Peterson and I played basketball once. Before he bounced the ball, he told me that he couldn't manifest the cognitive resonance in his sub-conscience required to forestall the metaphysical awakening that his soul was keeping in motion, such that it would be an impossibility to engage the ball and net in the platform of unity required...I left. He's still out there talking about the lines on the court.
@@ATCrogerwilcoonly in the sense that Peterson is basically removing the bad parts of religion and is then left with....well nothing of substance. Yes the achievement of greatness is the pinnacle and the mode of moving towards "hell" is the epitome of all that is wrong. It is the dogmatism, blind dictates and tribalism of religion that IS the mode of moving towards hell.
However, over time, this term has been used to describe speech patterns of narcissists in which they say things that are contradictory and inaccurate as a way to confuse you. Word salad is part of the manipulation tactics used by the narcissist and part of their crazy-making.
It's quite normal to appear like Peterson in situations when people like him are challenged against the minds of Harris or Hitchens. You can't beat logic and knowledge with empty talk.
I've studied philosophy, religion, and psychology for over 40 years and I literally can't stand listening to Peterson spewing out the rectally-derived comments he makes. They're not as deep as undergraduate students eating mushrooms and babbling about the universe.
Do sociopaths, without empathy, need someone or something to imitate, someone considered good to follow, or some set of commandments to follow? They don't feel murdering someone is wrong, so they need rules to follow telling them not to? Is that why they construct gobbledygook? How many sociopaths are there, what percent of the population? How often is the sociopath in the family firstborn* ? * as defined in a book on birth order I can't remember the name of :)-
his religious arguments are entirely subjective, based on literature. He has read something that moved him deeply, and he expects that if he describes it passionately, that others will be moved as well. His arguments are not rational in nature, they are emotional.
@@Mike.PruijnWhat an interesting word, "exactly". First we would need to have a true understanding of the word "exactly", and then we would have to understand what we really meant when we used the word "exactly". So let's break it down....
Just curious how jt jas any effect on life outside canada? Jordan peterson travels the world with his....ideas but jt pretty much doesnt move the needle outside canada afaik. I could be mistaken though, so Id love to hear why. Cheers!
You are an emotional wreck, you make no sense a lot of the time. Haha I win the argument!! See how meaningless this claim is? Put some effort into your comment and explain why he isn't making sense to you.
@@klar7946 Dr. Mate’ hit upon something that had been that had been on my mind one delving into Jordan Peterson. “His voice is choking with rage“, was the observation the good doctor made about Peterson. And when you read Peterson and when you listen to him speak yes indeed he is very angry. Also I noticed that on top of that anger is an incredible arrogance that masquerades how egotistically fragile he truly is. It’s not so much that Peterson is just another cynical opportunist, though he may be, I also think that he is severely mentally unwell and is so desperate to be the smartest man in the room that he doesn’t even listen to himself speak.
@@moniqueengleman873 I’m all for flamboyant. But don’t dress up to look like a ghost from disney’s haunted mansion. The point of dressing up is good cheer. Jordan is woefully serious.
@GenericHuman54 There are at least 100 dissertations on YT spelling out how JP spews meaningless drivel. Just claiming that you don't see it already shows everyone else that you aren't ready for the conversation we're having.
Wtf are you on about? Maybe you just couldn't comprehend what he was saying? Plenty of meaning, much like Nietzsche; so much compacted meaning that most can't get it.
Explain how he is using word salad. It's so ironic that in a debate TH-cam video, all the comments are about baseless claims and no arguments or evidence
@@GenericHuman54 I'm not a fan of Peterson, he has been guilty of grifting sometimes, and I disagree with many (not all) of his arguments and theories, but I don't think he was using word salad here. I understood his point, it was a well-reasoned and articulated argument - I just don't agree with it, and also I think it's an incomplete argument. But I don't get why he's constantly accused of saying nothing...he has an argument, it's pretty easy to understand, and you either agree or disagree with some or all of it.
Maybe the look on Harris’s face is instead perpetual incredulity towards the outrageous notions that religious adherents not only sincerely believe but also expect him to buy into hook, line and sinker. He debates wackos on a regular basis, he is in a constant state of SMH 🤦♂️
the era of JP is over , the same way the era of great magician, David Copperfield was over after his tricks revealed . JP's tricks are revealed as well , it's word salad 😄
JP is renowned for his word salad. But I feel what he said here was quite coherent. And the upshot of his speech was to steel man Sam’s argument and detail exactly why man created god. Too bad he failed to recognise that himself. JP is cognitive dissonance personified.
@@babyamyxo-o6c Only when he talks about religion. And he started doing that relative recently. He's a lot more coherent and logical when speaking about psychology and wokeism.
@@andraskovacs8959 I know right, I've listened to some of his old psychology lectures. He seemed very logical and coherent. Even when he talked about religion, it was only to supplement the lesson. And, when he did that feminism interview, he was so calm and clear. It was one of my first introductions to thought outside the progressive bubble I was growing up in. Now he comes off as pretentious and cringe. IDK why he does religion now lol.😅
@@andraskovacs8959 hes wrong about the environment, population, energy too. ie by far the most important things. he is human centric pro civilization maniac and hes just like most atheists in that respect. dawkins has no idea either. thinks civilization is fine and dandy and science and technology will save the day. nope. ultimately, without accepting what science tells us about our ecological failure, science just doom us all. rationalists are focused on the evils of religion and superstition. but there are delusions that are more universal to humans, including most so called rationalists
@@gengraded he doesn't take them seriously enough if he doesn't address who Walt Disney really was and the psyop his movies were to the last 4 or 5 generations.
JP never was the same after this series of debate with Sam Harris. He deteriorated into some kind agony and delusions. I also remember his debates with professor Laurence krauss, though he tried his best to conceal the fact but it was pretty obvious that Laurence Krause was very disappointed or even disgusted by JP's notorious word salad. During debate at few instances it looked that he even felt pity for him.
Peterson admitted to lying in this debate to get a point across totally undermining who he claimed to be, and that had more to do with his breakdown than the meds he took
I know, this outfit is a Lot better than the religious O'Neil the Joseph coat of many colour, but if you get bored with the conversation at times you can hope he wears the Snakes and Lader outfit. You'll have to bring your own little token and dice though. I keep my blind people's sunglasses🕶 handy👩🦯 at all times.
He is consciously dressing himself in outfit that is POSTMODERNIST in style. And yet he is always on a verbal and intellectual crusade against postmodernism, associating it with radical leftist ideology. He is a walking contradiction.
Whenever I couldn't get over myself, a good mate of mine would say, "we've all got something to bring to this conversation, and in your case, it's silence." Always reminded of that when I hear JP's pish.
@@lovelife1867 So using whatever conceptualization you like, define what the god is that you believe in. If that definition ends up being nothing like what the common use of the term god is, then you have simply changed the definition from what is commonly meant by a god and does nothing to provide evidence for a god. The task before you is to provide objective empirical evidence for the existence of some omnipotent, omniscient, creator being. That is the very straightforward test that no one in the history of humankind has ever passed.
Jordan is just telling Sam that he needs to stop being a "doubting Thomas" because Jesus taught that ignorance is bliss and critical thinking bad! In all seriousness, when God gets defined, then said God gets vulnerable to be proven not to exist.
It's not that Jordan is wrong in the idea that religion has a positive effect on people in a metaphysical way, he is wrong in assuming that it affects all or even most people in a positive way. His obsession with Nietzche and using Carl Jung to interpret the Christian bible while having a biological deterministic mindset that he learned from a decades old education, it has stunted his ability to truly understand our current day world and even reality. Which is why he has slowly veered to the political right movement.
Also in addition it’s quite clear that Peterson has never read any theological works. I’ve never heard him reference Reinhold Niebuhr, the Reverend James Cone, Paul Tillich etc. I myself have no training in divinity, but I’m not out there trying to make some type of philosophical treaties on religion the same way that Peterson is. And I believe that Peterson is doing this because he’s been attempting since “maps of meaning“ was published to push for a philosophy that is all his own and employ that to human beings as a whole. Or I should say more accurately he tends to view human beings from a very western lense. In addition to his use of Nietzsche, it’s quite clear that he’s never really understood Friedrich Nietzsche, I would say he barely understands Carl Jung. I also have a suspicion that Peterson fancy some self a modern day Friedrich Nietzsche; The way he looks and the way he acts, it’s all theatrics. He acts as if he is some kind of tortured genius burdened by the heat and weight of his knowledge. He has an overly inflated sense of his intellect and it shows every time he speaks because you’ll notice that within his rhetorical style is a lot of nebulousness, a lot of grandiosity, and playing fast and loose with language.
