WHAT HAPPENED WITH JORDAN PETERSON?! Matt Dillahunty & Douglas Murray
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 เม.ย. 2024
- Full discussion here: • CAN ISLAM SAFELY COEXI...
#mattdillahunty #douglasmurray #jordanpeterson #jordanpetersondaily #jordanpetersonquotes #jordanpetersondebate #jordanpetersonshorts #jordanpetersoninterview #atheism #atheist #atheistviews #secularism #pangburn #pangburnphilosophy
Welcome to the Pangburn Universe, governed by the laws of good faith & helpfulness.
JOIN US IN NYC ON JUNE 1st for ALEX O'CONNOR vs DINESH D'SOUZA on "IS THE BIBLE TRUE?"
Tickets available here: www.pang-burn.com/tickets
Why do people take Alex O’Connor seriously? That kid is a joke.
Seriously…who TF listens to Dinesh these days?? He’s a pathetic attention seeking idiot.
@PopularDemand1000 you could not be more wrong.
The lad is ace!
@@PopularDemand1000 anything specific?
Would be nice to do this in Boston, in a place with parking.
"Dr Peterson, what's your favorite color?"
"Well that depends what you mean by favorite, and it also depends what you mean by color. This is also a very complex question. One must acknowledge the underlying verisimilitude that is irrevocably nested within a multi-layered metaphysical substrate, which many people fundamentally conflate with their ideological presuppositions with no uncertain irregularity, causing the inadvertent dismissal of Jung's archetypal extrapolation of the quintessential axiomatic juxtaposition required to achieve Raskolnikov's magnitude of neo-Marxist existential nihilism..."
Lol
😂
This made me think of the bridge scene from Monty Python's Holy Grail lol
Genius
That was an excellent comment. Peterson is a fraud that panders to creationists. This is a good example of why the internet has become the forum of ideas. Here is an example of an idea that might be forwarded for criticism and debate: Human beings are creative universal explainers. All problems can be solved given the appropriate knowledge. Humans are the created supernatural beings, not the other way round.
Audience capture happened. Daily Wire happened.
Agree ReedClip. And he's now not even able to have a discussion, he doesn't let others speak, see his podcast interviews, unbearable. He has 'professor' syndrome, too many years lecturing students. Feeling he knew all the answers and they were little sponges soaking up his brilliance. My aunt is a uni tutor and she talks to us all like little kids, it's so arrogant. And boring. And now JP has become boring too!
@@amia7999Also, his every second sentence, in any subject is about "biblical corpus"
Yep. As Voltaire said, When it is a question of money everyone is of the same religion
I never followed him super closely, so my timeline might be off, but I think it was the benzo addiction that screwed him up. He was out of commission for years, and when he came back, it seemed like he had a definite change in his general mood. Given what a horrific experience it sounds like it was, I wouldn't be surprised if it left him permanently messed up a bit.
And drugs. A lot of drugs happened.
This seems to be roughly the 5 millionth time Pangburn has posted some variant of this clip.
I know. Desperate for more views.
I've seen it before too. There are probably many others who haven't seen it though. I think it's important to expose Peterson for the BS he throws out. I had a 'discussion' with someone who was defending him recently.
@@tims8603it's more important to recognize the validity of JP's arguments.
I listened to Matt along with Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins a lot as a teen. They confirmed my natural path to atheism. About 15 years later, I started realizing I was wrong, and it comes down to very basic/abstract axioms. JP confirmed that path for me. Anyone that defends him as always right OR calls him an idiot reveals their own intellectual infancy. His painfully deliberate thought process is actually incredible.
@@stephenr85 Just because he convinced you that you were 'wrong' doesn't mean that you were wrong. A lot of people think he has good arguments. I'm not one. I don't know what you mean when you say your 'natural path to atheism'. That makes no sense to me. Atheism is a position one takes after examining the evidence for the claim that god(s) exist. Nothing more. I've never heard any sufficient evidence for those claims, therefore, I haven't been convinced that those claims are true. I don't understand how someone can switch their position from theism to atheism and then back to theism. Seems to me that you didn't do your due diligence at any point. You seem to be able to change depending on which way the wind blows. I've been an atheist since I was a young boy. I'm 69 now and haven't changed my position once since then.
@@tims8603
We vacillate between beliefs based upon our gathered evidence. But, being finite, all are capable of coming across information that they didn't previously know. Likewise, all are capable of forgetting information and are certainly capable of not remembering how pieces to the argument fit together so as to convince them of it's truth at one time.
You are part of that group designated as "all", meaning that you are subject to these deficiencies as well. This makes your comment as to not understanding how someone could shift in beliefs come off as very pompous.
If what you meant was that one should do their homework (due diligence) so as to shift as little as possible, I think most would agree. But not being able to "understand" how opinions can change, no one should agree with that.
"What do you mean by 'do'? What do you mean by 'you'?" - Jordan Peterson
When someone is prepared to stoop to those depths in order to avoid answering the question "do you believe in god", it's hard to respect them enough to listen to them on anything.
Scooby Do.
@wunnell Well, what do you mean by "respect", "listen" and "them"? Those ae on epistomologically shaky grounds that raise ontological questions.
*What do you mean by 'do'?*
*What do you mean by 'you'?*
*I can't answer your query,*
*I can only respond in fury,*
*'Cuz the answer I cannot clearly state,*
*So I must conflate and complicate,*
*Hoping you forget what you did ask,*
*So that in glory of verbiage I can bask!*
@@pmaitrasm, is that attributed to Dr Jordan B Seuss?
@@wunnell, Yes. 🙂
I wonder how much Jordon Peterson's conversational style is grounded in the psychologist, patient dynamics. It is all about the patients beliefs and how to use those beliefs to change behaviors. If his beliefs contradict the patients beliefs those beliefs could lose some potency for behavioral change. Evasion becomes a required skill.
Answer: a lot. I'm a big fan of JP, but he is, above all else, a psychologist, not a philosopher. His goal as a public intellectual is to get society in order and help struggling individuals get their life together, not to uncover deep truths about the metaphysical nature of reality. Ironically, in advancing his goal as essentially a clinical group psychologist, he has inadvertently uncovered fundamental truths about reality that he can't himself rationalise due to a lack of the necessary philosophical competence to do so. If Hegel were alive, he'd be able to ground JP's psychologically derived insights in legitimate metaphysics, and JP's positions would gain a lot more philosophical power ─ imo probably enough to convince truly open-minded materialists such as Matt Dillahunty and Sam Harris.
@@maxkho00 Convince them of what? What "fundamental truths about reality" has he uncovered?
The ability to articulate like these people find themselves doing should never be mistaken or confused with critical thinking/analysis. My belief is that it doesn’t just spring to mind in the middle of a conversation. There are talkers, and then there are thinkers.
Some people say Peterson fell off but he was never "on"
I agree. I have listened to Peterson’s lectures from years ago and I’ve listened to maps of meaning, or I should say specific readings of Mabs of meaning, and it basically reminds me of mental patients when they are in the grips of a manic episode or a disconnection from reality. It seems to me that Peterson is not mentally well, and for whatever reason he seems to be enabled by friends and family instead of getting actual help. And what is particularly sinister is that Peterson takes his personal beliefs on virtually everything you care to name and tries to pass those opinions off as some kind of airtight fact. And when you challenge him on these he becomes evasive and nebulous.
