The Personal Philosophy of Steven Pinker
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 кві 2012
- New videos DAILY: bigth.ink/youtube
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive videos: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABOUT BIG THINK:
Smarter Faster™
Big Think is the leading source of expert-driven, actionable, educational content -- with thousands of videos, featuring experts ranging from Bill Clinton to Bill Nye, we help you get smarter, faster. Subscribe to learn from top minds like these daily. Get actionable lessons from the world’s greatest thinkers & doers. Our experts are either disrupting or leading their respective fields. We aim to help you explore the big ideas and core skills that define knowledge in the 21st century, so you can apply them to the questions and challenges in your own life.
Other Frequent contributors include Michio Kaku & Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
Michio Kaku Playlist: bigth.ink/kaku
Bill Nye Playlist: bigth.ink/BillNye
Neil DeGrasse Tyson Playlist: bigth.ink/deGrasseTyson
Read more at Bigthink.com for a multitude of articles just as informative and satisfying as our videos. New articles posted daily on a range of intellectual topics.
Join Big Think Edge, to gain access to a world-class learning platform focused on building the soft skills essential to 21st century success. It features insight from many of the most celebrated and intelligent individuals in the world today. Topics on the platform are focused on: emotional intelligence, digital fluency, health and wellness, critical thinking, creativity, communication, career development, lifelong learning, management, problem solving & self-motivation.
BIG THINK EDGE: bigth.ink/Edge
If you're interested in licensing this or any other Big Think clip for commercial or private use, contact our licensing partner, Executive Interviews: bigth.ink/licensing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow Big Think here:
📰BigThink.com: bigth.ink
🧔Facebook: bigth.ink/facebook
🐦Twitter: bigth.ink/twitter
📸Instagram: bigth.ink/Instragram
📹UA-cam: bigth.ink/youtube
✉ E-mail: info@bigthink.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've found his books refreshingly lucid, but listening to him speak has a hypnotic effect
What most people don't understand is that Steven Pinker is talking about "HIS" personal views. His opinions, His Ideas, His thoughts...There is no need to be so mean and critical of his person and personal Ideas.
Yet, I find his Ideas and thoughts to be very true...for me ! And I agree with how he thinks, because I think that what he says makes perfect sense to Me !!
Alpha Guy..... and you need to seek why you do feel the way Pinker does, I agree with everything he says, see the difference in me agreeing with him and you really THINKING it's from his"personal" is because he is speaking as the human all of us are. I understand humans evolved from not any god, the natural process that took place from that first single celled organism and all life evolved from that. It was in nobody's hands of the desired outcome and some of those things you can't change.
your comment is total relativist nonsense. as is pinkers little talk. also contradictory. he claims it is his personal beliefs / practices, yet all he talks about 'objective' reason and a causality of morality that follows. 1. personality doesn't matter in thought. 2. quite dogmatic yet simultaneously relativist. 3. 'as long as you use language rather than guns blablabla' he disavows the implicit violence of language on individuals who speak that given language. language is a disease.
Truth is not relative. Either you are right, or you are wrong. And Pinker is right.
Facts are not relative, but truths are, hence the phrase 'live your truth' not 'his/her truth' nor 'their truth' but 'YOUR truth'. And Pinker is smart enough to articulate his thoughts in such a vague way that it encompasses enough to seem true.
He has a weird head though, and he bullshts for living.
There's feeling of ease that attends the way Pinker communicates his idea's.
I am a big fan of Dr Pinker's work. What struck me, and I have also seen him do this in interviews, is the way he clears his throat when he talks. Found on web: "While speaking, the throat-clear may reveal uncertainty; acute or abnormal throat-clearing is a possible sign of deception." Reason is great in many areas and especially when talking with other people. However in my everyday life, don't think I'm alone in this, intuition is what drives most of my actions. The older part of the brain that preceded words and reason that never stopped developing over the eons.
Intuition drives ALL your actions... Scientists like to run away from the real issues and throw labels on them like band-aids. Checc the well being statistics on science and religious worldview... The materialists are not very happy people
Another explanation would be he has some form of GERD.
Hence the ancient Catholic statement, "Faith and Reason". We have never been confused on this issue because intelligence is a charism. Morality progresses through the development of Reason and Reason, for us, is grounded in a Faith which is not something 'unprovable'. Indeed we live it, universally, as 'men'.
Our systematic theology shows, time and again, that human reason can run its course and prove undeniably finite. It is from this vantage that we, as limited creatures, must turn to Faith. It is not within our capacity to reduce all action and thought to Reason. We are understanding this more and more with each passing century.
As such, the abstract mind is left with little else (by way of 'answers') than to hope. And what is hope but Faith.
