Hey Michael, you set the NoiseGate too high, not all the words that Massimo said were intelligible. Apart from that I really enjoyed this episode, one of the best in the last 6 months for sure!
As far as JP, dude, yea we never been told that stuff about 12 rules. My mom cheated on my dad, some more shit happen, courts gave custody to my dad. Dad had to work 8hrs or more. Our aunt babysitted us. It wasn't her responsibility, so she detested it. The lessons we got was to be kind to our siblings. And thats pretty much it, until we got older, and we realized there was a ton of shit we didn't even learn as kids. Then comes JP with some basic rules that are easy to follow that lead to dramatic change. A change thats probably the norm to you. But then again, you probably had a better childhood than most of us. Religion in a sense also gives moral structure. Because if you are born in the hood, nobody wants to come save you, so you end up adopting street justice and hoodlum shit to survive. Which is nothing at all like compassion, mercy, etc. The streets can be brutal like the animal kingdom, and casual relationships are trecherous. Most people are athiests, but its their enviroment that plays a huge role in the ethics they adopt. If you end up in an island, you are probably gonna be more chill, since people are born in a self sufficient enviroment. If you end up in a city, there is no self sufficiency river, or whatever that you can hunt. You gotta get a buck to live. So anything goes to survive. Unless, you somehow think rationally which you are not taught and which others in the neighborhood do not allow you to think ratioanally. People will fight over a parking spot. Doesn't happen much in rural countries where parking practically unlimited. You are too comfy my guy. No shame, it is what it is.
That is precisely why any genuinely enlightened society should be doing anything and everything in their power to diminish the conditions that push so many into "life at the Bottom." I do not harbour any great hope that we can ever eliminate such problems - even Jesus had the comment that the poor will always be among us - but we can do far better than we are doing. This is the reason behind the long arc of the best of our more liberal western style democracies. But you are quite correct - accidents of birth that put a child in the least favoured pieces of geography and the least enlightened of social settings has huge impact and the ripples spread ever outwards. If you wish to understand more of human behaviour and how environment works for or against us - read Robert Sapolski's "Behave". (Or check online for his 25 lectures from the 2011 Stanford Lectures.) All the best - learning where to find the best breadcrumbs is all we can do. We cannot undo what has already been done...
Or Religion could been seen as a period of learning and training -- something to take morality from and then move on. Just as we don't need to replace a previous learning experience in our own lives with yet another learning experience. So we take morality from it and move on and apply it. Just as if I trip over a crack in the sidewalk, I learn to pay attention and to avoid that crack. I don't need to replace that tripping experience with a new, similar, experience. I've learned the lesson, and will apply that knowledge moving forward, because it keeps me from tripping and falling...
(1) I don’t do rituals, so I just say no to all forms of religion. Also to preachers like Jordan Peterson and Tony Robbins. (2) I’ve spent my life being curious and learning about whatever interests me. I’ve developed a toolkit for education that will work when applied to the K-12 public school curriculum: My Ideal K-12 Public School Curriculum Toolkit: Over the past several years I’ve thought deeply about the kind of schooling I’d like to have had, and based on my experience as a curious student who loved school (but it never rose to my expectations), I’ve developed this toolkit. In my opinion, it’s the only thing that separates We the People from our real freedoms, those that come from individuals able to think actively for themselves. Here’s what I propose, in brief: There should be three pillars of the toolkit, the teaching of which being instituted as early as possible in the education of every student: (1) Doing Philosophy, (2) Learning to Think Critically, and (3) Understanding How to Formulate Effective Questions. The second and third pillars are actually subsumed under the first, because “doing philosophy” gives everyone the ability to participate in democracy. When I say ”doing philosophy,” I don’t mean reading obscure texts and then being tested on what you’ve read. No, I mean the actual hands-and-minds-on DOING of philosophy by implementing a version of the Socratic method. Children learning to talk do it whenever they ask “Why?” Unfortunately (both for them and for society in general), their first teachers - in most cases, their parents - are ill-equipped to accommodate them, to sit down with them and engage in the exercise of curiosity. Instead, parents shove distractions at them - like television and video games - in order to avoid thinking with them. Or they use the time-honored answer, ”Because I said so,” or even worse, the abbreviated “Because.” There is no better way to stifle curiosity; those methods teach that curiosity is unwelcome, sometimes punished, sometimes simply avoided or ignored altogether. To be fair, they are too busy working, earning a living to support their families. Time is precious. Listen to this 62-minute interview by Drs. Eric Thomas Weber and Anthony Cashio of Philosophy Bakes Bread with Dr. Jana Mohr Lone, Executive Director and co-founder of the Philosophy Learning and Teaching Organization (PLATO), which recently merged with the University of Washington Center of Philosophy for Children: www.philosophersinamerica.com/2017/04/12/017-ep13-philosophy-for-children/. This is a demonstration of what I mean by doing philosophy in the classroom and of what benefit it may be. Discussions about the ideas about which children are already curious, as well as those that introduce new concepts for them to contemplate - all facilitated by instructors trained in the art of discourse - teach even the youngest minds how to think critically, pose relevant questions, understand and obey social rules of politeness and