In the "Encyclopedia of Wars" (2004), Axelrod and Philips assign causes to 1763 conflicts throughout recorded history. Only 121 are assigned to religion. That's a little under 7%. Curiously, 66 of those specifically involved Islam, meaning that all other religions combined were involved in about 3% of wars. Martel's "The Encyclopedia of War" (2012) confirms a percentage of 6% for wars involving religion. The BBC's "God and War" audit analyzed 73 wars throughout history, assigning them a value of 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) for "intensity of religious factors as motivation". Of those 73 wars, 7 have a rating of 3 or higher. Only 3 have a rating of 5. The other 93% of wars are motivated by land, resources, political control, ethnic enmity, and a host of other secular reasons.
This is definitely interesting. But I don't quite know what it means? Viewing war as the ultimate way to resolve a dispute; does this mean that people in general do not regard Religion as something important enough to fight over? Or do people tend to have Religious views which do not often clash with one another on a level which would warrant fighting over them? There are obviously many other reasons for people to fight. Do people tend to believe those things are more important than religion?
Fred Gauss an argument that atheists love to claim is that religion is responsible for most of all the wars and atrocities in life and it’s arguments like that that blind them to the positives and usefulness of religion that Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris are at odds about
I feel as though Harris' argument also stipulates that one can use a "software" other than that of religion. As both Harrison and peterson agree, religious "software" is rife with bugs in the programming. That is, the literal understanding of the bible and many other religious texts is unequivocally damaging to modern moral frameworks. Peterson seems to suggest that the best thing to do is keep utilizing this software as we know that it can work, while Harrison argues that it's pointless to use inherently flawed software when we have other more rational alternatives outside of religion.
Noah Desimone i think the hang-up is the lack of a replacement. Like religion continues because of structure and tradition right? Sam’s world of facts and values needs to utilize a similar intermediary because let’s face it, mediocrity is the baseline in society. I would say the evidence is pretty strong that humans think, talk, understand best in metaphor like JP argues that’s why he focuses on the usefulness of story so much.
Bret's ideas definitely need more attention in this whole IDW thing. This speech in particular was fascinating: th-cam.com/video/bz0oxIZ3xIg/w-d-xo.html
Except for at the end when he got in the way of Peterson’s building a line of argument that challenged Harris to pursue his own line of thought. I found that extremely frustrating.
+emmereffing Funny, I see it just the other way around. Though Sam talked more, Jordan's interjections about "But in the Moral Landscape, you lay out a moral framework of the good life and bad life," seemed like a broken record non sequitur.
Man, fucking give it up for Brett Weinstein. His performance wasn't perfect, which I suspect would be impossible when you're sitting in between titans of this size, but he was brilliantly on-point throughout this entire thing. Excellent work.
Brett looks so much like my cousin's father, and they are so similar in demeanor. It's so weird every time I seem him. Except they're a generation apart. Keep wanting to find my cousin and ask if they're related.
Mitchfinder General He did a good job moderating but his hand gesture game is weak af. Get out of here with that amateur hour generic hand waving, Brett!
Too often when Jordan makes a strong case against Harris' view (such as how it has no a priori framework with which to sort the infinite number of facts) Harris just resorts to arguing why religion is bad. I left this debate feeling like Harris doesn't have a developed view himself, just a developed criticism of religion.
Not even that. Sam would have to have a good understanding of religion in order to have developed criticism of it, which he does not. He completely lack any understanding of Christian worldview for example, and his criticisms are not valid because of it. He argues his misunderstanding of Christianity, not Christianity itself.
@@edytatehrani3934 he clearly doesn't understand authentic Christianity, however, he does understand the shallow and corrupt Christianity that has been used by ignorant and evil people. He's just straw manning the whole religion based on his cherry picked examples. It's funny because there's such a vast load of crazily evil atheists rationalists that it's surprising he doesn't catch himself.
I am very confused by all this a priori framework stuff so maybe you can explain it to me. It seems interesting philosophically but I don't see how it could possibly help Jordan's side of the debate. If you throw out a world view based on basic intuitions because that doesn't have an "a priori framework" what leg do you have to stand on for your "old book framework"? I just don't follow the logic of: "Your world view isn't within my extremely rigorous standard of allowable frameworks - therefore Jesus."
Fred Gauss Think of it with this example: is it morally good or acceptable to kill babies that are diagnosed with significant disabilities in order to redirect the resources to other children. A Christian can answer this question by referring the idea that Jesus seems to rigorously embody which is everyone is equal before God. The Christian (as an example, though any framework will have it's own ideas), therefore has a framework which comes before his own judgments. The apriori framework is like that but much more complicated, taking into account many other factors such as the meaning of life (which for a Christian is something like to walk with God and follow the commandments of Jesus) which the person orients their choices around. This is potent because the Christian believes God is real and that this is not just a good thing to do but The Good thing to do. The problem with Sam's point is that he cannot provide any of this structure that comes before individual rational thought. He tries to with his whole "do things that feel good and stay away from those that hurt and expand this to others as well" thing, but that is not really based on anything concrete besides subjective experience, especially the part about incorporating others into it. A great example in my opinion would be to look at a country having a famine. It would be totally rational for a government to decide by some ranking system which citizens must die from hunger first and so take the food and distribute it to the most contributing members of society/whatever. A Christian can point to that and say it is evil because man has no right to judge in that way or that Jesus would clearly not define value by ability to contribute or something like that. This happened extensively in Stalin's Russia from what I've learned of it from JP. They decided a whole class of the farmers were corrupt so they killed them, took the land and food, and gave it to "the people." It's impossible 100% argue that is wrong from an atheistic viewpoint because the only beliefs you have to work with are generated by yourself, there is no a priori structure underneath by which to channel and judge. JP's argument doesn't end with "therefor Jesus", it ends with something more like: rationalism isn't a viable replacement for religion because it's vacuous and incomplete.
For the last couple of years I've thought I was bothering my wife by listening to Jordan Peterson in the living room. About 20 minutes into this discussion I heard her yelling in the kitchen "I WISH THAT GUY WOULD SHUT UP AND LET PETERSON TALK!". God I love my wife.
LOL that's awesome. Yeah, I found myself yelling at Sam to shut up a bunch of times. He seems to insist on making sure Jordan Peterson understands what he is saying, but never lets Peterson interject any corrections of his own. Also, he is obviously outmatched, so he never really answers the problems that Peterson poses to him directly, and he just keeps dipping into his repetitive rhetoric and examples that he's used in other debates where he felt superior. He is pandering to his fans who just want to hear the promotion of atheism, and Jordan genuinely wants to get to the truth and make a better world.
"If you're a real sadist, you never mistreat a masochist when he asks you to." -Jordan B Peterson. After listening to this debate for over three hours, that was the most hilarious comic relief one could've asked for!
Certainly. I've always lol'd at the notion of if you're both a Christian and a masochist, the Golden rule is not for you and you should never ever apply yourself to it.
Dictionary definitions Sadist - a person who derives pleasure, especially sexual gratification, from inflicting pain or humiliation on others. Masochist - a person who derives sexual gratification from their own pain or humiliation. I think the sadist thus inflicting said mistreatment would be in the best interest of both himself and the masochist?
No, because the sadist wants to inflict pain and humiliation therefore the masochist will get what he wanted and in truth he will feel good and that's not what the sadist wants because he wants to inflict pain and humiliation, phew
Thanks to everyone for their patience while the details for this release were ironed out. The 3rd and 4th videos (Dublin and London) will be released on my channel September 14th. Remember, if you would would, that these events, with all their imperfections, would not have occured without Pangburn Philosophy. The first discussion can be found here: th-cam.com/video/d-Z9EZE8kpo/w-d-xo.html
The answer to bridge these positions is obvious. Regardless of the empirical basis for a good life, no amount of empiricism addresses the person doing the living of it, or why the living of it has meaning as a source of impetus to go do it for one’s self or for others. The same applies to the pursuit of evil for an empirically good life, both why it is possible and why it shouldn’t be done.
Thanks Dr. Peterson! Your answer to Brett Weinstein's question about prayer to the god you define was BRILLIANT. Though I do feel there was something to be said for Sam's if you're not a fundamentalist "own it" bit. In any case, keep up the amazing work!
I’m definitely team Sam and have had a negative impression of JP for quite awhile, but after viewing this, I have to concede that JP is much more curious and open to ideas beyond his own than I had assumed. Again, I lean towards Sam’s ideas and beliefs but I feel like I have a better idea of what JP believes in and appreciate his perspective much more now.
what point did he even make by saying this? Just seems like another case of word salad to get his fanbase to cheer him on who dont actually know what hes saying 😂
@@mega4171 it was a joke that he couldn't resist - as he explicitly pointed out but it also made a point that the potential "balance" that Sam was trying to claim was possible actually isn't possible in light of certain predispositions whereas Sam was trying to remove the label of evil and replace it with badness. He failed to make the case.
@@benjaminscherrey2479 so in other words he simply made the point knowing it would make his sheepish fanbase clap regardless of the lack of substance. Got it
@@mega4171 no that would be you misrepresenting what happened and doubling down on the personal attack when no one else on the stage took it as anything other than what I just described.
@@benjaminscherrey2479 who ever said it was a personal attack? 😂 at least we know now you thought it was an attack rather than a relevant point. I certainly agree it wasn't at all relevant unfortunately the original commenter and majority of JPs delusional fanbase thought it was :)
I love how Jordan Peterson reminds us of how unbelievably awful existence was for so much of human history. He doesn't generally chastise our ancestors either. I think that is the right attitude because every mistake they made or small step they took led us to where we are today. It reminds me of that part of "War of the Worlds" that speaks of how our immunity to certain viruses or infections was and is hard fought and every agonizing death bought our right to exist on this world. I'm just left with an overwhelming sense of gratitude. We're so lucky.
It all begins with a grateful heart. Sam seems to have that hubris born of what I call "local vision". All you can see is the world through your own recent experience and you have the temerity to plot a vision forward based solely on that myopic take. A phrase repeated through out the Book of Kings "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit." When you have no "king" everyone follows their feelings. Disaster.
betbuk As someone who isn't very religious, I actually get the exact same sense from Sam in this discussion. I think Bret said it best when he mentioned that Sam might be caught in confirmation bias. I don't think it is malicious at all on Sam's part, just one of those ideological traps we are all is susceptible to.
@@sqrlmonger Psalms 118:28 You are my God, and I will give thanks to you; you are my God; I will extol you. Being thankful for what we have is so healthy for the soul.
Sandmanuel Yeah, lets go to some land oversea and step on some naked dumb natives and bring them the “light of civilization” and drive-thru burgers. We are so lucky.
Sam Harris is one of the few people I mostly disagree with but have immense respect for. What an intellectual pleasure it is to listen to these two guys exchange ideas.
Sure it is an intellectual pleasure to listen to it specially now days that the old ways of thinking is gone. The world as we knew it is over. We need new "commandments". The only thing we cannot forget is that everything is a believe. Truth became truth by believe.
Unfortunately I don’t know much of Sam Harris history so I find myself in a similar position. I agree with him on most everything except, it seems like, his most fundamental stance. From my view, he somehow doesn’t realize that all computers run on operating systems and would like us to believe that his computer does not have an operating system. So it ends up sounding something like, “I don’t speak English and I think English speakers are absurd.”
@Diego J. Kelch Perhaps it's not that conservatives modernize, but that moderns conservatize? A significant distinction because of its implications on the best way to encourage the desirable outcome.
@Diego J. Kelch Modernize by throwing away the foundation the country was built upon, along with throwing away peoples religious values? If that's modernizing, count me out..
After watching the first discussion, seeing Jordan and Sam steel-man eachother's arguments at the beginning of today's discussion brought tears to my eyes. I wish I saw more of this constructive debate in the world. Two really great thinkers.
Agreed. This should be a compulsory exercise for today's politicians, especially World Leaders. However, I can understand, especially in the example of World Leaders, why it would likely be impossible, as most of them would be very uneasy with tipping their hand, and sadly, they would be right to think that way.
Jordan is a Canadian, Sam is an American. Also, Sam is a "Coastal" American. East or West, coastal Americans are highly opinionated culturally, and there is little in the culture that discourages "talking over the other". In fact, in NYC, and vicinity, it's de rigeur for two or three people at a table to be talking at the same time without missing much of what they are hearing. It's cultural, then adaptive. It's considered rude, but it's not intended to be. So, I think Sam's interruptions are partly [but not all] that...and might also be partly explained by a form of racing thought, common in highly intelligent people with minor learning disabilities. Peterson, again, is a Canadian, one who grew up in a rural part of Canada interior. We err when we assume that there is little cultural difference just because they have so much in common. Besides, interruption doesn't fit into Peterson's method of idea development and expression, nor can it derail him much, because he has beaten himself up for his own weaknesses in expression, long, long before this, and he won the war inside. And this is why listening to him makes everyone smarter, including Harris.
@@joyceclemons3916I've heard Jordan Peterson incessantly interrupt others in recent debates. Is he a coastal? (is coastal a slur? is he a coasta?) Also he might interrupt in this debate, but I haven't watched it yet. I'm not sure how coastal this debate gets. on the coast-o-meter.
I think I know how you feel. Right when Peterson showed up on the scene I was intrigued, so I went and watched all his old college lectures. Really brilliant stuff exploring archetypes and personality and all of that. I'd really recommend checking them out, it's all up on his youtube channel. With religion though, it completely changed my views on the purpose and applicability of religious beliefs. How it was essentially the core of the Western World's moral wisdom, how it helped allow of the few societies that believes in freedom and individual sovereignty to more or less create the modern world. Very heavy. I still don't believe in God as an omniscient deity, but do find it fascinating when it's viewed as a metaphorical construct towards the betterment of humanity.
HAND GESTURES Sam Harris: Claw, Calipers, "Back it Up", Wall (with shaky variant), Blessing, Brush Off, Crystal Ball, Bouncing Scales, Buddha, Italian Comparison, Jordan Peterson: Exploding Spiders, Emerging Spiders, Floating Spiders, O-Ring, The Remote, High-Low Grapple, Rolling Pointers, Headspace, + a load more
Found myself screaming, "shut up, Sam!" at the screen, by halfway through, after so many interruptions. Sam Harris is a bad listener, and to me that defeats his whole argument. A bad listener is not a good teacher.
Ebby C you can’t fill a cup that’s already full. Peterson is looking to unpack and discuss while Harris just wants to validate his own thoughts. Those are the types of people who want their words coming out of your mouth.
It’s weird watching this again three years later and after sam has lost me as a follower. Now, I can hear the smugness in his voice that I used to unconsciously agree with and cheer on. I really believe taking professor Peterson’s teachings to heart has cultivated so much gratitude and humility in me that I didn’t know I needed to have or was capable of.
It's impressive to me how Weinstein is able to handle both side of the argument and ask each person a good question according to their position. I haven't seen such a good moderator in a long time.
I feel like there's still a lot of straw-manning by Sam. He keeps bringing up the worst aspects of religion as an argument against dogma, when Jordan is in no way ever endorsing dogmatic ignorance. Since I see no evidence of Jordan making excuses for believing things which clearly do harm to society, it is at best out-of-place, and at worst disingenuous of Sam to bring up those aspects of religion in defense of atheism (for lack of a better word).
I love them both, but Jordan does not know how to condense his argument, and takes so many turns and tangents that it becomes tiresome to stay with him. Every time he say "So look...." I think "Oh God, here we go again".
First off, I respect Sam Harris's move to talk to Jordan in open debate about these issues. Regardless of their messages, I know Sam does respect Jordan and his work, even though they disagree. That being said, I can't help but see that Sam constantly changes the parameters of the argument after asking Peterson a question and he did this in the first debate too. Sam said it himself at the beginning: he is shooting fish in a barrel when it comes to levying critiques against religious fundamentalism. Sam appears to be itching to talk to someone who supports religious fundamentalism, but Jordan just isn't that person. I find it a little disingenuous to keep shifting the argument towards said religious fundamentalists, especially when Jordan will agree with him about the dangers of those groups. I also think Sam needs to make a clear distinction between when he attributes Islam (certainly one of the more radical religious fundamentalist group in the world today) to other religions.
@@casthedemon Not really. What are you on about? Islam leads the "more blood in its history leauge on the planet. Easy! Where do you get your info from? How dud you reach that faulty conclusion?
The belief system of atheism (Stalin/Hitler/Mao) are responsible for the most deaths in recent centuries. Sam did get clear on Bill Maher's show a few years ago that current Islam is a direct threat, despite Ben Afleck's objections. Lol
Peterson stumped Harris about how to ground morality in rationality without an a priori framework. Sam has no framework yet advocates abandoning any past frameworks. Abandoning past frameworks without anything to replace them is an enormous problem with Harris' position and it should not be overlooked.
Agree. He was dogmatically attached to the idea that religions, especially the Judeo-Christian is unnecessary because some people get too dogmatic about it and a far fewer go to kill others. It's like saying that we don't need any softwares because there are a few softwares that are bad.
Hopefully people begin to realize how vacuous and impractical Harris' position really is and they stop pushing this notion of abandoning religion and all other frameworks without anything to replace it.
Rama that's a pretty good analogy there. Destroy all the softwares because there's bad ones, and in the meantime *surely* someone will write the perfect software that we can all use exclusively. I thought it was kinda like Sam says we need a detailed book (I think of it like the NEC code book for electrical work, which is ENORMOUS and complicated) while Peterson says that won't work because in reality, virtually no one will read it and fewer would understand it and what even IS electricity to begin with and what reason do I have to care? Or maybe imagine writing an overly detailed and technical instruction manual for assembling a complicated piece of furniture (Sam Harris) vs. showing pictures of it with annotation (Peterson). One of these methods will enable more people than the other, I think.
Well, i subjectively disagree. But to actually discuss - this seems a pretty ideological reading of what actually happened, Sam's views, and the incredible effectiveness of his critiques of religion. In the middle problem there, all you have to do is realize he wrote 'Waking Up'and you know he has something to replace religion with and its pretty damn helpful. The former, neither really stumped the other. There were a couple of times Peterson was the instigator in figuring the point of divergence to a satisfying conclusion, No stumping. THere were also a couple of times Harris did this. More often, Sam was able to logically deconstruct Peterson's contentions to the point that you have to either take them on faith or abandon them. That isn't derisive or anything, its just the best possible way to approach data and information more generally. The latter; he routinely acknowledges the possible merit of religious thinking and how metaphorical truth, as they say, can be helpful and at least in terms of moral education. That STILL removes the divine and ideological approach that religion requires without losing hte benefits. Its actually alsmost exactly Peterson's superficial position. He's weirdly unable to vocalize his point of view succintly. Which is difficult for his reputation as quick, eloguent and relatable but also leads me to think there's some facetiousness he might not even notice in his more heavy talk on religious utility.
