Exploring the Philosophical and Scientific | Dr. Daniel Dennett | EP 438
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 тра 2024
- Dr. Jordan B. Peterson sits down with writer, philosopher, and cognitive scientist Dr. Daniel Dennett. They discuss the concepts of aboutness, intention, and the highest good as they relate to the religious and secular worlds, the establishment of trust and ethics outside of transcendent presupposition, and the loss of academic freedom at the misapprehension of postmodernism.
Dr. Daniel Dennett is an American philosopher, writer, and cognitive scientist. He has published dozens of books, such as “Consciousness Explained" (1992), “Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life” (1996), and “Breaking the Spell: Religion as Natural Phenomena” (2007).
This episode was recorded on March 9th, 2024.
Dr. Peterson's extensive catalog is available now on DailyWire+: bit.ly/3KrWbS8
- Sponsors -
Birch Gold: Text "JORDAN" to 989898 for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit.
Beam: Get 40% off for a limited time! www.ShopBeam.com/Peterson
Shopify: Get a $1/ month FREE trial with full access to Shopify's entire suite of features: shopify.com/jbp
- Links -
2024 tour details can be found here jordanbpeterson.com/events
Peterson Academy petersonacademy.com/
For Dr. Daniel Dennett:
On X danieldennett?lan...
The Problem with Counterfeit People (Article on AI, the Atlantic) www.theatlantic.com/technolog...
Consciousness Explained (Book) www.amazon.com/Consciousness-...
I’ve Been Thinking (Book) www.amazon.com/Ive-Been-Think...
Breaking the Spell: Religion as Natural Phenomena (Book) www.amazon.com/Breaking-Spell...
- Chapters -
(0:00) Tour Update: Konstantin Kisin
(0:59) Coming up
(1:31) Intro
(3:23) Defining religion, aboutness, and intention
(9:10) Is the “highest good” a religious or natural concept?
(14:35) Dr. Dennett’s pragmatic conception of the “highest good”
(17:39) Andrew Gibson, affordances and agents of transformation
(21:27) The relationship of anxiety to entropy computation
(24:43) Cognitive and emotional conflict is mirrored across theology
(28:44) Conceptualizing what’s highest as a relationship, the Cartesian Theater
(36:35) Thought as secularized prayer, Plato’s Aviary
(44:46) What allows for trust in a secular world?
(48:09) Free will is an achievement, not an endowment
(51:09) The conception of God in the biblical corpus, a dialogue among equals
(59:14) Do these working presumptions exist outside the purview of science?
(1:02:22) When you make a tool you also make a weapon
(1:05:46) Where Gould went wrong, foundational principles, and dynamism
(1:08:44) The hierarchy of DNA repair, Osiris and Seth
(1:14:15) The secularization of ethics, how to validate moral claims without religion
(1:21:36) “It was a wonderful taming force,” religion as a nurse crop for science
(1:24:41) The evolution of human fears into governing religions
(1:27:57) The loss of academic freedom at the misapprehension of postmodernism
(1:36:28) Dr. Dennett’s latest work: “The Problem of Counterfeit People”
// LINKS //
All links: linktr.ee/drjordanbpeterson
Website: jordanbpeterson.com
Tour Locations: jordanbpeterson.com/events
X: / jordanbpeterson
Instagram: / jordan.b.peterson
Facebook: / drjordanpeterson
Telegram: t.me/DrJordanPeterson
Newsletter: mailchi.mp/jordanbpeterson.co...
// COURSES //
Discovering Personality: jordanbpeterson.com/personality
Self Authoring Suite: selfauthoring.com
Understand Myself (personality test): understandmyself.com
// BOOKS //
Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life: jordanbpeterson.com/Beyond-Order
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: jordanbpeterson.com/12-rules-...
Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: jordanbpeterson.com/maps-of-m...
#JordanPeterson #JordanBPeterson #DrJordanPeterson #DrJordanBPeterson #DailyWirePlus
This was Daniel’s final public appearance. Thank you for uploading this, Jordan.
This video was uploaded a day earlier than the one uploaded at the Channel Big Think. So probably this is not the last, the other one is. There might also be other ones that we haven't yet seen.
@@awakeosho thank God the last conversation he had in public wasn't with Jordan. And I'm an atheist.
@@awakeosho Wrong. That was not a podcast, but more like a commercial or short documentary. This is OFFICIALLY the Final Public Appearance of Dennett...and I heard alot of agreement and commonality between these two men....
@@lucyweir5923 Wrong. That was not a podcast, but more like a commercial or short documentary. This is OFFICIALLY the Final Public Appearance of Dennett...and I heard alot of agreement and commonality between these two men....
@@awakeosho thank you!
Rest in peace 🕊 Dr. Daniel Dennett (1942-2024)
Rest in peace. And God bless him and his family.
A religious concept. He didn’t believe in a peaceful rest after death. To him we say goodbye. He only knows now if he were wrong, which rest assured would not be peaceful
@@3lake_ "RIP" is a widely used term to respectfully bid farewell to the deceased, as you're aware. Despite any differences I may have had with his religious views, I deeply respected his academic contributions. I wish him safe passage, whatever may come next. Before condemning others to hell, it would be wise to examine the intentions of your own heart.
@3lake_ Your sadism is showing
@@adamgates1142would love to know why you think so. I’m appealing to his reasoning. Rest in peace is a religious aphorism, in which language implies there is something after this.
Therefore, he should not be resting in peace (nor would he if he denied the presence of a spiritual authority). Instead his ultimate goal, would be the empty oblivion of nonexistence.
What I have done, rather than be spiteful, is point out how contradictory and nonsensical it is to hope that someone who believes in nothing can have peace.
Mr Dennett, what a legend, you will be missed.
I just read that Dr. Dennett passed away. This conversation is an excellent final interview and conversation I'm very sad to learn of his passing.
RIP
The value of watching two men with fundamentally different points of view of life having a conversation cannot be overstated. We get to watch it for free.
excellent point. Good to see some one modelling this.
