The man who read a book a day since he was 3 years is extraordinary. More so his speeches are meaningful & phenomenal. We are immensely enriched from his contribution to the intellectual community.
Nobody dictates morality. One either has or finds a personal code of ethics, or one doesn't. How is either option somehow right? Who can say that simply because a certain being is more aware of itself than another, less self-aware being, gives life any meaning? If life has a meaning, it's because you think it does.
In methodology agreeing with the rules , principles or methods of science accurate , systematic exact...A method inquiry upon reciprocal interplay of observable data, and generalizations or in turn tested by the reliability and accuracy of deductions from it and by its consistency with other hyphothesis and observed data............. God bless Professors Jordan Peterson and more power
the interviewer constantly is trying to agree. "yeah" "thats exactly what i was thinking" "yeah" like no.... jordan peterson knows exactly what he's thinking.... stick to asking the questions my guy
Yes, the notion of iterative games viewed from a Darwinian perspective is quite remarkable. The implications for atheism, for example, are devastating.
It's a proposition based on survival. I wrote of this elsewhere. Let me copy/paste. Even though there have always been individual atheists, religion is universal. All known civilizations have had religions as do all known societies. Questionable rare exceptions have been proposed, but even if so, they would be rare exceptions. Having said this, it is nonetheless reasonable to hypothesize that atheist societies might have existed once. It at least is conceivable. Yet, the only ones that have survived are religious. From a Darwinian perspective, it would appear that absence of religion leads to annihilation.
It is unclear to me if this is so. Non-religious humanistic approaches to ethics exist and they have a very long history. As to whether they are viable, well, that's another issue. Thus, iterative games... and Darwinian survival.
Morgan P Define Atheistic. Define Religion. Something more worldly could provide the functions religion tends to have, but I do recognize that Keep in mind we have civilization for only 10k years and we know so little. We need innovation and we should never stop experimenting. Darwin’s survival of the fittest takes survival into account and all societies respond to their environment, so you cannot extract out “Religion is necessary” without much in the way of certainty. The environment of the modern world is way different from those of ancient societies. Science hasn’t grown yet into the extent it is now. It has taken over some of the roles religion used to have.
@@the11382 wow actualy a great point just because religion has existed on most societies doesn't mean that now we cant do that with science or engineering.
Because the kind of behavior that leads to survival is diffused by the community and tends to become the norm, and by that i dont necessarily mean individual survival but collective survival
If morality was a social construct, each social system would have its own construction of morality. Thus, if one thinks morality is socially constructed then they are moral relativists. Morality is universal and not socially constructed. Everyone inherently knows from right and wrong. When one is wronged, they know it i.e look at their reactions. When one does wrong, they know their motivations for doing wrong. They want a certain outcome. They want the other person to feel what they feel. Every human being is like this. It’s innate. Therefore, not socially constructed.
@@thecarlitosshow7687 You can reach this conclusion from evolutionary psychology. i.e. behaviors conducive to human flourishing are naturally more likely to result in reproductive success.
I didnt share this video because JP falls down when it comes to scientific ethics. The scientific community has ethics built-in. Logically deducing ethics came before the scientific method. The ethics of Aristotle plus mathematical game theory gives us secular ethics. Its really easy.
I'd actually love to hear an elaboration on this because I think I agree, but what you said is far too condensed for me to be sure. Since I have PCS reading is painful for me, so could you recommend a video on this?
@@Luisffaraj I'm familiar with Lewis's argument with respect to science and values. I was more interested in driving a secular ethics from Aristotle plus game theory, as that seems genuinely promising, unlike Christianity.
God of the Bible also commanded gang rape, cutting the babies out of pregnant women and bashing them on the rocks, and genocide. The Biblical God definitely sucks.
