@@Sacrifice.Online.for.Offline He is the moderator in this discussion, and if you mean about the corpus callosum then that is the bridge between the left and right hemispheres of the brain
Alex O'Connor has established himself as a good-faith interlocutor and mediator to both religous and non-religious philosophies. He is playing a crucial role in bridging the gap.
Peterson: "Well, this interview really kills 2 birds with 1 stone." Dawkins: "That's ridiculous, we aren't killing any birds. We are sitting here talking"
Come on man....i dont agree with most things JP says but surely you must be impressed with his bronze serpent analysis ...best i can say is ...his understanding is too deep for u to understand and therefore its easier to just mock and ridicule. Note :Dragons for atheist is just as ridiculous as humans evolving from apes for non atheist. Think about it.
Can we just take a moment to appreciate how Alex is able to rephrase and ideologically mediate concepts both metaphorically and realistically to one another to help the other understand the opinion and thought of the other. That is an insane talent right there it's like he knows and understands what both men are saying and can guide them both towards understanding one another
Yeah, I came away from this with tremendous respect for him. I don't think what I just wrote quite does justice to what I observed- he was incredible. Completely understanding the points of each man, and the significance of those points, was not easy, even with time to pause and think; his ability to interpret and summarise each argument, and to point out the deeper points being made, on the spot was beyond impressive. And to do it so calmly and professionally. Honestly, watching all three of them was impressive. I'm no idiot, but I'm a lightweight compared to these three, and It's a pleasure to watch and learn. Having said that, at some point you have to (or refuse to) take a leap of faith. I took it years ago. I think Ayaan Hirsi Ali stated it best, regarding Christianity and the bible, "I choose to believe these stories."
@@patrickmacleod2415 Yeah, me too. I was like, wow holyyyyy -- I would have never imagined one could match or decouple, reshape and put back together some of this incredibly dense and complex work, language and thought like JP produced (not to call him the messiah and to say that he is right) but also others. I think this was a really good conversation and he kept a fantastic bridge between Dawkin and JP. Towards the end, the conversation really evolved and you got the unity of two worlds (as JP presented, sort of in a critical realist manner, the positivist reality and social constructivism come together) meet to deal with the exploratory and curiosity. They were able to hash it out and keep on same frequency. Although I think Dawkin could have been less blatantly and categorically immovable on some subjects, on others.. he posited some very credible questions and appropriate inquiries. I really liked that. I liked that jordan peterson got challenged that way. It made me realize that it is good that we have at least one or someone like JP to engage with the challenges that no-one else bothers and play the devils advocate and fight. It also helped to calibrate JP and make him think or for the next time-- evolve his thought and philosophy of science.
That pretty much sums up Peterson views on religious text. He sees it as a hyperreality, whether its real or not is irrelevant because it's impact to actual reality is profound. His thinking is actually very post-modern despite showing disdain to other postmodern ideas.
@@laizerwoolf Symbolism and narrative are hardly post-modern. He's not using hyperreality exactly in the way that postmodernists do, either. By hyperreality they mean a confusion between what is or isn't real due to things like exaggeration. Strawberry bubblegum has a hyperreal taste that we may confuse for the taste of real strawberries. Peterson's use of hyperreal as a synonym for archetype is mistaken. They share some similarities but he is disregarding the additional qualities that postmodernists assign to hyperreality.
Great summary. Part of me thinks a Christian who believes the Bible to be true not just archetypally but literally as well would make a better case for Christianity than Jordan, but Dawkins wouldn't be open to that anyway. So I guess simply emphasizing the archetypal truth value of the Bible in the end yields better results in this discussion.
@@irishgirl225 lol close minded? Couldn’t be farther from the truth. You either haven’t watched any of his discussion/material or you’re just being ignorant
@@penttiyr some ppl need a belief in a greater power, we evolved to have superstition, religion...otherwise the universe is meaningless. Atheism teaches us we are just biological robots and there is no meaning.
@@72PMChambers they did converse, although Richard Dawkins spoke less. However, it seems like Jordan Peterson was trying to have a productive conversation by actually trying to understand Richard's position and explaining his own; while Dawkins seems to has been only interested in explaining his position, while refusing to even try to contemplate the fact that Peterson's perspective could be worth considering.
@@itsainsley1072I haven't even gotten to that part yet, but I can think of ten ways music could be relevant to this topic, it just depends on if it was to what he was answering I guess
Yes and No. We don’t know if it is true or false until death, so we can only speak to before that. If someone believes in God and prays to them, you on the outside have 3 options to view this action. 1.God is not real and they are wasting their time and straying away from truth and into the world of being abused by the church. 2.God is not real, but the values of religion are good, and that prayer is helpful to one’s self so they should continue. 3.God is real and prayer and religion is good. What are the results of the 3 paths? No you shouldnt believe, yes you should, and yes you should. The two answers that are the exact same can be combined (yes you should). So when viewing religion from the outside there are only 2 viewpoints, No you shouldnt believe (due to falling into dogma) and yes you should (because it is real AND/OR it is pratically benificial to one’s life). So no there is no difference and it only matters when speaking from the POV of one’s self
The word literal refers to literature. Are you using your words wrong? Do you mean metaphysical God? Like an entity that is supposed to exist beyond physics?
Waiter: “Mr.Peterson, are you ready to order?” Jordan Peterson: “Well that depends entirely upon the origin of how you formatted that question. What do you mean by ‘ready’ exactly? To be ready, one must have examined the depths of the menu literature and cross analysed the various texts and their subject depth to correctly idealise the human naturalist eating experience, factoring in the subjective definitions of the correct cooking methodologies, subject to the individual who prepares them”
Waiter: Mr Dawkins would you like some water for the table? Dawkins: How ludicrous the water will not be for the table, the table is an inanimate object it can’t drink, in reality the water will be for me
56:35 is probably the best interjection from a moderator perspective that I have ever seen. It summarised both of their arguments perfectly in a way that Jordan could properly picture within the confines of his point of view. Just another reason why Alex is top tier for the new generation of philosophers. Impressive
Such a good interjection, without which the discussion would’ve become dreadfully lost in excessive wordplay on Dr Peterson’s part. A philosopher should be as precise, as succinct with their language as possible, and Alex has this skill in spades. His point is I think the most integral to this debate: are we just evolved primates projecting our own perceived values onto the cosmos (which I believe is the case), or have we LITERALLY been provided our knowledge and values from above (although the source of this would be impossible to discern given that it is far from reliable across human cultures)? I am thoroughly exhausted by Dr Peterson’s inability to admit that these are fundamentally different theories that cannot be reconciled. They are not ‘one and the same’ as he believes.
Just arrived at this part of the video , and even Dawkins adds "very well put " it shows how Alex is excellent at synthesizing 2 opposite views in a way that both contestants agree !!
Dr. Peterson, I have been following you for a long time and your work has provided great clarity. I am grateful for problems that you have taken time to attend to. I say this so you know that what I'm about to say doesn't come from a place of hate: I wish you could've been more direct in answering the question about whether you believe Cain and Abel really existed. The reason why I say this is because the question was designed very specifically to determine whether or not you believe the biblical scripture is 100% truth, or half physical truth and half metaphorical truth. When you answered, you ignored the direct question and brought him into your philosophical landscape where you had leverage over the question. This makes you look like you are afraid of saying that you don't believe the bible is 100% physical truth, I'm guessing because it would impact the integrity of your teachings. In your own words, you say how people should speak the truth regardless of the consequences because lying is a bad long-term strategy for everyone. I believe you should address this question that you seem to be avoiding, and just be honest and straight forward with your answer. I also believe that there is more power in Christianity than you give credit for based on what you've been saying. We as people are programmed to be afraid, and we all lie to ourselves in order to cover our insecurities and fears. If you tell the truth with courage, you risk attacking someone else's false sense of security while also losing your own sense of security. From this action, I believe glory is given to truth, and that is how you pledge loyalty to God. Your words lose power if you need to hide your truth behind fear.
First time I've heard of Alex O'Connor but let's just take a moment to appreciate how integral his presence was to this conversation bearing some fruit. Shows how important having a good moderator can be, as opposed to those clowns in the MSM......
It really wasn't though. He just repeated what was already said. When he interjected all he did was just say what was already said like he asked a new question.
The issue is clearly deeper than that. Richard tries to make the case that the paint is more important than the painting, and the paint is what created the painting -- not seeing or refusing to admit that the artist made the painting by making use of the paint. In fact: the only reason the paint exists is because the artist wanted it. I read an art book not long ago, and a certain blue (lapis, I think, but maybe it was something else) around 1600 was worth more than gold. That should tell you something!
richard dawkins is so stupid. i dont understand how people respect his thinking. finally people are waking up how triumphant atheists are incredibly dumb.
This here is a fascinating example of the conflict and antagonistic nature between opposites. On one hand is Richard, who values what can be measured and weighed, in essence, the tangibility of things, for him that's where the highest value of life lies and as such he orients himself accordingly, the sort of man Gustav described as one "who does not believe in the invisible". On the other is Jordan who ceaselessly moves from image to image as he tries to reveal the associations between the images perceived, and is impressed by, from his end, abundance of life as he leaps excitedly from one image to another the moment another association is noticed, there for him is where the highest value lies. Indicator of this for instance is in how excited or impressed each seems when something of note to their, to oversimplify it maybe, perspective is mentioned or hinted at. And how frustrated Jordan seems when Richard doesn't see what he sees or Richard's by now probably famous and bemused "that does not impress me". A clearer indication of this oppositional approaches, (and based on the fact that if one values one 'thing', and if that 'thing' has its opposite, by consequence the opposite of that thing will be devalued) is in how both described the other - Richard describing Jordan as "drunk on symbols" and Jordan pointing from his view the naivety of those who take biblical scriptures at face value as "literalists". And the potential irreconcilability of the opposites can be found in the polarized views in the comments, one end is quick to dismiss all Jordan has said, all the brilliant points included, as him saying a lot of nothing, a "word salad", as one said. On the other end are those who seem to view Richard as existing in a colorless world of dry lifeless facts. It may be possible to reconcile the opposites or at least make positive attempts to that end. And the intelligence of these three men have helped show through this discussion that the first step is to be aware of that marked difference in the first place. -Richard first making a note of the different minds they both have. -Jordan's tenacity to invite, in a way, Richard into his worldview, his understanding. He showed he was aware of these differences in the first place which could explain not just his persistence in this discussion but why the discussion even happened in the first place. -And ultimately Alex's brilliance and as a mod here, not only for not letting Jordan hog all that mic but for being able to present the view of one to the other without misrepresenting one or the other, while at the same time making himself as an individual with views and opinions in a sense invisible. Okay this is already getting too long but i want to mention this, Jordan has demonstrated himself to be quite an articulate individual, with his precision and skill at conveying a thought or understanding, so when he makes statememts such as "the biological reality of the dragon" or "Cain and Abel were the first humans to be born in the natural way" one may be at first tempted to interpret it as perhaps he's trying to present ideas that have yet to germinate or take full form or blossom(halp, im struggling to find a more coherent word here😓) so he is not able to express them coherently enough. But when confronted about this dubious choice of words, instead of admitting that perhaps there are better, less misleading ways to phrase those statements he simply attempted to explain them away, this makes his intent appear disingenuous. Overall this was a really interesting discussion and interaction to watch. Proof is in my willingness to type this much.
The subject is the overarching theme, and the topic is a particular aspect or element within that subject. For example, "Biology" is a subject, and "Cell Structure" is a topic within the subject of Biology.
The closest we’ve gotten to hearing what it would be like to hear the left brain hemisphere and the right brain hemisphere discuss how they feel about the other
@@Somniator7Peterson may be smart, but the fact that he keeps defending religion makes him an idiot. He speaks like a creationist, and it is a FACT (you cannot debate facts) that creationism is wrong. Only dumb people can be creationists.
Ikr, we take these kinds of discussions are taken for granted now, its crazy how much the internet has changed sharing of information. People 50 years ago wouldn't even dream of getting anything like this for free
The man bled because he was injured when entering the battle. The man dawned a cloak of red when entering battle. The first sentance has 1 meaning alone. Man is injured. The second sentance has infinite meaning condensed into the same length. The man dawned red because red = blood, and he was ready to take lives in battle. Or he dawned it because he knew that he himself would not make it out uninjured. Knowing of your incoming doom adds extra meaning itself. It could be courage, trapped in this life, arrogence and unwilling to yield. Etc. Symbols are extremely important to condense meaning simply, and also in the other direction, to access a vast amount of knowledge quickly. A tumble weed is the only thing you need to know this area is a desert, hot, lacking water, mid western US, etc. Then you can link all of that information to other information quickly, “your business has tumble weeds rolling threw it” so now you instantly know your business is barren, lacking customers, empty, etc. Throwing away symbols is moronic and lacking basic understanding of language
@ doesn’t matter for the purpose of this. You could have an extremely long run on sentence that is 40 pages long and it still would not have the same amount of depth as symbolism because symbols can be applied to a near infinite number of circumstances
@@LittleBox87 You do realize that the world is full of literalists, no? Muhammad hearing from the archangel Gabriel, is clearly a metaphor/symbol/archetypical story that tells us something very deep about the origins of inspiration. Yet millions believe in literal angels and Muhammad's literal interaction with one of them. Some of us think this literalism leads to very dangerous outcomes. So, if people thought that you should teach about a line down your heart in an anatomy class the way many want to teach about a virgin birth in a history class, you would find a need to express cynicism about metaphorical stories, since you know that many, if not most, people do not take them metaphorically. I concede that literary "depth" is awesome to behold and learn from. But to be blind to the rampant literalism in the world is to misunderstand the majority of believers, the majority of humanity.
@@gfxpimp Myths, legends and dogmas are not to be taken literally, that's obvious, as it's obvious here that Dawkins is not a literalist, he is just a cynic. And I don't misunderstand the literalists, I understand they're getting it incorrectly, because all these themes and topics are not new to me, hence why I'm here :)
Exactly. Peterson needs to lighten up on the “hyper real.” Because it isn’t. Dawkins needs to understand there are things in this world that you simply cannot measure or know. Because there are.
Jordan’s entire philosophy is built around justifying his claim that the Bible is true. That’s why he dances so much around basic concepts. Dawkins is not willing to be distracted by the dance Jordan is doing because he’s not interested in artistic expression.
@@TheChrisSoria You completely misunderstood Jordan first points: Peterson emphasizes that facts are often conveyed through stories, suggesting that when narratives are told compellingly, they can shape beliefs effectively-much like propaganda or marketing. He argues for the preservation of stories that support what I call "THE Truth," rejecting relativism in favor of objective narratives that contribute positively to culture and morality. For instance, when asked whether he believes Mary was a virgin, Peterson’s reluctance to respond with "I don’t know" stems from his belief that undermining such foundational narratives can have detrimental effects. The virgin birth is integral to Christian doctrine, and questioning it could sow doubt among believers, particularly those who may not have deeply studied their faith. This could lead to confusion among the populace, many of whom he sees as "numb thinkers" lacking the critical tools to engage with complex counterpoints. Peterson argues that challenging these narratives risks sparking cultural chaos, as it may provoke a crisis of faith among individuals who rely on these stories for moral guidance. By maintaining the integrity of these narratives, he believes we can uphold societal stability and foster a sense of shared values. In this view, certain truths, especially those embedded in powerful stories, should be preserved to promote moral advancement and cultural cohesion. This is my analysis of his side.
Dawkins laid out the foundation of the meme. Jordan Peterson, saw further, a deeper pattern between the identification of the "meme"-effect and how it extrapolates into other "memefying" phenomena, that are much deeper than the ones laid out originally by Dawkins. Jordan argues that entire religious stories can Baldwinize making the Bible, an on-going evolutionary "deep" meme that "Baldwinizes" human flourishing. Jordan is making the argument that if this is the case (which he seem to believe) it makes the Bible "true" as it maps into the material word and produces human flourishing, and ties back to biological evolutionary mechanisms (even evolving humans towards something better). (This would be profound and "ultra"-deep, which makes Jordan hesitant to denounce the divine, since the depth of this discovery would be even more complex and less understandable, therefor Jordan has to have the humility to not make any definitive claims). Jordan builds on this and claims that the consequences of this effect, is what has laid the foundation into the discovery of science and the exponential development amongst humans since in contrast to other competing "deep-memes" (religions/ideologies). Jordan claims, that the abandonment of the imitation of the "deep"-meme that is the Bible, removes the "imitation behaviour"-foundation on which the Western World (Cultural Christianity) stands on, that has produced the most amount of human flourishing in the history of man, and thus threatening its continued development. (Other grand-memes, such as postmodernism, can create a negative destructive meme-effect, which objectively diminishes or destroys human flourishing. If, the objectively better "grand-meme" (Christianity) is not actively encouraged, the meme will lose its imitating effect and the results will be destruction (or the adoption of lesser deep-memes) as he claims is evident in the attacks on science and the University environment). Jordan seems frustrated that he could not get Dawkins to see that the this entire premise is based on Dawkins own discovery of "the meme". In other words, Jordan is trying to get Dawkins up to speed. But before that Dawkins must equip himself with the sufficient knowledge to investigate these discoveries and claims. And perhaps provide constructive objections, where they can apply, to straighten out, and provide broader understanding for this phenomena (which Jordans seems hungry to uncover as very few people in the world seem to have discovered these patterns). At the end it seems that Jordans argument landed with Dawkins, as he Dawkins looked to have been intrigued and to have caught on to the pattern. It will be really interesting to see what will come out of these exchanges and alignments of knowledge between these power houses. (BTW, I summarized to organize my own thoughts. Did I accurately interpret this exchange?)
