Stefan Burns, I've really wanted to see them have a talk for quite some time now as well. I have great respect for the two of them. Both are individualists in their own right.
I am an Objectivist that admires Jordan Peterson. This debate for me, more than anything, throws into stark contrast the malevolent versus benevolent universe premise at the foot of each argument. These participants have reached much the same conclusions on many of the things discussed here. The source of those conclusions vary of course. Peterson talks of taking responsibility and living rationally to stave of the chaos and pain of existence. Where Objectivism talks of taking responsibility and living rationally in order to maximise the joy of existence. So to speak. Thoughts?
I agree with you, and appreciate your insight. Personally, I have found Dr. Peterson's view very helpful to address the holes in my thinking, and to engage with the shadow or suffering that we all face, rather than look only toward joy and pleasure.
I agree, Peterson believes in God and the values taught by the bible but in the end ends up at the same place as an objectivist for the most part. The differences are small and to me mostly inconsequential. I think if the world were full of Petersons and objectivists we would be living in a place very similar to Galts Gulch.
his philosophy is directly opposite to Rand's philosophy ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..someone here is trying to trick us into believing that Peterson is an objectivist or a libertarians when he's not
@@robinsss i disagree, there are MANY names u can can your self yet still act in society as an Objectivist. This is party becausr they reach the same legislative conclusions in spite of moral differences. Thats what the guy is getting at and not that peterson is an objectivist.
Perhaps you say that mockily, but it is thanks to Dave Rubin that I discovered objectivism. He may not be an intellectual himself, but he certainly likes talking to intellectuals, which makes him a kind of network junction which connects different intellectuals to each other. ( and so in this cause, exposes their audiences to objectivism)
This is the best and probably the most important debate of our generation. Jordan Peterson has found his match in Gregory Salmeiri and I think Gregory went easy on him :) Dave, Yaron, thanks for making this debate happen although 6-8 hour length would have been ideal for this topic ;)
@@tonyrossi3151 Simply by way of contrast, this debate revealed Peterson as the babbling pseudo-intellectual he is. There is almost no content there, just clever-sounding nonsense about narratives.
@@ponti5882 Ouch, what an incisive retort! Now that you got that out of your system, can you name anything important Peterson has originated? How about anything that compares to the many revolutionary philosophical insights Rand conceived?
I would agree with that in most discussions but id also say this is an outlier not knowing the 2 goes from the Ayn Rand Institute i really liked the way they presentend theyr points ngl
It is true that we are influenced by our environment but it would be irrational to be governed by it. Everyone should live the life that's best for them.
It depends on how you define yourself as an individual. At our core we are an individual that is separate from the collective. But on the surface we are social beings. So given you serve the purpose of your core first, then you can do whatever you like and arrange yourself properly within a society (which is your surface).
"Existence exists - and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists. If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness. Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two - existence and consciousness - are axioms you cannot escape, these two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might acquire at its end. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it exists and that you know it. To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of nonexistence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was - no matter what his errors - the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification." Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual, 124
@• Zarathustra • doesn't matter, if there is a consistent relation between things that exist (either in quality or quantity) and this can be perceived the same way between the majority of the individuals of a species then that is in fact being objectively perceived (in other words it is showing its nature to that species, in a different way but to the same effect).
@• Zarathustra • well, our (shared) perception as a species makes the objective reality objective for us (since we all perceive and use it the same way, provided we are healthy and normal; and it's the same way in any other species for that species), in a sense that we understand the objects and their differences, even if we perceived them differently they would still be different to eachother to the same amount (say with colours its wavelengths etc.) Such things are measurable. An object has volume, so it occupies space time to a certain amount, whether we perceive it or not we will not be able to move our hand through that object (if it's solid), if we cross that spot in space time that object will be unavoidable. The measurable physical differences show the objective nature of a thing to us, and they are provable by maths, which does not contradict itself, and truth can be deducted by non contadiction (provided all the information needed are available to us through our perception as a species). Since maths and physics do not contradict themselves, the difference between say green and red will always be there, even if we didn't see such colour it would be measurable and the difference would exist, as even a colourblind person would be able to say "there is a difference between these lights". The key is the relation of such objects. In the volume example, we measure it based on other objects we perceive, so it's relative, but even without us seeing the object those two objects will still have the same relation e.g object A feels 100 times the space object B does. even if we don't perceive the concept of volume we will still not move through an obstructed space time, hence that certain obstructive object with it's volume does exist with it's objective qualities (and quantities). You get my point... (sorry if it seems a bit chaotic, i think as i write)
@• Zarathustra • whether that is true or not is of no practical value and can simply be discarded, since even if that was to be true it would be unusable (the same thing with god, spirit etc., although to me it seems very likely for a thing to exist that caused everything else to exist while not being made itself, that makes no difference to me, so it's useless knowledge, can only be used for the sport of thinking. In short uncertain and unmeasurable knowledge is useless knowlege unless you WANT to believe it for the psychological effects, that could be helpful). This is why i said our shared human perception of the world is what our objective reality is. And to me it's just not acceptable to throw all the relations and laws and everything observational with all the connection that are so robust just like that, for some potential that can never be known, one has to accept their reality. all these natural laws are enough for me to accept that objective reality is really perceived by us although imperfectly (our senses very likely do not give as all the information there is to receive, other dimensions or types of matter etc.) Also i want to add that, you are using biological necessity as an argument to say that physical phenomena are not a part of an objective reality, while biological necessity (and any science really) itself is dependent on physical and mathematical laws! This is not my main point but i just noticed that.
But Peterson has identified the problem of the cognitively disabled lower IQs in a society that increasingly prizes and rewards the cognitively talented. How do we manage them? This is a real consequential cleavage that remains a social problem. My insight needs improvement: as better parenting improves adult happiness, then let us retain people in helping professions to work with this low IQ sector. Let them use computers to gain more functional use. Predicted problem: what’s to prevent this class of helpers becoming as revolutionary and dangerous as the neomarxist Educrats are today? How do we prevent that?
@@Orson2u “Concepts are not and cannot be formed in a vacuum; they are formed in a context; the process of conceptualization consists of observing the differences and similarities of the existents within the field of one’s awareness (and organizing them into concepts accordingly). From a child’s grasp of the simplest concept integrating a group of perceptually given concretes, to a scientist’s grasp of the most complex abstractions integrating long conceptual chains-all conceptualization is a contextual process; the context is the entire field of a mind’s awareness or knowledge at any level of its cognitive development. This does not mean that conceptualization is a subjective process or that the content of concepts depends on an individual’s subjective (i.e., arbitrary) choice. The only issue open to an individual’s choice in this matter is how much knowledge he will seek to acquire and, consequently, what conceptual complexity he will be able to reach. But so long as and to the extent that his mind deals with concepts (as distinguished from memorized sounds and floating abstractions), the content of his concepts is determined and dictated by the cognitive content of his mind, i.e., by his grasp of the facts of reality. If his grasp is non-contradictory, then even if the scope of his knowledge is modest and the content of his concepts is primitive, it will not contradict the content of the same concepts in the mind of the most advanced scientists. The same is true of definitions. All definitions are contextual, and a primitive definition does not contradict a more advanced one: the latter merely expands the former.” -Leonard Peikoff True knowledge builds upon other knowledge without contradiction. Peterson is wrong to assume a contradiction between high IQ and low IQ humans here. Any person that recognizes and prioritizes reason over faith is a person that is welcome at my dinner table, high IQ or otherwise.
@@Orson2u Lower end IQs should not be called "disabled" automatically based on IQ score. The army does not take 84s and below because they cannot be trained to handle any army job in the time frame that is standard for the army. This does not mean that they cannot be trained to be productive in a much longer segment of time. The awareness of a person to their low IQ could be a factor as well. If more of them knew that they had this issue, they would know to be more patient with themselves in their learning endeavors, instead of giving up and adopting helplessness as an attitude. Outreach and Identification could be better.
I don't know if i'm an objectivist, but value is the choice and exercising of the choice and also freedom of all human being to have and make choices. It is the manifestation of individuals focus and reason which are product of consciousness which are the intrinsic and absolute value. It is the interface between potentiality and actuality which has been made a great deal of in this discussion and which they called the soul.
Someone commented before: The problem Peterson is having with Rand is that his professonial and personal beliefs are rooted in Jungian psychology, which deals mainly with the subconscious. While Rand is an Aristotelian, which is fundamentally about consciously observing and describing and rationalizing about the world around us. It's the ultimate duality of life, the conscious vs. the subconscious.
He also brings a level of sophistication to counter what is essentially a worldview that treats as an afterthought the things that mean most to humanity (spirituality, the family & children, emotions and "religious experience") in pursuit of getting to say you were never wrong (the virtue of selfishness)
I believe his problem is that he supports the methods thsy work at truly helping broken people. He's not just an intellectual, he's a doctor first. More than being right he wants to help people. His motive for finding truth is of the highest ideal.
Yes, except for his distinction of "knowing who I am" from "the facts". I'm also a fact. And the meaning of the objective is rooted in its impact upon me.
I see myself as an Objectivist and a lover of Ayn Rand's works, however, the problem i see is that it is a philosophy trapped in a certain time and stuck where Ayn Rand left. Constantly the speakers have to think, "Would Ayn Rand agree with this?" Meanwhile there is Jordan Peterson who isnt bound to a dead woman's philosophy - he is bound to his own and regularly updates it with what he learns. If Yaron were to try this then it would no longer be Ayn Rand.
Could we continue to call a basketball player a "basketball" player if he were in favour of not having any nets/baskets? Or not playing on a court? Not keeping score? Not using a ball? There's a difference fundamentals and the application of those fundamentals.
@@Radeo My comment was 3 weeks ago, but after alot of Yaron Brook videos I can see how the philosophy still manages even without its figurehead to guide it. Everything she wrote is true today and true tomorrow. And whenever there is a concern or question, its easy to figure out the answer when applying Capitalism, non-aggression, and individualism.
1:19:00 What is relevant in the search for truth is not mutable facts but a search for the process by which facts are generated from the chaotic potential to begin with. What you know is mutable. Facts can change. Your actions at any time can change the facts of your life. The process of human action is based on competing values. One cannot objectively describe the highest value. That is outside the real of objective reality.
This is such an underrated comment. Here's what I understood from the talk: Yes it is a fact that that either your wife is cheating on your wife or not and you can apply all your reason to find the fact. But you are beginning on the investigative process because of a value based decision. Somewhere in your brain you are putting your belief that your wife is cheating on top of the belief that your wife is not cheating and that is not a fact but a mere belief. If you are entirely convinced that that is not the case and trust your wife completely then why would you even begin the search.
Peterson and Yaron are both is wrong to separate subjective evaluation from "facts". Peterson is right that facts are not mind-independant. Yaron is right that they transcend mind - but only in their objective component. The proposition "my wife is betraying me" is indeed true or false, but its meaning is deeply rooted in its impact upon me.
This is a common misunderstanding when talking about values. In Objectivism, the "facts are out there" view of values is not "objective". That would be called "intrinsic". Contrasted with "the facts are in my mind" or subjective. This is what a lot of people consider Subjective / Objective to be, simply put. In Objectivism, there is recognized a Trichotomy here Subjective/Intrinsic/Objective. When trying to think of this, remember the Empiricist/Rationalist/Objectivist contrasts. Intrinsic = Facts are intrinsic to objects. (Often mistaken as objective) Subjective = Facts are mental constructs Objective = Facts are sense data processed by reason (proper fusion) I think Peterson is saying "objective" but he means "intrinsic". Greg is trying to get past this misunderstanding in the video, without naming it.
@@phillip3495 thanks for this. It's a useful discussion. But Peterson is not an Objectivist, more of a Phenomenologist and a Pragmatist. Facts are also rooted in impacts upon the mind, like values. Facts are ultimately capacities to act --yes with intrinsic values.
