Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Ben Shapiro: Facts don't care about your feelings | Michael Malice and Yaron Brook and Lex Fridman
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 кві 2021
- Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Michael Malice and Yar...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- Ground News: ground.news/lex
- Public Goods: publicgoods.com/lex and use code LEX to get $15 off
- Athletic Greens: athleticgreens.com/lex and use code LEX to get 1 month of fish oil
- Brave: brave.com/lex
- Four Sigmatic: foursigmatic.com/lex and use code LexPod to get up to 60% off
GUEST BIO:
Michael Malice is an anarchist. Yaron Brook is an objectivist. Both are podcasters and authors.
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Reddit: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman
This whole interview was so good I watched the entire four hours and now I am watching the short clips
It makes me delighted that somebody recognizes it
I watched it when it came out and it was so long I watched it again later because I just forgot so much of it.
OMG samesies
I found myself lost in their convo on a long car ride.
me too i love the back and forth with malice and brook kind of challenging each other a bit
Dude, Lex was a great sport when they were teasing him
Emotion doesn't change the fact, but it plays a huge part in our interpretation of how the fact affects us. That's why it's termed the affective component. Emotions also differ slightly from feelings, which include cognitive appraisals and are subjective. Separating emotions and feelings and then evaluating events is a good start.
This is a big part of cognitive behavioral therapy.
Someone please clip Lex saying "I'm a love maximalist." That's had me smiling for the last 15 minutes.
Much love to you Lex. Loved this episode!
i saw that, laughed, scrolled down to the comments, and this was the first thing i saw
haha man very nice
I think it is more about cognitive dissonance, when you confront irrefutable facts that go against your beliefs and your feelings caused by the attachement to those beliefs don´t let you accept those facts. I think the phrase should be facts don´t care about your beliefs. Ben Shapiro talks about particular situations when your feelings attached to certain beliefs don´t let you accept facts, he doesn´t say feelings are not important or other interpretations people are giving to the phrase.
I agree with that, is more about the emotional responce when your beliefs are being attacked. Is not that your emotions don't matter, is when those emotions are attached to your beliefs, therefore You tend to bring that emotional response to a debate, and thats what blinds you from the facts that the other person is trying yo say.
I totally get what you mean and agree with the concept.
I honestly think that Ben intends a more shallow meaning. For instance, if you called a fat person fat because they are fat, that person might get overly offended and feel insulted, but they shouldn't, because in the face of the fact, only a truth was spoken. They should be thankful and appreciate that someone is not lying to them just to save their feelers.
I think he means it this way because he usually says it to/about someone who obviously over-feels every feeling.
So it's just a quick jab to set someone off, why? It'll probably help him with continuing to make content.
Otherwise just on the face value alone, it is a true statement, facts don't actually care about anything, it's just information that tells us that something is or is not.
This seems like the obvious way to look at it.
@@nicholasdoyle7715 It certainly helps with content but it also packs an extra punch for his constituents if he "owns" the person he's debating. Now, I just want to say that I like Ben Shapiro and agree with many points of his and disagree on some points of his. I think why the phrase "facts don't care about your feeling" came to prominence is because many normal people are seeing the world shift very radically from their very eyes and feel threatened that the hierarchy of values that they hold to be true is crumbling. For example, when LGBTQ community or other leftist communities are pushing for "hate crime" and restricting freedom of speech, or even changing common definitions grounded in science, it will results in a harsh retort.
@@LambFollower "owning and/or destroying" the debate opponent is the most click bait buzzword labeling bs, it shouldn't be celebrated.
The point of debates isint to destroy people in the first place, it's to discover common ground for us all to operate from, which most normal people already do, but it doesn't look like it if you pay to much attention to all the political commentators and the news.
I think the reason why people glom onto the phrase "facts don't care about your feelings" is mostly because those people have a twinge more logic going for them, the phrase rings true because it is. Which is perhaps one of those fact values Sam Harris is always grasping for.
And it isin't even "normal" people seeing the world change, the paradigm shift, the churn. Everyone, other than those with serious cognitive issues can see it. It makes people worry and drives fear, but it's also normal, new generations cause these things, as do new technologies.
Yeah change can suck, but that's just the flow of things, everything downloads new upgrade packages or it dies.
So then it is upon the rational people to ensure that the worst ideas are never implemented. It seems like those people are busy doing anything other than politics.
