Palestine is a Farsi word/name "پا و دستان - paa-va-dastan" which means legs and hands for work building homes. Disciple is "دست [و] پا دار - dast-o-paadar" which means "having [skilled] hands and legs".Cross/Christ is "کار است - kaar-ast" which means "It is the work [which determines the ownership of a home, the one who built it]. At that time everyone except a few who claimed the ownership of all lands and water passed to them by their ancestors, everybody else were homeless, trespassers and slaves to the landlord. Palestinians were the workers who helped Eesa Messiah (Jesus) build homes using wood in the form of Cross as the joints of the structure making permanent residence. Disciples were the skilled worker/foreman.
@CodyAdams-pf9un it's such an oversimplification to equate living by the golden rule (or however you define harris' "universal ethic") with "being rational." sure, it sounds simple and obvious enough, but in the real world, when competing "golden rule values" come into conflict, people have turned to religion to determine which value to give precedence. whether you agree with a given religion or system of law or not, the fact that it provides some clarity and direction on these matters that is not subject to humans' biases and our ability to constantly shift goalposts and rationalize that, does give it somewhat of an advantage in that respect.
Just remember that you are a bumbling male brained idioto and just ascent to her point of view because she is a strong, smart insightful woman. Rinse and repeat. Then you die
Turning the heat on or off is not the problem; it's who has control of the thermostat.....lol. You can do as I did and install a second dummy thermostat but I must state, I'm not responsible for any repercussions if you're caught.
It's in the dominance hierarchy of values that's been socially constructed around the guitar is the most Jordan Peterson thing that Jordan Peterson has ever said
@waynedurning8717 Hitch would bury Peterson. Hitch was so smart, sometimes I'm amazed he was human... the way he spoke bro, it's like carefully thought out essays just spew from his mouth off the cuff WITH citations. lol.
It’s not clear what you’re trying to say (partly because you’re mixing two different units of verbosity - pages and words). Are you saying that they’re good at condensing 100 pages down to 2 pages?
Malcolm X said "The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent.” Media has the power to influence minds, ideas, behaviors, and attitudes of the masses.
" You have to be careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing" Malcolm X@@waynedurning8717
So---are you saying "media" is an "authority" and they are always correct in their promotion and attention, their commentary and their scorn? Media has been wielding a lot of scorn lately...
Sam just completely skirts the issue when Jordan asks him to ground his own ethical claims. Jordan is getting at the heart of the issue and Sam just reveals himself as a third religion condemning the other two.
Sam tries to be as general as possible, because the moment he’s specific, he’s pointed to his contradiction. I loved on the comment above someone thinking it was ingenious when he said “Fighting for Elton Jons glass but Elton Jons wasn’t even here”, when in his own analogy he already states who’s glass it is from.
Right at the end Sam says: "that passion for land doesn't characterise most of humanity". Except it does, it's why people have fought wars for their country. It's why countries spend money on their courts and military to defend principles and land. It's partly why the west is funding the war in ukraine to their own financial detriment
He said humanity, not leaderships of humanity. In that case, he’s correct. leaderships, specially the less civilized ones of the past, are more obsessed with conquest and power, not humanity.
He called ppl that subjectively value stuff dumb and they should value the universe. And Jordan asked what it’s grounded in? Well…. It’s valued in subjectivity which is a contradiction.
@@illuvinomics Sam’s epistemic political positions flip all of his own arguments against him. I’ve seen him speak in person and he’s had a struggle with dissonance and paradox on so many of his positions for many years. Instead of reconciling, integrating, or deliberating on contradictions that his friends level at him, he becomes dismissive and indignant. It’s crazy, my debate team went to one of his events over a decade ago and we asked him to build an argument against the risks of relativism and he responded in a hamfisted way. Regardless, I still like him.
Sam threw his entire integrity under the bus by stating law breaking and suspension of basic civil rights is justified as long as it's done for reasons Sam believes in.
@@tiromandal6399 Nobody lied. Harris laid it all out in his Triggernometry interview. The fact that leftist morons cheer on his Machiavellianism is further reason not to trust him. PS: I doubt Sam cares that much about bacteria or humans.
The problem with this debate is that both Harris and Peterson will pick over each other's words so much, they get distracted from the point they are trying to make. They interrupt to argue something that is merely incidental making the actual positions appear as mere noise amongst an explosion of ontologies, epistemologies and other stances that can be either assumed by the listener or are irrelevant. It can certainly be argued that this is done on purpose so they can sound smarter than they are.
They have to because a fruitful debate must first establish definitions. Human language is crude and imprecise, so definitions have to be established at pretty much every turn so as to mitigate misunderstandings and mistaken assumptions.
I caught Peterson doing that more so than Sam; it’s a sign that winning his argument is more important to him; so he’ll nitpick and cherry pic to win points that may not be relevant to the bigger point.
I don't agree. Peterson picks apart Sam's words. Sam just asserts something to be true. That his way is just obviously rational, his way is objectively moral, anybody who disagrees is silly and should just do what he says.
@@TheHighlanderprime You win an argument by reaching the truth mate. You are suggesting one shouldn't be truthful and accurate in one's words? Sam absolutely is required to define what he means, or how he comes to the conclusion that he is more moral or rational than the rest of us.
Not much substance here 😂 The glass is the universe and there are fingerprints all over it. To disprove the existence of God one must also empirically rule it out. How can an ant rule out that it’s on a planet if it doesn’t have the mental faculties to discern a more complex reality. We are the ant using the limits of our capacity to prove the limits of reality.
I sometimes imagine how it would be if there was a sort of universal amnesia. Then I reflect on some work of lost art found in a person’s attack or even painted over because it was considered only valuable as a canvas. Then look at disagreements where records are thin, past temperatures deducted from tree rings, denigration of past civilisations that left more records over ones that had no records. Into the void interpretation leaps to find meaning, to attribute importance and relevance to the present. I suspect the outcome would still be conflict. We tend to de-humanise opposition by self righteous indignation. I cannot think of any National partition that was not problematic, Cyprus, Ireland, India/Parkistan, Vietnam, Germany and the solutions vary according to circumstance. Sometimes it may be the best compromise from a bad deal. When the music stops someone always ends up with the empty chair.
I'm proud to be part of a comment section that is so peaceful and harmonious. Refreshing to see discourse that doesn't take sides or disparage people and ideas that they disagree with! :)
JP if you’re reading this, please stop doing the exact same 3 hand gestures to illustrate every point you think you make in every conversation you ever have. Thanks.
@@chadalpha7983 It is ignorant... God was here, is here, and he gave that land to Israel over 3,000 years ago It was all recorded and accepted, that's why it's a country called Israel.
9:23 i was about to extract and pinpoint the exact time Harris delivers this incredible phrase! It sums up pretty much everything as far as the history of religion goes.
The only problem with that fictional joke by Sam Harris is that....... Israel was a real place with real jews living there centuries before Caesar and none of it relies upon any supernatural legends. So you'd have to say it was Elton John's glass and here is the receipt for when Elton John bought the glass, and an inventory Elton John submitted to his insurance company to specifiy what in his home would be covered in the event of a fire, and here are some pictures of Elton John having used the glass multiple times over multiple years. At that point, it is irrelevant if Elton John is here or not, the glass belonged to him.
Sam gave a zinger there which was a cheap rhetorical trick that served red meat to his crowd. But it didn't meaningfully contribute to the dialogue for many reasons, not the least being because if the two highest bidders believe it's Elton John's glass and a lower bidder (or worse, a disinterested member of the peanut gallery) is shouting from the rooftops that Elton John was never even here, that input will probably do nothing but earn him the status of ignorant heckler and his further utterances will be tainted by that blunder (meaning everyone who believes it was Elton John's glass will downgrade the value of the ignorant heckler's input on this and likely all future topics on which he comments). There is a much, much, much more straightforward path to victory for rationalists than the endless rhetorical games. All they need is to do is devote serious effort to defining God in rational terms which have enough practical overlap with believers/theists that this new definition gains traction among the religious community. Instead of ridiculing people for believing in a bearded guy in the sky, try to build a bridge to connect theists and atheists on this central facet of their ongoing disagreement. Define God in terms like these three were attempting in this clip, using lenses like behavioral impact of belief vs. non-belief. If Sam had devoted 1/4 of the energy to that which he has devoted these last few decades to poking holes in religion, he might have already finished the bridge.
The issue I have with Sam Harris regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict, is that not only does he simplify things by saying "Oh, wouldn't it be nice if they could just be friends?" but he actively refuses to accept the inhumane mistreatment of the Palestine people by the Israeli government for the past 60 years. He takes the easy route by blaming it all on jihad and fundamentalist Muslims, while never once recognizing the true impact of history. He's playing cowboys and Indians, and the real world is a bit more complex than that.
Sam Harris - the Elton John glass example was great.. However, imagine your great great grandfather hander over that glass to your father and your father handed it over to you as their last memory, would you still say that it is an Elton John glass and Elton John is no longer here. Probably not. Because once the glass is in possession of a human who paid for it or got it as a souvenir. That possesion has some value. Similarly possesion of Judea & Sumaira has an intrinsic value for Jewish people because it's not just "a" land. It's "their" land. And the same goes for Palestinians
I always thought Sam Harris was rational, until I listened to him on Covid. Listening to Neil deGrasse Tyson and Sam Harris demonstrates how intelligent people can be led astray by their supreme confidence that they are intelligent and therefore right. Both of these intellectuals made absolute fools of themselves on Covid. It was fascinating to watch.
Talking about compromise is nice and all, but let's keep in mind that one side is not willing to accept ANY compromise (just look at the history of negotiations, as well as their current and past marketing campaigns) and simply wants the total annihilation of the other. I think everyone understands which side is which.
For people who don’t get it. israel is the terrorist state that isn’t willing to admit to its atrocities and unify the original land owners with the new colonizers
someone occupies your house and you want to negotiate over what parts you can own? why? you had full authority over it didnt you, even if that man lived there prior.
I mean I respect Jordan and Bret, but of the many discussions they've had with many people, they said a lot less that was meaningful here than anything else I have seen or recall.
@@jahazielhernandez8746 You can take any person that you respect, and if you listen to them long enough, you will find things they say that you don't agree with. Literally, no two human beings share the same views about everything. I just said I respect him, not that I agree with him on everything. He sounds constructive, thoughtful, and well meaning most of the time. It is obvious that he tries to help people and undoubtedly has. He tells people to be thoughtful, kind, assertive, take responsibility for themselves, and to not just think selfishly. I don't see where anybody should have a major problem with him, he is anti establishment, talks intelligently about a variety of topics, and is and basically a good dude. You are entitled to believe whatever you like, and I could care less what that is.