@@marcuna11 it’s really strange to me that people never seem to pick up that Peterson has no theological training or background. For instance he will never discuss religion with Chris Hedges, a graduate of Harvard Divinity school and an ordained pastor. And the fact that he never references theological works, the works of theologians, is equally troubling to me. I don’t think Peterson is particularly religious, I don’t think he really believes a lot of what he is saying. My theory is that he is attempting to legitimize his “philosophy“ that he presented within his book “maps of meaning“. He tried that and academia and he didn’t succeed. But now that he has a provocateur he has an audience that is captivated by his verbosity and his passionate Gish gallop. But he receives next to no resistance when it comes to actually referencing data and studies. I really wish someone would just ask him a simple question such as “what works or data do you have that support your argument?”
@@aaronbarrett5061 it has quite a lot to do with discussion of religion because, motion especially with Jordan Peterson, his political beliefs taint virtually everything that he talks about. Have you ever listen to this man? This man injects conservative ideology into virtually everything he talks about. It’s even in his self-help books. Not to mention the arguments have been made that he actually is a fascist. Do yourself a favor and actually look up the tenants of Fascism and then look at what Peterson talks about and you would recognize that a lot of his political prescriptions are indeed fascist.
Hell in Peterson's beloved traditional Christianity is not a metaphor. It is the very literal ETERNAL consequence of not having faith in the literal historical sacrificial death of Jesus in atonement for the original Critical Theory: original sin. When I try to map anything Peterson says (about meaning and morality and civilization) onto what I was taught was the truly conservative Christian doctrine -- it does not line up.
Well, you see, I’d like to partake in a culinary composition that not only captures the essence of comfort in the form of a warm, bread-encased meat product, enhanced by carefully selected additions like sauces and vegetables, but is also accompanied by those indispensable, golden-brown fried potato sticks, which together create a deeply ingrained cultural delight. I would therefore kindly request to be served this complete symbiosis of flavors.
Just a general observation. I've been a Catholic for around 70 years (with a break or two) and have just left the church. The hypocrisy of leadership got to a point where a line in the sand was crossed and I could no longer stomach participating -- of course, many of my family and friends wondered why I took so long! -- because it seemed like enabling. Now, even after such a short time, Catholicism seems like a foreign country to me. So now I listen with more openess to arguments like these, but it seems to me that if God is real and this or that religion is 'valid' (for want of a better word), these sorts of convaluted and confusing types of arguments are not the place to find out.
When a God has a place where people burn forever, you certainly do not have a positive life image for believers. I am not a God, but I couldn't foster hate like that, so does that make me more of a force for good than God? There are far too many hateful things in the Bible for me to use it as a guide for my life. Why religious leaders can't see that is beyond me. They try to avoid those passages, but they are undeniably there!!
@@_Danllco_ well quite frankly, Peterson is not presenting any statements with any logic or validity. He isn’t even logic chaining what he is saying. If this man is so profound and intelligent… Why can’t he make his statements clearer? Why can’t he present any rational support for his statements?
@@_Danllco_ JP isn't going to reward you for defending him. Well, defending - all you did was call me retarded. That says a lot more about you than it does me.
@@WellWater-Rural-life - Sam is speaking about the exact same topic and has no problem communicating clear opinions. Why do you believe Jordan should be excused for being incoherent?
@@WellWater-Rural-life - I've heard plenty of Jordan Peterson's nonsense over the years. My comment is not based on this one clip. I sat through a full hour of his first interview with Sam Harris where he debated what 'truth' meant in a conversation supposedly about religion. You can love and worship him all you want, but he is king of the word salad and says nothing. The fact that you are impressed by this is troubling. Name a single piece of useful knowledge you've gleaned from his endless commentary.
I am a psych graduate and I watched one Jordan's classes-it was a mess.The Ontario psychology association wants him to take sensitivity course for his views on individuals who believe they are a different gender or individuals who do not conform to his body ideals.
I’m at 7:30 and I have no idea what these guys are talking about. Sophistry can go no further than to juggle wordy concepts merely to amaze and confuse the ignorant which means themselves. There’s nothing here to chew on, where in fact is the beef?
PETERSON can't really be pinned down because he always weasels out of any direct question. I forget the sentence but he said something like "what do we mean by the word "you" and what do we mean by the word "do" and what..." and also says stuff like "what is truth really?" or he just talks such word salad that you can't even decipher the point he's making (if any).
Jordan Peterson is a gifted orator and metaphor laden conceptual artist and a capable academic. But I do not think he is a true intellectual. I think he desperately wishes to appear as not only an intellectual but as a towering one at that. He does engage in grifting too which doesn't help his case either. As Sam Vaknin a true intellectual btw implied, he is probably a psychopathic narcissist. Jordan is just a very likeable one for many, I've just struggled to like him.
So many people say they can't understand what he's on about. Gifted orators, by definition, are able to carry their audience with them, even when the concepts are complex. Harris does this as does Stephen Fry, as did Christopher Hitchens.
Jordan is a master at sophistry. He uses complex word patterns to confuse the mimd , quickly jumps from thenes and slips in his conclusions...all while the mind is busy trying to catch up. As a hypnotherapist who uses the same techniques ( for good) I can appreciatte his skills but recognize his intellectual or spiritual flummery.
Jordan Peterson is not that hard to understand. He's just saying that Sam and him, stripped of the metaphysical claims, are both desiring the same ethical ends and are basically on the same page ethically. JP's claim is that Sam follows a Christian ethic stripped of the metaphysical assumptions and stories, but he thinks that Sam's view is unsustainable without at least a story to go behind it. Following abstract ideals don't work, you need some sort of story about your ideal person so you can change your personality and become more like them. Sam disagrees and says there's more value to be had through stripping these stories and assumptions and just taking the good parts, which are the ideals. This is what he says leads to a sort of perennialist ethic that everyone should be able to follow. I'm annoyed with everyone who believes Jordan has nothing of value to say, he clearly does. He just never bothers explaining why it's valuable to describe things in a symbolic way.
Write out his speech as text, word for word, then try to make this argument again. Don’t give him an out. Using word salads as ultimate defence that protects you from any fact checking should not be a valid strategy. There are multiple occasions where JP straight up lied and spread misinformation, but his belief in the metaphysical and the importance of the meaning beyond the literal is something he falls onto every time as his defence. I’m all for conceptual thinking and deeper meaning but JP uses a faint possibility of deeper meaning in his brain dead rambling as a safety net from any responsibility for anything he says or does. This never flies in any scientific field of importance, and unless you are a postmodernist who does not believe in the existence of truth, there is no way of seeing him anything other than a clown. If you are a postmodernist you probably see JP as a clown anyway because he uses you a scape goat for anything that misaligns with his percoset popping vision of tolstoevskies spin on christian fascism.
You summed it up well. To simplify even further, you have to create some vengeful deity who has a bunch of rules to keep the rubes in check, otherwise we would just do what we want.
@@volodymyr3744However, over time, this term word salad has been used to describe speech patterns of narcissists in which they say things that are contradictory and inaccurate as a way to confuse you. Word salad is part of the manipulation tactics used by the narcissist and part of their crazy-making.
“I’m annoyed with everyone who believes Jordan has nothing about to say, he clearly does. He just never bother explain why it’s viable to describe things in a symbolic way.” Then that demonstrates intellectual laziness on his part, doesn’t it? Because if you have to explain what he says and explain what he says far better than he himself then I can arrive at to conclusions. One either he is intellectually lazy or Two: he doesn’t really have anything of value to say. I know that you think he does, but I think you should notice that what you’re saying doesn’t match anything that Peterson is saying. You’re giving him an out and making excuses for his intellectual laziness while propping up a defense of the indefensible.
He doesn’t have a f’ing point. That’s the point. How well someone is able to point it right back to him and the audience is the challenge for anyone in a debate with Peterson.
Peterson is the embodiment of the old adage: "If you can't dazzle em with brilliance....baffle em with bull$hit!" His "15 minutes" are long over. Or should be at least.
I didnt understand anything JP talked for so long. What is the use of debate if "non academic" people cant understand He tries to hard to sound smart, since he doesnt really have any deep ideas. Just good at word salad!
I have ADHD, and slightly spectrummy - I, as a kid, used to read dictionaries; and, man, am I glad I did........ A totally veritable word salad a lá flambe magnifique.....
