Jordan Peterson Challenges Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Determinism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 тра 2018
- This clip is from Ben Shapiro's new weekend show "Sunday Special". To see the full interview, go here: • Jordan B Peterson | Th...
Subscribe and stay tuned because I will be posting a commentary in multiple parts based out of the recent discussion between Jordan Peterson and Matt Dillahunty.
"mhmm"
- Ben Shapiro, 2018
The4thLaw BWAHAHA!!!
Ben is obviously in the midst of a bit of hero worship - I think people sometimes forget how very young Ben is. A large part of Ben's view of Peterson draws off a student/teacher relationship. Ben is an actual verified genius, it's a challenge for him to find a source he can learn from, and Peterson is bringing him the bacon big time. Thus the mhmms.... That's the sound of a hungry man who's being well fed.
tmcleanful what do you mean by verified genius?
ua-cam.com/video/aK8mbA083hE/v-deo.html
Well. The guy is admittedly an excellent violin player. But that doesn't mean that he doesn't spout bullshit sometimes. And I honestly don't see how Peterson is as brilliant as you guys seem to think.
Dawkins and Peterson need to have a 3 hour debate, followed by a 2 hour Q&A. Also, get a competent and even-handed moderator.
Please make this happen
I vote for this as well!
I’m not sure I want to watch a post stroke Dawkins get spanked, it’s just unkind
Moderator thing should be given special attention
Do they have enough differences to debate? Take God out of it and they probably agree on most stuff?
Can someone just edit this so Ben Shapiro is just silently nodding his head enthusiastically the whole time?
What do you mean edit? That's exactly what happened.
Easy: hav Jordan Peterson on the Dave Ruben show
My friend once played a drinking game wherein he watched a Jordan Peterson video and drank every time Peterson mentioned "Jung" and the "Logos." He died from severe alcohol poisoning within 5 minutes. May he rest in peace.
Hahahaha, your friend is in my prayers... Oh snap, I'm atheist. Uh, your friend is in my thoughts? Lol.
These days you could play the same game drinking every time Peterson mentioned Sam Harris. You wouldn't last much longer, I think.
Lol, true... Saw his talk with Matt, Harris came up a lot. Cant wait for Jordan and Harris to have a sit down. Do you know if they are scheduled to speak soon?
I think it's happening in a few months from now.
Mothusi Maake how with no free will
Ben: "mhm... mhm..."
Jordan: "MHMMMM!"
What's with the heat lamps? Wait...are you...lizard people? O.o
I found this comment to be more intelligent than the majority of those posted here by triggered determinists.
tmcleanful well, I'm pretty sure I'm the smartest determinist on YT. I'm not surprised. that's why the lizard people are after me. they hate determinists.
@@tmcleanful boy you really have a chip don't you.
@@HarryNicNicholas Go on....
I still don't understand the statement "Consciousness extracts the proper world of being from potential through truth and then its good."
Deepak Chopra would be very proud of that sentence
lokesh Rana
In simple terms: choosing the best possible world to make into reality from all the potential worlds that lie out there consciously.
By truth he means not the objective truth but more the Nietzsche-ian definition of truth: truth is what serves life.
You need to watch his first and maybe also second biblical lecture to understand that claim. Obviously some retards will come and call it made up because they are not capable of doing proper research.
He is covering the simplicity of his ideas this way
Byron Bevensee
Not really if you read Jungian literature then these type of words are quite common.
The Christian Depak Chopra, master of word soup..
DEPAK does not claim to be a christian. He might agree with "master of word soup".
Dan Degunde ??
it appears as word soup likely because you don’t actually understand what the words allude to.
Hutchyy nope, I get it just fine. It's all boils down to an amalgam of fallacies.. non-sequitur, argumentum ad ignorantiam, equivocation, etc..
bruh you just cooked up a mighty word soup LOL
Peterson's idea of god is closer to embodied principles and Plato's "ideas", than literal gods.
So many people don't get this.
It's actually closer to Jung's "Collective Unconscious", although Plato's ideas work well with it as well.
While I'm on the scale of what Dawkins would say as 1-7 being 1 the religious fanatic and 7 being an atheist, I fall on a 6 like him. However, the point I lean more towards atheism but not quite entirely there, there is flaws with the nihilism it can divulge into. But I do understand what you are saying. I used to take the Bible literally as a kid, I was raised with it. But after you can think, well I relapsed into severe atheism/philosophical pursuit without knowing it. Now, I understand the differences and still Peterson does make a valid point. Even rationalism I believe doesnt fall into line with Quantum Physics because it defies determinism in physics or the laws of mechanics which Einstein hated because he said God doesnt play dice. Well Einstein was wrong apparently.
What do mean by a literal god?
@@unhomesenzill4366 What he means is gods like Jahweh, Allah, Hanuman, etc. Conscious supernatural beings that religious people claim that they actually exist.
drinking game. everytime Ben says hmm huh take a drink
Better have a few spare livers handy.
I am dead in the first 30 seconds.
I do like listening to Peterson, but I can't help feel like he's on very shaky ground when he gets into free will, evolution and especially justifying religion. He's trying to win the argument from the wrong side and struggling because of it.
Justifying religion is not more than justifiying psychothearpy/analysis. It's just different language.
It seems more than that (in my interpretation). There seems to be an implicit assumption that humankind would fall apart without religion or that it 'needs' it. It's not just a 'method of understanding the world'. To that I say that plenty of countries have low religiosity rates and are doing fine.
@@JudoP_slinging Which ones?
@@JudoP_slinging And by "fine" what parameters are you going about to define that?
It all depends on your interpretation of religion. He breaks down religion beautifully though. Life is a struggle and it wont get any better unless you know yourself
"The materialist biologist reject sexual selection..." False.
They reject sexual selection as separate from natural selection. He could've said it better, but what he means is that they reject free will.
