Richard Feynman nailed this with his quote for scientists, but valuable for all; "The first principle is don't fool yourself................and you are the easiest person to fool."
I've been reading Plato's republic lately, and I've been wondering why Plato chose to write in dialog form. Well, this conversation (man, I like this channel!) made me realize that a dialog shows things that a one-way (eg., essay or lecture) communication does not show. In this case, it shows that it's one thing to describe how to have difficult conversations, and another thing to have difficult conversations.
It might encourage that behaviour but it's not wholly unsuited to nuance or thoughtful analysis at all. Don't blame the tool for what the user does with it. (At least not completely)
Same could be said about internet in general... I think, anonymity is needed, especially in nowadays climate, but fact that you are given a chance to just spout out anything and "get away with" it is kinda bad on its own way... I dont mean to say that I agree with cancel culture but there should still be some way to effectively moderate discussion. IOnterenet is still a new invention, and boy is it flawed.
That's a bit of an oversimplification and a false dichotomy if you ask me. You *can* be both, it's just a matter of learning when to exercise one or the other. In other words, take the middle path.
@@Hal2718 I think they mean simultaneously. Can you name of example of them otherwise existing simultaneously (at the same time and on the same topic)?
26:55 - "(...) we're in a situation in which bad faith is rewarded. The kind of conversations that we're having at the moment when they're politically charged, it is much more about finding a way to interpret what the other person is saying least charitable way possible... most problematic. And people on both sides will do that. They'll see straight on that opportunity as a chance to strike a blow. And that's how conversations are happening."
You guys have to defend the RIGHT to all freedoms, including those RIGHTS you find objectionable. And that is the impasse. People are FREE to say anything they wish, to be bigoted, to think, and argue what they think, to "HATE" if they wish, etc. The proper response is persuasion and ostracism. On another note, some people simply want to believe what they want, and do not want to constrain their thinking with self-disciplined, critical thinking or parsimony in thinking. So they can't be reasoned with. You will quickly come to an impasse.
Absolute freedom for person A will necessarily take away the absolute freedom person B seeks. Quick, someone needs to invent a way for us all to have our own individual virtual reality ... extreme solipsism is the way of the future. Problem solved!
“The moment someone believes there is a MORAL reason attached to a belief or to hold on to a belief, THAT problem becomes SO MUCH difficult to solve. So the moment a person believes they are a better person because of their faith, the instant that happen they are less likely to revise their faith-based beliefs” Yes, I figured that out a while ago, that’s why science methods and principles (birthed after philosophical ones that gave the basis to question and sift out what doesn’t work in reality) made such a change in humanity as they found as least a attempt to curtail faith based belief and focus on testable results. There are hurdles to this (social sciences aren’t as easy to test, etc.) but what we are seeing now is an attack of some of those foundational principles.
James Lindsay is not being a hypocrite, because he understands (as his analogy of a playground shows) that it's not the forum for having deep, meaningful conversations. It's a shouting match via keyboard. If you want to have serious, substantive, intelligent conversations with people of very different views, don't do it on social media. I don't fault him for being rude or insulting on Twitter because it's engineered to guarantee just that kind of interaction. When the host asks him to model the kind of advice he gives in the book about impossible conversations, I think he (the host) is assuming Twitter is the place to do that; it isn't. Private emails are.
It is important to appreciate not all people who share an aspect of identity think the same. It is impossible to be correct all the time. You also can't please everyone all the time. You have to weigh the risk of causing offence to some against the purpose and value of sharing the thought at all.
Oh the irony of the essential need for curiosity, empathy, and vulnerability to develop workable solutions for a highly narcissistic society... We’ve definitely got our work cut out for us.
Methods of conflict resolution are also worth exploring. These methods are now quite well developed and have proved themselves at creating peace through understanding in seemingly intractable situations such as blood feuds and tribal warfare with many an atrocity perpetrated. One of the key stages is to reciprocally explain and share with the other party the wrongs received and the suffering endured. Once both parties are aware of the negative impact of their aggressive actions, the next stage is for both parties to decide and put across to the other what they would need in order to feel safe. In a way, it's a orderly attempt to access a degree of empathy for the other.
It quite surprised me that James acted in this way. I've got a lot of time for him and I respect him because I think he is super intelligent. 95% of the time I agree with him. But to engage in ad hominem attacks on your opponents seems childish. I think talking about "petulant terrorism" seems crazy. I mean, what is it? A five-year-old throwing a tantrum and threatening to bomb the house? Terrorism isn't about petulance, it's about violence. He said he wasn't even slightly interested which begs the question why he took part in the conversation in the first place. Calling his opponent a "dipshit" and "thick" and then putting words into his mouth surprised and disappointed me.
When Peter says we need a psychological space, as he defined it, it does not come across as urgent as I believe it ought to be because we vastly underestimate just how deep our unexamined and misguided beliefs impair our perception of reality. We assume others are misguided, confused, and flat out wrong but rarely look deep within ourselves to see where we are in our own entrenched beliefs. The quotes below sum up the deceptive world we were born into that created who we are. It shows that anyone living in this world is not immune to its madness, especially the person we see in the mirror. *_Our society actually exists as a kind of negative afterimage. We all live in a crazy, backward world, often unaware of the lies and double messages we are given. If we could be free for a moment to catch a glimpse of our true situation, if we could view our society as a visitor from another planet, we would be stunned at the nightmare in which we live. The things we are expected to believe about ourselves and about society are frequently the very opposite of the way things really are. Unhappily, the individual and all the members of our society are often unconsciously working together to maintain a largely defensive and dishonest way of living_* Dr Robert Firestone
*_Throughout our lives we are subjected to indoctrination by a systemic structure of processes and institutions. Within this conditioning environment beliefs almost “grow” into us. And once they are a part of our socially constructed selves they are sustained, reinforced, and protected, often unconsciously, by psychological processes of perception. With few rare exceptions, all people are brought up within specific culturally defined environments (or templates). A person’s dominant social milieu then attempts to offer a variety of accepted sociocultural norms of thought and behavior. These may operate through various forms, such as personal faith, religion, science, language and emotions, denial and doubt, happiness and fear, safety and security (identity and belonging), well-being and materialism. Once ingrained, a person is liable to perpetuate such traits, believing them to have been obtained through “free thought.” In the end, we reinforce beliefs that have grown into us, accepting and defending them as our own. So when we say, “I don’t believe,” what we often in fact mean to say is, “I automatically reject everything my brain is not wired to receive.” The end result is that for most of us we only believe those things we want to believe or that fit within our perceptual paradigms and/or experiences_* Dr. Dennis L. Kingsley from his book "The Struggle for Your Mind: Conscious Evolution and the Battle to Control How We Think"
I hope one day that there's a conversation between Sam and Jordan that includes Bernado Kastrup, a 2 x PHD, computer engineer, on the leading edge of the 'Hard Problem' of consciousness argument as a philosopher of Idealism. He's the missing link between them I think.
Boghossian looks and sounds like he may be a GenXer... the last generation with the actual capability to save human kind! 🙌🏽 If we can’t right these wrongs before the last GenXer dies... we’re done for.
There are millennials who also feel and think this way.... just harder to find.... Plus, we're all culpable in these issues, and in a lot of ways, the older generations would have solved them if they could have. I more so think it's about EVERYONE'S ability to awaken to their own biases and flawed rationality. In fact, our tendency to group people together is part of the problem we face, as we're all individuals trying to make sense of a failing modern society. Coming together is of the utmost importance, which is what most of this talk seems to be expressing! If we can all learn to dialog once again, we can all be part of the solution, and then this self righteousness will just seem silly and outdated
James Lindsay comes across very badly in this interview. His tendency towards petulance, arrogance, and contentiousness are all on display to his detriment.
@@quististrent I think Helen Pluckrose explains it best. 26:54 - "...we're in a situation in which bad faith is rewarded... it is much more about finding a way to interpret what the other person is saying least charitable way possible... They'll see straight on that opportunity as a chance to strike a blow."
An important point I've not seen underscored is the Sokal Squared hoax was busted not by academicians but an outsider, a journalist. That's the opposite of what one would predict for trolling professional journals. Professionals should be the _first_ to spot trolling.
Really though, I like to really concentrate on videos lately. I am long winded and like to think a lot more than Twitter seems to like. What is a good platform for a little more indepth discussion? Also, for the points Peter and Helen mention regarding the more popular social media platforms, I have been reluctant to make any kind of presence and most likely will not. What is Letter.Wiki? Is it under development or out there already? I was almost thinking of developing (web developer here) and getting help to develop an alternative platform that serves my wants. Wondering if Letter.Wiki already has what I am looking for though because it would save me so much work and we don't need to reinvent the wheels on the internet more 100 x. There is enough noise as it is.