@@hansclijsters3042 my Italian American family speaks with their hands, but not nearly as badly as Peterson. Honestly I think those gesticulations of his hands are an indicator of how mentally unhinged he is. He is doing it to almost mystify the person that he is speaking to to make it seem that what he is saying is so profound that he hast to almost conjure in order to make the profundity substantive. But honestly his gesticulation with his hands, the way he does it, mental patients in severe mental distress do that too. If you’ve ever spoken to a person in the middle of a mental health crisis or manic episode you will notice that they talk with their hands a lot. Also notice how Peterson sits, the more his irritation rises the more he fidgets. Dillahunty had the same experience and I think he does it a little bit better than Harris. Dillahunty was sitting comfortably and was laid-back while Peterson was waving his hands all over the place, fidgeting with his socks, constantly clearing his throat, shifting in his chair. And I think I noticed a rather “guarded“ tone within Petersons rhetoric in this video. He is of course being evasive and nebulous, but he’s being very careful even more so than he usually is because Sam Harris has pointed out contradictions in his thinking in the past and he doesn’t want that to happen again
@@brinta19 many christians have a need to espouse their beliefs, almost as if they need to keep convincing themselves & less about converting others. So your quiet words are accepted in the spirit in which rhey are given. Thankyou.
Setting aside Jordan's usual verbal diarrhea sprays which conflate trite observations with vague nonsense, all wrapped in a tedious layer of pseudo-profundity, who sold him that jacket? Were the lapels designed as some sort of sartorial wisecrack, or was the jacket merely within easy reach on the sale rack at Men's Wearhouse?
But yet no one knows what the golden ticket is. they can say what they believe the golden ticket is. but actually showing any evidence of it. is a completely different thing all together.
I thought at their core religions are all terrorist organisations. "do what we do and say what we say and pray how we pray, or bad things will happen to you" Sounds exactly like a terrorist organisation.
That was a good teaser, and much more interesting than usual and blissfully free of word salad. I think Jordan is implying that because Sam's view is similar to that of the Christian message, that therefore religion is the ground reality. That's just way too big a jump. Better to say that both theocratic and rational approaches arrived at similar conclusions, but that in no way validates divinity, only that much earlier people came to the same intuitions. It would remove a lot of noise if Jordan simply professed his real religious beliefs so we have a clear jump off point as he usually deflects questions about that. I think he's sincere and has good things to say and is too casually dismissed by the more hardline atheist's who ironically seem to be iron clad in their beliefs trapped by the very tribalism we are trying to rise above.
Explain how he is using word salad. It's so ironic that in a debate TH-cam video, all the comments are about baseless claims and no arguments or evidence
@@GenericHuman54 If some influencers use word salads, that's because it works with a slice of the audience. By definition, people eating the salad don't know they are eating it. There's no point trying to argue with you for the very specific reason you are willingly falling for it. I guess it makes you feel better so no evidence will sway you from your opinion anyway.
Is what JP is saying akin to "movies about reality are boring and don"t attract attention so it's ok to embellish the story to include storylines that make the story more interesting (despite being false) so that they capture the attention of people"? It seems to me that is what religion is, an embellishment of stories to capture the imagination of people and move them from a state of "I don't care" to a state of "that's interesting (even if it sounds like, and is, bullshit."
During Trump's presidency, the U.S. economy contracted at the fastest rate since 1946. The unemployment rate reached 14.7%, the highest since the Great Depression. The U.S. national debt increased by 40.43%. The trade deficit reached $679 billion dollars. The U.S. economy lost 2.9 million jobs. 202,543 jobs were offshored. 1,800 factories closed. Immigration increased 14.7%. The inflation rate increased 7.75%.
Immaterialism and metaphysics is hardly a solved topic in philosophy. Close your eyes and imagine a triangle. Now, using logic, explain to me where the triangle is. It's certainly not literally in your brain, and it's not in the real world, so where is the triangle?
@@GenericHuman54 @GenericHuman54 When I see a triangle sticking out the waves moving towards me, I don't ask myself whether the triangle is in my mind or in reality.
@@WALLMUSICNOW you clearly aren't answering my question. When you imagine a triangle in your head-close your eyes and do this- when you imagine a shape, where is it? It's like, definitionally an immaterial thing. It's *meta* physical. Beyond the physical.
Guys, Jordan has stated that Sam is the smartest person he’s debated. Perhaps Peterson feels sam is smarter than he is. Who knows? That might be one reason for Jordan’s faults during this conversation. Another one may be cognitive bias. Sam is essentially critiquing Jordan’s entire worldview and Jordan finds Sam to be incredibly reasonable. Therefore, I think what Sam says is troubling to Jordan and making Jordan ask himself hard questions which he doesn’t want to face. Bottom line is… give the guy a break. I question the humility of the majority of the people commenting on his intelligence.
I hate how christianity has stole the word for doing good things, “you are acting christian” when doing good things. When you read the bible, you become a bad person.
Christianity like other abrahamic religions extensively repurposes plenty of language in order to align it with their cult ideology. It's also strange to me that JP ,as a defender of free speech, has never taken a deep into the ways that religions highly regulate speech.
This is how intelligent adults debate and discuss by listening to each other and exchanging ideas... but when i see the comments on this video, i feel like what all of the speakers on that panel stand for is being disrespected. Both Harris and Peterson are brilliant and articulate... and i agree and disagree with both of them on different topics. I don't understand why most people feel the need to fall in the extreme and become vindictive.
It suddenly struck me as odd.. the three Georgian style chairs were arranged as if we are silent guests at a discussion between Jordan, Douglas, and Sam. The assumed audience sits silently in lots of plain functional chairs and the youtube camera sits on its tripod, speaking to another audience,(30,041 k when writing) in future are who knows where? at a desk, in bed, on a bus, on the bog?). It may serve as a mirror to how we have become. Isolated observers, a bit frustrated that we need to watch performing intelectuals because our aquaintances, friends and relatives only want to talk about the weather/shopping/about the time the doorknob broke (Dylan quote, 1965!!). And me myself alone commenting to the ether.Thank you for sharing this video anyway, their mental gymnastics is a stimulating example of how to converse respectfully. We would have to be very lucky to know in person one, let alone three individuals of their intelectual calibre., but just sayin, perhaps we should try a bit harder to talk to one another.. Oh for the 18th century pipe smokey coffee shop.
I think Peterson is sincere, at least here. I think what we're watching is him thinking out loud- a man of religious faith, a man of letters, engaging in a dialogue, trying to see the discussion though his particular philosophical lens. His words get away from him. It looks like he uses them for two purposes here: one is to buy time to think, and the other is to whittle at his own thoughts- it's the latter that's almost endearing; I think he's trying. Sam's speaking and writing tend to be so clear. He presents such an organized mind. It's a stark contrast.
I have to disagree. I don’t think there’s any sincerity with what Peterson saying. I don’t think we are “watching a man thinking out loud“, I think what we are seeing as a man making things up as he goes along. It’s intellectually lazy. And I don’t think he’s a man of religious faith either and he’s certainly not a “man of letters“. It’s quite clear that he’s never read any theological texts, and it’s quite obvious that he is desperate to make up his own philosophy, such as his book “maps of meaning“ and he is throwing virtually every type of rhetorical trick to make the “philosophy“ presented within the book of nonsense stick. Quite frankly the only sincerity that I can see is that Peterson is desperate to make it seem that he is profound and that what he is saying is earth shattering. He is a man driven by a massive ego as opposed to a search for truth or understanding. He’s desperate for validation and adoration even though he already has that. And the ironic part is that the validation and adoration that he receives from his fans is based on nothing of actual substance because he himself has nothing of substance to offer or to say. Which explains why he ran away to the daily wire because he knew that his little theatrics and rhetorical tricks were starting to wear thin. In conclusion, the man is basically a crank. And on top of being a crank he’s an opportunist and also a fascist. Many of his “advices“ and “observations“ on social and political problems fit very neatly into a fascist lens. I understand that he is severely mentally unwell, but on top of being mentally unhinged he preys upon the disillusion and the disenfranchised. Basically? He’s a charlatan.
I don’t think Peterson is a man of religious faith and I do not believe that he is a “man of letters“ and he’s not engaging in a dialogue at all. Basically what I am seeing is a man preaching. He’s basically rambling. He has assumed a conclusion about something he knows nothing about and he is scrambling to try to reach that conclusion while hoping that Sam Harris doesn’t see that the conclusion that Peterson draws has nothing to support it. Quite frankly there is nothing “endearing“ about what Peterson is doing. It’s intellectually dishonesty that you are seeing on display, not “sincerity”.
What do you mean with "language"😊. Problem is not your English. No one understands what he is saying. Not because we don't understand the words he says lots of things without saying anything. People forgot what the conversation was about when he is talking. Make an experiment for yourself. Listen one of his podcasts or discussions from the middle without looking at the title. İ guarantee you, you won't understand which subject he is talking about
@@mehmetsimsek4794 Exactly. He loves to go off tangent and extended tangent when a simple analogy would suffice. I remember watching his Biblical lecture series with great anticipation initially. But almost every lecture session he failed to cover the scope that he had introduced at start that he would be covering. He spent way too much time dwelling on one topic and it drag on for so long that its tiresome. If I was at attendance, I would have yelled out to him "ok Sir, we know what your point is, can please get on with the rest of the lecture". LOL
I understood Sam Harris. I comprehend Jordan Peterson about as well as I comprehend Postmodernists/Poststructuralists. Ironic that JP is at odds with Postmodernism when he’s so engulfed in the power of narrative and metaphor that he actually makes it otherworldly. Jungian stuff is total BS, and that’s JP’s problem. He puts it up on a pedestal and presupposes it in every argument as if it can’t be challenged.