Yes, but I wouldn't call Dawkins a 'power house' in this sense. He certainly did more than many in the realm of biology and genetics, but he wasn't nearly as deep or important as even Darwin himself; in fact, Dawkins' rejects or ignores about 60% of Darwin. He focuses almost entirely on the genetic, and even there it's very narrow-minded for many reasons. I saw Dawkins, for example, speak with Bret Weinstein a few years ago, and was unable to simply talk about Darwinism and psychology at all. He literally refused to even talk about the issues, such as if certain negative patterns and events are Darwinian in nature, and in what sense. Bret was about 150 years ahead of him, in other words. Nietzsche touches on this more than almost anybody alive today, and that was 140 years ago! More directly, Bret, Jordan, Jung, and many others have done so since the 1920s or so. Jung even offers some insight into Hitler from this sort of framework (views him more as a 'dark magician' type person, though his actual language and ideas were different, but this gives you a clear idea). So, in one sense, Richard has simply failed to keep up with Haidt, Peterson, Weinstein, and others. On the other hand, he was never caught up in the first place, in terms of Tolkien, Lewis, Darwin (largely), Nietzsche, Jung, Neumann, and others.
No, I think having a child in chronic debilitating pain was Jordan's worst nightmare, and he's already lived through that. Clean up your room and get some perspective, bucko.
Alex has come a long way. Been watching him since 2018. From making videos in his room, to studying at Oxford, to now mediating discussions between the people he used to make videos about in his room.
He's utterly nauseating. Never before have I seen someone so clueless on such a wealth of knowledge, he's not convincing as the character he's clearly playing, he clearly wishes to appear highly educated but asks moronic questions such as how religion impacts society as if religion and society are completely separate things, as if religious people aren't a part of society or people from society aren't religious, it's pretentious gibberish, he can repeat lots of things but clearly doesn't understand what he's repeating at all.
@@KROKIACK interesting take - I interpreted his questions as an earnest attempt to further open the conversation. Sometimes, asking a possibly 'moronic' question works toward unearthing an even deeper discussion. Dr. Peterson seemed to respond well to the questions - not with annoyance, but with a genuine attempt to clarify his point.
@@myclearspiral3687 I think Alex is just so arrogant that he actually convinced himself that Dr. Peterson didn't understand the question as Dr. Peterson was explaining the importance of a philosophical view and reluctance to answer with pure logic so as not to trivialise any meaning to life with the pure logic of it all being a manifestation of the mind, I think Dawkins understood that but as a scientist is mainly only interested in how that plays a part in the survival of the human race, I think Alex took every opportunity he could to attempt to appear to be able to articulate their points better than both Peterson and Dawkins which displays an incredible level of arrogance and lack of awareness, Dawkins liked Alex's simplified concept idea of divinity being brought down to the mundane (because that's how Dawkins sees it so really he was delighting in someone agreeing with him as opposed to being impressed with his Alex's level of intelligence, it was also concept that Peterson denied the validity of), but I think Peterson just Alex too much credit in thinking maybe Alex was right and Peterson wasn't answering the question when actually he was, Alex just didn't understand hardly anything that was happening in the room, but Peterson is correct in his conviction but still has self doubt which is why he questions himself even though he knows his view is so accurate and I believe that is why he has turned to God, it's an escape from the questions, a safety net if you will, it's the same reason Russell Brand has traded the escape of heroin for the escape of Christianity, it's a far better escape and is still on the "journey" to understand why. I've been round in these circles for years, I fully get the psychology and the philosophy as well as the history so now I'm slowly building up a better picture of psychology with the study of body language but I've studied Alex and ugh, I don't like him, at all, every time he says "do you not know...", it's so arrogant and patronising, I'm amazed he can't see how dumb he looks in thinking he's smarter than everyone I've seen him talking to. Sorry for the essay but there's a lot here to look at.
I came across him after watching his videos on the Oxford high street, literally debating with an espousing bible touter. I sadly had to rush away to prevent my car getting a fine for going over a parking deadline but he was very nice, we chatted for a bit
It was once & is if you are elite. New atheism designed the thought crime that is now chasing indigenous britons into the sea. The new atheism project et al is globalist cabalist & totalitarian.
YEEEEES! Dawkins spoke to my ego during my young adult life...but now, older and "hopefully" wiser, Peterson speaks to my soul. Love them both, thank you for this wonderful discussion/debate
@@Nobody-Nowhere The stupidity of your comment shows you have 0 wisdom So blinded by your bias against anything relating to spiritual matters, soul doesn't have to mean what you think. He's simply saying Peterson is speaking to his being, who we are psychotically. I'm sure the whole combo went right over your head. You can even see Dawkins light bulbs going off he's starting to understand Peterson take more and more. If you don't have a self, then why are you trying to even establish a point.
Watching the guy that made me an atheist debate the guy that helped me return to my religious faith a great gift Edit: I didn't use the word "made'' in the literal sense, I simply meant their arguments compelled me among many other things to believe what I believe/d
Is that possible?, for me is like stop believing in Santa Claus, and then believing again, the is no return possible, can you explain your history a little?
@@sosesuis I also had a similar experience. I can't say Jordan "made" me find God, but some of his ideas did help me find my own way eventually. I was definitely a Dawkins atheist in high school and early college though.
@@sosesuis The New Testament has been preserved more then any other piece of ancient literature with there being over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts 10k Latin manuscripts and 9.3k manuscripts in other ancient languages they are consistent with each other and for them to be tainted or altered is almost impossible as someone would have to edit them to all say the same thing without having any internet or telephone or modern high speed communication Even historically people don’t die for a lie especially when they have no money to gain yet The Apostles went into hiding but then SOMETHING happened to make Them come out into the public and proclaim Jesus As Lord and preach The Good News Some would also say that because The Gospel Of John was written about 90-100AD that it’s unreliable how ever this argument is illogical from a historical standpoint because to say that would invalidate documentation would then make many other historical records “unreliable” take Alexander the Great for example who died in 323BC yet the oldest surviving record of him is from the first century BC that’s 322 years of lost documentation so to claim that compare that to the maximum 67 years between Jesus death and The Gospel of John being written You also have the prophecies In The New Testament that are fulfilled by Jesus In The New Testament which is mathematically impossible to happen by chance some would claim that The Old Testament manuscripts must have been edited to fit an agenda but The Dead Sea Scrolls that are approximately two thousand years old and was discovered in 1947-1956 are consistent with modern translations proving that The Old Testament was not edited for The New Testament This is further evidence as The Dead Sea Scrolls themselves are older by 1000 years then any other Old Testament manuscripts PROVING that The Old Testament was not edited for The New Testament
Jordan Peterson has reached a high level of intelligence. If you actually don’t pause the video and go back you won’t understand what he means when he says that he doesn’t understand the connection between factual truth, fiction truth etc. it’s truly impressive the quality of the argument that it’s being presented here. I know that most of the people want to see a direct answer from Jordan Peterson, which myself, am also eager to hear. But I understand his argument.
Alex is also incredibly well spoken considering he is only 25. He doesn't do a lot of talking here of course but when he does, he talks like a seasoned professor
@@copyrightenforcement3869Yep, even more impressive is that he’s been like that since a teenager, and debates with people decades older than him
I think Jordan Peterson genuinely believes in the value of the bible and Christianity, but I think when he basically doesn't answer simple biological questions like "do you believe Jesus really was born of a virgin?" he is afraid to alienate his Christian audience and I don't understand why. The question is really simple.
It's not complicated at all, he can't afford to alienate his patron base now that his 20-something slacker fan base has taken his advice (if at all) and moved on in life. Now it's their parents and the already-moderate-right who listen to him
Yeah if he could just say, no I think it's a metaphor, they could move on and talk about it as such, but he's always got to play these games so he doesn't out right admit this stuff didn't really happen.
I don't think it's this simple. He refuses to simplify very complicated relations between the realm of reality of ideas, which manifest in physical reality in many ways, and reducing "reality" down to a yes or no answer on something that's not necessarily better understood by a reduction to biological facts. Some people and cultures are open to such an approach, others not.
@@abstractdaddy1384 he might've answered as well YES plain and simple. "Yes, I do believe in that stuff like you in your turn believe in quantum mechanics and Darwin's theory!" What could be easier?
Dr. Peterson’s resilience, both in his personal life and in the public sphere, is truly commendable. In the face of prevalent 'cancel culture,' he has defied significant challenges, continuing to share his intellectually rigorous perspectives (regardless of the woke tide) and introducing us to the insights of other scholars. This, I believe, represents the highest form of intellectual engagement-one that encourages critical thinking, allowing individuals to discern what resonates with them while critically reflecting on the complexities of our shared reality.
The enthusiasm of Peterson is truely inspiring. He wants to play and is trying his best to get Dawkins to dance with him. He does not give up because he believes in the beauty of the logos and the part Dawkins can play in it. Dawkins however stands on the side of the dancefloor refusing to bust out a move until the final song comes on called "the Baldwin-effect". All the effort Peterson has put in has finally paid off as they are tap dancing together.
I very much appreciate Alex being the moderator of this conversation. He is very skilled at keeping things on track, helping clarify Jordan, and diffusing some of the more contentious comments by Richard. Great conversation.
@@nicolasbascunan4013 He's also moderating a conversation between two of the most famous thinkers/articulators/publishers of our time. Clearly, they both appreciate him enough to make this possible, and moral relativism wasn't a yardstick there.
I have enormous respect for both of these great men. I grew up in the catholic church, which by all accounts was a positive experience. However, when I went to college, I went through a period of disillusionment, where I stumbled onto Richard Dawkins videos. He articulated my frustrations perfectly. And, upon graduated college, I went through yet another period of disillusionment, facing the real world, having graduated extremely liberal, I quickly realized that some of these ideals failed in practical terms once applied in the real world. And that’s when I found Peterson videos. These two are my heros, for the different periods of my life. They’ve had a profound impact on my thinking. I want to thank them for sitting down for this discussion!
"having graduated extremely liberal, I quickly realized that some of these ideals failed in practical terms once applied in the real world." Do you have any examples of those?
@@PerryWidhalmBut don’t both of them impact each other? Mythology dictates the progress and intention of Science and vice versa. What Scientists seek is dependent on the environment. Progress in Space exploration or sustainable energy depend on what people prioritise. So how can we actually distinguish them? You gave a fine distinction of what both of them means. But can they exist independently? Or do they actually move in circles the way Dr Peterson presents it?
@@Eigelsteinapplying for jobs, having skills that are valuable enough to actually make you money, good example recycling myth, 5% of recycled plastic actually gets recycled the rest gets burnt or put into the ocean because there is no practical way to recycle plastic. You literally have a lower carbon footprint and saving the oceans by taking the cap off and putting your plastic bottle in the trash can (so it takes up less space when crushed) there is enough space in landfills to handle all our trash for the next 1000 years. Check out Jonathan stosell on this. So next time be a dirty republican and throw your plastic in the garbage you are actually helping the ocean 👍
I appreciate the respect for each other and their dialogue without projecting confrontation. It’s nice to see two people with completely different minds and views be able to have a discussion without attacking when points are argued.
My goodness, this was a treat. I didn't expect that Jordan Peterson's psychological perspective would clash so heavily with Dawkin's views. I agree with Peterson that ideas, symbolism, and archetypes are not only interesting, but have also affected the world on an insanely grand scale. There is truth behind the stories, and whether they are fiction or nonfiction is irrelevant. The effect these stories have had on societies and the influence they've had on key figures throughout history is absolutely objective and measurable. At the same time, I agree with Dawkins that the objective reality is also important. As a Christian, I disagree with his atheistic opinions, but I can get behind his determination to get to the truth of the matter. He wants to discover new things, so he isn't as interested in literary analysis as he is in scientific analysis. I think Jordan was generally more well-informed of Richard's field of study than Richard was of Jordan's. That being said, I think Jordan has a mixture of interests towards the scientific and the abstract, while Richard has a much more narrow obsession over the objective world, finding little interest in other things. Alex did a good job moderating.
I agree with Dawkins in a sense that the stories don’t really matter..what I agree with Peterson aligns with both, in that symbolism and narrative are/were essential for brain development and language
I remember reading 12 rules for life in 2018 as an atheist undergraduate, and despite being a massive fan of JP, the religious connotations made me judge his messaging in an almost arrogant manner. Now it’s 2024 and I have found faith and have never been happier or lived and loved with more purpose. I often find myself getting emotional watching JP, his passion for life is contagious, I hope I get the opportunity to thank him personally one day
@@felepaopinions997 I almost died a few months ago, what I experienced during the ordeal couldn’t be explained by my previous views on how things worked in the world. Since that day I awoke with a novel feeling of connection to the world around me and with a divine purpose that I never thought was possible before. The best way I can describe it is that it sort of feels like I’ve just been born
I’m so happy for you! 🙏♥️ Thank you for sharing your experience with us & I hope that you get to meet Dr. Peterson one day too as it’s my wish to shake his hand & thank him personally for all of his extraordinary interest in helping people 🙏♥️🇨🇦 7:26
Peterson is such a looney. Just got to commend him for the following he has gathered on the internet through his posturing despite his empty words. It's just a reflection of the intelligence of the society we are currently living in.
@@yp4434It's fascinating how people can reflect so much of their ignorance and limitations. It's like going to school and concluding that the subjects are ludicrous and the teachers loonies because you weren't able to understand what was being taught to you. But this ain't school and nobody is forcing you to watch Peterson, so why are you here?
@yp4434 empty is to be expected to you and those like you...Quite common I've noticed. I'm sure you won't understand what I just said, and that's OK too.
1:04:15 "Why not abstract?" I cannot believe Peterson needs this explained. When the term "woman" is abstracted beyond biology, Peterson instantly understands, and is subsequently concerned. Drunk on Double Standards, not just symbols.
Exactlyyy!!! They will use biology and facts when they see it fits their perceived notions and when it doesn't they just claim that it's all metaphorical and abstract and that wether it is factually / biologically true is irrelevant
You can only abstract if based on fact. Blue = calming (because the blue sky is calm, the blue sea is calm, babies’ blue eyes are calm and innocient) you cannot say Blue = blood and death. There is no relation between the color blue and death in reality so the abstract makes no sense. So the abstract of woman can only be traits or relations to women. Life bringers, beauty, etc. So can a man become the abstract of “woman”? No, they cannot birth life, they cannot obtain the natural beauty of women, only imitate it. (Any imitation loses value compared to the original). So let me give you some examples of how you can abstract women. DMT is often symbolized as “a motherly experience” because the feeling brought from it is often calming, usee feels loved and safe, the way a caring mother would. A father can be loving and caring and safe, but not the same way as a mother who craddles the infant natually is.
@@nerdcorner2680there is no factual basis for a Dragon. And a factual Lion doesn't abstract to a Dragon. Blue may be calming to YOU. To me it reminds me of drowning in the ocean or falling out of the sky to my death. So ya, to blue = death. Your abstraction is failing. Sure. My good buddies mother gave him life. And then proceeded to spend 17 years putting cigarette butts out on his skin. Mother isn't nurturing if they are overprotect or abusive. Your abstraction is failing. DMT isn't a mothering experience if it plunges you into the depths of an alien landscape and you subsequently jump off a cliff during a trip. Your abstraction is failing.