@@fr.hughmackenzie5900 I don't think he is "an objectivist”, but I believe that in his word choices, he could have been more precise. If I labeled him in that specific exchange, he would have struck me as "intrinsicist". Because he is using phrases like, "the facts/values are out there, in the object" to refer to objective, but that phrase really is an intrinsicist one. To be correct he should be identifying that the fact you mentioned, of the relationships between perception, consciousness, goals, values, but the "facts as capacities to act, but with the values intrinsic", is actually what you would call objective perspective, conceptualized using easier to relate to concepts. This would be using a light conception of intrinsic as a device meant to aid in understanding or visualization of how these things are related objectively. Interesting, is that he seems to say that he himself is a pragmatist philosophically.(gathered from his other appearances) Now, when this talk opens, he asks, "What makes you guys so different from the modern pragmatists?" Now, it could just have been me only, that is getting the feeling that he implied that the objectivists are like him. Which may not be completely incorrect. He has seemingly only semantic differences with Rand. Oh, and that Rand didn't hold the Bible as important to western civ as he does, is one big difference though. Thoughts on this?
th-cam.com/video/lOU7-33BMY4/w-d-xo.html (time ~58:35) Jordan: "Your classification system is dependent on why you apply it." Me: "Yes, and why you apply it is that you choose to live." Your desire to live and be happy determines how you form your concepts (i.e. how you organize your books, or if you decide it's not worth your time). Why didn't the Objectivists point this out? Jordan seems very close to figuring out Objectivism on his own.
I’m a big fan of Ayn Rand, and I agree with her philosophy when being applied to our geo-political realm and economy. That being said, for me, it falls short when applying it to your day to day life as an individual. I say this mainly because sacrifice, when not being made by force, coercion, or threats, can be of value and moral good in my opinion. Voluntary charity and care of the worse off in society provided by the sacrifices of individuals who are able to meet those needs is good, moral, and of value.
@@kirbygraham8265 then I am extremely confused as to how you believe she falls short regarding the matters you state? She never states one cannot give charitably and make the choice to assist and help those in need. What she states is, it cannot be from a place of 'sacrifice' . We willingly help and support that which we value and anything additional to this must be a choice and never forced.
Hello ARI: I would love to hear the discussion, and I have all volume with my 320 watt turned on full, but I still can't hear the speakers well enough to hear in my very slightly noisy room. Can you guys come back to the vids you posted, and crank up the volume somehow? I hate to miss out on the philosophies that arose mankind out of the dirt. :)
Do objectivists understand what Jordan says at 58:40 where he says that we perceive the facts of the world, that is, the information framed in a particular conceptual framework, according to our "purpose", according to what we want to see? To say that reality is independent is one thing, but to say that our perception is objective, that is, devoid of any framework of interpretation, is another. That is not to say that all is relative. It simply raises the question of whether or not there is a conceptual framework that is true, that is, aligned with reality and its nature?
Man has a specific identity. Rational Living/Dying Organism. Your nature(Peterson would call this purpose maybe, implying that purpose can differ from person to person), as a living organism, is to not die.(Objectivism, in contrast, holds that we all have the same nature, because we are all alive, and want to not die.) We are also Rational by nature, in fact this is our primary tool for survival. The senses are valid. They do not deceive us. We evolved these senses in order to survive in "this" reality, or environment. We have a rational faculty, to process the information piped in through the senses. Like any processor, your output quality is determined by the quality of your software, or concepts.(All the things that you've learned that aid in identification of values/facts.) For more going into "values vs. facts" take the link below. Objective use of the above listed faculties, requires sense data, with proper reasoning methods applied, in order to identify facts in existence. Nothing has been proven more true than this, we exist today as a species, and are not dead. If this framework of conception were not true, then It would have gotten us wiped from existence a very, very long time ago. True = Consonant with reality. False = the opposite of True. You must act in consonance with reality to survive. We survive using our framework, therefore it must be consonant with reality, therefore it is True. When Peterson says "I just can't see how you get the damn values from the facts" it should have been explained to him that every fact(true identification of existence) is a value to you in its relation to your survival. Every fact that is identified, should be followed up with an evaluation as to its use in furthering your life. If you perceive and then identify, two distinct bills of currency on the ground, one you identify as saying $100, and the other identified as $10, and for some arbitrary reason you can only choose to pick up one of them. It would be a virtuous action to go for the one that you evaluate as being greater. To reach for the one of lesser value, knowing you only get one, would be relatively immoral. It would be very naughty to pass up both of them. Your life is the primary value, and you just chose to pass up something that would have aided your continued healthy, and happy survival. You chose to disregard your life to some extent. Immoral. Likewise, immoral to take action that would impact another individuals' life negatively. To hold human life as the standard of value, and then to purposefully harm a human life, would be contradicting your principles. How can you expect to have your own right to life respected, if you do not respect life? The guy in the link below, is better than I at explaining this stuff by far. Leonard Peikoff on the relationship between "Fact" and "Value" ari.aynrand.org/issues/culture-and-society/religion-and-morality/fact-and-value/
Regarding the Fact v Value issue they keep circling around, and what occupied most of JP and Sam Harris' conversation, I don't think I understand what it is exactly that they disagree on
What is your Thoughtful "objective reasoning" backing your statements? I see none in your statements, so why should I believe what you say, (as undefined as it is), is true? What "reason" did you give me to believe you? :) "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it "Think". That is what we humans are suppose to do. No "reason" no ryhme, is just a directionless waste of people's time.
Brook makes sound statement and certainly valuable, pointed claims. But he does not invite us to ponder and go swimming in the deep end of the pool. For example, Greg at 38 to 40m, raising reason, followed by Jordan’s point that pointing out ethical good versus evil is unhelpful during a crisis. Competence and awareness prevails. Does Brook equal the thoughtful depth there? In that exchange? Brook doesn’t pipe up until 52m.
This is hard to listen to. I hope to god that the average viewer doesn’t equate Peterson with objectivism after seeing the two on stage together. I’m not sure it was a good idea to have a “discussion”.
Not so fast objectivism works there needs to be separation between church and state objectivism is also the means on which intrinsic value is actualized subjectively speaking you can't find in transit non-tangible only with objectivism from a fair ground of play can you point out intrinsic Worth
Yes objectivists should be squirming at this blatant publicity grab of a meeting. Petersen is at heart nothing more than a well articulated religionist.
I like Rand, Peterson, and Salmieri but arguing for free will is equivalent to arguing for magic. Rand was critical of whims and mystics but supported something as asinine as free will! This is hard to reconcile!
"essence of meaning is responsibility" and then "fundamentals of a free society is recognizing The sovereign entities responsibility for their own existence" --Jordan Peterson but also "you don't know what you are and you live your life largely unconscious" in short you are not responsible for what you are....square this damn circle for me Jordan because it sounds to me like smooth brain gibberish
It seems like the debate was about two ideas and their relationship: facts and bias. It sounds like the challenge is how do we get to facts. Sometimes we have to just experiment, though informed by previous facts. We haven't yet known or discovered the best way of improving that could be given as an algorithm, probably as a metafact algorithm. There are times where we don't know what to do, as we don't have the right facts, and the answer isn't clear to us. So, we try new things. Yet, I would argue it is a fact that it is probably a new thing. The problem I have with the use of the term fact is that it doesn't always seem the most informative way to think about a problem. The problem with arguing against fact is that it seems ubiquitous as truth. Any claim you make can be seen as a claim of fact or have some underlying reason which is claimed as fact.
Samieri mentions Rand’s “Untitled Letter” on Rawls. She nailed the course and embrace of his obscurantism over “faireness” by later pseudo-thinkers only a few decades later. In 1982 at the University of Minnesota, a bus ride with female Leftist waxed prolix on Rawls, but ended honestly “too bad it won’t work.” But nearly a decade ago I was alarmed to discover that most Moronielles, even Poli Sci majors, imagine that Rawls was right and his thesis is True! “This is the process by which the ideas of Kant and Hegel gained their dominance,” Ayn Rand “prophetically” sums it up. courses.aynrand.org/works/an-untitled-letter/
It would appear to me that Yaron Brook doesn't belong in this conversation. Stating the obvious after JBP unpacks the extreme complexities and then repacks them for you is an easy job. Mr. Brook didn't unpack a thing, nor did he repack in proper perspective. To me, everytime he spoke the momentum stalled.
i am a lifelong Ayn Rand devotee, but i believe objectivism is simply following human natural instincts the most ethical way humans can. Jordan Peterson is the only "witch doctor" in Rand's terminology who is trying to come up with a unified theory behind our natural motivations. Honestly, the objectivists are out of depth here.
It depends on how you define who and what you are. If you believe you are simply a cog in a giant machine called society, then your individualism would be to serve your purpose as a cog, and a lot of the actions in fountainhead and atlas shrugged will seem annoying and stupid to you. If however, you view yourself as an individual that is separate from everything apart from what is physically you then that would be different. However, I think it’s amalgamation that resembles the layers of the earth. At our core we are a separate individual, and at the surface (especially given a lot of the different aspects you learn through psychology and especially Jung) we are a social being. So individualism can mean two different things on those two different levels. Therefore, at your core you live for yourself.
So Petersons argument is that you can't derive moral values from logic because there is an infinite amount of ways to arrange facts. What he doesn't realize is that categories also are objective and morality is a category. All morality is is to know what is right and wrong, true or false. So, an objective set of moral values boils down to the pursuit of what is right (or true) for yourself and to not use force which prevents others the liberty to do the same.
@@mouwersor They are objectively true as human inventions in the same way that definitions are. The collection of lines that make up the word "foward" mean nothing without previous human construction. But, that doesn't matter because now those letters and that word have been created and we can understand under the framework of the English language objectively what the word "forward" means. (At least I think that follows what I'm talking about here. I don't exactly remember since I watched the video 4 months ago.)
1:28:00 Objectively, what is the highest moral character you can conceptualize? Well thousands of years of observing this question has led us to the revelation that our Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the answer. We live in His story so we may achieve the highest moral character in the suffering of life so we may live a meaningfully. Perhaps even become admirable so your posterity may also live a meaningful life. And so forth. Build your moral character to accept the objective reality in preparation to create the order out of chaos of the objective world, like if your lifelong partner has been cheating for a long time.
I’m sorry this was exhausting. Jordan is completely incoherent. He defines nothing. He cannot accept an objective reality. He spews a bunch of gobbledygook, and when refuting he’ll dismissively agree and then goes off on another nonsensical tangent. Gregory and Yaron were very generous.
Yaron always straight to the point where as Jordan takes his time which is kind of annoying because I get what he’s saying but I need to think about it because he takes so long, and he speaks as though he is thinking. It can get annoying
the problem is that "inequality" is measured in terms of outcome, rather than opportunity the real problem is an in-equal opportunity provided in terms of education,training, skill and information exchange, etc if people cant get what they need to thrive, they cant thrive in the first place, and that's why people have all these problems but they're so mal-educated, they don't even realise its their poor education that's at issue, all they see is the disparity that they cant reach towards, and they don't know any better it doesn't help when people spout pseudo intellectual garbage about equality as if everyone complaining about it, doesn't have a real complaint, no wonder they're outraged everything falls back to education, if education is in any way faulty, then those who suffer faulty education will have no means left but to scream and shout for help, even if "help" isn't the word they're using, they will protest against their circumstances by any means education must be about learning!!!, not obedience!!
Around 50:00 they are talking about getting facts from values and there is something other than objective truth that affects nuances of values than make nuances of facts between individuals. It seems like the duality of man is from the spirit, like i mentioned in a comment below, is made of a very high state of energy. much higher than our bodies, and there is 2 forms of beings and reasoning in us. the spirit and than human body brains personality. in some people these 2 are totally separate. and in others there is overlap between these 2. we are born with the personality that manifests our experience and we have our spirit that is barely able to guide us with intuition. so object reasoning comes from the human brain and intuition is the missimg thing that jordan is referrimg to that comes from the spirit brain. the spirit brain tells the values and the facts are determined by the human brain and that is the disconnect. or it might be vice versa. i think the subconcious is the spirit brain and that is what guides the specific personality of the human brain. all energy is tied together and our spirit brain knows that and the subconcious and intuition is the overlap between the 2 brains.