Think, too many are mistrusting each other Curiosity and openness for other meanings are only possible when you have the feeling the other side is honestly expressing itself. Comes the other side with some ideological trash I've heard and thought trough many times and detected as false or ideologically manipulative, then my curiosity falls sharply to zero. Think, too many are mistrusting each other. It's like a cultural war between two main sides, its not important who is right only who gets right no matter with what lies, hence the two sides operate with good sounding mouthpieces only to win an argument for their tribal belief structure. Before I think, we expressed our meanings to find out even more, by hearing ourselves talk and truthfully expressed meanings of the other side. Now, the other side is wrong anyway, cause belonging to the other side. Only truthful speak on both sides, with the only intention to express the state of truth we possess right now, brings us back to the table of honest expression and listening to all sides. As long as we more pretend than truthfully are, we will continue with empty shadow fighting.
I would like that too, but I think Chomsky wants people to kiss his ass. Sam wants to discuss issues in a direct, but fair, way...we know they disagree, so would Chomsky be up for the type of discussion described in this video? I’m not so sure.
@@richyounger9: Fair point regarding Chomsky, who for sure has a reputation for being quite arrogant, and not so much displaying the qualities being harvested here. That acknowledged, how about someone other than Sam give it a go, in that he already has reasonable Chomsky baggage from their unpleasant exchange(s). It's mentioned here quite often that if you're dealing with someone who simply can't join you in being honest about their own biases, shadow and ideologies, the "conversation" is pretty much reduced to avoiding topics that have the most juice / relevance. Eric Weinstein per chance?
Art of Conversation. Bury St Edmunds. On Meetup.com . Monthly lunchtime at the pub. Come join us! (I'm extremely polite and a good group leader - notwithstanding a deep desire to be grossly offensive). (Rev Matt, Unitarian minister).
Beliefs...a word in every one of all of these conversations (not just in this video) that keeps coming up over and over. Is there a pattern? Beliefs seem to block further insight. Yet, there seems to be absolutely no need of them. Since any belief is nothing more that a thought you think over and over (and, more often than not, something that was programmed into you without you questioning it or looking critically at it to even determine if you want to believe it), certainly you can choose to stop thinking it. The problem seems to be that people derive identity from beliefs. In that context, changing a belief becomes a threat to your identity. Yet, in actual fact, your true identity has nothing to do with belief. How to get around that? Have perspectives instead. Perspectives are amenable to further insight, growth, evolvement and expansion and do not threaten your identity. The idea is that 4 people could go to the Grand Canyon and each one only sees it from one perspective, one from the east, one west, one north and one south. If they turn that experience into a belief, they’re going to be perpetually arguing about what they saw, what the experience was like and what the Grand Canyon is overall. They will never agree on much. If, however, each looks at their experience as a perspective, with enough dialog each could walk away with a much more holistic perspective of what the Grand Canyon is actually like in the real world...and also realize there are still other perspectives (standing at the bottom, viewing it from above, etc.). We’re entrenched because we are lost in the belief that our experience is the only valuable experience, the only right experience, the only way to experience , the only valid and relevant experience, etc. And we all seek out those who agree. Thus, we stagnate and cease evolving and become more and more polarized when we’re challenged...because we don’t challenge those thoughts we think over and over; we haven’t critically examined them...and we have lots of people who agree with us. It’s like getting into a box and somehow being able to nail it shut from the outside.
"One can mistrust one's own senses, but not one's own belief. If there were a verb meaning "to believe falsely," it would not have any significant first person, present indicative." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
DVG45 - Yes...and one’s own belief can be (and usually is) totally and unequivocally wrong. That’s why it’s a belief and not a fact. Everyone in the world right now is running around touting their beliefs as fact. Should we not mistrust their beliefs just because they proclaim they are right? Who’s actually right? Are any of them factual? It seems to be mostly unexamined nonsense. I get that everyone’s beliefs are in accordance with their evolutionary development of self. As they evolve, they change. If they don’t evolve, their beliefs remain static.
@@Hermetic7 this is true, but i meant to imply by using that quote that one is incapable really of dispensing with their own beliefs at will. It's also extraordinarily difficult to change one's beliefs without employing force to do so. A world where beliefs are not allowed and truth is the mandate inevitably will be corrupted when authoritarians change the definitions of what is true. This is why social control by intellectuals, or the wealthy or scientists or any such thing is a non starter--as soon as this source of power is clearly established, bad actors will pollute the system (as we see with the climate change industry, that Peter Boghossian himself as fallen for) There is not one moral truth, system or philosophy that will square with the United States, Eritrea, Vanuatu and New Zealand. You can't even unify Texas and Rhode Island under one universal ethic, the whole world isn't a good bet. We have different languages, different histories and religions--all this i'm sure you thinks is obvious, but i think these facts plus many more prevent the utopian idea of perfect information, ability to disconfirm one's assumptions. I think the best we can do is boost our understanding about forming logical arguments, making logical statements at the minute level, then looking to things like phenomenology or the work of Hume, psychology etc. to understand why we need more than logic to survive and develop as a species. I think surely beliefs make life more special than what we'd have if we were more coldly logical creatures. That's also why instruction about the world religions with heavy focus on the three abrahamics, then buddhism/hinduism also would be an education fix. Many of the bad beliefs we have are rooted in these moral systems though they are indispensable to the cultures we lived in to the point where lacking understanding cripples one from ever cracking into another's worldview. As a final point, how many beliefs do you suspect you overturn on a monthly basis? Not to be too critical but wouldn't you accept there are likely very significant things you believe and cannot imagine would be different?
@@dvg4536 - I generally agree with your perspective, although I disagree with the first sentence. If a belief is something that is generally not open to modification with new information, then I can say definitively that I have no beliefs. I do have a couple of foundational principles, but, if you look at the world differently than we are taught, the need for beliefs is dispensed with. I have revised virtually all of the beliefs I was taught, some radically so. Except for the basic principle of trying to be a decent human being and doing the best I can, I have revised most everything I was taught, and continue to do so as I learn. In terms of another point you touched on, before any instruction on religious anything, I would teach children how to meditate and self inquire. And I would teach the foundational principles of how to think for oneself. Both of these would come before any exposure to religion. Religion is a great jumping off point, but it is dangerously easy to get stuck there permanently as we can clearly see. My religion is better than yours and if you challenge that, I will kill you. A clear form of insanity by any psychological definition. Again, beliefs block further insight, growth, development and evolution of self. The core of all religious teachings is clearly the same: love. The rest is varying degrees of dogma, rules, and control tactics, all of which impede true growth and expansion of the soul. Foundationally, I generally follow the theories of physicists Thomas Campbell and Nassim Haramein as well as that of cognitive psychologist Donald Hoffman. Slowly, quantum physics is demonstrating that spacetime and the material realm are not foundational and that consciousness is fundamental to the existence of these material concepts. Since we already know that everything is energy, including the human biological being; and since all energy carries information, everything we understand to exist is all information. You can say it's holographic, digital, holofractographic or some other similar variation. But, information can be true, false, both, neither or some partial value. Yet, people always think they have absolute truth, clearly not understanding that the only absolute would be the realm of the Divine. I'm quite sure no physical being on this planet has absolute truth. Yet, every single one of us is on a unique path...and all paths are valid for our own evolvement. Everyone has value, everyone has something to contribute. But, if we're not willing to listen and we are closed off because we think we know everything and only we have the correct answers, then we find ourselves exactly where we are. Beliefs are entirely dispensable if you see everything as information. Does the incoming information serve your growth? If so, learn; if not, file it away for later. There is no need to get triggered by information because it only has the value you assign to it. Intrinsically on its own, it has no value. If you look for the value to help in your growth, information is a great thing. If you look for the value to hinder your growth, then you can devolve...and that's not so great. We make these choices almost every moment of every day. All choices are either, at their root, based in fear (service to self) or based in love (service to others) or some degree of combination of both (the most usual). If most choices are fear-based, regardless of how evolved society's religions might or might not be, you're going to end up exactly where we are. If most choices are love-based, you're going to be moving toward a more "utopic" society where all are valued for what they can contribute and all will be learning and growing. Doing the best we can every day just means taking all the information we have gathered and evaluating what it means for us and doing the best with it we can possibly do. We can only make choices that are in line with our level of evolvement. People are quick to judge and condemn, not realizing that if anyone could have made a different choice than they did in the moment, they would have. Things can only be what they are. You can resist it all you want. The only possible way to change is to change oneself. You cannot change another person. If you change yourself and mirror the behavior you want to see (be the change), things will change. If you do nothing but fight and fight and fight, all that happens is more fighting. You'd think after all these thousands of years of fighting, we'd have realized that by now. But, again, people can only make the choices they are capable of making in the moment. If they could make different choices they would. The way to get past that is to evolve ourselves. There is no other way out. We either construct our prison (and the bars are beliefs) or we tear it down and see what we can learn, how we can expand, grow and evolve.
