If you enjoyed this clip, please drop a like on the video and consider subscribing. 👍 NEW EVENT! THE ANTISCIENCE OF GOD? Lawrence Krauss & Stephen Hicks th-cam.com/video/extbcWCnhxU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=zbwVhOBBgwxLtB1e LAWRENCE KRAUSS & THE FRIENDLY PLANET IS NOW ON SALE! We hope you grab a copy 🙂 amzn.to/3YWhz8W
I think its more confusing people into feeling their own opinions are validated, rather than actually championing real arguments. Peterson isnt convincing anyone who doesnt already agree with his premises.
Right, in some rare situations petersons argumentation almost make sense. However whenever he's cornered or when things get more concrete he always escapes into the vagueness of unrelated nonsense speculations. The uneducated are in awe of the sequential ordering of words they have no idea what they actually mean. Though peterson himself doesn't know either....
@@riffhammeron to a non believer yes. They are no better than the Roman Catholic Church, ie exploitation of Jesus. Then Atheists convincing other Atheists making money saying there is no God. Fools which I will debunk in time.
@@Kufunninapuh honestly, he fails to even make it to the level of debate we were having at 16. The "depends what you mean by..." thing was a running joke in our class- we knew then that it was a cop out. It would get you a laugh, but you'd be eviscerated if you tried to use it to avoid real debate the way Peterson does. It is disappointing that this is what people think thinkers sound like.
You can see how calmly and rationally Mat argues, and how tense and on the edge Peterson is. He is so out of his comfort zone and just wishes this debate to be over
I don't think so, I think Jordan is very sincere, I think he is just thinking of things far differently. I don't agree with him, but I'm seeing his perspective.
Peterson would take a pneumatologist-like stance on this and argue that, while Lions lack the actualization to both consciously practice faith or make complex decisions about their lives, the actions they take are indicative of an implicit ascription to a metaphysical framework, one of order-Lions' adherence to the hierarchal structures of their prides and their mutual exercising of restraint to secure stability within them can't adequately be rationalized as just an intrinsic predisposition for self-preservation, if that even truly exists, but is evidence of divine influence. This restraint, not unlike the moral codes that humans ascribe to divine decree, is also not unlike "belief" as we know it, though Lions lack the ability to explicitly acknowledge it. Which is why Jordan tries to make the distinction between what is explicitly stated versus what's actually implicitly acknowledged. In a sense the Lion's "belief" is analogous to the Holy Spirit prosopon within Christian triadology, where the basis of belief is God the Father, the begetter; humans, the begotten-God the Son, are observers of belief; and Lions, animals, and nature itself are an expression of that belief, God the Holy Spirit-that who proceeds. Additionally, when probing the nature of self-preservation, all the way to the most irreducible examples of it, we hit an epistemological barrier regarding its nature. "I value myself and want to live." Why? "Because my ancestors valued themselves and want to live." Why? "Because every living thing that exists, including the cells dividing in us right now, attempts to secure its existence in some shape or form." Why? That unknowable answer elevates the concept of self-preservation from a programmed physical process to that of a metaphysical phenomenon that every living thing actively contends with. To be clear: I'm not saying this, but this is what Jordan Peterson would argue here.
The Peterson System: When your debate opponent is about to show how your position is not supported by factual data, interrupt them and change the topic.
but he makes lots of money of that - that's why he is still going... Like Shapiro and all other creation fools selling ideas of world being 6000 yo and/or intelligent design. There are so many people wanting to be told what to believe not interested why they should believe (if at all)
Peterson was about to state a truth that could not be put in a proposition. Unfortunately he leaned forward to the edge of his chair , clasped his hands, screwed up his face , pressured his neck veins and then uttered word salad. Peterson is a debater who regularly fouls the ball. We need VAR in these debates and discussions.
I valued his perspective that self value is a metaphysical proposition. I don’t know if that’s true or not but I feel like I could make a decent case for either perspective and personally I found it thought provoking. Granted, to get the most out of Matt and Jordan’s conversation I had to look past some superficial flaws.
@@James-ms2mx Everything that happens in this video is Matt stating a thing and Jordan going "aha! I got ya! Are you sure about that?!" Just count the interruptions by Jordan and count whether Matt was actually caught or not.
@@ikendusnietjij2 That’s why I said I had to look past some superficial flaws into what was actually trying to be conveyed by each person. Matt came across no doubt as the better listener. That doesn’t mean Jordan had no valuable input
That's only because you can't see how it projects from the metaphysical substrate onto the personal being of the archetype persona of the Judeo-Christian personification from the eternal struggle to clean your room! (/s)
@@tobiaxelsson and thus Jesus Christ is a god. its obvious, its like the story of Pinocchio. But of course, clean your room otherwise the lobster will get you.
I saw the short of this - and I was curious so I went back and watched the entire debate. Peterson never addresses the point he raises about why he says it's a "problem" to frame everything as propositional reasoning. He says it's easy, but he never does it.
He'd have to spend an hour musing about how problem isn't well defined and how it has different meanings depending on the metaphysics you ascribe to the word. In the end he would have, as he always does, said nothing at all using an insane amount of words.
He's a con man living inside of his own head - he just convinces himself with a confidence game that he does not know how to play, hence the distraction via word salad.
@@michaelmay5453 and his fans just clap mindlessly because they FEEL like they know stuff now. When you call it word salad their blood boils, but they have no coherent thoughts to add beyond the seething rage.
