Please try to get an interview with Jonathan Haidt. His cross cultural data on morality does an excellent job of describing the problem with the left not understanding the position of the right.
The left and the right are two sides of the same coin.. The left vs right paradigm was designed to keep people fighting over their slavery to keep their slave masters in control..
On average, right of center people understand left of center positions better than left of center people understand right of center positions. This isn't just an opinion. This has been confirmed by studies. That's just on average though. There are more than enough extraordinary dumbasses all along the political spectrum.
jamesp81 The whole political process is designed to keep you and your mind enslaved.. It does not matter which side can comprehend the other better because neither side sees that they are slaves.. Although this is coming from an American perspective it should apply to any nation under the federal reserve system which is almost all of them... Over 70 percent of America is on a pharmaceutical drug and over half are on two.. Society suffers from consumerism, materialism, class-ism, racism, bullying etc etc etc People are slaves to the federal reserve dollar and the State, The Federal Reserve prints the slave's dollars which inflates the prices of goods and services just enough to keep them working for life. Corporations own and control all the good Artists and push agendas with them.. The educational system is nothing but indoctrination.. (I pledge allegiance to the flag).. The Healthcare system is really a sick care system which drugs people up until death at extreme costs to their families wealth.. The legal system is really built on Maritime Admiralty Laws (citizen-ship) and it enslaves its citizens while pushing unjust ideas like the "drug war" while doctors are simply legal drug dealers.. It targets minorities and the prison system is a business ran on the Stock Exchange.. Media is controlled and used to brainwash the masses through "television programming" and social media, people are literally programmed.. You can't even own something like property (ownership and freedom is an illusion) because if you miss a property tax payment it will be taken with the home on the land.. Tax is literally extortion or theft by threat of violence and caging and taxes as well as inflation has it to where 95% of society will never get ahead and will die medicated with some kind of "mental illness" which doesn't even truly exist which are in fact just labels used to explain certain states of mind which are normally a result of this oppressive system. Taxes are used to slaughter millions of people who are in the way of this war machine made up of brainwashed slaves.. Americans are brainwashed and suckered into supporting unjustified wars under the banner of false ideas such as "The War on Terrorism" which isn't even an enemy so it gives the establishment the go ahead to attack anyone they want for as long as they want.. The American Dream is a dream.. The term "American Dream" is used to brainwash you as well..
any idea that is going to stand a chance at thriving and surviving needs to have some kind of leadership. Look at black lives matter. they have no concrete leadership and thus people have hijacked the movement and attached their ideologies onto it to create a creature that is far from its original intentions.
At 23 mintues in: "One of the things that happens when you flatten out the hierarchy is you can't even orgainize your perceptions. You can't perceive the world without looking at the world through a hierarchy of value because you can't perceive the world unless you make one thing more important than all the other things because you don't even know what to look at. And if one thing isn't more important than all the other things, then you have nothing to aim at. And if you have nothing to aim at then you have no meaning in your life." The one thing that becomes more important than all the other things is Self-realization. This provides the ultimate meaning. True, Maslow missed the mark. All the great Self-actualizers (Self-realized beings) were not interested in material wealth; Jesus, Buddha, Ramana, and other Mystics and Sages-- many known and many unknown throughout history.
Peterson's first Iceland video has a good expanded explanation of hierarchies and how they develop out of value. Best he's put out, I think; all the details in one shot.
Interesting enough I also stumbled upon that passage and I just couldn't follow him in that vista. Saying that the brain itself is organized in that manner doesn't satisfy me, for the reasons you mentioned. But what do you think finally?
Finding exceptions to a psychological method of analyzing the way humans generally view their next most pressing issues doesn’t negate its validity. Something felt strange about the way Peterson somehow equated the evolutionary-psychological structures that are, at least in part, the reason why we have been gradually progressing towards structure and peace since the beginning of human history, and an individual’s moral integrity. If you aren’t the Buddha and you live in a structured, modern society with an established economic system then you’re, most likely, not going to start feeling good about yourself and your place in society until you, at the very least, have a roof over your head and a steady source of income. For most people, self-actualization isn’t possible if they aren’t doing anything for others and especially if they feel aimless and/or without support.
Another excellent interview. Most of Peterson's answers are what I have heard elsewhere, although they are still poignant. For me the real nugget of gold was at the end when he was asked what does the 'city of god' mean to him and he replied "that's a place where everyone bears maximal responsibility and speaks the truth, that's what it is. And what's the responsibility? You're responsible for the suffering in the world. You're responsible for the malevolence in the world. And you're responsible for the veracity of your utterances. Right. And in the city of god you're maximally responsible for the suffering, you're maximally responsible for the malevolence, and you speak the truth. That's what it is." IMO the 'maximal' is relative to what the individual encounters and is competent to achieve through their true speech, and that in turn will bring some small habitable order out of the chaos of that suffering and malevolence. That is exhibiting the logos and acting as sovereign individual, that is, that is 'divine' IMO. Manifesting the logos is a profound and therefore a religious act. I think that is what Peterson is doing. I am not so sure of my rendering of his answer, but that is it.
Agreed. Our struggle is firstly an individual one and then it becomes all encompassing. The logos within each of us is ultimately responsible for and to the divine Logos, which is as terrifying a thought as Peterson makes it sound.
wonderful final statement at the end (re the City of God). in the New Jerusalem, there is no church - because there is nowhere that is not the church. (wherever we stand is holy ground).
Peterson has become somewhat difficult to interview. His tropes are reflexive, and probably fairly safe for him, so getting him to new ground occurs infrequently. His analysis of Maslow and moral virtue was not something I’d seen discussed anywhere else, so well done. It was also really interesting. And intuitively I’d say he was correct. These snippets reaffirm how well he thinks, and how his arguments are so solidly underpinned by decades of thought. Maybe you can get him to explore the return of spirituality and the religious rebirth on your next interview? The City of God: Peterson’s views don’t seem to include a happy-clappy, kum-bi-yah sing-a-long. Instead; maximal responsibility for suffering, malevolence and the veracity of your word. A dark view of logos, but perhaps there can be no other while humanity remains unredeemed.
Be the Logos it may appear dark initially, but I think it's accurate that the City of God is where people have lifted and carried the burden of their cross and integrated their shadow by recognizing that the suffering and malevolence in the world can be traced to their own actions and inactions, because "the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being."
ADerpyReality it’s s a bit of a stretch to call him a Christian, he’s not religiously Christian as it’s commonly defined. He described himself as a religious person to Joe Rogan, but when asked about that he said religious truth tells you how to behave, so he uses the timeless stories in the Bible to teach the “meta-true” stories of life. th-cam.com/video/P5_-pfqFGJI/w-d-xo.html
It is only seemingly a dark view of the Logos as a consequence of living in darkness. In the City of God, there is no problem because everyone has solved their own inner problem, are awake. IF everyone is awake, then the Logos is obvious and self-evident and infinitely bright and indispensable. Our redemption lies with no one other than ourselves. We each must become a light unto ourselves. The whole world will shine with light because what is the world except the light that shines eternally within.
Jordan Petersen is a gift - I find him endlessly fascinating - and he has helped me grow and deal with life. Wouldn’t it have been interesting to have heard him and Christopher Hitchens discuss .... well, about anything. Peterson is so right about technology - I do most things on my iPhone - lots of utube listening in my car, sitting at appointments, before going to sleep - short breaks at work , etc. A pair of earbuds helps. A wealth of information and helpful problem solving so close at hand.
Great content, beautiful image. My two cents on production: you are well-lit with the natural daylight, but in my opinion, your subject should be better lit with a simple studio lamp (or facing the window in your place). A directional mic instead of a room mic would also be an improvement. Thanks for making this video available!
Great interview. Thank you. I've always identified myself ideologically with the moderate left. I live in Sweden where we are caught between the extrem right (SD party) and the radical left/postmodernists (present in different parties and instances of society). Your and Peterson's contributions to this universal/western debate are like fresh air and I think the only path towards any kind of sanity. Keep up the good work and thank you again.
why is it called the intellectual dark web and not the intellectual deep web? There is a difference between the two (google), I think the second definition is more appropriate.
Eric Weinstein made a video explaining his thought process in coining the term, and part of his thought process was that once "Intellectual Dark Web" had been picked up and popularised by the mainstream outlets, it could then be redefined as "Intellectual Deep Web" for exactly the reason you identified.
As someone who has employed many types of people at various income levels, I always found it interesting that those who had truly Socialist/Marxist views were often the least dependable and least ambitious. I also noticed that they always were very pro single-payer national healthcare . . . but were also the most reckless with their health in that they typically smoked, drank a fair bit and also participated in fairly dangerous "extreme" sports. (As an employer I was left to deal with the reality that their shattered knee would keep them off the job for quite a while.) In addition they were often well-covered in tats, piercings and ear-plugs (whatever you call those things) and looked fairly scary, but in truth were often quite warm and friendly. I would call them generous as well ... but they really had nothing to offer anyone but maybe a smoke or a handshake. As I always encouraged open discussion (to try to get a handle on what drove them) and noticed that they assumed that I had "extra cash" or that the things I spent my money on were not valid and a waste and that all my "extra" assets would be better off in the hands of the "less unfortunate". It seemed they were incapable of recognizing that I had created an opportunity for them to make a living -- apparently the job they held was deemed by them as somehow owed to them anyway. In my early days I used to try to motivate them and paint the picture of the opportunity of income growth, etc. that was available to them if they worked hard and proved themselves. After a while I finally realized that they would always do a bare minimum and nothing more. (Those that did move up and made higher levels of income didn't need to have this path pointed out to them. They simply recognized it as self evident and took the action required to take advantage of the opportunity.) This is a clear illustration of the hierarchies that happen within society. Opportunity in the USA -- and the west in general -- is everywhere, but only a few will take advantage of this reality, so you could say that "the hierarchies" are actually self-imposed. It is evident that those who are drawn toward Marxism and Socialism don't believe they're actually capable of -- or are simply unwilling to -- compete in the marketplace.
