@Angel Felipe thats harder If you dont know what is tgat you are suppose to do Do something By doing that you will find some truth of the right thing thing you should be doi g
Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 King James Version (KJV) 13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
@@robinsss Life can be vain if you choose, but it doesn't have to be. Ecclesiastes 12:13 (KJV) 13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
Damn, this man is absolutely fantastic. JP, you will go down in history. You will remain. The world will know, how much of a beacon of light you are, you were. My absolute hero.
@@aaronbennett4444 no intelligence is actually better than pseudo-intelligence contrary to popular belief 😂 I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing - Socrates keep listening to pseudo-intelligence sheep 🐑🐑🐑
This doesn't specifically deal with moral relativism. People can be "in the zone" and fulfilled by many things which are, to most people, morally reprehensible.
In short, moral relativism heavily implies that there is no meaning in what you do, except to do what you want to, when you want. But Jordan's answer is that there _is_ meaning in what you do, because your actions and attitude directly correlate to how good or bad you might have it, in life.
From what I read by Aristotle, every being is meant to become its entelechy. For the ancient Greeks every man was to fulfill his destiny. Today I say that, to honor your nature, to pursue your own fate, that is an eternal way of existence.
Of all the greeks, i find myself being more intrigued by Heraclitus and Parmenides than Socrates or Plato. But Aristotle, i've always wanted to dive into. Your comment sound also somewhat Kierkegaardian might i say. Very existentialist.
@@essentialpost because that expression is redundant and overused to the point that it lost its significance. There are many ways to paint a vivid picture in someone's mind with words in order to convey an idea, whether it's a good or bad idea, in an extremely effective way, such as using metaphores and allegories... (that's why many intellectual thinkers and writers are still remembered to this day) the deeper we examine something the more we absorb it. I guess this is why JP always goes round and round before presenting his ultimate point.
thanks for this video... kinda helps me understand why i can feel miserable even though everything in life is going great... if its not meaningful but you still suffer for your efforts, then you really start to question your whole direction
Just don't try asking Joe about child slaves from Mexico and their "parents" or statutory rape comitted by female predators, and don't ask JP about how caving to outrage narratives just makes things worse for yourself and everyone else.
I agree. Except for Jordan Peterson being a snake oil salesman. Most of his arguments are shallow. He literally contradicted himself with equality of outcome and sexuality on this very podcast.
'''''we trust each other'''''…………….…….that's rather presumptive ………………………………..I don't trust anyone,...…………………………..why should I trust you?..………………………………………..I don't know you from a whole in the wall
@@borekstvorek Lol presumably you think it a waste of time to buy a car ?? I mean what's the point its going to eventually end up a rusting heap in some a scrap yard somewhere. ?? 🤔🤔 Me however I think cars are just great, they're extremely useful and serve a "Purpose" all the time I have one. I place great "value" on my ability to travel where and when I need to. For example my wife was ill last year and my car allowed me to get her go the hospital in time to save her life. I would say that alone justification for my buying a car and the value I place upon it, dont you. 🤔🤔🤔 You see this is the game theists like you play, you present a false dichotomy that things can only have "value" or "purpose" if they are the result of YOUR specific subjective imaginary friend and an eternal afterlife. This is most certainly NOT the case. My life has the "value" and " purpose" I GIVE IT cupcake. I think this is the one and only life I will ever have and as such I place a greater "value" on it than YOU do dear. This life is not merely some prelude to a main event or nothing more than something to be "cast off like old rags". I tell my loved ones everyday how much I love them and treasure every moment I spend with them. I don't count on some next life giving me the opportunity to do so. I spend my time trying in my own small way to make THIS LIFE and THIS WORLD a better place for those in it. That's what gives me the "purpose" to get out of bed every day dear. I work hard providing for my wife and 3 kids and spend most of my spare time doing voluntary work with young children ( many of whom are disabled ) the smiles upon their faces the only reward or purpose one could ever need for it to have "meaning" But under your theology my inability to believe in magic and extrodinary claims and diferentiate them from the many other such extrodinary claims of other "Gods" with differing scripture and "values" derived from them, means that I'm deserving of eternal torture regardless of how I live my life. A child killer however so long as he truly repents and accepts Jesus on his deathbed he can spend an eternity in paradise with the children he murdered. Unless if course those children also found the "evidence" 🤣🤣 for your God unconvincing, in which case your child murder would be looking down on them as they too suffered for eternity with me 🤮😡😡😡
@@trumpbellend6717 you seem severely delusional. Presuming and assuming isn't useful in any case... thanks for proving it. I'm sure you enjoy conversations you're having with yourself very much, but it helps to check yourself sometimes...
Like some other people have said this doesn't seem to have much to do with moral relativism and certainly isn't a coherent argument against that concept...
It's amazing how fundamental and simple many of his ideas are. It's more amazing how many if not most of us already know the truths he's espousing. It's far far far more amazing that one man articulating these ideas for us can create such a chain, net positive reaction in those who would lend their ears and heart. This is why "Man" is not to be compared with a "cancer" or a "plague" like is so often done in radical environmentalism. The synchronicity in this question being answered for me is astounding. God Bless.
So this basically applies to people with similar moral upringing. What about people who feel they're doing something right intrinsically, intensely, yet what they are doing can be evil in our eyes? This big rant doesn't escape the idea of moral relativism. It just tries to divert attention away from the problem of people who are driven by different internal mechanisms to those who would see their actions as bad or evil. This is why Peterson shouldn't be speaking as if he understands these concepts. He doesn't. He's not a philosopher, he's a psychologist. Yet his fans gulp everything up and many refuse to accept criticism of JBP's massive mistakes and uninformed statements.
Yes. the more fundamental aspect is not in morality, but it's in the worldview of them. When there's the view that good actions reap rewards and worth doing, then they'll do it. And where to acquire the right view? It's through the voice of other and proper attention. Or else one will just stuck inside his own justifications.
Your supposition implies a belief that we are all separate. In my experience, there is a thread that connects us all and is consistent throughout. When people act on impulses that go against that, they are disconnected from it, not feeling it, acting on a different kind of impulse. The "realness" that JP is talking about is very different from the inconsistency that you're pointing to. There is something real. It's very very consistent. It underlies every living thing. You can feel it if you're quiet. "Pay attention." "Be Present." To what's REAL
@@gracelewis6071 You just made a bunch of assumptions that something in our core drives us yet there is so much disagreement and conflict in the moral field of discussion. How the hell can you even believe that when we're arguing about moral relativism right now? I can guarantee you there are several fundamental moral disagreements we would have if we went into detailed debate. I GUARANTEE! Sure, a lot of morality is instinctual, and it's tied to our NATURE. But using such vague terms as you did does nothing to help.
@@LagOknenonok I'm speaking from experience. I'm not speaking from a place of "discussion." That implies debate. There is no debate when it comes to reality. To Truth. It's right here for anyone and everyone to experience, right now. The intellectualism is a distraction. It's what every religion has pointed to in the history of mankind, and it's very, very Real.
Am I understating this correctly ? Is the solution for moral relativism following the moral rules that have been imposed into your life because it contributes to the meaning of life?
