I very much enjoyed this interchange between the two of you, and I reacted the same way when I first read DBH's writings - they opened new doors of thought and approach that I had been searching for but hadn't found. He has revolutionized my thinking and pointed me to so many marvelous sources of philosophy and theology.
The interviewer provided intelligent and interesting responses and assertions, making this one of the better interviews of Hart, imo. It would have even been better if Hart didn't interrupt him so frequently.
Hmm. Hart just explained perfectly why the doctrine of hell might actually have a good side to it. To make room for those who demand it, so that those people are accepted. Only that kind of acceptance of people in spite of their depravity is what actually turns people around. Such people have their reasons for their inability to let go of the idea of punishment as something intrinsic to justice.
I really enjoyed this interview, and am looking forward to exploring your channel. I have very limited knowledge of the history of religion, philosophy, symbology, myth etc. so I find it hard to discern the well learned from the huckster, or the naively ignorant. Any thoughts on Jonathan Pageau? He is a practicing Orthodox Christian and he *really* loves Jordan Peterson. Talks about him all the time, while at the same time riffing about the symbology of the patristics. Pageau claims to be influenced by Gregory of Nyssa, and Ephraim the Syrian, among others. I wonder what Pageau is seeing in JBP that DBH, as someone who has a deep respect for Gregory of N, isn’t.
I wonder if Hart is reading into Kierkegaard his own conception of what faith is, this misreading him. But also I might be, and it's me who misunderstands. My faith is one of trust, not of thinking certain doctrines are true. I think all are born in perfect faith, and then inevitably inherit that which gets in the way from the people around us. Doctrines and beliefs are good so far as they help us stay in faith. But faith is not of the same kind as those things. Faith can only be alluded to as trust, openness, receptivity towards Life, not grasping. Being in faith is the only state in which one truly is thankful for anything and everything. Beliefs help or hinder.
I bought the King James but found it unreadable. Hart's felt more raw like you are there. Hart's translation of the Letter to the Corinthians is deep and beauty done.
Such an awkward conversation.I honestly feel the interviewer should have been better prepared and try to ask clear, concise questions. This was structured more as an exchange of equals, but it didn't work due to the differences in knowledge and experience.
I don't think primarily it's the contradictions of Christianity that makes people officially leave it. I think it's rather that it instills in people a big focus on not being hypocrites, and not doing and saying stuff just to appease. This is both what is its success and it's "weakness". Of course there are always contradictions in anything.
This was great dude! If you're interested in the relationship between capitalism and American religion I recommend Eugene McCarraher's "The Enchantments of Mammon".
@@originoflogos I think I actually discovered McCarraher through a glowing review DBH gave of the book! This book and David Graeber's book on debt were both huge in getting me to question the assumptions of capitalist orthodoxy
@Kabod How about you read “The Enchantments of Mammon” instead of watching lectures alone?? Books are far more thorough and refined in argumentation than lectures-well, typically (depending on the author you’re reading lol).
@@carsonwall2400 Just to add to your bringing up McCarraher His lectures at Villa Nova are excellent! Some of them are here on UA-cam! Also his books! I've self punishingly have shared his book with conservative christian Capitalists with some genuine interest! Anyway, thanks for bringing him up!!!! Cheers!!
@Kabod again, maybe you should read his book rather than base your assessment of McCarraher on one lecture alone. That’s a bit dishonest. I haven’t watched the lecture you’re referring to, but I guarantee your pithy summation of his entire lecture boiling down to nothing but “markets bad, America bad,” is both premature and ignorant of a greater context. This is why you NEED to read the works of people rather than going off one lecture (which is what I’m doing with Jordan Peterson when I post my video series on him).
DBH misunderstands why Jordan Peterson is interesting. His remarks about the "dominant lobster" theme make it clear. It is not Peterson's intellectual output, but the drive he imperfectly expresses for a _theistic,_ and not merely mythological, form of attention to being, that make him significant. (Peterson also bats away all sorts of PC nonsense that I can only hope DBH would too.)