I find this to be true also. I am 72 and lived through the "counterculture " time. Even then there were people who thought "sharing" meant that everyone was obliged to share their stuff w/them although they showed no interest in discovering/making/finding things to share w/others. I still share as best I can, but you develop a radar for the charlatans. So sad. So many logistical problems of society would find some solutions if everyone just made a small step.
You're either lying and misrepresenting who you are as an alleged "JoB cReAtOr" or the other TH-cam accounts that post this story have stolen it from you because they are liars who are more interested in propagandizing than actually going out and "CrEaTiNg JoBs". I've seen this comment posted on numerous conservative-targeted videos on TH-cam as well as posted to forums, always as if it's the firsthand account of the person making the post (and never by someone using their real name or a picture of themselves). I'm not interested in disproving it, because I'm willing to bet that whoever originally wrote it is telling at least a (mostly) truthful tale. I'm more interested in finding out how these copy/pastes start & what the implications are for a society when people can't even be bothered to give their own anecdotes anymore. Somehow, I don't see much good coming from it.
To my understanding, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs only functions as a "basic amount necessary for their respective levels to function"; if you oversatiate one level it does nothing to better those above them. It doesn't scale endlessly.
I was in Hawai in 2000. Our guide on a day trip was a 40 something black dude from the U.S. continent. He'd been there for like 20yrs. He made a point of taking us through 1 of the poorest inner city areas of the Island and pointing out that there was no graffiti, no garbage, no slovenlyness...no projection of self loathing and disgust.....I dont know if that remains true today, but it was fascinating to meditate on....
Jordan talks about the disagreement between he and Sam Harris on how values are determined. He doesn't believe that "facts" alone is sufficient to obtain values (morals, ethics) deterministically. I think the piece of the puzzle they both miss is Game Theory. (I also think the Rawlsian veil of ignorance is an important tool of how we could in theory determine certain morals formulaically, but the reality is this is only ex post facto and the question is how did we obtain morals "organically") The thinking is that Game Theory is a formulaic analysis of trust and cooperation and how this works from a formulaic (fact based, mathematical) perspective. This gets applied as a tool in realms such as economics and political sciences. But what we can see is that human behavior has evolved as a sort of "Game Theoretical computational engine". That is, human behavior has evolved to develop behaviors that foster productive cooperation, because that is a strategy for evolutionary advantage. Or stated differently, cooperation is conducive to better survival, so it stands to reason that behaviors that are conducive to cooperative activities would be emphasized evolutionarily. ref: Non Zero - the Logic of Human Destiny by Robert Wright So to the extent that "morality and ethics" is conducive to that, these are then emergent properties in the furtherance of those strategies. I propose that religion then is not the genesis of morality and ethics but a codification of those behaviors that are preexiting in an evolutionary context. I would further say that the "facts" and by what means or mechanism such "facts" have given rise to what we now accept as "morals and ethics" that Sam Harris argues is nebulous in that I don't see that it is specified what "facts" determine morality and ethics. I would propose that it is Game Theory that are those base "facts" and means by which morality can be derived organically, eg via evolution. Game Theory lays out formulaically how trust and cooperation works, evolution coded behaviors that implement those principles so as to provide for the emergence of cooperative behaviors and societies better positioned for survival.
Robert Miller I agree with pretty much everything you said but I think the problem doesn’t stop there. Perhaps there is a contextual way of looking at this issue of morality, such as the understanding that our morals derived from survival mechanisms such as cooperation-as you mentioned. But the rub lies when we look at it from a purely philosophical perspective, in which case I would ask a question like: “why is following our evolutionary instinct a _good_ thing?” Or “How are the morals derived from cooperation and empathy truly moral?” It _is_ true or so it seems to me that morality is a great tool for the survival of our species, but in no way that tells us why we _ought_ to survive. Do you see my point? I do not want to be a postmodernist and I believe we should behave morally and there is great value on that. But philosophically I just can’t see how morality can be objective except when looked from a contextual perspective. Do you have any thoughts about that?
Isnt the formulaic analysis of trust and cooperation that game theory provides, rooted in a conception of Human beings as competing atoms? Please elaborate on game theory's view of the human being.
It isn't the competence hierarchies that are the problem, it's the power and control hierarchies which are the problem. We already give the people the power and control to replace political leaders (even thought those politicians try to undermine it), yet we don't do the same for other hierarchies, like business or educational hierarchies. Simply give the people the power to replace those at the top of their hierarchies, problem solved.
I like what JP has to say about psychology, but his political views are superficial at best. It is like he made a caricature of both sides in his head. He even enacted in this interview how those caricatures would talk to each other.
As to the last question, that is, what does the City of God look like to JBP, there is a piece of the puzzle that he left out in his answer in my opinion (although I would say that Maps of Meaning lays the groundwork for this, as does 12 Rules for Life and his public comments on living your life each day in a way that makes your life, the life of your family, and the life of your community better than it was yesterday and looking at this in the short, medium and long term). And that is that we are all responsible for creating the good in the world as well as accepting responsibility for the evil (malevolence) we create. If you were to use theological language, we are co-creators of the world, with all of its glories and its deficiencies and evils. I fully agree with Peterson that acting in a way that mitigates unnecessary suffering in the world (go back to his comments on his discussions with Sam Harris, but also his talk last year to Linfield College) is the moral challenge, the challenge of living, and that being unsparingly truthful, with others but more importantly ourselves, is absolutely necessary in order to do that.
Mark Dallaire When one speaks “the” truth, the question for each is simply...is this truth mine, or is it stolen or perhaps borrowed. When one speaks “their” truth, the heart is exposed. Risk becomes a factor as one may of need be required to account for such truth....for themselves. Both need be evaluated deeply before interaction with others even takes place. J.P. Refers to the ensuing dilemma of identity and possession with reward as chaos. I prefer condemnation.
Mr. C problem is, straight condemnation doesn't allow for others pov, while giving yourself the moral high ground without having to really examine your 'truth'. That gets played out in any extremes of ideology.
Mark Dallaire, I can't appeal to any authority, or even to rationality to justify what I'm about to say. So, you may want to ignore this comment. I wouldn't want to waste your time, or the time of any future reader. Holiness is akin to loneliness. The Holy is the Unity, and there is no possible division, no possibility of otherness. Whatever is Holy is absolute, all-pervasive, all-encompassing, without boundary, timeless and singular. As anyone who has experienced combat might attest, the opposite of holiness is competition. For competition to be possible, there must be a plurality of individuals with competing interests or drives, and comparable competitive strengths. All of life in our world is competitive-- only survives, only thrives through successful competition. And for every win, there is a loss. And losing entails unbearable suffering. This is the balance to the bliss of Holiness. We are, as you say, co-creators of the world, as we (along with every other living thing, down to an individual bacterium) are shards of the still-whole, fractured Holiness. We can leap upon each other like dogs, tearing each other to shreds. And, like dogs, we can shepherd others to safety at our own peril. Competition and Holiness have shares of our nature, and each is unbearable to us, in the absence of the other. Concepts of goodness and evil confuse me. Concepts of benevolence and malevolence confuse me. If I raise a piglet to maturity, is that benevolence? If I slaughter that pig to feed my family, is that malevolence? If I raise my children to enjoy the flesh of dead animals, is that good or evil? I don't know. But I know competition, and I know holiness. I know holiness is sterile without competition, and competition is meaningless without holiness.
Chris InKilleen Chris, thank you for this. There is much truth in what you say. I guess the challenge is to hold these two sides of our lived reality as a single unity, in a way that the distinction between the sacred and profane disappear. Ah, there’s way too much to unpack here: and I don’t think the comments section of a TH-cam video is adequate. Thanks again for taking the time to comment.
The problem with JP's take on Harris's perspective, although made in good faith, is that the discrepancy between their views is one of degree rather than foundation. Specifically, I see their disagreement as pertaining to the degree to which our values should be based on narrative versus the degree to which it should be based on facts. Their positions align with their professions (JP a psychologist, less technical, Sam Harris, a neuroscientist, more technical). I myself am a more technical person (computer science), so I naturally gravitate more towards Harris's view. However, this isn't to say I don't believe our values should be based in narrative. Rather, I believe (I imagine Harris would largely agree) we have to reconcile the narratives that underlie our values with evermore powerful technology and an evermore broad and deep scientific understanding of the world/universe(s). This is important to differentiate us from individuals and cultures that wage war in the name of religion (be it Islam, Christianity, or even atheism when taken to religious fervency). At the same time, I've increasingly come to agree with JP's and even Shapiro's perspective that there is a risk of becoming overzealous in jettisoning ancient and traditional wisdom. However, again, the disagreement here is probably more of one of degree and quality. Judaism and Christianity would be much better off if they rip Leviticus out and throw it away. Endorsing evolution at an institutional level wouldn't hurt either. I think take away the "City of God" reference (with all of its religious connotation and grandiosity) and Harris and JP are fundamentally in agreement.
Very good summary of the debate! Another point where I noticed that their positions align with their professions was on the weight of "interpretive structures". JP is so focused on the individual that for him it is almost impossible to derive values from facts without that derivation being contaminated by our desires and evolutionary limitations. Sam, on the other hand, takes the side of science as a way to overcome those limitations. I guess it all depends on whether you want to tackle morality from a practical or scientific perspective.
Jordan is a man who has in all likelihood, never struggled financially. If he has, it was most likely in the far distant past and so has become a foggy memory. I don't think he recognizes just how much poverty can affect a persons priorities and how this in turn might lead one to less than ideal morals. Poverty is debilitating. It is becoming more and more difficult to lead a stable middle class life in the 1st world. To not see this or to disregard this is silly. Despite what Jordan proclaims in regards to the capitalist system, things are getting worse. This should be acknowledged and addressed.
Poverty is only debilitating if you let it be so.. being under a lot of pressure can generate the best or the worst in men, the worst starts to arise with jalousy, victimhood ,envy and revenge, the best with responsability, and sacrifice
"It is becoming more and more difficult lead a stable middle class life in the 1st world" I actually laughed. What is next? It is getting more difficult to buy the newest BMW every year?
Jordan grew up in northwestern Canada, in a middle class household. Yes, he likely never faced material poverty (starving or freezing to death). But he likely faced great stretches of time (literally) in the dark with little to do. What did he choose to do? Read, learn and explore intellectual pursuits. Absent abject poverty, people choose their own moral route. Obviously family and friends have a huge influence, as Jordan's parents did, but idle hands can be just as much the devil's workshop as being poor.
