaws and other issues.
I don’t entirely agree with Solomon on several subjects, but damn I like this guy!
@@thealienrobotanthropologist at least the guys an academic... :,)
@@thealienrobotanthropologist Alien robots are what you call the real world then? Fantasists often miss the wood for the trees!
@@thealienrobotanthropologist , him being an academic is a fair criticism as this anti-neoliberalism groupthink saturates higher ed but I believe the rest of your analysis is overly dismissive.
@@thealienrobotanthropologist I do not agree with that assessment at all: what, exactly, is "the real world" to you? I'm guessing it's one in which you have to go to work every morning and pay bills, mostly. Yes, that's part of the "real" world, but so are relationships and many other less-tangible things. I would further argue that these other, less-tangible things, are the ones that ultimately shape what you call "the real world".
@@alexsal8408
Is something like math part of what you consider to be the real world?
This dude looks exactly like Tony Hawk
That's what you got from that? 🤣🤣🤣
It's his uncle from his mom's side.
It is
Yoooooo
Bet he could skate a pool.
this is the full margaret thatcher quote:
“I think we’ve been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it’s the government’s job to cope with it. ‘I have a problem, I’ll get a grant.’ ‘I’m homeless, the government must house me.’ They’re casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There’s no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.”
And can you accept that? Fact! Yet people crave dependence
@S R I think you're more close to being correct than him
@S R I think @Brian makes a valid point. He is describing hypocrisy in Thatcher's statement, and I'm not sure where you disagree. If I understand your internal/external locus of control concept, it seems reasonable a healthy individual mind would be beneficial in developing a sense of duty. However, connections are where a sense of duty comes from. Connections to other people, movements, families, groups... whether locus of control is internal or external.
For an illustrative example, I think you'll find cult members, with obviously external locuses of control, will be none the less hopelessly duty-bound.
@S R ok, thanks for fleshing that argument out. Its an interesting perspective, especially in the context of this speech.
I'm going to maintain you can't say "There is no such thing as society", which is a nonsense claim, and then talk about obligations to your neighbour, but maybe I'm missing the context.
I think we can agree dependency, or learned dependency (in adults) is bad. Interdependence is just part of being human, the basis of capitalism, communism or any other social system. Its messy but mostly good
Really like Solomon, he was my professor at college. He would be very popular if he had a larger youtube presence.
@@XOX-ZOMBIE-XOX This is true, however Marx did revolutionize Economics by being wrong. Unfortunately, it's revival, is very similar to the revival of believing the Earth is flat. I don't mean this in an Ad Hominem type way(you see that a lot on some of these replies)... I mean that literally in Economics.
The classical economists held the Labor Theory of Value to be true.. that the value of something is the labor it takes to produce it.. Marx comes and says, well, then anyone not producing labor directly, is stealing from the laborers.. since the labor is it's intrinsic value. (or layman's terms... that it would cause "tension" between groups)
The Labor Theory of Value however, was defeated in Economics while he was still alive (that is why some speculate that Marx didn't publish his last volumes while still alive.. it was Engels trying to recover some of his money he invested in Marx(nearly 20 years after the 1st volume)... the info was outdated. It's a shame that 100+ million have died because of this ignorance. The Labor Theory of Value was replaced by the Subjective Theory of Value and the "Marginal Revolution".. Econ has advanced so far beyond Marx (who was found wrong while still alive).. that it is truly is similar to talking about 150 year old outdated nonsense science.. or Earth being Flat, bloodletting,.. or anything else nonsensical.
This makes me sad because I like this channel and I lack a great deal of knowledge about the typical scientific subjects.. but it's a little difficult to believe what they're saying after this... are they actually knowledgeable about the topics they discuss? What things they say are true and what isn't?
yeah I'm two minutes in and I already love the guy
@@XOX-ZOMBIE-XOX em.. ok doomer
@@KendrickJ2 man i like your point, that Marx is not confronted in the idea directly was such a thunderstruck moment of planet earth and the blooming of a mislead and uncorrected idea become a doom for millions, strongly agreed with that and i think the key, as from your point, a good idea or perspective will become the best form, if it constantly contested and confronted with the flaws its bring and other perspectives and idea that might overthrow it. thanks for the insight in this forest of internet vandalism called the yt comment section. you are gold.
He was my professor, too!
Individual autonomy is an outcome of a functioning society. Couldn't agree more
An outcome and a cause.
He says the pursuit of money hurts other people so we have to restrict individual autonomy. He could be for all the standard leftwing government projects from A to Z.
A country like China is successful because it has a strong (ruthless and blatantly corrupt) head/government to keep it's weak body/people (highly indoctrinated, dependent on government) away from foreign dangers or challenges.
Western countries intend to have proportionately strong bodies/people to brace them for times when the head/government fails to make good decisions to keep them safe from danger.
Individual autonomy is a trait of a more dynamic, robust society. Not necessarily a "functioning" society.
@@mcjive4371 thats why China is defending North Korea which is commie China^2. While Israel is USA^2 but USA is on road to become new CCCP throu domestic revolution and culture war.
And viceversa a functioning balanced society needs functional individuals. It is a loop between the two. This argent leads to the debate of nature vs nurture and which has more influence the evolution of individuals and societies. I would argue it's a 80/20 favoring the environment i.e nurture. Almost all our aspects as a specie where a response of the necessities to survive and adapt to our environment
This guy could be Ray Dalios brother
Haha, exactly. Both, looks and speech
Even shakes his head like dalio
He even also have Alzheimer head move...
Lmfao. It is his brother
I immediately thought the same
First of this channel I have seen. Love the way the interviewer has his guest clarify and flesh out his ideas. Time to hit that subscribe button. :-)
Thank you to both Lex and Sheldon for this great discussion. What I love about this extract (still watching the full piece) is the respect paid to Jordan Peterson and others along with opposing point of view. Whether you agree or not, this is how all discussion should be and it is just wonderful to hear.
I couldn't agree more
Excellent conversations - thank you!
