Peter Boghossian: how the Academy got woke and why the 'New Atheists' are to blame | SpectatorTV
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 тра 2024
- Winston speaks to former Portland State University professor turned international philosopher, Peter Boghossian. Peter was a prominent new atheist author and expert on the Socratic method when he resigned his position at Portland over the percolation of ‘woke’ ideology into the university. In his resignation letter he described how the institution had become a ‘dogma factory’ which had ‘weaponized diversity, equity and inclusion’. Peter and Winston discuss progressive domination of the Academy, how woke spreads, DEI vs free speech, how to have constructive conversations and whether the new atheists led to woke culture.
// CHAPTERS
00:00 - Introduction
00:49 - Why I resigned from Portland State University and the current state of academia
19:40 - What is the future for academic institutions?
29:07 - What do we mean by 'woke' and have we reached 'peak woke'?
40:12 - Can we still have constructive conversations?
43:00 - New atheism, quasi-religions and how to make a positive change to people's beliefs
01:01:23 - The National Progress Alliance and what's next for Peter
// SUBSCRIBE TO THE SPECTATOR
Get 12 issues for £12, plus a free £20 Amazon voucher
www.spectator.co.uk/tvoffer
// FOLLOW US
/ spectator
/ officialspectator
/ the-spectator
/ spectator1828
// FOLLOW WINSTON
/ mrwinmarshall
/ winstonmars .
#university #woke #peterboghossian
Thank you, Winston, for the conversation and for your friendship.
Thank you for all you do. Wonderful interview!
Thank you for your work. I'm sorry that our academy has declined to this extent but your outreach is educating many people on this critical topic.
Great interview, thank you both! Winston, this podcast just gets better and better - well done!
Peter, In what way are "New Atheists", responsible for those who have drifted away from religion out of convenience, having given it little in the way of reasoned consideration? These are the people that you are perhaps truly worried about. Please elucidate on how Dillahunty's desire to "...believe as many true things & as few false things as possible.", could lead people to believe entirely untrue & irrational woke ideology? Can you show any study showing that those persuaded through reasoned argument to leave their religion are particularly vulnerable to irrational & false Woke ideology? Given Atheists are the only group underrepresented in Prisons, why do you desire others (not you & yours) to believe ridiculous things? How do you get to decide to what degree they believe those books & that they not take them as an instruction manual? Your attack on "New Atheists" seems entirely without merit. Your desire that others be lost in believing irrational, demonstrably false religions because it may (or may not) provide resistance to wokeness seems to suggest truly astonishing condescension on your part.
Hey Peter. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, James Lindsay etc are the biggest Fighters against Wokeism and the Regressive Left. Please stop attack them.
We just got self-id laws here in Finland, and a growing number of people are pushing back, now that it's too late. I'd say we've entered a full blown culture war. All his insanity is almost like a carbon copy of the original one in the US, and it sits very poorly into our culture.
Thank you, gentlemen, for a great coversation! ❤
@lehtisalmi
Self-id? Never head of that?
It's being done to shift people's minds in the direction of questioning the very meaning of being human, because those that rule this world want to push transhumanism on us. Marxism and leftism is just a means to an end.
What is wrong with men sharing women's spaces? Surely it is just gender equality?
Why should male prisoners face the risk of rape in prison but female prisoners be protected? Is that fair?
Why should women be allowed to exclude men but men not be allowed to exclude women from their spaces? Is that fair Or equal?
What is happening to women’s spaces (toilets, changing rooms, etc.) and women’s sports?
I did see that trans skater…that was really something.
Because this is coordinated effort to destroy all values of liberty and the very best foundations of the west via neo marxist vehicles for communism. They hate the west and they hate life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are top down attacks via academia and global elites.
There’s a big difference between explaining something to students or putting it in a curriculum and teaching it as truth.
I couldn't agree more.
A bit like religion pushing that as truth. Pushing any bullshit is a very bad idea.
This talk goes to the very heart of the problem in our education system today. When I went to high school in Germany, philosophy was mandatory. Here it's the exact opposite, we don't want critical thinkers we want sheeple.
Civics was a requirement in junior or high schools but it doesn’t exist anymore. No knowing how our government works make sheeple too. The grow up not knowing what government can and can’t do so they just accept whatever the government says.
I agree with you!
It is the same logic for artificial intelligence which they need to replace the natural HUMAN intelligence, by this we will be zombies who just need us to deal with sexualities(diversity of sexuality), eat, advertise and that's it!
His comment at 59:58 really hits home for me: "There is something I find disturbing about believing things that are false so society will function more smoothly."
This is the absolute essence of what disturbs me with Woke/social justice theory. Truth isn't what's true, truth is whatever serves the greater good. It's the exact same premise that Marxist regimes run on too. If a lie helps the party narrative that they think will have positive effects, it must be true; if you speak a truth that could threaten it, you're evil and speaking lies.
I think they genuinely don't know the difference between "the greater good" and truth, and trying to build a society on beneficial lies is a house of cards ready to fall down and crush us.
But many in the woke movement are intelligent so how can they not understand that their system is quite flawed and just won’t work long term in our society?
Yeah religion is horrible and terrifying. So much needless suffering caused by a retarded blood magic cult
Right! I agree that we should not believe something that is false--even if it makes society function more smoothly. That's why we need to get rid of Christianity. It is obviously false. Its end goal is the destruction of all human civilization, with paradise for a very few and eternal torture for everyone not in the chosen in-group.
In Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four", O'Brien (the Party inquisitor) articulates this philosophy (a kind of postmodern pragmatism that did not actually exist in Western universities when Orwell wrote the book) with chilling clarity:
‘We are the priests of power,’ he said. ‘God is power. But at present power is only a word so far as you are concerned. It is time for you to gather some idea of what power means. The first thing you must realize is that power is collective. The individual only has power in so far as he ceases to be an individual. You know the Party slogan: ‘Freedom is Slavery”. Has it ever occurred to you that it is reversible? Slavery is freedom. Alone - free - the human being is always defeated. It must be so, because every human being is doomed to die, which is the greatest of all failures. But if he can make complete, utter submission, if he can escape from his identity, if he can merge himself in the Party so that he IS the Party, then he is all-powerful and immortal. The second thing for you to realize is that power is power over human beings. Over the body - but, above all, over the mind. Power over matter - external reality, as you would call it - is not important. Already our control over matter is absolute.’
For a moment Winston ignored the dial. He made a violent effort to raise himself into a sitting position, and merely succeeded in wrenching his body painfully.
‘But how can you control matter?’ he [Winston Smith] burst out. ‘You don’t even control the climate or the law of gravity. And there are disease, pain, death ’
O’Brien silenced him by a movement of his hand. ‘We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull. You will learn by degrees, Winston. There is nothing that we could not do. Invisibility, levitation - anything. I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wish to. I do not wish to, because the Party does not wish it. You must get rid of those nineteenth-century ideas about the laws of Nature. We make the laws of Nature.’
‘But you do not! You are not even masters of this planet. What about Eurasia and Eastasia? You have not conquered them yet.’
‘Unimportant. We shall conquer them when it suits us. And if we did not, what difference would it make? We can shut them out of existence. Oceania is the world.’
But the world itself is only a speck of dust. And man is tiny - helpless! How long has he been in existence? For millions of years the earth was uninhabited.’
‘Nonsense. The earth is as old as we are, no older. How could it be older? Nothing exists except through human consciousness.’