I think this and the previous discussion are very productive and entertaining. I’m a little put off by Sam’s seemingly smug attitude. Maybe it’s just me but he seems to have a air of superiority. Jordan Peterson seems to have more of an attitude of humility. Sam seems to interject more with witty/humorous comments that degrade or derail the point Jordan is making.
Harris is the one who held the "Moral Landscape Challenge" where he offered $10k to anyone who could rebut his thesis. Haidt predicted that he wouldn't find a suitable rebuttal. This says it all about how Harris approaches this subject. Dogmatically.
Jordan , the river of hope, is a truly spiritual person, what many mouthy-christians are not, who throw around biblical verses, forgetting the most important aspect of any belief, to live it. They think by emotionally screaming Jesus, they would be on the bright side of the equation. Jordan is anything but bigot, so he always points out, how important it is to carry your own cross, and he had a heavy one with his depressions. He is right, not confessing to one of the many religions of Christianity, what will remain being a sting in their flesh, but to the Logos, to Christ, to God. One could say, he is opportunistic, to keep all doors open, but I think he expresses his most inner truth, seeing the scriptures as symbolic tales with the deepest imaginable content. All how I see it too, having a very intense relationship with the in me grown Christ, by meditating on this outstanding eternal being, who is the brother of all, even of the fallen ones. All love, does not exclude, but still speak, even harshly, the truth uncovering the flaws of the fallen, remember, how he spoke with the darkish and the traders in the temple
Can't help noticing that all the commenters on this channel seem to think Jordan 'won', while the same video on Sam's channel has the exact opposite opinion. Who would have guessed.
Actually, that is not what I saw in Sam’s channel. Most top comments are neutral in tone praising the discussion or stating something maybe a little funny or witty about the discussion or Sam or Jordan. Even comments supporting Sam, I personally found that they “smelled” of irritation, which is understandable because Sam was clearly inadequately prepared for this, and not an intellectual match for J.P. I came a little biased for Jordan; I watched the discussions more than five times each. Every time I discovered additional points where Sam fumbled. Every time I became more convinced that Sam’s narrative is clearly inadequate to address Jordan’s insight. And it is not that Sam does not have good arguments, it is just that an intellect like Jordan’s is unprecedented, his analysis on the psychological importance of religion is a paradigm shift not only for theology but for many scientific fields. This is very obvious where he literally COMPLAINS about Jordan changing the definition of God! (This is in discussion 1). This is because Sam is only prepared to answer the classic pro-god arguments, and he is clearly inadequate for addressing any of Jordan’s groundbreaking insight on what God is, and why (christian) religion is important.
>Actually, that is not what I saw in Sam’s channel. Most top comments are neutral in tone praising the discussion or stating something maybe a little funny or witty about the discussion or Sam or Jordan I don't know what comment section I was looking at then :^)
This discussion / debate was not about “winning” or proving the other wrong. It was about struggling through perceptual differences to find common ground. If there is a “winning” it would be demonstrated by fluidity & not by staunchness. I think that mostly is what the JBP fans here are referring to.
Alexander Bond it's not about Winning, it's about coming to an understanding of the conversation they're having, Sam is basically too busy trying to win an argument and completely not listening to Jordan even if Jordan understands his position. And Sam gets upset when the audience clapping for Jordan most of the time, and make jokes as he goes, kinda frustrating to watch.
This channel, with videos like these especially, truly gives me hope of humanity and the experiment that is human civilization. A true bastion of hope and motivation for me and others. Thank you Jordan and to everyone who makes your endeavours possible!
I love Sam Harris because of his podcast and meditations, but whenever he gets into a discussion he contradicts what he preaches so deeply. What sits in his chair is all ego, he does not listen, he is already preparing what he gonna say and/or answer, he smirks at his own rather misplaced jokes. Respect for Dr. Peterson for listening and trying.
@@philkesler - If that's what you walked away with, you should check your confirmation bias. Your constant reference to logical fallacy also indicates this.
@@philkesler - Its good you're getting laughs, but that post you just made only solidifies the fact that you have SEVERE confirmation bias here. Confirmation bias can lead you to find errors where there really are none, and also to overlook the errors in your own position.....I assume you know this because you like to throw around a lot of fancy philosophy terms to bolster your points, I just dont see how you're missing it.
@@philkesler - Glad u are still laughing man, haha. Its generally fairly easy to spot someone with a confirmation bias. The extraordinarily anti-Peterson way you have analyzed and interpreted the debates is apparent. I don't see any reference or similar outrage to the same philosophical hangups and errors that Sam commits throughout the debates. These things are strong indicators of confirmation bias. Also, your music is good dude. I just listened to a bit of a few of your songs.
@@philkesler - That's an interesting point, man. I found myself frustrated with Harris a lot in these debates because Peterson asked repeatedly about how Sam would derive his value structure, and it seems as though Sam never gave an adequate answer. The moral facts from an epistemological sense thing seems to be on shaky ground philosophically. At the very least Sam has to elaborate on this. If Sam is advocating we ditch the religious framework that got us here, he's also tasked with creating a framework that will result in better outcomes.....and not just for some random extraneous situations like the albino in Africa. It has to be so much better for so many people that it accomodates for the risk of discarding our current framework. I don't think he's anywhere close to that yet, but I'm open to hearing his proposals.
I can't help but notice that every time Jordan tries to combat what Sam just said Same interrupts before Jordan even gets to explain what he is saying. Hear him out at least before trying to counter what it is he is going to say.
We need more of this. We need to make intellectuals the true heroes of our society. Its only through intelligent dialogue where we can find logical commonality and fundamental ambition to be better people.
After watching both of these, I’m inclined to believe that while both men are invested in the progression of humanity, only JBP is willing or capable of accepting the human condition as it currently exists as well as what it can reasonably be expected to progress towards within the next century or two. While I absolutely laud Harris’ perspectives and appreciate the beneficial directions he is trying to lead people towards, I get the impression he is too far out of touch to effectively guide humanity at this juncture.
@Be The Ball I think Harris's problem is he thinks other people are like him. His ethics really apply to himself. I think this is also true for Jordan, and he got lucky that he is like a lot of people. I'm much more Harris-like myself. So, a lot of how Jordan works doesn't work for me, and when I listen to Harris there's nearly zero friction.
YES! This is exactly the problem! Not everyone is capable of of forging their own values and having the willpower to execute them. They even touched on this when they talked about the ease with which narrative spreads. (in a memetic fashion) That a priori interpretation framework that Jordan is speaking about is what makes spreading ethical values through stories the most efficient! I don't know why Jordan didn't express that more clearly than he did. Not everyone has the intellectual capacity to increase well being and delay gratification consciously and rationally. Furthermore, even the most intellectually capable among us encounter dire situations every once in a while in which they wouldn't act rationally, but on a more primitive and simplistic interpretive framework for perceiving the world, which can lead to moral and ethical errors if it is not programmed correctly through story. This is the crux of the argument Jordan is getting at; rationality is well and good until we don't have the luxury of using it, (some people can't really use it at all) so we need to figure out how to program the more simple underlying a priori interpretive psychological structures with the strongest stories that humanity has produced so that we can act morally and transcend suffering even through the darkest of times.
+Jonathan Olson I think Eric Weinstein pointed out that Sam has not forged his own moral framework as much as he passively absorbed the Judeo-Christian framework of his parents and community. He also has the 'ecumenical niceness' described by Murray that is so common to liberals that upon closer inspection, is found to be wanting.
Otherwise you'd have concede that Peterson's ideas looked vulnerable here. I'm sure it's much easier to assure yourself that Sam cheated. That's what confirmation bias is, that's what it feels like, it's why people are reluctant to change their minds.
lol. Calling out confirmation bias by displaying confirmation bias. Sam moving the goal post is not a claim that JP's argument are not vulnerable. Both can be true
We most definitely all have biases in general. I may have been biased by attributing a bias to you. But I was merely trying to point out that your comment was fallacious. Sam's moving or non moving of the goal post has no baring on JP's strength or weakness of argument. So your statement of "otherwise you's have to concede Peterson's ideas looked vulnerable" seem to come from a place of bias since it is logically inconsistent. And I found it amusing that you proceeded to attack the OP by telling them they were biased. But everyone is biased to some extent. I try my best to catch myself. But no one is perfect.
I really like the 3-minute summary at the end. Jordan took 2 minutes and Sam took Jordan's last minute to pay lip service to his fans, then took 4 minutes to repeat what he had already said.
@SA This is what jordan peterson warned about or told about; the rationality has a tendency to fall in with its own creation. Or something like that, in laymans words too bias with its own ideas.
It can physically hurt to let go of your beliefs once you identify with them. It’s like a part of you dies. I try to do that less and less as I get older
@@Ryan-ze9fz I understand these words all to well. "Earth shattering", as Peterson puts it, only way I can think to describe it. It really is like a part of you died. Left me very confused in life, still trying to figure myself out.
This was 2yrs ago. It blows me away, throat tightened, eyes wide opened, gratefullness, etc... Just amazing to hear and see the audience attentive to these men. 👏😎🍔
Absolutely majestic conversation, respect to both Jordan and Sam. It seems, that both speakers want to find the golden middle between the pathological dogma and the hopeless ego-centrism, but Jordan's approach is more against the latter and Sam's is against the former. That's pretty much point us to the underlying problems of the mentioned frameworks, where dogma is an indiscriminate devotion to ideals of others, and nihilism is an indiscriminate devotion to own's subjective ideals, and thus the perfect balance is a life, where one tries to be the best oneself in relation and consideration of others.
Sam thinks making the crowd laugh with some ignorant remark that sounds good is a win on the topic. It’s as if Sam came to win a debate, Jordan came to learn and try to truly meet common ground.
That's because Jordan didn't have the option of winning this debate, making friends and discussing ideas sounds like a good option when you're watching your claims - interesting though they are - meet their match.
First, Bret Weinstein's performance as moderator was beyond outstanding in both debates. He not only kept everything in control and running smooth, but intellectually contributed to the discussion in very significant ways. My hats off to you sir. Mr. Peterson, as always you were on your game and impressive beyond my ability to convey in writing. There is one thing that you and Sam both agreed on, that I wouldn't say I necessarily disagree with, but I think here is another aspect to. It was how the religious belief in another life after this one,, can negatively effect how someone acts in this world. You both agreed (I'm paraphrasing) that some wouldn't care about doing what's right or good now, knowing that another life awaits them. I think the heaven and hell concept far more often than not has the opposite effect. I believe it serves to keep people from succumbing to their selfish, primal instincts knowing that their actions today, will dictate how they spend eternity. Fyi, I'm a fiscal conservative and not what you would a religious person. My beliefs are very close to how you described yours in the first debate.. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to round 5.
We can't say that we don't still practice human sacrifice. I placed my life on the alter of liberty when I joined the Army, parents place their children on the alter of justice when they allow the law to arrest them (rather than violently resisting) and parents also offer up their children to selective service (conscription). Even taxation is more a ritual of belief in the common weal than a pragmatic arrangement of mutual communal benefit, which is why the corrupt bureaucrat who violates the common trust is a greater criminal than the shoplifter, pickpocket or even armed robber.
Can we be a little more dramatic here guys? Joining the army or being a firefighter are now examples of human sacrifices? Every action has a certain amount of risk. Do I make a human sacrifice when I drive to the store to buy milk? I might get in a car accident and die (which studies show is actually more likely to happen than a firefighter being killed on the job). But at the same time if I don't my family might stave to death. I am such a hero. Either your definition of human sacrifice is so broad that it becomes meaningless or you are using the term incorrectly here. (I have to admit I LOLed when I read the firefighter thing and imagined my friend who was a firefighter making $80,000 a year spending vast majority of his "on the clock" time making elaborate meals, working out, napping and maintaining the outdoor hockey rink. Just like human sacrifices of the biblical times. LOL!)
+Fred Gauss When you send an Army to war, you're guaranteed to give up people, you're guaranteed to have to look their parents in the eye and tell them you sent their son to die. Is that not human sacrifice?
I agree with the premise however also having served in the ARMY I seeit more as a selfless service to offer oneself to sacrifice if called to be so for a moralistic and national greater cause. Basically placed others ahead of themselves. Also thank you for your service
Quite honestly. after listening to both their podcasts together and these two 'debates', I seriously believe that their main point of debate is a semantic one. They both mean something else when talking about 'facts'. They both mean something else when talking about 'faith'. They both mean something else when talking about 'dogmas' and 'values'. So much of their discussion, it appears to me on second viewing, boils down to either one trying to explain to the other what exactly they mean when they use a certain term. Worst of all, their subjective argumentative styles seem, in my view, to cancel each other out on the most fundamental level. Peterson seems to be exhausted by Harris not going into detail enough, not being specific enough and being too argumentative, while Harris seems to be annoyed by Peterson never getting down to the 'real stuff', never committing to any fixed position and heading more and more towards analysis paralysis. They are both great thinkers and probably agree on 3/4 on their views, they just seem to be incompatible when it comes to actually exchanging their ideas. I honestly do not believe that any more talks between them, at least not as openly as these now were, would bring any advancement at all.
I understand where you're coming from, and I think that a discussion between these two particular individuals has a low likelihood for any real development of the ideas being presented. It makes me wonder if I would feel the same way were it Aristotle and Plato debating on the stage instead :P
they talk in such generalities as to render utility only to beginners, or even sideline atheists reconsidering Jordans pseudo-scientific points. Sam always errs by making grotesque straw-man over-generalizations of "religion", and Peterson to his credit mentions Protestantism as being weak due to over 32,000+ "denominations" each with their own dumbass "faith alone" based "interpretation", which might as well be just the same as moral relativity, as if a plurality of "interpretations" can peacefully co-exist. They can't, as the Evidence clearly shows (world wars, eugenics behind abortion mills, usury scams, etc.) They never get down to specific recommendations in the Bible which most people have never heard of before, yet which are clearly explicit in the texts, such as that the OT and NT both warn that if you all don't Tithe to grow the Church (Parable of the Talents) and preserve its higher sacred music and labor rights of said music ministers (Nehemiah 12, 13), then no one will attend worship gatherings any more, and the world will become stupefied due to it, dumbed down, and earning God's wrath. But Jordan stops at Cain and Abel, and completely fails to follow it through to its societal conclusion, that most people are envious Cains who always scapegoat and kill (via neglect even) their hierarchical superiors of higher gifts / talents (such as the Sons of Asaph, priesthood of sacred music ministers). They completely neglect the historical fact that most modern tech comes from such higher music, and the technological demands it placed on believers to invent the necessary hydraulics, computer programability, acoustics, skyscraper architecture for pipe organs implied in higher music worship. So Sam takes the IDIOT presumption that we don't need these "rubrics" anymore in the 21st century, and Jordan fails to go for the jugular on that. Figures, both too fixated on Darwin's false dreams, and Hobbes' / Rousseau's / Locke's social contracts BS, than on Father Mendel's actual factual genetics, and the fact that nothing is completely knowable in any lingual or formal system without reference to an a prior that is completely outside-of and transcendent to that system. Jordan only briefly mentions the latter, and Sam only briefly acknowledges it (a tip of the hat to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem)...but neither of them home in on it, because they are too cowardly knowing it would explode their money milking machines by cutting-short their prolonged aimless fixation upon beginner points. This is why they have public appeal...pseudo-scientific sophistry for noobs, and most ppl are noobs. It's just a fascade for pretend intelligence. Posturing. Not very tonal-aware. Like the tone deaf talking to the tone deaf.
@@arthursulit I can most seriously retort that an obvious value inflation of your opinion, (being based on the concept that you understand this dialog), is clearly exposed as false by your presenting a tautological paradox as a simple, weak definition of semantics. To conclude that "nothing is completely knowable" is thus exposed to be the state of your understanding of the topic of discussion. The tone deaf still hear bullshit. You proved it. Good job. Wishing you could interrupt both of these guys right? Got anything of value to convey? Love to hear it. Looks like your intellectual poverty is leading you to a jealous detour along the well worn post-modernist highway. Take the long way home.
@@timrooney6333 "nothing is completely knowable" is merely a restatement of similar ideas expressed in Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, as well as other expressions asserting that the Universe, & sentient life itself, is not reducible. If you think I'm some sort of post-modernist, then you're an ignoramus dumbass.
@@timrooney6333 It is very clear you failed to understand a single iota of the many valuable points I said, especially their generic overarching talk of Biblical norms without getting into specific examples which are commonly overlooked by most dufuses like you out there (Tithing, for instance, how it relates to everything else society-wide...the debate between Patrick Henry for vs Thomas Jefferson against for instance). I side more or less with JP throughout when he slams atheists. But the point is that JP's own (former) atheism still bubbles up, when he says he Knows reality in general isn't reducible (to mere scientific terms), and yet he still attempts to explain Biblical stories as if they are "Myths" generated from Jungian Evolution. i.e. his points are an interesting way of defeating dogmatists like Harris, by using the same Dogma (Evolution) from atheistic fake-science. That's perhaps an attractive approach for beginners (like you) who "worship" JP (apparently?) or Harris, both who reject moral relativity and post-modernism (to their credit). But both simply "claim" their points, without actual proof of substance of their claims. So they end up going in circles. That you missed these points entirely, is typical of most other borderline atheists out there who are "converting" to the JP approach. He appeals to atheistic males seeking to justify some sort of Creator Entity, because he himself was a former atheist, still trying to make sense of this "God" thing which he somehow "knows" has to be true, due to his own testimony of miraculous experiences which awoke him from his former slumber. However, he hasn't awoken "fully" yet. He still uses approaches that appeal to complete noob clueless beginners, like you (apparently). So like a typical envious Lilliput, you knee-jerk react with nonsencial words, indicating you can't even read, nor write cohesively.
2 hours and 16 minutes listening to Harris (almost exclusively) talk in the slowest possible manner, while constantly interrupting both Peterson & Weinstein at pretty much every turn. This was absolutely frustrating to watch/listen to. Very disappointed in Harris here, not letting others talk.
"Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man’s relationship to existence. As against the special sciences, which deal only with particular aspects, philosophy deals with those aspects of the universe which pertain to everything that exists. In the realm of cognition, the special sciences are the trees, but philosophy is the soil which makes the forest possible." ~ Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It, 2
"...Is just an emotion" please expand on this, and why you downgrade it, and what authority or logic or reasoning leads you to downgrade or upgrade something, if not emotion itself. I could make the argument that you feel something is "just" an emotion is just you, not liking emotions, and wanting to put them down or relegate them to something that is not very important. But THAT itself is "just" your emotional response to all this. And what is higher than emotion in your hierarchy here? If I really like a painting, is my admiration of it "just" an emotion but the painting itself, that is real deal? And if emotion is stripped away them isn't all value stripped away? What is it with atheists and this reasoning, oh it came out of my own brain so it MUST be illegitimate bullshit??
Unfortunately, their "steelmaning" was pretty weak. They simply summarized what they thought their opponent's points were and checked in with their opponent regarding whether it was correct or not. There wasn't much attempt to offer the strongest or build the strongest argument possible.
Dude, it's not a sport. These aren't teams. It's not a competition. This is dialogue, and isn't obligated by any means to follow anyone's preconceptions or expectations. This is the place where bad ideas come to die, literally. Debate is what you do to prepare for dialogue, it's not the dialogue it's self. It's not useful to measure who can make a stronger argument or debate better. The value in who or what is right/correct is derived specifically from knowing who/what is incorrect/wrong, and vice versa. Considering these gentleman are alumni and not students, we can assume their intentions here aren't educational, but practical. The summary as you describe was only useful if you haven't been watching from part 1 of this series. I think Bret really butchered the role of the moderator here -- which is irritating because he knows all too well the difference between students "practicing how to think" and people or persons "practically" doing so. So ideas like "steelman", "strawman", and even politeness really don't serve useful function here.
"My work would be much easier if........" This is very telling of what SH sees as happening here: He is an evangelist looking for converts and a debtor looking to win an argument. JP is having a discussion. Quite telling.
So much of the internet and TH-cam is like a few pieces of popcorn. These videos are full meals and I love that about these discussions. This is one of the most positive products of the internet and TH-cam specifically.
I've been thinking a lot about Darwinian vs. Newtonian truth lately and I think I have a pretty good way to conceptualize it. I think the reason Jordan doesn't accept the standard model of truth that people like Sam Harris champion is because he sees that our minds are ultimately prescriptive machines. That is, he correctly sees that our prescriptive cognitive modules are operating on a more fundamental level than our descriptive modules. In essence, he sees that we are constructing the world not according to what the world is, but how the world should be to suit our evolutionary program. And he also correctly sees that having a purpose in life (responsibility) is tantamount to having meaning because it's fulfilling that underlying prescriptive layer and that meaning from an evolutionary point of view is a more fundamental truth than objective truth as far as our minds are concerned. The truth he speaks of is the truth of fulfilling our prescriptive models such that we fulfill our potential and become who we were truly meant to be.
RUBBISH. Dear Zack Lyle friend, the "mind" is merely fabricated by the evolved-primate brain - but momentarily (during a multiple re-arrangement of matter aka metabolism) and temporarily (aka wake state). The proclamation "mind is machine" is at the verge of a comical bizarre hilarity. If you deny the causality: Brain ---> mind ---X---> (mind is a mere effect, aka "epiphaenomenon"), then pretty please can you tell me where "mind" is during dormancy? Is is out for a stroll or what LMAO? >>>Darwinian *VERSUS* Newtonian truth
So it seems that Peterson was trying to genuinely better understand Sam's opinions, but Sam was too "dogmatic" to do the same (most of the time). Yet he spent the whole conversation arguing against dogmatism, hmm, interesting! (which I'm assuming Sam's fans who'd view this as a debate will view it as a win) Disclaimer for the narrow-minded fans of either of the speakers, I'm not saying this to bash Sam! All three of them were amazing, made amazing points and it's such a useful conversation. Also, Hats off to Brett! Man, forget about biology and work as a moderator.
Also, I'm actually amazed how Peterson didn't catch a lot of these self-contradictions! The fact that people will split (+all verb tenses) over this very discussion, challenges Sam's very point of universality, I'm not saying morals are not universal tho, I'm only challenging Sam's version of universality, meaning; let's assume Sam's right, we can reach these good results we do by religion without religion, and let's assume we will be able to convince all people with it (or the majority or a majority), which I vote won't happen as it didn't/won't happen with a given religion, then what? Maybe we'd even build some temples and call them "chur-gogues" where people can aggregate perhaps once a week to grow spiritually if not to discuss and develop their societies as well, and BTW, Sam, this practice would be called "RELIGION" even without the temples part, but nevertheless, then what? You seriously think we will live happily ever after and all of humanity's problems would go away?! If you get rid of religion, of course, you'd get rid of all the religious problems, but you'd have awholenother nonreligious problems! Man, we do have them right now! (And even look at all the other nonconscientious species) Also, and this is very important, I could interpret the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a very very secular way, the fact of the matter, if you call it an Israeli-Palestinian conflict and not a Jewish-Muslim conflict you're doing that, and guess what? It still never got resolved! Because that's the definition of a human being, we're different, we will always be different, we have different understandings, so you could take the same observation, rather, the same fact, man and you'd have dozens of interpretations to this fact! Sam's followers interpret his "teachings" in a dozen different ways. How is this not the point you made, professor Peterson? I'd have loved to see Sam's response to that!
@@sayyadsaioo The biggest issue with the conflicts discussion is that they have, by the looks, zero understanding of geopolitical reality. They simply ignored the most important driving and shaping force behind the conflict because they lack insight.
Harris came to say 'I'm right, you're wrong, and there's nothing you can do about it." Poor guy. JP came to help Harris - genuinely and sincerely -- bless him.
Watched this a couple times and love them both. The first time I thought Harris put the screws to JBP, but now I'm more thinking what others have shared, that JBP really is trying to have a discussion and Sam isn't listening or treating it as such. I think I agree with Sam more but find him more frustrating as an individual here
1:41:43 The idea of the ideal world of 'sadists vs masochists' is interesting, as it shows a difference in thinking between Sam and Jordan. Sam is coming from the idea that the sadist just wants to do harm, and if the masochists like being harmed, they are fine. But Jordan points out what think is the real 'evil' part here : an a real sadist ( an evil person) would then not hurt the masochist when he asks for it, because hurting the masochists then would please the masochist. An evil person isn't interested in just getting what he wants. An evil wants to do as much harm to you as he can, regardless of what he gets out of it. Though that brings us to free will, which Sam doesn't believe in. And so evil in that sense cannot exist for him.
I think the free will is what is loosing Sam. The study he quotes is not the free will people use on a daily basics. Tapping a finger can`t be compared equally to complex decision people do all the time. There is just more that describes it, the level of detail is much greater than tapping the finger on the table. Also, and I have done it on myself, it is possible to change the priority structure and shift the decision making process to some extend. I was addicted to certain things, and got through with it. And a lot people done the same, hence there is science that describe how to do it. I have done something very similar to "self authoring program" from JBP. It does work, and it changes the decisions, so how the free will doesn't exist if many people have changed the way they act? It is also called growing up ;)
Leib Menter You have a point there. Sam is certainly not using free will in the sense that most people seem to use it ( I like Matt Dillahunty's example where he makes the difference between walking out of a room 'on your own free will' vs being dragged out of the room ) Though in some way he's treating both those ideas ( free will and god ) the same way :he is taking free will too literally ( as in 'the universe is deterministic so everything you do is already set' ) just as he is taking the concept of God very literally. Maybe that's just how his mind works, whereas Jordan's mind works a lot more with metaphor. Could be the left-right hemisphere thing. Let's hook both of them up to an FMRI next time they have a discussion :-)
Waldermar Ishibashi The study on tapping ( if I recall correctly) proves to me that you can override someone's free will. That doesn't prove that there is no free will.
They reacted so fast to JBP 's joke about sadists and masochists. It's clear they are immersed in this conversation. It took me around 10 sec to get it. 😂
Jordan, the river of hope poring out all he has inside, telling his monumental truth, which is more than his truth, THE TRUTH, to all of us, in a manner I'f never experienced before, not from him, nor from anybody else, a sermon of truth, letting my tears running down, a spiritual experience. We can't overstate his importance, defending our values against the darkish relativists of far left, only having destruction in mind, to camouflage the failure of their ideas in all of the many experiments worldwide. I'f seen so many videos of him, but 'Jordan Peterson Discusses Free Speech and Raif Badawi' was the best in intensity, consistence and reduction to the essence. For Sam Harris, reason is a strong guidance, cause he is an honestly truth seeking guy and he follows his findings in an ethical and rational way. If all Atheists would be like him, reason would work in terms of an ethical structure, but for the majority not. Facts are only touching a person who is eagerly searching for facts and for truth, finding truth is then a thrilling moment with goose bumps. The majority of Atheists are of the postmodern relativistic type and not of Sams nature, they experience Atheism as a liberation of responsibility, as a free pass for anarchy and nihilism also Nitzsche was talking about. This you can see easily in the cruel comment sections underneath Atheists videos, which is a real barbarian land, you rarely find elsewhere. There is mostly this unholy triumphalism, also from Matt, when he spoke how badly he defeated JBP. It is all ugly and unworthy, the same way as it was under atheistic systems from Hitler, to all communist states, from Stalin to Mao... Sovereign humans don't act like this, it shows, how unstable they are in their unbelieve. No deeply convinced Atheist, would behave like that. So, Sam covers only 1 percent of all Atheists, with their pale, bloodless and arrogant behavior. This can not be a bright path towards the future. I myself, was never a textual believer, saw all the stories more as symbolical tales of a spiritual path, came to the conclusion there is either something, than nothing in terms of God. The story about Christ is for me an archetypical ideal. If all would follow his path as an example, the world would be a better place
I've got to say. Listening to Sam's arguments makes me wonder if he's ever interacted with human beings at all. His ideas completely ignore human psychology and the way we operate. This is the reason Jordan lured me away from the atheist community. Though they are great at breaking myths, they have nothing to offer you. They think that's enough. It's not. It's also clear that the atheists worldview is just as rosy and utopian as any fundamentalist.
You're right. And also you dont grasp the argument. The role stories and archetypes play in our lives is not trivial, they are trying to tell us something. They're born out of our psychology. Our psychology is born out of EVOLUTION! IT is not trivial. This is the bridge over the gap atheists missed and why their community is failing. Most of them will scoff and spit out something derisive of "spirituality".
You're so far off base I don't even know where to start. You're making assumptions I haven't even voiced, which is indicative of atheist fundamentalism. No, morality wouldn't exist without stories and stories wouldn't exist without morality. How would you know the difference between right and wrong? Though morality could spawn, it would be only the most basic, violent form. Think something along the lines of apes. And of course morality existed outside of Abrahamic religion. Religion is a set of ideals, and those ideals go through Darwinian tests to evolve or die. Christianity just happens to be the best at the time. The problem is you think you can toss out a hundred thousand years worth of ideas to start your new utopian ideal of "rationalism" and "reason". Just how many people are you willing to sacrifice to bring about your perfect new religion? You think your "rationalism" and "reason" are born of pure enlightenmnet, but the truth is it was born out of Christianity. Yet you disdain Christianity. I'll tell you the truth. Your atheism is hipster bullshit. I see so many of you secular idiots railing against Christianity, only to go on your blogs and say how cool Islam is, or doing Pagan magic circles, or having Game of Thrones weddings. You've rejected Christianity and now are looking for something to fill that hole. If you can't see the nihilism painted across the desperate faces of these people I'd say you have no authority to create nor dictate ANYONE'S belief structure.
i loved the original comment and agree.. atheism has limits built into it.. spirituality .. not talking about fundamental religion .. doesnt... God is literally whatever u want him/ her/ it.. to be... the bible acriptures are stories.. that have deep meaning.. but they are not doctrine..but the bigger picture benefits the human more..than no picture, or a picture strapped to reality.. the human spirit is inclined to wonder in my belief...the benefit of wondering is.. it keeps you constantly seeking betterment over time.. peace with others... understanding thyself.. compassion for others.. respect for creatures.. and brings balance i think
4 hours of fascinating conversations from 2 highly intelligent people, stifled only by the fact that one of them is operating at a deeper level of analysis than the other one, and that seems to be the reason why complete understating will never be met. It's basically a clashing of realities. Loved it.
Oji-san I dont think either Sam or Jordan behaved badly. This was not a debate, it was a conversation and to pick sides is counterproductive. Bret clearly summarized points, clarified muddy positions and pushed back where appropriate.
Sam was the real winner but with dogma and force, religion will stay with us even in the presence of better tools such as secular reasoning. "A bad tool is better than no tool at all" - JP.. yes that is true but we have better tools in the toolshed that religious folk like to ignore because they know it will contradict their irrational beliefs :(
The problem with Sam, is he loves to oversimplify everything. “Invisible man in the sky,” for example, and by doing this he will never understand the basic principles that jordan is trying to lay out. Essentially, jordan wants us to respect and understand the literal reasons for stories and parables in the Bible, whether true or false, the idea of humans having to deal with nature by developing psychological and physical means of survival. Sam researched too often in the standstill present understanding of everything. Jordan seems to research in the space and time of humans fluid history. This is why I love Jordan.
Phil Kesler how? You don’t even know me. You are basing your statement on a single comment. No, it seems as though the only ideologically possessed one here is the one who is projecting.
The invisible man in the sky is still an invisible man in the sky and his book has been written by mortal men. The is value and there is a lot of bulshit . Take the good and discard the bulshit and be realistic about it and accept that many people find the bulshit repugnant. And keep that bulshit far as possible from the secular society and how it functions. How the fuck is that unreasonable?
KarlVyt did I say he is being unreasonable with what he is trying to do? No. I’m saying his means of relaying his opinion/point is a turnoff to a lot of people. To assume the mantle of moral superiority, and to cast religious individuals as inferior beings who believe in a higher power and dogma is a good way to turn them off to your message. That’s my point.
Christianity doesn't define God as a "man in the sky" at all. For starters, God is outside the natural word (aka observable world, aka universe) and therefore he's not flying up in the sky. Regarding the bible, yes, it was written by men. The claim made by Harris that the Bible was dictated by God is absolutely ridiculous. God inspired the authors of the Bible, and then they wrote the texts using their own words. This is what Christianity says about it. I'm not talking about believing these things or not, I'm talking about BASIC Christian doctrine, about which Harris know next to nothing.
that's one of the things that annoys me about sam, he strawmans everything it was refreshing to see him steelman jordan at the beginning, I just wish he'd do that to everything instead of being so dismissive
I saw this, and Peterson seemed focused on mutually beneficial betterment of understanding, as ever. He was asking genuine questions and being almost too respectful. But Harris seemed too focused on getting a “win” to truly listen to and consider the genuine questions, points and ideas discussed. Especially on the second night he was talking over Peterson so much it got genuinely irritating Thoughts?
A little bit, but overall I thought Harris was respectful and had a good enough attitude coming into this. Like, he sometimes seemed too focused to get a "win" but he had just enough amount of civility and good will throughout the discussions to me. I tend to agree more with Peterson, but I praise both guys for having this productive, important intellectual conversation!
I like these discussions, mainly because it is the few times in which both debate a formidable foe. Both worldviews seem checked everytime (anytime checkmate and game over). I actually learn more than watching their views separately in their own channels or podcasts. Amazing minds both of them!
A lot to think about. Good that the discussion won't continue for a few days; watching part one and two in two days is already almost too much. So think I will, and be back for part three when it becomes available.
An observation: Harris seems like somewhat of a contrarian insofar as he rarely concedes anything. Peterson is quick to say "I agree" when Harris gets it right, but I don't see much of a reciprocal. It makes me think that Peterson's research has gone a bit farther than Harris's. That being said, the camaraderie of all three gentlemen is extremely admirable and honorable.
Josh: I agree. JBP often strongly agreed with SH. That was rarely reciprocated. BJJ Dutchie: "Yes, but ..." is what SH did, often. This is not an agreement, this is manipulation. That was not the point of this discussion. I don`t think SH was doing that on purpose, but it often came out like that.
I think this observation gives attention to unnecessary points. I prefer to view this discussion like almost two brains picking each other reasoning than even two personality figures with subliminal intentions
I disagree here. Sam has stated numerous times that this is, indeed, THE billion-dollar question. He could easily, and has in fact, thrust himself into the discussion of what the nature of that a priori framework might be, and how we might come to agree on it. THAT's not where Dr. Harris has a problem. Here he takes issue with making the erroneous conflation between the utility of bronze-age literature, and their actual divine truths. Here's a question for you: if you side-step all of the religious traditions (as Jordan puts it), that are all for the most part invariably irreconcilable from one another, and assume that there nevertheless will be this transcendent a priori framework, at bottom, to guide us as it's inevitably built into us... why is it so hard to admit that we could easily dispense with these long-dated mythologies while still remaining confident that this a priori framework will still do it's work for us, if this transcendent rationality really is what it's being claimed to be here? The only reason to keep these dated myths around, and to take them seriously, is if you are convinced that these texts are inextricably, supernaturally linked, to the very a priori framework itself, and that to dispense with its results will lead to total chaos. This beggars the question of how we can be selective, à la carte-style, on what parts of the religious writings we choose to take as good transcendental advice and not -- today we readily reject the dubious wisdom of old that told us to stone a father's daughter on his doorstep if she were found not to be a virgin on her wedding night. If we can within the span of five minutes, doubtlessly make improvements to huge swathes in the Bible, or the Quran, it takes a special kind of credulity, especially at this level of intellectual discourse, to remain convinced that these texts have something fundamental to do with the universal, a priori, transcendent rationality between all humans and beyond. Those are some rather stupefyingly big claims, in need of some serious addressing, before you can even hope to successfully move on and make progress. If you argue for the side that CAN'T allow for this dispensation to happen, you are saying that the very texts themselves, as we know them today, are literally linked to a divine intervention of some sort, where the laws of nature were suspended (such as the resurrection of Jesus, or whichever you prefer), and that presents a very different ball-game for these two gentlemen to grapple with.
(part 2) Sam asked the real telling billion-dollar question towards the end of the other Vancouver talk, which would have actually informed and moved this conversation forward, by insisting that Jordan comes clean on his own actual beliefs on this, and Jordan again side-steps such a simple question by referring to one possible answer as being a "fine answer that a lot of people have been giving for a long time, but it doesn't seem to go away." There is something truly fishy taking form here when someone as articulate and intelligent as Jordan is blatantly unwilling to come clean on the simplest of axiomatic questions, that are not at all hard to answer, and which would actually help this conversation forward. You can by all means say that the answer to this question, either way you may happen to swing, implies a lot of complicated considerations that will inevitably follow and be in need of ironing out, but that does not grant you the luxury of side-stepping such fundamental questions to the topic at hand. Jordan does this constantly, and towards the end there it's really clear that Sam, along with even a lot of the audience members, are losing patience with him on this point. By the way, I love listening to both of these gentlemen equally much when they're doing their own thing. I intensely enjoy Dr. Peterson's delineations on the deep meanings and values of archetypal stories, but here I have to call out what I see as being an unfair play of the game. Sam plays it in this way more fairly by refraining from resorting to such arguments as "You should try a higher dose, then.", which Jordan actually said, verbatim, on one occasion, and permutations of those kinds of illegitimate arguments are so rife from Jordan's side in these four talks that it's impossible to miss or ignore... Peace!