He's full of shit, but on this question it's quite straightforward: There are things that don't translate to propositions and thus can't be used for propositional reasoning. Procedural knowledge ("knowing how to") for example: You can describe in minute detail (i.e. "propositionally") how to make a good tennis serve, but that doesn't mean you know how to do it (i.e. someting's lost or never captured by the propositions), whereas a tennis player could be a proficient server without having the ability to formulate it in propositions.
@@johnandersson8258 That makes no sense in the context he used it in though. You're trying to argue that his presented problem is an actual problem because it can apply to completely different situations than the one at hand. That's just silly.
When you realize Jordan Peterson just articulates misplaced words into a sentence just to sound intelligent and actually makes 0 sense, you'll realize you'll never win a debate with him , because no matter how coherent you are you'll never be able to intellectually battle someone that doesn't require any sense of reasoning to debate
It depends on what "battle" mean, and "reasoning", and what you mean by "require any sense of." Because it's bloody complicated, man! You can try that way, sure, and good luck to you, bucko!
@mattheusser1390 you really tried to pull my comment apart with your effort to pretend not to understand what I stated . I will dumb it down for you ," if someone doesn't require reason in a discussion then they can just keep discussing their nonsense without the need for reasoning " . And you sound like you're trying to be a Jordan Stan with that bucko bs , weirdo
@adammontgomery7980 and that would be an issue with writing a comment online if this is sarcasm , no way to truly tell when someone writes something with out quotation to state that or simply stating that it is sarcasm , he may be being sarcastic or could quiet literally be somebody that quotes from the Peterson handbook of quotes to live by , how does anyone know that in a comment section
@@frostgiant6358Someone would know that by recognizing that he is blatantly mocking JP, and the cue is his use of the words "bloody" and "bucko". Just take the L, bro.
The problem is, if he would be quiet and listen to others everybody could point out the b*llsh*t he is saying. He MUST talk over others and divert the conversation because it's his only chance to not get obliterated in the conversation.
Peterson: "I'm not trying to be difficult" No no no your constant interruptions aren't an attempt to shut down the voice of reason at every imaginable juncture are they now! - _Methinks he doth protest too much!_
As soon as you tell people what they think, you've lost, Jordy. And that's before the addled word salads, avoiding every question, and the costumes. Aren't you tired of being such a lame punchline yet?
They're super easy to give. He could name a hundred without issue. It'd be too confrontational for Matt. It'd be too confrontational for the audience. The list would be too long to name them all.
@@caorach5780 No, they're right. I have the list too. It's super long with so many examples. I could easily list off at least several of them. There's so many!
@@MrAkismalam LOL you can keep him, we don't need someone that claims to be an intellectual but can only offer cooking classes on word salad. They guy literally puts frozen wagyu steaks in an air fryer until they are well done - easily one of the worst kitchen crimes ever committed and tells you all you need to know about Jordan's depleted mental capacity.
@@stuffthings1417hating on a religious man ? Really, ever heard of reverend Jim jones? Some religious men are worth hating. And the phony Peterson is one of them and Kennith Copland and heaps of others.
@@stuffthings1417 You know nothing about this guy except the fact he exposed. You must be some God level genius to deduce from that that he is not smarter than J.P.
2:30 minutes in and its already derailed into Jordan not answering the questions and just asking more and more pointless crap that he thinks is polishing his ego - reality is the man is losing his mind in real time on stage.
5:01 in and he's twiddling his feet constantly, wringing his hands and just blurting out more contrarian shit instead of just letting something be said from start to finish. He looks SO uncomfortable in his own skin.
@@SpencerDonahue His demeanour is puerile. It's like he's possessed by a cranky 12 year old adhd kid. I feel he may have received a head injury or is suffering a tumour on the brain. Or is abusing party drugs or maybe cocaine.
Same shit he always pulls about definitions and meaning of simple words we all understand the meaning and definitions of. He always does that when he has no argument and it happens pretty much all the time when he's not just preaching to his choir.
@@michaelmay5453 yeah his schtick is basically that the meaning of words can be argued about and he will readily do that rather than engage authentically while accepting standard usage.
Its a shame cuz he used to say some smart stuff when he kept it simple, but he has been out of his depth for years and his ego has grown far past his knowledge
He definitely echoes intelligence. I think his abilities lie more in manipulating and deceiving, which is an art within itself. But I think we are witnessing a snowballing towards fanaticism and illusion from him over the past few years
because his I.Q. is higher than 90% of people, has a PHD in clinical psychology, held countless lectures and debates. what is your background? voting for biden?
No he doesn't. If he did, he wouldn't need to interrupt his interlocutors in order to not let their arguments be presented as strongly as possible before answering them. It's a sure tell.
"I'm all ears," says Jordan @ 7:58. Are you? What I hear is your brain constantly forming the next sentence you want to say. Listening not so much to hear but for the next opportunity to pounce.
Christians in particular try to make the whole morality thing so difficult and confusing whilst completely secular countries are busy providing the best quality of life to their citizens and having no problems in doing so
Interesting how animals also prefer life over death, how they defend themselves and their offsprings as well as other individuals from their herd. So obviously they must believe in god and therefore they must be Christians whether they admit it or not. There’s no other possible explanation.