Time is not a fee, it’s a trade off
Peterson is very good at taking in clearly opposing (to the point of contempt) ideas and sitting with them and then responding in a way that tries to find a common understanding.
@@shmosel_ you know they mean free of 'fee for service'
Yes it is..... Ridiculous to think otherwise. @@shmosel_
Rest easy, Dr. Dennett. A most brilliant thinker of our time.
Thank you for everything Dr. Daniel Dennett. You are one of my intellectual heroes.
R.i.p. but yeeesh I don't see the world as he did since years and years ago
@@matthewparlato5626 You used to be a compatibilist? What did you move on to?
@gfxpimp indeed I did.
I no longer articulate a Compatiblist view.. but I also no longer even entertain "the free will debate"
I find the synthesizing of these 3 arguments liberating...
1) degrees of freedom
2) complex dynamical systems affordances via an agent arena continuous relating
&
3) (the phenomenological experience as) Agent coupled to the continual evolving Arena as goes co-identification
That distillation freed me from the silly debate...
as well as Jon Pageaus jiu-jitsu move of, "if it's beyond and irrelevant to the human experience, I need not waste my Dasein on it"
Officially, I landed at Christian Neoplatonism (a pinch of perrenialism, see Dugin, heavily influenced by Zen, see my hero Dr. John Vervaeke)
The simultaneously Emanating One thru the Cosmic fulcrum/nexus of Man into the World's Collective of Symbolic Structures Emerging and interpenetating recursively and eternally...
(We don't understand much)
(Keep your periphery blurry... The Saced Mysteries)
🙏
God Bless you
@@gfxpimp thx for the question
I deeply appreciate Dr. Dennett for coming on. Thank you both!
Always look forward to Mondays and Thursdays, when Dr Peterson's latest interviews come on here for a wider audience to enjoy. Who needs a television when you can find podcasts of this quality ? Thanks to Dr Peterson and his guest.
Honestly, it's high-quality debate that people pay thousands for at ive-leage schools for.
@@brianstewart2138Nobody even cares if they're extracting any value from such debates at University... They just want the logo... It's a signal that we are very smart and you better hire us
Definitely 😍😀
I have a brain about the size of a pea, and Jordan Peterson and Daniel Dennett have brains the size of Jupiter!
I don’t even watch television these days- I just watch podcasts like Dr. Peterson’s and learn something!
The moment when Jordan used the term "revelation" (at roughly 53 minutes into the video) he instantly, and maybe even subconsciously, had to clarify and rephrase because he could see that using that word had created a riff between he and Dr. Dennett. You could see it in Dr. Dennett's face. It was an on-the-spot demonstration of exactly the hypothetical he was talking about, how to reconcile a relationship that was falling into distrust. That was amazing. Did anybody else see that?
Good catch. Dr Jordan realized that "revelation" was too loaded a word.
Hell ya.
That is called a fractal. When the part is like the whole. I love when I notice it happening.. although I know it's happening in many ways at all times.
You mean "rift" as a riff would be a musical fragment they could both play off of.
@@spoonerreligionandpolitics and yet you still understood what they meant
Now that you mentioned it, yes. Thank you for highlighting that!
Two distinguish gentleman having a civil conversation ...
What a treat!!!
Distinguished!
Lol, easily pleased by an atheist "rationalizing" his contempt for his fellow man.
@@denroy3 cry more
@@hurrrdurr I can see you are too intelligent for me....cry more is the response of a child.
@@denroy3 keep crying
Dr. Dennett was the most balanced of the horsemen, even if it didn't garner him as much fame for it. Firm but fair and not belittling.
Don't give him any supernatural embodiment, he's a weak materialist shouting out drivel.
Nah he's a stupid compatiblist.
@@dirtymikentheboys5817you sound like what you're complaining about
Bullshit. Go watch his debate with Desouza. He wants to teach your children the John From religion as a mockery to Christianity. He's not reasonable at all. Also, he utterly lost that debate.
He’s as bad as the others. Very lost
Dan Dennett, who provoked me to rethink philosophy and evolution and forced me to challenge his ideas, passed away yesterday. There are not many philosophers that provoke you constantly despite not agreeing with them constantly. I'm so sorry I could not meet him three years ago talking with Dawkins (whom I disagree with even more, but started with memes) and Susan Blackmore, my mother in memetics. The discussion at Tufts was canceled due to Corona. What I can do besides mourning and wishing him all the best in the realm he did not believe in is to praise his latest discussion with Jordan Peterson. It is such an intellectual pleasure to listen to two great thinkers of our age who could not disagree more.
My brother Pitin (childhood nickname) and I have been having deep religious and philosophical conversations along with a lot of childhood reminiscing. My brother is dying. The doctor gave him less than 30 days to live. Unless God has other plans that’s the prognosis. My brother is taking 750 mg hemorrhage meds, 250mg in the am and 250 in the pm. He had surgery last year and now there is nothing more the doctors can do for him. We are celebrating his life and I’m spending a lot of time with him before he enters hospice. Life is such a precious gift. My brother has lived a very adventurous life. He’s a phenomenal artist, sings like many angels, was a martial arts expert, and an ordained minister. Anyway, we are very close and it’s difficult losing my brother. He is ready to meet Almighty God. Thank you Jordan ✝️🙏🏻❤️😔
I will pray for him and for his soul.
Much love brother! It's not an easy journey.
How lovely and deeply moving that you get to spend this time with your brother. Much love to you both and hoping that having this special time together eases your suffering as much as possible.
May the love of Christ and the sure and certain hope of the Resurrection keep your minds and hearts as you say “Goodnight, until the day break, and the shadows flee away.”
@Cinderella227 soak up these days, moments with your loved one. Thank you for sharing your life and reminding us all again of our impermanence and how precious life is. My prayers are with you all.
Such a shame that this conversation will not be picked back up. Rest in Power Dr Dennett
Rest in peace, Dr. Daniel Dennett.
RIP Dr. Denett. You made a great positive impact on my life.
The world is much more beatiful than superstitions.