Yaron shows his ignorance, religious men started the whole concept of reason. It was religious men who's graves we stand on to undermine them. The bedrock of western culture is religious in nature. This wonderful discussion never would have happened with our religious minded founders. Isaiah 1:18 KJV Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord : though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
The weird thing about reason is that you can think critically in one area but not on another. I know engineers who believe in the horoscope. That doesn't make them stupid or bad engineers
th-cam.com/video/EO68Kvb9fD4/w-d-xo.html Hans-Herman Hoppe in this speech, addresses what left vs right means and he shows that it is not individualism vs collectivism or capitalism vs socialism. It is equality vs hierarchy and even deeper it is a world view based on socio-biology vs a worldview based on the blank slate view of human nature. Sadly, Rand herself held a blank slate view of human nature which we can forgive her for because she did not have access to the ton of information we have on the related subjects now. Hoppe explains how one of the most important events for humanity was that the northern peoples, ie lighter skinned people, developed greater cognitive skills because of the selection pressures from dealing with the harsh winters from the last mini-ice age (glacial minimum). This changed both the IQ and the reproductive strategies of the various races. This has consequences. Hoppe is the most hated of the Austrians because he has gone down the path of race and sex realism, ie hereditarianism, and included it in his approach to libertarianism. He has gone beyond Rothbard here. Obleftivism at large refuses to do this because it has such a commitment to Rand's blank slate view of individualism that it just won't recognize group differences for fear that it would destroy the entire movement and liberty itself.
I don't like to criticize but the speaker Jordan is very hard to follow and says so many words to say so little. Is it just me or does he jaber jaber on and on to lose the listener by the time, or if, he gets to his point. I think he's probably a half empty glass guy. In like as an individual, you have your own personal set of moral standards. You set your own personal goals and try to always move forward accomplishing goals that make you happy. If a man has no goals he will be drifting and unhappy. So to talk about responsibilities of the individual is a given if he has goals. He has to take personal responsibility or never achieve his goals.
@@sybo59 When I wrote this comment, I had just begun my endeavour in objectivism. After spending much more time learning about Objectivism, I now know that I was wrong.
1:04:20 'How do we define Objectivity, that as an interesting question, where does the concept come from, that's discussion for another occasion' Hilarious! How did no one laugh? We're not defining what is "objectivity," but let me tell you how objectivity is used to find values from the facts.
JBP doesn't belong here, I wish the objectivists would call him out on his lack of concrete justifications for anything he's saying. Sad that JBP fans might view this as the objectivists having something to learn from him.
Philosophy is the "operating system" of the human soul With regard to the first colollary implcit though unstated is that the "someting [that] exists" exists outside and prior to. the perception process.This is what a child learns in the 3-4 age range and is learned as "permanence" as that parto fht brain is formed As we try to make computers imitate human thought, we are chasing greater and more efficincy in "Artificial Inteligence". In the first place you are trying to make non-biological materials behave like biological material. Second there is something else involved Intellect is a wonderful thing. It can cleave into the heart of a star like a mighty falchion (a kind of highly efficient cuttiing sword). Once there it can disect the tiniest subnuclear particle better than the finest obsidian scalpel: However;, there are some things that must occur first 1The target is selected: Star or subnuclear particle 2 The intelecti is selected and actvated 3 The intellect is configured: Mighty falchion or fin scalpel 4. The intellect is then operated on the target The intellect is a swiss army knife, it as all the tools, but does not know in, of or by itslef which one to use. It is by the faculty of Mentality or "the mind" that the the faculty of volitional rational consciouness operates the intellect THIS is the job of the "human operating system" of which the digital (or analog) machine OS is the electronic brain's counterpart. To be what it is, an "operating system" is a "system" meaning it is integrated within itself and fits together in an organized, hierarchical way. for the task of "operationg"; doing some specific task(s) The operating system is in the form of a philosophy. It it is an objectivity-valuing system it will tend toward the "Will to Understand". If it is a subjectivity-valuing system it will tend toward the "Will to Believe" (Hoffer"". In once case the primary or sole tool of cognition will be Reason, in the other, it will be randomly determined by tending toward faith. Now, "belief" is important because if once is to act, one must often decide between competing theories (conceptyal models) of a given subject, which means one must choose and accept on over the others, or come up with a new model ore myabe s synthesis of the existing. But one must say "This is correct and true, and the other(s) are wrong and false". The human operating system selects the process by which this is done As time and usage goes on, one pattern of choice and psychological action will occure. In terms of the attitude towards Existence, this ic called one's "worldview", in terms of how one processes information, this is called a "mindset". These terms have come up quite frequently in political discussions since the 1960's At the time the Liberal and the Lef were more technocratic and made use of these terms to bring psychology into political discussion. Actually they are more related to Metaphysics and Epistemology, which are the irreducible primaries of Philsophy and of the human operating system and link the matter two the externla world An operating system that values objectivity will be more efficient at processing information from the pre-existing external world. This addresses "when an organism is attacked from beyond its range of awareness, it dies" Here's a hint. Losing the battle for "climate change" the Left, in the form of Bill Nye the So-called Science Guy, is starting to invoke Psychology, in which he has no Degrees to indicate an advanced level of education (he is a mechanical engineer, who buys into or is paid to preach, the theory of man-made climate change; so not only does he know less abut Psychology than I do - MA; Rhode Island College 1978, he knows less about the other dynamics of climate; jetstream, vulcanism; which often interacts with the first as in the 1981 eruption of Me Kilo-wea (sp?) that moved the jetstream which led to less severe winters and warming in the '80's,, Oceanic Oscillations and a full knowledge of the efficacy and presence of greenhouse gases) at all, by trying to adapt the concept of "Cognitive Dissonance". This is psychologizing; aka psychobabble, at it's very worst. it seeks to silence the opposition by de-metalizing, de-personalizing and de-humanizing its members. At leas, back in '64, the Goldwater detractors claimed to have 600 actually psychiatrists, not someone who's mostly a player with Tinkertoyd
Yes he is a little arrogant but he does have a solid ethical belief system. I think he is arrogant because of that, he is so sure of what he is saying because he is so sure of who he is.
The spiritual can easily be summed up as... anything not questionable. You obviously know there is something TO inquire about or may want to question, but for whatever reason or purpose... you have no ability to describe nor convey it with any manner of precision or accuracy to others. They also have experience they cannot question... so by examining and/or comparing them we attain a better understanding of the unknowns by naming those things that DO coincide with the experiences of others. And as we learn we are guided toward more and/or less perfect levels of understanding than we begin with. The titles and backgrounds even change over time... for they remain almost purely subjective and/or obfuscated by our inability to formulate proper questions as much as our inability to observe beyond our own limited and jaded perceptions. Case in point. The story of Gilgamesh is the story of Noah retold thousand years later by a different culture, and practically every ancient civilization has its own stories of a great flood... or why the sun an moon follow one another across the heavens. Science has added a LOT of names and titles to things... yet still most remain theoretical and make sense only on paper... in a convoluted set of data, or as abstract possibilities that working examples may derive from. And those working examples may actually work for completely different reasons than we've presently conjectured. An example would be as to why some planets have electromagnetic cores and others don't, or why matter is nothing more than condensed light moving at an extremely slower rate than ambient light and energy. Or how Tia-mat (the planet) was destroyed while part of it was shorn off, only to later become or mate with our moon. And how did that relate to ancient civilizations that were actually connected along a vastly different equator than the one we currently have? Did the meteoric impact in the gulf of mexico actually shift our planet's axis? Or was it added lunar mass from Tiamat? Or perhaps it was atmospheric shear combined with all the above? This also leads to the question of Supernatural Measure. An ignorant or low IQ person may find a form of majesty and awe in the heavens that is best understood from a simple biblical sense... for it also allows them the comfort of a moral structure that places less weight of demand upon their ability to reason, while also allowing them the freedom to improve by their own measure of comprehension and understanding. An erudite person with a naturally higher IQ, access to a good degree, and the funds to maintain a broader scope of correlated studies may find the same awe, but in a less "supernatural" and more scientific manner. And an actual alien race that once visited earth in its infancy may seldom find anything supernatural or worthy of awe in anything extraterrestrial. Each is best suited to varying levels of explanation and form their own "packaging" that works best over time (as we all do). It is incumbent on the more capable among us to make room for "supernatural" things we may have no personal need of nor belief in... because for many those "packages" of PROVEN MERITS and TRIBULATIONS are the closest thing they will ever have, earn, or comprehend as far as an allowance for PERSONAL DIGNITY are concerned. And if anyone thinks that Personal Dignity is a foregone or non-essential human value... they're seriously FUCKED in the head. Stop belittling the travails and lessons one can learn from those who are less capable, and never ASSUME that their value is any less than yours. There are plenty of uptight ASS-HATS with degrees and money but completely shit morals and attitudes. Likewise there are plenty of people with cognizant disadvantages who remain motivated, helpful, good natured, and beneficial in the lives of those they meet and/or live with. The biblical reference that comes to mind... "Judge not lest ye be judged," which is sound both ACTION-ABLY and ethically. Many people actually think they're intelligent, then how has this simple fix for the societal IQ dilemma not been broached before? Could it be that secular pragmatism makes little to no room for PROVEN traditions and Merits? And could that possibly be due to the disproportionately high numbers of LIBERALS in Academia? To ACTUAL Conservatives, this shit is obvious. HINT: Old Books (like the Bible and/or Torah) are sources of Secular Wisdom as well as Supernatural Insight. They also don't bite and aren't infectious. As pertains to Capitalism... if people started LEARNING what it actually is and stopped focusing so strictly concerning economic and/or political facets that would help. Mull this Over: The TRUE currency of Capitalism isn't money. Currencies, land, works of art, agriculture, food, labor, etc. are merely commodities and venues of exchange... as are debate, relationships, ideas, beliefs, comfort, safety, etc. Markets are simply chains of PEOPLE communicating and enacting exchanges that suit their best interests (the more DIRECTLY enabled the better). Bad poop (immoral acts) kill markets. Good Poop (moral acts and considerations) enable market expansions, growth, and variance as needs are positively altered over time (increased wealth generates altered priorities). And ALL of this is because the ACTUAL currency of Capitalism is EARNED TRUST (aka PROVEN MERIT). Proven Merit is The PRIMARY thing that Conservatives seek to protect from the hasty actions and unwise decisions of the left (Liberals) and it covers a huge variety of topics and situations repeated and/or exercised throughout history. People may think me unduly harsh concerning Liberals, but not really. They have their place in society, as a challenge to stagnation and stoic assumptions... but as often they also feed a "drive" to create that blinds them to things already known... and HOW they impart their views to others. That is why Conservatives maintain the "wisdom" of the past and try to impart it. NOT to control, but as a warning against KNOWN personal and communal abuses (Sociopathy aka EVIL). AND BTW: The Nazi were "left wing" Socialists... so stop pushing that BULLSHIT NARRATIVE about them being a "right wing" collective. Jordan Peterson has also commented that the extreme right is marked by claims of "Ethnic Superiority" but that's also BULLSHIT. The extreme right is marked by calls to self-reliance, family, tradition and rightfully protecting them against RAMPANT LIBERALISM and/or NATURAL CATASTROPHE. Conservatives REACT to and NEVER initiate IMMORAL BEHAVIOR even in response. And the most extreme on the right are too STOIC to come to any conclusions or decisions hastily unless FORCED to action. Throughout history Racial Superiority and other forms of Identitarianism (new word I created) have always been a tool for and of the LEFT... as a means to manipulate and/or control others through that and other DIVISIVE MEASURES (Immoral Acts). Conservatives are MERIT BASED, not identitarian... so STOP THE BULLSHIT. The literature you're reading from was researched, written, and published by LIBERALS (no room for bias there, LOL). HuGGz
I really like Jordan, but I feel the military analysis with respect to IQ is a bit of a stretch. There are plenty of jobs people can do outside the military that don't need a minimum IQ. The military has to way the mission far more heavily and also a slow down in any part of the machine could cost lives. Civilian jobs usually don't have that dire of consequences. Overall though I think he's fantastic.