Facts don't care about your feelings. Unless they're my feelings they are100% objective and factual
sounds like shapiro
They’re*
@@zozoartstudio4727 thanks samy
@@KomodoDojo only about israel.
in simpler words, emotions are not there to directly dictate your actions, ideas and experiences, they are there to make you examine your actions, ideas and experiences. they are meant for awareness, not control.
Lex I would very much appreciate it if you looked into beau of the fifth column. I would love to listen to Him and the guy in the suit talk.
Enjoyed Ben taking it like a champ when called out for not practicing what he preaches and on BBC he got into his feelings more than he cared about facts.
He is human after all.
@@kklh7918 You're right that people can change and should be given the chance to do better. But Ben hasn't changed at all. All the things that Ben himself said were mistakes back then are the same things he's doing now, like fueling the anger and division in America and demonizing anyone critical of Israel. His "apology" was just damage control. He has shown since then that he isn't interested in doing better, probably because what he does now makes him a lot of money
@@kklh7918 Well idk how me giving a respectful argument makes me what's wrong with the world lol. Was it me criticizing someone you like? Anyway I'll watch the video. Just remember that holding someone accountable doesn't automatically mean hate. Practice what you preach
When someone on the right gets totally destroyed and shown to be a total fraud he only needs to say " that was my bad hehe, you won this one", and their fans will fall in love with them again for being so humble. There is a reason he only debates kids or people who are either dead or wont talk to him. A total pussy.
@@paulbarclay4114 Facts don't care about your feelings
Mike and Yaron should take this show on the road. I've never enjoyed a podcast so much.
Objective reality is, and will always be, the final arbiter of the validity of our subjective perspective. When our subjective perspective aligns well with objective reality, then our chances for survival increases. When our subjective perspective veers so widely from objective reality that we becomes totally disfunctional, totally unable to navigate our environment? Well, that is basically the definition of insanity.
2:27 Tables do not care about your feelings.
The implication of Shapiro’s statement is that policy should not have a moral basis but a purely functional one, it should be about what is deemed to work (which is ostensibly objective) rather what is thought to be right (which arguably is subjective). Besides the fact that this is both politically and philosophically misguided, Shapiro himself doesn’t hesitate to make moral arguments when it is his own principles that might be at stake.
It is not a moral statement and isn't about policy at all. The whole reason Shapiro started saying that around 5-6 years ago was due to the growth of speech codes, deplatforming and other phenomena limited mostly to college campuses where the feelings of some students were treated as an effective veto on the ability of a speaker to state a fact (or even appear). The only thing the statement means is a fact is a fact no matter how you feel about it. That's it. Lex, Malice, and Brooke go way too deep on something really simple here.
These two guests are two of my favorite ever
Lol they’re useless
Great convo. I try to think as 'facts don't care about your feelings' more as advice not to willingly cling on to lies that are objectively, without a doubt, false in the pursuit of achieving a goal, be it a personal goal or a team effort. Shapiro himself is very down to earth, reality oriented, and as much as I could critique him for it, I admire it a lot as well.
To feel something can be the cause of an effect, the effect being a fact. My feeling can cause a change in my behavior . My behavior can cause a feeling in you and so on. What I'm trying to say is, that your feeling is a configuration or a state of all the particule defining the abstraction of ''you'', therefore it is a fraction of the state of all the particule of the universe, which implies that the state of particule defining your feeling is implicite to the futur configuration of partical which is a fact. Hence the particule configuration that define the state of empathy is a fact that cares about your feeling.
When I try to talk about actual reality with people they just look at me like I'm crazy. People live, including me, in a world of illusion.
Give two examples of this world of illusion?
@@vasumaru242 Thats so true bro.
They rather prefer to coil back into their shells.and call it reality.🤣
@@raymondtendau2749 😆
The is no such thing as reality, only perspective
@@thetavibes9021 Can confirm
These two together, are freakin gold Lex!
So what I have learned, reality is the input, emotion is the output, the emotion or output should never determine the reality / input
Because somebody responds emotionally to something it doesn't make the response a valid or reasonable one. And it definitely doesn't make them correct when discussing a topic or having a debate which requires facts and real evidence. Yes someone's emotions are part of reality and you should try to be kind and take the feelings of others into consideration in a general common courtesy type of way. You also should be able to dismiss those emotions when they are being used to control a situation without valid facts and evidence. People will scream loudly and cry a lot without really saying anything because they are emotionally charged. But until they can compose themselves and communicate by conveying valid facts or likely outcomes, then their feelings are just opinions or less. Not every feeling is correct. We are feedback machines and sometimes our interpretation of what's going on is warped by preconception and ideology.