‘But the rocks are full of the bones of extinct animals - mammoths and mastodons and enormous reptiles which lived here long before man was ever heard of.’
‘Have you ever seen those bones, Winston? Of course not. Nineteenth-century biologists invented them. Before man there was nothing. After man, if he could come to an end, there would be nothing. Outside man there is nothing.
‘But the whole universe is outside us. Look at the stars! Some of them are a million light-years away. They are out of our reach for ever.’
‘What are the stars?’ said O’Brien indifferently. ‘They are bits of fire a few kilometres away. We could reach them if we wanted to. Or we could blot them out. The earth is the centre of the universe. The sun and the stars go round it.’
Winston made another convulsive movement. This time he did not say anything. O’Brien continued as though answering a spoken objection:
‘For certain purposes, of course, that is not true. When we navigate the ocean, or when we predict an eclipse, we of- ten find it convenient to assume that the earth goes round the sun and that the stars are millions upon millions of kilometres away. But what of it? Do you suppose it is beyond us to produce a dual system of astronomy? The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them. Do you suppose our mathematicians are unequal to that? Have you forgotten doublethink?'
Lest it be objected that Orwell is not describing *Identity* Politics here, since O'Brien speaks of the complete absorption of the individual into the machinery of the state, it is worth considering that the true goal of ID Politics is overwhelmingly one motivated by the desire for power.
The greater or common good is a dangerous river to cross. . As we all should have learned by now " The road to hell is paved with good intentions." and the best laid plans of mice and men often go astray, etc.. Remember Stalin, Hitler and Mao had good intentions they did not set out to kill 100 million people
“A society that puts equality-in the sense of equality of outcome-ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.” ~Thomas Sowell
I think its hilarious that this VERY SAME idea was perpetuated all throughout the 60s in response to fighting against Jim Crow laws.
So true!
Great talk. I love that Winston, being a Christian, will have on people of different faiths and of no faith. While he is a good interviewer, good listener and gracious host I never get the feeling he does so by compromising his own beliefs. That's not an easy thing, but he does it well.
No such thing as a person without faith. They just expend it on other things, like political ideology, art, celebrity, or the self.
@@ohwellwhateverr I thought the intention of what I meant was clear enough. (sorry about that) i.e Faith in a religious or spiritual context. I also enjoy politics, art etc, but personally don't put my faith in them as others might.
That dipshit concider "Wrecking Ball" a great song! 😂
That's enough for me to not take him seriously....
Agreed!
Disappointing in all of this is how long it took, and how much damage had to happen, before scholars figured out what was happening. I removed my child from public school 22 years ago, appalled at how the education system was already engaged in teaching kids what to think rather than how to think. No one took it seriously! Now we have generations of children and parents who are products of an education system that showed decline year after year, and they were told year after year more money would fix it!🤷♀️
That's what happens when you let evangelicals decide what children are going to be taught.
Religion regresses the society it is in, no society ever ruled bye religion especially christian religions has lasted, The oldest civilisation on earth is over 65,000 years old and not one god, Until in 1788 they turned up on our shores and started slaughtering us because women had equal rights in aboriginal civilisation, the white christian`s from euro trash land are still attempting to extinguish my people.
Seems back in 1788, Raping an 8 month old girl is ok bye the christian religion because it was done in my home state bye a christian sealer.
yet Europeans called us barbarian's and filthy heathens , Really.
Their is some education of some of Australia's history.
I agree it has been a slow but gradual rot and a lot of wise people saw the warning sign as early as a few decades ago. Too bad their warning were not taken seriously.
Conservatives were sounding the warning about all this back in the nineties. People like Jerry fallwell, D James Kennedy, Pat Robertson, Francis Schaffer, Christianity Today, were warning about all this stuff in the eighties even. I think they squandered a lot of credibility by getting in too tight with the Republican party, especially George W. Bush, which allowed the left endless opportunities to demonize them and exaggerate their power. The Christian right allowed themselves to be seduced by Is Zionist so cold Neal conservatism Which is so obviously not based on Christian theology or ethics.. But that did not objectively invalidate their observations and warnings about the culture..
Yes, and that additional money was/is being siphoned off into administrative bank accounts.
Modernism is to blame, we keep teaching on a need-to-know basis.
We all need-to-know everything.
_Churches are to blame for the secularization of society, they crave power, fame & money while rejecting radical honesty and love for all lifeforms. Hypocrisy took root and yields these fruits of hatred that abound in the US_
He's absolutely right about Australia. We're about a year behind here. But it's kind of inexcusable, because all the terrible facts and figures are available online - it's not like we have to wait for the information to come to us by ship.
I think it will still get worse before it gets better here in Australia.
All the terrible facts about the covidiocy, the lock downs, the masks, the shut downs, the essential businesses etc...were all on-line even before the vaccine drink the kool-aid were distributed. It did no good. Even though those who refused the vaccines and lost their jobs were the smart ones, in the end they lost everything except their health.
Winston looks interesting smart
Its crazy here in New Zealand, and there's no push back. Media, politicians, schools, health care providers...everything. Full woke, no handbrake and dissenters are bullied into silence. Hopefully the Posie Parker fiasco has woken (haha) a few people up, although Im desperately sorry she had to go through that in order to do it.
@chrishellize Canada is similar. It's taken over all the institutions and corporations top to bottom.
Especially anything kid related. The schools are toxic woke hell holes.
It was good to see Winston pushing Peter on what religion or belief would replace woke ideology and that street epistemology probably won’t be enough.
Whatever it is, it’ll have to tap into primal drives. What will comfort someone, give them hope, or confer status or wealth or the security of conformity?
I recall seeing a coworker years ago berate someone for sayings “third world” instead of “developing nation.” The coworker wrapped herself in social justice as a way to disguise her primal, competitive drives.
That's a great choice of words! It is a perfect description of one of my coworkers, too.
I’m not religious but I’ve finally realized I think it was a mistake to do away with religion. We really don’t have anything to replace it with . I think many atheists are starting to realize this as well.
@@brianmeen2158 I was an atheist for many years but I made that realisation too and have since returned to Christianity. There’s a reason why every totalitarian regime does away with faith.
@@ohwellwhateverrprecisely!
@@ohwellwhateverr So you just say that you are a believer because it is convenient not because it is the truth?
38:01 - For Wokeness to work it needs one thing:
It needs a _double meaning of a word_ !
1. The meaning in common parlance ( _Motte_ )
2. The Woke meaning ( _Bailey_ )
In my opinion, this is one of the best interviewers.
There is hope for journalism.
I retire as a full tenured professor this month, after 35 years teaching at four major universities. I have observed first-hand the rapid spread of the very ideology that Prof. Boghossian describes. I fret for the future of our university system.
The problem that Peter describes regarding free speech is especially intractable: the Woke Left demands from the rest of us, in the name of our principles, rights and privileges that they would deny to us in the name of their principles...
One if the only journalists who seems like he is there for the listener rather than for himself
One of the few interviewers who is actually there to listen and doesn’t start from a fixed viewpoint. Affability is another of his strengths too.
Peter Boghossian, a voice of sanity and reason and common sense in the tsunami of irrationality, cultist ideology, sectarian intolerance called woke madness.
This interviewer is doing a great job. Well done sir. Thanks to Peter and such philosophers and all their supporters who are taking up the intellectual sword against these evil doctrines.
The comment about entering foreign non-English countries via an anglicism is indeed the case. Here in Japan, the woke-hopeful use the work ジェンダー (jendaa) ie gender because if they used the Japanese word 性別 (seibetsu) they would be laughed off the stage.