@Rafael Dolfe (part 1) Clearly these two highly intelligent gentlemen deemed it necessary to iron out that problem, because for whatever reason they couldn’t get to a clear conclusion after eight hours of circling around the issue. The utility of such stories can only be applied “properly” (and who makes the call there on how it is “proper”?) if you aren't completely delusional about what they mean, not to mention depending on whether or not someone takes them literally or not. If you don’t see this conflation, then it truly makes me wonder how closely you actually paid attention to what went on in these four talks. I mean did you even watch all of them? Dr. Harris is routinely forced to check whether or not what is coming out of Dr. Peterson’s mouth signifies (consciously or not) a foundation that is laid upon the genetic fallacy, as he relentlessly opts to counter an argument against his retelling of a deep idea (as justification for his position) by just proceeding to tell yet another deep story, as if the deepness of the stories themselves somehow justify continual answering of counterarguments in this way. With this in mind, can you honestly say to me that you could, with confidence, reiterate what Dr. Peterson thinks with regards to say, for instance, the relationship between a priori structures and child-sacrifice, without having to look through the tape to check what he said? If someone were to offer me a million dollar bet on whether or not I could do that, I would not take that bet, because I genuinely couldn’t do that with confidence - and I’ve probably watched each of these videos 4-5 times by now. I know he said something, but the essence was, as per usual, so shrouded in vaguery that the best I could do would be to say that, although he thinks child sacrifice is horrible, he also thinks the reality of these stories tell a deeper truth about the the discovery of the future and hence the necessity for making sacrifices. Big whoop - you can get there without these particular and irreconcilable texts, so that again fails to account for why these texts should be viewed as uniquely indispensable, and when you ask people what they think the crucifixion meant/signifies hardly anyone gives that kind of answer anyway. The overwhelming majority will just say that it was to absolve us of our sins, and leave it at that. Religious traditions are invariably irreconcilable. If you don’t think they are then you are not talking about the religious traditions anymore, you’ve instead carved out an image of religious viewpoints that are so watered down and denuded of crucial specificity that most any genuine believer of such religions would categorically object to such an attempt at reconcilable depictions. If we are to take seriously the notion that one of them is THE most important document in life, and that we are now about to make a choice on what menu we are going to order from on the most paramount issues in all human affairs, then you cannot pretend that they're all saying more or less the same thing, but in different ways. They just aren’t. If one menu purports to be the menu, the only real and true menu, it has already defined itself as being irreconcilable from any other such menu right there. So this isn’t even debatable. Now if you want to make a sleight of hand there and claim that this is the wrong level of analysis, then you are the kind of person that neither Sam nor I have any real concerns about in the first place, lol. It’s easy to just say that as if it’s a valid argument, anyone can do that. But if the right level of analysis is the one that already conveniently fits how you want to view this from the get-go, then you’re most welcome to entertain yourself in that way. Meanwhile it would be more constructive to focus on what we can say for certain about these texts, if you’re actually gonna have a discussion about it with someone. They're irreconcilable just going by the very claims that are being explicitly made in the respective texts themselves. All of them cannot be "true", by definition, on innumerable points, and in that sense they are irreconcilable. And if you’re now about to go down that road of saying “Well the texts are all open to interpretation”, or something tantamount to that, like “The truth is not found in the literal interpretation”, then I just don’t know what else to say to you other than the fact that your position is unfalsifiable, and hence there’s no need for me or anyone else to have to try to grapple with it or falsify such a thing - what you’re saying is not an argument, it’s just your opinion that this is so, despite what the texts themselves actually say explicitly. But to give you the benefit of the doubt there: what is the “right level of analysis”, exactly? I think you and I both know that no matter what answer you might come up with here, it won’t really be the right level of analysis anyway, because who the fuck would know, and how the double-fuck would we know whether or not to take the word of one person’s claim to know over another’s? You need some purchase on the actual nature of the whole cosmos itself to be able to answer that with any degree of confidence, and so to claim that someone’s “point of view is not the right level of analysis” here is, with all due respect, triple-fuckly pretentious. Just because you find personal utility in some of this stuff, it doesn’t validate the claims you’re making here. Now with regards to the a priori structure(s), I've listened to plenty of JBP and I dare say I understand perfectly well what he's saying with regards to that, so I haven't misunderstood anything there as far as I can tell. And since you offered no examples on how I'm actually getting it wrong, because you apparently had to work but somehow managed to carve out enough time to flesh out everything else in your response, then there's really nothing left for me to say on that either, as my over-arching point from my previous comment wasn't really specifically about that anyway. But I will say that your attempt at course-correcting what the true significance of these structures are is again so decisively vague, confabulatory and unfalsifiable, in the same manner that Dr. Peterson tends to talk on this subject, that we're once again back to Dr. Harris’ point that we could just as easily be spinning this talk by waxing on poetically with the aid of a cook-book as our basis. I could honestly change the valence of some of the words you used to describe this a priori shtick, in a way that would suddenly make someone who is more into astrology or tarot cards genuinely sign off on it as being part and parcel of their core fundamentals instead. It’s truly amazing to behold once you’ve succeeded at doing that a few times. With all of this in mind, your claim that this removal would be disastrous/impossible therefore strikes me as the hardest swallow out of all the assumptions floating around here. There are tribes still around on planet Earth today that are so out of touch with the modern world that they literally get scared out of their leather knickers when they just see an aircraft hovering above them, and so needless to say they have never even been faced with the kinds of religious traditions that we're talking about here. They seem to be doing just fine, all things considered. Of course one might then argue that they also have the same consequential religious superstitions/traditions floating around (no doubt) in their culture too, because of this very same a priori structure, but that brings us right back to my original question and point which you never even tried to answer:
@@theforgot3n1 (part 2) Either this structure is universal, giving rise to all these different traditions (regardless of how fumbling, inhumane, inefficient and downright insane they tend to be expressed in human behaviour over time), or it is not. If it is, you and Dr. Peterson should have no problems defining at least somewhat precisely what it is this universal force/tendency is doing that makes all of these bumbling and messy religions pop up on all sides of the planet in the way they do. And even if this truly is caused by such a force/biological reality, so what? If this reality winds up churning out all of these faiths that are expressed so differently (as they clearly are) so as to be, for all intents and purposes, completely at odds with one another, what on Earth would make them particularly indispensable then? We may just as well start with a blank sheet of paper, now that we “know” this more deeper fact, and get a lot better writing done by way of the same continual process of creative endeavors. But this isn’t being done, because we still hold superstitions about their solidified divinity that far exceed any reasons we have what so ever to hang on to them in the 21st century. If it’s not universal, however, well then that would at least explain a lot of this religious bloodshed and superstition found in the course of our species, in a way that actually remains intelligible and reasonable across the board. So which one is it? If you're going to say that simply discarding the idea that these self-proclaimed monopolies on divinity (which is something that these completely different pictures of the universe do claim for themselves) are not in fact divine, and are instead simply to be regarded as literature on-par with all other literature, is something that we simply cannot do, then what are you proposing is the case here exactly? Why can we not do this? And by extension, why not start with blank sheets? You just assert that we can’t, with no real evidence to back it up apart from more vaguery of the kind I illustrated earlier - whereas history has shown us that we clearly can, because these texts weren’t even around for most of our evolution… It is an insult to the very fact of how we ever got to a point where we could have written these ideas down in the first place, to suggest that the moral fabric within us would somehow abruptly relapse into chaos if these texts were to suddenly vanish from the Earth tomorrow. These texts aren’t special in any higher sense of the word, they are collections of works that have accumulated through hundreds and thousands of years of traditions, and they contain some of the very worst and best of human qualities - stupidity, ignorance, evil, ingenuity, wisdom and beauty. But it stops there. Lastly, your epiphany that these texts weren’t intended as scientific inquiry… You got that right, because there was no such thing at the time, or at least not in the way that we define science today. But I think you forget that these ancient peoples were the actual equivalents of scientists today, in more ways than not, at least in the way they wielded a kind of power and authority in society. We might one day find ourselves peering back on science as it was conducted today going “What the actual fuck were they thinking with those h-bombs, huh?”, but science is a process of discovery that makes no claims nor goals for itself other than that it cannot go beyond the hypothesis→test-phase. Anything after that is just continual pattern-checking and testing. This is the creed of science, if you will, and that is worlds apart humble from what went on in the bronze-age right up until around the Enlightenment, so that in itself is progress of a kind. Not only that, but more importantly, your whole realization that you claim brought you to a more “grounded” place, again just flies in the face of common sense. Just how à la carte were you with the kinds of texts you read when you felt more grounded? I’m assuming you didn’t care much for holy wars? Or murdering apostates? No, because you’re giving yourself the most flattering feel-good Hollywood-version of religious texts that there is. If you wanna say that’s useful cherry-picking, then yeah, I agree. Cherry-pick to your heart’s content. But that in itself is the admission that there is nothing particularly unique about these collections of stories, that have been edited and redacted and selected for literally hundreds of times, any more than the stories and traditions of those tribes I mentioned earlier that none of us have ever even heard about are. They are human compilations of human stories, that are of utility to different people for different reasons. This doesn’t make them particularly unique in a way that Hamlet, Death of a Salesman, Pinocchio or Scientology are not. So I would still encourage you not to take these ideas seriously. Take your own mind and abilities to study anything critically, for what they are and have of inherent worth, somewhat seriously. If you value critical thinking, you don’t need any specifically overhyped texts - some might help more than others, but you don’t need them, many are doing just fine without them. And if you don’t think we can make it without them, well then you’ve still got a hella lot of explaining to do as to how we got here in the first place! I’ve seen people try, and it’s not a pretty sight, I can tell you that… ;-) Peace out. P.S. Don’t get the wrong end of the stick here, I’m a huge JBP-fan and even produced a song as an ode to him that took me months to complete, lol. Check it out on my channel if you like. :-)
@@theforgot3n1 I had a feeling you would say that. And to that I'll just point out that you perhaps should also then consider applying the same standards to Dr. Peterson when you're listening him rattle on on this as well. Don't start a complex conversation you can't be bothered to finish. God speed!
Great discussion as always. I am glad to see that Sam Harris is willing to engage in these discussions and does so respectfully, however, I am again with Dr. Peterson on this. I would like to see what this "transcendent morality" of his really is because he failed to specify it. And I also wonder how he would like to make people to give up their religious faith in favour of it. One of the reasons I am a Christian is because to date Jesus offered the best solutions to the problem of evil in the world. I mean if everyone really followed His teaching and example, there would not be any wars anymore. What better moral principles can be offered than to love ( seek the good of) not only of yourself, but also your neighbor and even your enemy! I would like to know what danger does Sam Harris sees in those principles and why he would want people to give them up. What better values does he have to offer? And what if the people refuse to give up their old beliefs? Will he force them to do so? Send them to Gulagas for the "good" of mankind? His way of thinking can actually lead into very dark places....
A lot of people say, that Sam is not listening, that he is just trying to win an argument. I think it does feel like Sam is trying to win an argument, rather then find out the truth. But, as far as im concerned, it happens due to the fact that JP uses Socratic kind of dialogue, that means, he is mostly asking questions in order for Sam to continue the line of his thinking. And its not like JP is trying to catch or trap him, Its more like he makes Sam go deeper and deeper with his arguments to the point, where he realizes that, he doesnt really know what is underneath of his rationality (or what is the basis of his understanding of the world). I guess it comes from being a psychoanalytic. He lets his patients reveal themselves and understand themselves with minimum intervention from his side. I think they are both truly great here, and its hard to find better men to participate in such conversation.
Even clarifying their definitions constantly, these are two people who still regularly talk past each other as if there were a language barrier. It's actually really fascinating to watch, I mean that totally without facetiousness or denigration.
Seeing an audience prefer to just listen rather than ask their own questions says so much about the quality of both this discourse as well as those who were lucky enough to see it live.
yea i believe kasbian was pointing out that sam explained his point clearly and more concisely - therefore it wouldn't be hard to understand his points. Not to take away anything from Jordan's arguments as even i went through a rollercoaster of changing my mind throughout. A great discussion overall.
I have to say that one of the things that I find so satisfying about listening to Jordan is how much care he takes to form his argument logically - stick with the golden thread, and to take it all the way through to maturation. He really trusts his audience to think and to follow his train of thought. It's very.. what would you say.. Coherent! Modern life is frequently without such coherence.. listening to Jordan is a welcome oasis.
Anybody else thinks that sam was not polite and sophisticated enough? He used negative phrases every time he mentioned something he couldn't understand or didn't agree about... and he obviously was trying to hit a target and score!!!!!! Right?
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA W3D5 | Summer | ชี้ชะตา 16 ทีมสุดท้าย](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PabKlXzcK8c/mqdefault.jpg)
In the "Encyclopedia of Wars" (2004), Axelrod and Philips assign causes to 1763 conflicts throughout recorded history. Only 121 are assigned to religion. That's a little under 7%. Curiously, 66 of those specifically involved Islam, meaning that all other religions combined were involved in about 3% of wars. Martel's "The Encyclopedia of War" (2012) confirms a percentage of 6% for wars involving religion. The BBC's "God and War" audit analyzed 73 wars throughout history, assigning them a value of 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) for "intensity of religious factors as motivation". Of those 73 wars, 7 have a rating of 3 or higher. Only 3 have a rating of 5. The other 93% of wars are motivated by land, resources, political control, ethnic enmity, and a host of other secular reasons.
New Man Thank you for that info
This is definitely interesting. But I don't quite know what it means? Viewing war as the ultimate way to resolve a dispute; does this mean that people in general do not regard Religion as something important enough to fight over? Or do people tend to have Religious views which do not often clash with one another on a level which would warrant fighting over them? There are obviously many other reasons for people to fight. Do people tend to believe those things are more important than religion?
Fred Gauss an argument that atheists love to claim is that religion is responsible for most of all the wars and atrocities in life and it’s arguments like that that blind them to the positives and usefulness of religion that Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris are at odds about
I feel as though Harris' argument also stipulates that one can use a "software" other than that of religion. As both Harrison and peterson agree, religious "software" is rife with bugs in the programming. That is, the literal understanding of the bible and many other religious texts is unequivocally damaging to modern moral frameworks. Peterson seems to suggest that the best thing to do is keep utilizing this software as we know that it can work, while Harrison argues that it's pointless to use inherently flawed software when we have other more rational alternatives outside of religion.
Noah Desimone i think the hang-up is the lack of a replacement. Like religion continues because of structure and tradition right? Sam’s world of facts and values needs to utilize a similar intermediary because let’s face it, mediocrity is the baseline in society. I would say the evidence is pretty strong that humans think, talk, understand best in metaphor like JP argues that’s why he focuses on the usefulness of story so much.
Brett Weinstein is the best intermediary ever. Brilliant.
Bret's ideas definitely need more attention in this whole IDW thing. This speech in particular was fascinating: th-cam.com/video/bz0oxIZ3xIg/w-d-xo.html
Yeah, you can see that it's a shame he probably won't be employed by any colleges or Universities in the US again.
Totally agree. He did an outstanding job. He deserves recognition for it, indeed.
Except for at the end when he got in the way of Peterson’s building a line of argument that challenged Harris to pursue his own line of thought. I found that extremely frustrating.
Memo Pinzon I would argue that Paul Vanderklay would be better.
I really appreciate Bret Weinstein's role in this dialogue. He was heroic in keeping both sides from talking past each other.
He's ridiculously smart.
The second half is Sam Harris constantly talking over Peterson with non sequiturs
+emmereffing Funny, I see it just the other way around. Though Sam talked more, Jordan's interjections about "But in the Moral Landscape, you lay out a moral framework of the good life and bad life," seemed like a broken record non sequitur.
Anyway, Bret definitely won. :p
Brett also offered his own takes on both of them a few times
Damn. Peterson's shoes are beautiful.
"There's problems everywhere, man." - Jordan B. Peterson, Vancouver, 2018
what a quote
"No shit, man. " - Paulo T. Constantino, Liverpool, 2018
“It’s not easy being green...” Kermit
A crowd cheering philosophers like it's a sports event. There is hope for humanity.
I don't think you remember exactly how insane sports fans can get haha
Yes fan boys on both sides are sickening
it's annoying and seems inappropriate but at least people are enthusiastic about this stuff
it's awesome. people who are salty about it don't see the forest for the trees
one problem. we cant address the JQ. at least any more.
Man, fucking give it up for Brett Weinstein. His performance wasn't perfect, which I suspect would be impossible when you're sitting in between titans of this size, but he was brilliantly on-point throughout this entire thing. Excellent work.
Bret is awesome but
Brett looks so much like my cousin's father, and they are so similar in demeanor. It's so weird every time I seem him. Except they're a generation apart. Keep wanting to find my cousin and ask if they're related.
Probably the greatest unbiased mediating/refereeing skills I've ever seen.
Mitchfinder General He did a good job moderating but his hand gesture game is weak af. Get out of here with that amateur hour generic hand waving, Brett!
He’s not exactly a dullard
Too often when Jordan makes a strong case against Harris' view (such as how it has no a priori framework with which to sort the infinite number of facts) Harris just resorts to arguing why religion is bad. I left this debate feeling like Harris doesn't have a developed view himself, just a developed criticism of religion.
I agree. He wants to dispose of religion but he doesn't have anything to replace it with.
Not even that. Sam would have to have a good understanding of religion in order to have developed criticism of it, which he does not. He completely lack any understanding of Christian worldview for example, and his criticisms are not valid because of it. He argues his misunderstanding of Christianity, not Christianity itself.
@@edytatehrani3934 he clearly doesn't understand authentic Christianity, however, he does understand the shallow and corrupt Christianity that has been used by ignorant and evil people. He's just straw manning the whole religion based on his cherry picked examples. It's funny because there's such a vast load of crazily evil atheists rationalists that it's surprising he doesn't catch himself.
