Sam Harris vs Jordan Peterson | God, Atheism, The Bible, Jesus - Part 1 - Presented by Pangburn
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ส.ค. 2018
- #samharris #jordanpeterson #christianity #atheism #pangburn #bible #jesus #god
Join us on Discord here: / discord
(Venue audio issues end at 7:00)
Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson - Vancouver - 1
Moderated by Bret Weinstein
06/23/2018
This is the first time Sam & Jordan appeared live together on stage. This event took place at the Orpheum Theatre in Vancouver BC Canada on June 23rd 2018 in front of a sold out audience of 3000 people. The event was produced by Pangburn Philosophy.
No copyright infringement will be tolerated.
#pangburnlive - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
We gave away 8000 meals this Christmas 😊 Here is the video th-cam.com/video/wd1Qv7AzuBw/w-d-xo.htmlsi=VBwdhN2tbt-DSQvw
Exactly Jordan You can not extract one sentence and isolate it from the rest of the Bible That is the most significant aspect but Weinstein must consider Matt 5 in relationship to wars And Harris need to tie slavery to sex is his problem
Harris again is almost childish not to understand how the old and new interact purposely. Also that Harris who is cavalier about some portions of scripture are written by God while others are written by smart men is incoherent
As a semi truck driver these talks make my 16hr day effortless
Safe journeys bro.
@@spockboythank you
Pay attention to the rd
@@patcummings5778 listening to music or this I prefer this
Right? All I do when i drive is listen to debates and lectures
After carefully analysing both perspectives and most of the axioms upon which the ramifications of their arguments were constructed, I can accurately conclude that they were trying to call each other gay.
😂
lol
If only Valentine could have been the moderator 😂
I feel intellectually compelled not to laugh at this but ...😂😂
@@edom7817 theres always some truth in humor and they never said no homo so...
I wanted to watch this, but first I had to define what I meant by 'Watch' in a post visual hypothetical society. Once I had redefined the word to a point that I could recognise it's value in what was now a quasi religious experience, I discovered that I had rendered language devoid of any real meaning, and had to imagine what was said through a veil of treaties from modernistic idealogues of an imagined apocalypse.
😂😂😂
Haha best comment so far
Haa haa haa thanks > So right on. Their ability to create complexity out of simplicity is staggering!
Clean your room.
Wash your penis.
Haha
Clarity is key to communication, a smart person knows that.
That's what jp clearly lacks
@@Tofuu1311 because he can’t provide a simple answer to a question humanity has been arguing about for thousands of years?
@@AshunshwgarsBlade no because he refuses to present a clear answer.
@@AshunshwgarsBladehe wasn't asked to provide an answer to humanity, he was asked whether he believes something in its literal sense or not. That's not a hard question he just likes to spin it around
Imagine presidential candidates having debates on complex topics like this.
Yes, imagine Trump even just coversing in a civil manner:)
most Americans probably wouldn't even care to see candidates get this deep
I dont think trump and biden have the intellectual capacity to debate topics like this one
Imagine politicians not knowing anything about anything
@@nimim.markomikkila1673 just as unlikely as any other politition just not lying conciously
I had to rewatch this series of debates and listen to Peterson's lectures on Maps and Meaning and his biblical series before I could even attempt to comment, but here goes:
I think the main point that Peterson was trying to convey to Harris was that religion appears to have developed organically over the course of human history as a way to preserve and communicate abstract ideas and concepts that can reduce suffering and promote success in life in those who act them out. He tends to define these ideas and concepts as values (e.g. fairplay, honesty, etc), which we use in our daily lives as a moral compass for our actions. As a personal example, I train jiu jitsu every morning at 6 AM because I value physical fitness, fairplay, and strategy, which I hope will ultimately help me in my endeavor to live a meaningful life. The act of doing something we value is in Peterson's definition, religious. Therefore, he assets that even atheists tend to live a religious life because they act on values that they hold dear to their person.
Harris seems to assert that we as humans, have the ability to extract the same values that Peterson defined without the need for interpretation of the stories in religious texts like the bible. On top of that, he cites that dogmatic and literal interpretation of some stories has shown to be disastrous throughout history-responsible for war and death. There are plenty of examples such as the Inquisition, the anabaptist revolt in Muenster, the Buddhist/Hindu civil war in Sri Lanka, and ISIS. Therefore, I believe Harris concludes that if we can assume that humans can synthesize the "good" values in life without the need for religion, we should- the risk is otherwise too great.
Peterson's counter claim is that it is likely impossible for humans to be able to do away with religion and synthesize our own values. He's cited Nietzsche and post modernists like Derrida or Foucault often, claiming that social systems such as communism fail to address human impulsive tendencies and propensities for evil, which are not values, per se, but are addressed as vital and fundamental parts of most ( I say most because I'm not qualified to assert all) of the world's religions. Therefore, Peterson concludes that there remains significant value in respecting and acting out religious logos because they also help to recognize and reduce acts of malice.
So they're talking past each other, in some sense. I think the real question is: Assuming Peterson and Harris are correct, how can we implement religions without devolving into literal interpretations? I think they found the answer when they agreed to it at the beginning- free and frank speech.
I wonder if anyone will read this....
Great summary of this debate. Thank you.
What's funny to me is that Peterson heavily reference Mircea Eliade, who was a fascist and anti-semite and whose work was later proven to be biased, because among other things it lacked any empirical evidence.
Also I'm just being curious have you read Foucault's Les Mots et les Choses ? Because the way Peterson's use Foucault to prove this point is quite a twist.
Also to claim that religion help recognize and reduce acts of malice is the same thing as claiming that north korea's regime does.
Great summary, I tend agree with Harris more than Peterson. Religion, while it may be beneficial in some situations, poses a much larger threat to humanity as we move forward. It lays foundation for tribalism, asserts outdated moral truths, and allows humans to disregard the importance of this life in preference for the afterlife. I see no reason as to why we must derive a solid moral foundation from a belief system with an all powerful deity at the center.