@ You are being extremely disingenuous, so I’ll give you one more attempt before giving up. Yes there is factual dragons. Sure the chinese dragon lacks wings, but all forms of the dragon are similar in nature to the point where if you tell someone “draw a dragon” everyone is going to give you roughly the same thing. The blue arguement is so disingenuous I’m tempted to ignore it, but I’ll bite. No it’s not because youre associating water -> drowning not blue (when you’re under water it’s not as blue, and blue water is not so = to drowning that the association forms). Factually speaking when brains are analyzed every brain feels calmer when looking at blue. All of them. Now you could be an exception with a traumatic incident, but that is an extremely rare exception that doesnt apply here (because the association is to the incident not the color, that’s a byproduct). To your friend, do you think he seeks a warm motherly love he lacks? Do you think his father or anyone else could provide exactly what his mother’s love lacked? No, those with abusive parents seek out those aspects in others (in the case of abusive mothers the victims often cling to women who take care of them, nuture them, hold them, etc). So even then the symbology of the mother still holds, that mother failed to reach the symbol of a proper woman. (Not every rock is hard, but just because soft rocks exist doesnt mean everyone thinks of hard rocks when imagining them). Lastly with DMT you clearly have no experience with it to say that. Take some and speak to Shamans and try again later. I can attempt to explain, but it really doesn’t make sense unless you use it, and speak to experts. Basically you can have a bad experience, but it is extremely rare and comes from being overwhelmed rather than an acid bad trip where you see a scary monster. Every single person who takes it documents that even though the experience should have been scary, they felt safe and comfortable (even the bad experiences just have 1 moment of bad rather than an entire bad trip). Let’s for a moment take a step back. I am arguing that symbols are important, that symbols need a factual basis, and that their meaning is so well understand everyone can get it. You are saying that if someone said “that person looks like a pig” the other person would be so confused asking “well they dont have a curly tail so what do you mean????”. It is silly, semantic, and a midwit arguement to attempt to ignore instinctual truths for hyperspecific outliers. If you are not being disingenuous, then slow down and actually assess what is being said from both sides because you are arguing against a basic known fact to every single person
@@nerdcorner2680 there's nothing disingenuous about anything I wrote. It seems like you're truly unable to have a conversation with someone you disagree with. And that's truly not my problem. Go back and look at what YOU wrote. You're the one who said blue is calming because a blue sky looks calming, or because a blue sea looks calming. This is just your perception. And if you're going to play a game of this many people versus that many people agree with my perception, you're the one who's engaging in semantics. I don't find a Blue sky calming because it reminds me of falling out of a blue sky. I don't find a blue sea calming because it reminds me of drowning in a blue sea. What I find calming is a bright red sunset. When a baby looks up at the flush red cheeks and lips of her mother, do you suppose that's calming? You trying to imply that once you get below the level of the ocean water, the water no longer looks blue is disingenuous. When I say someone looks like a pig, what am I saying? Am I saying they're a highly intelligent, highly reliable animal? Or are we saying they're fat? Saying that motherly traits are being a bringer of life, and being beautiful, is just straight ridiculous. My buddy's father was more nurturing than his mother who put out cigarette butts on his skin. I looked at a sunrise this morning that was absolutely beautiful. The sunrise isn't a mother. I'm staring at a mother right now sitting with her child and she's completely unattractive. Literally everything you're saying is falling apart right before your eyes. And all you have to say is I'm being disingenuous 😂👍🏻
This is the conversational equivalent of India Jones shooting the sword-wielding Arabian guy. Dawkins is like 'yeah whatever, but it's not factually true.'
It was, I think, more than an hour of pulling teeth, though, before he could utter a "yes" or "no". I think all future talks of Jordan Peterson should have a trigger warning, whether that bubble gets popped at some point during the talk or he refuses to ever engage.
Whatever you think about Peterson, this conversation was almost unthinkable a decade ago. Peterson has offered a home for those of us who felt displaced by the cold humanism of the New Atheists. What a time to be alive.
@@paulthepainter2366 Bigot... another word that no longer has any meaning because of the left. The boy who cries wolf will be the next fairy tale that becomes reality.
Cold humanism? If disbelief in the miraculous claims asserted by ancient communities - who did not know what to make of plagues and undesirable weather patterns - makes me a cold humanist, I will proudly wear that badge.
This was awesome. My only complaint was Peterson was hogging the mic a little bit. But yeah, thoroughly enjoyed. Thank you for including Alex. He was perfect for this
Science did emerge in Europe, but not in Christian Europe. The ancient Greeks and Romans were the mothers of science which was completely forgotten under the first thousand years of Christian rule
That makes sense cause Alex has a degree in theology and philosophy, while Richard Dawkins is just a scientist that got very famous when he wrote a book on atheism.
@@deathrampage7531no he didnt "just" write A book on atheism. he has written about theism and biology and has extremely famous and critically acclaimed books. In that case Peterson is just a phychologist that wrote a simple self help book and got famous online😂
Jordan is a living embodiment of his own ideas. I've watched him voluntarily take on the predators of his life, sacrifice time after time to stand up for his ideals, and it has only made him stronger. He practices what he preaches.
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. ... James 2:14-26
It took Jordan an hour, but he finally Got Dawkins to get on board with what he was talking about. What a wonderful way of ending this conversation. The unity of myth and reality, or meme and gene.
Jordan is looking back at bible stories and projecting his own education and psychological training into them. They 100% do not mean any of the things he claims they mean. The reason he says he can’t “decipher” lots of the bible is because what he’s really saying is he can’t figure out how to use modern psychology to change the meanings of those stories. This is also why he goes full post modernist when asked if he thinks these stories are true. He kept saying no one has read “both literatures” well people like Terence Mckenna and Robert Anton Wilson have and neither would agree with anything he says about god or religion. And neither do most christians. And the stake through the heart of all of his arguments is he’s acting like Christianity is the only religion. He could NEVER defend Islam the way he tries to do with Christianity. And yet billions of people believe in that backwards garbage. Jordan got broken by the fear of hell when he was young and has basically admitted this. That’s why he starts from a place of belief and then words backwards to make the world conform to his beliefs.
that never happened. Dawkins relented to not entirely disagreeing, which isn't the same as agreeing, and certainly distant from the full-hearted collaboration Jordan was trying to generate.
Meh Dawkins was boring throughout just saying he isn’t interested a million times. It takes two for this thing to work and it seemed Peterson was trying hard to get Dawkins to participate.
@@themarcusnash13 A few years ago I would have excitedly clicked this video and watched it the whole way through. Nowadays it’s clear to me that Dawkins and people who think like him are going to continue preferring to be dismissive and will do so until they die. It’s a waste of energy to try to wake up comfortable people.
there is no point of that you can summarize the whole video in not more than 10 minutes it is only Peterson that talks too much and use advanced expressions to make things look like complicated and avoid answering simple QUESTIONS
Peterson and Harris kind of works because Harris - despite being almost as much a literalist as Dawkins - is at least interested in social affairs including religious ones. Dawkins just doesn't care, he just deals with the genetics, and nothing on top of it is interesting to him.
It’s a difficult job to be a teacher. Explaining concepts to someone requires meeting them at their level and elevating from there. Especially difficult if the student is not particularly participatory. Not calling Darwin dumb in the slightest, just that he’s in a completely different mind space where Peterson understood there would be no meaningful progress or development. I think it really shows at the end when Darwin does seem to understand that, and he lowers his intellectual guard.
@DeeBeeGeneral Dawkins would say that science is the only answer to everything in existence. While ignoring the fact, that statement is a philosophical statement. And philosophy is not a science. His claim that science is the only absolute truth is in itself a unscientific statement. It's self refuting. His is intelligent, he just lacks deep enough thought to be wise.
Thank you Alex O'Connor for facilitating this conversation. I saw you interview Richard Dawkins in Oxford this evening and you always bring a healthy dose of civility, balance as well as respectful challenge to these conversations. Thanks to Jordan and Richard for having this dialogue and for the work you do in your respective fields. I really should refrain from watching this until my essay is finished....we'll see...
Two different wavelengths. It's important to have these discussions though. The biggest problem today that occurs is that ideas become enmeshed with the percieved value of the one holding them. So it becomes common that disagreement becomes synonymous with disrespect.
This was good. The fact I felt actually invested and frustrated at times proves to me how good a conversation this was, and it highlighted important points.
It's funny, growing up in a religious community, I found relief in the books of Dawkins and Hitchens. Couple years ago, Peterson's lecture about the Bible made me reconnect with my upbringing. Not in terms of faith, I'm still very much atheist. But it comforted me that there was something of value in all those years I spent at Church. Now, with children of my own, I'm trying to navigate our deteriorating social fabric and I long for the religious life my parents had. What a strange journey it has been. I find myself siding a lot more with Peterson nowadays, which would have been unthinkable 15 years ago.
That's a relief. I was getting so used to the negativity associated with JP, it's great to hear about someone who would've never imagined themselves taking a liking to him finding a connection there. I wish the best for you and your family!
Yes, he uses philosophical argument and thinks it is clever. While the guest is self-controlled and connected to concrete reality. There have been many great philosophers who were more valuable than Jordan, but they nevertheless made many mistakes. Jordan's style is "I know." While Socrates, the greatest of philosophers, said "I do not know."
Having watched 3/4ths through, this discussion marks a new key moment in Jordan’s public career and interest in the merging of psychology, religion, and story. I would recommend this to anyone as one of Jordan’s finest moments. Love his pursuit of truth and his unique usage of terminology to express these deep topics in an approach accessible to those unfamiliar with the literature on this subject.
I found it so embarrassing for him. He couldn't make a coherent point and just equivocate and motte and baileyed the whole time. I would have felt bad for him if what he was doing was sincere.
@@fentonmulley5895 The opposite was true. Dawkins didn't understand what Peterson was saying until the final few minutes of the conversation. He made his points well, and they were summarized in Rezdar1's comment. Check it out.
@@seanmcgrady8688 you didn't observe how flustered and confused Jordan was? His improv act is aimed at always doing the equivocation and motte and bailey, but the fact that he always cycles to the same things doesn't mean he is making a point that can't be denied. It really baffles me how people see Jordan as calculated and intentional when the many philosophers I watch/hear are so much more capable of keeping on track and using correct terminology and being succinct.
@@fentonmulley5895 when you are trying to tie all the meta truths into a hyperreal argument it will look like that. Have you ever engaged in a deep philosophical argument where you are trying to unpack lots of truths and then tie them? That's what happens. Don't be confused by how Jordan Peterson acts but focus on what he is trying to actually explain.
@@imporylem that is called unjustified ad hock fabrication based on spurious data. It isn't the epic journey you want it to be. It takes even more intellect to understand the context the myths arose within. The things Jordy thinks are jungian archetypes are not as simple as he wants them to be. His rhetorical style is not new. All grifters do that type of coldreading improv.
@@knockda887 I can't fault you for that, move on discard his ideas. Sadly his ideas and arguments deceived me when i was a teenager and it took a long time for me to recover. I'm thankful he is man enough to sit down with Peterson and be exposed for what he is.
As an atheist to a theist I can tell you the following. I have no problem appreciating the deeper meaning and value of stories. If someone were to begin by saying yes of course these are just stories that are not necessarily factual, but carry some value, then I can engage with them all day and ponder about the what these stories mean and so on and so on and have a great time. The block arises when there is an attempt to pass a story as true based on its value, and as a result label something as factual when it isn’t. We have to be clear and honest about what we ascertain to have occurred. Until it is conceded that no in fact we don’t know that these events occurred, and there is even an overwhelming chance that they didn’t, no progress can be achieved. That concession is a mark of intellectual honesty. Without that concession, I feel like I’m talking to someone who is just trying to defend their ideas, as opposed to someone who is genuinely engaging in the search for what is true, irrespective of whether it fits their world view or not. And debating with someone who isn’t in search of truth, and is only interested in defending their world view, is futile.
The first 25 minutes really highlight the difference in intellectual effort between Dr. Peterson and Dr. Dawkins. They're operating on two very different levels-Peterson is diving deep into metaphysics while Dawkins stays focused on facts and science. They’re not quite on the same wavelength. I wish Dawkins would engage more in exploration rather than asking interrogative questions, making it more of a dialogue.
Dawkins has a strong grasp of shallow concepts. Jordan has a strong grasp on deep concepts - which preceeds and necessitates a strong grasp on shallow concepts. You can't know what is deep without knowing what is shallow, but you can know shallow things without knowing the depths of the same thing.
Dawkins can't do that Because his worldview and mindset only allows itself to live within quantifiable reality. Even when JP attempts to bring the metaphysical world into that realm he refused it. Dawkins is a hypocrite. He doesn't care about truth.
I thought it was unfair of Dawkins. It's the first thing that I picked up on. Jordan is very open to exploration and genuine dialogue, where it seems Dawkins had an axe to grind. I never read or watched Dawkins, but the way I seen this, was he was trying to place Peterson into a pinned down predetermined character he thought Jordan to be.
Spot on. This is what always makes these conversations so frustrating. I've noticed that people like Sam Harris and Dawkins only choose to dig as deep as is necessary for them to understand the world and thus function successfully within it. But what they don't understand is that not everyone is as high IQ as them and therefore the "Facts" that they know to be true aren't self-evident to everyone else. This is where Peterson's ideas have a much wider reach which has impacted many more people in a positive way.
oh my god Jordan, this is the most incredible conversation i've ever listened too thank you for arranging this and so fluently expressing yourself, its incredible to listen to your mind come out, and to see the beauty inside it profound, moving, inspirational, honest to the core, genuinely beautiful stuff Jordan, your a gift to our species. Thank you !
@@wgo523 because anyone beyond the age of 10 knows dragons aren't real, if your still struggling on chapter 1 read more and think more and join the actual conversation, and mind you it's fairly obvious of a few things, aren't literal, and i have my own positions on the virgin birth, the resurrection, and all that "miracle" stuff. But his understanding and articulation is still high-end and at the upper limits of what the human mind can put into words and eloquently done
I've been waiting so long for this conversation to take place, and never actually imagined that it would. I absolutely loved it, the 90 minutes just flew by and only got better and better. I hated to hear that the time was up. Please do another!
Nice analogy but I would perhaps say that the closeminded-ness of Dawkins would probably translate to poor science. As even scientists must maintain flexibility in their thinking. In project management, I could easily see him becoming something of an egomaniac, shrouded in his own dogma, and not allowing creativity and free thinking (which science needs!) to develop. JP will at least hear you out, as long he deems your ideas well put-together enough in their own right
@@notbrad4873 Typical anti-Jewish sadness. Ben is famously pro-Moon landing and pro-America crushing the world in general. He just also thinks that having mindless terrorist Muslims controlling the Near East and wiping out every Jew is maybe immoral and unwise for both American and global interests. Have you seen Israel? They're the world-leaders in many areas of science right now, if nothing else. You should compare Israel to even parts of Europe, which are not worth much on these grounds. I don't see you supporting the removal of Poland or Thailand at all. Maybe you would if leftists or Islam invaded? Or is this issue purely with the Jews for you? Note: If you see the video Ben just did, he literally said that the best case for Israel is not on Biblical or racial grounds or otherwise, it's simply what would be best for the region: Israel or mindless terrorists? Very easy choice, unless you know something I don't about the moral worth and hidden genius of Hamas members? I'll wait.
this reminds me one of the reasons i became an atheist. at some point i was very confused and i was trying to decide which "side" makes more sense, trying to defend each of them against each other in my mind. i realized, whenever i try to defend my religion, i was being overly complicated, trying very hard to stay relevant. but when defending the other side, it was always very simple, very direct. i realized that i when i was religious, i wasn't really trying to find the truth, i was just trying to defend my ideas before.
@e.a.5330 I'm sure there's plenty of other things that don't make sense to you dogmatically, like quantum mechanics or astrophysics, but we just have to learn that the truth isn't simple. That's how you get flat-earthers: I'm looking directly in front of me and it's not round as far as I can tell, so I guess it's flat. To debunk that, you'd have to give a complicated explanation. Why would you think the concept of an all-knowing, omnipotent God would be simple?
if you're an atheist, then do you assume that your brain is the result of random, unguided processes? If you believe that, then how can you trust any conclusion that you come to? As C.S. Lewis stated it's like sawing off the branch you're sitting on. I would assume you trust your brain to come to the correct conclusion about things, but the real question is why would you assume that? Just some food for thought I know I've assumed a lot in this line of questioning. I have no idea what you believe about things and that's okay, stay on your search for truth.
@@thomasbecker5687 I think what they're saying is that in order for them to defend their own religion, they had to take a longer and less sensical path to the same conclusions. Why drive on the road filled with potholes? Also, why would you assume that the concept of an all-knowing, omnipotent God would be complicated. The entire point of the idea of a God is to be vague. Anyone's guess on how complicated or simple their God is is just as valid as any other.
Truth is usually quite simple but it's explaination can be quite complicated. My 12 year old asked why she can't yet learn to drive a car. Truth- I told her that she's not ready. She asks why. Then i try to explain- she needs to learn more situational awareness, hand-eye coordination, responsibility for actions, and understanding of actions and consequences. She was a bit lost in the explanation but the truth still remained. Maybe a dumb example, but don't let those that over explain muddy up the truth of God. We're sinners in need of a savior so we can be in good relationship with God, our creator. Jesus is that savior. It's that simple. The "hows" and "whys" are worth spending a lifetime exploring.