It can be hard to know where to begin when untangling Peterson's confusion. There's actually a couple of levels of confusion going on here:
(a) Peterson is wrong to think consciousness requires free will. We could be determined beings, and still experience consciousness, and still have that consciousness play a role in sexual selection; and
(b) Peterson is wrong to think that materialist biologists reject sexual selection.
+TorontoLarrivee
I think you're the one who's confused. You're not listening to what he's saying and trying to understand the point he's making.
(a) He explicitly attempts to provide an argument for concluding free will. Specifically, he cites the fact that social systems (e.g., socialism, progressivism, communism) that try to minimize individual choice in favor of manipulation _don't work._ They collapse society and make everyone worse off. On the other hand, social systems (e.g., capitalism) are _very_ successful. He doesn't offer this as a definitive scientific case, but he is trying to suggest _some_ level of evidence to think free will might be real, which is a lot more than most thinkers or scientists do on the matter. In other words, he doesn't assume it; he's trying to arrive at some conclusion based on the evidence around him.
(b) You're just restating your original comment, which belies the fact you didn't understand the point he was making. I agree it wasn't the most eloquently worded thing ever, but it is there and stated enough to grasp if you pay close attention. He's differentiating sexual selection (individuals choosing mates) from natural selection (disadvantaged animals die without reproducing as much). And in particular, he's discussing sexual selection in terms of the fact that in human societies, men (oddly) play a strong role in who women select, which is a sharp contrast to the apes we supposedly (my word, not Peterson's) come from.
What does the success or failure of socialism/marxism/capitalism have to do with free will?
+Andrew Ward
Their failed theories are predicated on the ability of elites to manipulate the populace into behaving better. Peterson discusses all of this in the video itself. Why do you need me to explain it to you again?
Peterson trying to contradict Dawkins in biology is like Dawkins trying to correct Peterson on psychology.
That's actually spot on.
Im still struggling to see where he directly challenges dawkins? Am I missing something or is the title just click bait?
I would like to think with Jordan Peterson's intelligence if he had a discussion with Richard Dawkins he would take on board what Richard had to say without getting emotional even though he would most likely disagree with his viewpoints.
I am a big fan of Jordan Peterson, however when it comes to religion i am on the Dawkins team.
I don't buy his arguments, but I do acknowledge one point: if everybody believed and acted as if determinism is true, it would probably be dangerous to the society.
I don't know if it is true, and I don't want to take a side on the free will/determinism spectrum, but if it turns out that we're living in a deterministic world...
Some truths are a bit too risky to know. We might... just might... be better off believing in falsehoods
There is a humorous aspect to this video. I've never seen J.P. so fired up during a non-hostile interview while 'Motormouth' Shapiro sits almost subdued and listens.
Coming up in our next episode: Will Peterson succeed in converting Shapiro from Judaism to Christianity?
I sure hope so!!
Motormouth Shapiro, lol that's a good one!
"mhmm"
- Ben Shapiro, 2018
"Right"
- Ben Shapiro, 2018
"mhmm, mhmm"
- Ben Shapiro, 2018
lol.
This pushed my mind to the edges of my comprehension
Deepak Chopra does that to people too
JP will do that to you, best to avoid him.
Well. Ok then... It's great seeing these two having a conversation again.
Mhm
8:36
Sounds like someone gagged Peterson so Shapiro could speak
😂😂😂
Ha! It absolutely does
Omg I m dead
Sam Harris' views are being misrepresented here
Actually, Peterson unwittingly supports Harris' free will position by claiming women are "by nature" the selectors in procreation. In other words they are bound by their nature to behave as women.
Of course... in the Pangburn events, Harris made Peterson look like the obfuscating master of wo wo that he is. And when Harris was on this show, he made Shapiro look like a confused school boy trying to keep up with his teacher.
Point is, they have no choice but to misrepresent his views. Their careers and general world view depends on it.
Aldous Orwell 🤦♂️ confirmation bias os the highest order.
Nunya Business Yup.
I really have trouble follow his reasoning. He tends to link unrelated topics
Agree
He is rather well-read. I have trouble following too, sometimes, but I take that to mean I have research and study to attend to... (I doubt that the topics are unrelated, they are just not obviously related, to you or me.)
If I were to summarize he is arguing that the modern idea of organizing society based on objective intellectual pursuit (determinism for this purpose) failed because the academics are not god, they are limited humans. Who do not understand one individual never mind billions.
he's on the verge of losing his marbles.
One thing I've learned about videos that satisfy you: don't look at the comments unless you want to be dissatisfied.
hahaha. yup. I just can't help it but yeah i think you won the internet today.
I generally agree, but if you're going to accept someone's ideas you ought to at least poke your head in to see what's being said in objection.
Nick Koob "Even as a solid rock is unshaken by the wind, so are the wise unshaken by praise or blame." - Buddha
"He has great tranquility of heart who cares neither for the praises nor the fault-finding of men." - Honore' de Balzac
I think being adversely affected by other's opinions will interfere in one's efforts to improve society or one's appreciation of what one is inspired by. It drains one's motivational energy.
I've learnt to remain open to all views, thus it helps me to understand the reasoning behind them, and in doing so my compassion increases for folks without being offended, upset or disheartened by thier thoughts and behaviour.
Aka don't listen to valid criticism of the Deepak Chopra of Christianity
If the things you've learned can withstand criticism, you won't care a fig for any contrary comments. If their basis is shallow, criticism will shake them to their core.
where can I find full version?
this is literally what Deepak Chopra says, congratulations for reaching his level of woo woo word salad talks
You can't just create your own definitions of religion and god and then say: "yeah, I am a man of religion and I believe in god".
I love JP. His book and videos changed my life. I still don't agree with him on religion at all.
If I could say anything smart enough to get Jordan Peterson to "mhmm" in agreement four times in a row, I'd feel mighty good about myself.