First time I've seen James Lindsay and to me he seems like the definition of a bad faith actor who likes to hit n run with personal insults and doesn't want to converse from fear of rejection or injury. Probably suffered some bullying in his younger years and his new platform emboldens his dismissive approach. 🤦🏻♂️
Why should he submit to RW's agenda? He never claimed to be perfect. RW's agenda is to reach some kind of kumbaya land, so they are projecting that agenda onto James Lindsay, and onto everything else they do.
Rathbone friends , impressed by your form of debate .Are u guys basically truthers? Learnt end 2017 that we are deeply but simply indoctrinated and since awakened by thinkers like you . Very hard to get others to even look at fact and truth. Do u have a platform where u discuss our most ignorant convictions?
Using science as the critical lens entirely in place of a postmodern perspective rather assumes that all the projects science undertakes are driven by objective criteria of need, when in fact what powerful interest groups (pharma companies, governments) are willing to fund and what they are not has a profound effect on how science manifests in the world.
Something about James Lindsay's temperament makes him a great sounding board. He's always uniquely insightful. I'd dig if you dudes did a full in-the-flesh interview.
This came off like an ambush, and I'm not even a big Lindsay fan. Not feeling the gossipy, catty energy coming out of this genre of thought leaders lately.
Would love to see John vervaeke in conversation with Jamie Wheal. Jamie has a much bigger platform but I think he'd benefit from John's deeper and broader framework.
It seems the circular firing squad about hypocrisy has begun on RW. Who's next? Will reach back to those who fired the first shot? ;-) This is what happens when motivations, assumptions, and contexts are unexamined.
I love all of you guys (american "guys", includes Helen) but I worry that even when we've learned how to be more courageous in the face of bad ideologies, we'll still need to kick the postmodernists out of the bureaucracies of academia, government and the corporate world.
Embarrass them through discrediting their assumptions and by turning away from them. Making grievance studies a laughing matter was a good start. Trump voters turning their backs on virtue signalling PC politicians? The Marxist Labour party in the UK is on it's knees since it abandoned class struggle and adopted intersectionalism. Perhaps the tide is already turning? I don't have the answer, just faith that the 'fashion' will pass. Just hope it doesn't demolish western liberal civilisation in the meantime!
When you have the groupthink we already KNOw how you think on any idea it’s all about your political agenda - yes and twitter does NOT matter JAMES knows that real conversations have to be had OFF twitter
most people are not really hurt by the world. They hurt by their own expectation whatever happens in the world is real what you think should happen is not real so you're not disappointed by the world you're disappointed by your own projections......by...Jacque Fresco the point is....don't expect too much
@Teron James Back when dinosaurs walked the Earth (:-)) I had a Flight Chief in Korea. One of the things he would say (generally before we were told we had to fill sandbags or string concertina wire) was "Life Is Full Of Disappointments. This Is One Of Them. DEAL WITH IT.
@@teronjames7457 Osan in 68 was....interesting. Very often had the highest VD rate in PACAF. And the 6314th Security Police Squadron lead the way with the highest VD rate on Osan! :-)
Really felt like that last portion basically was calling out James Lindsey, but I also found it the most intriguing portion as well, because I actually agree with James’ take on Twitter. So, I would actually like to see him go up against someone who thinks Twitter isn’t just a standup stage and see that conversation happen. I think it is kind of putting the cart before the horse to assume that because many people communicate on Twitter that therefore Twitter is a place that then *should* be used to have important conversations. 4chan is also a place that many people use to communicate, but no one would think that’s the kind of place we should be trying to have responsible conversations on.
Capitalism, of course, must be fettered with regulations. But the idea of the freedom of economic behavior is a good one. Some differences are irreconcilable. If you value freedom, including free speech, and some tyrant wants to silence you, there is much room for compromise.
Sargon does not have much of a philosophical background and had a hard time defending liberalism against racial collectivism. Richard has made a career of this so Sargon didn’t have much of a chance. However, Richard tends to just say crazy things.
The problem with postmodernism is that it's not numerate enough in its criticism. If you are gonna criticize people using authority to cherry pick data and manufacture consent, you should be able to understand data.. in my experience most people who cite science aren't qualified to do it, and couldn't tell a bad statistical analysis if it bit them. there's also the question of what do you do when data says something you don't like? it's very easy in principle to mouth platitudes about science being a self correcting system, but how many liberals refuse to acknowledge uncomfortable facts like the difference in race and IQ? criticism is important, but it's being done by incompetent marxists who are jealous of stem folks and want to overthrow captialism because they don't know how compound interest works.
I'm looking forward to retirement, with any luck that'll be in 7 years. The phenomenon they're discussing is (at least for now) a predominantly American one (in Canada maybe a bit less so). I'm planning to retire in Europe, which (again, at least for now) does not engage in these kinds of vicious, bitter, scorched-earth tactics. I am looking forward to reading Peter's book, but my outlook for the near term in the USA isn't positive. The viciousness and demonization he discusses show no signs of ebbing anytime soon.
Violence and those who have it always in mind as retaliation. First, they will always, but always, mention being disrespected. Break down that concept first. Respect meaning different things to different people. That's one of the problems in the world, and some just don't seem to get that. And there is the person who does not thinks in terms of respect or disrespect, until others keep telling them to see things in those terms. The person who does not think in terms of respect or no will come up with a lot of other interpretations to behaviour that others are fast to call disrespectful. I know from my own experience. Whose life is more peaceful? The one who does the thinking of other possible interpretations to behaviour. To see through. I have more to comment on, but for now I'm taking a break because too much intellectualism and talk about. Use more experiential examples, like good storytellers... Part of all this is also staying grounded and keeping the head clear. Too much intellectual conceptualizing might want to be avoided. That's how you lose a large part of your potential audience, and that is not the idea either, right?! (Look at how Trump speaks that very simple language, lol). Enjoying the conversation though.
@@GCU-GreyArea Humanism and climate change are an inversion of the natural order where science attempts to dictate with limited empirical data. Contemporary science chooses to discard the supernatural. That viewpoint is compounded further when science refuses to accept that it is an extraction from a much deeper, more profound reality, that of nature.
Truth is a social construct because morality/ethics is negotiated between differing groups. Ethics have a social emotional sense of value/meaning that is why those who's brain patterns outside of the norm like serial killers are called "insane" and treated as a pariah from society. There is not emperical/objective value to a human life there is only a social emotional one, unlike how the mass number of an atom is a fact. So in fact enlightenment scientists and their search for "truth" is an effort to social negotiate define what is moral via feeling consensus dialog with the other ideologies. The fact that morality/philosophy has changed over time but has had the ego of reason and objectivity in each moral era shows that their is nothing objective about morality. What is social/moral can't be objective, because morality and ethics is given value of meaning by weight of social consensus emotion.
@@maxpeck7382 Truth is neither subjective nor a social construct, likewise beauty and goodness. The essence of these three dimensions points, us toward our Creator, in that they have criteria and we are created in His image. Permit me to suggest exploring empirical science as an extract of nature; science is not the fullness of human understanding. Fr Chad Ripperger may be a theologian that can expand on an understanding of this, he is very much of the Aqunias school. Equally so, morality has not changed over time. As Catholics we believe Christ ''fulfilled'' the content of Revelation outlined in the Old Testament, He did not replace it. The analogy we use, is that on the Sermon on the Mount, Christ took the Apostles with Him, up the mountain, whereas Moses prepared the way in going to Mount Sinai by himself. Over time God gradually prepared us for the fullness of His Revelation. Science persistently attempts to separate the material from the spiritual realm and when it fails, science them attempts to crush nature.
