I commented earlier with my first comment for laughs and now that I have watched the whole thing through and now I have to order this book. Great stuff!
The illustration of “turning up late” to pick up your kids, then introducing a fine which produced *more* people being late to pick up their kids is SO GOOD. Commodification (aka transactionalism). It’s consumerism. It’s the opposite of sacramentalism. I think I first read about that illustration in Freakanomics.
All modern democracies have built into them something to answer the profound objections to democracy presented by Plato in The Republic. Very few westerners appear to realise this; or that there are any meaningful criticisms of democracy. How much is Christianity necessary as a foundation layer to build democracy - a Christian soil required for the seed of democracy to grow. I only have a superficial knowledge of this; but it strikes me that countries outside the Christian tradition find it very difficult to accept democracy. The central axiom of democracy of “Everyone is equal” is of course provided within the Christian tradition - very difficult to justify outside that. I loved the idea of voting as an acted-out liturgy for equality. That clearly embeds equality at a Participative Knowledge level. There are major problems when that bumps up against the Propositional Knowledge level and there is not only no support for equality but the radical INequality between humans which stares us in the face at all times if we actually open our eyes.
There are some holes in the vegan argument. There isn't enough land to grow enough non-meat food for everyone (based on calories). The Joe Rogan episode with Joel Salatin goes into this. It doesn't change the argument that humans are more valuable than animals.
Paul's previous video discusses 'Myth and Mayhem' to a considerable degree: ua-cam.com/video/T-SSY9kd7rI/v-deo.html Zero Books has a couple of videos promoting this..... piece of work. And it is that......;)......... ua-cam.com/video/AY4ABXFYLiI/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/JFNoJntOVqE/v-deo.html
42:13 The tech companies "wish to form the very world in which I live". Perhaps you could even say that they wish to form "the very foundation of the world we're living in". I don't think it's a coincidence that they're called tech "giants". I also liked your comment: "What happens when the context itself becomes a player in the market?" I see a connection to the incarnation here. The true context, God in whom "we live and move and have our being", has become a player by entering into his creation.
This was quite good. I think it accurately points out the weaknesses in the West secular and religious perspectives both. I yawn at those who disagree.
I'm surprised that no one mentioned the classic comparison between how men and women's "Value" evolve. The man usually increase in value as he amass more wealth over time while the women peak in her 20's as she is more valued by her beauty. If we only look at marriage in Neo-Liberal terms this will cause an endless stream of divorces where the man trades his old wife for a new and better model about every 10-15 years. For Younger women have a comparative advantage over older women.
With Citizen's United I am not sure we have an effective democracy anymore. The antithesis of Hauerwas' ideal of radical democracy. Eroding for years with ever more powerful lobbyists. The checks and balances system is over.
The travel time of flights have gone up since the 1960's. Back then airliners flew closer to the speed of sound but for economic reasons their speed has been reduced increasing flight time by about 20-30%, and this does not factor in that Concorde has come and gone. Just compare the speed of the Boeing 707 and the 787
Pastor and Doctor, Let first say, Sidney is a wonderful. Now, I have to say the longer you both talked the more wisdom I saw uncovered. The fundamentalist label always seemed redundant in the modern world to me, since most people I have spoken to proceed from, often not self-aware, fundamentalist assumptions.
There was a Swedish Central Bank Price in the Memory of Alfred Nobel Winner over a decade ago that said it was cheaper to buy hookers for sex then to get married.
What is it with intellectuals and misrepresenting the position of biblical creationists? All the major creation ministries I know of would affirm that Genesis is pre-scientific, historical narrative and inspired by God.
I would have valued more discussion on Mill On and Nietzsche. I taught courses on “Beyond Good and Evil” and “On Liberty” and found them enormously valuable in getting at the underlying beliefs of modern Western society. Nietzsche presents a radical dismissal of the concept of equality which usually exposes just how Christian most western atheists actually are (Tom Holland territory here) when they defend equality in the face of clear empirical evidence. Mill is the bedrock of the liberal position; but few appear to have given any rigorous and detailed analysis of his major premises. One of the first exercises I did with the students was to identify a ‘private action’. The concept sounds good and is frequently used by liberals in discussion - but just try to identify one.
Mill’s incitement illustration using the opinion that corn-dealers are starvers of the poor expressed in print or standing outside his house with a mob radically underestimates the power of words. It was dubious in the 19th century. In the era of 21st century social media it is clearly flawed.
13:46 Yes! I keep having to remind people of this original meaning. Just to aggravate your book-buying disease, Paul, another recommendation for you is J.I.Packer's "Fundamentalism and the Word of God". Was a 1958 work discussing the various uses of the word around the time of the Billy Graham crusades and Evangelical revival in England. Should still be available in reprint, I think.