Because most animals have pretty close psychological systems and circuits in the brain that have similar reactions and also it’s easier to do constant tests with animals rather than human subjects. Do you have any real reason why animals can’t be compared to humans? If you take away our speech and civility we are just animals as well, just because we can formulate complex and abstract thoughts doesn’t mean we are on a completely different evolutionary journey, most animals that are alive are alive because evolution has picked the traits best suited for the conditions, but the thing is evolution isn’t completely arbitrary it’s conservative so it uses commonalities across animals because that’s what works cause if it didn’t then the animal and genes would cease to exist. You’re a weirdo for not having a real reason for not comparing animals to other animals, leave it up to the real scientists just cause you can’t understand how it correlates to the rest of the world doesn’t make him weird or stupid for comparing different animals for reasons you have no idea about
Maybe formulate your hate a little better so people can understand your POV to actually show proof of what you say rather than just throw BS out your ass. You can’t even use facts to destroy his ideas because you can’t even understand them or even worse choose not to because you’re scared of having your whole ideology ripped to shreds
@@nathanaelmorales760 Emergent ethics is nonsense. It implies there is direction in evolution. What about cats or Eagles which don't have the same ethical system. Are rats more evolved than cats if their ethical system resembles humans?
@@keithhunt5328 nah they’re a different type of animal, different levels of consciousness means different levels of awareness, a social creatures (most mammals) need a different level of awareness to work together socially, so yes their consciousness evolved differently
@@keithhunt5328 also there is direction in evolution we went from no one experiencing anything to humans experiencing reality. Meaning, the Big Bang started and had no life but it evolved all the way to the point to humans which as of right now is the highest level of consciousness reached by animal so far, so that shows that evolution is being guided by trying to find higher consciousness, and consciousness is outside time and space so that was the constant variable before the Big Bang, so if the fundamental truth of reality is consciousness and it created the material world we call reality and it created a system where evolution caused animals to get higher and higher consciousness by becoming more advanced and changing the consciousness through every new evolution, cause even the very beginning had the lowest level consciousness living things that eventually evolved to animals that are alive today, hell we started off as some sort of little 🦠 lol
@@keithhunt5328 the emerging ethic can only be seen by higher consciousness individuals, cause lower consciousness beings are less aware of total reality and are relying on instincts and animalistic urges so that’s why certain animals act differently their consciousness is at a level best suited for their survival, our consciousness evolved so greatly that we are more aware of total reality that we can contemplate abstract and complex ideas and you can’t know that until you become aware of that so animals can’t becomes aware of the emerging ethics because their consciousness isn’t evolved enough to know that, but dogs can feel a little more emotions so their consciousness evolved to be able to be more aware of them because they’ve been in a place of more peace and harmony rather than complete survival in the wilderness where they probably wouldn’t feel as much emotions as would in a loving family home where consciousness in the dog and the humans reciprocate and can actually feel the love because both conscious beings can be aware of the feeling of love so they feel it. The feeling of love between two beings of consciousness is one of the realest and truest thing you can get to reality, the consciousness inside the other being and the consciousness in your being is being connected as one and reciprocating and feeling and energy of love so it’s like pure consciousness coming together as something good
The man who read a book a day since he was 3 years is extraordinary. More so his speeches are meaningful & phenomenal. We are immensely enriched from his contribution to the intellectual community.
He said that those books were mostly fiction, so it's no wonder that he read a book a day😂. But still, that's very impressive.
I’m I’m not sure why you are mad mad but but that’s what you gonna have for
I’m I’m not sure why you are mad mad but but that’s what you gonna have for
I’m not going anywhere today but but that’s what you you wanna
I’m not going anywhere today but but but I’m going crazy over the
This may be the single most important video I've ever seen on UA-cam...I thank you for this
The dog knows what the hells going on. Best line ever.
dog knows what the dog doin
Great lecture, although I find the mirroring of the image distracting if not irritating. Thanks.
they seem to swap seats several times. whats going on?
Nake Fatty, his mic changes sides too. The video is being flipped.
Just flipping the image to avoid copyright infringement detection
Peterson is so mind blowing that your Brain is struggling to keep up.
The old switcheroo
Why is the camera man using a mirrored-camera, or are they switching places every now and then ?
Does anyone else see the similarity between the need to ensure the sustainability of iterative games and Kant's moral imperative?
Nobody dictates morality. One either has or finds a personal code of ethics, or one doesn't. How is either option somehow right? Who can say that simply because a certain being is more aware of itself than another, less self-aware being, gives life any meaning? If life has a meaning, it's because you think it does.