respect, stimulate even the shyest or most insecure personalities to participate (if not actively, through vocalizing, then introspectively, through silent contemplation) and encourage the curiosity with which we’re all born. Active critical thinkers will be eager students rather than reluctant, often hostile ones. They will pepper their teachers with piercing questions and participate eagerly in the process of learning. They will develop into active readers and writers. School, for such individuals, will be FUN! But will their teachers be up to the task of fielding incessant questions? K-12 schoolteachers, typically the growing child’s second instructors after their parents, are underpaid, underfunded, over-stressed, under-educated. They need silent classrooms so they can follow required lesson plans that ”teach to the test,” then administer tests that require rote memorization followed by dutiful regurgitation, often in the form of fill-in-the-blank and multiple-choice interrogation. Essay questions are reluctantly offered and just as reluctantly “tackled” by students whose curiosity and love of learning has been trained out of them. And of couse, essays take so much more time to grade, time being just one of the many essentials that these teachers don’t have. Time is precious. I’ve only just touched the surface of the potentialities of the toolkit. I’ll sum it up by saying that school should be the most fun that a child can have, as well as being the most rewarding, invigorating experience for teachers. This toolkit will inject truly educated minds, prepared to reason, contemplate, and participate, into society. If you can find errors in my reasoning, please let me know, for how else can I learn? My goal is to have this kind of stimulating curriculum “how-to” implemented throughout our country and, eventually, the entire world.
Though Shermer and Pigliucci mention Paul Kurtz, it seems as if they have never read his book Euproxophy: Living Without Religion (Prometheus Books, 1989). According to Kurtz, the key point of eupraxophy "is the centrality of praxis or conduct; not philosophy, not the love of wisdom, but the practice of wisdom." Kurtz argued that "we can and should bring the best philosophical and ethical wisdom and scientific knowledge to deal with problems of practice," that is, with living a meaningful and valuable life. "Because even if the existing beliefs are false or nonsensical, we surely need to fill the vacuum and to assuage the hunger for meaning, truth, and value: and we need to test new departures in ideals and practices not simply cognitively, but in terms of human needs, attitudes, and emotions. We need always to ask, what will take its place, and will this be experimentally viable," he wrote. If you experience hardship, such as divorce, death in the family, or career setback, Kurtz would urge you to deal with it logically, scientifically, and constructively. You know that praying isn't going to get you promoted or bring a dead relative back to life. And drowning your sorrows in alcohol will only create more hardship. You should instead do things that will improve your situation, like strengthening the loving relationships that you still have, forming new relationships, engaging in self-improvement, exploring new career opportunities, etc. Eupraxophy, or secular humanism, cannot completely eliminate the pain that comes with hardship, but nor can any religion or philosophy -- even stoicism. At least Kurtz's approach emphasizes doing practical things that are known to improve the quality of life for those who practice them. That is the best you can do without abandoning reality. If stoicism inspires you to make good decisions and live a rewarding life, that's great. But stoicism isn't the only source of such inspiration and guidance. Some people have found similar inspiration in Paul Kurtz, Ayn Rand, Jordan Peterson, and many others.
I have found that the best way to deal with friends and family with opposing views, is to write down the two opposite ends of the views; Then REFUSE to DEBATE them. Next make a list of things that you each agree on related to the subject. Then say you are only willing to discuss compromise that can achieve common goals. Whenever a subject drifts back to angry debate, start back at the first step. People can only convince themselves. It is also helpful to avoid personal demonization and focus on policy.
@@PetraKann That is what I thought, too. I get Stranger's point about refusing to debate, if that means refusing to argue, but refusing to debate, to me, is the same as refusing to listen and refusing to offer your own opinions in return.
Martin Gardner also stated he was a catholic when he was elderly. He was rooted in empirical truth but he kept his Catholic faith because it gave him great comfort in awaiting his death.
I am no fan of Peterson, but I believe he fills a void. The generation that produced many of the young people who are fans of Peterson left organized religion and replaced it with nothing. They are the tail end of the "me generation" that prioritizes feelings and feeling good in particular. They have wrapped their children in swaddling and prolonged their adolescence until nearly middle age. (The millennials are turning 40.) I love Stoicism and practice it along with my religious observances, which are largely cultural. Catholicism is, in any case, riddled with Greek philosophy. I do not disagree with any of what has been said but if not a traditional religion, then what else? The average person cannot be relied upon to teach their children so called universal ethical principles, especially if there are dysfunctional family dynamics such addiction and/or abuse, for example. Whose ethical principles? As applied how and where and to whom, when? Human beings are selfish and self centered in the extreme and tend to perceive everything through an "I" grid. And, while nerds like me love to read Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius, for example (or Massimo), many people do not. Religion--the 10 Commandments, the pillars, mitzvots, provide structure, a framework, a list of do's and don'ts that, when at least attempted, enable people to live in relative harmony or, at least, to step on each others' toes a little less. Religion also provides context, a reason and yes solace for what is essentially a precarious existence.