Manoonyo, I see where you’re coming from and I think your point has some merit, although the others commenting herein are correct also If you haven’t listened to JP’s videos in which he discusses his upbringing and his experiences as a parent, your response might change. He’s been through incredible challenges as a parent. And if you’re not a parent it’s not possible to really fathom what it’s like to care for a child with incredibly challenging medical realities Also-regardless of station in life, one should at least strive for honor, integrity, truth, accountability and work to excel at even the simplest of tasks. But I hear you. Were i a poor kid in the inner city I might become a criminal to better my standard of living. Who knows. I sympathize with any and all who are given very little opportunity in the US and world. It’s not lost on JP that it’s way harder for those with less privilege and he knows it’s way easier for those with privilege. But he’s also saying that for one to not earn his way ethically can result in finding oneself in a very dark place psychologically.
Why isn't the interviewer pushing Peterson on very basic moderation like "Do you think there's a case for the graduated income tax and that some of these moderating measures do not devolve into Stalinism?" Or: "Don't you think there's a working poor that can't afford enough of life's necessities?" Or: "Where is the sense of balance between markets and state for you? Is it 80/20 or 90/10 or 100/0?" You never seem to hit the reasonable midpoint question with Peterson...
Yo Akira can't wait to hear the music you make which in incorporates reasonable hedonism , sanitary napkins and toothpaste, ha...seriously as i have come to expect, seriously awesome and profound conversation. Thanks
Fresh words. Reasonable hedonism is choice of toothpaste and toilet paper. Creature comforts that let people carry out basic needs in a dignified manner. I do love when Dr Peterson delivers sensible word paintings like this. But this is just the fun and happy take. There is much deeper stuff in here. Good job Mr Fuller.
25:50 Oh a rarity, I'm openly disagreeing with Peterson, although there is a point as to how he portrays Maslow's hierarchy of needs: I never understood his pyramid as a digital must have A before B, but as a analog growing, supporting structure; the more of the base, prior level, is existent, the more of the next it can sustain. I don't see how morals play into that at all. Maybe you see this a little more dire when you lost (almost) all of the pyramid at once, and barely have access left to the lowest level. An example situation could be a nervous breakdown from trauma, and all people you knew and trusted abandoning you, while you are so week and lost in your state of mind that you can't even call for help or know how to bootstrap yourself again - this not being a momentary issue but a state of being for weeks and months. Maslow's pyramid is just gone, and the safest way is to build it up step by step, of course with the aim to get to the top again. The pyramid is no set plan, it is the result of an observation of being. You simply have less time to build and care for the blocks of higher order when those of lower are non-existent or being threatened and eroded. The lower the tier under threat and damage, the more your attention will have to focus there to keep the bloody thing up and stable… or rebuild it. Whether you actively follow it or intuitively try to put your life back together again doesn't matter, you end up with this hierarchy of needs. Though I would say it forms differently than slamming blocks onto one another, but rather a thin line that broadens over time, with the lower parts widening faster and further than those above them. With wider blobs further up, you may have a somewhat functioning life, maybe an interesting one, but unlikely a good and balanced and efficient one; or let's say, a desirable one. I think it's a topic worth investigating.
AT LAST!!! A guy that can articulate life so the common schmuck like me can UNDERSTAND!!! Wonder why Dr. Peterson resonates so well???? Thank you Dr. Peterson, you have awakened me!!!
A word I hear him use rarely, but what in my opinion covers the essence of the spiritual process, is love. Not to be confused with romantic love and emotional dependency.
At the top of the hill we take full responsibility and speak the truth. That's it? That's as far as his transcendent vision stretches? Admirer as I am of the man, this reveals one of his key limitations. It is also why I am a Buddhist. At the top of the hill is liberated consciousness and boundless compassion.
What he said about talking to journalist really makes sense. If you've seen a lot of Channel 4 interviews lately it doesn't seem like the problem were not unique to her, other interviewers do the same thing. Probably the way C4 does things.
We do not need to reach maximal personal responsibility, a gradual but consistent increase from a very low base, would be as good as revolutionary in its implications. Freedom is good for you, its just a pity we don't try it more often.
I am a Careers Adviser, think Rogers and Lazlow as discussed here and JBP discusses Rogers often. We deal with the individual, we never devalue an individuals dreams and aspiratins, we support raising of aspiration and make sure the world is opened up. thats "what will make the individual happy". You can be a retail assitant, an archeologist, the world can be your osyter - please, we must stop looking at "ones" meanging s if living in a desert as less of value than living in a penthouse in London city. There really is more to life than material wealth, to give you meaning, think about it, we must move forward taking the best from the long past to the more recent.
I am confused by Peterson's statement that the hierarchy "dispossesses" people who clump at the bottom. What are these people being "dispossessed" of, exactly, by those at the top other than hierarchal status and the accompanying mating opportunities?
He looks jaded. There's a stark difference between how he looks here and how he looked the first time he was on Joe Rogan (/watch?v=04wyGK6k6HE), although this video is much clearer. Fighting the good fight takes its toll.
Meta M Veggies are what he tried to add back, and the results were a catastrophe. Some bodies work differently, his all beef diet has done miracles for him and his daughter, and no one, including them, knows why. A proper diet appears to be subjective, in part. It has proved its utility for them, and I’m fairly certain that they’re stuck with it now.
Maslow: I don't get JBP's critique of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. That a rich man has more moral virtue than a poor man according to Maslow’s theory. Moral is a different developmental line and must not be confused with the line of needs. A monk who has taken the vow of poverty could be superior to a rich man, even though he is very poor. Maslow’s hierarchy does not claim that a person has to be rich in order to go to the higher needs of love, esteem and self-actualization. He just needs to be sufficiently satisfied and this level of satisfaction is a very individual matter. Do you see it otherwise?
Remember that people at the bottom of the needs pyramid are living a life determined by their most base needs. In the space meeting these needs takes up all of the person's time. This person has no time for ethical concerns as they have to worry about what their next meal is. It is only when these needs are taken care of that people start to worry about ethics and the like. Is abortion right or wrong? The person at the bottom might have a default answer but they have no time to deal with all the nuances of this complex issue. It is only when you deal with this complexity that you are doing ethics or have a position based on ethics If I am hungry this question becomes subordinate to my hunger and ending that state.
It's not like the world is lacking resources to give people that time to think. The problem is that resource scarcity actually makes things more valuable, rather than valuing things for other reasons. We are not stupid just because we aren't obsessed with acquisition of goods - what looks to us like just another pathological addiction.
Kenneth Sørensen It's pretty straightforward. Maslow's theory states that those without the basic needs taken care of, aren't yet moral people, because they have no capacity due to their situation. That's the bone JBP has to pick with the theory. JBP thinks people, regardless of their economic situation, can develop moral character, which runs against Maslow's theory. It's not as if Maslow actually thought, explicitly, that moral character could only be developed in economically well-off people. It's that he didn't account for the inadequacy of his theory, and the implication. Again, that's what JBP is pointing to here. Poor people can be moral too (perhaps even more moral). Maslow's theory, unintentionally, suggests that poor people can't be moral, since they have not hit that developmental criteria yet. It's a pretty gaping hole in his intellectual construct of personal development, like most things which are constructed top-down.
29:55 I love Jordan Peterson but watch out with toothpaste. Flouride calcifies the pineal gland. A healthy pineal gland is something overlooked when maximizing the individual and their ability to operate as enlightened responsible individual. Jordan Peterson refers time and time again about the eye on top of the pyramid as the person who is fully actualised. Well you better not the estimate the fact that the pineal is symbolically respresent by the all seeing eye of Horus.
15:10 I don't think it's helpful to paint Harris' defining point of what is "good" as "not a fact". Harris' moral system is based on rationality/logic and every logical system has to be based on something, which is called axioms. Axioms are by definition correct/factual (in that logical system). If you really want to play this game, then yes, what Harris claims is not self-evident. It's a proposition based on the knowledge of humanity, in particular our ability to suffer. The only self-evident fact is our conscious, i.e. "I think therefore I am". I could easily deny others the ability to suffer, because their suffering isn't self-evident. Maybe I believe there are no others and the whole world is just a dream in my mind. Point is, you can of course play these philosophical games and make technical arguments like that, but it's not helpful in the context of what Harris is doing.
Appealing to ridicule I could just as well argue that 1+1=2 is "not a fact". Arithmetic has been incredibly useful to humanity, but just as Harris' system of morality, it's technically "not true", "not factual". Even simple statements like "1+1=2" are based on a number of axioms, which Peterson could reject, just like he found Harris' point about "good" meaning "to reduce suffering" not to be factual.
Highly grateful for your videos. Could you do one on what the right can learn from the good doctor? I don't see the right reflecting on some of the things he says. Like they say inequality is not a problem, poverty is. Whereas he has been clear that inequality in itself can be a problem. They don't seem to grapple with how difficult the abortion argument is. I understand the value of that life that is being taken; but how about autonomy? Doesn't liberty include autonomy? They don't seem to grapple with the idea that it is not possible for all to pull themselves by their bootstraps, especially for the less cognitively sound people. There are several such things. Could you work on some of that?
Now the question is: what is the difference between the City of God and the Kingdom of God? (if they are the same why use the word "city" instead of "kingdom")
Materialism is not the problem. Materialism as Meaning is. It is what underlies the materialism that creates the problem. Materialism than becomes another form of hedonism whose harm is accentuated by a need for social recognition (class consciousness). Drugs do not harm people, addiction does. It is not the thing (materialism) but the effect (meaningless).
Good answer to Vanderklay. He is so committed to the evangelistic project that he doesn't fully listen to non-Christians. Although he is quite articulate and his Christianity is quite sophisticated, he and it still lack an appreciation of pluralism in spiritual matters.
Oh, the preacher listens, but not with complete attention, as Peterson himself indicated. Vanderklay does not appreciate, because his dogma forbids. That is the basis of my observation, which you misconceive as an aspersion. Furthermore, I can live well without your exhortations, which you have no authority to launch.