RIP Daniel Dannett.
This was an intense conversation. I am impressed with JBP’s courage to face counter arguments to his long-standing beliefs.
Thanks for doing this!
My thoughts exactly
Absolutely love and appreciate you having Daniel Dennett on the show.
An all time favorite 😊
It's so cool that they agree on so much, even though one is "religious" and one is "atheistic". Really highlights Jordan Peterson's definition of being religious as something that you 'act out' instead of something you represent abstractly and linguistically.
‘You should act as though you believe in God’ he once said.
(‘to secularists, like Harris)?
Yeah, I'm not convinced most religious people would consider Peterson religious if he were honest and clear about his beliefs. His conception of God is of an idea that has been distilled and improved upon over millennia of human thought. He'll never say it out loud, but he's an atheist that thinks that religion is indispensable for human civilization. So much so that he obsesses over ways to make the mythical literature of the bible make sense enough so he can say he believes and say others should as well.
@@siggyincr7447 It's beautiful
@@siggyincr7447yes. That is from the bookThe Brothers Karamazov part: The Grand Inquisitor. Also In the gospel of Thomas. So far I think that is what Jordan concludes in, but doesn't want to admit it.
@@siggyincr7447I think it’s just the opposite. He believes in God but knows it’s an indefensible position. He finds ways to defend it with fence-straddling prattle.
You cannot put a value on these enlightening talks. Thank you Jordan!
Listening to atheist rationalize immorality has little value.
@@denroy3understanding other perspectives (not to adopt) is essential to Loving them.
@@denroy3 did we listen to the same conversation?
@@denroy3 Looks like Jordan's religious train of the last 5 years has come to an abrupt stop with 2 words, Secular ethics.
@@Charles-ij1ow Secular ethics = wokism
Rest in peace, Dan. Thank you for everything.
Cant believe Dennett had to put up with this in his last days. Incredibly patient and great hearted man.
I've been privalaged to have been a subscriber to Petersons channel when it numbered in the thousands. Everytime I get a notification to watch a new video, I smile as I watch his followers grow monthly by the thousands. At almost 8 million subscribers and billions of views, it is nothing short of glorious that his philosophy is reaching a mass that so badly craves the guidance of such a warm father figure.
Long may his audience grow and may his important message resound long after essence of this wonderful soul is called home🙏🏼
I was there with you brother
Same, been a subscriber since the beginning - got a signed book from his patreon back in 2016, great arc
RIP Daniel Dennett (1942-2024)
Jordan has evolved from arguing with people to maintaining an open conversation. Masterful communication skills. I’m taking notes
Not sure what you mean, he’s always had open dialogues when it’s respectful and has more of an argumentative attitude when people are trying to get one up on him.
I don't think such a thing has occurred. You can watch him argue vehemently with Destiny in a podcast from the recent weeks. Not that it subtracts from his sophistication. You can also watch interviews from the last 10 years where he speaks very calmly - most of them really. Including when he talks to his protesters. I don't think he gets carried away often, maybe almost never (apart from Twitter perhaps).
Quite the opposite. His devolution is astounding. Remember that Cathy Newman interview? That was when Peterson was great. He was sharp, calm, polite, empathetic, and firm.
If you watch his interview with Destiny, he basically became Cathy Newman. He was angry, argumentative, arrogant, condescending, and pretty damn illogical.
@@alibabaschultz352 I think this assessment is also completely wrong.
Firstly, you seem to base your views on two interviews 7 years apart as if they were representative of a steady trend in Peterson's interactions. But there were thousands of interviews, debates and lectures in between. If you had seen them, you'd notice that Peterson is quite often aggressive in the dispute, and it's been like this since he became popular really. You could see that in his interview with Helen Lewis, which was very close in time to Cathy Newman's interview.
In other interviews he's very calm and controlled, and that still remains the case. Not so rarely, you can see his soft an emotional side.
To be fair, I don't remember him shouting at someone as he did at Destiny. But the comparison of him to Newman doesn't hold at all - he wasn't looking to trap and manipulate Destiny in the least.
My understanding is that the topics they talked about were very grave. Like potential hundreds of millions of deaths in Africa resulting from raising energy prices and abolishing fossil fuels. If you believe that this is what is happening, and you're talking to a person who doesn't, and you think they are doing something inexcusably stupid for not noticing and condoning that, and you think these reasons are not valid - maybe you would match your emotional tone to the importance of the matter in question. What do you think about this?
@@fra-kolpanzer I think that its easy to become emotionally attached to public figures like Peterson, who is smart, and definitely seems to care deeply about people.
Rest in peace you legendary Man.
RIP Daniel Dannett 😢
Hello everyone, good viewing🐼
Thank you both. Thank you Jordan Peterson for helping society deeply even when its so difficult I think and helping society which is so badly needed with corrupt governments and corrupt institutions in the world.Thank you for all your work and thank you to your family and all who stand with you. God bless 💗
I learned a great deal Daniel Dennet. He very ironically led me to faith through a process almost too complicated to describe here. If he were still alive to hear my explanation I would say that he didn't fail in any way, but he did expose me to even deeper questions. Skepticism is an extremely useful tool, but one shouldn't stop using it when they find an answer they like. I was searching for true justification for my atheism and what I ended up finding was God. Not by avoiding information, but by turning over absolutely every stone possible. I hope that it honors Dr. Dennet's memory and those who survive him that he challenged me to challenge myself and he gave me a great deal of tools that helped me to help myself and others. I honor his memory. But I would not mock him by praying for him. I suspect he has had all of the conversations he has needed to with God and himself even if he remained honestly unaware. Thank you Dr. Dennet and rest in peace.
Dr. Peterson, you gave this conversation so much appropriateness. Dr. Dennett is a foundation stone of societal norms for the Four Horsemen. You treaded this territory cautiously and respectfully. As a former consumer of the Horsemen's every word, and someone who switched beliefs, I wanted full respect afforded to Dr. Dennett. Just like when Dr. Peterson speaks to Dr. Dawkins.