There could be a science of morality but the concept is subjective. It is all based on the cultures who create it. Every culture's mores vary--in time, and from each other.
Each of us are a part of the infinity called creation and when we dig into the aether it becomes apparent that there are forces which connect from whats been studied its all connected - for when we stare into our reflection is it not in a small way creation that stares back? Those are questions? Thats about as far as i get. What really interests me is the idea that we stand on the shoulders of not only ideas but its literal that our evolution has encased within our present body small bits of what was originally there - like the minerals, bacteria and other unicellular organisms there are hints at the plant world and fungi had a hand in building us not to mention the insect, fish, lizard etc etc parts that make the entirety of us all especially the species which were changed until sentient thought, is a great deal of sentience graph rare the further we go? Imagine the sort of life that might evolve given infinite time and infinite grace to d3velop
51:00 they can’t differentiate between built-in characteristics those all the apes share and other characteristics those related to society, environment, religions,…etc
Secular humanism isn't a far-left political philosophy. And consider looking into secular Buddhism, Buddhism Without Beliefs as Stephen Batchelor put it.
If I have the opportunity to reflect on my life as I'm on my deathbed, I'll be happily reprising every piece of salmon sashimi I've ever eaten. If I can somehow combine those slices with the best sex I've had and the Goldberg variations, I'm gonna go to my grave a glad woman.
Especially funny: "Whatever current science says is true". WHAT??? So you are blind believer in whatever current science says? What about thinking yourself???
The humanist perspective may be practical but it is incomplete. Setting religion aside, there is a divine intelligent source/ creator/ God to the universe and our existence and it is from this source that we as humans are bestowed a full range of emotions, free will, understanding, creativity from which morality must evolve. To believe anything else is unreasonable and it is unreasonable because even if you want to make the claim that there is no intelligence behind creation and that we came from the physical universe with no thought or planning, this universe however it went about doing so, produced intelligent life and intelligent life continues to produce intelligent life. Humans cannot breed less intelligent life forms it is physically impossible, so therefore it's reasonablele to conclude based on our scientific observations of the laws of the physical universe, that only intelligence is capable of creating intelligence. We as humans only know this equation of creation to be factually true and so that logically must be the model we base our theory of human creation on. By the way, just as an aside, stoicism sounds just like the messages brought back from people who have had NDE'S. You should check out Dr. Bruce Greyson and his research on NDE'S or check out his book titled After.
They don’t differentiate between values, morals, ….etc those (social values) and built-in vital human characteristics. they mixed everything up that’s why they are completely confused.
1:08:00 funny apes, that’s where the irrational apes stuck, they don’t understand the scientific factors behind that phenomena in addition to their inability to differentiate between innate characteristics and….. etc
Cool discussion, I had never heard of Epictetus either. And I came across Massimo Pigliucci by accident. I was thinking of a libertarian Liberian librarian ... Instead of the librarian Massimo came up in the search because he was born in Monrovia (according to wikipedia)
Peterson's popularity is something I will never understand. He is definitely Christian, though he will never quite own up to it--he told Sam Harris it would take him countless hours to answer the question of whether or not the resurrection happened. His impenetrable ramblings might make religion sound palatably smart to educated young believers, and he is also gaining a lot of support for speaking out against Canada's Wokeness. (Apparently, he offers "life lessons" like a self-help guru, if you can kid yourself that you know what the hell he's talking about.) Some of the things he said to Sam Harris are every bit as silly as what you would hear from more traditional, unabashed theists, though. Maybe his renowned charisma is a "mythical truth."
