@@jenniferbates2811 When if its a stupid question like this. Why would it matter what he truly beleives (religion)? He is an academic and knows that only beleif does not worth much and nothing good comes out if he is gonna go in details. He just dont want to be attacked over his religion.
@@notrather5514 This wasn't a stupid question to begin with. What does Being an "Academic" matter? Because he has a degree he shouldn't be bothered with such frivolous things?? No! he doesn't have any problems directly answering questions when it serves his agenda.
@@rafaelvicentenievesrobles1806 It's because in order for people to engage in a proper conversation, they have to make sure they are using the same vocabulary. Obviously for Jordan being a psychologist, "belief" is not merely what someone just claims to believe; to him what someone "really" believes in manifests in the patterns of that person's actions.
@@jaerodriguez7990You don't truly believe that, if that's true then basic communication would become near impossible with people picking out words and terms trying to unpack every possible meaning of it before agreeing how to apply them to the conversation, talking to someone, anyone would be pointless
@@Daniel-it4vh You say it doesnt matter, but it actually truly does. i like BBQ chicken but absolutely hate lemon chicken. chicken on its own without any herbs or spices is rarely eaten by anyone. So again it does matter and thats exactly the point Peterson is making. Not all answers are simple yes or no questions, otherwise court room hearings would go by in seconds. Also if your debating someone its best to answer very specifically otherwise you can be victim of trap questions.
@Daniel-it4vh the point going over yours and Sam head is that you can't be sure even of what you believe let alone be sure what another person believes. Our beliefs are attempts to conceptualize our experiences and reality into a cohesive and logical narrative. They are all unique to the person, because every human experience is unique. And they are by definition not able to be translated through simple language. All we can do is create concepts that people can understand and agree or disagree with. Sam's belief is that everything is basically a complex hallucination or illusion of meaning that just arises out of the void. It's a nonsense belief tbh.
Yeah because if Sam Harris doesn’t know, then no one else will ever be able to figure it out, and if he can’t understand it then Peterson’s point must not exist. I’m assuming you or Sam haven’t really gotten past Descartes in philosophy?
In simple terms, peterson believes religion in general contains values that if we adopted in our life will make our lives better. Obviously, there is much more but this will do just fine.
@seph3803 Well as I said earlier there is so much more to what he is trying to say but if you want to understand what's are his fundamental ideas in a compressed version than yah that will suffice.
Bro this made me laugh out loud🤣peterson trying to articulate that people say one thing and impulsively act out another…. And Sam talking like a belief is permanent
@@thebelmont1995 how can you ask a complicated question and get mad when you get a complicated answer, if you cant decipher his answer because it has more than 10 words in it, that's a you problem friend.
@@liamalexander4054 I wasn't angry at all. The problem was the question was not complicated. Jordan made it complicated when it wasn't. That's not a problem on my end bud. And Im not the only to notice Jordan playing word games. He has a laughably ridiculous quote where plenty of people have brought up valid criticism he says quote "what do you mean by "do" and what do you mean by "I" what do you mean by "believe"?
No, actually. Sam is trying to make the argument personal. JP could just as rightfully say, "It's none of your damn business what I personally believe in my deepest heart. Let's keep the discussion to the ideas we're talking about, okay?" Sam is the one dodging. It's the same kind of crap as when someone in an argument pulls a, 'You seem angry. Why is that?'
Jp is laughing because the interviewer believes it's a simple question and answer, niether of which are simple. You can't follow him due to your own lack of intelligence.
He answered it, he literally said that he doesn't know what he believes and nor does anyone in this world could articulate what they actually believe, let them be skeptics, atheist or a religious person per se, you could come up with a reasonable counter arguments and criticism against their belief and point out the holes in it.
@@kv9831 So he did not anwser it. He just stated that no one know what they belive. Its quite simple - did jesus come back from the dead? Yes or no. Was jesus concived from a virgin? Yes or no. Is the Bible the Word of god, yes or no. Did Moses talk to a burning bush or not?
@@zibies Jordan Peterson believes that the bible contains a lot of wisdom but he never advocated for the stories in the bible to be true, so i dont know why are you so pressed over that issue ? You want Jordan Peterson to explicitly tell you that the bible is not true and it is just full of myths? Is that what you want Thomas?
One of my college professors once said to our class, “If you think you know something but you don’t know how to write it or say it, then you don’t know it!”
Jordan Petersen's philosophy is exactly frederic nietzsche's philosophy, and Jordan has mention it more than once, and it is a philosophy that says the idea of God and religion is essential and important for the cohesion of society and because of the existence of a constant source of morals
@@thedarkking32It's a load of nonsense, not grounded in reality. The man loves to spin a web of words that never amount to anything of worth. He is a time waster, and morons lap it up, whilst pretending they understand.
@@thedarkking32 I think I agree on some level, however there’s a big problem when JP called psychedelics proof of the supernatural when debating Dillahunty.
@@thedarkking32 Nietzsche most certainly did not believe God was necessary for social cohesion, if anything he criticized the belief of such and said that need for a metaphysical belief is what drives all socially degradative dogmas. Please read Nietzsche yourself before listening to Peterson's very bias interpretations.
Ask him that same question about *anything* that isn't related to religion and he'll answer it without spouting all this nonsense. The fact that he knows he doesn't have a good answer is crystal clear.
That’s what I think it’s so interesting is that the audience picks up on the nonsensical element within Petersons arguments while also noticing how he dodges Harrises inquiry. And then when he makes this ridiculous claim that people are incapable of articulating what they believe further reinforces that Pearson doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I just find it comical that he complains about “don’t give me any nonsense about that“ while espousing nothing but nonsense throughout the entire exchange. But this was the icing on the cake. How anyone can take Peterson seriously speaks volumes about how easily mystified they are by a man who speaks with complex vernacular and a confident tone.
I'm no expert on Peterson but he appears to understand that Nietzsche was right but believes that it's a Noble Lie to prop up rather than undermine theism, particularly Christianity, for the average Westerner.
@@nedcassley5169 respectfully, Peterson does not understand Nietzsche. I’ve listen to him talk about Friedrich Nietzsche but it’s quite clear to me that his understanding is so basic that it’s almost amusing that he keeps bringing up, I should say name dropping a philosopher who is philosophy he is not familiar with. For instance, Nietzsche was commenting on the strength and growing power of the German imperial state during his day. That with the decline of religious belief and religious community the state would step in to fill that void. Nietzsche was very wary about this, and brought real concern for the growing sense of nationalism not just in Germany but also all over Europe. But I think that he was somehow this profound seer is utter nonsense. There was just as much war and violence throughout the 19th century as there would be through the 20th century. Peterson talks about Nietzsche as if he was this “teller of truths”, when in reality he had some pretty good observations but a lot of his philosophy was nothing but sophistry and romantic nonsense. But I think Peterson does this because he tries to make himself the modern day Friedrich Nietzsche: Peterson always plays these little theatrics as if he has some kind of tortured intellectual that is burdened by the weight of his imagined wisdom. Basically he’s a bad faith actor.
@theQuestion626 I agree that Nietzsche's belief in, and optimism about, a future man is romantic. I just wonder whether Peterson isn't a doubter who feels like he should pretend that Christianity isn't absurd, destructive bullshit because things will be even worse when the US becomes post-Christian.
@@felipespaolanse5867 no I watched every episode once and now all the best quotes are stuck I'm my head. But now that you've commented about it, I'm pretty sure the algorithm will bombard me with them 😂
Because the question is too stupid. He doesn’t know where he has to start to explanation. Ask same question to John von Neumann then answer would be the same.
An opportunistic Snake oiler who is FINALLY being exposed as the ***** he always was, is and forever will be . His starry eyed, gullible Harry Potter generation of students r finally waking up & seeing the light
he's more like an intellectual vaudeville act but people are impressed by his metaphors and Bible analogies, etc. , even when they don't really get what he's saying.
@Leonnitram123 not even close, no, just because he cannot articulate what he believes doesn't mean others cannot, all it takes is some self evaluation and time.
@@Leonnitram123 so smart that he thinks you can't be an atheist if you have morals, yep, what an intelligent guy, getting hooked on benzos and having an all meat diet that his fitness thot daughter is trying to kill him with
@@Leonnitram123 it's always so telling that you all don't believe there is any legitimate criticism of him, and that it all must be because we're "not smart enough to understand" when it's y'all that have to do mental gymnastics to never admit that he could be wrong about things that he has no expertise in. I can assure you that I do understand him, I just have legitimate reasons to not share his beliefs, maybe you're not intelligent enough to understand that, maybe you're just too much of a leaded water swilling, backwoods sister humpin', jug hooting, bible thumping, backwards steinbeck ass side character to understand that. One thing y'all need to understand is all you're doing by being petty and annoying is making everyone feel validated in never wanting to interact with anyone who is a acolyte of peterson or any other equally annoying figurehead whose fans see them as infallible and can never admit that they are wrong about anything.