It's so sad that Dennett passed away. I loved this conversation and I'm glad they managed to have it.
I can not hear him talk about these topics enough in my lifetime! 🙏🙏
Oh boy, DD and JBP. This should be interesting.
Some of us are more interested in your take afterwards Paul. I can’t wait
philosophy:
the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.”
Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous!
An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”.
One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood!
At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
Yup 👀👀
Hi. Neal told me about this...
He said it really takes off at one hour in...TGrogan death blow.
Well well well if it isn’t the goodly pastor
As a close follower of Dennett's work, I don't know how I only just found out about his passing. His work on memetics, compatibilism and consciousness (obviously) have really enriched my thinking. RIP and thank you.
I don't know for the life of me where I would possibly get another UA-cam channel with such quality conversations between people from different of such different perspectives.
I am truly taking notes JP.
I found Daniel Dennett to be truly insightful as always and it's a gift to be able to see it.
Dr. Dennet’s point of view becomes abundantly sympathetic when you realize that he was on his death bed. In this conversation he was not only having an exchange of ideas, but also coping with the reality of his death. What this man needed was not god, but medicine and a cure. His view is one that most of us will come to when meeting death.
Awesome Dannett is still kicking. Gonna enjoy this
Yeah it's good to see Jordan talking to people like Dennett, he is one of the bets philosophers of our time
he's OLD but I hope he feels proud of his life because he deserves it
@@AndrewBrownK 82 is the new 60
Didn't age well
Damn that joke didn't last long
Whoa!! I came to the comments to find out if there was a forum for open discussion on these topics.
I'm saddened to find Dr. Dennett is no longer with us.
Thank you for your contributions, and I hope you've found all the answers needed to rest in peace.
I love that after 7 years I can still hear stuff from Jordan that blows my mind. 40:45
Finally more Dr. Dennett content! He's the brightest flame from the four horsemen, but the least visible!
He clearly has a prejudice against religion.
Oxymoron. He's the flame alright...from the darkest pit.
@@adamsmith307he thinks himself a god...rationalized his contempt of his fellow man.
@@denroy3 he doesn't speak in those terms and its silly to put those words in his mouth. Him and Jordan didn't disagree about anything.
@@adamsmith307 No duh, Sherlock. If you think something does more bad than good, you are going to be prejudice against it on a personal level. If the simple fact that he expresses this sentiment offends you, you have extremely delicate sensibilities. I'm religious myself but can at least acknowledge he is not intentionally belittling about his views.
Hey Dr Peterson. I hold you a man of great Honor, it is a honor for a man like me to be alive on this age witnessing your work and kind heart. YHWH bless you.
Rest in peace, Dan. Thanks for the lessons, and thank you, Jordan, for having Dan, one last time.
Thanks for grappling with and acknowledging the sophistication of our ancestors and some of their insights and arguments. I pray we stay humble through all of our " progress" ❤
Amen :) ❤
It was a brilliant move by Jordan to question the failure of secular universities after Dennett got through claiming "we don't need religion any more our secular ways are good enough now and moral, etc..." who then had to also agree the universities have "gone off the rails".
But then DD used a combo breaker saying the religious institutions have not shown to be any better. He did agree secular universities are not in a good spot and that correcting it's path is not an easy solution but, is still is a better system.
How on earth was that a brilliant move? Whether or not religious universities out-perform secular universities is completely unrelated to whether religious claims are true. A religious university could be the best in the world but that still doesn't mean god is real. It's a nonsense argument.
@@Charles-ij1ow Ancient egyptian, greek and christian "academias" were religious. Modern universities are lame in comparison to their wisdom. Secular ethics = Wokeism (it's indistinguible in Dennet's own terms: all grounded in "science and politics" - relativism -).
@@Charles-ij1ow Religious institutions have been under sustained attack for the last century, by atheistic regimes hostile to not only Christianity but to America as well.
The game changed a bit when Moscow fell silent in 1989, but Beijing has picked up the slack very handily.
@@jimluebke3869 When is Notre Dame going to win a national championship again?
I had kinda stopped watching this channel because of too many ads. The name Daniel Dennett brought back memories of my atheist podcast days 10+ years ago, so decided to give this one a shot. Brilliant and worth getting thru the commercials, which seem to be less than I remember. Thanks for putting this together. I may listen to this one a few times.
You can just fast forward past them, so I don't really see the issue.
Interesting take on the trades being made with your time and theirs...
@@alaron5698 I listen to videos on my phone while I work. Fast forwarding is inconvenient. I pay for UA-cam premium to avoid ads.
You will be dearly missed Dr. Dennett. Thank you for your brilliant mind.
I like how many things JP can say “I’ve been thinking about that for about 10 years…”. He truly has a marvelous mind.
He says that as „parasitic phrase”. Doesn’t add anything to discussion…
Keep it up Dr. Jordan!
I'm looking forward to this conversation.Thank you so much for putting it together. 2:44
Dennett seems to have have gotten a lot more humble and receptive over the years. Guess it's the wisdom of age making itself manifest.
Loved this talk, but like all things, it must come to an end. Rest in Peace Dan Dennett 🕊️
What an excellent conversation. Thank you for making it accessible for all of us!
Thankyou for this. Always eye opening and Motivating learning for me with your conversations
I drop some version of this on a lot of Alan Watts videos, because the thought process (which hit me about a year ago now) feels great to write out each time, and it's pertinent here: because Peterson and Dennet are talking about emotions and free will. And because I’ve come to the realization that we’re not in conscious control - nothing is. It seems to me that it's easily provable once you've been walked through it, and it leads to the faith we all hear about, but which very few actually have.
Basically, the secret is this: "We don't control our thoughts. We don't control our feelings." Alan Watts says it numerous times, and a look at one's own life and consciousness proves it to be true. Thoughts just pop into our minds. Desires (or distastes) just pop into our awareness. We learn, surely. But we're not in charge of when we learn. We don't go and rearrange our neurons to finally 'get it.' No, it just happens. Just like you can't force or trick yourself to love someone just by saying "I love you," nor can you have faith on purpose.