Sheldon's opening remarks about Peterson's contributions reveal him to be a true researcher and thinker.
If anyone should take ANYTHING from this clip, is that he seems brilliant able to describe people's opinions in such a way, that they would agree with it being their opinion. Great Steelmanning.
That's known as "steel-manning" a person's argument. It's the first step in creating a counter-argument - trying in good faith to accurately summarise your opponent's views such that you are sure you are not misrepresenting them when you criticise them.
@@PinataOblongata I know champ. ;)
I'm not sure I agree, but I get the feeling that Dr. Solomon got a little lost in the weeds between his own opinion on the foundational philosophical ethic of various positions, and where he thinks Dr. Peterson lies upon that spectrum. Plenty of what Dr. Solomon said of why he disagrees with Dr. Peterson seems to be things that Peterson outwardly actually espouses, just in a different fashion.
I think it really just shows how nuanced each other are, where they're coming from with respect to these deep complex questions, and how much we need to get the two of them in a room together and see what happens.
because he came from a scientific and deep philosophical point of view, as opossed to many of you who seems to love Peterson just because he exposes “snowflakes” of wahetever unimportant shits. Of curse you guys wouldnt like his method
@@ggh_-ts6pn What makes you think so?
I appreciate you making the content that you make, and fully intend on getting around to hearing all of it. You dont have the number of subscribers yet that you deserve, but I get it, this stuffs not 'all the rage' - but if theres ever another age of enlightenment, this stuff will be devoured by it. Keep on truckin dude.
Appreciate your ad policy too. Not wishing to disturb the flow
Thank you Lex for interviewing Mr. Solomon. He seems like a phenomenally well-read, articulate and sincere person. I will find the time to see the whole interview if I find it. Keep up the great work! I find yours, Valuentainment and TheJRE channels conducting the long-form discussions.
Brilliant conversation. Thank u guys.
One of my most favorite interviews of yours Lex thank you
This conversation has really opened up my perspective on the individualism and equity... I still need to think through these new ideas
I’ve seen this dude in several different documentaries throughout the years....Smart well spoken fella. Does anyone know his name? Thanks!
(Edit: his names in the tittle...duh 🙄)
Hi Lex, I love that you are adding shorter clips to this other channel. So much more convenient for people that don't have the time to watch a 1h podcast in one go..
But I was wondering if couldn't you make it even smaller than 30mins..that still sounds like a lot.
Awesome podcast! Solomon is so interesting. I think I’ve just found a whole new seam to mine! I’m a huge fan of JP and I think this clip is a great way to demonstrate how to “agree to disagree”
Enlightened guy with a good heart, the problem is environment often ruins a lot of people inherent niceness. Small kids don't care about others race or religions, they just know how they like and get along with. Society puts a lot of bias into them. Great conversation, that is how you discuss opinions with class and integrity.
So, Michael Buble’ interviews Tony Hawk. 🎙 🛹
Now that you mention it 😂
This guys humility is absolutely fantastic in a conversation. He really cares about ideas and finding truth.
What a brilliant and illuminating discussion (the whole episode). Thank you Lex. You are an excellent interviewer and pick truly outstanding individuals to interview.
2:49 very true, a lot of the interesting people in the world aren't known
There are 7.8 billion people in the world, saying "a lot" is a massive understatement. I'd say that the vast majority interesting people in the world aren't well known.
This is so obvious tho..
Yeah, haha, like me
@@AntonAdelson Same haha
"Both liberal and conservative political philosphy are intellectually and morally bankrupt because they are both based on assumptions of human nature that are demonstrably false". That's an intriguing position.
Right? I’d love to read a book discussing principles on this concept.
@@l30URN3 It depends what meaning of liberal he used. The colloquial American or the academic definition. Changes the answer a lot.
I loved listening to both you and Sheldon especially about this topic. I'm one of those who cries while watching the news...I think I can be an excellent study. Death & Anxiety is a real struggle.
“Too many people are boring and great people don’t exist enough as they should”
Tony hawk and Iggy pop's lovechild
Lex is on my list of favorite interviewers. Joe Rogan and Lex Friedman are my top two.
Check out Sam Harris!
Fantastic discussion. Thanks for sharing!
So, nice guest, thank you for having him on. A couple contentions I have with his analysis of Locke and Free Markets. At a point, I think he sort of glosses over an important aspect of "the pursuit of self-interest" and I see a lot of critics ignore or possibly fail to understand (or value as much as I) this central point. When two individuals are pursuing their self-interest and not competing against one another (like in the way this Mr. Fridman described) this is not a market system. Markets are intrinsically tied to the idea of competition and the competition itself is the important element in the "rising tied" analogy. So, let me give an example, say you have Farmer John pursuing his self-interest "The hand that makes the corn has the right to put the corn to their own mouth" seems to be a principle that Lex Fridman agrees with. Farmer John has to operate in the environment the best he can producing corn for his own mouth and if he's really altruistic he'll make enough corn for his family :p Now the way Mr. Fridman sort of glosses over the idea of competitive markets I would think of his mindset being, Farmer John has a direct relationship to his pursuit of happiness and any innovation he generates in that pursuit is the same progress of humanity that we see today. But this simply is not the case, it is true that an individual can innovate and that innovative ideas can Sloooooowly interact with other people and those people can steal the idea and all of our lives be improved in certain ways. But if you think about it the innovation is only valuable to a person seeing Farmer John's inventions if they have the same problem. Many of us share the same problems but many of us have our own individual problems.
Lex Fridman underestimates (i believe) the speed at which a competitive free market not only affects the life of the everyday citizen, he ignores how competition breeds innovation at such a rapid pace a generation of human will have little to no understanding of where the technology even came from or how it works (at this time i call out the old man can't use i-pad schtick). The value of competition to the benefit of all is insurmountable IMHO.
He also touches on the wealth inequality issue, which is an issue I believe in cronyism and not free-market economics but that's a more complicated and drawn-out discussion that no one will probably read lol. (if they even read this >
At first i was like,
"Man Tony Hawk is interested in Jordan Peterson?"
