Peterson regrets that conversation because Destiny schooled him. Destiny regrets that conversation because he didn't go harder at the nonsense Peterson spouted.
What Peterson was saying - if we want to be very charitable - is that the point of discourse should be to learn, not to win. Of course, since he is usually all over the place in his phrasing it's not easy to read this. For all the dazzle and big words I find he's somewhat of an unclear thinker. Often he uses more difficult phrasing for no reason and makes no attempt to simplify. But hey, if Hegel was allowed to do it, I guess why not (and I'm not saying they are on the same level). It's interesting to note that Destiny was escalating that debate, which could have been read by Peterson as being too confrontational/wanting to win. For all his tough act, Peterson is a sensitive person imo, so you'd have to be very soft with him to get him to actually use his brain once he gets heated. As well as, he did what he said he didn't like in himself: he became so oppositional that he couldn't agree to simple observations like trusting institutions. So Destiny wasn't wrong to escalate here, but as I said, Peterson took it to heart. But this is on par for Peterson: he does what he accuses his opponents of doing: wanting to win debates, and being too dogmatic (which he accuses woke people of). Although I guess you can commend him for having Destiny on, he usually likes to mostly platform people who agree with him.
peterson lives in la la land but Destin'y whole modus operandi is to be aggressively confrontational and contrarian. outside of debate Destiny actually agrees with a lot of Peterson's points casually on stream.
its lame to me that someone disagreeing with someone is seen as "escalating" a conversation when it's a debate. Even if presented as a conversation, it mostly is a conversation about disagreements, call it whatever you want.
3:17 Wow, what a deep , profound and technically grounded argument. "Trying to be right is of the devil, yo. Forrealz." thank you Mr. Peterson for your insightful knowledge on the matter.
If the purpose is to get close to reality, ego should be set aside. In this way, it does not matter "who" is right. The important thing is to get closer to reality. Then only we could see aspects of reality, we hadn't seen before. But if we do not set aside our ego and try to prove "I" am right, instead of the idea in my head is right, then we will be fighting with words and we will not see the reality. Perhaps Peterson is saying that he gave up to fight with words, it does not matter who is right, so long as he understands the reality better. It is a very difficult task , sacrificing ego, to understand the reality better.
I'm pretty sure that Destiny thought of this debate as a success until Peterson threw him under the bus. And only after that did Destiny change his mind.
I quite dislike both Peterson and Destiny. I also quite like your take on the necessity for discussion. ❤❤❤ I'd love to know what you think of Women Who Run With The Wolves as a companion (in my opinion um a way more compelling analysis) to Petersons use of Campbell's heroes journey?
I think you misunderstand. There are two approaches to arguing. You could argue to "win" or argue to discover truth. In both cases, you could be "right", in different senses, but the approach matters. If you're goal is to WIN, your priority isn't truth, your priority is APPEARING correct. If I argued that apples were blue, I could probably "win" against a 12 year old, but that doesn't mean I'm right, it just means I'm more knowledgeable/verbal. Lastly, productive conversations prioritize truth. Peterson thought Destiny was prioritizing "winning the argument" as opposed to pursuing truth. Destiny said himself that he finds value in simply "debating to debate". This is fine if you're a debate bro, but if you want to make ACTUAL progress, debating to be "right" is counterproductive af.
Jesus Christ the video isn't even 10 minutes long. He addresses this directly, by showing how destiny didn't approach the debate to appear correct rather he countered Peterson's arguments with substantive claims, rather than mere rhetoric. Debates can bring you closer to the truth. I have had my mind changed in many debates. By viewing debates I have found myself disagreeing with Destiny, and in other conversations agreeing with Peterson.
@@usershilov He addressed it by showing that something out of context doesn't align with his thoughts, when that out of context thing was possibly, and most likely compromising his capacity to think? Phew, I'm so glad he addressed it this way!
Arguing to BE right and arguing to APPEAR right are two VASTLY different things. The difference is the actual intent to discover truth. Destiny often just appeals to authority on things like scientific matters not because he wants to appear right but because thats what he estimates to be the most likely true answer. To say he just tries to win the debate is very reductive and dismissive, and it shows that JP can't handle to take on someone informed who will not budge to his obfuscating redderick. And yes, it is akin to a 12 year old to be like "you're not playing fair" in a debate. HE portrays himself as an authority on these matters, and then cries wolf when you don't submit to him. It's actually a manipulative tactic to attack someone personally for his positions, it's called poisoning the well, and i think he is just about guilty of that and playing identity politics in general.