Again - we don't choose thoughts, and even if we did, what would that be? Looking in a bag of thoughts and picking which one you wanted? Well, how would you know which one you wanted? By how they feel, or the presence of some other unchosen thought going "That's the one I want." Except we don't choose how we feel. We just feel.
What does this mean? We're not in control. Of anything. Yes there are always options, and a wise person sees more options and longer-reaching implications. But no choice. Just the doing. "Neither fate nor free will," says Watts to Elliott Mintz on a great YT interview if you haven't heard it yet. Nothing is in control, because consciousness is the AWARENESS of will, not the choosing of it. So, perhaps we do have free will, but what that will is (your set of personal desires and personality characteristics) is not up to conscious awareness. You don't choose what you want. You just want it. And perhaps your desire palate changes over time - fair enough - but you don't choose to change. You just change.
And so you can really let go, since what thought pops into your head next is truly not up to you, even if it's the most logical, useful, necessary thought. It's simply not up to you. I'm not saying things are chaos, or meaningless: no, you always feel something about life and its meaning at every moment. Some version (simplistic or nuanced) of "This is good," or "This won't do." You conscience is always there, too. Even if it's not always right, it's always there. So begone moral relativists and nihilists: you're STUCK WITH YOUR CONSCIENCE, in whatever form it is in that moment.
So where does this leave us in our journey of letting go / satori / enlightenment? You're totally not in charge and thus it's not up to you IF you let go, so you can finally let go of worrying about letting go. And thus you start to let go.
The second half of the trick is this: teach yourself to feel your body.
Basically anxiety is an icky feeling in our bodies telling us we don't like XYZ. It's the feeling of "I can't take this anymore" that makes us lash out and act in ways we regret. But instead of masking it (with pleasure or drugs), or ignoring it (by clenching our muscles inside and soldiering on), there's a third option: teach yourself to feel, in every moment you can remember, the subtle vague feelings of fear that are somewhere in your body at nearly all times.
They're little clenched muscles. Go feel them. Put your mind on them (around your heart, in your face, around your voice box, in your abdomen) whenever you feel anxious about anything. You're not admonishing yourself for having fear: rather, try something you haven't ever tried before: put your mind on the icky feeling of fear that's in a physical location in your body (tensed muscles and fascia) and hold it there. Over and over and over and over and over. Try. Hold it there.
Watch as your muscles finally begin to relent (if only momentarily) just because you LOOKED at them long enough. Watch how you feel when you realize you’re able to hold in your mind that nagging discomfort that’s been there for a long time. Watch how you feel when your little muscles/pains finally do relent.
In those moments of paying attention you start to handle situations with grace. No longer are you feeling like "I've had it up to here," because you're teaching yourself that yes, you CAN feel a much wider range of things than you thought. That's real courage. And all based on the final reminder that we're absolutely not in control. But we can learn.
This version of you that arises in these moments that you remember: it’s as the Tao describes: “Kindhearted as a grandmother, dignified as a king.” It’s a better version of you, in those moments. And so we simply keep positioning our brain to feel, and to hope we learn while knowing the learning isn't up to us.
It's faith. It's why the entire Bible is full of stories about faith in God. It's why Jesus tells us not to worry, and not even to ask God for things since he knows what we need already. It's real faith. It's just sad that faith, to Christians, has become the fervent 'professing of belief,' rather than actually believing that you're not in control, and thus that, in some large way, God must have it covered. You don't have to feel the latter (that it's gonna be ok), but the more you realize you have zero control, the more the "it's gonna be ok" faith starts to bloom. You're not in control. But there's still meaning.
Faith.
I stopped reading your story because I found it hard to concentrate. You do control your thoughts, and here is a silly example. I am sure you were not thinking of a green monkey wearing orange socks and gloves. Until you visualize it, it will not exist. You will forget that image in a couple of days because you are in charge of your thinking.
You will return to thinking about the monkey if you write 'green monkey' at the top of your diary every Monday for the next three weeks.
Look on ytube for Mara Gleason regarding the control we have over thoughts.
"Free will is an achievement, not a metaphysical endowment" - Dr. Dan Dennett
Well, this is revolutionary to my mind
What a great discussion. Jordan is always both professor and student simultaneously.
In the debate, a pivotal moment unfolds around the 1:03:40 timestamp, marking what appears to be Dennett's tacit acknowledgment of defeat, as betrayed by his body language. Subsequently, the dialogue takes on a different tone. Peterson adopts the role of an analyst performing a post-mortem of the discussion, while Dennett seems to engage in an effort to reconstruct his stance, a dynamic that becomes particularly evident at 1:14:10.
The debate centers on the role of religion in preserving fundamental truths and shaping culture within a dynamic landscape of varying truths, a concept Peterson advocates. He posits that society is underpinned by a robust core of enduring truths, supported by a more adaptable cultural framework, contributions to which Dennett also acknowledges. This is what religions points at according to Peterson 1:13:44.
Dennett, on the other hand, argues against the necessity of religion in contemporary society, suggesting that secular ethics alone are sufficient. Peterson counters this by suggesting that secular ethics and the scientific community are part of a broader, religiously founded civilization that safeguards essential truths and adapts over time.
Peterson's exceptional debating prowess is undeniable, giving him a significant edge in this discussion. His ability to deftly traverse both secular and religious domains contrasts sharply with Dennett's performance, which, possibly due to the limitations of the debate format, may not fully convey the breadth of his understanding. One could speculate that Dennett might present a more persuasive case in writing, where the constraints of real-time dialogue do not apply. However, whether such an argument would surpass or even match the coherence and appeal of Peterson's viewpoints remains a matter of skepticism for me.