“Similarly, I grew up a complete omnivore in Italy, with parents and grandparents who couldn’t really wrap their minds around the word “vegetarian.” I am not a vegetarian even today, but I’ve gradually started paying more attention to where my food comes from, and at what cost in terms of animal suffering, environmental impact, and human labor. It is a complex problem, with no easy solution and plenty of conflicts among distinct indifferents.” - Massimo Pigliucci, _How to Be a Stoic: Using Ancient Philosophy to Live a Modern Life_ (2017) If Massimo is not vegan today, then he’s not living a good life. “The great disgust at man-it strangled me and had crept into my throat (…)” - Nietzsche, _Thus Spake Zarathustra_ “Naked had I once seen both of them, the greatest man and the smallest man: all too like one another-all too human, even the greatest man! All too small, even the greatest man!-that was my disgust at man! And the eternal return also of the smallest man!-that was my disgust at all existence! Ah, Disgust! Disgust! Disgust!”-Thus spake Zarathustra, and sighed and shuddered; for he remembered his sickness.” - Nietzsche, _Thus Spake Zarathustra_ “Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses.” - Christopher Hitchens “None of us can choose what our ideas imply.” - David Deutsch, _The Beginning of Infinity_ “Those who are governed by reason desire nothing for themselves which they do not also desire for the rest of humankind*.” - Baruch Spinoza [*and all other sentient beings-it follows from reason itself. #Sentientism #Veganism #TheOriginalPosition [ ua-cam.com/video/t5DePWOIyA8/v-deo.html ] [ ua-cam.com/video/oQ1TJ7oUMHg/v-deo.html ] ] “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” - Immanuel Kant #Categoricalmperative [*for more imperatives, see _On What Matters_ by Derek Parfit] “To believe that X is true or that Y is ethical is also to believe others should share these beliefs under similar circumstances.” - Sam Harris, _The End of Faith_ “The principle can be established that for a man who does not cheat, what he believes to be true must determine his action.” - Albert Camus “Every tyrant who has lived has believed in freedom-for himself.” - Elbert Hubbard “(...) each of us objects to our own suffering. If suffering is bad for me, how can I say that suffering is ok for someone else just because they’re them and I’m me? It’s like saying that the point that I’m standing on is a special place in the universe because I happen to be standing on it at this very moment. (…) you can’t coherently maintain that only _my*_ suffering counts (…)” - Steven Pinker, 2010-11-06 [ ua-cam.com/video/_sJ9YFGP8vw/v-deo.htmlm36s ] [*or suffering of my/anybody’s select favourites/kin/group/tribe/nation/race/species] “The position of a psychopath also cannot be generalized; it is not, therefore, an alternative view of how human beings should live (this is one point Kant got right: even a psychopath* couldn’t want to live in a world filled with psychopaths).” - Sam Harris, _The Moral Landscape_ [*I’d add that: all kinds of unfair and opportunistic egoists couldn't/wouldn’t want to live in a world filled with others like them.] VEGAN - BEST ARGUMENTS (playlist) : [ ua-cam.com/play/PLIacjWbHUdUDhQWr2y6itMZ5T-6-zyFXf.html ]
I am a fan of Massimo. I am not a fan of Jordan Peterson Both agree that "woke" has gone too far. I think that J.P. has gone too to the right. If I hear "Post Modernist Marxism" one more time I am going puke. I think of him.as a New Age Christian. Mr. Peterson has criticized Stoicim. Mr. Pigglucci has criticized Christianity-Pertersonism. I like Massimo am a lapsed Catholic-Christian. I do tend to agree with the criticism of Secular Humanism. I do think that "wokeism" has gone "too" . There are differences and similarities between "philosophy" and "religion". 😇😎
“There is a solution to every problem: simple, quick, and wrong.” H.L Mencken
Hey Michael, you set the NoiseGate too high, not all the words that Massimo said were intelligible.
Apart from that I really enjoyed this episode, one of the best in the last 6 months for sure!
As far as JP, dude, yea we never been told that stuff about 12 rules. My mom cheated on my dad, some more shit happen, courts gave custody to my dad. Dad had to work 8hrs or more. Our aunt babysitted us. It wasn't her responsibility, so she detested it. The lessons we got was to be kind to our siblings. And thats pretty much it, until we got older, and we realized there was a ton of shit we didn't even learn as kids. Then comes JP with some basic rules that are easy to follow that lead to dramatic change. A change thats probably the norm to you. But then again, you probably had a better childhood than most of us. Religion in a sense also gives moral structure. Because if you are born in the hood, nobody wants to come save you, so you end up adopting street justice and hoodlum shit to survive. Which is nothing at all like compassion, mercy, etc. The streets can be brutal like the animal kingdom, and casual relationships are trecherous. Most people are athiests, but its their enviroment that plays a huge role in the ethics they adopt. If you end up in an island, you are probably gonna be more chill, since people are born in a self sufficient enviroment. If you end up in a city, there is no self sufficiency river, or whatever that you can hunt. You gotta get a buck to live. So anything goes to survive. Unless, you somehow think rationally which you are not taught and which others in the neighborhood do not allow you to think ratioanally. People will fight over a parking spot. Doesn't happen much in rural countries where parking practically unlimited. You are too comfy my guy. No shame, it is what it is.