I could be wrong, but I think unlike Sam who is clear, simple and concise, JP gets jumbled in his own elobrate jargon focused thinking. He also said mentally he was down bad during these talks with Sam Harris.
I see a lot of people say this. I follow it pretty easily and I wouldn't consider myself "smart". Just read about the stuff he talks about. It's hella interesting. We live in both a physical and metaphysical world but we ignore the metaphysical
@@deepakkodwani420 I understand the words completely and guess what? Peterson’s response had nothing to do with what Harris was asking. Not to mention I love how Peterson never presents any evidence for what he claims. His entire nonsense about “99% of your cognition is unconscious“ along with “you are not transparent to yourselves by any stretch of the imagination“. Where does he get this information? Without any reference you basically can conclude he’s just making it up or he’s presenting his opinion as a fact.
But Peterson admits he doesn't know...he's trying to articulate on the edge of thought and knowledge itself, and if you're so arrogant to think that could be made simple, you don't understand the process of chaos to create order.
If you cant answer what do you belive in, you have no business telling people how they should order their lifes. It is a simple fcking question, stop being a fanboy. @@CreamBootlegs
@@CreamBootlegsHe "doesnt know" only when its benefits him, he never use this arguments when talking about "people beliving they are oposite gender" he has tons of talks about belive in thinks that arent religouse yet he never says "no one fully knows what he belive in"
Ah yes, please explain the origin of the universe quickly and in a concise manner please. Nice and simple or else you don't understand it. Next question, please solve the answer to morality and the objective/subjective dichotomy concisely and simply for all to understand. Bonus round: explain the root of your insecurities and why you fail to do what you say you will, and conversely explain why you do what you do and why you aim for the goals you've chosen. Please keep this short and concise while encompassing the entirety of the question in depth.
Sam had nobody against a wall. Jordan answered in full by explaining why nobody can be sure what they believe. Then Sam changes the question to "how bout a best guess". That proves he understood as well as I did what Jordan explained- but he doubled down, with a diversion about people "applaude an evasion" Sam himself evaded the answer.
@@rossbrumby1957 the only meaningful thing that JP said in his response was admitting that free will is a bullshit and not even modern neurobiology and psychology claims that...
@@rossbrumby1957 Really? He can’t be sure about a simple question whether he’s religious or not? Yet he goes off on other people for talking about multiple gender identities.
I'm no psychologist, but JP is insecure in his beliefs and intellect and is intellectually dishonest with himself. The unnecessarily many big words, overly complex sentence structure, and deflection coupled with overly literal interpretation of utterances whose intended meaning would be clear to a child, are all signs.
@@ThorX89 Correct, truth does not care. However, you speak nonsense because the same thing you accuse Dr. Peterson of is exactly what you just did. How's that for a logical paradox?
@@eduanmienie7647 The key word in my comment was "overly". I don't shy away from a big word or complex sentence here or there inasmuch as they help me to compress or clarify my message. But the same tools can be used to flex, bloat, deflect, and obfuscate, and that seems to be Peterson's preference, especially when it comes to discussing religion. His diatribe about "going all cognitive neuroscience on this" was nothing but a deflecting (completely missed the topic) flex, with premature unjustified conclusions too. He didn't have a clear answer explaining his position, so he tried to floss how smart and educated he is by digressing into "big-brain" microanalyses of what "truly believe" means. (His deflecting analysis was interesting by his jumps to premature unfounded conclusions too. He basically seemed to imply that explaining oneself fully means fully dumping the contents of one's brain and then he assumed that that would imply an even bigger brain, recursively leading to an infinite brain, ergo omniscience. But that's not even necessarily true. E.g., turing machines can dump themselves. Turing machine programs that write out their source code easily exist, and they're not infinite. Brains could have similar qualities, though their mechanism of work isn't well understood for now.) Anyway, I do agree with Peterson's frequently expressed position that one should be very precise with their words. In that regard, it wouldn't be a "paradox" if I engaged in the same tactics as the ones I have criticized him for. It would be hypocrisy. :P Hopefully, I'm not that much guilty of it but there's always room for improvement. :)
@@ThorX89 A paradox is a logically self-contradictory statement or a statement that runs contrary to one's expectation. It can be that or it can be hypocrisy. My statement still remains correct. Furthermore, he owes no one any obligation or explanation as to what his religious stance is. He treats religion as a personal experience, as all humans should.
I love Peterson for a million reasons, but religious debate isn't one of them. His method of argument is substantially different from when he argues any other topic. To say it's impossible to fully articulate what your beliefs on religion seems like a blanket solution. "I said what I said and if u don't get it it's cuz it's impossible to get it".
He's not saying it's impossible to get. He's just saying when it comes to religion, nobody truly knows what their beliefs are. How can you articulate something when everyone says their version of religion is the only absolute truth.
Words are approximations. You could never tell you brother or sister, or mother, or daughter how and why you love them. Or express in words how beautiful you think that girl you met once is. Thats what he means. Stop being so fixated in explaining religion, which, btw,Thats another thing you yourself cant define...
@@Mojo_Radio Lol. Sam Harris has had about the biggest fall from grace of anyone I’ve seen. He’s slipped since he doesn’t have Christopher Hitchens to parrot.
@@skeleton1765 His "downfall" was people incorrectly labeling him an Islamaphobe when he was genuinely critiquing an illogical religion. He never "parroted Hitchens" beyond agreeing with the logical arguments Hitchens made that Hitchens himself "parroted" from early philosophers. 🙃
@@Mojo_Radio It was more of him falling for the misinformation narrative and calling for censorship at the same time the Twitter files were coming out and exposing the alphabet agencies suppressing information that went against *The Narrative* ™️. I like his criticisms of Islam. The same woke mob that destroyed him for exposing the hate in Islam is the same one he died on a hill for. Now the only person selling the story that COVID came from a wet market and not a lab is the man overseeing the agency. Jimmy Dore has a good video on it, but it’s pretty long. Take a look if you get a chance. He also reeks of utilitarianism and doesn’t debates that we don’t have free will.
Or.... He's been honest enough with himself to be transparent with us about his uncertainty. Scientifically knowledgeable enough to know that we are biologically predisposed to never go that deep. Maybe a few atheists and 'all-in' believers could claim to be exceptions. I adore Harris and Peterson for the sincerity of their public conversations. But I question the moment where Harris characterized this as an evasion of a simple question. Perhaps it is that simple for him. Now. Maybe....
@@jimbarth9859Even if you couldn't precisely formulate what you believe, there is a difference between nobody having a clue what you think (which is where Peterson is) and most people having a pretty good idea of what you think (which is where most people who have religious debates are).
@@Jeebeefleeb why is it zero sum? Logic dictates if you can articulate some things that you believe then you can eventually articulate everything that you believe. Peterson doesn’t seem to consider this. Peterson is a bit of an absolutist on top of being a sophist.
Remember how religion says there's free will... yet what just said JP? Something about not being conscious? Maybe actually there's no free will after all, religion go down please
Dude spent his life analyzing how human brains work and here you come in with the instant judgment of him being narcissistic for spitting out facts. Lmao. Okay wise guy, you take on the stage then. No one is ever 100% able to articulate themselves, hell even we catch outselves doing something we didn't think through alot. And 99% of what we do is done subconsciously. Like, you don't voluntarily think "Okay in 3 seconds I will get up from bed, wink about 2 times every 10 seconds and breathe every 6 seconds and do them all simultaneously throughout the day."
@@yeetusdeletus3072 This isn't the first video of JP I've seen. Nor have I ignored his written works. My comment is my opinion based on the information I've been given and then analyzed. You claim he is spitting facts, he is not. You act like he's the only one who has dedicated their lives to understanding how our brain, and by extension, our psyche works. He is not. This is just another example of which there are many of how he's diverged from the path of exploration and discovery and moved to a more absolute stance with regard to his opinions. He asserts as if he KNOWS when in fact the only evidence to support his assertion is supplied BY him. He cannot receive any resistance to his ideas without suggesting the resistance is simply ignorance and nothing more than an attempt to smear him. Hence, he is acting like a narcissist.
The irony is the person making this comment is the true narcissist. They derive pleasure and satisfaction from the hubristic act of believing in their ability to articulate themselves at every moment about any issue.
@@Dman40000 to be as all-knowing as you must be quite the burden. I concede as how could I possibly hope to stand a chance against such prevailing intelligence from the greatest of mental giants. I would wish you well, but what does a God need from a mortal like myself? Watch the video. Its not about him needing to be perfect. It's about him being unwilling to believe anyone else can rationalize or understand something he cannot. He's the "ahk-shully" of the academic world. It's not enough that he gives his opinion, everyone also needs to agree.