@@liammccann8763 Man has believed in a creator since the dawn of man and the Gods that groups of humans have worshiped have been shaped in their moralities image of what is moral true. The Greek gods and Titans were all about tails of their struggles, feuds, and how humans and Demi Gods must suffer trials under the watching eyes of the Gods to become strong and so become worthy of glory even only if gained in their final death struggle, that was their moral truth. How nice and convenient it is that the Christian God including under Catholicism of today now fits so well with the ideals of the enlightenment. Yet the Christian Gods law had to be reformed via "interpretation" and his image as anti gay reformed to do that, because anyone who really believed the word for word of the Christian God would at the vary least believe and treat things that their God viewed as a Sin to be a Sin. To say truth and God aren't reshaped together to fit current evolving secular and even woke ideologue activist morality demands is a lie. The whole reason Atheist Science can like Christians of today is because they are not purists to the "truth" morals of their God like Islamists are, they have reformed from their books word to morals in line with the progressive tolerant secular morality of the times. You could say it is just a reorientation towards forgiveness and God having final judgment for Christians rather than their judgement by his standards, but what does a Gods word on the immorality of something mean if it isn't regularly vocalized by believers as immoral under that God's moral truth views? btw.....The people who believed in warrior Gods believed in the immutable truth of their God's morals too just as deeply as you. It is funny how only Faiths and Gods reformed on principle to secular enlightenment now live in society, when the moral truth held as immutable by those of past societies of people based on their belief in their warrior Gods are gone now. Catholicism was founded by Constantine the first Emperor of the eastern Roman Byzantine Empire, it was formed along with what books would be in the bible at the Council of Nicaea meant to consolidate a conception of what Christians believe as a faith for his new empire all to worship together to insure social stability. The Council of Nicaea were feuding Christian sects that made compromise under the urging to a Pagan emperor in order to found Catholicism as a unifying faith for his empire, Catholicism is distinctly the most polytheist and pagan of Christian worship in that it deifies Saints and makes them idols to worship alongside praying to Mary and other polytheist ritualism. You know nothing about nothing do you? Pope Francis is a progressive pope by Catholicism's historic standard of Crusades, Inqusitions, using afterlife and earning Gods' forgiveness in the ear of lords to gain Catholic control over powerful feudal lords and their kingdoms. Human's haven't had differing religions, ideologies, and nations because they share the same intuition sense of what is morally true. Society and Religions have been progressively changed by minority lobby from the grip of the moral belief majority, change has happened if you wish to admit or not to your God's moral truth law.
Lindsay is an intellectual light weight...he is out of his depth on literally EVERY topic and ANY issue besides childish trolling and silly mocking....
Here's something I wonder about. Can you have free, universal healthcare and unlimited immigration in the US? It seems to me to be impossible to maintain the two together.
5 років тому
Ofc its impossible. Then expand that out to finite resources in general...
I like James Lindsay and his work a lot, but when he acts like a champion for "constructive dialogue" and then acts like a dick when facing criticism on twitter and then MUTES him, it's pretty fuckin hypocritical. Then again, twitter is twitter and the longer you're steeped in that atmosphere of people being chronically shitty to you, your default is to become shitty right back automatically. If you want constructive dialogue, stay off of twitter. It's not a healthy environment in the least.
If you care about climate change as spoken about in the current climate, why are you not recommending Zero Point Energy, an looking into how MIT covered up Cold Fusion?
So an organized group concocting ways to cause covert physical damage to humans in a crowd for intimidation purposes isn''t terrorism? Really? Ok let's hear it?
You have a choice in this life-serve God or follow the devil. Two voices, two paths, but only one choice. I know it often doesn’t seem that black and white, but it is. If we are not moving forward with God, taking territory for His Kingdom, then we have already made the choice to serve the one whom Scripture calls the enemy. Maybe you never consciously decided to serve either God or the devil. Trust me, many people haven’t. But as the saying goes, “Failing to plan means planning to fail.” In this case, failing to choose God-or to choose life (as Moses told the Israelites)-is the same as choosing to serve the evil one. Be sure you choose life!” Excerpt From Unmasking the Devil: Strategies to Defeat Eternity's Greatest Enemy John Ramirez
Anthroprogenic climate change? If you had been around since the 70s you would be asking where is the Ice Age we where supposed to be going through now?
From the last bit, it appears that James is unwilling to walk the walk. However, the interview with the person who felt slighted by James did not strike me as fair on your part. It's as though you have set things up to expose James. For myself, James' reaction is appropriate to his character. To bring up the contradiction between his behaviour and his book with the request that he should have an interview with the offended party so as to rectify the situation is not in my view a proper way to treat your guests. This is something that could be done privately. It didn't even appear that he knew you were going to have the bit defaming his character. If I were James I would be upset with you. And since I am not James, I'm rather puzzled as to why you would include the last segment.
James answer was that he doesn't care if throwing milkshakes at people is terrorism or not. But he also says that people should engage in conversations to expand their intellectual horizons. It's not like they are asking him to get a doctorate in physics on the subject.
@@stugrant01 Engaging in conversations to expand intellectual horizons assumes the premise of good faith by both participants and does not seem the same as having to give up valuable time and attention to bad actors, and to have an expert guilt you into listening so he can try to intellectually flex his weak cancel culture muscles in a one-sided show-off way while nitpicking a topic of interest only to himself. The whole little segment seemed gross in the same way that protesters force their opposition views in childish ways by taking over a stage or microphone with a tantrum to dominate attention because they think they hold the moral high ground, not very professorial IMHO. I agree with James about how to use twitter and I personally think social media especially twitter is where conversations go to die because attention is the currency of the format, podcasts seem to be the opposite in the fact that the audience will seek out the content and the format has an intrinsic familiar conversation structure and it's not just a bunch of randos coming in hot.
@@ShannonRamos Bad actors who "expert guilt you into listening" describes the situation well. Just because one wrote a book on the topic doesn't mean you have to open yourself to everyone. David's attempt to get James to engage with the "expert" struck me as bad judgement on his part.
The amount of foreign agents who are not detectable by the public as foreign agents is a huge problem. Bad faith or dishonest actor? What's needed is an opaque white list and black list that is personal only and conversations by invitation only.
The only safe space we need lies within ourselves. Psychology has become corrupted because in its essence it was about the internal contemplation and revelations as perceived by Jung. The tragedy is that after 13-15 years in Educational facilities young people come out with no tools in their toolbox to Navigate this human experience in this world. It was a shame you ended the podcast on that note. It seemed more about someone holding on to hurt feelings and ego.
I'm hoping the people who comment on president Trump's twitter feed might see this video. Then again, you're talking about polite conversation in an effort to change someones mind, where you must be open to having your mind changed in the first place.
@riccsx Something I've been pushing for a while now. My 3 Rules Of Trump 1. Pay Little attention to what he tweets. 2. Pay Some attention to what he says. 3. Pay A Lot of attention to what he does. By following these 3 rules/guidelines, you may not find yourself saying Donald Trump is a pretty good Center/Right President, (although I think he is), what you Will find is you are no longer acting like the cat trying to catch the laser pointer. Then we can have an actual conversation.
I think Peter Boghossian is misinformed about the nature of antifascist activism. A lot of antifa activism doesn't involve violence at all. A lot of what they do is gather and spread information about far right extremist groups. Many of these right wing groups operate semi secretly, antifa often just spreads awareness of them. Also, not all antifa support offensive violence. Some object for moral reasons (pacifism), some object for strategic reasons (it leads to police repression). There are many antifa groups that only advocate for violence in cases of self defense, which is merely common sense. Antifa organizations have diverse beliefs. Usually antifascists identify with a broader ideology like socialism, anarchism, libertarianism or some type of leftist ideology. In these cases antifascism is just one part of s bigger ideology. Some dont hold any ideology, they just worry about the rise of aggressive racist groups.
Richard Feynman nailed this with his quote for scientists, but valuable for all; "The first principle is don't fool yourself................and you are the easiest person to fool."
This is essentially the work of those who walk the Path.
Corollary “It's Easier to Fool People Than It Is to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled." - Mark Twain
I've been reading Plato's republic lately, and I've been wondering why Plato chose to write in dialog form. Well, this conversation (man, I like this channel!) made me realize that a dialog shows things that a one-way (eg., essay or lecture) communication does not show. In this case, it shows that it's one thing to describe how to have difficult conversations, and another thing to have difficult conversations.
Twitter is the perfect platform to drop something provocative and run. It's completely unsuited to nuance or thoughtful analysis.
It might encourage that behaviour but it's not wholly unsuited to nuance or thoughtful analysis at all.
Don't blame the tool for what the user does with it. (At least not completely)
Same could be said about internet in general... I think, anonymity is needed, especially in nowadays climate, but fact that you are given a chance to just spout out anything and "get away with" it is kinda bad on its own way... I dont mean to say that I agree with cancel culture but there should still be some way to effectively moderate discussion. IOnterenet is still a new invention, and boy is it flawed.
i realize I am kind of off topic but does anyone know a good site to stream newly released tv shows online?
@Kye Clyde Lately I have been using flixzone. You can find it by googling =)
@Archie Tripp Yea, I have been watching on flixzone for since april myself :D
Helen Pluckrose is fantastically open minded, intellectually generous and curious. A great role model for me in my 50's! 🤣
The ending is everything. Thanks for including Nicholas!
Curiosity and defensiveness can’t coexist. You can’t be curious and defensive at the same time!
Wisdom begin in wonder!
- Peter Boghossian
That's a bit of an oversimplification and a false dichotomy if you ask me. You *can* be both, it's just a matter of learning when to exercise one or the other. In other words, take the middle path.
@@Hal2718 I think they mean simultaneously. Can you name of example of them otherwise existing simultaneously (at the same time and on the same topic)?
Furthermore, defence and defensiveness aren’t the same thing.
Helen Pluckrose was very insightful when she said postmodernism has a good intention but there are better ways of getting the same outcome.