Fun as a lawyer to see other professions reason their way to a framework similar to actus reus and mens rea. Jefferson always answered it for me to some extent: "The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, Materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and preeminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained."
Both are good arguements. Peterson prioritizes arcehtypal models and Harris prioritizes implicit rationality as the main contributing factor to a positive future for humanity. I agree with Peterson that abstract rationalization alone is only useful in a sterile environment, but that doesnt mean we start doing open heart surgeries in the rain forest. The humananity Peterson is argueing for, isnt as distinct from "abstract rationalization" as he thinks in my opinion. In the same token, i think harris is (rightfully) alarmed by Petersons prioritization of archetypal models over implicit rationality because humanity is messy and its very possible prioritizing trusting archetypes is what got us into this mess to begin with. I think the obvious balance here is blending the two perspectives. Making implicit rationality a ritualized practice. For example, a globally recognized yearly audit that is coupled with a celebration.
Full discussion here: th-cam.com/video/PqpYxD71hJU/w-d-xo.html WE ARE COMING TO COLORADO! THE ANTISCIENCE OF GOD? Lawrence Krauss & Stephen Hicks Nov 2nd - Boulder, Colorado Tickets here: pang-burn.com/tickets This event is set to challenge conventional perspectives, offering deep insights into the complex relationship between faith, reason, and the pursuit of knowledge.
There is no resemblance whatsoever between between how these self-proclaimed *Christians* live and anything done or said by Jesus of Nazareth. They’re damned fakes.
thank you Sam. when i was a child i heard all of the time "if the true name of god became known, it would change the world and religion as we know it" i found the true name of god --- it is "I AM"
Clickbait title - implying some sort of conflict. Video popped up in my feed and I appreciated watching the content. Watched a few times just to be sure I understood their conversation 😅.
NEW EVENT! THE ANTISCIENCE OF GOD? Lawrence Krauss & Stephen Hicks th-cam.com/video/extbcWCnhxU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=zbwVhOBBgwxLtB1e
Peterson and I played basketball once. Before he bounced the ball, he told me that he couldn't manifest the cognitive resonance in his sub-conscience required to forestall the metaphysical awakening that his soul was keeping in motion, such that it would be an impossibility to engage the ball and net in the platform of unity required...I left. He's still out there talking about the lines on the court.
*applause*
😂
😂😂😂
😅
@@michman2
Take a bow.
One's good at saying words, the other's good at saying something.
Nailed it!
He is to psychology and philosophy what Terrence Howard is to physics and mathematics.
I think Peterson's got him on this one
@@ATCrogerwilcoonly in the sense that Peterson is basically removing the bad parts of religion and is then left with....well nothing of substance. Yes the achievement of greatness is the pinnacle and the mode of moving towards "hell" is the epitome of all that is wrong. It is the dogmatism, blind dictates and tribalism of religion that IS the mode of moving towards hell.
@@ATCrogerwilco Really???!!!
I find Jordan tiresome to say the least. Slippery, evasive and entirely without anchor.
However, over time, this term has been used to describe speech patterns of narcissists in which they say things that are contradictory and inaccurate as a way to confuse you. Word salad is part of the manipulation tactics used by the narcissist and part of their crazy-making.
I find you in coherent and not cynical
@vrg-s1k I thought it was beautiful
He makes my head hurt with blather.
It's quite normal to appear like Peterson in situations when people like him are challenged against the minds of Harris or Hitchens. You can't beat logic and knowledge with empty talk.
I've studied philosophy, religion, and psychology for over 40 years and I literally can't stand listening to Peterson spewing out the rectally-derived comments he makes. They're not as deep as undergraduate students eating mushrooms and babbling about the universe.
Yup.
I agree, he’s like a stern teacher on mdma
His mental health is bad
Jordan Tangent Peterson
Have you taken mushrooms yourself in the past?
Peterson’s word salads certainly do not convince me there’s a deity, specifically his chosen one, it’s just gobbledygook.
Do sociopaths, without empathy, need someone or something to imitate, someone considered good to follow, or some set of commandments to follow? They don't feel murdering someone is wrong, so they need rules to follow telling them not to? Is that why they construct gobbledygook? How many sociopaths are there, what percent of the population? How often is the sociopath in the family firstborn* ?
* as defined in a book on birth order I can't remember the name of :)-
With all his affected gesturing, posturing, tacky over-dressing and that incessant, grating psycho-babble you aren't convinced of his genius?
his religious arguments are entirely subjective, based on literature. He has read something that moved him deeply, and he expects that if he describes it passionately, that others will be moved as well. His arguments are not rational in nature, they are emotional.
@@TwinSimian Good observation.
@@servercannell5853 Exactly
"How old are you Jordan?"
JP - "That depends on what we mean by 'How" and "old" and "are" and "you"".
What do you mean EXACTLY
@@Mike.PruijnWhat an interesting word, "exactly". First we would need to have a true understanding of the word "exactly", and then we would have to understand what we really meant when we used the word "exactly". So let's break it down....
I refuse to yield to political idealogues who demand to use the question mark to compel someone to answer. That's fascism, and I'll die on that hill.
'I could answer that question, but it would probably take me about two weeks'...
@@Mike.Pruijn What you mean by the word 'mean'? What do I mean by the word 'word'?
As a Canadian, I apologise on behalf of my country for Jordan Peterson. What a jumble of nonsense.
As another Canadian 🇨🇦 I couldn’t agree more! 🤢🤮
We graciously accept. Plus you gave us Alanis, Keanu, Jim Carrey, etc. They can’t all be home runs 😂
My respect for Jorden has bottomed out. My guess is that picking up another audience is worth his credibility.
Between Trudeau and Jordan Peterson, you guys unfortunately do have a lot to apologize for :-(.
What are they feeding you over there? :-(
Just curious how jt jas any effect on life outside canada? Jordan peterson travels the world with his....ideas but jt pretty much doesnt move the needle outside canada afaik. I could be mistaken though, so Id love to hear why. Cheers!
Peterson is an emotional wreck. He makes no sense a lot of the time. I admire Sam's patience.
Mate Gabor pins Jordan down perfectly. - An angry man with loads of unresolved trauma. Hence his hunt for truth in all the wrong places.
Ex-alcoholic pill poppers usually are...especially if they become psychologists.
You are an emotional wreck, you make no sense a lot of the time. Haha I win the argument!!
See how meaningless this claim is? Put some effort into your comment and explain why he isn't making sense to you.
@@klar7946 Dr. Mate’ hit upon something that had been that had been on my mind one delving into Jordan Peterson. “His voice is choking with rage“, was the observation the good doctor made about Peterson. And when you read Peterson and when you listen to him speak yes indeed he is very angry. Also I noticed that on top of that anger is an incredible arrogance that masquerades how egotistically fragile he truly is.
It’s not so much that Peterson is just another cynical opportunist, though he may be, I also think that he is severely mentally unwell and is so desperate to be the smartest man in the room that he doesn’t even listen to himself speak.
Peterson has emotional issues.
Jordan looks like he works in a casino on a steamboat. Wtf is that costume he has on 😂
On a steamboat lmfao.
@@real_ozzyDid JP step out of a time machine from 1880?
He has very flamboyant clothing. Especially socks.
I think this happened after his mental breakdown.
@@moniqueengleman873 I’m all for flamboyant. But don’t dress up to look like a ghost from disney’s haunted mansion. The point of dressing up is good cheer. Jordan is woefully serious.
@@SeanPalmerLOFI 👍
“Of those with nothing to say, few are silent.”
Peterson sums up this saying perfectly.
That actually made me giggle xD
Yo, very poignant
Both speakers had about the same speaking time and both used their time.
@@lambertronics That is not what is meant here
and yet again the word salad of JP is exposed again over and over. Out of his league as always
To many people can't follow what JP is saying and so many people give him benefit of the doubt credit that is not deserved.
@GenericHuman54 There are at least 100 dissertations on YT spelling out how JP spews meaningless drivel. Just claiming that you don't see it already shows everyone else that you aren't ready for the conversation we're having.
@@GenericHuman54 an easy way around this would be to ask you "what did he say".
@@Friendlyfirefish Slam dunk
@@GenericHuman54Are you deaf?
If there were ever a contest to say the least with the most words Mr. Peterson would be the perennial champion.
Him and Deepockets Chopra!