That is precisely why any genuinely enlightened society should be doing anything and everything in their power to diminish the conditions that push so many into "life at the Bottom." I do not harbour any great hope that we can ever eliminate such problems - even Jesus had the comment that the poor will always be among us - but we can do far better than we are doing. This is the reason behind the long arc of the best of our more liberal western style democracies. But you are quite correct - accidents of birth that put a child in the least favoured pieces of geography and the least enlightened of social settings has huge impact and the ripples spread ever outwards. If you wish to understand more of human behaviour and how environment works for or against us - read Robert Sapolski's "Behave". (Or check online for his 25 lectures from the 2011 Stanford Lectures.) All the best - learning where to find the best breadcrumbs is all we can do. We cannot undo what has already been done...
Or Religion could been seen as a period of learning and training -- something to take morality from and then move on. Just as we don't need to replace a previous learning experience in our own lives with yet another learning experience.
So we take morality from it and move on and apply it. Just as if I trip over a crack in the sidewalk, I learn to pay attention and to avoid that crack. I don't need to replace that tripping experience with a new, similar, experience. I've learned the lesson, and will apply that knowledge moving forward, because it keeps me from tripping and falling...
Excellent discussion!
(1) I don’t do rituals, so I just say no to all forms of religion. Also to preachers like Jordan Peterson and Tony Robbins.
(2) I’ve spent my life being curious and learning about whatever interests me. I’ve developed a toolkit for education that will work when applied to the K-12 public school curriculum:
My Ideal K-12 Public School Curriculum Toolkit:
Over the past several years I’ve thought deeply about the kind of schooling I’d like to have had, and based on my experience as a curious student who loved school (but it never rose to my expectations), I’ve developed this toolkit. In my opinion, it’s the only thing that separates We the People from our real freedoms, those that come from individuals able to think actively for themselves. Here’s what I propose, in brief:
There should be three pillars of the toolkit, the teaching of which being instituted as early as possible in the education of every student: (1) Doing Philosophy, (2) Learning to Think Critically, and (3) Understanding How to Formulate Effective Questions. The second and third pillars are actually subsumed under the first, because “doing philosophy” gives everyone the ability to participate in democracy.
When I say ”doing philosophy,” I don’t mean reading obscure texts and then being tested on what you’ve read. No, I mean the actual hands-and-minds-on DOING of philosophy by implementing a version of the Socratic method. Children learning to talk do it whenever they ask “Why?” Unfortunately (both for them and for society in general), their first teachers - in most cases, their parents - are ill-equipped to accommodate them, to sit down with them and engage in the exercise of curiosity.
Instead, parents shove distractions at them - like television and video games - in order to avoid thinking with them. Or they use the time-honored answer, ”Because I said so,” or even worse, the abbreviated “Because.” There is no better way to stifle curiosity; those methods teach that curiosity is unwelcome, sometimes punished, sometimes simply avoided or ignored altogether. To be fair, they are too busy working, earning a living to support their families. Time is precious.
Listen to this 62-minute interview by Drs. Eric Thomas Weber and Anthony Cashio of Philosophy Bakes Bread with Dr. Jana Mohr Lone, Executive Director and co-founder of the Philosophy Learning and Teaching Organization (PLATO), which recently merged with the University of Washington Center of Philosophy for Children: www.philosophersinamerica.com/2017/04/12/017-ep13-philosophy-for-children/. This is a demonstration of what I mean by doing philosophy in the classroom and of what benefit it may be.
Discussions about the ideas about which children are already curious, as well as those that introduce new concepts for them to contemplate - all facilitated by instructors trained in the art of discourse - teach even the youngest minds how to think critically, pose relevant questions, understand and obey social rules of politeness and respect, stimulate even the shyest or most insecure personalities to participate (if not actively, through vocalizing, then introspectively, through silent contemplation) and encourage the curiosity with which we’re all born.
Active critical thinkers will be eager students rather than reluctant, often hostile ones. They will pepper their teachers with piercing questions and participate eagerly in the process of learning. They will develop into active readers and writers. School, for such individuals, will be FUN!
But will their teachers be up to the task of fielding incessant questions? K-12 schoolteachers, typically the growing child’s second instructors after their parents, are underpaid, underfunded, over-stressed, under-educated. They need silent classrooms so they can follow required lesson plans that ”teach to the test,” then administer tests that require rote memorization followed by dutiful regurgitation, often in the form of fill-in-the-blank and multiple-choice interrogation. Essay questions are reluctantly offered and just as reluctantly “tackled” by students whose curiosity and love of learning has been trained out of them. And of couse, essays take so much more time to grade, time being just one of the many essentials that these teachers don’t have. Time is precious.
I’ve only just touched the surface of the potentialities of the toolkit. I’ll sum it up by saying that school should be the most fun that a child can have, as well as being the most rewarding, invigorating experience for teachers.
This toolkit will inject truly educated minds, prepared to reason, contemplate, and participate, into society. If you can find errors in my reasoning, please let me know, for how else can I learn? My goal is to have this kind of stimulating curriculum “how-to” implemented throughout our country and, eventually, the entire world.