Yes. It shows her principle of charity and doxastic openess. Wonderful
Yeah basically if ya think your idea has good intentions for humanity ya can't go around acting like a friggen Nazi to push your ideas upon the world
She's a naive fool.
26:55 - "(...) we're in a situation in which bad faith is rewarded. The kind of conversations that we're having at the moment when they're politically charged, it is much more about finding a way to interpret what the other person is saying least charitable way possible... most problematic. And people on both sides will do that. They'll see straight on that opportunity as a chance to strike a blow. And that's how conversations are happening."
You guys have to defend the RIGHT to all freedoms, including those RIGHTS you find objectionable. And that is the impasse. People are FREE to say anything they wish, to be bigoted, to think, and argue what they think, to "HATE" if they wish, etc. The proper response is persuasion and ostracism. On another note, some people simply want to believe what they want, and do not want to constrain their thinking with self-disciplined, critical thinking or parsimony in thinking. So they can't be reasoned with. You will quickly come to an impasse.
Absolute freedom for person A will necessarily take away the absolute freedom person B seeks. Quick, someone needs to invent a way for us all to have our own individual virtual reality ... extreme solipsism is the way of the future. Problem solved!
“The moment someone believes there is a MORAL reason attached to a belief or to hold on to a belief, THAT problem becomes SO MUCH difficult to solve. So the moment a person believes they are a better person because of their faith, the instant that happen they are less likely to revise their faith-based beliefs” Yes, I figured that out a while ago, that’s why science methods and principles (birthed after philosophical ones that gave the basis to question and sift out what doesn’t work in reality) made such a change in humanity as they found as least a attempt to curtail faith based belief and focus on testable results. There are hurdles to this (social sciences aren’t as easy to test, etc.) but what we are seeing now is an attack of some of those foundational principles.
Scientism is the new faith based religion, trust the science is the most non scientific statement being pushed continuously by the media.
James Lindsay is not being a hypocrite, because he understands (as his analogy of a playground shows) that it's not the forum for having deep, meaningful conversations. It's a shouting match via keyboard. If you want to have serious, substantive, intelligent conversations with people of very different views, don't do it on social media. I don't fault him for being rude or insulting on Twitter because it's engineered to guarantee just that kind of interaction. When the host asks him to model the kind of advice he gives in the book about impossible conversations, I think he (the host) is assuming Twitter is the place to do that; it isn't. Private emails are.
It is important to appreciate not all people who share an aspect of identity think the same. It is impossible to be correct all the time. You also can't please everyone all the time. You have to weigh the risk of causing offence to some against the purpose and value of sharing the thought at all.
Oh the irony of the essential need for curiosity, empathy, and vulnerability to develop workable solutions for a highly narcissistic society... We’ve definitely got our work cut out for us.
Methods of conflict resolution are also worth exploring. These methods are now quite well developed and have proved themselves at creating peace through understanding in seemingly intractable situations such as blood feuds and tribal warfare with many an atrocity perpetrated. One of the key stages is to reciprocally explain and share with the other party the wrongs received and the suffering endured. Once both parties are aware of the negative impact of their aggressive actions, the next stage is for both parties to decide and put across to the other what they would need in order to feel safe.
In a way, it's a orderly attempt to access a degree of empathy for the other.
It quite surprised me that James acted in this way. I've got a lot of time for him and I respect him because I think he is super intelligent. 95% of the time I agree with him. But to engage in ad hominem attacks on your opponents seems childish. I think talking about "petulant terrorism" seems crazy. I mean, what is it? A five-year-old throwing a tantrum and threatening to bomb the house? Terrorism isn't about petulance, it's about violence. He said he wasn't even slightly interested which begs the question why he took part in the conversation in the first place. Calling his opponent a "dipshit" and "thick" and then putting words into his mouth surprised and disappointed me.
When Peter says we need a psychological space, as he defined it, it does not come across as urgent as I believe it ought to be because we vastly underestimate just how deep our unexamined and misguided beliefs impair our perception of reality. We assume others are misguided, confused, and flat out wrong but rarely look deep within ourselves to see where we are in our own entrenched beliefs. The quotes below sum up the deceptive world we were born into that created who we are. It shows that anyone living in this world is not immune to its madness, especially the person we see in the mirror.
*_Our society actually exists as a kind of negative afterimage. We all live in a crazy, backward world, often unaware of the lies and double messages we are given. If we could be free for a moment to catch a glimpse of our true situation, if we could view our society as a visitor from another planet, we would be stunned at the nightmare in which we live. The things we are expected to believe about ourselves and about society are frequently the very opposite of the way things really are. Unhappily, the individual and all the members of our society are often unconsciously working together to maintain a largely defensive and dishonest way of living_* Dr Robert Firestone
*_Throughout our lives we are subjected to indoctrination by a systemic structure of processes and institutions. Within this conditioning environment beliefs almost “grow” into us. And once they are a part of our socially constructed selves they are sustained, reinforced, and protected, often unconsciously, by psychological processes of perception. With few rare exceptions, all people are brought up within specific culturally defined environments (or templates). A person’s dominant social milieu then attempts to offer a variety of accepted sociocultural norms of thought and behavior. These may operate through various forms, such as personal faith, religion, science, language and emotions, denial and doubt, happiness and fear, safety and security (identity and belonging), well-being and materialism.
Once ingrained, a person is liable to perpetuate such traits, believing them to have been obtained through “free thought.” In the end, we reinforce beliefs that have grown into us, accepting and defending them as our own. So when we say, “I don’t believe,” what we often in fact mean to say is, “I automatically reject everything my brain is not wired to receive.” The end result is that for most of us we only believe those things we want to believe or that fit within our perceptual paradigms and/or experiences_* Dr. Dennis L. Kingsley from his book "The Struggle for Your Mind: Conscious Evolution and the Battle to Control How We Think"
I hope one day that there's a conversation between Sam and Jordan that includes Bernado Kastrup, a 2 x PHD, computer engineer, on the leading edge of the 'Hard Problem' of consciousness argument as a philosopher of Idealism. He's the missing link between them I think.
Keep up the good work. Thank you
28:20 that was a great question. And the answer was incredibly insightful, as well as why liberalism and science are the counter
Boghossian looks and sounds like he may be a GenXer... the last generation with the actual capability to save human kind! 🙌🏽 If we can’t right these wrongs before the last GenXer dies... we’re done for.
There are millennials who also feel and think this way.... just harder to find....
Plus, we're all culpable in these issues, and in a lot of ways, the older generations would have solved them if they could have.
I more so think it's about EVERYONE'S ability to awaken to their own biases and flawed rationality.
In fact, our tendency to group people together is part of the problem we face, as we're all individuals trying to make sense of a failing modern society.
Coming together is of the utmost importance, which is what most of this talk seems to be expressing!
If we can all learn to dialog once again, we can all be part of the solution, and then this self righteousness will just seem silly and outdated
Always thrilled to see these three wonderful geniuses.
James Lindsay comes across very badly in this interview. His tendency towards petulance, arrogance, and contentiousness are all on display to his detriment.
But people aren't perfect. And he never claimed to be perfect.
@@worldwidehappiness He's probably a lot less than perfect.
@@quististrent I think Helen Pluckrose explains it best. 26:54 - "...we're in a situation in which bad faith is rewarded... it is much more about finding a way to interpret what the other person is saying least charitable way possible... They'll see straight on that opportunity as a chance to strike a blow."
Thank You.
An important point I've not seen underscored is the Sokal Squared hoax was busted not by academicians but an outsider, a journalist. That's the opposite of what one would predict for trolling professional journals. Professionals should be the _first_ to spot trolling.
Wow, that last bit w/ Lindsey was surprising and disappointing.
Really though, I like to really concentrate on videos lately. I am long winded and like to think a lot more than Twitter seems to like. What is a good platform for a little more indepth discussion? Also, for the points Peter and Helen mention regarding the more popular social media platforms, I have been reluctant to make any kind of presence and most likely will not. What is Letter.Wiki? Is it under development or out there already? I was almost thinking of developing (web developer here) and getting help to develop an alternative platform that serves my wants. Wondering if Letter.Wiki already has what I am looking for though because it would save me so much work and we don't need to reinvent the wheels on the internet more 100 x. There is enough noise as it is.
Think, too many are mistrusting each other
Curiosity and openness for other meanings are only possible when you have the feeling the other side is honestly expressing itself. Comes the other side with some ideological trash I've heard and thought trough many times and detected as false or ideologically manipulative, then my curiosity falls sharply to zero. Think, too many are mistrusting each other. It's like a cultural war between two main sides, its not important who is right only who gets right no matter with what lies, hence the two sides operate with good sounding mouthpieces only to win an argument for their tribal belief structure. Before I think, we expressed our meanings to find out even more, by hearing ourselves talk and truthfully expressed meanings of the other side. Now, the other side is wrong anyway, cause belonging to the other side. Only truthful speak on both sides, with the only intention to express the state of truth we possess right now, brings us back to the table of honest expression and listening to all sides. As long as we more pretend than truthfully are, we will continue with empty shadow fighting.