Jordan Peterson isn't a Christian, but he likes to use Judeo-Christian scripture, terms, and traditions (City of God/Augustine) to make his points. It's perfectly fair for Vanderklay to point out the differences and for JPB to make clear what he means when he uses Judeo-Christian concepts. Vanderklay is addressing Vanderklay's audience and Vanderklay's sphere of interest: Christians, the Christian world view, and especially Calvinist Christians (because he is the pastor of a Christian Reformed church.) Many Christians, and in particular, many of his own church are interested in JPB. If you watch Vanderklay's first JPB video, he lays out why he is following JPB and bringing his own commentary into the discussion. For any Christian, there is "spirituality" and then there is Christ. If people want to follow other forms of spirituality, they certainly may, but if you want to (and have committed to) follow that Jesus person actually described in the Bible, then not everything that calls itself "spiritual" is also compatible with that individual, particular person Jesus Christ. Vanderklay is a pastor and an intellectual enjoying the interesting points JPB brings to the intellectual table, while still noting the variances JPB has with orthodox Christianity.
Love Peterson but Maslow hierarchy is more along the lines of eliminating extreme privation than reaching prosperity as baseline for further self actualization
I don't agree with Jordan's point that self-actualization equals moral superiority. I would Define self actualization as the Fulfillment of one's talents and potentialities. In that sense then the rich would have more opportunity to self-actualize.
I know Jordans an extremely humble man, but I'd have to disagree somewhat in that I'd say he personally as well as his personality is just as important as the technology.
Responsibility to what or to whom, to self, to the conglomerate or the collective, to mankind? If it is to the self, this would create a shallow world, which is here now. Most people think of themselves, and their first though is I come first, love yourself before anyone else. This is everywhere in the media and self thought books, that show you how to be a better person. The Self. Hardly anyone thinks of the collective or is willing to sacrifice himself for it. In what way can you responsibly, and to what extent, since responsibility can take many form. Yes you can only be responsible for yourself, but responsibility has and essence goodwill. There should a heart involved, there should be something where you can draw life, and positive energy from. Nothing in human nature can be mechanical; if not, there is no to an action.
I dont know if the "Good Faith" of Sam Harris is the question. What I want to know isthe following: is there anything in Jordan Petersons worldview that Sam Harris's worldview can't intigrate, contain or appreciate?
The 'City of God' trope is curious - the metaphor conveys a meaning that is utopian. Utopia does not lie at the top of the mountain where everyone lives in 'truth' and being enabled to do so, or know the 'truth', by virtue of individual responsibility. The idea is incoherent if what is referred to is St Augustine's work of that name: St Augustine reminded the Romans, who were largely 'self-made' in their propsperity, that whatever success they had achieved was due to the providence of God, even though they were ignorant of Him; and, The City of God, according to Augustine, consists of all human and celestial beings united in their love for God and their seeking to glorify Him (is this the 'truth' Peterson means?).The City of Earth is comprised of those beings who love only themselves and seek their own glory and good (i.e. those who act as free individuals rather than those "who kneel", which is the antithesis of individual responsibility).One does not have to climb a mountain to reach the City of Earth - it is here now, and offers riches to those who look, reminding me of that passage attributed to Christ in an 'unauthorised' gospel, that the kingdom of heaven is spread upon the earth, but men do not see it.
you mean highly pseudo-intellectual. I am about sick of hearing the same thing said ad infinitum, it used to be profound, now it's irritating. Just a bunch of people talking to be heard.
Well, that goes without saying white void... But when the regurgitation flow has become so thick and chunky that everyone gets barf tunnel vision, it drowns out other topics. But hey, these youtube channels need their bread and butter - they will bend to the next topic like soggy bamboo in a downpour.
Why are you still watching JBP stuff, then? Thumbs down a couple of the videos, stop clicking on them when they're suggested, and they'll stop appearing. I agree it gets a bit redundant sometimes, but then I tune it out for a while.
1:33 But only in a very narrow, shallow sense. I mean, I can not imagine that you're not aware of the notion of "attention economy", and in this regard, it's still broadcasty. Also, as there's just one mainstream (not to be confused with traditional, old media), it doesn't help if the alternative media becomes the new mainstream, even if it is more fragmented/granular. When it comes to mindshare and popularity, what I see looks pretty much like the traditional mainstreamy model. 3:13 Only some of the people, some of the time, in some places. It's also not really the case in my opinion that it was discovered that "people" smarter than thought, because everybody thinks of himself to be smart and knows or has heard of other people that are smart as well or smarter, but with the Internet, the smarter and dumber ones can more easily find each other and concentrate (for better or worse), if their interests align. 3:24 Uh... the technology is around for a long time, like 50 years by now, but it took this long for people and society to get some clue how it might work, and we're totally far from realizing its full potential. If one doesn't study it in depth, a lot of errors will be made and opportunities missed, as it is now. 9:37 What's the risk of producing a few long-form, non-scripted audio podcasts and see how they're perceived? 21:19 It's not that anarchy is for chaos and against order/hierarchies, it just questions them and, if necessary, rearranges/restructures them. But sure, it has other issues, and probably would still always be left on the spectrum, even if they defend a justified hierarchy, which they tend not to do often in the public, general perception. 25:35 Erm... isn't it self-evident that the rich enjoy more options in regard of what they can pick for self-actualization, if they should choose to? How should the Maslow pyramid make any statement about the quality or enjoyment of the self-actualization? I thought the pyramid is a statement about the sophistication/quality of the levels of needs. My interpretation might be wrong. Anyway, the pyramid is likely not intended to make ethical statements, but the increased opportunities/options for self-actualization obviously lead to a wider range of possible ethical expressions, which aren't of more value in terms of quality/quantity, but we generally like to rather have more and a wider range than a narrow one, to arrive at a greater "richness". 31:40 They oppressed the Tzar and monarchy of course, and the previous owners of the factories, and then everybody who happened to not be Stalin himself. The group identity of the individual (making himself the group), with only one group member. And even an individual can split himself into contradicting victimized and oppressing groups ;-)
I wonder how many people come to the Peterson/Harris discussions because they really just want to see Peterson and the only available way to do that in their city is to come to the discussion. Peterson is so careful not to credit himself with his popularity simply being his Being - that he would not entertain that idea that people are really just coming to see him. There are a lot of waves in the ocean. His wave is special because he is the one riding it.
I more less agree with everything JP says here, however, I don’t recall JP ever mentioning the city of god. I completely agree with that take but I just don’t remember him ever mentioning it, let alone mentioning it repeatedly, unless he’s trying to say he’s alluded to this city of god. I think thats more probable
26:00 Maslow's hierarchy of needs absolutely btfo'd gotta admit that this way of thinking about things is more correct and right. I find the whole hierarchy part to be deceptive and out of balance. The order is wrong.
In civilized and non-civilized societies, losers also decide propositions, look at illegal immigration to the western world. Often it is the loser who is taking advantage of the so called winner.
Please try to get an interview with Jonathan Haidt. His cross cultural data on morality does an excellent job of describing the problem with the left not understanding the position of the right.
dlmetzger
I finished Righteous Mind a week ago and Haidt is a genius. Wonderful book
The left and the right are two sides of the same coin.. The left vs right paradigm was designed to keep people fighting over their slavery to keep their slave masters in control..
Uh......................and the right understands "the position" of the left? Holy you know what stupidity.
On average, right of center people understand left of center positions better than left of center people understand right of center positions.
This isn't just an opinion. This has been confirmed by studies.
That's just on average though. There are more than enough extraordinary dumbasses all along the political spectrum.
jamesp81
The whole political process is designed to keep you and your mind enslaved.. It does not matter which side can comprehend the other better because neither side sees that they are slaves..
Although this is coming from an American perspective it should apply to any nation under the federal reserve system which is almost all of them... Over 70 percent of America is on a pharmaceutical drug and over half are on two.. Society suffers from consumerism, materialism, class-ism, racism, bullying etc etc etc People are slaves to the federal reserve dollar and the State, The Federal Reserve prints the slave's dollars which inflates the prices of goods and services just enough to keep them working for life. Corporations own and control all the good Artists and push agendas with them.. The educational system is nothing but indoctrination.. (I pledge allegiance to the flag).. The Healthcare system is really a sick care system which drugs people up until death at extreme costs to their families wealth.. The legal system is really built on Maritime Admiralty Laws (citizen-ship) and it enslaves its citizens while pushing unjust ideas like the "drug war" while doctors are simply legal drug dealers.. It targets minorities and the prison system is a business ran on the Stock Exchange.. Media is controlled and used to brainwash the masses through "television programming" and social media, people are literally programmed.. You can't even own something like property (ownership and freedom is an illusion) because if you miss a property tax payment it will be taken with the home on the land.. Tax is literally extortion or theft by threat of violence and caging and taxes as well as inflation has it to where 95% of society will never get ahead and will die medicated with some kind of "mental illness" which doesn't even truly exist which are in fact just labels used to explain certain states of mind which are normally a result of this oppressive system. Taxes are used to slaughter millions of people who are in the way of this war machine made up of brainwashed slaves.. Americans are brainwashed and suckered into supporting unjustified wars under the banner of false ideas such as "The War on Terrorism" which isn't even an enemy so it gives the establishment the go ahead to attack anyone they want for as long as they want.. The American Dream is a dream.. The term "American Dream" is used to brainwash you as well..
I am a simple click, I see Harry Jordanson, I lobster.
well done
CLACKETY CLACKETY CLACKETY
I see you everyehere
What?
Ah yes, the lobster. The perfect segway out of any discussion.
One of the best JBP discussions to date!!! Excellent dialogue...
So,good and such a relief to see an interview that's not a relentless personal attack but an interview , a real fair dinkum competent interview
The IDW should be thought of as a place not a group.
It was never a group.
Exactly.
I think it should be considered more like a method. A set of rules-of-engagement for good-faith, constructive discourse.
In other words, decent conversations.
any idea that is going to stand a chance at thriving and surviving needs to have some kind of leadership. Look at black lives matter. they have no concrete leadership and thus people have hijacked the movement and attached their ideologies onto it to create a creature that is far from its original intentions.
Peterson is still popular, because he is unique, eloquent, thoughtful, sincere and experienced.