I am very confused by all this a priori framework stuff so maybe you can explain it to me. It seems interesting philosophically but I don't see how it could possibly help Jordan's side of the debate. If you throw out a world view based on basic intuitions because that doesn't have an "a priori framework" what leg do you have to stand on for your "old book framework"? I just don't follow the logic of: "Your world view isn't within my extremely rigorous standard of allowable frameworks - therefore Jesus."
Fred Gauss Think of it with this example: is it morally good or acceptable to kill babies that are diagnosed with significant disabilities in order to redirect the resources to other children. A Christian can answer this question by referring the idea that Jesus seems to rigorously embody which is everyone is equal before God. The Christian (as an example, though any framework will have it's own ideas), therefore has a framework which comes before his own judgments. The apriori framework is like that but much more complicated, taking into account many other factors such as the meaning of life (which for a Christian is something like to walk with God and follow the commandments of Jesus) which the person orients their choices around. This is potent because the Christian believes God is real and that this is not just a good thing to do but The Good thing to do. The problem with Sam's point is that he cannot provide any of this structure that comes before individual rational thought. He tries to with his whole "do things that feel good and stay away from those that hurt and expand this to others as well" thing, but that is not really based on anything concrete besides subjective experience, especially the part about incorporating others into it. A great example in my opinion would be to look at a country having a famine. It would be totally rational for a government to decide by some ranking system which citizens must die from hunger first and so take the food and distribute it to the most contributing members of society/whatever. A Christian can point to that and say it is evil because man has no right to judge in that way or that Jesus would clearly not define value by ability to contribute or something like that. This happened extensively in Stalin's Russia from what I've learned of it from JP. They decided a whole class of the farmers were corrupt so they killed them, took the land and food, and gave it to "the people." It's impossible 100% argue that is wrong from an atheistic viewpoint because the only beliefs you have to work with are generated by yourself, there is no a priori structure underneath by which to channel and judge.
JP's argument doesn't end with "therefor Jesus", it ends with something more like: rationalism isn't a viable replacement for religion because it's vacuous and incomplete.
For the last couple of years I've thought I was bothering my wife by listening to Jordan Peterson in the living room. About 20 minutes into this discussion I heard her yelling in the kitchen "I WISH THAT GUY WOULD SHUT UP AND LET PETERSON TALK!". God I love my wife.
Thank you for the warning...I just came here...
LOL that's awesome. Yeah, I found myself yelling at Sam to shut up a bunch of times. He seems to insist on making sure Jordan Peterson understands what he is saying, but never lets Peterson interject any corrections of his own. Also, he is obviously outmatched, so he never really answers the problems that Peterson poses to him directly, and he just keeps dipping into his repetitive rhetoric and examples that he's used in other debates where he felt superior. He is pandering to his fans who just want to hear the promotion of atheism, and Jordan genuinely wants to get to the truth and make a better world.
@@anubistv1154 ...Me too! Painfully rude.
"If you're a real sadist, you never mistreat a masochist when he asks you to." -Jordan B Peterson. After listening to this debate for over three hours, that was the most hilarious comic relief one could've asked for!
Priceless!!!
Yeah that was clever and quick. But you could go many directions with that
Certainly. I've always lol'd at the notion of if you're both a Christian and a masochist, the Golden rule is not for you and you should never ever apply yourself to it.
Dictionary definitions
Sadist - a person who derives pleasure, especially sexual gratification, from inflicting pain or humiliation on others.
Masochist - a person who derives sexual gratification from their own pain or humiliation.
I think the sadist thus inflicting said mistreatment would be in the best interest of both himself and the masochist?
No, because the sadist wants to inflict pain and humiliation therefore the masochist will get what he wanted and in truth he will feel good and that's not what the sadist wants because he wants to inflict pain and humiliation, phew
Thanks to everyone for their patience while the details for this release were ironed out. The 3rd and 4th videos (Dublin and London) will be released on my channel September 14th. Remember, if you would would, that these events, with all their imperfections, would not have occured without Pangburn Philosophy. The first discussion can be found here: th-cam.com/video/d-Z9EZE8kpo/w-d-xo.html
Great job with these discussions Dr. P! You are the Carl Jung of the 21st century and our world needs that right now more than anything else.
Will they be available before September 14th some place else?
The answer to bridge these positions is obvious. Regardless of the empirical basis for a good life, no amount of empiricism addresses the person doing the living of it, or why the living of it has meaning as a source of impetus to go do it for one’s self or for others. The same applies to the pursuit of evil for an empirically good life, both why it is possible and why it shouldn’t be done.
Dude I love you so much that you can't possibly imagine :)))
Thanks Dr. Peterson! Your answer to Brett Weinstein's question about prayer to the god you define was BRILLIANT. Though I do feel there was something to be said for Sam's if you're not a fundamentalist "own it" bit. In any case, keep up the amazing work!
I’m definitely team Sam and have had a negative impression of JP for quite awhile, but after viewing this, I have to concede that JP is much more curious and open to ideas beyond his own than I had assumed. Again, I lean towards Sam’s ideas and beliefs but I feel like I have a better idea of what JP believes in and appreciate his perspective much more now.
Sam contradicts himself when he doesent have a real argument. This debate should be over in under 10 minutes.
"If you were a real sadist, you will never mistreat a real masochist..." haha ! you win Peterson
what point did he even make by saying this? Just seems like another case of word salad to get his fanbase to cheer him on who dont actually know what hes saying 😂
@@mega4171 it was a joke that he couldn't resist - as he explicitly pointed out but it also made a point that the potential "balance" that Sam was trying to claim was possible actually isn't possible in light of certain predispositions whereas Sam was trying to remove the label of evil and replace it with badness. He failed to make the case.
@@benjaminscherrey2479 so in other words he simply made the point knowing it would make his sheepish fanbase clap regardless of the lack of substance. Got it
@@mega4171 no that would be you misrepresenting what happened and doubling down on the personal attack when no one else on the stage took it as anything other than what I just described.
@@benjaminscherrey2479 who ever said it was a personal attack? 😂 at least we know now you thought it was an attack rather than a relevant point. I certainly agree it wasn't at all relevant unfortunately the original commenter and majority of JPs delusional fanbase thought it was :)
I love how Jordan Peterson reminds us of how unbelievably awful existence was for so much of human history. He doesn't generally chastise our ancestors either. I think that is the right attitude because every mistake they made or small step they took led us to where we are today. It reminds me of that part of "War of the Worlds" that speaks of how our immunity to certain viruses or infections was and is hard fought and every agonizing death bought our right to exist on this world. I'm just left with an overwhelming sense of gratitude. We're so lucky.
It all begins with a grateful heart. Sam seems to have that hubris born of what I call "local vision". All you can see is the world through your own recent experience and you have the temerity to plot a vision forward based solely on that myopic take. A phrase repeated through out the Book of Kings "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit." When you have no "king" everyone follows their feelings. Disaster.
betbuk As someone who isn't very religious, I actually get the exact same sense from Sam in this discussion. I think Bret said it best when he mentioned that Sam might be caught in confirmation bias. I don't think it is malicious at all on Sam's part, just one of those ideological traps we are all is susceptible to.
@@sqrlmonger Psalms 118:28
You are my God, and I will give thanks to you; you are my God; I will extol you.
Being thankful for what we have is so healthy for the soul.
Sandmanuel Yeah, lets go to some land oversea and step on some naked dumb natives and bring them the “light of civilization” and drive-thru burgers. We are so lucky.
@@diegoperezsommariva2509 - Hey man. That didn't make sense.
Sam Harris is one of the few people I mostly disagree with but have immense respect for. What an intellectual pleasure it is to listen to these two guys exchange ideas.
Sure it is an intellectual pleasure to listen to it specially now days that the old ways of thinking is gone. The world as we knew it is over. We need new "commandments". The only thing we cannot forget is that everything is a believe. Truth became truth by believe.
Unfortunately I don’t know much of Sam Harris history so I find myself in a similar position. I agree with him on most everything except, it seems like, his most fundamental stance. From my view, he somehow doesn’t realize that all computers run on operating systems and would like us to believe that his computer does not have an operating system. So it ends up sounding something like, “I don’t speak English and I think English speakers are absurd.”
@Diego J. Kelch Perhaps it's not that conservatives modernize, but that moderns conservatize? A significant distinction because of its implications on the best way to encourage the desirable outcome.
@Diego J. Kelch Modernize by throwing away the foundation the country was built upon, along with throwing away peoples religious values? If that's modernizing, count me out..
I agree absolutely.
After watching the first discussion, seeing Jordan and Sam steel-man eachother's arguments at the beginning of today's discussion brought tears to my eyes. I wish I saw more of this constructive debate in the world. Two really great thinkers.
Agreed.
This should be a compulsory exercise for today's politicians, especially World Leaders.
However, I can understand, especially in the example of World Leaders, why it would likely be impossible, as most of them would be very uneasy with tipping their hand, and sadly, they would be right to think that way.
I admire both thinkers very much, but I couldn't stand that Sam was just interrupting Jordan the whole time. I enjoyed the first discussion much more.
Jordan is a Canadian, Sam is an American. Also, Sam is a "Coastal" American. East or West, coastal Americans are highly opinionated culturally, and there is little in the culture that discourages "talking over the other". In fact, in NYC, and vicinity, it's de rigeur for two or three people at a table to be talking at the same time without missing much of what they are hearing. It's cultural, then adaptive. It's considered rude, but it's not intended to be. So, I think Sam's interruptions are partly [but not all] that...and might also be partly explained by a form of racing thought, common in highly intelligent people with minor learning disabilities. Peterson, again, is a Canadian, one who grew up in a rural part of Canada interior. We err when we assume that there is little cultural difference just because they have so much in common. Besides, interruption doesn't fit into Peterson's method of idea development and expression, nor can it derail him much, because he has beaten himself up for his own weaknesses in expression, long, long before this, and he won the war inside. And this is why listening to him makes everyone smarter, including Harris.
@@joyceclemons3916I've heard Jordan Peterson incessantly interrupt others in recent debates. Is he a coastal? (is coastal a slur? is he a coasta?)
Also he might interrupt in this debate, but I haven't watched it yet. I'm not sure how coastal this debate gets. on the coast-o-meter.
Jet fuel can't melt steelmen
This is the best.
That is an interesting statement.
@@mementomori6992 I'm as deep as the molten metal
Yes it can burn hot enough to turn steel into a soft plastic state like play-dough, not liquify a steelman.
*cough* No but a trapped vortex circulating air through a giant bloomery shaped building could... *cough*
I can already see "We're about to fight over Elton John's glass" in a SHAMIEN video
I like when JB Peterson moves his fingers in air, he seems like wizard, causing a spell.
Lobster claws 🦞
Not a spell we should say but yeah😄
he is summoning the thoughts, spell wisdom +50 intelligence
Sam stopped listening for a while and went on a bit of a rant.
Wow. Jordan really did his homework on that opener. I mean the man is brilliant.
oh man jordan has opened my eyes to a whole new world .
Looks like that political compass is about to shift a little ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
@@jpetras16 nope . not economically . but psychologically spiritually and religiously
I think I know how you feel. Right when Peterson showed up on the scene I was intrigued, so I went and watched all his old college lectures. Really brilliant stuff exploring archetypes and personality and all of that. I'd really recommend checking them out, it's all up on his youtube channel.
With religion though, it completely changed my views on the purpose and applicability of religious beliefs. How it was essentially the core of the Western World's moral wisdom, how it helped allow of the few societies that believes in freedom and individual sovereignty to more or less create the modern world. Very heavy. I still don't believe in God as an omniscient deity, but do find it fascinating when it's viewed as a metaphorical construct towards the betterment of humanity.
@@aitch9053 exactly 100%
Well said! The holy father made a special prayer at Lourdes, in France. I think we can all think abaout that.
HAND GESTURES
Sam Harris: Claw, Calipers, "Back it Up", Wall (with shaky variant), Blessing, Brush Off, Crystal Ball, Bouncing Scales, Buddha, Italian Comparison,
Jordan Peterson: Exploding Spiders, Emerging Spiders, Floating Spiders, O-Ring, The Remote, High-Low Grapple, Rolling Pointers, Headspace, + a load more
holy shit, the joke i needed right now.
Where is one of those guys that put time codes for everything when you need um? :)
if for some reason they find hard times in the philosophy industry they would make great firework salesmen.
[sic] No, exploding LOBSTERS, emerging LOBSTERS, floating LOBSTERS... C’mon man! 😂
@@zac3392 Lobster with garlic and butter sauce! Delicious 😂
Found myself screaming, "shut up, Sam!" at the screen, by halfway through, after so many interruptions. Sam Harris is a bad listener, and to me that defeats his whole argument. A bad listener is not a good teacher.
Ebby C strange...
That’s what I thought Peterson was doing.
Ebby C you can’t fill a cup that’s already full.
Peterson is looking to unpack and discuss while Harris just wants to validate his own thoughts. Those are the types of people who want their words coming out of your mouth.
Yes.
Good meme channel.
23:20. Who knows may be useful lol...
Lotsa babies in baths
Thank you sir, for your service.
I can't wait to see what you concoct
Ben Stiller vs. Jordan Peterson
Ben Stiller vs. Kermit the Frog
Lol
bro ben Stiller vs kermit... Ben's mind will be blown completely.
Seth green playing ben Stiller playing sam harris playing an intellectual on par with the other two men onstage
Ben Stiller vs The Man in The Suit.
It’s weird watching this again three years later and after sam has lost me as a follower. Now, I can hear the smugness in his voice that I used to unconsciously agree with and cheer on. I really believe taking professor Peterson’s teachings to heart has cultivated so much gratitude and humility in me that I didn’t know I needed to have or was capable of.
wow i really agree with this.
Yes me too
reason doesnt equal smugness lol
@@mega4171 What you call reason, others will call emotionalism intellectualized.
What did he say? I am new to this
It's impressive to me how Weinstein is able to handle both side of the argument and ask each person a good question according to their position. I haven't seen such a good moderator in a long time.
Brett is a pretty amazing dude in his own right and Eric isn't far behind him.
I want to watch them talk until they have nothing left to talk about
I laughed at this SO HARD!!! i'm down with that.
that sounds mildly creepy
Plane Speech you mean he'd interrupt before a point is made, change the topic and throw in a shallow straw man like he won, ignorant fans cheer....
@@Philosophiseraptor 😄
I feel like there's still a lot of straw-manning by Sam. He keeps bringing up the worst aspects of religion as an argument against dogma, when Jordan is in no way ever endorsing dogmatic ignorance. Since I see no evidence of Jordan making excuses for believing things which clearly do harm to society, it is at best out-of-place, and at worst disingenuous of Sam to bring up those aspects of religion in defense of atheism (for lack of a better word).
Sam keeps saying "you don't understand my point", but Jordan has hardly spoken long enough to get into his point.
I love them both, but Jordan does not know how to condense his argument, and takes so many turns and tangents that it becomes tiresome to stay with him. Every time he say "So look...." I think "Oh God, here we go again".
Haha, I think it is because he is less trying to debate proper and more trying to understand/learn something from the encounter
@@mrroberts9230 well said
First off, I respect Sam Harris's move to talk to Jordan in open debate about these issues. Regardless of their messages, I know Sam does respect Jordan and his work, even though they disagree.
That being said, I can't help but see that Sam constantly changes the parameters of the argument after asking Peterson a question and he did this in the first debate too. Sam said it himself at the beginning: he is shooting fish in a barrel when it comes to levying critiques against religious fundamentalism. Sam appears to be itching to talk to someone who supports religious fundamentalism, but Jordan just isn't that person. I find it a little disingenuous to keep shifting the argument towards said religious fundamentalists, especially when Jordan will agree with him about the dangers of those groups. I also think Sam needs to make a clear distinction between when he attributes Islam (certainly one of the more radical religious fundamentalist group in the world today) to other religions.
@@casthedemon Not really. What are you on about? Islam leads the "more blood in its history leauge on the planet. Easy! Where do you get your info from? How dud you reach that faulty conclusion?
The belief system of atheism (Stalin/Hitler/Mao) are responsible for the most deaths in recent centuries. Sam did get clear on Bill Maher's show a few years ago that current Islam is a direct threat, despite Ben Afleck's objections. Lol
@@casthedemon don't lie like a fool
@@casthedemon It is for a reason. It gave you everything of any beauty you know.
@@casthedemon a knife is dangerous when used to stab people instead of cut vegetables.
Peterson stumped Harris about how to ground morality in rationality without an a priori framework. Sam has no framework yet advocates abandoning any past frameworks. Abandoning past frameworks without anything to replace them is an enormous problem with Harris' position and it should not be overlooked.
Agree. He was dogmatically attached to the idea that religions, especially the Judeo-Christian is unnecessary because some people get too dogmatic about it and a far fewer go to kill others.
It's like saying that we don't need any softwares because there are a few softwares that are bad.
Hopefully people begin to realize how vacuous and impractical Harris' position really is and they stop pushing this notion of abandoning religion and all other frameworks without anything to replace it.
Rama that's a pretty good analogy there. Destroy all the softwares because there's bad ones, and in the meantime *surely* someone will write the perfect software that we can all use exclusively.
I thought it was kinda like Sam says we need a detailed book (I think of it like the NEC code book for electrical work, which is ENORMOUS and complicated) while Peterson says that won't work because in reality, virtually no one will read it and fewer would understand it and what even IS electricity to begin with and what reason do I have to care? Or maybe imagine writing an overly detailed and technical instruction manual for assembling a complicated piece of furniture (Sam Harris) vs. showing pictures of it with annotation (Peterson). One of these methods will enable more people than the other, I think.
kev c great way of putting it.
Well, i subjectively disagree. But to actually discuss - this seems a pretty ideological reading of what actually happened, Sam's views, and the incredible effectiveness of his critiques of religion.
In the middle problem there, all you have to do is realize he wrote 'Waking Up'and you know he has something to replace religion with and its pretty damn helpful.
The former, neither really stumped the other. There were a couple of times Peterson was the instigator in figuring the point of divergence to a satisfying conclusion, No stumping. THere were also a couple of times Harris did this. More often, Sam was able to logically deconstruct Peterson's contentions to the point that you have to either take them on faith or abandon them. That isn't derisive or anything, its just the best possible way to approach data and information more generally.
The latter; he routinely acknowledges the possible merit of religious thinking and how metaphorical truth, as they say, can be helpful and at least in terms of moral education. That STILL removes the divine and ideological approach that religion requires without losing hte benefits. Its actually alsmost exactly Peterson's superficial position. He's weirdly unable to vocalize his point of view succintly. Which is difficult for his reputation as quick, eloguent and relatable but also leads me to think there's some facetiousness he might not even notice in his more heavy talk on religious utility.