This may have already been suggested, which is to have a facilitated conversation between Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky.
I would like that too, but I think Chomsky wants people to kiss his ass. Sam wants to discuss issues in a direct, but fair, way...we know they disagree, so would Chomsky be up for the type of discussion described in this video? I’m not so sure.
@@richyounger9: Fair point regarding Chomsky, who for sure has a reputation for being quite arrogant, and not so much displaying the qualities being harvested here. That acknowledged, how about someone other than Sam give it a go, in that he already has reasonable Chomsky baggage from their unpleasant exchange(s). It's mentioned here quite often that if you're dealing with someone who simply can't join you in being honest about their own biases, shadow and ideologies, the "conversation" is pretty much reduced to avoiding topics that have the most juice / relevance. Eric Weinstein per chance?
Art of Conversation. Bury St Edmunds. On Meetup.com . Monthly lunchtime at the pub. Come join us! (I'm extremely polite and a good group leader - notwithstanding a deep desire to be grossly offensive). (Rev Matt, Unitarian minister).
Matt Spinto Smith “ If Unitarianism is the one true faith I’ll eat my hat!”
- Simpson, Homer
My Fantasy Conversation would be Peter Boghossian discussing climate change with Patrick Moore.
Beliefs...a word in every one of all of these conversations (not just in this video) that keeps coming up over and over. Is there a pattern? Beliefs seem to block further insight. Yet, there seems to be absolutely no need of them. Since any belief is nothing more that a thought you think over and over (and, more often than not, something that was programmed into you without you questioning it or looking critically at it to even determine if you want to believe it), certainly you can choose to stop thinking it. The problem seems to be that people derive identity from beliefs. In that context, changing a belief becomes a threat to your identity. Yet, in actual fact, your true identity has nothing to do with belief. How to get around that? Have perspectives instead. Perspectives are amenable to further insight, growth, evolvement and expansion and do not threaten your identity. The idea is that 4 people could go to the Grand Canyon and each one only sees it from one perspective, one from the east, one west, one north and one south. If they turn that experience into a belief, they’re going to be perpetually arguing about what they saw, what the experience was like and what the Grand Canyon is overall. They will never agree on much. If, however, each looks at their experience as a perspective, with enough dialog each could walk away with a much more holistic perspective of what the Grand Canyon is actually like in the real world...and also realize there are still other perspectives (standing at the bottom, viewing it from above, etc.). We’re entrenched because we are lost in the belief that our experience is the only valuable experience, the only right experience, the only way to experience , the only valid and relevant experience, etc. And we all seek out those who agree. Thus, we stagnate and cease evolving and become more and more polarized when we’re challenged...because we don’t challenge those thoughts we think over and over; we haven’t critically examined them...and we have lots of people who agree with us. It’s like getting into a box and somehow being able to nail it shut from the outside.
"One can mistrust one's own senses, but not one's own belief. If there were a verb meaning "to believe falsely," it would not have any significant first person, present indicative."
-Ludwig Wittgenstein
DVG45 - Yes...and one’s own belief can be (and usually is) totally and unequivocally wrong. That’s why it’s a belief and not a fact. Everyone in the world right now is running around touting their beliefs as fact. Should we not mistrust their beliefs just because they proclaim they are right? Who’s actually right? Are any of them factual? It seems to be mostly unexamined nonsense. I get that everyone’s beliefs are in accordance with their evolutionary development of self. As they evolve, they change. If they don’t evolve, their beliefs remain static.
@@Hermetic7 this is true, but i meant to imply by using that quote that one is incapable really of dispensing with their own beliefs at will. It's also extraordinarily difficult to change one's beliefs without employing force to do so. A world where beliefs are not allowed and truth is the mandate inevitably will be corrupted when authoritarians change the definitions of what is true. This is why social control by intellectuals, or the wealthy or scientists or any such thing is a non starter--as soon as this source of power is clearly established, bad actors will pollute the system (as we see with the climate change industry, that Peter Boghossian himself as fallen for)
There is not one moral truth, system or philosophy that will square with the United States, Eritrea, Vanuatu and New Zealand. You can't even unify Texas and Rhode Island under one universal ethic, the whole world isn't a good bet. We have different languages, different histories and religions--all this i'm sure you thinks is obvious, but i think these facts plus many more prevent the utopian idea of perfect information, ability to disconfirm one's assumptions.
I think the best we can do is boost our understanding about forming logical arguments, making logical statements at the minute level, then looking to things like phenomenology or the work of Hume, psychology etc. to understand why we need more than logic to survive and develop as a species. I think surely beliefs make life more special than what we'd have if we were more coldly logical creatures.
That's also why instruction about the world religions with heavy focus on the three abrahamics, then buddhism/hinduism also would be an education fix. Many of the bad beliefs we have are rooted in these moral systems though they are indispensable to the cultures we lived in to the point where lacking understanding cripples one from ever cracking into another's worldview.
As a final point, how many beliefs do you suspect you overturn on a monthly basis? Not to be too critical but wouldn't you accept there are likely very significant things you believe and cannot imagine would be different?
@@dvg4536 - I generally agree with your perspective, although I disagree with the first sentence. If a belief is something that is generally not open to modification with new information, then I can say definitively that I have no beliefs. I do have a couple of foundational principles, but, if you look at the world differently than we are taught, the need for beliefs is dispensed with. I have revised virtually all of the beliefs I was taught, some radically so. Except for the basic principle of trying to be a decent human being and doing the best I can, I have revised most everything I was taught, and continue to do so as I learn.
In terms of another point you touched on, before any instruction on religious anything, I would teach children how to meditate and self inquire. And I would teach the foundational principles of how to think for oneself. Both of these would come before any exposure to religion. Religion is a great jumping off point, but it is dangerously easy to get stuck there permanently as we can clearly see. My religion is better than yours and if you challenge that, I will kill you. A clear form of insanity by any psychological definition. Again, beliefs block further insight, growth, development and evolution of self. The core of all religious teachings is clearly the same: love. The rest is varying degrees of dogma, rules, and control tactics, all of which impede true growth and expansion of the soul.
Foundationally, I generally follow the theories of physicists Thomas Campbell and Nassim Haramein as well as that of cognitive psychologist Donald Hoffman. Slowly, quantum physics is demonstrating that spacetime and the material realm are not foundational and that consciousness is fundamental to the existence of these material concepts. Since we already know that everything is energy, including the human biological being; and since all energy carries information, everything we understand to exist is all information. You can say it's holographic, digital, holofractographic or some other similar variation. But, information can be true, false, both, neither or some partial value. Yet, people always think they have absolute truth, clearly not understanding that the only absolute would be the realm of the Divine. I'm quite sure no physical being on this planet has absolute truth. Yet, every single one of us is on a unique path...and all paths are valid for our own evolvement. Everyone has value, everyone has something to contribute. But, if we're not willing to listen and we are closed off because we think we know everything and only we have the correct answers, then we find ourselves exactly where we are.
Beliefs are entirely dispensable if you see everything as information. Does the incoming information serve your growth? If so, learn; if not, file it away for later. There is no need to get triggered by information because it only has the value you assign to it. Intrinsically on its own, it has no value. If you look for the value to help in your growth, information is a great thing. If you look for the value to hinder your growth, then you can devolve...and that's not so great. We make these choices almost every moment of every day. All choices are either, at their root, based in fear (service to self) or based in love (service to others) or some degree of combination of both (the most usual). If most choices are fear-based, regardless of how evolved society's religions might or might not be, you're going to end up exactly where we are. If most choices are love-based, you're going to be moving toward a more "utopic" society where all are valued for what they can contribute and all will be learning and growing.
Doing the best we can every day just means taking all the information we have gathered and evaluating what it means for us and doing the best with it we can possibly do. We can only make choices that are in line with our level of evolvement. People are quick to judge and condemn, not realizing that if anyone could have made a different choice than they did in the moment, they would have. Things can only be what they are. You can resist it all you want. The only possible way to change is to change oneself. You cannot change another person. If you change yourself and mirror the behavior you want to see (be the change), things will change. If you do nothing but fight and fight and fight, all that happens is more fighting. You'd think after all these thousands of years of fighting, we'd have realized that by now. But, again, people can only make the choices they are capable of making in the moment. If they could make different choices they would. The way to get past that is to evolve ourselves. There is no other way out. We either construct our prison (and the bars are beliefs) or we tear it down and see what we can learn, how we can expand, grow and evolve.
good video, shame Lindsay is so dismissive at the end.
he generally has a difficult personality
First time I've seen James Lindsay and to me he seems like the definition of a bad faith actor who likes to hit n run with personal insults and doesn't want to converse from fear of rejection or injury. Probably suffered some bullying in his younger years and his new platform emboldens his dismissive approach. 🤦🏻♂️
Why should he submit to RW's agenda? He never claimed to be perfect. RW's agenda is to reach some kind of kumbaya land, so they are projecting that agenda onto James Lindsay, and onto everything else they do.