@@Handbook08I think he just doesn’t care. “No judgment” is one of Buddhist principles: anybody can believe whatever they want, it’s not a race, it’s not a competition, there is nothing to win.
@@MrGilRoland I see your point, but what would be his reasoning that Buddhism stands stands, given the other religious presuppositions? I’m genuinely curious. Let’s say if someone were to choose between these two, what made them choose to be ultimately a Buddhist?
I have to say, Richard impressed me with his openness during this conversation. Even though he didn't give much ground, this felt like a really honest conversation and I enjoyed every minute of it. I was thrilled when I heard about this conversation and almost ecstatic when I saw the thumbnail in my feed. And justifiably so, very well done conversation from all of you.
Peterson: "This story explains the human condition" Dawkins: "But did it really happen?" Peterson: "This story is important to society" Dawkins: "But did it really happen?" Peterson: "This story tells us how to act" Dawkins: "But did it really happen?"
Dawkins is hardly a serious thinker. Out of all the atheist thinkers history has produced, Dawkins and all his contemporary new atheists like Hitchens and Harris reside in the lowest ranks.
Waste of time IMO. These two should never crossed path. At least i can tolerate Alex since he studied some theologies and actually knew about ancient mythology. All Dawkin was did is asking pointed question without providing any insight information. In the end, these two just debated on definitions.
Those books Peterson mentioned: A History of Religious Ideas (3 vol) - Mircea Eliade The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion - Mircea Eliade The Origins and History of Consciousness - Eric Neumann The Great Mother: An Analysis of the Archetype - Eric Neumann
@@soffmusic9655because it just isn't interesting. It is completely acceptable to be uninterested in the metaphorical or symbolic meaning of stories which many claim to be literal historical events.
1:00:45 Every gamer knows the feeling here where Jordan just wants his friend to try out the new video game because he knows Dawkins would be great at it but Dawkins "doesn't play those kinds of games because they don't interest him"
It's strange how someone who isn't interested in these games at all behaves like an outright spoilsport who, despite not being interested in them, doesn't even seem to begrudge the dedicated players the game. You only do that when you're locked in a room with people and can't just walk out to find something you enjoy yourself, as a prisoner of the situation, so to speak. But since Dawkins is in no way a prisoner, why does he always turn up at these kinds of shows?
@@ERH-ph5gbbecause he's interested in learning and understanding, but also because he understands his position as an educator and how it is beneficial to everyone observing the conversation. Dawkins is not one to make bold proclamations without substantiating it with reasonable scientific evidence, as opposed to Peterson who intentionally pushes himself into the realm of the absurd in an attempt at deriving that which we don't yet know. They both speak English, but each of their comprehensions of the language is rooted in completely distinct frameworks.
@@Allan_Stone It honours you that you interpret Dawkins as you write in the first paragraph. If it were so, which I don't know, then that's good. Regarding being sure of one thing. You can say ‘not to make bold claims’ or ‘not without scientific proof’, but you can also speak of characters where one wishes to stay on the safe side and the other always takes a risk. They represent very different players in language, true. Another commenter wrote "One talks about the paint, the other about the painting" - I very much agree with that. If you talk about the painting, you cannot reference only on color, consistency, media, light etc. - you interpret the art. If you want to stay safe, you only talk about the quantities and qualities of colors used, the exact paint, particular kind of canvas etc. It's good to have both.
@@ERH-ph5gb I think that Dawkins has spent a great many years decrying the utility of Christianity in its most literal interpretations. Now that Peterson was able to elucidate the merits of interpreting it metaphorically by connecting a great many established scientific consensus which no one else (to my knowledge) has been able to prior to this conversation; I believe it is with great hesitation that Dawkins acedes his original understanding of the utility of Christianity. With that said, I'd be very curious to see how (or if) Dawkins continues to develop these ideas sown by Peterson.
@@Allan_Stone That's an interesting observation you made. Dawkins' hesitation will probably not be completely abandoned by anyone other than himself. It helps to debate with educated people though. Ultimately, the step of fully understanding the benefits of Christianity only happens in one's own conscience.
I felt like a hunger had been satiated after hearing these gents discuss their ideas and hypotheses. We are so fortunate to have access to this sort of content. It is truly invaluable.
if Jordan would have said "well I don't mean literally" or even "i don't want to answer" or if Dawkins could have read that he would not get a straight answer in that regard, we would have not gotten stuck.
To you. He was perfectly comprehensible to me, but as they've concluded, brains work differently. So maybe how he lays out a concept may not be comprehensible to certain people.
Peterson is at his best when he contends. While other conversations may flow exactly how you want them to, being challenged in your ideas forces you to compress them. - Not in a manner in which YOU understand them but so people who don’t agree with you ‘see’ what your saying. This whole conversation is finding the super compressed treasure behind the serpent.
@@stefanpetricevic5138Well, what he said is certainly more profound than your whiney complaint. If you came up with a legitimate counter-argument, that’d be different. Instead, you’re just trolling. Bring substance next time.
It seems to me that Peterson showed up seeking to collaborate while Dawkins expected a debate, and it took about an hour before the conversation actually reached the level of productivity that Peterson was seeking from the outset. I appreciate his patience and humility in this conversation.
@@scottm85 Yes, you must have, because that did not happen. Maybe your animosity against Peterson is making you distort things so it fits whatever it is you feel against him
@@scottm85Peterson is at his core, a psychologist. His foundational terms are entirely different than Dawkins’. It’s not dodging when you’re trying to open the mind to alternate theories and ideas, which is, at the very core of what Jordan does, and does exceptionally well. These are two men with very different specialties and areas of expertise, to say he’s dodging isn’t a fair assessment.
@@scottm85 I used to think like Dawkins and I am actually an atheist too. But I can clearly see what Peterson tries to convey here. And I can't deny the impact he describes. I don't believe Cain existed nor most things said in the bible, but that doesn't change the message. Reacting like this to something that is so present and real for many people, disregarding the valuable lessons that can be found there, is not the best aproach. I believe Jordan's aproach to god is a very healthy one. "I don't belive god exists, but I act like if he does" essentially.
I came here probably more of a dawkins "fan" just because i am way more familiar with his work. That said this conversation left me with significantly more respect for Petersons mind and overall disappointed/confused by Dawkins motives and cynicism. Great job Alex
yeah right? Dr. Dawkins claims he's not interested in stories and symbols but his own idea of a 'meme' and how it catches on is reminiscent of symbolism in and of itself.
No no, Dawkins is interested if it’s from the ground up, and he would have been more interested if Peterson simply admited that Jesus of Nazareth was obviously not born of a virgin in a literal sense. Not admitting this straight up makes any rational person frown. It is Petersons top down approach that is fundamentally unscientific and religious and silly.
@filip14528 he doesn't have a fundamentally top down approach. He said explicitly whether it's top down or bottom up the effect it had was the same and he's trying to understand that impact.
@@TheBanderson22 Yes, fair. And so I would say when he calls archetypical ideas devine he’s being silly and when he talks about memes favoring certain genes and eventually turning in archetypes he is not.
@@filip14528 How do you know thats the case? Peterson said he doesnt know and thats a totally legitimate answer as no one can know. You can claim that is probable that it didnt happen and that is as legitimate as saying you dont know if it happened
I’m so happy you got to have this time with Dr. Dawkins, dearest Dr. Peterson, I know how long you have been looking forward to it and how much you have worked to prepare for it. I was just thinking how well you look, your color is so good and your eyes are so bright and full of light, and I hope that you are feeling as well as you are looking. It looks to me that you thrived on this conversation and that is so much what I wanted for you. I can’t tell you how much. Here is a gentle hug And Ruth Anne’s love ❤
I have now watched the whole conversation, and found it both interesting and challenging. Both parties made a lot of interesting points, but I do prefer Richard's quiet conciseness vs Jordan's loud verbosity. I think Jordan deserves to be listened to, but I imagine conversation with him would be exhausting anf frustrating, as he jumps from point to point, and by his body language demands you to agree with him. Also, the moderator was excellent
I’ve never felt more like a corpus callosum
who?
@@Sacrifice.Online.for.Offline The bridge between the left and right hemispheres of a brain :)
@@Sacrifice.Online.for.Offline He is the moderator in this discussion, and if you mean about the corpus callosum then that is the bridge between the left and right hemispheres of the brain
Mcgilchrist next?
@@Sacrifice.Online.for.OfflineIt’s Latin for body of Christ. You’re welcome.
Alex O'Connor has established himself as a good-faith interlocutor and mediator to both religous and non-religious philosophies. He is playing a crucial role in bridging the gap.
His moustache is bridging the gap between classy and crickey
The comment about Sherlock Holmes living on Baker Street is a perfect example - Dawkins was getting stuck on that point based on a misunderstanding.
I didn't see the need for him at all.
@@cleftturnip7774 As a moderator, that mean's he's doing his job.
for real, he’s a ray of light in a world full of fanaticism and stubbornness, always so well spoken, patient and calm
Peterson: "Well, this interview really kills 2 birds with 1 stone."
Dawkins: "That's ridiculous, we aren't killing any birds. We are sitting here talking"
Nailed it lol. Not everything is “If it’s not LITERAL, it’s not real.”
😂
😂
😂😂
@@evantaylorfishing7603 🎯
The fact that anyone takes Jordan Peterson seriously is the only miracle I’ve ever witnessed
that says more about your lack of understanding than his ability to elucidate a topic.
@@MichaelHaynes-c9e The stage is yours my good man. Please demonstrate how that's the case.
Come on man....i dont agree with most things JP says but surely you must be impressed with his bronze serpent analysis ...best i can say is ...his understanding is too deep for u to understand and therefore its easier to just mock and ridicule.
Note :Dragons for atheist is just as ridiculous as humans evolving from apes for non atheist. Think about it.
Can we just take a moment to appreciate how Alex is able to rephrase and ideologically mediate concepts both metaphorically and realistically to one another to help the other understand the opinion and thought of the other. That is an insane talent right there it's like he knows and understands what both men are saying and can guide them both towards understanding one another
Yes he really does an amazing job.
agree he is phenomenal
he was a legend, incredibly sharp dude. good on him!
Yeah, I came away from this with tremendous respect for him. I don't think what I just wrote quite does justice to what I observed- he was incredible. Completely understanding the points of each man, and the significance of those points, was not easy, even with time to pause and think; his ability to interpret and summarise each argument, and to point out the deeper points being made, on the spot was beyond impressive. And to do it so calmly and professionally. Honestly, watching all three of them was impressive. I'm no idiot, but I'm a lightweight compared to these three, and It's a pleasure to watch and learn. Having said that, at some point you have to (or refuse to) take a leap of faith. I took it years ago. I think Ayaan Hirsi Ali stated it best, regarding Christianity and the bible, "I choose to believe these stories."
@@patrickmacleod2415 Yeah, me too. I was like, wow holyyyyy -- I would have never imagined one could match or decouple, reshape and put back together some of this incredibly dense and complex work, language and thought like JP produced (not to call him the messiah and to say that he is right) but also others. I think this was a really good conversation and he kept a fantastic bridge between Dawkin and JP. Towards the end, the conversation really evolved and you got the unity of two worlds (as JP presented, sort of in a critical realist manner, the positivist reality and social constructivism come together) meet to deal with the exploratory and curiosity. They were able to hash it out and keep on same frequency.
Although I think Dawkin could have been less blatantly and categorically immovable on some subjects, on others.. he posited some very credible questions and appropriate inquiries. I really liked that. I liked that jordan peterson got challenged that way. It made me realize that it is good that we have at least one or someone like JP to engage with the challenges that no-one else bothers and play the devils advocate and fight. It also helped to calibrate JP and make him think or for the next time-- evolve his thought and philosophy of science.
Lets thank Alex's moustache for moderating this discussion. 🙏
He's going to have some detransitioner-level regret about doing the most important video of his life with that 'stache.
The man just had to get himself looking mean enough to be a moderator.
Movember is almost here mate.. we have a whole month here in Australia dedicated to it for the men's cancer foundation I think it is.
😂😂
Seriously what's with that gay caterpillar.
I love how Peterson and Dawkins have subconsciously pressured Alex into wearing a suit as well, lol
😊That was the whole point of this endeavour 😅
He wears suits often but almost always without a tie
😂
Alex's mustache is from the '70
I bet he made his bed that morning
Alex O’Connor did a great job as moderator. Thank!!!.
You worked very hard to ensure that no interesting question was left without a proper answer.
Dawkins: Was Cain real?
Peterson: That's irrelevant to me. Is Cain hyper-real?
Dawkins: That's irrelevant to me.
That's a good summary
That pretty much sums up Peterson views on religious text. He sees it as a hyperreality, whether its real or not is irrelevant because it's impact to actual reality is profound. His thinking is actually very post-modern despite showing disdain to other postmodern ideas.
@@laizerwoolf Symbolism and narrative are hardly post-modern. He's not using hyperreality exactly in the way that postmodernists do, either. By hyperreality they mean a confusion between what is or isn't real due to things like exaggeration. Strawberry bubblegum has a hyperreal taste that we may confuse for the taste of real strawberries. Peterson's use of hyperreal as a synonym for archetype is mistaken. They share some similarities but he is disregarding the additional qualities that postmodernists assign to hyperreality.
based dawkins
Great summary. Part of me thinks a Christian who believes the Bible to be true not just archetypally but literally as well would make a better case for Christianity than Jordan, but Dawkins wouldn't be open to that anyway. So I guess simply emphasizing the archetypal truth value of the Bible in the end yields better results in this discussion.
“You must understand what you’re being asked here”. Alex O’Connor has balls of steel. All the respect.
Alex is a child who is very close minded. I hope he has the experience of the diving one day he’s missing out.
@@irishgirl225 lol close minded? Couldn’t be farther from the truth. You either haven’t watched any of his discussion/material or you’re just being ignorant
@@irishgirl225diving?
@@jeanIkreumYou know, the diving. Everyones heard of the diving. I think they meant divine tho
Nah, you just don't like his opinion and so put him down. Which implies that you are closed minded @@irishgirl225
This is my Super Bowl
Agreed!!!
Superb 🦉 Owl
Same!
Watch any of the Lennox and Dawkins discussions if you haven't yet.
Amen
damn bro. For a second I thought I didn't have youtube premium with all these ads.
Haha me 2 xD
The only thing Jordan Peterson proves about God, is that God's love is not unconditional. You have to be able to earn money with it.
@@penttiyr some ppl need a belief in a greater power, we evolved to have superstition, religion...otherwise the universe is meaningless. Atheism teaches us we are just biological robots and there is no meaning.
@@penttiyr so funny lol
Facts lol
Listening to this feels like listening to two people having two completely different conversations, while simultaneously conversing with each other.
Did they actually converse? It would be interesting to see how long each spoke.
@@72PMChambers they did converse, although Richard Dawkins spoke less. However, it seems like Jordan Peterson was trying to have a productive conversation by actually trying to understand Richard's position and explaining his own; while Dawkins seems to has been only interested in explaining his position, while refusing to even try to contemplate the fact that Peterson's perspective could be worth considering.
They found each other at the end. Finally! I hope Richard and Alex finally understood the power stories can have now. Even on genes!
Aliens from other planets attempting morse code
Had the same impression
Peterson: The unstoppable force
Dawkins: The immovable object
Alex: The son listening to his parents argue
Jordan was stopped by a single glass of cider.
I don't think that's fair. Interviewer seems actually useful which is a rare sight
😂😂😂
😂
So true. However, Alex was so good at moderating the argument between them.
Peterson: "Imagine dragons."
Dawkins: "I don't see how music is relevant to this debate."
Hah, not bad😅
You missed the part where Jordan would literally talk about music which is not relevant to the subject.
Peterson: ~ "Imagine dragons consuming the entire recorded output of Ed Sheeran and Taylor Swift"
Dawkins : ~ "Now you're talking".
Fuck it, i am switching to YT Music and listening to Imaging Dragons than this back-and-forth bullshit.
@@itsainsley1072I haven't even gotten to that part yet, but I can think of ten ways music could be relevant to this topic, it just depends on if it was to what he was answering I guess
Praying to a metaphorical god to help oneself psychologically is different than praying to a literal god to help you where you cannot help yourself.
Yes and No. We don’t know if it is true or false until death, so we can only speak to before that. If someone believes in God and prays to them, you on the outside have 3 options to view this action. 1.God is not real and they are wasting their time and straying away from truth and into the world of being abused by the church. 2.God is not real, but the values of religion are good, and that prayer is helpful to one’s self so they should continue. 3.God is real and prayer and religion is good.
What are the results of the 3 paths? No you shouldnt believe, yes you should, and yes you should. The two answers that are the exact same can be combined (yes you should).