Peterson filibusters endlessly, in order to never have to crystalise an opinion or something that he has to defend with evidence and rationale. And there can only be one reason, for money and or his ego. He holds these silly positions for money. And when holding a different silly position would seem to be lucrative ( either in terms of money or in exposure ) he'll just do that. He really is the meta North American man - a grifter. As an aside, there's a moment around 2'45" where the audience laughs and Peterson slaps his thighs slightly belatedly. He thought he'd done a "funny" and the audience was laughing appreciatively. The thing is, he'd no idea he'd "done a funny" and the audience was laughing at his ridiculosity. His lack of self-awareness is quite spectacular.
@@mwfmtnman I do Ok, in those terms. I'm British from Liverpool, and have dual Luxembourgish nationality. I share my time between Lux and Portugal ( my girlfriend is Portuguese ) my grown up kids live in London, Toronto and Dubai. Before I came to Luxembourg, the big commodity trading company for whom I run the freight trading department sent me first to Athens for 5 years to manage our Greek shipping clients ( I speak Greek ) then to Paris head office ( I am fluent in French ) and then to Luxembourg because a lot of our shipowning and holding structures are domiciled here. Between France and Luxembourg there was a 3 year hiatus when I was a partner with Societe Generale in a Japanese investment fund - that took me to Japan a few times. And, of course, being in Luxembourg, I have France, Germany and the low countries within spitting distance. So I really don't understand how your comment applies to me.
I used to like a good debate with JP but now I can’t stomach him. He dodges and weaves and squirms and wriggles and it’s painful to watch. I can only ever watch the first few minutes before I have to turn him off!
Matt has described his interaction with JP on and specifically off stage multiple times… let’s say he used exactly the kind of language we expected him to. Back then JP was literally about to loose his mind. These days he’s just lying on purpose.
I like to live a happy life. JORDAN : No you dont. why? JORDAN : because it depends on how you define "like , live, happy. life, to, I, a" shut up or i will make you an unhappy life. JORDAN : oh, I understand what is "happy life" now
How can anyone take him seriously? Jordan says something stupid, "no art without religion". He gets easily called out for his stupidity. Then tries to recover by claiming that atheists aren't real. He's an absolute joke.
What exactly does Jordan Peterson believe? He often swears using the Lord's name in vain, which is considered a sin. Does he not realize this? What kind of God does he claim to worship?
His brand of Christianity is not literal but largely metaphorical and open to multiple interpretations. To him, it represents a form of truth that transcends literal facts, acting as a 'meta-truth' that shapes the metaphysical substrate of moral ethics and the concept of God. These concepts are mostly based on his interpretation of Jung, Plato, Dostoyevsky, and Nietzsche. From Jung, he draws the archetypes as symbols in the collective unconscious that communicate meta-ideas. From Plato, he sees the existence of transcendent forms of truth that underlie reality. From Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche, he takes the exploration of the dangers of nihilism and the challenge of finding moral grounding without God, with a lot of prejudices and generalizations about Atheism and skepticism.
My favorite line was JP saying "I'm not trying to be difficult". The man's entire career is nothing but finding ways to be difficult and confusing in order to never have to stand for anything.
After seeing this does anybody wonder why Jordan Peterson won't ever speak to Matt again? It must have destroyed him getting laughed at by this whole room over and over again.
My rules for life: dont trust a guy that fits into following criteria A) selling self help books B) staying awake for a month from consuming apple cidre C) spending half a year in a coma in russia
Matt Dillahunty listens, and thinks. He doesn't talk during these moments. Jordan Petersen just talks and talks and talks and talks and doesn't appear to require listening or thinking, much like his fans.
The bottom line here is that Jordan is just too cowardly to even TRY to make sense of things without a God. It's the easy out. To suggest something unimaginable, imperceptible, boundless, formless, "perfect," is just shoving all the hard problems into an impossible corner. It's anti-intellectual, and we are HERE because of our intellect.
Wellbeing = being well. By definition, that requires (a) being (aka living) and (b) in a good or beneficial manner. A burn victim isn't wellbeing because they aren't WELL. A dead person isn't wellbeing because they aren't BEING. That simple
Petersons only strategy when cornered, when he KNOWS his opponent is about to make a solid point and land a blow, is to interrupt with vague clarifying questions and psychobabbling. Thankfully Matt isn't so easily distracted by his smoke and mirrors.
Jordan Perterson's "logic" : any argument for the existence of God " no push-back, no criticism, any argument for it will do, man. Any argument against the existence of God: the most intense level of criticism possible, of scrutiny, "have you checked under every stone in the universe for your claim!? Yeah, no biais at all to see here!
Matt asked "show me something demonstrably true I could not put in a proposition" and Peterson says "thats easy are you sure you want to go there?" Okay why then WAS THE DEMAND NEVER MET with even one example? Man what a slippery character.
Peterson is obviously flailing at every point, grasping at straws and falling flat. This tears down the whole intellectual facade and lays bare for all to see what Peterson actually is.
10:43 "I am not trying to be difficult." While Peterson creeps down to the ground and starts frantically waving his fingers while talking difficult, this is a hilarious statement.
When I first discovered Peterson he seemed so intelligent and articulate, spoke wisdom on topics of gender, gender equality, human behaviour etc ....then he goes onto religion and it's like his brain has melted and just talks utter bollocks!
Matt's comment about pragmatism and not wanting to be thrown off the stage is great. It's simple and straightforward. As much as I like some of Jordan's work, his exploration of "why" right after shows me that he is not willing to consider the actual proposition. He believes a priori that there must be more explanation. And that insistence on endless reasoning is a part of why people don't trust one another.