I noticed that the English language is more tolerant of euphmeism and Orwellian expression. Canada gives a good example of this. A French speaking politician uses "affirmative action" in English but turns around and says "discrimination positive" in French. You could say in French "action affirmative" but it is a totally meaningless string of words. By that I mean that you could not take a 1950 dictionary in either French or English and guess the present meaning of "affirmative action". But on the other hand, you might guess "discrimination positive", ie, a discriminatory policy done for the sake of a good result.
Affirmative action is insidious because it hides completely the bad effects. Indeed the Nazi talked about Aktion T4 (Action zoological garden 4) which was the extermination of the handicapped children.... a term with zero clear meaning.
Using foreign words also hides the truth.
Mainly it seems that we developed a high tolerance for politicians, academics and technocrats spewing bullsh!t.... The legacy of "progressiveism" AKA socialism.
Orwell himself cautioned against allowing bullsh!t to take over, and pointed out some of the forms it takes, in Politics and the English Language.
@@africkinamerican Language plays a role. Listen to George Carlin hilarious monologue on soft language. Despite living in Japan, I am nearly perfectly bilingual in French and English. I noticed that I am more tolerant of BS in English. I think that the flexibility of the language and of the culture, which is a plus in normal circumstances, makes the Anglosphere fall victim to Orwellian expression more easily. Indeed, Orwell wrote a nice paper in 1946 on the corruption of language. (Before he wrote 1984)
But you are correct about the tolerance of BS.... the social sciences are beyond redemption it seems and now they are attacking the hard sciences.... You cannot build a bridge using postmodernist physics. So this better stop soon. It cannot be tolerated.
@ian x Yes I am hopeful too. I am a university professor (physicist) in Japan and I recently gave my retirement speech on the danger of wokeness. But for that I had to explain to them the working of the Western mind, ie, philosophy. Although they were scientists, they still have trouble wrapping their heads around Western concepts. I am presently in China and I find Chinese scientists more in tune with the Western minds.
Katakana is a carrier of fashion.... indeed. But it allows dangerous concept to sneak in ...
English is a highly descriptive language. You can bullshit your way into anything, but you might just have to shoot your way out
@@jceepf Thank you for the very interesting tiny peek into Japanese linguistics. Also very encouraging to hear that large swathes of the human family aren’t infected by wokism. Hopefully it’ll stay that way and the West will come to it senses.
I've been following Pete here and James Lindsay for about 5 years now. I have listened to everything they both have said in videos and podcasts and have read everything they have written. I have even deleted into the books whence all this came. It's taken a while to get to the crux of all of this but these two men have done a great service in demystifying this nonsense. Right insanity from top to bottom. The purest form and cynical mental masturbation if ever there was such a thing.
True, but even though this woke thing is a relatively new ideology, this ideological takeover of society is pretty common throughout history. Communism took over in Russia, Fascism took over in Italy and the Nazis took over every aspect of German society including the universities (racialized pseudo sciences) and even the religions (catholocism was aligned in large parts, they even helped evacuate the war criminals to Argentina after the war). Same in the middle ages where fundamentalist Christianity dominated absolutely every aspect of everyone's lives. Fundamentalist Islam also gained a lot of ground in the past three decades which lead to ISIS etc.. McCarthyism in the US was also very severe and sought to cleanse society of the evil communists at any cost (violating civil rights and abandoning honesty in general).
Understanding where exactly the current authoritarians are coming from is not even strictly necessary to defeat them even though it helps - you actually have to have a non-authoritarian alternative that can withstand future attacks by authoritarians. Very difficult.
@@thulyblu5486 McCarthy did nothing wrong. He was 100% correct about communist infiltration. We should have dispatched with all those people when we had the chance, but instead they just boo-hooed about not getting to make a couple of movies for a few years.
Brilliant summation.
First one has to value the value by learning it and reinforcing it over years and live your live accordingly. Many in western society never learned the values and reinforced it. I keep the values I learned as a Christian although I no longer believe the historical accounts in the Bible. However, the Bible taught me a lot about human behaviour and what is a good way to think. The ideology today is piggybacking on the success of forcing the theory of evolution down our throat for 150 years. That ideology came primarily through academia.
@@dawnemile7499 So your solution is to suppress the truth of biological evolution? How does that help against woke ideology that is incompatible with evolution?
(Everything being a social construct is not compatible with evolution for example. Or that all sex and race differences are due to culture - also not compatible. Or that gender is a spectrum - incompatible with sexual reproduction which is a prerequisite to biological evolution)
“To what extent should the tolerant, tolerate the intolerant.” 💥 That’s it in a nutshell. I can see the current levels intolerance will foster a backlash, where the extreme forms of conservatism will prosper to the detriment of hard-fought personal freedoms.
IMO , there are direct parallels between Post WW I Europe and today . Massive inequality causing political polarization and instability , and the Spanish influenza that lasted for 23 months .
In 1920 's Italy , Germany , France and even Britain there was a rise in Communist Parties .
.
It almost seems related to some social theorists and different conceptions of pluralist views to human action and meaning.
Thanks to Winston for asking such great questions. (I would recommend looking at the Bud Light backlash involving Mulvaney). "You couldn't even present the other side of an issue" reminds me of a quote. "An environment that is not safe to disagree in is not an environment focused on growth - it’s an environment focused on control. - Wendi Jade
27:54 hey Peter, you ever been tested for ASD? Your speech patterns are like spot on for it. (I'm ASD and I have radar).
What a fantastic conversation. I find it amusing that I am with Peter for Prog Metal, Winston for God belief and both for needing to find a way forward through this madness. Huge respect to Peter for recognising the clearing effect of the New Atheists' belief that the death of God would lead to a rational utopia. There is deep rationality in the Judaeo Christian tradition. The attempt to sweep it away, even in the name of well intentioned disagreement, has deep consequences for the foundations of the West and the great institutions that have fostered, questioned and in our day sought to undermine it.
But how do we know that West is worth preserving? Or any other civilisation? What is worth if atheism is true? Why bother? In 60 years we are all dry bones. We keep talking about some value system, giving Christianity some credits, but why? If you're believer then you have that value system, the worth....but without it, it's useless what you think, or how you'll respond to this question....it' is just as "good" or "bad" as any other opinion.
Why do you "just have to believe in something"? And when did the New Atheists suggest that the 'death of God' would lead to some kind of rational utopia?
@@frontside54 WHAT?!
And continue to replace one religion with another....
@Over Educated sp Stop it!
Get some help!
7:00 I discovered this myself at the end of my undergrad in the field of psychology and eventually lead to me walking away from multiple Master degree opportunities. I no longer consider colleges as serious academic institutes, they are more concerned with money and quotas while standing the academic giants that came before them
I relate. I feel a terrible disappointment and loss of respect for those who have chosen to be Faust, taking power over truth
Peter Boghossian = legend
Thank you so much, Winston 🎉 for posting your conversation with Peter.
Your discussion is very illuminating and illustrates so many interesting facets of understanding the importance of beliefs and values 😊
Peter is very thoughtful and extremely knowledgeable about how we construct our guiding principles and practices.
I really appreciate Winston's humble inquiries as his modest approach to building bridges to each other keeps us connected to the beautiful ground.❤
I am an atheist, and came to that conclusion from an argument by Douglas Adams. Nevertheless, I always think about another essay Adams wrote about feng shui and how the purpose of that was to imagine a Chinese-style dragon flowing through a room as a way to visualize the best placement for furniture, etc. The human mind clearly has a stronger grasp on stories and metaphor than facts and figures, so placing beneficial life tips within the framework of a fictionalized narrative might actually be the best path forward. Obviously that comes with its own problems, but it's an idea with some merit.