@donesixfour I'm waiting for you to correct me and show me where I'm wrong, but all I got was your subjective opinion, which is irrelevant. What was the put down?
@crash override Sorry to keep you waiting, I hope this helps you understand: Harris makes the false equivalence comparison between himself and the audience saying something along the lines of "if I can't understand it, the audience certainly can't understand it either" which, to many people who do indeed understand the topic of the subject at hand, is a form of insult, or, could be construed as one.
@@donesixfour But he is one of the people who knows the most about the subject, hence why he was invited to be on stage. He is also the one who had been debating Peterson for quite a while on different occasions, therefore the only person with a duty to prepare for these discussions and study Peterson's position. All of that didn't lead him to what that charlatan thinks of anything.
This is the moment he lost all credibility with anyone outside of his cult. When you’re in a debate and you loose your temper with the audience, it’s over.
He has a point and the crowd is being quite obnoxious. They even clap when Sam insulted their intelligence when he said “if I don’t understand it then certainly no one else does.” What an arrogant prick Sam is but maybe he’s right. That crowd is pretty dense.
Jordan Petersen's philosophy is exactly frederic nietzsche's philosophy, and Jordan has mention it more than once, and it is a philosophy that says the idea of God and religion is essential and important for the cohesion of society and because of the existence of a constant source of morals
@@thedarkking32 Nietzsche actually didn’t teach that, Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky did. Especially Dostoevsky. Nietzsche in fact was very much opposed to religion(specifically Christianity) as he believed that the morals it produced were the product of a slave mindset. He kept Jesus in high regard because he believed that Jesus lived as an example of not living slave morality but believed that his followers could not cope with his death and turned his teachings into teachings of submission and of the slave morality.
Hope with spirituality you don't mean religion, becuase then you would just in a vicious circle, if you want to be spiritual you should forget about religion
@@MrNono43434 he fears that JP is acting as tho he is relious yet to clearly define. Yet ppl like you are not capable of understanding the content how will you be sure of what you think what you believe. Lol learning self awareness is key in life buddy.
@@redchariots5428it does though because Jordan probably is an atheist. But he pretends to believe in God for the redpill masses. And you see a lot of conservative personalities doing this. He just seems disingenuous with his beliefs.
That is such a cop out. Peterson is perfectly capable of articulating his beliefs and constantly asked other people to do it. But on religion it’s all waffling and evasion.
@@andrescosetti927 How did you know he was being dishonest? From what I can tell he has a lot of trouble narrowing down his religious beliefs. It's always absolutes with the public. Until somebody says something you agree with then you're certain of it.
@@clydecross1983 I don’t know it. What makes me suspect it is that on any other subject, he won’t let others get away with the kind of weaselly waffling he engages in when discussing religion. And being ambiguous about your beliefs while asking for clarity from your atheist counterpart seems to be a common trick of the religious in debate. Moving the goalposts in almost Clintonian ways, constantly hedging your bets, shifting between moral absolutes and historical contingency….it’s quite tiresome.
@@Ruder6163Just because you listen to ppl that only have your beliefs, that doesn't mean all of us to do, Just because someone doesn't believe in your stuff doesn't mean they are wrong, when they bring out facts 😂
@@recapv7615 There’s a reason he refuses to give a straightforward answer. An I’m the case of Trump, his ignorance when it came to Christianity was obvious. You can start with his “2 corinthians” speech.
It is Jordan’s weakness. An otherwise incredibly intelligent person can somehow still hold religious beliefs that have no backing in logic or scientific facts. That is why he is always ambiguous and evasive when questioned about it. He knows he couldn’t argue for its validity. That’s why it is called faith. Belief in something despite the mountain of evidence that suggests otherwise.
@@toadkiller4475 Well yeah. I agree with JP on this one. JP argues we cannot really fully understand what we believe. He doesnt believe but he acts as if God is real. Sams point here was JPs belief is different from the 90percent of the belief of religious people believed it to be as depicted and explained by the churches. Jps point was not validity but the questioning how valid is really valid. Certainly trying to explain a being who created the universe is beyond comprehension. Science itself cannot explain the universe there is still part of the universe we do not know how it works like or our minds how do we really understand what we believe when we are just using 10 percent of our brain.
@@jacksbob8746 Just seems lazy. In any other context the excuse that we cannot articulate why we think something because we can't possibly understand what or why we believe something would just seem lazy. Also that is a myth that we only use 10% of our brain.
@@toadkiller4475 I want to say I can't blame him, however that is no excuse. You have to face your doubts at one point in your lifetime. Maybe Jordan is not religious and can't reveal it publicly for finance reasons. This is kind of a different problem.
@quronmccovery881 So is responding to Sam's question lol The only reason he asked that was to, alas dirtily, "get him good", thus he's not being transparent in his "simple" question, what Peterson believes is totally irrelevant, they're not there to discuss what Mr. Peterson believes in, is there a topic being discussed? Undoubtedly, but that is from their respective places of professions, not from their individual, irrelevant beliefs..
Do not only listen to what they said observe their body language too. As soon as the Question was put to JP he looks away n get angry. Sam's valid question remains unanswered .
Jordan Petersen's philosophy is exactly frederic nietzsche's philosophy, and Jordan has mention it more than once, and it is a philosophy that says the idea of God and religion is essential and important for the cohesion of society and because of the existence of a constant source of morals
@@thedarkking32 how ironic. A constant (objective, external?) source of morals, from an ‘idea’ conjured by humans. The moment one reads your post for what it is, one grasps that morals are not, and can never be, constant. Note that the “constant source of morals” we call the Bible never once condemns slavery, and in fact could be said to condone it by making stipulations on how slaves should be treated. Yet today we call slavery immoral! Note that the Bible has two separate Covenants, many times not In congruence with each other - to the point the Dillahunty, in a video discussion with a “doctor of theology” posted here on UA-cam, gets a reply from that doctor explicitly stating that the doctor cannot support a particular Old Testament concept because that doctor lives “in a different covenant”. You need to try harder. Merely citing Nietzsche in order to affirm something? Otto? Is that you?
Jordan is such an intellectual bully. Whenever he doesn't want to answer a simple question, he pulls his "I'm the smartest person in the world" act. He's so tiresome.
The line of questioning was offensive, stupid, and a bit invasive. Jordan made it very clear that he was admitting to not fully know his own stance, and Harris would not accept that, kept prodding over and over in the exact same way
Jordan Petersen's philosophy is exactly frederic nietzsche's philosophy, and Jordan has mention it more than once, and it is a philosophy that says the idea of God and religion is essential and important for the cohesion of society and because of the existence of a constant source of morals
@@ascarmen42 what a fitting comment from someone named "adam" 🙄. My UA-cam name isn't my real name you dolt. Just because we disagree about jp doesn't you assume anything about anyone.
Jordan Petersen's philosophy is exactly frederic nietzsche's philosophy, and Jordan has mention it more than once, and it is a philosophy that says the idea of God and religion is essential and important for the cohesion of society and because of the existence of a constant source of morals
He asks a complicated question in a simple way. Getting that answer out of jp would take quite sometime with lots of questions. This is why he snaps back, because he doesn't think up a simply put answer for this question like most people
I'm not religious, but I accept that people's beliefs on the subject can be incredibly complex and difficult to articulate to oneself let alone to an audience.
Regardless of any of that, you don’t come to a debate and make your side of things vague. I like both of them, have read their books, been to one of JP’s show, but he’s completely wrong on this one.
Huh? So you applaud Peterson for utilizing ‘big’ words, and believe that any who do not applaud him are folks who don’t understand those words? The reality is that the people who do truly understand those words are far less likely to heap adulation upon Peterson.
@@rafaellewis1263I guess you are right it could be implied from his sentence. I guess that is the limit of the shorts format on youtube. The weird thing to me is that Sam Harris sais he isn't sure what JP believes and Jordan explains that it isn't that easy to 1st explain what you believe and 2nd to understand fully what someone else believes. The point being even explaining "mundane" things about yourself is already hard enough. To have to explain your deep rooted believes on religion and spirituality and that to be so clear that Sam Harris would understand is a whole different matter. JP is challenging the assumption that Sam Harris has that he would be able to understand in the first place. But Sam Harris just writes it of as "avoiding a simple question". 1st The question isn't simple and 2nd to say that JP is avoiding the question, I feel is not fair and closes down the discussion. What do you think? You think it's fair that he sais he is avoiding a simple question or do you agree with Sam Harris that he really is avoiding the question? Or maybe something else?
I like JP, but I do like to know where my favorite people can be wrong. This is something I have an issue with regarding him. All his other thoughts feels very articulated. This feels very weak, despite that he does have a point about people not really knowing themselves.