So when viewing religion from the outside there are only 2 viewpoints, No you shouldnt believe (due to falling into dogma) and yes you should (because it is real AND/OR it is pratically benificial to one’s life).
So no there is no difference and it only matters when speaking from the POV of one’s self
The word literal refers to literature. Are you using your words wrong? Do you mean metaphysical God? Like an entity that is supposed to exist beyond physics?
Yes, the same way arguing with a metaphorical sock puppet is just as dumb as arguing with a sock puppet, both pathologies are convenient for dullards
He means what most people mean by literal; in a completely serious and non-symbolic sense.
Amen brother (sister) :)
Waiter: “Mr.Peterson, are you ready to order?”
Jordan Peterson: “Well that depends entirely upon the origin of how you formatted that question. What do you mean by ‘ready’ exactly? To be ready, one must have examined the depths of the menu literature and cross analysed the various texts and their subject depth to correctly idealise the human naturalist eating experience, factoring in the subjective definitions of the correct cooking methodologies, subject to the individual who prepares them”
😂😂
😂
Imagine if Peterson was brought into the police station for questioning as a witness to a crime. How would he answer the interrogator's questions?
Waiter: Mr Dawkins would you like some water for the table?
Dawkins: How ludicrous the water will not be for the table, the table is an inanimate object it can’t drink, in reality the water will be for me
Yeah - lets hyperbole the argument to demonstrate that it is entirely ridiculous. Brilliant!
56:35 is probably the best interjection from a moderator perspective that I have ever seen. It summarised both of their arguments perfectly in a way that Jordan could properly picture within the confines of his point of view. Just another reason why Alex is top tier for the new generation of philosophers. Impressive
JP needed a whole shopify advert to think about that one
Such a good interjection, without which the discussion would’ve become dreadfully lost in excessive wordplay on Dr Peterson’s part.
A philosopher should be as precise, as succinct with their language as possible, and Alex has this skill in spades.
His point is I think the most integral to this debate: are we just evolved primates projecting our own perceived values onto the cosmos (which I believe is the case), or have we LITERALLY been provided our knowledge and values from above (although the source of this would be impossible to discern given that it is far from reliable across human cultures)? I am thoroughly exhausted by Dr Peterson’s inability to admit that these are fundamentally different theories that cannot be reconciled. They are not ‘one and the same’ as he believes.
Alex has made effort to Peterson's viewpoint
Just arrived at this part of the video , and even Dawkins adds "very well put " it shows how Alex is excellent at synthesizing 2 opposite views in a way that both contestants agree !!
Alex is a seriously impressive individual, and only in his mid-twenties.
I was explaining to my wife why this episode is so exciting and her summary, “so it’s like Godzilla vs King Kong?”
lol
@@Youttubeuser20932 for real
Huh? Dawkins is pathetic. This is Godzilla vs curious George
I like her power of communication
Godzilla and King kong are not real they are just made up entertainment fictional characters that cannot be scientifically proven
Dr. Peterson, I have been following you for a long time and your work has provided great clarity. I am grateful for problems that you have taken time to attend to. I say this so you know that what I'm about to say doesn't come from a place of hate: I wish you could've been more direct in answering the question about whether you believe Cain and Abel really existed. The reason why I say this is because the question was designed very specifically to determine whether or not you believe the biblical scripture is 100% truth, or half physical truth and half metaphorical truth. When you answered, you ignored the direct question and brought him into your philosophical landscape where you had leverage over the question. This makes you look like you are afraid of saying that you don't believe the bible is 100% physical truth, I'm guessing because it would impact the integrity of your teachings. In your own words, you say how people should speak the truth regardless of the consequences because lying is a bad long-term strategy for everyone. I believe you should address this question that you seem to be avoiding, and just be honest and straight forward with your answer. I also believe that there is more power in Christianity than you give credit for based on what you've been saying. We as people are programmed to be afraid, and we all lie to ourselves in order to cover our insecurities and fears. If you tell the truth with courage, you risk attacking someone else's false sense of security while also losing your own sense of security. From this action, I believe glory is given to truth, and that is how you pledge loyalty to God. Your words lose power if you need to hide your truth behind fear.
First time I've heard of Alex O'Connor but let's just take a moment to appreciate how integral his presence was to this conversation bearing some fruit. Shows how important having a good moderator can be, as opposed to those clowns in the MSM......
What’s the MSM?
It really wasn't though. He just repeated what was already said. When he interjected all he did was just say what was already said like he asked a new question.
@@fabio2634 main stream media
yeah i like his way with words being able to actually be a middle ground and not take sides and keep them at peace
No bigger red flag than those who use the term MSM unironically. Wouldn't "Lamestream" media be more your speed?
One is talking about the painting and the other about the paint.
The issue is clearly deeper than that.
Richard tries to make the case that the paint is more important than the painting, and the paint is what created the painting -- not seeing or refusing to admit that the artist made the painting by making use of the paint. In fact: the only reason the paint exists is because the artist wanted it. I read an art book not long ago, and a certain blue (lapis, I think, but maybe it was something else) around 1600 was worth more than gold. That should tell you something!
@@MCharlesPaintinggreatly put friend!
@CH-vc3yz great analogy
100% accurate
@@MCharlesPaintingYes, Lapis Blue, was often chosen specifically for depictions of the Virgin Mary. Very expensive, indeed.
I have to respect that he posted it unedited allowing everyone to interpret it like they see fit.
THat’s like the only good thing about it.
@@AleksandarIvanov69 You mean right-wing?
@@UmarAli-tq8plNo
Because he knows Peterson fans will always support as long as he doesn't answer questions. That's why he will NEVER be truthful about religion.
richard dawkins is so stupid. i dont understand how people respect his thinking. finally people are waking up how triumphant atheists are incredibly dumb.
This here is a fascinating example of the conflict and antagonistic nature between opposites. On one hand is Richard, who values what can be measured and weighed, in essence, the tangibility of things, for him that's where the highest value of life lies and as such he orients himself accordingly, the sort of man Gustav described as one "who does not believe in the invisible". On the other is Jordan who ceaselessly moves from image to image as he tries to reveal the associations between the images perceived, and is impressed by, from his end, abundance of life as he leaps excitedly from one image to another the moment another association is noticed, there for him is where the highest value lies.
Indicator of this for instance is in how excited or impressed each seems when something of note to their, to oversimplify it maybe, perspective is mentioned or hinted at. And how frustrated Jordan seems when Richard doesn't see what he sees or Richard's by now probably famous and bemused "that does not impress me".
A clearer indication of this oppositional approaches, (and based on the fact that if one values one 'thing', and if that 'thing' has its opposite, by consequence the opposite of that thing will be devalued) is in how both described the other - Richard describing Jordan as "drunk on symbols" and Jordan pointing from his view the naivety of those who take biblical scriptures at face value as "literalists".
And the potential irreconcilability of the opposites can be found in the polarized views in the comments, one end is quick to dismiss all Jordan has said, all the brilliant points included, as him saying a lot of nothing, a "word salad", as one said. On the other end are those who seem to view Richard as existing in a colorless world of dry lifeless facts.
It may be possible to reconcile the opposites or at least make positive attempts to that end. And the intelligence of these three men have helped show through this discussion that the first step is to be aware of that marked difference in the first place. -Richard first making a note of the different minds they both have.
-Jordan's tenacity to invite, in a way, Richard into his worldview, his understanding. He showed he was aware of these differences in the first place which could explain not just his persistence in this discussion but why the discussion even happened in the first place.
-And ultimately Alex's brilliance and as a mod here, not only for not letting Jordan hog all that mic but for being able to present the view of one to the other without misrepresenting one or the other, while at the same time making himself as an individual with views and opinions in a sense invisible.
Okay this is already getting too long but i want to mention this, Jordan has demonstrated himself to be quite an articulate individual, with his precision and skill at conveying a thought or understanding, so when he makes statememts such as "the biological reality of the dragon" or "Cain and Abel were the first humans to be born in the natural way" one may be at first tempted to interpret it as perhaps he's trying to present ideas that have yet to germinate or take full form or blossom(halp, im struggling to find a more coherent word here😓) so he is not able to express them coherently enough. But when confronted about this dubious choice of words, instead of admitting that perhaps there are better, less misleading ways to phrase those statements he simply attempted to explain them away, this makes his intent appear disingenuous.
Overall this was a really interesting discussion and interaction to watch. Proof is in my willingness to type this much.
"I'm not changing the subject, I'm leaping outside the topic a bit" - Jordan B Peterson
Opening milk bottles by english tits - Richard Dawkins
using this in every discussion now
The subject is the overarching theme, and the topic is a particular aspect or element within that subject.
For example, "Biology" is a subject, and "Cell Structure" is a topic within the subject of Biology.
But was Jesus born of a virgin tho? Like really truly biologically actually for realzies?
@@junfourYeah
The closest we’ve gotten to hearing what it would be like to hear the left brain hemisphere and the right brain hemisphere discuss how they feel about the other
Good comment
@@Somniator7 More like a toolbox.
Corpus callosum
@@Somniator7Peterson may be smart, but the fact that he keeps defending religion makes him an idiot. He speaks like a creationist, and it is a FACT (you cannot debate facts) that creationism is wrong. Only dumb people can be creationists.
Underrated
This is free? This is free!
😂 exactly
Minus the last 30 minutes
Which is good, I don't like how so many other experts gatekeep knowledge.
Ikr, we take these kinds of discussions are taken for granted now, its crazy how much the internet has changed sharing of information. People 50 years ago wouldn't even dream of getting anything like this for free
Cost a little less than a night with you're mother !! On the corner
"I leave symbols to the symbol-minded." -George Carlin
Genuis
The man bled because he was injured when entering the battle.
The man dawned a cloak of red when entering battle.
The first sentance has 1 meaning alone. Man is injured. The second sentance has infinite meaning condensed into the same length. The man dawned red because red = blood, and he was ready to take lives in battle. Or he dawned it because he knew that he himself would not make it out uninjured. Knowing of your incoming doom adds extra meaning itself. It could be courage, trapped in this life, arrogence and unwilling to yield. Etc.
Symbols are extremely important to condense meaning simply, and also in the other direction, to access a vast amount of knowledge quickly. A tumble weed is the only thing you need to know this area is a desert, hot, lacking water, mid western US, etc. Then you can link all of that information to other information quickly, “your business has tumble weeds rolling threw it” so now you instantly know your business is barren, lacking customers, empty, etc.
Throwing away symbols is moronic and lacking basic understanding of language
@@nerdcorner2680 but what is a sentAnce?
@ doesn’t matter for the purpose of this. You could have an extremely long run on sentence that is 40 pages long and it still would not have the same amount of depth as symbolism because symbols can be applied to a near infinite number of circumstances
Peterson: "The line of good and evil cuts through every man's heart"
Dawkins"Absurd! If your heart was cut in two you'd surely die!"
And typically, depth is met with cynicism on every level 😩
And how many are walking dead?
@@LittleBox87 You do realize that the world is full of literalists, no? Muhammad hearing from the archangel Gabriel, is clearly a metaphor/symbol/archetypical story that tells us something very deep about the origins of inspiration. Yet millions believe in literal angels and Muhammad's literal interaction with one of them. Some of us think this literalism leads to very dangerous outcomes. So, if people thought that you should teach about a line down your heart in an anatomy class the way many want to teach about a virgin birth in a history class, you would find a need to express cynicism about metaphorical stories, since you know that many, if not most, people do not take them metaphorically. I concede that literary "depth" is awesome to behold and learn from. But to be blind to the rampant literalism in the world is to misunderstand the majority of believers, the majority of humanity.
@@gfxpimp Myths, legends and dogmas are not to be taken literally, that's obvious, as it's obvious here that Dawkins is not a literalist, he is just a cynic. And I don't misunderstand the literalists, I understand they're getting it incorrectly, because all these themes and topics are not new to me, hence why I'm here :)
Hahaha 😂
Dawkins is incapable of discussing symbols and Peterson has zero interest in literal interpretations. This is like oil and water
Exactly. Peterson needs to lighten up on the “hyper real.” Because it isn’t. Dawkins needs to understand there are things in this world that you simply cannot measure or know. Because there are.
Jordan’s entire philosophy is built around justifying his claim that the Bible is true. That’s why he dances so much around basic concepts. Dawkins is not willing to be distracted by the dance Jordan is doing because he’s not interested in artistic expression.
ITS SAM HARRIS ALL.OVER AGAIN!
@@TheChrisSoria
"That's not a painting. That's scribbles and puddles of colour"
@@TheChrisSoria You completely misunderstood Jordan first points:
Peterson emphasizes that facts are often conveyed through stories, suggesting that when narratives are told compellingly, they can shape beliefs effectively-much like propaganda or marketing. He argues for the preservation of stories that support what I call "THE Truth," rejecting relativism in favor of objective narratives that contribute positively to culture and morality.
For instance, when asked whether he believes Mary was a virgin, Peterson’s reluctance to respond with "I don’t know" stems from his belief that undermining such foundational narratives can have detrimental effects. The virgin birth is integral to Christian doctrine, and questioning it could sow doubt among believers, particularly those who may not have deeply studied their faith. This could lead to confusion among the populace, many of whom he sees as "numb thinkers" lacking the critical tools to engage with complex counterpoints.
Peterson argues that challenging these narratives risks sparking cultural chaos, as it may provoke a crisis of faith among individuals who rely on these stories for moral guidance. By maintaining the integrity of these narratives, he believes we can uphold societal stability and foster a sense of shared values. In this view, certain truths, especially those embedded in powerful stories, should be preserved to promote moral advancement and cultural cohesion.
This is my analysis of his side.
Dawkins laid out the foundation of the meme.
Jordan Peterson, saw further, a deeper pattern between the identification of the "meme"-effect and how it extrapolates into other "memefying" phenomena, that are much deeper than the ones laid out originally by Dawkins.
Jordan argues that entire religious stories can Baldwinize making the Bible, an on-going evolutionary "deep" meme that "Baldwinizes" human flourishing.
Jordan is making the argument that if this is the case (which he seem to believe) it makes the Bible "true" as it maps into the material word and produces human flourishing, and ties back to biological evolutionary mechanisms (even evolving humans towards something better). (This would be profound and "ultra"-deep, which makes Jordan hesitant to denounce the divine, since the depth of this discovery would be even more complex and less understandable, therefor Jordan has to have the humility to not make any definitive claims).
Jordan builds on this and claims that the consequences of this effect, is what has laid the foundation into the discovery of science and the exponential development amongst humans since in contrast to other competing "deep-memes" (religions/ideologies).
Jordan claims, that the abandonment of the imitation of the "deep"-meme that is the Bible, removes the "imitation behaviour"-foundation on which the Western World (Cultural Christianity) stands on, that has produced the most amount of human flourishing in the history of man, and thus threatening its continued development.
(Other grand-memes, such as postmodernism, can create a negative destructive meme-effect, which objectively diminishes or destroys human flourishing. If, the objectively better "grand-meme" (Christianity) is not actively encouraged, the meme will lose its imitating effect and the results will be destruction (or the adoption of lesser deep-memes) as he claims is evident in the attacks on science and the University environment).
Jordan seems frustrated that he could not get Dawkins to see that the this entire premise is based on Dawkins own discovery of "the meme".
In other words, Jordan is trying to get Dawkins up to speed.
But before that Dawkins must equip himself with the sufficient knowledge to investigate these discoveries and claims. And perhaps provide constructive objections, where they can apply, to straighten out, and provide broader understanding for this phenomena (which Jordans seems hungry to uncover as very few people in the world seem to have discovered these patterns).
At the end it seems that Jordans argument landed with Dawkins, as he Dawkins looked to have been intrigued and to have caught on to the pattern.
It will be really interesting to see what will come out of these exchanges and alignments of knowledge between these power houses.
(BTW, I summarized to organize my own thoughts. Did I accurately interpret this exchange?)
Yes, but I wouldn't call Dawkins a 'power house' in this sense. He certainly did more than many in the realm of biology and genetics, but he wasn't nearly as deep or important as even Darwin himself; in fact, Dawkins' rejects or ignores about 60% of Darwin. He focuses almost entirely on the genetic, and even there it's very narrow-minded for many reasons.
I saw Dawkins, for example, speak with Bret Weinstein a few years ago, and was unable to simply talk about Darwinism and psychology at all. He literally refused to even talk about the issues, such as if certain negative patterns and events are Darwinian in nature, and in what sense. Bret was about 150 years ahead of him, in other words. Nietzsche touches on this more than almost anybody alive today, and that was 140 years ago! More directly, Bret, Jordan, Jung, and many others have done so since the 1920s or so. Jung even offers some insight into Hitler from this sort of framework (views him more as a 'dark magician' type person, though his actual language and ideas were different, but this gives you a clear idea).