This summary is so good I'm tempted to not even watch the debate lol
Perfect comment. Your conclusion was pretty much the issue with all these debates. They leave out the "what to do next" question.
Its awesome listening to 2 people that have vastly different opinions, even take little shots at eachother, but at the end of the day respect each other and their view. Refreshing to see ❤
I'm not convinced that they respect each other. They remain polite and civil towards each other, definitely.
@@danielc6106I think you can respect another person without agreeing with him/her.
@@uchicha666 yes of course you can. I jusy don't think they do. At least I get the feeling that Peterson doesn't respect harris as much as the other way around.
@@danielc6106 I tend to agree with you though I would also say that they probably don't respect each others point of view (since they disagree) but they seem to respect each other as people (though again... Sam seems a bit more respectful in that sense, I agree).
Peterson is a narcissistic bellend
Pangburn always puts together the best debates. Im so tired of the opening statement, rebuttal form of debate and this is so much more interesting
Same I think moderated debates like this are much more enjoyable to watch
You know what they’re not great at? Not defrauding participants and hopeful attendees of thousands of dollars
When you're out with the boys and someone mentions the Bible
underated man
Loooool nice one
Coding in Flow - Haha! 😂
@J A limited time and a huge topic. At first, I thought he was acting that way too but then I thought about how prepared he was and realized he just had a lot to say with limited time. He was trying to get to the core of the difference and agree upon the similarities. I don't think it was a good discussion in some ways because of the dodging but he definitely is not demented or absent-minded and that's evidenced by how well he took the time to understand each question and honestly each word.
@J A BS. Harris thinks in pieces. And he's the center of his own religion too.
The winner is anyone who came away from the discussion having sharpened their thinking.
Thabo Tshu so I lost?!!
Aye aye sir, that IS theeee point. Not which speaker won.
I agree to the point this is a subset of all winners ;]
Well, that would make him the loser since the true winner would be anybody who did not need their mind sharpening from this almost completely pointless debate (due to Jordan refusing to answer questions). If your mind was equally sharp before and after this video, then you are the real winner. Yes, it means you didn't learn anything from it... but, there is nothing to learn from this that you shouldn't have already known, in essence.
Thabo Tshuma, By that logic, Jordan Peterson is the winner.
Glad he's come closer to reality.
This is how we should have a discussion or debate. People on the opposite sides should learn more about each other.
I miss this Sam, what a legend!
I feel like they both lost a bit of what they had back when this was recorded.
Sam got better
Everybody gangsta till Jordan Peeterson starts holding an invisible egg.
You'd think Kermit would hold invisible flies instead!
fire!!!
Dude I just laughed so hard, my room mates thought something was wrong
@@bongueta Thanks! I'm here all week :)
please God help me
The winner in this debate is every viewer who learned something from both parties.
Caius Cosades this is most certainly true.
Ah very wise words Solomon!
Put some clothes on Causios and give me a quest to fight bigger foes than rats
@@Lopeirada Bigger than rats you say... There's this guy called crassius...
@Doctor Drywell You just did that yourself, what the actual f-?
Gosh, we are so lucky to live in an age where we can access stuff like this so easily.
Idk why but I found Sam to be especially hilarious in this one. 😂
He is always hilarious
Maybe I’m just stupid but I couldn’t understand anything they were saying to find it funny
@@GeneOridonnDaemon Count yourself lucky / blessed.
@@GeneOridonnDaemon they use a lot of big words but they’re points are pretty basic. Sometime I get lost in their word play it’s tough but if u can stay focused u can dig the bottom line out. Sams not as bad for it. But I hear u man I swear they do it on purpose pretty basic ideasss just lost in word playy
@@codyrodriguez1056 I do strive to one day understand and I articulate words the way Jordan does. I think/feel When he speaks he uses words that have meanings that describe every detail of an idea he has. He talks like a painter paints producing as much detail as possible
Ben stiller really evolved into a well read intellectual.
Hahahahhahahq
Lol good one Mate
I saw ben stiller and immediately thought "oh, there must be a comment about that already". Looked down and the comment showing was this one.
He is very rational, I’m more of a Jordan Peterson guy myself.
@@3stripeboy shouldn't we all.
I always wondered what English sounds like to non-English speakers, so I just watched this video.
@@dennisziabkin9735 The reason he rambles is because he is trying to figure out a response/solution to something that most of the time has no solution in regards to religion. So he goes in circles trying to explain the unexplainable.
@@jimmytimmy3680 I like Peterson, but I have to agree with you. He loves word salad. It's one way of evading a direct response.
@@tcrown3333 i like him too. I have watched most of his videos because they have an inmense utility and has a great intellect. Although, the only thing I dislike is his strong attachment to religion, which, I would say has about 80% nonsense, and he like any religious person, defends 100% of it. That's is when they can't explain the nonsense and they just ramble nonsense too.
@@jimmytimmy3680 HE doesn't even come close to defending 100% of it. Choose your words carefully.
Also a Peterson fan but he definitely plays word games on the topic of religion. Listening to him answer the question "do you believe in God" is cringe inducing.
I loved this. Thank you so much for making it available to me. I love Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson. I especially love that you’ve made this available for me to learn from and grasp new ideas and perspectives to work through my life with. Thank you. And thank you for freedom of speech so I could have access to this.
Lmao chill
@@ontopofbottomhey man, you don’t say that!
"I'm a retard who needs another squeaky retard to tell me to clean my room, because i'm completely retarded"
How could someone possibly love Harris and Peterson they quite literally disagree on everything
@@Impzhahaha Not only that. Sam's a genuinely bright, and decent human being, while Peterson is a squeaky, hateful ghoul who needs to clean his room.