I love how jordan says mhm😂
”I don't understand philosophy, therefore, Peterson is dumb”
"philosophy is talking things into being, therefore peterson is a poor magician" i don't understand philosophy, or at least not much, but, i do know bullshit when i see it and JP and ben are both full of it.
Is consciousness driving anything or just merely witnessing what’s happening?
witnessing. we're just really good simulation devices.
JP slow down as I'm having trouble keeping up on what you're saying. Especially at 4:50
You could argue that, through cause and effect, everything has been determined (like an equation, more complex than we could likely imagine) and that we, being part of and a product of the universe, are active in playing out that determination that our nature (which is what we are essentially) has determined.
The point I’m trying to make is difficult to distill, but to attempt to simplify, I mean that if we are materially part of the Big Bang, then we are literally the universe, and we are nature, playing itself out. We have determined our existence in that we are the nature that drives us, and we are active in playing out that determination. We have free will in that we determined our existence, not as humans but as the first causal event that our material was part of. Which may precede the Big Bang, even. Free will, from a point of view. This is where philosophies that have to do with accepting what is and acting according to your nature and instinct can come in handy. Like Taoism and Zen Buddhism.
Who’s to say that human culture is any more random and disorderly than life on earth in any other form? Human culture could be determined for all we know. Human cultures can’t be used as arguments against determinism with our current knowledge, because culture is a part of all animals’ existences, and it’s very diverse. I’d argue most people cannot reconcile the idea of no true Free will with feeling like they have free will. It makes people think they’re like robots, it freaks them out. I think we are hardwired to believe we have Free will so we can act without so much anxiety and act with more deviation from the regular behaviors of our species and diversify ourselves and grow in different directions at once. Diversity in nature is what allows us to progress without killing ourselves off if our “progressions” cannot sustain. Death is a big part of progression of course, and natural selection is what keeps that in order. When we’re useless, we die, as it is in nature.
Now that I’m thinking harder about it, it seems humans are slowly becoming aware of the possibility of being determined, in the face of anxiety, just like over our history we have slowly come to face the reality of death, and our own deaths, in the face of anxiety. We are becoming something quite spectacular.
I seriously recommend these two take evolutionary psychology and AI classes, there are some serious holes in their arguments and knowledge.
Please list them. Also, this interview discussed topics not limited to evolutionary psychology, can you claim to understand all the topics in question?
Do you agree with anything Peterson said, if so, what?
One claim Peterson makes is that human "females select their mates" which he claims refutes the eveloutionary position of random selection. He uses this point to argue against Harris' position on free will. However, if it is inherent in human females' nature to choose their mating partners, then they are not "free" in that they don't choose their nature. Peterson unwittingly supports Harris' position on free will here.
The science of attraction, there has been a foundation for both men and women in what they find attractive in one another is that by choice or random selection? If vast majority of men find fit, good hip to waist ratio, large breast, and long hair attractive on women is that really a choice? Contrary if vast majority women find muscular, define jawline, tall, men attractive is that choice? The answer would be no, they are driven by a evolutionary force to mate with the healthiest looking mate with destroys the "free will" claim
Hi fi from India
Iokesh, Peterson has studied for over 40 years in psychology, I'm more than sure he knows more than vast majority of people claiming to be an intellect. You might want to take some of Peterson's or some other person's lectures that deal with these topics before trying to understand stuff out of your domain.
You should never underestimate Peterson’s ability to verbally puke directly at somebody for an unprecedented amount of time 😂
And Ben just sits there like... you could say that in about 1000 words less
I'm starting to think that there is some built in bias in humans toward predestination. Determinists will grasp at any straw to support their assertion that "you couldn't have done differently." They will say that determinism is different from Fate since it wasn't "written down" ahead of time, so it's not pre-determined. So many quibbles, but in the end, a determinist has just replaced "the will of the gods" with "the differential equations of quantum mechanics" as the author of the future.
WEGO: Time does not exist at the entry.
Determinism (excuse Pun to come)
Is Time at the side.
ie. mc is at the entry.
1/2mv is at the side.
Determinism is the result of 3d, via 2of bare min 2d - one of the d's is a part of the other.
t-is non deterministic when 2 observers are trying for the same prise.
My god...if these comment sections are what comes from no religion....bring it back!!!!!
Michael Corcoran bring what back?
@@yomumma7803 Religion.
Many mhm's were given.
I'd be curious to hear Daniel Dennett's take on Peterson.
Be thankful that you have access to hear the wisdom of Peterson, Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris in your life.
sadly no dawkins or harris in this video, stinks of bias.
Harris isn't getting tangled up in the concept of 'free will', that would be Peterson.
How does that relate to being 'tangled up'?
Pablo De La Cruz
Writing a book on a subject means you got tangled up?
Words have actual meanings.
The irony is that in arguing that "females select mates because it's imbued in their nature to do so", Peterson unwittingly supports Harris' position on free will. i.e. Females don't choose their "nature".
Gordon, you can leave all of biology and psychology aside (as it only muddles the water) and go straight to physics. For free will to exist (with the definition normal people have; contra-causal free will), there has to be a point, at which the chain of causality breaks. As long as one cannot exactly point to that break, one has not proven free will. Randomness due to quantum uncertainty doesn't count.
John Ny We have been cast into a vast ocean of forces beyond our control...and have no oars
He’s not been out in Newcastle on a Friday night!!! Girls are far from selective🍺🤪
Shapiro in every interview (I love both Shapiro and Peterson btw) m.ua-cam.com/video/Qls6Po_1h5s/v-deo.html
I was hoping the title was “Jordan Peterson challenges Richard Spencer to a debate”
“More babble!”
-Christopher Hitchens
Chris Hitchens would literally be the new face for moral relativism and neo marxism. The irony of him hating capitalism but yet taking full advantage of it when he became a citizen here is pretty funny in order to combat religion using the 1st amendment, when he couldn't have done that in Europe due to restriction of expression for fear of persecution, in the already socialist states he would reside in. Now that is irony. He knew it too.