All the people around the world who he has helped, including myself, will always hold him in high regard . Cheers!
JBP: “You can tell Paul VanderKlay that for me.” PVK: “Gotcha.”
Vanderklay Industries.....ask for George
At 23 mintues in: "One of the things that happens when you flatten out the hierarchy is you can't even orgainize your perceptions. You can't perceive the world without looking at the world through a hierarchy of value because you can't perceive the world unless you make one thing more important than all the other things because you don't even know what to look at. And if one thing isn't more important than all the other things, then you have nothing to aim at. And if you have nothing to aim at then you have no meaning in your life."
The one thing that becomes more important than all the other things is Self-realization. This provides the ultimate meaning.
True, Maslow missed the mark. All the great Self-actualizers (Self-realized beings) were not interested in material wealth; Jesus, Buddha, Ramana, and other Mystics and Sages-- many known and many unknown throughout history.
Peterson's first Iceland video has a good expanded explanation of hierarchies and how they develop out of value. Best he's put out, I think; all the details in one shot.
Rafael Stoneman glad he left out that genocidal maniac called Mohammed
@@SB_McCollum which one is the first one?
Interesting enough I also stumbled upon that passage and I just couldn't follow him in that vista. Saying that the brain itself is organized in that manner doesn't satisfy me, for the reasons you mentioned.
But what do you think finally?
Finding exceptions to a psychological method of analyzing the way humans generally view their next most pressing issues doesn’t negate its validity. Something felt strange about the way Peterson somehow equated the evolutionary-psychological structures that are, at least in part, the reason why we have been gradually progressing towards structure and peace since the beginning of human history, and an individual’s moral integrity. If you aren’t the Buddha and you live in a structured, modern society with an established economic system then you’re, most likely, not going to start feeling good about yourself and your place in society until you, at the very least, have a roof over your head and a steady source of income. For most people, self-actualization isn’t possible if they aren’t doing anything for others and especially if they feel aimless and/or without support.
Another excellent interview. Most of Peterson's answers are what I have heard elsewhere, although they are still poignant. For me the real nugget of gold was at the end when he was asked what does the 'city of god' mean to him and he replied "that's a place where everyone bears maximal responsibility and speaks the truth, that's what it is. And what's the responsibility? You're responsible for the suffering in the world. You're responsible for the malevolence in the world. And you're responsible for the veracity of your utterances. Right. And in the city of god you're maximally responsible for the suffering, you're maximally responsible for the malevolence, and you speak the truth. That's what it is."
IMO the 'maximal' is relative to what the individual encounters and is competent to achieve through their true speech, and that in turn will bring some small habitable order out of the chaos of that suffering and malevolence. That is exhibiting the logos and acting as sovereign individual, that is, that is 'divine' IMO. Manifesting the logos is a profound and therefore a religious act.
I think that is what Peterson is doing.
I am not so sure of my rendering of his answer, but that is it.
Agreed. Our struggle is firstly an individual one and then it becomes all encompassing. The logos within each of us is ultimately responsible for and to the divine Logos, which is as terrifying a thought as Peterson makes it sound.
Anyone else keeps double-tapping to go back in multiples of ten seconds to re-listen to some of the points that require relistening?
wonderful final statement at the end (re the City of God).
in the New Jerusalem, there is no church - because there is nowhere that is not the church.
(wherever we stand is holy ground).
Yeah, but gods don't exist and religion is fabricated bullshit. It was a nice analogy, nonetheless.
Jordan Peterson is Carl Jung and Chuck Norris
LOL!!
lolol
Wow... His answer to the last question.. Pretty heavy stuff.
Every time I listen to Jordan I feel relieved
Peterson has become somewhat difficult to interview. His tropes are reflexive, and probably fairly safe for him, so getting him to new ground occurs infrequently. His analysis of Maslow and moral virtue was not something I’d seen discussed anywhere else, so well done. It was also really interesting. And intuitively I’d say he was correct. These snippets reaffirm how well he thinks, and how his arguments are so solidly underpinned by decades of thought. Maybe you can get him to explore the return of spirituality and the religious rebirth on your next interview?
The City of God: Peterson’s views don’t seem to include a happy-clappy, kum-bi-yah sing-a-long.
Instead; maximal responsibility for suffering, malevolence and the veracity of your word. A dark view of logos, but perhaps there can be no other while humanity remains unredeemed.
Be the Logos it may appear dark initially, but I think it's accurate that the City of God is where people have lifted and carried the burden of their cross and integrated their shadow by recognizing that the suffering and malevolence in the world can be traced to their own actions and inactions, because "the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being."
I take you know he's Christian then?
ADerpyReality it’s s a bit of a stretch to call him a Christian, he’s not religiously Christian as it’s commonly defined. He described himself as a religious person to Joe Rogan, but when asked about that he said religious truth tells you how to behave, so he uses the timeless stories in the Bible to teach the “meta-true” stories of life.
th-cam.com/video/P5_-pfqFGJI/w-d-xo.html
It is only seemingly a dark view of the Logos as a consequence of living in darkness. In the City of God, there is no problem because everyone has solved their own inner problem, are awake. IF everyone is awake, then the Logos is obvious and self-evident and infinitely bright and indispensable. Our redemption lies with no one other than ourselves. We each must become a light unto ourselves. The whole world will shine with light because what is the world except the light that shines eternally within.
Jordan Petersen is a gift - I find him endlessly fascinating - and he has helped me grow and deal with life. Wouldn’t it have been interesting to have heard him and Christopher Hitchens discuss .... well, about anything. Peterson is so right about technology - I do most things on my iPhone - lots of utube listening in my car, sitting at appointments, before going to sleep - short breaks at work , etc. A pair of earbuds helps. A wealth of information and helpful problem solving so close at hand.
Great content, beautiful image.
My two cents on production: you are well-lit with the natural daylight, but in my opinion, your subject should be better lit with a simple studio lamp (or facing the window in your place).
A directional mic instead of a room mic would also be an improvement.
Thanks for making this video available!
Great interview. Thank you.
I've always identified myself ideologically with the moderate left. I live in Sweden where we are caught between the extrem right (SD party) and the radical left/postmodernists (present in different parties and instances of society). Your and Peterson's contributions to this universal/western debate are like fresh air and I think the only path towards any kind of sanity.
Keep up the good work and thank you again.
"It's like talking to a puppet." Wow. Harsh, but I can definitely see it.
I would have said "Muppet" ;)
why is it called the intellectual dark web and not the intellectual deep web?
There is a difference between the two (google), I think the second definition is more appropriate.
The first definition is a bit perjorative, so Ideological separatists (on both sides) prefer it. Just my opinion.
Eric Weinstein made a video explaining his thought process in coining the term, and part of his thought process was that once "Intellectual Dark Web" had been picked up and popularised by the mainstream outlets, it could then be redefined as "Intellectual Deep Web" for exactly the reason you identified.
As someone who has employed many types of people at various income levels, I always found it interesting that those who had truly Socialist/Marxist views were often the least dependable and least ambitious. I also noticed that they always were very pro single-payer national healthcare . . . but were also the most reckless with their health in that they typically smoked, drank a fair bit and also participated in fairly dangerous "extreme" sports. (As an employer I was left to deal with the reality that their shattered knee would keep them off the job for quite a while.)
In addition they were often well-covered in tats, piercings and ear-plugs (whatever you call those things) and looked fairly scary, but in truth were often quite warm and friendly. I would call them generous as well ... but they really had nothing to offer anyone but maybe a smoke or a handshake. As I always encouraged open discussion (to try to get a handle on what drove them) and noticed that they assumed that I had "extra cash" or that the things I spent my money on were not valid and a waste and that all my "extra" assets would be better off in the hands of the "less unfortunate". It seemed they were incapable of recognizing that I had created an opportunity for them to make a living -- apparently the job they held was deemed by them as somehow owed to them anyway.
In my early days I used to try to motivate them and paint the picture of the opportunity of income growth, etc. that was available to them if they worked hard and proved themselves. After a while I finally realized that they would always do a bare minimum and nothing more. (Those that did move up and made higher levels of income didn't need to have this path pointed out to them. They simply recognized it as self evident and took the action required to take advantage of the opportunity.)
This is a clear illustration of the hierarchies that happen within society. Opportunity in the USA -- and the west in general -- is everywhere, but only a few will take advantage of this reality, so you could say that "the hierarchies" are actually self-imposed. It is evident that those who are drawn toward Marxism and Socialism don't believe they're actually capable of -- or are simply unwilling to -- compete in the marketplace.
I find this to be true also. I am 72 and lived through the "counterculture " time. Even then there were people who thought "sharing" meant that everyone was obliged to share their stuff w/them although they showed no interest in discovering/making/finding things to share w/others. I still share as best I can, but you develop a radar for the charlatans. So sad. So many logistical problems of society would find some solutions if everyone just made a small step.
You're either lying and misrepresenting who you are as an alleged "JoB cReAtOr" or the other TH-cam accounts that post this story have stolen it from you because they are liars who are more interested in propagandizing than actually going out and "CrEaTiNg JoBs". I've seen this comment posted on numerous conservative-targeted videos on TH-cam as well as posted to forums, always as if it's the firsthand account of the person making the post (and never by someone using their real name or a picture of themselves).
I'm not interested in disproving it, because I'm willing to bet that whoever originally wrote it is telling at least a (mostly) truthful tale. I'm more interested in finding out how these copy/pastes start & what the implications are for a society when people can't even be bothered to give their own anecdotes anymore. Somehow, I don't see much good coming from it.
Great interview. Well done.
To my understanding, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs only functions as a "basic amount necessary for their respective levels to function"; if you oversatiate one level it does nothing to better those above them. It doesn't scale endlessly.
I was in Hawai in 2000. Our guide on a day trip was a 40 something black dude from the U.S. continent. He'd been there for like 20yrs. He made a point of taking us through 1 of the poorest inner city areas of the Island and pointing out that there was no graffiti, no garbage, no slovenlyness...no projection of self loathing and disgust.....I dont know if that remains true today, but it was fascinating to meditate on....
Terrific channel! Thank you for the opportunity to think💥
Those last lines!