Speaking of preaching: a bit long for a YT post, no?
Found an error in your reasoning, you hold to materialism.
And if everyone thought like you civilization would be over in about 7 minutes so thanks for making the world worse.
@@kinetic7609 Explain, please.
@@willmercury No.
Though Shermer and Pigliucci mention Paul Kurtz, it seems as if they have never read his book Euproxophy: Living Without Religion (Prometheus Books, 1989).
According to Kurtz, the key point of eupraxophy "is the centrality of praxis or conduct; not philosophy, not the love of wisdom, but the practice of wisdom." Kurtz argued that "we can and should bring the best philosophical and ethical wisdom and scientific knowledge to deal with problems of practice," that is, with living a meaningful and valuable life. "Because even if the existing beliefs are false or nonsensical, we surely need to fill the vacuum and to assuage the hunger for meaning, truth, and value: and we need to test new departures in ideals and practices not simply cognitively, but in terms of human needs, attitudes, and emotions. We need always to ask, what will take its place, and will this be experimentally viable," he wrote.
If you experience hardship, such as divorce, death in the family, or career setback, Kurtz would urge you to deal with it logically, scientifically, and constructively. You know that praying isn't going to get you promoted or bring a dead relative back to life. And drowning your sorrows in alcohol will only create more hardship. You should instead do things that will improve your situation, like strengthening the loving relationships that you still have, forming new relationships, engaging in self-improvement, exploring new career opportunities, etc.
Eupraxophy, or secular humanism, cannot completely eliminate the pain that comes with hardship, but nor can any religion or philosophy -- even stoicism. At least Kurtz's approach emphasizes doing practical things that are known to improve the quality of life for those who practice them. That is the best you can do without abandoning reality. If stoicism inspires you to make good decisions and live a rewarding life, that's great. But stoicism isn't the only source of such inspiration and guidance. Some people have found similar inspiration in Paul Kurtz, Ayn Rand, Jordan Peterson, and many others.
Another fantastic podcast, Michael. I am a new listener (Christian Conservative). I appreciate how you present all sides of each topic.
I have found that the best way to deal with friends and family with opposing views, is to write down the two opposite ends of the views; Then REFUSE to DEBATE them. Next make a list of things that you each agree on related to the subject. Then say you are only willing to discuss compromise that can achieve common goals. Whenever a subject drifts back to angry debate, start back at the first step. People can only convince themselves. It is also helpful to avoid personal demonization and focus on policy.
So you are pro-censorship
@@PetraKann That is what I thought, too.
I get Stranger's point about refusing to debate, if that means refusing to argue, but refusing to debate, to me, is the same as refusing to listen and refusing to offer your own opinions in return.
I'm a fan of Massimo's work! He's got a great Wondrium course on Stoicism!
i thought i recognized his voice when i started listening to this the other day, that was a fun lecture series and this was a good talk
Would Pigliucci consider the placebo effect a truth according to these arguments?
Martin Gardner also stated he was a catholic when he was elderly. He was rooted in empirical truth but he kept his
Catholic faith because it gave him great comfort in awaiting his death.
Source? For what I remember reading, he said he was a deist fideist.
Thank You Very much For this Discussion on Wisdom; Courage and Judgment. Stoicism in applying practical wisdom for a better future Massimo Pigliucci.
Fake it till you make it! Practice, practice, practice. The universe sends me challenges and obstacles. Shit happens don't take it personally.
Who is the stoic philosopher he discusses at the nine minute mark?
Epictetus (~50-135 CE)
Enjoying this conversation, thank you 🙏🏽
I am no fan of Peterson, but I believe he fills a void. The generation that produced many of the young people who are fans of Peterson left organized religion and replaced it with nothing. They are the tail end of the "me generation" that prioritizes feelings and feeling good in particular. They have wrapped their children in swaddling and prolonged their adolescence until nearly middle age. (The millennials are turning 40.) I love Stoicism and practice it along with my religious observances, which are largely cultural. Catholicism is, in any case, riddled with Greek philosophy. I do not disagree with any of what has been said but if not a traditional religion, then what else? The average person cannot be relied upon to teach their children so called universal ethical principles, especially if there are dysfunctional family dynamics such addiction and/or abuse, for example. Whose ethical principles? As applied how and where and to whom, when? Human beings are selfish and self centered in the extreme and tend to perceive everything through an "I" grid. And, while nerds like me love to read Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius, for example (or Massimo), many people do not. Religion--the 10 Commandments, the pillars, mitzvots, provide structure, a framework, a list of do's and don'ts that, when at least attempted, enable people to live in relative harmony or, at least, to step on each others' toes a little less. Religion also provides context, a reason and yes solace for what is essentially a precarious existence.