My beliefs are not grounded in some obscure and antiquated novelty of human invention but are predicated on the best that human reason, guided by a Faith that respects true Reason, will ultimately lead men to greater heights. Any true investigation of our theology uncovers the 'reasonableness' of our reliance on 'mystical thinking' when reason has exhausted its limited course.
Wonderfully said.
I've read quite a few books about the mind by authors like Steven Pinker, Dan Dennett, Sam Harris, Iain McGilchrist, and many others. But I'm unable to imagine what the technique you're referring to actually entails. I can't map phrases like "see inside you" into anything I know how to do. Is there a specific book or essay that you feel best explains how to achieve that state of mind or experience? I see no reason to avoid hasty conclusions as long as one is able to keep a genuinely open mind.
Could you clarify what you mean from the video?
thank you for your opening mind and kindness. Let's start with a point: see that I didn't state that rational mind is a bad rap. I've nothing against rationality. I'm just inviting to go beyond it. Go beyond is not deny, not dismiss, is embracing, emcompassing, and (that misinterpreted) transcending. See how your rationality tricks you through misinterpretation of what I wish to share: what you expect interferes on what actually is. This happens all the time. (cont.)
Yay Habermas! I love the use of Habermasian commitment to rational discourse.
Observe, reflect/analyze, project/reflect, rationalize and reason cause-effect self-defining/recognition teaching and learning.., project to following generations.., "that's the why/way we have it".
"All things are connected" => self-defining modulation program-> spectrum of teaching learning, from diffuse low intensity/superficial beliefs, hopes, faith etc in/by displaced responsibility and/ or theology, ..to focused math-philosophy, testable constant engagement, intentionally integrated theories of continuous creation...
The consummate approach is to admit and reveal the underlying motivations for one's position. This is not about reason , reason is used in the service of deeper commitments , the influence of which are usually ignored. And there is the rub. Few understand this.
"The consummate approach is to admit and reveal the underlying motivations for one's position": how does one go about doing this, if not by applying reason to one's underlying motivations - if these are unknown. This IS about reason, as one can only correct one's biases (if they are faulty, or in need of correcting) through the application of reason...
Ovidiu Constantinescu That is what therapy is for, it's about abandoning one's reason, as much as possible, and experiencing the emotional source of what we think and experience. So, for example, I don't like war, because it scares me. For me to know that,I need to recognize what emotional feeling underpins that opinion, by allowing myself to experience that feeling. And so on, that is the brief.
mark y So therapy, in the way you described it, is the method by which you come to recognize the REASONS behind your fear of war. The reasons in this case are your emotions, which can be rational or irrational.
correct
mark y Well then this "consummate approach" you wrote about is consistent with Reason.
I love reading Pinker's books and watching his talks on UA-cam. But I don't always agree with everything he says.
However, anytime I think I disagree with him, I'm willing to temper that disagreement with some measure of self-reflection and put in extra effort to question whether I fully understand what he's actually saying, or consider the possibility that I'm just wrong.
Why? Well... because, he's an accomplished author and professor, and I'm just some jackass making comments on UA-cam.
Perhaps, but you're an articulate jackass so you've got that going for you.
"A cosmologist willing to think afresh" Impossible we all start with a set of biases about the universe. These biases were created to do what is best for us like we are biased toward our own needs rather than what is true or of other people's needs and our beleifs are fabricated from there because that is what was best for us. Some typical biases are formed out of what ypur friends are into, what felt good when you did it, what creates least guilt and shame for you, what you have knowledge of since you want to know and impress with such knowledge.We also make assumptions. These assumptions were created to know what we dont know
Quickly without knowing for cerstain that it is true since we needed to to survive. If you dont know if something is a threat but you have an assumption. An assumption is better than nothing.. These are created out of experiences the unconcious mind has. Much like a bias tells us how to act. these assumptions are made to tell us how to act without knowing for certain and thus can be wrong. Such as bad steriotypes. Due to skewed experiences that dont match reality. To say then that you need an unbiased rational person is close to impossible. We are all biased for our own needs and we all make assumptions without amsufficient evidence based on experience which is unreasonable. And in fact is evidence of that you had a bias against what he was saying. And you didnt like it even though it matches what we know currently.....
As a side note. The way to lessen these assumptions and biases is to remove the necessity for them since you are safe. Nourished. Loved. Respected. And knowledgable. You dont need to survive you are secure. Another way to do this is to make the thing that is reasonable and logical favorable in the eyes of your assumptions and biases. For example in mumy childhood my dad was always obscuring the truth by the use of logical fallacirs and so ive always had a bias toward reason and logic ans against illogical since my safety against my father depended on it and so I am more logical than people who are normal. These are the ways, so if you want someonr who is at least less of a biased unreasonable person find the person whose bias and assumption matches reason and logic and youll be suprised.
Biases are important. Period.