🙏
Jordan talks about the disagreement between he and Sam Harris on how values are determined. He doesn't believe that "facts" alone is sufficient to obtain values (morals, ethics) deterministically. I think the piece of the puzzle they both miss is Game Theory. (I also think the Rawlsian veil of ignorance is an important tool of how we could in theory determine certain morals formulaically, but the reality is this is only ex post facto and the question is how did we obtain morals "organically")
The thinking is that Game Theory is a formulaic analysis of trust and cooperation and how this works from a formulaic (fact based, mathematical) perspective. This gets applied as a tool in realms such as economics and political sciences. But what we can see is that human behavior has evolved as a sort of "Game Theoretical computational engine". That is, human behavior has evolved to develop behaviors that foster productive cooperation, because that is a strategy for evolutionary advantage. Or stated differently, cooperation is conducive to better survival, so it stands to reason that behaviors that are conducive to cooperative activities would be emphasized evolutionarily.
ref: Non Zero - the Logic of Human Destiny by Robert Wright
So to the extent that "morality and ethics" is conducive to that, these are then emergent properties in the furtherance of those strategies. I propose that religion then is not the genesis of morality and ethics but a codification of those behaviors that are preexiting in an evolutionary context.
I would further say that the "facts" and by what means or mechanism such "facts" have given rise to what we now accept as "morals and ethics" that Sam Harris argues is nebulous in that I don't see that it is specified what "facts" determine morality and ethics. I would propose that it is Game Theory that are those base "facts" and means by which morality can be derived organically, eg via evolution. Game Theory lays out formulaically how trust and cooperation works, evolution coded behaviors that implement those principles so as to provide for the emergence of cooperative behaviors and societies better positioned for survival.
Robert Miller
I agree with pretty much everything you said but I think the problem doesn’t stop there. Perhaps there is a contextual way of looking at this issue of morality, such as the understanding that our morals derived from survival mechanisms such as cooperation-as you mentioned. But the rub lies when we look at it from a purely philosophical perspective, in which case I would ask a question like: “why is following our evolutionary instinct a _good_ thing?” Or “How are the morals derived from cooperation and empathy truly moral?”
It _is_ true or so it seems to me that morality is a great tool for the survival of our species, but in no way that tells us why we _ought_ to survive. Do you see my point? I do not want to be a postmodernist and I believe we should behave morally and there is great value on that. But philosophically I just can’t see how morality can be objective except when looked from a contextual perspective. Do you have any thoughts about that?
Isnt the formulaic analysis of trust and cooperation that game theory provides, rooted in a conception of Human beings as competing atoms? Please elaborate on game theory's view of the human being.
Rebel Wisdom is great..always a great documentary guaranteed. Especially the ones that have been done on Jordan Peterson.
"The reintegration of the sacred." Chord struck, and I thought to myself 'we no longer wholed these truths to be self-evident.'
It isn't the competence hierarchies that are the problem, it's the power and control hierarchies which are the problem. We already give the people the power and control to replace political leaders (even thought those politicians try to undermine it), yet we don't do the same for other hierarchies, like business or educational hierarchies. Simply give the people the power to replace those at the top of their hierarchies, problem solved.
I like what JP has to say about psychology, but his political views are superficial at best. It is like he made a caricature of both sides in his head. He even enacted in this interview how those caricatures would talk to each other.
"It would be a lovely thing if poverty was caused by a lack of money. Then we could fix it, but it isn't" Brilliant!
As to the last question, that is, what does the City of God look like to JBP, there is a piece of the puzzle that he left out in his answer in my opinion (although I would say that Maps of Meaning lays the groundwork for this, as does 12 Rules for Life and his public comments on living your life each day in a way that makes your life, the life of your family, and the life of your community better than it was yesterday and looking at this in the short, medium and long term). And that is that we are all responsible for creating the good in the world as well as accepting responsibility for the evil (malevolence) we create. If you were to use theological language, we are co-creators of the world, with all of its glories and its deficiencies and evils. I fully agree with Peterson that acting in a way that mitigates unnecessary suffering in the world (go back to his comments on his discussions with Sam Harris, but also his talk last year to Linfield College) is the moral challenge, the challenge of living, and that being unsparingly truthful, with others but more importantly ourselves, is absolutely necessary in order to do that.
Here’s the link to Peterson’s talk at Linfield College.
th-cam.com/video/X3gztiMdsGA/w-d-xo.html.
Mark Dallaire
When one speaks “the” truth, the question for each is simply...is this truth mine, or is it stolen or perhaps borrowed.
When one speaks “their” truth, the heart is exposed. Risk becomes a factor as one may of need be required to account for such truth....for themselves.
Both need be evaluated deeply before interaction with others even takes place.
J.P. Refers to the ensuing dilemma of identity and possession with reward as chaos. I prefer condemnation.
Mr. C problem is, straight condemnation doesn't allow for others pov, while giving yourself the moral high ground without having to really examine your 'truth'. That gets played out in any extremes of ideology.
Mark Dallaire, I can't appeal to any authority, or even to rationality to justify what I'm about to say. So, you may want to ignore this comment. I wouldn't want to waste your time, or the time of any future reader.
Holiness is akin to loneliness. The Holy is the Unity, and there is no possible division, no possibility of otherness. Whatever is Holy is absolute, all-pervasive, all-encompassing, without boundary, timeless and singular. As anyone who has experienced combat might attest, the opposite of holiness is competition. For competition to be possible, there must be a plurality of individuals with competing interests or drives, and comparable competitive strengths. All of life in our world is competitive-- only survives, only thrives through successful competition. And for every win, there is a loss. And losing entails unbearable suffering. This is the balance to the bliss of Holiness.
We are, as you say, co-creators of the world, as we (along with every other living thing, down to an individual bacterium) are shards of the still-whole, fractured Holiness. We can leap upon each other like dogs, tearing each other to shreds. And, like dogs, we can shepherd others to safety at our own peril. Competition and Holiness have shares of our nature, and each is unbearable to us, in the absence of the other.
Concepts of goodness and evil confuse me. Concepts of benevolence and malevolence confuse me. If I raise a piglet to maturity, is that benevolence? If I slaughter that pig to feed my family, is that malevolence? If I raise my children to enjoy the flesh of dead animals, is that good or evil? I don't know. But I know competition, and I know holiness. I know holiness is sterile without competition, and competition is meaningless without holiness.
Chris InKilleen
Chris, thank you for this. There is much truth in what you say. I guess the challenge is to hold these two sides of our lived reality as a single unity, in a way that the distinction between the sacred and profane disappear. Ah, there’s way too much to unpack here: and I don’t think the comments section of a TH-cam video is adequate. Thanks again for taking the time to comment.
Reiterating the need for an interview with Jonathan Haidt!
The problem with JP's take on Harris's perspective, although made in good faith, is that the discrepancy between their views is one of degree rather than foundation. Specifically, I see their disagreement as pertaining to the degree to which our values should be based on narrative versus the degree to which it should be based on facts. Their positions align with their professions (JP a psychologist, less technical, Sam Harris, a neuroscientist, more technical).
I myself am a more technical person (computer science), so I naturally gravitate more towards Harris's view. However, this isn't to say I don't believe our values should be based in narrative. Rather, I believe (I imagine Harris would largely agree) we have to reconcile the narratives that underlie our values with evermore powerful technology and an evermore broad and deep scientific understanding of the world/universe(s). This is important to differentiate us from individuals and cultures that wage war in the name of religion (be it Islam, Christianity, or even atheism when taken to religious fervency).
At the same time, I've increasingly come to agree with JP's and even Shapiro's perspective that there is a risk of becoming overzealous in jettisoning ancient and traditional wisdom. However, again, the disagreement here is probably more of one of degree and quality. Judaism and Christianity would be much better off if they rip Leviticus out and throw it away. Endorsing evolution at an institutional level wouldn't hurt either.
I think take away the "City of God" reference (with all of its religious connotation and grandiosity) and Harris and JP are fundamentally in agreement.
Very good summary of the debate!
Another point where I noticed that their positions align with their professions was on the weight of "interpretive structures". JP is so focused on the individual that for him it is almost impossible to derive values from facts without that derivation being contaminated by our desires and evolutionary limitations. Sam, on the other hand, takes the side of science as a way to overcome those limitations. I guess it all depends on whether you want to tackle morality from a practical or scientific perspective.
Jordan is a man who has in all likelihood, never struggled financially. If he has, it was most likely in the far distant past and so has become a foggy memory. I don't think he recognizes just how much poverty can affect a persons priorities and how this in turn might lead one to less than ideal morals. Poverty is debilitating. It is becoming more and more difficult to lead a stable middle class life in the 1st world. To not see this or to disregard this is silly. Despite what Jordan proclaims in regards to the capitalist system, things are getting worse. This should be acknowledged and addressed.
Poverty is only debilitating if you let it be so.. being under a lot of pressure can generate the best or the worst in men, the worst starts to arise with jalousy, victimhood ,envy and revenge, the best with responsability, and sacrifice
"It is becoming more and more difficult lead a stable middle class life in the 1st world"
I actually laughed. What is next? It is getting more difficult to buy the newest BMW every year?
Jordan grew up in northwestern Canada, in a middle class household. Yes, he likely never faced material poverty (starving or freezing to death). But he likely faced great stretches of time (literally) in the dark with little to do. What did he choose to do? Read, learn and explore intellectual pursuits. Absent abject poverty, people choose their own moral route. Obviously family and friends have a huge influence, as Jordan's parents did, but idle hands can be just as much the devil's workshop as being poor.
Manoonyo, I see where you’re coming from and I think your point has some merit, although the others commenting herein are correct also
If you haven’t listened to JP’s videos in which he discusses his upbringing and his experiences as a parent, your response might change. He’s been through incredible challenges as a parent. And if you’re not a parent it’s not possible to really fathom what it’s like to care for a child with incredibly challenging medical realities
Also-regardless of station in life, one should at least strive for honor, integrity, truth, accountability and work to excel at even the simplest of tasks. But I hear you. Were i a poor kid in the inner city I might become a criminal to better my standard of living. Who knows. I sympathize with any and all who are given very little opportunity in the US and world. It’s not lost on JP that it’s way harder for those with less privilege and he knows it’s way easier for those with privilege. But he’s also saying that for one to not earn his way ethically can result in finding oneself in a very dark place psychologically.