Great interview!!! Glad to see Peter Boghossian getting noticed "across the pond", he's an important voice in the USA and deserves a much wider audience.
The craven left are monstrous. They've been seduced by the pernicious assumption that if you believe yourself to be "righteous" and that righteousness is what matters, then it naturally follows for these "righteous" people that anything a righteous person does is righteous. Because they've internalised morality, ethics and goodness into an identity and in doing so have abolished applying these steadying metrics to people's actions and the end product of those actions. It doesn't matter that in England a whole professional system was set up and institutionalised for which the desired "good" and "righteous" outcome was the genital mutilation of loads of children whom are now speaking up on how devastating and catastrophic this has been for them. And it's the same craven left that are ignoring/silencing/marginalising these children whilst doubling down on the belief system that caused these children to now be enduring a living hell.
On the issue of how these things perpetuated in academia, I had a computer science professor... very cynical, old guy, been teaching 40 years and he wasn't happy at the state of the particular university I went to at all. The course I was taking with him happened to include the history of computer science. Before the 60's or so there was no such thing as a computer science degree, so everyone who contributed to the base concept of what computer science is actually came from another discipline(mostly math). I mean, these are like bedrock, genius-level figures. Time and time again, my professor would point out: "if this person tried to get a job teaching computer science here now, they couldn't. No computer science degree." I think that relatively recent, sort of self-perpetuating nature of academia is part of the problem. It doesn't really invite outside DNA and you end up with this in-bred rot.
On the issue of not being able to question things... it goes beyond that. There are things that are iffy to even touch from the wrong angle. Example: I was taking an art class and as part of an assignment another student titled a piece such that it included the word "queer". In our class discussion about it I asked the author what they meant by "queer". This was met with a big "wooooah" by the two professors dual-teaching the course. And I actually had to spend 5-10 minutes convincing everyone I wasn't setting up some sort of attack and that it was a genuinely relevant question.
😂 I probably would have asked, "How do YOU define "queer," because I learned that queer means "odd, unusual, out of normal, crazy, disturbed, funny in the head..." please pull out the old Roget's Thesaurus and clarify what your use of the word "queer" actually means to you so I'LL understand."
Could that be because computer science has progressed beyond what it was since then? Like hundreds of years ago anyone could be a "doctor" and just do some cocaine about it, but now you actually need to study?
Like how language progressed as we discovered new things and had to add or change words to express those.
@@MagesseT1 My general thinking was that the reappropriation of the word is recent and ill-defined, so I wanted to know what it meant to them personally. It's also worth noting that this same person advocated violence in another art piece and this was not questioned at all.
@@APandBS The underpinnings of computer science as a discipline are math and logic, and that doesn't change just because the highest abstraction layers are shifting.
@@LucidStew Thanks for the reply! That makes sense, but in that case the highest abstraction layers are the cutting edge things that reach beyond maths and logic? While the maths and logic is (relatively?) stable, the application of that in software and now AI might be beyond those academics. Not to diminish them at all, but isn't CompSci now beyond only maths and logic? Self-perpetuation has been a longstanding symptom of academia especially so with the tenured and more insular areas. It happens frequently in other disciplines, lots of excellent research has been dismissed simply because it was not written in English for example. I am not sure it is new at all and this video seems to focus on changes in thinking which may or may not pan out but it's shaking the tree at least.
I absolutely agree with being able to question things. I am of the mind that, if broached in good faith, there is very little that cannot be, even should not be questioned. Otherwise you fall into the stagnation of those academics you mentioned cutting off supply of new DNA and existing in an echo chamber. Having read your other reply it sounds like another "artist" who was edgy for sake of it. But considering the frequent intent behind such questions, the reactions of the professors is to be expected. As evidenced, intended or not, by the other replier talking about defining queer, while using a thesaurus (which doesn't define but give synonyms) as an example for rebuttal. Did you get an answer from your classmate in the end?
Winston, how have I not encountered you before? That was an excellent discussion with Dr Boghossian, he's a great guest, but you really directed and crafted a brilliant interview. I hope to see more of your work soon.
He was good in L.A. Confidential
He was busy being a rock star, playing banjo in Mumford & Sons.
Finally ! I’m so happy that our education system is being challenged! A place that should be teaching critical thinking not critical race thinking!
As an atheist since my early 20s, who used to take pride in eviscerating my religious opponents in debate, it's amazing how much I've softened over time. Not because I'll ever be faithful, but because I've come to understand how fundemental belief of an afterlife is to our species. Not only do I no longer feel the need to disabuse ppl of such notions, I understand faith has uncalculable value for many people who think differently than me. After all, the predilection towards religion is ironically a direct result of evolution.
Exactly!
You can take the religion away from humans, but you can't take the need for it. Our ancestors for thousands of generations have had shared cultural beliefs, to say that we have no need for such a thing now is ignorant of the truth of the matter, that what we call religion will manifest itself, whether it requires a belief in a theistic deity or not.
What makes you think belief is all about life after death?
I remember watching the Atheist channels on YT, years ago, out of curiosity (I'm Christian) . . . and it was the most jarringly bizarre experience to see -- in real time -- as "Atheism Plus" sprouted up from WITHIN that collection of channels and devoured many of them like a Strangler Fig.
I could recognize what was then called "Social Justice" -- not only as a religion, but as a religion that masqueraded as something NOT religious. It was so surreal and even creepy.
@Gapho True, and even some non-human animals do.
I rescue and rehab orphaned and/or injured animals, and some have a more "religious" personality than others. In non-human animals, like for instance marmosets or dogs, I suppose it could more accurately be called "superstition", and it varies even between members of the same species, even between some littermates.
So for instance, a "religious" marmoset will prefer to do certain behaviors in a set way (usually the way he or she has learned from their parents or human caretakers) while a more "atheist" marmoset will prefer to try numerous different ways to achieve the same result, before settling on his or her favorite way.
Dogs who are "religious" can become absolutely BRILLIANT Certified Service Dogs; whereas "atheist" dogs can become absolutely BRILLIANT search and rescue dogs. Neither trait is "better", it's just better for specific animals. . . or, I think, people.
If I didn't know better, I would think I'm trapped in a never ending loop of "The Twilight Zone" and expect Rod Serling to step out at any moment 😅
Yah, it is rather disorienting
This was an earth shattering conversation literally. Dr. Peter is very smart and well spoken.
4:03 When I was first was getting into science into my teens I realized there was a hierarchy of sciences. There were the actual sciences which have extremely rigorous methods of testing proving facts to be true, and then there are the social sciences which are not as exact. At the top of the social sciences is Economics where certain theories can be proven with some degree of certainty, and at the bottom is gender studies where they basically write about what they feel like is true, then the peer group takes those beliefs and perpetuate them as facts.
By which epistemic principles & rigorous method did you test these hypotheses? Which campus th for the comparison?
Why would you assume that scientists of a certain ilk would write whatever they want to?
Have you ever gone to a gender studies department to inquire on their research methods?
I wouldn't be so praising of Economics if I were you. There's just as much ego waxing there as there is in gender theory.
@@merbst You didn't watch the video.