My biggest problem with Peterson’s writing is that his notion of what is psychological and in the interest of personal ambition and productivity and his notion of what is universal, ethical, and of and for God are hopelessly confused in his work. A notion of Christ’s incarnation and his love for and communion with His Church as the structuring principle of the universe is required to establish a robust ethical and relational connection between ‘I’ and ‘we’ using Christian language, and all truth and beauty is wrung out of these concepts when you read them archetypally. And unlike Jung and his brightest students, Peterson is not nearly as fun and intellectually enriching to read. He will clearly give an anecdote that suggests to me that one should merely disregard the haranguing moralism of the masses and do as one pleases, then he will place the resistance to that very thing within the realm of the soul, morality, and God, and simultaneously in some confused secular utilitarian framework, and it just strikes me as disproportionate and bizarre. Of course, he is a psychologist not a philosopher or theologian which makes his project harder because psychologically finding and explicating the limits between self and other is primarily experiential and relational, and far from readily encapsulated in pithy rules and heuristics. That said I do find him worth reading, there are nuggets of wisdom in his work
@@stewvan I wouldn't really worry about _reading_ Peterson at all. His first book is pure juvenalia; his "rules" books are common sense reminders of sober thinking (nothing ground-breaking in them beyond the fact that they are, tragically, needed reminders. DBH is right in one sense, but he doesn't see what Peterson's significance really is, being out of the "internet loop" (God bless him). I wouldn't worry about Peterson's not being a theologian or a sophisticated philosopher per se. He is bringing people round, in droves, toward thinking seriously about philosophical and theological questions in a really relevant way.
"Sam Harris is a white supremacist" is probably the most ridiculous statement I have heard all week. DBH unironically makes this outrageous and defamatory declaration while talking about the character defects of the persons he is criticizing. My respect for DBH has decreased significantly. Not that he cares lol.
Sam's championing of Murray's IQ research comes to mind. Maybe white supremacist is too strong, but I personally think that it is a perfectly legitimate critique to ask what value we hope to derive from demonstrating biological underpinnings for IQ between races.
@@23Hiya Harris actually made clear in the Murray interview that he does not care about group differences with regards to IQ, the reason he had Murray on is that Harris felt that Murray was being unfairly maligned for presenting solid science and Harris is concerned about the negative effects of science being denied just because the implications might be unsavory. To implicate Harris in white supremacy for this just proves that Harris' fears are not unfounded.
@@zhugh9556 I vaguely remember that interview. Sam called up some hypothetical scenario about research that found the Neanderthals were closely related to Caucasians and said that those results would be shouted from the rooftops, or something like that. It sounds like you remember it better than me. I would offer three things. 1. Impeccably crafted science isn't fool proof. I think of Deryl Bem's stuff on precognition. 2. Why choose a racially charged subject like Murray's IQ stuff? There is a lot of research about the long term outcome of SSRI use that goes unnoticed because of cultural factors for example. Maybe Sam is entirely earnest about having exactly zero interest in IQ, but he chose a funny way to demonstrate his lack of interest. 3. It isn't obvious to me that every line of inquiry is morally valuable in and of itself.
Sam Harris is Jewish (his mother was a writer for the old sitcom, Golden Girls). I only say this because the white supremist meme was invented by Jewish intellectuals. DBH isn't as smart as he seems.
@@23Hiya how is it "maybe" too strong? Tf, the guy is obviously a leftist progressive. Sure that critique is valid. At the same time its descriptive facts about "people" which have nothing got to do with your prescriptive thoughts about "people". That ideology particularly makes value judgments and policies about ruling over other groups. Its very sloppy language
Hart doesn't get the appeal of Peterson, probably because Hart is not empathetic to any extent what so ever. He only sees the errors in other people, so much it blinds him to their humanity. Not a personal criticism, were all different, some are just like that, it's just my analysis of why he does not see what is going on with Peterson. But what Peterson does, is see people, engage where they are, and talks to them. That's it, and it's super rare. What he did with regards to Christianity, was simply to talk about what he sees there, no lecturing, no agenda, just talking. Hart says some intriguing things, but he can only appeal to certain types who can see past his almost imbecilic view of people who does not have his credentials, or who sees things differently.