Calling people out on self introspective understanding. We understand ourselves very little and if we did, we would most likely not like who we are. The side of ourselves we hide away from the light of acknowledgement.
I have spent my life intentionally exploring the darkest parts inside me. I see all of me. I would never choose to be ignorant like that or like Jordan suggests.
The problem with the atheist crowd is they pretend to be smart, put together and have everything figured out. The stereotypical image of the useless smug atheist college student who gets by on their parents' money while being completely useless to anyone is real. Acting smart doesn't make you smart. "God is not real because there is no proof for God" doesn't make you enlightened, you're just repeating an argument a 10 year old can say.
@@jabriel_8983 he said that because after jordan explained his argument or what he meant by God jordan still evaded the question by saying a whole bunch of nothing
He doesn’t know exactly what he believes on some things and that’s ok. I have beliefs that sometimes change a little when I find out something new about the topic or facet of the idea. A lot of people emulate what they think the people around them believe in order to fit in and spend very little time examining their own mind and convictions (beliefs).
Love this guy, he’s human too, we all have a defence mechanism… I believe his is intellectualism… still managed to avoid the question… “I’m not comfortable answering that question” would have been fine… lol… this man is Gold & Gifted & totally Loved by God, whether he believes in Him or not… Bless you Dr Jordan
First time I'm seeing Jordan go at the crowd like that
He does this a lot whenever he's expected to actually give an answer.
@@jenniferbates2811 no it’s when he’s asked a question that holds a standard nobody else would be expected of upholding.
@@floridaman_6079 That's just giving him an out. He gets frustrated and incoherent whenever he's expected to give a direct answer.
@@jenniferbates2811 When if its a stupid question like this. Why would it matter what he truly beleives (religion)? He is an academic and knows that only beleif does not worth much and nothing good comes out if he is gonna go in details. He just dont want to be attacked over his religion.
@@notrather5514 This wasn't a stupid question to begin with. What does
Being an "Academic" matter? Because he has a degree he shouldn't be bothered with such frivolous things?? No!
he doesn't have any problems directly answering questions when it serves his agenda.
“Well first of all what do you mean by sure, and what do you mean by believe?” - JP
All. The. Fucking. Time. And I read and listen to his podcast, but damn…
@@rafaelvicentenievesrobles1806 It's because in order for people to engage in a proper conversation, they have to make sure they are using the same vocabulary. Obviously for Jordan being a psychologist, "belief" is not merely what someone just claims to believe; to him what someone "really" believes in manifests in the patterns of that person's actions.
These are actually valid questions..
Yappin😂@@jaerodriguez7990
@@jaerodriguez7990You don't truly believe that, if that's true then basic communication would become near impossible with people picking out words and terms trying to unpack every possible meaning of it before agreeing how to apply them to the conversation, talking to someone, anyone would be pointless
Lmfao he’s scolding them like they’re a know it all teenager 😂
He’s clearly been teaching at University too long
@@account_nameonline6420 yeah because Sam Harris fans definitely aren't overgrown know it all teenagers.
He should've told them to sit on their hands.
@@steffanknight9936 I don’t even know who Sam Harris is sooo I wouldn’t know who the fans are 😂
@@steffanknight9936 you sound like a know it all jp fan
"How about a best guess :DDDD"
Lmao I love that smirk on sam's face there
He knew he nailed him and had him squirming.
Did we get the answer 😂
@@2kjstewart not at all. Peterson just went off on his typical rhetorical spin.
- Do you like chicken?
- Do you think you are fully capable of articulating what food you like?
Do you like chicken or do you like how the chicken is prepared? Lemon? Teriyaki? He is not wrong,you're just biased.
@@Daniel-it4vh You say it doesnt matter, but it actually truly does. i like BBQ chicken but absolutely hate lemon chicken. chicken on its own without any herbs or spices is rarely eaten by anyone. So again it does matter and thats exactly the point Peterson is making. Not all answers are simple yes or no questions, otherwise court room hearings would go by in seconds. Also if your debating someone its best to answer very specifically otherwise you can be victim of trap questions.
God = a chicken? 🤣
@Daniel-it4vh the point going over yours and Sam head is that you can't be sure even of what you believe let alone be sure what another person believes.
Our beliefs are attempts to conceptualize our experiences and reality into a cohesive and logical narrative.
They are all unique to the person, because every human experience is unique.
And they are by definition not able to be translated through simple language. All we can do is create concepts that people can understand and agree or disagree with.
Sam's belief is that everything is basically a complex hallucination or illusion of meaning that just arises out of the void. It's a nonsense belief tbh.
@@TR13400If that's what you got from this. Don't vote. And please don't breed.
JP talked to SH for like 8 hours and we still don't know what the hell he believes.
Well on 42hrs more to go🤷
Well that's 32hrs more to go.🤷
Yeah because if Sam Harris doesn’t know, then no one else will ever be able to figure it out, and if he can’t understand it then Peterson’s point must not exist. I’m assuming you or Sam haven’t really gotten past Descartes in philosophy?
In simple terms, peterson believes religion in general contains values that if we adopted in our life will make our lives better. Obviously, there is much more but this will do just fine.
@seph3803 Well as I said earlier there is so much more to what he is trying to say but if you want to understand what's are his fundamental ideas in a compressed version than yah that will suffice.
He was a second away from asking the crowd “Fuck is wrong with y’all!”
Bro this made me laugh out loud🤣peterson trying to articulate that people say one thing and impulsively act out another…. And Sam talking like a belief is permanent
The crowd are asking the same question back
Nothing. Nothing is wrong with the crowd. That's kinda the point. Sam called Jordan out for dodging and evading and using long winded semantics.
@@thebelmont1995 how can you ask a complicated question and get mad when you get a complicated answer, if you cant decipher his answer because it has more than 10 words in it, that's a you problem friend.
@@liamalexander4054 I wasn't angry at all. The problem was the question was not complicated. Jordan made it complicated when it wasn't. That's not a problem on my end bud. And Im not the only to notice Jordan playing word games. He has a laughably ridiculous quote where plenty of people have brought up valid criticism he says quote "what do you mean by "do" and what do you mean by "I" what do you mean by "believe"?
JP is just mad because someone is calling his bluff, and not letting him get away with his usual obfuscation.
No, actually. Sam is trying to make the argument personal. JP could just as rightfully say, "It's none of your damn business what I personally believe in my deepest heart. Let's keep the discussion to the ideas we're talking about, okay?" Sam is the one dodging. It's the same kind of crap as when someone in an argument pulls a, 'You seem angry. Why is that?'
Let me guess, you're a vehement athiest
Jp is laughing because the interviewer believes it's a simple question and answer, niether of which are simple.
You can't follow him due to your own lack of intelligence.
@@JJM2222 But let me guess, there are only two genders, right?
@@AlexReynard
Your cult membership is glaringly obvious by how you are unable accept reality!
What a strange way to avoid answering a question....
Yep, Jordan’s real guarded about his pantheistic beliefs as he mixes esoterica with NeoDarwinism.
He answered it, he literally said that he doesn't know what he believes and nor does anyone in this world could articulate what they actually believe, let them be skeptics, atheist or a religious person per se, you could come up with a reasonable counter arguments and criticism against their belief and point out the holes in it.
This is a typical response from Peterson, he has “Indignant” down. His delivery is almost always arrogant especially when he has no facts to offer.
@@kv9831 So he did not anwser it. He just stated that no one know what they belive. Its quite simple - did jesus come back from the dead? Yes or no. Was jesus concived from a virgin? Yes or no. Is the Bible the Word of god, yes or no. Did Moses talk to a burning bush or not?
@@zibies Jordan Peterson believes that the bible contains a lot of wisdom but he never advocated for the stories in the bible to be true, so i dont know why are you so pressed over that issue ? You want Jordan Peterson to explicitly tell you that the bible is not true and it is just full of myths? Is that what you want Thomas?
One of my college professors once said to our class, “If you think you know something but you don’t know how to write it or say it, then you don’t know it!”
A better one is, "if you can't explain it simply, then you don't know it fully." - Einstein
Yeah right, say that to mathematicians and they'll burn you at the stake.
@@liviu445 I guess I should have clarified it was my political science professor 🤪
@@samvenable9898 ahhh, that partly explains his statement.
So like Jordan Peterson?
This is when he thought about turning into a supervillian
Jordan Petersen's philosophy is exactly frederic nietzsche's philosophy, and Jordan has mention it more than once, and it is a philosophy that says the idea of God and religion is essential and important for the cohesion of society and because of the existence of a constant source of morals
@@thedarkking32It's a load of nonsense, not grounded in reality.
The man loves to spin a web of words that never amount to anything of worth.