That's not the point the point is trying to make is to employ some people that number being 10% is counterproductive it makes no money it cost money that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it it's charitable to give people purpose and things to do so that they can earn things
The military as an example is convenient because it's on paper it's a large example that embodies the scope necessary to lay such claim personally I have no problem with helping out people who need some help easy enough 10% of people need our help being cared for add widows and orphans simplifies charity in redistribution for all widows are old and can't work orphans have no father people at the end of the cognitive scale need simple menial tasks and to be appreciated and respected for them that's the extent of redistribution we typically call it charity and do a great job of it there are people out there who hate success competence and beauty these are the Satanist although I do not believe in atheism they're actually lying through their teeth in denial because being judged makes everyone a little hot under the collar they're doing the devil's work by infiltrating or mats like we have today on the left and right trying to suck away every person they can and drag them to hell with them they hate God so much they exact their revenge on man I'll be leaving us engaging in public discourse with them does s a disservice you won't change anyone is given into reprobate mind these atheist hate everyone in that audience and pray for a volume of listeners and Watchers they hate men they're particularly clever because they don't believe in any of the things they're claiming in this debate they're here using this format in these truths so they will be deemed respectable enough to be listened to when they're spouting their atheist propaganda they know which side is right so they know which to infiltrate and cause sabotage and subterfuge forgive my rant to hell with all atheist God is great
@@robward7542 Maybe you should read McNamara's Folly. Ten percent of the US Military deaths resulted from Troops who were drafted despite being mentally unfit.
Ayn Rand, missed the reality of human nature, objective reason without intuition hardens the heart of individuals and loses the spirit of man. Spinoza, understood the reality of human nature and he advocated a Democracy that includes both, capitalism with a social interest (welfare) of the people who are less fortunate. Learn more, www.WayofSpinoza.com
I don't think Yaron ever grasped the complexities of the Darwinian pragmatist viewpoint. At one point point he pointed to the content of his subconscious as the manifestation of his lifelong experiences as a human-being, but that's technically incorrect. Our cognitive processes, both conscious and unconscious are the consequence of 3.5 billion years of evolution, and 99.9% of that time there was no ability to reason whatsoever.
I try to respect what Yaron says, yet he consistently says things that are at the best embarrassing and the worst just stupid. It’s missing such obvious points like a child, and I’ll give an example. I’m not here to hate on him. Forests are just a collection of individual trees. Great observation, Yaron, a forest is just s collection of individual trees. Well done. But then that’s when he stops and just sits back like checkmate, and if he was actually credible he would give it literally once more ounce of thinking. Yes, forests are just a collection of individual trees. However, a forest also creates something more than just collections of individual trees. It creates a blanket for new life to form and grow. New trees that might grow to be a new kind that are the strongest, and largest in the forest, yet at their initial stages needed the blanket a forest provides, the shade and shelter of these individual trees, to allow life to grow in places that without that shelter would not be able to survive more than a minute. How do you miss that, Yaron? Because you stop thinking when he thinks he stumbles on a “good” point,
And a collection of humans build faster and bigger than an individual... the problem is you forgot they are talking about rights. If trees had rights, the animals and such dont matter in that aspect because the tree is the focus, the tree has the rights to itself. Trees dont need other trees to grow FYI. Just because you can think of a way that collectivism could do something you think is good does not mean anything when your not focusing on the main topic which is rights. idk how you missed that because you thought you were making a good point.
I have not listened to it yet, but I will listen for what you heard. Yaron may not have stressed the point completely, but you missed it completely. The reason why "individualism" applies to human beings is because we each have a brain that can build concepts on top of concepts, using things like Science and Math that we figured out,---and the individual human mind has to be free from force to think to it's natural and potential best. No other living thing on Earth can do that, but just like you explained the nature of trees, what I said is the nature of man, a rational being who has to be free to think and achieve. Now Damien below says a collection of humans can build faster and bigger than the individual. But that is just "labor" needed to perform a job---that an individual thought of. Add to the fact that it is man's nature to think and achieve with his ability to reason, and to live in a free society where he is free to follow his own rational mind, "rational if practiced", (and that is not to say he is free to commit crimes against another individual,--those are called crimes, when individual liberty is protected by law), also adding that the free market is suppose to belonging to the citizens, so we can use our minds to create and compete, not to government persuaded by business lobbyists who make regulation and tax they can endure, but keep new competition out of the industry, (which is why the USA went from thousands of car makers to 2 today, (Ask Preston Thomas Tucker, or watch the movie "Tucker", since he is dead). Add together our natural ability to "reason", thinking/achieving, to the liberty to be able to act on your own thoughts with no opposing force on you, (as long as you are not committing a crime against somebody else's individual rights), and finally a free market that is in all of our hands, where we trade money instead of blood,---and you have discovered human morality. Some people in the USA have actually experience everything I said, and I am one of them with a small business in RC cars, which is about as Laissez-faire as left on planet Earth for me to create and achieve. I gotta tell you guys. I used to race Motocross for about a decade when I was younger. It was the most exciting thing I did,---until my little business took off, (thank God for capitalism). After working for over 20 employers, paying my own way through three college degrees, then starting my own business that took off, well, it took off like it was alive. That is when I realized our free market is alive. It is living and breathing and alive, just as much as we are, (pointing at my brain), no more and no less. My free market, is the most exciting thing that ever happened to me by far,--I have never been so happy as an adult. I discovered, "Freedom, human freedom and proper morality". Humans have rights only, and they are only individual rights. You will find that if individual liberty is gone, we will have no rights at all. Humans have rights only as individuals, and everything else on Earth is a resource and potential resource, because they can not be anything else. Individualism is also color and race blind, where we all have the same rights to think and achieve with out stealing from each other. Yea, that is the moral way for man to exist. You know it and I know it for only one reason,--because we can "think". A guy from Michigan.
And don't think that if you graduated HS barely with like a D average at the age of 17, that you don't have the ability to grow your brain to think. By the end of my college engineering courses at a university called Ferris State in Michigan, (worked full time, school part time, long time but no loans, and still had fun), with 300 and 400 level engineering courses, (students not kids, but already engineers in their companies), I because the first person walking out the the class room during test day, and still getting a 90% or better on my tests. That is why I found out the brain is like the body, and if you work it out, it gets better too. That was a key factor for me to understand why individual liberty is so important for man's advancements, and how we would be still living caves with out "The age of reason", and the implementation of individual liberty, especially in the USA's first 100 years, (where we had the most individual liberty, and why all the big advancements of that time came from the USA almost exclusively, or---"exceptionally".
You don't think that he doesn't know that in a organism it can have many other facts as jp puts it.. He does and he mentioned that.. To me it seems jp is stressing that an object such as a stump or bean bag can have many other facts.. Like that isn't a simple thing. It is and yaron acknowledges and agrees. Jp had more trouble understanding yaron
I have realized that philosophy, history, and politics are too complicated and vast to be bracketed in any category or group such as objectivism. The founders of objectivism and other such groups think that they will be able to prove something that NO ONE before them (in the last 6000 years) has been able to prove. This notion is extremely naive and cultist. The intellectual, mental, psychological, material and other factors that go into the philosophical and political choices that we make are too great for any philosophical system to deal with. The factors that go into the creation of a human civilization are as great as those that go into the creation of the universe itself. No one can keep track of all these factors. Till today the fundamental moral and political principles that we accept are unargued and are accepted due to all sorts of reasons (mostly unphilosophical and unscientific). The paradigms keep getting obsolete and have to be reworked and when reworking is not possible, they need to be overthrown and a new one built in its place. I hardly think of objectivism now--that word is meaningless in light of the vastness of these subjects--philosophy, history, and politics.
The way they talk, you'd think they haven't read anything except objectivist material. Even when they reference other ideas, it's done by repeating what objectivists have said about the topic. "Socialism is when the state does stuff. And that's bad because we are all Individuals who should fix their problems individually. Who ca res about social problems anyway; inequality is the b e s t."
The only thing that makes sense to me about the soul is everything is made up of energy. and the source of the energy has all of it connected together like a drop of water going into the ocean. Our consciousness comes from our spirit or soul and that lives in a much much much higher state of energy. we see our bodies and human experience as physical and our spirit is operating our body remotely from the higher dimension so to speak. It seems like karma and reincarnation is true. so when a spirit first becomes human the human brain is very primitive and the spirit has no idea how to communicate with it. and the new human easily enjoys all of its animal desires. sex drugs fighting crime rape murder. these people are incapable of social skills and keeping jobs and making good decisions. lets say this is human 1.0 Then after a bunch of incarnations people will know the animalistic desires are wrong and they will be able to go job to job and have bouts with drugs and jail vut will still know the feeling of good and have a some social skills and have a few friends but not really huge connections and fighting bad this means the spirit is able to have tiny tiny beed throughs of feeling to the human brain this is human 2.0 After more reincarnations the human might have a rough childhood but has pretty good intuition to navigate through to adulthood and can have good social skills to keep a job and friends. these people have a stronger connection to their spirit and they are getting direction from it. this is human 3.0 And the last one is when a kid grows up and just kind of knows the things this is the kid that just understand things when you tell them. they avoid trouble and they make great connections with everyone. they go to college and start working and have awesome intuition and have awesome social skills and its easy for people to like them. these people have a spirit that has learned very well how to handle things. this is 4.0 i havent found very good proof for incarnation but the young kids that remember their previous life is an example.
Dumb body tattoos (read: herd mentality), non-medical roid use and abuse for the sole purpose of showing off. Claims of strength and knowledge in the field of nutrition and MMA he does not possess. Just to name a few. And the list can go on and on.
It’s really cool to see Jordan and Yaron finally have a discussion.
Normally I would agree. The problem is it’s at a panel at OCON.
It would be a problem if he was given the stage as a single speaker, but he was not. And he did not go unchallenged.
Lol don't be silly, OCON is a place for discussion and exchange of ideas, it's not a madrassa, I enjoyed the talk and hope for more of it
Stefan Burns, I've really wanted to see them have a talk for quite some time now as well. I have great respect for the two of them. Both are individualists in their own right.
Except indivdulsm, they have a lot of disagreement especially in matters of religion.
I am an Objectivist that admires Jordan Peterson. This debate for me, more than anything, throws into stark contrast the malevolent versus benevolent universe premise at the foot of each argument. These participants have reached much the same conclusions on many of the things discussed here. The source of those conclusions vary of course. Peterson talks of taking responsibility and living rationally to stave of the chaos and pain of existence. Where Objectivism talks of taking responsibility and living rationally in order to maximise the joy of existence. So to speak.
Thoughts?
I agree with you, and appreciate your insight. Personally, I have found Dr. Peterson's view very helpful to address the holes in my thinking, and to engage with the shadow or suffering that we all face, rather than look only toward joy and pleasure.
I agree, Peterson believes in God and the values taught by the bible but in the end ends up at the same place as an objectivist for the most part. The differences are small and to me mostly inconsequential. I think if the world were full of Petersons and objectivists we would be living in a place very similar to Galts Gulch.
his philosophy is directly opposite to Rand's philosophy ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..someone here is trying to trick us into believing that Peterson is an objectivist or a libertarians when he's not
@@robinsss I really like the concept of taking responsibility like those CEO's who get a Golden Parachute.
@@robinsss i disagree, there are MANY names u can can your self yet still act in society as an Objectivist. This is party becausr they reach the same legislative conclusions in spite of moral differences. Thats what the guy is getting at and not that peterson is an objectivist.
Happy to see ARI finally getting into the public intellectual sphere with the help of Rubin.
Perhaps you say that mockily, but it is thanks to Dave Rubin that I discovered objectivism.
He may not be an intellectual himself, but he certainly likes talking to intellectuals, which makes him a kind of network junction which connects different intellectuals to each other.
( and so in this cause, exposes their audiences to objectivism)
Exactly kenny
This is the best and probably the most important debate of our generation. Jordan Peterson has found his match in Gregory Salmeiri and I think Gregory went easy on him :) Dave, Yaron, thanks for making this debate happen although 6-8 hour length would have been ideal for this topic ;)
I like Gregory, but I dont think Jordan has met his match. I think he has finally met an honest person that is in pursuit of truth and not ego.
@@tonyrossi3151 Simply by way of contrast, this debate revealed Peterson as the babbling pseudo-intellectual he is. There is almost no content there, just clever-sounding nonsense about narratives.