This debate highlights a stark disconnect in our modern world from the deep truths and beauty of religious teachings, as shown when Dennett seems surprised by Peterson's scriptural insights at the 39:00 mark. It also points to a failure in contemporary religion to pass on its ancient wisdom. Additionally, Dennett himself has expressed concerns over the dangers posed by advancements in science, like AI, critiquing the AI community in The Atlantic: "Many in the AI community these days are so eager to explore their new powers that they have lost track of their moral obligations." This raises a question: If Dennett believes secular ethics alone are adequate, he needs to explain why these ethics have not prevented, and perhaps have even contributed to, the very existential threats he identifies, despite the potential of science he critiques.
The problem I see with Peterson's perspective is that religion can always be invoked as the ultimate framework. It doesn't matter if you start with science or any other perspective; Peterson tends to conclude with religion. It's akin to the creation of the universe: starting with the big bang, then considering other theories, but ultimately, individuals like Peterson tend to wrap everything up with religion. Religion becomes the overarching framework, like the wrapping paper atop layers of other concepts. It presents a challenge because it's difficult to argue against this approach; religion remains central to the discourse, serving as the foundation upon which other ideas are built. Any new ideas are just engulfed by the religion, ad infinitum.
@@musicaltakes Positioning religion as foundational doesn't preclude critical engagement or debate. On the contrary, it invites a deeper examination of how religious and secular ethics can coexist and inform each other-this is Peterson’s approach and its resonates deeply with people right now. It’s an approach that can foster a more nuanced understanding of complex issues, rather than constraining discourse within a purely secular or scientific framework, where there’s a comparatively more shallow reservoir of experience to pull from.
I wish that Peterson pressed more on the conceptual model he was constructing including science, civilization, and the foundational elements. It seems that they both agreed on this model but Dr. D insisted that the “politics” or “secular ethics” that direct the science towards the high good were non-religious in nature. In fact to me it sounded like he was describing a science as he mentioned game theory and the other factors that contribute to the “politics”. You seem smart so I’m curious about your take on this and if Dr. D’s analysis appears circular in the sense that the model he proposes has science nestled in science or at least has shortcomings as I perceive it.
@@EccleezyAvicii It does prevent societies from adopting Dr. Dennett's perspective, wouldn't you agree? Because even within this conversation, which I found great, Dr. Peterson is endlessly wrapping everything up with religious wrapping paper. They both agree, to some extent, on the importance and evolution of science, but whereas Dr. Dennett is showing how science is growing and expanding, asserting that phenomena like the sound of thunder aren't caused by gods (he doesn't mention this, but you get my point), Dr. Peterson continues to contain scientific expansion within the framework of religion. It doesn't matter how much progress we make with science; religion, in Dr. Peterson's views, will always contain it. Dr. Dennett is asking, can it ever break free? This is the fundamental disagreement between the two, isn't it? Or am I mistaken?
@@cjmascoveto9357 Peterson posits that at its core, civilization is underpinned by a religious foundation, essential for fostering good science. This foundation blends universal truths with an evolving moral framework, akin to religions that adapt over time to societal needs. He highlights the corrective role of religion, as seen in the Old Testament where divine intervention occurs when society strays, underscoring religion's pivotal role in maintaining civilization's integrity.
Conversely, Dennett argues that civilization, the bedrock for science, can now be sustained by normative disciplines 1:19:10 such as logic, game theory, probability theory, and mathematics, which are universally understood. He contends 1:20:20 that religion has either been irrelevant or detrimental to the development of these rational inquiries, viewing it as a control mechanism historically exploited by rulers to enforce order.
Peterson, at 1:23:02, probes what was the religious enterprise doing in terms of Dennett’s formulation that allowed it to play its role as a precondition or ‘nurse crop’. The ensuing discussion veers towards contemporary issues, including the moral quandaries on college campuses and briefly the existential topic of counterfeit AI people.
I don’t think Dennett’s view is circular or wrong, just incomplete. I think Peterson’s intuition and intention in steering the discussion towards current issues is to shine a light on consequences where a lack of deep moral insight has led to crisis, and the implication there is that these issues are the fruit of secular ethics.
I’ll leave you with an interesting quote by Vladimir Solovyov:
…if Western civilization had as its task, its world mission, to accomplish the negative transition from the religious past to the religious future, then it is destined for another historical force to lay the foundations for this religious future itself.
(Translated) Lecture I on Godmanhood. Vol. III, p. 14.
The toughest part of this talk is waiting during the needless analytic theatrics to get to Dennett’s refreshing, concise, responses
what he said about emotions being the control is something ive thought this entire time
After so many struggles I now own a new house and my family is happy once again everything is finally falling into place!!
Is this Dennett's last interview? Bit ironic it's with religion's most prominent academic proponent. He will surely be missed. RIP Dan.
@@billyb6001Failed attempt
This was an awesome conversation, in my opinion..
I can't wait to watch these two masters continue.
It's hard to watch this now .. RIP Dennett .... what a great philosopher and thanks Jordan Peterson for this fantastic interview ... I always liked to see this side of Dennett more and no one like Jordan Peterson could bring it out.
Thank you for this challenging talk. I always find it interesting how a religious people will often accept the thoughts of science, but yet scientific people don't often accept thoughts of the religious. Logically nether should be written out of any goodwill conversation on the basis of personal bias, yet sadly the "logical" often do. My bias I struggle with is that I think we are seeing the fruits of scientific goodwill alone of the experts in large metro areas and the education system. Even so, I would remind Dr. Dennett that the Universities where born from the Church and that AI was born from Science-one must logically look at the offspring of each parent on the whole and decide in which is more worthy of moral acceptance and practice.
@@dafunkmonster Agreed, I hope that they get another chance to talk and that Dr. Peterson presses him a bit further on human history. Also perhaps explore Dr. Dennet's bias of not being to use/accept words like "revelation". As well as the "fairy tales" that science has spun like eugenics and more recently the safety of mRNA as preached by his bishop Dr. Fauci.
@@dafunkmonster Christianity did not "birth" science; yes, you can argue Christian, Islamic, and Greek scholars who were theistic helped pioneer the empirical processes that would form into the current "scientific philosophy" we use - but it is not an inherently religious process nor attributable to one specific philosopher. I would say pre-Socratics perhaps had the greatest influence on pioneering empiricism.