I am a fan of most of the individuals involved in the New Atheist but the "movement" as a whole did immense damage to the moorings of the academy and the culture. New Atheism undermined our traditional moral system and replaced it with nothing, creating a void that people filled by adopting ideas far worse than Christianity, none of which have any unifying quality. We have replaced our one big unifying idea (God) with dozens of aggressive, unsophisticated and opposing ideas. It has become clear that God had real power in binding us to one another. In His absence we revert to identity-based competition.
The real problem is those that rule this world are using leftism as a Trojan horse to fill the void with a totalitarian transhumanist ideology that will culminate in a sort of neo-feudalism. They speak like socialists and liberals on many issues to woo them, but it's a facade. The final victory of globalists will make the exploits of Hitler, Mao and Stalin look like spilled milk.
Read God-man; the word made flesh. It’ll make sense
Atheism has little to do with this, as it only says that there is no god(s). The issue you are describing here is not the lack of belief in God but other ideas causing issues.
@@theculturedjinni It is effectively the same thing. By saying there is no God, atheism removes the reason for individuals to behave as if there is a God and undermines Christian morality. Our societies were based on the Christian idea of right and the Christian idea of wrong. Our relationships and families were Christian families. We organised ourselves in this way because we believed in God, because we believed it was the right thing to do, because there is a God that guides us. But if you say there is no God, you also say there is no longer any reason to believe in the traditional right or wrong, and eventually people abandon the social structure we had in place and replace it with other systems that suit them, and we end up in a position where there is no majority position anymore, and no one can agree how we organise ourselves. It is the same thing.
@@zeno2501 What says that you must underpin morality by use of the christian God? Many societies and civilizations have not had Christianity yet they have managed to maintain themselves, also the various cultures and civilizations of Europe believed in various forms of paganism before Christianity and they managed to live & organize.
This is where I'm slightly lost by what Peter's deeper vision would be, for the future.
Does he believe in religion or rationality? He just made it clear that you cannot really have both. He just said that religion, by its very nature, is irrational, yet humans require religion (irrationality)... yet, he is a rational-thinking person, and believes in rationality (in general, in the Germanic/scientific sense). There are very few ways to properly deal with that, and map it onto a single culture, at both higher (governmental/elites/highly educated) and lower (population) levels.
This is really worth dealing with, I feel. Even if we get rid of everything 'woke' tomorrow: then what? A new woke fills the void, unless we actually tackle the root problem that has been impacting Europe since 1600 AD (according to Nietzsche and basic history). It's a problem 400 years in the making. You cannot solve that through some magic 'yay, science is objective'. Nobody cares. The last 100 years just proved that.
The Europeans had 'objective science' and they became Communists (1840s-1920s).
The Germans had 'objective science' and they became Nazis (1930s-1940s).
The French had 'objective science' and they became post-modernists and modern feminists (1950s-1970s).
The West had 'objective science' and they became New Atheists/radical feminists/intersectionalists (1980s-2000s).
The West had, again, 'objective science' and they became 'wokeists' (2010s-2020s).
What's next? And, if you don't replace that 'objective science' -- 'truth', 'rationality', 'secularism', 'peace', 'tolerance', 'Enlightenment' -- at some point, this cycle will never end, I believe. Unless, somebody has 'the answer' and can finally unite all of this in a way that actually works long-term for everybody. Unlikely. Nobody alive today can speak better than Hitler, or has more will power than Hitler. Nobody alive today is smarter than the Enlightenment thinkers. Nobody alive today has more direct control than Stalin.
If these men failed -- and failed horribly -- then there is no hope for anybody else. Ever.
Even if your dream was that this would be bottom-up, instead of top-down -- the last 15 years just disproved that, as well. We just had 15 years of 'the people hold the power', via the Internet, modern democracy, and otherwise in America, England, and so on. It just failed horribly. The future won't be any different. Unless you think the woke rioters in the streets really just need even more freedom in order to really establish peace and wisdom? Ah! There's a sinister joke.
Christianity
Thank you Peter. You are a warrior for the truth. I now will follow Winston. This gives me some hope.
I wish that Peter would get the band back together and start submitting papers for peer review. I’m thinking that enough time has passed that they would fall for the same gag again ;-)
This is crazy interesting. He asks what will replace this...what are you trying to replsce it with? And it feels like he does not have an answer.
He doesn't want to admit Christianity would be the best replacement.
Yes he didn't have an answer.
We need to continue the fight against religion alongside the fight against woke ideology!!
Well said.
"The question to ask is to what extent are the tolerant willing to tolerate the intolerant?" Brilliant.
Social justice ruined the new atheist movement. Just as it is ruining everything else.
It is designed to destroy.
New Atheism was anti-theism with the caveat that it was pro-liberal and anti-Christian. In other words, it was a replacement religion for traditional ones, but it did not have any theologically sustainable arguments whatsoever. Even the name is deceptive. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in deities or more broadly absence of belief in the supernatural. But atheism is not a movement, it does not inform one of what one believes in but what one does not believe in. The so-called new atheists may have been godless but they were far from irreligious. They were liberal. And liberalism is anti-human, utopian ideology, or what we might think a modern religion. Liberalism is what made socialism possible. New atheists were nothing new, they were promoting essentially logical positivism under another name, and eventually it would leave, inevitably to scientism. Social Justice didn't ruin new atheist movement, social justice was the logical outcome of movement such as new atheism. It has nowhere else to go. And to prove that you can look at Sam Harris for example. The poster child of the new atheist movement. Have you seen his various rambling and TDS so sever its not even funny. Have you seen his not infamous interview with Triggernometry? Like I said. Godless maybe, but far from irreligious. Like all liberalism it will always end with socialism.
“There is nothing that has done more havoc to the rain of revival than the illusion of "modernism and theological liberalism" Liberalism sets itself as another gospel but not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” ― Oluseyi Akinbami
The liberal ideology is a contemporary religion. I disagree with the viewpoint of the progressive modern liberals that pursuing religious freedom is a worthwhile objective, because it is a false premise. Liberals impose their own religion upon other religions because they believe it to be the only true faith and the most moral of them all. So much so, they believe that simply self-identifying as a liberal is enough to be morally superior. They outsource the responsibility of personal morality by unloading it onto the liberal ideology itself. This is expanded by the Liberal dogma of the “doctrine of universal human rights.” Those who disagree with it are rarely tolerated; hence, those that are more dogmatic among the liberals, consider even challenging the human rights doctrine to be blasphemous.
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” ― William F. Buckley
“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are
presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new
evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is
extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it
is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,
ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.”
― Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks
The Theism of Sam Harris-or, When Rationalists Are Irrational
ua-cam.com/video/w8EFYpu96og/v-deo.html
“I would rather try to organize politics and political discourse in a way that encouraged engagement on moral and religious questions. …If we attempt to banish moral and religious discourse from politics and debates about law and rights, the danger is we’ll have a kind a vacant public square or a naked public square.
And the yearning for larger meanings in politics will find undesirable expression. Fundamentalists will rush in where liberals fear to tread. They will try to clothe the naked public square with the narrowest and most intolerant moralism.”
*Michael Joseph Sandel is an American political philosopher.
Haven't we seen that with so called social justice, wokness? Only liberalism allows room for that.
By its very nature, liberalism is self-destructive. It is very cynical about old systems on the right and very naive about new systems on the left.