I watched this debate years ago, and couldn't believe how idiotic Peterson sounded. It hasn't aged well for him. Matt did a great work displaying JP bullshittery
We can give intrinsic value to ourselves, our fellow man, and other living (or even nonliving) things without the need for a deity. To assume that a deity is necessary is to assume that our values must be dictated to us.
If you enjoyed this clip, please drop a like on the video and consider subscribing. 👍
NEW EVENT! THE ANTISCIENCE OF GOD? Lawrence Krauss & Stephen Hicks th-cam.com/video/extbcWCnhxU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=zbwVhOBBgwxLtB1e
LAWRENCE KRAUSS & THE FRIENDLY PLANET IS NOW ON SALE! We hope you grab a copy 🙂 amzn.to/3YWhz8W
It seems that Petersons goal is to confuse people into religion.
yep, just make sure to buy his mumbo jumbo book too, if he can't sell his nonsense in print, then what is the point of Catholicism at all?
I think its more confusing people into feeling their own opinions are validated, rather than actually championing real arguments. Peterson isnt convincing anyone who doesnt already agree with his premises.
@@shetlandapache949 Oh, so he's an apologist
Right, in some rare situations petersons argumentation almost make sense. However whenever he's cornered or when things get more concrete he always escapes into the vagueness of unrelated nonsense speculations. The uneducated are in awe of the sequential ordering of words they have no idea what they actually mean. Though peterson himself doesn't know either....
@@definitivamenteno-malo7919 seems fairly accurate to me.
What an insufferable obstructionist .. Peterson just keeps the conversation stuck in limbo
Perfectly put!!
"well that's all dependent on your level of analysis on what a conversation is"
Jordan Peterson: no one speaks more and says less
@@riffhammeron kettle black. Hitchens Dawkins and Matt Dallihaunty. True windbags.
@@DavidDancs-ei7pr What parts of Dawkins's 1989 papers on Henninger's principles of cell biology do you disagree with?
@DavidDancs-ei7pr they talk a lot, but the things they say are at least coherent and rational
@@cortical1 Dawkins has a plumb in is mouth, doesn't make him intelligent.
@@riffhammeron to a non believer yes. They are no better than the Roman Catholic Church, ie exploitation of Jesus. Then Atheists convincing other Atheists making money saying there is no God. Fools which I will debunk in time.
That one kid in high school philosophy who the teacher had to pretend they didn't hate
Love the specificity 👍
Pretend, tooth grittingly, ALLOT.
@@Kufunninapuh honestly, he fails to even make it to the level of debate we were having at 16. The "depends what you mean by..." thing was a running joke in our class- we knew then that it was a cop out. It would get you a laugh, but you'd be eviscerated if you tried to use it to avoid real debate the way Peterson does. It is disappointing that this is what people think thinkers sound like.
@@lkyuvsad Agreed, whenever he's pressed he just tries to shift the topic.
Peterson can be so pompous.
I’m surprised Matt didn’t go off.
You can see how calmly and rationally Mat argues, and how tense and on the edge Peterson is. He is so out of his comfort zone and just wishes this debate to be over
I don't think so, I think Jordan is very sincere, I think he is just thinking of things far differently. I don't agree with him, but I'm seeing his perspective.
Jordan just wants to win the argument and goes into his incoherent rants because he is realizing that he is losing badly but doesn’t want to admit it.
@@vodkarage8227 he is sincere but he is clearly uncomfortable ….read his body language
He could be back on the benzo train and withdrawing a little.
@@federicocamp2231 yep you see that more and more as the video goes on
According to Peterson, Lions must believe in God, otherwise they'd eat each other up
Considering lions do eat each other they are clearly godless. (/s just in case.)
@sonny2dap yeah some of them are stubborn atheists
Peterson should listen to the ridicio ridiculous statements he is making.
It’s unbearable listening to Peterson’s “arguments”
Peterson would take a pneumatologist-like stance on this and argue that, while Lions lack the actualization to both consciously practice faith or make complex decisions about their lives, the actions they take are indicative of an implicit ascription to a metaphysical framework, one of order-Lions' adherence to the hierarchal structures of their prides and their mutual exercising of restraint to secure stability within them can't adequately be rationalized as just an intrinsic predisposition for self-preservation, if that even truly exists, but is evidence of divine influence. This restraint, not unlike the moral codes that humans ascribe to divine decree, is also not unlike "belief" as we know it, though Lions lack the ability to explicitly acknowledge it. Which is why Jordan tries to make the distinction between what is explicitly stated versus what's actually implicitly acknowledged.
In a sense the Lion's "belief" is analogous to the Holy Spirit prosopon within Christian triadology, where the basis of belief is God the Father, the begetter; humans, the begotten-God the Son, are observers of belief; and Lions, animals, and nature itself are an expression of that belief, God the Holy Spirit-that who proceeds.
Additionally, when probing the nature of self-preservation, all the way to the most irreducible examples of it, we hit an epistemological barrier regarding its nature. "I value myself and want to live." Why? "Because my ancestors valued themselves and want to live." Why? "Because every living thing that exists, including the cells dividing in us right now, attempts to secure its existence in some shape or form." Why? That unknowable answer elevates the concept of self-preservation from a programmed physical process to that of a metaphysical phenomenon that every living thing actively contends with.
To be clear: I'm not saying this, but this is what Jordan Peterson would argue here.
The Peterson System: When your debate opponent is about to show how your position is not supported by factual data, interrupt them and change the topic.
And redefine accepted words. He is a joke.
zero factual data on religion, either way.
All of these clowns prefer their echo chambers.