@@sybo59 thanks for showing us the “I’m a hopeless fool that doesn’t know what he’s talking about” starter pack
@@ponti5882 Ouch, what an incisive retort! Now that you got that out of your system, can you name anything important Peterson has originated? How about anything that compares to the many revolutionary philosophical insights Rand conceived?
@@sybo59 Ayn Rand is not an important philosopher. She was not very impactful at all.
Thank you for hosting this ARI, please continue to host these meaningful and brilliant discussions more frequently.
Jordan Peterson has always a better and more coherent logical analysis.
I would agree with that in most discussions but id also say this is an outlier not knowing the 2 goes from the Ayn Rand Institute i really liked the way they presentend theyr points ngl
No Jordan Peterson is at heart a post Kantian religionist and therefore anti reason in is true sense.
Greg is really in the zone here. Such an absolute master. Every single word is spot on.
True and to build a character you need to not be surrounded by character scum ;)
Milton from office space is very smart
No person is a pure individual. You are your history, your family, your environment, and your community.
It is true that we are influenced by our environment but it would be irrational to be governed by it. Everyone should live the life that's best for them.
We are individuals working in concert with one another.
You have free will.
It depends on how you define yourself as an individual. At our core we are an individual that is separate from the collective. But on the surface we are social beings. So given you serve the purpose of your core first, then you can do whatever you like and arrange yourself properly within a society (which is your surface).
"Existence exists - and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.
If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.
Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two - existence and consciousness - are axioms you cannot escape, these two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might acquire at its end. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it exists and that you know it.
To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of nonexistence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was - no matter what his errors - the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification."
Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual, 124
@• Zarathustra • doesn't matter, if there is a consistent relation between things that exist (either in quality or quantity) and this can be perceived the same way between the majority of the individuals of a species then that is in fact being objectively perceived (in other words it is showing its nature to that species, in a different way but to the same effect).
@• Zarathustra • what do you mean by that? can you elaborate?
@• Zarathustra • well, our (shared) perception as a species makes the objective reality objective for us (since we all perceive and use it the same way, provided we are healthy and normal; and it's the same way in any other species for that species), in a sense that we understand the objects and their differences, even if we perceived them differently they would still be different to eachother to the same amount (say with colours its wavelengths etc.) Such things are measurable. An object has volume, so it occupies space time to a certain amount, whether we perceive it or not we will not be able to move our hand through that object (if it's solid), if we cross that spot in space time that object will be unavoidable. The measurable physical differences show the objective nature of a thing to us, and they are provable by maths, which does not contradict itself, and truth can be deducted by non contadiction (provided all the information needed are available to us through our perception as a species). Since maths and physics do not contradict themselves, the difference between say green and red will always be there, even if we didn't see such colour it would be measurable and the difference would exist, as even a colourblind person would be able to say "there is a difference between these lights". The key is the relation of such objects. In the volume example, we measure it based on other objects we perceive, so it's relative, but even without us seeing the object those two objects will still have the same relation e.g object A feels 100 times the space object B does. even if we don't perceive the concept of volume we will still not move through an obstructed space time, hence that certain obstructive object with it's volume does exist with it's objective qualities (and quantities). You get my point... (sorry if it seems a bit chaotic, i think as i write)
@• Zarathustra • whether that is true or not is of no practical value and can simply be discarded, since even if that was to be true it would be unusable (the same thing with god, spirit etc., although to me it seems very likely for a thing to exist that caused everything else to exist while not being made itself, that makes no difference to me, so it's useless knowledge, can only be used for the sport of thinking. In short uncertain and unmeasurable knowledge is useless knowlege unless you WANT to believe it for the psychological effects, that could be helpful). This is why i said our shared human perception of the world is what our objective reality is. And to me it's just not acceptable to throw all the relations and laws and everything observational with all the connection that are so robust just like that, for some potential that can never be known, one has to accept their reality. all these natural laws are enough for me to accept that objective reality is really perceived by us although imperfectly (our senses very likely do not give as all the information there is to receive, other dimensions or types of matter etc.) Also i want to add that, you are using biological necessity as an argument to say that physical phenomena are not a part of an objective reality, while biological necessity (and any science really) itself is dependent on physical and mathematical laws! This is not my main point but i just noticed that.
@@UndisputedGH05T Isn't it like the objective reality shouldn't be dependent on human perception?
People take the easy route because the difficult route is.......difficult.
Such a brilliant idea, I am stunned.
Yaron Brook is so underrated. JP is wrong on this one. He knows where the "problem" of inequality leads to and still thinks there`s some value in it.
But Peterson has identified the problem of the cognitively disabled lower IQs in a society that increasingly prizes and rewards the cognitively talented. How do we manage them? This is a real consequential cleavage that remains a social problem. My insight needs improvement: as better parenting improves adult happiness, then let us retain people in helping professions to work with this low IQ sector. Let them use computers to gain more functional use. Predicted problem: what’s to prevent this class of helpers becoming as revolutionary and dangerous as the neomarxist Educrats are today? How do we prevent that?
@@Orson2u “Concepts are not and cannot be formed in a vacuum; they are formed in a context; the process of conceptualization consists of observing the differences and similarities of the existents within the field of one’s awareness (and organizing them into concepts accordingly). From a child’s grasp of the simplest concept integrating a group of perceptually given concretes, to a scientist’s grasp of the most complex abstractions integrating long conceptual chains-all conceptualization is a contextual process; the context is the entire field of a mind’s awareness or knowledge at any level of its cognitive development.
This does not mean that conceptualization is a subjective process or that the content of concepts depends on an individual’s subjective (i.e., arbitrary) choice. The only issue open to an individual’s choice in this matter is how much knowledge he will seek to acquire and, consequently, what conceptual complexity he will be able to reach. But so long as and to the extent that his mind deals with concepts (as distinguished from memorized sounds and floating abstractions), the content of his concepts is determined and dictated by the cognitive content of his mind, i.e., by his grasp of the facts of reality. If his grasp is non-contradictory, then even if the scope of his knowledge is modest and the content of his concepts is primitive, it will not contradict the content of the same concepts in the mind of the most advanced scientists.
The same is true of definitions. All definitions are contextual, and a primitive definition does not contradict a more advanced one: the latter merely expands the former.” -Leonard Peikoff
True knowledge builds upon other knowledge without contradiction. Peterson is wrong to assume a contradiction between high IQ and low IQ humans here. Any person that recognizes and prioritizes reason over faith is a person that is welcome at my dinner table, high IQ or otherwise.
@@Orson2u Lower end IQs should not be called "disabled" automatically based on IQ score. The army does not take 84s and below because they cannot be trained to handle any army job in the time frame that is standard for the army. This does not mean that they cannot be trained to be productive in a much longer segment of time. The awareness of a person to their low IQ could be a factor as well. If more of them knew that they had this issue, they would know to be more patient with themselves in their learning endeavors, instead of giving up and adopting helplessness as an attitude. Outreach and Identification could be better.
I don't know if i'm an objectivist, but value is the choice and exercising of the choice and also freedom of all human being to have and make choices. It is the manifestation of individuals focus and reason which are product of consciousness which are the intrinsic and absolute value. It is the interface between potentiality and actuality which has been made a great deal of in this discussion and which they called the soul.
Someone commented before:
The problem Peterson is having with Rand is that his professonial and personal beliefs are rooted in Jungian psychology, which deals mainly with the subconscious. While Rand is an Aristotelian, which is fundamentally about consciously observing and describing and rationalizing about the world around us.
It's the ultimate duality of life, the conscious vs. the subconscious.
He also brings a level of sophistication to counter what is essentially a worldview that treats as an afterthought the things that mean most to humanity (spirituality, the family & children, emotions and "religious experience") in pursuit of getting to say you were never wrong (the virtue of selfishness)
I believe his problem is that he supports the methods thsy work at truly helping broken people. He's not just an intellectual, he's a doctor first. More than being right he wants to help people. His motive for finding truth is of the highest ideal.
Ayn Rand didn’t rationalise, that’s a Peterson trait.
She was rational.
I'm passionate about these topics and have been exploring them in depth in my latest videos. Great to connect with others who are equally interested.
1:27:47 Yaron was spot on right there!
Yes, except for his distinction of "knowing who I am" from "the facts". I'm also a fact. And the meaning of the objective is rooted in its impact upon me.
Very interesting discussion .
The bottom line is clear , to solve a problem we can use reason or force .
I see myself as an Objectivist and a lover of Ayn Rand's works, however, the problem i see is that it is a philosophy trapped in a certain time and stuck where Ayn Rand left. Constantly the speakers have to think, "Would Ayn Rand agree with this?" Meanwhile there is Jordan Peterson who isnt bound to a dead woman's philosophy - he is bound to his own and regularly updates it with what he learns. If Yaron were to try this then it would no longer be Ayn Rand.
Could we continue to call a basketball player a "basketball" player if he were in favour of not having any nets/baskets? Or not playing on a court? Not keeping score? Not using a ball?
There's a difference fundamentals and the application of those fundamentals.
@@Radeo My comment was 3 weeks ago, but after alot of Yaron Brook videos I can see how the philosophy still manages even without its figurehead to guide it. Everything she wrote is true today and true tomorrow. And whenever there is a concern or question, its easy to figure out the answer when applying Capitalism, non-aggression, and individualism.
A grouping of Superheroes. Most excellent...
1:19:00
What is relevant in the search for truth is not mutable facts but a search for the process by which facts are generated from the chaotic potential to begin with.
What you know is mutable. Facts can change. Your actions at any time can change the facts of your life.
The process of human action is based on competing values. One cannot objectively describe the highest value. That is outside the real of objective reality.
This is such an underrated comment. Here's what I understood from the talk: Yes it is a fact that that either your wife is cheating on your wife or not and you can apply all your reason to find the fact. But you are beginning on the investigative process because of a value based decision. Somewhere in your brain you are putting your belief that your wife is cheating on top of the belief that your wife is not cheating and that is not a fact but a mere belief. If you are entirely convinced that that is not the case and trust your wife completely then why would you even begin the search.
Peterson and Yaron are both is wrong to separate subjective evaluation from "facts". Peterson is right that facts are not mind-independant. Yaron is right that they transcend mind - but only in their objective component. The proposition "my wife is betraying me" is indeed true or false, but its meaning is deeply rooted in its impact upon me.
This is a common misunderstanding when talking about values. In Objectivism, the "facts are out there" view of values is not "objective". That would be called "intrinsic". Contrasted with "the facts are in my mind" or subjective. This is what a lot of people consider Subjective / Objective to be, simply put. In Objectivism, there is recognized a Trichotomy here Subjective/Intrinsic/Objective. When trying to think of this, remember the Empiricist/Rationalist/Objectivist contrasts.
Intrinsic = Facts are intrinsic to objects. (Often mistaken as objective)
Subjective = Facts are mental constructs
Objective = Facts are sense data processed by reason (proper fusion)
I think Peterson is saying "objective" but he means "intrinsic". Greg is trying to get past this misunderstanding in the video, without naming it.
@@phillip3495 thanks for this. It's a useful discussion. But Peterson is not an Objectivist, more of a Phenomenologist and a Pragmatist. Facts are also rooted in impacts upon the mind, like values. Facts are ultimately capacities to act --yes with intrinsic values.
@@fr.hughmackenzie5900 I don't think he is "an objectivist”, but I believe that in his word choices, he could have been more precise. If I labeled him in that specific exchange, he would have struck me as "intrinsicist". Because he is using phrases like, "the facts/values are out there, in the object" to refer to objective, but that phrase really is an intrinsicist one.
To be correct he should be identifying that the fact you mentioned, of the relationships between perception, consciousness, goals, values, but the "facts as capacities to act, but with the values intrinsic", is actually what you would call objective perspective, conceptualized using easier to relate to concepts. This would be using a light conception of intrinsic as a device meant to aid in understanding or visualization of how these things are related objectively.
Interesting, is that he seems to say that he himself is a pragmatist philosophically.(gathered from his other appearances) Now, when this talk opens, he asks, "What makes you guys so different from the modern pragmatists?" Now, it could just have been me only, that is getting the feeling that he implied that the objectivists are like him. Which may not be completely incorrect. He has seemingly only semantic differences with Rand. Oh, and that Rand didn't hold the Bible as important to western civ as he does, is one big difference though. Thoughts on this?