😂😂
Dont bother Tony when hes skateboarding!
I'm really happy to have found this. I was becoming afraid that I might agree with him too much. I couldn't find hardly anything I disagree with because no one who disagrees with him seems to make a compelling or fair case (With a notable exception being Sam Harris). Again, very happy for this!
Excellent conversation.
Amazing and fascinating podcast !
This guy's hand gestures remind me of Ben Goertzel xD
Mike Rowe with long hair.
Maybe this is an ep of Dirty Jobs where he plays at being an academic philosopher. It's messy, but someone has to do it.
@@PinataOblongata lol
Solomon's critique of neoliberalism didn't differentiate between inequality in 'fair' systems vs. inequality in 'rigged' ones. Peterson points out that people are far more likely to be resentful and even violent under rigged systems than fair ones. It would have been interesting to hear Solomon's response to that distinction.
I agree with a lot of Solomon's points here. Great guest!
Lex is looking real beefy recently, I guess since he couldn't train BJJ he started strength training.
Goggins
Next sponsor: Weight gain 3000
He doesn't express Peterson's view accurately. Jordan doesn't have a devotion to inequality; he simply says that it's a problem that Marxism doesn't fix in the slightest. The natural world is exponentially unequal, and every system is going to have that nonlinear problem until we have infinite resources (or at least enough to satisfy the needs and wants of every human), so that we can distribute enough so that no one has any complaints. it might actually be impossible, so we really should cherish a system that provides as much as ours does. He's not opposed to making things better or even changing systems; he's just skeptical that we will be able to do that since the people pushing for a new system seem to have no understanding or appreciation of what we have and seeing as we are more likely to make things worse, not better. The 20th century attempted to teach us that lesson in a very brutal way, but it's unclear we've learned that lesson and we might be destined to relive those horrors.
Did you not mean 'skeptical' where you wrote 'cynical'?
Lmao. You ignorantly are asking for Marxism. Marx appreciated capitalism and praised its successes.
Capitalism crashes very few years.how's is that not a failed system? Stop blinding yourself to the faults of this broken system of neo liberal democracy.
@@mkhosono1741 We don't have real capitalism since the federal reserve creates money out of nothing, creating artificial exponential debt to enslave the populace.
Also governments deliberately aid in that process, not only by over spending and indebting the public via the public pursue, but also, for example how Democrat mayors and governors are currently ordering police to stand down so violence will drive people out of their homes and businesses and the resulting crash in property values will allow them to buy up large parts of New York, Portland, Seattle etc etc for next to nothing.
The market manipulation, and the federal reserve in general, are corruptions of a system that was originally just about you owning the rights to your own labor, instead of being slaves of the government.
Bruv we live in artificial scarcity, we have resources for 9 billion, and Marxism and its sociology offshoots deal in how capital steers h*manity into this hierarchally conditioned thinking, replacing a real perception of nature and reinstates itself in that position. JP literally just hasn't read more than a pamphlet on marxism
It is nice to hear an opponent of Dr Peterson that doesn't cut him as a person down. Dr Solomon is a very thoughtful man. I really like this guy. I want to read up on him.
A deeply interesting discussion. Lex facilitated and added context in the opportune times.
Ok.
So, ok.
There's really quite a lot to unpack here.
I love finding somebody with an actually respectable & solid disagreement with Jordan Peterson, I found Sam Harris that way after watching their religion debates as a JP fan & leaving as a Sam fan
I found JP after being a Harris fan and giving his interview a go. I wouldn't say it converted me to JP fandom, but I was able to at least invest some time into trying to figure out what he was trying to say, when otherwise I would've instantly dismissed him as another religious nutter.
Jordan Peterson is a red-baiting, pretentious, egomaniac. His ramblings on Postmodern philosophy and ‘Neo-Marxism’ are not based on honest readings and interpretations of postmodern writers or Marxist theorists but on a second hand, politically motivated book by Stephen Hicks. By his own admission, the only Marxist literature he’s read in depth is the Communist Manifesto.
Check out Matt Dillahunty v Peterson also.
@@seanconnolly6002 Agree on the topic of Marxism. I'm not sure I'd call him dishonest on the subject but rather ignorant. He tends to read one interpretation of events and go with that instead of admitting he does not know the entirety of the subject. He tends to show this often like in his talks with Matt on Atheism and the soviet union, Weinstein convo on Hitler and evolution, Sam and truth, etc.
I've also seen things that do in fact come off as religious in nature. Such as the comments he made in his convo with Sam in regards to Subjective morality. When he stated something akin to it being so terrifying he couldn't accept that view.
This is why people tend to rely on Experts on individual subjects. No one should ever believe any one being has a full understanding on 1 let alone numerous subjects. BUT should rather listen to experts of the field in which they are talking about, then read others in the same field.
Peterson often plays the dog whistling game, such as when he talks about the soviet union with Matt stating it was evil because it was Atheist. Yet anyone who knows anything about the Communism revolution knows this is not the case. Given the way Communism was viewed and practice, exactly like a religion.
But then he claims all people are religious because all people have a "meta god" a value system of which people appeal to in their reasoning. Yet this contradicts his claim about the Soviet union.
A perfect example of how he doesn't practice what he preaches. And instead often plays word games.
@@Christopher-md7tf well certainly he was right about compelled speech, idk the canadian laws but with all the videos of mobs forcing people and businesses to say 'black l matters', Id say he was right that compelling speech is authoritative. Happened to be the case in the US instead of canada.
I hope you publish the right and left are beyond the point book!
Great conversation, lots to think about.
Finally, someone who can respectfully challenge Jordan's point of view. Loved the point he made about voluntarily decreasing the peaks of economic progress so that the troughs are also more gentle in their effects.
@ross from britain Its the concept of the debt cycles in economy. I would recommend the video titled "How the Economic Machine Works" by Ray Dalio on TH-cam if you'd like to further get into it.
@@shreeyamd The video you mentioned is about economy with an extra chromosome, not economy in general. It only explains how modern feudalism works, it has nothing to do with free market.