@@chanting_germ. You are exemplifying what I mean. I try to read Jung. I have the red book, and I can stare at it, and read it, without understanding shit. Who cares if I understand? What I care about is whether I can the next day go and be present and committed to my family, to church groups, actually embody something real. Peterson is like magic in unlocking something in actual real people. He's like the first person in decades that takes people seriously. If he is like that because he doesn't understand the academics, then that is a good thing. The fact that Peterson had an actual real life impact, a positive impact in my life, and a million other lives, and was the only person in a long, long, long time drawing regular people listen to talks about the Bible, whereupon so many people have started actual life changing paths, that's not interesting to academic types, because he is not on your level of understanding abstract ideas or something. That's fine, you can sit and understand you pure abstractions, while real people need something else, someone who can be real as well. The point of academics should be real embodiment, or it's a dead thing.
It's unfortunate how political he is. And no, Jesus was not a political revolutionary. If He was, the 1st century of Christianity would have looked much different.
I really appreciate how Hart is accepting all these UA-cam interviews! Really gracious of him.
I highly respect him, but he can be a bit of a pompous ass too, don't get me wrong, I do love the man.
What a great interview. Im just diving into DBH and his books are amazing. Just finished That All Shall Be Saved....incredible. Thank you for this!
I love how DBH does interviews with small channels. I hope I could meet him some day.
Goodness me, you were brave to interview him. I'd have been a quivering mass of nervousness. Thank you.
I very much enjoyed this interchange between the two of you, and I reacted the same way when I first read DBH's writings - they opened new doors of thought and approach that I had been searching for but hadn't found. He has revolutionized my thinking and pointed me to so many marvelous sources of philosophy and theology.
The interviewer provided intelligent and interesting responses and assertions, making this one of the better interviews of Hart, imo. It would have even been better if Hart didn't interrupt him so frequently.
An exciting discussion marred only by sounding as if DBH is on a subway train rather than in a Japanese garden.
Hmm. Hart just explained perfectly why the doctrine of hell might actually have a good side to it. To make room for those who demand it, so that those people are accepted. Only that kind of acceptance of people in spite of their depravity is what actually turns people around. Such people have their reasons for their inability to let go of the idea of punishment as something intrinsic to justice.
“If you want to be the best Crustacean you can be,” killed me.
I just starting watching and you said his translation is better than the KJV. That's high praise.
I really enjoyed this interview, and am looking forward to exploring your channel.
I have very limited knowledge of the history of religion, philosophy, symbology, myth etc. so I find it hard to discern the well learned from the huckster, or the naively ignorant.
Any thoughts on Jonathan Pageau? He is a practicing Orthodox Christian and he *really* loves Jordan Peterson. Talks about him all the time, while at the same time riffing about the symbology of the patristics. Pageau claims to be influenced by Gregory of Nyssa, and Ephraim the Syrian, among others. I wonder what Pageau is seeing in JBP that DBH, as someone who has a deep respect for Gregory of N, isn’t.
I wonder if Hart is reading into Kierkegaard his own conception of what faith is, this misreading him. But also I might be, and it's me who misunderstands.
My faith is one of trust, not of thinking certain doctrines are true.
I think all are born in perfect faith, and then inevitably inherit that which gets in the way from the people around us.
Doctrines and beliefs are good so far as they help us stay in faith. But faith is not of the same kind as those things. Faith can only be alluded to as trust, openness, receptivity towards Life, not grasping. Being in faith is the only state in which one truly is thankful for anything and everything.
Beliefs help or hinder.
Wonderful interview, thank you.
Excellent interview
Thank you for doing this interview 🙏🏻
I’m a bentleyhartian scholar 👨🏫
Richmond Lattimore's translation of the New Testament is without doubt the best translation.
DOG is a phenomenal thinker and seems a deeply moral person. You seem intelligent and sincere also . Subscribed
I bought the King James but found it unreadable. Hart's felt more raw like you are there. Hart's translation of the Letter to the Corinthians is deep and beauty done.