Although you haven't said so, it appears that you're speaking of meditation (or something very similar to it.) Although I've tried that many times, I've never succeeded in experiencing thoughtlessness. (Wouldn't mere awareness of such a state would be a thought itself?) I have many "outside the box" ideas that seem to originate in my intuitive mind. I don't believe that it is in any way hindered by the ceaseless activity of my rational mind. It works just the same whether I "liberate" it or not.
Great speech but I don't think he was careful enough with his words when he said that faith was believing in something for no good reason. This is certainly an accurate description of many of the situations where people talk about faith but we use it in various ways and dictionaries tend to define it various ways
I think it was pretty obvious he was faith in the religious since, not the colloquial version. I get what you are saying though. The one that bothers me most is the misrepresentation of "theory." Even many scientists use the colloquial term at times making it all the more difficult to correct a creationist's misconception of evolution.
so, realize now: some things happen around you right now, but are you aware of all? You select among them all only the ones you will attempt. When you look at something, and attempt to it closely, maybe you lose some sound. What you have to do is to "ignore" all the perceptible world as we usually do, by filtering, and remain as essence, awareness, and see what it is, if it is an object, without putting value in any new thought or perception
"There is some questions...." No, Stephen: "There ARE some questions." I have just corrected Stephen Pinker's grammar. My Life is complete.
There are increasing studies in the literature observing anti-neoplastic effects in herbal/botanical substances. Interesting to see what the research says in the next 10, 15 years.
Hume wrote "the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason." Often shortened to "no ought from an is," Hume's observation is that reason alone does not answer moral questions.
That one should treat others as one would be treated or, in certain cases, the infirm or children for example, even better, happens to be my creed. But it does not emerge from pure reason.
That is the entire idea to critique pure reason. Please watch star trek to understand how maddening reason alone can be.
Or you could just pass.
(cont.) Just try it: give reason a rest, a deep rest, then see what happens, what you understand without grasping, what you feel without feeling. Use your own mind and body as a laboratory of research. Take the courage to enter the void.
2:09 Just so long as he doesn't start treating my HAIR the way he would want his own HAIR treated.
I think that most people actually do have the intellectual capability to comprehend what Mr. Pinker is saying in this video. They may feel aggressive towards it for religious reasons and thus not even try to understand what they are being told, but there is nothing Mr. Pinker can do about that. Actually the reason I like listening to him is that he has the ability to explain complicated ideas in an understandable way, such as is shown in this video.
I found i'm most satisfied when iv managed to make my life more tolerable or the lives of my family and friends more tolerable. I know that sounds cliche but I also don't think it gets any deeper then that. I wish there was more but that's probably because i'm not satisfied, which is neither here nor there.
2cont.: it's not exactly "lacking" of understanding, but another way of understanding. An understanding that you don't understand, what doesn't mean that it is ineffective. It changes and amplifies another intelligence of us.
Get out of the box of the known! Go to the unknown, don't fear!
what can we define as a "widely known and well understood technique"? The technique that appears in TV programs with higher audiences? We live in micro universes and we know well what is said in our universe. In my micro universe, this practice is well known. If you seek some neuroscience research, you get more intimate with the mechanisms of all this. But the best way is not by search out, but search IN. Try and avoid hasty conclusions. See inside you, it reveals itself. Avoid preconceptions
because you cant be committed to it to any degree greater than reason would dictate.
Steven Pinker is definitely one of my most admired scholars. I’ve read all of his books and learned a great deal from them. But I must say this particular video is to me quite disappointing because I don’t think it’s up to his usual nuanced brilliance. I am curious what he would think of Jonathan Haidt’s analogy of the elephant and its rider. It seems to me if we are going to be honest, that we have to admit all human beings appeal to reason only after-the-fact of feeling. We simply pretend that our conclusions are based on nothing but reason. I’m not knocking our dependence upon reason, I simply seriously doubt that anyone does it so well as to be claiming the benefits to the degree they tend to. But also the comments about faith strike me as odd for someone who wrote the Blank Slate. Steven Pinker seems to think that people can actually believe things without a reason. I just can’t conceive of a concept of human nature that thinks that is even possible. The evils that have precipitated from religious motivation are well documented, but so are the evils precipitated from atheist views. I don’t see the difference in the risks. There are plenty of atheists as well as people of faith who have done many wonderful things.
I do agree with his concepts of purpose.
yOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD. This new atheist movement has brought this skewed view of reason vs faith, which I am sure pinker is aware of. I actually don't believe this video to be a worthy testament to his absolute overall lines of thinking, especially today...after all this could just be some conversational hiccup since it is not a conversational style video. That being said, FAITH RULES ALL, LITERALLY. Just like you stated, we humans like to believe we can originate from reason without the onset influence of faith which is the ground zero point of all thought. It actually drives me bonkers at how people that are so bent on "debunking" actual faith proclaimed worldviews and ideologies, fail to see how they themselves actually apply and exercise this basic phenom of existence that is faith. Yes, the fact can exist without any external influence, but once those facts come in contact with a human or any living organism, faith is always the mediator of any form of onset relationship that is to ensue from such an engagement. Whether Pinker was being dismissive or ignorant, he was definitely being disingenuous especially as a public reputable intellectual.