Peterson is a nut case.
but he makes lots of money of that - that's why he is still going... Like Shapiro and all other creation fools selling ideas of world being 6000 yo and/or intelligent design. There are so many people wanting to be told what to believe not interested why they should believe (if at all)
but you voted for kamala.
nailed it.
@@stuffthings1417what the fuck does Kamala have to do with anything…?
@@stuffthings1417
And your parents are siblings. What's that got to do with this?
@@burningmisery and you're a democrat. just sayin.
Peterson was about to state a truth that could not be put in a proposition. Unfortunately he leaned forward to the edge of his chair , clasped his hands, screwed up his face , pressured his neck veins and then uttered word salad. Peterson is a debater who regularly fouls the ball. We need VAR in these debates and discussions.
I valued his perspective that self value is a metaphysical proposition. I don’t know if that’s true or not but I feel like I could make a decent case for either perspective and personally I found it thought provoking. Granted, to get the most out of Matt and Jordan’s conversation I had to look past some superficial flaws.
@@James-ms2mx🤦🏻♂️
@@James-ms2mx Everything that happens in this video is Matt stating a thing and Jordan going "aha! I got ya! Are you sure about that?!"
Just count the interruptions by Jordan and count whether Matt was actually caught or not.
The question never got answered by the way 😂
@@ikendusnietjij2
That’s why I said I had to look past some superficial flaws into what was actually trying to be conveyed by each person. Matt came across no doubt as the better listener. That doesn’t mean Jordan had no valuable input
Petersen is such a weasel. He fudges absolutely everything
Peterson opitomizes the position religion uses to define itself. 'They talk the talk while making no sense whatsoever.'
That's only because you can't see how it projects from the metaphysical substrate onto the personal being of the archetype persona of the Judeo-Christian personification from the eternal struggle to clean your room! (/s)
@@tobiaxelsson and thus Jesus Christ is a god. its obvious, its like the story of Pinocchio. But of course, clean your room otherwise the lobster will get you.
indeed....
@@razony epitomizes
I saw the short of this - and I was curious so I went back and watched the entire debate. Peterson never addresses the point he raises about why he says it's a "problem" to frame everything as propositional reasoning. He says it's easy, but he never does it.
He'd have to spend an hour musing about how problem isn't well defined and how it has different meanings depending on the metaphysics you ascribe to the word. In the end he would have, as he always does, said nothing at all using an insane amount of words.
He's a con man living inside of his own head - he just convinces himself with a confidence game that he does not know how to play, hence the distraction via word salad.
@@michaelmay5453 and his fans just clap mindlessly because they FEEL like they know stuff now. When you call it word salad their blood boils, but they have no coherent thoughts to add beyond the seething rage.
He's full of shit, but on this question it's quite straightforward: There are things that don't translate to propositions and thus can't be used for propositional reasoning. Procedural knowledge ("knowing how to") for example: You can describe in minute detail (i.e. "propositionally") how to make a good tennis serve, but that doesn't mean you know how to do it (i.e. someting's lost or never captured by the propositions), whereas a tennis player could be a proficient server without having the ability to formulate it in propositions.
@@johnandersson8258 That makes no sense in the context he used it in though. You're trying to argue that his presented problem is an actual problem because it can apply to completely different situations than the one at hand. That's just silly.
I'd love it if JP actually said what he believes. He is so full of shit
There's no money in intellectual honesty.
He said a couple here. "Atheists can't produce art, other art, other art, nor behave rationally."
@@MrDerushingoreally? Hitchens and Chomsky became quite wealthy!
That would require he believe anything.
@@musiclover9361 Fair enough. I meant there's no EASY money in it.
When you realize Jordan Peterson just articulates misplaced words into a sentence just to sound intelligent and actually makes 0 sense, you'll realize you'll never win a debate with him , because no matter how coherent you are you'll never be able to intellectually battle someone that doesn't require any sense of reasoning to debate
It depends on what "battle" mean, and "reasoning", and what you mean by "require any sense of." Because it's bloody complicated, man! You can try that way, sure, and good luck to you, bucko!
@mattheusser1390 you really tried to pull my comment apart with your effort to pretend not to understand what I stated . I will dumb it down for you ," if someone doesn't require reason in a discussion then they can just keep discussing their nonsense without the need for reasoning " . And you sound like you're trying to be a Jordan Stan with that bucko bs , weirdo
@@frostgiant6358dude, he's doing a JP impression. It's sarcasm
@adammontgomery7980 and that would be an issue with writing a comment online if this is sarcasm , no way to truly tell when someone writes something with out quotation to state that or simply stating that it is sarcasm , he may be being sarcastic or could quiet literally be somebody that quotes from the Peterson handbook of quotes to live by , how does anyone know that in a comment section
@@frostgiant6358Someone would know that by recognizing that he is blatantly mocking JP, and the cue is his use of the words "bloody" and "bucko". Just take the L, bro.
Jordan Peterson should not talk for a while. If he actually listens, for a change, he may learn something.
The problem is, if he would be quiet and listen to others everybody could point out the b*llsh*t he is saying. He MUST talk over others and divert the conversation because it's his only chance to not get obliterated in the conversation.
He’s too much of a narcissist.
Peterson: "I'm not trying to be difficult" No no no your constant interruptions aren't an attempt to shut down the voice of reason at every imaginable juncture are they now! - _Methinks he doth protest too much!_
The amount of times JP wouldn't let the other guy finish his answer after asking him a question in a debate about morality. . .