@@TheConqueror009 Europe ain't what you think bro.
Dawkins makes really good points . Peterson makes really good points . Damn you , smart ppl ! 🧐
I'd wondered whether Ben's tight frown was a part of his arch, prissy persona or actually his default. Actually, now I think of the word arch, we have two of the finest examples here.
I didn't understand anything out of what he said. Can someone add English subtitles?
As in normal human English...
Peterson has some really interesting ideas. I think what he’s onto here is much bigger than sexual selection and is what the neo-Darwinists fight tooth and nail to ignore: the evolution of CULTURE. Hence Dawkins public fallout with E.O. and D.S.Wilson and his abhorrence of “Multi-Level Selection” and “Dual Inheritance Theory”, which include the interdependence of genetic & cultural evolution. For instance, D.S.Wilson has argued strongly for the importance of religion as the glue in developing any society, through overcoming of narrow self-interest, and binding loyalty to the group through common allegiance to a transpersonal entity. It is possible to see that ‘transcendence of narrow self interest’ also as the ‘Logos’.
According to Pinker (no ally of JP), humans are becoming more humane, more compassionate, less cruel over time. He would say this is the result of: greater literacy, more self control etc. which is precisely the evolution of culture that Dawkins et al. deny. Though he doesn’t spell it out, such progress towards greater compassion must include a basic desire in us for ‘The Good’ (if only we could agree exactly what ‘The Good’ is!). IMO, human sexual selection is a part of this cultural progress - through changing cultural norms, women are choosing more traits for compassion, empathy, intelligence and less for aggression, power or brute strength in men. Thus our cultural evolution is co-dependant with our genetic inheritance.
As for the “Free Will” argument about determinism, what seems to get forgotten is that physics at the quantum level is NON-DETERMINISTIC! If consciousness is rooted in our brains at the most basic level, then it seems plausible that it is intimately involved with the outcome of any superposition of neuronal/brain states. In other words, the reason we evolved consciousness is to make choices between alternative futures. I think JP is right here, in saying that the hypothesis of determinism is falsified, as it doesn’t predict accurately how humans behave, moreover it doesn’t accord with the datum of our experience, nor help to explain why it seems to have been so strongly selected for in evolution. Determinism is both incoherent and based on a dualistic fallacy.
Fidelity of assumption that there is random events doesn't prove free will takes place in human beings.
Quantum effects take place in billiards of other living creatures, does it mean that they have free will? Problems you confuse are both about accuracy of determinism but in totally different matters.
Also it's quite controversial, whether quantum physics disprove positions of determinism or just we don't have ability to determine subatomic particles' behavour.
I guess it isn't often that Ben meets someone potentially more intelligent than he is lol
Are those warming lamps from a fast food restaurant in the background?
lol! I was thinking red light district.
I got somehow hungry and caught myself thinking about asian food while watching this.. Now I know why 😂
Note: a quasi-Christian and a devout Jewish man debating Christ and other religious ideas, from a certain perspective, and they're not yelling, being nasty, or insulting. Hmmmm, interesting.
Still want to see any of the two have the full to take on Dawkins or even worse.....Christopher hitchens ten years ago when he was alive lol he would have put them both to shame in half a second
Lol I meant gull not full lol
We have free we because we have no choice but to have it and to say we have it because the boss says we do is the complete negation of free Will - Christopher hitchens
Because Hitchens was intellectually honest unlike these two fools.
Mhmm
The title should refer to Charles Dawkins (the scientist) not Richard Dawkins. (The Anti-theist). Thanks for posting the video though very interesting.
"For the sake of reason I cannot be religious, but I don't care to think about the reason for that." - Atheists
the reason for that is there is no sign of any god.
i really enjoy how Dr Peterson Try to understand God with the most reasonable approach. seeking for the truth has taking his mind to an understanding of life like i never heard before. His digging into questions that atheist people are ignoring by simply saying there is no God because they can do everything with out him. Dr. Peterson understands that there is more outside the realm of consciousness. Kudos for Dr. Peterson, hes such an inspiration.
Levy Estrada Give scientific evidence for a God, instead of this mumbo jumbo, if someone used JP’s reasoning India you could justify Vishnu, if in the Mid East, you could justify Allah.
no one can understand god. it beats the crap out of me how people sound like god pops round for tea and crumpet every wednesday and asks your advice, god could be a mass killer (oh, he is actually isn't he) for all you know, only god has given you god's word on how fkng marvellous he is.
JP was at hi best at this point, but nowadays he's a broken down hack.
@@HarryNicNicholas This couldn’t be more false. You can argue all day the Bible is this and the Bible is that and it is the word of truth or it isn’t. All I know is one thing. Have you ever experienced Love? I know I have, and it’s unlocked a realm of possibilities and freedom beyond the human mind could ever understand, and if your not careful with it, with the free will you’ve been given, it can be destroyed in an instant, That’s why Christ gave his life for us, was buried and rose again because he sealed the deal of the Ultimate Love. I mean think about just little pains you get in your body and the things we experience like stubbing a toe. God came in a human body, in Jesus Christ, and took upon his own creation’s condition and was tempted by all the things we are tempted by and denied himself and was obedient until the very day he was tortured, mocked and tormented for all of our sins, and was buried and rose again on the 3rd day, if that doesn’t blow your mind idk what will.
Sry to say that but Dawkins would wipe the floor with Peterson in a diskussion about religion...
Agreed. Jordan Peterson, while a gifted thinker, is caught up in numerous theories that keep him from observing reality for what it really is. Hopefully, a discussion with Dawkins would prevent him from going down the rabbit hole of pseudoscience. (If only Hitchens was still alive).