If Jordan were applying his religious method as an astrophysicist, his method for discovering time travel would be to start by saying time travel is real, and then working his way backward through fictional texts to it's discovery
Your analogy is so brilliant that I don't think any other form of diagnosis of JP's falacy could explain it more clearly
👏
@@Ben-bg2lp oh, but he has so many other fallacies. I am still amazed how a human being of a seemingly sound mind and quite logical and argumentative in other areas as JP is, completely sheds all of these tools when it comes to defending religion and goes full blast rogue on logic. I was so glad that Sam unveiled what he did there with JP's eloquent, but basically rant on what his view of god is. He just invented the god that he thinks that would be ok to have, which so many sensible religious people HAVE to do nowadays, because otherwise it makes no sense, except to the fundamentalists which believe exactly what is written. JP simply changed the meaning of what god is. I mean if he questions the resurrection, and all other fix dogmas, automatically he is a heretic. Oh Jordan! This is where you show us your limitations as a human being. And it's natural. We all have limitations. But here he showed it so clearly, that it made himself get pissed off like a child in the last part when the audience appreciated the quality of Sam's piercing argumentation.
@@prematrans7682 In his books and lectures he explicitly admits it is not clear to him what truth is! He gives the example where telling an ugly person "you're unattractive" is not telling the truth, which sounds nice but is extremely treacherous. There he's giving himself permission to basically tell what he considers to be white lies.
Now consider that he admits in both Vancouver and London that stupid people need religion (he caveats it in London with the smoke screen that "but we're all stupid🙄") because not everyone is capable of having a moral compass based in reality. These two evidences substantiate to me that he DOES NOT BELIEVE IN A GOD, but is compassionately appeasing to the majority stupid populus in the hope to keep them in line.
This is the kind of evil who created religion in the first place in my estimation. The wealthy who need to maintain the status quo (1 Peter 2:18), preventing the people from coming to the conclusion that they have nothing to lose but their chains.
This is the same reason why he is against Universal Basic Income by taxing the top tax bracket; not because it can possibly cause inflation, but because"if you keep giving people free money, they'll do drugs and alcohol". Something you'd hear from a man who has never been worried about making rent.
I have always found it funny that JP uses fiction books as if they were facts, and I'm not talking about the bible, which we all know is fiction 😂
Physics and Ethics are very different fields. Physics has to be tackled from a strictly literal point, whereas ethics don’t because ethics is an abstract concept. I can’t see any other way to explore abstract concepts than to create scenarios where they might be applied and exemplified, and, in fact, there would be no compelling fiction if exploring the nuances of ethics wasn’t a frequently employed story element.
I’m guessing Sam Harris is your guy. Why can’t you take a page from his book and be respectful to your idealogical opponents instead of being condescending and smug?
I think the tendency to pick sides between these two is a mistake. Harris is correct that religious fundamentalism carries the potential for serious danger and must be kept in check. Peterson is right that pure, unadulterated logic is not a sufficient ground for establishing universal ethics. The proper takeaway isn't to choose a side here, in my opinion. The proper takeaway is to be grateful that these two men are able to discuss these things in a rational, intelligent manner and that we are all lucky enough to learn from it. The world needs both of these men.
Cahya I didn't say I don't have a preference, I said that the tendency to draw tribal lines is unfortunate
Doctor Bringus - It's a bad way to approach any learning endeavour. If you take sides it's as though you are working from a preconceived conceptual framework that is rigid and dogmatic and it becomes difficult to allow new information in. It's quite ironic because it's the very thing both of them warn against.
I don't necessarily think it's bad to pick sides-after all, Jordan and Sam are on different sides, themselves-problems arise when either side is denied the right to speak, or when whole lines of dialogue are (dogmatically) closed off, etc.
Cahya you think you're smart because you can make a generalization about comments that maybe similar. Similarity doesn't guarantee the same intent or meaning. Just because his comment is similar to others that argue against taking sides, doesn't mean they are all trying to accomplish the same things. Way to add to the conversation!
Cahya really? That straw man is the best you can do?
You know the moderator is good when you forget that he's there
However, it's only possible when the participants are civil though, and themselves understand the idea of an actual debate.
So, it goes both ways I guess.
or the participants
The moderator was barely there in the Trump debate, and look what happens
Yeah, the guy is an actual genius
You know the moderator is good when he’s Bret Weinstein
Both of these guys are great. I appreciate both. Having followed the four horsemen for years and being a fanboy of Christopher Hitchens, Sam cut his teeth with that great man albeit no one will ever hold a candle to Hitch. Jordan Petersons invocation of religion to explain his points were lost on me and were jarring due to being an atheist, but I am starting to understand that he more sees it as a framework from which truths and values can be arrived at. From this point of view I am starting to appreciate the view point. From a growth mindset point of view, I absolutely love JPs work. I think you all need to check your biases and understand they are both explaining worthwhile content and both can in many ways be true at the same time. Listen.
Agreed I also think JP's ideas could be lost on people who haven't heard his previous content. For me his thought process is like nothing i've heard or read before. It's a work in progress which is why he doesn't have an answer to every question.
@@leannerasmussen2533 read some Dostoevsky, i know he talks about it all the time but Peterson was clearly so hugely effected by that man and his works that I think even he can’t always get it across.
And Nietzsche and Jung also, obviously. But his philosophy is almost perfectly overlapping with the one Dostoevsky sort of puts forward / examines in his works.
Jordan explained very well how god selects which sports team will win the league, and Sam explained very well that one sports team will win the league whether god exists or not
you're breaking it to your audience?
conversation does not require applause
Highly agree, applauding when both sides are open to each other simply conversing to find an agreement is 100% unnecessary and it only does a disservice to the ones having the conversation
Totally agreed. Applause seems to indicate that there is a competition going on. This is meant to be a collaboration. I prefer Sam Harris' work to Peterson's, but I take no glee when Sam makes a solid point that might run contrary to Peterson's ideas. I just genuinely want to hear what Peterson's response might be... because maybe he has an answer to it. This tribalistic bullshit needs to stop.