So, in one sense, Richard has simply failed to keep up with Haidt, Peterson, Weinstein, and others. On the other hand, he was never caught up in the first place, in terms of Tolkien, Lewis, Darwin (largely), Nietzsche, Jung, Neumann, and others.
This is a fascinating conversation.
It seems familiar to the ongoing conversation of nurture or nature.
You did very well
Spot on summary - this discussion was amazing
@Rezdar1 wow that was an awesome mini breakdown, thank you🙂
If words are fish, JP is a net, RD is a harpoon !
A yes or no question is Jordan's worst nightmare
No, I think having a child in chronic debilitating pain was Jordan's worst nightmare, and he's already lived through that. Clean up your room and get some perspective, bucko.
Not answering "yes" or "no" to questions that are manipulating you to accept a hidden statement is actually a very useful skill.
It's an evasion because he thinks in abstracts and symbols. Yes and no are concretes. Also one word answers are not his bag.
@@clorofilaazulPoor you, slandering someone in the comments section of someone's comment 😂 evaluate how you got here 😅
@@oub4a so, he is a post modernist? He sounds exactly like a woke person evading the question "what is a woman?"
I grew up reading Dawkins, and found Peterson as an adult. I am here for both of them.
Exact same. Seems like there are many of us.
Me too. Have you readIian McGhilcrest? so helpful at uniting science with the metaphysical.
I'd be happy to call both my dad lol
I'm here for neither, I'm here for the third person of this conversation that's not seen but more there then any of them
Same !!
Alex has come a long way. Been watching him since 2018. From making videos in his room, to studying at Oxford, to now mediating discussions between the people he used to make videos about in his room.
He evolved bottom up
He's utterly nauseating. Never before have I seen someone so clueless on such a wealth of knowledge, he's not convincing as the character he's clearly playing, he clearly wishes to appear highly educated but asks moronic questions such as how religion impacts society as if religion and society are completely separate things, as if religious people aren't a part of society or people from society aren't religious, it's pretentious gibberish, he can repeat lots of things but clearly doesn't understand what he's repeating at all.
@@KROKIACK interesting take - I interpreted his questions as an earnest attempt to further open the conversation. Sometimes, asking a possibly 'moronic' question works toward unearthing an even deeper discussion. Dr. Peterson seemed to respond well to the questions - not with annoyance, but with a genuine attempt to clarify his point.
@@myclearspiral3687 I think Alex is just so arrogant that he actually convinced himself that Dr. Peterson didn't understand the question as Dr. Peterson was explaining the importance of a philosophical view and reluctance to answer with pure logic so as not to trivialise any meaning to life with the pure logic of it all being a manifestation of the mind, I think Dawkins understood that but as a scientist is mainly only interested in how that plays a part in the survival of the human race, I think Alex took every opportunity he could to attempt to appear to be able to articulate their points better than both Peterson and Dawkins which displays an incredible level of arrogance and lack of awareness, Dawkins liked Alex's simplified concept idea of divinity being brought down to the mundane (because that's how Dawkins sees it so really he was delighting in someone agreeing with him as opposed to being impressed with his Alex's level of intelligence, it was also concept that Peterson denied the validity of), but I think Peterson just Alex too much credit in thinking maybe Alex was right and Peterson wasn't answering the question when actually he was, Alex just didn't understand hardly anything that was happening in the room, but Peterson is correct in his conviction but still has self doubt which is why he questions himself even though he knows his view is so accurate and I believe that is why he has turned to God, it's an escape from the questions, a safety net if you will, it's the same reason Russell Brand has traded the escape of heroin for the escape of Christianity, it's a far better escape and is still on the "journey" to understand why. I've been round in these circles for years, I fully get the psychology and the philosophy as well as the history so now I'm slowly building up a better picture of psychology with the study of body language but I've studied Alex and ugh, I don't like him, at all, every time he says "do you not know...", it's so arrogant and patronising, I'm amazed he can't see how dumb he looks in thinking he's smarter than everyone I've seen him talking to. Sorry for the essay but there's a lot here to look at.
I came across him after watching his videos on the Oxford high street, literally debating with an espousing bible touter. I sadly had to rush away to prevent my car getting a fine for going over a parking deadline but he was very nice, we chatted for a bit
Bookmarked this link for couple of weeks, finally get to see it. No regret! Wish Dr. Dawkins did speak more than 280 words. Can we have a sequel? 😢
Insanely grateful that this incredibly valuable dialogue is free. What a privilege!
It was once & is if you are elite. New atheism designed the thought crime that is now chasing indigenous britons into the sea. The new atheism project et al is globalist cabalist & totalitarian.
YEEEEES!
Dawkins spoke to my ego during my young adult life...but now, older and "hopefully" wiser, Peterson speaks to my soul.
Love them both, thank you for this wonderful discussion/debate
I dont think you know what an ego is, and as there are no souls not sure what you are even talking about. You definitely did not grow wiser.
You sound just like every arrogant kid who reads his first book without picturs, only the ignorant can be so overconfident@Nobody-Nowhere
@@Nobody-Nowhere The stupidity of your comment shows you have 0 wisdom
So blinded by your bias against anything relating to spiritual matters, soul doesn't have to mean what you think.
He's simply saying Peterson is speaking to his being, who we are psychotically.
I'm sure the whole combo went right over your head.
You can even see Dawkins light bulbs going off he's starting to understand Peterson take more and more.
If you don't have a self, then why are you trying to even establish a point.
@@Nobody-Nowhere fool
Complete opposite for me.
Watching the guy that made me an atheist debate the guy that helped me return to my religious faith a great gift
Edit: I didn't use the word "made'' in the literal sense, I simply meant their arguments compelled me among many other things to believe what I believe/d
What convinced you the atheist worldview is inferior to the religious worldview?
Is that possible?, for me is like stop believing in Santa Claus, and then believing again, the is no return possible, can you explain your history a little?
@@sosesuiswatch Jonathan Pageu - Santa clause and the tooth fairy exist.
@@sosesuis I also had a similar experience. I can't say Jordan "made" me find God, but some of his ideas did help me find my own way eventually. I was definitely a Dawkins atheist in high school and early college though.
@@sosesuis The New Testament has been preserved more then any other piece of ancient literature with there being over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts 10k Latin manuscripts and 9.3k manuscripts in other ancient languages they are consistent with each other and for them to be tainted or altered is almost impossible as someone would have to edit them to all say the same thing without having any internet or telephone or modern high speed communication Even historically people don’t die for a lie especially when they have no money to gain yet The Apostles went into hiding but then SOMETHING happened to make Them come out into the public and proclaim Jesus As Lord and preach The Good News Some would also say that because The Gospel Of John was written about 90-100AD that it’s unreliable how ever this argument is illogical from a historical standpoint because to say that would invalidate documentation would then make many other historical records “unreliable” take Alexander the Great for example who died in 323BC yet the oldest surviving record of him is from the first century BC that’s 322 years of lost documentation so to claim that compare that to the maximum 67 years between Jesus death and The Gospel of John being written You also have the prophecies In The New Testament that are fulfilled by Jesus In The New Testament which is mathematically impossible to happen by chance some would claim that The Old Testament manuscripts must have been edited to fit an agenda but The Dead Sea Scrolls that are approximately two thousand years old and was discovered in 1947-1956 are consistent with modern translations proving that The Old Testament was not edited for The New Testament This is further evidence as The Dead Sea Scrolls themselves are older by 1000 years then any other Old Testament manuscripts PROVING that The Old Testament was not edited for The New Testament
Jordan Peterson has reached a high level of intelligence. If you actually don’t pause the video and go back you won’t understand what he means when he says that he doesn’t understand the connection between factual truth, fiction truth etc. it’s truly impressive the quality of the argument that it’s being presented here. I know that most of the people want to see a direct answer from Jordan Peterson, which myself, am also eager to hear. But I understand his argument.
Blown away by how articulate and acute Dawkins is at 83 years of age.
He's impressively dense though... He works really hard to ignore/obfuscate his own assumptions.
Alex is also incredibly well spoken considering he is only 25. He doesn't do a lot of talking here of course but when he does, he talks like a seasoned professor
@@copyrightenforcement3869Yep, even more impressive is that he’s been like that since a teenager, and debates with people decades older than him
Genetics and diet.
@@captainmaim There are a lot of times when he could have given a yes or no answer, and THEN elaborated. Seems a little misleading.
What a labor of love on Jordan's part. God bless him. And great job Alex.
Amen. 🙏🏿🙏🏾🙏🏽🙏🏼🙏🙏🏻
Love of his own voice
@@ryana1787 😂😂
I think Jordan Peterson genuinely believes in the value of the bible and Christianity, but I think when he basically doesn't answer simple biological questions like "do you believe Jesus really was born of a virgin?" he is afraid to alienate his Christian audience and I don't understand why. The question is really simple.
It's not complicated at all, he can't afford to alienate his patron base now that his 20-something slacker fan base has taken his advice (if at all) and moved on in life. Now it's their parents and the already-moderate-right who listen to him
Yeah if he could just say, no I think it's a metaphor, they could move on and talk about it as such, but he's always got to play these games so he doesn't out right admit this stuff didn't really happen.
I don't think it's this simple. He refuses to simplify very complicated relations between the realm of reality of ideas, which manifest in physical reality in many ways, and reducing "reality" down to a yes or no answer on something that's not necessarily better understood by a reduction to biological facts. Some people and cultures are open to such an approach, others not.
@@abstractdaddy1384 he might've answered as well YES plain and simple. "Yes, I do believe in that stuff like you in your turn believe in quantum mechanics and Darwin's theory!"
What could be easier?
@@quartodecimani6908this is dangerous. We can deny history in the same way following this route.
Dr. Peterson’s resilience, both in his personal life and in the public sphere, is truly commendable. In the face of prevalent 'cancel culture,' he has defied significant challenges, continuing to share his intellectually rigorous perspectives (regardless of the woke tide) and introducing us to the insights of other scholars. This, I believe, represents the highest form of intellectual engagement-one that encourages critical thinking, allowing individuals to discern what resonates with them while critically reflecting on the complexities of our shared reality.
Exactly this. Thank you 🙏
The enthusiasm of Peterson is truely inspiring. He wants to play and is trying his best to get Dawkins to dance with him. He does not give up because he believes in the beauty of the logos and the part Dawkins can play in it. Dawkins however stands on the side of the dancefloor refusing to bust out a move until the final song comes on called "the Baldwin-effect". All the effort Peterson has put in has finally paid off as they are tap dancing together.
Love this haha
@@heidiooohs 😂😂
A beautiful dance
@@divelostmind yes indeed. Curious about the second part on the Daily wire..
Yes! It's because Peterson asked him the right questions!
I very much appreciate Alex being the moderator of this conversation. He is very skilled at keeping things on track, helping clarify Jordan, and diffusing some of the more contentious comments by Richard. Great conversation.
He's still a nihilist, a moral relativist.
@@nicolasbascunan4013what does that even remotely have anything to do with the comment or the video here?
@@nicolasbascunan4013 He's also moderating a conversation between two of the most famous thinkers/articulators/publishers of our time. Clearly, they both appreciate him enough to make this possible, and moral relativism wasn't a yardstick there.
Agree.
I have enormous respect for both of these great men. I grew up in the catholic church, which by all accounts was a positive experience. However, when I went to college, I went through a period of disillusionment, where I stumbled onto Richard Dawkins videos. He articulated my frustrations perfectly. And, upon graduated college, I went through yet another period of disillusionment, facing the real world, having graduated extremely liberal, I quickly realized that some of these ideals failed in practical terms once applied in the real world. And that’s when I found Peterson videos. These two are my heros, for the different periods of my life. They’ve had a profound impact on my thinking. I want to thank them for sitting down for this discussion!
"having graduated extremely liberal, I quickly realized that some of these ideals failed in practical terms once applied in the real world." Do you have any examples of those?
@@PerryWidhalmBut don’t both of them impact each other? Mythology dictates the progress and intention of Science and vice versa.
What Scientists seek is dependent on the environment. Progress in Space exploration or sustainable energy depend on what people prioritise.
So how can we actually distinguish them?
You gave a fine distinction of what both of them means.
But can they exist independently? Or do they actually move in circles the way Dr Peterson presents it?
@@Eigelsteinapplying for jobs, having skills that are valuable enough to actually make you money, good example recycling myth, 5% of recycled plastic actually gets recycled the rest gets burnt or put into the ocean because there is no practical way to recycle plastic. You literally have a lower carbon footprint and saving the oceans by taking the cap off and putting your plastic bottle in the trash can (so it takes up less space when crushed) there is enough space in landfills to handle all our trash for the next 1000 years. Check out Jonathan stosell on this.
So next time be a dirty republican and throw your plastic in the garbage you are actually helping the ocean 👍
💯💯
richard dawkins acted salty as hell
I appreciate the respect for each other and their dialogue without projecting confrontation. It’s nice to see two people with completely different minds and views be able to have a discussion without attacking when points are argued.
My goodness, this was a treat. I didn't expect that Jordan Peterson's psychological perspective would clash so heavily with Dawkin's views. I agree with Peterson that ideas, symbolism, and archetypes are not only interesting, but have also affected the world on an insanely grand scale. There is truth behind the stories, and whether they are fiction or nonfiction is irrelevant. The effect these stories have had on societies and the influence they've had on key figures throughout history is absolutely objective and measurable.
At the same time, I agree with Dawkins that the objective reality is also important. As a Christian, I disagree with his atheistic opinions, but I can get behind his determination to get to the truth of the matter. He wants to discover new things, so he isn't as interested in literary analysis as he is in scientific analysis.
I think Jordan was generally more well-informed of Richard's field of study than Richard was of Jordan's. That being said, I think Jordan has a mixture of interests towards the scientific and the abstract, while Richard has a much more narrow obsession over the objective world, finding little interest in other things.
Alex did a good job moderating.
A gracious and nuanced response to an intense and complex discussion. Can we clone you?
Appreciate your nuanced response here. Great comment.
Very much appreciate this response.
@@TheCdr19 Let's clone the guy!
I agree with Dawkins in a sense that the stories don’t really matter..what I agree with Peterson aligns with both, in that symbolism and narrative are/were essential for brain development and language
I remember reading 12 rules for life in 2018 as an atheist undergraduate, and despite being a massive fan of JP, the religious connotations made me judge his messaging in an almost arrogant manner. Now it’s 2024 and I have found faith and have never been happier or lived and loved with more purpose.
I often find myself getting emotional watching JP, his passion for life is contagious, I hope I get the opportunity to thank him personally one day
What made you find faith?
I'm happy for you.
He inspires me, too.
@@felepaopinions997 I almost died a few months ago, what I experienced during the ordeal couldn’t be explained by my previous views on how things worked in the world. Since that day I awoke with a novel feeling of connection to the world around me and with a divine purpose that I never thought was possible before. The best way I can describe it is that it sort of feels like I’ve just been born
I’m so happy for you! 🙏♥️ Thank you for sharing your experience with us & I hope that you get to meet Dr. Peterson one day too as it’s my wish to shake his hand & thank him personally for all of his extraordinary interest in helping people 🙏♥️🇨🇦 7:26
☺️🙏🏼💯
The terror of this dialogue is that it ends just as soon as a basic common ground is established. Should be a ten part series. Each as long.
@@ahsanmohammed1?
Peterson is such a looney. Just got to commend him for the following he has gathered on the internet through his posturing despite his empty words. It's just a reflection of the intelligence of the society we are currently living in.
@@yp4434It's fascinating how people can reflect so much of their ignorance and limitations. It's like going to school and concluding that the subjects are ludicrous and the teachers loonies because you weren't able to understand what was being taught to you. But this ain't school and nobody is forcing you to watch Peterson, so why are you here?
@yp4434 empty is to be expected to you and those like you...Quite common I've noticed. I'm sure you won't understand what I just said, and that's OK too.
@@pt.antonio👍🏽
1:04:15 "Why not abstract?" I cannot believe Peterson needs this explained. When the term "woman" is abstracted beyond biology, Peterson instantly understands, and is subsequently concerned. Drunk on Double Standards, not just symbols.
Exactlyyy!!! They will use biology and facts when they see it fits their perceived notions and when it doesn't they just claim that it's all metaphorical and abstract and that wether it is factually / biologically true is irrelevant
You can only abstract if based on fact. Blue = calming (because the blue sky is calm, the blue sea is calm, babies’ blue eyes are calm and innocient) you cannot say Blue = blood and death. There is no relation between the color blue and death in reality so the abstract makes no sense.
So the abstract of woman can only be traits or relations to women. Life bringers, beauty, etc. So can a man become the abstract of “woman”? No, they cannot birth life, they cannot obtain the natural beauty of women, only imitate it. (Any imitation loses value compared to the original).