How we judge others gets turned around on ourselves. As mentioned, the dating/sexual marketplace is fundamentally discriminatory; we are efficient in our assessing others as unworthy. When we desire the Kingdom of Heaven - or when we desire maximum sustained meaning and fulfillment - but then experience meaning deficit, we similarly assess ourselves as unworthy and lose faith. Ethics is highly correlated to faith in this way. The solution is not to lower standards and give up preference, although we should be mindful that we don’t become the bitter anti-hero full of contempt for others. Instead, we should look to redeem others in our minds by layering that perspective (redemption) over the discriminatory one. If we do that to others, we are more likely to do that for ourselves and we will pause before losing our faith.
I don’t think the only way of seeing is rooted in presuppositions. Epistemology *does not* precede ontology. This is maybe the most simple way to say what I’m always trying to say. There is a way to see which isn’t epistemology first. It’s deeper. It’s hard to describe, esp to Cartesian seers. Iconic vision. All Cartesian seers are spiritually fundamentalists. Some are maybe just nice and don’t try to colonize others with their vision. Iconic vision is simultaneously subjective and objective. It’s seeing truth the way that we apprehend beauty.
LOL, best title for this would be: "How to be spectacularly wrong about just about everything regardless of education and degrees." First time tempted to "thumbs down" this one, but I'm not going to out of respect for PVK. But talk about lack of critical reasoning ability on Dr. Menzies' part. Just jaw dropping... Better to just laugh about it.
@@P3rformula I went through the entire video. This is a perfect example of what happens when someone engages in "motivated reasoning," i.e. the act of assuming the conclusion in advance and then rationalizing it by any means available (including disregarding or avoiding contrary evidence, AKA confirmation bias). There are so many things wrong here, it's impossible for me to address it in a YT comment. It would take forever. There is so much confusion over the actual issues, elementary misconceptions, and outright falsehoods (especially regarding economic theory) that it's beyond recovery in any way. Just to cite one example among so many, the idea that free markets will somehow warp the minds of people and lead them to do bad things they otherwise would do (especially with regards to inter-personal relationships) is total nonsense. One only has to look at how horribly people behaved, and still behave, in communist/socialist societies to see that to the extent markets have an effect on people's behavior, it's entirely positive in comparison to the alternatives (the fact that they do not lead to Dr. Menzies preferred outcomes is totally irrelevant). Free markets are fundamentally moral (with due caveats for externalities, as mentioned in the video in one of the few moments that made sense). But I could go on and on. In fact, PVK himself pointed out some inconsistencies, but unfortunately did not press hard enough to make them really salient. I mean: really, the West takes free markets for granted? That's utterly laughable. We could not spell "free markets" if our lives depended on it (think about it: in France, for example, the State spends about 55% of the national Income!). Same thing for democracy, although here the mistake is more subtle and requires more discussion. Once one becomes motivated by anything but the search for Truth, all bets are off. And here you have the consequences for all to see.
@@PaulVanderKlay Well, OK, maybe I was a bit harsh. But honestly my first reaction was: if there is one thing the West is "fundamentalist" about, it's about being anti-fundamentalist. In other words, the Enlightenment tradition, for all its faults, at the very least has this (iMO good) feature that it rejects fundamentalism in its many forms. Indeed, too much so (!), leading to all sorts of relativisms and doubts which have become quite harmful. What the West needs is a bit MORE fundamentalism (up to a point, of course), not less. And I think (hopefully I'm not wrong on this), it's what you are implying as well: that we need to go back, at least to some extent, to our Christian roots and take them a lot more seriously (more fundamentally?) than we have. And I agree with that, even if my variant on the theme is to emphasize God 1 vs God 2.
@@KRGruner This is the facile interpretation, but I see Dr. Menzies designating the anti-fundamentalist frameset of the Enlightenment AS a fundamentalism. And a defect in itself, and having less of it isn't a solution.......
That Nietzsche being used as a mirror is revitalizing western Christianity only shows that God has a sense of humor !
lmfao
I commented earlier with my first comment for laughs and now that I have watched the whole thing through and now I have to order this book. Great stuff!
The illustration of “turning up late” to pick up your kids, then introducing a fine which produced *more* people being late to pick up their kids is SO GOOD.
Commodification (aka transactionalism). It’s consumerism. It’s the opposite of sacramentalism.
I think I first read about that illustration in Freakanomics.
What a great interview and conversation. Thank you
That was a great discussion. Have this book on my wish list now.
All modern democracies have built into them something to answer the profound objections to democracy presented by Plato in The Republic. Very few westerners appear to realise this; or that there are any meaningful criticisms of democracy.