4th time seeing this to absorb all the info.
th-cam.com/video/lOU7-33BMY4/w-d-xo.html (time ~58:35)
Jordan: "Your classification system is dependent on why you apply it."
Me: "Yes, and why you apply it is that you choose to live." Your desire to live and be happy determines how you form your concepts (i.e. how you organize your books, or if you decide it's not worth your time).
Why didn't the Objectivists point this out? Jordan seems very close to figuring out Objectivism on his own.
I wonder how different this discussion would go if it were held today rather than back in 2018
This video changed my mind state thanks to jordan Peterson sir for giving me lot of wisdom
Jordan making a case for self deception.
I like Yaron’s explanation of the subconscious…
I’m a big fan of Ayn Rand, and I agree with her philosophy when being applied to our geo-political realm and economy. That being said, for me, it falls short when applying it to your day to day life as an individual. I say this mainly because sacrifice, when not being made by force, coercion, or threats, can be of value and moral good in my opinion. Voluntary charity and care of the worse off in society provided by the sacrifices of individuals who are able to meet those needs is good, moral, and of value.
Have you read her books?
@@joelchapman8622 I’ve read We the Living, Anthem, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged.
@@kirbygraham8265 then I am extremely confused as to how you believe she falls short regarding the matters you state? She never states one cannot give charitably and make the choice to assist and help those in need. What she states is, it cannot be from a place of 'sacrifice' . We willingly help and support that which we value and anything additional to this must be a choice and never forced.
Hello ARI: I would love to hear the discussion, and I have all volume with my 320 watt turned on full, but I still can't hear the speakers well enough to hear in my very slightly noisy room. Can you guys come back to the vids you posted, and crank up the volume somehow? I hate to miss out on the philosophies that arose mankind out of the dirt. :)
Mmmhmm you need a foundation & environment of human rights to even make individual responsibility possible & able to flourish!
Sorry... why is Dave Rubin there?
The cost of success is always higher then the cost of failure
Jeff you should keep the dough at the end of your name you should not run the risk of anyone knowing who would say something so f****** stupid
Do objectivists understand what Jordan says at 58:40 where he says that we perceive the facts of the world, that is, the information framed in a particular conceptual framework, according to our "purpose", according to what we want to see? To say that reality is independent is one thing, but to say that our perception is objective, that is, devoid of any framework of interpretation, is another. That is not to say that all is relative. It simply raises the question of whether or not there is a conceptual framework that is true, that is, aligned with reality and its nature?
Man has a specific identity. Rational Living/Dying Organism. Your nature(Peterson would call this purpose maybe, implying that purpose can differ from person to person), as a living organism, is to not die.(Objectivism, in contrast, holds that we all have the same nature, because we are all alive, and want to not die.) We are also Rational by nature, in fact this is our primary tool for survival.
The senses are valid. They do not deceive us. We evolved these senses in order to survive in "this" reality, or environment. We have a rational faculty, to process the information piped in through the senses. Like any processor, your output quality is determined by the quality of your software, or concepts.(All the things that you've learned that aid in identification of values/facts.) For more going into "values vs. facts" take the link below.
Objective use of the above listed faculties, requires sense data, with proper reasoning methods applied, in order to identify facts in existence. Nothing has been proven more true than this, we exist today as a species, and are not dead. If this framework of conception were not true, then It would have gotten us wiped from existence a very, very long time ago. True = Consonant with reality. False = the opposite of True. You must act in consonance with reality to survive. We survive using our framework, therefore it must be consonant with reality, therefore it is True.
When Peterson says "I just can't see how you get the damn values from the facts" it should have been explained to him that every fact(true identification of existence) is a value to you in its relation to your survival. Every fact that is identified, should be followed up with an evaluation as to its use in furthering your life. If you perceive and then identify, two distinct bills of currency on the ground, one you identify as saying $100, and the other identified as $10, and for some arbitrary reason you can only choose to pick up one of them. It would be a virtuous action to go for the one that you evaluate as being greater. To reach for the one of lesser value, knowing you only get one, would be relatively immoral. It would be very naughty to pass up both of them. Your life is the primary value, and you just chose to pass up something that would have aided your continued healthy, and happy survival. You chose to disregard your life to some extent. Immoral. Likewise, immoral to take action that would impact another individuals' life negatively. To hold human life as the standard of value, and then to purposefully harm a human life, would be contradicting your principles. How can you expect to have your own right to life respected, if you do not respect life?
The guy in the link below, is better than I at explaining this stuff by far.
Leonard Peikoff on the relationship between "Fact" and "Value"
ari.aynrand.org/issues/culture-and-society/religion-and-morality/fact-and-value/
Give that person who turned the volume up at 5:40 a payrise, please.
Regarding the Fact v Value issue they keep circling around, and what occupied most of JP and Sam Harris' conversation, I don't think I understand what it is exactly that they disagree on
this is indeed clash of the titans.
Yaron Brook is the president of a philosophy institute but he was always out of dept here. He could be thankful Greg was there
What is your Thoughtful "objective reasoning" backing your statements? I see none in your statements, so why should I believe what you say, (as undefined as it is), is true? What "reason" did you give me to believe you? :)
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it "Think". That is what we humans are suppose to do. No "reason" no ryhme, is just a directionless waste of people's time.
Brook makes sound statement and certainly valuable, pointed claims. But he does not invite us to ponder and go swimming in the deep end of the pool. For example, Greg at 38 to 40m, raising reason, followed by Jordan’s point that pointing out ethical good versus evil is unhelpful during a crisis. Competence and awareness prevails. Does Brook equal the thoughtful depth there? In that exchange? Brook doesn’t pipe up until 52m.
This is hard to listen to. I hope to god that the average viewer doesn’t equate Peterson with objectivism after seeing the two on stage together. I’m not sure it was a good idea to have a “discussion”.
Not so fast objectivism works there needs to be separation between church and state objectivism is also the means on which intrinsic value is actualized subjectively speaking you can't find in transit non-tangible only with objectivism from a fair ground of play can you point out intrinsic Worth
@@robward7542 Word salad.
Yes objectivists should be squirming at this blatant publicity grab of a meeting.
Petersen is at heart nothing more than a well articulated religionist.
I like Rand, Peterson, and Salmieri but arguing for free will is equivalent to arguing for magic. Rand was critical of whims and mystics but supported something as asinine as free will! This is hard to reconcile!
I just found this today! It is good to know that Objectivists are getting Jordan's ear.
Wat about it is good? seriously....( not being a smart-ass I just want to know if we're coming from the same place
Worthwhile watch. Very interesting discussion
This was superb 👏👏👏 Loved it.
"essence of meaning is responsibility" and then "fundamentals of a free society is recognizing The sovereign entities responsibility for their own existence" --Jordan Peterson but also "you don't know what you are and you live your life largely unconscious" in short you are not responsible for what you are....square this damn circle for me Jordan because it sounds to me like smooth brain gibberish
It seems like the debate was about two ideas and their relationship: facts and bias. It sounds like the challenge is how do we get to facts. Sometimes we have to just experiment, though informed by previous facts. We haven't yet known or discovered the best way of improving that could be given as an algorithm, probably as a metafact algorithm.
There are times where we don't know what to do, as we don't have the right facts, and the answer isn't clear to us. So, we try new things. Yet, I would argue it is a fact that it is probably a new thing.
The problem I have with the use of the term fact is that it doesn't always seem the most informative way to think about a problem.
The problem with arguing against fact is that it seems ubiquitous as truth. Any claim you make can be seen as a claim of fact or have some underlying reason which is claimed as fact.
Samieri mentions Rand’s “Untitled Letter” on Rawls. She nailed the course and embrace of his obscurantism over “faireness” by later pseudo-thinkers only a few decades later. In 1982 at the University of Minnesota, a bus ride with female Leftist waxed prolix on Rawls, but ended honestly “too bad it won’t work.” But nearly a decade ago I was alarmed to discover that most Moronielles, even Poli Sci majors, imagine that Rawls was right and his thesis is True! “This is the process by which the ideas of Kant and Hegel gained their dominance,” Ayn Rand “prophetically” sums it up.
courses.aynrand.org/works/an-untitled-letter/
It would appear to me that Yaron Brook doesn't belong in this conversation.
Stating the obvious after JBP unpacks the extreme complexities and then repacks them for you is an easy job. Mr. Brook didn't unpack a thing, nor did he repack in proper perspective. To me, everytime he spoke the momentum stalled.
Because objectivism is a simple philosophy. if you want complexity like peterson, become a christian.
If you want to help broken people become a Christian is a better way to put it. Once your broken you'll understand. Until then stay objective.
Yeah he did. Jp was having a hard time understanding yarons take on conceptualizing values/facts.
i am a lifelong Ayn Rand devotee, but i believe objectivism is simply following human natural instincts the most ethical way humans can. Jordan Peterson is the only "witch doctor" in Rand's terminology who is trying to come up with a unified theory behind our natural motivations. Honestly, the objectivists are out of depth here.
Lots of our instincts aren't good
Fu
It depends on how you define who and what you are. If you believe you are simply a cog in a giant machine called society, then your individualism would be to serve your purpose as a cog, and a lot of the actions in fountainhead and atlas shrugged will seem annoying and stupid to you. If however, you view yourself as an individual that is separate from everything apart from what is physically you then that would be different. However, I think it’s amalgamation that resembles the layers of the earth. At our core we are a separate individual, and at the surface (especially given a lot of the different aspects you learn through psychology and especially Jung) we are a social being. So individualism can mean two different things on those two different levels. Therefore, at your core you live for yourself.
Ironically, instinct doesn't really fit into Rand's theory too well.
SLAYING done right.
So Petersons argument is that you can't derive moral values from logic because there is an infinite amount of ways to arrange facts. What he doesn't realize is that categories also are objective and morality is a category. All morality is is to know what is right and wrong, true or false. So, an objective set of moral values boils down to the pursuit of what is right (or true) for yourself and to not use force which prevents others the liberty to do the same.
I think where you say morality, you mean ethics, they don't mean the same thing.
@@artofthepossible7329 I know what they both mean. I meant to use the word morality.
"categories also are objective and morality is a category." Proof? Where do these categories exist if not for the subjective mind?
@@mouwersor They are objectively true as human inventions in the same way that definitions are. The collection of lines that make up the word "foward" mean nothing without previous human construction. But, that doesn't matter because now those letters and that word have been created and we can understand under the framework of the English language objectively what the word "forward" means. (At least I think that follows what I'm talking about here. I don't exactly remember since I watched the video 4 months ago.)
1:28:00
Objectively, what is the highest moral character you can conceptualize? Well thousands of years of observing this question has led us to the revelation that our Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the answer.
We live in His story so we may achieve the highest moral character in the suffering of life so we may live a meaningfully. Perhaps even become admirable so your posterity may also live a meaningful life. And so forth.
Build your moral character to accept the objective reality in preparation to create the order out of chaos of the objective world, like if your lifelong partner has been cheating for a long time.
7:18
Trenchcoat1Sword thank you 👏👍☺
I’m sorry this was exhausting. Jordan is completely incoherent. He defines nothing. He cannot accept an objective reality. He spews a bunch of gobbledygook, and when refuting he’ll dismissively agree and then goes off on another nonsensical tangent. Gregory and Yaron were very generous.
Yaron always straight to the point where as Jordan takes his time which is kind of annoying because I get what he’s saying but I need to think about it because he takes so long, and he speaks as though he is thinking. It can get annoying
So are you using reason or are you a slave to your passions in assessing the facts from their arguments?
Well it's not had the 100s of thousands of views that Rubin predicted but he's not got to where he is today without a lot of hyperbole.
the problem is that "inequality" is measured in terms of outcome, rather than opportunity
the real problem is an in-equal opportunity provided in terms of education,training, skill and information exchange, etc
if people cant get what they need to thrive, they cant thrive in the first place, and that's why people have all these problems
but they're so mal-educated, they don't even realise its their poor education that's at issue, all they see is the disparity that they cant reach towards, and they don't know any better
it doesn't help when people spout pseudo intellectual garbage about equality as if everyone complaining about it, doesn't have a real complaint, no wonder they're outraged
everything falls back to education, if education is in any way faulty, then those who suffer faulty education will have no means left but to scream and shout for help, even if "help" isn't the word they're using, they will protest against their circumstances by any means
education must be about learning!!!, not obedience!!