I think this and the previous discussion are very productive and entertaining. I’m a little put off by Sam’s seemingly smug attitude. Maybe it’s just me but he seems to have a air of superiority. Jordan Peterson seems to have more of an attitude of humility. Sam seems to interject more with witty/humorous comments that degrade or derail the point Jordan is making.
What? Jordan? The guy that claims his views are more "sophisticated"?
Harris is the one who held the "Moral Landscape Challenge" where he offered $10k to anyone who could rebut his thesis. Haidt predicted that he wouldn't find a suitable rebuttal. This says it all about how Harris approaches this subject. Dogmatically.
Jordan , the river of hope, is a truly spiritual person,
what many mouthy-christians are not, who throw around biblical verses, forgetting the most important aspect of any belief, to live it. They think by emotionally screaming Jesus, they would be on the bright side of the equation.
Jordan is anything but bigot, so he always points out, how important it is to carry your own cross, and he had a heavy one with his depressions. He is right, not confessing to one of the many religions of Christianity, what will remain being a sting in their flesh, but to the Logos, to Christ, to God. One could say, he is opportunistic, to keep all doors open, but I think he expresses his most inner truth, seeing the scriptures as symbolic tales with the deepest imaginable content.
All how I see it too, having a very intense relationship with the in me grown Christ, by meditating on this outstanding eternal being, who is the brother of all, even of the fallen ones. All love, does not exclude, but still speak, even harshly, the truth uncovering the flaws of the fallen, remember, how he spoke with the darkish and the traders in the temple
Can't help noticing that all the commenters on this channel seem to think Jordan 'won',
while the same video on Sam's channel has the exact opposite opinion.
Who would have guessed.
Two cults of personality clash.
Actually, that is not what I saw in Sam’s channel. Most top comments are neutral in tone praising the discussion or stating something maybe a little funny or witty about the discussion or Sam or Jordan. Even comments supporting Sam, I personally found that they “smelled” of irritation, which is understandable because Sam was clearly inadequately prepared for this, and not an intellectual match for J.P. I came a little biased for Jordan; I watched the discussions more than five times each. Every time I discovered additional points where Sam fumbled. Every time I became more convinced that Sam’s narrative is clearly inadequate to address Jordan’s insight. And it is not that Sam does not have good arguments, it is just that an intellect like Jordan’s is unprecedented, his analysis on the psychological importance of religion is a paradigm shift not only for theology but for many scientific fields. This is very obvious where he literally COMPLAINS about Jordan changing the definition of God! (This is in discussion 1). This is because Sam is only prepared to answer the classic pro-god arguments, and he is clearly inadequate for addressing any of Jordan’s groundbreaking insight on what God is, and why (christian) religion is important.
>Actually, that is not what I saw in Sam’s channel. Most top comments are neutral in tone praising the discussion or stating something maybe a little funny or witty about the discussion or Sam or Jordan
I don't know what comment section I was looking at then :^)
This discussion / debate was not about “winning” or proving the other wrong. It was about struggling through perceptual differences to find common ground. If there is a “winning” it would be demonstrated by fluidity & not by staunchness. I think that mostly is what the JBP fans here are referring to.
Alexander Bond it's not about Winning, it's about coming to an understanding of the conversation they're having, Sam is basically too busy trying to win an argument and completely not listening to Jordan even if Jordan understands his position. And Sam gets upset when the audience clapping for Jordan most of the time, and make jokes as he goes, kinda frustrating to watch.
This channel, with videos like these especially, truly gives me hope of humanity and the experiment that is human civilization. A true bastion of hope and motivation for me and others. Thank you Jordan and to everyone who makes your endeavours possible!
I love Sam Harris because of his podcast and meditations, but whenever he gets into a discussion he contradicts what he preaches so deeply. What sits in his chair is all ego, he does not listen, he is already preparing what he gonna say and/or answer, he smirks at his own rather misplaced jokes. Respect for Dr. Peterson for listening and trying.
@@philkesler - Hmmmmmm. Sooo, you watched the video, right buddy? Really interesting conclusions you've come away with.
@@philkesler - If that's what you walked away with, you should check your confirmation bias. Your constant reference to logical fallacy also indicates this.
@@philkesler - Its good you're getting laughs, but that post you just made only solidifies the fact that you have SEVERE confirmation bias here. Confirmation bias can lead you to find errors where there really are none, and also to overlook the errors in your own position.....I assume you know this because you like to throw around a lot of fancy philosophy terms to bolster your points, I just dont see how you're missing it.
@@philkesler - Glad u are still laughing man, haha. Its generally fairly easy to spot someone with a confirmation bias. The extraordinarily anti-Peterson way you have analyzed and interpreted the debates is apparent. I don't see any reference or similar outrage to the same philosophical hangups and errors that Sam commits throughout the debates. These things are strong indicators of confirmation bias.
Also, your music is good dude. I just listened to a bit of a few of your songs.
@@philkesler - That's an interesting point, man. I found myself frustrated with Harris a lot in these debates because Peterson asked repeatedly about how Sam would derive his value structure, and it seems as though Sam never gave an adequate answer. The moral facts from an epistemological sense thing seems to be on shaky ground philosophically. At the very least Sam has to elaborate on this. If Sam is advocating we ditch the religious framework that got us here, he's also tasked with creating a framework that will result in better outcomes.....and not just for some random extraneous situations like the albino in Africa. It has to be so much better for so many people that it accomodates for the risk of discarding our current framework. I don't think he's anywhere close to that yet, but I'm open to hearing his proposals.
Thanks for uploading. These videos were taken down the other day.
That's because those were pirated.
I can't help but notice that every time Jordan tries to combat what Sam just said Same interrupts before Jordan even gets to explain what he is saying. Hear him out at least before trying to counter what it is he is going to say.
We need more of this.
We need to make intellectuals the true heroes of our society.
Its only through intelligent dialogue where we can find logical commonality and fundamental ambition to be better people.
After watching both of these, I’m inclined to believe that while both men are invested in the progression of humanity, only JBP is willing or capable of accepting the human condition as it currently exists as well as what it can reasonably be expected to progress towards within the next century or two.
While I absolutely laud Harris’ perspectives and appreciate the beneficial directions he is trying to lead people towards, I get the impression he is too far out of touch to effectively guide humanity at this juncture.
@Be The Ball I think Harris's problem is he thinks other people are like him. His ethics really apply to himself. I think this is also true for Jordan, and he got lucky that he is like a lot of people. I'm much more Harris-like myself. So, a lot of how Jordan works doesn't work for me, and when I listen to Harris there's nearly zero friction.
@Interfilamentar In what way(s) are you like Harris?
YES! This is exactly the problem! Not everyone is capable of of forging their own values and having the willpower to execute them. They even touched on this when they talked about the ease with which narrative spreads. (in a memetic fashion) That a priori interpretation framework that Jordan is speaking about is what makes spreading ethical values through stories the most efficient! I don't know why Jordan didn't express that more clearly than he did. Not everyone has the intellectual capacity to increase well being and delay gratification consciously and rationally. Furthermore, even the most intellectually capable among us encounter dire situations every once in a while in which they wouldn't act rationally, but on a more primitive and simplistic interpretive framework for perceiving the world, which can lead to moral and ethical errors if it is not programmed correctly through story. This is the crux of the argument Jordan is getting at; rationality is well and good until we don't have the luxury of using it, (some people can't really use it at all) so we need to figure out how to program the more simple underlying a priori interpretive psychological structures with the strongest stories that humanity has produced so that we can act morally and transcend suffering even through the darkest of times.
Harris is out of touch with God and his ancestors. That's his weakness.
+Jonathan Olson I think Eric Weinstein pointed out that Sam has not forged his own moral framework as much as he passively absorbed the Judeo-Christian framework of his parents and community. He also has the 'ecumenical niceness' described by Murray that is so common to liberals that upon closer inspection, is found to be wanting.
I can't shake a feeling that Sam constantly moves goal posts in this conversation.
Otherwise you'd have concede that Peterson's ideas looked vulnerable here. I'm sure it's much easier to assure yourself that Sam cheated. That's what confirmation bias is, that's what it feels like, it's why people are reluctant to change their minds.
lol. Calling out confirmation bias by displaying confirmation bias. Sam moving the goal post is not a claim that JP's argument are not vulnerable. Both can be true
actually, its not confirmation bias. Its just bias.
So we all have bias? Are you being biased right now?
We most definitely all have biases in general.
I may have been biased by attributing a bias to you. But I was merely trying to point out that your comment was fallacious. Sam's moving or non moving of the goal post has no baring on JP's strength or weakness of argument. So your statement of "otherwise you's have to concede Peterson's ideas looked vulnerable" seem to come from a place of bias since it is logically inconsistent. And I found it amusing that you proceeded to attack the OP by telling them they were biased.
But everyone is biased to some extent. I try my best to catch myself. But no one is perfect.
I found Sam to be incredibly frustrating during this talk, constantly interrupting, but not in a positive manner.
I generally agree with Harris on many points yet find him too emotionally invested in his opinions
I really like the 3-minute summary at the end. Jordan took 2 minutes and Sam took Jordan's last minute to pay lip service to his fans, then took 4 minutes to repeat what he had already said.
I want a buddy cop style movie with Kermit the frog and Ben Stiller on the run for burning a quran now.
I also see what you see.
hahshhshaahahahaha
Oh my god! (Sorry Sam). That is SO funny!
I don’t think Sam is willing to budge at all. He’s too deep into his own perception.
@SA This is what jordan peterson warned about or told about; the rationality has a tendency to fall in with its own creation. Or something like that, in laymans words too bias with its own ideas.
It can physically hurt to let go of your beliefs once you identify with them. It’s like a part of you dies. I try to do that less and less as I get older
@@Ryan-ze9fz I understand these words all to well. "Earth shattering", as Peterson puts it, only way I can think to describe it. It really is like a part of you died. Left me very confused in life, still trying to figure myself out.
Wow, this was amazing. Sam, Jordan and Bret. This really is one of the best conversations I've ever heard. Truly wanting to reach truth.
This was 2yrs ago. It blows me away, throat tightened, eyes wide opened, gratefullness, etc... Just amazing to hear and see the audience attentive to these men. 👏😎🍔
Absolutely majestic conversation, respect to both Jordan and Sam.
It seems, that both speakers want to find the golden middle between the pathological dogma and the hopeless ego-centrism, but Jordan's approach is more against the latter and Sam's is against the former. That's pretty much point us to the underlying problems of the mentioned frameworks, where dogma is an indiscriminate devotion to ideals of others, and nihilism is an indiscriminate devotion to own's subjective ideals, and thus the perfect balance is a life, where one tries to be the best oneself in relation and consideration of others.
EugeneParallax yes. Exactly
EugeneParallax
Beautifully sau
Beautifully said.
Sam thinks making the crowd laugh with some ignorant remark that sounds good is a win on the topic. It’s as if Sam came to win a debate, Jordan came to learn and try to truly meet common ground.
That's because Jordan didn't have the option of winning this debate, making friends and discussing ideas sounds like a good option when you're watching your claims - interesting though they are - meet their match.
To say your more intelligent then anyone who disagrees just shows you really aren't that intelligent
Phil Kesler oh I see you’re just a troll. *crowd laughs* *i make smug smirk* *i win now*
Zadok S pulls a strawman while trying to explain intelligence lol
Phil Kesler Intelligence is more then grammar. That’s the problem with people who “think” they are smart, they “think” they are always right. Hahah
Discussions like these make me proud to be a part of the human race. Really great job guys, couldn't get enough of this.
Saw you last night in Westbury NY, thanks for your insight and brilliance, may you be showered with strength and endurance to continue your work
First, Bret Weinstein's performance as moderator was beyond outstanding in both debates. He not only kept everything in control and running smooth, but intellectually contributed to the discussion in very significant ways. My hats off to you sir. Mr. Peterson, as always you were on your game and impressive beyond my ability to convey in writing. There is one thing that you and Sam both agreed on, that I wouldn't say I necessarily disagree with, but I think here is another aspect to. It was how the religious belief in another life after this one,, can negatively effect how someone acts in this world. You both agreed (I'm paraphrasing) that some wouldn't care about doing what's right or good now, knowing that another life awaits them. I think the heaven and hell concept far more often than not has the opposite effect. I believe it serves to keep people from succumbing to their selfish, primal instincts knowing that their actions today, will dictate how they spend eternity. Fyi, I'm a fiscal conservative and not what you would a religious person. My beliefs are very close to how you described yours in the first debate.. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to round 5.
Yes please! And thank you all!
We can't say that we don't still practice human sacrifice. I placed my life on the alter of liberty when I joined the Army, parents place their children on the alter of justice when they allow the law to arrest them (rather than violently resisting) and parents also offer up their children to selective service (conscription). Even taxation is more a ritual of belief in the common weal than a pragmatic arrangement of mutual communal benefit, which is why the corrupt bureaucrat who violates the common trust is a greater criminal than the shoplifter, pickpocket or even armed robber.
Not Bad
Can we be a little more dramatic here guys? Joining the army or being a firefighter are now examples of human sacrifices? Every action has a certain amount of risk. Do I make a human sacrifice when I drive to the store to buy milk? I might get in a car accident and die (which studies show is actually more likely to happen than a firefighter being killed on the job). But at the same time if I don't my family might stave to death. I am such a hero. Either your definition of human sacrifice is so broad that it becomes meaningless or you are using the term incorrectly here.
(I have to admit I LOLed when I read the firefighter thing and imagined my friend who was a firefighter making $80,000 a year spending vast majority of his "on the clock" time making elaborate meals, working out, napping and maintaining the outdoor hockey rink. Just like human sacrifices of the biblical times. LOL!)
+Fred Gauss When you send an Army to war, you're guaranteed to give up people, you're guaranteed to have to look their parents in the eye and tell them you sent their son to die. Is that not human sacrifice?
Great and interesting comment,...things that make you go hmmmm?
I agree with the premise however also having served in the ARMY I seeit more as a selfless service to offer oneself to sacrifice if called to be so for a moralistic and national greater cause. Basically placed others ahead of themselves. Also thank you for your service
"Finally a worthy adversary, our battle will be legendary "
Damn Jordan, my room is going to be so dusty after listening this many hours of your great content
listen and clean up at the same time
Slay your lobster and clean your dragon
do you mean the dragon downstairs
Fred save your lobster from the belly of the beast
Slay your belly from the lobster of the dragon.
Wash your front hole bucko.
So you're saying...
My favourite part was when Jordan began a sentence and Sam/Brett interrupted to make their own point AGAIN instead of letting him finish his.
Great discussion and nice follow up from the previous talks.
Quite honestly. after listening to both their podcasts together and these two 'debates', I seriously believe that their main point of debate is a semantic one.
They both mean something else when talking about 'facts'.
They both mean something else when talking about 'faith'.
They both mean something else when talking about 'dogmas' and 'values'.
So much of their discussion, it appears to me on second viewing, boils down to either one trying to explain to the other what exactly they mean when they use a certain term.
Worst of all, their subjective argumentative styles seem, in my view, to cancel each other out on the most fundamental level.
Peterson seems to be exhausted by Harris not going into detail enough, not being specific enough and being too argumentative, while Harris seems to be annoyed by Peterson never getting down to the 'real stuff', never committing to any fixed position and heading more and more towards analysis paralysis.
They are both great thinkers and probably agree on 3/4 on their views, they just seem to be incompatible when it comes to actually exchanging their ideas.
I honestly do not believe that any more talks between them, at least not as openly as these now were, would bring any advancement at all.
I understand where you're coming from, and I think that a discussion between these two particular individuals has a low likelihood for any real development of the ideas being presented. It makes me wonder if I would feel the same way were it Aristotle and Plato debating on the stage instead :P
they talk in such generalities as to render utility only to beginners, or even sideline atheists reconsidering Jordans pseudo-scientific points. Sam always errs by making grotesque straw-man over-generalizations of "religion", and Peterson to his credit mentions Protestantism as being weak due to over 32,000+ "denominations" each with their own dumbass "faith alone" based "interpretation", which might as well be just the same as moral relativity, as if a plurality of "interpretations" can peacefully co-exist. They can't, as the Evidence clearly shows (world wars, eugenics behind abortion mills, usury scams, etc.)
They never get down to specific recommendations in the Bible which most people have never heard of before, yet which are clearly explicit in the texts, such as that the OT and NT both warn that if you all don't Tithe to grow the Church (Parable of the Talents) and preserve its higher sacred music and labor rights of said music ministers (Nehemiah 12, 13), then no one will attend worship gatherings any more, and the world will become stupefied due to it, dumbed down, and earning God's wrath. But Jordan stops at Cain and Abel, and completely fails to follow it through to its societal conclusion, that most people are envious Cains who always scapegoat and kill (via neglect even) their hierarchical superiors of higher gifts / talents (such as the Sons of Asaph, priesthood of sacred music ministers). They completely neglect the historical fact that most modern tech comes from such higher music, and the technological demands it placed on believers to invent the necessary hydraulics, computer programability, acoustics, skyscraper architecture for pipe organs implied in higher music worship.
So Sam takes the IDIOT presumption that we don't need these "rubrics" anymore in the 21st century, and Jordan fails to go for the jugular on that. Figures, both too fixated on Darwin's false dreams, and Hobbes' / Rousseau's / Locke's social contracts BS, than on Father Mendel's actual factual genetics, and the fact that nothing is completely knowable in any lingual or formal system without reference to an a prior that is completely outside-of and transcendent to that system. Jordan only briefly mentions the latter, and Sam only briefly acknowledges it (a tip of the hat to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem)...but neither of them home in on it, because they are too cowardly knowing it would explode their money milking machines by cutting-short their prolonged aimless fixation upon beginner points. This is why they have public appeal...pseudo-scientific sophistry for noobs, and most ppl are noobs. It's just a fascade for pretend intelligence. Posturing. Not very tonal-aware. Like the tone deaf talking to the tone deaf.
@@arthursulit I can most seriously retort that an obvious value inflation of your opinion, (being based on the concept that you understand this dialog), is clearly exposed as false by your presenting a tautological paradox as a simple, weak definition of semantics. To conclude that "nothing is completely knowable" is thus exposed to be the state of your understanding of the topic of discussion.
The tone deaf still hear bullshit. You proved it. Good job.
Wishing you could interrupt both of these guys right?
Got anything of value to convey? Love to hear it.
Looks like your intellectual poverty is leading you to a jealous detour along the well worn post-modernist highway. Take the long way home.
@@timrooney6333 "nothing is completely knowable" is merely a restatement of similar ideas expressed in Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, as well as other expressions asserting that the Universe, & sentient life itself, is not reducible. If you think I'm some sort of post-modernist, then you're an ignoramus dumbass.