Good job man. Enjoyed the discussion
How did you get DBH on?
So good ! Thank you 🙏🏻
NB: Christopher Hitchens espoused Christianity some time before he died. 🤔
Such an awkward conversation.I honestly feel the interviewer should have been better prepared and try to ask clear, concise questions. This was structured more as an exchange of equals, but it didn't work due to the differences in knowledge and experience.
I doubt that there will be a second interview.
I don't think primarily it's the contradictions of Christianity that makes people officially leave it. I think it's rather that it instills in people a big focus on not being hypocrites, and not doing and saying stuff just to appease. This is both what is its success and it's "weakness". Of course there are always contradictions in anything.
Beautiful interview. Never did get the right-Christian infatuation with Trump.
great content!. why is this channel only have 200 subs? Keep it coming! cheers from Philippines
This was great dude! If you're interested in the relationship between capitalism and American religion I recommend Eugene McCarraher's "The Enchantments of Mammon".
Thanks for the recommendation! It looks amazing! I will definitely order and read it!
@@originoflogos I think I actually discovered McCarraher through a glowing review DBH gave of the book! This book and David Graeber's book on debt were both huge in getting me to question the assumptions of capitalist orthodoxy
@Kabod How about you read “The Enchantments of Mammon” instead of watching lectures alone?? Books are far more thorough and refined in argumentation than lectures-well, typically (depending on the author you’re reading lol).
@@carsonwall2400 Just to add to your bringing up McCarraher
His lectures at Villa Nova are excellent! Some of them are here on UA-cam! Also his books! I've self punishingly have shared his book with conservative christian Capitalists with some genuine interest! Anyway, thanks for bringing him up!!!! Cheers!!
@Kabod again, maybe you should read his book rather than base your assessment of McCarraher on one lecture alone. That’s a bit dishonest.
I haven’t watched the lecture you’re referring to, but I guarantee your pithy summation of his entire lecture boiling down to nothing but “markets bad, America bad,” is both premature and ignorant of a greater context.
This is why you NEED to read the works of people rather than going off one lecture (which is what I’m doing with Jordan Peterson when I post my video series on him).
Loved it
What was the title of that book ? "Rowing in the moonlight" or something like that. I can't find it on amazon
Roland in moonlight
Legend
DBH denigrates Mr Peterson:-
I see a big green monster & a pile of Pride.
OMG YAS
DBH misunderstands why Jordan Peterson is interesting. His remarks about the "dominant lobster" theme make it clear. It is not Peterson's intellectual output, but the drive he imperfectly expresses for a _theistic,_ and not merely mythological, form of attention to being, that make him significant. (Peterson also bats away all sorts of PC nonsense that I can only hope DBH would too.)
My biggest problem with Peterson’s writing is that his notion of what is psychological and in the interest of personal ambition and productivity and his notion of what is universal, ethical, and of and for God are hopelessly confused in his work. A notion of Christ’s incarnation and his love for and communion with His Church as the structuring principle of the universe is required to establish a robust ethical and relational connection between ‘I’ and ‘we’ using Christian language, and all truth and beauty is wrung out of these concepts when you read them archetypally. And unlike Jung and his brightest students, Peterson is not nearly as fun and intellectually enriching to read. He will clearly give an anecdote that suggests to me that one should merely disregard the haranguing moralism of the masses and do as one pleases, then he will place the resistance to that very thing within the realm of the soul, morality, and God, and simultaneously in some confused secular utilitarian framework, and it just strikes me as disproportionate and bizarre. Of course, he is a psychologist not a philosopher or theologian which makes his project harder because psychologically finding and explicating the limits between self and other is primarily experiential and relational, and far from readily encapsulated in pithy rules and heuristics. That said I do find him worth reading, there are nuggets of wisdom in his work
@@stewvan I wouldn't really worry about _reading_ Peterson at all. His first book is pure juvenalia; his "rules" books are common sense reminders of sober thinking (nothing ground-breaking in them beyond the fact that they are, tragically, needed reminders. DBH is right in one sense, but he doesn't see what Peterson's significance really is, being out of the "internet loop" (God bless him). I wouldn't worry about Peterson's not being a theologian or a sophisticated philosopher per se. He is bringing people round, in droves, toward thinking seriously about philosophical and theological questions in a really relevant way.