“In the end, the actions of such liberals have the effect---again unwittingly---of continuing to cover for the goals of the extreme Left. Yet again, the soft Left is helping to conceal the hard Left whether it realizes it or not.” ― Paul Kengor, Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century
“Liberalism has failed, not because it fell short, but because it was true to itself. It has failed because it has succeeded. As liberalism has become more fully itself, as its inner logic has become more evident and its self contradictions manifest, it has generated pathologies that are at once deformations of its claims, yet realizations of liberal ideology.
A political philosophy that was launched to foster greater equity, defend a pluralist tapestry of different cultures and beliefs, protect human dignity, and of course expand liberty in practice generates titanic inequality, enforces uniformity and homogeneity, fosters material and spiritual degradation, and undermines freedom.”
― Patrick Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed (2018)
Reminds me of what someone said. Liberalism delivered what it promised, but it was the opposite of what most expected.
Liberalism vs. Reality - Feb 29, 2020 Excerpt from James Burnham, Suicide of the West (1964; New York: Encounter Books, 2014), pp. 319-40; 345-9.
ua-cam.com/video/O-Qnk_Fv9vQ/v-deo.html
Feb 29, 2020 Excerpt from James Burnham, Suicide of the West (1964; New York: Encounter Books, 2014), pp. 319-40; 345-9.
The Guilt of the Liberal - Feb 29, 2020 Excerpt from James Burnham, Suicide of the West (1964; New York: Encounter Books, 2014), pp. 221-8.
ua-cam.com/video/LMCEfB8xoUU/v-deo.html
@@KrunoslavStifter Yes. What Western anti-theist movements fail to understand is that if you oppose (and wish to denegrate and purge) the fundamental beliefs of hitherto Christian peoples then you simply create a huge void that will be filled in by something else. It astounds me that the same voices who were pro-Dawkins, pro-Dennet, pro-Hitchens and pro-Smith et al, are now up in arms about wokeness and cultural Marxism/post-modernism being the establishment narrative. A case study in intelligence over wisdom.
@@nebbyscumbold Well, some of the old Atheist movement genuinely believed in standards of evidence and denied that which had no evidence (and the idea of God is impossible to prove or disprove) and believed (wrongly) that organized religion was the last barrier to rational thinking among people. They may be wrong about the sociological effects even if they sincerely believed in rationality.
You also had a mass of crude people who just hated the old social order and that included adopting atheist arguments against Christianity simply to destroy Christianity. For them, Atheism was not simply a demand to only believe what could be directly observed, it was a social movement for a new social order. Those people eventually morphed into "Woke".
As a Christian, I observed the madness from the perspective of wanting to know why I was bombarded with so many bad Atheist arguments.
@@KrunoslavStifter fantastic post and very informative! That said, where do we go from here?
Great interview Winston. If you abandon belief in the christian God, what religion will replace it. Peter thinks that we can build on values that all people have in common and he mentions some like decency. He supports the idea of what used to be called natural law.
Natural law says that if we use our rationality we will all agree on certain values. What he underestimates is that his values and even his view of rationality are rooted in the christian worldview.
When evaluating the relative benefits of potential belief systems you'd first have to identify what problems we are seeking to resolve by having them. The idea of a 'universal truth' is itself part of a belief system. Personally, I think its only possible for people to agree what is good/desirable behaviour and what is bad/undesirable behaviour as part of a community. Some belief that is detremental to the successful perpetuation and expansion of a community would need to be shunned by it for such success to be more likely. I would say 'natural law' exists independantly of any christian trappings surrounding it. Other non Abrahamic religions have come to similar conclusions.
This is very commonly asserted, but I think people confuse what it means for the values to have historically originated from a Christian worldview vs. being permanently rooted to them. Nothing stops a person from simply adopting those values as axiomatic without any reference to religion. Also, our ideas about rationality, especially in its systematized form, come to us from the Pagan Greeks first and foremost. And much (though not all) of our ethics does as well.
So deeply grateful for this conversation. Thank you so much- so many disparate people out here agree and have felt marooned on an island, watching a tsunami of woke zombies flood our schools, airwaves & publications. So much of it seems rooted in nothing more than vague ideas about body- consciousness, victimhood & “self fulfillment” rather than real values of the soul or consciousness. A lot of woke ideology revolves around the most superficial aspects of existence (which relates to the new atheism making the material the only truth) and therefore doomed to make its adherents miserable. Meanwhile, children are being poisoned into making their bodies, weight, gender & fleeting sexual fixations the entirety of their sense of self. It’s a psychosis of great magnitude. Tragic.
PS I love Game of Thrones & Miley Cyrus- you must both experience the other’s recommendation.
I am so grateful for these brave academic men and women who have sacrificed to stand against tyranny
It's beautiful that Winston is one of those rarest of people who has preserved his soul by not watching Game of Thrones. I wondered what that soft radiance that exudes from him was. I stopped after the first series and even then I have a stain that can never be removed.
When you play the game of thrones you either win or you die.
I've not seen it either.
Watched for a few minutes and it's just not for me.
You stopped in time. It got worse and worse as it went on.
I watched it up until half way through the final episode (as i had no faith in God) ... It's definitely not suitable viewing for GA but was pretty edgy and clever for the first few seasons. It descended into voyeuristic chaos and it beautifully proved that selfish, ego-driven self belief and self reliance (essentially satanism) ultimately enriches, sanctifies or preserves noone...
Very insightful. Peter explains the crazy problems with academia very well.😊
This is a fantastic interview: I was beginning to think that objective truth had lost and was banished forever. Hope reigns anew!
"There is something I find disturbing about believing things that are almost definitely false so that society will function more smoothly." (59:58).
And here is a problem I have with Jordan Peterson. He once stated that truth was the highest value, yet he was always cagey about his own religious beliefs. Lately he has become more and more explicit that religious belief is good for the individual and society and so should be promulgated. Well maybe it is, but that has nothing to do with the truth of religion or the nature of the universe.
Perhaps Peterson doesn’t yet precisely know his specific beliefs, and if he did, he might acquire new knowledge tomorrow and change them. So glad you know your rock solid truth that will never evolve.
@@hp-cs7mx Missing the point. You cannot on the one hand say that Truth is the most important principle and on the other that what is beneficial is. That is utilitarianism, not truth.
You are also buying into the postmodernist idea which Peterson rejects that there is no such thing as the Truth. Just your truth and my truth.
That was the best conversation I’ve listened to in a long time. I can only hope that peak woke has been reached. For me it’s plain to see the horrible consequences and I can’t believe everyone can’t, yet the woke continue to be so loud while saying nothing.
One of the best interviews. Thanks.
"Woke means calling everything 'racist' until *you* control it." -- James Lindsay
This was a very good conversation. I do have to side with Winston. A lot of Christians were persecuted for believing in those things that founded those values, so these things meant a lot to them enough to die for. This is not just something to come to with rationality or just discover as a human being. The miracles provide a sense of validity to loving thy neighbor and praying for your enemies, because these are not instinctual and in many cases not rational. When you replace the God of the miracles with other ideologies, you start to try and create your own miracles, or a mythos of them - men can be women for example. They are trying to provide these 'miracles' through the tools they have to try and provide value to their position, to literally try and play God. If miracles didn't matter, they wouldn't be trying to reproduce them or defy them or explain them, and so on. But they do matter.
Frankfurt school and the Tavistock institute alive and kicking 🕊️❤️🙏☘️
And Mao
Frankfurt School energetically promoted by the OSS CIA.
Didn't know Brad Pitt did interviews. Well done 😎
Good talk.
Many thanks for the opportunity. 🙏✨
Enjoying this discussion very much!