Nailed it
and wasnt that one of his keys to life, to go straight to the point
Have you never met a politician? 😉
Wtf are you on about? Maybe you just couldn't comprehend what he was saying? Plenty of meaning, much like Nietzsche; so much compacted meaning that most can't get it.
How can Peterson talk SO MUCH yet say SO LITTLE!! 🥗🥗
A honed skill from years of grifting.
That's his modus operandi
Explain how he is using word salad.
It's so ironic that in a debate TH-cam video, all the comments are about baseless claims and no arguments or evidence
@@GenericHuman54 I'm not a fan of Peterson, he has been guilty of grifting sometimes, and I disagree with many (not all) of his arguments and theories, but I don't think he was using word salad here. I understood his point, it was a well-reasoned and articulated argument - I just don't agree with it, and also I think it's an incomplete argument. But I don't get why he's constantly accused of saying nothing...he has an argument, it's pretty easy to understand, and you either agree or disagree with some or all of it.
If you want the evidence, simply watch and listen. I bet you can gigure it out. @GenericHuman54
I've never seen a guy who constantly looks so stern and pissed-off act like OTHER people are hostile towards him.
Who?
He's a narcissistic sociopath
@@FomitesJordan Peterson
Maybe the look on Harris’s face is instead perpetual incredulity towards the outrageous notions that religious adherents not only sincerely believe but also expect him to buy into hook, line and sinker. He debates wackos on a regular basis, he is in a constant state of SMH 🤦♂️
@@clapdrix72Easily could be Douglas.
the era of JP is over , the same way the era of great magician, David Copperfield was over after his tricks revealed . JP's tricks are revealed as well , it's word salad 😄
JP is renowned for his word salad. But I feel what he said here was quite coherent. And the upshot of his speech was to steel man Sam’s argument and detail exactly why man created god. Too bad he failed to recognise that himself. JP is cognitive dissonance personified.
Was always like this, or did he change?😕
@@babyamyxo-o6c Only when he talks about religion. And he started doing that relative recently. He's a lot more coherent and logical when speaking about psychology and wokeism.
@@andraskovacs8959 I know right, I've listened to some of his old psychology lectures. He seemed very logical and coherent. Even when he talked about religion, it was only to supplement the lesson. And, when he did that feminism interview, he was so calm and clear. It was one of my first introductions to thought outside the progressive bubble I was growing up in. Now he comes off as pretentious and cringe. IDK why he does religion now lol.😅
@@andraskovacs8959 hes wrong about the environment, population, energy too. ie by far the most important things. he is human centric pro civilization maniac and hes just like most atheists in that respect. dawkins has no idea either. thinks civilization is fine and dandy and science and technology will save the day. nope. ultimately, without accepting what science tells us about our ecological failure, science just doom us all. rationalists are focused on the evils of religion and superstition. but there are delusions that are more universal to humans, including most so called rationalists
Peterson’s biggest advantage is that the overwhelming majority of his fans aren’t quite intelligent enough to see through the BS.
You wish. You can't even understand what he said so you pass it as glossolalia.
he chose that group on purpose like Trump chooses christians because he thinks they are soft in the head and easy to dupe
@@brain0nfire Anyone who takes Disney movies as seriously as Jordan does has to be unhinged.
@@gengraded he doesn't take them seriously enough if he doesn't address who Walt Disney really was and the psyop his movies were to the last 4 or 5 generations.
@@brain0nfire What did he say? Break it down and get to the crux of what he said. Shouldn't be that hard if he's actually saying something.
The ultimate hell, Jordan Peterson on repeat unable to get away or cover my ears.. There easy...
Don't give Satan any ideas.
Jordan Peterson the quintessential covert (narcissistic) borderline. He believes his own bs.
JP never was the same after this series of debate with Sam Harris.
He deteriorated into some kind agony and delusions.
I also remember his debates with professor Laurence krauss, though he tried his best to conceal the fact but it was pretty obvious that Laurence Krause was very disappointed or even disgusted by JP's notorious word salad. During debate at few instances it looked that he even felt pity for him.
@TonyPettersson-zs8vw I dont even know who Krauss is, But being accused of anything is absolutely meaningless, until it has been proven
Peterson admitted to lying in this debate to get a point across totally undermining who he claimed to be, and that had more to do with his breakdown than the meds he took
JP destroyed Krause
@TonyPettersson-zs8vwJust because more than one person corroborates, doesn’t make the store any more true. For example: THE BIBLE.
Jordan's unnecessary verbosity tires the listener. Sam's precise brevity respects the listener and compels us to respect him.
It’s an attempt to baffle anyone who might disagree with bullshit and impress the rubes with big words.
Well stated.
well put
@@joshuaporterfield6774 💯
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.
Does Jordan consciously dress like the Joker? He appears to be channeling the "Trickster" archetype.
The Riddler but with no solutions
He's the metaphysical hierarchy of horse shit.
I know, this outfit is a
Lot better than the religious O'Neil the Joseph coat of many colour, but if you get bored with the conversation at times you can hope he wears the Snakes and Lader outfit. You'll have to bring your own little token and dice though. I keep my blind people's sunglasses🕶 handy👩🦯 at all times.
He is consciously dressing himself in outfit that is POSTMODERNIST in style. And yet he is always on a verbal and intellectual crusade against postmodernism, associating it with radical leftist ideology. He is a walking contradiction.
He doesn’t come off like a trickster at all though
Whenever I couldn't get over myself, a good mate of mine would say, "we've all got something to bring to this conversation, and in your case, it's silence."
Always reminded of that when I hear JP's pish.
A good mate, he is.
I had 1% chance to ever believe in God. Listening to JP killed that 1% as well.
your problem is zero points in conceptualization . You need to upgrade from the idea of - dude in sky , water wine , shit happen he did.
@@lovelife1867 So using whatever conceptualization you like, define what the god is that you believe in. If that definition ends up being nothing like what the common use of the term god is, then you have simply changed the definition from what is commonly meant by a god and does nothing to provide evidence for a god. The task before you is to provide objective empirical evidence for the existence of some omnipotent, omniscient, creator being. That is the very straightforward test that no one in the history of humankind has ever passed.
Great! now you are just as certain as devout religious people!
Answer the question, common sense (the creator and his guidance), verifiable miracles, and martyrs throughout history. Criticism means deviation.
Jordan is just telling Sam that he needs to stop being a "doubting Thomas" because Jesus taught that ignorance is bliss and critical thinking bad!
In all seriousness, when God gets defined, then said God gets vulnerable to be proven not to exist.
Jordan is the empty can that rattles the most, lot of words but nothing being said
" Faith in the supernatural begins as faith in the superiority of others."
-Ayn Rand-
Empty vessels make the most noise
Thank you Sam for interrupting the droning confusion from deeply excusing the fraud on society that PJ proports.
It's not that Jordan is wrong in the idea that religion has a positive effect on people in a metaphysical way, he is wrong in assuming that it affects all or even most people in a positive way. His obsession with Nietzche and using Carl Jung to interpret the Christian bible while having a biological deterministic mindset that he learned from a decades old education, it has stunted his ability to truly understand our current day world and even reality. Which is why he has slowly veered to the political right movement.
Also in addition it’s quite clear that Peterson has never read any theological works. I’ve never heard him reference Reinhold Niebuhr, the Reverend James Cone, Paul Tillich etc. I myself have no training in divinity, but I’m not out there trying to make some type of philosophical treaties on religion the same way that Peterson is. And I believe that Peterson is doing this because he’s been attempting since “maps of meaning“ was published to push for a philosophy that is all his own and employ that to human beings as a whole. Or I should say more accurately he tends to view human beings from a very western lense.
In addition to his use of Nietzsche, it’s quite clear that he’s never really understood Friedrich Nietzsche, I would say he barely understands Carl Jung. I also have a suspicion that Peterson fancy some self a modern day Friedrich Nietzsche; The way he looks and the way he acts, it’s all theatrics. He acts as if he is some kind of tortured genius burdened by the heat and weight of his knowledge. He has an overly inflated sense of his intellect and it shows every time he speaks because you’ll notice that within his rhetorical style is a lot of nebulousness, a lot of grandiosity, and playing fast and loose with language.
@@theQuestion626 Exactly!
@@marcuna11 it’s really strange to me that people never seem to pick up that Peterson has no theological training or background. For instance he will never discuss religion with Chris Hedges, a graduate of Harvard Divinity school and an ordained pastor.
And the fact that he never references theological works, the works of theologians, is equally troubling to me. I don’t think Peterson is particularly religious, I don’t think he really believes a lot of what he is saying. My theory is that he is attempting to legitimize his “philosophy“ that he presented within his book “maps of meaning“.
He tried that and academia and he didn’t succeed. But now that he has a provocateur he has an audience that is captivated by his verbosity and his passionate Gish gallop.