@@letBIGGIErest The greatest scientists in history were always convinced of a profounder, metaphysical foundation of nature. Tesla, Einstein, Newton, Shroedinger, to give a few examples, as well as most of the top contemporary quantum physicists and mathematicians. What's more is, these people did not grow into these beliefs through some kind of religious persuasion, but through their logical reasoning and scientific discoveries (and be convinced, their IQ's and knowledge of the core mechanics of nature are far exceeding to those of yours).
If this isn't enough to make you skeptic of determinism, then you have fallen into the trap of being an ideologue yourself.
@@DeathForSk8 That's not true. Einstein didn't believe in god. He used the word God as a metaphor for the movement of the universe and nature. Einstein clarified that he was agnostic and did not believe in life after death. Because Einstein's use of the word "god" people constantly misunderstand what his true beliefs were. Please do your research before throwing Einstein in as a god believer just because you saw some quote where he used the word god.
The question is, how far an opinion is life-furthering, life preserving, species-preserving, perhaps species-rearing, and we are fundamentally inclined to maintain that the false standard opinions, are the most indispensable to us, that without a recognition of logical fictions, without comparison of reality with the purely imagined world of the absolute and immutable, without a constant counterfeiting of the world by means of numbers, man could not live- that the renunciation of false opinions would be renunciation of life, a negation of life.
I really like the way Jordan Peterson explain in a very specific clear way. Did understand the complex concepts He is talking about. Verbal prowess to its finest.
sadly he's gone whacko lately, for a while he was making life difficult for theists as well as atheists, now he's filed under 'crackpot'
I like big words and stuff
No reason to dislike this video, unless you've become emotionally attached to and defensive of Sam Harris and his ideas. It's odd how intellectuals attract non intellectuals seeking to identify with intellectualism.🤔
If I wish to believe in free will, what's going to stop me..?
"I'm an active agent of choice confronting an infinite landscape of potencial".
Damn, some serious Depak Chopra stuff right there.
don't let poetry mangle your brain though, it's bullshit however pretty it may sound.
@@HarryNicNicholas yes that's what I meant lol.
Deepak Chopra = unsustained non-scientific buzz word salad.
It’s true doe
There seems to be a problem with Peterson in that he switches between pragmatism and correspondence theory. When god is being talked about he is a pragmatist. The same sentiment you get from other apologists. Basically saying to the atheist okay so maybe you have a good argument but you don't realize what you are doing. You may be clever but your not wise sort of thing. Yet he lambasts his political opponents for their lack of empiricism. Okay Cathy Newman for example had it wrong about the gender pay gap. But what he seems to be saying here is the truth must line up with what you presuppose to be good. Okay so Cathy Newman presupposes women should have equal pay and doesn't let the facts get in the way of her story. Isn't she just doing what Peterson is talking about here? You don't get to be a realist and a pragmatist.
"You don't get to be a realist and a pragmatist."..Well JP and his supporters seem to think they do...!!
Peterson talks like an intellectual but his conversations are empty.
Trill Mixin W
100%%%!!!! It sounds so impressive but it's full of absolute nothingness
Imagine if Ben Shapiro debated Dawkins.
somebody give that cameraman a raise
the fact that so many people lap up peterson's gibberish makes me afraid for humanity
Wanna hear something funny? Ben probably thinks he's Peterson's intellectual equal.
Shapiro doesn't think anybody is his intellectual equal, and that's why his conclusions are usually so shallow.
Humility lends itself to self-reflection, self-reflection then compares itself to others, and somewhere in this attempt at universal consistency lies the Truth.
As far as I can tell they have similar intellectual aptitude. They have different domains of expertise and this interview is primarily dominated by Peterson's.
Wanna hear something even funnier? People probably think Peterson is Harris' and Dawkin's intellectual equal.
Harris and Dawkins are so grounded in "book-smarts" that they have no common sense.
Roach DoggJR Wanna hear something funny? He probably is.
Jordan Peterson is like Ben Shapiro's funny uncle.
That sound Jordan kept making distracted me from Ben's arguments ..
I'm starting to get sick of these thumbnails and titles made to look as if the people mentioned are having a debate when they aren't even in the the same room, podcast or barely even mentioning each other!
Here comes the word soup again ;)
We all follow the chain of causality, just because you can't comprehend the unbelievably complex intertwining of variables in the brain relative to its environment, doesn't mean we have free will.
I don't understand how a pen works exactly, but yet I don't ascribe to it free will.
No idea what they're saying
Too many long words but some how it's still fascinating
Natural selection is not chance, and sexual selection is not something fundamentaly different. False premis = false conclusion.
Moreover, the fact that it works to treat people like they have free will, doesn't prove that it actually exist. An illusion of free will would actually develope itself if the illusion works in the real world.
If sexual selection in humans is indeed determined by the female as Peterson posits, then he is unwittingly supporting Harris' position. i.e. females are not free to choose their nature
Is the anti-free will position falsifiable?
I think it's hilarious how Jordan Peterson is redefining the definition/meaning of the religious language in the Bible. Even to go so far as to redefine what the "Holy Spirit" is.
Lots, and lots, and lots of word salad all to keep invoking his interpretation of what god is according to Jordan Peterson.
Peterson is the prophet and messiah of his own cult following.
Also, he still thinks he understands what consciousness is, even though he's said many times that consciousness is like _really_ complicated. No one really knows what it is or how to define it ... yet. And maybe no one ever will.
My feeling is that it's a desperate attempt to justify beliefs that he isn't all that confident in. That's why he can't answer the simple question "Do you believe in God?"
I prefer Peterson's God, to the majority of the Religious's views on God, but it's a bit dishonest to be propping up the idea of God using the terminology that means something completely different to the majority.
Call your God something else. Geez.
You're merely giving cover to those who believe the literal and the common defintion of God, whose ideas are actually dangerous to progress of humanity.