I want to preface this by saying I respect Jordan Peterson and I'm a huge fan of his work, but I've never seen him "debunk" moral relativism in any way that holds water. He says that "confronting problems and solving them" is "real" because it "ameliorates suffering and limits malevolence" (0:39), but that doesn't track logically. Reducing suffering and malevolence isn't an objective goal it's a choice, like wanting to make money, or wanting to learn how to kickflip a skateboard. To truly disprove moral relativism, you'd need to prove that objectivity can exist in and of itself. The same logic follows for trying to objectively prove that 1+1=2. If I try to do something like: 5 x 10 = 50 so, 2 x 5 = 10 so, 1 x 5 + 1 x 5 = 10 so, 5 + 5 = 10 so, 1 + 1 = 2 , I haven't OBJECTIVELY proven 1 + 1 = 2, because the logic I used was based on the presuppositions: 1. that numbers represent a count of individual objects 2. addition represents the TOTAL COUNT of two separate sets, each containing its own count of objects 3. equating means having the same total count of objects. Similarly, Mr Peterson's argument against moral relativism rides on the presuppositions: 1. Malevolence is bad 2. suffering is bad (and probably a bunch more) Since any logic that involves PRE-DEFINED ideas IS influenced by personal feelings and opinions, it cannot, by definition, be objective. Fun side note. My entire argument is based on Google's English dictionary, which is provided by Oxford Languages. It defines objectivity as: 1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. The fun irony in this is that definitions are ALSO entirely subjective, and that makes my ENTIRE POINT subjective. There is no way to objectively prove that everything is subjective, and I think, subjectively, that that's beautiful. Edit: I misuse "objective" and "subjective" a lot here, but my point still stands. Just sub out "objective" with "absolute", and "subjective" with "relative".
There's "real" and then there's REAL. Talking about "real" isn't the actual thing. The actual lived experience of Real can't be put into words. Except maybe the velveteen rabbit managed to :) He got to be Real ❤ in the most true sense
@@gracelewis6071 There's "real", and then there's a writer's redefinition of "real" to serve a story. The Velveteen Rabbit was "real" in the same way Harry Potter was a "griffindor". "What do you read my lord?" "Words, words, words." -Hamlet
I agree with most of Dr. Peterson says here (not something that happens often), but I fail to see how it relates to moral relativity. You can strive to discover meaning in life and still believe that morality is subjective. Most moral relativists simply act based on what is good for themselves, and the good of other people, rather than arbitrary rules about what is moral.
Good for yourself is a value judgement. The value itself isn't objective. If a group says it's moral to act for the good of other people. That is also an assertion of value. The value itself isn't objective. You could ground values in the metaphysical like we traditionally did. Such as saying that the good is grounded in God. That makes the values more objective. Most traditional societies had such a metaphysical ground that acted as an organizing principle for their society. That could be God, the gods, Dharma, Buddha Nature, the Tao. But personal preferences aren't objective values.
Moral relativism implies that life has no meaning and good can be evil or evil can be good. I think Peterson's saying that we have inner biological meaning in our lives so we can base our morality simply off of who humans are. We hate murder because it makes our bodies feel bad, we have meaning in our lives because our bodies say so. Basically there's a proven biological base we can base our meaning off of. If you apply it to a real scenario. A depressed teen could say that since morality is relative, it doesn't matter what he does even if its self defeating in nature and leads him to have more depression. Peterson says that it does matter since biology wills it so, meaning that if you follow your biological impulses to find meaning you will have a meaning in life. I may be wrong since I don't have enough life experience or experience with philosophy.
I'd like to see a debate between JDP and Peter Joseph. Both are very intelligent and respect clear debate yet stand on different vantages. Would make for a very enlightening debate.
If morality is so self evident. Why are there like 500 different moralities? If morality is so innate and natural. Why does it need to be taught? If morality is so eternal and unchanging. Why was slavery considered a moral fact in 1860 but anti-slavery is now considered the moral fact in 2024? Also why does neoliberalism think its morality is THE morality?
I wonder if Peterson has read one of the great analysis of the distinction between moral principle and moral relativism: "The Common Sense of Politics" by philosopher Mortimer J. Adler. What Adler provides is a clear way to objectively evaluate whether the rules of the game are fair or cause unjust outcomes.
JFC. He doesn't get chaos and order at all. He is way overbalanced on the side of order. You have to accept and embrace the chaos of life because that's where the creativity of creation comes from.
@@juanmanikings hmm but you’re the one on a video about him, in the comment sections, in a sub thread, telling someone he’s delusional and everyone else who learns something from this man. So what does that make you? Something much worse than delusional for sure
His antidote to moral relativism sounds a lot like moral relativism. What you receive meaning from is relative to yourself. You don't experience meaning in the same thing as the person next to you (more than likely).
@Dawei Zhao I completely understand your sentiment and what you're getting at regarding a lack of separation & full immersion in the moment, but I'm not seeing how it relates to his argument that is supposedly an "antidote to moral relativism" because all of his instances were relativistic.
@@MrFuzziiWuzzii well, to give Jordan his due, I think he was just using those instances to get us to understand our own moments when we've achieved meaning. He is trying to get you to have your instance and even said you should try to pay attention to yourself when you have a real meaningful moment. It's these moments that I believe he is arguing are the realest and truest things there are.
@@Jimraynor45 Yep and thats just relativistic thinking. Saying our meaning is drawn from our own subjective experiences it relativism. ie; its all relative to our own experiences
that's exactly what I was thinking. Peterson says: "The whole moral relativism issue for me is a non-starter. It’s just wrong. There’s lots of ways of interpreting the world, but there are not many ways of interpreting it optimally. And you can FEEL when you’re doing that. It makes you stronger." that's exactly what I was thinking. He gave like three or four arguments FOR moral relativism in these 5 sentences. you can "feel" when you're "interpreting" the world "optimally"?! I couldn't think of a worse way to refute relativism if I tried
There's a right path that's found and built through meaning in actions and communication. That meaning found in constructive interchange would be impossible if everything was relative, there is a common truth for those who seek it. There are many ways of interpreting life but so few of them are optimal and lead you to survival.
@@aseelanza because morality is intrinsically connected to one's couse of action, not merely to "what is wrong to do to others". What you do to yourself is also a moral issue. If you are lazy and flee from responsibility, you are acting immoraly because... (you can watch peterson for this one). Moral objectivism implies that there is something that is objectively true, and although we may not grasp it, we can walk tirelessly towards it and in doing so get further away from error. This does not mean that there is only one course of action (e.g.: you have to be lawyers otherwise you will fail miserably), but that there is a meta-pattern of how to act: a series of do's and don'ts that alleviate suffering and help one get closer to where they want/should be. Moral relativism is the denial of the fact thate there is something right to be done. Everything's arbitrary and, as such, there is no pathway to do what is right, because "right" is entirely relative. There's no center, no fulcrum, no road. I could continue this drivel on and on, but I don't want to be more boring than I already am being.
@@irreadings again you dont understand that these are categories of moral philosophies. Moral realism is the category for moral philosophies that accept the existence of moral facts, while moral anti realism is the opposite (moral relativism, error theory, noncognitivism). Moral relativism is not saying there is no right or wrong, its rather saying that right and wrong are relative.
the bigger problem is that its just one of many descriptions you can give a single phenomenon (in this case the zone) further the induction he then makes to say that it relates to the Tao or order/chaos is not science ..which is fine ..but he claims to be a scientist..
Difficult to apply this antidote to moral relativism. I thought it would be more substantial and modular I guess. An answer to "Yeah... but what about..."
It's amazing to see a person use so many words to say almost nothing. Jordan Peterson is philosophy for people who don't feel like engaging in formal logic.
Diluting oneself into thinking the game their playing with virtuous intent is not certain to result in the elimination of suffering. Even playing the game competently won't make real outside of itself.
I'm not sure if this is a sound refutation of moral relativism or nihilism. You cannot derive an *ought from an is* The laws of physics really don't care about your life goals, aspirations, failures or successes. But that doesn't mean that because *meaning* is not grounded in any empirical domain that it's not worth pursuing or creating. We can make objective statements about subjective experiences, and it is clear that humans ruminate and think deeply about the value in life and it's contents. This does not preclude humans from creating meaning by doing something you *feel* is satisfactory. I would add that it is reasonable for humans to do this so as to structure and orientate their lives.
there is a group, who, perhaps, bears a graver responsibility still: the psychologists and psychiatrists who see the human wreckage of these doctrines, but who remain silent and do not protest-who declare that philosophical and moral issues do not concern them, that science cannot pronounce value judgements-who shrug off professional obligations with the assertion that a rational code of morality is impossible, and, by their silence, lend their sanction to spiritual murder.”-The Virtue of Selfishness.