He'd be more at home on a Twitch stream than a stage...
It's "number" of times
As soon as you tell people what they think, you've lost, Jordy.
And that's before the addled word salads, avoiding every question, and the costumes.
Aren't you tired of being such a lame punchline yet?
Precisely! He's CONSTANTLY arguing with strawmen because he NEVER listens to what they actually believe
Still waiting for Jordan to give one of the “many easy” examples of something that is true and cannot be put into a proposition.
They're super easy to give. He could name a hundred without issue. It'd be too confrontational for Matt. It'd be too confrontational for the audience. The list would be too long to name them all.
@@ikendusnietjij2 If there are so many, can you enlighten me on some you know?
@@caorach5780 No, they're right. I have the list too. It's super long with so many examples. I could easily list off at least several of them. There's so many!
@@caorach5780are you sure you wanna go there?
'Sorry I just need to interrupt you all the time to win the argument'
Jordan couldn’t be more condescending throughout this whole debate, and then he wonders why people don’t like him
I don't like him because he is irrelevant
Good.....We love him ....next one
@@MrAkismalam LOL you can keep him, we don't need someone that claims to be an intellectual but can only offer cooking classes on word salad. They guy literally puts frozen wagyu steaks in an air fryer until they are well done - easily one of the worst kitchen crimes ever committed and tells you all you need to know about Jordan's depleted mental capacity.
Jordan Peterson is a dumb persons idea of what a smart person talks like
@@seanflynn1693 LOL! Nice.
Peterson has a incredible ability to baffle simple minded people with bullshut.
It’s no wonder he’s a part of the Daily Wire.
Kanye West and Jordan Peterson are good examples, that being a public person and dealing with mental illness, is a sad combination.
This debate might lead him into a bad spiral
hating on a religious man who is way smarter than you is a bad flex.
@@stuffthings1417hating on a religious man ? Really, ever heard of reverend Jim jones? Some religious men are worth hating. And the phony Peterson is one of them and Kennith Copland and heaps of others.
Jordan Peterson isn't smart. He's a loudmouth, fast talker, gaslighting conman.
@@stuffthings1417 You know nothing about this guy except the fact he exposed. You must be some God level genius to deduce from that that he is not smarter than J.P.
According to JP, the maximally tastiest possible sandwich would qualify as God. 😆
Well, that depends on what you mean by "tastiest"...and what you mean by "sandwich"...and what you mean by "the"...
2:30 minutes in and its already derailed into Jordan not answering the questions and just asking more and more pointless crap that he thinks is polishing his ego - reality is the man is losing his mind in real time on stage.
5:01 in and he's twiddling his feet constantly, wringing his hands and just blurting out more contrarian shit instead of just letting something be said from start to finish. He looks SO uncomfortable in his own skin.
It would be a living hell to be around Peterson no doubt about it.
@@SpencerDonahue His demeanour is puerile. It's like he's possessed by a cranky 12 year old adhd kid. I feel he may have received a head injury or is suffering a tumour on the brain. Or is abusing party drugs or maybe cocaine.
Same shit he always pulls about definitions and meaning of simple words we all understand the meaning and definitions of. He always does that when he has no argument and it happens pretty much all the time when he's not just preaching to his choir.
You don't sound like you mean that, therefore I win
@@michaelmay5453 yeah his schtick is basically that the meaning of words can be argued about and he will readily do that rather than engage authentically while accepting standard usage.
@@MrThemaskedavenger Shucks, you got me there. :(
:P
I honestly don't understand why anyone takes Peterson seriously.
Only young men who think he sounds smart and that he can 'own' people with less intellectual capacity than him, that they don't like.
I'm as impressed with Matt Dillahunty as I am confused and frustrated by Jordan Peterson.
Peterson has become a clown. He is not a debater, he is a preacher.
Its a shame cuz he used to say some smart stuff when he kept it simple, but he has been out of his depth for years and his ego has grown far past his knowledge
he is a reverend
Old clip. Not “become”, but “for a couple of years now”.
I don't think Peterson let Matt answer, or complete a single question or thought. Not once.
No he's a bully.
Peterson was trying so hard to beat Matt because he was still traumatized from the ass kicking Harris gave him. That's why he was triggered.
It baffles me how anybody can consider Jordan Peterson to be an intellectual.
thinking he same here....but may be the answer is in asking who/how are those thinking of him as an intellectual...
He definitely echoes intelligence. I think his abilities lie more in manipulating and deceiving, which is an art within itself. But I think we are witnessing a snowballing towards fanaticism and illusion from him over the past few years
because his I.Q. is higher than 90% of people, has a PHD in clinical psychology, held countless lectures and debates.
what is your background? voting for biden?
@@stuffthings1417 An appeal to authority, an ad hom, appeal to popularity, genetic fallacy, non sequitur and a false dichotomy.
@@stuffthings1417wow. You’re defensive 😂 he’s a quack who deserves to have his license revoked.
Jordan Peterson believes in Jordan Peterson.
Don't be too sure about that :)
He might just be acting as if he does.
No he doesn't. If he did, he wouldn't need to interrupt his interlocutors in order to not let their arguments be presented as strongly as possible before answering them. It's a sure tell.
Peterson just covers everything in goo and forces his interlocutor too spend all their time cleaning up the goo
"I'm all ears," says Jordan @ 7:58. Are you? What I hear is your brain constantly forming the next sentence you want to say. Listening not so much to hear but for the next opportunity to pounce.