He is a time waster, and morons lap it up, whilst pretending they understand.
@@thedarkking32 I think I agree on some level, however there’s a big problem when JP called psychedelics proof of the supernatural when debating Dillahunty.
@@thedarkking32 that doesn't tell me whether he believes in a Supernatural being or not
@@thedarkking32 Nietzsche most certainly did not believe God was necessary for social cohesion, if anything he criticized the belief of such and said that need for a metaphysical belief is what drives all socially degradative dogmas. Please read Nietzsche yourself before listening to Peterson's very bias interpretations.
Ask him that same question about *anything* that isn't related to religion and he'll answer it without spouting all this nonsense. The fact that he knows he doesn't have a good answer is crystal clear.
That’s what I think it’s so interesting is that the audience picks up on the nonsensical element within Petersons arguments while also noticing how he dodges Harrises inquiry. And then when he makes this ridiculous claim that people are incapable of articulating what they believe further reinforces that Pearson doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I just find it comical that he complains about “don’t give me any nonsense about that“ while espousing nothing but nonsense throughout the entire exchange. But this was the icing on the cake. How anyone can take Peterson seriously speaks volumes about how easily mystified they are by a man who speaks with complex vernacular and a confident tone.
What he said. ☝☝☝
I'm no expert on Peterson but he appears to understand that Nietzsche was right but believes that it's a Noble Lie to prop up rather than undermine theism, particularly Christianity, for the average Westerner.
@@nedcassley5169 respectfully, Peterson does not understand Nietzsche. I’ve listen to him talk about Friedrich Nietzsche but it’s quite clear to me that his understanding is so basic that it’s almost amusing that he keeps bringing up, I should say name dropping a philosopher who is philosophy he is not familiar with.
For instance, Nietzsche was commenting on the strength and growing power of the German imperial state during his day. That with the decline of religious belief and religious community the state would step in to fill that void. Nietzsche was very wary about this, and brought real concern for the growing sense of nationalism not just in Germany but also all over Europe. But I think that he was somehow this profound seer is utter nonsense. There was just as much war and violence throughout the 19th century as there would be through the 20th century.
Peterson talks about Nietzsche as if he was this “teller of truths”, when in reality he had some pretty good observations but a lot of his philosophy was nothing but sophistry and romantic nonsense. But I think Peterson does this because he tries to make himself the modern day Friedrich Nietzsche: Peterson always plays these little theatrics as if he has some kind of tortured intellectual that is burdened by the weight of his imagined wisdom. Basically he’s a bad faith actor.
@theQuestion626 I agree that Nietzsche's belief in, and optimism about, a future man is romantic. I just wonder whether Peterson isn't a doubter who feels like he should pretend that Christianity isn't absurd, destructive bullshit because things will be even worse when the US becomes post-Christian.
"I've seen what makes you clap your boos mean nothing."
Rick and morty on your UA-cam shorts too?
@@felipespaolanse5867 no I watched every episode once and now all the best quotes are stuck I'm my head. But now that you've commented about it, I'm pretty sure the algorithm will bombard me with them 😂
@@felipespaolanse5867 right now I mostly get Jordan,Alan watts family guy and science shorts. Oh also Sopranos!
You sir, have the greatest album of all time as your avatar. Great taste.
I think it the heist episode lol
I was fully expected Sam to respond with, "Jordan, Jordan! It's okay! Everything is going to be alright. Just focus on peaceful, happy thoughts."
Legends say he's still dodging the question
Just stop with this meme comment already.
@@skiphoffenflaven8004J P salad word pro 😂😂
@@skiphoffenflaven8004Go clean your room bucko.
How is he dodging the question?
Because the question is too stupid. He doesn’t know where he has to start to explanation. Ask same question to John von Neumann then answer would be the same.
Jordan Peterson is way closer to be a televangelist than to be a good scientist or philospher. Th
Bingo
I've yet to work out exactly what JP is. I suppose I'll have to take my best guess as an answer.... how does SH always keep his cool?
An opportunistic Snake oiler who is FINALLY being exposed as the ***** he always was, is and forever will be . His starry eyed, gullible Harry Potter generation of students r finally waking up & seeing the light
he's more like an intellectual vaudeville act but people are impressed by his metaphors and Bible analogies, etc. , even when they don't really get what he's saying.
He was wrong, backed himself into a corner and didn't want to admit he could even possibly be wrong so he threw a damned tantrum.
Precisely
@Leonnitram123 not even close, no, just because he cannot articulate what he believes doesn't mean others cannot, all it takes is some self evaluation and time.
@@trippinsciko he is probably one of the most articulate intellectuals out there. You just don’t understand what he means.
@@Leonnitram123 so smart that he thinks you can't be an atheist if you have morals, yep, what an intelligent guy, getting hooked on benzos and having an all meat diet that his fitness thot daughter is trying to kill him with
@@Leonnitram123 it's always so telling that you all don't believe there is any legitimate criticism of him, and that it all must be because we're "not smart enough to understand" when it's y'all that have to do mental gymnastics to never admit that he could be wrong about things that he has no expertise in. I can assure you that I do understand him, I just have legitimate reasons to not share his beliefs, maybe you're not intelligent enough to understand that, maybe you're just too much of a leaded water swilling, backwoods sister humpin', jug hooting, bible thumping, backwards steinbeck ass side character to understand that.
One thing y'all need to understand is all you're doing by being petty and annoying is making everyone feel validated in never wanting to interact with anyone who is a acolyte of peterson or any other equally annoying figurehead whose fans see them as infallible and can never admit that they are wrong about anything.
That lightening comeback by Harris. "I have never heard so many people applaud an evasion of a simple question".
yeah bro sam harris is so savage 😂😂😂
lightning*
How was that a simple question?
You spelled childish wrong.
But it wasn't a simple question, he just wanted control by forcing a simple answer?
Why can't Jordan look Sam in the eyes when responding to him?
Because Peterson's a complete phony and a hack.
I could be wrong, but I think unlike Sam who is clear, simple and concise, JP gets jumbled in his own elobrate jargon focused thinking. He also said mentally he was down bad during these talks with Sam Harris.
Maybe he’s on the spectrum, like 95% of his fan base
He was too pissed to send it at sam
Because he can't fully articulate his sexual attraction towards him.
Glad he got called out on his word salad.
Maybe it seems like salad because you need to improve your vocabulary? Maybe try and actually understand what the words mean ?
I see a lot of people say this. I follow it pretty easily and I wouldn't consider myself "smart". Just read about the stuff he talks about. It's hella interesting. We live in both a physical and metaphysical world but we ignore the metaphysical
@@sapien377 but that doesn’t change that Peterson dodged the question.
@@deepakkodwani420 I understand the words completely and guess what? Peterson’s response had nothing to do with what Harris was asking. Not to mention I love how Peterson never presents any evidence for what he claims. His entire nonsense about “99% of your cognition is unconscious“ along with “you are not transparent to yourselves by any stretch of the imagination“. Where does he get this information? Without any reference you basically can conclude he’s just making it up or he’s presenting his opinion as a fact.
“If you can’t explain it simply, then you don’t know it fully” -Einstein.
To be fair who fully understands themselves.
But Peterson admits he doesn't know...he's trying to articulate on the edge of thought and knowledge itself, and if you're so arrogant to think that could be made simple, you don't understand the process of chaos to create order.
If you cant answer what do you belive in, you have no business telling people how they should order their lifes. It is a simple fcking question, stop being a fanboy. @@CreamBootlegs
@@CreamBootlegsHe "doesnt know" only when its benefits him, he never use this arguments when talking about "people beliving they are oposite gender" he has tons of talks about belive in thinks that arent religouse yet he never says "no one fully knows what he belive in"
Ah yes, please explain the origin of the universe quickly and in a concise manner please. Nice and simple or else you don't understand it.
Next question, please solve the answer to morality and the objective/subjective dichotomy concisely and simply for all to understand.
Bonus round: explain the root of your insecurities and why you fail to do what you say you will, and conversely explain why you do what you do and why you aim for the goals you've chosen.
Please keep this short and concise while encompassing the entirety of the question in depth.
Jordan Peterson is just ridiculous now, I used to enjoy listening to him.
He managed to fool us by his obfuscating skill.
There's nothing ridiculous about what he said in that clip, in fact it's probably a lot more honest than the opinions of most on this topic.
This is from years ago. He was this ridiculous when you liked him.
Sam had JP scrambling the entire time and he does it with such quiet confidence
Throws a fit like a toddler, when he's asked for a straight answer!😂
How are you supposed to give a straight answer to things that are not straight
I like how Peterson changes the subject bc Sam has him up against the wall
Sam had nobody against a wall. Jordan answered in full by explaining why nobody can be sure what they believe. Then Sam changes the question to "how bout a best guess". That proves he understood as well as I did what Jordan explained- but he doubled down, with a diversion about people "applaude an evasion" Sam himself evaded the answer.