Great title
In methodology agreeing with the rules , principles or methods of science accurate , systematic exact...A method inquiry upon reciprocal interplay of observable data, and generalizations or in turn tested by the reliability and accuracy of deductions from it and by its consistency with other hyphothesis and observed data............. God bless Professors Jordan Peterson and more power
this guy is genius, and whoever interviews him and tries to seem to know things or to outsmart him looks just dumb
the interviewer constantly is trying to agree. "yeah" "thats exactly what i was thinking" "yeah" like no.... jordan peterson knows exactly what he's thinking.... stick to asking the questions my guy
who else thinks the host is relatively lacking the intellect (a little too much) for Jordan
I found him intrusive and annoying, he has no business interviewing anyone. 0 charisma
other way around
There is no universal ethic, thank God.
Link for full video please?
5:37 is that Jim Keller?
Yes, the notion of iterative games viewed from a Darwinian perspective is quite remarkable. The implications for atheism, for example, are devastating.
It's a proposition based on survival. I wrote of this elsewhere. Let me copy/paste.
Even though there have always been individual atheists, religion is universal. All known civilizations have had religions as do all known societies. Questionable rare exceptions have been proposed, but even if so, they would be rare exceptions.
Having said this, it is nonetheless reasonable to hypothesize that atheist societies might have existed once. It at least is conceivable. Yet, the only ones that have survived are religious. From a Darwinian perspective, it would appear that absence of religion leads to annihilation.
It is unclear to me if this is so. Non-religious humanistic approaches to ethics exist and they have a very long history. As to whether they are viable, well, that's another issue. Thus, iterative games... and Darwinian survival.
Morgan P Define Atheistic. Define Religion. Something more worldly could provide the functions religion tends to have, but I do recognize that
Keep in mind we have civilization for only 10k years and we know so little. We need innovation and we should never stop experimenting.
Darwin’s survival of the fittest takes survival into account and all societies respond to their environment, so you cannot extract out “Religion is necessary” without much in the way of certainty. The environment of the modern world is way different from those of ancient societies.
Science hasn’t grown yet into the extent it is now. It has taken over some of the roles religion used to have.
Fantastic conversation, thank you, namaste
@@the11382 wow actualy a great point just because religion has existed on most societies doesn't mean that now we cant do that with science or engineering.
animal reciprocity= hegelian dialectic of master-slave
That's what I thought
I wouldnt go so far
JP seems to be on a stimulant here
He can’t think this and support state capitalism the way it manifests itself, or so it seems.
5:15
7:45
What is the paper about children called?
Universal ethic?? Why is surviving more moral than not surviving? Darwinian evolution is a scientific theory, not a moral imperative.
Because the kind of behavior that leads to survival is diffused by the community and tends to become the norm, and by that i dont necessarily mean individual survival but collective survival
All this is just description. It can't possibly be evidence for any sort of universal prescription.
Is - Ought problem.
I have a question; Is morality, a social construct?
Define social construct.
If morality was a social construct, each social system would have its own construction of morality. Thus, if one thinks morality is socially constructed then they are moral relativists. Morality is universal and not socially constructed. Everyone inherently knows from right and wrong. When one is wronged, they know it i.e look at their reactions. When one does wrong, they know their motivations for doing wrong. They want a certain outcome. They want the other person to feel what they feel. Every human being is like this. It’s innate. Therefore, not socially constructed.
@@thecarlitosshow7687 You can reach this conclusion from evolutionary psychology. i.e. behaviors conducive to human flourishing are naturally more likely to result in reproductive success.
Clinton if it’s psychological, then it’s not a social construct.
Morality or immorality is learned from parents, authority figures, genetics, and society.
The interviewer's shoes and socks are really distracting.
I didnt share this video because JP falls down when it comes to scientific ethics. The scientific community has ethics built-in. Logically deducing ethics came before the scientific method. The ethics of Aristotle plus mathematical game theory gives us secular ethics.
Its really easy.
I'd actually love to hear an elaboration on this because I think I agree, but what you said is far too condensed for me to be sure. Since I have PCS reading is painful for me, so could you recommend a video on this?