Most people are self centered, emotional and impulsive, or a combination of a multitude of other unattractive traits. They can get excited when they feel like it was their idea, or speaks to their personal philosophy, a nod to their intellectual prowess. The fact that they aren't on the stage emotionally pressures, like an addiction, their desire to be a part of the debate. They applaud for self validation of their own awesomeness. Applauding during an intellectual discussion, or debate is extremely unattractive, distracting, selfish, and entirely unhelpful to what these titans are trying to accomplish for humanity. In summation, applause at a debate is poopy crap.
you people are sad
Yeah! Like those people was watching a wrestling match rather than intellectual arguments between two perfectly valid points of view
The audience made it sound like a damn sitcom
frankly id rather have a crowd cheering to philosphical talk and being invested than in a sitcom lol
@@KaP0401 Emil is a male name genius.
Thanks for clarifying the Atheistic position further
The left brain 🧠 vs the right 🧠 brain
The debate will never be resolved since The fundamental premise of Atheism is (1=0)
So it seems that Peterson
Was left brain(1) and Harris(0)
Since they couldn’t agree completely so Not (=)
That’s true mathematically (1=/=0)
Now at one point in the debate even Harris said “that I can even accept” on God
Thefore only once for a few seconds they both become fully rational (1=1)
I feel sorry for Jordan he had to try so hard to make it happen(Respect him for that)
He sure is an open minded guy who can pull you out of you Extreme point of views
(In this case Harris’s denial of God)
this is pure gooki wacky belony, the cookiest weirdest illogical logical statement i’ve saw. This has to be a joke ...
Please remember to subscribe! :)
I do love the conversation. I do wish our politicians would discuss issues this deeply and thoughtfully.
Jordan had Sam on the ropes when he said he was doing his mom. But that comeback with "my dad can beat up your dad!" from Sam was S tier.
Clearly Sam’s mom disagrees how tough his dad is lol
when is this
@@middleofdecember9862💀
@@Oppenslimer i thought they said that as a joke
@@middleofdecember9862 It's fine dude it was just really funny
I don't like it when the audience mistakes an intellectual discussion with a rap battle.
Wait, this wasn't rap?
Lol
I'm hoping somewhere, someone is dubbing this debate with a beat
It's all about your team winning.
Some of us enjoy debates the way others enjoy sports or rap battles
I’m blown away that we can watch this for free..
I do it everyday
Because it’s not worth more than that.
@@sarahmcbeth9156 What do you mean?
@@sarahmcbeth9156 it's worth your time to get online,watch the debate and the leave a shitty comment on youtube you lifeless dumbass
@@alirezadoroudi9126 how could have possibly known that it not worth than free, without listening to it first?! The fact that dumb fucking losers like you are their fans proves my point. Now STFU
I can watch this 100 times
Jordan Peterson is delightful and his style of debate is playful and not too serious. He gave Sam credit where credit was due and agreed when appropriate. He's a gentleman debater, nice bow to Sam Harris to end the debate. Thoroughly enjoyed this.
Sam harris: Own it
Audience: Claps
Jordan Peterson: Why are you clapping
Audience: *Claps*
great great discussion, bad bad audience. cheering is not for debates like these. thinking is
'coz audience is stupid
Where is that sir? Time
audience dont want face rreality they wanna live fanticy and that why these people like claping on who told story prince and princess sty in dream live dream and end is u dont want open eyes them u see in the end u fucked up
Sure, I can see the clapping as a nuisance, but "own it" was a very important statement made by Harris. It is the central crux to which these two men disagree on, and if the audiance is going to applause for "well you're 2/3s of the way to creating heaven and hell" they damn well better applause for Harris calling Peterson out for using words that dont mean to him what they mean to literally everybody else on earth. Wether you believe in god or not, the word God means a supernatural phenomenon at the very least, and Peterson is unwilling to admit that, which is why Sam asked him to own it. Instead "what do you mean own it? I was clear, and I wont answer because I need 40 minutes to answer" In so many words.
Brett: "You've got two minutes."
Jordan: "Well it depends on what you mean by minutes."
Sean Haggard lol
lmao
Such an oversimplification time as a linear progression disregards the metaphysical substrate upon which the reality of self referential and fundamentally subjective time measurement...
@@williamedstrom5681 Are you quoting empty vessel Jordan Peterson,
or are people beginning to sound like him???
Yes - his digressions are irritating after a while...
No matter what your beliefs are, and who you support; we all are (if good faith and honesty mean something) capable to recognize that they are both prime examples of respectful, heartfelt and honest intellectuals.
Benzo Jordanson is none of those things.
Right
As a teacher, a father and a theologian fascinated by humanities phycological desire for theology and also humanities desire to move beyond theology and God. I thank Jordan and Sam for celebrating the power of 'the dialectic'. This is a celebration of what we are capable off, what we should strive towards, respectful discorce, respectful argument and the desire to gracefully move forward rational debate and provide our children the ability it find there voice and start there journey towards there own debate, there own 'dialectal' journey.
I've never watched a debate between two intellectuals and thought...Thank god the moderator is here to provide an interpretation.
He did a great job.
@Amey Tiwari what does back then means?
@Amey Tiwari
I think Sam declared they don't exist.
@Amey Tiwari
I don't waste any time on him.
I learned like 10 new words listening to this
Dogma dogma dogma dogma
Ten synonyms for "like"? Wow!
Here are some- breed, class, description, feather, genre, ilk, kidney, kind, manner, nature, order, sort, species, strain, stripe, type, variety
Not sure where "feather" fits in...
But I hope that you breed remember them instead of class using "like" in every sentence. And I hope your high-school graduation will go OK.
Phantasmagoria.
Is that just because the other 100 big words you've never heard before just went over your head like they did mine?
Can you list the words you learnt?
Sam Harris is so effective that he even inspires Jordan Peterson sufficiently that he starts to become comprehensible.
Jordan Peterson has always been comprehensible, presuming that your vocabulary is wide enough to understand his word choice. He is incredibly clear and precise, perhaps the most so that I have ever heard speak.
@@alyssamiles2909 he speaks religious gobbledigooookkk
@@alyssamiles2909 It's comprehensible, sure, but it doesn't align with reality is the issue.
I'll paraphrase how Hawking puts it, "Philosophers have not taken science sufficiently serious, and as such Philosophy is not longer relevant to knowledge claims."