@@rossbrumby1957 bruh, I really admire JP but this time Sam is really owned this debate
@@rossbrumby1957 the only meaningful thing that JP said in his response was admitting that free will is a bullshit and not even modern neurobiology and psychology claims that...
@@rossbrumby1957 Really? He can’t be sure about a simple question whether he’s religious or not? Yet he goes off on other people for talking about multiple gender identities.
@@auh786 da fuq does trans issues have to do with personal faith?
What's he ranting into the void for 🤣
That was definitely a "you kids get offa my lawn " moment.
$
I'm no psychologist, but JP is insecure in his beliefs and intellect and is intellectually dishonest with himself. The unnecessarily many big words, overly complex sentence structure, and deflection coupled with overly literal interpretation of utterances whose intended meaning would be clear to a child, are all signs.
Thanks, your rant after saying you are not a psychologist meant nothing.😂
@@eduanmienie7647 Appeals to authority are a logical fallacy. The truth doesn't care about who communicates it.
@@ThorX89 Correct, truth does not care. However, you speak nonsense because the same thing you accuse Dr. Peterson of is exactly what you just did. How's that for a logical paradox?
@@eduanmienie7647 The key word in my comment was "overly". I don't shy away from a big word or complex sentence here or there inasmuch as they help me to compress or clarify my message. But the same tools can be used to flex, bloat, deflect, and obfuscate, and that seems to be Peterson's preference, especially when it comes to discussing religion.
His diatribe about "going all cognitive neuroscience on this" was nothing but a deflecting (completely missed the topic) flex, with premature unjustified conclusions too. He didn't have a clear answer explaining his position, so he tried to floss how smart and educated he is by digressing into "big-brain" microanalyses of what "truly believe" means.
(His deflecting analysis was interesting by his jumps to premature unfounded conclusions too. He basically seemed to imply that explaining oneself fully means fully dumping the contents of one's brain and then he assumed that that would imply an even bigger brain, recursively leading to an infinite brain, ergo omniscience. But that's not even necessarily true. E.g., turing machines can dump themselves. Turing machine programs that write out their source code easily exist, and they're not infinite. Brains could have similar qualities, though their mechanism of work isn't well understood for now.)
Anyway, I do agree with Peterson's frequently expressed position that one should be very precise with their words.
In that regard, it wouldn't be a "paradox" if I engaged in the same tactics as the ones I have criticized him for. It would be hypocrisy. :P Hopefully, I'm not that much guilty of it but there's always room for improvement. :)
@@ThorX89 A paradox is a logically self-contradictory statement or a statement that runs contrary to one's expectation. It can be that or it can be hypocrisy. My statement still remains correct. Furthermore, he owes no one any obligation or explanation as to what his religious stance is. He treats religion as a personal experience, as all humans should.
“…an evasion of a simple question.” That’s all the man does!
I love Peterson for a million reasons, but religious debate isn't one of them. His method of argument is substantially different from when he argues any other topic. To say it's impossible to fully articulate what your beliefs on religion seems like a blanket solution. "I said what I said and if u don't get it it's cuz it's impossible to get it".
He's not saying it's impossible to get. He's just saying when it comes to religion, nobody truly knows what their beliefs are. How can you articulate something when everyone says their version of religion is the only absolute truth.
I mean, it's 100% reasonable.
Words are approximations. You could never tell you brother or sister, or mother, or daughter how and why you love them. Or express in words how beautiful you think that girl you met once is.
Thats what he means. Stop being so fixated in explaining religion, which, btw,Thats another thing you yourself cant define...
he's not saying that
he's saying "i explained it as best as i could, if you don't get it then I can't explain it again any better"
he acts as if god exists ,just watch more jbp, he explains himself. his pod episode with muhammad hijab is really interesting too
Definitely feel like JP is deflecting hard
He has to when he's debating the juggernaut that is Sam Harris. :P
@@Mojo_Radio Lol. Sam Harris has had about the biggest fall from grace of anyone I’ve seen.
He’s slipped since he doesn’t have Christopher Hitchens to parrot.
@@skeleton1765 His "downfall" was people incorrectly labeling him an Islamaphobe when he was genuinely critiquing an illogical religion. He never "parroted Hitchens" beyond agreeing with the logical arguments Hitchens made that Hitchens himself "parroted" from early philosophers. 🙃
@@Mojo_Radio It was more of him falling for the misinformation narrative and calling for censorship at the same time the Twitter files were coming out and exposing the alphabet agencies suppressing information that went against *The Narrative* ™️.
I like his criticisms of Islam. The same woke mob that destroyed him for exposing the hate in Islam is the same one he died on a hill for. Now the only person selling the story that COVID came from a wet market and not a lab is the man overseeing the agency.
Jimmy Dore has a good video on it, but it’s pretty long. Take a look if you get a chance.
He also reeks of utilitarianism and doesn’t debates that we don’t have free will.
@@Mojo_RadioHe parrots reality itself
Jordan commonly takes it all personally and reveals his anger issues when someone far more educated holds him to account.
More intelligent.
Or....
He's been honest enough with himself to be transparent with us about his uncertainty. Scientifically knowledgeable enough to know that we are biologically predisposed to never go that deep. Maybe a few atheists and 'all-in' believers could claim to be exceptions.
I adore Harris and Peterson for the sincerity of their public conversations. But I question the moment where Harris characterized this as an evasion of a simple question. Perhaps it is that simple for him. Now. Maybe....
Lmao whyis Jordan mad at the crowd though. I dont think I ever saw a debate where the debator turns on tye crowd😂😂😂
@@jimbarth9859Even if you couldn't precisely formulate what you believe, there is a difference between nobody having a clue what you think (which is where Peterson is) and most people having a pretty good idea of what you think (which is where most people who have religious debates are).
Jordan P is far smarter than SH could dream of being .
"You can not fully articulate yourself" is an articulation.
words are words
Just cause you can articulate some things doesn't mean you can articulate everything
But not a full one. There is much behind that statement.
@@GrantStinnett it’s semantics. Peterson is also playing with epistemology by the way.
@@Jeebeefleeb why is it zero sum? Logic dictates if you can articulate some things that you believe then you can eventually articulate everything that you believe. Peterson doesn’t seem to consider this. Peterson is a bit of an absolutist on top of being a sophist.
Dad I only asked how your day was, calm down gosh…
Remember how religion says there's free will... yet what just said JP? Something about not being conscious? Maybe actually there's no free will after all, religion go down please
Sure Sam is just a child in front of Jordan
@@terrenceso1 sarcasm or what?
This is perfect 😂😂 if you read jp you would bet he was male
@@edwardwhaley1774huh?
"I cant articulate myself, therefore you cant either!" JP is a narcissist and I'm glad I was cognizant enough to see it.
Dude spent his life analyzing how human brains work and here you come in with the instant judgment of him being narcissistic for spitting out facts. Lmao. Okay wise guy, you take on the stage then.
No one is ever 100% able to articulate themselves, hell even we catch outselves doing something we didn't think through alot. And 99% of what we do is done subconsciously. Like, you don't voluntarily think "Okay in 3 seconds I will get up from bed, wink about 2 times every 10 seconds and breathe every 6 seconds and do them all simultaneously throughout the day."
@@yeetusdeletus3072 This isn't the first video of JP I've seen. Nor have I ignored his written works. My comment is my opinion based on the information I've been given and then analyzed. You claim he is spitting facts, he is not. You act like he's the only one who has dedicated their lives to understanding how our brain, and by extension, our psyche works. He is not. This is just another example of which there are many of how he's diverged from the path of exploration and discovery and moved to a more absolute stance with regard to his opinions. He asserts as if he KNOWS when in fact the only evidence to support his assertion is supplied BY him. He cannot receive any resistance to his ideas without suggesting the resistance is simply ignorance and nothing more than an attempt to smear him. Hence, he is acting like a narcissist.
The irony is the person making this comment is the true narcissist. They derive pleasure and satisfaction from the hubristic act of believing in their ability to articulate themselves at every moment about any issue.
@@Dman40000 to be as all-knowing as you must be quite the burden. I concede as how could I possibly hope to stand a chance against such prevailing intelligence from the greatest of mental giants. I would wish you well, but what does a God need from a mortal like myself?
Watch the video. Its not about him needing to be perfect. It's about him being unwilling to believe anyone else can rationalize or understand something he cannot. He's the "ahk-shully" of the academic world. It's not enough that he gives his opinion, everyone also needs to agree.
They’re both narcissists who trigger one another, is what I get from this.
Although I think Sam is right on this one.