Usually the person who thinks lost the debate tries to psychoanalyze the other person and tries to talk about motivations rather than actually talking about substance and about why the other person is wrong (which is ironic from Peterson, since he claims that he prioritizes truth and substance over rhetoric and over who appears to be right). You can speculate about Destiny's motivations all you want, but that won't establish how he is wrong about a given thing. Motivated reasoning and being bad faith are both compatible with actually being right about a given set of facts. You can both have the motivation to win in an argument and also be right , so its a false dichotomy in the sense that they are not mutually exclusive. Your priority not being truth doesn't mean that what you are saying isnt true and your priority being truth doesn't mean that what you are saying is true. Im curious what kind of justification Peterson can come up with (other than baseless speculation) to establish that Destiny doesn't actually believe that his arguments are true. One can genuinely think that the other side's arguments are garbage and isn't true and then argue against those points in a passionate way. Pretending that both sides are equally true or that both sides have always something useful to say in all cases unironically entails that you don't actually care about truth, because that premise isn't always true.
@@zurewmurew7485 yea exactly. Its a way to dismiss the person entirely which is always disingenuous. Especially if you claim yourself to be an intellectual thats qualified to even speak on a topic, you should be able to counter the point
I'm a Peterson hater, but I think you misunderstood the part about being right, I think what he meant is that he wasn't interested in "winning" the arguments, he was rather interested in reaching the truth (and letting the other person reach the truth as well), regardless of whether or not he's the one that is categorized as the one "winning" the argument, i.e: he's interested in finding the truth, not interested in "being right" / appearing to be the right. he's interested in being truthful, which is different. since you can win an argument (i.e: be right in an argument) while you're not saying the truth.
I think there's a chasm of difference between wanting to "be right," and wanting to "reach the truth," though I certainly don't think Peterson is clear enough in this distinction. It _is_ certainly bad, prideful, arrogant, unconstructive to aim to constantly be "right," precisely because it inhibits any enterprise intended at finding the truth. On his debate with Destiny, however, I agree that such discussions are necessary, and I agree with much of what you get at in this video.
By being right you risk alienating people from what they think they know, what Peterson is playing at on this one is, you don't have to be right, you have to propose your idea to the other person who thinks in a different way, this is the quickest way to make sure the other party learn and correct their belief system without being embarrassed or feeling like they were humiliated. Consider an argument where you think and believe 1+2=4=4, i can prove you are wrong but the best way to win you over, is to phrase the proof as my belief instead of coming at you with animosity and trend
@ 8:50 Either talk or fight to the death? Are they both either/or thinkers? In authoritarian societies, there is also submission. In democratic societies with minority rights, pluralism, toleration, "areas of agreement", and compromise are options.
Neither Destiny nor Jordan actually had problems with the conversations I'm pretty Peterson, almost *right* after the conversation like within a day or two, praises the conversation or said it went well or sm. So did Destiny for a while. Peterson then either assessed his whole performance or noticed the reception of it and decided to throw Destiny under the bus. Which just jaded Destiny. I don't think Destiny thinks the conversation went bad, he just has no trust for these grifters because he was actually restraining his confrontational side. And it's understandable. It's not just abstract philosophical ideas being debated here, these are real world material problems with very obvious impacts. Misinfo should make you angry here. But all that restraint, and still to be regarded as a "person who just wants to be right" made him lose any respect he might've had for JBP and the like. Funny how they talk about running away from conversations, losing beliefs through conversations, polarization and homogenized social groups, and Peterson literally ran away from a challenging conversation.
Destiny really rattled Peterson more than anyone else that I have seen, I think perhaps because others of a similar perspective, like Sam Harris are much older and less animated. Peterson thinks that he is not arguing to be "right", but it becomes very obvious to observers that that is exactly what is going on.
Yeah so, i think the problem here is that you can believe in epistemic objectivity, and also still believe in the value of having a pluralistic society and making conversation with people you disagree with. Just because truth is objective doesn't mean there's any one person, institution or government that has access to that truth and can thus shut down any conversation about non-truths. I think you can, in fact, as Jordan Peterson does, say that "a productive political discussion with someone you disagree with shouldn't be about trying to figure out who is objectively fundamentally right. It should be about hearing each other out." AND also say that it's dumb for Liberal College Graduates taught by Liberal Art Professors to insist that Art is entirely subjective, that Beauty is entirely subjective, that physical appearance is entirely subjective
Actually, let me clarify something, I haven't watched their full conversation and have only seen the clips in this video, but, I do think their conversation was good. I think it was good that it happened. But I think it can simultaneously be true that it's good when two massive public figures on opposite sides of the aisle can have a conversation with each other, and think that that conversation would have been better and more productive if both parties had an attitude of openness towards learning something they didn't already know from the other
I don't think you are quite right, and I think you could figure it out if you assessed every time he talked about 'truth', 'being right', and 'telling the truth' in context. Pulling claims about those together without their own context won't make some sort of generalized, overall context; it will just result in something uncertain and possibly incoherent and/or contradictory. I will be assigning meaning to his claims in context in a way so that it doesn't contradict itself and the context. In other words, I will look at the claims in a way that they make sense and I can actually evaluate them. 'Your truth' is not objective truth. What he is talking about in the first clip is the things you think to be true. There is a huge difference in that. And it will only make sense this way; why would he encourage you to tell people your thoughts if he thinks they will tell you that the objective truth is not right? In the second clip you have shown, he explains that just finding out who is more right is essentially meaningless, you 'winning' would just mean you lost time, trying to prove you are right, when you know you can't be fully right, and you didn't learn anything new, since you 'won'. So you objectively didn't gain anything, the victory is imaginary, or how he put it, 'only a status thing'. In the third clip, what he says doesn't mean that he doesn't want to tell the truth in a debate, he means that winning a debate is meaningless if you didn't learn anything. Since there is a way to make the debate better, (both participants working on solving the issue, figuring things out, getting something out of it) they are wasting time doing it sub-optimally. If someone is objectively stupid and you win a debate against them when your subjective truth is, let's say, only 0.1% better than theirs, it won't make you any smarter than you were before. I, myself, have no problem 'winning' arguments if the other party only wants to figure out who is more right, but if the both of us are intelligent enough to do something meaningful, I will always prefer that. If there is no outside factors (like legal cases and such), only the debate, you can't benefit from winning by just being right.