I developed a workshop to engage participants in introspection.
One of the 'tools' that participants walk away with, is a clearer sense of Self-awareness. I cannot change my beliefs and behaviors without first becoming aware of them. A delicate process indeed. One that most people resist.
It is a moment in time, of self-reflection and self-connection.
The intellectual discussions are fascinating but we also need to connect on a deeper level, in a safe and compassionate space. Small groups and lots of listening. I
I call it R.I.P.P.L.E. Reflection:)
Thank you both for the work that you do.🧡
This happened to me at MSU. As soon as they realized I wasn't woke, I wasn't welcome.
I was quite involved in the new atheist movement 15 years ago. It was amazing watching what was quite a big tent movement get taken over by progressive view points, to the point of kicking everybody else out, including Dawkins lol.
It started with elevatorgate and atheism+ sub-movement with the atheism community that made no secret of its progressive leanings. All
Of a sudden conferences were navel gazing about how sexist and racist we all were, which was a joke as you could find a more diverse group of people. It became an absolute circus, and stopped being fun, it stopped being a community of like minded people. But rather a community of bullies looking to lynch somebody. Now that type of progressivism has taken over everything. It was the cannery in the coal mine. A few years later the progressive mind virus did the exact same thing to gaming.
It is puzzling to me as well. I just don’t understand why or how do many people fall to this ideology? It’s like a mind virus of sorts and only a few of us have natural immunity.
Who headed up this movement that I've never heard of?
That's why I hang out on 4chan, theyre the most diverse group of racists around. They don't even care what your skin color or race is, as long as you're racist.
Crazy how a movement based on logic and reason was appropriated and turned into an movement that behaves and acts like a religious cult
I blame woman....
I’m an atheist and from my perspective, I see that public figures such as Dawkins have been elevated to the level of celebrity. Sadly, this seems to have led to many followers who may have jumped on a popular bandwagon and view these figures as “idols” that are beyond reproach. They are human and have human flaws. Their opinions should be viewed critically, not swallowed wholesale. I like Dawkins but it doesn’t mean I agree with 100% of everyone he says on every topic.
I think the irony of the new atheist movement is that we criticise religious folks for a lack of critical thinking, then are often guilty of doing the same ourselves.
Amazing interview. I had heard of Peter before thru James Lindsay but never heard him in his own words. Thank you!
Fantastic convo - PB is a hero for true liberalism
Love your conversations winston
Loving these conversations. One of the best interviewers at the moment…..
This shows the difference between a person who has had this discussion before, and someone who has not. For the person who has not, it's great to benefit from the experience of the one who has, but from the point of view of the progression of the conversation, it tends to be an impediment, I felt.
The saddest thing of all is that we are entering a period where being sociopathic is an advantage. Think the system under the Soviet Union. In East Germany 1/3 of the population was reporting to the Stasi. With technology today, 100% of communication is being surveilled.
Peter, the issue that you are neglecting was summed up succinctly in the first part of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil:
"The will to truth which will still tempt us to many a venture, that famous truthfulness of which all
philosophers so far have spoken with respect-what questions has this will to truth not laid before
us! What strange, wicked, questionable questions! That is a long story even now-and yet it seems as
if it had scarcely begun. Is it any wonder that we should finally become suspicious, lose patience, and
turn away impatiently? that we should finally learn from this Sphinx to ask questions, too? Who is it
really that puts questions to us here? What in us really wants “truth”?
Indeed we came to a long halt at the question about the cause of this will-until we finally came to
a complete stop before a still more basic question. We asked about the value of this will. Suppose we
want truth: why not rather untruth? and uncertainty? even ignorance?
The problem of the value of truth came before us-or was it we who came before the problem?
Who of us is Oedipus here? Who the Sphinx? It is a rendezvous, it seems, of questions and question
marks.
And though it scarcely seems credible, it finally almost seems to us as if the problem had never
even been put so far-as if we were the first to see it, fix it with our eyes, and risk it. For it does
involve a risk, and perhaps there is none that is greater."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is not HOW to derive truth, the problem is WHY "truth" is valuable to begin with; if I ask you to answer for Hamlet's question "To Be? Or Not to Be?" can you rationally prove to me that it is better to be? can you prove to me that choosing rather not to be would be a mistake? can you demonstrate empirically that to exist and suffer the obligation of answering this question is preferable to a state of non-existence in which no such need for justification exists at all? is it rationally true that living and dying are better than the absence of life itself?
Poetry is mental masturbation. Shakesphere in particular is garbage that should be forgotten.
"The problem is not HOW to derive truth, the problem is WHY "truth" is valuable to begin with"
-
Nothing has any value at all in a metaphysical sense. The simple fact of the matter is, there are things that people want, and paying attention to truth is the best way to achieve these wants. Only an idiot would try to argue otherwise. Humans are obviously better at achieving their wants than baboons and the rest of the animals.
Two of my favourite people!❤
Fascinating discussion. Well done Winston and Peter for speaking truth to power!
It's just amazing. The simple question "If woke came in by replacing religion then what will replace woke?" Peter just seemed incapable of comprehending. He was asked the question I think 3 times and each time his answer was completely irrelevant to the question. Talking about institutions and street epistemology and values and all this unrelated stuff.
Wokeism is an ideology, just like every religion....
Rationality and critical thinking is what should replace religion, nothing more!
No more maindless ideologies!
38:00 I've felt this way about the words woman, man, and gender. He hit the nail on the head. It's really just a disagreement on the definition of words.
It's that and much more. Because the communists have always understood the power of words standing in for larger concepts. If you can use familiar words and morph them into their opposites, so that nothing makes any sense, you have scored a major victory over those who simply use words to communicate. Up is down, black is white, men are women and freedom is oppression. It is "thought-stopping" speech, the suppression of argument. 1984 wasn't simply about totalitarianism, it was specifically about communism, it's objectives and methods of control.
It's not a disagreement. It's an intentional changing of the definition to disrupt communication and confuse regular people. It's double speak.
Thanks for this interview!
Fantastic interview both of you.
I'm a theist but I LIKE THIS GUY. He's the Devil's Advocate but with a suave debonair sophistication, plus irrepressible eloquence.
Very good interviewer.
Hella interview Winston👏🏿 you took Peter to task🤔? Exposing his anti- woke ideologycal theories. 2Corinthians 10:5....B1✊🏿
Thanks for the interview 🌷
I'm a little surprised that Winston hadn't heard of Fat studies. I'm trying to figure out how he missed this fact, or whether I'm just obsessed with this stupid wokery and maybe the problem is mine.
It had been niche 15 years ago so the emergence of it now as something people would refer to with a straight face is new.
This year's Australian of the year is a 'Body positivity' activist. The awardees in other categories also fit the woke agenda.
I found this conversation fascinating if a little frustratingly verbose at times. Typical intellectuals, too used to talking to their peers and unable to easily express their ideas to a lay audience.😊
For example the Substitution Hypothesis. I've always liked the explanation usually attributed to G.K.Chesterton, "When we stop believing in God, we don't start believing in _nothing_ but in _anything_ ."
Anyway I feel mildly optimistic after hearing it and am grateful for that.
This has been a tenant of Christian philosophy for a very long time, even before Chesterton. It irritates me that after the long witness of history (French revolution, the entire 20th century, Rome, Greece, etc.), this very evident idea is scoffed.
But I agree. It is good to here New atheists like Peter and, to some extent, James Lindsey admit it.