@@johns7530 you clearly care if you're willing to respond with a paragraph. Peterson is a failed clinical psychologist who carelessly talks on subjects he never studied. Just thought you should be aware
Think about this.. if 2 of the better articulated thinkers of our generation take this long to not come to an agreement.. what hope is there for Jerusalem
I think we'd have to agree that these two are "the two better articulated thinkers of our time" first. Sam's objective truths springing to life by fallacy of negative evidence or as he calls it, subjective truths, is a bunch of mumbojumbo. We are all familiar with the paradox of proving a negative.
There is a saying in Egyptian Arabic that goes like this: "a person whose hands in in the fire, is not the same as a person whose hands is in the water". It is almost obscene to talk about this topic, as if it was mere philosophy & the people dying had all the time in the world to wait for gentlemen with ties to get their ideas aligned. What about the "attachment" some countries have to oil, or power? Not everything is religious, or spiritual & out of reach.
religious war & holy lands, these two expressions are so sad :( So we all admit that if the land wasn't holy the war if happened would be called something else. What if the holiness of it is in fact is just an excuse because it's so rooted despite its destructive history, that it makes it the perfect tool?
When contemplating Palestinian claims to the land there is a major disconnect most people do not consider, or are not aware of. The title Palestine is an English transliteration of Philistia, which was the homeland of the Philistines. There are no people alive today who claim a pedigree in relation to the ancient Philistines. The Palestinians not only do not claim to have a connection to the ancient Philistines, they take offense to the notion. Arab peoples' claims of historic connection to the land we currently call Israel, only go back as far as 635 CE, when it was annexed by the Rashidun Caliphate. Conflict over real estate in Palestine between Arabs & Jews, for the most part only began near the end of the 19th century, when Jews began to return to their historical homeland. Anti-Semitism increased in intensity and violence in the majority of European countries to which they had been dispersed, and Israel which lay fallow and sparsely populated, was collectively the logical place to return to.
I think this obsession about Who was there before Is nonsense. It can be a factor but no way you forget history Is a vorticous succession of the same fact ever and ever again, humans are belligerant and want to conquer others. This lead to the fact that every inbetween inhabitant can claim having been there. You don't see every country of the world being claimed by ancient inhabitants. That can be a factor but not the root factor alone. There Is Also the face not so irrelevant that Sionism has changed the meaning of Judaism and good portion of Jews doesn't even recognize Israel as his homeland, because They still see It as promise Land, till the coming of the Messiah. It Is ok to put a state for the new jews where They can live, you can put in on the spot like no other country in the world, but It seems to me that this should come with consideración of other inhabitants without the Need to dig to see if They are a mix of ethnic provenience, or when They start to live there. This as a premise, letting alone the very intelligent strategy used by Israel along the years.
What a stupid comment. "The Palestinians not only do not claim to have a connection to the ancient Philistines, they take offense to the notion. Arab peoples' claims of historic connection to the land we currently call Israel, only go back as far as 635 CE, when it was annexed by the Rashidun Caliphate." Palestinians didn't spring from the ground. Nor are they merely "Arabs." Do you know what the elite dominance model is? That is when a conquering group takes over a piece of land and the natives begin using the conquering group's language/some customs. One example is, for example, Mexico. Most Mexicans aren't "Spanish." Most Mexicans are descended from the indigenous populations of Mexico (e.g., Aztecs). A similar process took place in the territory of Palestine/Israel/Judea (whatever you want to call it). Most Palestinians are descended from Jews who first converted to Christianity and subsequently converted to Judaism. Palestinians have a better claim to be "descendants from Ancient Israel" than Ashkenazi Jews - who have significant European admixture. That conclusion, mind you, is the same that David Ben-Gurion reached. None of that particularly matters. There is is no basis in international law for "my ancestors have a claim to this land from 2,000 years ago." If one were to agree to this, one would have to agree to the reasoning behind Germany's invasion of Eastern Europe because at one point in time the Vandals and Goths lived in those areas until the Huns arrived. The rest of your comment is equally idiotic, "and Israel which lay fallow and sparsely populated, was collectively the logical place to return to." Even if Israel was "sparsely populated" (by hundreds of thousands of Palestinians) there is no right to immigrate to a new place and attempt to create an ethno-state that excludes the native population.
The sentimental attachement for land isn’t present only for people who sit comfort and talk about war. I would like to know how this brilliant philosopher would react if his city was invaded, his house brunt, his family killed in front of his eyes. Would it be irrational to have a sentiment?
Was it Einstein who said that if you can't explain it simply, then you don't understand it well enough? Because Peterson reminded me of that quote the moment he started talking about “domain of facts” and “domain of value.” That’s what irks me about him. He tends or likes to complicate things (perhaps in an attempt to confuse the other person disagreeing with him) by throwing word salad.
He's wordy, but that's academia in the liberal arts. A ton of domains and theoretical perspectives. He's just tries to parse them out. Most people believe these theories as fact not knowing why or that they are following some neomarxist theory
This debate has a good point on how to address a fact. Fact = True. Personal experiences do not change a fact. How a person emotionally feels about a fact should not expect others to agree based on obligation or social acceptance.
How would you address a sentence like "What you said to me was rude." Is that ever a fact? Seems if it is, it can ONLY depend on how someone feels about it.
@@williambarnes3021Don't we recognise some words are ,rude,. EG. F..k off. ? Or is ALL language subjective. And if it IS, that makes communication nigh on impossible.
@@lottielane2486 Yes my point is, in response to OP, is that, in a theoretical sense, truth CAN be in the eye of the beholder. I could say "F off" with a smile and meaning it almost ironically. You could think it is rude and be emotionally affected by it. Even though it wasn't my intent, you still reacted as if it were rude. Was it truely rude? To you, yes. But would be the "fact" that OP cited?
As an atheist and an Israeli and also a big fan of both of these gentlemen - It's amazing how little even these two geniuses know about what's goin' on in here. The subject debated was very interesting but have so little to do with the reality in Israel.
I think they didn’t get to the concept that regulates all modern societies which is if people don’t believe that property rights matter then there is no law and order - regardless of religion. It is a foundation to even Americas survival. If people don’t believe that the society will honor property laws then it breaks down families and the essentially all of society.
Peterson hit the nail on the head when he asked Harris what the basis for that universal value structure is. In a purely materialist worldview, there is no such basis.
Sam Harris replied to that very wisely. He said you don't have to say I am not going to get out of the bed unless I know what was there before Bigbang(paraphrase). We workout our problems with secular ethics while we figure out the universal value structure.
That’s called civility. The common ground that we all share in the civilized world. Harris made a real life reference; whereas Peterson made a more philosophical one. I’m camp Harris on that one.
I think there's a disagreement regarding what is the greater motivation for action for people. Sam seems to think hunger and thirst (needs that must be satisfied for the continuation of life, therefore a reasonable priority) will be a more powerful motivation than the idea that a sacred thing will be desecrated and no one is doing something to stop it. I think people will withstand hunger and pain if the thing at stake is close enough to their heart.
@@katja6332 I will. But he often speaks of an objective standards (a supposedly most reasonable standard) that people are prevented from adopting because of their damn primitive attachments to history, religion and the sacred. I just think he doesn't give enough credit to those things, narratives, that people create and place above their immediate material needs. I'll watch it again though. Just to make sure 👍🏻
@@katja6332I'm still re-watching, but I wanted to point something around the 4:50 min mark. He said "you have a domain of sacred values where otherwise rational people cease to be rational". The thing that stands out in a conversation like this is the use of the word "rational", because that term needs to have it's boundaries defined. Jordan challenged it and I think he was right to say so. What I meant is that he thinks that it is irrational to reject an agreement that would bring about peace and cease suffering in favor of war in the defense of sacred religious beliefs. And I agree that it is hard to relate when the thing in question is irrelevant to you, but what about an example more close to home? The example I would point to is the infamous Sam Harris Trigernometry interview: Sam believes American democracy is facing an existential threat in the form of a new Donald Trump presidency. Sam wouldn't say he worships American democracy, but it is clearly VERY important to him, personally. Why do I say thay? Because an otherwise rational, intellectually honest and ethical man like Sam said he doesn't care if the other candidate has a son who hides dead bodies in his basement, he would support a conspiracy to hide that information from the public, ensuring it doesn't influence the result of the election, so long as Trump is not elected for another 4 years. When Sam feels something truly sacred is under threat, his morals loosen (very human reaction, I don't meant to suggest it isn't). So maybe he should understand why people who think the most sacred of things are at stake are willing to forgo peace in favor of what they hold sacred. Suddenly the term "reasonable" isn't specific enough to describe the matter in question. (please don't take this as justification for anything that is done in the middle east conflict. I'm just saying that we shouldn't act as if we are aliens who can't understand the motivations involved. I don't support fanatisms, ever). I'll keep watching, but I thought this was a good example to illustrate the point. Haha I'm traveling right now, so I have plenty of time.
@@katja6332 I just finished re-watching. Peterson later points out how loaded the adjective "reasonable" is. And I do understand what that Sam means to do is to challenge the religious hierarchy of values. And, to be honest, I do the same myself often enough (I might give an example later), but I think that he is way too dismissive of religious people's perspective, and that is the most unpersuasive approach to the issue. I think it's how Peterson says often enough: it's a hierarchy of values, and there lies the conflict. Often enough it is as Sam says: people care more about their next meal and their health than the status of sacred symbols. But even those people can take torches and pitchforks once their bellies are full, and they do, constantly. So the issue can't be solved by just offering a sweet, comfortable deal to everyone involved. Ideally, what must change is the hierarchy of values itself. I don't think you are going to convince people to abandon their religion and centuries worth of traditions, but perhaps they might change their mind about what is acceptable so long as unspeakable suffering can come to an end. Fanatics are not going to be persuaded though, that's a big obstacle. Going back to my previous example of Sam and the elections, that is for me a good example of why values not rooted in tradition and sacred practice have weaker roots. If you don't hold truth and integrity as religiously sacred, you can dispense with them at your convenience. And I don't mean to say that religious people aren't dishonest or lack integrity constantly. But they can be held to a standard that they can't refuse. That is why a priest, or the Pope himself, can intercede in a conflict and lecture catholics on their behavior. So religious people aren't inherently morally superior or anything like it, they just have a more established standard and they can't refuse it (lest they be judged in the afterlife). So religious traditions and narratives aren't so worthless as Sam suggests. Maybe no specific one is universally valuable, but they help people channel that human dimention that handles the highest of values (the sacred). It gives the relationship to the sacred order and norms (since there are many things one can get wrong in that realm of human thought). I just think that Sam acts as if these human principles don't apply to him or to "reasonable people", but I think they do. My example of challenging a religious hierarchy of values is that, in the case of christians (the only one's in my vicinity l), I suggest that is more important that people live by the Christian values they preach rather than have them believe in their sacred stories and icons. I think Jesus would find that acceptable, he was a humble man. However, those values may not withstand the passage of time without the traditions, texts, icons and rituals; so they shouldn't lose those either.