There could be a science of morality but the concept is subjective. It is all based on the cultures who create it. Every culture's mores vary--in time, and from each other.
Religion is just institutionalized spirituality like the school system (of which Pagliucci is/was part) is institutionalized education.
The reason for ritual in a group on a schedule is to create a group for social interaction and a community.
Each of us are a part of the infinity called creation and when we dig into the aether it becomes apparent that there are forces which connect from whats been studied its all connected - for when we stare into our reflection is it not in a small way creation that stares back? Those are questions? Thats about as far as i get. What really interests me is the idea that we stand on the shoulders of not only ideas but its literal that our evolution has encased within our present body small bits of what was originally there - like the minerals, bacteria and other unicellular organisms there are hints at the plant world and fungi had a hand in building us not to mention the insect, fish, lizard etc etc parts that make the entirety of us all especially the species which were changed until sentient thought, is a great deal of sentience graph rare the further we go? Imagine the sort of life that might evolve given infinite time and infinite grace to d3velop
CS Lewis amd JRR Tolkien based their books on the premise of mythological truths.
No, if anything they based their books on mythological stories.
51:00 they can’t differentiate between built-in characteristics those all the apes share and other characteristics those related to society, environment, religions,…etc
Secular humanism isn't a far-left political philosophy. And consider looking into secular Buddhism, Buddhism Without Beliefs as Stephen Batchelor put it.
51:00 actually there’s something else more important, they are unaware of!
If I have the opportunity to reflect on my life as I'm on my deathbed, I'll be happily reprising every piece of salmon sashimi I've ever eaten. If I can somehow combine those slices with the best sex I've had and the Goldberg variations, I'm gonna go to my grave a glad woman.
47:00 both are wrong, so-called reasoning is far more complicated than that.
Especially funny: "Whatever current science says is true". WHAT??? So you are blind believer in whatever current science says? What about thinking yourself???
The correct pronunciation of his name is Pig Liucci.
Sorry to point out that catholicism has a lot in common with stoicism
See “Σωκρατης”
The humanist perspective may be practical but it is incomplete. Setting religion aside, there is a divine intelligent source/ creator/ God to the universe and our existence and it is from this source that we as humans are bestowed a full range of emotions, free will, understanding, creativity from which morality must evolve. To believe anything else is unreasonable and it is unreasonable because even if you want to make the claim that there is no intelligence behind creation and that we came from the physical universe with no thought or planning, this universe however it went about doing so, produced intelligent life and intelligent life continues to produce intelligent life. Humans cannot breed less intelligent life forms it is physically impossible, so therefore it's reasonablele to conclude based on our scientific observations of the laws of the physical universe, that only intelligence is capable of creating intelligence. We as humans only know this equation of creation to be factually true and so that logically must be the model we base our theory of human creation on. By the way, just as an aside, stoicism sounds just like the messages brought back from people who have had NDE'S. You should check out Dr. Bruce Greyson and his research on NDE'S or check out his book titled After.
The bible is such a mish mash of legends and other stuff that you can't remember all. But the weirdest stories or ideas will stand out.
Ethics is rational.
Good and evil aren’t universal! they are essential concepts to mankind survival but they aren’t universal concepts! their essence is a long story.
Another cracker from Michael, keeps producing
They don’t differentiate between values, morals, ….etc those (social values) and built-in vital human characteristics. they mixed everything up that’s why they are completely confused.
Sagan candles ... like Vegan leather
1:08:00 funny apes, that’s where the irrational apes stuck, they don’t understand the scientific factors behind that phenomena in addition to their inability to differentiate between innate characteristics and….. etc
Cool discussion, I had never heard of Epictetus either. And I came across Massimo Pigliucci by accident. I was thinking of a libertarian Liberian librarian ... Instead of the librarian Massimo came up in the search because he was born in Monrovia (according to wikipedia)
nice video
Peterson's popularity is something I will never understand. He is definitely Christian, though he will never quite own up to it--he told Sam Harris it would take him countless hours to answer the question of whether or not the resurrection happened. His impenetrable ramblings might make religion sound palatably smart to educated young believers, and he is also gaining a lot of support for speaking out against Canada's Wokeness. (Apparently, he offers "life lessons" like a self-help guru, if you can kid yourself that you know what the hell he's talking about.) Some of the things he said to Sam Harris are every bit as silly as what you would hear from more traditional, unabashed theists, though. Maybe his renowned charisma is a "mythical truth."
👏
1:04:00 funny enough
1:09:00 they don’t understand anything, they just mix things up as usual.
Jourdan Peterson is word salad woo woo. What woo religious need.
I guess that it was a matter of time before this two soyboys would talk to each other.