I saw that comment and also thought it was weird, especially since he debates all the time, it's why he got famous. Nevertheless he is right overall. People have to fight that tendency to try and prove things and try to force your will on others and that is what debates usually are for. If you see yourself doing that, or worse, always disagreeing for the sake of it like an automatism, it's pretty bad. You loose the ability to learn something when you do that. Both sides did it in that clip, but Destiny mostly. I don't know the guy that much, but he seems to fall into this quite a bit. You rarely learn from formal debates, it's annoying and frustrating, although when people have an actual conversation, then you learn much more. I don't think that clip you showed was particularly productive, nor was the Newman interview. Most of it are loss of time, trying to nuance and stuff.
If you care about ego battles between who is right and who is wrong maybe you don't understand that transcending your own suffering should be a priority in life.
It’s not about “ego battles,” it’s about the truth. And good luck transcending suffering. Let me know when that happens. Peterson makes a living putting forth claims, largely with no pushback. And he’s now a paid political pundit. His ideas can and should be criticized. Peterson (and his devotees) would agree with this statement if it were about anybody other than him.
@@charliekowittmusic The ego is the biggest distraction to seeing the truth that you can't see until you lower the ego, the sense of separation between people.
I must watch the interview with Destiny. This looks like a real eye opener on Peterson. As for the claim to have given up playing the I am right game, simply delusional.
Peterson is overblown. He's very good at dishing out word salad, name and concept-dropping, but overall he's not saying anything groundbreaking. His commerce is made of platitudes that generally fit in a neoconservative-yet-social-democratic mindset (very middle-class Canadian). Nothing harmful, nothing eye-opening unless you're not very well read, in which case he may introduce you to a few idea reminiscent of platonism. On a broader topic, when you mention "the Truth" this is a fundamental component of logic and philosophy, one that is rooted in the nature of cognition. Many things are equally true, that are cognitively perfectly in contradiction : For instance a cylinder is both a circle and a rectangle, depending on your point of view. Both observers produce true statements when they say "It's a circle/rectangle", because the Truth, is that they're referring to a cylinder. Therefore a true statement does not make truth alone. Truth requires the permutation of concepts. But even then, increasing knowledge about the way the brain processes information leads us to envisage that truth is a singularity in an n-dimensional space. An object, if you want, but in a conceptual space that has more than 3 or 4 dimensions. The Logos, if you want, has to be similar to a Large Language Model - a space that has billions of dimensions, in which a concept is a coordinate. This is why concepts never seem to be isolated : A cylinder is just three dimensions of a larger construct that contains other related forms. So we would be fooling ourselves if we were to claim we can grasp the Truth. The Truth in the context of discourse and dialectics, has to be contingent on the dialectical aim. Not to say that "truth is a construct" - not at all - but that in practice what we manipulate is "sufficient reason" to pass judgment on a problem. This sufficiency limits our ability to call out things in themselves, precisely as Kant claimed. There is good evidence for it : The neural network that we're born with, contains aeons of living organism heritage. We could not function in the world were we to acquire everything about the world, after birth. We are born with the kit already in place. What this means, in spife of our kit's ability to learn, is that when you speak a concept to me, my eyes and my ears received a symbol (say, a word), that in itself cannot contain much data. It is the brain that unpacks the data because it already has the data ; the word is only the key that unlocks what's in the inventory. Now, for the key to operate at all, we need to be schooled to manipulate symbolic language. Our species has been using symbols for only a few millennia, so this is still not entrenched in our brains. It's interesting to imagine that a million years from now, symbolic processing may be as immediate as touch. This word - immediate - is quite something to unpack, by the way, as it is the opposite of "mediated". So what we consider to be true, are observations that meet our expectations. And what is Truth, subject definitions that survive the permutation of observations. Peterson is not interested in who formulates the truth because he is essentially only interested in his own observation. Peterson is a subjectivist. His inclination to delve into mystical narratives and to cultivate myth about himself shows that he believes the pursuit of Truth to be inconsequential to guide human behaviour - he believes in emergent systems of domination and he believes that the partiality of the status quo is likely to be an evolutionary winner. Peterson likely thinks that there is no rational truth at the teleology of the Logos ; he is not a Hegelian ; he's very much the comical monstrosity of a Christian Nietzschean animal.