So you're speaking for all people? Would you mind quantifying that? Hunger, pain, thirst, etc., are hardwired into our collective instinct for survival, and it is well conserved in animal brains. Most christians wouldn't murder their children even if Jesus appeared on their doorstep and asked them to do so, and these same people claim to hold Jesus close to their hearts before all else. The instinct to protect their children is a powerful basic instinct, much like hunger and thirst. Anyway, I'm certain some religious extremists would agree with you, but most people, first and foremost, want to survive and want their loved ones to survive, and would not put politics and religion above that survival. Even a drowing Hamas member would grab the hand of an Israeli soldier to survive. Ultimately, if the Israelis and Palestinians can't come to a secular resolution, and put aside their differences, they will never find peaceful coexistence.
That's rubbish and Sam Harris is thick when it comes to political problem solving. The question of land is an existential issue for all humans secular or religious. I'd like to see him settle for a house in Lithuania instead of a cosy Canadian village. I wonder if US citizens would had no problem sharing their country with 300 mln Indians because China decided so. This question is like nothing to do with religion. Religion is an icing on the cake. The elephant in the room is that there is an occupation going on which through the years evolved into extreme secularism.
The guy dances around the question... well, and a philosopher is paid to say things that don't stand or are incomplete. He should simply say that religions are the problem, period.
there was a kid in school, his name was Chris, he didn’t have friends, one day he ripped out some really complicated stuff that got praise from his teacher and even the bullies said he was the smartest guy in school. From then on he would give commentary on everything and present it as fact, he would dribble out absolute garbage with confidence, he had no confidence talking to a girl but he had confidence in knowledge even if he just made it up because the bullies believed he was smart. Yes he was a virgin. Right here we have a debate between a couple of dudes speaking garbage and they know us lesser advanced youtube commenters will think they must be knowledgeable because they say it with confidence
They don't know what they are talking about, they are just saying things for financial reward. They are a brand and it doesn't matter what the topic, they will provide commentary for a fee @@klosnj11
He doesn't usually allow people to finish their arguments. Unless they are in complete agreement with him. He has that unlikeable quality that he believes he is right about everything.
@kafkachekhov Nonsense. People who are public figures who engage in a lot of discussions can be observed. Some people who are very bright are quite arrogant, others are much more humble. People who are objective and leave room for being wrong, and allow their beliefs to change and evolve tend to learn more about what is actually true than people who think they are always right, and never leave room to change what they believe. I've seen enough of Sam to form the opinion that he is quite arrogant. My opinion, you are entitled to yours. Cheers.
I always think it's humorous how guys like Sam Harris are so intelligent, yet so oblivious to all their assumptions on human nature and what's "obvious"
That was brilliant… That’s why sometimes I think the Israeli Palestinian conflict is to fictions fighting each other. Which is terribly cynical and dismissive. I mean you could go back and blame the God of the Old Testament, who told the followers of Abraham they can go in and have the land of the Canaanites. But how can you argue with God?
Fighting over land especially if you need it to survive is quite rational. It's trust that is irrational, but that is also what Sam fights against. It would be irrational for both sides to trust each others, so they fight. Sam fights the only solution that was ever devised. But he can do a brain scan and realize they don't trust each others.
Redicoulos they created a country inside other and they come kick you from your home no compensation move you to a refuge camps in gaza creat ilegal settlements and bring your people from around the world to live there
But they're not fighting over the land to just survive, they're fighting over it because their holy text provide them the belief that the land is more important than it is
@@uhnborhn5032 it's a colony since 1947 people kicked off from their houses away since NAKBA we have to accept and Israel are the good ones and in GAZA there's 2.2 millions of animals half of them are children animals Ffs what's wrong with people why they don't see what is going on exactly
Sam is a great debater with fantastic rhetorical skills, making him a fierce competitor in dialogues and not such a great cooperator. Peterson engages in long-form conversations, which are more cooperative than competitive. Sam can legitimately think that Peterson is trying to muddy the waters at times because he approaches every conversation as a competition more than a cooperation. So he interrupts with a parry to stop what he sees as the opening setup to a later attack. But Peterson is actually trying to reach out and give him a hand to help them come together, and is frequently flummoxed by the repeated parries which prevent him from properly extending his offer to cooperate.
I know both Harris and Peterson are highly educated and intelligent, but they argue in a way that its like they're playing a game of who's the smartest and has the biggest vocabulary. Simplify the message gentlemen and you'll affect many more people.
@@michaelknight2897that's not a very charitable take, but I can't say it's strictly inaccurate as a brief summation of his position. Sam is more like a computer than most people. His thoughts are very orderly and refined. But if being that way was of general utility to the human experiences, we'd have all drifted a lot closer to his stance than we collectively have. He doesn't know what he doesn't know, in part because he doesn't see what he can't see. Too many parts of the evolutionarily advantageous constellation of human experiences/traits/fundamentals are just a bit outside of his reach even though they're still called strikes. So he ends up lamenting that the game is rigged since he can't hit every strike in the zone, but a key problem is he's standing too far back in the box and is either unable or unwilling to move forward.
@@zadenwachter9918 Sam is a computer? Hardly. He thinks "rationality" leads to a single outcome...his outcome. He thinks if everyone was just rational then everyone would think like him and the world would be better. The fact is, rationality can lead to many outcomes, all logical. Sam ultimately isn't interested in the "why" when it comes to beliefs and thoughts. Therefore, he is just a man left wondering why everyone doesn't think like him as he dismisses the majority of the human experience as unknowable and therefore irrelevant. Peterson wants to know why people think a certain way whereas Sam simply tells people what to think. Ultimately, this is why Sam is not very interesting to me. He has never said anything new as he covers no new territory. Where as Peterson introduces new perspectives on old topics.
Clearly Hamas. The Palestinians didn't attack Israel, Hamas did. And that is what he was responding to. I too thought it was uncharacteristically aggressive/undiplomatic! He's just released a video article about it, and he references his tweet getting him into trouble.
It is true that every single person on this earth is interconnected in some way. However, what divided them are country, religion, beliefs, and so on, when fundamentally they are one and the same. Why is there should a divide that justify them to fight one another and raise the feeling of superiority over another being, and do we need that? Please reflect deeply on this.
Canaanites were Semites. How can the Jews argue they were there first? Secondly, before Zionism kicked off both religions lived in peace. Jews and Muslim.
Analogies are not valid arguments and when analogies are used as an example for understanding they are still not the issue itself and leave out the full context of the issue and even possibly misguide the parties on what they are actually arguing.
There are times I love listening to Jordan or Bret, b/c they are often insightful and use an economy of words. Here they used a great many words and said very little that seemed all that meaningful. Just my take.
The scary thing about intellectuals is most of them analyze a situation based on theories and what ifs and not a reality of a person living their life with legitimate circumstance that actually deserves compassion and empathy. Most intellectuals also don’t know how to feel real emotions.
@@black_squallsaid as innocent palestinian civillians were being bombed. There's no excusing that kind of rhetoric. Someone as smart as Peterson would know full well the damage someone with his his influence could have when putting out such flippant messages to his followers. Complicated situations require complicated responses. He showed his true face and its baying for blood.
Yeah you gotta wonder why HAMAS prevents civilians from evacuating HAMAS held buildings after Israel warns them to leave. Why would HAMAS do such a thing?
@@DoctorMooCow What would you have Israel do? It is tragic, but if Hamas hides behind Palestinian people as they launch attacks at Israel, all blood is on their hands. Israel must defend itself. They declared war on Israel. What is the "nuanced" and "complex" response when Hamas has hundreds of hostages (women and children) and everything we saw on Oct. 7 that Hamas themselves has posted on social media? Yeah it's complicated, but Hamas is CLEARLY the bad guys here and collateral damage is just a sad reality. "His true face" is too eradicate this evil. It is the correct and only response.
Same. But eventually I realized that that burning urge to solve the universe before I go to work was only holding me back and I had to shut it down for a while just so I could function in society and not completely lose my mind.
Three smart guys trying to place value on a guitar. "We could look at the interpersonal space" "We could place value based on a picture" Sam: "WE COULD SCAN THEIR BRAINS" I can't stop laughing.
It’s so painful watching peterson when he debates actually intelligent thinkers. Whilst peterson is very knowledgeable and experienced in data driven outcomes, his ACTUAL capacity for thought and comprehension seems to be pretty limited. And then he dances around the foundational point that is aimed at him, then his opponent has to come up with all these theoreticals to try and pin him to acknowledge the point. He’s pretty dim tbh
There have been these conflicts in the lands of Jerusalem for many years, for more than fifty years. Israel surrounded Palestine here with wire fences and there is an embargo, people live as if they are in prison. This is wrong, it must end. If the parties are convinced of peace, peace and stability can come to the Middle East. We pray to God and it is very painful that wars are increasing Russia Ukraine There is no and there are no winners. If everyone fights because there are weapons in the country, the world will collapse and go away. May God help us for peace.
Cliff notes: One guy uses a analogy to make a point then the other guy uses a more in depth analogy to counter it. The original guy the uses another analogy to counteract then the other guy gives another analogy
That's quite a leap from materialistic desire for a glass to therefore religion is just an idea that makes you feel good. What he is saying is an abstract idea, that makes him feel smug and smart (gives him comfort, feels good). Therefore by his own standard, shouldn't he also dismiss his own point of view? After all, if he is going to belittle religion because it is a world view that makes people feel good then he should belittle his own point of view, which probably makes him feel good. This argument collapses onto itself when it's applied to itself.
reminds me of the Indiana Jones movie where the wild Samurai does fast menacing samurai sword moves with his sword a few feet in front of Harrison Ford, and Harrison just sighs, takes out his giant gun and shoots him dead. Peterson can be like that…he creates an amazing elaborate set of interconnections around the mental constructs of a guitar’s value owned by Elvis, then the mediator stops him in his tracks and says “wait a minute dude, it’s valuable because it’s ELVIS’s Guitar!”