Is Peterson ethically/morally right in using the word/term God to describe his incredibly precise and differing personal definition if it?
Considering the great potential for harm it could aid in?
He's likely already thought about it though, I think he's chosen the wrong path in expressing it though due to its dubious ethical base.
Q: Is it unethical for me to create my own personal belief system, then attach the name "Allah" to it, and go around claiming I believe in Allah, and this is what "Allah" means?
Is that an unethical or morally bankrupt action to take?
Not the least because it serves to make those with differing beliefs(but under the same name) look more reasonable to an outside observer.
The very last sentence spoken is all you need.
Peterson is a very intelligent, characteristic force, but it is his emotions, which are part of what makes him so passionate about his work, get in the way of some simpler conclusions which Dawkins has no trouble accepting.
Basically, Peterson is trying way too hard to make sense of the world when, in fact, it has no driving purpose. Just roll with it, baby!
Sam Harris (who I like tremendously, btw) somehow tries to conflate determinism and objective morality, which doesn’t really work. He is extremely intelligent, which is why that confuses many people, both atheists and theists alike.
Oh dear. The man believes in free will. In the face of all the evidence.
You don't believe in free will despite all of the evidence? You actually believe you're a puppet on strings? What evidence do you have for that?
There's ever mounting evidence that free will is an illusion. The brain could be seen as an organic supercomputer. If so, then whatever you put in could lead to a calculable outcome. That's where free will dies. It doesn't stop us from the need to pretend we have free will, for practical reasons. If the input controls the output, it is very important to consciously control the input. Carrot and Stick. A supercomputer with amazing learning abilities and feedback loops. As a psychologist, Peterson should be aware of this. Instead all he does is produce word soup. And that would be laughable if it weren't so serious.
People who think that there's mounting evidence that the brain is nothing more than a giant supercomputer and consciousness nothing but an illusion tend to also say things like "Soon we'll be able to plug our values into a supercomputer and let it run our lives fairly." Are you one of those people?
No. All I'm saying is that the brain has no supernatural dimensions I know of. I work with demented people on a daily basis. I see what happens to their minds as their brains get progressively damaged by the awful disease they suffer from. It has a direct effect on their mind, which seems to evaporate over time. It is as fascinating as it is cruel. Watching this process also raises fundamental questions about free will in conjunction with how a healthy or sick brain actually works in relation to the mind that occupies said brain.
cheers
One of my first big spreads in a major newspaper was a full-page article on Traumatic Brain Injury. People who have a TBI often undergo significant personality changes. I'm not saying abandon or ignore the material, and how it works. Neil Degrasse Tyson believes we live in a simulation - the creation of a lower g god who is either immoral or unimpressive. That's his current educated guess regardling what this is all about. You can see how the brain is a tool - you can no better explain consciousness by watching a brain deteriorate however. You are also ignoring the many stories of people with severe brain injuries and diseases that have "miraculous" recovery back to their former selves. For every 100 catastrophes of the brain there is one unexplainable eucatastrophe to point at as well.
I am honest about the areas that give me pause and tell me that self-identity and consiousness are mysterious on both sides of the equation - brain injuries that alter personality and behavior are one of those things. There's no denying that you can't be simplistic about this subject area - you can't ignore the implications of TBIs and brain-altering diseases. These things are so hard to discuss without resorting to analogies, but you can smash up a TV pretty good and it can still work with a messed up picture and maybe one of the RGBs failing. You still have a picture, but it's not the same. And before you say my analogy uses things that we already know exist here in the material universe to illustrate my point, recall that Neil Tyson and many other philosophic scientists do the same when pontificating about why this is all here.
"Sexual selection was as powerfull as natural selection..." 1:46 I couldn't take it anymore.
he sounds like Rick from Rick and Morty and has the brains too
Imagine disliking something just because you're a fan of Harris or Dawkins...
literally this comment section
I don't think Peterson understands determinism. At all. There's nothing random about deterministic systems; if there was any randomness at all, that is to say anything that was not completely predicted by the conditions immediately preceding it, then determinism as a theory is completely debunked (though I should note that an inability to explain or know the conditions that cause an event is not evidence that they do not exist).
Also, Peterson's notion that men group together to vote on the best men, and then women select a mate from that group is just absurd. It's... I don't have words for how ludicrous that notion is. Anyone who has ever dated anyone anywhere can tell you that men do not go through committee to be selected to reproduce. Not even in an analogous sense. It is obviously, empirically, false.
Peterson basically argues that "since memes can influence selection, memes are the ONLY thing that influences selection" which is also absurd. Even under his own argument, appearance would still influence people's choice in mates, and that has nothing to do with the good or the true. Likewise, I have to question his idea that the hero of heroes archetype is the single driving force in selection. The archetype is already poorly defined, and could probably be accused of having a circular definition (the hero of heroes is the person who possesses all those traits which will be selected for and none of the traits that will be selected against), particularly in light of the fact that while all humans seems to have a concept of the good and the true, they vary wildly as to what those things are. This is likewise unfair because it means he can sweep all the other memes that the archetype would need to compete with under the rug, claiming that selecting someone based on some other meme, say social graces, is simply selecting based on the hero of heroes archetype in disguise. Ultimately, I think it's an unfair term to introduce without its own clear definition, and I think that if he had to fully state it it would lose most of its control of mate selection. Granted, the concept itself is useful; it gives us a way to relate individual choices to social trends, but it does not possess the causal power over individual choices that he claims.
In fact, it would strike me as a contradiction if the hero of heroes archetype included a meme that was not pragmatically useful, which means that all the memes included in the archetype are useful on their own and in their own right, but that means that they can be evaluated as valuable separate from the archetype, leaving the archetype with no other real value of its own aside from valuing what is valuable, and so we quickly see that, while useful, the archetype is not the ultimate meme or selection cause.