In math this occurs as well, where math can be done that's really nice and pretty, but serves next to no practical purpose outside of being really satisfying.
Peterson says a lot of things that simply get cut out by Hitchen's, Einstein's, and Occam's razor.
@@DiamondMcNamara so you're theologically illiterate? is that what you're saying?
@@gabehart3085 ONE NATION UNDER ZEUS. In Zeus we trust. Zeus bless you, Gabehart, so help me Zeus.
Weinsteins instinct to spot logical inconsistencies is really useful here.
Does saying shit like this make you feel animated?
Dude, what?
LMAO
I knew he'd be really good for it too as soon as I saw him with Peterson on Rogan's podcast.
Scotty's Bottom are you trying to say his comment only has the purpose of trying to portray himelf as smart?
and you thought you were having deep, well articulated conversations with your friends, drunk at 5am
HAHAHAHAHAHA
So damn true lmfao
Guilty as charged
I slam bitches pussies out!
Lol yes
Huge fan of Sam Harris ❤
But could you imagine Christopher Hitchens va Jordan Peterson or Christopher Hitchens vs Ben Shapiro.
Christopher would have the audience laughing their butts off the whole time 😂
RIP Hitch. It's the Three Horseman now, does Dennett still debate with religious nutjobs?
Hitchens had an accent I found hard to understand.
It’s called English, spoken by someone who was English.
I think I’m starting to comprehend more deeply the idea that “God made us into his own image” much more of a self defining roadmap to eliminating/diminishing personal suffering. Sam seems to accept there’s perfectly logical psychological truths in the text but also argues that the roads in which the texts are paved on manifest malevolence, which is also true.
Jordan’s literary background, as well as psychological background, make for this discussion with Sam so fruitful.
Having enough knowledge to sustain a debate like this for hours on end must be an intellectual goal of life. There are a very few select number of people alive who can do it. By 'it' i mean debating on philosophically deep ideologies and notions. Here i am, on my bed, trying to write this comment with as much literary flair as possible, waiting for my noodles to cook.
Were the noodles
any good?
@@_gongon Yes they were. The trick is to know what spices to add in addition to the packaged flavouring
Ey, I ate noodles while watching this too.
@@memeswereablessingfromthel3942 Lämp
@@h0axyboi486 REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
The interviewer was asking the right questions at the right moments, i enjoyed his eloquence
Its Bret Weinstein, a brilliant man himself
He is quite possibly the brightest guy in the room and to me the easiest to listen to lecture
That guy is a master speaker!
Having Bret Weinstein as your moderator is like having Gordon Ramsay as your waiter
I believe bret, to be a literal genius.
The question regarding religious totalitarianism versus secular totalitarianism by Peterson was the pinnacle of this discussion.
it's crazy how much I love the type of communication sam and jordan manage to achieve.. so much understanding of the other, respectful teasing, the ability to go in and out of various types of metaphors / wordings.. the *best*
When I speak like that, my mother tells me it makes me seem unapproachable. 😭
I think Ben Stiller made some good points.
Which one is Ben Stiller?
This cracked me up :D
Unfortunately I was having a mouthful of salad in my mouth when I read your comment. Now I`m cleaning it off the monitor...
BEN STILLER GOT WOKE
Hahahahaha. Never saw the resemblance till now lol
One of the few talks where the moderator is as intelligent as the interviewees and where he is truly able to summarize the positions of both in a common context. Compliments!
Isn’t that Bret Weinstein? He’s an intellectual as well
Bret Weinstein has an interview with Joe rogan where mr Peterson is present too.
I agree wholeheartedly. I had to research him. I appreciate his presence so much.
Truly.
If you're going to moderate a discussion between peterson and harris then you better be an intellectual. Bret and his brother Eric are highly intellectual.
Best discussion I’ve heard. Loved the moderator, I didn’t know about him before. Absolutely loved and agree w Sam and I’m glad to see Jordan being more clear than ever maybe. Thank you for a great experience ❤😊
What an opening! Like Rockstars 😊
I enjoyed hearing both Harris' and Peterson's points of view. But I was really impressed with Brett Weinstein's ability as a moderator here.
Yes Brett deserves a credit too
The man is a genius in his own right
This is "so what you're saying" done right. Not used to attack but used to understand the position of the person you are having a conversation with.
Well using it to attack often times also works by constructing a straw man of the original argument, by making the original argument weeker and then debating it. However its not a very glorious way to win a discussion.
So what you're saying is that these individuals should stop letting each other walk all over each other and defend their points with irrational conviction...
unlike radical leftists
@@awesomebydefault3877 Modern "iNtTelKShUalS" are masters at bastardizing the Socratic method and using cheap reciprocation to simply confuse you into conceding rather than actually making their own point. That's not what Peterson did here. He took control of the entire debate QUICK in the first two minutes by placing the burden of truth on Harris. No trickery. No unwarranted aggression. No word twisting. No insults. No sarcasm or snark. I see nothing wrong with it. All he did was put Harris in a place where he has to defend his book.
Thank you two Gentlemen for the thought-provoking discussion. The difference between Mr. Peterson and
Mr. Harris is: I like how Mr. Peterson says things, and I like Mr. Harris for what he has to say.
This kind of debate only happens when both parties have the skill and intellect to debate and present ideas clearly and with respect. Too many times one side doesnt have the required skill or persuasiveness and often resorts to repeating the same argument or insulting the other side. Sam and Jordan are modern day titans, a joy to watch
That's true. Very civil and calm debate unlike the political debates where both politicians and journalists scream.
How dare they hold these philosophical discussions without Kanye.
Mrs. Lisa Williams hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
i knew it was missing something
Lol brilliant
Kanye 2024
Finally someone with some good sense! Hahaha
I recently heard that Kanye has never read a book. I can't even imagine life without great literature.
This is how I had assumed adults debated and decided on things in a civilized world.
shame it's far from truth
It's Canada.
Yes, the truth hurts. People are idiots.