The problem with all these guys is that they have fallen in love with their own magic trick. It's the trapping of having a highly developed logical mind. But to me they all miss the mark.
Well if the precepts define the notion of presuppositional context, the flux capacitor should propel us forwards and pull us backwards in time - jordan peterson
Now Imagine what type of peace in the world will turned into If all Ethnicities or religions been allowed to claim lands based on their own deep history interpretation..!?
It is a great debate between two moral philosophers and intellectuals, but the attempt to trivialise and reduce the conflict to "it will all disappear if the religion was not present" is simply erroneous. Our animalistic instincts are natural mechanisms that secured our survival by protecting our offspring, food, territory. There is nothing irrational in Arabs and Israelis both making claims to have the right to live on that land. If someone was to tell Sam that his attachment to his house is irrational, I doubt Sam would have agreed and have vacated. The problem is in the irrational hatred that has been propagated for centuries and fuelled by geopolitical interest of diverse powers. It is very hard to find reason when generation upon generation of Muslims, Christians and Jews have been at each other's throats. In the most recent history, an opportunity has presented itself after the fall of the Ottoman empire when Britts had ruled the Palestinian land. It might be a bold statement, but had Britts consulted Palestinians rather than forcibly populated land by Jewish immigration from the very antisemitic Europe at the time, maybe we would not have had such a strong opposition from the Arabs towards a Jewish state. The unifying moral, spiritual, cultural and social values that are inherent to every human being are hard to find in such a divisive environment where every appeal for peace is quelled. Just read the statements from Israeli government that equates every inhabitant of Gaza to Hamas, and therefore justifies it attempts to completely obliterate every single settlement making the land inhabitable (as done after the 1947); on the other hand, there is not a single voice of wisdom and peace that would call for Muslim world to accept Israeli state, in place of calling for its eradication "from the river to the sea". This is not a philosophical debate anymore, we need to wake up to the fact that humanity is going through a very dangerous period where individuals and nations are more inclined to reach their goals by force at the expense of others. We need a profound change of consciousness in order to survive, the current way of functioning of our civilisation is not sustainable anymore.
@@edwardburroughs1489 sure but intangible sentimental value still falls under utility. Utility doesn’t just measure practical value to an individual based on situation it encompasses any positive feeling it brings to the buyer and what that positive feeling whether it be nostalgia or anything is worth to the individual consumer
Does anyone else find Sam Harris really interesting in how he dissects things but ultimately completely un-useful , he dissects what happens and what he sees about religion etc quite well but what’s the alternative ? I haven’t really heard his alter opinion on what to do as a society without these structures , if anyone has any recommendations on what can explain his stance would be great 👍
So what? Does that make what he is doing wrong? Asking an AI about all the ways in which your design of a car can fail is wrong just because the AI never suggested alternatives? What the eff?
Yes @ewanhunt9248, he is thinking about a set of values known as "maximizing happiness" as guiding principles to replace religion, basically accepting that there is a need for some basic "belief axiom", but that it should be kept minimal, something like "it's good for conscious beings to pursue an increase in happiness". He claims all behaviour could then objectively follow out of that axiom given enough thought/compute. Ultimately we can't 100% escape belief/religion, but we can keep it as little as possible to function in this universe. It's highly debatable but an interesting take.
@@empyrionin so basically he is prescribing what many eastern religions have taught for 1000s of years. His whole skit is to take eastern thought and sell it to western audiences.
Take the religious element out of it and you have land disputed, regardless of it religious attachment. Land in of itself is valuable, now this land has billions worth of natural gas and oil underneath it. The Israeli claim comes from Religious text, the Palestinian claim comes from the present moment I.e having generational ties. You can't trace most Israeli generations back more than 100 years to date to that land. Most of whom were European and why you can't argue its colonialist nature.
Because Jordan is blatantly and incredibly wrong 💀 like bro are you serious? 😂 you've got a guy who uses jargon and vocabulary to appear intelligent vs someone who articulately expresses their intelligence without needing to make an appeal to the audience showboating how many smarty pants buzzwords he can fit into one statement. Please self crit my guy ffs 😂
JP claims “they’ve had their hands around each other’s necks for three thousand years” yet two thousand years ago most Jews were moved away from the area. Later and until WW1 it was primarily Arab and belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and there wasn’t a lot of fighting. Does anyone have proof there was fighting there after Rome took control of it until WW1?
What a fantastic and well grounded conversation about a really difficult situation, 2 great thinkers at the top of their prospective professions debating in a respectful way.... We need more of this please!
We gave away 8000 meals this Christmas 😊 Here is the video ua-cam.com/video/wd1Qv7AzuBw/v-deo.htmlsi=VBwdhN2tbt-DSQvw
Palestine is a Farsi word/name "پا و دستان - paa-va-dastan" which means legs and hands for work building homes. Disciple is "دست [و] پا دار - dast-o-paadar" which means "having [skilled] hands and legs".Cross/Christ is "کار است - kaar-ast" which means "It is the work [which determines the ownership of a home, the one who built it]. At that time everyone except a few who claimed the ownership of all lands and water passed to them by their ancestors, everybody else were homeless, trespassers and slaves to the landlord. Palestinians were the workers who helped Eesa Messiah (Jesus) build homes using wood in the form of Cross as the joints of the structure making permanent residence. Disciples were the skilled worker/foreman.
Legend has it they still haven’t reached a conclusion with a single point and are still breaking down each other’s sentences word for word.
'That depends on your definition of the term, 'to define'.' I guess that's what happens if there is too much IQ on one stage, let alone ego 😉
ahahahhaahhahaa
this. Jesus, they have became the masturbators of logos...
😂😂😂😂omg!!
@CodyAdams-pf9un it's such an oversimplification to equate living by the golden rule (or however you define harris' "universal ethic") with "being rational." sure, it sounds simple and obvious enough, but in the real world, when competing "golden rule values" come into conflict, people have turned to religion to determine which value to give precedence. whether you agree with a given religion or system of law or not, the fact that it provides some clarity and direction on these matters that is not subject to humans' biases and our ability to constantly shift goalposts and rationalize that, does give it somewhat of an advantage in that respect.
My wife and I had a debate exactly like this last night about whether or not to put the heating on.
😂😂 Stay strong my man
I appreciate the support my friend. 😁
Next time if she’s wearing a burka you win but sans burka you must concede
Just remember that you are a bumbling male brained idioto and just ascent to her point of view because she is a strong, smart insightful woman. Rinse and repeat. Then you die
Turning the heat on or off is not the problem; it's who has control of the thermostat.....lol. You can do as I did and install a second dummy thermostat but I must state, I'm not responsible for any repercussions if you're caught.
It's in the dominance hierarchy of values that's been socially constructed around the guitar is the most Jordan Peterson thing that Jordan Peterson has ever said
Which is true. Elvis is at the top or close to the top of a hierarchy, and that's what makes it valuable.
Idk… I didn’t hear anything about metaphorical substrates and presuppositions, it could get more Jordan Peterson.
I deeply wish Christopher were still with us.
I deeply wish too.
He wouldn’t fair well against Peterson.
@waynedurning8717 Hitch would bury Peterson. Hitch was so smart, sometimes I'm amazed he was human... the way he spoke bro, it's like carefully thought out essays just spew from his mouth off the cuff WITH citations. lol.
@@gravelpit5680 I’ve watched plenty of Hitch and I’m afraid you’re wrong. He was smart he was not Jordan Peterson smart.
@@waynedurning8717Peterson’s handler told him never to appear on a stage with Dillahunty again as Peterson was embarrassingly disemboweled.
Listening to these guys is a lesson in how to make a 100 page book report be 1000 words.
Nice try 😂
exactly. So unnecessary
It's because they're all sophists.
@@elonmusk4627they were saying that they are good at packaging a lot of information with every sentence. Not that they’re rambling.
It’s not clear what you’re trying to say (partly because you’re mixing two different units of verbosity - pages and words). Are you saying that they’re good at condensing 100 pages down to 2 pages?
Don’t over think it lads
Famous last words :P
Malcolm X said "The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent.” Media has the power to influence minds, ideas, behaviors, and attitudes of the masses.
Amen
" You have to be careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing"
Malcolm X@@waynedurning8717
So sick of seeing people using this quote. Yawn.
@@JMRM1410 why ? Would you care to enlighten us?
So---are you saying "media" is an "authority" and they are always correct in their promotion and attention, their commentary and their scorn? Media has been wielding a lot of scorn lately...
Sam just completely skirts the issue when Jordan asks him to ground his own ethical claims. Jordan is getting at the heart of the issue and Sam just reveals himself as a third religion condemning the other two.
Sam tries to be as general as possible, because the moment he’s specific, he’s pointed to his contradiction. I loved on the comment above someone thinking it was ingenious when he said “Fighting for Elton Jons glass but Elton Jons wasn’t even here”, when in his own analogy he already states who’s glass it is from.
Right at the end Sam says: "that passion for land doesn't characterise most of humanity". Except it does, it's why people have fought wars for their country. It's why countries spend money on their courts and military to defend principles and land. It's partly why the west is funding the war in ukraine to their own financial detriment
This is a fact. There’s quite a lot of archaeological evidence that supports this.
It’s as probable as Sam Harris liking the smell of his own farts.
He said humanity, not leaderships of humanity. In that case, he’s correct. leaderships, specially the less civilized ones of the past, are more obsessed with conquest and power, not humanity.
@@TheHighlanderprimehome ownership and land ownership are hugely valued by most people
@@TheHighlanderprime Give me your stuff then.
@@dominater5in modern times yes, but historically and biologically it doesn’t seem so.
Ben Stiller dropping knowledge!
He called ppl that subjectively value stuff dumb and they should value the universe. And Jordan asked what it’s grounded in?
Well…. It’s valued in subjectivity which is a contradiction.
Lol
Interrupting non stop...
Affgg
Ben stiller dropping bullshit. As usual.
@@illuvinomics Sam’s epistemic political positions flip all of his own arguments against him. I’ve seen him speak in person and he’s had a struggle with dissonance and paradox on so many of his positions for many years. Instead of reconciling, integrating, or deliberating on contradictions that his friends level at him, he becomes dismissive and indignant.
It’s crazy, my debate team went to one of his events over a decade ago and we asked him to build an argument against the risks of relativism and he responded in a hamfisted way. Regardless, I still like him.