So let me give you some examples of how you can abstract women. DMT is often symbolized as “a motherly experience” because the feeling brought from it is often calming, usee feels loved and safe, the way a caring mother would. A father can be loving and caring and safe, but not the same way as a mother who craddles the infant natually is.
@@nerdcorner2680there is no factual basis for a Dragon. And a factual Lion doesn't abstract to a Dragon.
Blue may be calming to YOU. To me it reminds me of drowning in the ocean or falling out of the sky to my death. So ya, to blue = death. Your abstraction is failing.
Sure. My good buddies mother gave him life. And then proceeded to spend 17 years putting cigarette butts out on his skin. Mother isn't nurturing if they are overprotect or abusive. Your abstraction is failing.
DMT isn't a mothering experience if it plunges you into the depths of an alien landscape and you subsequently jump off a cliff during a trip. Your abstraction is failing.
@ You are being extremely disingenuous, so I’ll give you one more attempt before giving up. Yes there is factual dragons. Sure the chinese dragon lacks wings, but all forms of the dragon are similar in nature to the point where if you tell someone “draw a dragon” everyone is going to give you roughly the same thing.
The blue arguement is so disingenuous I’m tempted to ignore it, but I’ll bite. No it’s not because youre associating water -> drowning not blue (when you’re under water it’s not as blue, and blue water is not so = to drowning that the association forms). Factually speaking when brains are analyzed every brain feels calmer when looking at blue. All of them. Now you could be an exception with a traumatic incident, but that is an extremely rare exception that doesnt apply here (because the association is to the incident not the color, that’s a byproduct).
To your friend, do you think he seeks a warm motherly love he lacks? Do you think his father or anyone else could provide exactly what his mother’s love lacked? No, those with abusive parents seek out those aspects in others (in the case of abusive mothers the victims often cling to women who take care of them, nuture them, hold them, etc). So even then the symbology of the mother still holds, that mother failed to reach the symbol of a proper woman. (Not every rock is hard, but just because soft rocks exist doesnt mean everyone thinks of hard rocks when imagining them).
Lastly with DMT you clearly have no experience with it to say that. Take some and speak to Shamans and try again later. I can attempt to explain, but it really doesn’t make sense unless you use it, and speak to experts. Basically you can have a bad experience, but it is extremely rare and comes from being overwhelmed rather than an acid bad trip where you see a scary monster. Every single person who takes it documents that even though the experience should have been scary, they felt safe and comfortable (even the bad experiences just have 1 moment of bad rather than an entire bad trip).
Let’s for a moment take a step back. I am arguing that symbols are important, that symbols need a factual basis, and that their meaning is so well understand everyone can get it. You are saying that if someone said “that person looks like a pig” the other person would be so confused asking “well they dont have a curly tail so what do you mean????”. It is silly, semantic, and a midwit arguement to attempt to ignore instinctual truths for hyperspecific outliers. If you are not being disingenuous, then slow down and actually assess what is being said from both sides because you are arguing against a basic known fact to every single person
@@nerdcorner2680 there's nothing disingenuous about anything I wrote. It seems like you're truly unable to have a conversation with someone you disagree with. And that's truly not my problem.
Go back and look at what YOU wrote. You're the one who said blue is calming because a blue sky looks calming, or because a blue sea looks calming. This is just your perception. And if you're going to play a game of this many people versus that many people agree with my perception, you're the one who's engaging in semantics. I don't find a Blue sky calming because it reminds me of falling out of a blue sky. I don't find a blue sea calming because it reminds me of drowning in a blue sea. What I find calming is a bright red sunset.
When a baby looks up at the flush red cheeks and lips of her mother, do you suppose that's calming?
You trying to imply that once you get below the level of the ocean water, the water no longer looks blue is disingenuous.
When I say someone looks like a pig, what am I saying? Am I saying they're a highly intelligent, highly reliable animal? Or are we saying they're fat?
Saying that motherly traits are being a bringer of life, and being beautiful, is just straight ridiculous. My buddy's father was more nurturing than his mother who put out cigarette butts on his skin. I looked at a sunrise this morning that was absolutely beautiful. The sunrise isn't a mother. I'm staring at a mother right now sitting with her child and she's completely unattractive.
Literally everything you're saying is falling apart right before your eyes. And all you have to say is I'm being disingenuous 😂👍🏻
This might be the best clearest I’ve ever heard Jordan express his ideas. And this is the perfect conversation for it!
This is the conversational equivalent of India Jones shooting the sword-wielding Arabian guy. Dawkins is like 'yeah whatever, but it's not factually true.'
It was, I think, more than an hour of pulling teeth, though, before he could utter a "yes" or "no". I think all future talks of Jordan Peterson should have a trigger warning, whether that bubble gets popped at some point during the talk or he refuses to ever engage.
Jordan kept on yapping while taking 30 minutes to answer yes/no-questions, dude is high on himself.
@@Nizaar1 They are not yes or no answers if your level of comprehension was that high.
@@qtalksongs Depends on what you mean by: they, are, not, yes, or, no, answers, if, your, level, of, comprehension, was, that, high.
Whatever you think about Peterson, this conversation was almost unthinkable a decade ago. Peterson has offered a home for those of us who felt displaced by the cold humanism of the New Atheists. What a time to be alive.
Peterson is fairly cold.
Cold humanism of the new atheists?
“The worst kind of bias is the one that you’re not aware of.” - Steven Novella
What are you talking about, theories about the unconscious have been talked about for over 120 years.
@@paulthepainter2366
Bigot... another word that no longer has any meaning because of the left. The boy who cries wolf will be the next fairy tale that becomes reality.
Cold humanism? If disbelief in the miraculous claims asserted by ancient communities - who did not know what to make of plagues and undesirable weather patterns - makes me a cold humanist, I will proudly wear that badge.
This was awesome. My only complaint was Peterson was hogging the mic a little bit. But yeah, thoroughly enjoyed. Thank you for including Alex. He was perfect for this
would have liked to hear more from Richard Dawkins for sure.
He always does. I think he has a problem with that
He definitely goes off on tangents. It's really my one issue with him. He needs to learn when to be quiet, lol.
The empty can rattles the loudest.
He "hogs the mic" because he just rambles on and on without ever actually answering anything or taking a stance on any issue that's raised.
Science did emerge in Europe, but not in Christian Europe. The ancient Greeks and Romans were the mothers of science which was completely forgotten under the first thousand years of Christian rule
Alex's conversation with Jordan was way better and actually flowed.
That makes sense cause Alex has a degree in theology and philosophy, while Richard Dawkins is just a scientist that got very famous when he wrote a book on atheism.
@@deathrampage7531no he didnt "just" write A book on atheism. he has written about theism and biology and has extremely famous and critically acclaimed books. In that case Peterson is just a phychologist that wrote a simple self help book and got famous online😂
@@antonk23148go to researchgate and see his h-index. He is actually a well cited psychologist
Jordan is a living embodiment of his own ideas. I've watched him voluntarily take on the predators of his life, sacrifice time after time to stand up for his ideals, and it has only made him stronger. He practices what he preaches.
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. ... James 2:14-26
I was looking for this earlier today. Thank you
Wonderful man.. He must be recognised as a gift to us .. may you never loose your strength Jordan.. you are appreciated and loved❤
Has JP found God or merely found justification for his belief in God?
@@billedifier8584 He has discovered the placebo effect and calls it "Hyperreality."
It took Jordan an hour, but he finally Got Dawkins to get on board with what he was talking about. What a wonderful way of ending this conversation. The unity of myth and reality, or meme and gene.
He's not in good faith in convo he brought nothing new even with his fan boy moderating
Jordan is looking back at bible stories and projecting his own education and psychological training into them. They 100% do not mean any of the things he claims they mean. The reason he says he can’t “decipher” lots of the bible is because what he’s really saying is he can’t figure out how to use modern psychology to change the meanings of those stories. This is also why he goes full post modernist when asked if he thinks these stories are true. He kept saying no one has read “both literatures” well people like Terence Mckenna and Robert Anton Wilson have and neither would agree with anything he says about god or religion. And neither do most christians. And the stake through the heart of all of his arguments is he’s acting like Christianity is the only religion. He could NEVER defend Islam the way he tries to do with Christianity. And yet billions of people believe in that backwards garbage. Jordan got broken by the fear of hell when he was young and has basically admitted this. That’s why he starts from a place of belief and then words backwards to make the world conform to his beliefs.
@@knockda887yes he was and Jordan even literally said that. Liar.
that never happened. Dawkins relented to not entirely disagreeing, which isn't the same as agreeing, and certainly distant from the full-hearted collaboration Jordan was trying to generate.
@@Alexanderisgreat Apart from Leftists, who would defend Islam?
JPs gesticulation would make an italian raise an eyebrow 😅
Good convo.
These two could have a 10 part series, and I'd be all for it.
Meh Dawkins was boring throughout just saying he isn’t interested a million times. It takes two for this thing to work and it seemed Peterson was trying hard to get Dawkins to participate.
@@themarcusnash13 A few years ago I would have excitedly clicked this video and watched it the whole way through. Nowadays it’s clear to me that Dawkins and people who think like him are going to continue preferring to be dismissive and will do so until they die. It’s a waste of energy to try to wake up comfortable people.
there is no point of that
you can summarize the whole video in not more than 10 minutes
it is only Peterson that talks too much and use advanced expressions to make things look like complicated and avoid answering simple QUESTIONS
Peterson and Harris kind of works because Harris - despite being almost as much a literalist as Dawkins - is at least interested in social affairs including religious ones. Dawkins just doesn't care, he just deals with the genetics, and nothing on top of it is interesting to him.
@@theegyptian1842 you are talking like these aren't complicated subjects.
I’ve never seen someone squirm so much when asked a direct question- I thought I was watching a senate hearing
It’s a difficult job to be a teacher. Explaining concepts to someone requires meeting them at their level and elevating from there. Especially difficult if the student is not particularly participatory.
Not calling Darwin dumb in the slightest, just that he’s in a completely different mind space where Peterson understood there would be no meaningful progress or development. I think it really shows at the end when Darwin does seem to understand that, and he lowers his intellectual guard.
@@DeeBeeGeneralI think you mean Dawkins, but I can see the thread
@DeeBeeGeneral Dawkins would say that science is the only answer to everything in existence. While ignoring the fact, that statement is a philosophical statement. And philosophy is not a science. His claim that science is the only absolute truth is in itself a unscientific statement. It's self refuting. His is intelligent, he just lacks deep enough thought to be wise.
@@DanielSturge😂 gtfo. Dunning Kruger is strong wirh you friend.
@@DanielSturgePhilosophie ist a science of cause lol.
Thank you Alex O'Connor for facilitating this conversation. I saw you interview Richard Dawkins in Oxford this evening and you always bring a healthy dose of civility, balance as well as respectful challenge to these conversations. Thanks to Jordan and Richard for having this dialogue and for the work you do in your respective fields. I really should refrain from watching this until my essay is finished....we'll see...
Its funny to see atheist with civility and respectful behavior. They disguise like a religious people.
How long was the talk in Oxford? I'm seeing Dawkins in Cambridge next week
@@es5746 Ah nice, hope you enjoy. I'd say about an hour and a half
@@DanSmith01ave That's great, thank you! :)
Two different wavelengths. It's important to have these discussions though. The biggest problem today that occurs is that ideas become enmeshed with the percieved value of the one holding them. So it becomes common that disagreement becomes synonymous with disrespect.
This was good. The fact I felt actually invested and frustrated at times proves to me how good a conversation this was, and it highlighted important points.
Alex's interjection at 56:30 is exactly what needed to be said. Profound observation
Zackly innit!
Alex forgot to shave his lip
It's funny, growing up in a religious community, I found relief in the books of Dawkins and Hitchens. Couple years ago, Peterson's lecture about the Bible made me reconnect with my upbringing. Not in terms of faith, I'm still very much atheist. But it comforted me that there was something of value in all those years I spent at Church. Now, with children of my own, I'm trying to navigate our deteriorating social fabric and I long for the religious life my parents had. What a strange journey it has been. I find myself siding a lot more with Peterson nowadays, which would have been unthinkable 15 years ago.
That's a relief. I was getting so used to the negativity associated with JP, it's great to hear about someone who would've never imagined themselves taking a liking to him finding a connection there. I wish the best for you and your family!
You should look into Jesus.
Hopefully you come back.
Keep the faith that you do have and nurture it, best of luck to you and your family!
Alot of people feel this way....Jordan Peterson should be canonized for sainthood. He has resurrected Jesus in a sense......
Why am I the only one who sees how much Jordan loves the sound of his own voice and talks over people
Because you aren’t interested in what he is saying I’d expect.
You might have an ideological lens that puts you at odds with JP?
Because you have pre-conceived notions that are in need of further validations. Human imagination is a powerful thing.
Yes, he uses philosophical argument and thinks it is clever. While the guest is self-controlled and connected to concrete reality. There have been many great philosophers who were more valuable than Jordan, but they nevertheless made many mistakes. Jordan's style is "I know." While Socrates, the greatest of philosophers, said "I do not know."
Only because this is on his channel. Unfortunately.
Having watched 3/4ths through, this discussion marks a new key moment in Jordan’s public career and interest in the merging of psychology, religion, and story. I would recommend this to anyone as one of Jordan’s finest moments. Love his pursuit of truth and his unique usage of terminology to express these deep topics in an approach accessible to those unfamiliar with the literature on this subject.
I found it so embarrassing for him. He couldn't make a coherent point and just equivocate and motte and baileyed the whole time. I would have felt bad for him if what he was doing was sincere.
@@fentonmulley5895 The opposite was true. Dawkins didn't understand what Peterson was saying until the final few minutes of the conversation. He made his points well, and they were summarized in Rezdar1's comment. Check it out.
@@seanmcgrady8688 you didn't observe how flustered and confused Jordan was? His improv act is aimed at always doing the equivocation and motte and bailey, but the fact that he always cycles to the same things doesn't mean he is making a point that can't be denied. It really baffles me how people see Jordan as calculated and intentional when the many philosophers I watch/hear are so much more capable of keeping on track and using correct terminology and being succinct.
@@fentonmulley5895 when you are trying to tie all the meta truths into a hyperreal argument it will look like that. Have you ever engaged in a deep philosophical argument where you are trying to unpack lots of truths and then tie them? That's what happens. Don't be confused by how Jordan Peterson acts but focus on what he is trying to actually explain.
@@imporylem that is called unjustified ad hock fabrication based on spurious data. It isn't the epic journey you want it to be. It takes even more intellect to understand the context the myths arose within. The things Jordy thinks are jungian archetypes are not as simple as he wants them to be. His rhetorical style is not new. All grifters do that type of coldreading improv.
Alex's moustache is the sinister offspring of an archetype and a meme, roughly speaking.
LMFAO
funny but useless, thank you sir
That really cracked me up, man!!!
this is 10/10
A little gem in the comments section
I cannot express how much I love this conversation. Thank you both so much for sitting down, and thank you Jordan for elevating this to a new level.
I don't gain nothing from Dawkins he's disingenuous
@@knockda887 I can't fault you for that, move on discard his ideas. Sadly his ideas and arguments deceived me when i was a teenager and it took a long time for me to recover. I'm thankful he is man enough to sit down with Peterson and be exposed for what he is.
Jordan is on another level.
As an atheist to a theist I can tell you the following. I have no problem appreciating the deeper meaning and value of stories. If someone were to begin by saying yes of course these are just stories that are not necessarily factual, but carry some value, then I can engage with them all day and ponder about the what these stories mean and so on and so on and have a great time. The block arises when there is an attempt to pass a story as true based on its value, and as a result label something as factual when it isn’t. We have to be clear and honest about what we ascertain to have occurred. Until it is conceded that no in fact we don’t know that these events occurred, and there is even an overwhelming chance that they didn’t, no progress can be achieved. That concession is a mark of intellectual honesty. Without that concession, I feel like I’m talking to someone who is just trying to defend their ideas, as opposed to someone who is genuinely engaging in the search for what is true, irrespective of whether it fits their world view or not. And debating with someone who isn’t in search of truth, and is only interested in defending their world view, is futile.
The first 25 minutes really highlight the difference in intellectual effort between Dr. Peterson and Dr. Dawkins. They're operating on two very different levels-Peterson is diving deep into metaphysics while Dawkins stays focused on facts and science. They’re not quite on the same wavelength. I wish Dawkins would engage more in exploration rather than asking interrogative questions, making it more of a dialogue.
Dawkins has a strong grasp of shallow concepts. Jordan has a strong grasp on deep concepts - which preceeds and necessitates a strong grasp on shallow concepts. You can't know what is deep without knowing what is shallow, but you can know shallow things without knowing the depths of the same thing.