@@thomabow8949The scientific method, as we know it, came from Francis Bacon; a Christian, who's Christianity *was* his motivation.
Your assertion is woefully incorrect.
@@Si_Mondo No, read what was written: "but it is not an inherently religious process nor attributable to one specific philosopher". When we sit down and "do" science, do we reference Bacon's Christian motivations any more so than we do pre-Socratic Greek deism or Islam's Allah? Do we gag on his theological cock every time we explore a physical phenomenon? I will counter you with this - Christianity owes all of its principles and its worship and miracles to Zoroaster and other religious figures of pre-Hebrew Middle Eastern religions. Every time you sit down and pray to the Christian God, you must pay veneration for the religions that gave birth to you and the Gods that gave birth to your God.
@@Si_Mondo The scientific method started way before that - back to the ancient Greeks. The Christians only evolved it.
A conversation with Hitchens would have been on a different level. However with Dennett, I didn't think this was going to take place, kudos to making this happen. Blessed for this high level intellectual talks.
Thanks for this enlightening conversation! It's fascinating to see how different individuals approach tasks and planning. Some seem to excel at critical thinking, mapping out multiple accomplishments before even starting, while others dive into one task at a time, driven by the need to avoid overwhelming options. It's a reminder that curiosity knows no bounds. Good show!
“Human beings are the measure of what’s good.” Well, Dr. Dennett, that is setting a pretty low and subjective bar.
As a philosophy student in my 20s during the early 2000s, I loved Dennett’s and other “new atheist” writings. Training and practicing in psychoanalysis has led me to the Catholic Church, which explicates the True, the Good, and the Beautiful better than any and all secular philosophical attempts.
The Catholic church is Pharisees and Sadduccees combined into one
How does church explicate Truth?
Truth must be what’s in the holy scriptures, no?
Is that idea of truth even useful for science?
My man, I love you. I love the light you shed on this world. Much needed
RIP, Dan, Beautiful mind.
I just finished watching this today. Dennett was a formidable thinker.
We must be grateful that we live in a world where we can listen to minds like this! Brings me to smile when I think of this while watching such conversations!
the timing of this comments makes me sad
DANIEL DENNET, EL MAS GRANDE. TE VOY A EXTRAÑAR MUCHISIMO , INFINITAS GRACIAS POR TU CONTRIBUCION, INMENSA RACIONALIDAD, EMPATIA Y SENTIDO DEL HUMOR. UN GAME CHANGER UN ICONO
Así se habla😢
Rest In Peace, Dr. Dennett.
Good evening Jordan and Daniel
Exactly all of this.
Truly grateful.
💜
I really wish there would have been a second conversations 😔
May he rest in peace.
Wow! I love the idea of the Egyptians putting "attention to error" on the most high. That explains so much about their culture and makes my mind spin with ideas about how much we are missing in translation.
THOROUGHLY enjoyed this conversation. Thankyou 🙏🏼💫💞
1:19:55 the current production of moral excellence for the secular is secular humanism, however, it tends to value the collective over the individual and therefore makes terrible decisions based on some kind of calculus of “greater good”. THAT is the problem we face with secular backed morality, it has lost sight of the individual, and therefore justifies tyranny for some greater good.
Thanks but I’ll stick with my individual freedoms.
This seems somewhat like a generalization of "secular humanism" - what examples are you considering when you say it makes terrible decisions on greater scales than the individual?
"Collective" and "greater good" come from the totalitarian side of things.
@@thomabow8949 People from the eastern block will understand better what it means, when secular enterprise takes morality as a hostage and claims to know what is good and what is bad. If morality is completely secular, and thus, not in tact with any objective ideal, that's above everyone and no matter what, it's just relativistic. It can play with what is good and what is bad, it can redefine everything. If this isn't the case, we end up with an absolute and end up within a religious realm.
I'm sad to realize that future conversations about AI and counterfeit people won't happen with Daniel Dennett now. I hope he rests in peace. Thank you for this conversation; I enjoyed it very much, especially because of the amount of stories and even jokes shared, which put clear images in my head for a better understanding of each other's points.
Very interesting, although Dr. Dennett seems to have a lot of contradictions I don't seem to be able to understand. It's pretty obvious his understanding of religion about the physicality of religion, not the spirituality of it. I'd love for him to debate with Dr. Lennox.
I think you understood him perfectly. He says that Meyer is wrong, but Meyer points out his circular reasoning over and over and it does not take a brilliant mind to see that Meyer's critique is spot on.
He'll stay away from Lennox; he saw how Lennox dealt with Dawkins.
@@steverieske2027 Do you think Peterson doesn't push back because he wants to investigate the thought process further, or because he himself is still unsure? Those arguments Meyer made must be obvious to him, too.
@@Si_Mondo Lennox is overrated. Nothing to get excited about. Anyone who knows how to see the absurdities in Christian apologetics can debate Lennox.
I'm thinking the same way
It’s like time traveling and seeing how far we’ve come.
Look at us…
@@mcmosav amen brother. Missed you this evening
History has not ended, imagine my shock. =)
I think Dennett makes a good case for secular ethics. The trick is getting everyone to agree on the same ethics.
I think that if you get everyone agree on the same ethics, then you're calling on to a joined ideal, what makes you explore the absolute, which is already religious
Absolutely loved this conversation, thank you so very much!
I’m thoroughly enjoying this conversation. Thank you! ❤
Love this conversation
This was the greatest covnersation I've seen on your podcast thus far Jordan .. absolutely magnificent
One of the best conversations I've seen from you yet! Thanks for your work, Jordan.
Thanks for this conversation - Prayers for your family - Blessed Solemnity of the Annunciation - “Pascal’s Wager" is good to think about here. Blessings! 🙏
Peterson is sharp. Great questions at the end.
Unfortunately this wasn’t long enough. They only had time to basically agree upon definitions and concepts, and then it ended. We definitely need a follow up discussion.
Awesome! I've been waiting for a Peterson - Dennett conversation for years now. Thank you
This is really good. Peterson at his best. Thank you both
Talking three times more than guest is his best?