A discussion between Jordan and Sam sounds the same as the ongoing discussion between my right and left hemispheres.
In that case... it's safe to say 1/2 of your brain is dysfunctional.
Honestly, A+ analysis.
Two zionists and 1 zionist puppet.
That is some smart hemispheres you have. My average left right conflict is ‘Go to gym’ or ‘Have a wank’
Both of them are like a 15 minute unskippable cutscene in a video game when asking a yes or no question.
Sam really threw his argument under a bus by saying that most of humanity doesn’t have a passion for ownership and propagation.
Sam threw his entire integrity under the bus by stating law breaking and suspension of basic civil rights is justified as long as it's done for reasons Sam believes in.
Ya... he is a fascist. He knows best because he says so @@mattblack118
@@mattblack118The activist moral landscape is truly horrific.
@@mattblack118 Sam cares more about the bacteria in his toilet than whatever the ten millionth random liar on the internet is saying about him.
@@tiromandal6399 Nobody lied. Harris laid it all out in his Triggernometry interview. The fact that leftist morons cheer on his Machiavellianism is further reason not to trust him. PS: I doubt Sam cares that much about bacteria or humans.
The problem with this debate is that both Harris and Peterson will pick over each other's words so much, they get distracted from the point they are trying to make. They interrupt to argue something that is merely incidental making the actual positions appear as mere noise amongst an explosion of ontologies, epistemologies and other stances that can be either assumed by the listener or are irrelevant.
It can certainly be argued that this is done on purpose so they can sound smarter than they are.
What a reflexive comment. Bravo!
They have to because a fruitful debate must first establish definitions. Human language is crude and imprecise, so definitions have to be established at pretty much every turn so as to mitigate misunderstandings and mistaken assumptions.
I caught Peterson doing that more so than Sam; it’s a sign that winning his argument is more important to him; so he’ll nitpick and cherry pic to win points that may not be relevant to the bigger point.
I don't agree. Peterson picks apart Sam's words. Sam just asserts something to be true. That his way is just obviously rational, his way is objectively moral, anybody who disagrees is silly and should just do what he says.
@@TheHighlanderprime You win an argument by reaching the truth mate. You are suggesting one shouldn't be truthful and accurate in one's words? Sam absolutely is required to define what he means, or how he comes to the conclusion that he is more moral or rational than the rest of us.
It’s not about the land. It’s about the spread of Islam.
"We're about to fight over Elton John's glass, and Elton John was never here."
Great line
😂😂😂 hilariously put! 👍
Not much substance here 😂 The glass is the universe and there are fingerprints all over it. To disprove the existence of God one must also empirically rule it out. How can an ant rule out that it’s on a planet if it doesn’t have the mental faculties to discern a more complex reality. We are the ant using the limits of our capacity to prove the limits of reality.
Doesn’t change the fact Elton John’s glasses is Elton John’s glasses
I sometimes imagine how it would be if there was a sort of universal amnesia. Then I reflect on some work of lost art found in a person’s attack or even painted over because it was considered only valuable as a canvas. Then look at disagreements where records are thin, past temperatures deducted from tree rings, denigration of past civilisations that left more records over ones that had no records. Into the void interpretation leaps to find meaning, to attribute importance and relevance to the present. I suspect the outcome would still be conflict. We tend to de-humanise opposition by self righteous indignation. I cannot think of any National partition that was not problematic, Cyprus, Ireland, India/Parkistan, Vietnam, Germany and the solutions vary according to circumstance. Sometimes it may be the best compromise from a bad deal. When the music stops someone always ends up with the empty chair.
I'm proud to be part of a comment section that is so peaceful and harmonious. Refreshing to see discourse that doesn't take sides or disparage people and ideas that they disagree with!
:)
The video was uploaded a few hours ago. Give it a minute, the trolls will come.
@@markythelarky6948 Hahaha literally about to say the same thing ... give it time.
I agree, it is optimistic
Agree
Yes
This is a spar between two men’s linguistic ability not a debate on Israel and Palestine
Two Zionists debating Israel Palestine is liking Hitler and Stalin talking about human rights
I think what they're trying to say is that 'people have an emotional connection to things'.
And that value is subjective. Which, if I may add, is why Marxists happen to be wrong about everything since they try to objectively value stuff.
JP if you’re reading this, please stop doing the exact same 3 hand gestures to illustrate every point you think you make in every conversation you ever have. Thanks.
Imagine if the rest of us could have conversations like this about subjects such as this.
You're right, thank God I could never be as stupid or valid as either of these goofs
@@chadalpha7983 It is ignorant... God was here, is here, and he gave that land to Israel over 3,000 years ago It was all recorded and accepted, that's why it's a country called Israel.
@@stephtimms1776 1 who was there before this alleged contract
@@stephtimms1776 2 Do Jews believe in Jesus now, since they only have the right to have their alleged country after the messiah shows up ONLY
I start off just like this with my cat, but it never keeps up.
Wow what a line "we are about to fight over Elton John's glass but Elton John was never here".
9:23 i was about to extract and pinpoint the exact time Harris delivers this incredible phrase! It sums up pretty much everything as far as the history of religion goes.
The only problem with that fictional joke by Sam Harris is that....... Israel was a real place with real jews living there centuries before Caesar and none of it relies upon any supernatural legends. So you'd have to say it was Elton John's glass and here is the receipt for when Elton John bought the glass, and an inventory Elton John submitted to his insurance company to specifiy what in his home would be covered in the event of a fire, and here are some pictures of Elton John having used the glass multiple times over multiple years. At that point, it is irrelevant if Elton John is here or not, the glass belonged to him.
@@laertesindeedthe analogy refers to the fact that no God ever gave any land to anyone
@@goatneck Read my previous comment again.... and then read it again, and continue reading it until you realize and admit your error.
Sam gave a zinger there which was a cheap rhetorical trick that served red meat to his crowd. But it didn't meaningfully contribute to the dialogue for many reasons, not the least being because if the two highest bidders believe it's Elton John's glass and a lower bidder (or worse, a disinterested member of the peanut gallery) is shouting from the rooftops that Elton John was never even here, that input will probably do nothing but earn him the status of ignorant heckler and his further utterances will be tainted by that blunder (meaning everyone who believes it was Elton John's glass will downgrade the value of the ignorant heckler's input on this and likely all future topics on which he comments).
There is a much, much, much more straightforward path to victory for rationalists than the endless rhetorical games. All they need is to do is devote serious effort to defining God in rational terms which have enough practical overlap with believers/theists that this new definition gains traction among the religious community. Instead of ridiculing people for believing in a bearded guy in the sky, try to build a bridge to connect theists and atheists on this central facet of their ongoing disagreement. Define God in terms like these three were attempting in this clip, using lenses like behavioral impact of belief vs. non-belief.
If Sam had devoted 1/4 of the energy to that which he has devoted these last few decades to poking holes in religion, he might have already finished the bridge.
The issue I have with Sam Harris regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict, is that not only does he simplify things by saying "Oh, wouldn't it be nice if they could just be friends?" but he actively refuses to accept the inhumane mistreatment of the Palestine people by the Israeli government for the past 60 years.
He takes the easy route by blaming it all on jihad and fundamentalist Muslims, while never once recognizing the true impact of history.
He's playing cowboys and Indians, and the real world is a bit more complex than that.
What Bret Weinstein has said in the end is really very important for the humanists to understand
Sam feels the need to dominate the conversation by talking most of the time and not letting Jordan get a complete thought out.....
Sam Harris - the Elton John glass example was great..
However, imagine your great great grandfather hander over that glass to your father and your father handed it over to you as their last memory, would you still say that it is an Elton John glass and Elton John is no longer here. Probably not. Because once the glass is in possession of a human who paid for it or got it as a souvenir. That possesion has some value. Similarly possesion of Judea & Sumaira has an intrinsic value for Jewish people because it's not just "a" land. It's "their" land.
And the same goes for Palestinians
I always thought Sam Harris was rational, until I listened to him on Covid. Listening to Neil deGrasse Tyson and Sam Harris demonstrates how intelligent people can be led astray by their supreme confidence that they are intelligent and therefore right. Both of these intellectuals made absolute fools of themselves on Covid. It was fascinating to watch.
The irony of this comment. Its almost art
Talking about compromise is nice and all, but let's keep in mind that one side is not willing to accept ANY compromise (just look at the history of negotiations, as well as their current and past marketing campaigns) and simply wants the total annihilation of the other. I think everyone understands which side is which.
For people who don’t get it. israel is the terrorist state that isn’t willing to admit to its atrocities and unify the original land owners with the new colonizers
Who, Israel?
You certainly mean Israel.
Tell me when Israel has ever ceded any territory? Arabs have given away quite a lot of theirs...who can't accept any compromise again?
someone occupies your house and you want to negotiate over what parts you can own? why? you had full authority over it didnt you, even if that man lived there prior.
Highly humane and intellectual filled confab.
Nice one Harris
I’m convinced these dudes get paid per word.
I mean I respect Jordan and Bret, but of the many discussions they've had with many people, they said a lot less that was meaningful here than anything else I have seen or recall.
@@johns7530 really? You respect Jordan who claims to know better than the entire climate science consensus?
@@jahazielhernandez8746 You can take any person that you respect, and if you listen to them long enough, you will find things they say that you don't agree with. Literally, no two human beings share the same views about everything. I just said I respect him, not that I agree with him on everything. He sounds constructive, thoughtful, and well meaning most of the time. It is obvious that he tries to help people and undoubtedly has. He tells people to be thoughtful, kind, assertive, take responsibility for themselves, and to not just think selfishly. I don't see where anybody should have a major problem with him, he is anti establishment, talks intelligently about a variety of topics, and is and basically a good dude. You are entitled to believe whatever you like, and I could care less what that is.
@@johns7530 you clearly care if you're willing to respond with a paragraph. Peterson is a failed clinical psychologist who carelessly talks on subjects he never studied. Just thought you should be aware
Think about this.. if 2 of the better articulated thinkers of our generation take this long to not come to an agreement.. what hope is there for Jerusalem
I think we'd have to agree that these two are "the two better articulated thinkers of our time" first. Sam's objective truths springing to life by fallacy of negative evidence or as he calls it, subjective truths, is a bunch of mumbojumbo. We are all familiar with the paradox of proving a negative.