Actually its completely talked about in his first rule of life.
Lovely stuff 👌🏼
Why isn't the interviewer pushing Peterson on very basic moderation like "Do you think there's a case for the graduated income tax and that some of these moderating measures do not devolve into Stalinism?"
Or: "Don't you think there's a working poor that can't afford enough of life's necessities?"
Or: "Where is the sense of balance between markets and state for you? Is it 80/20 or 90/10 or 100/0?"
You never seem to hit the reasonable midpoint question with Peterson...
Rapidly becoming my favourite channel. Loved this. Strong beard game.
Wow the video quality is impressive
It would have been nice to hear their dinner discussion.
I’d never thought about Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs in that way before. That really resonated with me.
Great video!!! Jordan Peterson is such a blessing to this generation
I like how Jordan Peterson talks with his hands. Or more so, his fingers haha
I think is because he has mental images together with the concept 🤔 I agree is very useful
Yo Akira can't wait to hear the music you make which in incorporates reasonable hedonism , sanitary napkins and toothpaste, ha...seriously as i have come to expect, seriously awesome and profound conversation. Thanks
Fresh words. Reasonable hedonism is choice of toothpaste and toilet paper. Creature comforts that let people carry out basic needs in a dignified manner. I do love when Dr Peterson delivers sensible word paintings like this. But this is just the fun and happy take. There is much deeper stuff in here. Good job Mr Fuller.
Thanks! Also watch and enjoy "Paul Vanderklay Pastor of the Intellectual Dark Web".
25:50 Oh a rarity, I'm openly disagreeing with Peterson, although there is a point as to how he portrays Maslow's hierarchy of needs:
I never understood his pyramid as a digital must have A before B, but as a analog growing, supporting structure; the more of the base, prior level, is existent, the more of the next it can sustain. I don't see how morals play into that at all. Maybe you see this a little more dire when you lost (almost) all of the pyramid at once, and barely have access left to the lowest level.
An example situation could be a nervous breakdown from trauma, and all people you knew and trusted abandoning you, while you are so week and lost in your state of mind that you can't even call for help or know how to bootstrap yourself again - this not being a momentary issue but a state of being for weeks and months. Maslow's pyramid is just gone, and the safest way is to build it up step by step, of course with the aim to get to the top again. The pyramid is no set plan, it is the result of an observation of being. You simply have less time to build and care for the blocks of higher order when those of lower are non-existent or being threatened and eroded. The lower the tier under threat and damage, the more your attention will have to focus there to keep the bloody thing up and stable… or rebuild it. Whether you actively follow it or intuitively try to put your life back together again doesn't matter, you end up with this hierarchy of needs. Though I would say it forms differently than slamming blocks onto one another, but rather a thin line that broadens over time, with the lower parts widening faster and further than those above them. With wider blobs further up, you may have a somewhat functioning life, maybe an interesting one, but unlikely a good and balanced and efficient one; or let's say, a desirable one.
I think it's a topic worth investigating.
AT LAST!!! A guy that can articulate life so the common schmuck like me can UNDERSTAND!!! Wonder why Dr. Peterson resonates so well???? Thank you Dr. Peterson, you have awakened me!!!
the way jordan ends his speech is, to borrow a phrase, stellar!
Divressed; I am curious about your choice of the symbol of your logo... how did you come up with it and what does it mean to your brand? Thanks!
That last bit was powerful. "You are maximally responsible for the suffering and malevolence of the world. Speak the truth"
A word I hear him use rarely, but what in my opinion covers the essence of the spiritual process, is love. Not to be confused with romantic love and emotional dependency.
An excellent interview: thoughtful, considered and with decent questions. The question is why can the MSM not even try to do something like this?
At the top of the hill we take full responsibility and speak the truth. That's it? That's as far as his transcendent vision stretches? Admirer as I am of the man, this reveals one of his key limitations. It is also why I am a Buddhist. At the top of the hill is liberated consciousness and boundless compassion.
What he said about talking to journalist really makes sense. If you've seen a lot of Channel 4 interviews lately it doesn't seem like the problem were not unique to her, other interviewers do the same thing. Probably the way C4 does things.
Could someone tell me what the significance/rationale of the word "dark" is in "intellectual dark web"?
We do not need to reach maximal personal responsibility, a gradual but consistent increase from a very low base, would be as good as revolutionary in its implications. Freedom is good for you, its just a pity we don't try it more often.
When he spoke about the city of God and personal responsibility i well up inside! Thank you Rebel Wisdom.
I would love to hear Peterson's analysis of Aristotle's ethics, with a look at how it is grounded and the virtues derived.
I am a Careers Adviser, think Rogers and Lazlow as discussed here and JBP discusses Rogers often. We deal with the individual, we never devalue an individuals dreams and aspiratins, we support raising of aspiration and make sure the world is opened up. thats "what will make the individual happy". You can be a retail assitant, an archeologist, the world can be your osyter - please, we must stop looking at "ones" meanging s if living in a desert as less of value than living in a penthouse in London city. There really is more to life than material wealth, to give you meaning, think about it, we must move forward taking the best from the long past to the more recent.
Really great!!
Thank you
I am confused by Peterson's statement that the hierarchy "dispossesses" people who clump at the bottom. What are these people being "dispossessed" of, exactly, by those at the top other than hierarchal status and the accompanying mating opportunities?
He looks jaded. There's a stark difference between how he looks here and how he looked the first time he was on Joe Rogan (/watch?v=04wyGK6k6HE), although this video is much clearer. Fighting the good fight takes its toll.
thats why SJW all lose their long hair, natural hair color and need glasses
He just needs to apply men's moisturiser, that's all. And eat vegs besides his daily take of steak perhaps
Meta M Veggies are what he tried to add back, and the results were a catastrophe. Some bodies work differently, his all beef diet has done miracles for him and his daughter, and no one, including them, knows why. A proper diet appears to be subjective, in part. It has proved its utility for them, and I’m fairly certain that they’re stuck with it now.
So we are rediscovering the virtues of dialogue.
I like how he describes the necessity and roles of the Left and the Right at 21:20
I don’t agree with all his views but I thinks he’s a very smart and interesting man and I’m happy to see he’s looking rested, healthier
I love when JBP goes beast mode, and unleashes scathing and hillarious (because of how accurate it is) criticisms of stupid ideas!! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂Lol
Maslow: I don't get JBP's critique of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. That a rich man has more moral virtue than a poor man according to Maslow’s theory.
Moral is a different developmental line and must not be confused with the line of needs. A monk who has taken the vow of poverty could be superior to a rich man, even though he is very poor.
Maslow’s hierarchy does not claim that a person has to be rich in order to go to the higher needs of love, esteem and self-actualization. He just needs to be sufficiently satisfied and this level of satisfaction is a very individual matter.
Do you see it otherwise?
I'm also puzzling over that part of the interview. I think I have a sense of what he's talking about, but I need to think about it some more.
Didn't understand that bit either. To me Maslow's Pyramid is the graphical representation of Jordan's Hierarchy of Room Cleaning.
Remember that people at the bottom of the needs pyramid are living a life determined by their most base needs. In the space meeting these needs takes up all of the person's time. This person has no time for ethical concerns as they have to worry about what their next meal is. It is only when these needs are taken care of that people start to worry about ethics and the like. Is abortion right or wrong? The person at the bottom might have a default answer but they have no time to deal with all the nuances of this complex issue. It is only when you deal with this complexity that you are doing ethics or have a position based on ethics If I am hungry this question becomes subordinate to my hunger and ending that state.
It's not like the world is lacking resources to give people that time to think. The problem is that resource scarcity actually makes things more valuable, rather than valuing things for other reasons. We are not stupid just because we aren't obsessed with acquisition of goods - what looks to us like just another pathological addiction.
Kenneth Sørensen
It's pretty straightforward. Maslow's theory states that those without the basic needs taken care of, aren't yet moral people, because they have no capacity due to their situation. That's the bone JBP has to pick with the theory. JBP thinks people, regardless of their economic situation, can develop moral character, which runs against Maslow's theory. It's not as if Maslow actually thought, explicitly, that moral character could only be developed in economically well-off people. It's that he didn't account for the inadequacy of his theory, and the implication. Again, that's what JBP is pointing to here. Poor people can be moral too (perhaps even more moral). Maslow's theory, unintentionally, suggests that poor people can't be moral, since they have not hit that developmental criteria yet. It's a pretty gaping hole in his intellectual construct of personal development, like most things which are constructed top-down.
29:55 I love Jordan Peterson but watch out with toothpaste. Flouride calcifies the pineal gland. A healthy pineal gland is something overlooked when maximizing the individual and their ability to operate as enlightened responsible individual. Jordan Peterson refers time and time again about the eye on top of the pyramid as the person who is fully actualised. Well you better not the estimate the fact that the pineal is symbolically respresent by the all seeing eye of Horus.
What are those colorful items in the glass case? 😛
15:10 I don't think it's helpful to paint Harris' defining point of what is "good" as "not a fact". Harris' moral system is based on rationality/logic and every logical system has to be based on something, which is called axioms. Axioms are by definition correct/factual (in that logical system).
If you really want to play this game, then yes, what Harris claims is not self-evident. It's a proposition based on the knowledge of humanity, in particular our ability to suffer. The only self-evident fact is our conscious, i.e. "I think therefore I am". I could easily deny others the ability to suffer, because their suffering isn't self-evident. Maybe I believe there are no others and the whole world is just a dream in my mind.
Point is, you can of course play these philosophical games and make technical arguments like that, but it's not helpful in the context of what Harris is doing.
Appealing to ridicule I could just as well argue that 1+1=2 is "not a fact". Arithmetic has been incredibly useful to humanity, but just as Harris' system of morality, it's technically "not true", "not factual". Even simple statements like "1+1=2" are based on a number of axioms, which Peterson could reject, just like he found Harris' point about "good" meaning "to reduce suffering" not to be factual.
Your Internet Friend harris is just another anti theist hate monger
@Tommy Dolan
I don't see anything wrong with being an anti-theist. This even makes him opposed to hate mongering.