@@alexisdumas84 Read MERE Christianity by CS Lewis
@@Luisffaraj I'm familiar with Lewis's argument with respect to science and values. I was more interested in driving a secular ethics from Aristotle plus game theory, as that seems genuinely promising, unlike Christianity.
There"s something like this in bible already. It's called tithing. God rocks!
Your god(s) are no bigger or better than any others' god(s).
God of the Bible also commanded gang rape, cutting the babies out of pregnant women and bashing them on the rocks, and genocide.
The Biblical God definitely sucks.
Tha interviewer is clueless and wants to look smart.
Peterson is so smart, has no much.
Wtf morality is not even universal
Yes it is.
why does he always use chimps and rats and kids when he talks. aint we talking about people.. he is a weirdo
Because most animals have pretty close psychological systems and circuits in the brain that have similar reactions and also it’s easier to do constant tests with animals rather than human subjects. Do you have any real reason why animals can’t be compared to humans? If you take away our speech and civility we are just animals as well, just because we can formulate complex and abstract thoughts doesn’t mean we are on a completely different evolutionary journey, most animals that are alive are alive because evolution has picked the traits best suited for the conditions, but the thing is evolution isn’t completely arbitrary it’s conservative so it uses commonalities across animals because that’s what works cause if it didn’t then the animal and genes would cease to exist. You’re a weirdo for not having a real reason for not comparing animals to other animals, leave it up to the real scientists just cause you can’t understand how it correlates to the rest of the world doesn’t make him weird or stupid for comparing different animals for reasons you have no idea about
Jordan is a great example of someone who can reason, but is not reasonable. This pseudo intellectual nonsense rots the brain.
Maybe formulate your hate a little better so people can understand your POV to actually show proof of what you say rather than just throw BS out your ass. You can’t even use facts to destroy his ideas because you can’t even understand them or even worse choose not to because you’re scared of having your whole ideology ripped to shreds
@@nathanaelmorales760 Emergent ethics is nonsense. It implies there is direction in evolution. What about cats or Eagles which don't have the same ethical system. Are rats more evolved than cats if their ethical system resembles humans?
@@keithhunt5328 nah they’re a different type of animal, different levels of consciousness means different levels of awareness, a social creatures (most mammals) need a different level of awareness to work together socially, so yes their consciousness evolved differently
@@keithhunt5328 also there is direction in evolution we went from no one experiencing anything to humans experiencing reality. Meaning, the Big Bang started and had no life but it evolved all the way to the point to humans which as of right now is the highest level of consciousness reached by animal so far, so that shows that evolution is being guided by trying to find higher consciousness, and consciousness is outside time and space so that was the constant variable before the Big Bang, so if the fundamental truth of reality is consciousness and it created the material world we call reality and it created a system where evolution caused animals to get higher and higher consciousness by becoming more advanced and changing the consciousness through every new evolution, cause even the very beginning had the lowest level consciousness living things that eventually evolved to animals that are alive today, hell we started off as some sort of little 🦠 lol
@@keithhunt5328 the emerging ethic can only be seen by higher consciousness individuals, cause lower consciousness beings are less aware of total reality and are relying on instincts and animalistic urges so that’s why certain animals act differently their consciousness is at a level best suited for their survival, our consciousness evolved so greatly that we are more aware of total reality that we can contemplate abstract and complex ideas and you can’t know that until you become aware of that so animals can’t becomes aware of the emerging ethics because their consciousness isn’t evolved enough to know that, but dogs can feel a little more emotions so their consciousness evolved to be able to be more aware of them because they’ve been in a place of more peace and harmony rather than complete survival in the wilderness where they probably wouldn’t feel as much emotions as would in a loving family home where consciousness in the dog and the humans reciprocate and can actually feel the love because both conscious beings can be aware of the feeling of love so they feel it. The feeling of love between two beings of consciousness is one of the realest and truest thing you can get to reality, the consciousness inside the other being and the consciousness in your being is being connected as one and reciprocating and feeling and energy of love so it’s like pure consciousness coming together as something good