JP's ego lost this debate. I love Sam and his humor! 😂
"You're not capable of articulating yourselves"
Dumbledore said calmly
That's your "it's complicated" option in facebook's relationship selector :'D
I like how they both put down the audience and both got applause
Harris didn't put them down as much as make an observation.
@@crashoverride2345 incorrect.
@donesixfour I'm waiting for you to correct me and show me where I'm wrong, but all I got was your subjective opinion, which is irrelevant. What was the put down?
@crash override Sorry to keep you waiting, I hope this helps you understand: Harris makes the false equivalence comparison between himself and the audience saying something along the lines of "if I can't understand it, the audience certainly can't understand it either" which, to many people who do indeed understand the topic of the subject at hand, is a form of insult, or, could be construed as one.
@@donesixfour But he is one of the people who knows the most about the subject, hence why he was invited to be on stage. He is also the one who had been debating Peterson for quite a while on different occasions, therefore the only person with a duty to prepare for these discussions and study Peterson's position. All of that didn't lead him to what that charlatan thinks of anything.
This is the moment he lost all credibility with anyone outside of his cult. When you’re in a debate and you loose your temper with the audience, it’s over.
Lmao of course JP would get defensive when confronted with the fact that everything out of his mouth is word salad
You have to be pretty below average intelligence to believe that.
Word salad to the ignorant indeed
Peterson sounds like a real Peterson here.
"I've never heard so many people applaud the evading of a simple question" LOL I love Sam
Geez, gets challenged on a question and then that angry outburst wow wasn’t expecting that
Why not? The man’s an emotional mess
He has a point and the crowd is being quite obnoxious. They even clap when Sam insulted their intelligence when he said “if I don’t understand it then certainly no one else does.” What an arrogant prick Sam is but maybe he’s right. That crowd is pretty dense.
Jordan Petersen's philosophy is exactly frederic nietzsche's philosophy, and Jordan has mention it more than once, and it is a philosophy that says the idea of God and religion is essential and important for the cohesion of society and because of the existence of a constant source of morals
@@thedarkking32 Nietzsche actually didn’t teach that, Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky did. Especially Dostoevsky. Nietzsche in fact was very much opposed to religion(specifically Christianity) as he believed that the morals it produced were the product of a slave mindset. He kept Jesus in high regard because he believed that Jesus lived as an example of not living slave morality but believed that his followers could not cope with his death and turned his teachings into teachings of submission and of the slave morality.
Then you haven’t been paying attention
That is a clear examples of frustration being projected at a crowd that has no right if reply..
I have been internalizing on the spiritual for 4 years and I am close to describing my beliefs, but also farther than ever.
Exactly.
because describing it has nothing to do with making people understand it. faith is not a common knowledge that can be learned through speaking
bless you and your journey Haden :)
Hope with spirituality you don't mean religion, becuase then you would just in a vicious circle, if you want to be spiritual you should forget about religion
The closer I get the farther it is, the more I know, the less I remember. I believe there is a higher power. But I can only feel it it's ineffable
Just because he can't string together a coherent explanation
Doesn't mean everyone else can't either.
The thing
When you are afraid of giving a straight answer, you feign anger. Nice dodge JP!
"I've never seen so many people applaud an evasion of a simple question."
Imagine Sam Harris admitting hes afraid of what someone believes in the way they speak about religion
He did not mean he is literally scared. He meant that he is concerned and unsure and wants to clarify. Learn to pick up definitional nuance
@@MrNono43434 oho, so context matters now, thanks for the heads up
@@revan552 right, you are exactly right!
@@MrNono43434 he fears that JP is acting as tho he is relious yet to clearly define. Yet ppl like you are not capable of understanding the content how will you be sure of what you think what you believe. Lol learning self awareness is key in life buddy.
@@redchariots5428it does though because Jordan probably is an atheist. But he pretends to believe in God for the redpill masses. And you see a lot of conservative personalities doing this. He just seems disingenuous with his beliefs.
JP:
Articulation: 90%
Substance: 10%
That is such a cop out. Peterson is perfectly capable of articulating his beliefs and constantly asked other people to do it. But on religion it’s all waffling and evasion.
Why is it important to you?
@@JB-423 because I dislike intellectual dishonesty.
@@andrescosetti927 How did you know he was being dishonest? From what I can tell he has a lot of trouble narrowing down his religious beliefs. It's always absolutes with the public. Until somebody says something you agree with then you're certain of it.
@@clydecross1983 I don’t know it. What makes me suspect it is that on any other subject, he won’t let others get away with the kind of weaselly waffling he engages in when discussing religion. And being ambiguous about your beliefs while asking for clarity from your atheist counterpart seems to be a common trick of the religious in debate. Moving the goalposts in almost Clintonian ways, constantly hedging your bets, shifting between moral absolutes and historical contingency….it’s quite tiresome.
Lol seeing Kermit so angry is disturbing
Yes, he’s evading because he struggles with faith. I do too.
Then he should just be honest about it
@@account_nameonline6420 he doesn’t want to lose 1/3 of his audience. It’s like Trump acting religious, it’s a strategic move.
Ya thats simply not true
@@Ruder6163Just because you listen to ppl that only have your beliefs, that doesn't mean all of us to do,
Just because someone doesn't believe in your stuff doesn't mean they are wrong, when they bring out facts 😂
@@recapv7615 There’s a reason he refuses to give a straightforward answer. An I’m the case of Trump, his ignorance when it came to Christianity was obvious. You can start with his “2 corinthians” speech.
He’s smart, but man, he has some anger hidden there. About to throw a tantrum.
He found the only way possible for himself to believe in a god and he needs you to play along with it. If you dont, you're dumb and he's great.
Yep triggered much !
Smart? Not sure he is, he asserts things as truth, and the reason is usually because he said so
If you expect me to answer a question, then you must think I’m omniscient.
Jordan is so vague and never answers a question with simple words. Who knows what he really thinks.
Boy, Jordan really avoided the question!
These are the moments that like to see JP get a little frustrated - “you’re not transparent to yourself”
His true colours come out here. Aggressive and reactionary when asked a simple question.
@@paintspot1509 agreed. he looked pretty bad here
@@paintspot1509 I held him in a high regard. However, since he started bringing up God in recent years, I could not believe his integrity.
He was so close to crying
It is Jordan’s weakness. An otherwise incredibly intelligent person can somehow still hold religious beliefs that have no backing in logic or scientific facts. That is why he is always ambiguous and evasive when questioned about it. He knows he couldn’t argue for its validity. That’s why it is called faith. Belief in something despite the mountain of evidence that suggests otherwise.
@@toadkiller4475 Well yeah. I agree with JP on this one.
JP argues we cannot really fully understand what we believe.
He doesnt believe but he acts as if God is real. Sams point here was JPs belief is different from the 90percent of the belief of religious people believed it to be as depicted and explained by the churches. Jps point was not validity but the questioning how valid is really valid. Certainly trying to explain a being who created the universe is beyond comprehension. Science itself cannot explain the universe there is still part of the universe we do not know how it works like or our minds how do we really understand what we believe when we are just using 10 percent of our brain.
@@jacksbob8746 Just seems lazy. In any other context the excuse that we cannot articulate why we think something because we can't possibly understand what or why we believe something would just seem lazy. Also that is a myth that we only use 10% of our brain.
@@toadkiller4475 misinformation at its finest.
@@toadkiller4475 I want to say I can't blame him, however that is no excuse. You have to face your doubts at one point in your lifetime. Maybe Jordan is not religious and can't reveal it publicly for finance reasons. This is kind of a different problem.
Sam is running circles around Jordan.
His avoiding of eye contact while responding made me uncomfortable.
hes a lecturer, he always talk to a bunch of singular person simultaneously
Sam Harris "hangs hat up
His wife "what's wrong?"
Sam Harris " jordan didn't answer my question"
What hat is it? Fedora?
@@johnkramer295 Why does it matter? That's beside the point.
Geez, can you imagine having a debate and expecting someone to explain their belief and position on the debate subject?
@quronmccovery881 So is responding to Sam's question lol The only reason he asked that was to, alas dirtily, "get him good", thus he's not being transparent in his "simple" question, what Peterson believes is totally irrelevant, they're not there to discuss what Mr. Peterson believes in, is there a topic being discussed? Undoubtedly, but that is from their respective places of professions, not from their individual, irrelevant beliefs..
Never heard of Dr. Jordan, until my twenty year old son quoted him. Then I said I need to look this guy up.
I hope you dont fall for this con artist.
@@gullibleskeptic3237 I hope he does
@@gullibleskeptic3237 I hope you do XD
@@gullibleskeptic3237 you’re just a gullible skeptic.
@@gullibleskeptic3237 he aint
Jordan Peterson is pure sophistry and Sam Harris sees right through him.