Sometimes I think he tends to seesaw between being a cynical opportunist and a mentally unwell man that is a little by little becoming untethered from reality.
Jordan is best at making things more complicated than they need to be.
Shapiro/Daily Wire, in addition to believing his own hype, is what happened to him. He began to feel like an authority on everything when he clearly isn't. He should stay in his lane. Psychology is what he knows. that's what he should stick to.
I mean even before that....someone asked him if he was a prophet, thought a long time before answering!
@havocgr1976 That is concerning. I hadn't see that.
Was thinking the same! Wanted to reply: shoemaker, stick to your craft. The man helped me a lot when it comes to psychology, but his 'persona' is a bit all over the place.
This!
100% agreed. JBP got blinded by fame and corrupted by being on the pedestal
Jordan suffered from relevance syndrome just like everyone on social media who rocketed stardom and then tried to expand into areas he had no expertise in. The more he looked weak in certain areas the more stress he placed upon himself and hence the breakdown. He's only human just like every other person who enjoys the fame and failure in life.
There is something deeply wrong with a psycho therapist having a mental breakdown and using meds.
It's like an obese Personal Trainer.
@@BonusHolegood thing he lost his licence
@@BonusHoletbf I don’t think he’s practiced since he went viral.
@@BonusHole- I find it strange that a man can live with a man and say it’s a woman and then come here and talk about reality.
It's good though he draws attention to the dangers of the insane Woke ideology.
Too much abstract concept ends up boring, wanting to say something simple and complicating it too. Wisdom is in the simplicity of things. It is my opinion.
" Truth to me, is what comports with reality,done, at least that's the truth I care about", that serves well for me as well.
How does that square with the findings of Iain McGilchrist? This definition is exactly what the Left Mind would see but he shows just how limited that is.
@@nickleby77can you explain? Mcgilchrist speaks of how each hemisphere of the brain has a different approach to truth but how does that impact a definition that truth is what comports to reality - regardless of how an individual’s brain might approach that?
@htown11465 he also talks about the dynamic go-between.
@@jessewest2109 what?
Yeah, and what else does your High Priest Matt say?
It seems everyone has his own solid explanation about what happened with him, though has anything changed? He seems like a usual JBP to me
He's transformed a lot, from a thoughtful nuanced thinker and debater into an old man who yells at cloud.
It's really heartbreaking. I've met him in person in 2018 and had nothing but admiration for JBP.
Today he's too much religious, too much jaded, too arrogant.
Bro you must not have seen the waterworks he occasionally displays 😭
@@giomjava What specifically do you think he “yells at cloud” about?
@@giomjava of all the respect he was never a thoughtful or nuanced thinker or a debater of any quality. He always argues from bad faith and he always employs this habit of arguing not only in bad faith but also being nebulous and evasive. He’s a crank. Nothing more.
@@theQuestion626 You must be truly ideologically possessed to think that. Claiming he argues in bad faith requires a special type of delusion.
A correlation is not a cause. To the extent audiences detect a change in Dr. Peterson, it occurred during his move to the Daily Wire, but that is coincidence. Any change occurred after his wife's near-death experience and his own almost simultaneous health scare. I attribute his religiosity to those. Clearly they had a profound impact on him and his perspective, and that may be coloring his view on religion. I recall lectures given before where he was quite reluctant to address religion; certainly his own. That's why his current approach seems such a departure. I counsel grace on the matter.
Thank you for sharing understanding and compassion in this thread. Much needed.
Hearing people talk about this grifter turning further and further to the far right is hilarious. As if his whole current position wasn't based on a malicious misreading of a Canadian Bill....all to aim hate and fear at a minority of people who just wanna live.
He's following the money, and he's well on the way to being just another far right/ fash grifter.
There's no great mystery with him. He's been deeply dishonest from the get go, and anyone watching closely enough would have seen the rage and hate that fuel the pig.
To get somehow this didn’t really do anything to humble Jordan Peterson. As of anything I would make the argument it makes him even more pompous and delusional. He’s more aggressive, he’s more arrogant, he’s more in his own head and he still gets on a bandwagon and attacks marginal groups. He’s not a man that should be pitied, he’s a man that should be avoided. He’s a mentally unwell man that needs serious help. Maybe if he got out of the spotlight and actually got sober he would be able to salvage what’s left of his personal dignity as well as his brain.
I just love you guys...thank you for saying what we can't.
Admittedly, I have not followed Dr. Peterson since joining the Daily Wire, but I recall him saying that atheists use a Judeo-Christian framework for their atheism. If you contend that God was the source/inspiration, you are a beneficiary of Divine value of your true self. I’m not a philosopher, so I lack the words.
Something I've thought about recently is that there is really only one moral that is exclusively Christian. Believing in christ. Its nit really even a moral. Everything else isn't exclusive to Christianity.
Matt is concerned with being factually true, Jordan with being teleologically True, as in "my true love"/the arrow flies true/... Judean Sadducees did NOT believe in souls or an afterlife, yet were responsible for the Temple and the Shalom (Peace, Long life & Prosperity) of the state. One might say such "believe in the idea of God" [Ridley Scott] or "believe in belief" [Matt Dillahunty], but the Temple is the Template (eg. 4 Cherubim in the Holy of Holies/4 gospels in the NT...) for the Judeo-Christian framework, which they not only benefited from, but also played a significant role in CREATING and SUSTAINING (only an Heir of Zadok could enter where God speaks "between the cherubim").
NB. I've heard Matt reference "belief in belief" but may have been citing the late Daniel Dennett, who sometimes went to church, or Mr Dawkins, who recently reiterated the sentiment that not all belief systems bear the same fruit/ teleological outcomes.
And that is nonsense, there are tribes deep in the Amazon much more moral than most Christians.They don't even know the word Jesus.What he really believes, and which Murray described with polite words, and JP avoids to say because he knows how ugly it is,is that we are all a bunch of homicidal bastards and we need religion to keep the masses in line.With that I can kinda agree.At least Murray is honest about it.
He also said that atheists don't exist.
what do we lose? accountability. a sense of awe and wonder for the mysterious and the miraculous.
Not to mention a connection with God, and the knowledge, wisdom and peace that brings us (assuming we tend to that relationship)
I was Christian for 15 years then lost my faith. I have not lost accountability, wonder, or awe. If anything, I have more.
@@MikeLeonard Your journey as an individual is unique to you, and not informative on a society. So it's fine for an individual, but a society as a whole needs that kind of accountability.
@@johnt5997 what accountability would that be? We have laws, rules, expectations, consequences. Being able to just ask for forgiveness seems like less accountability, not more.
@@MikeLeonard one seeks forgiveness from one's creator to obtain peace and absolution for the soul. this doesn't protect us from punishment on earth for the wrongs we do to each other.
society needs the concept of accountability to a higher power to anchor its laws. to protect individuals. to safeguard the society as a whole.
The sanctity, or worth of the individual exists regardless of differences in any measurable trait, including IQ. That is what should be taught and emphasised. Does being wary of it imply a value judgment?