I totally understand your point; you're making Hume's *you can't derive an ought from an is* therefore all moral reasoning is dependent upon some arbitrary feeling of rightness and wrongness.
The problem with this line of analysis is that it draws a non-sequitur conclusion. Knowledge (scientific, moral, mathematical etc) has no base. And to claim that we must start on a foundation is a gratuitous dogma in itself. Pinker isn't saying that reason is our foundation, he is saying reason is *all* we have: the moment you want to disprove or prove an assertion, you require reason to do so.
Just to add, although facts and values are logically separate categories, facts themselves cannot exist without values! The scientific method itself relies on values like: logical consistency, explanatory elegance, intellectual honesty, tolerance and evidential fidelity. Yet we *know* things about the physical world. It would be absurd to say that there is no scientific truth because they fundamentally rely on a value system.
In conclusion, to say that *all things are fundamentally based on values, therefore our reasoning is somehow not an appropriate yardstick to justify* ... We run the risk of making the silly conclusion that because we rely on values, facts cannot exist. Clearly, there is an explanatory connection between facts and values and it appears that morally correct assertions have a relationship with factual statements about the physical world and by contrast morally false assertions have a relationship with false statements about the physical world.
Think about this: every moral scenario is aided by scientific knowledge. Whether to get an abortion can rely on either factually unproven statements about the universe (i.e. that there is a god and he has created human souls) OR descriptive statements about the physical sciences: namely that a collection of cells doesn't display any sentience as far as we can tell. Science doesn't tell us what to believe but it sure as hell informs us how we make moral considerations.
Both morality and science *require* a mode of reasoning!
You gave an excelent example: music. This is not understandable in the rational terms we use to explain, i.e.: words. It's curious that when someone speaks about non-reason, a rational mind quickly puts it into the roster of "magical" or "supernatural". Did I speak about it? I just said that certain unstranslatable things actually exist and occur (specially innerly), and the fact that we can't put them in words doesn't mean they don't exist. And they transform mind an life: they're concrete!
There is no cosmos, when you don't exist ... that's where the feeling of "being meaningful" comes from.
Great comment. I think you are right. Maybe I should have said interested rather than dim or not intelligent enough. People just aren't interested in their own intellect enough.
The purpose of life, is to discover who you are. And like what you find.
Nope, that's a platitude. But we do have a purpose and that is to reproduce. Anything beyond that is incidental and of no consequence.
@@seriouskaraoke879 I don't think reproduction is a purpose, it's a built-in biological drive/habit. Purpose is for religious folks.
@@misignal Have your even considered the idea that 'purpose' is also a biological instinct??
@@keithhunt5328 Maybe this is an argument over the meaning of the word "purpose"?
0:12 to skip intro
When a prominent individual enters the arena, that individual has always been, it seems, a part of the pack- i.e., has mortal attributes. The practical goals for that individual, if the desire is to maximize the use of potential, balancing the methods in which to do that is necessary, even if it means cutting out specifics that would be undesirable to lose. If for the greatest good, it is a sacrifice. Pinker probably expects what you claim, and hopes the capable ones translate for him, to them.
there is something you know, called conditioning: our rational mind is a deep well of conditionings.Whatever you want limits the mind.Whatever you define and defend, limits it. Conditioning is the great enemy of the potential infinity of the great opened mind.You can see it: the synapses gathered form the infinite itself.But if we're not opened to see the entire net of the thought, how can we integrate it? If a strongly challenging view arises, we'll deny it, fear it, we'll run out.Or "in"(box).
I still don't think I understand what you're trying to explain. You seem to be claiming that by indulging my predisposition to understand everything via a rational, reductionist, and mechanical analysis I am foreclosing the opportunity to experience a different sort of understanding that can come only from letting go of that desire and allowing my intuitive mind to reveal a more organic synthesis. But it seems to me that if this were true it would be a widely known and well understood technique.
The very idea that there is some innate and inherent conflict between faith in reason is itself a meta-narrative worthy of analysis, and ultimately of rejection. This narrative was popularised by Freud (among others) but it is certainly no more worthy uncritical acceptance that Aquina's (more satisfying, in my judgement) view that faith and reason are two different, but complimentary means of knowing. Contra to Pinker faith is no enemy of reason, but of reductionistic views, such as materialism.