I love this comment... that's exactly the frustration I feel while listening to their cain and abel dialogue
Dawkins can't do that Because his worldview and mindset only allows itself to live within quantifiable reality. Even when JP attempts to bring the metaphysical world into that realm he refused it. Dawkins is a hypocrite. He doesn't care about truth.
I thought it was unfair of Dawkins. It's the first thing that I picked up on. Jordan is very open to exploration and genuine dialogue, where it seems Dawkins had an axe to grind. I never read or watched Dawkins, but the way I seen this, was he was trying to place Peterson into a pinned down predetermined character he thought Jordan to be.
Spot on. This is what always makes these conversations so frustrating. I've noticed that people like Sam Harris and Dawkins only choose to dig as deep as is necessary for them to understand the world and thus function successfully within it. But what they don't understand is that not everyone is as high IQ as them and therefore the "Facts" that they know to be true aren't self-evident to everyone else. This is where Peterson's ideas have a much wider reach which has impacted many more people in a positive way.
oh my god Jordan, this is the most incredible conversation i've ever listened too
thank you for arranging this and so fluently expressing yourself, its incredible to listen to your mind come out, and to see the beauty inside it
profound, moving, inspirational, honest to the core, genuinely beautiful stuff Jordan, your a gift to our species. Thank you !
@@wgo523 because anyone beyond the age of 10 knows dragons aren't real, if your still struggling on chapter 1 read more and think more and join the actual conversation, and mind you it's fairly obvious of a few things, aren't literal, and i have my own positions on the virgin birth, the resurrection, and all that "miracle" stuff. But his understanding and articulation is still high-end and at the upper limits of what the human mind can put into words and eloquently done
I've been waiting so long for this conversation to take place, and never actually imagined that it would. I absolutely loved it, the 90 minutes just flew by and only got better and better. I hated to hear that the time was up. Please do another!
Dawkins barely got a word in lol.
water and oil. I probably would've enjoyed it if I placed the same value on symbols as Peterson.
You won't get much from Dawkins just that he hates it that people don't believe what he believes. Dawkins is like Ebenezer Scrooge.
@@joshuaperry4112 WOW, I wasn't aware. I will watch, thank you!
Dawkins smashed it.
Dawkins' thinking will get us to the Moon. Peterson's thinking help us understand why we wanted to go in the first place.
Nice analogy but I would perhaps say that the closeminded-ness of Dawkins would probably translate to poor science. As even scientists must maintain flexibility in their thinking. In project management, I could easily see him becoming something of an egomaniac, shrouded in his own dogma, and not allowing creativity and free thinking (which science needs!) to develop. JP will at least hear you out, as long he deems your ideas well put-together enough in their own right
And not kill each other before we do so
brilliantly put
Now bring in Ben Shapiro's thinking to explain why going to the moon is perhaps not the best use of our money when we could instead send it to Israel
@@notbrad4873 Typical anti-Jewish sadness. Ben is famously pro-Moon landing and pro-America crushing the world in general. He just also thinks that having mindless terrorist Muslims controlling the Near East and wiping out every Jew is maybe immoral and unwise for both American and global interests. Have you seen Israel? They're the world-leaders in many areas of science right now, if nothing else. You should compare Israel to even parts of Europe, which are not worth much on these grounds. I don't see you supporting the removal of Poland or Thailand at all. Maybe you would if leftists or Islam invaded? Or is this issue purely with the Jews for you?
Note: If you see the video Ben just did, he literally said that the best case for Israel is not on Biblical or racial grounds or otherwise, it's simply what would be best for the region: Israel or mindless terrorists? Very easy choice, unless you know something I don't about the moral worth and hidden genius of Hamas members? I'll wait.
this reminds me one of the reasons i became an atheist. at some point i was very confused and i was trying to decide which "side" makes more sense, trying to defend each of them against each other in my mind. i realized, whenever i try to defend my religion, i was being overly complicated, trying very hard to stay relevant. but when defending the other side, it was always very simple, very direct. i realized that i when i was religious, i wasn't really trying to find the truth, i was just trying to defend my ideas before.
The truth is complicated, simple is convenient
@e.a.5330 I'm sure there's plenty of other things that don't make sense to you dogmatically, like quantum mechanics or astrophysics, but we just have to learn that the truth isn't simple. That's how you get flat-earthers: I'm looking directly in front of me and it's not round as far as I can tell, so I guess it's flat. To debunk that, you'd have to give a complicated explanation.
Why would you think the concept of an all-knowing, omnipotent God would be simple?
if you're an atheist, then do you assume that your brain is the result of random, unguided processes? If you believe that, then how can you trust any conclusion that you come to? As C.S. Lewis stated it's like sawing off the branch you're sitting on. I would assume you trust your brain to come to the correct conclusion about things, but the real question is why would you assume that? Just some food for thought I know I've assumed a lot in this line of questioning. I have no idea what you believe about things and that's okay, stay on your search for truth.
@@thomasbecker5687 I think what they're saying is that in order for them to defend their own religion, they had to take a longer and less sensical path to the same conclusions. Why drive on the road filled with potholes? Also, why would you assume that the concept of an all-knowing, omnipotent God would be complicated. The entire point of the idea of a God is to be vague. Anyone's guess on how complicated or simple their God is is just as valid as any other.
Truth is usually quite simple but it's explaination can be quite complicated. My 12 year old asked why she can't yet learn to drive a car. Truth- I told her that she's not ready. She asks why. Then i try to explain- she needs to learn more situational awareness, hand-eye coordination, responsibility for actions, and understanding of actions and consequences. She was a bit lost in the explanation but the truth still remained. Maybe a dumb example, but don't let those that over explain muddy up the truth of God. We're sinners in need of a savior so we can be in good relationship with God, our creator. Jesus is that savior. It's that simple. The "hows" and "whys" are worth spending a lifetime exploring.
This that JBP content that got us all hooked 5-6 years ago.
Yes! Exactly!!
This is the content that got me unhooked lol.
Agreed
@@HeBrews-Coffee If you don't mind me asking, why did it push you away?
@@tinymentalist Your glass house must be invisible to you.
Well done Jordan; patient, articulate, caring and passionate.
Jordan Peterson is so physically active when speaking that he probably doesn't need the gym to stay trim.. Lol
@@asfdadfgdasfh4444 who said that?
That and he eats zero carbs.
@@asfdadfgdasfh4444 lol wtf, talk about starting an argument with something no one said.
@@MoveQuick4 LOL fr
@@asfdadfgdasfh4444dude, chill.
I am a buddhist and I love these guys.
You guys taught me a lots about this world and thinkings. 😊
How do you conciliate your belief in Buddhism and the implicit claim of Christianity being at a higher hierarchical position, in this interview?
yep. I truly appreciate both men. I learned a lot from both of them.
@@Handbook08I think he just doesn’t care. “No judgment” is one of Buddhist principles: anybody can believe whatever they want, it’s not a race, it’s not a competition, there is nothing to win.
a buddhist and you listen faithfully to this crap
@@MrGilRoland I see your point, but what would be his reasoning that Buddhism stands stands, given the other religious presuppositions? I’m genuinely curious. Let’s say if someone were to choose between these two, what made them choose to be ultimately a Buddhist?
I have to say, Richard impressed me with his openness during this conversation. Even though he didn't give much ground, this felt like a really honest conversation and I enjoyed every minute of it.
I was thrilled when I heard about this conversation and almost ecstatic when I saw the thumbnail in my feed. And justifiably so, very well done conversation from all of you.
Peterson: "This story explains the human condition"
Dawkins: "But did it really happen?"
Peterson: "This story is important to society"
Dawkins: "But did it really happen?"
Peterson: "This story tells us how to act"
Dawkins: "But did it really happen?"
😂😂😂
Three serious thinkers engaged in passionate reasoning. What a great treat this is!
Dawkins is hardly a serious thinker. Out of all the atheist thinkers history has produced, Dawkins and all his contemporary new atheists like Hitchens and Harris reside in the lowest ranks.
@@mrnaizguywhich atheists reside in the highest ranks?
@@anonymous.anonymity.bro u heard of David Hume?
Waste of time IMO. These two should never crossed path. At least i can tolerate Alex since he studied some theologies and actually knew about ancient mythology. All Dawkin was did is asking pointed question without providing any insight information. In the end, these two just debated on definitions.
@@anonymous.anonymity. David Hume
Those books Peterson mentioned:
A History of Religious Ideas (3 vol) - Mircea Eliade
The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion - Mircea Eliade
The Origins and History of Consciousness - Eric Neumann
The Great Mother: An Analysis of the Archetype - Eric Neumann
Thank you so much
Doing God's work. Thank you.
Mircea
@@Radu-l7q Bravo Radu 🙂👍
When I heard Mercea Eliade I went my man💪. For the record he’s name is Mircea Eliade.
"lion is gene; dragon is meme". That's a good quote, Alex. Well said
Lion is an archetype whence the material lion manifests.
"Dragon is meme" - Alex O'Connor, 2024
and yet there where dinosaurs...
@@subkutan22 dinosaurs are the primordial dragons
He's sleeping with Dawkins
I am in Team Dawkins here. He has the better, straight arguments.
What argument? All he said was: that doesn't interest me.
Yo no tengo equipo, tengo criterio propio.
@@soffmusic9655because it just isn't interesting. It is completely acceptable to be uninterested in the metaphorical or symbolic meaning of stories which many claim to be literal historical events.
1:00:45 Every gamer knows the feeling here where Jordan just wants his friend to try out the new video game because he knows Dawkins would be great at it but Dawkins "doesn't play those kinds of games because they don't interest him"
It's strange how someone who isn't interested in these games at all behaves like an outright spoilsport who, despite not being interested in them, doesn't even seem to begrudge the dedicated players the game. You only do that when you're locked in a room with people and can't just walk out to find something you enjoy yourself, as a prisoner of the situation, so to speak. But since Dawkins is in no way a prisoner, why does he always turn up at these kinds of shows?
@@ERH-ph5gbbecause he's interested in learning and understanding, but also because he understands his position as an educator and how it is beneficial to everyone observing the conversation. Dawkins is not one to make bold proclamations without substantiating it with reasonable scientific evidence, as opposed to Peterson who intentionally pushes himself into the realm of the absurd in an attempt at deriving that which we don't yet know. They both speak English, but each of their comprehensions of the language is rooted in completely distinct frameworks.
@@Allan_Stone It honours you that you interpret Dawkins as you write in the first paragraph. If it were so, which I don't know, then that's good.
Regarding being sure of one thing. You can say ‘not to make bold claims’ or ‘not without scientific proof’, but you can also speak of characters where one wishes to stay on the safe side and the other always takes a risk.
They represent very different players in language, true. Another commenter wrote "One talks about the paint, the other about the painting" - I very much agree with that.
If you talk about the painting, you cannot reference only on color, consistency, media, light etc. - you interpret the art.
If you want to stay safe, you only talk about the quantities and qualities of colors used, the exact paint, particular kind of canvas etc.
It's good to have both.
@@ERH-ph5gb I think that Dawkins has spent a great many years decrying the utility of Christianity in its most literal interpretations. Now that Peterson was able to elucidate the merits of interpreting it metaphorically by connecting a great many established scientific consensus which no one else (to my knowledge) has been able to prior to this conversation; I believe it is with great hesitation that Dawkins acedes his original understanding of the utility of Christianity. With that said, I'd be very curious to see how (or if) Dawkins continues to develop these ideas sown by Peterson.
@@Allan_Stone That's an interesting observation you made. Dawkins' hesitation will probably not be completely abandoned by anyone other than himself. It helps to debate with educated people though. Ultimately, the step of fully understanding the benefits of Christianity only happens in one's own conscience.
This conversation was absolutely incredible. Especially towards the end. I'm so thankful Alex was there to moderate too.
I felt like a hunger had been satiated after hearing these gents discuss their ideas and hypotheses. We are so fortunate to have access to this sort of content. It is truly invaluable.
so true
if Jordan would have said "well I don't mean literally" or even "i don't want to answer" or if Dawkins could have read that he would not get a straight answer in that regard, we would have not gotten stuck.
Not sure Jordan dismissed all straight answers, as always
100% Agreed.
I hope that both men are made measurable better for it .
@@matthewhudlow9780 "im not qualified to answer" is certainly a way to say exactly that
Jordan just keeps redefining simple categories and words into something completely incomprehensible.
To you. He was perfectly comprehensible to me, but as they've concluded, brains work differently. So maybe how he lays out a concept may not be comprehensible to certain people.
You’re just too dumb to understand
Peterson is at his best when he contends. While other conversations may flow exactly how you want them to, being challenged in your ideas forces you to compress them. - Not in a manner in which YOU understand them but so people who don’t agree with you ‘see’ what your saying. This whole conversation is finding the super compressed treasure behind the serpent.
The incliantion of commenters to seem profound on jp videos is insane
@@stefanpetricevic5138Well, what he said is certainly more profound than your whiney complaint. If you came up with a legitimate counter-argument, that’d be different. Instead, you’re just trolling. Bring substance next time.
@@SiD-KiD cope
great point there
@@stefanpetricevic5138 showing your low iq
Oh lord let me sit and watch this with my popcorn 😂😂😂😂
Yes yes 😍😍😍😍😍😍
Same 😂
Indeed 😂
I've got cheeses and nuts because I do keto but I am right there with you.
🍿
It seems to me that Peterson showed up seeking to collaborate while Dawkins expected a debate, and it took about an hour before the conversation actually reached the level of productivity that Peterson was seeking from the outset. I appreciate his patience and humility in this conversation.
What? I must have heard a different conversation. Peterson just dodged everything as usual
@scottm85 You have to open your mind in order to understand Jordan lol.
@@scottm85 Yes, you must have, because that did not happen. Maybe your animosity against Peterson is making you distort things so it fits whatever it is you feel against him
@@scottm85Peterson is at his core, a psychologist. His foundational terms are entirely different than Dawkins’. It’s not dodging when you’re trying to open the mind to alternate theories and ideas, which is, at the very core of what Jordan does, and does exceptionally well. These are two men with very different specialties and areas of expertise, to say he’s dodging isn’t a fair assessment.
@@scottm85 I used to think like Dawkins and I am actually an atheist too. But I can clearly see what Peterson tries to convey here. And I can't deny the impact he describes. I don't believe Cain existed nor most things said in the bible, but that doesn't change the message. Reacting like this to something that is so present and real for many people, disregarding the valuable lessons that can be found there, is not the best aproach.
I believe Jordan's aproach to god is a very healthy one. "I don't belive god exists, but I act like if he does" essentially.
The Bible is a beautiful system of morality veiled in allegory illustrated through signs and symbols
I came here probably more of a dawkins "fan" just because i am way more familiar with his work. That said this conversation left me with significantly more respect for Petersons mind and overall disappointed/confused by Dawkins motives and cynicism. Great job Alex
yeah right? Dr. Dawkins claims he's not interested in stories and symbols but his own idea of a 'meme' and how it catches on is reminiscent of symbolism in and of itself.
No no, Dawkins is interested if it’s from the ground up, and he would have been more interested if Peterson simply admited that Jesus of Nazareth was obviously not born of a virgin in a literal sense. Not admitting this straight up makes any rational person frown. It is Petersons top down approach that is fundamentally unscientific and religious and silly.
@filip14528 he doesn't have a fundamentally top down approach. He said explicitly whether it's top down or bottom up the effect it had was the same and he's trying to understand that impact.
@@TheBanderson22 Yes, fair. And so I would say when he calls archetypical ideas devine he’s being silly and when he talks about memes favoring certain genes and eventually turning in archetypes he is not.
@@filip14528 How do you know thats the case? Peterson said he doesnt know and thats a totally legitimate answer as no one can know. You can claim that is probable that it didnt happen and that is as legitimate as saying you dont know if it happened
24:45 An absolutely masterfully timed ad break. Perhaps the best one I've ever seen.
It will be studied for ages lol
I’m so happy you got to have this time with Dr. Dawkins, dearest Dr. Peterson, I know how long you have been looking forward to it and how much you have worked to prepare for it. I was just thinking how well you look, your color is so good and your eyes are so bright and full of light, and I hope that you are feeling as well as you are looking. It looks to me that you thrived on this conversation and that is so much what I wanted for you. I can’t tell you how much.
Here is a gentle hug
And Ruth Anne’s love ❤
I have now watched the whole conversation, and found it both interesting and challenging. Both parties made a lot of interesting points, but I do prefer Richard's quiet conciseness vs Jordan's loud verbosity. I think Jordan deserves to be listened to, but I imagine conversation with him would be exhausting anf frustrating, as he jumps from point to point, and by his body language demands you to agree with him. Also, the moderator was excellent