@@worldwidehappiness It's not about submitting to anyone's agenda, it's about living the values you espouse.
@@jbu89gb Did he say that having nice conversations all the time was his life value? I think it's just a case of doing it when you want to do it.
At 00:30:00 Peter speaks about Daryl Davis
Rathbone friends , impressed by your form of debate .Are u guys basically truthers? Learnt end 2017 that we are deeply but simply indoctrinated and since awakened by thinkers like you . Very hard to get others to even look at fact and truth. Do u have a platform where u discuss our most ignorant convictions?
Using science as the critical lens entirely in place of a postmodern perspective rather assumes that all the projects science undertakes are driven by objective criteria of need, when in fact what powerful interest groups (pharma companies, governments) are willing to fund and what they are not has a profound effect on how science manifests in the world.
at 00:11:00 they address steelmanning an arguement
Something about James Lindsay's temperament makes him a great sounding board. He's always uniquely insightful. I'd dig if you dudes did a full in-the-flesh interview.
he is so dishonest. it's not only that he doesn't take twitter seriously. he is purposely the biggest tool he can possibly be.
Great great interviews
This came off like an ambush, and I'm not even a big Lindsay fan. Not feeling the gossipy, catty energy coming out of this genre of thought leaders lately.
Just be honest, that's all.
26:56 "bad faith is rewarded".
♥️
Would love to see John vervaeke in conversation with Jamie Wheal. Jamie has a much bigger platform but I think he'd benefit from John's deeper and broader framework.
We live in an ocean of words, but like a fish in water we are often not aware of it.....tyranny of words
I love the Wisdoms that are of few words but big concepts.
Where's the "meltdown?"
It seems the circular firing squad about hypocrisy has begun on RW. Who's next? Will reach back to those who fired the first shot? ;-) This is what happens when motivations, assumptions, and contexts are unexamined.
I love all of you guys (american "guys", includes Helen) but I worry that even when we've learned how to be more courageous in the face of bad ideologies, we'll still need to kick the postmodernists out of the bureaucracies of academia, government and the corporate world.
Defund
@@jackdeniston9326 you can defund academia. I don't know how you purge the media and the government administrations
Embarrass them through discrediting their assumptions and by turning away from them.
Making grievance studies a laughing matter was a good start.
Trump voters turning their backs on virtue signalling PC politicians? The Marxist Labour party in the UK is on it's knees since it abandoned class struggle and adopted intersectionalism.
Perhaps the tide is already turning?
I don't have the answer, just faith that the 'fashion' will pass.
Just hope it doesn't demolish western liberal civilisation in the meantime!
When you have the groupthink we already KNOw how you think on any idea it’s all about your political agenda - yes and twitter does NOT matter JAMES knows that real conversations have to be had OFF twitter
most people are not really hurt by the world. They hurt by their own expectation
whatever happens in the world is real
what you think should happen is not real
so you're not disappointed by the world
you're disappointed by your own projections......by...Jacque Fresco
the point is....don't expect too much
@Teron James
Back when dinosaurs walked the Earth (:-)) I had a Flight Chief in Korea. One of the things he would say (generally before we were told we had to fill sandbags or string concertina wire) was "Life Is Full Of Disappointments. This Is One Of Them. DEAL WITH IT.
@@stevenwiederholt7000 life is full of disappointment in korea…..with you...not me....not every one but you deal with it
@@teronjames7457
Osan in 68 was....interesting. Very often had the highest VD rate in PACAF. And the 6314th Security Police Squadron lead the way with the highest VD rate on Osan! :-)
Always good to see a woman. The sense making space will benefit from more identity diversity. ☮️
Clyde Rathbone not running through walls anymore?
Who interviewed here represents the other side of the divide? Which divide is concerned with? The general political divide or the divide in academia?
The impossible dream.
Slavoj Zizek vs. Noam Chomsky
Really felt like that last portion basically was calling out James Lindsey, but I also found it the most intriguing portion as well, because I actually agree with James’ take on Twitter.
So, I would actually like to see him go up against someone who thinks Twitter isn’t just a standup stage and see that conversation happen. I think it is kind of putting the cart before the horse to assume that because many people communicate on Twitter that therefore Twitter is a place that then *should* be used to have important conversations. 4chan is also a place that many people use to communicate, but no one would think that’s the kind of place we should be trying to have responsible conversations on.
Capitalism, of course, must be fettered with regulations. But the idea of the freedom of economic behavior is a good one. Some differences are irreconcilable. If you value freedom, including free speech, and some tyrant wants to silence you, there is much room for compromise.
Impossible conversations? Richard Spencer
Sargon does not have much of a philosophical background and had a hard time defending liberalism against racial collectivism. Richard has made a career of this so Sargon didn’t have much of a chance. However, Richard tends to just say crazy things.
The problem with postmodernism is that it's not numerate enough in its criticism. If you are gonna criticize people using authority to cherry pick data and manufacture consent, you should be able to understand data..
in my experience most people who cite science aren't qualified to do it, and couldn't tell a bad statistical analysis if it bit them.
there's also the question of what do you do when data says something you don't like? it's very easy in principle to mouth platitudes about science being a self correcting system, but how many liberals refuse to acknowledge uncomfortable facts like the difference in race and IQ?
criticism is important, but it's being done by incompetent marxists who are jealous of stem folks and want to overthrow captialism because they don't know how compound interest works.
I'm looking forward to retirement, with any luck that'll be in 7 years. The phenomenon they're discussing is (at least for now) a predominantly American one (in Canada maybe a bit less so). I'm planning to retire in Europe, which (again, at least for now) does not engage in these kinds of vicious, bitter, scorched-earth tactics. I am looking forward to reading Peter's book, but my outlook for the near term in the USA isn't positive. The viciousness and demonization he discusses show no signs of ebbing anytime soon.
Did these people just propose the Colosseum of the Culture Wars?
LIVING WATERS UA-cam
All humans know everything from each other. How about listening smart people? Is that help?
Hmm, weird ending. It seemed like an ambush of the excellent guest, James Lindsay.
Why are any of these people on twitter? To what value?
Great minds unite and mediocre minds divide... Ta dah!! (ps, The mass media lobotomises)
Violence and those who have it always in mind as retaliation. First, they will always, but always, mention being disrespected. Break down that concept first. Respect meaning different things to different people. That's one of the problems in the world, and some just don't seem to get that. And there is the person who does not thinks in terms of respect or disrespect, until others keep telling them to see things in those terms. The person who does not think in terms of respect or no will come up with a lot of other interpretations to behaviour that others are fast to call disrespectful. I know from my own experience. Whose life is more peaceful? The one who does the thinking of other possible interpretations to behaviour. To see through.
I have more to comment on, but for now I'm taking a break because too much intellectualism and talk about. Use more experiential examples, like good storytellers... Part of all this is also staying grounded and keeping the head clear. Too much intellectual conceptualizing might want to be avoided. That's how you lose a large part of your potential audience, and that is not the idea either, right?! (Look at how Trump speaks that very simple language, lol). Enjoying the conversation though.
Professors asshurt over Twitter is laughable
What appears to be on display here is relativism. If everyone is right, no one is right.
@@GCU-GreyArea Humanism and climate change are an inversion of the natural order where science attempts to dictate with limited empirical data. Contemporary science chooses to discard the supernatural. That viewpoint is compounded further when science refuses to accept that it is an extraction from a much deeper, more profound reality, that of nature.
Truth is a social construct because morality/ethics is negotiated between differing groups. Ethics have a social emotional sense of value/meaning that is why those who's brain patterns outside of the norm like serial killers are called "insane" and treated as a pariah from society. There is not emperical/objective value to a human life there is only a social emotional one, unlike how the mass number of an atom is a fact.
So in fact enlightenment scientists and their search for "truth" is an effort to social negotiate define what is moral via feeling consensus dialog with the other ideologies. The fact that morality/philosophy has changed over time but has had the ego of reason and objectivity in each moral era shows that their is nothing objective about morality. What is social/moral can't be objective, because morality and ethics is given value of meaning by weight of social consensus emotion.
@@maxpeck7382 Truth is neither subjective nor a social construct, likewise beauty and goodness. The essence of these three dimensions points, us toward our Creator, in that they have criteria and we are created in His image. Permit me to suggest exploring empirical science as an extract of nature; science is not the fullness of human understanding. Fr Chad Ripperger may be a theologian that can expand on an understanding of this, he is very much of the Aqunias school. Equally so, morality has not changed over time. As Catholics we believe Christ ''fulfilled'' the content of Revelation outlined in the Old Testament, He did not replace it. The analogy we use, is that on the Sermon on the Mount, Christ took the Apostles with Him, up the mountain, whereas Moses prepared the way in going to Mount Sinai by himself. Over time God gradually prepared us for the fullness of His Revelation. Science persistently attempts to separate the material from the spiritual realm and when it fails, science them attempts to crush nature.