What's all this about religion? You only have to look at the jackets Jordan wears these days to see things aren't right. On a serious note, I felt rather grubby listening to this conversation. It was a bit like being at a dinner party when one of the guests leaves the room and the other diners start talking about him. These guests here, of course, were being paid to talk publicly. Their smugness was toe curling.
100% agree, I hate this…
Your dinner party analogy is flawed. Its not gossip, this has been posted publicly and Peterson himself would welcome robust criticism.
Don't judge a man by his jacket.
@@howeffingridiculous It struck me that they were discussing his mental health rather than valid criticism of his ideas.
I submit anyone who actually cares about JP would be concerned about his mental health. He had a severe chemical addiction, and to treat that addiction underwent a controversial/dangerous treatment. I was a supporter of JP early on, but over the last few years IMHO JP has suffered obvious cognitive degradation (primary), and a change in general behavior. It is like looking at two different individuals sometimes.
Jordan Peterson's favorite word is substrate. 😂
I'll see your substrate and raise you "corpus"..
*substrate
And metaphysics and Dostoyevsky
I'd say "metaphysical substrate" and "Biblical corpus" are neck and neck.
I’d never heard the word proclivity before Petersen
As social creatures we are hard-wired to feel empathy, and are inclined towards altruism and compassion. That is the foundation of moral-ethical thinking and development. Nothing supernatural or metaphysical needed. To not feel empathy is a significant pathology-- a sociopath. The whole "Original Sin/we are ontologically inclined towards the bad" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. And frankly, it seems like a type of child abuse to raise one thinking that of themselves. If you only don't murder or steal because you're afraid of eternal punishment you're not actually a good person, you're a criminal being held in check.
It's ironic that the Christian right in the US are always going on about CRT and how the education system is trying to teach certain kids that that are inherently bad when Christians themselves want to teach children that ALL children are inherently bad.
I largely agree with you. But that doesn't make morality logically necessary. How are we in any way morally superior to psychopath if we are all just following our natural emotional inclinations?
And don't we ant the criminals held on check?
@@carlwhite4233 Being a psychopath is not an issue of morals, but of psychiatry and brain wiring... it is an organically-based mental illness and so a medical issue, not a moral issue. For "normal" people moral development has stages... on a child's level it is about reward and punishment. For a Saint it is about universal principles. Do a search for "Kohlberg’s theory of moral development".
@@carlwhite4233 Of course! What a silly, silly question! That's why we have prisons.
Why did they do this on the surface of the moon?
His intentions don’t seem entirely disingenuous, some ideas begin with a rational foundation; it seems he gets frustrated by the difficulty of expressing nuanced solutions and goes off the deep end.
Simplification: His ideas begin with a unique perspective, he can’t explain it well enough and starts saying crazy things in frustration.
To me, it is like Yin and Yang. The white has a black dot and the black has a white dot. No one 100% believes in God. If they did, they would have no fear. I’m pretty sure about that. The opposite, that no one is 100% atheist, I can’t say, for sure, that that is true mostly because I don’t know what they mean. But, I can say, that I’ve yet to find a person who did not worship something.
no fear? When most religions tell you to fear the god they promote. The bible is very clear that you need to fear god.
And, I worship nothing. There are things I like more than I like other things, and I would due to protect my children, but I do not have altars for anything, I dont light candles for something every week, I have no entity , spiritual or wordly, that I see as anything remotely divine.
So there, now you have at least talked to a person that worships nothing.
@@Goldenhawk583 Thank you for your reply
I might be starting to see where the disconnect comes. You seem to connect the word “worship” with “ritual”. I connect it with “faith”. To repeat, I said that I don’t understand what atheists mean and I still do not. My confusion comes from differing definitions I believe.
What follow is how I phrase things or view things which is most likely where we differ.
Many people put faith in the government. They believe that the government will take care of things. Addicts put their faith in their addition. Their drug of choice will make them feel better and take care of things. Many put their faith in themselves believe that they will prevail and succeed in all cases. Many put faith in the legal system. Note that many religious people put their faith in their religion instead of God. The list is endless.
Whenever you have outrage, assuming you do but purhaps you do not, the outrage is when your expectations are not being met and the expectations are coming from faith in that entity. My way of phrasing things is you are worshiping that entity. You are making that entity your god, at least temporarily.
To recap, whatever it is you are upset with, more precisely, whatever it is you believe you are upset with, you have made into a false god and you are upset because that god has let you down.
To me, these are the false gods that are referred to in biblical text.
@@pedzsan To understand what the word means, check a dictionary for confirmation, but it simply means the lack of belief in the existance of any god or gods.
Thats it. That is the only thing you can be sure every atheist has in common.
If you have problems with understanding how it feels to not have a god to grovel to.. I suggest reading the bible, cover to cover, and , being brutally honest with yourself, scrutinize the moral principles you have, to what the bible teaches. For so many, that was the first step towards understanding that there are no gods.
I am not upset with any gods, I am upset that religions like the bible version, teaches that women are born slaves, that slavery in general is ok, that killing for land and profit ( and virgins) is fine, and that genocide is good when a god says so.
If you are as honest as you seem to claim, tell me, how many people ( not including the flood and other estimates), does god kill or order killed in the bible. How many, and how is this ok? ( sooo many children).
I dont worship anything as far as I know. I just live my life and love my family.
@pedzsan
RE: No one 100% believes in God
The Bible distinguishes between strong and weak faith and, in fact, leaves no room for no faith. The atheist would be those Paul describes as "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom 1:18). All are born, according to the Bible, in the condition called original sin. As a result, all suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” (Mark 9:24)
“Why are you fearful, O you of little faith?” (Matthew 8:26)
Faith is an expression of love for God
"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear..." (1 John 4:18)
As the Bible makes clear that there is no perfection (in love, in faith or in any other measurable way), save with Jesus, in this life, there will always be that fear associated with torment (ref 1 John 1:18). The man perfect in all his ways throughout his entire life would have no need to fear torment.
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. (Proverbs 9:10) As this verse was written to sinful man, it includes that servile fear, but also speaks to that fear best explained as reverence. In this regard even Jesus would "fear" God the Father. This is primarily the right understanding of who we are relative to who He is.
The Bible is explicit in its teaching that man was created to worship. This is the simple reason why there has never been a studied culture that didn't display an outward and obvious worship of something it called god. The choice of any other god (or no god, for that matter) than the true and living God of the Bible is first and foremost self-worship. It is so because it is the rejection of the truth of God, and only he who places himself above God can make such a claim.
It matters not, that they who do this will deny it. They have passed an edict within their kingdom of one that, "We/I will not have this man (the God-man, King Jesus) to rule over us/me!"
The gray area between nuance and weaseling is narrower than JP realizes... or maybe he does. As a Christian, I resent Peterson playing on people's sincerely held beliefs for political ends. As far as I'm concerned, he's a practicing post-modernist, whatever he says about post-modernism notwithstanding. Very odd feeling for me to be siding with the atheist in a conversation like that.
There a are strong, genuine, intellectually honest Christian scholars in the world. JP is not even close to them.
JP is a cultural and philosophical Christian.
That's not the same as a Born Again person who has the Spirit of God inside of them.