Wonderful to read most of this. I don’t know how you’re simultaneously such an articulate thinker and writer and yet so annoyed about Peterson. Is he really only interested in his own observations? How do you know he is a subjectivist?
Destiny, unlike Peterson, is an attack dog. A destroyer. Note that I don't mean this as a judgement of his character, but as an explanation for how he can occasionally get something substantially wrong. Destiny likes to take one topic and dissect it to the tiniest possible pieces. He then thinks the job is done, and he will sink his teeth into the topic and destroy any argument that contradicts him. But as a consequence he sometimes misses the bigger picture. He's so eager to understand things on a deep level that he forgets to consider that he started from the wrong square to begin with. Deep understanding doesn't equate to a complete understanding, and that's something Destiny fails to respect. He would benefit greatly from researching the bigger picture. Peterson is the exact opposite, he's a defender. A builder. This is also not meant as a judgement of his character. He likes to look to his right and his left, above and below, he looks in every direction to find truth. He grabs whatever looks convenient. In this way he collects a lot of ideas and information from many different places, and he tries to make them fit somehow. He creates a big picture. When he gets it wrong, it's because he fails to dig deep in any specific direction. He's not interested in dissecting one single idea in great detail, he wants to collect information and build. But this means he handwaves away key information, including that which contradicts the smaller pieces to the puzzle he's creating. He would benefit from researching deeper in one single direction.
I suspect the disdain Peterson speaks of his younger self (and hence projected onto others) betrays a lack of compassion for a child who's still in there somewhere. You cant dehumanize others without dehumanizing yourself.
kinda commenting without wtaching the video here but the destiny debate isn't any kind of a milestone for Peterson. At best it just help expose more of his BS. But the BS itself he's been on for a good while. "I don't care about who's right" he says as he spreads vaccine misinformation and gets push back "I don't care about who's right" he says as he talks about a ill formed idea about use of force or the size of governments arrogant and boring
He didn't say he didn't strive to be right and he isn't talking about some form of relativism. Do you understand that you can hold something in your hand and then put it down? Being attatched to being right without being able to put that desire down is what suffering is about.
You're missing his point. He's pointing out that people often find it more important to "be right" as a psychological ego booster rather than having one's mind correspond with reality, as Aristotle and Aquinas showed us. Peterson is making an excellent point as usual.
He didn’t say “people often”. He said Destiny was doing that, when Destiny simply raised some good points. If Peterson is so bothered by this egotistical desire to be right, why does he take money from the Daily Wire? That’s literally their entire deal.
@@charliekowittmusic You aren't different from any religious apologetic defending their holy scripture with every single contradictory argument when you defend a flawed critique. The truth value of Peterson's statements about debates doesn't change because his of later assessment of a debate he had with someone.
@@unapologeticsceptic616 Dumb people shouldn’t try to sound smart. I never defended a critique. Even if I had, how would that be the same as defending religious doctrine? And truth value?? What’s being discussed is Peterson’s inability to handle any pushback, even entirely reasonable pushback. You’re 0 for 3 there. Conversation is our best means of pursuing truth. That’s why research studies are peer-reviewed. Of course Peterson’s obvious statement about debate is correct. But Peterson fails to live up to even this low bar, and exposes himself as a hypocrite who can’t handle hearing from the other side.
@@bengreen171 Notice how that can't logically follow his statement. OP made an assessment about Peterson's general point, unrelated to his debate with Destiny. I think contextomy and strawman are very clear to see in this case; Charlie ignored that there were several quotes out of context sounding alike, but not meaning the same thing and he pretended that it will make an overarching context, when in reality it just made it incoherent and not evaluable. Not only that, he connected a general truth (which should have been several to begin with) with a specific assessment and tried to make it seem like that specific case undermines the general point. You can't just claim that Charlie made no mistakes here, when he clearly said that Peterson made no general claims (which OP's comment is actually about) when the premise of his own argument lies in that; without a broader principle he wouldn't be able to call Peterson a hypocrite.
Peterson just doesn't want any genuine pushback to his extremely misinformed and dangerous positions because it pulls him out of his comfort zone.
I think being right in a debate, or even in general, is a good thing, but I could be wrong.
You wouldn't be wrong if you were right
@@Graati You are quite right.
@@ZER0-- well, if I'm quite right your sentence about me being quite right is as equally right, meaning that:
You're quite right too
@@Graati Absolutely. A pair of smart arses, if I may...
"Dont play Hume with me" Lmao.
Peterson regrets that conversation because Destiny schooled him.
Destiny regrets that conversation because he didn't go harder at the nonsense Peterson spouted.
Incredible video!
Excellent points well laid out, great video.
Peterson is my least favorite postmodernist.