That idea is simply a strawmanned false dichotomy. Sorry.
it is so fascinating to me to find out this thing has a name, woke ideology,
i have been wracking my brains trying to work out what on earth this wierd jargon is.
Fantastic interview and eye opening. Must watch
This interviewer is amazing. He's just ao good at hitting the points he wants.
I think he needs to broaden his acquaintance with the current issues...and then he'll be able to articulate questions with increased precision and confidence. He seems keen to become more familiar with the vast array of current social and political issues (especially those which are toxic and colossally dangerous for our Western countries). I like his calmness and wish him all success with his podcast...I do watch.
He's the cancelled Banjo player of a world famous band, if you don't know him
@@ViriatoII thanks for the tip, I have just read up about it. Very interesting.
Keep up the good work you two. Great video. 👍
As philosophers Ed Feser and Peter Kreeft would happily show, the case for theism is almost unavoidable. If REASON is not behind the existence of our cosmos and human evolution and free will, then one has no reason to trust our sense of reason. GK Chesterton made this point brilliantly. Monotheism is the only radically coherent worldview. Atheism, mindless matter in meaningless motion, is incoherent and pretty much defines the word "stupid".
What snuck in before all that: pride
The worst thing is that this type of behaviour has rubbed off onto English Kids who want to grow up to be drug dealers, carry guns and drive fast cars - and not do a proper job.
This is the reason I believe putting youths into National Service from 14 - 18 would get them off the streets and teach proper trades. Bridge Building, both physically and metaphorically, would do them, and us, a power of good.- Boredom is a recipe for disaster.
@@Meirins Creativity is not just a use of time, it is a product of assimilating ideas and forming comparisons. While the moments of comparison might be in relative idleness, the learning process tends to be in activity. I suggest reading Idea-Link by Jim Link.
What are you on? Black and half castes males dominate the cultural and physical spaces in the UK through actual intimidation and media promotion and celebrations Nothing to do with anything else.
“Ted wheeler he/him” 😂😂😂
I was born and raised in Portland... Thanks to their insane policies, I am now considered a 'Person of color.'
Just because I'm a decendant of Slavs.
Ted Wheeler “he/him” woke idiot destroying Portland
Peter is doing amazing work! Great conversation :)
1:00:02 Never before have I heard this notion, so well articulated. Also, I agree.
I know he is probably trying to be charitable by referring to religion as "almost certainly false" since I suspect he has no doubt in his mind. But if he is referring to Christianity though, he'd want to be sure that it is utterly false. If its claims are remotely true, he has a lot to lose.
This response epitomized the essential role of an established religion in the cohesion of society.
@@ryanvacation7319 I can super glue a pig to a chair, but that isn’t sitting.
Fantastissime !
I’m from Australia and he’s probably right that we’re behind the curve by a year when it comes to a backlash. Fortunately we do have what we call a good “bullshit meter”.
Alvin Gouldner's idea of "turning our intellectual guns towards ourselves" reflects his call for self-reflection and critical examination within intellectual endeavors. This concept has had an impact on modern intellectual pursuits in several ways. Here's a step-by-step guide to illustrate the influence of his understanding:
1. Self-Reflection and Intellectual Honesty: Gouldner emphasized the importance of intellectual honesty and self-reflection among scholars and intellectuals. He encouraged individuals to critically examine their own biases, assumptions, and positions, and to be open to questioning their own intellectual frameworks.
Example: In academic disciplines, scholars have increasingly embraced reflexivity, acknowledging the potential influence of their own perspectives and positions on their research. This self-awareness fosters a more critical and nuanced understanding of complex social, cultural, and political phenomena.
2. Critique of Intellectual Authority: Gouldner's ideas challenged traditional notions of intellectual authority and expertise. He questioned the tendency to accept established theories and paradigms without critical scrutiny and called for a more self-critical and self-aware approach to intellectual inquiry.
Example: Gouldner's critique of intellectual authority has contributed to the rise of alternative voices and perspectives within academia. It has encouraged scholars to question prevailing theories, challenge dominant paradigms, and engage in interdisciplinary dialogue to broaden intellectual horizons.
3. Interdisciplinary and Cross-Disciplinary Engagement: Gouldner's call for self-reflection has fostered a greater emphasis on interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary engagement. Scholars recognize the value of diverse perspectives and insights from different disciplines in expanding knowledge and addressing complex societal issues.
Example: Collaborative research projects that bring together scholars from different academic fields have become more common. This interdisciplinary approach allows for a broader range of perspectives, methodologies, and insights, resulting in more comprehensive and nuanced understandings of complex problems.
4. Critical Theory and Social Critique: Gouldner's ideas align with the broader tradition of critical theory, which emphasizes questioning power structures, social inequalities, and dominant ideologies. Intellectuals influenced by Gouldner have adopted critical perspectives to analyze and critique social and political phenomena.
Example: Critical theorists draw upon Gouldner's call for self-reflection and intellectual honesty to engage in social critique. They examine power dynamics, social injustices, and ideological biases in various domains such as politics, economics, gender, and race, aiming to bring about social change and transformation.
5. Ethical Considerations in Intellectual Pursuits: Gouldner's focus on intellectual honesty and self-reflection has prompted scholars to consider ethical dimensions within their intellectual pursuits. This includes questions of representation, accountability, and the potential impact of research on marginalized or vulnerable populations.
Example: In fields such as anthropology and cultural studies, researchers increasingly emphasize ethical practices, such as informed consent, cultural sensitivity, and collaboration with communities, ensuring that intellectual endeavors are conducted responsibly and with consideration for ethical implications.
Overall, Gouldner's call for self-reflection and intellectual honesty has influenced modern intellectual endeavors by promoting critical engagement, interdisciplinary collaboration, social critique, and ethical considerations. Scholars increasingly recognize the importance of questioning their own assumptions and positions, fostering a more self-aware and responsible approach to intellectual pursuits.
Peter's assumptions are biased towards the Promethean spirit of Greek rationality. The orientation a person takes to the world determines their behaviour, determines their activities and determines the level of human existence they may get up to, Peter's Promethean spirit of Greek rationality presupposes the very thing he is trying to prove, because his orientation is built into his justification and legitimation of that choice. Peter should follow Alvin Gouldner's idea of "turning our intellectual guns towards ourselves" which reflects his call for self-reflection and critical examination within intellectual endeavors.
What a wonderful discussion. Thank you.
This podcast answers a lot of questions, so thank you 🙏
The World needs more hereos like Peter.
Effing hell, Winston is improving as an interviewer! This was a properly marvelous job on his part!
Winston has got to be one of the smartest, coolest interviewers of modern times... and he plays the banjo... Based!
I hope you are familiar with Posie Parker? She is fighting to get women's spaces back. Also Germaine Greer did amazing things. I live in Oregon and I think Portland is evil to it's core.
What's a woman's spaces?
I say thank god for Fat Studies and whatever the next generation or two of absurdity are because as long as it was always able to hide within things people broadly support (Women's Studies *sounds* like Feminism and Black Studies *sounds* like acknowledging Black contributions to the world or America,) people on the outside would never get it and people on the inside could be forgiven for seeing what they were learning as logical - from a perspective. The crazier it goes though - no one - will be able to see a perspective from which it even *seems* sound and they will have to start wondering how we got there.
bot attack
He is a really good interviewer. Clearly a really clever bloke, and I love it when people are polite in interviews
Your last question was brilliant! "What line do you think I would be on?" it demonstrates that you were effectively fair in your approach and suppressing your own opinion and bias.