@@BonusHole Yes, that's what I mean. "Cultural and philosophical Christian" is a post-modern notion.
It may be because JP is an atheist selling post-modernism to Christians. He uses religious words to sound profound.
Peterson is also am atheist as much as he tries to hide it..
7:40 “I don’t want to belabor this” so he goes right on and belabors the point 😂
DM fans seems to think because…sound smart, means smart. Losing the reason for the talk to begin with they misunderstand how logic works, so they straw man Matt.
It's always the fairest ideal l to critique a person's views when they are not present.
That said, I think these guys are fair-minded. But the situation prolly isn't completely fair to Jordan Peterson. I get the impression that JP thinks the stories about faith in God are utterly, metaphorically, psychologically true and real in some human adaptive sense. And he is purposely ignoring whether there is a metaphysical correspondence between the faith stories and God-reality or non-reality. Perhaps he thinks this question is unanswerable: Is God real? Perhaps he thinks that we can't know if God exists, but we can know (he seems to claim) that the stories work.
Also, if you watch his recent conversation with Daniel Dennet, you'll see that his views are changing. Should I wait for fair responses or snarky smug ones?!
Jbp talked with Daniel dennet recently?
You are correct, but he isn't honest about it.They don't ask him if God exists, they ask him if HE believes in God and he never answers.Probably for the reasons Murray described.Murray pretty much thinks the exact same thing, but he is honest about it.I ll watch that Dennet one now.Edit: Dennet died 3 days ago ! :(
@@havocgr1976 To be fair, there may be more plausible explanations other than dishonesty. Unfortunately, his views are extremely complicated.
@@HeyUncleJack Yes and very recently. Maybe just before DD’s passing. I watched it all. Overall worth it
@@ReadOasis For an experienced debater like Peterson, avoiding to answer a direct question, without at the very least, giving a reason for not answering, is dishonest. To be more precise, it is fine to not answer every question, but they must be acknowledged. " I heard you question, and I will not answer that question."
Frustrating maybe, but honest.
Ironic…objective truth is the most important truth for Matt, but when it comes to the subjective “truth”of children who think they need sex reassignment surgery he is unsurprisingly un objective.
For all those that support this trans movement ( I dont know what to call it), they seem very onesided, and that means they are dishonest., Have you found any video of them adressing those that regret their reassignemnt ? That number is increasing fast, and it is a tragedy,
I have nothing against actual transpeople btw, even they are shocked about this.
Morality is SUBJECTIVE. It derives from our human condition as a social species with social instincts, whose members also have selfish instincts. Our efforts to reconcile this field of conflicting instincts constitutes the whole of human morality.
In a different species with different instincts, morality would be constructed differently.
This makes morality SUBJECTIVE. That doesn't mean it's ARBITRARY.
When Matt speaks about objectivity in the context of moral choice, he's simply pointing out that given a set of values, it's possible to objectively determine what consequence of a given action will promote or undermine those values. Sam Harris says much the same thing. The values themselves are determined subjectively.
@@Goldenhawk583 The number or the percentage? The difference between the two matters greatly.
@@ErgoCogita Among prepubescent children, followed up from childhood to adolesence, the rate of desistance , as per a 2016 review of 10 studies, is between 61 and 98%. 85% average.
Now imagine if all these children have been on hormone blockers ( we need a healthy hormone balance to develop properly) for years. Imagine some of then having had their breats and reproductive organs removed.
It used to be that people who wanted to change, had to go through extensive mental screening to rule out other possuble causes for them to wish to change gender, this screening has mostly disappeared.
Up to 70% of those that detransition now ( we are now talking about adults), report doing so because they found their problem was not gender related, but something else.. depression, an eating disorder, or many other things. They just did not understand themselves when they changed gender and went though the treatments.
The suicide rate between transdender people in general, is 35 to 50% worldwide.
The Prefrotal Cortex, the part of out braun that deals with making desiscions, do not matyre until we are 25, and even then, a lot of people are not mature.
So, if anything,what have we learned?
Children are NOT able to know which gender they will prefer as adults.
People who wish to swap, need mental help, both to make sure they are mentally fit to make the transotion, but also to save those that just need help.
Trans people also need a LOT of mental help in general, because of the kind of problems they have, a lot of them in society in general.
Does this answer you questions?
You are mistaken. For example, if you are sad then it's an objective fact that you are sad. That sadness is completely internal to you and a product of your mind but whether I or anyone else believes that you are said doesn't change the fact that you are sad. If a person's gender identity doesn't match their biological sex then that is an objective fact. Whether or not you believe them doesn't change that.
About truth: many mix truth and usefulness/meaningfulness. Its a bit dishonest really. Calling a useful story "true" is not ok.
Sam Harris talked about "unity with a larger totality" it's all semantics.
Jordan has, for the past few years, has gone through some horrific events in his life. I think he took a nihilistic approach and giving in to christianity. That's when you throw your arms up and give up. Most people do this in fascist or communist societies. He needed help and chose this route rather than reach out to a trusted colleague. I don't know Jordan personally, but based on his public figure...its what I see.
Maybe a different approach (empathy and compassion). Giving up to feelings is not thinking. Jordan is a thinker.
Oh, maybe he's a hack, an opportunist that doesn’t want to upset his rightwing audience
They talk about JP like he fell off or something.
He has. He used to be a proper thinker, teacher, & psychologist. Now he is simply a weapon of the right wing.
Hasn't he? He may be having a larger audience and making more money, but he's basically just fear mongering his audience and speaking in words just long enough to stroke their ego by making them think they're smart because they think they understand half of them. Both very lucrative attributes for any public speaker. He IS pursuing what is expedient, rather than what is meaningful.
@@narcissistwhispererfor a while now, those were the only ppl that would treat him with any kind of respect. So I fail to see what antithetical position would give him a similar welcome?
@@bennymountain1nobodys perfect or immune from true criticism and I have to admit I overlook some of his faults but what your saying has a great deal of subjectivity and opinion
@@narcissistwhisperer Yeah you're absolutely right narcissist! He can't think anymore, hes been infiltrated by the right wing! He's a proper fascist now. It must be all the red meat he's eating. Maybe you can whisper something smart to him.
People have been arguing truth for thousands of years, but, I agree, it makes me feel all contemptuous and whiney when people just don't accept my definition of truth.
A major problem with Peterson's expressed worldview is that he maintains that those 'important metaphorical truths' should actually be believed as truths (without qualifiers). While in reality it is quite enough for them to be simply metaphorical to be inspiring.
I think what happened is Matt snapped a bit at Jordan over the the Secular Humanism discussion.
Matt: "With all do apologies, you do not know the first thing about secular humanism!"
th-cam.com/video/FmH7JUeVQb8/w-d-xo.html
What planet are you from?
@@Instramark Planet Teegeeack, why?.
What's your theory as to why Jordan doesn't want to debate Matt again?
@@jasonthurston799because Matt had a good argument
@lifeliver9000 Well, that's besides the point.. Matt needs to be respectful with his approach and tone to people he wants to debate with again in the future. Matt has gotten a bit burned out from arguing with idiots on his talk show and he reflexively treated Jordan like one of them briefly. Jordan has a lot of viewers he brings to the debas and he doesn't want to be disrespected in front of them.