Peterson is a postmodernist but he is not my least favorite
What Peterson was saying - if we want to be very charitable - is that the point of discourse should be to learn, not to win. Of course, since he is usually all over the place in his phrasing it's not easy to read this. For all the dazzle and big words I find he's somewhat of an unclear thinker. Often he uses more difficult phrasing for no reason and makes no attempt to simplify. But hey, if Hegel was allowed to do it, I guess why not (and I'm not saying they are on the same level).
It's interesting to note that Destiny was escalating that debate, which could have been read by Peterson as being too confrontational/wanting to win. For all his tough act, Peterson is a sensitive person imo, so you'd have to be very soft with him to get him to actually use his brain once he gets heated. As well as, he did what he said he didn't like in himself: he became so oppositional that he couldn't agree to simple observations like trusting institutions. So Destiny wasn't wrong to escalate here, but as I said, Peterson took it to heart.
But this is on par for Peterson: he does what he accuses his opponents of doing: wanting to win debates, and being too dogmatic (which he accuses woke people of). Although I guess you can commend him for having Destiny on, he usually likes to mostly platform people who agree with him.
peterson lives in la la land but Destin'y whole modus operandi is to be aggressively confrontational and contrarian. outside of debate Destiny actually agrees with a lot of Peterson's points casually on stream.
Yeah that's what he said in the Alex o'conner (the cosmic skeptic on UA-cam) talk.
its lame to me that someone disagreeing with someone is seen as "escalating" a conversation when it's a debate. Even if presented as a conversation, it mostly is a conversation about disagreements, call it whatever you want.
this is gonna get hate from the greasiest people on the internet but W video
3:17 Wow, what a deep , profound and technically grounded argument. "Trying to be right is of the devil, yo. Forrealz." thank you Mr. Peterson for your insightful knowledge on the matter.
Good video man
Peterson doesn't want to "win" the debate, but he definitely doesn't want to "lose" either. He's as "ideologically possessed" as they get.
If the purpose is to get close to reality, ego should be set aside. In this way, it does not matter "who" is right. The important thing is to get closer to reality. Then only we could see aspects of reality, we hadn't seen before.
But if we do not set aside our ego and try to prove "I" am right, instead of the idea in my head is right, then we will be fighting with words and we will not see the reality.
Perhaps Peterson is saying that he gave up to fight with words, it does not matter who is right, so long as he understands the reality better. It is a very difficult task , sacrificing ego, to understand the reality better.
7:19
are these the interjections and interruprtions about someone who doesn't care about being right?
Some "don't dead, open inside" going on in the title there
Thumbnail or title? :)
@@Mon000 oh thumbnail sorry lol
I'm pretty sure that Destiny thought of this debate as a success until Peterson threw him under the bus. And only after that did Destiny change his mind.
I quite dislike both Peterson and Destiny. I also quite like your take on the necessity for discussion. ❤❤❤ I'd love to know what you think of Women Who Run With The Wolves as a companion (in my opinion um a way more compelling analysis) to Petersons use of Campbell's heroes journey?
I think you misunderstand. There are two approaches to arguing. You could argue to "win" or argue to discover truth. In both cases, you could be "right", in different senses, but the approach matters. If you're goal is to WIN, your priority isn't truth, your priority is APPEARING correct. If I argued that apples were blue, I could probably "win" against a 12 year old, but that doesn't mean I'm right, it just means I'm more knowledgeable/verbal. Lastly, productive conversations prioritize truth. Peterson thought Destiny was prioritizing "winning the argument" as opposed to pursuing truth. Destiny said himself that he finds value in simply "debating to debate". This is fine if you're a debate bro, but if you want to make ACTUAL progress, debating to be "right" is counterproductive af.
Jesus Christ the video isn't even 10 minutes long. He addresses this directly, by showing how destiny didn't approach the debate to appear correct rather he countered Peterson's arguments with substantive claims, rather than mere rhetoric. Debates can bring you closer to the truth. I have had my mind changed in many debates. By viewing debates I have found myself disagreeing with Destiny, and in other conversations agreeing with Peterson.
@@usershilov He addressed it by showing that something out of context doesn't align with his thoughts, when that out of context thing was possibly, and most likely compromising his capacity to think?
Phew, I'm so glad he addressed it this way!
Arguing to BE right and arguing to APPEAR right are two VASTLY different things. The difference is the actual intent to discover truth. Destiny often just appeals to authority on things like scientific matters not because he wants to appear right but because thats what he estimates to be the most likely true answer. To say he just tries to win the debate is very reductive and dismissive, and it shows that JP can't handle to take on someone informed who will not budge to his obfuscating redderick. And yes, it is akin to a 12 year old to be like "you're not playing fair" in a debate. HE portrays himself as an authority on these matters, and then cries wolf when you don't submit to him. It's actually a manipulative tactic to attack someone personally for his positions, it's called poisoning the well, and i think he is just about guilty of that and playing identity politics in general.
Usually the person who thinks lost the debate tries to psychoanalyze the other person and tries to talk about motivations rather than actually talking about substance and about why the other person is wrong (which is ironic from Peterson, since he claims that he prioritizes truth and substance over rhetoric and over who appears to be right).