Peterson has something to say about everything but nothing really to say
Peterson is like the college roommate who is high on drugs and thinks his IQ has risen above the IQ of everyone else in the room.
He's not "like" he's on drugs, lol
If Jordan Peterson didn’t exist it would not be necessary to invent him.
Christians in particular try to make the whole morality thing so difficult and confusing whilst completely secular countries are busy providing the best quality of life to their citizens and having no problems in doing so
I wish the Bible had moral lessons about renewable energy, or the biodiversity crisis.
Interesting how animals also prefer life over death, how they defend themselves and their offsprings as well as other individuals from their herd. So obviously they must believe in god and therefore they must be Christians whether they admit it or not. There’s no other possible explanation.
Animals understand morality better than a divine command theorist. "Thing feel good, thing good for family, we must do thing."
Peterson, Russell Brand, Elon Musk, Joe Rogan-just put them all in a podcast studio for eternity that has no feed to the outside world.
Brilliant 😅
did you see that video of a chimpanzee flexing?
well it depends on what you mean by "did"
And no food.
Peterson filibusters endlessly, in order to never have to crystalise an opinion or something that he has to defend with evidence and rationale. And there can only be one reason, for money and or his ego. He holds these silly positions for money. And when holding a different silly position would seem to be lucrative ( either in terms of money or in exposure ) he'll just do that. He really is the meta North American man - a grifter.
As an aside, there's a moment around 2'45" where the audience laughs and Peterson slaps his thighs slightly belatedly. He thought he'd done a "funny" and the audience was laughing appreciatively. The thing is, he'd no idea he'd "done a funny" and the audience was laughing at his ridiculosity. His lack of self-awareness is quite spectacular.
Really? "North American man"? Can you blow any point you have with bigotry anymore? Toolbag
@@mwfmtnman Perhaps you should get out more?
@@nialllambert3194 perhaps you should meet more people from around the world.
@@mwfmtnman I do Ok, in those terms. I'm British from Liverpool, and have dual Luxembourgish nationality. I share my time between Lux and Portugal ( my girlfriend is Portuguese ) my grown up kids live in London, Toronto and Dubai. Before I came to Luxembourg, the big commodity trading company for whom I run the freight trading department sent me first to Athens for 5 years to manage our Greek shipping clients ( I speak Greek ) then to Paris head office ( I am fluent in French ) and then to Luxembourg because a lot of our shipowning and holding structures are domiciled here.
Between France and Luxembourg there was a 3 year hiatus when I was a partner with Societe Generale in a Japanese investment fund - that took me to Japan a few times.
And, of course, being in Luxembourg, I have France, Germany and the low countries within spitting distance. So I really don't understand how your comment applies to me.
I used to like a good debate with JP but now I can’t stomach him. He dodges and weaves and squirms and wriggles and it’s painful to watch. I can only ever watch the first few minutes before I have to turn him off!
JP interrupts too much and I've figured out how he evades so much...by saying...'and then the question is..'
Peterson doesn't just move the goalposts; he leaves and goes to another field.
JP is so cringe.
Professor Kermit is the living embodiment of a joke. Although I'm sure if I called him that to his face he'd ask me to define living.
Matt has the patience of a saint and the intelligence to be able to stay on track when Peterson keeps trying to pull him off it
Matt has described his interaction with JP on and specifically off stage multiple times… let’s say he used exactly the kind of language we expected him to.
Back then JP was literally about to loose his mind. These days he’s just lying on purpose.
I like to live a happy life.
JORDAN : No you dont.
why?
JORDAN : because it depends on how you define "like , live, happy. life, to, I, a"
shut up or i will make you an unhappy life.
JORDAN : oh, I understand what is "happy life" now
Patersons constant deflecting to disrupt his flaws being recognised is irritating to watch
Peterson is a dishonest bad faith. Interlocutor. You can hear his desperation to not allow Matt to finish his argument.
Peterson: "I'm all ears."
If only........
Let's go with this one, there's theists that think they believe in a god..
How can anyone take him seriously? Jordan says something stupid, "no art without religion". He gets easily called out for his stupidity. Then tries to recover by claiming that atheists aren't real. He's an absolute joke.
Yeah that 'no art without religion' remark is just completely ludicrous. He's become a total bore.
What exactly does Jordan Peterson believe? He often swears using the Lord's name in vain, which is considered a sin. Does he not realize this? What kind of God does he claim to worship?
The God of grifters and scammers.
He doesn't claim to worship any God
His brand of Christianity is not literal but largely metaphorical and open to multiple interpretations. To him, it represents a form of truth that transcends literal facts, acting as a 'meta-truth' that shapes the metaphysical substrate of moral ethics and the concept of God. These concepts are mostly based on his interpretation of Jung, Plato, Dostoyevsky, and Nietzsche. From Jung, he draws the archetypes as symbols in the collective unconscious that communicate meta-ideas. From Plato, he sees the existence of transcendent forms of truth that underlie reality. From Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche, he takes the exploration of the dangers of nihilism and the challenge of finding moral grounding without God, with a lot of prejudices and generalizations about Atheism and skepticism.
@@RojirigoD thank you for explaining,.
I understand JP himself to be an atheist, but patronizes the masses to "believe in belief" in order to maintain the status quo.
peterson's body language is that of a coward
My favorite line was JP saying "I'm not trying to be difficult". The man's entire career is nothing but finding ways to be difficult and confusing in order to never have to stand for anything.
When is the world going to boycott the never ending Jordan Peterson circus?