Faith can only give you the FEELING that you know something. That's fine for things that are meant to be emotionally lived with, such as art. But if you want to know whether something is factually true, you need to use reason to clarify how you could test that intuition. Science is the (so far at least) best developed way of doing that.
@@tranquil2706 You literally addressed nothing. Faith and reason can, and in the past have, and in the future will go hand in hand together. What's your assessment of that statement?
It's okay to obtain satisfaction from the effects your insight might have on others. It's your nature, and as long as you're correct, you deserve it. It takes work to be what you are. That work is your proof. Just don't be a glutton ; )
there are some things we can not understand: and these are the most precious things. But we remain addicted to the graspable things, to the reason, to the intellect.And there is so, so much more than what's understandable... there is such an unstranslatable intelligence in the non-thinking (and beyond). And anyone who is alert realizes how this intelligence (it's OUR own hiperintelligence - our few used birth-right), although uninteligible, transforms mind and life in a very perceptible way.
Well science does have a method, Experimentation, and replication being the two that comes to mind. But science is essentially applying reason to the natural world, yes, however, the reason has a method because it would be too abstract otherwise.
I accept his personal viewpoints re God and Faith.
My personal viewpoint is wondering why almost every educated psychologist or related field views Faith in God as a "copout".
There has always been just as much evidence concerning origins by a divine entity as there has been to the contrary. Yet this seems to be pushed to the side by these individuals. I'm college educated and its not seem to have interfered with my Faith.
"At heart, morality is treating one the same way you would like to be treated"
I wonder how he arrived at that idea. Seems very original.
Lol
@nightheme 365 not Kant?
It's universal Confucian, humanistic, Christian etc
I am stating that we know very few about "understanding", i.e., innerly. There are several other sorts of understanding, but how many are we accustomed to use? So, if I state this, you can simply test. What can you lose? Why the resistance to verify? Is this rational, reject and push something without verify? To me, it characterizes passion, rather than rationalism. In love with reason... sad fate yours.
I find it amusing that this guy sounds like The Joker :P
He is very intelligent however ^^
Kinda looks like the Joker too, at least to me. : D
fuck. now I can't unhear the joker.
Something I disrespect is the very bad assumption - with no backing at all - is that faith is belief without any good reason. That is a statement that itself goes against reason. People only belief things - whether we agree with it or not - because they have good reason. It’s easy to prove faith does not mean believing in something for no good. For example, the field of religious apologetics is giving reason for religious faith. Today’s greatest atheist religious philosopher is Graham Oppie, who though he is atheist directly explores the kinds of evidence people have for religious belief. It is a fallacy that anyone has no good reason for what they believe. Even if they cannot verbalize their reasons for belief those reasons exist. It simply is not possible for a human mind to believe something without reason.
When Pinker suggests that "Why is there something rather than nothing?" might just be a stupid question, I'm sure he is NOT referring to physicists' question about why the early universe didn't contain matter and antimatter in equal proportions, resulting in the annihilation of all of it. That is, why is there anything REMAINING. Instead, he is almost surely talking about why there was EVER anything, including that matter and antimatter.
Steven is so right about this. There is no purpose. We just exist, that's it. You define your own purpose. But there is nothing like a greater scheme behind this whole thing called life. It just exists. Only thing we can do is make the best of it and try to live a life that is as close to the idea of what you want life to be. I know this coming from a first world privilege. People who are born in shitty conditions can't make the choices we make. But ultimately it still comes down to one thing. Try to make the best of the cards that were dealt to you. I wish every person in the world the best and let's try to make this planet a place of reason and understanding instead of what it is now
What if my purpose is torturing kids with blunt screwdrivers?
The gifts that I.... find myself with. 😂
Ok now, can you sing Heaven and Hell DIO?
He criticises the question and then gives the right answer ;)
Its about the action and if you dont believe in god but act kind to others i have no problem with that at all.
Why should I act kind to others?? I like being bad. 😈
That escalated quickly!
775 likes 34 dislikes, half the comments dislike Pinker. Can anyone explain this? Seems like this happens a lot on youtube
Well for one, what is considered "liberal" has unfortunately been overtaken by regressive leftism. Pinker, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson and a few others remained principled and still embody classic liberalism.
So many on the far left will tar and feather them as "alt-right".
As an example of discourse: over one hundred years of biological and psychological research has shown innate evolutionary predispositions differentiating male from female aggregate behaviors, life choices, and interest--- the leftists will counter that the endocrine system ostensibly doesnt exist and male/females are born as blank slates.
I'd say there are simply many more ways to tell someone they are wrong than that they are right. A significant number of the people that agree might just have no more to add than "I agree", and a thumbs up does fine for that. Only the ones that want to express that agreement in a sentence or the ones that agree and want to build on/elaborate on something he says will comment, whereas the people who disagree will almost inevitably have something to say on why they disagree.