You can speculate about Destiny's motivations all you want, but that won't establish how he is wrong about a given thing.
Motivated reasoning and being bad faith are both compatible with actually being right about a given set of facts.
You can both have the motivation to win in an argument and also be right , so its a false dichotomy in the sense that they are not mutually exclusive.
Your priority not being truth doesn't mean that what you are saying isnt true and your priority being truth doesn't mean that what you are saying is true.
Im curious what kind of justification Peterson can come up with (other than baseless speculation) to establish that Destiny doesn't actually believe that his arguments are true.
One can genuinely think that the other side's arguments are garbage and isn't true and then argue against those points in a passionate way. Pretending that both sides are equally true or that both sides have always something useful to say in all cases unironically entails that you don't actually care about truth, because that premise isn't always true.
@@zurewmurew7485 yea exactly. Its a way to dismiss the person entirely which is always disingenuous. Especially if you claim yourself to be an intellectual thats qualified to even speak on a topic, you should be able to counter the point
I'm a Peterson hater, but I think you misunderstood the part about being right, I think what he meant is that he wasn't interested in "winning" the arguments, he was rather interested in reaching the truth (and letting the other person reach the truth as well), regardless of whether or not he's the one that is categorized as the one "winning" the argument, i.e: he's interested in finding the truth, not interested in "being right" / appearing to be the right. he's interested in being truthful, which is different. since you can win an argument (i.e: be right in an argument) while you're not saying the truth.
I think there's a chasm of difference between wanting to "be right," and wanting to "reach the truth," though I certainly don't think Peterson is clear enough in this distinction. It _is_ certainly bad, prideful, arrogant, unconstructive to aim to constantly be "right," precisely because it inhibits any enterprise intended at finding the truth. On his debate with Destiny, however, I agree that such discussions are necessary, and I agree with much of what you get at in this video.
By being right you risk alienating people from what they think they know, what Peterson is playing at on this one is, you don't have to be right, you have to propose your idea to the other person who thinks in a different way, this is the quickest way to make sure the other party learn and correct their belief system without being embarrassed or feeling like they were humiliated. Consider an argument where you think and believe 1+2=4=4, i can prove you are wrong but the best way to win you over, is to phrase the proof as my belief instead of coming at you with animosity and trend
@ 8:50 Either talk or fight to the death? Are they both either/or thinkers? In authoritarian societies, there is also submission. In democratic societies with minority rights, pluralism, toleration, "areas of agreement", and compromise are options.
Neither Destiny nor Jordan actually had problems with the conversations
I'm pretty Peterson, almost *right* after the conversation like within a day or two, praises the conversation or said it went well or sm. So did Destiny for a while.
Peterson then either assessed his whole performance or noticed the reception of it and decided to throw Destiny under the bus. Which just jaded Destiny. I don't think Destiny thinks the conversation went bad, he just has no trust for these grifters because he was actually restraining his confrontational side. And it's understandable. It's not just abstract philosophical ideas being debated here, these are real world material problems with very obvious impacts. Misinfo should make you angry here. But all that restraint, and still to be regarded as a "person who just wants to be right" made him lose any respect he might've had for JBP and the like.
Funny how they talk about running away from conversations, losing beliefs through conversations, polarization and homogenized social groups, and Peterson literally ran away from a challenging conversation.
Petition to rotate "Luciferan intellect" out of our vocabularies
Destiny really rattled Peterson more than anyone else that I have seen, I think perhaps because others of a similar perspective, like Sam Harris are much older and less animated. Peterson thinks that he is not arguing to be "right", but it becomes very obvious to observers that that is exactly what is going on.
Yeah so, i think the problem here is that you can believe in epistemic objectivity, and also still believe in the value of having a pluralistic society and making conversation with people you disagree with.
Just because truth is objective doesn't mean there's any one person, institution or government that has access to that truth and can thus shut down any conversation about non-truths.
I think you can, in fact, as Jordan Peterson does, say that "a productive political discussion with someone you disagree with shouldn't be about trying to figure out who is objectively fundamentally right. It should be about hearing each other out." AND also say that it's dumb for Liberal College Graduates taught by Liberal Art Professors to insist that Art is entirely subjective, that Beauty is entirely subjective, that physical appearance is entirely subjective
Actually, let me clarify something, I haven't watched their full conversation and have only seen the clips in this video, but, I do think their conversation was good.
I think it was good that it happened. But I think it can simultaneously be true that it's good when two massive public figures on opposite sides of the aisle can have a conversation with each other, and think that that conversation would have been better and more productive if both parties had an attitude of openness towards learning something they didn't already know from the other
I don't think you are quite right, and I think you could figure it out if you assessed every time he talked about 'truth', 'being right', and 'telling the truth' in context. Pulling claims about those together without their own context won't make some sort of generalized, overall context; it will just result in something uncertain and possibly incoherent and/or contradictory.
I will be assigning meaning to his claims in context in a way so that it doesn't contradict itself and the context. In other words, I will look at the claims in a way that they make sense and I can actually evaluate them.