He gets frustrated talking with Sam Harris, because everyone gets frustrated talking with Sam Harris.
Sam Harris is a special kind of troll
Do not only listen to what they said observe their body language too. As soon as the Question was put to JP he looks away n get angry. Sam's valid question remains unanswered .
We are not sure of what you believe also. Envious of this highly intelligent man.
Jordan Petersen's philosophy is exactly frederic nietzsche's philosophy, and Jordan has mention it more than once, and it is a philosophy that says the idea of God and religion is essential and important for the cohesion of society and because of the existence of a constant source of morals
@@thedarkking32 how ironic. A constant (objective, external?) source of morals, from an ‘idea’ conjured by humans. The moment one reads your post for what it is, one grasps that morals are not, and can never be, constant. Note that the “constant source of morals” we call the Bible never once condemns slavery, and in fact could be said to condone it by making stipulations on how slaves should be treated. Yet today we call slavery immoral! Note that the Bible has two separate Covenants, many times not In congruence with each other - to the point the Dillahunty, in a video discussion with a “doctor of theology” posted here on UA-cam, gets a reply from that doctor explicitly stating that the doctor cannot support a particular Old Testament concept because that doctor lives “in a different covenant”.
You need to try harder. Merely citing Nietzsche in order to affirm something? Otto? Is that you?
Jordan is such an intellectual bully. Whenever he doesn't want to answer a simple question, he pulls his "I'm the smartest person in the world" act. He's so tiresome.
This is one of the rare clips of mr Peterson that I find him being a bit over the top and a bit too aggressive.
The line of questioning was offensive, stupid, and a bit invasive. Jordan made it very clear that he was admitting to not fully know his own stance, and Harris would not accept that, kept prodding over and over in the exact same way
Toast is right, if you listen to Jordan’s answer, he clearly didn’t dodge the question
@@masonking8680 exactly!
Jordan Petersen's philosophy is exactly frederic nietzsche's philosophy, and Jordan has mention it more than once, and it is a philosophy that says the idea of God and religion is essential and important for the cohesion of society and because of the existence of a constant source of morals
If this is over the top and too aggressive by any measure, just wait til you get a hold of the internet…
You dont to be sure what someone else believes!! Just dont interfere!
🙄. Yeah don't ask questions....it might hurt jp's fragile ego.
@@jenniferbates2811 The name “Jennifer” really does suit you 💀
@@ascarmen42 what a fitting comment from someone named
"adam" 🙄. My UA-cam name isn't my real name you dolt. Just because we disagree about jp doesn't you assume anything about anyone.
@@jenniferbates2811 Imagine liking your own comment 💀 🙏🏼
@@ascarmen42 I didn't, but ok. You do realize that this video is continuously being watched because it's on the internet.
'If I'm not sure, then no one is" This is the height of arrogance.
No. It is a definitive statement of self cognizance of an evolved primate. Or rather lack thereof. By definition.
Yea, that was rude
Offended?
He’s off the rails here, questioning whether people _really_ know themselves? What an asshole.
Jordan is mixed up in his smartness…other guys has point on reason
Jordan Petersen's philosophy is exactly frederic nietzsche's philosophy, and Jordan has mention it more than once, and it is a philosophy that says the idea of God and religion is essential and important for the cohesion of society and because of the existence of a constant source of morals
@@thedarkking32 agree. I have endless respect towards Jordan. But he looked like he lost this debate😛
I don't think I have ever met someone as evasive, dishonest and weasily as JP. No wonder he's depressed.
Haven't met you either. But he reminds me a lot of Chopra.
He asks a complicated question in a simple way. Getting that answer out of jp would take quite sometime with lots of questions. This is why he snaps back, because he doesn't think up a simply put answer for this question like most people
I liked Jordan peterson before he blew up but the fame clearly went to his head.
And the drug addiction!
I'm not religious, but I accept that people's beliefs on the subject can be incredibly complex and difficult to articulate to oneself let alone to an audience.
The only ones that weren’t applauding Peterson were the ones that didn’t understand cognitive, neuroscience, and omniscient.
You just made that up Nothing but drivel
Regardless of any of that, you don’t come to a debate and make your side of things vague. I like both of them, have read their books, been to one of JP’s show, but he’s completely wrong on this one.
Huh? So you applaud Peterson for utilizing ‘big’ words, and believe that any who do not applaud him are folks who don’t understand those words? The reality is that the people who do truly understand those words are far less likely to heap adulation upon Peterson.
When Sam says ”in evasion of a simple question”, he didn’t even ask a question.
It was implied right at the beginning. The question was “What does he believe?”
@@rafaellewis1263I guess you are right it could be implied from his sentence. I guess that is the limit of the shorts format on youtube.
The weird thing to me is that Sam Harris sais he isn't sure what JP believes and Jordan explains that it isn't that easy to 1st explain what you believe and 2nd to understand fully what someone else believes.
The point being even explaining "mundane" things about yourself is already hard enough. To have to explain your deep rooted believes on religion and spirituality and that to be so clear that Sam Harris would understand is a whole different matter.
JP is challenging the assumption that Sam Harris has that he would be able to understand in the first place. But Sam Harris just writes it of as "avoiding a simple question".
1st The question isn't simple and
2nd to say that JP is avoiding the question, I feel is not fair and closes down the discussion.
What do you think? You think it's fair that he sais he is avoiding a simple question or do you agree with Sam Harris that he really is avoiding the question? Or maybe something else?
Jordan embodies Sophistry at its finest.
I like JP, but I do like to know where my favorite people can be wrong. This is something I have an issue with regarding him. All his other thoughts feels very articulated. This feels very weak, despite that he does have a point about people not really knowing themselves.
“Right” and “wrong” oh I wish I could understand how people can be so sure of themselves.
At the time of having to give a real answer Jordan Peterson just reverts to his hyperbole and jingoism! Haha such a huckster!!!
Sam is brilliant
Jordan just unwillingly disproved the notion of free will by pointing out that 99% of our cognitive processes are subconscious
Calling people out on self introspective understanding. We understand ourselves very little and if we did, we would most likely not like who we are. The side of ourselves we hide away from the light of acknowledgement.
He is afraid of himself so he wants everyone else to be.
I have spent my life intentionally exploring the darkest parts inside me. I see all of me. I would never choose to be ignorant like that or like Jordan suggests.
Wonderful job Sam!
Wonderful job Sam???did you Huff glue before you posted that comment???
@@alicialite8823 nope, just got my masters in theology ✌🏼
Goes OFF TRACK really quick when he CAN'T give a straight answer
Jordan lost his temper because debating idiots is bloody hard work.
Is it though? Sam seems to do it effortlessly.
Another great example of why crowds should not be at debates.
What because people will see idiots like peterson talk absolute drivel?
or just tell them to not clap.
Everybody was clapping and they had no idea why
Sam came very close to the truth about Jordan.. that's anxiety we see, not frustration
Yeeeeeeeep
The problem with the atheist crowd is they pretend to be smart, put together and have everything figured out. The stereotypical image of the useless smug atheist college student who gets by on their parents' money while being completely useless to anyone is real. Acting smart doesn't make you smart. "God is not real because there is no proof for God" doesn't make you enlightened, you're just repeating an argument a 10 year old can say.
Yep
He’s like Gollum when someone tries to take his ring.
Imagine how much more brilliant when we get ripe wiyh old age...I hope for wisdom.....
Awww this man provoke Jordan made him lose his cool😂
When I listen to Jordan I have to look up a lot of the words he uses... He gets me out of my lazy self
Duh, usin' them big words means ya intelligent. Really?
If he believes people can’t articulate themselves correctly and aren’t aware of what they believe then why the hell is he trying to even speak?
Harris: “If I’m not sure, nobody out there is.” What an ego!
Thats a reach to interpret it as that
@@dantethearab796 Then please interpret his words for our small minds to comprehend.
@@jabriel_8983 stop looking for something to get offended by
@@dantethearab796 I’m not offended. The previous comment about Harris’ ego, which you denied, stands true.
@@jabriel_8983 he said that because after jordan explained his argument or what he meant by God jordan still evaded the question by saying a whole bunch of nothing
He doesn’t know exactly what he believes on some things and that’s ok. I have beliefs that sometimes change a little when I find out something new about the topic or facet of the idea. A lot of people emulate what they think the people around them believe in order to fit in and spend very little time examining their own mind and convictions (beliefs).
Love this guy, he’s human too, we all have a defence mechanism… I believe his is intellectualism… still managed to avoid the question… “I’m not comfortable answering that question” would have been fine… lol… this man is Gold & Gifted & totally Loved by God, whether he believes in Him or not… Bless you Dr Jordan
An atheist , a sociologist , and a psychologist walk into a bar...