I am new to this but here is what I am having trouble understanding. Peterson is trying to debunk moral relativism by saying that being in the zone of proximal development (or being in a state of flow.. I know this is different) is morally good and therefore there is no moral relativism? But wouldn’t different actions (depending on a person’s past experience and culture ) put people in that zone of proximal development? For example a serial killer could be in a state of flow when attacking a victim. A normal person would be severally traumatized by killing another person. Hence moral relativism... I don’t really know what I am talking about here. Can someone who does help me out with this?
A more superficial flow state is one thing. Deep connection to what is Real is another. I think he merges the two concepts early on, but gains some clarity in the middle when he starts talking about the Egyptians seeing being present as the highest potential, and the birds saying "pay attention!" It's hard to pick out here I think, because it's two men that appear to understand what is Real without needing to speak it. Which you can't btw. The only way to experience it is by being present and BEING it. Being Real. Go sit with a tree for a while. The flow state with this realness is very different from one without it.
I used to think that way, I stopped when I got my life together one week and had the clear notion there was a drawn path to me but you'd only be convinced if you tried at maximum.
The question of the meaning of life is but an age old classical example of an anthropocentric outlook. We "came" into life. Life never come into us. Life always was...long before us and long after. So the question is void. The right one is: How do i live a meaningful life.
I'm impressed with the level of your modesty knowing that you made the world more worth living , you probably have a random self congratulation , I personally I'm much better human Base on your teaching
The only sad thing about this man is that he can't teach others fast enough. He's so far ahead of most of the rest of us, he must feel like he's talking to children most of the time.
@Adam Khan It's insane and terrifying how many people think morality is subjective. It's the belief that we can presumably do anything we want without consequences. That is precisely the mindset of a psychopath.
@@degenerate82 You can see it. Young people have a tendency to do this. At least the people who usually defend it are young. Defended by rules, that if they would remove, they would die.
@Adam Khan @Adam Khan But what is bad or good in a moral way is not the same for everyone and there is no way to prove each other right or wrong with facts. What feels good or right does absolutely not always have a positive outcome depending on what is a positive outcome in that situation. Doing heroin can feel perfectly right in the moment but has a negative outcome on the goal of achieving long term satisfaction for the individual that is doing it.
This is a bit simplistic though. Suppose one nation sacrifices the losing or winning team [such as what the Aztec did], and the other doesn't [such as what Europeans do]. It isn't enough to simply recognize differerence, but understanding that one is regressive or progressive to a healthy society.
Doing things that fulfill me, fulfill me until I notice it bugs other people or makes them upset. Nothing bad... I guess I am just a dormant leader or I am just a person who can see where people and things fit... Or maybe I just think I do and I am horrible at it. More than likely I just like placing things and people in places I think they will benefit the most and I am actually just horrible at it.
He isnt talking about moral relativism so much as he is about nihilism, which is much easier to deconstruct. But he isnt so much giving an antitode as he is just giving some objective thoughts, which he is acting either as if are absolute or just ignoring their counterarguments.
Lol presumably you think it a waste of time to buy a car ?? I mean what's the point its going to eventually end up a rusting heap in some a scrap yard somewhere. ?? 🤔🤔 Me however I think cars are just great, they're extremely useful and serve a "Purpose" all the time I have one. I place great "value" on my ability to travel where and when I need to. For example my wife was ill last year and my car allowed me to get her go the hospital in time to save her life. I would say that alone justification for my buying a car and the value I place upon it, dont you. 🤔🤔🤔 You see this is the game theists like you play, you present a false dichotomy that things can only have "value" or "purpose" if they are the result of YOUR specific subjective imaginary friend and an eternal afterlife. This is most certainly NOT the case. My life has the "value" and " purpose" I GIVE IT cupcake. I think this is the one and only life I will ever have and as such I place a greater "value" on it than YOU do dear. This life is not merely some prelude to a main event or nothing more than something to be "cast off like old rags". I tell my loved ones everyday how much I love them and treasure every moment I spend with them. I don't count on some next life giving me the opportunity to do so. I spend my time trying in my own small way to make THIS LIFE and THIS WORLD a better place for those in it. That's what gives me the "purpose" to get out of bed every day dear. I work hard providing for my wife and 3 kids and spend most of my spare time doing voluntary work with young children ( many of whom are disabled ) the smiles upon their faces the only reward or purpose one could ever need for it to have "meaning" But under your theology my inability to believe in magic and extrodinary claims and diferentiate them from the many other such extrodinary claims of other "Gods" with differing scripture and "values" derived from them, means that I'm deserving of eternal torture regardless of how I live my life. A child killer however so long as he truly repents and accepts Jesus on his deathbed he can spend an eternity in paradise with the children he murdered. Unless if course those children also found the "evidence" 🤣🤣 for your God unconvincing, in which case your child murder would be looking down on them as they too suffered for eternity with me 🤮😡😡😡
If you belive its right to belive there is no God you are making a moral objective claim. There is no moral relativism in athiests, nor would they ever want it, it's a logical fallacy to belive such things.
@@souzajustin19d *"If you belive its right to belive there is no God you are making a moral objective claim"* - No, you're conflating two different contextual usages of the word 'right' ('logically correct' and 'morally right' respectively). - Rejecting the existence of a God due to a lack of evidence isnt a MORAL claim (it says nothing about what is MORALLY right or wrong), it's a LOGICAL CLAIM (it's saying what is LOGICALLY correct/incorrect). *"There is no moral relativism in athiests, nor would they ever want it, it's a logical fallacy to belive such things."* - No, you incorrectly believe it's logically fallacious because you cant distinguish between logical propositions and moral propositions.
@@totalwater3053 ohh man, why is something right? Is not because it moves twords a goal that you subjectively put? If 2+2=4 because it helps us move twords a mathical understanding of this world, you first need need to have a subjective moral standard saying it's right to do so, otherwise you would not be doing it. Witch leads to a Humes fallacy, subjective morality is under the looking glass of Hume, it's illogical. It was a good try, but you fail to think further.
@@totalwater3053 same mistake over again you assume an action is the right thing to do, otherwise you would not do it. We can keep going in circles not knowing everything you do is subjective moral choice. Then back again with a Humes fallacy, keep thinking.
@@souzajustin19d *"same mistake over again you assume an action is the right thing to do"* - No, I dont 'assume it' I DEFINE IT just as I define what 'tastes good' and 'what is beautiful'. My ability to subjectively regard things as 'morally good' does not imply the existence of an absolute standard of morality anymore-so than my ability to subjectively regard things as 'tasting good' implies an absolute standard of taste. *"We can keep going in circles"* - We arnt going around in circles, I've conclusively shown that your claim is false. See above.
Love the passion and a lot of JPs way of thinking, and how he dares to say controversial things, seldom told by main stream media. Though, I would argue that JP often tends to relativism himself in his speeches, ie. "Death's and rebirth's" how we need to go out of our way from our fast held truths and right morals, to learn new ways and perspectives of life. I might find a little conflicting. But also, There seems to be no denying the positive impact he has on people and their empowerment :) Good job!
In all space there is only one wisdom. When TWO have become ONE and ONE has become the ALL, know that the barrier has lifted and ye are made free from the road. 36 000 BC
I read a similar line in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, but in reference to three becoming one and one becoming three, which is v interesting in light of neoplatonic and proto-christian philosophy. As far as what you said, sure why not. Source?
He makes it sounds powerful but if he were to put it into a syllogism, I would bet that relativists would tear it a part. I, a moral relativist, cannot prove that there is an objective moral standard. However, that does not mean that objective moral frameworks shouldn't exist. On the contrary, they are necessary to maximize our well being. We have subjective desires to do good, but in order to do so we must have the capacity to conceptualize what good even is. The better the framework, the better off humanity becomes. The problem arises when those frameworks become dogmatic and unyeilding to change and obstacles to progress. This is why acknowledging the relativism must be maintained. If you don't have the epistemic warrant for certainty, you simply cannot claim objectivity.