But he receives next to no resistance when it comes to actually referencing data and studies. I really wish someone would just ask him a simple question such as “what works or data do you have that support your argument?”
Not sure what him veering to the right has to do with anything, ones political affiliations have no bearing in a discussion on religion.
@@aaronbarrett5061 it has quite a lot to do with discussion of religion because, motion especially with Jordan Peterson, his political beliefs taint virtually everything that he talks about. Have you ever listen to this man? This man injects conservative ideology into virtually everything he talks about. It’s even in his self-help books. Not to mention the arguments have been made that he actually is a fascist. Do yourself a favor and actually look up the tenants of Fascism and then look at what Peterson talks about and you would recognize that a lot of his political prescriptions are indeed fascist.
Hell in Peterson's beloved traditional Christianity is not a metaphor. It is the very literal ETERNAL consequence of not having faith in the literal historical sacrificial death of Jesus in atonement for the original Critical Theory: original sin.
When I try to map anything Peterson says (about meaning and morality and civilization) onto what I was taught was the truly conservative Christian doctrine -- it does not line up.
Yup. He wants to overlay the doctrines of the Church onto his idiosyncratic interpretation of morality and it doesn't align.
I would hate to be a waiter in a restaurant and have to spend 45 minutes listening to Peterson trying to order a burger with fries.
He only eats lobsters
I understand why his wife left him. Can you imagine having to deal with that every day?
Well, you see, I’d like to partake in a culinary composition that not only captures the essence of comfort in the form of a warm, bread-encased meat product, enhanced by carefully selected additions like sauces and vegetables, but is also accompanied by those indispensable, golden-brown fried potato sticks, which together create a deeply ingrained cultural delight. I would therefore kindly request to be served this complete symbiosis of flavors.
Just a general observation. I've been a Catholic for around 70 years (with a break or two) and have just left the church. The hypocrisy of leadership got to a point where a line in the sand was crossed and I could no longer stomach participating -- of course, many of my family and friends wondered why I took so long! -- because it seemed like enabling. Now, even after such a short time, Catholicism seems like a foreign country to me.
So now I listen with more openess to arguments like these, but it seems to me that if God is real and this or that religion is 'valid' (for want of a better word), these sorts of convaluted and confusing types of arguments are not the place to find out.
Once again, Petersen serves us a nice portion of word salat. Unfortunately, it holds no nutritional value.
I dunno. I'm usually pretty critical of JP, but I would say he was fairly to his point. A little grandiose, sure.
Jordan Peterson, the king of tautology and obfuscation with his suppositions and assertions.
Our collective eyes simultaneously rolled back and glazed over once JP went on that psychobabble rant.
When a God has a place where people burn forever, you certainly do not have a positive life image for believers. I am not a God, but I couldn't foster hate like that, so does that make me more of a force for good than God? There are far too many hateful things in the Bible for me to use it as a guide for my life. Why religious leaders can't see that is beyond me. They try to avoid those passages, but they are undeniably there!!
Each time I hear JP talk I’m reminded how full of bs he is. The most astounding thing about him is how many followers he has!
I can't understand what Peterson is talking about, yet Harris makes perfect sense to me. That is not about my own bias but the need for clarity.
I lose faith in humanity knowing that any people consider JP an intellectual.
Jordan is the guy who 'likes apples' in Good Will Hunting all grown up.
Accurate also in that he never worked a blue-collar job.
I’ve never witnessed a man sit so comfortably for prolonged periods of time in a leg crossed position as Sam
JP: * questionable word-salad *
Sam: 🤨
@@_Danllco_ so sensitive. Go eat another Peterson word salad and chill out. You're making Peterson's god angry.
@@_Danllco_ well quite frankly, Peterson is not presenting any statements with any logic or validity. He isn’t even logic chaining what he is saying.
If this man is so profound and intelligent… Why can’t he make his statements clearer? Why can’t he present any rational support for his statements?
@@_Danllco_ JP isn't going to reward you for defending him.
Well, defending - all you did was call me retarded. That says a lot more about you than it does me.
It’s a complete lack of ADHD. The snake oil salesman and grifters are all about the fast talk, big rapid hand gestures, and head/shoulder ticks.
No one takes longer to say nothing than Jordan Peterson.
Yes they are tackling a simple subject that should be easy to understand on a TH-cam clip😂🤦♂️
@@WellWater-Rural-life - Sam is speaking about the exact same topic and has no problem communicating clear opinions. Why do you believe Jordan should be excused for being incoherent?
@Not_Vladimir_Putin its a short clip of a long debate... the goal is not speed, it's learning....Carry on
@@WellWater-Rural-life - I've heard plenty of Jordan Peterson's nonsense over the years. My comment is not based on this one clip. I sat through a full hour of his first interview with Sam Harris where he debated what 'truth' meant in a conversation supposedly about religion.
You can love and worship him all you want, but he is king of the word salad and says nothing. The fact that you are impressed by this is troubling. Name a single piece of useful knowledge you've gleaned from his endless commentary.
Truly Wagnerian prattle.
I am a psych graduate and I watched one Jordan's classes-it was a mess.The Ontario psychology association wants him to take sensitivity course for his views on individuals who believe they are a different gender or individuals who do not conform to his body ideals.
Jordan is like my wife arguing with me at 1am… she knows I don’t have the stamina for all the words
I’m at 7:30 and I have no idea what these guys are talking about. Sophistry can go no further than to juggle wordy concepts merely to amaze and confuse the ignorant which means themselves. There’s nothing here to chew on, where in fact is the beef?
3:25 "In not so sure what of it is fake and what isn't."
Well how about the Fkng magic zoo boat and the talking snake for starters, holy F! 🤣
Peterson is astonishingly full of malarkey
"Progress: The process whereby the human race has got rid of whiskers, the vermiform appendix and God."
-H.L. Mencken-
PETERSON can't really be pinned down because he always weasels out of any direct question. I forget the sentence but he said something like "what do we mean by the word "you" and what do we mean by the word "do" and what..." and also says stuff like "what is truth really?" or he just talks such word salad that you can't even decipher the point he's making (if any).
That's not the worst suit I've ever seen. But it's in the top three.
and Peterson owns the other two.
Jordan Peterson is a gifted orator and metaphor laden conceptual artist and a capable academic. But I do not think he is a true intellectual. I think he desperately wishes to appear as not only an intellectual but as a towering one at that. He does engage in grifting too which doesn't help his case either. As Sam Vaknin a true intellectual btw implied, he is probably a psychopathic narcissist. Jordan is just a very likeable one for many, I've just struggled to like him.
So many people say they can't understand what he's on about. Gifted orators, by definition, are able to carry their audience with them, even when the concepts are complex. Harris does this as does Stephen Fry, as did Christopher Hitchens.
To sum up Peterson: 'if you can't dazzle them with diamonds, baffle them with bullshit'.
"Religion consists in a set of things which the average man thinks he believes, and wishes he was certain."
-Mark Twain-
JP has monetized Christians and he will drain them dry. Sounds alot like someone else we all know in politics.
Sounds like the base of all religions, even without the politics...
Harris? Oh no she monetized the idiots and the demons
Jordan is a master at sophistry. He uses complex word patterns to confuse the mimd , quickly jumps from thenes and slips in his conclusions...all while the mind is busy trying to catch up. As a hypnotherapist who uses the same techniques ( for good) I can appreciatte his skills but recognize his intellectual or spiritual flummery.
You shouldn't be putting Peterson on such a high pedestal. because he really doesn't belong there.
Jordan certainly brings a lot of hand-wringing pseudo-sincerity to the application of logic.
And not much application of logic.
I wish JP would just demonstrate that a god could possibly exist and then demonstrate that it does exist.
He knows he can't.
"What do you mean by 'exist'?"
@@Mark73 I think by existing I mean be
@@Mark73 Could a god be
@@Mark73 what do you mean by exist?
Did JP steal that coat from a riverboat gambler?
He hijacked the steam boat.
Peterson is so hard going trying to fathom out what the fuck he's talking about.
It's like watching the entire series of "Lost" hoping for plot resolution...
Jordan Peterson is not that hard to understand. He's just saying that Sam and him, stripped of the metaphysical claims, are both desiring the same ethical ends and are basically on the same page ethically. JP's claim is that Sam follows a Christian ethic stripped of the metaphysical assumptions and stories, but he thinks that Sam's view is unsustainable without at least a story to go behind it. Following abstract ideals don't work, you need some sort of story about your ideal person so you can change your personality and become more like them. Sam disagrees and says there's more value to be had through stripping these stories and assumptions and just taking the good parts, which are the ideals. This is what he says leads to a sort of perennialist ethic that everyone should be able to follow.
I'm annoyed with everyone who believes Jordan has nothing of value to say, he clearly does. He just never bothers explaining why it's valuable to describe things in a symbolic way.