Peterson touches on the idea of intentionality, arguing that determinists must always view everything as nonintentional (that is to say, mechanical and automatic, without thinking). He ignores that determinism is perfectly viable in a world where we do not understand the processes by which decisions are made, so long as we never have reason to believe decisions are made based on anything random, or in other words, that they could not have been otherwise. The issue with a society that views everyone as nonintentional is that they will consistently fail to accurately predict the behavior of the people in the society, as they lack the understanding of the complex states of their brains to make adequate predictions about their actions based on brain activity, and they ignore the information that could be gleaned from looking at broader patterns of behavior which makeup ideas and beliefs. Basically, they're examining things on such a small level that they lack the breadth of view to understand what's happening. That's a real problem, but it's not with determinism. It's with using a microscope to observe the movement of planets; you just can't get it with that zoomed in of a scope unless you had vastly more computing power than the world possesses.
Finally, throughout this talk and many Peterson characterizes things in religious terms. I understand why; the concepts he's discussing apply as much to religion as they do to science, but that characterization makes it feel like he's trying to drag the world into being religious, more than he's trying to unite the two worlds into a single larger one. My person gripe here.
Lots of things that beterson does not understand. Its obviously not because he is a stupid person, more because he is a raging ideologue.
Well I wouldn't say that either. He's a psychologist who got involved in politics because they came to his doorstep. He got picked up because he was a popular professor of psychology, a good speaker, and a generally good and reasonable person. The problem is that his new political position puts him far afield from what he has studied and he lacks the time to engage in the rigor required to understand his topics. And so he has a choice; struggle onward with a lack of knowledge of his topics or let his voice fade as he takes the time to delve into multiple other fields. I don't think what he's doing is right; he needs to be more deferential, humble, or at least open to his political opponents, but we're in a polarizing world, and he's only human.
My main gripe is that other people don't seem to understand that, and they're creating a bubble around Peterson that blocks him off from growing as a person. People think he's a god, that his arguments are iron clad, when really they're full of holes that need immediate attention, which he won't give them because no one who has a voice loud enough for him to hear it will point them out. All he gets is yes men and political assassins. It's shameful to see such talent going to waste.
Velth Akabra "that block him off from growing as a person" what? Does he have no agency?
Velth Akabra I can certainly respect this perspective. And to JBP’s credit, if he is presented with verified information that renders a part of his knowledge no longer valid, I believe he would be willing to consider the new information and change his ideas accordingly.
@celby j No, but if he never hears a valid criticism of his positions, why would he suddenly start doubting them enough to thoroughly examine them? Doubt isn't the sort of thing you can summon up out of thin air, and you can't really change your opinions without it. That's more or less human psychology.
Did an AI write Peterson's speech in this video?
Mhm
Does anybody know if Jordan Peterson is a Protestant or Catholic? Thanks much!
He is neither I believe.
@@lilblock3564 Jordan specified he is Christian.
i thought peterson is a great philosopher, but he is just a smart speaker who has good command on English vocabulary
If that is a challenge to those guys in the tilte my 10y.o. son can school this guy on evlolution easy. No point in graging Dawkins into it. Guy talks fast and uses a lot of big words but what comes out is a bit of a intelectual vomit. I am sure lots of people will buy it :)
I've never seen a video in which Ben is so quiet.
he accepted jordan as the father, that he is on top of him
I like him more when he's quiet.
he;s in love. he wants to be JP when he grows up.
Schooling a reporter is one thing. He tried with Matt Dillahunty and got his ass kicked a million times...
Peterson's conversation with Dillahunty was a frustrating waste of time that left those interested in progress unsatisfied. It's only the fanatics who watch that exchange and come out of it saying "Peterson DESTROYED Dillahunty" and "Dillahunty totally SCHOOLED Peterson." Tiresome.
Professor Peterson sounds so damn certain when he explains what Christ's motivation and meaning was. I always mistrust people who claim to know exactly what these historical figures meant even though they lived hundreds or thousands of years ago and we can't possibly go back and ask them. Effectively, Peterson is putting words in Christ's mouth. Too certain, too damn certain.
Peterson makes no claim about what the historic Christ's motivations were, or what he really said or didn't say. Peterson stays clear of that entire orbit. Haven't you noticed? Peterson was on stage and literally said this "There's this line in the Bible - the meek will inherit the Earth. I wasn't sure I understood it so I studied it and....." One of the most famous quotes from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and Peterson serves it up as a "cool line from the Bible". If you think Peterson is putting words into Christ's mouth (not necessary) I'm not sure that you understand Peterson.
"What Christ says ... He's trying to transcend the rule structure." (0:03)
"Christ's idea, and this is part of the idea of the re-establishment of paradise, is that you should orient yourself towards the good, and that's something like an alliance with God." (0:25)
(Both quotations from The Gospel according to St. Jordan.)
Are you familiar with the phenomenologist approach to the study of meaning and truth? Are you familiar with the Orthodox Christian Church? Are you familiar with Dalls Willard? There are many different interpretations of Christ, but Jordan follows in the tradition of Willard and C.S. Lewis and that is my approach as well. Are you objecting to the idea that Christ was establishing a philosophy of phenomenology based on principles in addition to laws (rules)? Are you familiar with the Sermon on the Mount - is Christ laying down law there or is he appealing to a deeper ethic? Whether you think Peterson is putting words into Christ's mouth depends entirely on your interpretation of the words Christ spoke within the overall context of his place in time set against all of our history since then AND our present understandings.
That's because it's a nice story, but that's about it.
Why everyone thinks peterson is a genius: ,,get your act together" ,,clean your room" ,,be good" .....wow thank you
He gives you good logical and scientific reasoning and arguments behind it. That is why.
He gives you word salad which you interpret in whatever way to make yourself seem like you're so deeply philosophical and scholarly
He contradicts himself at points. He claims women are the determinants in procreation, in that they are the "selectors" in mating. Yet, he mocks Harris' on his free will position. If women are indeed "selectors by nature" as Peterson posits, then he has unwittingly supported Harris' position. i.e. women don't choose their nature.