@@theonlinetroll6946 I personally think that morality is more of a category for several different subjective experiences, including, but not limited to perceptions of virtues, justice, pleasure, and pain. The relativism comes from the idea that we can build and create our own narratives to objectively determine morality for us. It's a dangerous quest to create such a system but they're necessary ideas for a society in which many individuals share many different subjective moral experiences. These manifest themselves in the forms of laws and decrees, but also in various spiritual and religious traditions as divine command. In a secular world we have to bring more nuance to this debate as the more we stagnate in our understandings of morality, the more people find themselves oppressed by our ignorance. A moral system must allow for progress and that's the beauty of relativism over objectivism
@@He.knows.nothing If morals are relative, what are they really? Could the concepts of good and evil change? Do they only exist in the mind? Without a sense of objectivity, could you claim that your ideas of morality are even moral?
@@treblestrings6263 that's what relativism is. Concepts of good and evil are ideas that are contingent upon the information that allows them to be comprehensive. There are many answers to the question, what is morality? If you want to understand what it is then understand how we experience it. Does it ever transcend the subjective experience? If so, where and why? Morality is nothing more than a subjective experience that produces ideas that are filtered through culture in a sort of Darwinian natural selection that Richard Dawkins coins as memetics. Ideas that influence behaviors which are more suitable for survival. There is nothing about the Christian idea of morality being rooted in god that can ground itself beyond their own presuppositional beliefs in the divinity of the bible itself. Once you accept Christ and are filled with the holy spirit to guide you, you still have the same problem that emerges within Christian sects that all have very different interpretations on what is moral and not. The same is true for the atheist. There is nothing about understanding morality through the lens of social contract theory, natural law theory, or memetics that transcends the presuppositional belief in naturalism. Likewise, I conclude that morality is necessarily relative, which incorporates both the subjective experience of morality and the objective frameworks that emerge from engaging with moral ideas at the group level. Whatever is right or wrong ultimately boils down to some presupposition no matter what you believe in, so why wouldn't it be relative?
@@He.knows.nothing *On another note:* In a way, the beauty of objectivism over relativism is that it's an easier concept to grasp, making it easier to create a "noble lie" or a dogmatic set of maxims or something that can govern the motives and behavior of Individuals who wouldn't agree otherwise, yet would likely feel very strongly about their beliefs regardless of their validity, but the sad thing is with this that as we evolve and change as people, what it is we need to be doing changes and dogmatic and imposed ideas perpetuated under the assumption that they are objective presupposes that how we operate shouldn't change, and thus in way, we out grow our worldviews and religions only to replace them with a newer model that our leaders call "objective" and argue with absolute certainty as if they perfected moral certainty and understand as if they have achieved gnosis, when in actuality compared to our world leaders, it is the lone philosophers who know more about logic and are there more eruditic, even if simply for the fact that they can and do spent their entire lives dedicated to knowledge whereas world leaders are responsible for... Actually taking care of the world. Interesting isn't it?
"The cave you fear to enter holds the treasure that you seek."-- Joseph Campbell.
Is it the guy from dishonored ?
Good philosophy for sex....
Dumb quote. Lmao
@@notlikely4468 😳
@@mazerunner7640 Peterson said he trusts Rogan to be truthful in discussion
why?
I don't that anyone I'm talking to is going to be truthful
"That which you most need will be found where you least want to look where."-- Carl Jung. I really like that quote.
That's funny cause that would also apply to him
@@_VISION. Carl Jung looked, I believe. Look him up
@@ralph6521 I'm aware that he did. I was talking about Jordan Peterson.
7v777v
@@ralph6521 7vy7yyy
Jordan "The Zone of Proximal Development" Peterson
Jordan "Clean Your Room" Peterson
It was real weird calling JBP to bat in Little League.
@@fawkesandhound Clearly his little league team was called the Lobsters
The irony is that that theory was developed by a Soviet marxist psychologist named Lev Vygovsky.
These thumbnails are fantastic.
Black Bellamy more gesticulating, pls
Lmao
Dr Peterson be looking like an evil mastermind on it
2:07
you find what you need where you least wanna look
This struck a cord with me
The Bible
It's crazy I did the math on how much they have talked together on the podcast alone nearly a full day I love it
Do stuff so you don't feel empty.
Nice
@Stoney Bologna then don't do that
Lmao no shit
stuff that's good for u, but surely, yeah
@Angel Felipe thats harder
If you dont know what is tgat you are suppose to do
Do something
By doing that you will find some truth of the right thing thing you should be doi g
What is the Meaning of Life?
No No No
What is the Life of Meaning?
Yes!
*inserts drake meme*
Apt
Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 King James Version (KJV)
13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
life means whatever you choose it to mean
@@robinsss
Life can be vain if you choose, but it doesn't have to be.
Ecclesiastes 12:13 (KJV)
13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
Damn, this man is absolutely fantastic.
JP, you will go down in history. You will remain. The world will know, how much of a beacon of light you are, you were.
My absolute hero.
Jesus this guy above me sounds cognitively faulty...
The lobster man????
I wish Peterson was one of my professors...his rhetoric is hypnotizing.
unfortunately hypnotizing doesn't equal intelligence :/ This video is exhibit A
@@mega4171 where’s your intellectual rhetoric at? Oh that’s right, you have none.
@@aaronbennett4444 no intelligence is actually better than pseudo-intelligence contrary to popular belief 😂
I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing - Socrates
keep listening to pseudo-intelligence sheep
🐑🐑🐑
@@mega4171 Not intelligent yet more intelligent than you. Sorry to hear that.
@@Hatrimn Agreed. As Socrates said I know that I know nothing :) unfortunately JP is the antipode to this domain of thought
This doesn't specifically deal with moral relativism. People can be "in the zone" and fulfilled by many things which are, to most people, morally reprehensible.
Exactly what I thought after watching. Peterson has talked about the issue in depth before just, not in this video.
In order for relativism to make sense, one has to ground it in something.
"you find what you need when you least wanna look..." i felt that! ✨
word salad
I could listen to this master of a man all day long. He‘s a gift.
In short, moral relativism heavily implies that there is no meaning in what you do, except to do what you want to, when you want. But Jordan's answer is that there _is_ meaning in what you do, because your actions and attitude directly correlate to how good or bad you might have it, in life.
From what I read by Aristotle, every being is meant to become its entelechy. For the ancient Greeks every man was to fulfill his destiny. Today I say that, to honor your nature, to pursue your own fate, that is an eternal way of existence.
Of all the greeks, i find myself being more intrigued by Heraclitus and Parmenides than Socrates or Plato.
But Aristotle, i've always wanted to dive into. Your comment sound also somewhat Kierkegaardian might i say. Very existentialist.
While using metaphors as a teaching tool is certainly useful, speaking plain and simple truth is best.
He's not using metaphors, he's using abstract language. When talking about an abstract concept you have to use abstract language.
That is true for the majority of people, but some people actually respond/relate better to it.
@@attalan8732 exactly. Morality is a philosophical issue, and most of philosophy deals in abstractions.
Why couldn’t he just say doing what you love is the antidote to suffering?
@@essentialpost because that expression is redundant and overused to the point that it lost its significance. There are many ways to paint a vivid picture in someone's mind with words in order to convey an idea, whether it's a good or bad idea, in an extremely effective way, such as using metaphores and allegories... (that's why many intellectual thinkers and writers are still remembered to this day) the deeper we examine something the more we absorb it. I guess this is why JP always goes round and round before presenting his ultimate point.