'Your truth' is not objective truth. What he is talking about in the first clip is the things you think to be true. There is a huge difference in that. And it will only make sense this way; why would he encourage you to tell people your thoughts if he thinks they will tell you that the objective truth is not right?
In the second clip you have shown, he explains that just finding out who is more right is essentially meaningless, you 'winning' would just mean you lost time, trying to prove you are right, when you know you can't be fully right, and you didn't learn anything new, since you 'won'. So you objectively didn't gain anything, the victory is imaginary, or how he put it, 'only a status thing'.
In the third clip, what he says doesn't mean that he doesn't want to tell the truth in a debate, he means that winning a debate is meaningless if you didn't learn anything. Since there is a way to make the debate better, (both participants working on solving the issue, figuring things out, getting something out of it) they are wasting time doing it sub-optimally.
If someone is objectively stupid and you win a debate against them when your subjective truth is, let's say, only 0.1% better than theirs, it won't make you any smarter than you were before.
I, myself, have no problem 'winning' arguments if the other party only wants to figure out who is more right, but if the both of us are intelligent enough to do something meaningful, I will always prefer that.
If there is no outside factors (like legal cases and such), only the debate, you can't benefit from winning by just being right.
i don't to be want right
I saw that comment and also thought it was weird, especially since he debates all the time, it's why he got famous.
Nevertheless he is right overall. People have to fight that tendency to try and prove things and try to force your will on others and that is what debates usually are for. If you see yourself doing that, or worse, always disagreeing for the sake of it like an automatism, it's pretty bad. You loose the ability to learn something when you do that. Both sides did it in that clip, but Destiny mostly. I don't know the guy that much, but he seems to fall into this quite a bit. You rarely learn from formal debates, it's annoying and frustrating, although when people have an actual conversation, then you learn much more. I don't think that clip you showed was particularly productive, nor was the Newman interview. Most of it are loss of time, trying to nuance and stuff.
Peterson only reevaluates his position on things when it gets a pushback from the audience that fills his wallet
If you care about ego battles between who is right and who is wrong maybe you don't understand that transcending your own suffering should be a priority in life.
It’s not about “ego battles,” it’s about the truth. And good luck transcending suffering. Let me know when that happens.
Peterson makes a living putting forth claims, largely with no pushback. And he’s now a paid political pundit.
His ideas can and should be criticized. Peterson (and his devotees) would agree with this statement if it were about anybody other than him.
@@charliekowittmusic The ego is the biggest distraction to seeing the truth that you can't see until you lower the ego, the sense of separation between people.
I must watch the interview with Destiny. This looks like a real eye opener on Peterson. As for the claim to have given up playing the I am right game, simply delusional.
Peterson is overblown. He's very good at dishing out word salad, name and concept-dropping, but overall he's not saying anything groundbreaking. His commerce is made of platitudes that generally fit in a neoconservative-yet-social-democratic mindset (very middle-class Canadian). Nothing harmful, nothing eye-opening unless you're not very well read, in which case he may introduce you to a few idea reminiscent of platonism.
On a broader topic, when you mention "the Truth" this is a fundamental component of logic and philosophy, one that is rooted in the nature of cognition. Many things are equally true, that are cognitively perfectly in contradiction : For instance a cylinder is both a circle and a rectangle, depending on your point of view. Both observers produce true statements when they say "It's a circle/rectangle", because the Truth, is that they're referring to a cylinder. Therefore a true statement does not make truth alone. Truth requires the permutation of concepts. But even then, increasing knowledge about the way the brain processes information leads us to envisage that truth is a singularity in an n-dimensional space. An object, if you want, but in a conceptual space that has more than 3 or 4 dimensions. The Logos, if you want, has to be similar to a Large Language Model - a space that has billions of dimensions, in which a concept is a coordinate. This is why concepts never seem to be isolated : A cylinder is just three dimensions of a larger construct that contains other related forms. So we would be fooling ourselves if we were to claim we can grasp the Truth.
The Truth in the context of discourse and dialectics, has to be contingent on the dialectical aim. Not to say that "truth is a construct" - not at all - but that in practice what we manipulate is "sufficient reason" to pass judgment on a problem. This sufficiency limits our ability to call out things in themselves, precisely as Kant claimed. There is good evidence for it : The neural network that we're born with, contains aeons of living organism heritage. We could not function in the world were we to acquire everything about the world, after birth. We are born with the kit already in place. What this means, in spife of our kit's ability to learn, is that when you speak a concept to me, my eyes and my ears received a symbol (say, a word), that in itself cannot contain much data. It is the brain that unpacks the data because it already has the data ; the word is only the key that unlocks what's in the inventory. Now, for the key to operate at all, we need to be schooled to manipulate symbolic language. Our species has been using symbols for only a few millennia, so this is still not entrenched in our brains. It's interesting to imagine that a million years from now, symbolic processing may be as immediate as touch. This word - immediate - is quite something to unpack, by the way, as it is the opposite of "mediated".