I really like the three of them together. I think they should do this three or four times a year. At least.
Three long time friends sit down to talk. I agree we could use more of this. They are a great combination.
I have had this exact conversation with someone in the UA-cam comments section. Not sure if that counts as an actual conversation though.
If genuine then it counts as real conversation if wasn’t genuine still class as conversation but less genuine
“Whose blood?” Iconic.
The statement is suppose to be taken literally. No matter how someone feels, it wont change the fact that Malice doesn't change his suit in this clip.
2:25 - Sweat don’t care about your anti- perspirant
At least you intentionally went with a photo that was extremely flattering😒
I feel that Michael's critique of Kant is extremely lacking. He seems to completely misunderstand the point. The fact is that we only ever experience reality in our consciousness. We are not in contact with the ultimate reality. We couldn't be by definition. His point is that reason is useless if it cannot reason it's own limits. The philosophy of today is a sort of atomism. We can understand reality by analyzing it's constituent elementary components. Can the spin of an atom explain love? Or thought? The idea that a perceived whole is not an object in itself but merely the appearance of many atoms in space does not negate the truth that we do perceive the gestalt, it is real to us.
I don’t know these men but I want to have a beer with them.
Lex, may I come to consult the lighting for your podcast?
There is some thin line of perfect balance between emotions and reason. We constantly oscillate around it as a society, but not necessarily as individuals. The trick is, no one knows where the line is.
Agree
@@wellsmitchell49 you should use pure logic and reason exclusively to maximize your goal function, but you can't formulate it - the funtion itself - properly without emotions, morals and so on. the logic executed with absolute precision leads to disaster if set up with flawed goals in mind. you know, there's this concept in science fiction and/or philosophy where the creation of an AI to build a better world and future for humanity leads to its elimination instead. the function's extremum is often lies on the border of parameters' range. so a free of amotions ai with perfect logic just finds a sulution in extermination of humanity. basically kind of like marxism of fascism - like yeah, yeah, we're killing you for your own good, here's the receipt.
I love this discussion!
Agreed Lisa
They’re a bit off, regarding philosophical idealism. Kant’s point is that “reality” (the noumenon) is inaccessible. Epistemologically, there is ONLY subjectivity; we only have access to how things appear, not how they actually are. The best we can do is achieve inter- subjective agreement.
I really do not think so; for Kant reality is a part of the category of Quality and being, say's Kant is not a real predicate. Transcendental philosophy is not idealism, but has to do with the possibility of experience. That is, pure intuition and the categories of Quantity, Quality, Relation and Modality are what make
experience possible.
Transcendental philosophy concern's a rational being possibility of experience ( phenomenon ) not what things are in them selves ( noumenon ).
Did you watch the whole thing is just this clip?
Yes, it has been a while since i read Kant but his explanation seems wrong. Maybe he is oversimplifying for the sake of brevity for historical contex, but I didn't understand Kant's 'a priori' as something that exist as a subjective idea.
@@jimminyxmas Unsure if you're referring to my comment. Kant's "a priori" is subjective in the following sense: Kant is trying to understand how we are able to make the world intelligible, and he does this by trying to identify the basic concepts by which we think. For Kant, unlike Hume, we do not receive those basic concepts through experience. Instead, they are somehow already in our minds (which is why they are considered "a priori" -- prior to experience). Because the concepts by which we think [and which constitute all our experience] are within our individual minds, that means all experience is necessarily constituted subjectively (i.e., not objectivity). The mind *attributes* a cause for every datum we encounter -- it does not experience or observe the cause directly (i.e., objectively). Because our minds impose the a priori concepts of perception onto the world, we do not have access to things as they actually are; our experience of the world is mediated by the concepts of perception, which are found (a priori) in each individual mind.
I hope that makes more sense now.
@@brucecmoore2881 Perhaps I could have expressed it better, but you're not disagreeing with anything I wrote in the comment. btw, I don't know what you mean by "is not a real predicate". The rest of what you say seems right. The point I'm trying to make is that Kant believed concepts like space and time are constitutive features of how we perceive objects. Those concepts are not things in themselves that exist independently of us. Therefore, the objects we experience in space and time are mere “appearances." Kant claims that we know nothing about the things in themselves, only the appearances that the things in themselves occasion within our perceptual apparatus.