5:21 Joe goes to his mysterious voice.🤣
thanks for this video... kinda helps me understand why i can feel miserable even though everything in life is going great... if its not meaningful but you still suffer for your efforts, then you really start to question your whole direction
I like Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson both because they articulate common sense so well in a time where it seems to be lacking
I was once deluded like you
Just don't try asking Joe about child slaves from Mexico and their "parents" or statutory rape comitted by female predators, and don't ask JP about how caving to outrage narratives just makes things worse for yourself and everyone else.
Nick Taylor common sense had always been lacking. Everyday of any age just as much as the other.
I agree. Except for Jordan Peterson being a snake oil salesman. Most of his arguments are shallow. He literally contradicted himself with equality of outcome and sexuality on this very podcast.
'''''we trust each other'''''…………….…….that's rather presumptive ………………………………..I don't trust anyone,...…………………………..why should I trust you?..………………………………………..I don't know you from a whole in the wall
Peterson is off the hook. We aren't worthy. He's the Ron Paul of physiology
man i love listening to peterson speak
But, this isn't an antidote to moral relativism? Rather an antidote to moral nihilism. And a fantastic one at that.
It sort of helps to alleviate both.
nihilism often stems and is "worse version" of relativism, therefore developing strong sense of realism instead to combat both :-)
@@borekstvorek Lol presumably you think it a waste of time to buy a car ?? I mean what's the point its going to eventually end up a rusting heap in some a scrap yard somewhere. ?? 🤔🤔
Me however I think cars are just great, they're extremely useful and serve a "Purpose" all the time I have one. I place great "value" on my ability to travel where and when I need to. For example my wife was ill last year and my car allowed me to get her go the hospital in time to save her life. I would say that alone justification for my buying a car and the value I place upon it, dont you. 🤔🤔🤔
You see this is the game theists like you play, you present a false dichotomy that things can only have "value" or "purpose" if they are the result of YOUR specific subjective imaginary friend and an eternal afterlife. This is most certainly NOT the case.
My life has the "value" and " purpose" I GIVE IT cupcake. I think this is the one and only life I will ever have and as such I place a greater "value" on it than YOU do dear. This life is not merely some prelude to a main event or nothing more than something to be "cast off like old rags".
I tell my loved ones everyday how much I love them and treasure every moment I spend with them. I don't count on some next life giving me the opportunity to do so. I spend my time trying in my own small way to make THIS LIFE and THIS WORLD a better place for those in it. That's what gives me the "purpose" to get out of bed every day dear.
I work hard providing for my wife and 3 kids and spend most of my spare time doing voluntary work with young children ( many of whom are disabled ) the smiles upon their faces the only reward or purpose one could ever need for it to have "meaning"
But under your theology my inability to believe in magic and extrodinary claims and diferentiate them from the many other such extrodinary claims of other "Gods" with differing scripture and "values" derived from them, means that I'm deserving of eternal torture regardless of how I live my life.
A child killer however so long as he truly repents and accepts Jesus on his deathbed he can spend an eternity in paradise with the children he murdered. Unless if course those children also found the "evidence" 🤣🤣 for your God unconvincing, in which case your child murder would be looking down on them as they too suffered for eternity with me 🤮😡😡😡
@@trumpbellend6717 you seem severely delusional. Presuming and assuming isn't useful in any case... thanks for proving it. I'm sure you enjoy conversations you're having with yourself very much, but it helps to check yourself sometimes...
@@borekstvorek Care to elaborate dear, or do baseless assertions constitute some form of rational argument in Martins world? 🤔
Truth is true whether you want it to be or not. We do not control physics, it controls us, same with morality.
Like some other people have said this doesn't seem to have much to do with moral relativism and certainly isn't a coherent argument against that concept...
Nice podcast! He should have Joe back on sometime soon
You literally invite someone to a podcast to hear them speak 😂
The last 1 minute is ME! This video is just... mindblown.
It's amazing how fundamental and simple many of his ideas are. It's more amazing how many if not most of us already know the truths he's espousing. It's far far far more amazing that one man articulating these ideas for us can create such a chain, net positive reaction in those who would lend their ears and heart.
This is why "Man" is not to be compared with a "cancer" or a "plague" like is so often done in radical environmentalism. The synchronicity in this question being answered for me is astounding. God Bless.
So this basically applies to people with similar moral upringing. What about people who feel they're doing something right intrinsically, intensely, yet what they are doing can be evil in our eyes? This big rant doesn't escape the idea of moral relativism. It just tries to divert attention away from the problem of people who are driven by different internal mechanisms to those who would see their actions as bad or evil.
This is why Peterson shouldn't be speaking as if he understands these concepts. He doesn't. He's not a philosopher, he's a psychologist. Yet his fans gulp everything up and many refuse to accept criticism of JBP's massive mistakes and uninformed statements.
Yes. the more fundamental aspect is not in morality, but it's in the worldview of them. When there's the view that good actions reap rewards and worth doing, then they'll do it. And where to acquire the right view? It's through the voice of other and proper attention. Or else one will just stuck inside his own justifications.
Your supposition implies a belief that we are all separate. In my experience, there is a thread that connects us all and is consistent throughout. When people act on impulses that go against that, they are disconnected from it, not feeling it, acting on a different kind of impulse. The "realness" that JP is talking about is very different from the inconsistency that you're pointing to.
There is something real. It's very very consistent. It underlies every living thing. You can feel it if you're quiet.
"Pay attention."
"Be Present."
To what's REAL
@@cariyaputta this is the trap of intellectualism that apparently the Egyptians were aware of
@@gracelewis6071 You just made a bunch of assumptions that something in our core drives us yet there is so much disagreement and conflict in the moral field of discussion.
How the hell can you even believe that when we're arguing about moral relativism right now? I can guarantee you there are several fundamental moral disagreements we would have if we went into detailed debate. I GUARANTEE!
Sure, a lot of morality is instinctual, and it's tied to our NATURE. But using such vague terms as you did does nothing to help.
@@LagOknenonok I'm speaking from experience.
I'm not speaking from a place of "discussion."
That implies debate.
There is no debate when it comes to reality.
To Truth.
It's right here for anyone and everyone to experience, right now.
The intellectualism is a distraction.
It's what every religion has pointed to in the history of mankind, and it's very, very Real.
JP is a master of communication.
Am I understating this correctly ? Is the solution for moral relativism following the moral rules that have been imposed into your life because it contributes to the meaning of life?
I want to preface this by saying I respect Jordan Peterson and I'm a huge fan of his work, but I've never seen him "debunk" moral relativism in any way that holds water. He says that "confronting problems and solving them" is "real" because it "ameliorates suffering and limits malevolence" (0:39), but that doesn't track logically. Reducing suffering and malevolence isn't an objective goal it's a choice, like wanting to make money, or wanting to learn how to kickflip a skateboard. To truly disprove moral relativism, you'd need to prove that objectivity can exist in and of itself. The same logic follows for trying to objectively prove that 1+1=2. If I try to do something like: 5 x 10 = 50 so, 2 x 5 = 10 so, 1 x 5 + 1 x 5 = 10 so, 5 + 5 = 10 so, 1 + 1 = 2 , I haven't OBJECTIVELY proven 1 + 1 = 2, because the logic I used was based on the presuppositions:
1. that numbers represent a count of individual objects
2. addition represents the TOTAL COUNT of two separate sets, each containing its own count of objects
3. equating means having the same total count of objects.
Similarly, Mr Peterson's argument against moral relativism rides on the presuppositions:
1. Malevolence is bad
2. suffering is bad
(and probably a bunch more)
Since any logic that involves PRE-DEFINED ideas IS influenced by personal feelings and opinions, it cannot, by definition, be objective.
Fun side note. My entire argument is based on Google's English dictionary, which is provided by Oxford Languages. It defines objectivity as:
1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
The fun irony in this is that definitions are ALSO entirely subjective, and that makes my ENTIRE POINT subjective.