@@LLindo No the red pill is that 'most regular adults' can't even comprehend what they are saying.
leigh5050 very rare though
I'm playing a drinking game where I take a drink where JP wiggles his fingers while talking, or says "hierarchy", "axiom", or "presuppositions".
Don’t forget “Dictum”
Sam: made a good point
Jordan: i agree with you, but...
Sam: made a good point
Jordan: i agree with you, but...
Jordan's urge to make everything more complicated than it is, is an attrition tactic on his part.
He dilutes and obfuscates simply not to be forwardly countered. I don't appreciate the approach, but I'll give him the fact that it's like watching Ali juke and dodge, bob and weave punches against the ropes.
Maybe the truth is in fact complicated
Wouldn’t be much of a debate if they agree on everything
Clean your room. Wash your penis. Nuff said
It is quite easy to ask the questions why things are the way they are and raise criticism which is exactly what Sam is doing and it is more than complicated to give accurate explanation and evidence as to why things are the way they are which ;Jordan is trying to do so perfectly. If you listen closely you'll understand that Sam is just asking questions and criticizing the way things are which is easy to do while Jordan is trying to give explanation, an answer and a possible justification at least to the way things are which is way more difficult and complicated than you can possibly think
Whoever put this together, recorded it and released it... helped more people than they realize.
"Please, do not recored this" 😅
Intellectualizing is another good way to distract yourself.
The ether that takes place allows you to be more self serving.
@@inhisname8395 Literally not related to the comment at all
It help me realise that sam dont have enough knowledge about Islam.
@@asifurrahamansajon8777 Islam, like any religion, does not hold any knowledge.
All one can know is that it's bullshit.
It doesn’t matter “who won” what matters is that these topics are being conversed in a healthy, mature and intellectual way like so.
not at all, sam's argument was based on solid logic, JP was full of subjective crap.
So TRUE, I am getting tired of all the videos out there with titles like "Jordan destroys X" or "Whoever owns Y", it's not the point to see who wins what, it's a matter of getting closer to the truth or reason.
Yep! Thank you
@@jessieg5877 why are you even commenting this.. it only shows you have tunnel vision.
I believe you are right about decrying the notion that "winning" is what's important in this conversation. After all, it's technically not a debate. However, it does matter who has the better ideas, and anyone who comes out of this conversation thinking that JP had the better ideas is just deluding themselves. One of the main problems with JP and Shapiro is that they fancy themselves as intellectuals and thought-leaders, but they have one foot in rationality and one foot in ancient dogmatism. When they debate or have a conversation with someone like SH, that issue gets put on full display. Jordan was floundering on stage like a fish out of water when he was put into a position of defending the bible's abhorrent stance on slavery. At this point, anyone who still looks to JP for insightful, compelling rhetoric is sadly being sold snake-oil. This is the man who said on Joe Rogan's podcast that he didn't sleep for twenty-five days because he drank apple cider. Fucking apple cider, folks. He said that he had a feeling of impending doom because of an allergic reaction to sulfites and did not sleep for nearly a month. This man has a PhD for fuck's sake. Joe even gave him a chance to clean up what he said and walk it back as an exaggeration. He didn't budge. This is the man that people who detest so-called "beta males" look to for insight. What is more "beta male" that being taken down for a month by fucking apple cider? This guy is a carnival barker of the highest order.
A wonderful demonstration of the art of conversation that is so rare between differing points of view.
Ben Stiller here is a very smart person, I had no idea… and so is Canadian Willem Dafoe.
JP: "What's all the applause about?!"
Crowd: *Applause*
This debate should have been held now, with covid-19 restrictions taking the audience away...
I’d much rather take you’re wife away
I agree, the audience is annoying
Wouldn't be possible. Peterson's been extremely sick for quite some time.
@@dumbass0621 do u know what caused him to be sick?
@@user-cr5yv5ho2i Benzodiazapine withdrawal. Look up his youtube channel, a few months ago he posted an update with his daughter interviewing him. They explain a lot of it.
Sam can answer a question , or make a point, in a sentence or two. JP never does either, he just goes round and round! It’s meat and potatoes versus a pretty, but non- nutritious word salad!
In other words you hear goo goo gaga and go yay! Too many words bad!
2:05:15
First time in about a decade of study that I have heard someone accurately explain the intuitive essence of existence properly
I spilled alfredo sauce on my shirt while watching this. I’ve never felt more stupid than in that precise moment.
Balanced as all things should be.
Not a white shirt then?
@@robosing225 haha
😂😂😂
I was scrolling and reading comments... and this one was unparalleled.
I don’t like the applause. I just want to listen to these men have an intelligent conversation.
Cmon they’re a fraction of the video
Gottado St personally, the length at which the applause happens does not generally matter, interruption of the discussion though... I do not like. I agree that they are a small amount of the video but they without fail happen after Jordan or Sam state their case of respond to one another.
The tribal christianity-herd. Simple as that. Hopeless 😩
Alls Greta , I hear that Sam Harris tribe clapping away too..
Too bad.
1:27 Moderator: "... We are existing in a moment when all of the systems that have helped us make sense are breaking down."
you have 80-90 years in this universe put it to the best
a two hour lecture/discussion between top scholars with over 2million views. that's wonderful! we're not all lost after all
Adriano Muricy About half the viewers believed Sam was right so were still pretty lost.
@@joeyherp6257 about half the population looks at TH-cam makeup artists as role models and they get 30+ million views in hours. That's a little scarier then the people here agreeing with Sam.
BR?
Well, not really top scholars lol, just popular speakers. Sam Harris is regarded by actual philosophers as a hack (not because they dislike his "profound ideas" or he rattles cages somehow, but because he's just bad at doing philosophy and makes bad arguments). Plenty of discussions on both of these guys as far as philosophy goes on r/askphilosophy (because people love asking questions about them there...)
Harris is a good book writer, Jordan Peterson is a good psychologist and presumably respected in his field, but neither is a top scholar of anything along the lines of what they seem to be talking about here, e.g. ethics, religion, etc.