So what we consider to be true, are observations that meet our expectations. And what is Truth, subject definitions that survive the permutation of observations. Peterson is not interested in who formulates the truth because he is essentially only interested in his own observation. Peterson is a subjectivist. His inclination to delve into mystical narratives and to cultivate myth about himself shows that he believes the pursuit of Truth to be inconsequential to guide human behaviour - he believes in emergent systems of domination and he believes that the partiality of the status quo is likely to be an evolutionary winner. Peterson likely thinks that there is no rational truth at the teleology of the Logos ; he is not a Hegelian ; he's very much the comical monstrosity of a Christian Nietzschean animal.
Wonderful to read most of this. I don’t know how you’re simultaneously such an articulate thinker and writer and yet so annoyed about Peterson. Is he really only interested in his own observations? How do you know he is a subjectivist?
Do you have any readings you would suggest to me? (even outside the context of your comment)
Destiny, unlike Peterson, is an attack dog. A destroyer. Note that I don't mean this as a judgement of his character, but as an explanation for how he can occasionally get something substantially wrong. Destiny likes to take one topic and dissect it to the tiniest possible pieces. He then thinks the job is done, and he will sink his teeth into the topic and destroy any argument that contradicts him. But as a consequence he sometimes misses the bigger picture. He's so eager to understand things on a deep level that he forgets to consider that he started from the wrong square to begin with. Deep understanding doesn't equate to a complete understanding, and that's something Destiny fails to respect. He would benefit greatly from researching the bigger picture.
Peterson is the exact opposite, he's a defender. A builder. This is also not meant as a judgement of his character. He likes to look to his right and his left, above and below, he looks in every direction to find truth. He grabs whatever looks convenient. In this way he collects a lot of ideas and information from many different places, and he tries to make them fit somehow. He creates a big picture. When he gets it wrong, it's because he fails to dig deep in any specific direction. He's not interested in dissecting one single idea in great detail, he wants to collect information and build. But this means he handwaves away key information, including that which contradicts the smaller pieces to the puzzle he's creating. He would benefit from researching deeper in one single direction.
I suspect the disdain Peterson speaks of his younger self (and hence projected onto others) betrays a lack of compassion for a child who's still in there somewhere. You cant dehumanize others without dehumanizing yourself.
kinda commenting without wtaching the video here but the destiny debate isn't any kind of a milestone for Peterson. At best it just help expose more of his BS. But the BS itself he's been on for a good while.
"I don't care about who's right" he says as he spreads vaccine misinformation and gets push back
"I don't care about who's right" he says as he talks about a ill formed idea about use of force or the size of governments
arrogant and boring
I think this is a solid take. When the lobster army comes to take you away to the Jungian shadow realm, I will mourn you.
You are not a JP hater??? Well, you should be. He is awful.
fuck blind hate. All my homies make differenciated arguments.
Peterson has become but a joke
He didn't say he didn't strive to be right and he isn't talking about some form of relativism. Do you understand that you can hold something in your hand and then put it down? Being attatched to being right without being able to put that desire down is what suffering is about.
You're missing his point. He's pointing out that people often find it more important to "be right" as a psychological ego booster rather than having one's mind correspond with reality, as Aristotle and Aquinas showed us. Peterson is making an excellent point as usual.
He didn’t say “people often”. He said Destiny was doing that, when Destiny simply raised some good points.
If Peterson is so bothered by this egotistical desire to be right, why does he take money from the Daily Wire?
That’s literally their entire deal.
@@charliekowittmusic You aren't different from any religious apologetic defending their holy scripture with every single contradictory argument when you defend a flawed critique.
The truth value of Peterson's statements about debates doesn't change because his of later assessment of a debate he had with someone.
@@unapologeticsceptic616 Dumb people shouldn’t try to sound smart. I never defended a critique. Even if I had, how would that be the same as defending religious doctrine?
And truth value?? What’s being discussed is Peterson’s inability to handle any pushback, even entirely reasonable pushback. You’re 0 for 3 there.
Conversation is our best means of pursuing truth. That’s why research studies are peer-reviewed. Of course Peterson’s obvious statement about debate is correct.
But Peterson fails to live up to even this low bar, and exposes himself as a hypocrite who can’t handle hearing from the other side.
@@unapologeticsceptic616
notice that Charlie didn't deny the truth of the statements Peterson made, merely highlighted the hypocrisy of the man.
@@bengreen171 Notice how that can't logically follow his statement.
OP made an assessment about Peterson's general point, unrelated to his debate with Destiny.
I think contextomy and strawman are very clear to see in this case; Charlie ignored that there were several quotes out of context sounding alike, but not meaning the same thing and he pretended that it will make an overarching context, when in reality it just made it incoherent and not evaluable. Not only that, he connected a general truth (which should have been several to begin with) with a specific assessment and tried to make it seem like that specific case undermines the general point.
You can't just claim that Charlie made no mistakes here, when he clearly said that Peterson made no general claims (which OP's comment is actually about) when the premise of his own argument lies in that; without a broader principle he wouldn't be able to call Peterson a hypocrite.