Tristan McIntosh
Now it's 1.5K Like versus 83 Dislike, so with large numbers the trend starts to emerge. The sample was too small to judge by when you saw those numbers.
I can't figure out what you are trying to say. Can you give some examples of aspects of our world that you don't considered understandable? Music, for example. I don't know why I enjoy certain music, but I suspect it isn't the result of anything inherently inexplicable--just a consequence of the way my brain is wired. Similar to the reasons that sweet things often taste good. It seems very unlikely that there is anything magical or supernatural about us. Maybe we're just good algorithms at work.
While Steven is 100% correct and smarter than I'll ever be the problem with his ideology is that most people are too dim to have a single inkling what he is even talking about and that you can never truly communicate in a meaningful way a framework for this kind of discourse as long as we in America are so ill-informed and polarized. Beautiful philosophy if you can appreciate it!
cont.: of course reason doesn't see reason to lose itself. But YOU could. You see no reason to give reason a rest, I see no reason to do NOT. Fear of losing it? You won't lose. Einstein and Edison were experts in beyond reason: they thought infinite times, and then they were take a rest. Then, the right brain can work, and bring insights. How do I know the mechanism of insight? An insight revealed it, and then... I read a neuroscience paper that confirmed the insight
Anyone has tried reasoning their way into feeling?
Not myself specifically, but I had several imaginary discussions with Mr. Spock about it. Logic is the way to deduce from your premises, but those are grounded in feeling when moral action is concerned.
Ya CBT 😂
But I'm not rejecting your advice. I just can't figure out what following it actually entails. I'd love to try it. I've tried to empty my mind many times and find it impossible to do. My fate doesn't feel sad to me, but perhaps it's a bit like a person who's never tasted cake or ice cream--we can feel sad they've never enjoyed the experience, but they certainly aren't sad about it given that they have no idea what it is they are missing. If your approach is useful, why isn't it taught in school?
This dude has more intelligence than any individual has a reasonable right to.
science is not about "why" but about "how"
I don't understand what it means to give reason a rest. Nor can I imagine why I would want to. Will music lose its appeal if I fully understood why and how it achieves its effect? I doubt it. I see no advantage in a lack of understanding. The universe obeys laws we can understand if we try.
We stand on the shoulders of giants - I suspect Pinker knows this, and before he is criticised, the critics should do their homework.
Pinker's first foundational point is "the Golden Rule", i.e. treat other people the way you want to be treated. This is the metarule of religion.
Pinker next adopts the "Categorical Imperative" of Immanuel Kant - universalise your behavior to see if it is beneficial and sustainable.
Next comes the "Normative Fallacy", i.e. because something IS doesn't mean it should be so. Pinker correctly points out that when one argues for/against an existing policy/situation one shifts to where evidence needs to be applied. (Politicians and journalists love to twist descriptions of something to imply that the other dude supports it.)
Pinker's last point is to condemn "invention". To assume and blindly follow when you do NOT know leads to things like the Jim Jones trip to space. Admit your ignorance and learn to be comfortable with real evidence.
I wish as a normal person that others thin like me. My idea is that Aristotle created the boxes
Is like this necessity of the reduction of uncertainty
Such a brilliant and well spoken guy - alas - if he could only free himself from his naturalistic world view...imagine what he could accomplish. He could still have his science and at the same time broaden his experience to include spirituality, which after all, has existed in some form or another throughout human history - it's not likely to go away. And I don't see that science has demonstrated in the least, that the transcendent does not exist. Why foreclose the possibility of that being true?
Religion, like music, or the taste of food, is experiencially obtained. To philosophize about it, alone, won't due if you want to understand it.
He's an atheist. He is already assuming that if you can't prove God exists by scientific methods then there is no God, he is a priori, a materialist.
I'm aware of the difference between brain hemispheres (as explained in "The Master and His Emissary" for example) but disagree that *I* can simply will away or shut down the functioning of my rational mind. Perhaps you and others can. And perhaps I could learn to do so with practice. But I see no compelling reason to try. Can you point to anything substantial (eg pushing the envelope) that can be attributed to that technique? Why does rationality have such a bad rap? It's given us so much!
Maybe Steven Pinker should be a key presidential advisor?
I have faith in reason.
Scientifically prove that you have an imperative to be "good" to others, but first define what is the "good." Mr.Pinker apparently has faith in something after all...
Nonsense
@@chukwuemekaigbani7070 you can't answer my questions objectively/empirically, because they are positions we take due to faith in our own feelings
One of the most intelligent human on the planet
maybe I wanted to mean "genius" instead of geniality, but the later is truth also.
While I agree that the -implication- made was eluding to reason vs. faith, saying that Americans are too stupid to understand this philosophy is ridiculous. That's the problem with the comment. It is in itself an unintelligent way of thinking. What's ironic is that he/she says they appreciate Pinker's philosophy, but directly contradict that with their statement. What is also interesting is that if you read through the comments that same person admitted to their mistake.