I interpret shapiros statement as “facts don’t care (aren’t changed by) about your feelings (internal state)” which in the example of the microscope feels only partly true. So if it is a new bacteria and that discovery is important to cause the scientist pride, that doesn’t have to be more true (more fact)than the lay persons either indifference or fear. Like realistically, to a lay person that only represents a source of illness or is insignificant. They may be tangentially helped by the scientist making the discovery, but only if they exist in a social organization with the scientist in which case they would trust them to handle it and would never have to personally engage with it on the level of a discovered new bacterium. This makes sense because you have to have some specific belief in your individual ability to assess the factuality of the world to believe Shapiro, where if you have a social understanding of yourself and that you’re wrong sometimes and need to trust and rely on others, you wouldn’t claim this specific and objective truth-seeing ability
I zoomed in on Michael's face and watched this episode that way. I love Michael even more. His expressions are priceless...
Ben Shapiro loves to say “facts don’t care about your feelings” until it involves his feelings...
And so goes its allocation.
Facts don't care about your feelings until you're at risk of being proven wrong, e.g. the BBC interview with Andrew Neil.
He's an android.
@@thomasconnell1556 Get hated for that check.
@@Soljarag5 You are right, my bad.
I confused him for the other lying, unpatriotic grifters who've enriched themselves by dividing Americans with imaginary cultural hysteria
"When they fail, they make something up to justify their failure". Amazing my friend, you nailed it.
Hey lex, why haven't you had Jaron Lanier on?
ahhh this was a weird place to come to the realisation that the emotions I feel towards my mother and father are not irrational and from the point of view of an ungrateful child and should therefore be ignored. But more something that is in touch with the ideal or what the situation actually should be if they put more effort in. I'm not talking about unreasonable things to expect that are outside of their ability both finically and physically such as not buying me a car or paying for university or constantly helping me with academics which they don't understand. But neglect in various minor but meaningful ways. Does anyone else feel something similar towards their family? it's like you understand that they have done a lot for you but a part of you knows they have only put less than 50% effort into you within the range of time that is reasonable for them to give you.
Ben Shapiro: Talking fast doesn't make you right.
Bravo
Just because you can't keep up doesn't make him incorrect
Nor does it make him wrong.
"I am a love maximalist"..... DYING 😂
Lex you are awesome! One word genuine!
Some dogs, especially the big ones, when they sense someone is afraid, they start to bully that person. I don't know if is some sort of behavior that the dog take from the owner (or the alpha in the group) i saw this in some occasions.
I’m a mathematician but I do ask teams that I’ve led what they “feel” about ideas that I bring up, what gut feelings they have about problems we’re trying to solve, where they “feel” we should start looking for solutions
Extraverted Feeling might be your Parent function (INFJ/USF) or Hero function (ENFJ/ESFJ).
Extroverted thinkers ask what others think (INTJ/ENTJ, ISTJ/ESTJ).
OBCANE wrong, it’s more nurture than nature. Mandela was always the last person to speak in the room so as not to poison other people’s thoughts before he had a chance to speak. I do this for two reasons
OBCANE
1. The “actuaries” I work with are incredibly smart, and equally shy. I want to make sure they fully and exhaustively present their thoughts
2. I’m a very creative thinker, and I want everyone to know my contribution to the discussions with a side-by-side comparison. Not in a condescending manner, but I do know it’s selfish, and don’t rly care otherwise
OBCANE it also allows them to think and learn freely by themselves through the Socrates method, since I’m giving them the confidence to say silly things without it being considered silly
GiuseppeM
1. Comma in the quotations buddy
2. Mathematicians, unsurprisingly, have terrible inter-, and intra-communication skills. Many mathematicians can get a round-about answer without knowing how to put it on paper, otherwise, parsing their own thoughts.
I think he meant "I love dominating your feelings, and I m going to pick those partial logics that do it".
Actually, in science history both concepts "Realism and Idealism" are the legs of Science itslef
Plato = > Idealist, imagine what could be and looking for the facts
Aristoteles = > Look whats there and makes his conclusion
We need both to stand and move forward
Here before the inevitable flame war.