How much is Christianity necessary as a foundation layer to build democracy - a Christian soil required for the seed of democracy to grow. I only have a superficial knowledge of this; but it strikes me that countries outside the Christian tradition find it very difficult to accept democracy.
The central axiom of democracy of “Everyone is equal” is of course provided within the Christian tradition - very difficult to justify outside that.
I loved the idea of voting as an acted-out liturgy for equality. That clearly embeds equality at a Participative Knowledge level. There are major problems when that bumps up against the Propositional Knowledge level and there is not only no support for equality but the radical INequality between humans which stares us in the face at all times if we actually open our eyes.
One of the big markers that there has been a significant shift in the age is when the analogies of the previous era break down in their applicability.
Quite a lot to digest here ..... His experiment on the issue of 'human= just another animal species ' is fascinating.
Great honors in life: 1) Do a PhD in Oxford 2) Talk to Paul VanderKlay on his channel
There are some holes in the vegan argument. There isn't enough land to grow enough non-meat food for everyone (based on calories). The Joe Rogan episode with Joel Salatin goes into this. It doesn't change the argument that humans are more valuable than animals.
Any video of yours wherein Myth & Mayhem by Matt McManus is covered? I understand that his latest book also contains lengthy critique of Peterson.
Here's the link to the book's site:
drjordanbpeterson.ca/about/
Paul's previous video discusses 'Myth and Mayhem' to a considerable degree: ua-cam.com/video/T-SSY9kd7rI/v-deo.html
Zero Books has a couple of videos promoting this..... piece of work. And it is that......;).........
ua-cam.com/video/AY4ABXFYLiI/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/JFNoJntOVqE/v-deo.html
42:13 The tech companies "wish to form the very world in which I live". Perhaps you could even say that they wish to form "the very foundation of the world we're living in". I don't think it's a coincidence that they're called tech "giants".
I also liked your comment: "What happens when the context itself becomes a player in the market?" I see a connection to the incarnation here. The true context, God in whom "we live and move and have our being", has become a player by entering into his creation.
Another fascinating exploration.
This was quite good. I think it accurately points out the weaknesses in the West secular and religious perspectives both. I yawn at those who disagree.
No audiobook :’(
I'm surprised that no one mentioned the classic comparison between how men and women's "Value" evolve.
The man usually increase in value as he amass more wealth over time while the women peak in her 20's as she is more valued by her beauty.
If we only look at marriage in Neo-Liberal terms this will cause an endless stream of divorces where the man trades his old wife for a new and better model about every 10-15 years. For Younger women have a comparative advantage over older women.
Here from Destiny interview!
With Citizen's United I am not sure we have an effective democracy anymore. The antithesis of Hauerwas' ideal of radical democracy. Eroding for years with ever more powerful lobbyists. The checks and balances system is over.
The travel time of flights have gone up since the 1960's.
Back then airliners flew closer to the speed of sound but for economic reasons their speed has been reduced increasing flight time by about 20-30%, and this does not factor in that Concorde has come and gone.
Just compare the speed of the Boeing 707 and the 787
Pastor and Doctor, Let first say, Sidney is a wonderful. Now, I have to say the longer you both talked the more wisdom I saw uncovered. The fundamentalist label always seemed redundant in the modern world to me, since most people I have spoken to proceed from, often not self-aware, fundamentalist assumptions.
Great conversation. Shame you both agree on so much.
Why does he think that?
The Market will yield material goods* but not necessarily material good.
There was a Swedish Central Bank Price in the Memory of Alfred Nobel Winner over a decade ago that said it was cheaper to buy hookers for sex then to get married.
What is it with intellectuals and misrepresenting the position of biblical creationists? All the major creation ministries I know of would affirm that Genesis is pre-scientific, historical narrative and inspired by God.
Paul, you are such a good and non threatening interviewer. Larry King could take lessons from you.
Absolute Monarchy gets an undeservedly bad reputation !
I would have valued more discussion on Mill On and Nietzsche. I taught courses on “Beyond Good and Evil” and “On Liberty” and found them enormously valuable in getting at the underlying beliefs of modern Western society.
Nietzsche presents a radical dismissal of the concept of equality which usually exposes just how Christian most western atheists actually are (Tom Holland territory here) when they defend equality in the face of clear empirical evidence.
Mill is the bedrock of the liberal position; but few appear to have given any rigorous and detailed analysis of his major premises. One of the first exercises I did with the students was to identify a ‘private action’. The concept sounds good and is frequently used by liberals in discussion - but just try to identify one.
Mill’s incitement illustration using the opinion that corn-dealers are starvers of the poor expressed in print or standing outside his house with a mob radically underestimates the power of words. It was dubious in the 19th century. In the era of 21st century social media it is clearly flawed.