Why shouldn't the cosmos care about me? I think this is a 50/50 proposition. If your goal is to serve a higher purpose in life based on what the cosmos wants from you, not what the cosmos can do for you, how is that the height of grandiosity? Maybe a little presumptuous but not necessarily arrogant and egotistical. It's pretty much the same thing as an ethical imperative to treat other people right. Where does that imperative come from if not from the cosmos? This is the question atheist always have a hard time answering. Why isn't it possible we're all just threads in a bigger tapestry with a higher purpose we can't understand? Seems like a maybe, maybe not thing to me.
I'm committed to reason not faith.
We should all aspire to being more reasonable and logical.
Reason and logic doesn't lead to morality.
Feelings are not scientific, and science is not concerned with feelings about the truth it has revealed.
Truth is relative.
There is some very apparent disconnect between what Steven is being asked, or the lead up, and his replies, it's a tad irritating
Not really
caution, you seem to resume everything to thought. This is as though a drop was trying to understand the ocean ("isn't the ocean just a mere drop?") It is, AND it is not. It is an infinite drop. An infinite drop is still a drop, and at same time, not a drop anymore. I'll tell you, your right brain have a hard work trying to infiltrate particles of geniality in the very little spaces that it finds among the turbulence of your incessant rational mind.It tries working in your sleep and distractions
I am committed to Reasonable faith.
Reasonable faith is logic
This reduction of faith as being anti-reason is oversimplification. You can use your reasoning to find the limits of the rational thought and once you have this groundwork done, you can take a leap of faith in the direction you were following until now with your reason. Thats how i did it and truly everyone who believes as an adult at some point had to do.
It’s interesting to contrast Pinker’s disregard for stories as useless and possibly dangerous with Jordan Peterson’s high regard for religion and myth as meaningful and psychologically healthy.
Who says: "I can understand what it means to givfe reason a rest" is the reason. Of course it will not understand. I'm not talking with it. It is as if you have two brains (because you have), one is the reason, former of the world of words, another is the beyond reason, where words don't have existence nor room. Do you know about the function of the left and right brain? If you know, you must know that the right brain is where insights come from. It is an organizer of the chaos of the left one.
Why would anyone give this very eloquent discussion of reason by Pinker the thumbs down??!!?? There are some pathetically sad people out there.
God botherers might
jlazelle1 clearly likes feeling superior to others. This isn't unusual, but the venue of his/her ego stroking is particularly ironic. It's ironic because the video which s/he is claiming a higher than average understanding of, is essentially about a morality which is defined by an empathetic understanding of others. If jlazelle1 truly appreciated what Pinker is saying, then I suspect s/he wouldn't be so delighted to look down on others.
This guy is a genius
I have never heard a guy who makes more sence to my own beliefs, and that on my opinion are true for any political spectrum to an extent
Personal Philosophy can get in the way of success. Why shouldn't you be recognized is the correct philosophy in Los Angeles. Being yourself is the key to success, not looking for another. I can't wait for Genomics to be used as a method to grade psychologists on how accurate they can judge a person using the method of psychoanalysis. The philosophy of psychologists is always related to justifying psychoanalysis.
Very Immanuel Kant
Unfortunately, of the four sources of power--authority, coercion, inducements, and persuasion (rational, manipulational, indoctrinational), rational persuasion may be the weakest.
Isn't that the rub? It's no surprise that it's also the one conservatives avoid like the plague if they can. Can't afford to. The entire ideology is based on a deception.
After seeing the behavior of liberals in recent years I would say that it's also liberals that adopt that stance. I still consider myself a liberal. But I wouldn't censor criticism by calling it hate speech.
I am very disappointed of the left, specially given events over recent years.
But I think people who are arrogant enough to believe that they are here for a reason and that the "cosmos" has a purpose for them, are the ones who do make drastic changes in the world.
+Sara Mofasa
I don't think finding meaning in life can only be achieved by being arrogant. For instance, one could assume ones reason to be here is to enjoy life, and ones purpose is to take care of others in need. I don't see the arrogance in that.
True. But I think Pinker's dismissal of the related question 'why is there something instead of nothing?' as "silly" says more about him than the question. He doesn't like it, because he knows that we can't answer it with our current paradigm of physics and that makes him feel uncomfortable. It also has implications for his strict, dogmatic materialist interpretation of the human mind, and he REALLY doesn't want to go there. It would reveal that his carefully constructed worldview is built on a foundation of sand.
Like flying planes in to skyscrapers.
Extremely myopic when it comes to an understanding of spirituality. Very sad that such a universal and profound sense is so easily dismissed as egotism by this brilliant man. Definitely a man of the age, unfortunately.