All I can think about is when Malice was on "Cash Cab"
that's right. totally correct dude
It makes total sense that he had a emo Bieber cut
I love these three
"I can sense your emotions to some extent... well, it is Lex... I can sense Michael's emotions..."
😆
"Whose blood?" Lex asks innocently, assuming the answer will be about a human.
It seems they are discussing perception more than emotion. Perception is the interpretation of the situation and emotions or feelings are a response to your perception. Perception is the reason people have different emotions concerning the same situation. Also perception is reality so reality is different for everyone. So what Ben is saying is that unwavering truths can not be changed by your response to them. What Ben is not considering is how the facts are perceived which led to the feelings. The question is what is your perception of the facts that causes such a difference in responses.
After the loss of our mum and Dad in the family(May their souls rest well)...over seven years on,my brother is failing to come to reality and keep turning to drugs(Weed,cigarette,liquor) when I chose hard work and discipline.It never ceases to amaze me how he still fails to come to terms that they are gone and He got to move on.He keeps living in the past and relatively,his life is nothing good to write home about. Struggling all these years to bring him back to reality but its very hard to advice someone who is on chemicals.
Sorry for the loss man. Thats hard, keep trying, sure sooner than later he will quit drugs and be like you!!
@@Alfermaz27 Thanks for your words bro.🙏
I lived through a lot of horrible events, 90 percent of them never happened.
Perhaps accurate emotions are useful.
If: External event = counter to narrative
while true: validates groups I don’t like
then: activate amygdala.
note>>> amygdala reduces second order comprehension
Lex, unphased: "Whose blood?"
as a kid i thought this supplement is made of bear's blood for some reason.
@@EasyGameEh I've completely forgotten the context of my comment haha
@@tipoomaster this is fine. malice brought some authentic russian sweets one of which turned up to be a blood based supplement instead of a chocolate bar.
facts dont care bout faith either, but he never says much about that
id include that in feelings tbh
@@johnnybongjovi7902 yes, exactly my point sir
No one said faith means belief in something despite the facts except you
@@randomuser6306 that's exactly what faith means. it means choosing your belief over what is objectively true. obviously humans have a subjective sense of "their truth" instead of "the truth", hence all political and religious divides in the world
@@theStepFamm faith means trust. If I say “I have faith in you” it doesn’t mean I believe you exist, it means I trust you.
Faith and belief are actually opposed to each other. Some people need to believe in things (cling to things) because they lack faith (trust).
It’s like someone floating down a river, if you have faith you will let go and let the river take you for a ride but if you don’t have faith you will flail around and try to cling to the river bank (formulate beliefs).
Or something like that 😂
@ 3:10 "Reality is unaffected by your emotional state and your feelings about it" Perhaps in times past, but increasingly not-so in the age of exponential tech
Ben Shapiro, like many conservatives, argues from feelings so often that it feels ironic that that statement came from him.
Gotta love libtards bragging how rational they are.
Does he though? Or do you just feel like he argues from feelings?
@@ryanproctor450 Ben is an emotional clown 90% of the time.
I don't watch Shapiro, but everyone does that. The real problem is when someone says something to the effect of "God must be real because otherwise there is no meaning to life" - how you feel about the meaning of life has no weight on whether the conclusion is true.
@@boxerpete4261 Libtard - that's rational ;-)
I'm guessing when these scientists are deep in their research that facts surpass everything, but when they're having an informal discussion about broad ideas they can punch down at him- I thought Lex was more open-minded and self-regulating than this.
The funny thing here is 3 "smart guys" jumping into mob mentality and not making a single counter-point, let's just bully someone.
If its hysterical its historical. Wow. Makes sense.
Guy on the right sounds like Elmer Fudd
Funny thing is that the phrase "Facts don't care about your feelings" was probably ~10 times more effective than any fact Shapiro ever mentioned
Malice is growing on me and I don't like it
Hahaha same
Ben's whole act is to filter his "facts" through his feelings. Watched him for over a year and I'm still shocked it took me so long to see through his bullshit.
@@kklh7918 You can see his feelings override his logic the moment anyone challenges the idea that the USA is the greatest country at everything. An example is I remember him genuinely arguing the USA has the greatest health care system in the world. It's not a coincidence he was humiliated in an interview in the UK, he lives inside the bubble of partisan US politics and that is his entire frame of reference.