@@timrooney6333 It is very clear you failed to understand a single iota of the many valuable points I said, especially their generic overarching talk of Biblical norms without getting into specific examples which are commonly overlooked by most dufuses like you out there (Tithing, for instance, how it relates to everything else society-wide...the debate between Patrick Henry for vs Thomas Jefferson against for instance). I side more or less with JP throughout when he slams atheists.
But the point is that JP's own (former) atheism still bubbles up, when he says he Knows reality in general isn't reducible (to mere scientific terms), and yet he still attempts to explain Biblical stories as if they are "Myths" generated from Jungian Evolution. i.e. his points are an interesting way of defeating dogmatists like Harris, by using the same Dogma (Evolution) from atheistic fake-science. That's perhaps an attractive approach for beginners (like you) who "worship" JP (apparently?) or Harris, both who reject moral relativity and post-modernism (to their credit). But both simply "claim" their points, without actual proof of substance of their claims. So they end up going in circles.
That you missed these points entirely, is typical of most other borderline atheists out there who are "converting" to the JP approach. He appeals to atheistic males seeking to justify some sort of Creator Entity, because he himself was a former atheist, still trying to make sense of this "God" thing which he somehow "knows" has to be true, due to his own testimony of miraculous experiences which awoke him from his former slumber. However, he hasn't awoken "fully" yet. He still uses approaches that appeal to complete noob clueless beginners, like you (apparently). So like a typical envious Lilliput, you knee-jerk react with nonsencial words, indicating you can't even read, nor write cohesively.
2 hours and 16 minutes listening to Harris (almost exclusively) talk in the slowest possible manner, while constantly interrupting both Peterson & Weinstein at pretty much every turn.
This was absolutely frustrating to watch/listen to.
Very disappointed in Harris here, not letting others talk.
GT83 for real dude. He moved the goal post on the Israel/Elvis Guitar analogy which would have made a huge point if Jordan was allowed to speak.
Harris blows!
Phil Kesler
How's that wishful thinking working out for you?
It certainly is much easier than actually using your brain intellectually.
Yeah, I had hoped that Bret would step in and let the other respond before the topic advanced.
GT83 - As long as you actually heard what he said then it would've been a worthwhile experience for you.
Simply one one the best videos on TH-cam. Highly underrated.
Oh dear the Dogma of anti-dogmatism!
"Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man’s relationship to existence. As against the special sciences, which deal only with particular aspects, philosophy deals with those aspects of the universe which pertain to everything that exists. In the realm of cognition, the special sciences are the trees, but philosophy is the soil which makes the forest possible." ~ Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It, 2
Brilliant
>>>we should>the existence of consciousness>with meanings
"...Is just an emotion" please expand on this, and why you downgrade it, and what authority or logic or reasoning leads you to downgrade or upgrade something, if not emotion itself. I could make the argument that you feel something is "just" an emotion is just you, not liking emotions, and wanting to put them down or relegate them to something that is not very important. But THAT itself is "just" your emotional response to all this. And what is higher than emotion in your hierarchy here? If I really like a painting, is my admiration of it "just" an emotion but the painting itself, that is real deal? And if emotion is stripped away them isn't all value stripped away? What is it with atheists and this reasoning, oh it came out of my own brain so it MUST be illegitimate bullshit??
Consciousness is an emotion about as much as a frog is a tricycle. . .rather, far less!
You know by quoting Ayn Rand the entire quote is laughable right? She is the most popular terrible philosopher to ever live. And I mean TERRIBLE.
Never heard of the steelmanning concept before, what an excellent idea. I'd love to see it being brought forward in mainstream discussions.
Unfortunately, their "steelmaning" was pretty weak. They simply summarized what they thought their opponent's points were and checked in with their opponent regarding whether it was correct or not. There wasn't much attempt to offer the strongest or build the strongest argument possible.
Dude, it's not a sport. These aren't teams. It's not a competition. This is dialogue, and isn't obligated by any means to follow anyone's preconceptions or expectations. This is the place where bad ideas come to die, literally. Debate is what you do to prepare for dialogue, it's not the dialogue it's self. It's not useful to measure who can make a stronger argument or debate better. The value in who or what is right/correct is derived specifically from knowing who/what is incorrect/wrong, and vice versa. Considering these gentleman are alumni and not students, we can assume their intentions here aren't educational, but practical. The summary as you describe was only useful if you haven't been watching from part 1 of this series. I think Bret really butchered the role of the moderator here -- which is irritating because he knows all too well the difference between students "practicing how to think" and people or persons "practically" doing so. So ideas like "steelman", "strawman", and even politeness really don't serve useful function here.
"My work would be much easier if........"
This is very telling of what SH sees as happening here: He is an evangelist looking for converts and a debtor looking to win an argument. JP is having a discussion.
Quite telling.
So much of the internet and TH-cam is like a few pieces of popcorn. These videos are full meals and I love that about these discussions. This is one of the most positive products of the internet and TH-cam specifically.
I've been thinking a lot about Darwinian vs. Newtonian truth lately and I think I have a pretty good way to conceptualize it.
I think the reason Jordan doesn't accept the standard model of truth that people like Sam Harris champion is because he sees that our minds are ultimately prescriptive machines. That is, he correctly sees that our prescriptive cognitive modules are operating on a more fundamental level than our descriptive modules.
In essence, he sees that we are constructing the world not according to what the world is, but how the world should be to suit our evolutionary program.
And he also correctly sees that having a purpose in life (responsibility) is tantamount to having meaning because it's fulfilling that underlying prescriptive layer and that meaning from an evolutionary point of view is a more fundamental truth than objective truth as far as our minds are concerned.
The truth he speaks of is the truth of fulfilling our prescriptive models such that we fulfill our potential and become who we were truly meant to be.
RUBBISH. Dear Zack Lyle friend, the "mind" is merely fabricated by the evolved-primate brain - but momentarily (during a multiple re-arrangement of matter aka metabolism) and temporarily (aka wake state). The proclamation "mind is machine" is at the verge of a comical bizarre hilarity.
If you deny the causality: Brain ---> mind ---X---> (mind is a mere effect, aka "epiphaenomenon"), then pretty please can you tell me where "mind" is during dormancy? Is is out for a stroll or what LMAO?
>>>Darwinian *VERSUS* Newtonian truth
Maybe machine isn't the best word. I'll give you that.
Good thinking
Thanks!
Way to be non-condescending about it champ
So it seems that Peterson was trying to genuinely better understand Sam's opinions, but Sam was too "dogmatic" to do the same (most of the time).
Yet he spent the whole conversation arguing against dogmatism, hmm, interesting!
(which I'm assuming Sam's fans who'd view this as a debate will view it as a win)
Disclaimer for the narrow-minded fans of either of the speakers, I'm not saying this to bash Sam!
All three of them were amazing, made amazing points and it's such a useful conversation.
Also, Hats off to Brett! Man, forget about biology and work as a moderator.
Also, I'm actually amazed how Peterson didn't catch a lot of these self-contradictions!
The fact that people will split (+all verb tenses) over this very discussion, challenges Sam's very point of universality, I'm not saying morals are not universal tho, I'm only challenging Sam's version of universality, meaning; let's assume Sam's right, we can reach these good results we do by religion without religion, and let's assume we will be able to convince all people with it (or the majority or a majority), which I vote won't happen as it didn't/won't happen with a given religion, then what? Maybe we'd even build some temples and call them "chur-gogues" where people can aggregate perhaps once a week to grow spiritually if not to discuss and develop their societies as well, and BTW, Sam, this practice would be called "RELIGION" even without the temples part, but nevertheless, then what?
You seriously think we will live happily ever after and all of humanity's problems would go away?!
If you get rid of religion, of course, you'd get rid of all the religious problems, but you'd have awholenother nonreligious problems! Man, we do have them right now! (And even look at all the other nonconscientious species)
Also, and this is very important, I could interpret the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a very very secular way, the fact of the matter, if you call it an Israeli-Palestinian conflict and not a Jewish-Muslim conflict you're doing that, and guess what? It still never got resolved!
Because that's the definition of a human being, we're different, we will always be different, we have different understandings, so you could take the same observation, rather, the same fact, man and you'd have dozens of interpretations to this fact!
Sam's followers interpret his "teachings" in a dozen different ways.
How is this not the point you made, professor Peterson? I'd have loved to see Sam's response to that!
@@sayyadsaioo The biggest issue with the conflicts discussion is that they have, by the looks, zero understanding of geopolitical reality. They simply ignored the most important driving and shaping force behind the conflict because they lack insight.
Harris came to say 'I'm right, you're wrong, and there's nothing you can do about it." Poor guy. JP came to help Harris - genuinely and sincerely -- bless him.
This comment clearly shows your selective hearing
Watched this a couple times and love them both. The first time I thought Harris put the screws to JBP, but now I'm more thinking what others have shared, that JBP really is trying to have a discussion and Sam isn't listening or treating it as such. I think I agree with Sam more but find him more frustrating as an individual here
1:41:43 The idea of the ideal world of 'sadists vs masochists' is interesting, as it shows a difference in thinking between Sam and Jordan.
Sam is coming from the idea that the sadist just wants to do harm, and if the masochists like being harmed, they are fine.
But Jordan points out what think is the real 'evil' part here : an a real sadist ( an evil person) would then not hurt the masochist when he asks for it, because hurting the masochists then would please the masochist.
An evil person isn't interested in just getting what he wants. An evil wants to do as much harm to you as he can, regardless of what he gets out of it.
Though that brings us to free will, which Sam doesn't believe in. And so evil in that sense cannot exist for him.
I think the free will is what is loosing Sam. The study he quotes is not the free will people use on a daily basics. Tapping a finger can`t be compared equally to complex decision people do all the time. There is just more that describes it, the level of detail is much greater than tapping the finger on the table.
Also, and I have done it on myself, it is possible to change the priority structure and shift the decision making process to some extend. I was addicted to certain things, and got through with it. And a lot people done the same, hence there is science that describe how to do it. I have done something very similar to "self authoring program" from JBP. It does work, and it changes the decisions, so how the free will doesn't exist if many people have changed the way they act? It is also called growing up ;)
I think Sam did to free will, what he accused Jordan of doing to the concept of God.
Leib Menter
You have a point there. Sam is certainly not using free will in the sense that most people seem to use it ( I like Matt Dillahunty's example where he makes the difference between walking out of a room 'on your own free will' vs being dragged out of the room )
Though in some way he's treating both those ideas ( free will and god ) the same way :he is taking free will too literally ( as in 'the universe is deterministic so everything you do is already set' ) just as he is taking the concept of God very literally.
Maybe that's just how his mind works, whereas Jordan's mind works a lot more with metaphor. Could be the left-right hemisphere thing. Let's hook both of them up to an FMRI next time they have a discussion :-)
Waldermar Ishibashi
The study on tapping ( if I recall correctly) proves to me that you can override someone's free will. That doesn't prove that there is no free will.
free will is an illusion
Be great if the audience could be edited out
Yep
They reacted so fast to JBP 's joke about sadists and masochists. It's clear they are immersed in this conversation. It took me around 10 sec to get it. 😂
These debates are potentially the best youtube videos of all time
Jordan, the river of hope poring out all he has inside,
telling his monumental truth, which is more than his truth, THE TRUTH, to all of us, in a manner I'f never experienced before, not from him, nor from anybody else, a sermon of truth, letting my tears running down, a spiritual experience. We can't overstate his importance, defending our values against the darkish relativists of far left, only having destruction in mind, to camouflage the failure of their ideas in all of the many experiments worldwide. I'f seen so many videos of him, but 'Jordan Peterson Discusses Free Speech and Raif Badawi' was the best in intensity, consistence and reduction to the essence.
For Sam Harris, reason is a strong guidance, cause he is an honestly truth seeking guy and he follows his findings in an ethical and rational way. If all Atheists would be like him, reason would work in terms of an ethical structure, but for the majority not. Facts are only touching a person who is eagerly searching for facts and for truth, finding truth is then a thrilling moment with goose bumps. The majority of Atheists are of the postmodern relativistic type and not of Sams nature, they experience Atheism as a liberation of responsibility, as a free pass for anarchy and nihilism also Nitzsche was talking about. This you can see easily in the cruel comment sections underneath Atheists videos, which is a real barbarian land, you rarely find elsewhere. There is mostly this unholy triumphalism, also from Matt, when he spoke how badly he defeated JBP. It is all ugly and unworthy, the same way as it was under atheistic systems from Hitler, to all communist states, from Stalin to Mao...
Sovereign humans don't act like this, it shows, how unstable they are in their unbelieve. No deeply convinced Atheist, would behave like that. So, Sam covers only 1 percent of all Atheists, with their pale, bloodless and arrogant behavior. This can not be a bright path towards the future.
I myself, was never a textual believer, saw all the stories more as symbolical tales of a spiritual path, came to the conclusion there is either something, than nothing in terms of God. The story about Christ is for me an archetypical ideal. If all would follow his path as an example, the world would be a better place
I've got to say. Listening to Sam's arguments makes me wonder if he's ever interacted with human beings at all. His ideas completely ignore human psychology and the way we operate. This is the reason Jordan lured me away from the atheist community. Though they are great at breaking myths, they have nothing to offer you. They think that's enough. It's not. It's also clear that the atheists worldview is just as rosy and utopian as any fundamentalist.
You're right. And also you dont grasp the argument. The role stories and archetypes play in our lives is not trivial, they are trying to tell us something. They're born out of our psychology. Our psychology is born out of EVOLUTION! IT is not trivial. This is the bridge over the gap atheists missed and why their community is failing. Most of them will scoff and spit out something derisive of "spirituality".
You're so far off base I don't even know where to start. You're making assumptions I haven't even voiced, which is indicative of atheist fundamentalism. No, morality wouldn't exist without stories and stories wouldn't exist without morality. How would you know the difference between right and wrong? Though morality could spawn, it would be only the most basic, violent form. Think something along the lines of apes.
And of course morality existed outside of Abrahamic religion. Religion is a set of ideals, and those ideals go through Darwinian tests to evolve or die. Christianity just happens to be the best at the time. The problem is you think you can toss out a hundred thousand years worth of ideas to start your new utopian ideal of "rationalism" and "reason". Just how many people are you willing to sacrifice to bring about your perfect new religion? You think your "rationalism" and "reason" are born of pure enlightenmnet, but the truth is it was born out of Christianity. Yet you disdain Christianity. I'll tell you the truth. Your atheism is hipster bullshit. I see so many of you secular idiots railing against Christianity, only to go on your blogs and say how cool Islam is, or doing Pagan magic circles, or having Game of Thrones weddings. You've rejected Christianity and now are looking for something to fill that hole. If you can't see the nihilism painted across the desperate faces of these people I'd say you have no authority to create nor dictate ANYONE'S belief structure.
i loved the original comment and agree.. atheism has limits built into it.. spirituality .. not talking about fundamental religion .. doesnt... God is literally whatever u want him/ her/ it.. to be... the bible acriptures are stories.. that have deep meaning.. but they are not doctrine..but the bigger picture benefits the human more..than no picture, or a picture strapped to reality.. the human spirit is inclined to wonder in my belief...the benefit of wondering is.. it keeps you constantly seeking betterment over time.. peace with others... understanding thyself.. compassion for others.. respect for creatures.. and brings balance i think
the problem isnt fundamentalism.. the problem is dogmatism.. Do you religious folk actually listen or just selectively hear what u want
Atheist worldview????
4 hours of fascinating conversations from 2 highly intelligent people, stifled only by the fact that one of them is operating at a deeper level of analysis than the other one, and that seems to be the reason why complete understating will never be met. It's basically a clashing of realities. Loved it.
If there is a winner here, it’s Bret...
And all of us who have the privilege to listen to this brilliance.
I disagree. He was too passive. The fact he let Sam behave the way he did is proof of a week moderator.
Oji-san I dont think either Sam or Jordan behaved badly. This was not a debate, it was a conversation and to pick sides is counterproductive. Bret clearly summarized points, clarified muddy positions and pushed back where appropriate.
Oji-san Maybe even a month moderator...
Sam was the real winner but with dogma and force, religion will stay with us even in the presence of better tools such as secular reasoning. "A bad tool is better than no tool at all" - JP.. yes that is true but we have better tools in the toolshed that religious folk like to ignore because they know it will contradict their irrational beliefs :(
Only if Sam would just give JP a chance to speak I would learn more
The problem with Sam, is he loves to oversimplify everything. “Invisible man in the sky,” for example, and by doing this he will never understand the basic principles that jordan is trying to lay out.
Essentially, jordan wants us to respect and understand the literal reasons for stories and parables in the Bible, whether true or false, the idea of humans having to deal with nature by developing psychological and physical means of survival.
Sam researched too often in the standstill present understanding of everything. Jordan seems to research in the space and time of humans fluid history.
This is why I love Jordan.
Phil Kesler how? You don’t even know me. You are basing your statement on a single comment.
No, it seems as though the only ideologically possessed one here is the one who is projecting.
The invisible man in the sky is still an invisible man in the sky and his book has been written by mortal men. The is value and there is a lot of bulshit . Take the good and discard the bulshit and be realistic about it and accept that many people find the bulshit repugnant. And keep that bulshit far as possible from the secular society and how it functions. How the fuck is that unreasonable?
KarlVyt did I say he is being unreasonable with what he is trying to do? No. I’m saying his means of relaying his opinion/point is a turnoff to a lot of people.
To assume the mantle of moral superiority, and to cast religious individuals as inferior beings who believe in a higher power and dogma is a good way to turn them off to your message.
That’s my point.
Christianity doesn't define God as a "man in the sky" at all. For starters, God is outside the natural word (aka observable world, aka universe) and therefore he's not flying up in the sky. Regarding the bible, yes, it was written by men. The claim made by Harris that the Bible was dictated by God is absolutely ridiculous. God inspired the authors of the Bible, and then they wrote the texts using their own words. This is what Christianity says about it. I'm not talking about believing these things or not, I'm talking about BASIC Christian doctrine, about which Harris know next to nothing.
that's one of the things that annoys me about sam, he strawmans everything
it was refreshing to see him steelman jordan at the beginning, I just wish he'd do that to everything instead of being so dismissive
I saw this, and Peterson seemed focused on mutually beneficial betterment of understanding, as ever. He was asking genuine questions and being almost too respectful. But Harris seemed too focused on getting a “win” to truly listen to and consider the genuine questions, points and ideas discussed. Especially on the second night he was talking over Peterson so much it got genuinely irritating
Thoughts?