Using simple ideas wrapped in fancy words is best?
I wonder what worse version could there be.
Weakest Dennett interview I’ve heard, considering Dennetts books, ideas and the amount of topics touched by him
Notice Dennett completely did not answer the (vital) question: What is the highest Good? Unless you think the highest good is a perfectly constructed machine gun, you will be disappointed with his non-answer. In essence he said I don't know what it is exactly because it is ineffable, and the only thing I can tell you is that it is evolving, because we wouldn't want to live in old testament times now, would we? The implicit suggestion is that human morality is evolving in a positive direction of which Dennet cannot describe any single feature of, or what this human morality is evolving towards, but it is a real thing, and it is the Good. This sounds fairly religious to me, but hopelessly muddled and vague (like I find most of his "philosophizing").
Agreed. But still, conversations like these help me analyze, rationalize, refine, and formalize my own ideas.
I appreciate your comments. This conversation, for me, put on display two different dimensions of perception capacity. Interestingly, Dennet referred to light, and how does that light get into us and do its work which seems to connect with his observation or perception that mankind seems to be getting better, although he didn’t explain the reason(s) why mankind, fundamentally, needs to “improve” morally to begin with, which is what I wanted to highlight as part of the differences in perception capacity between the two men I.e., one who has as eaten from Life and one who has eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil which by default results in a different capacity of perception. To begin with, it limits Man’s perception capacity solely to the 5 senses blocking out or cutting off the spiritual capacity of perception which is to perceive of & by the knowledge of God. This is why mankind from birth can look at creation and out into the vastness of space, and instantly feel a soul level emptiness, with no perception of God, because he is now outside of a their perception capacity. The light he referred to, unknowingly, is the light of the life of God in Christ as Jesus mentioned directly in the gospel of John. The dynamics of perception that Peterson & Dennet referred to impacting physiology and intellectually, with about this and intention, or all packed into the words of life himself that is Jesus Christ The dynamics of perception that Peterson & Dennet referred to impacting physiology, about-ness, intention, are all packed into the words of life Himself that is Jesus Christ who is the “target” Peterson alluded to. I can hear Dennet’s desire to experience what is in the light and pray for this for him. What do you think? 🤔
This was a very good episode. I'd love to see the continuation of this.
It was rad.
So respect these two speaking. I hope for more.
I've never been more happy with an atheist debating religious ideas, since I starting understanding what the latter were. He shared Sam Harris' reluctance to reconsider the definition or meaning of religion, I suppose, but he was open to Dr. Peterson's ideas and madebastute comments. He really helped me reframe the relationship between science and religion. RIP.
That said, here's a critique:
• Daniel Dennett's proposition is that science is a tool that can be misused, and nests in a good civilization founded on trust and freedom and order, etc. That's why china's usage of science isn't an issue. But that's an insufficient answer. Let's lay out the fundament. If you're concerned with finding out what is true, as science is only equipped to pursue, there's no reason you shouldn't use that to find out how to develop technology to oppress your population. You have to nest science within a morality of proper tool-use, among other things. You have to establish the proper aim. Now, you can conceptualize the thing that you're aiming towards, whether or not you're aware of it or believe in it, as a god - Dionysys, Ares, Artemis, etc. If you become aware of the choice of aim and choose the highest thing you can possibly conceive of, despite the proximal knowledge and insistence of your own limited mind - letting go of yourself and letting the spirit of Jesus Christ inhabit you instead - God is then what you aim at, what you worship. That all includes freedom, produces order and a trusting and trustworthy society - civilization, as he names it. God is then the ultimate extension and principle of all that which produces a good society that would practice science, allow it to thrive, and use it in a good way. Dennett would probably protest that God here is superfluous, but that means he has misconstrued God. When he says science can only exist with certain societal structures (which are founded on the principles and actions of individuals), he presupposes the existence of a universal moral order, or at least a very constrained set of viable orders. Those are, by definition, religious presuppositions. That is also what the existence of God means. That is the monotheistic hypothesis, inarticulate and imperfectly practiced and distorted, etc., as that has been.
• The idea that science does everything religion does better is very productive discussed relative to this as well. If science is the asking questions about the right way to act, except substantiated by fact, then all it would mean is that monotheism is true and we have an even more accurate way to approach it. But, firstly, it can't be the basis for people's lives, as people aren't scientists and never will be. Second, science acts on evidence, and no action or conclusion is to be acted out without sufficient evidence. But life doesn't lay itself out that way: you are forced to act, and so forced to choose what to stake your life on despite having insufficient evidence in your life that it's the safest or best way forward. That's why you have faith in the voice of your conscience and calling which tells you how you should act, something like your daimon, like Socrates thought of it. You have faith that, despite how dangerous the evidence makes it seem, how pointless it might seem, how much better doing the opposite (like murdering someone) might seem, you have faith in your orienting principle, and not what the evidence right now seems to indicate. Third, even then, you can say that the reason you have faith in God is because history has shown that it has been worth it, that it has ennobled people, made the world better, avoided catastrophe, etc. (not that all religious enterprises have been positive - human activity is always ambiguous). And that again just shows that there is no necessary conflict between religion and science.
This gives me hope, as well as many others in our cognitively de-civilized, weary-woke society, to see and hear such knights in shining armour rising up and presenting rationale and truth to a desperate world. Thanks again, JP and DD.
Truth? Lol. Who's truth? Do not confuse opinions with truth...and Dennett offers me nothing.
@@denroy3 Well then logically you should not have replied to my comment. Because commenting on something that's nothing to you is illogically. Plato argued that we need to be careful of our our satisfaction.
Really nice converstation between two people who has had a massive formative influence on my thinking.
I love the nurse crop metaphor. "A nurse crop is an annual crop used to assist in establishment of a perennial crop."
What happens when your perennial crop is in trouble? Say, weeds or disease or famine. Maybe you shouldn't divest your stock of nurse crop the moment that the perennial crop starts to take.