@@joeyherp6257 Aww look at you.. typical of a Jordan Peterson fanboy.
these are the kind of conversations me and my friends would have in high school when we would get high and go to Denny's, except we thought we were much smarter then we really we're
XD
Have a great day ahead of you! 😄
God Bless! Stay strong, stay safe and take care of yourselves! Wishing everyone the best! 😇 💗
for sure, then you keep having them. and if you keep learning and growing, they'll get even wilder than when you were kids. never stop wondering, nor dreaming, even when you're old. life is empty without it
Always strive to have conversations like this with people smarter than you
You should listen to it when you are high, it makes sense a lot more
@Henry-Bart why do you exist
loved this discussion. I think I am more of a Spiritual believer than focused on God although I have often been on my knees praying to a Higher Being many times. It's hard to defend the Bible. However I look at society and we cant agree on so many issues. I think it's a good thing or at least beneficial to hold oneself accountable to a higher being or maybe some would call it a conscience.
I realized that I've never really had a conversation.
Man that's deep. But still you can begin the process today. It's an amazing thing to open your life up to, and your relationships will improve.
The fact that a video like this has 3.1 million views (July 2020), actually makes me very happy and hopeful about today’s modern society and admiration for genuine hunger towards truth.
Not enough.
But the real question is how many of them watched the entire video.
Totally agree!
isn't that like 0.05% of our specie?
It makes you happy that debates are seen as entertainment nowadays? Great...
Yes.
Found you. Be nice :D
Nice! Can't wait...
*No*
Because it's unlisted.
@Z Rhoads If you don't think Pengburn is gonna copystrike him, given how greedy they are - and considering how even Shapiro striked his videos, I've got bad news for you buddy.
sometimes you have to take one and fight it for the greater good
There are simple truths, unfortunately when they are over complicated, everything becomes complicated!
Their conflict could've easily been mended:
Sam was fundamentally saying that people blindly believing their own interpretation of religious dogmas is not a good thing.
Jordan felt as though Sam thus did not attribute any deeper meaning to the scriptures as a whole, and started defending their perhaps deeper psychological significance.
Which Sam, as stated by them in the argument, also subscribes to.
So they really didn't have conflicting ideas, they we're simply discussing the idea within different contexts.
Jordan choosing the context of psychological significance and Sam choosing the context of unavoidable mass-misinterpretation.
Yess exactly
Felt the same to me
True
The moderator is amazing. After one hour of back and forth discussion he just steps in and in 5 minutes makes everyone agree.
well that's because it's not just any moderator, it's Bret Weinstein, someone who i'd easily put on the same level of the other two intellectually.
They dont disagree..... at all... peterson just has an issue saying GOD IS NOT LITERALLY REAL SORRY TO EVERYONE THAT THINKS HE IS HE JUST ISNT. BUT the bible has alot of amazing stories we could all learn valuable moral lessons from and we should take those to heart... but no jesus is not coming back to save you and god is not listening and answering you and hes not "Watching you"... this isnt really as difficult as they keep trying to make it..
@@LWKGDfan that wasn't my point
@@maksympt1 i wasnt saying what i said directed against your comment it was more of the fact adding that he didnt have to really make them AGREE they do already basically its just a weird denial that peterson has to where he doesnt like to just say straight up that god as people generally see god isnt the god that he believes in nor is it beneficial to do so..
@@irohsang7601 thats what i already said above..
I really hate this format of debate with cheering crowd like it’s a sporting event
I've come to realise that it seems to just be the american way.
@@Sl4gyster vancouver is in canada
@@Sl4gyster it’s almost impossible to keep people quiet unless you’re at Carnegie hall lol. There’s no issue with ppl expressing their support/lack there of thru clapping and cheering for small bits of time. It feels like an actual discussion because humans have passion. Before you twist my words, things shouldn’t be based in emotion when debating facts. That’s clearly not what I’m saying.
@@Sl4gyster do you know geography? Must be an American thing to know geography
@jsauce 93 I don’t know if I would assign that as an American thing. Have you ever seen a British parliament debate?
JP seems to hide behind verbally complex sentences and terms to avoid answering philosophical questions than need answering. I agree with a comment I read about JP's "word salads" (cracked me up, thanks!). The issues that are being discussed here are already complex, so they need more clarity, not more verbal overcomplication. We get it Jordan, you're smart and your vocabulary is amazing, but these issues have to be put as simply as possible, as a matter of fact they concern the majority of the World's population, not only intellectuals such as yourself.
As a JP fan, that is a great critisism
I don't know what debate everyone saw but I see that Jordan Peterson kinda won the debate. At first Sam seemed to have him cornered by pointing out some of the horrors depicted in The Bible, but I don't know, in the end he was just rambling and couldn't really counter Peterson's arguments, raising more questions than answers.
I feel that he just wants to convince everyone that God does not exist while Jordan is just making the case for religion, regardless of it's negative aspects which he reckognizes.
Even so, I found Sam contribution very enriching and thought provoking.
I have to stop reading the comments.
Damn I really needed this one
Thanks
I’m just gonna be the fourth person to agree and say thank fuck you said that xD this video is just dangerous for so many to be watching haha
I got to here, and now I need to stop reading comments and keep trying to learn from these guys.
Thank you for tue remainder.
Thanks bro
Can you all let me know what the comments are mostly about?
90's Quality Cameras, Constant Feedback Humming on the Background.
That's the exclusive and high priced Pangbumm quality.
It's the Pangburn philosophy!
,.,.,I'm not even sure what point Sam is attempting to make here. that we can derive morals from nihilism/atheism? that abandoning religion is supposed to make it a better world? that his criticisms of religion and its social consequences somehow disprove the existence of god? I mean clearly, atheistic communism is responsible for over 150+ million deaths in a small fragment of the 20th century. clearly, secular governments and motives are responsible for far more deaths and misery in history than primarily religious motives. Sam Harris' arguments work well on the uninformed, they're hypothetical ideas kind of like ideas of Utopia are hypothetical that don't translate into reality. but I can see how mouth foaming clueless atheists support him, they're man-children that haven't cleaned up their room, going after a TJ Kirk template. Sam is a great wizard with words, that makes useless, simplistic and irrelevant analogies to compare against complex problems.,.,...........