There is no way to objectively prove that everything is subjective, and I think, subjectively, that that's beautiful.
Edit: I misuse "objective" and "subjective" a lot here, but my point still stands. Just sub out "objective" with "absolute", and "subjective" with "relative".
I enjoyed this.
There's "real" and then there's REAL.
Talking about "real" isn't the actual thing.
The actual lived experience of Real can't be put into words.
Except maybe the velveteen rabbit managed to :)
He got to be Real ❤ in the most true sense
@@gracelewis6071 There's "real", and then there's a writer's redefinition of "real" to serve a story. The Velveteen Rabbit was "real" in the same way Harry Potter was a "griffindor".
"What do you read my lord?"
"Words, words, words." -Hamlet
Wow! I’ve never seen JP so passionate. Wow
God I miss old Jordan Peterson im going to dig up more old clips
Interesting points.
The hardest thing Anyone can do is look at One's self with a truthful eye. This is the meaning of the old saying, " To Thy Self Be True".
Morality is subjective :)
I'm definitely gonna be returning to this once a week from now on
Paying attention to your experience - at least for me, that's the core of meditation for me.
Yes!
I agree with most of Dr. Peterson says here (not something that happens often), but I fail to see how it relates to moral relativity. You can strive to discover meaning in life and still believe that morality is subjective. Most moral relativists simply act based on what is good for themselves, and the good of other people, rather than arbitrary rules about what is moral.
Vikrant Pulipati So they all agree that it’s moral to act for the good of other people, no? That part sounds more objective than personal
If you believe it's good for your self you just made objective moral claim. Thats why moral relativism falls on its face, it's makes no logical sense.
Good for yourself is a value judgement. The value itself isn't objective.
If a group says it's moral to act for the good of other people. That is also an assertion of value. The value itself isn't objective.
You could ground values in the metaphysical like we traditionally did. Such as saying that the good is grounded in God. That makes the values more objective. Most traditional societies had such a metaphysical ground that acted as an organizing principle for their society. That could be God, the gods, Dharma, Buddha Nature, the Tao.
But personal preferences aren't objective values.
always be aware of your own consciousness and your life will improve imo
I don't see how this has to do with moral relativism, but I found what I didn't think I needed. 💜
It relates insofar as moral relativism leads to nihilism
He didn’t provide a solution but he’s basically saying everyone has a calling and purpose
Moral relativism implies that life has no meaning and good can be evil or evil can be good. I think Peterson's saying that we have inner biological meaning in our lives so we can base our morality simply off of who humans are. We hate murder because it makes our bodies feel bad, we have meaning in our lives because our bodies say so. Basically there's a proven biological base we can base our meaning off of. If you apply it to a real scenario. A depressed teen could say that since morality is relative, it doesn't matter what he does even if its self defeating in nature and leads him to have more depression. Peterson says that it does matter since biology wills it so, meaning that if you follow your biological impulses to find meaning you will have a meaning in life. I may be wrong since I don't have enough life experience or experience with philosophy.
@@morganseaman4557 interestingly, this is exactly what we Muslims call fitrah.
@@ve_rb No, moral relativism leads to pluralism.
meaning is real. one can feel when they have it. And it's the antindote for suffering.
Lol you just copied what jbp said
@@SocraticShorts i know thank u
8:24-8:33 “Lemme show you my lawn mower” - Jordan Peterson
Hahahahaha this is too good man
😂😂😂😂😂
Haha! Good material for Peter Jordanson.
Always assume the person you're talking too knows something you don't.
I'd like to see a debate between JDP and Peter Joseph. Both are very intelligent and respect clear debate yet stand on different vantages. Would make for a very enlightening debate.
If morality is so self evident. Why are there like 500 different moralities? If morality is so innate and natural. Why does it need to be taught? If morality is so eternal and unchanging. Why was slavery considered a moral fact in 1860 but anti-slavery is now considered the moral fact in 2024? Also why does neoliberalism think its morality is THE morality?
1:00 Zone of Proximal Development
Jordan "It's like" Peterson
wow !! just wow !!! Thank you J.P
We need to make the distinction clear between the morality of existence itself and societal morality.
THANK YOU JORDAN
Rogan Peterson 2024
I honestely think jordan peterson is giving answers to questions people didnt even know they had😂
For some it’s hockey, maybe football, but others it’s murder. It’s relative man
Agree about that father aggression
I wonder if Peterson has read one of the great analysis of the distinction between moral principle and moral relativism: "The Common Sense of Politics" by philosopher Mortimer J. Adler. What Adler provides is a clear way to objectively evaluate whether the rules of the game are fair or cause unjust outcomes.
“The Poison of Subjectivism” by C.S. Lewis is another good read you might like.
6:49 las cosas existen no es algo que tú creas es algo que tú descubres
Good!!
5:20 I might be pulling this out of nowhere but I thought those are values and meaning was "extracted" out of those via choice and consequence?
The logos. destroyed then built back up.... Mind Blown!!!!
I hope my hair is like this when I'm 58
And I ain't talking about Rogan
Benjamin-well he definitely had a hair transplant so yeah. If you want that, get a hairtransplant and/or (preferably and) get on finasteride.
JFC.
He doesn't get chaos and order at all. He is way overbalanced on the side of order. You have to accept and embrace the chaos of life because that's where the creativity of creation comes from.
Jordan has a video of him self in class describing the nessiary chaos and order of life. You should watch it.
What? He literally says exactly what you just said are you delusional?
@@jordanpresnell4697 The only delusionals are Peterson followers
@@juanmanikings hmm but you’re the one on a video about him, in the comment sections, in a sub thread, telling someone he’s delusional and everyone else who learns something from this man. So what does that make you? Something much worse than delusional for sure
So the mechanism to achieve fulfilment is what's concrete, not it's contents
His antidote to moral relativism sounds a lot like moral relativism. What you receive meaning from is relative to yourself. You don't experience meaning in the same thing as the person next to you (more than likely).
@Dawei Zhao
I completely understand your sentiment and what you're getting at regarding a lack of separation & full immersion in the moment, but I'm not seeing how it relates to his argument that is supposedly an "antidote to moral relativism" because all of his instances were relativistic.
@@MrFuzziiWuzzii well, to give Jordan his due, I think he was just using those instances to get us to understand our own moments when we've achieved meaning. He is trying to get you to have your instance and even said you should try to pay attention to yourself when you have a real meaningful moment. It's these moments that I believe he is arguing are the realest and truest things there are.
@@Jimraynor45 Yep and thats just relativistic thinking. Saying our meaning is drawn from our own subjective experiences it relativism. ie; its all relative to our own experiences
that's exactly what I was thinking.
Peterson says: "The whole moral relativism issue for me is a non-starter. It’s just wrong. There’s lots of ways of interpreting the world, but there are not many ways of interpreting it optimally. And you can FEEL when you’re doing that. It makes you stronger."
that's exactly what I was thinking. He gave like three or four arguments FOR moral relativism in these 5 sentences.
you can "feel" when you're "interpreting" the world "optimally"?! I couldn't think of a worse way to refute relativism if I tried
I think he is talking about moral relativism as experienced by the individual (yourself), so that was literally the whole point.
7:32 That is not from the New Testament, that is from the "Gospel of Thomas" saying 113.
How is that an argument against moral-relativism? Peterson should do a philosophy 101
There's a right path that's found and built through meaning in actions and communication. That meaning found in constructive interchange would be impossible if everything was relative, there is a common truth for those who seek it. There are many ways of interpreting life but so few of them are optimal and lead you to survival.
What is that noise Jordan Peterson made at 8:25
Amen I had to look backwards
He is so rediculously smart.
Wish he would come near winnipeg
I don't see how this has anything to do with moral relativism.
Exactly, i'm starting to speculate how little he truly knows about moral relativism
@@aseelanza because morality is intrinsically connected to one's couse of action, not merely to "what is wrong to do to others". What you do to yourself is also a moral issue. If you are lazy and flee from responsibility, you are acting immoraly because... (you can watch peterson for this one).