After seeing this does anybody wonder why Jordan Peterson won't ever speak to Matt again? It must have destroyed him getting laughed at by this whole room over and over again.
Did he say that??
@@BestLifeMD Matt said that. Jordan even wouldn't speak to him right after this debate.
My rules for life: dont trust a guy that fits into following criteria
A) selling self help books
B) staying awake for a month from consuming apple cidre
C) spending half a year in a coma in russia
Matt Dillahunty listens, and thinks. He doesn't talk during these moments. Jordan Petersen just talks and talks and talks and talks and doesn't appear to require listening or thinking, much like his fans.
The bottom line here is that Jordan is just too cowardly to even TRY to make sense of things without a God. It's the easy out. To suggest something unimaginable, imperceptible, boundless, formless, "perfect," is just shoving all the hard problems into an impossible corner. It's anti-intellectual, and we are HERE because of our intellect.
He defends Christian beliefs a lot, but shouldn’t these same defenses be used for Hinduism, Buddhism or Zoroastrianism?
Wellbeing = being well. By definition, that requires (a) being (aka living) and (b) in a good or beneficial manner.
A burn victim isn't wellbeing because they aren't WELL.
A dead person isn't wellbeing because they aren't BEING.
That simple
Im really starting to realise the JP needs to learn to be quiet and listen
Petersons only strategy when cornered, when he KNOWS his opponent is about to make a solid point and land a blow, is to interrupt with vague clarifying questions and psychobabbling. Thankfully Matt isn't so easily distracted by his smoke and mirrors.
Peterson: the right wing’s idea of a smart person
Peterson does not actually believe in a god.
I don't think he does, he has indicated that people, particularly stupid people, need the belief in a divine being, even if its false.
His answer for that is that he acts as if he exists.
But he thinks other people should.
Dr. P was so high on pills for this debate. 🥴 His incoherence is staggering. 😂
Funny how you can't self identify as a transexual cos of facts and yet if you say you're an atheist, you're wrong..
Truth.
JP is not worth listening to
About as useful as listening to a rock in a blender.
Jordan Perterson's "logic" : any argument for the existence of God " no push-back, no criticism, any argument for it will do, man. Any argument against the existence of God: the most intense level of criticism possible, of scrutiny, "have you checked under every stone in the universe for your claim!? Yeah, no biais at all to see here!
Matt asked "show me something demonstrably true I could not put in a proposition" and Peterson says "thats easy are you sure you want to go there?" Okay why then WAS THE DEMAND NEVER MET with even one example? Man what a slippery character.
JP seems to say he understands evolutionary psychology yet never ever realises that it’s the reason for moral behaviour, and not religion
Yup, and oddly enough he does refer to Frans de Waal on occasion who actually did morality research in animals.
JP is selective.
Peterson is obviously flailing at every point, grasping at straws and falling flat. This tears down the whole intellectual facade and lays bare for all to see what Peterson actually is.
10:43 "I am not trying to be difficult." While Peterson creeps down to the ground and starts frantically waving his fingers while talking difficult, this is a hilarious statement.
When I first discovered Peterson he seemed so intelligent and articulate, spoke wisdom on topics of gender, gender equality, human behaviour etc ....then he goes onto religion and it's like his brain has melted and just talks utter bollocks!
He’s like this on every topic, it’s just that you may not notice it when his views align with yours.
Matt's comment about pragmatism and not wanting to be thrown off the stage is great. It's simple and straightforward. As much as I like some of Jordan's work, his exploration of "why" right after shows me that he is not willing to consider the actual proposition. He believes a priori that there must be more explanation. And that insistence on endless reasoning is a part of why people don't trust one another.
This might be the absolute stupidest I’ve ever seen Jordan Peterson sound and he said some really stupid things before
Pederson is SO enraged nobody can a full sentence or thought out before he is aruging complete nonsense.
Matt is way too patient in front of absurdity.
Jordan is such a cynical individual.
Deeply!
Peterson is trying to be Socrates... there's a reason Socrates was referred to as a gadfly. He was annoying as fk.
No chance to have an inteligrnt conversation with jordan petersen.
Jordan says take it all the way to the bottom. He's already at the bottom of the barrel with nothing left to rationalize with.
I watched this debate years ago, and couldn't believe how idiotic Peterson sounded. It hasn't aged well for him. Matt did a great work displaying JP bullshittery
The many psychotic character traits of Jordan Peterson. This one I call the "Chuckle-the-Clown" façade.
"I'm not trying to be difficult" Hmmm why change the habit of a lifetime?
Why anyone listens to JP is a mystery - he is an utter waste of time
my boy JP is about to cry
Peterson is just a timewaster.
Kermit De Fraud wishes he had his emotional support lobsters on stage with him.
I have little to no respect for JP when it comes to religion.
Peterson is a psychologist. I pity any patients who have had to deal with him.
😂 yeah, “why do you want well being? Suffer b1tch!”
Jordan Peterson: no human being says so much without saying anything. Just uses big words to convince stupid people that he's smart.
JP should watch this and pay attention to his body language 😂🎉
« I don’t believe in God »
JP: you really do believe in God
😂😂
We can give intrinsic value to ourselves, our fellow man, and other living (or even nonliving) things without the need for a deity. To assume that a deity is necessary is to assume that our values must be dictated to us.
Obfuscate, obfuscate, redefine, interrupt, non-sequitor, obfuscate. Rinse and repeat, receive money from impressionable morons.