Your Internet Friend hating religion is hate mongering
Your Internet Friend being anti theist is anti reality its hate mongering
Jordan Pieterson saves humanity... a light shines on him as he is lifted into the heavens to the sound of ave maria.
Highly grateful for your videos.
Could you do one on what the right can learn from the good doctor? I don't see the right reflecting on some of the things he says. Like they say inequality is not a problem, poverty is. Whereas he has been clear that inequality in itself can be a problem. They don't seem to grapple with how difficult the abortion argument is. I understand the value of that life that is being taken; but how about autonomy? Doesn't liberty include autonomy? They don't seem to grapple with the idea that it is not possible for all to pull themselves by their bootstraps, especially for the less cognitively sound people.
There are several such things. Could you work on some of that?
Now the question is: what is the difference between the City of God and the Kingdom of God? (if they are the same why use the word "city" instead of "kingdom")
Hey Jordan where'd you get that Coat? That shit is sick.
The ability to respond is a responsibility 😂😇
Materialism is not the problem. Materialism as Meaning is. It is what underlies the materialism that creates the problem. Materialism than becomes another form of hedonism whose harm is accentuated by a need for social recognition (class consciousness). Drugs do not harm people, addiction does. It is not the thing (materialism) but the effect (meaningless).
Good answer to Vanderklay. He is so committed to the evangelistic project that he doesn't fully listen to non-Christians. Although he is quite articulate and his Christianity is quite sophisticated, he and it still lack an appreciation of pluralism in spiritual matters.
Vanderklay does to listen to non-Christians.
You should stop throwing baseless aspersions.
Oh, the preacher listens, but not with complete attention, as Peterson himself indicated. Vanderklay does not appreciate, because his dogma forbids. That is the basis of my observation, which you misconceive as an aspersion. Furthermore, I can live well without your exhortations, which you have no authority to launch.
Jordan Peterson isn't a Christian, but he likes to use Judeo-Christian scripture, terms, and traditions (City of God/Augustine) to make his points. It's perfectly fair for Vanderklay to point out the differences and for JPB to make clear what he means when he uses Judeo-Christian concepts.
Vanderklay is addressing Vanderklay's audience and Vanderklay's sphere of interest: Christians, the Christian world view, and especially Calvinist Christians (because he is the pastor of a Christian Reformed church.) Many Christians, and in particular, many of his own church are interested in JPB. If you watch Vanderklay's first JPB video, he lays out why he is following JPB and bringing his own commentary into the discussion.
For any Christian, there is "spirituality" and then there is Christ. If people want to follow other forms of spirituality, they certainly may, but if you want to (and have committed to) follow that Jesus person actually described in the Bible, then not everything that calls itself "spiritual" is also compatible with that individual, particular person Jesus Christ. Vanderklay is a pastor and an intellectual enjoying the interesting points JPB brings to the intellectual table, while still noting the variances JPB has with orthodox Christianity.
I applaud the good pastor for his efforts though.
MichaelKingsfordGray What's your delusion-free alternative?
Sorry dude I only watch a few minutes when I posted my first response. I came back and hear your response to the last question.
Love Peterson but Maslow hierarchy is more along the lines of eliminating extreme privation than reaching prosperity as baseline for further self actualization
I don't agree with Jordan's point that self-actualization equals moral superiority. I would Define self actualization as the Fulfillment of one's talents and potentialities. In that sense then the rich would have more opportunity to self-actualize.
Jordans face is naked! What happened?!
This City of God is "where everyone bears maximal responsiblity and speaks the truth." Wow. What a great conclusion.
I know Jordans an extremely humble man, but I'd have to disagree somewhat in that I'd say he personally as well as his personality is just as important as the technology.
Responsibility to what or to whom, to self, to the conglomerate or the collective, to mankind? If it is to the self, this would create a shallow world, which is here now. Most people think of themselves, and their first though is I come first, love yourself before anyone else. This is everywhere in the media and self thought books, that show you how to be a better person. The Self. Hardly anyone thinks of the collective or is willing to sacrifice himself for it. In what way can you responsibly, and to what extent, since responsibility can take many form. Yes you can only be responsible for yourself, but responsibility has and essence goodwill. There should a heart involved, there should be something where you can draw life, and positive energy from. Nothing in human nature can be mechanical; if not, there is no to an action.
Impressive. Not dissonant with Catholic Social Doctrine. Morality, veracity, responsibility, and above all charity.
I want to see J.B.P in a conversation with Sadhguru. i would seriously pay 50 bucks to see like an hour of that.
I dont know if the "Good Faith" of Sam Harris is the question. What I want to know isthe following: is there anything in Jordan Petersons worldview that Sam Harris's worldview can't intigrate, contain or appreciate?
JP believes that one has to actually believe in the divinity and supernatural (aka bullshit) aspects of religion to be able to extract its utility.
The 'City of God' trope is curious - the metaphor conveys a meaning that is utopian. Utopia does not lie at the top of the mountain where everyone lives in 'truth' and being enabled to do so, or know the 'truth', by virtue of individual responsibility. The idea is incoherent if what is referred to is St Augustine's work of that name: St Augustine reminded the Romans, who were largely 'self-made' in their propsperity, that whatever success they had achieved was due to the providence of God, even though they were ignorant of Him; and, The City of God, according to Augustine, consists of all human and celestial beings united in their love for God and their seeking to glorify Him (is this the 'truth' Peterson means?).The City of Earth is comprised of those beings who love only themselves and seek their own glory and good (i.e. those who act as free individuals rather than those "who kneel", which is the antithesis of individual responsibility).One does not have to climb a mountain to reach the City of Earth - it is here now, and offers riches to those who look, reminding me of that passage attributed to Christ in an 'unauthorised' gospel, that the kingdom of heaven is spread upon the earth, but men do not see it.
I miss the beard
After all the (above) highly intellectual back and forth, your remark truly made me lol.
you mean highly pseudo-intellectual. I am about sick of hearing the same thing said ad infinitum, it used to be profound, now it's irritating. Just a bunch of people talking to be heard.
JDOE Doe
Truth doesn't change just because you get bored of it. If you're here for entertainment, then you're in the wrong place.
Well, that goes without saying white void... But when the regurgitation flow has become so thick and chunky that everyone gets barf tunnel vision, it drowns out other topics. But hey, these youtube channels need their bread and butter - they will bend to the next topic like soggy bamboo in a downpour.
Why are you still watching JBP stuff, then? Thumbs down a couple of the videos, stop clicking on them when they're suggested, and they'll stop appearing. I agree it gets a bit redundant sometimes, but then I tune it out for a while.
Bear in mind that We the People will ALWAYS be 'smarter than you thought'!
a difference between the two men, in my opinion ... mr peterson, motivated by passion, mr harris, motivated by careerism
1:33 But only in a very narrow, shallow sense. I mean, I can not imagine that you're not aware of the notion of "attention economy", and in this regard, it's still broadcasty. Also, as there's just one mainstream (not to be confused with traditional, old media), it doesn't help if the alternative media becomes the new mainstream, even if it is more fragmented/granular. When it comes to mindshare and popularity, what I see looks pretty much like the traditional mainstreamy model.
3:13 Only some of the people, some of the time, in some places. It's also not really the case in my opinion that it was discovered that "people" smarter than thought, because everybody thinks of himself to be smart and knows or has heard of other people that are smart as well or smarter, but with the Internet, the smarter and dumber ones can more easily find each other and concentrate (for better or worse), if their interests align.
3:24 Uh... the technology is around for a long time, like 50 years by now, but it took this long for people and society to get some clue how it might work, and we're totally far from realizing its full potential. If one doesn't study it in depth, a lot of errors will be made and opportunities missed, as it is now.
9:37 What's the risk of producing a few long-form, non-scripted audio podcasts and see how they're perceived?
21:19 It's not that anarchy is for chaos and against order/hierarchies, it just questions them and, if necessary, rearranges/restructures them. But sure, it has other issues, and probably would still always be left on the spectrum, even if they defend a justified hierarchy, which they tend not to do often in the public, general perception.
25:35 Erm... isn't it self-evident that the rich enjoy more options in regard of what they can pick for self-actualization, if they should choose to? How should the Maslow pyramid make any statement about the quality or enjoyment of the self-actualization? I thought the pyramid is a statement about the sophistication/quality of the levels of needs. My interpretation might be wrong. Anyway, the pyramid is likely not intended to make ethical statements, but the increased opportunities/options for self-actualization obviously lead to a wider range of possible ethical expressions, which aren't of more value in terms of quality/quantity, but we generally like to rather have more and a wider range than a narrow one, to arrive at a greater "richness".
31:40 They oppressed the Tzar and monarchy of course, and the previous owners of the factories, and then everybody who happened to not be Stalin himself. The group identity of the individual (making himself the group), with only one group member. And even an individual can split himself into contradicting victimized and oppressing groups ;-)
Nice chairs!
I wonder how many people come to the Peterson/Harris discussions because they really just want to see Peterson and the only available way to do that in their city is to come to the discussion.
Peterson is so careful not to credit himself with his popularity simply being his Being - that he would not entertain that idea that people are really just coming to see him.
There are a lot of waves in the ocean. His wave is special because he is the one riding it.
Aliza BasMenachem Agreed. His argument that he was simply an early adopter of a new technology is somewhat disingenuous. In my opinion, he’s the wave.
I more less agree with everything JP says here, however, I don’t recall JP ever mentioning the city of god. I completely agree with that take but I just don’t remember him ever mentioning it, let alone mentioning it repeatedly, unless he’s trying to say he’s alluded to this city of god. I think thats more probable
It's a bit more complicated than that.
26:00 Maslow's hierarchy of needs absolutely btfo'd gotta admit that this way of thinking about things is more correct and right. I find the whole hierarchy part to be deceptive and out of balance. The order is wrong.
What about propositions Mr Peterson? Socially Everything is built on propositions. Who decides propositions? The winner!
Institutions that run things are part of the propositions too.
In civilized and non-civilized societies, losers also decide propositions, look at illegal immigration to the western world. Often it is the loser who is taking advantage of the so called winner.