Moral objectivism implies that there is something that is objectively true, and although we may not grasp it, we can walk tirelessly towards it and in doing so get further away from error. This does not mean that there is only one course of action (e.g.: you have to be lawyers otherwise you will fail miserably), but that there is a meta-pattern of how to act: a series of do's and don'ts that alleviate suffering and help one get closer to where they want/should be.
Moral relativism is the denial of the fact thate there is something right to be done. Everything's arbitrary and, as such, there is no pathway to do what is right, because "right" is entirely relative. There's no center, no fulcrum, no road.
I could continue this drivel on and on, but I don't want to be more boring than I already am being.
@@irreadings again you dont understand that these are categories of moral philosophies. Moral realism is the category for moral philosophies that accept the existence of moral facts, while moral anti realism is the opposite (moral relativism, error theory, noncognitivism). Moral relativism is not saying there is no right or wrong, its rather saying that right and wrong are relative.
@@jokerxxx354 * 2:30 lying being unsustainable isnt relative at all. Are you a moral relitavist?
@@Canna_Berlin_420 no, but i dont believe in moral facts either.
Peterson’s view on Moral Relativism is itself relative.
It's innate though
the bigger problem is that its just one of many descriptions you can give a single phenomenon (in this case the zone) further the induction he then makes to say that it relates to the Tao or order/chaos is not science ..which is fine ..but he claims to be a scientist..
He is a scientist though
Ladies and Gentlemen,,, we Got Him.
Whats Crappening: Very original, Oliver.
Difficult to apply this antidote to moral relativism. I thought it would be more substantial and modular I guess. An answer to "Yeah... but what about..."
It's amazing to see a person use so many words to say almost nothing. Jordan Peterson is philosophy for people who don't feel like engaging in formal logic.
Because you are to stupid too understand
@@shorthumorclips3525 Got me
I 2nd what Smooth said. You're a fucking idiot
Bet you can't understand what formal logic is. Go home.
Probably causes loads of tension within your hipster ranks at the local trendy coffee shop.
Yes death and rebirth. But you have to get over thinking you know it all. It only happens to an open mind
Diluting oneself into thinking the game their playing with virtuous intent is not certain to result in the elimination of suffering. Even playing the game competently won't make real outside of itself.
👶🏿
I'm not sure if this is a sound refutation of moral relativism or nihilism. You cannot derive an *ought from an is*
The laws of physics really don't care about your life goals, aspirations, failures or successes.
But that doesn't mean that because *meaning* is not grounded in any empirical domain that it's not worth pursuing or creating. We can make objective statements about subjective experiences, and it is clear that humans ruminate and think deeply about the value in life and it's contents. This does not preclude humans from creating meaning by doing something you *feel* is satisfactory. I would add that it is reasonable for humans to do this so as to structure and orientate their lives.
"There is no such thing as a Moral Relativist" - Noam Chomsky ( A Moral Relativist)
there is a group, who, perhaps, bears a graver responsibility still: the psychologists and psychiatrists who see the human wreckage of these doctrines, but who remain silent and do not protest-who declare that philosophical and moral issues do not concern them, that science cannot pronounce value judgements-who shrug off professional obligations with the assertion that a rational code of morality is impossible, and, by their silence, lend their sanction to spiritual murder.”-The Virtue of Selfishness.
I am new to this but here is what I am having trouble understanding.
Peterson is trying to debunk moral relativism by saying that being in the zone of proximal development (or being in a state of flow.. I know this is different) is morally good and therefore there is no moral relativism?
But wouldn’t different actions (depending on a person’s past experience and culture ) put people in that zone of proximal development?
For example a serial killer could be in a state of flow when attacking a victim. A normal person would be severally traumatized by killing another person. Hence moral relativism...
I don’t really know what I am talking about here. Can someone who does help me out with this?
A more superficial flow state is one thing. Deep connection to what is Real is another. I think he merges the two concepts early on, but gains some clarity in the middle when he starts talking about the Egyptians seeing being present as the highest potential, and the birds saying "pay attention!"
It's hard to pick out here I think, because it's two men that appear to understand what is Real without needing to speak it. Which you can't btw. The only way to experience it is by being present and BEING it. Being Real.
Go sit with a tree for a while.
The flow state with this realness is very different from one without it.
The meaning of life
Their is no built in meaning of life, you get to choose it for yourself. At least that's my thinking
I used to think that way, I stopped when I got my life together one week and had the clear notion there was a drawn path to me but you'd only be convinced if you tried at maximum.
The question of the meaning of life is but an age old classical example of an anthropocentric outlook.
We "came" into life. Life never come into us.
Life always was...long before us and long after.
So the question is void. The right one is:
How do i live a meaningful life.
I'm impressed with the level of your modesty knowing that you made the world more worth living , you probably have a random self congratulation , I personally I'm much better human Base on your teaching
The only sad thing about this man is that he can't teach others fast enough. He's so far ahead of most of the rest of us, he must feel like he's talking to children most of the time.
It kind of worries me when someone as brilliant as him says something I disagree with.
🤣😂
in short, JUST BE MID.
In filth it will be found.
10 minutes later and i have no idea what he thinks is an antidote to moral relativism
@Adam Khan It's insane and terrifying how many people think morality is subjective. It's the belief that we can presumably do anything we want without consequences. That is precisely the mindset of a psychopath.
@@degenerate82 You can see it. Young people have a tendency to do this. At least the people who usually defend it are young. Defended by rules, that if they would remove, they would die.
@Adam Khan @Adam Khan But what is bad or good in a moral way is not the same for everyone and there is no way to prove each other right or wrong with facts. What feels good or right does absolutely not always have a positive outcome depending on what is a positive outcome in that situation. Doing heroin can feel perfectly right in the moment but has a negative outcome on the goal of achieving long term satisfaction for the individual that is doing it.
I was aware for 7 years
This is more of a refutation to what he believes nihilism to be than moral relativism.
If I recognize people in other nations play football by different rules doesn't mean I don't believe in any rules at all.
This is a bit simplistic though. Suppose one nation sacrifices the losing or winning team [such as what the Aztec did], and the other doesn't [such as what Europeans do].
It isn't enough to simply recognize differerence, but understanding that one is regressive or progressive to a healthy society.
Doing things that fulfill me, fulfill me until I notice it bugs other people or makes them upset. Nothing bad... I guess I am just a dormant leader or I am just a person who can see where people and things fit... Or maybe I just think I do and I am horrible at it. More than likely I just like placing things and people in places I think they will benefit the most and I am actually just horrible at it.
Theism is the only solution to moral relativism.
lol. You a stand-up comedian? No? You ought to be
Moral Relativism is the only solution to theism.
Moral relativism is cancer and oxymoronic.
Life Not Given to us: Theism is cancer and fucking stupid.
He isnt talking about moral relativism so much as he is about nihilism, which is much easier to deconstruct. But he isnt so much giving an antitode as he is just giving some objective thoughts, which he is acting either as if are absolute or just ignoring their counterarguments.
Lol presumably you think it a waste of time to buy a car ?? I mean what's the point its going to eventually end up a rusting heap in some a scrap yard somewhere. ?? 🤔🤔
Me however I think cars are just great, they're extremely useful and serve a "Purpose" all the time I have one. I place great "value" on my ability to travel where and when I need to. For example my wife was ill last year and my car allowed me to get her go the hospital in time to save her life. I would say that alone justification for my buying a car and the value I place upon it, dont you. 🤔🤔🤔
You see this is the game theists like you play, you present a false dichotomy that things can only have "value" or "purpose" if they are the result of YOUR specific subjective imaginary friend and an eternal afterlife. This is most certainly NOT the case.