Lex should have a lot more subscribers based on his great videos.
Happy to see that some people can still have discussion while keeping an opened mind and with respect of others opinions. Great video.
Love that coffee cup! Where did you get it Lex?
Solomon: Marx wouldnt have been a Marxist.
Also Solomon: he literally said, what was it, each according to their needs and each according to their abilities or something...
Man, I’d love to smoke a doobie with this guy and talk philosophy!
What a fantastic clip. Wealth of succinct wisdom in 30 min.
Wow! Fascinating man! I have such high regard for Jordan Peterson's deeply intelligent thinking, and then this man, equally intelligent, politely disagrees with some of Jordan's beliefs- making this a fascinating listen! I think this world is starving for real depth and intelligence, so thank God for discussions like this! Great guest Lex!
Lex saying he'll eventually have Peterson on, or even that he is considering it, makes me extremely happy. Two of my favorite guests from JRE
I can’t see how Peterson could sustain beyond an hour any meaningful discourse that isn’t about political correctness, post modernism, or identity politics.
@@christophert8419 Why don't you check his 20+ hour psychology courses?
Hywel Griffiths His lectures are hardly anything more than digressive TED talks. You can tell because they’re in essence no different than his actual TED talks. Seriously why would anyone pay thousands in tuition just to hear “WhY FrOzEN iS PrOPAgaNdA”
@@christophert8419 Did you watch the ones about Pinocchio?
Hywel Griffiths It wouldn’t surprise me you probably found them groundbreaking.
Sheldon is a timely genius......
5:49 assumptions of human nature.. so well articulated.. left and right are beside the point
First time hearing of Sheldon, brilliant man. I do take a bit of issue with his last point with regards to his disagreement that humans aren't inherently selfish. He said that humans also have great capacity for helping & charity at the expense of themselves. Which I agree with, however I think that's only true in certain conditions. I think we're much more willing to be helpful to others at the expense of ourselves only when there's a clear line of "direct contact/connection" with the individual we're helping. For example, you see a homeless person on the side of the road & give him 5 dollars. You see his happiness, it makes you feel good. It's a direct line of connection, or, a direct feedback loop. On the contrary, if you ask the average person if they'd be willing to donate more of their earnings in the form of higher taxes, most would not be willing. Why? There's no clear line of direct contact. The money gets filtered through the (high inefficient) government & is then used to help people you don't even know via various programs. There's a lack of feedback in the result of your charity, thus you're disincentivised to provide that charity. To expand on that, one could even say this idea of being selfless at the expense of yourself in these particular conditions is a product of selfishness itself. Humans generally only help at the expense of themselves if they get something out of it. In the homeless example it would be the rush of dopamine one gets from seeing his happiness at the 5 dollars you gave him. In fact, there may be no such thing as helping at the "expense" on yourself, it's more-so the internal calculation that the swapping of 5 dollars for the dopamine hit is a worthy trade. This internal (partly subconcious) trade agreement with yourself is inherently selfish, as it's only taking your own wants into consideration.
Anyway, just my 2 cents. Fascinsting discussion all around & really got me thinking.
It's easier to see the good you do in the homeless example. But I've donated money to charity's and felt good about doing so even though I don't know who I'm donating too and will never see them or receive anything for doing so. Taxes are different because you're giving money to government to use that money on your behalf and they may not use it in the eye you intend it. Could easily be used to build nukes rather than build hospitals etc. People have simply had the selfish aspect of their being amplified through conditioning. You can say it's selfishly motivated to feel good about helping someone, but in fact that leaves you both better off. Also you say you are only calculating your own self interest, but in order to make them better off you obviously have to calculate their interests as well as your own otherwise it's not helping.
Also there are examples of people who have clearly left themselves significantly "worse off" by self self sacrifice, and a meer short term dopamine hit alone isn't no where near a sufficient explanation of the psychological value that can be derived from helping others.
Also what we mean when we talk about selfishness is about feeling nothing from helping someone, or worse feeling good about taking from someone else. Meaning a zero sum game, only one winner. A society which is based on zero sum principles is the selfishness he is referring to.
Wow never heard of him before. but I’m hooked, he seems like a really well spoken, well intended, intellectual with a new and interesting angle than the others I have followed (pinker, Peterson,Harris, Weinstein)(you know the drill)
Good to see he can steelman argument he disagrees with and makes it clear what specific parts he disagrees with and what he thinks is correct.
I take issue with Solomon's disagreement. Jordan has never said there is just one way to find meaning ie judeo-christianity. Jordan presupposes that the substrates of Western culture and it's legal and political foundations is predicated on Judeachristian vales and archetypes.
Peterson has definitely said that too much inequality is destabilizing for the society. I don't think there's any disagreement there. The only real question is, how do you reduce inequality without massive downsides (or outright catastrophe), and there is no good answer to this.
@Lex Clips thanks for mentioning Professor Richard D. Wolff, it would be great to listen to a conversation with him talk about worker cooperatives and the transformative possibility they represent for society.
This is feeling pretty “Yangy”.
Lol it sure fucken dose
@JT Raven Not necessarily. Don't dismiss the variety of jobs that can't be automated anytime soon. Time will tell.
JT Raven no , all money is mine! ) see what I did there ?
@@ACogloc There are no jobs that can't be automated. Humans are horses after the invention of the automobile.
@@christophersimms9128 Yeah this is the (formerly) AI podcast, most of us believe in eventual AGI. But we've been 20 years away from it for since the 1960s so in the meantime, the current system is best. After it we're nearly post-scarcity and it'll be much easier to deal with.
I've watched a lot of JP, I'll say with confidence that there's probably much less disagreement here than these fellas are assuming. He's definitely not a total free-market nut, he's just sensitive (and rightly so in my opinion) to the revival of anti-market ideas.
It got hard to listen to JP after he started saying your a christian even if you are atheist. I think it was based on the whole 'clash of civilizations' idea.
I could not agree more with him on canada's c16
Jordan spews conspiracies like ”culture marxism” which is connected as a gateway to the jq, just replace elites with Js.