Write out his speech as text, word for word, then try to make this argument again. Don’t give him an out. Using word salads as ultimate defence that protects you from any fact checking should not be a valid strategy. There are multiple occasions where JP straight up lied and spread misinformation, but his belief in the metaphysical and the importance of the meaning beyond the literal is something he falls onto every time as his defence. I’m all for conceptual thinking and deeper meaning but JP uses a faint possibility of deeper meaning in his brain dead rambling as a safety net from any responsibility for anything he says or does. This never flies in any scientific field of importance, and unless you are a postmodernist who does not believe in the existence of truth, there is no way of seeing him anything other than a clown. If you are a postmodernist you probably see JP as a clown anyway because he uses you a scape goat for anything that misaligns with his percoset popping vision of tolstoevskies spin on christian fascism.
You summed it up well. To simplify even further, you have to create some vengeful deity who has a bunch of rules to keep the rubes in check, otherwise we would just do what we want.
@@volodymyr3744However, over time, this term word salad has been used to describe speech patterns of narcissists in which they say things that are contradictory and inaccurate as a way to confuse you. Word salad is part of the manipulation tactics used by the narcissist and part of their crazy-making.
Ahh… more salad… thanks mate
You really cleared that up.
“I’m annoyed with everyone who believes Jordan has nothing about to say, he clearly does. He just never bother explain why it’s viable to describe things in a symbolic way.”
Then that demonstrates intellectual laziness on his part, doesn’t it? Because if you have to explain what he says and explain what he says far better than he himself then I can arrive at to conclusions. One either he is intellectually lazy or Two: he doesn’t really have anything of value to say. I know that you think he does, but I think you should notice that what you’re saying doesn’t match anything that Peterson is saying. You’re giving him an out and making excuses for his intellectual laziness while propping up a defense of the indefensible.
Jp works my nerves..constant babbling with big words and his jazz hands…, yet never getting to his f’n point!! 😖🤬
It's the solipsistic gish gallop. Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by " '."
If they can’t unravel my word salad they won’t realize I don’t know what I’m talking about
@@brianlevi9847 He’s the metaphysical Donald Trump
He doesn’t have a f’ing point. That’s the point. How well someone is able to point it right back to him and the audience is the challenge for anyone in a debate with Peterson.
Peterson has no honor or integrity to even listen to Sam's full explanation first. He interrupts Sam and spews a whole bunch of non sequitors.
There is such a thing as excessive hand movement and Jordan embodies that.
Peterson is the embodiment of the old adage: "If you can't dazzle em with brilliance....baffle em with bull$hit!" His "15 minutes" are long over. Or should be at least.
Jordon Peterson tries too hard to spew out nonsensical abstract reality.
I didnt understand anything JP talked for so long. What is the use of debate if "non academic" people cant understand
He tries to hard to sound smart, since he doesnt really have any deep ideas. Just good at word salad!
JP has great conversations in his own head
I have never lost a single debate to either of these gentlemen 😉
Same lol
I have ADHD, and slightly spectrummy - I, as a kid, used to read dictionaries; and, man, am I glad I did........
A totally veritable word salad a lá flambe magnifique.....
I hate the hand movements he does while talking.
Italy says hi.
@@hansclijsters3042 my Italian American family speaks with their hands, but not nearly as badly as Peterson. Honestly I think those gesticulations of his hands are an indicator of how mentally unhinged he is. He is doing it to almost mystify the person that he is speaking to to make it seem that what he is saying is so profound that he hast to almost conjure in order to make the profundity substantive. But honestly his gesticulation with his hands, the way he does it, mental patients in severe mental distress do that too. If you’ve ever spoken to a person in the middle of a mental health crisis or manic episode you will notice that they talk with their hands a lot. Also notice how Peterson sits, the more his irritation rises the more he fidgets. Dillahunty had the same experience and I think he does it a little bit better than Harris. Dillahunty was sitting comfortably and was laid-back while Peterson was waving his hands all over the place, fidgeting with his socks, constantly clearing his throat, shifting in his chair.
And I think I noticed a rather “guarded“ tone within Petersons rhetoric in this video. He is of course being evasive and nebulous, but he’s being very careful even more so than he usually is because Sam Harris has pointed out contradictions in his thinking in the past and he doesn’t want that to happen again
Around & around we go. The question is simple. " Is there a god or isn't there?"
Every thing else is smoke & mirrors.
Depends. What’s your definition of God. And what do you want to believe.
@@brinta19 I get presents every Christmas, so I believe in Santa. Religion (god) has given us war and hatred.
I'll stick with Santa. Thankyou.
@@philsmith4218 sounds good. I have no issues with that.
@@philsmith4218 I believe in God though. But no issues with whatever you believe.
@@brinta19 many christians have a need to espouse their beliefs, almost as if they need to keep convincing themselves & less about converting others.
So your quiet words are accepted in the spirit in which rhey are given. Thankyou.
Who said it ‘If you can’t explain something to a six year old you don’t understand it yourself’?
That "Ideal Human Being" statement is from Plato's theory of forms.
Setting aside Jordan's usual verbal diarrhea sprays which conflate trite observations with vague nonsense, all wrapped in a tedious layer of pseudo-profundity, who sold him that jacket? Were the lapels designed as some sort of sartorial wisecrack, or was the jacket merely within easy reach on the sale rack at Men's Wearhouse?
The Core of Religion isn‘t morality. You get the Golden Ticket for being loyal.
But yet no one knows what the golden ticket is. they can say what they believe the golden ticket is. but actually showing any evidence of it. is a completely different thing all together.
I thought at their core religions are all terrorist organisations. "do what we do and say what we say and pray how we pray, or bad things will happen to you"
Sounds exactly like a terrorist organisation.
He's almost unlistenable.
That was a good teaser, and much more interesting than usual and blissfully free of word salad. I think Jordan is implying that because Sam's view is similar to that of the Christian message, that therefore religion is the ground reality. That's just way too big a jump. Better to say that both theocratic and rational approaches arrived at similar conclusions, but that in no way validates divinity, only that much earlier people came to the same intuitions. It would remove a lot of noise if Jordan simply professed his real religious beliefs so we have a clear jump off point as he usually deflects questions about that. I think he's sincere and has good things to say and is too casually dismissed by the more hardline atheist's who ironically seem to be iron clad in their beliefs trapped by the very tribalism we are trying to rise above.
Free of word salad !?? WTF
Jordan Peterson almost fell off his chair
If Jordan Peterson would just give away his wordsalad for free, he could cure world hunger
Explain how he is using word salad.
It's so ironic that in a debate TH-cam video, all the comments are about baseless claims and no arguments or evidence
@@GenericHuman54 If some influencers use word salads, that's because it works with a slice of the audience. By definition, people eating the salad don't know they are eating it. There's no point trying to argue with you for the very specific reason you are willingly falling for it. I guess it makes you feel better so no evidence will sway you from your opinion anyway.
Is what JP is saying akin to "movies about reality are boring and don"t attract attention so it's ok to embellish the story to include storylines that make the story more interesting (despite being false) so that they capture the attention of people"? It seems to me that is what religion is, an embellishment of stories to capture the imagination of people and move them from a state of "I don't care" to a state of "that's interesting (even if it sounds like, and is, bullshit."
During Trump's presidency, the U.S. economy contracted at the fastest rate since 1946. The unemployment rate reached 14.7%, the highest since the Great Depression. The U.S. national debt increased by 40.43%. The trade deficit reached $679 billion dollars. The U.S. economy lost 2.9 million jobs. 202,543 jobs were offshored. 1,800 factories closed. Immigration increased 14.7%. The inflation rate increased 7.75%.
Metaphysics is a fancy word for "I can't make logical sense of the world so I'll confuse everyone with a load of BS to pretend I do"
Immaterialism and metaphysics is hardly a solved topic in philosophy.
Close your eyes and imagine a triangle. Now, using logic, explain to me where the triangle is. It's certainly not literally in your brain, and it's not in the real world, so where is the triangle?
thats a stupid conclusion for what metaphysics is
@@_Danllco_ You must be a metaphysicist
@@GenericHuman54 @GenericHuman54 When I see a triangle sticking out the waves moving towards me, I don't ask myself whether the triangle is in my mind or in reality.
@@WALLMUSICNOW you clearly aren't answering my question. When you imagine a triangle in your head-close your eyes and do this- when you imagine a shape, where is it?
It's like, definitionally an immaterial thing. It's *meta* physical. Beyond the physical.
If you played a drinking game and took a sip every time you wanted to shout to Peterson "OH SHUT UP!", your liver would kill itself.
Gawd! Peterson can bloviate with the best of them.
Guys, Jordan has stated that Sam is the smartest person he’s debated. Perhaps Peterson feels sam is smarter than he is. Who knows?