@@GCU-GreyArea Metaphysics.
@@liammccann8763 Man has believed in a creator since the dawn of man and the Gods that groups of humans have worshiped have been shaped in their moralities image of what is moral true. The Greek gods and Titans were all about tails of their struggles, feuds, and how humans and Demi Gods must suffer trials under the watching eyes of the Gods to become strong and so become worthy of glory even only if gained in their final death struggle, that was their moral truth. How nice and convenient it is that the Christian God including under Catholicism of today now fits so well with the ideals of the enlightenment. Yet the Christian Gods law had to be reformed via "interpretation" and his image as anti gay reformed to do that, because anyone who really believed the word for word of the Christian God would at the vary least believe and treat things that their God viewed as a Sin to be a Sin.
To say truth and God aren't reshaped together to fit current evolving secular and even woke ideologue activist morality demands is a lie. The whole reason Atheist Science can like Christians of today is because they are not purists to the "truth" morals of their God like Islamists are, they have reformed from their books word to morals in line with the progressive tolerant secular morality of the times. You could say it is just a reorientation towards forgiveness and God having final judgment for Christians rather than their judgement by his standards, but what does a Gods word on the immorality of something mean if it isn't regularly vocalized by believers as immoral under that God's moral truth views?
btw.....The people who believed in warrior Gods believed in the immutable truth of their God's morals too just as deeply as you. It is funny how only Faiths and Gods reformed on principle to secular enlightenment now live in society, when the moral truth held as immutable by those of past societies of people based on their belief in their warrior Gods are gone now. Catholicism was founded by Constantine the first Emperor of the eastern Roman Byzantine Empire, it was formed along with what books would be in the bible at the Council of Nicaea meant to consolidate a conception of what Christians believe as a faith for his new empire all to worship together to insure social stability. The Council of Nicaea were feuding Christian sects that made compromise under the urging to a Pagan emperor in order to found Catholicism as a unifying faith for his empire,
Catholicism is distinctly the most polytheist and pagan of Christian worship in that it deifies Saints and makes them idols to worship alongside praying to Mary and other polytheist ritualism. You know nothing about nothing do you? Pope Francis is a progressive pope by Catholicism's historic standard of Crusades, Inqusitions, using afterlife and earning Gods' forgiveness in the ear of lords to gain Catholic control over powerful feudal lords and their kingdoms. Human's haven't had differing religions, ideologies, and nations because they share the same intuition sense of what is morally true. Society and Religions have been progressively changed by minority lobby from the grip of the moral belief majority, change has happened if you wish to admit or not to your God's moral truth law.
Lindsay is an intellectual light weight...he is out of his depth on literally EVERY topic and ANY issue besides childish trolling and silly mocking....
James Lindsey has extroverted intuition, Ne, because of eye movements. Possible ENTP or ENFP.
Here's something I wonder about.
Can you have free, universal healthcare and unlimited immigration in the US? It seems to me to be impossible to maintain the two together.
Ofc its impossible. Then expand that out to finite resources in general...
I like James Lindsay and his work a lot, but when he acts like a champion for "constructive dialogue" and then acts like a dick when facing criticism on twitter and then MUTES him, it's pretty fuckin hypocritical. Then again, twitter is twitter and the longer you're steeped in that atmosphere of people being chronically shitty to you, your default is to become shitty right back automatically. If you want constructive dialogue, stay off of twitter. It's not a healthy environment in the least.
I believe there are a lot of people who understand that we are better off with more Co2!
If you care about climate change as spoken about in the current climate, why are you not recommending Zero Point Energy, an looking into how MIT covered up Cold Fusion?
So an organized group concocting ways to cause covert physical damage to humans in a crowd for intimidation purposes isn''t terrorism? Really? Ok let's hear it?
James is the expert he sees the self deception and the other guy is offended for zero reason
You have a choice in this life-serve God or follow the devil. Two voices, two paths, but only one choice. I know it often doesn’t seem that black and white, but it is. If we are not moving forward with God, taking territory for His Kingdom, then we have already made the choice to serve the one whom Scripture calls the enemy. Maybe you never consciously decided to serve either God or the devil. Trust me, many people haven’t. But as the saying goes, “Failing to plan means planning to fail.” In this case, failing to choose God-or to choose life (as Moses told the Israelites)-is the same as choosing to serve the evil one. Be sure you choose life!”
Excerpt From
Unmasking the Devil: Strategies to Defeat Eternity's Greatest Enemy
John Ramirez
Ben Shapiro has ruined the word 'conversation' for me.
why?
Anthroprogenic climate change? If you had been around since the 70s you would be asking where is the Ice Age we where supposed to be going through now?
From the last bit, it appears that James is unwilling to walk the walk. However, the interview with the person who felt slighted by James did not strike me as fair on your part. It's as though you have set things up to expose James. For myself, James' reaction is appropriate to his character. To bring up the contradiction between his behaviour and his book with the request that he should have an interview with the offended party so as to rectify the situation is not in my view a proper way to treat your guests. This is something that could be done privately. It didn't even appear that he knew you were going to have the bit defaming his character. If I were James I would be upset with you. And since I am not James, I'm rather puzzled as to why you would include the last segment.
James answer was that he doesn't care if throwing milkshakes at people is terrorism or not. But he also says that people should engage in conversations to expand their intellectual horizons. It's not like they are asking him to get a doctorate in physics on the subject.
Clearly, RW are doing a scientific experiment on James. One day, it will be RW's turn to be the subjects.
@@stugrant01 Engaging in conversations to expand intellectual horizons assumes the premise of good faith by both participants and does not seem the same as having to give up valuable time and attention to bad actors, and to have an expert guilt you into listening so he can try to intellectually flex his weak cancel culture muscles in a one-sided show-off way while nitpicking a topic of interest only to himself. The whole little segment seemed gross in the same way that protesters force their opposition views in childish ways by taking over a stage or microphone with a tantrum to dominate attention because they think they hold the moral high ground, not very professorial IMHO. I agree with James about how to use twitter and I personally think social media especially twitter is where conversations go to die because attention is the currency of the format, podcasts seem to be the opposite in the fact that the audience will seek out the content and the format has an intrinsic familiar conversation structure and it's not just a bunch of randos coming in hot.
In general, it is best to just ignore Alinsky-ist deconstructionists like Nicholas Grossman, as they waste too much of everyone's time.
@@ShannonRamos Bad actors who "expert guilt you into listening" describes the situation well. Just because one wrote a book on the topic doesn't mean you have to open yourself to everyone. David's attempt to get James to engage with the "expert" struck me as bad judgement on his part.
The amount of foreign agents who are not detectable by the public as foreign agents is a huge problem. Bad faith or dishonest actor? What's needed is an opaque white list and black list that is personal only and conversations by invitation only.
The only safe space we need lies within ourselves. Psychology has become corrupted because in its essence it was about the internal contemplation and revelations as perceived by Jung. The tragedy is that after 13-15 years in Educational facilities young people come out with no tools in their toolbox to Navigate this human experience in this world. It was a shame you ended the podcast on that note. It seemed more about someone holding on to hurt feelings and ego.
I'm hoping the people who comment on president Trump's twitter feed might see this video. Then again,
you're talking about polite conversation in an effort to change someones mind, where you must be open to
having your mind changed in the first place.
@riccsx
Something I've been pushing for a while now.
My 3 Rules Of Trump
1. Pay Little attention to what he tweets.
2. Pay Some attention to what he says.
3. Pay A Lot of attention to what he does.
By following these 3 rules/guidelines, you may not find yourself saying Donald Trump is a pretty good Center/Right President, (although I think he is), what you Will find is you are no longer acting like the cat trying to catch the laser pointer. Then we can have an actual conversation.
I think Peter Boghossian is misinformed about the nature of antifascist activism.
A lot of antifa activism doesn't involve violence at all. A lot of what they do is gather and spread information about far right extremist groups. Many of these right wing groups operate semi secretly, antifa often just spreads awareness of them.
Also, not all antifa support offensive violence. Some object for moral reasons (pacifism), some object for strategic reasons (it leads to police repression). There are many antifa groups that only advocate for violence in cases of self defense, which is merely common sense.
Antifa organizations have diverse beliefs. Usually antifascists identify with a broader ideology like socialism, anarchism, libertarianism or some type of leftist ideology. In these cases antifascism is just one part of s bigger ideology. Some dont hold any ideology, they just worry about the rise of aggressive racist groups.
first!