@@gghj5754 Xieo Xabmp Huqbq Pa?
@@cloerenjackson3699 you have no clue what you're talking about and should be more open minded to people who have different experiences than you. Its called diversity bigot
Cloeren Jackson -
its because 90% of his audience is Rogan dude-bros... they love Jordan Peterson and his wacko theories
A podcast with you and Jordan Peterson would be a dream!
This was an incredible thing to behold. Sheldon Solomon is so wellspoken and knows what he's talking about. I wish there were more people like him teaching others how to think critically and form their own opinion.
A shame the JP fans will ruin the comment section (as per usual) without even knowing what Sheldon was talking about.
I've listened to quite a bit JBP, and I think he fundamentally view(s) Marxism / Marxists not from an ideological point, but more a historical and psychological one, which is probably how he ends up having people disagree with him on the topic. Much of it, I think, can really be understood from some of the literature he quotes most often: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Dostoevsky, and Nietzsche. All of these take aim at socialism / communism in parts of their bodies of work, and it's no wonder why you don't have a positive disposition towards Marxism if you understand it in the context those author's works, and what Marxism helped inspire. If you look at Marxism and understand it purely for its social and economic analysis, separate from its historical application, you're bound to have a bone to pick with what JBP has to say about it.
It never worked and will never work.
It's wonderful theory on paper not practical.
D k it’s never been implemented tho because no state has ever gotten past the transitional phase and Marx later in his life stated that socialism has to be international to be successful
Exactly. People mistake Marxism for Communism and Socialism. Those who study Marx roll their eyes at such ignorance. It is a method for socio-economic analysis. While it may have been used to form the basis for Communism/Socialism, it is far broader than either of those ideologies.
Marxism is naive in its analysis of society and genocidal in its self-righteous justification for revolution. I'm honestly not sure why it needs to keep being given more benefit of the doubt, when it's achieved exactly nothing useful as a tool for analysis and has caused at least tens of millions of deaths on its 'praxis' end.
@@hadoryu Those criticisms could be levied aginst capitalism as well.
JP is for Universal Health Care, and wants tighter regulation on gambling. He's not an absolute capitalist. He's against extremes...
he has nothing to offer
his fame came from fake controversies
(About that Canadian bill)
and provocations
he, actually, has nothing to offer
@@aerobique Well he informed me about the nonsense that passes for Academia these days. What does Critical Race Theory have to offer? A philosophy that permits calling for the 'abolishing of whiteness', thinly veiled nonsense.
@@StuartDesign Fantastic red herring my dude.
@@ElShmiablo ? Enlighten me.
@@aerobique he has a lot to offer. Many grew up without a father figure in their lives and hearing JP's message does nothing but good to their relationships with other people and their articulation of goals in life.
Fantastic conversation!!
Great conversation!
Very thoughtful stuff. I might not totally agree with Sheldon all the way but still a great piece again Lex! I’d love to see Sheldon and Jordan debate.
I love hearing discussions about Jordan Peterson, but I have NEVER heard discussions of Carl Jung on podcasts like this and that’s absolutely ridiculous considering JP is an ant compared to Jung (Jordan would probably agree with this statement and take no offence to it - any reasonable person studying Jung and familiar with his contributions to psychology would respect Jung’s giant presence).
It’s because Jordan Peterson is contemporary.
Jung helped build the bridge that Peterson walked across. Hopefully Peterson can get healthy, who knows what bridges he’ll help build.
This was amazing! Solomon!!
Eloquent and respectful disagreement with Peterson and Locke. Fascinating man. We need to embrace this version of disagreements.
Well, how do you like them apples eh bucko?
Great interview. But it seems to me that some of, but not all of Solomons disagreements with Peterson are because of a slight misunderstanding of Peterson.
I'm waaay sure that Sheldon knows and understands Jordan better than ANY of us here who haven't known Jordan for years like Sheldon
@@AntonAdelson That doesn't mean he is right and @JL Bate is wrong. It seems to me like Solomon still has a bone to pick with JP. He quotes Peterson but leaves out important context and research which JP quotes from.
Wrong. He's right about Jordan in the sense that, Jordan, like most people misunderstand and misrepresent Marx because they haven't really studied him and his writings. So it irks me that most people who claim those on the left are Marxists, because they are not in the true sense of the word.
@@mrmegabuckssongs can and will you explain to me what 'marxist' is in the true sense of the word? especially the parts that people misrepresent.
On another episode of quarantine binge-watching has led me here
There are worse places to end up.
The part philosophers and politicians often get wrong is that we are (when at our most successful) cooperative with our in-group and competitive with our out-group.
17.00 : Space has infinite resources, it’s time for humanity to look up towards the sky.
I agree, it's weird how people limit themselves to the resources on this planet even though we have a near endless Universe, the development of Virtual Worlds and some could argue access to time travel.. which is pretty close to infinite resources.
“I will happily sacrifice the rate of progress in order to flatten the curve of destruction”... What progress? nothing really innovated has happened since like 2012.. the only progress I see is the increase of Bureaucracy and government intervention/regulation (at least in the Great country of Canaduh)
Technological utopianism wont help solve the problems we are facing right now. There are no answers out there. Just emptiness.
Kind of the mindset of acclaimed futurist, Isaac Asimov
Oooh, disagreements with JBP?! This will get views!
Can't have a disagreement if he isn't there. At best one can have a disagreement with ones interpretation of JBP's position.
@John Frylock Its funny because the Anticultist of sorts are so much worse than his followers as you always see one guy in the comments obviously pseudo-intellectual claiming the high road yet you can tell they have never once seen a JP video, included the one they are posting on, yet follow the buzzfeed like hit pieces to the videos talking about how stupid peterson is. I disagree with a lot of what JP has to say but ill be damned if I could say he wasnt a smart dude with some good ideas and points.
@@seditt5146 which points made by Jordan Peterson do you like?
@@crotchy7667 I think it would be easier to list of some of the things I disagree with to be honest.