There is a saying in Egyptian Arabic that goes like this: "a person whose hands in in the fire, is not the same as a person whose hands is in the water". It is almost obscene to talk about this topic, as if it was mere philosophy & the people dying had all the time in the world to wait for gentlemen with ties to get their ideas aligned. What about the "attachment" some countries have to oil, or power? Not everything is religious, or spiritual & out of reach.
Sam, Bret & JP should have another debate currently 10-13-23.
It would be great considering that a religious war is unfolding on holy lands.
It's not a holy war from the perspective of Israel.... it's only a holy war from the perspective of the religious muslim terrorists.
religious war & holy lands, these two expressions are so sad :( So we all admit that if the land wasn't holy the war if happened would be called something else. What if the holiness of it is in fact is just an excuse because it's so rooted despite its destructive history, that it makes it the perfect tool?
Sam has lost his mind so that probably won't happen
@@cpfarms8994 A covid obsessed conspiracy theorist and a psychologist who seems to cry all the time? And _Harris_ has lost his mind?
@@emwsaid The grammar of your comment makes it difficult to discern what you were trying to say.
When contemplating Palestinian claims to the land there is a major disconnect most people do not consider, or are not aware of. The title Palestine is an English transliteration of Philistia, which was the homeland of the Philistines. There are no people alive today who claim a pedigree in relation to the ancient Philistines. The Palestinians not only do not claim to have a connection to the ancient Philistines, they take offense to the notion. Arab peoples' claims of historic connection to the land we currently call Israel, only go back as far as 635 CE, when it was annexed by the Rashidun Caliphate. Conflict over real estate in Palestine between Arabs & Jews, for the most part only began near the end of the 19th century, when Jews began to return to their historical homeland. Anti-Semitism increased in intensity and violence in the majority of European countries to which they had been dispersed, and Israel which lay fallow and sparsely populated, was collectively the logical place to return to.
I think this obsession about Who was there before Is nonsense. It can be a factor but no way you forget history Is a vorticous succession of the same fact ever and ever again, humans are belligerant and want to conquer others. This lead to the fact that every inbetween inhabitant can claim having been there. You don't see every country of the world being claimed by ancient inhabitants. That can be a factor but not the root factor alone. There Is Also the face not so irrelevant that Sionism has changed the meaning of Judaism and good portion of Jews doesn't even recognize Israel as his homeland, because They still see It as promise Land, till the coming of the Messiah. It Is ok to put a state for the new jews where They can live, you can put in on the spot like no other country in the world, but It seems to me that this should come with consideración of other inhabitants without the Need to dig to see if They are a mix of ethnic provenience, or when They start to live there. This as a premise, letting alone the very intelligent strategy used by Israel along the years.
What a stupid comment.
"The Palestinians not only do not claim to have a connection to the ancient Philistines, they take offense to the notion. Arab peoples' claims of historic connection to the land we currently call Israel, only go back as far as 635 CE, when it was annexed by the Rashidun Caliphate."
Palestinians didn't spring from the ground. Nor are they merely "Arabs." Do you know what the elite dominance model is? That is when a conquering group takes over a piece of land and the natives begin using the conquering group's language/some customs. One example is, for example, Mexico. Most Mexicans aren't "Spanish." Most Mexicans are descended from the indigenous populations of Mexico (e.g., Aztecs). A similar process took place in the territory of Palestine/Israel/Judea (whatever you want to call it). Most Palestinians are descended from Jews who first converted to Christianity and subsequently converted to Judaism. Palestinians have a better claim to be "descendants from Ancient Israel" than Ashkenazi Jews - who have significant European admixture. That conclusion, mind you, is the same that David Ben-Gurion reached.
None of that particularly matters. There is is no basis in international law for "my ancestors have a claim to this land from 2,000 years ago." If one were to agree to this, one would have to agree to the reasoning behind Germany's invasion of Eastern Europe because at one point in time the Vandals and Goths lived in those areas until the Huns arrived.
The rest of your comment is equally idiotic, "and Israel which lay fallow and sparsely populated, was collectively the logical place to return to." Even if Israel was "sparsely populated" (by hundreds of thousands of Palestinians) there is no right to immigrate to a new place and attempt to create an ethno-state that excludes the native population.
Paul Davis has an irrational preconceived idea that everything religious is irrational. God is real.
The sentimental attachement for land isn’t present only for people who sit comfort and talk about war. I would like to know how this brilliant philosopher would react if his city was invaded, his house brunt, his family killed in front of his eyes. Would it be irrational to have a sentiment?
Was it Einstein who said that if you can't explain it simply, then you don't understand it well enough? Because Peterson reminded me of that quote the moment he started talking about “domain of facts” and “domain of value.” That’s what irks me about him. He tends or likes to complicate things (perhaps in an attempt to confuse the other person disagreeing with him) by throwing word salad.
He's wordy, but that's academia in the liberal arts. A ton of domains and theoretical perspectives. He's just tries to parse them out.
Most people believe these theories as fact not knowing why or that they are following some neomarxist theory
So shortsighted on Sam's side to think that this conflict is about land...
Everyone thinks it's about land. I think it might have an antisemitic basis or religious one
This debate has a good point on how to address a fact. Fact = True. Personal experiences do not change a fact. How a person emotionally feels about a fact should not expect others to agree based on obligation or social acceptance.
Thank you! Well said.
Sam seems to agree with this statement when it applies to atheism. However when this applies to 1st century Christianity he doesn’t agree
How would you address a sentence like "What you said to me was rude." Is that ever a fact? Seems if it is, it can ONLY depend on how someone feels about it.
@@williambarnes3021Don't we recognise some words are ,rude,. EG. F..k off. ? Or is ALL language subjective. And if it IS, that makes communication nigh on impossible.
@@lottielane2486 Yes my point is, in response to OP, is that, in a theoretical sense, truth CAN be in the eye of the beholder. I could say "F off" with a smile and meaning it almost ironically. You could think it is rude and be emotionally affected by it. Even though it wasn't my intent, you still reacted as if it were rude. Was it truely rude? To you, yes. But would be the "fact" that OP cited?
When there's real bloodshed over a god that doesn't exist, then it becomes really irrational.
As an atheist and an Israeli and also a big fan of both of these gentlemen - It's amazing how little even these two geniuses know about what's goin' on in here. The subject debated was very interesting but have so little to do with the reality in Israel.
I think they didn’t get to the concept that regulates all modern societies which is if people don’t believe that property rights matter then there is no law and order - regardless of religion. It is a foundation to even Americas survival. If people don’t believe that the society will honor property laws then it breaks down families and the essentially all of society.
or the reality in Gaza and the deaths of thousands.
You were born in Israel?
Yes, I was referring to entire land/region. @@Djmorton-go5mt
Yes, I was born in Israel, as did my parents and grandparents.@@Moongod2500
Peterson hit the nail on the head when he asked Harris what the basis for that universal value structure is. In a purely materialist worldview, there is no such basis.
Certainly doesn't come from Christianity.
I doubt he's making a claim that only Christians are right i think religion in general is what he's getting at
Absolutely, and Sam's response to that was weak as fuck. This is the largest blind spot of most materialists and most modern people.
Sam Harris replied to that very wisely. He said you don't have to say I am not going to get out of the bed unless I know what was there before Bigbang(paraphrase). We workout our problems with secular ethics while we figure out the universal value structure.
That’s called civility. The common ground that we all share in the civilized world. Harris made a real life reference; whereas Peterson made a more philosophical one. I’m camp Harris on that one.
Peterson obfuscating while Harris tries to be clear. Sophisticated mental gymnast.
I think there's a disagreement regarding what is the greater motivation for action for people. Sam seems to think hunger and thirst (needs that must be satisfied for the continuation of life, therefore a reasonable priority) will be a more powerful motivation than the idea that a sacred thing will be desecrated and no one is doing something to stop it. I think people will withstand hunger and pain if the thing at stake is close enough to their heart.
That's exactly what he didn't say, listen again.
@@katja6332 I will. But he often speaks of an objective standards (a supposedly most reasonable standard) that people are prevented from adopting because of their damn primitive attachments to history, religion and the sacred. I just think he doesn't give enough credit to those things, narratives, that people create and place above their immediate material needs.
I'll watch it again though. Just to make sure 👍🏻
@@katja6332I'm still re-watching, but I wanted to point something around the 4:50 min mark. He said "you have a domain of sacred values where otherwise rational people cease to be rational". The thing that stands out in a conversation like this is the use of the word "rational", because that term needs to have it's boundaries defined. Jordan challenged it and I think he was right to say so.
What I meant is that he thinks that it is irrational to reject an agreement that would bring about peace and cease suffering in favor of war in the defense of sacred religious beliefs. And I agree that it is hard to relate when the thing in question is irrelevant to you, but what about an example more close to home?
The example I would point to is the infamous Sam Harris Trigernometry interview: Sam believes American democracy is facing an existential threat in the form of a new Donald Trump presidency. Sam wouldn't say he worships American democracy, but it is clearly VERY important to him, personally. Why do I say thay? Because an otherwise rational, intellectually honest and ethical man like Sam said he doesn't care if the other candidate has a son who hides dead bodies in his basement, he would support a conspiracy to hide that information from the public, ensuring it doesn't influence the result of the election, so long as Trump is not elected for another 4 years.
When Sam feels something truly sacred is under threat, his morals loosen (very human reaction, I don't meant to suggest it isn't). So maybe he should understand why people who think the most sacred of things are at stake are willing to forgo peace in favor of what they hold sacred. Suddenly the term "reasonable" isn't specific enough to describe the matter in question. (please don't take this as justification for anything that is done in the middle east conflict. I'm just saying that we shouldn't act as if we are aliens who can't understand the motivations involved. I don't support fanatisms, ever).
I'll keep watching, but I thought this was a good example to illustrate the point.
Haha I'm traveling right now, so I have plenty of time.
@@katja6332 I just finished re-watching. Peterson later points out how loaded the adjective "reasonable" is. And I do understand what that Sam means to do is to challenge the religious hierarchy of values. And, to be honest, I do the same myself often enough (I might give an example later), but I think that he is way too dismissive of religious people's perspective, and that is the most unpersuasive approach to the issue.
I think it's how Peterson says often enough: it's a hierarchy of values, and there lies the conflict.
Often enough it is as Sam says: people care more about their next meal and their health than the status of sacred symbols. But even those people can take torches and pitchforks once their bellies are full, and they do, constantly.
So the issue can't be solved by just offering a sweet, comfortable deal to everyone involved. Ideally, what must change is the hierarchy of values itself. I don't think you are going to convince people to abandon their religion and centuries worth of traditions, but perhaps they might change their mind about what is acceptable so long as unspeakable suffering can come to an end. Fanatics are not going to be persuaded though, that's a big obstacle.