What Shapiro is good at is pointing out the worst examples of leftism, there is nothing he loves more than DESTROYING the random PC idiocy we see. Like recently on Twitter he's mocked an idiotic tweet that said Black Widow "puts men in its place". When you're conservative seeing the worst of the left FEELS great, it lets you know you're on the right side, just look how stupid the left is!
But that's his whole game. The literal foundations of democracy in the USA can be threatened and he will spend 5 minutes on that, then spend 30 minutes blasting some irrelevant progressive for an obviously stupid opinion. It's just comfort food for conservatives who still want to think they're on the right side even though they can see the path the GOP is going down.
Ben has nothing to offer. My 13 year old niece can make just as valid and argument against sjw pc culture. Then Ben will say something stupid like rap is not music. And it's like ooooook. I dont like music. But it's clearly music. And he's all for freedom and small government.
War on drugs?
Abortion?
So he's for freedom. In HIS narrow sense of the word.
After years of watching him. Hes a professional opinion haver.
Put simple. He is the mirror image of like idk Kyle kukinsky.
@@jessewest2109 rap stopped being music like as soon as gangster rap was a thing. It was alright up till 98 now it's horse ish
This is hilarious lmaooo
This is a great clip
It means if I feel something, then it is true.
Facts don't care about your feelings. Period. To suggest otherwise reveals that you are out of your mind.
I don't see how what Ben is saying is attacking Kant
2.28 Yaron has the sweats big time
Lex may be this generation's William F. Buckley Jr.
Michael Malice you are brilliant
Kant's point in the CoPR is that transcendental idealism is superior to idealism, meaning that it is superior to use our ideas to discern reality from our apriori conceptualisations of the world. Put simply, my ideas might define my perception of reality, but my ideas are intrincally linked to certain aspects of reality. Simple example: imagine a ball, then try to imagine it without physical dimentions or 'space'. My point is that the objection that is being extrapolated doesn't do Kant justice and it gives Ben Shapiro way, way too much credit. Very good talk though.
Yaron shouldn’t talk about not living in reality.
We are watching “Allegory of the Cave” play out before us...
This is “Allegory of the Cov”
🖖😎🖖
Everyone thinks they’re the one who escaped the cave.
@@ghostpiratelechuck2259 Oh, really... Whi do you speak of? Just had to make a narcissistic comment reflecting yourself rather than acknowledge the joke part of it. A lot of people love to make ignorant assumptions in these comment sections. Very obnoxious. You’re probably a really awesome dude.
@@Odd_Combo I was speaking of EVERYone... myself included. It’s human nature. Why so sensitive Gordon? It wasn’t a shot at you.
@@ghostpiratelechuck2259 I don’t think I’m being sensitive. Just seemed like a very unnecessary and unprovoked opinion/attack at a joke. I’m sure you can understand how that impression was given. And what are you saying is human nature?
@@Odd_Combo it was a comment on Plato. I mean it’s human nature to think oneself escaped the cave and everyone else is still looking at shadows.
lil ben screech is all feelings. all the religious conservatives are faith based. not science.
Another kick ass production by lex
4:55
Lex is the human tinman whose life goal is to feel love, that's fax😂
Malice teases him too much about being a robot so now he must compensate...
How did Miss this pod lol
Labs can actually be very aggressive if they are defending and provoked.
The judgement of whether something counts as a fact and if so what the value of the fact is in the context of the discussion is subjective and depends on the person's beliefs which in turn have a lot to do with feelings. So the statement doesn't really make sense.
What Ben is really saying is: "I'm going to pretend that my views are undisputable and use that as an excuse for behaving like an asshole towards you.". It's a way to avoid having a meaningful discussion. His followers don't care, they just want to feel like they are right.
I do believe in pragmatism and rationality, but to be purely pragmatic or rational is to be a computer. A country needs common ideal or idealism as something to pursue even if it is unrealistic or unachievable in the short term.
Your emotions affect both your own actions and actions of those around you, so indirectly they do affect reality
Reality doesn't care about facts. Only feelings care.
Baaaarry from TheBigBangTheory as an old man.