@@jasonthurston799
Sounds like a great planet! Not sure I said JP would be reluctant to debate Matt again. But, I am very impressed with Matt as a debater. He held JP on task as JP jumps around. JP was asked by an audience member, if all people die, does God die.
JP did his dissertation on Jung supposedly and Jung was a huge Gnostic. This was a very pertinent Gnostic question that JP went blank on. If Matt knew anything about Gnosticism he could have scored well on JP's missing this question completely.
I feel that Matt is so ordered, on task that Matt can defeat or hold his own with JP, or anybody for that matter, and I wonder if JP wants to hook up with Matt again.
Plus, Matt, like a lot of us, is not in awe of JP.
Matt scores well on the fundamental believer and JP wiggles around so much on that subject that it sure seemed to me that Matt was polite enough to not embarrass JP. I liked the interview. Didn't seem like a fake wrestling event like most do.
Cheers!
Jordan believes that part of human nature is to worship something even if you don’t believe in anything.
He doesn’t believe atheist believe in god in a hidden way just that without knowing the worship will go elsewhere without the person knowing it and he’ll claim it goes to power and authority.
I think the enlightenment is being challenged and this is one of it’s current issues. I also think it’s healthy that the narrative on atheism can be challenged without just calling them sinners but also Atheist at this point can’t dismiss a religious person as a lunatic. I believe this is good progress.
What is their point in talking about IQ tests? What relevance does that have to the conversation between Peterson and Dillahunty?
I'd like to take Matt's view on love sometime. What does he think of love? How much is it valued compared to reason and compared to the truth? Is reason more suited to lead us as a society than love? Maybe love is overrated?
Sounds platitudinous
In the interest of full disclosure, I’m both conservative and a “believer“…
I find enlightenment in listening to both of you. I, too, am frustrated with JP’s unwillingness/inability to speak clearly to his religious beliefs. They do seem to be changing. That aside, I’m a great admirer and supporter of JP. He has and continues, I believe, to make a significant and positive difference in the world.
His greatest contribution these days seems to be as a major point of confirmation bias for the conservative right-wing stable of beliefs. And why not, it’s certainly proved lucrative.
@@kristopherjon6496 '...a major point of confirmation bias for the conservative right-wing stable of beliefs.' Word salad.
I don't even know if I disagree with you based on that sentence.
@@waylanddavick9459 Well, if you put in no effort to understand it, how could you?
I mean he is being paid by right-wing propagandists in return for confirming the bias of their target audience. Why else make such terribly informed public statements on climate science? Or make reactionary, incendiary comments - again, very publicly - about plus size models? Or the very matter at hand -- why not make a definitive statement on his own belief on whether an actual deity exists or not, and the nature of that deity?
Simple. His viewers like all those things about him. It comforts them in their beliefs.
Dr.Peterson is a Terrific,Smart Human Being regardless of His views..He definitely stirs up more ppl...well just listen to these Two...Easy to be opinionated...when Dr.P isn't there! Very!Interesting...🤔
All this ruckus just because JP seems to not be so flippant of religion?
The "ruckus" is a discussion worth having. He's a public figure whose pronouncements need scrutiny. Even Peterson would welcome that
I think a big thing that draws criticism is that he's (as far as I know) opaque - and suspiciously opaque - about his precise religious beliefs, especially concerning atheism vs. theism and the existence of an afterlife. It really smacks of grift and the fear of alienating a significant percentage of his followers/customers. It'd be trivially easy to say something like "I'm agnostic by a very slim technical definition but an atheist in practical terms." And his #10 rule being "be precise in your speech" is very galling given his typical obscurant way of expressing himself when discussing a topic that could alienate his followers.
His wife became a Catholic recently, he was in attendance observing the rituals in the church. He's been known to say on several occasions that he likes to orient himself as though there was a God. I do not know him at any point to have come out to say he's an atheist.
At the same time, he obviously isn't certain of his religious beliefs in the sense of having a particular religion.
So I disagree that it's grift or fear of losing followers, I believe it's more about having clear personal convictions, in a way that can be properly articulated.
My problem is why this is being described as if it's a moral defect on the man.
People lose their minds that he can have a respect for Christianity and still be figuring it out for himself in real time. Thats why he always looks visibly unenthusiastic when he gets asked if he believes in God. People cant just let him be on his own personal journey, they need an answer from him right at this very moment. Makes you wonder what peoples motives are for always trying to force him into a corner
@@99jaa he's a public intellectual. He makes public statements about religion. Of course he is going to be scrutinized. He puts himself out there and he expects to be questioned. He's a brave man but his disorganised thoughts on the topic deserve close critical analysis. Too many people are seeking to canonize him
its a shame this is only available in 720p
It seemed obvious that JP was around just like the Washington Generals!
This rigidity about who’s right or wrong for those other than themselves I find extraordinary. Why is it so difficult for people to simply agree to disagree with their inability to accept another’s personal opinion, or one’s ability to just carry uncertainty as to what another’s truth is.
What is the harm done by harboring differences of belief, i.e., opinions? Are they corrupting the nation’s youth? I am inspired by one vision, you by another. You’re for God. I am not, or vice-versa. It’s a silly dallying IMO on a matter, which is not consequential to social cohesion unless it is made so by seriously rigid men and women.
That seems to be a very naive take. It's a nice ideal but have you met many religious people? Many believe that their god requires them to not simply accept others' opinions. Many religious people are happy to just do their thing but many are not and, if the rest of us don't push back on them, they will force us to live by their rules. Just look at the recent overturning of Roe v Wade in the US. That is forcing everyone to live by religious standards.
On the subject of Peterson specifically, I don't think anyone really cares that he wants to have his wacky ideas. What we care about is that he's out there pushing it and claiming to be some bastion of honesty and clarity while clearly obfuscating his position on purpose for his own ends.
"I'm an atheist. I'm also a secular humanist."
Why bother
Why wouldn't you explain that? Not all atheists are secular humanists.
I once was ready to start a riot because someone was making light of Jesus in front of me. Tell me I never really believed and I know you have no idea what you're talking about.
Jesus doesn't need us to stand up for Him.
Mohamed and allah are weaklings and require their puny human followers to fight for them.
WTF kind of god is that?
what what you will about Peterson, but his Kermit impression is spot on!
I never agreed with Jordan Peterson during debates.I often thought something was off with him.
I’d like to see Matt debate Bishop Robert Barron. I’d pay to see that.
Your bishop has no good evidence for god. No one does.
@@Penndreic Clearly you have mind reading powers. That must be awesome.
@@garygrant6987 Nothing to do with mind reading, just common sense. The only reason why you believe is faith (blind faith). As your god would say “blessed are those who believe without seeing”. Some of us find this saying ridiculous while people like you think it’s actually some type of divine wisdom.
Bishop Muzorewa! BASHING THE BISHOP
Matt had a wonderful conversation with Jordan. I think Matt got the better of him honestly. After that I saw Matt say he would not outlaw 9 year olds from have Smex. It’s almost like everyone has crazy thoughts and should be treated as such. No one is perfect all the time
He fills the demand for people who can sound smart while advocating for the sky wizard.