13:46 Yes! I keep having to remind people of this original meaning. Just to aggravate your book-buying disease, Paul, another recommendation for you is J.I.Packer's "Fundamentalism and the Word of God". Was a 1958 work discussing the various uses of the word around the time of the Billy Graham crusades and Evangelical revival in England. Should still be available in reprint, I think.
30:00 In a free market without wage regulation you need to decide if someone should perish on the vine.
How we judge others gets turned around on ourselves. As mentioned, the dating/sexual marketplace is fundamentally discriminatory; we are efficient in our assessing others as unworthy. When we desire the Kingdom of Heaven - or when we desire maximum sustained meaning and fulfillment - but then experience meaning deficit, we similarly assess ourselves as unworthy and lose faith. Ethics is highly correlated to faith in this way.
The solution is not to lower standards and give up preference, although we should be mindful that we don’t become the bitter anti-hero full of contempt for others. Instead, we should look to redeem others in our minds by layering that perspective (redemption) over the discriminatory one. If we do that to others, we are more likely to do that for ourselves and we will pause before losing our faith.
I don’t think the only way of seeing is rooted in presuppositions. Epistemology *does not* precede ontology.
This is maybe the most simple way to say what I’m always trying to say. There is a way to see which isn’t epistemology first. It’s deeper. It’s hard to describe, esp to Cartesian seers. Iconic vision. All Cartesian seers are spiritually fundamentalists. Some are maybe just nice and don’t try to colonize others with their vision. Iconic vision is simultaneously subjective and objective. It’s seeing truth the way that we apprehend beauty.
I would interchange “fundamentalist” with “ideological possession”.
Someone possessed by ideas, or even moreso, Principalities and Powers.
🥈😁😁 Second, yay, YAY!!🤣😆
First
🥇👍👍👏👏😎 Congrats Señor!!
Irony: Paul probably died by the same sword that the authorities do not bear in vain 🤔
Lost me at debatability of economic comparison on north and South Korea. 😂😂😂
Zweiter
LOL, best title for this would be: "How to be spectacularly wrong about just about everything regardless of education and degrees." First time tempted to "thumbs down" this one, but I'm not going to out of respect for PVK. But talk about lack of critical reasoning ability on Dr. Menzies' part. Just jaw dropping... Better to just laugh about it.
@@P3rformula I went through the entire video. This is a perfect example of what happens when someone engages in "motivated reasoning," i.e. the act of assuming the conclusion in advance and then rationalizing it by any means available (including disregarding or avoiding contrary evidence, AKA confirmation bias). There are so many things wrong here, it's impossible for me to address it in a YT comment. It would take forever. There is so much confusion over the actual issues, elementary misconceptions, and outright falsehoods (especially regarding economic theory) that it's beyond recovery in any way. Just to cite one example among so many, the idea that free markets will somehow warp the minds of people and lead them to do bad things they otherwise would do (especially with regards to inter-personal relationships) is total nonsense. One only has to look at how horribly people behaved, and still behave, in communist/socialist societies to see that to the extent markets have an effect on people's behavior, it's entirely positive in comparison to the alternatives (the fact that they do not lead to Dr. Menzies preferred outcomes is totally irrelevant). Free markets are fundamentally moral (with due caveats for externalities, as mentioned in the video in one of the few moments that made sense). But I could go on and on. In fact, PVK himself pointed out some inconsistencies, but unfortunately did not press hard enough to make them really salient. I mean: really, the West takes free markets for granted? That's utterly laughable. We could not spell "free markets" if our lives depended on it (think about it: in France, for example, the State spends about 55% of the national Income!). Same thing for democracy, although here the mistake is more subtle and requires more discussion.
Once one becomes motivated by anything but the search for Truth, all bets are off. And here you have the consequences for all to see.
I was really curious how you would respond to this one. :)
@@PaulVanderKlay Well, OK, maybe I was a bit harsh. But honestly my first reaction was: if there is one thing the West is "fundamentalist" about, it's about being anti-fundamentalist. In other words, the Enlightenment tradition, for all its faults, at the very least has this (iMO good) feature that it rejects fundamentalism in its many forms. Indeed, too much so (!), leading to all sorts of relativisms and doubts which have become quite harmful. What the West needs is a bit MORE fundamentalism (up to a point, of course), not less. And I think (hopefully I'm not wrong on this), it's what you are implying as well: that we need to go back, at least to some extent, to our Christian roots and take them a lot more seriously (more fundamentally?) than we have. And I agree with that, even if my variant on the theme is to emphasize God 1 vs God 2.
@@KRGruner This is the facile interpretation, but I see Dr. Menzies designating the anti-fundamentalist frameset of the Enlightenment AS a fundamentalism. And a defect in itself, and having less of it isn't a solution.......