The reason why it is important to raise awareness that monotheism has emerged from polytheism is that it could open the doors to a renaissance of philosophy and Enlightenment values in the Middle East once again. No sect of Islam, no sect of Judaism, no sect of Christianity can claim the land rights in the Holy Land. All three Abrahamic religions are rooted in older polytheistic religions; not only should Jerusalem be shared by all faiths and tribes, it is possible for factions in the Middle East to recognize their inexorably linked heritage. Sectarian violence based on belief in Abrahamic religions or racism or tribalism is a disgrace. The carnage and deaths are not holy; genocide and terrorism are not holy. I'm glad that the Pope is losing power now; only by recognizing the common heritage and rarity of all peoples can there be any hope for peace in the Middle East. Regardless of race, religion, philosophy, or political creed we all came from the same cradle. "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong is interesting. "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins is interesting. The value of Mesopotamian history and the origin of human civilization is undeniable in the interest of uniting people rather than dividing them with dogma and greed.
Yes, facts are important especially during a debate/argument. It's important to know the facts so to set up a basis so when two (or more) people debate/argue, they aren't just talking past each other.
BUT I see a lot of people using this line "facts don't care about your feelings" as a way to simply shut down someone's feeling. Sometimes when someone feels something, first their feeling is valid as it is. Secondly, their feelings may correspond to something true that is simply not yet discovered. Sometimes the "facts" or stats may not have the full picture/consider all possibilities. For example, some studies may simply not have enough sample size or their criteria do not cover everything.
Also, this line is often used as an excuse for people to be mean instead of being understanding. How people feel at the moment is important too. Humans aren't completely logical creatures, we're emotional. It's important to tend to emotions in order to solve the issues too. This is why often times when someone brings facts alone, it doesn't immediately solve the issue with the person.
So I think while we should hold importance to facts, we should still give room and listen to someone's feelings. Their feelings may have truth beyond what the stats tell us. And tending to their feelings is an efficient way of communicating in getting to the root of the issue.
This ignores the fact that their feeling may be completely invalid. And objectively irrational. It is unhealthy and really a form of psychosis and decay to be completely at odds with reality in this sense. The 'root of the issue' is the individuals issue, the one having the irrational subjective experience. There's not a common ground that needs to be understood. In the same way you dont bargain and negotiate with a murderer based on their opinions on the situation. Its not "i murdered them, but you must understand... they made me so darn angry". Murder is objectively wrong irrespective of their subjective feeling. Its the whole point of objective reality and objective truisms. I may think one is innocent, but murder was objectively committed or not by them. What one thinks/feels is objectively irrelevant to what the truth is.
@@IIIUMlNATI You're missing my point. I clearly said facts are important. And my second paragraph tells how sometimes what you believe to be fact could be wrong. Some facts are more absolute than others (such as someone committed murder) but that's not always the case. In many cases data could be incomplete and when you use that incomplete data to shut someone down, you are actually not debating using facts.
And of course, sometimes a person's feelings may be completely invalid, but sometimes they can actually lead to certain facts that you're unaware of. If you outright shut them down, then you're not going to see the full picture. This is how people usually get humbled. They believe so much that they are in the right but then later realize that the other person is also equally right from a different perspective.
I also mentioned how even if someone's feelings are wrong, by considering their feelings you'll be able to argue and communicate more effectively. By shutting them down outright you may never be able to communicate your message to them. Of course, that's up to you whether you care for them to understand your point or not.
You started about Ben, but whole thing was about general concept of thoughts..
That’s what Ben’s quote is about…
Hematogen candy is a nutrition bar rich in iron
Michael and his twin were great guests.
I think they are giving Ben Shapiro way too much credit!
Not liking dogs is a capital offense in my book
Talking about shunyata
A major problem with Malice's ideas about anarchism is that pure anarchy has no way to stop collections of power, that will end anarchy, ie real freedom. And history is a story of collections of power...at least in a system like the USA, the collection of power is there to ensure individual liberty, as best as it can be in a collective power society. Malice would counter that individuals can indeed voluntarily enter into that type of system...which is what the US Revolution was, but what about their children? And also, you have the right to renounce your US citizenship, so it still is a voluntary system.
If all world leaders thought like Lex Fridman, there would be world peace ✌ 😊 🙏
I couldn't concentrate after 2:25
Did Lex Say "hard candy"?
Imagine a conversation between Shapiro and Friedman. A loud barking empty shell devoid of decency and compassion versus a profound empathetic intellectual emo robot.
Do you think shapiro is funded by big money interests? Also, I feel like Ben is the typical example of a highly intelligent person who is really un intelligent and lacks self awareness. Who knows
Question: isn't it true you should follow your feelings?
Answer: No. Your feelings should follow you.