That might be one reason for Jordan’s faults during this conversation.
Another one may be cognitive bias.
Sam is essentially critiquing Jordan’s entire worldview and Jordan finds Sam to be incredibly reasonable. Therefore, I think what Sam says is troubling to Jordan and making Jordan ask himself hard questions which he doesn’t want to face.
Bottom line is… give the guy a break. I question the humility of the majority of the people commenting on his intelligence.
I hate how christianity has stole the word for doing good things, “you are acting christian” when doing good things. When you read the bible, you become a bad person.
Christianity like other abrahamic religions extensively repurposes
plenty of language in order to align it with their cult ideology.
It's also strange to me that JP ,as a defender of free speech, has never taken a deep into the ways that religions highly regulate speech.
Whoa, the most close minded comment I found
@@Kungigad Projection much?
If you are a christian you inevitably need to defend the atrocities prescribed in the bible as morally good things.
@@Kungigad The first part's accurate though. The second part is just missing one critical phrase.. "When you read the bible, *and you believe it* ..."
I’m not religious at all but why would reading the bible make you a bad person?
No time wasted listening to the leading intellectuals and humanitarians of our times - who have done the thinking! Thank you Jordan Peterson.
I don’t know what everyone in the comments is talking about. This was a beautiful discussion in my eyes.
OK.
negative people will always have something negative to say
This is how intelligent adults debate and discuss by listening to each other and exchanging ideas... but when i see the comments on this video, i feel like what all of the speakers on that panel stand for is being disrespected.
Both Harris and Peterson are brilliant and articulate... and i agree and disagree with both of them on different topics. I don't understand why most people feel the need to fall in the extreme and become vindictive.
It suddenly struck me as odd.. the three Georgian style chairs were arranged as if we are silent guests at a discussion between Jordan, Douglas, and Sam. The assumed audience sits silently in lots of plain functional chairs and the youtube camera sits on its tripod, speaking to another audience,(30,041 k when writing) in future are who knows where? at a desk, in bed, on a bus, on the bog?). It may serve as a mirror to how we have become. Isolated observers, a bit frustrated that we need to watch performing intelectuals because our aquaintances, friends and relatives only want to talk about the weather/shopping/about the time the doorknob broke (Dylan quote, 1965!!). And me myself alone commenting to the ether.Thank you for sharing this video anyway, their mental gymnastics is a stimulating example of how to converse respectfully. We would have to be very lucky to know in person one, let alone three individuals of their intelectual calibre., but just sayin, perhaps we should try a bit harder to talk to one another.. Oh for the 18th century pipe smokey coffee shop.
"I've really thought about this a lot!"
That's a BS tell if there ever was one
I am told Shakespeare wrote "Much Ado about Nothing" when he heard Peterson talking.
I think Peterson is sincere, at least here. I think what we're watching is him thinking out loud- a man of religious faith, a man of letters, engaging in a dialogue, trying to see the discussion though his particular philosophical lens. His words get away from him. It looks like he uses them for two purposes here: one is to buy time to think, and the other is to whittle at his own thoughts- it's the latter that's almost endearing; I think he's trying.
Sam's speaking and writing tend to be so clear. He presents such an organized mind. It's a stark contrast.
I have to disagree. I don’t think there’s any sincerity with what Peterson saying. I don’t think we are “watching a man thinking out loud“, I think what we are seeing as a man making things up as he goes along. It’s intellectually lazy. And I don’t think he’s a man of religious faith either and he’s certainly not a “man of letters“.
It’s quite clear that he’s never read any theological texts, and it’s quite obvious that he is desperate to make up his own philosophy, such as his book “maps of meaning“ and he is throwing virtually every type of rhetorical trick to make the “philosophy“ presented within the book of nonsense stick. Quite frankly the only sincerity that I can see is that Peterson is desperate to make it seem that he is profound and that what he is saying is earth shattering. He is a man driven by a massive ego as opposed to a search for truth or understanding. He’s desperate for validation and adoration even though he already has that. And the ironic part is that the validation and adoration that he receives from his fans is based on nothing of actual substance because he himself has nothing of substance to offer or to say. Which explains why he ran away to the daily wire because he knew that his little theatrics and rhetorical tricks were starting to wear thin.
In conclusion, the man is basically a crank. And on top of being a crank he’s an opportunist and also a fascist. Many of his “advices“ and “observations“ on social and political problems fit very neatly into a fascist lens. I understand that he is severely mentally unwell, but on top of being mentally unhinged he preys upon the disillusion and the disenfranchised. Basically? He’s a charlatan.
I don’t think Peterson is a man of religious faith and I do not believe that he is a “man of letters“ and he’s not engaging in a dialogue at all. Basically what I am seeing is a man preaching. He’s basically rambling. He has assumed a conclusion about something he knows nothing about and he is scrambling to try to reach that conclusion while hoping that Sam Harris doesn’t see that the conclusion that Peterson draws has nothing to support it.
Quite frankly there is nothing “endearing“ about what Peterson is doing. It’s intellectually dishonesty that you are seeing on display, not “sincerity”.
Except he used to claim not to be arguing from a position of faith
Has anyone a clue wtf peterson is talking about? Guy is a total charlatan!
Excellent point about Jesus smuggling. It's related to the process of Jesusification. I am fully Jesusified. Thank you.
Every time i listening to jp i start to question my English.
(It's not my main language but i can understand anybody else)
What do you mean with "language"😊. Problem is not your English. No one understands what he is saying. Not because we don't understand the words he says lots of things without saying anything. People forgot what the conversation was about when he is talking.
Make an experiment for yourself. Listen one of his podcasts or discussions from the middle without looking at the title. İ guarantee you, you won't understand which subject he is talking about
@@mehmetsimsek4794
Exactly. He loves to go off tangent and extended tangent when a simple analogy would suffice. I remember watching his Biblical lecture series with great anticipation initially. But almost every lecture session he failed to cover the scope that he had introduced at start that he would be covering. He spent way too much time dwelling on one topic and it drag on for so long that its tiresome.
If I was at attendance, I would have yelled out to him "ok Sir, we know what your point is, can please get on with the rest of the lecture". LOL
Sam's ability to deconstruct the flaws in JPs method are unparalleled. (In the religion sphere, JP is imo great everywhere else)
I understood Sam Harris. I comprehend Jordan Peterson about as well as I comprehend Postmodernists/Poststructuralists. Ironic that JP is at odds with Postmodernism when he’s so engulfed in the power of narrative and metaphor that he actually makes it otherworldly. Jungian stuff is total BS, and that’s JP’s problem. He puts it up on a pedestal and presupposes it in every argument as if it can’t be challenged.
Jungian "stuff" is not BS. Jung was a genius. It's just that Peterson is nowhere near the level of Jung's level of analysis.
Fun as a lawyer to see other professions reason their way to a framework similar to actus reus and mens rea. Jefferson always answered it for me to some extent: "The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, Materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and preeminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained."
Both are good arguements.
Peterson prioritizes arcehtypal models and Harris prioritizes implicit rationality as the main contributing factor to a positive future for humanity.
I agree with Peterson that abstract rationalization alone is only useful in a sterile environment, but that doesnt mean we start doing open heart surgeries in the rain forest. The humananity Peterson is argueing for, isnt as distinct from "abstract rationalization" as he thinks in my opinion. In the same token, i think harris is (rightfully) alarmed by Petersons prioritization of archetypal models over implicit rationality because humanity is messy and its very possible prioritizing trusting archetypes is what got us into this mess to begin with.
I think the obvious balance here is blending the two perspectives. Making implicit rationality a ritualized practice. For example, a globally recognized yearly audit that is coupled with a celebration.
The only interesting comment I've read so far here
Oh good more psychobabble as if the video wasn't enough
@@J77199Exactly lol
Thankyou for your sanity 🙏🏼
Harris says 10x more with 1/10th the words
Full discussion here: th-cam.com/video/PqpYxD71hJU/w-d-xo.html
WE ARE COMING TO COLORADO! THE ANTISCIENCE OF GOD? Lawrence Krauss & Stephen Hicks
Nov 2nd - Boulder, Colorado
Tickets here: pang-burn.com/tickets
This event is set to challenge conventional perspectives, offering deep insights into the complex relationship between faith, reason, and the pursuit of knowledge.
There is no resemblance whatsoever between between how these self-proclaimed *Christians* live and anything done or said by Jesus of Nazareth. They’re damned fakes.
thank you Sam. when i was a child i heard all of the time "if the true name of god became known, it would change the world and religion as we know it" i found the true name of god --- it is "I AM"
Clickbait title - implying some sort of conflict.
Video popped up in my feed and I appreciated watching the content. Watched a few times just to be sure I understood their conversation 😅.