I find Jordan Peterson interesting to listen to because of his unique way of explaining concepts, he’s very metaphorical. This is something that I notice with great storytellers, they can make the ordinary sound beautiful.
One of the most devastating parts of Dave Rubin's comments was his reflecting that in his view, a lot of "progressives" and Leftists take their views as a given, as "obviously" true, whereas classical liberals are more likely to justify their views from first principles and be more curious about the whys and whats of a political set of beliefs. I am not sure how far this is true. It does seem to me that a lot of people these days aren't willing enough to put their own views under a test.
This was valuable. I like your stated approach to distill the lessons from your guests. He made an interesting critique of Objectivism, I thought. It’s something I’ve heard before. A big difference is certainly that it comes from a place of at least some understanding- and definitely from a friendlier place than many critiques I’ve heard. That itself doesn’t make it any more or less valid, but it’s just sort of relieving to hear a serious, but possibly constructive, criticism. As far as the rest of the interview, I’m sure you’ll receive some criticism that you may have pushed back on some points I’ve gathered you disagree with personally. But I think it can also valuable to take your approach, and I certainly look forward to following this podcast. If I can afford to, I would gladly support you financially. I think there’s a lot of promise here!
Thanks Mason. Sometimes I may push back with points I disagree with. Other times I'll make those points in other forums (I addressed Dave's critique in my newsletter yesterday.) But that's not really my purpose. My purpose is to understand why people believe what they believe, and so as a general rule I'm going to push back only if I think that will illuminate more about the "why." That's different from having a show where the aim is to convince people that I'm right.
I find Jordan Peterson interesting to listen to because of his unique way of explaining concepts, he’s very metaphorical. This is something that I notice with great storytellers, they can make the ordinary sound beautiful.
That's an eloquent way of putting it. I feel the same way.
@@DonWatkinsLive Congrats on the success of your new channel and podcast, can't wait to see more!
This wonderful. Much hope for great success.
One of the most devastating parts of Dave Rubin's comments was his reflecting that in his view, a lot of "progressives" and Leftists take their views as a given, as "obviously" true, whereas classical liberals are more likely to justify their views from first principles and be more curious about the whys and whats of a political set of beliefs. I am not sure how far this is true. It does seem to me that a lot of people these days aren't willing enough to put their own views under a test.
Agreed. I think Dave has too positive a view of "the right," though understandable given his experiences.
This was valuable. I like your stated approach to distill the lessons from your guests. He made an interesting critique of Objectivism, I thought. It’s something I’ve heard before. A big difference is certainly that it comes from a place of at least some understanding- and definitely from a friendlier place than many critiques I’ve heard. That itself doesn’t make it any more or less valid, but it’s just sort of relieving to hear a serious, but possibly constructive, criticism. As far as the rest of the interview, I’m sure you’ll receive some criticism that you may have pushed back on some points I’ve gathered you disagree with personally. But I think it can also valuable to take your approach, and I certainly look forward to following this podcast. If I can afford to, I would gladly support you financially. I think there’s a lot of promise here!
Thanks Mason. Sometimes I may push back with points I disagree with. Other times I'll make those points in other forums (I addressed Dave's critique in my newsletter yesterday.) But that's not really my purpose. My purpose is to understand why people believe what they believe, and so as a general rule I'm going to push back only if I think that will illuminate more about the "why." That's different from having a show where the aim is to convince people that I'm right.
Hi Don, I'm interested in reading your thoughts on Dave's critique, but couldn't find an archive of your newsletters. Could you make those available?