My life has the "value" and " purpose" I GIVE IT cupcake. I think this is the one and only life I will ever have and as such I place a greater "value" on it than YOU do dear. This life is not merely some prelude to a main event or nothing more than something to be "cast off like old rags".
I tell my loved ones everyday how much I love them and treasure every moment I spend with them. I don't count on some next life giving me the opportunity to do so. I spend my time trying in my own small way to make THIS LIFE and THIS WORLD a better place for those in it. That's what gives me the "purpose" to get out of bed every day dear.
I work hard providing for my wife and 3 kids and spend most of my spare time doing voluntary work with young children ( many of whom are disabled ) the smiles upon their faces the only reward or purpose one could ever need for it to have "meaning"
But under your theology my inability to believe in magic and extrodinary claims and diferentiate them from the many other such extrodinary claims of other "Gods" with differing scripture and "values" derived from them, means that I'm deserving of eternal torture regardless of how I live my life.
A child killer however so long as he truly repents and accepts Jesus on his deathbed he can spend an eternity in paradise with the children he murdered. Unless if course those children also found the "evidence" 🤣🤣 for your God unconvincing, in which case your child murder would be looking down on them as they too suffered for eternity with me 🤮😡😡😡
@@trumpbellend6717 I think you commented on the wrong comment bro
@@CyberCheese392 Did you read it entirety
@@trumpbellend6717 No
@@CyberCheese392 There lies your problem
Morals are still subjective on atheism.
If you belive its right to belive there is no God you are making a moral objective claim. There is no moral relativism in athiests, nor would they ever want it, it's a logical fallacy to belive such things.
@@souzajustin19d *"If you belive its right to belive there is no God you are making a moral objective claim"*
- No, you're conflating two different contextual usages of the word 'right' ('logically correct' and 'morally right' respectively).
- Rejecting the existence of a God due to a lack of evidence isnt a MORAL claim (it says nothing about what is MORALLY right or wrong), it's a LOGICAL CLAIM (it's saying what is LOGICALLY correct/incorrect).
*"There is no moral relativism in athiests, nor would they ever want it, it's a logical fallacy to belive such things."*
- No, you incorrectly believe it's logically fallacious because you cant distinguish between logical propositions and moral propositions.
@@totalwater3053 ohh man, why is something right? Is not because it moves twords a goal that you subjectively put? If 2+2=4 because it helps us move twords a mathical understanding of this world, you first need need to have a subjective moral standard saying it's right to do so, otherwise you would not be doing it. Witch leads to a Humes fallacy, subjective morality is under the looking glass of Hume, it's illogical. It was a good try, but you fail to think further.
@@totalwater3053 same mistake over again you assume an action is the right thing to do, otherwise you would not do it. We can keep going in circles not knowing everything you do is subjective moral choice. Then back again with a Humes fallacy, keep thinking.
@@souzajustin19d
*"same mistake over again you assume an action is the right thing to do"*
- No, I dont 'assume it' I DEFINE IT just as I define what 'tastes good' and 'what is beautiful'.
My ability to subjectively regard things as 'morally good' does not imply the existence of an absolute standard of morality anymore-so than my ability to subjectively regard things as 'tasting good' implies an absolute standard of taste.
*"We can keep going in circles"*
- We arnt going around in circles, I've conclusively shown that your claim is false. See above.
Jordan "it's real" Peterson
Love the passion and a lot of JPs way of thinking, and how he dares to say controversial things, seldom told by main stream media. Though, I would argue that JP often tends to relativism himself in his speeches, ie. "Death's and rebirth's" how we need to go out of our way from our fast held truths and right morals, to learn new ways and perspectives of life. I might find a little conflicting.
But also, There seems to be no denying the positive impact he has on people and their empowerment :) Good job!
have you seen "Fighting in the Age of Loneliness"?
I can't tell whether he's a genius or just a madman😂
Often a sign of a great thinker
Genius and madman aren’t mutually exclusive
maybe both lol
Love Joe for letting the master onto the podxast once more
What gives new meaning is murder.
🤡
In all space there is only one wisdom.
When TWO have become ONE and ONE has become the ALL, know that the barrier has lifted and ye are made free from the road.
36 000 BC
I read a similar line in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, but in reference to three becoming one and one becoming three, which is v interesting in light of neoplatonic and proto-christian philosophy. As far as what you said, sure why not. Source?
He makes it sounds powerful but if he were to put it into a syllogism, I would bet that relativists would tear it a part.
I, a moral relativist, cannot prove that there is an objective moral standard. However, that does not mean that objective moral frameworks shouldn't exist. On the contrary, they are necessary to maximize our well being. We have subjective desires to do good, but in order to do so we must have the capacity to conceptualize what good even is. The better the framework, the better off humanity becomes. The problem arises when those frameworks become dogmatic and unyeilding to change and obstacles to progress. This is why acknowledging the relativism must be maintained. If you don't have the epistemic warrant for certainty, you simply cannot claim objectivity.
I think moral is a somewhat of a mixture of relativism and objectivism.i guess morality is based on suffering but that's really what I think
@@theonlinetroll6946 I personally think that morality is more of a category for several different subjective experiences, including, but not limited to perceptions of virtues, justice, pleasure, and pain. The relativism comes from the idea that we can build and create our own narratives to objectively determine morality for us. It's a dangerous quest to create such a system but they're necessary ideas for a society in which many individuals share many different subjective moral experiences. These manifest themselves in the forms of laws and decrees, but also in various spiritual and religious traditions as divine command. In a secular world we have to bring more nuance to this debate as the more we stagnate in our understandings of morality, the more people find themselves oppressed by our ignorance. A moral system must allow for progress and that's the beauty of relativism over objectivism
@@He.knows.nothing
If morals are relative, what are they really? Could the concepts of good and evil change? Do they only exist in the mind? Without a sense of objectivity, could you claim that your ideas of morality are even moral?
@@treblestrings6263 that's what relativism is. Concepts of good and evil are ideas that are contingent upon the information that allows them to be comprehensive.
There are many answers to the question, what is morality? If you want to understand what it is then understand how we experience it. Does it ever transcend the subjective experience? If so, where and why?
Morality is nothing more than a subjective experience that produces ideas that are filtered through culture in a sort of Darwinian natural selection that Richard Dawkins coins as memetics. Ideas that influence behaviors which are more suitable for survival. There is nothing about the Christian idea of morality being rooted in god that can ground itself beyond their own presuppositional beliefs in the divinity of the bible itself. Once you accept Christ and are filled with the holy spirit to guide you, you still have the same problem that emerges within Christian sects that all have very different interpretations on what is moral and not. The same is true for the atheist. There is nothing about understanding morality through the lens of social contract theory, natural law theory, or memetics that transcends the presuppositional belief in naturalism. Likewise, I conclude that morality is necessarily relative, which incorporates both the subjective experience of morality and the objective frameworks that emerge from engaging with moral ideas at the group level. Whatever is right or wrong ultimately boils down to some presupposition no matter what you believe in, so why wouldn't it be relative?
@@He.knows.nothing
*On another note:*
In a way, the beauty of objectivism over relativism is that it's an easier concept to grasp, making it easier to create a "noble lie" or a dogmatic set of maxims or something that can govern the motives and behavior of Individuals who wouldn't agree otherwise, yet would likely feel very strongly about their beliefs regardless of their validity, but the sad thing is with this that as we evolve and change as people, what it is we need to be doing changes and dogmatic and imposed ideas perpetuated under the assumption that they are objective presupposes that how we operate shouldn't change, and thus in way, we out grow our worldviews and religions only to replace them with a newer model that our leaders call "objective" and argue with absolute certainty as if they perfected moral certainty and understand as if they have achieved gnosis, when in actuality compared to our world leaders, it is the lone philosophers who know more about logic and are there more eruditic, even if simply for the fact that they can and do spent their entire lives dedicated to knowledge whereas world leaders are responsible for...
Actually taking care of the world.
Interesting isn't it?