Alexander Berglund I felt the same exact way
Harris Talked for about 60% of this 2hr16min video. And had very little to say.
Sam Harris a windbag? I've never heard such nonsense!
I think Bret got the "win". Lol
A little bit, but overall I thought Harris was respectful and had a good enough attitude coming into this. Like, he sometimes seemed too focused to get a "win" but he had just enough amount of civility and good will throughout the discussions to me. I tend to agree more with Peterson, but I praise both guys for having this productive, important intellectual conversation!
I like these discussions, mainly because it is the few times in which both debate a formidable foe. Both worldviews seem checked everytime (anytime checkmate and game over). I actually learn more than watching their views separately in their own channels or podcasts. Amazing minds both of them!
A lot to think about. Good that the discussion won't continue for a few days; watching part one and two in two days is already almost too much. So think I will, and be back for part three when it becomes available.
An observation: Harris seems like somewhat of a contrarian insofar as he rarely concedes anything. Peterson is quick to say "I agree" when Harris gets it right, but I don't see much of a reciprocal. It makes me think that Peterson's research has gone a bit farther than Harris's. That being said, the camaraderie of all three gentlemen is extremely admirable and honorable.
You weren't listening very well then. They both agreed on many points throughout and Sam definitely said so many times!
Josh: I agree. JBP often strongly agreed with SH. That was rarely reciprocated.
BJJ Dutchie: "Yes, but ..." is what SH did, often. This is not an agreement, this is manipulation. That was not the point of this discussion. I don`t think SH was doing that on purpose, but it often came out like that.
That's not manipulation, that's just disagreement on the details. Jordan said it himself the devil is in the details, which they disagree on.
I noticed it too. It happens because Peterson operates in good faith, while Harris operates from atheistic negativity.
I think this observation gives attention to unnecessary points. I prefer to view this discussion like almost two brains picking each other reasoning than even two personality figures with subliminal intentions
1:15:02
Jordan asks the question of the evening, and Sam couldn’t admit that he didn’t know. Thanks for dragging the convo, Sam. I love you anyways.
I disagree here. Sam has stated numerous times that this is, indeed, THE billion-dollar question. He could easily, and has in fact, thrust himself into the discussion of what the nature of that a priori framework might be, and how we might come to agree on it. THAT's not where Dr. Harris has a problem. Here he takes issue with making the erroneous conflation between the utility of bronze-age literature, and their actual divine truths.
Here's a question for you: if you side-step all of the religious traditions (as Jordan puts it), that are all for the most part invariably irreconcilable from one another, and assume that there nevertheless will be this transcendent a priori framework, at bottom, to guide us as it's inevitably built into us... why is it so hard to admit that we could easily dispense with these long-dated mythologies while still remaining confident that this a priori framework will still do it's work for us, if this transcendent rationality really is what it's being claimed to be here? The only reason to keep these dated myths around, and to take them seriously, is if you are convinced that these texts are inextricably, supernaturally linked, to the very a priori framework itself, and that to dispense with its results will lead to total chaos.
This beggars the question of how we can be selective, à la carte-style, on what parts of the religious writings we choose to take as good transcendental advice and not -- today we readily reject the dubious wisdom of old that told us to stone a father's daughter on his doorstep if she were found not to be a virgin on her wedding night. If we can within the span of five minutes, doubtlessly make improvements to huge swathes in the Bible, or the Quran, it takes a special kind of credulity, especially at this level of intellectual discourse, to remain convinced that these texts have something fundamental to do with the universal, a priori, transcendent rationality between all humans and beyond. Those are some rather stupefyingly big claims, in need of some serious addressing, before you can even hope to successfully move on and make progress.
If you argue for the side that CAN'T allow for this dispensation to happen, you are saying that the very texts themselves, as we know them today, are literally linked to a divine intervention of some sort, where the laws of nature were suspended (such as the resurrection of Jesus, or whichever you prefer), and that presents a very different ball-game for these two gentlemen to grapple with.
(part 2)
Sam asked the real telling billion-dollar question towards the end of the other Vancouver talk, which would have actually informed and moved this conversation forward, by insisting that Jordan comes clean on his own actual beliefs on this, and Jordan again side-steps such a simple question by referring to one possible answer as being a "fine answer that a lot of people have been giving for a long time, but it doesn't seem to go away." There is something truly fishy taking form here when someone as articulate and intelligent as Jordan is blatantly unwilling to come clean on the simplest of axiomatic questions, that are not at all hard to answer, and which would actually help this conversation forward.
You can by all means say that the answer to this question, either way you may happen to swing, implies a lot of complicated considerations that will inevitably follow and be in need of ironing out, but that does not grant you the luxury of side-stepping such fundamental questions to the topic at hand. Jordan does this constantly, and towards the end there it's really clear that Sam, along with even a lot of the audience members, are losing patience with him on this point.
By the way, I love listening to both of these gentlemen equally much when they're doing their own thing. I intensely enjoy Dr. Peterson's delineations on the deep meanings and values of archetypal stories, but here I have to call out what I see as being an unfair play of the game. Sam plays it in this way more fairly by refraining from resorting to such arguments as "You should try a higher dose, then.", which Jordan actually said, verbatim, on one occasion, and permutations of those kinds of illegitimate arguments are so rife from Jordan's side in these four talks that it's impossible to miss or ignore...
Peace!
@Rafael Dolfe
(part 1)
Clearly these two highly intelligent gentlemen deemed it necessary to iron out that problem, because for whatever reason they couldn’t get to a clear conclusion after eight hours of circling around the issue. The utility of such stories can only be applied “properly” (and who makes the call there on how it is “proper”?) if you aren't completely delusional about what they mean, not to mention depending on whether or not someone takes them literally or not.
If you don’t see this conflation, then it truly makes me wonder how closely you actually paid attention to what went on in these four talks. I mean did you even watch all of them? Dr. Harris is routinely forced to check whether or not what is coming out of Dr. Peterson’s mouth signifies (consciously or not) a foundation that is laid upon the genetic fallacy, as he relentlessly opts to counter an argument against his retelling of a deep idea (as justification for his position) by just proceeding to tell yet another deep story, as if the deepness of the stories themselves somehow justify continual answering of counterarguments in this way.
With this in mind, can you honestly say to me that you could, with confidence, reiterate what Dr. Peterson thinks with regards to say, for instance, the relationship between a priori structures and child-sacrifice, without having to look through the tape to check what he said? If someone were to offer me a million dollar bet on whether or not I could do that, I would not take that bet, because I genuinely couldn’t do that with confidence - and I’ve probably watched each of these videos 4-5 times by now. I know he said something, but the essence was, as per usual, so shrouded in vaguery that the best I could do would be to say that, although he thinks child sacrifice is horrible, he also thinks the reality of these stories tell a deeper truth about the the discovery of the future and hence the necessity for making sacrifices. Big whoop - you can get there without these particular and irreconcilable texts, so that again fails to account for why these texts should be viewed as uniquely indispensable, and when you ask people what they think the crucifixion meant/signifies hardly anyone gives that kind of answer anyway. The overwhelming majority will just say that it was to absolve us of our sins, and leave it at that.
Religious traditions are invariably irreconcilable. If you don’t think they are then you are not talking about the religious traditions anymore, you’ve instead carved out an image of religious viewpoints that are so watered down and denuded of crucial specificity that most any genuine believer of such religions would categorically object to such an attempt at reconcilable depictions.
If we are to take seriously the notion that one of them is THE most important document in life, and that we are now about to make a choice on what menu we are going to order from on the most paramount issues in all human affairs, then you cannot pretend that they're all saying more or less the same thing, but in different ways. They just aren’t. If one menu purports to be the menu, the only real and true menu, it has already defined itself as being irreconcilable from any other such menu right there. So this isn’t even debatable. Now if you want to make a sleight of hand there and claim that this is the wrong level of analysis, then you are the kind of person that neither Sam nor I have any real concerns about in the first place, lol. It’s easy to just say that as if it’s a valid argument, anyone can do that. But if the right level of analysis is the one that already conveniently fits how you want to view this from the get-go, then you’re most welcome to entertain yourself in that way. Meanwhile it would be more constructive to focus on what we can say for certain about these texts, if you’re actually gonna have a discussion about it with someone.
They're irreconcilable just going by the very claims that are being explicitly made in the respective texts themselves. All of them cannot be "true", by definition, on innumerable points, and in that sense they are irreconcilable. And if you’re now about to go down that road of saying “Well the texts are all open to interpretation”, or something tantamount to that, like “The truth is not found in the literal interpretation”, then I just don’t know what else to say to you other than the fact that your position is unfalsifiable, and hence there’s no need for me or anyone else to have to try to grapple with it or falsify such a thing - what you’re saying is not an argument, it’s just your opinion that this is so, despite what the texts themselves actually say explicitly.
But to give you the benefit of the doubt there: what is the “right level of analysis”, exactly? I think you and I both know that no matter what answer you might come up with here, it won’t really be the right level of analysis anyway, because who the fuck would know, and how the double-fuck would we know whether or not to take the word of one person’s claim to know over another’s? You need some purchase on the actual nature of the whole cosmos itself to be able to answer that with any degree of confidence, and so to claim that someone’s “point of view is not the right level of analysis” here is, with all due respect, triple-fuckly pretentious. Just because you find personal utility in some of this stuff, it doesn’t validate the claims you’re making here.
Now with regards to the a priori structure(s), I've listened to plenty of JBP and I dare say I understand perfectly well what he's saying with regards to that, so I haven't misunderstood anything there as far as I can tell. And since you offered no examples on how I'm actually getting it wrong, because you apparently had to work but somehow managed to carve out enough time to flesh out everything else in your response, then there's really nothing left for me to say on that either, as my over-arching point from my previous comment wasn't really specifically about that anyway. But I will say that your attempt at course-correcting what the true significance of these structures are is again so decisively vague, confabulatory and unfalsifiable, in the same manner that Dr. Peterson tends to talk on this subject, that we're once again back to Dr. Harris’ point that we could just as easily be spinning this talk by waxing on poetically with the aid of a cook-book as our basis.
I could honestly change the valence of some of the words you used to describe this a priori shtick, in a way that would suddenly make someone who is more into astrology or tarot cards genuinely sign off on it as being part and parcel of their core fundamentals instead. It’s truly amazing to behold once you’ve succeeded at doing that a few times.
With all of this in mind, your claim that this removal would be disastrous/impossible therefore strikes me as the hardest swallow out of all the assumptions floating around here. There are tribes still around on planet Earth today that are so out of touch with the modern world that they literally get scared out of their leather knickers when they just see an aircraft hovering above them, and so needless to say they have never even been faced with the kinds of religious traditions that we're talking about here. They seem to be doing just fine, all things considered. Of course one might then argue that they also have the same consequential religious superstitions/traditions floating around (no doubt) in their culture too, because of this very same a priori structure, but that brings us right back to my original question and point which you never even tried to answer:
@@theforgot3n1
(part 2)
Either this structure is universal, giving rise to all these different traditions (regardless of how fumbling, inhumane, inefficient and downright insane they tend to be expressed in human behaviour over time), or it is not. If it is, you and Dr. Peterson should have no problems defining at least somewhat precisely what it is this universal force/tendency is doing that makes all of these bumbling and messy religions pop up on all sides of the planet in the way they do. And even if this truly is caused by such a force/biological reality, so what? If this reality winds up churning out all of these faiths that are expressed so differently (as they clearly are) so as to be, for all intents and purposes, completely at odds with one another, what on Earth would make them particularly indispensable then? We may just as well start with a blank sheet of paper, now that we “know” this more deeper fact, and get a lot better writing done by way of the same continual process of creative endeavors. But this isn’t being done, because we still hold superstitions about their solidified divinity that far exceed any reasons we have what so ever to hang on to them in the 21st century.
If it’s not universal, however, well then that would at least explain a lot of this religious bloodshed and superstition found in the course of our species, in a way that actually remains intelligible and reasonable across the board.
So which one is it? If you're going to say that simply discarding the idea that these self-proclaimed monopolies on divinity (which is something that these completely different pictures of the universe do claim for themselves) are not in fact divine, and are instead simply to be regarded as literature on-par with all other literature, is something that we simply cannot do, then what are you proposing is the case here exactly? Why can we not do this? And by extension, why not start with blank sheets? You just assert that we can’t, with no real evidence to back it up apart from more vaguery of the kind I illustrated earlier - whereas history has shown us that we clearly can, because these texts weren’t even around for most of our evolution…
It is an insult to the very fact of how we ever got to a point where we could have written these ideas down in the first place, to suggest that the moral fabric within us would somehow abruptly relapse into chaos if these texts were to suddenly vanish from the Earth tomorrow. These texts aren’t special in any higher sense of the word, they are collections of works that have accumulated through hundreds and thousands of years of traditions, and they contain some of the very worst and best of human qualities - stupidity, ignorance, evil, ingenuity, wisdom and beauty. But it stops there.
Lastly, your epiphany that these texts weren’t intended as scientific inquiry… You got that right, because there was no such thing at the time, or at least not in the way that we define science today. But I think you forget that these ancient peoples were the actual equivalents of scientists today, in more ways than not, at least in the way they wielded a kind of power and authority in society. We might one day find ourselves peering back on science as it was conducted today going “What the actual fuck were they thinking with those h-bombs, huh?”, but science is a process of discovery that makes no claims nor goals for itself other than that it cannot go beyond the hypothesis→test-phase. Anything after that is just continual pattern-checking and testing. This is the creed of science, if you will, and that is worlds apart humble from what went on in the bronze-age right up until around the Enlightenment, so that in itself is progress of a kind.
Not only that, but more importantly, your whole realization that you claim brought you to a more “grounded” place, again just flies in the face of common sense. Just how à la carte were you with the kinds of texts you read when you felt more grounded? I’m assuming you didn’t care much for holy wars? Or murdering apostates? No, because you’re giving yourself the most flattering feel-good Hollywood-version of religious texts that there is. If you wanna say that’s useful cherry-picking, then yeah, I agree. Cherry-pick to your heart’s content. But that in itself is the admission that there is nothing particularly unique about these collections of stories, that have been edited and redacted and selected for literally hundreds of times, any more than the stories and traditions of those tribes I mentioned earlier that none of us have ever even heard about are. They are human compilations of human stories, that are of utility to different people for different reasons. This doesn’t make them particularly unique in a way that Hamlet, Death of a Salesman, Pinocchio or Scientology are not.
So I would still encourage you not to take these ideas seriously. Take your own mind and abilities to study anything critically, for what they are and have of inherent worth, somewhat seriously. If you value critical thinking, you don’t need any specifically overhyped texts - some might help more than others, but you don’t need them, many are doing just fine without them. And if you don’t think we can make it without them, well then you’ve still got a hella lot of explaining to do as to how we got here in the first place! I’ve seen people try, and it’s not a pretty sight, I can tell you that… ;-)
Peace out.
P.S. Don’t get the wrong end of the stick here, I’m a huge JBP-fan and even produced a song as an ode to him that took me months to complete, lol. Check it out on my channel if you like. :-)
@@theforgot3n1
I had a feeling you would say that. And to that I'll just point out that you perhaps should also then consider applying the same standards to Dr. Peterson when you're listening him rattle on on this as well.
Don't start a complex conversation you can't be bothered to finish.
God speed!
Great discussion as always. I am glad to see that Sam Harris is willing to engage in these discussions and does so respectfully, however, I am again with Dr. Peterson on this. I would like to see what this "transcendent morality" of his really is because he failed to specify it. And I also wonder how he would like to make people to give up their religious faith in favour of it. One of the reasons I am a Christian is because to date Jesus offered the best solutions to the problem of evil in the world. I mean if everyone really followed His teaching and example, there would not be any wars anymore. What better moral principles can be offered than to love ( seek the good of) not only of yourself, but also your neighbor and even your enemy! I would like to know what danger does Sam Harris sees in those principles and why he would want people to give them up. What better values does he have to offer? And what if the people refuse to give up their old beliefs? Will he force them to do so? Send them to Gulagas for the "good" of mankind? His way of thinking can actually lead into very dark places....
A lot of people say, that Sam is not listening, that he is just trying to win an argument. I think it does feel like Sam is trying to win an argument, rather then find out the truth. But, as far as im concerned, it happens due to the fact that JP uses Socratic kind of dialogue, that means, he is mostly asking questions in order for Sam to continue the line of his thinking. And its not like JP is trying to catch or trap him, Its more like he makes Sam go deeper and deeper with his arguments to the point, where he realizes that, he doesnt really know what is underneath of his rationality (or what is the basis of his understanding of the world). I guess it comes from being a psychoanalytic. He lets his patients reveal themselves and understand themselves with minimum intervention from his side. I think they are both truly great here, and its hard to find better men to participate in such conversation.
Even clarifying their definitions constantly, these are two people who still regularly talk past each other as if there were a language barrier. It's actually really fascinating to watch, I mean that totally without facetiousness or denigration.
my girl slays dragons and cleans her room thanks to jp.
my girl identifies as a feminine homosexual crossdresser
Very interesting conversation - thanks!
Seeing an audience prefer to just listen rather than ask their own questions says so much about the quality of both this discourse as well as those who were lucky enough to see it live.
Thank you Dr. Peterson, your humility outshines Harris. Every time.
Jordan understands Sam’s position. Sam does not understand Jordan’s.
I think that is a testament to Sam's ability to explain clearly and think coherently.
Actually, Jordon said Sam had summarized Jordon's position perfectly.
yea i believe kasbian was pointing out that sam explained his point clearly and more concisely - therefore it wouldn't be hard to understand his points. Not to take away anything from Jordan's arguments as even i went through a rollercoaster of changing my mind throughout. A great discussion overall.
That's because Jordan has no position.
@henri
Exactly. Nobody understands Peterson's position, not even Peterson himself. He even says so outright.
I have to say that one of the things that I find so satisfying about listening to Jordan is how much care he takes to form his argument logically - stick with the golden thread, and to take it all the way through to maturation. He really trusts his audience to think and to follow his train of thought. It's very.. what would you say.. Coherent!
Modern life is frequently without such coherence.. listening to Jordan is a welcome oasis.
It's so great that he uploads all this stuff to TH-cam. The amount of knowledge you could learn from all his videos is priceless.
So True. (:D
Anybody else thinks that sam was not polite and sophisticated enough? He used negative phrases every time he mentioned something he couldn't understand or didn't agree about... and he obviously was trying to hit a target and score!!!!!! Right?
I already watched, ready to watch it again and again, two colossus thinkers !!, thnx
i love how 'meta' this conversation is. So high level & abstract.