"Sam Harris is a white supremacist" is probably the most ridiculous statement I have heard all week. DBH unironically makes this outrageous and defamatory declaration while talking about the character defects of the persons he is criticizing. My respect for DBH has decreased significantly. Not that he cares lol.
Sam's championing of Murray's IQ research comes to mind. Maybe white supremacist is too strong, but I personally think that it is a perfectly legitimate critique to ask what value we hope to derive from demonstrating biological underpinnings for IQ between races.
@@23Hiya Harris actually made clear in the Murray interview that he does not care about group differences with regards to IQ, the reason he had Murray on is that Harris felt that Murray was being unfairly maligned for presenting solid science and Harris is concerned about the negative effects of science being denied just because the implications might be unsavory. To implicate Harris in white supremacy for this just proves that Harris' fears are not unfounded.
@@zhugh9556 I vaguely remember that interview. Sam called up some hypothetical scenario about research that found the Neanderthals were closely related to Caucasians and said that those results would be shouted from the rooftops, or something like that. It sounds like you remember it better than me.
I would offer three things. 1. Impeccably crafted science isn't fool proof. I think of Deryl Bem's stuff on precognition. 2. Why choose a racially charged subject like Murray's IQ stuff? There is a lot of research about the long term outcome of SSRI use that goes unnoticed because of cultural factors for example. Maybe Sam is entirely earnest about having exactly zero interest in IQ, but he chose a funny way to demonstrate his lack of interest. 3. It isn't obvious to me that every line of inquiry is morally valuable in and of itself.
Sam Harris is Jewish (his mother was a writer for the old sitcom, Golden Girls). I only say this because the white supremist meme was invented by Jewish intellectuals. DBH isn't as smart as he seems.
@@23Hiya how is it "maybe" too strong? Tf, the guy is obviously a leftist progressive. Sure that critique is valid. At the same time its descriptive facts about "people" which have nothing got to do with your prescriptive thoughts about "people". That ideology particularly makes value judgments and policies about ruling over other groups. Its very sloppy language
I'm no fan of the new atheists, but how is Sam Harris a white supremacist?
Hart doesn't get the appeal of Peterson, probably because Hart is not empathetic to any extent what so ever. He only sees the errors in other people, so much it blinds him to their humanity. Not a personal criticism, were all different, some are just like that, it's just my analysis of why he does not see what is going on with Peterson. But what Peterson does, is see people, engage where they are, and talks to them. That's it, and it's super rare. What he did with regards to Christianity, was simply to talk about what he sees there, no lecturing, no agenda, just talking. Hart says some intriguing things, but he can only appeal to certain types who can see past his almost imbecilic view of people who does not have his credentials, or who sees things differently.
That crustacean comment at the end, made it really clear that none of you have listened to what Peterson actually says about the topic, at all.
@@chanting_germ. You are exemplifying what I mean. I try to read Jung. I have the red book, and I can stare at it, and read it, without understanding shit. Who cares if I understand? What I care about is whether I can the next day go and be present and committed to my family, to church groups, actually embody something real. Peterson is like magic in unlocking something in actual real people. He's like the first person in decades that takes people seriously. If he is like that because he doesn't understand the academics, then that is a good thing.
The fact that Peterson had an actual real life impact, a positive impact in my life, and a million other lives, and was the only person in a long, long, long time drawing regular people listen to talks about the Bible, whereupon so many people have started actual life changing paths, that's not interesting to academic types, because he is not on your level of understanding abstract ideas or something. That's fine, you can sit and understand you pure abstractions, while real people need something else, someone who can be real as well. The point of academics should be real embodiment, or it's a dead thing.
It's unfortunate how political he is. And no, Jesus was not a political revolutionary. If He was, the 1st century of Christianity would have looked much different.