His takes on the postmodernist viewpoints I feel are incorrect to a large degree if not completely. Social interactions are indeed a power dynamic from one person to another and cooperation is simply a method to enhance ones selection via methods laid out by George Robert Price and his take on altruism. It amazes me given Petersons knowledge of Hierarchical systems that he feels the way he does about such a skeptical viewpoint on reality which brings me to the likely reason why he expresses that he feels the way he does.
I completely disagree with that Peterson states constantly which is the need and value of religion. He wishes to ignore the power dynamic in favor of a fantasy. One where people or the Universe is some inherently good thing and all one has to do is just try. I argue that if that were the case and it was inherently good why exactly do we have to try. That simply should be the nature order of things. Entropy likes to increase everywhere we have currently looked in the universe and believing tranquility and structure is the natural order feels a bit absurd and idealistic. In order to maintain order in a local system work needs to be put into it else it will dissolve into a chaotic system. It is a known law of nature and I doubt humans magically break this law. I truly believe at this stage in societal evolution religion is nothing more than a seriously destructive force and has been for quite some time. There may have been a point in time where it served a purpose, likely during smaller tribal times when community was small and interaction with other tribes was not as frequent but these days it simply impedes progress on many levels. This is something I feel deep down Peterson without a doubt knows and is a sign of the destructive force of religions. It has taken an otherwise rational man and made him irrational.
@@seditt5146 what do you consider as "religion"? For instance science is built on unprovable assumptions that must be taken on faith rather than evaluated scientifically.
Great work you’re doing Lex
love the steam punk mug...
Sheldon has such an optimistic view of Jordan’s intentions that I’m really impressed with. But given that I respect Peterson as an academic in HIS field, I keep questioning how he can mischaracterize so many philosophers so constantly if he is indeed an academic. I mean, he’s vociferous about his criticism against Marxism or about philosophers like Kant, and yet he completely mischaracterizes them, and in some instances downright characterized them as the opposite of they espoused. One cannot be a true academic who prides themselves with substantiated arguments and scholarly debate and at the same time mischaracterize ones viewpoint to that extent unless they are simply disingenuous.
He's most guilty of this with Nietzsche and Jung, though they be two of his most cited intellectual forebears. This is mostly because he has a fairly narrow education of philosophy verses his expertise of Neuroscience and psychology. It is clear in his debate with Zizeck that he hasn't read Das Capital, so how could really understand Marxism, if he's never formally studied it? More importantly, on his general philosophical positions such as on the will to truth, he hasn't read enough philosopher in his attempt at understanding the evolution of philosphical ideas. Not reading thinkers such as Feuerbach, Sarte, Engels, Mach, or Hegel just to name a few, to have enough context to know what is a viable interpretation is poor philosophical work. Thus, I'm going to challenge Peterson once I finish my philosophical education. I don't know if he'll accept my challenge, but he is a terrible philosopher, because he was never a student of philosophy, but instead paid attention to philosophy, because many philosophers were uncomfortable and unsettling to his beliefs.
@R J Peterson in his lecture on Heidegger and Phenomenology states that Nietzsche says that truth serves life. Bull shit, Nietzsche says, the only relevant truth is truth that serves life and that the truth is terrible. Saying Nietzsche advocates truth serves life is claiming Nietzsche endorses Peterson's Christian obsession with the Will to Truth which is a serious mischaracterizing of Nietzschian thought. Nietzsche wasn't interested in "The Truth" in terms of assuming its intrinsic moral good as Peterson does, but instead questions, through genealogical argument, the utility of the will to truth as it pertains to human flourishing and how the will to truth came to prominence in European western history. Read Nietzsche on the utility of truth and lie and you will see quickly that JPs tendency to say Nietzsche just cared about the truth more than organized Christianity, so he criticized organized Christianity is wrong. Nietzsche wasn't a private fan of Christianity, but instead a fan of Jesus and the Jews saying of Christ and his emergence in what he considered decaying Jewish culture, "there was only one Christian and he died on the cross ages ago." Nietzsche is not who Jordan Peterson says he is, but Nietzsche has been made out to say many things that cannot be found in his writing when very many parts of Nietzsche's writing contradicts the posited claim or belief that's supposedly endoreses Nietzsche's thinking.
@R J No, you don't understand what I'm saying. I've read all of Nietzsche and you'd have to read him like a Christian, or someone who has not read a great deal of philosophy, if you think Jordan Peterson is right in what he says Nietzsche has to say about the truth. Also, by not knowing anything of Nietzsche being influenced by Ludwig Feuerbach's Essence of Christianity as well as Jung, perhaps, one might think Nietzsche's idea of God is that of Christian Theologie's idea of God rather than Feuerbach's anthropological interpretation of God which is why Jordan Peterson gets Nietzsche and Jung wrong on God and what Jung thought about Neitzsche on God wrong, because Peterson doesn't understand their ideas against the back drop of the evolution of western philosophy and in particular German philosophy.
@R J My interpretation isn't without a basis in philosophical research. Also, In philosophy you can be wrong that's why I say Jordan Peterson is wrong. It is wrong to say something means something that is logically impossible- that is wrong.
@R J It's the confidence you have to presume my stating Jordan Peterson is wrong is something to protest against rather than something to investigate in terms of what I mean or why I say it that's misplaced. No, you've never heard my name and you don't know if I'm right or wrong, but that doesn't necessarily make my claim false or inconsequential. You have confidence in Jordan Peterson. I have confidence in reasoning. Peterson is a big name, but he's a poor philosopher and if you think simply because he is a brilliant psychologist and neuroscientist that this makes him a sound philosopher, then you are mistaken. I'm going argue with Jordan Peterson some day and we will see then who really is wrong.
When people dismiss fascism, nobody ever calls it cavalier.
False equivalent
@@dallasswoveland4466 Is Marxism not equivalent with fascism?