One thing that sums up Jorderson's schtick pretty well for me is when he said that the "metaphorical truth" in the bible is "truer than true". Firstly, it demonstrates his hypocrisy in that he tells people to communicate clearly and yet he conflates, equivocates and does everything he can to obscure his true meaning in so many cases. Secondly, it demonstrates that he values the usefulness of religion above all else.
It is either true or it's not.
It can not be truer than true.
There are no percentages in truth.
@@anitakephart3851, indeed. I wonder how many people would agree with his position but then complain when someone else said "it's true for me". Apparently, facts don't care about your feelings until a lot of people have the same feelings, at which point they become facts.
@anitakephart3851 depends on if you are in a being mode or have g mode.
JBP became a business. That's all. I miss the old JBP, but I can't blame him for moving on with life. I do wish he would let his contract with Daily Wire expire, though.
Also, isn't the boy on the right the one who hijacks whatever the talk is about and makes it about himself?
It’s interesting how negative the comments are. Why do people who dislike JBP come here to watch his videos and write comments?
🤔 It is SO obvious that most people are, by choice & fundamentally,
MORE "moral" than their own religions/ "gods" are.
MORE moral, than what religions TELL people how a "god" wants them to act like..
That TOTALLY shows that it is NOT religions / gods that are the epitome of morality
( which they try to claim ).
It shows that religions morals, are literally being dragged higher than they are,
to keep up, with modern, secular, societies updated data & morality.
🤔🌏☮️
Word salad.
Peterson misleads his audience about his credentials. I find fault with his entire personae.
What are your credentials?
The specific Jordan peterson conversation is like a fish living in water explaining to another fish that he also is living in water🐟💦
But the fish insist that there is no such thing as water, water means absolutely nothing to him💧
Yet in reality it means everything🌊
If you are implying that god=water, ( and ofc it is YOUR god), then you are wrong.
@Goldenhawk583
We exist in a state that is beyond our complete understanding. This is despite all of our collective knowledge.
How do we presume to fully understand something that we simply do not.
We can accept whatever suits us as individuals, but it's all subjective truth according to what we choose believe.
Subjective truth is different from objective proof or fact.
There are innumerable and unimaginable existential facts that are in action that we have no knowledge, understanding, or proof of.
Yet we exist non the less within this condition.
@@rogerengland2821 we are done.
@Goldenhawk583
Perhaps you ou are done, I remain open-minded to the debate of ideas in conversation.
Peterson thinks all atheists are really believers in god. And he thinks that all believers in god really only believe in a metaphorical god. So he believes both that everyone is atheist and that no one is atheist, depending on how one chooses to define god. Which - even if it were true of the beliefs of all humans (which it isn't), and even if he had sufficient knowledge of all humans in order to make such a claim (which he doesn't) - advances the discussion not at all, except insofar as it tells us that Peterson has nothing of depth to contribute to it.
To quote a wise man:
"From a certain point of view....." - Obi-Wan Kenobi
what's peterson afraid of? I imagine it's if his audience ever turns on him, his money source goes away... He's playing to that grifting world. And we all know how unstable and fickle that world is.
He has enough money for his great grandchildren.
@@cstevenson5256 It's not really about the money......he get's off on the attention.
It's still a grift though.
@@grendlsma what is your evidence?
@@cstevenson5256 addictions are insidious... And the sheep too willing to be fleeced. He could be a trillionaire, and still unable to quit the grift
I agree with you, and I think it's pretty sad. It's absolutely fine when he wants to give genuine advice to traumatized or low status men, but his attempt to sell Christian theism as a sort of metaphorical feel-good pseudo-religion is just fucking abysmally bad (like telling young men to go to church and not think too hard - "who cares what you believe?").
You talk
King of Jordan Peterson with the person not there to defend his words. That makes YOU both wrong.🗣🗣
Truth is not that simple. They argued about definition of it because it's something people have been struggling with for thousands of years. I do agree that Harris, makes the simplest interaction hard
Douglas, what does “sanctity” mean as an atheist-agnostic?
This comment sent me down a rabbit hole to try to differentiate sanctity, from sacredness, from holiness, from saintliness. They seem to overlap as much as you would imagine.
Theists wouldn't complain about other non-abrahamic religions having things they consider sacred, holy, or divine. And of course not, those words are just English words for concepts that might exist universally across cultures and faiths. If they aren't words for universal concepts, then we lack the words for those things in other faiths, in English.
If we say that, "our children are sacred to us", it's not implying God or Divinity are involved, and I think it makes sense that way.
It's seems to just be synonymous with precious, coveted, protected. Sacred and sanctity seem like fine words to use here right?
Douglas certainly doesn't believe in the sanctity of life...at least not Palestinian life. Probably more concerned about the plight of the unborn than the living. Which is par for the course, ironically, in 'Pro-life' circles. Of course Matt fails to call him out on his Israeli ass licking...suppose he is afraid of losing another master-debater like he lost JP
Sanctity means nothing to an atheist-agnostic. It’s like shoving food into someone who refuses to eat. Accepting the need to eat makes the food welcome.
@@PopularDemand1000 Sanctity means the same things to an atheist. But an atheist would consider different things sacred.
It's like how when you shove food down someone's throat, it has one taste, but everyone's pallet is a little different.
@@Perditionseveryone’s pallet is different in someways, but the same in other ways. There’s a lot we share in common, sometimes called human universals. And beyond that, plenty more as commonalities within the animal kingdom. Hormones for example. The continuity across life is far more fundamental, like the presence of a heartbeat, skeletal system, neuronal wiring, etc- far more fundamental than the unique differences between these evolved systems that support the life of the organism. The fact that everyone’s pallet is different is like saying all women are different. Yes. But it’s a less fundamental fact than the larger fact that they are all women.
Peterson hasn't really changed. There's this weird insistence that he went crazy or something online but no, he just had some rough years and is now out of those. That's it. Listen to his newer videos, they're the same stuff he's been talking about for years except he's added more things to his knowledge. I don't get why people are so put-off by him lately, he's literally still Jordan Peterson but slightly older now than he was a few years ago. That's it.
I was already put off by him. He was the one showing me the way towards critical thinking, not by his deeds, but by his words. First they sound interesting, then I start to learn about the subject from multiple sources. Then I learn he really does not know what he's talking about and is making things up mostly, putting them in a pseudo intellectual word salad.
@@inajosmood "He was the one showing me the way towards critical thinking",
"he really does not know what he's talking about and is making things up mostly";
you sound confused
@@bogdanpopescu1401 nope, because of his performances, I got suspicious, what the heck is he talking about?
Then I started to study the topics discussed and realised he doesn't have a clue. That was so mind-blowing. I started revisiting many areas and topics and assess them.
So listening to Peterson and gradually learning how big his mouth is and how much BS het talks, life changing in the best of ways. I comitted to developing critical thinking skills. How do you know which side of a claim is right?
Measuring both sides of a claim with the same exact measures.
Argumentation, and so on.
And once you know the tricks of a conman, it becomes very easy.
@@inajosmood ok, what topic(s) would you say he's most clueless about? and who would be the experts to listen to?
@@bogdanpopescu1401 1: Climate change > almost every peer reviewed publishing climate scientist or science communicator
2: The bible > Any non-apologist biblical scholar. Or read it yourself.