Around 50:00 they are talking about getting facts from values and there is something other than objective truth that affects nuances of values than make nuances of facts between individuals. It seems like the duality of man is from the spirit, like i mentioned in a comment below, is made of a very high state of energy. much higher than our bodies, and there is 2 forms of beings and reasoning in us. the spirit and than human body brains personality. in some people these 2 are totally separate. and in others there is overlap between these 2. we are born with the personality that manifests our experience and we have our spirit that is barely able to guide us with intuition. so object reasoning comes from the human brain and intuition is the missimg thing that jordan is referrimg to that comes from the spirit brain. the spirit brain tells the values and the facts are determined by the human brain and that is the disconnect. or it might be vice versa. i think the subconcious is the spirit brain and that is what guides the specific personality of the human brain. all energy is tied together and our spirit brain knows that and the subconcious and intuition is the overlap between the 2 brains.
Yaron shows his ignorance, religious men started the whole concept of reason. It was religious men who's graves we stand on to undermine them. The bedrock of western culture is religious in nature. This wonderful discussion never would have happened with our religious minded founders.
Isaiah 1:18 KJV
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord : though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
The weird thing about reason is that you can think critically in one area but not on another.
I know engineers who believe in the horoscope. That doesn't make them stupid or bad engineers
th-cam.com/video/EO68Kvb9fD4/w-d-xo.html
Hans-Herman Hoppe in this speech, addresses what left vs right means and he shows that it is not individualism vs collectivism or capitalism vs socialism. It is equality vs hierarchy and even deeper it is a world view based on socio-biology vs a worldview based on the blank slate view of human nature.
Sadly, Rand herself held a blank slate view of human nature which we can forgive her for because she did not have access to the ton of information we have on the related subjects now. Hoppe explains how one of the most important events for humanity was that the northern peoples, ie lighter skinned people, developed greater cognitive skills because of the selection pressures from dealing with the harsh winters from the last mini-ice age (glacial minimum). This changed both the IQ and the reproductive strategies of the various races. This has consequences. Hoppe is the most hated of the Austrians because he has gone down the path of race and sex realism, ie hereditarianism, and included it in his approach to libertarianism. He has gone beyond Rothbard here. Obleftivism at large refuses to do this because it has such a commitment to Rand's blank slate view of individualism that it just won't recognize group differences for fear that it would destroy the entire movement and liberty itself.
1:01:00
56:35 Stumps and bean bags.
I don't like to criticize but the speaker Jordan is very hard to follow and says so many words to say so little. Is it just me or does he jaber jaber on and on to lose the listener by the time, or if, he gets to his point. I think he's probably a half empty glass guy. In like as an individual, you have your own personal set of moral standards. You set your own personal goals and try to always move forward accomplishing goals that make you happy. If a man has no goals he will be drifting and unhappy. So to talk about responsibilities of the individual is a given if he has goals. He has to take personal responsibility or never achieve his goals.
I felt like at the end of the day, they all believe in the same thing but phrase, define and explain it differently
Then you missed the point entirely. Yaron explicitly addressed this, saying that the differences are NOT trivial.
@@sybo59 When I wrote this comment, I had just begun my endeavour in objectivism. After spending much more time learning about Objectivism, I now know that I was wrong.
@@timalp3680 Amazing, very glad to hear that!
57:36
1:08:14
1:04:20 'How do we define Objectivity, that as an interesting question, where does the concept come from, that's discussion for another occasion'
Hilarious! How did no one laugh? We're not defining what is "objectivity," but let me tell you how objectivity is used to find values from the facts.
Jordan "there's nothing wrong with happiness" Peterson
JBP doesn't belong here, I wish the objectivists would call him out on his lack of concrete justifications for anything he's saying. Sad that JBP fans might view this as the objectivists having something to learn from him.
Well the objectivist didn't really refute anything he said.
Philosophy is the "operating system" of the human soul
With regard to the first colollary implcit though unstated is that the "someting [that] exists" exists outside and prior to. the perception process.This is what a child learns in the 3-4 age range and is learned as "permanence" as that parto fht brain is formed
As we try to make computers imitate human thought, we are chasing greater and more efficincy in "Artificial Inteligence". In the first place you are trying to make non-biological materials behave like biological material. Second there is something else involved
Intellect is a wonderful thing. It can cleave into the heart of a star like a mighty falchion (a kind of highly efficient cuttiing sword). Once there it can disect the tiniest subnuclear particle better than the finest obsidian scalpel:
However;, there are some things that must occur first
1The target is selected: Star or subnuclear particle
2 The intelecti is selected and actvated
3 The intellect is configured: Mighty falchion or fin scalpel
4. The intellect is then operated on the target
The intellect is a swiss army knife, it as all the tools, but does not know in, of or by itslef which one to use. It is by the faculty of Mentality or "the mind" that the the faculty of volitional rational consciouness operates the intellect
THIS is the job of the "human operating system" of which the digital (or analog) machine OS is the electronic brain's counterpart.
To be what it is, an "operating system" is a "system" meaning it is integrated within itself and fits together in an organized, hierarchical way. for the task of "operationg"; doing some specific task(s)
The operating system is in the form of a philosophy. It it is an objectivity-valuing system it will tend toward the "Will to Understand". If it is a subjectivity-valuing system it will tend toward the "Will to Believe" (Hoffer"". In once case the primary or sole tool of cognition will be Reason, in the other, it will be randomly determined by tending toward faith. Now, "belief" is important because if once is to act, one must often decide between competing theories (conceptyal models) of a given subject, which means one must choose and accept on over the others, or come up with a new model ore myabe s synthesis of the existing. But one must say "This is correct and true, and the other(s) are wrong and false". The human operating system selects the process by which this is done
As time and usage goes on, one pattern of choice and psychological action will occure. In terms of the attitude towards Existence, this ic called one's "worldview", in terms of how one processes information, this is called a "mindset". These terms have come up quite frequently in political discussions since the 1960's At the time the Liberal and the Lef were more technocratic and made use of these terms to bring psychology into political discussion. Actually they are more related to Metaphysics and Epistemology, which are the irreducible primaries of Philsophy and of the human operating system and link the matter two the externla world
An operating system that values objectivity will be more efficient at processing information from the pre-existing external world. This addresses "when an organism is attacked from beyond its range of awareness, it dies"
Here's a hint. Losing the battle for "climate change" the Left, in the form of Bill Nye the So-called Science Guy, is starting to invoke Psychology, in which he has no Degrees to indicate an advanced level of education (he is a mechanical engineer, who buys into or is paid to preach, the theory of man-made climate change; so not only does he know less abut Psychology than I do - MA; Rhode Island College 1978, he knows less about the other dynamics of climate; jetstream, vulcanism; which often interacts with the first as in the 1981 eruption of Me Kilo-wea (sp?) that moved the jetstream which led to less severe winters and warming in the '80's,, Oceanic Oscillations and a full knowledge of the efficacy and presence of greenhouse gases) at all, by trying to adapt the concept of "Cognitive Dissonance". This is psychologizing; aka psychobabble, at it's very worst. it seeks to silence the opposition by de-metalizing, de-personalizing and de-humanizing its members. At leas, back in '64, the Goldwater detractors claimed to have 600 actually psychiatrists, not someone who's mostly a player with Tinkertoyd
Blah blah blah... big words and bad writing
I enjoy Gregory, but Yaron is a little to arrogant by my estimation.
Yes he is a little arrogant but he does have a solid ethical belief system. I think he is arrogant because of that, he is so sure of what he is saying because he is so sure of who he is.
The spiritual can easily be summed up as... anything not questionable.
You obviously know there is something TO inquire about or may want to question, but for whatever reason or purpose... you have no ability to describe nor convey it with any manner of precision or accuracy to others.
They also have experience they cannot question... so by examining and/or comparing them we attain a better understanding of the unknowns by naming those things that DO coincide with the experiences of others. And as we learn we are guided toward more and/or less perfect levels of understanding than we begin with. The titles and backgrounds even change over time... for they remain almost purely subjective and/or obfuscated by our inability to formulate proper questions as much as our inability to observe beyond our own limited and jaded perceptions.
Case in point. The story of Gilgamesh is the story of Noah retold thousand years later by a different culture, and practically every ancient civilization has its own stories of a great flood... or why the sun an moon follow one another across the heavens. Science has added a LOT of names and titles to things... yet still most remain theoretical and make sense only on paper... in a convoluted set of data, or as abstract possibilities that working examples may derive from. And those working examples may actually work for completely different reasons than we've presently conjectured.
An example would be as to why some planets have electromagnetic cores and others don't, or why matter is nothing more than condensed light moving at an extremely slower rate than ambient light and energy. Or how Tia-mat (the planet) was destroyed while part of it was shorn off, only to later become or mate with our moon.
And how did that relate to ancient civilizations that were actually connected along a vastly different equator than the one we currently have? Did the meteoric impact in the gulf of mexico actually shift our planet's axis? Or was it added lunar mass from Tiamat? Or perhaps it was atmospheric shear combined with all the above?
This also leads to the question of Supernatural Measure. An ignorant or low IQ person may find a form of majesty and awe in the heavens that is best understood from a simple biblical sense... for it also allows them the comfort of a moral structure that places less weight of demand upon their ability to reason, while also allowing them the freedom to improve by their own measure of comprehension and understanding. An erudite person with a naturally higher IQ, access to a good degree, and the funds to maintain a broader scope of correlated studies may find the same awe, but in a less "supernatural" and more scientific manner. And an actual alien race that once visited earth in its infancy may seldom find anything supernatural or worthy of awe in anything extraterrestrial.
Each is best suited to varying levels of explanation and form their own "packaging" that works best over time (as we all do). It is incumbent on the more capable among us to make room for "supernatural" things we may have no personal need of nor belief in... because for many those "packages" of PROVEN MERITS and TRIBULATIONS are the closest thing they will ever have, earn, or comprehend as far as an allowance for PERSONAL DIGNITY are concerned. And if anyone thinks that Personal Dignity is a foregone or non-essential human value... they're seriously FUCKED in the head.
Stop belittling the travails and lessons one can learn from those who are less capable, and never ASSUME that their value is any less than yours. There are plenty of uptight ASS-HATS with degrees and money but completely shit morals and attitudes. Likewise there are plenty of people with cognizant disadvantages who remain motivated, helpful, good natured, and beneficial in the lives of those they meet and/or live with.
The biblical reference that comes to mind... "Judge not lest ye be judged," which is sound both ACTION-ABLY and ethically.
Many people actually think they're intelligent, then how has this simple fix for the societal IQ dilemma not been broached before? Could it be that secular pragmatism makes little to no room for PROVEN traditions and Merits? And could that possibly be due to the disproportionately high numbers of LIBERALS in Academia?
To ACTUAL Conservatives, this shit is obvious.
HINT: Old Books (like the Bible and/or Torah) are sources of Secular Wisdom as well as Supernatural Insight. They also don't bite and aren't infectious.
As pertains to Capitalism... if people started LEARNING what it actually is and stopped focusing so strictly concerning economic and/or political facets that would help.
Mull this Over: The TRUE currency of Capitalism isn't money.
Currencies, land, works of art, agriculture, food, labor, etc. are merely commodities and venues of exchange... as are debate, relationships, ideas, beliefs, comfort, safety, etc.
Markets are simply chains of PEOPLE communicating and enacting exchanges that suit their best interests (the more DIRECTLY enabled the better).
Bad poop (immoral acts) kill markets. Good Poop (moral acts and considerations) enable market expansions, growth, and variance as needs are positively altered over time (increased wealth generates altered priorities).
And ALL of this is because the ACTUAL currency of Capitalism is EARNED TRUST (aka PROVEN MERIT).
Proven Merit is The PRIMARY thing that Conservatives seek to protect from the hasty actions and unwise decisions of the left (Liberals) and it covers a huge variety of topics and situations repeated and/or exercised throughout history.