You could argue that it is, sure, but one is an attempt to systematize wellbeing while the other is handing power to a single person to do as they wish, for good or ill, however they see fit. Marxism is a large umbrella of thought, right or wrong case by case, fascism is anointing a person. Marxism *can* mean anointing a particular (ie maoist, Leninist) ideological school of thought/party with dictatorial power, the dismissal of which is obviously not "cavalier."
@@dallasswoveland4466 You're giving Marxism too much credit by generously characterizing it by it's noblest intent and then characterizing fascism by its means of achieving its intent. I could do the same thing and say Marxism is an attempt to systematize national order and Marxism is the confiscation of goods for redistribution however the ruling power or mob or whatever sees fit.
I get what you're saying about Marxism being a large umbrella of thought, but considering its track record, I don't see how its unfair to compare it to fascism. Have we yet seen a Marxist state that hasn't anointed one man or party with absolute power?
@@michaelmccarty1327 Fair, but there isn't a track record for the more coherent segments of that large umbrella of marxism, rather leninism, maoism, etc. They were influenced by (highly questionable) marxist economics and used them for totalitarian ends. You can use anything as a weapon, you can work through any style of governance to achieve evil aims or consequences, and any well meaning system could do the same damage with a bit of hubris.
You're right, I do often tend to see/present leftist idealistic theory in a generous light, but in this case for the sake of pointing out a distinction between "cavalier dismissal" of thought traditions that are working toward a fair and sensible system (be they marxist, fascist, capitalist, what have you) and those which hand over that work to a cult of personality.
I suppose we shouldn't dismiss the valid observations of fascists either though, even if we ought not implement their prescriptions.
This is the best synopsis of Loche I've ever heard...
There is no waist in this podcast. Thank you Lex!!!
It's interesting that he brings up the Selfish Gene at the end because when objecting to Lockes "state of nature" at the start, he seemed to me to be objecting to the idea of individual survival in favor of a more group survival paradigm, and my first thought was that Dawkins et al claim that is completely wrong IN the selfish gene. Furthermore the problem with many social systems as they exist now is that in my view, they aren't reciprocal at all. They are the opposite of that. That's why they cause major problems of their own.
For a good example of how social systems aren't even remotely reciprocal, spend some time listening to some of the more reasonable MGTOW channels.
We currently effectively subsidize women in everything via the government (ie taxes paid in the majority by men), from college scholarships to huge paydays in divorce settlements, sometimes vast sums of unaudited child support, disproportionate welfare and social services for women that are paid for by the taxes of men (as on average only men are net taxpayers). Etc.
Add to this that all evidence points to tournament breeding for sexually dimorphic species such as ourselves, and hypergamy. From this you get 10-20% of men get 80+% of the sexual access.
As a result of this system it seems that too many women tend to squander their youth banging bad boys who won't commit, and then hope to marry a responsible bill paying nerd once the guys she actually likes no longer call, when she's past her prime, debt ridden, perhaps a single mother, etc. Why make a reciprocal trade when you can be 'independent' by taking mens money with the government and give them nothing in return?
So as a result we see a massive collapse in gender relationships, marriage and also birthrates. Many men don't even have to be told about mgtow ideas, they can just see it, and are checking out, only to discover later it's a topic of public discussion and interest.
And this is just ONE example of side effects from "equalizing" social programs.
The problem we have in this case is that traditional gender roles WERE reciprocal. A man traded his lifelong excess resource acquisition skills for exclusive lifelong sexual and reproductive access to one woman, who got a dedicated provider in return. By subsidizing one half of that equation at the expense of the other and calling it 'equality', not only have women priced themselves out of the market for most men while offering little to nothing but risk in return, increasing you create a distinctive for men to be productive in society at all.
Why spend until 30 working to develop a career while you female counterpart sleeps around way more than the average man can hope to do? Especially when she will statistically take your kids and make you a financial slave for your efforts as well?
Folks can shame people who point all this out all they like, and they do and they are, but it isn't even remotely slowing down this increasing trend at all. It's increasing despite the censorship, shaming, and labeling as a "hate movement."
Similarly the idea of free markets was about reciprocity. I give something to you for something I want. It's often systems trying to make things "more fair" which are actually doing the opposite by interrupting reciprocity in favor of one party or another.
Don't get me wrong, I sympathize with Marx and Humboldt when they talk about humans being reduced to nothing but cogs in a machine. Despite my dreams and hard work, that's effectively what I feel the corporate world is or has done to me. But at least theoretically in the past I would have gotten a family out of it. As society exists now, attempting a family is a terrible deal for most men. And if I don't get that for my efforts, why do I care to support a safety net for other people's healthcare or whatever.
It's precisely opposition to the lack of reciprocity that is at the core of complaints about the 'solutions' to liberal economics.
I think Sheldon mis-characterized Mrs Thatcher's quote: there's no such thing as society [15:44] doesn't mean we're not social, but that society doesn't exist as something one can hold responsible:
“I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand ‘I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!’ or ‘I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!’ ‘I am homeless, the Government must house me!’ and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first.”
[Margaret Thatcher - 1987 interview for Women’s Own]
@@differous01 Yes. I got to give the guy credit for having rational conversation skills and MOSTLY representing a number of historical views with more detail than most can give, but my eyes sharpened and narrowed at him on a number of points that seemed misinformed, if not dishonest, in regards to said material.
The trouble with communists/communism is that it's hard to tell sometimes between the well intended misinformed folks, and those who deliberately lie about things.
While I have the wealth of nations, I confess i never read it yet. But as far as I know, the 'invisible hand' is one passing comment in an otherwise enormous book. I don't know if he read it and mischaracterized it, or is going on dishonest rhetoric from communists, or from apologists on the other side for social darwinist exploitative policies who twisted it for their own ends. It's a lot like folks who attack Atheists for "straw manning Christianity", when those atheists are attacking ideas that at the time HAD been demonstrably pushed by theists in public, and even proposed public policy. Is it the Atheists fault for accepting bad (literal) interpretations when they are not the ones deciding how it should be interpreted?
In any case, I don't know how he came by his information, I just know that my bullshit/distrust/alert meter was triggered by a number of things he said which seemed a little off point compared to the source.