3: Postmodernism > JP is very antagonistic towards the idea, but he's doing postmodernism all the time with everything. He's constantly changing words to make them mean what he wants them to. Or to diffuse solidified meaning where it is established, but based on zero grounds. > Philosophy professors. Online philosophy courses. Anything that explains postmodernism
Learn what it is, see what he does.
It's hard to take JP seriously and his goddamed word 🥗
The son of a rock,
Lives in the muddy water,
Of the holy river,
Where he can hide better.
I don’t have any issue with Peterson. He’s beginning to grasp crucial spiritual truth in a way I didn’t think he ever would. It is inspiring.
Ah, so he is now starting to confirmi what you want to believe. Bet that feels good.
But has it anything to do with truth?
@@inajosmood Go away, you miserable troll. 😂
He shows that the Bible is a valuable book and that it's just how it was interpreted what is wrong.
What I find funny is, they hate the Bible because nothing in it makes sense. Dr. Peterson shows how to actually make sense of the Bible so that it doesn't contradict science and reveals its value. For this they hate him.
To me it's clear who is in the wrong here😂
@@gzoechi replace bible with almost any book. I can make sense of that in the way Peterson makes sense of the bible.
@@inajosmood Because similar patterns are repeated in most books that tell stories about life. Dr. Peterson mentions that often enough.
His explanations seem to be questioned because they make sense and books about religion aren't supposed to do that.
Peterson wanted to explore the nature of reality. Dillahunty seemed to have never given that any thought whatsoever. Thinking that "Truth is what comports to reality" is some profound statement.
"Truth is what comports to reality" is a profound statement.
It is Peterson's responsibility to show strong evidence that reality is deeper than Dillahunty knows.
He has failed to do so, in my humble opinion.
Peterson flatly lied about a psilocybin study, in an attempt to back his claim that it was evidence for the supernatural. JP showed zero (0) interest in anything outside of trying to score points with audience members, or potential customers, who don’t know better.
Telling others what they actually believe is not exploring the nature of reality. It's actually the opposite and surprising coming from a phycologist
Someone said Dr. Peterson is the dumb person’s idea of a brilliant person. I don’t know, sometimes he comes across too “Deepak Chopra-y” to my liking
For most people dreams are not 'real'and therefore contain no truth but they ARE part of reality. Truth is al rational concept. Faith is a relational concept having ever so much value. Gods name is a verb. There is no theology but a devine antropology, uplifting human existance, giving them the ability of choice in an event, a happening, not in history defined as a proces.
dreams are as mucu part of reality as hallucinations are
@@theflyingdutchguy9870 Dreams belong to a normal healthy spectrum. Hallucinations do not, but is see you just want to miss the point.
He let fame get to his head . 🙄😤😮💨🤨
I love Jordan Peterson for what it’s worth.
Love is a strong word. I can see how his choice of words sound intellectual and deep, until you scrutinize them with the help of true intellectuals.
Not much.
@@kichigan1 true intellectuals, ie. guys you agree with? Why isn't one of the most influential psychologists of our era a "true intellectual"?
WHY do you 'love' him?
@@kichigan1Well, perhaps you’re not very bright.
I regret watching the first two minutes of this. Are people not allowed to change?? What a strange sentiment.
Ok.. next question what is reality
Matt's debate with Peterson is worth the watch, imo. I felt Matt made the most sense, by far. More sense than anybody else has made against Peterson.
It was not a debate. It was just one normal guy talking to a raving lunatic. Seem like he was high too.
DOES PETERSON BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A GOD ? IF SO WHICH ONE OR ONES . DOES PETERSON WORSHIP ANY GOD ? DOES PETERSON PERSONALLY FEAR GOING TO HELL FOR ANYTHING HE BELIEVES ? NEVER HEARD PETERSONS' ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS. ANSWERS TO THEM WOULD GO A LONG WAY TO UNDERSTANDING THE MAN . RIGHT NOW I DONT UNDERSTAND HIM AT ALL
All caps, really? Smh
10:13 If the brain is a gasoline motor then intelligence is power... and skepticism is the throttle. You get a lot more done using the throttle in a Geo Metro than idling a Hemi Charger.
He was always a hack. He got famous by not understanding a Canadian law and then making a huge deal about it. He warned of all this stuff if it passed, it passed and nothing he said was right. But low informed people ate it up.
Matt: "I care about what is true. Truth is that which comports to reality." So far so good... Also, Matt on the Atheist Experience: "I believe that men can become women." So much for Truth then...
Douglas is almost as annoying as Peterson
All three of them are annoying in their own special ways.
Right. 😂
I think it’s funny that smart guys who consider themselves well educated and able to dissect challenging issues so quickly reduce the ideas and philosophy of others simply because they don’t align with what they believe. It’s very hypocritical.
He was kicked out of his country! His people turned on him! His answer was to get Christened!😊😂
He was not exiled from his country. He was born in Canada. We don't exile people. Wow, I know Canada is another country but come on. He lost his teaching position and said a lot of stuff that pissed people off. I think the narrative of persecution is part of his identity but I think what is problematic in an academic environment is not necessarily the same in the public sphere. No-one is preventing him from doing public speaking tours, podcasts or writing books. He does seem to have some personal issues that make him fragile but I think all things considered he's managed to make a decent living. Some people are touched by what he says some are not. I find some of the stuff he says rather silly but I just don't buy his books or listen to him very much. My feelings about him do not lead to my calling for his exile. Gosh, if I could do that, Canada would be virtually empty and I'm sure those who disliked my opinions would see me living out my days in some soulless international airpot living on vending machine snacks.
Matt says he "knows what he grew up with" which is a large part of the problem. He was growing up 50 years ago, the world he knew, and the christianity he knew, is dead and buried. It simply doesnt exist anymore. The low-hanging fruit he has targeted over the years (while neglecting to address all serious positions) has held him firmly within his own comfort zone. He doesnt know what hes talking about and hes so completely out of his depth its embarrassing.
So what is true to you is true to you Mr. Scottsman?
Matt talks that he regularly attends different churches to keep up to date with changes, he also talks regularly to religious people so you’d have to say he’s well up to date with where Christianity is at now.
Jordan plays intellectual 'card's with anyone who wants to play, AND...he does so while graciously, humbly and informatively showing everyone 'his' cards, AND...he even helps his opponents to better articulate and make 'their' point by giving them the surgical language necessary to build a more solid foundation and architecture of reason, that they might then build a better challenge to his own understanding. He also publicly draws attention to and calls into doubt elements of his own thinking that are not yet formalized, resolved or settled. He, alone, is not debating in aid of the rhetorical win, because...we either win together, through agreement, consensus, common understanding and acceptance, or we grow the abscess of malignancy that the loss incurs in our interlocutors minds on route to communal loss.
lol... Seriously? JP can't wait to interrupt a speaker with some snarky comment meant to ridicule and shame... But by the way you write, I can understand why you like him... High Falutin word salad pretentious nonsense. Why speak plain though when 100 words of nonsense can impress others... You think.
Heh, you think that the "interruption machine" is gracious? "Oh no, my interlocutor is making a point that will be difficult to counter, I better talk over them with several different nonsense points to confuse them!"