“Similarly, I grew up a complete omnivore in Italy, with parents and grandparents who couldn’t really wrap their minds around the word “vegetarian.” I am not a vegetarian even today, but I’ve gradually started paying more attention to where my food comes from, and at what cost in terms of animal suffering, environmental impact, and human labor. It is a complex problem, with no easy solution and plenty of conflicts among distinct indifferents.” - Massimo Pigliucci, _How to Be a Stoic: Using Ancient Philosophy to Live a Modern Life_ (2017)
If Massimo is not vegan today, then he’s not living a good life.
“The great disgust at man-it strangled me and had crept into my throat (…)” - Nietzsche, _Thus Spake Zarathustra_
“Naked had I once seen both of them, the greatest man and the smallest man:
all too like one another-all too human, even the greatest man! All too small, even the greatest man!-that was my disgust at man! And the eternal return also of the smallest man!-that was my disgust at all existence!
Ah, Disgust! Disgust! Disgust!”-Thus spake Zarathustra, and sighed and shuddered; for he remembered his sickness.” - Nietzsche, _Thus Spake Zarathustra_
“Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses.” - Christopher Hitchens
“None of us can choose what our ideas imply.” - David Deutsch, _The Beginning of Infinity_
“Those who are governed by reason desire nothing for themselves which they do not also desire for the rest of humankind*.” - Baruch Spinoza
[*and all other sentient beings-it follows from reason itself.
#Sentientism
#Veganism
#TheOriginalPosition
[ ua-cam.com/video/t5DePWOIyA8/v-deo.html ]
[ ua-cam.com/video/oQ1TJ7oUMHg/v-deo.html ] ]
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” - Immanuel Kant
#Categoricalmperative
[*for more imperatives, see _On What Matters_ by Derek Parfit]
“To believe that X is true or that Y is ethical is also to believe others should share these beliefs under similar circumstances.” - Sam Harris, _The End of Faith_
“The principle can be established that for a man who does not cheat, what he believes to be true must determine his action.” - Albert Camus
“Every tyrant who has lived has believed in freedom-for himself.” - Elbert Hubbard
“(...) each of us objects to our own suffering. If suffering is bad for me, how can I say that suffering is ok for someone else just because they’re them and I’m me? It’s like saying that the point that I’m standing on is a special place in the universe because I happen to be standing on it at this very moment. (…) you can’t coherently maintain that only _my*_ suffering counts (…)” - Steven Pinker, 2010-11-06
[ ua-cam.com/video/_sJ9YFGP8vw/v-deo.htmlm36s ]
[*or suffering of my/anybody’s select favourites/kin/group/tribe/nation/race/species]
“The position of a psychopath also cannot be generalized; it is not, therefore, an alternative view of how human beings should live (this is one point Kant got right: even a psychopath* couldn’t want to live in a world filled with psychopaths).” - Sam Harris, _The Moral Landscape_
[*I’d add that: all kinds of unfair and opportunistic egoists couldn't/wouldn’t want to live in a world filled with others like them.]
VEGAN - BEST ARGUMENTS (playlist) :
[ ua-cam.com/play/PLIacjWbHUdUDhQWr2y6itMZ5T-6-zyFXf.html ]
They mixed everything up, that’s why they lost everything (the rest is…..)!
What you need is to find the real god and it will explain everything.
You're not _even_ wrong. Here's why:
FAITH - OMNIBENEVOLENCE:
[ ua-cam.com/play/PLIacjWbHUdUA-uzJ0fjL1yfhyKywldpO9.html ]
@@KrwiomoczBogurodzicy You are not even wrong. Evolution is actually creation, construction of the world. By real god ;)
If you know where to find the real god, then, as the great Khabib Nurmagomedov once said, "Send me location!"
@@Steeldragon794 quantum mechanics. Reduced Planck’s constant is his action.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
I am a fan of Massimo. I am not a fan of Jordan Peterson Both agree that "woke" has gone too far. I think that J.P. has gone too to the right. If I hear "Post Modernist Marxism" one more time I am going puke. I think of him.as a New Age Christian. Mr. Peterson has criticized Stoicim. Mr. Pigglucci has criticized Christianity-Pertersonism. I like Massimo am a lapsed Catholic-Christian. I do tend to agree with the criticism of Secular Humanism. I do think that "wokeism" has gone "too" . There are differences and similarities between "philosophy" and "religion". 😇😎
Pigliucci is not a critic of wokeism, he is one of its defenders.
@@BNK2442 I said he was critical of Secular Humanism which does have a "woke: aspect. He was also critical of "intersectionality" and class warfare.
@@owlnyc666 "Both agree that woke went too far." Pigliucci not only doesn't think "woke" went too far, he downright supports most woke ideas.
@@owlnyc666 Case in point, he talked with kate manne. And beyond that, he is always using woke lingo such as 'misogyny' and 'violence against women.'