Going back to my previous example of Sam and the elections, that is for me a good example of why values not rooted in tradition and sacred practice have weaker roots. If you don't hold truth and integrity as religiously sacred, you can dispense with them at your convenience. And I don't mean to say that religious people aren't dishonest or lack integrity constantly. But they can be held to a standard that they can't refuse. That is why a priest, or the Pope himself, can intercede in a conflict and lecture catholics on their behavior. So religious people aren't inherently morally superior or anything like it, they just have a more established standard and they can't refuse it (lest they be judged in the afterlife).
So religious traditions and narratives aren't so worthless as Sam suggests. Maybe no specific one is universally valuable, but they help people channel that human dimention that handles the highest of values (the sacred). It gives the relationship to the sacred order and norms (since there are many things one can get wrong in that realm of human thought).
I just think that Sam acts as if these human principles don't apply to him or to "reasonable people", but I think they do.
My example of challenging a religious hierarchy of values is that, in the case of christians (the only one's in my vicinity l), I suggest that is more important that people live by the Christian values they preach rather than have them believe in their sacred stories and icons. I think Jesus would find that acceptable, he was a humble man. However, those values may not withstand the passage of time without the traditions, texts, icons and rituals; so they shouldn't lose those either.
So you're speaking for all people? Would you mind quantifying that? Hunger, pain, thirst, etc., are hardwired into our collective instinct for survival, and it is well conserved in animal brains. Most christians wouldn't murder their children even if Jesus appeared on their doorstep and asked them to do so, and these same people claim to hold Jesus close to their hearts before all else. The instinct to protect their children is a powerful basic instinct, much like hunger and thirst. Anyway, I'm certain some religious extremists would agree with you, but most people, first and foremost, want to survive and want their loved ones to survive, and would not put politics and religion above that survival. Even a drowing Hamas member would grab the hand of an Israeli soldier to survive. Ultimately, if the Israelis and Palestinians can't come to a secular resolution, and put aside their differences, they will never find peaceful coexistence.
That's rubbish and Sam Harris is thick when it comes to political problem solving. The question of land is an existential issue for all humans secular or religious. I'd like to see him settle for a house in Lithuania instead of a cosy Canadian village. I wonder if US citizens would had no problem sharing their country with 300 mln Indians because China decided so. This question is like nothing to do with religion. Religion is an icing on the cake. The elephant in the room is that there is an occupation going on which through the years evolved into extreme secularism.
The guy dances around the question... well, and a philosopher is paid to say things that don't stand or are incomplete. He should simply say that religions are the problem, period.
This should be titled "three zionists pretend to hold a debate"
Exactly
there was a kid in school, his name was Chris, he didn’t have friends, one day he ripped out some really complicated stuff that got praise from his teacher and even the bullies said he was the smartest guy in school. From then on he would give commentary on everything and present it as fact, he would dribble out absolute garbage with confidence, he had no confidence talking to a girl but he had confidence in knowledge even if he just made it up because the bullies believed he was smart. Yes he was a virgin.
Right here we have a debate between a couple of dudes speaking garbage and they know us lesser advanced youtube commenters will think they must be knowledgeable because they say it with confidence
That's a lot of words just to say "I don't understand what they are talking about."
They don't know what they are talking about, they are just saying things for financial reward. They are a brand and it doesn't matter what the topic, they will provide commentary for a fee @@klosnj11
This is no cooperative dialogue, just two intellectuals talking past each other. They might as well become politicians.
Harris didn't give JP time to finish his argument.
He doesn't usually allow people to finish their arguments. Unless they are in complete agreement with him. He has that unlikeable quality that he believes he is right about everything.
@kafkachekhov Nonsense. People who are public figures who engage in a lot of discussions can be observed. Some people who are very bright are quite arrogant, others are much more humble. People who are objective and leave room for being wrong, and allow their beliefs to change and evolve tend to learn more about what is actually true than people who think they are always right, and never leave room to change what they believe. I've seen enough of Sam to form the opinion that he is quite arrogant. My opinion, you are entitled to yours. Cheers.
Seems winning was the most important thing here....
I always think it's humorous how guys like Sam Harris are so intelligent, yet so oblivious to all their assumptions on human nature and what's "obvious"
"But Elton John was never here" cracked me up.
That was brilliant… That’s why sometimes I think the Israeli Palestinian conflict is to fictions fighting each other. Which is terribly cynical and dismissive. I mean you could go back and blame the God of the Old Testament, who told the followers of Abraham they can go in and have the land of the Canaanites. But how can you argue with God?
Fighting over land especially if you need it to survive is quite rational.
It's trust that is irrational, but that is also what Sam fights against.
It would be irrational for both sides to trust each others, so they fight.
Sam fights the only solution that was ever devised.
But he can do a brain scan and realize they don't trust each others.
Redicoulos they created a country inside other and they come kick you from your home no compensation move you to a refuge camps in gaza creat ilegal settlements and bring your people from around the world to live there
brain scan part was most ridiculous indeed
But they're not fighting over the land to just survive, they're fighting over it because their holy text provide them the belief that the land is more important than it is
@@uhnborhn5032 it's a colony since 1947 people kicked off from their houses away since NAKBA we have to accept and Israel are the good ones and in GAZA there's 2.2 millions of animals half of them are children animals Ffs what's wrong with people why they don't see what is going on exactly
I think it’s been a colony for a couple of millennia. Otherwise your post was quite incomprehensible.
Let Dr Peterson talk, like he does to you patiently and respectfully
No - Clown Peterson is best when he’s 🤐 and not spouting nonsense -
Sam is a great debater with fantastic rhetorical skills, making him a fierce competitor in dialogues and not such a great cooperator.
Peterson engages in long-form conversations, which are more cooperative than competitive.
Sam can legitimately think that Peterson is trying to muddy the waters at times because he approaches every conversation as a competition more than a cooperation. So he interrupts with a parry to stop what he sees as the opening setup to a later attack. But Peterson is actually trying to reach out and give him a hand to help them come together, and is frequently flummoxed by the repeated parries which prevent him from properly extending his offer to cooperate.
@@zadenwachter9918 I think one is seeking truth, the other is feeding his ego.
I know both Harris and Peterson are highly educated and intelligent, but they argue in a way that its like they're playing a game of who's the smartest and has the biggest vocabulary. Simplify the message gentlemen and you'll affect many more people.
To date this was the craziest talk I've seen
It's not that crazy. Especially if you follow Harris. He basically dismissed 80% of the human experience in every talk he gives.
@@michaelknight2897 dismiss in a good way or bad. I'm stupid so my brain had a hard time following that conversation . Is what I meant
@@Akimikinaak He dismisses it as having no value and inconvenient and an impediment to his vision of a utopia.
@@michaelknight2897that's not a very charitable take, but I can't say it's strictly inaccurate as a brief summation of his position.
Sam is more like a computer than most people. His thoughts are very orderly and refined. But if being that way was of general utility to the human experiences, we'd have all drifted a lot closer to his stance than we collectively have.
He doesn't know what he doesn't know, in part because he doesn't see what he can't see. Too many parts of the evolutionarily advantageous constellation of human experiences/traits/fundamentals are just a bit outside of his reach even though they're still called strikes.
So he ends up lamenting that the game is rigged since he can't hit every strike in the zone, but a key problem is he's standing too far back in the box and is either unable or unwilling to move forward.
@@zadenwachter9918 Sam is a computer? Hardly. He thinks "rationality" leads to a single outcome...his outcome. He thinks if everyone was just rational then everyone would think like him and the world would be better. The fact is, rationality can lead to many outcomes, all logical.
Sam ultimately isn't interested in the "why" when it comes to beliefs and thoughts. Therefore, he is just a man left wondering why everyone doesn't think like him as he dismisses the majority of the human experience as unknowable and therefore irrelevant.
Peterson wants to know why people think a certain way whereas Sam simply tells people what to think.
Ultimately, this is why Sam is not very interesting to me. He has never said anything new as he covers no new territory. Where as Peterson introduces new perspectives on old topics.
I just can't understand how this intelligent man wrote “give them hell”… broke my heart
The guy lost the plot when he had his illness/health scare/ended up in a coma.
What lol. Jordan has been a pro colonialist genocidal pig from the first day he ever taught in university
Was the ‘give them hell’ meant for Hamas or directed towards innocent Palestinians?
anyone who knows or follows dr. Peterson will know that he would never condone killing the innocent @@celinr6397
Clearly Hamas. The Palestinians didn't attack Israel, Hamas did. And that is what he was responding to. I too thought it was uncharacteristically aggressive/undiplomatic! He's just released a video article about it, and he references his tweet getting him into trouble.
It is true that every single person on this earth is interconnected in some way. However, what divided them are country, religion, beliefs, and so on, when fundamentally they are one and the same. Why is there should a divide that justify them to fight one another and raise the feeling of superiority over another being, and do we need that? Please reflect deeply on this.
This was like my encyclopedia having a debate with the thesaurus
Bret summed it up excellently!
Canaanites were Semites. How can the Jews argue they were there first? Secondly, before Zionism kicked off both religions lived in peace. Jews and Muslim.
Sam: They're angry because they're stupid.
Peterson: That's not helpful.
Analogies are not valid arguments and when analogies are used as an example for understanding they are still not the issue itself and leave out the full context of the issue and even possibly misguide the parties on what they are actually arguing.
There are times I love listening to Jordan or Bret, b/c they are often insightful and use an economy of words. Here they used a great many words and said very little that seemed all that meaningful. Just my take.
Sam seems to start and resolve a lot of his arguments with how it should be without dealing with the existing conditions at hand.
LOL, have you just said that Peterson uses an 'economy of words'? I reckon George Orwell is spinning right now!@@johns7530
The scary thing about intellectuals is most of them analyze a situation based on theories and what ifs and not a reality of a person living their life with legitimate circumstance that actually deserves compassion and empathy. Most intellectuals also don’t know how to feel real emotions.
Then Jordan Peterson sends out a tweet “give em hell”
Give the Hamas hell, yes.
@@black_squallsaid as innocent palestinian civillians were being bombed. There's no excusing that kind of rhetoric. Someone as smart as Peterson would know full well the damage someone with his his influence could have when putting out such flippant messages to his followers. Complicated situations require complicated responses. He showed his true face and its baying for blood.