People may think me unduly harsh concerning Liberals, but not really. They have their place in society, as a challenge to stagnation and stoic assumptions... but as often they also feed a "drive" to create that blinds them to things already known... and HOW they impart their views to others. That is why Conservatives maintain the "wisdom" of the past and try to impart it. NOT to control, but as a warning against KNOWN personal and communal abuses (Sociopathy aka EVIL).
AND BTW: The Nazi were "left wing" Socialists... so stop pushing that BULLSHIT NARRATIVE about them being a "right wing" collective.
Jordan Peterson has also commented that the extreme right is marked by claims of "Ethnic Superiority" but that's also BULLSHIT.
The extreme right is marked by calls to self-reliance, family, tradition and rightfully protecting them against RAMPANT LIBERALISM and/or NATURAL CATASTROPHE. Conservatives REACT to and NEVER initiate IMMORAL BEHAVIOR even in response. And the most extreme on the right are too STOIC to come to any conclusions or decisions hastily unless FORCED to action.
Throughout history Racial Superiority and other forms of Identitarianism (new word I created) have always been a tool for and of the LEFT... as a means to manipulate and/or control others through that and other DIVISIVE MEASURES (Immoral Acts).
Conservatives are MERIT BASED, not identitarian... so STOP THE BULLSHIT.
The literature you're reading from was researched, written, and published by LIBERALS (no room for bias there, LOL).
HuGGz
This looks more like word chess, than reality. I usually like hearing different perspectives but has to be the most disappointing debate yet.
I really like Jordan, but I feel the military analysis with respect to IQ is a bit of a stretch. There are plenty of jobs people can do outside the military that don't need a minimum IQ. The military has to way the mission far more heavily and also a slow down in any part of the machine could cost lives. Civilian jobs usually don't have that dire of consequences. Overall though I think he's fantastic.
That's not the point the point is trying to make is to employ some people that number being 10% is counterproductive it makes no money it cost money that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it it's charitable to give people purpose and things to do so that they can earn things
The military as an example is convenient because it's on paper it's a large example that embodies the scope necessary to lay such claim personally I have no problem with helping out people who need some help easy enough 10% of people need our help being cared for add widows and orphans simplifies charity in redistribution for all widows are old and can't work orphans have no father people at the end of the cognitive scale need simple menial tasks and to be appreciated and respected for them that's the extent of redistribution we typically call it charity and do a great job of it there are people out there who hate success competence and beauty these are the Satanist although I do not believe in atheism they're actually lying through their teeth in denial because being judged makes everyone a little hot under the collar they're doing the devil's work by infiltrating or mats like we have today on the left and right trying to suck away every person they can and drag them to hell with them they hate God so much they exact their revenge on man I'll be leaving us engaging in public discourse with them does s a disservice you won't change anyone is given into reprobate mind these atheist hate everyone in that audience and pray for a volume of listeners and Watchers they hate men they're particularly clever because they don't believe in any of the things they're claiming in this debate they're here using this format in these truths so they will be deemed respectable enough to be listened to when they're spouting their atheist propaganda they know which side is right so they know which to infiltrate and cause sabotage and subterfuge forgive my rant to hell with all atheist God is great
@@robward7542 Maybe you should read McNamara's Folly. Ten percent of the US Military deaths resulted from Troops who were drafted despite being mentally unfit.
I find it so ironic that christian libertarians love ayn Rand. An anti-theist that put forth the idea of the 'virtues of selfishness'
hypocrites!
Ayn Rand, missed the reality of human
nature, objective reason without intuition hardens the heart of individuals and
loses the spirit of man. Spinoza, understood the reality of human nature and he
advocated a Democracy that includes both, capitalism with a social interest
(welfare) of the people who are less fortunate. Learn more, www.WayofSpinoza.com
I don't think Yaron ever grasped the complexities of the Darwinian pragmatist viewpoint. At one point point he pointed to the content of his subconscious as the manifestation of his lifelong experiences as a human-being, but that's technically incorrect. Our cognitive processes, both conscious and unconscious are the consequence of 3.5 billion years of evolution, and 99.9% of that time there was no ability to reason whatsoever.
A discussion on philosophy in which only ONE of the panel is an actual philosopher. The world is fucked.
Dave Rubin? Wow. Not a serious thinker
57:40
I try to respect what Yaron says, yet he consistently says things that are at the best embarrassing and the worst just stupid. It’s missing such obvious points like a child, and I’ll give an example. I’m not here to hate on him.
Forests are just a collection of individual trees. Great observation, Yaron, a forest is just s collection of individual trees. Well done. But then that’s when he stops and just sits back like checkmate, and if he was actually credible he would give it literally once more ounce of thinking.
Yes, forests are just a collection of individual trees. However, a forest also creates something more than just collections of individual trees. It creates a blanket for new life to form and grow. New trees that might grow to be a new kind that are the strongest, and largest in the forest, yet at their initial stages needed the blanket a forest provides, the shade and shelter of these individual trees, to allow life to grow in places that without that shelter would not be able to survive more than a minute.
How do you miss that, Yaron? Because you stop thinking when he thinks he stumbles on a “good” point,
And a collection of humans build faster and bigger than an individual... the problem is you forgot they are talking about rights. If trees had rights, the animals and such dont matter in that aspect because the tree is the focus, the tree has the rights to itself. Trees dont need other trees to grow FYI. Just because you can think of a way that collectivism could do something you think is good does not mean anything when your not focusing on the main topic which is rights. idk how you missed that because you thought you were making a good point.
@@damienneimad6044 Come back to my reply to the original poster please. Thank you. A guy from Michigan.
I have not listened to it yet, but I will listen for what you heard. Yaron may not have stressed the point completely, but you missed it completely. The reason why "individualism" applies to human beings is because we each have a brain that can build concepts on top of concepts, using things like Science and Math that we figured out,---and the individual human mind has to be free from force to think to it's natural and potential best. No other living thing on Earth can do that, but just like you explained the nature of trees, what I said is the nature of man, a rational being who has to be free to think and achieve. Now Damien below says a collection of humans can build faster and bigger than the individual. But that is just "labor" needed to perform a job---that an individual thought of. Add to the fact that it is man's nature to think and achieve with his ability to reason, and to live in a free society where he is free to follow his own rational mind, "rational if practiced", (and that is not to say he is free to commit crimes against another individual,--those are called crimes, when individual liberty is protected by law), also adding that the free market is suppose to belonging to the citizens, so we can use our minds to create and compete, not to government persuaded by business lobbyists who make regulation and tax they can endure, but keep new competition out of the industry, (which is why the USA went from thousands of car makers to 2 today, (Ask Preston Thomas Tucker, or watch the movie "Tucker", since he is dead).
Add together our natural ability to "reason", thinking/achieving, to the liberty to be able to act on your own thoughts with no opposing force on you, (as long as you are not committing a crime against somebody else's individual rights), and finally a free market that is in all of our hands, where we trade money instead of blood,---and you have discovered human morality. Some people in the USA have actually experience everything I said, and I am one of them with a small business in RC cars, which is about as Laissez-faire as left on planet Earth for me to create and achieve. I gotta tell you guys. I used to race Motocross for about a decade when I was younger. It was the most exciting thing I did,---until my little business took off, (thank God for capitalism). After working for over 20 employers, paying my own way through three college degrees, then starting my own business that took off, well, it took off like it was alive. That is when I realized our free market is alive. It is living and breathing and alive, just as much as we are, (pointing at my brain), no more and no less. My free market, is the most exciting thing that ever happened to me by far,--I have never been so happy as an adult. I discovered, "Freedom, human freedom and proper morality". Humans have rights only, and they are only individual rights. You will find that if individual liberty is gone, we will have no rights at all. Humans have rights only as individuals, and everything else on Earth is a resource and potential resource, because they can not be anything else. Individualism is also color and race blind, where we all have the same rights to think and achieve with out stealing from each other. Yea, that is the moral way for man to exist. You know it and I know it for only one reason,--because we can "think".
A guy from Michigan.
And don't think that if you graduated HS barely with like a D average at the age of 17, that you don't have the ability to grow your brain to think. By the end of my college engineering courses at a university called Ferris State in Michigan, (worked full time, school part time, long time but no loans, and still had fun), with 300 and 400 level engineering courses, (students not kids, but already engineers in their companies), I because the first person walking out the the class room during test day, and still getting a 90% or better on my tests. That is why I found out the brain is like the body, and if you work it out, it gets better too. That was a key factor for me to understand why individual liberty is so important for man's advancements, and how we would be still living caves with out "The age of reason", and the implementation of individual liberty, especially in the USA's first 100 years, (where we had the most individual liberty, and why all the big advancements of that time came from the USA almost exclusively, or---"exceptionally".
You don't think that he doesn't know that in a organism it can have many other facts as jp puts it.. He does and he mentioned that.. To me it seems jp is stressing that an object such as a stump or bean bag can have many other facts.. Like that isn't a simple thing. It is and yaron acknowledges and agrees. Jp had more trouble understanding yaron
But did they get invited to Obama's Birthday Party?
I have realized that philosophy, history, and politics are too complicated and vast to be bracketed in any category or group such as objectivism. The founders of objectivism and other such groups think that they will be able to prove something that NO ONE before them (in the last 6000 years) has been able to prove. This notion is extremely naive and cultist.
The intellectual, mental, psychological, material and other factors that go into the philosophical and political choices that we make are too great for any philosophical system to deal with. The factors that go into the creation of a human civilization are as great as those that go into the creation of the universe itself. No one can keep track of all these factors. Till today the fundamental moral and political principles that we accept are unargued and are accepted due to all sorts of reasons (mostly unphilosophical and unscientific).
The paradigms keep getting obsolete and have to be reworked and when reworking is not possible, they need to be overthrown and a new one built in its place. I hardly think of objectivism now--that word is meaningless in light of the vastness of these subjects--philosophy, history, and politics.
The way they talk, you'd think they haven't read anything except objectivist material. Even when they reference other ideas, it's done by repeating what objectivists have said about the topic.
"Socialism is when the state does stuff. And that's bad because we are all Individuals who should fix their problems individually. Who ca res about social problems anyway; inequality is the b e s t."
This discussion frequently gets itself bogged down and very repetitive.
Thank Jordan’s primitive, incoherent worldview.
The only thing that makes sense to me about the soul is everything is made up of energy. and the source of the energy has all of it connected together like a drop of water going into the ocean. Our consciousness comes from our spirit or soul and that lives in a much much much higher state of energy. we see our bodies and human experience as physical and our spirit is operating our body remotely from the higher dimension so to speak. It seems like karma and reincarnation is true.
so when a spirit first becomes human the human brain is very primitive and the spirit has no idea how to communicate with it. and the new human easily enjoys all of its animal desires. sex drugs fighting crime rape murder. these people are incapable of social skills and keeping jobs and making good decisions. lets say this is human 1.0
Then after a bunch of incarnations people will know the animalistic desires are wrong and they will be able to go job to job and have bouts with drugs and jail vut will still know the feeling of good and have a some social skills and have a few friends but not really huge connections and fighting bad this means the spirit is able to have tiny tiny beed throughs of feeling to the human brain this is human 2.0
After more reincarnations the human might have a rough childhood but has pretty good intuition to navigate through to adulthood and can have good social skills to keep a job and friends. these people have a stronger connection to their spirit and they are getting direction from it. this is human 3.0
And the last one is when a kid grows up and just kind of knows the things this is the kid that just understand things when you tell them. they avoid trouble and they make great connections with everyone. they go to college and start working and have awesome intuition and have awesome social skills and its easy for people to like them. these people have a spirit that has learned very well how to handle things. this is 4.0
i havent found very good proof for incarnation but the young kids that remember their previous life is an example.
Yaron Brook is cringeworthily out of his league here
Those lips
Bunch of sociopaths
On Joe Rogan show....? wow....He is one of those all the way "Fake reality!" lunatics. Nice start...
Feel free to explain yourself
Dumb body tattoos (read: herd mentality), non-medical roid use and abuse for the sole purpose of showing off. Claims of strength and knowledge in the field of nutrition and MMA he does not possess. Just to name a few. And the list can go on and on.
During..blat
kenfm Richard gada 911truth and justice. on TH-cam