This is exactly the case with him and others similar to his type. I've been watching some debate videos and this personality quality is simply not there in a lot of people who enjoy debating. In that sense I haven't been watching constructive debate. Anyways, I think there is a problem with types like JP that I've found and I think that they have trouble evaluating "frameworks." Perhaps not but that's a thread I've been thinking about now for quite some time. I suppose my claim is a bit vapid because I can't really articulate what I mean by "frameworks" but ya I've been seeing a pattern over time and I think that's the word for it. Because there are a lot of logically correct frameworks for the world, people, and systems where in practice they work and are socially good. It's just that people of JP's type are overly proud of their framework and logic to a fault. They shove their ideas and ways of thinking in an honest attempt at making someone better. They fantastically get away with it on those who aren't initiated in the whims and workings of their type. Like they're right on a lot of levels but then in comes someone who's just as logical but different and they tear down this entire logical stack and erect a new one that works just as well. Like after a certain point you have to ask if any of the debating matters when you can kind of make a lot of frameworks logically work and align with the truth. And I really mean that, like what are we supposed to do? Who in the world should we listen to? So it just opened my eyes to the idea that we all inhabit niches within society and that we all need a framework for looking at the world that helps us achieve our function in a healthy manner. So while I think JP and adjacent types are really helpful people, I don't think they realize that not everyone really needs nor wants to be their best self 24/7 about literally everything or whatever it is the JP like types want you to be. Ya so that's my rant. :/
Very few times, he really must respect the ones he talks with, only then this happens.
These people dont understand each other
They smart maybe but wisdom and understanding are different
Taking about IQ differences is nothing like talking about the Jews. It's inherently meaningful wherever it appears.
The conversation was productive, but JBP no longer wants to cast his pearls before swine. The issue was that, despite discussing nature of 'reality,' Matt is unable to discuss beyond how he sees the world in a naturalistic way. Jordan Peterson is trying to go beyond that.
Good ol' Poe's Law
JP fanboy……your the swine….
Peterson got out of his lane, but kept talking. That's his Achilles heel.
I wonder if there are people out there whose heads would explode if they stopped talking about stuff they don't know about. Like an unstoppable urge
Social anxiety.
I think it really is this simple.
Thank you for your last comment, Douglas Murray.
I think that many rigid concepts are debatable, especially in the field of religions and ideologies. Most of them can be substituted to one another. There is no difference. Soviet project also was a kind of religion - it had preachers it had scriptures it had a holy corpse, any thing. And not because of ITSELF. But because Russian people (!) weren't prepared enough for a truly secular government. And that's why it existed in a quasireligious realm. If you look today at Russia you would see even less religion than in Soviet times, despite having more religious freedom. It's fascinating to observe. I'm a buddhist btw.
Screw religion. Find God.
Which God? Did your God teach followers that purchasing another human to consider as a chattel slave is morally acceptable? Can we agree that a book that sanctions chattel slavery should not be used to understand the morality of actions?
Why? Believing in a god is more than useless imo
@@GuessWhoAskswhat really got the Atlantic slave trade rocking was eugenics and Darwins book with its quaint subtitle (the preservation of the favoured races). This is well documented, as is the culmination of eugenics in the holocaust.
@@michaelmcclure3383You think a book written in 1859 "really got the Atlantic slave trade rockin?" It was abolished 6 years later.
@@nathanmiller9918 fair enough, but the influence of scientific racism and its biological reductionism was certainly a factor in the upswing of eugenics thought and their social projects. There are numerous historical precedents for the dangers of implementing goofy natural science thinking into society. Probably why even Richard Dawkins has come out as a "cultural Christian".. Of course, as many have argued, humanism has its foundations in idealist thinking including Platonism and Christianity. We've seen what Nietzschianism and Marxism have produced in the 20th century.
I’m sure Matt has many interesting things to say but I can never get past his self assured smugness and never last more than a few minutes listening to him.
On the flip side, could you imagine being Matt and having to listen to the same rhetoric about God and Religion for decades? That in itself would be hell if it were real.
Right and Christians have never been smug in the whole history of Christianity? What a weak mind you must have.
@@SmokinOakWhy does he not disengage then? If it’s so beneath him and absurd, why have the same argument year after year after year?
@jakenbake9878 they never said it was beneath him, just repeated. Religious people and groups also keep wanting to change society, laws, morals and ethics.... he questions them... that is important
@@andrewm7828 the implication of it being beneath him came from the OP saying he has this self assured smugness.
I really don’t see how these debates are important. Entertaining…maybe. It’s not like policies are being made by the people Matt debates or by Matt himself. It is of the same importance as watching a movie for fun.
That being said the majority of people just want equity in high status jobs.
Mike wanted a high level religious dissection, and Peterson wanted a conversation. Jordy Pete is not a debater; he never has been. He’s spoken with debaters (like Harris), that are high level communicators who are able to balance a high level dialogue. Even Harris first convo with Peterson didn’t evolve well. Mike D doesn’t have those skills; his only skill is dismantling Christianity, which is at this point a little reductionist and isn’t really offering anything new to the discussion.
He’s outlived his usefulness in debate. He is so unhinged by his religion it’s pitiful. I,m a leftest, but I appreciated him the first year. But he’s done.
You're done. JBP is doing fine.
@@leathera
Convinced aren't you?
You are a leftist.......you will be the 'done' as soon as you dare to have an independent thought from your cult.
@@leathera you talk like a kid
JBP is fine though lol. Not really a big deal at the end of the day. Yall take this too seriously 😂. “He’s outlived his usefulness in debate” this had me rolling 😂😂
I admire JPs stance on the plague of feminism and wokeism. I also have great respect for his stance on C16. Its in matters if religion where he turns into yet another snake oil apologist huckster playing semantics.
I agree on real wokism and over the top feminism. But a lot of real issues get branded wokeism when they are real issues. Far right call any thing wokeism they don’t like.
The thing about him is what he doesn’t say or chooses to omit is much more revealing in many cases than what he says
@@terrymckenzie8786 And you call anyone you don't like 'Far Right'!
@@yessanknow302 not every one I don’t like. Peterson melt down because of trans kids is far right. You still got the morons going around god made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. They still can’t understand we don’t stone gay people anymore. And Peterson rant that men can’t handle women with their own money and jobs now. It’s no wonder that 40% of women between 20 and 40 are single, but own their own homes. He will just have to get use to it.
Peterson isn’t an interesting intellectual. He’s a mediocre orator.
When fame got to his head and he was having to broaden his scope if he was to gain full acceptance into the lucrative conservative speaking circuit, JP started increasingly nuancing his words on subjects he was not well versed in rather than stick to only what he knew wekl and he started articulating, in a figure skating way, a view on religion that he hoped could pass scrutiny with the full spectrum of conservative audiences. Problem is that, in his arrogance, he failed to understand that so many would see through the fabricated part of his public personna. Especially after seeing Sam Harris expose J.P. as a fraud when it came to his views in religion.
Personally I think JP was dropped on his head as a child
In a Stephen Hawkins way.
He has brain damage
@@SapphireMist888 cancel culture's gonna cancel.