Andrew P you’ve really missed the point if that’s your conclusion of Harris, are you needing to cling to your god that tightly in order to be so blind?
Pure ASMR.
better than nothing
In my search for truth and proof on either sides of the coin, I enjoy these videos and conversations. The ability to see both sides with an intelligent point of view is much more impactful than maybe 30 yrs ago or more!
This is one beautiful discussion to watch
About the holy people that are so worshipped because of the effect they had, you don't need to be holy for that. When I was 12 and a very depressed angry emo kid, I got pulled out of that because of the loving and caring attitude of 1 female friend, I think it's people who can spread that love can have a profound effect on people.
I'm honestly not trying to be rude, but you're way on the surface level of interpretation of Petersons arguments.
He's talking about our intuitions about good, what is good, what makes humans inclined to do good things? Or bad things ofc.
He's saying that the thing that drives humans to do good is the internal intuitive belief that the survival and well being of as much humans as possible, for as long as possible is what good is. But why are we driven towards survival and we'll being? Why doesn't humanity just kill itself off? It's because there's something in us, there's something in our minds that tell us, that knows that things are supposed to be a certain way.
What is it that drove your friend to support you and to help you? You're saying she was a good person, but what drove her to do that? Peterson is saying that she was acting in a way that that suggests she believes in a greater power, and that there way a purpose behind her actions.
Other than how phenomenal this discourse is, it's so nice to see intellectual, even-tempered people in the comments. It's a very rare thing on the internet.
It would be even nicer if people would Honor their example of Civil Discourse by the usual Human Nature way of EMULATION.🤓😎
o i can change that if u want XD
Just pointing that out means you have a toxic mentality. Sad but true.
🙄
Who asked ya?! Lol! Just kiddin
Man this is the first time I saw JP actually getting excited talking to someone and challenged! Love to see
You should see his conversation with Russell Brand on the podcast "under the skin"
Matt Dillahunty exposed him as the pseudo-intellectual he is.
@@charlescheeseborough298 Be careful picking a fight with JP fans, they’ll viscously defend him to the death in all the stupidest ways.
@@Giosue3465 I know. Lol
@@Giosue3465 kind of like Sam Harris fans 🤷🏻♂️
This is the greatest discussion I’ve ever heard.
Listening to them just solidifies the meaning of yin and yang everything exist while nothing exist at the same time. Persoective is what brings everything to life through the "lens" of consciousness perciving itself as seperate from itself while still being connected through "notingness"
These sorts of discussions are so profound, that I can happily blame my procrastination on them
Couldn't say it better man
Absolutely, what could possibly be more profound than the Supernatural?
The objects of professional finders.
I meant to respond sooner.
The audience seems to clap at the most anticlimactic of times, almost like they don't understand when someone has made a valid point. If it takes Jordan and Sam 5 seconds or so at least to think through what the other has said, I doubt everyone in the audience has figured out if what was said is correct almost instantly. I suspect they don't really understand what is being said, but just clap if it sounds like a good point is being made. It makes me cringe at some points.
HappyGhetto the applause in general sort of bothers me. It sounds like drunks at an rock concert or something, not an attentive audience at a debate.
They're thinking of a response not if it is a valid point. I like the applause.
You could have done a better job of making this point.
@Antonio deCarmoducci I don't think that, and I never said that. I just noticed that the clapping was weird and out of place, and it frames the debate like an intellectual MMA fight where there needs to be a winner and loser instead of just two smart people having an interesting and productive conversation.
@@GeorgeKiernan awesome
Peterson would be better understood if he spent more time making his point and less time framing it.
Yes, it is more difficult to think for youself.
Considering how important these guys are, one would think the sound engineering would be better.
I literally was going to say the same thing until I saw your comment.
Or that there wouldn't be a missing pixel near the center of the frame (pretty sure whoever had the camera on Jordan has a camera with a busy image sensor)
@Janusz Reguła collar mic with a noise gate, about £20 would be fine also,,
@Janusz Reguła You're obviously not very versed in sound engineering if you can't hear that all of the audio is side stereo information, there's nothing in the middle and that's why it sounds the way it does. A pop filter would LITERALLY do nothing. You probably just said that because that's the only "sound engineering" tool you know of. Dude you need to learn , its okay to just say nothing if you don't know what you're talking about
@Janusz Reguła "A simple pop filter would go a long way." No it wouldn't, there's no "esses" or over dynamic consonants in the audio. Also you can not attach a pop filter to a hand held microphone, all pop filters attach to a stand. Your argument is completely null.
These guys must've burned many calories by thinking so deeply and articulating their (very complex) thoughts so eloquently. Truly amazing..
Nah the new atheists just mock and make fun not really a debate.
You cant put Harris on nearly the same level as Peterson.
In fact, smart people burn less calories when they do mental work....
Read to while listening to Sam say "You want to end this on masturbation!?"
The brain uses a very stable amount of calories (Around 100g glucose, which is 400 kcal per day. Or around 17 kcal per hour). No matter if u think a lot and solve complex problems or not. The rate of energy usage by the brain is quite stable. This is because your brain is always working and processing. For example: When u are just walking, the brain interacts with the nervous system, which controls all your movements. When u are sleeping your brain processes and stores all the things experienced during the day.
There is a small variance in the energy rate the brain uses. But not a noteworthy difference.
@@renedaniels9195 That's interesting, but probably applies on the average (non-stressful situations). The reason I bring it up is, for example, there are studies on how grandmasters burn up to 6k calories in a chess tournament per day. You can draw parallels to how this debate is like a chess match of two minds.
Sam won that debate hands down
Jordan spent three minutes describing steelmanning. He could have also called it Augustinian argument. The reference he made was typically an over-complication of a simple idea.