Yeah you gotta wonder why HAMAS prevents civilians from evacuating HAMAS held buildings after Israel warns them to leave.
Why would HAMAS do such a thing?
Occupation didn't begin at October the 6th
@@DoctorMooCow What would you have Israel do? It is tragic, but if Hamas hides behind Palestinian people as they launch attacks at Israel, all blood is on their hands. Israel must defend itself. They declared war on Israel. What is the "nuanced" and "complex" response when Hamas has hundreds of hostages (women and children) and everything we saw on Oct. 7 that Hamas themselves has posted on social media? Yeah it's complicated, but Hamas is CLEARLY the bad guys here and collateral damage is just a sad reality.
"His true face" is too eradicate this evil. It is the correct and only response.
12:44 this is exactly my life and theres no way im the only one who could barely go to work without having constant existential dilemmas
Same. But eventually I realized that that burning urge to solve the universe before I go to work was only holding me back and I had to shut it down for a while just so I could function in society and not completely lose my mind.
Totally agree. Same for me. I closed that shop before it drove me mad.
Yes it's essentially meaningless. You should look into antinatalism.
@@kevincastellanos6328 This is so relatable i needed this comment
The amount of words they use to say the most sophomoric nothings.
The is the greatest conversation of high - sounding confusion I've ever witnessed. Lose the debate, well, just befuddle the other guy.
High sounding confusion. Well said!
I agree with you to some extent, I get befuddled a lot with conversations like this,
Reducing the conflict between Israel and Palestine to one of religion is to display a significant lack of understanding the situation.
Actually, it’s not. Islam is at war all over the world. Israel is only one front. The lack of awareness is on your side and it’s stupefying.
It’s more of a conflict of ethno-supremacy.
This is why you can't get two so called big brains within 10 ft of each other....
How complicated can you do a conversation … yes 😂
That last comment by Brett is so fundamental to the staying power of realism in international relations it’s scary.
I’m so glad people are finally realizing Peterson is a almost a total charlatan.
Three smart guys trying to place value on a guitar. "We could look at the interpersonal space" "We could place value based on a picture" Sam: "WE COULD SCAN THEIR BRAINS" I can't stop laughing.
It’s so painful watching peterson when he debates actually intelligent thinkers. Whilst peterson is very knowledgeable and experienced in data driven outcomes, his ACTUAL capacity for thought and comprehension seems to be pretty limited. And then he dances around the foundational point that is aimed at him, then his opponent has to come up with all these theoreticals to try and pin him to acknowledge the point. He’s pretty dim tbh
Yeah you're probably way smarter my guy
The debate would’ve ended in 3 mins if they spoke concise English.
If I had a £ for every time Jordan said “it’s complicated” i would be a millionaire
...and?
yeah but, it IS complicated. If it wasn't we wouldn't have had theological debates for over two thousand years
@@JMo-uh5cd define what you mean by “…”. What’s the etymological distinction w/in the context of “and”. Describe what you mean by “?”.
Peterson pretends simple things are complicated and he also says that complicated things are simple and obvious
@@brunorhagal NERD!
There have been these conflicts in the lands of Jerusalem for many years, for more than fifty years. Israel surrounded Palestine here with wire fences and there is an embargo, people live as if they are in prison. This is wrong, it must end. If the parties are convinced of peace, peace and stability can come to the Middle East. We pray to God and it is very painful that wars are increasing Russia Ukraine There is no and there are no winners. If everyone fights because there are weapons in the country, the world will collapse and go away. May God help us for peace.
JP and Sam were so great together. They debate with integrity. That Brett moderated this was icing on the cake.
huh? JP is a liar. Brett is a conspiracy nut.
@@peznino1 You’ve revealed everything about yourself with that comment.
This!!
@@somethingawesome9547 jordan is a compulsive liar, spoofer and bigot
Cliff notes:
One guy uses a analogy to make a point then the other guy uses a more in depth analogy to counter it. The original guy the uses another analogy to counteract then the other guy gives another analogy
Conclusion : analogies are not a good way to tackle complex problems.
Conclusion : analogies are not a good way to tackle complex problems.
That's quite a leap from materialistic desire for a glass to therefore religion is just an idea that makes you feel good. What he is saying is an abstract idea, that makes him feel smug and smart (gives him comfort, feels good). Therefore by his own standard, shouldn't he also dismiss his own point of view? After all, if he is going to belittle religion because it is a world view that makes people feel good then he should belittle his own point of view, which probably makes him feel good. This argument collapses onto itself when it's applied to itself.
reminds me of the Indiana Jones movie where the wild Samurai does fast menacing samurai sword moves with his sword a few feet in front of Harrison Ford, and Harrison just sighs, takes out his giant gun and shoots him dead. Peterson can be like that…he creates an amazing elaborate set of interconnections around the mental constructs of a guitar’s value owned by Elvis, then the mediator stops him in his tracks and says “wait a minute dude, it’s valuable because it’s ELVIS’s Guitar!”
The problem with all these guys is that they have fallen in love with their own magic trick. It's the trapping of having a highly developed logical mind. But to me they all miss the mark.
Well if the precepts define the notion of presuppositional context, the flux capacitor should propel us forwards and pull us backwards in time - jordan peterson
Now Imagine what type of peace in the world will turned into If all Ethnicities or religions been allowed to claim lands based on their own deep history interpretation..!?
Cheers Bret. Well summarized.
It is a great debate between two moral philosophers and intellectuals, but the attempt to trivialise and reduce the conflict to "it will all disappear if the religion was not present" is simply erroneous. Our animalistic instincts are natural mechanisms that secured our survival by protecting our offspring, food, territory. There is nothing irrational in Arabs and Israelis both making claims to have the right to live on that land. If someone was to tell Sam that his attachment to his house is irrational, I doubt Sam would have agreed and have vacated. The problem is in the irrational hatred that has been propagated for centuries and fuelled by geopolitical interest of diverse powers. It is very hard to find reason when generation upon generation of Muslims, Christians and Jews have been at each other's throats. In the most recent history, an opportunity has presented itself after the fall of the Ottoman empire when Britts had ruled the Palestinian land. It might be a bold statement, but had Britts consulted Palestinians rather than forcibly populated land by Jewish immigration from the very antisemitic Europe at the time, maybe we would not have had such a strong opposition from the Arabs towards a Jewish state. The unifying moral, spiritual, cultural and social values that are inherent to every human being are hard to find in such a divisive environment where every appeal for peace is quelled. Just read the statements from Israeli government that equates every inhabitant of Gaza to Hamas, and therefore justifies it attempts to completely obliterate every single settlement making the land inhabitable (as done after the 1947); on the other hand, there is not a single voice of wisdom and peace that would call for Muslim world to accept Israeli state, in place of calling for its eradication "from the river to the sea". This is not a philosophical debate anymore, we need to wake up to the fact that humanity is going through a very dangerous period where individuals and nations are more inclined to reach their goals by force at the expense of others. We need a profound change of consciousness in order to survive, the current way of functioning of our civilisation is not sustainable anymore.
This is just a pretty basic economic concept of WTP being a measure of the utility it brings to the buyer
Religion is also a business based on fraud
In part, but there is an intangible sentimental value also.
@@edwardburroughs1489 sure but intangible sentimental value still falls under utility. Utility doesn’t just measure practical value to an individual based on situation it encompasses any positive feeling it brings to the buyer and what that positive feeling whether it be nostalgia or anything is worth to the individual consumer
Sam likes to hear himself talk.
Bless your heart!
Jordan likes to hear himself talk.
Pray for Israel and The West 🙏🏾
Does anyone else find Sam Harris really interesting in how he dissects things but ultimately completely un-useful , he dissects what happens and what he sees about religion etc quite well but what’s the alternative ? I haven’t really heard his alter opinion on what to do as a society without these structures , if anyone has any recommendations on what can explain his stance would be great 👍
He is great at critiquing but never has an thought out alternative way. Plus his mind is addled with TDS now.
So what? Does that make what he is doing wrong?
Asking an AI about all the ways in which your design of a car can fail is wrong just because the AI never suggested alternatives? What the eff?
Yes @ewanhunt9248, he is thinking about a set of values known as "maximizing happiness" as guiding principles to replace religion, basically accepting that there is a need for some basic "belief axiom", but that it should be kept minimal, something like "it's good for conscious beings to pursue an increase in happiness". He claims all behaviour could then objectively follow out of that axiom given enough thought/compute. Ultimately we can't 100% escape belief/religion, but we can keep it as little as possible to function in this universe.
It's highly debatable but an interesting take.
@@empyrionin so basically he is prescribing what many eastern religions have taught for 1000s of years. His whole skit is to take eastern thought and sell it to western audiences.
@@rk-jc9sewhat's TDS?
It is interesting to me that J.P. tends to say the word, "Right", instead of saying, "I agree", which keeps the door to conflict wide open.
Take the religious element out of it and you have land disputed, regardless of it religious attachment. Land in of itself is valuable, now this land has billions worth of natural gas and oil underneath it. The Israeli claim comes from Religious text, the Palestinian claim comes from the present moment I.e having generational ties. You can't trace most Israeli generations back more than 100 years to date to that land. Most of whom were European and why you can't argue its colonialist nature.
Sam Harris over talks too much, he doesn't allow Dr. Jordan Peterson to finish his thought..
Because Jordan is blatantly and incredibly wrong 💀 like bro are you serious? 😂 you've got a guy who uses jargon and vocabulary to appear intelligent vs someone who articulately expresses their intelligence without needing to make an appeal to the audience showboating how many smarty pants buzzwords he can fit into one statement. Please self crit my guy ffs 😂
You cannot separate Peace from Freedoms, because no one can be at peace unless he has Freedom.
El Hadj Malik El Shabazz
Oh. You mean the guy that was murdered by the Nation of Islam for being too critical?
I don't think that was El Hadj........'s quote, ooright!
Sorry, but what Sam said at 9:19 made me laugh out loud 😂
Very nice listening to Sam Harris and being touched by his loving calm.
"loving calm?" really 🤔 I think he is an active volcano under a thin veneer of self control.
Sam Harris is a shill
JP claims “they’ve had their hands around each other’s necks for three thousand years” yet two thousand years ago most Jews were moved away from the area. Later and until WW1 it was primarily Arab and belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and there wasn’t a lot of fighting.
Does anyone have proof there was fighting there after Rome took control of it until WW1?
What a fantastic and well grounded conversation about a really difficult situation, 2 great thinkers at the top of their prospective professions debating in a respectful way.... We need more of this please!