@@UlyssesDrax yes, he does.
1:55 - TFW a psychology professor is spreading the world of the Lord
How about Douglas Murray for a moderator between Peterson and Dawkins?
Dawkins refuses to debate JBP. Not that Jordan is in any shape to participate nowadays... but even if he was, there wouldn’t be one, because Dawkins refuses.
@@jonis7989 how come? Why would he refuse?
@@javadshr67 I don't know. It's on youtube. Search "Richard Dawkins answers questions about Jordan Peterson"
Those coming in here with triggered emotions "refuting" Peterson's "claim" may want to look up the definition of a hypothesis. If you're here to discuss and debate the hypothesis while refraining from the apparently obligatory ad hominems you'll find the discusson more fruitful. If you use excessive foul language (what is it with the "vulgarity" of those triggered by Peterson's "gawd" talk?) your comment probably won't appear here.
Fine, I'll bite. His hypthesis is rubbish, based on absolutely 0 scientific fact and is just a rant. Frankly I don't need to provide evidence against as he is the one making assertions and being a fool, the onus of proof is on him. That's how it works.
This is one of the most pathetic things I have seen
I mean he doesn't even understand evolution which kinda fucks up his entire thesis
VE8PB well at least you're not frothing from the mouth with spittle flying everywhere. But you really didn't address his hypothesis at all - you didn't say anything about it - you just said he now has to prove his hypothesis which is usually how that works.
You've made another claim - that he doesn't understand evolution. Now, please proceed with your argument illustrating how Peterson does not understand evolution, and how this ruins his hypothesis.
LOL - You see everyone? How many are there out there who believe they are perfectly rational only to behave completely irrationally when their absolutist materialist belief-system is challenged? At least fundamentalists know that they are fundamentalists - the lack of self-awareness of the materialist true believers is astounding.
JP should stick to psychology... the moment he talks about religion he loses credibility. I'm still blown away when you get a ferociously intelligent human that then professes 'faith' in anything let along religious fervor. There is a massive logic disconnect in religion and I don't understand how such clearly logic and evidence driven people fall over on something so blatantly fictional.
LOL I'm one of those logical evidence driven people and I agree with Jordan and more. Stay tuned because I'll be posting a commentary video on JBP's recent conversation with Matt Dillahunty in a day or two.
I think this is why we go to a dentist to take care of our teeth and not an auto mechanic. It's the logical fallacy of appealing to unqualified authorities. It's also something of a risk to take everything the man says as gospel. He has some great points and I'm inclined to (partially) agree with his positions on SJW and safe spaces etc, but there are some instances where he's every bit of an idiot as the rest of us and I'm afraid that his religious position is one of them. He's not in the same league as Dawkins or Harris IMO.
Steve ten Have He sees the stories in the books as metaphors. He's not talking about faith at all. He's talking about a deep evolutionary truth that the ancient people knew 10,000 years ago, and all the way back to when we became conscious in the evolutionary process. And the science about how we are wired, and how we evolved backs it up.
It's really not mystical at all man. It's just really complicated for people to wrap their minds around. It's not a belief system. It's just as rational as any scientific truth.
Even more so I think because it connects all of what we know about science today.
You have to really pay attention and listen to his maps of meaning lectures and hopefully, you will understand the idea after that. Every piece of information he gives is giving you a hint at what he's getting at but you have to understand how it all fits together in a rational way.
Like I said, its really complicated.
un1fy003 he actually identifies as deeply religious and from that you can certainly have a clearer understanding as to how/why he thinks the way he does. Go have a listen to his discussion with Joe Rogan.
Steve ten Have he's against religious structures and dogma. It's a different idea of religious.
He uses the language because it best explains the ideas so that people can wrap their minds around it. But it's far from mythical
He looks at these stories as myths (as they are). And he sees them as metaphors. Which means that in the bible, just like any stories in any books, or any movies and fairy tails for that matter, in these are deep reflections and representations of the human experience.
He calls himself Christian but he knows people want a box to put him in. But the idea of what it all means is very very complicated as I said before, as well as complicated to explain. Because of words like "spirit" and "god". These words come with presuppositions and people assume ideas behind them. But they are the best hes got to explain the idea.
Civilization does not require a metaphysical underpinning. Religion, in any form, is an impediment to progress of every kind.
You make statements w/o backing them with anything. I could make the exact opposite statement. Soviet russia, nazi Germany, communist china & north Korea are atheist nations. They Don’t seem very grand to me.
Yeah I think the sooner Peterson and Dawkins have a debate the better. Peterson’s making quite a lot of assumptions over Dawkins and evolution , and he’s not there to be able to refute them.
Dawkins refuses to debate Jordan
Jonis well why should he frankly? Dawkins is a evolutionary biologist, the best in his field, Peterson is a clinical psychologist. Who’s better to know how evolution works?
'Consciousness' a major driver of evolution. ahem! ahem!
Hmm, I though he made that connection with sexual selection, which is indeed driven by the consciousness of the selector: women.
Women whom he posits have free will yet are bound by their nature to be "selectors".
Hence the "chess" analogy: our freedom is not absolute. We have free will, and they're bounded by rules.
Pendejo we are whatever time and space we are born into. Our responses are determined by not only our immediate environment but the faculties over which we have no control. A psychopath is not a psychopath by choice. He/she inherits the wiring that makes him/her so. While some are playing chess on chessboard with Bobby Fisher at the helm others are playing Twister on an oiled sheet with a one-legged blind dwarf ballasting their every move.
Are you making the claim that every thought, action and individual constitution of a being from the macro to the atomic constituent is predetermined? If so, I disagree; if you were to say that we are constrained by factors beyond our choice, then I accept that.