That said, I'd definitely watch a 3 way with him and JP. Peterson has had some less than perfect performances to say the least (by far the worst was with Dilahunty, who despite being an unwitting raging SJW tool, DOES dismantle fundamentalism better than anyone). But IMO the truth of a lot of important questions for humanity is somewhere between Peterson, Sam Harris (who has his own failings), and Brett Weinstein (who I do think was at least somewhat complicit in the ideology that did him in at Evergreen, even if his previous experience with mice and fraternities gave him good reason for his criticisms of society as he experienced it.)
Anyway.. let's hope that they do that 3 way. Thanks for the Thatcher quote. Got to love a woman who achieves by merit and tells the Marxist derived feminists that she doesn't need their agitating to succeed on her own skills.
@@TheJeremyKentBGross - Having been a student in various 80's 'peace protests' (shouting "Maggie Maggie out out out") it was an eye opener to read her quote in context. That and seeing bottles thrown at police & troops, I had to ask myself if I was on the right side.
My grt grandfather was a Quaker pacifist in WW1, yet served in the trenches as an ambulance man, so no coward. He introduced me to both evolution and the notion of seeing "what we call God" in others. I wasn't seeing much of that from the leftists, then or now. Seeing what's gone down at Evergreen is, for me, so much history repeating.
I'm similarly unsure about Solomon; I'd very much like to see him & Peterson face to face. I'd admired Dillahunty until his chat with JP. I mean, Matt's belief in Secular Humanism seems good, but his admission "there has never been a secular humanist state" exposed his idealism: may as well say "My kingdom is not of this world".
Same for Sam Harris; I got half way through his 'Moral Landscape' and it's basically re-inventing the City of God. That said, I place Sam above Matt because he & JP are able to create 'Steele Man' arguments; those two really demonstrated how well they understand each other. I hope for similar with Sheldon.
@@differous01 Seeing "what we call God" in others.. yes this. Namaste. Logos. "Created in the image of God", whatever you call it.. that's the important point imo.
Protesters: They need to ask themselves: "Are we the baddies?"
But it is history repeating itself. Folks like to say Orwell was a warning not an instruction manual, but I always reply that actually he was writing neither. They were documentaries. Communists, the French Revolution, Cain and Able (as Peterson points out), a whole lot of the same it's alway been.
I kinda love how obvious it is that MeToo and similar lynch mobs on Twitter are basically the same exact thing as the race based lynchings they themselves screech about as the epitome of evil. Reminds me of Jesus pointing out the hypocrisy of those saying "We never would have participated in killing the prophets", when they are about to kill him.
Human nature hasn't changed. Probably never will.
As for the last paragraph, yeah like I said, Dilahunty is or has become a raging SJW tool, especially after he met his wife. It's too bad he has become expert at pulling apart one set of nonsense, only to subscribe fully to another. I guess nobody is perfect.
As for Harris, I think he mostly lost it with his TDS, probably trying to escape the epithets of racism and Islamophobia. But i think he is spot on about free will (which Peterson agrees with in his lectures if he realizes it or not, in talking about how most of you is subconscious and billions of years old, more in charge of you than "you"... in fact so does Paul in the NT when he says "the very thing I ought to do I do not, and the things I ought not to do I do...").
Harris is also right about not believing bad ideas that can be rationally dismissed with reason and evidence, like literalist fundamentalism.
The point I was saying out loud over and over again in their very first podcast was "metaphorical truth" (as a former Joseph Campbell acolyte), but it took Brett Weinstein to explain it to them in person.
I really wish Pangburn didn't slaughter the talk between Dawkins and Brett though. I REALLY wish I could watch the giant sections that were obviously cut from that video, and from things about that talk Eric Weinstein hinted at elsewhere, I think we all missed key parts of a REALLY important conversation.
But then, I've always held that Dawkins biggest mistake was not recognizing the implications of his own memetics idea. Why would we consider religion a mere Lancet Fluke and not a symbiotic like system, and more importantly, a pattern for multicellular life rather than a virus? After all, religions and religions texts seem to edit themselves like epigenetics, and are effectively blueprints for social networks, which as Nicholas Christakis points out behave just like multicellular life forms. Religions even defend themselves by protecting their memetic nucleus by convincing members not to listen to ideas that would be destructive to their blueprint, like denying outright the theory of evolution and refusing to examine it, for instance.
I will also say that the moral landscape is exactly what I would expect if the universe is a simulation by some higher dimensional "creative designer(s)." In fact, from an AI perspective, it's just a scattered hill climbing search spread out over many individual life forms. Maybe the purpose of human life, and all intelligence really, is to map the moral landscape with our lives, and leave a better picture of it for our descendants and/or future intelligences. Who can say?
@@TheJeremyKentBGross "...religions and religions texts seem to edit themselves like epigenetics, " The editing of the OT was done with meticulous attention to letter formation/changes in the 'font'. It's like the scribes wanted us to know what bits of the DNA had been altered. eg. The Isaiah Scroll from the Dead Sea is clearly the work of two factions who didn't share the same idea of God: the Essenes, who believed in a spiritual afterlife, & the Sadducee, who didn't believe in an afterlife at all. The other main factions, the military (later Macabees & Zealots) and Pharisees held to reincarnation & physical resurrection. The four are represented in the faces of the Cherubim inside the Tabernacle, like base pairs: Lion/Zealot, Ox/Essene, Man/Sadducee & Eagle/Pharisee. Judaism is only monotheistic in so much as God speaks from "in the midst" of these competing world views: the body politic only holding as long as they keep in balance. The Horsemen of Revelation & Yeats's Second Coming speak to what happens when this center cannot hold.
In the Greek tradition this equates to Aristotle's constitutional government:
“Those that think all virtue is to be found in their own party principles push matters to extremes; they do not consider that disproportion destroys a state.” [Aristotle - Politics]
What exactly do you mean by "Jordan is a religious man" ?
I rarely agree with Solomon but he's respectful. Lex is a good interviewer and doesn't make things political so far.
yeah, right on