Here is a book that talks over and over about reason: The Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft. Several other books talk about reasons for believing in Christianity: Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, More Than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell, The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. Those are just some of the most famous. There are more.
He sounds rather Kantian.
You don't need faith when you understand 100 percent of the world and how it works. In other words we have to take many things with faith, math, logic, scientific methods, etc. We don't understand gravity and yet we have faith that it's not going to end anytime soon. It's just a matter of what we have faith in and hoping that we need as little as possible to get by until knowledge reduces these unfounded beliefs a bit more every day.
That was awesome
This guy looks like a ghost that has seen a ghost
That used to be the way people is brainwashed
Not all descriptions of God is the 'god of gaps'. Spinoza for instance.
As plain-spoken as this video was there is still a lot of confusion judging from the comments. Steven only elicits two concepts: the non-uniqueness of any person and the Golden Rule as the basis of much of morality. Is there anything controversial in this? While he modestly says what he states applies to himself alone, it is clear that these concepts apply to far more than this one man and are, in a sense, ineluctable.
How about the fact that hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance is the natural state of the human animal. Of course I wouldn't like someone defeating me in my business ventures but I would take great pleasure in watching my rival's stock plummet.
@@keithhunt5328 Doubtless, but you don't have to. I often put myself in others shoes to the extent that I imagine I can feel their emotions and see their point. Others are as valid as oneself and even though I take care of #1 because that's my area of responsibility I try not to deviate from this tenet. I think I fail a lot but I try. Own a business as well. Cheers.
How can anyone fault anything this man says in this short, faultless video!!
Because Pinker has made a few factual errors in the foundational view of his philosophy.
His premise that science is logical in the way that philosophy is logical, is a false premise. Science is mathematical, rather than logical. Many times in science, the logical solution is rejected, deferring to math.
Science, like math, is built upon undefined terms, such as energy, charge, a point, plane, and so on.
Math, when applied to nature, leads to logical fallacies, such as instantaneous velocity where the time between moments is not zero, but is infinitesimally small.
Boolean logic fails when applied to quantum mechanics.
And so on...
Plinker says that reason is superior to religion and then grounds his morality in a quote from the Bible.
Reason is nothing without feelings, but feelings are dangerous without reasoning.
I agree with everything except the hair.
hahaha
Like claiming God grants them that piece of land at the expense of occupying lands that belong to other people
Hamid Mat Sain MD,FRCS are you talking about jews in israel? That is what it seems.
History tells us that your comment really refers primarily to Muslims over Jews, Christians, zoroastrians, pagans, Buddhists, and Hindus. Apart from Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei, Islam spread through conquests and subjugation.
Christians imposed Christianity on some pagans but most became Christians by choice as seen with Korea (over 50% Christian) and China (200 million or more Christian's). Also historically by choice with much of Europe - Germany, Ireland, Anglo Saxon England, Scandinavia, etc. and elsewhere such as Ethiopia, etc. and many in the Roman Empire. Imposed subjugation was seen a little in the Roman empire, some parts of Europe and Latin America. Later colonial conquests by Europeans of Asia, Americas, Africa Australia, etc. were done for secular and not religious reasons.
Hamid Mat Sain MD,FRCS historically yoir comment refers primarily to Islam. It is the one religion that has spread primarily by force. The only places where willing unforced truly religious conversion took place was Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei.
Americas was done for explicitly religious reasons as was Africa and Asia. They even said it as they killed them. Jesus Christ is a god of child rape, genocide, and racism.
Jarin Jove what some people do is not in line with a religion. What others do is sometimes fully in line with a religion.
To check, one should:
1. Read the scriptures
2 look at what happens to believers when they really start reading the scriptures in depth - do they change and how?
3. What happens to new converts who study the scriptures. In many ways they are the most zealous.
4. Look at what happens over the religion's most religious period. Easter for Christianity, Ramadan for Islam, etc.
The above blows a whole in your arguments. Other factors such as Greed, outcompeting their enemies, protecting markets for themselves, etc. were the predominant drivers of colonialism, slavery, etc. Read history.
Try the above for Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism - the major religions, They work out quite well except Hinduism where the caste system actually is not part of the scriptures but was implemented by the Bradman which has proven far worse than other religious doctrines that are outside of the scriptures.
You'll find that Buddhism and Christianity are not violent, Hinduism is slightly and Islam far more.
Sorry Christianity did impose it's religion others. North American Natives come to mind, remember when the Europeans first came?
Arent these universal truths, shit thats already to us as a person and really dont need an explanation it seems. Good point being made but if someone adeess this to me in moment of weakness ill slap him....probably
Faith is not reason nor is reason faith. How can you use either to judge the other?
Pretty simple actually when the measurement is truth.