Jordan Peterson Atheist Debate: "Richard Dawkins' meme theory is too shallow"
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 июн 2018
- Although of course this topic is sure to spark discussion, analysis, commentary and debate here, check out the many more awesome subjects covered in this discussion with Susan Blackmore on Unbelievable?: • Jordan Peterson vs Sus...
#jordanpeterson #12rulesforlife #susanblackmore #unbelievable?
Fair Use Notice
This video may contain copyrighted material; the use of which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available for the purposes of education, criticism, comment, review and/or news reporting which constitute the fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Not withstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, comment, review and news reporting is not an infringement of copyright. Any video or sound clips included are just small portions of the original copyrighted works and used with the intention of directing people to the original works in an effort to increase both the visibility and potential market value of those copyrighted works.
![Would We Be Better Off Without Religion? - Christopher Hitchens [2007] ✝️ | Intelligence Squared](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DIR7_X-ahy4/mqdefault.jpg)
![Would We Be Better Off Without Religion? - Christopher Hitchens [2007] ✝️ | Intelligence Squared](/img/tr.png)
To be honest I don't know what to belive anymore
I think that's a very honest place to be right now.
You shall not believe, you shall always doubt and question, be curious and search on. We only can come nearer to the absolute truth/reality (that what actually IS, despite our subjective perception, which we will never fully reach, but our goal should be to come as near as we can)...We only can come nearer to the the absolute truth/reality when keep ourselves open minded and accept, that the "way is the goal" instead of the desperate wish to finally have the answers/ something to believe in and never question it again, because we long for completing tasks.
That’s a good place to start
Belive in Jesus bro 🙏 ❤️ never forget
The person being shut down is nearly always the person worth listening to.
The Jungian idea of archetypes is based on Adolf Bastian's idea of elementary ideas and folk ideas in anthropology. The first is a universal blueprint, the second is a cultural manifestation of a universal blueprint. For example in religion a savior mana figure is the universal blueprint but the cultural manifestation could be Buddha or Jesus.
If you apply this to Dawkins meme theory properly it is highly likely that a meme that matches up with a universal or archetypal idea will be more successfully replicated.
You can also apply Chomsky's universal grammar theory to the same idea. A language variation that does not conform to innate universal grammar parameters would be experienced as incoherent. And language will naturally conform to the innate pattern and evolve towards more coherency.
Using Dawkins idea of memes with the idea that we have innate archetypal linguistic ethical patterns etc. would conclude that human beings more likely spread various culturally generated archetypal patterns which are often in religious form. Rather than counter intuitive scientific ideas.
In our era the most powerful patterns that are spread are neither science or religion they come in the form of pop culture, like Lady Gaga, or a Hollywood movie, which are often archetypal in content. This was Andy Warhol's genius to point out.
So our meme evolution will likely not go in the desired direction of either Dawkins or Peterson.
But evolution does not have an ideological teleology. I don't expect meme theory will have one either.
Dawkins seems to believe that more scientifically rational humans means "more evolved". Human beings are no more or less evolved than fungi.
Noam Chomsky’s universal grammar has been disproven year after year to the point that it’s hardly the same theory anymore. I appreciate Chomsky for helping the cognitive scientist, but Chomsky’s universal grammar is just wrong. Maybe there is one, but it’s not in the realm of Chomsky’s theory.
Also, about the archetype, you were very wishy washy. It isn’t in connection to elementary ideas, it’s closer to Freud’s “complexes”. But Jung saw these not just as sexual behavior/ instinct wired by your parents. Jung saw these as representative of a larger collective humanity. And he called this the collective unconscious. So Jung, even though he does believe in mysticism, doesn’t believe in a universal blueprint, not even a bit. I’m not sure if you’re interested in philosophy or not but Jung makes pragmatic claims about the representation of these symbols, and Adolf makes claims about the utilization of a universal blueprint. There is an important distinction here, because the blue print seeks to find what is good for culture, but archetypes seek to find what is true about humanity. This all boils down to pragmatism is not utilitarian and there is a distinction between culture and a larger humanity or the human spirit.
Too bad this ended on the most important note “This is the central claim of pragmatism!” That sums up the entire religious argument. Judging by the fact that the video was cut off on the most important part of the conversation I assume JP’s central and very important claim here went unnoticed. Based on this claim, I must agree with JP and why I believe he can hold the incongruent views of science and religion simultaneously. Nice piece here. Thanx for sharing.
Has Jorden seen Dynamic fitness landscape? It was based on Richard Dawkins book climbing mount improbable. Could that go with herichery?
Let's take the christianity shipping over from Spain too the Philippines. Think of that as a meme that had been spread through that islands which prior hadnt adopted this meme of christianity. It has layers and depth and meaningful to interprete the relations on which it understands or takes in, and it has formed to integrate into the formed culture that the Philippine nation has used.
why all the dislikes, it was a good discussion.
The first three dislikes were the standard automatic three dislikes from the three people who subscribe to my channel solely for the purpose of downvoting every video. You usually can only see their contributions in my Ziggy and Cujo videos, which tend to get just a few hundred views or less and the standard three downvotes. Why do they do this, you ask? Simple - I debated someone on the potholer54 channel, and my three superfans took notice and latched on. The other dislikes are legit and, if you look at the other "JBP talks about Dawkins" video on my channel, you will see a flood of dislikes and an enormous emount of hostility in the comments. I don't know for sure if that's what will happen here, but it's not trending that way so far in terms of vulgarity and violent rhetoric. It's part of the reason why I uploaded this video - I like to see the clash, to analyze it, and see what we can draw from it within the context of what JBP describes as the Neitzschean dilemma.
Never come across Susan Blackmore before. She is a very smart lady, who is a clear thinker. JBP is wrong on religion in my view, but still think he is one of the most important intellectuals of modern times.
Wouldn’t an eloquent way of integrating the idea of memes and archetypes be the fact that ideas are still pathogens or memes and they find lesser or greater collaboration based on the inbuilt archetypes of peoples or cultures. I feel like they almost came to this conclusion .
Both concepts to me still feel compatible in an evolutionary psychological view of behaviour. That said, I love Dawkins for the Extended Phenotype and The Selfish Gene, but feel he failed when he started to directly attack religion. His theories are corrosive enough to spiritual views on experience, when he started to expound them by trying to build them out, they felt tunnel visioned and elitist. At worst in his attacks on Islam he creates straw men of his own making. And I cannot reason that his more polemical work ever converted a believer into a non-believer. They are so polarising it is like co,img to a negotiating table with a loaded gun. Whilst I used to have a belief in God, Dawkins’ early works alongside others made me fundamentally question those beliefs and I become an agnostic at best. Not through being preached at for being wrong, but by learning.
The clip was an interesting discussion and it’s fantastic to have a Peterson debate outside of the usual political correctness and post modernist furrow he’s been ploughing most recently. He is a brilliant intellect because he can simplify complex ideas and see synchronicity across many disparate areas of biology, psychology and philosophy. Because he is striving for unifying archetypes to explain and create meaning for experience. Like any great thinker tries to do. Perhaps fruitlessly but it makes a change from 99.9 percentage and 100+years of traditional academic thought.
I wish this conversation topic was going on longer, JP and Dawkins would have a productive conversation about memes, I think. It would clarify what Peterson says regarding archetype and religion a lot.
This video is a short excerpt from the full conversation, which is linked to in the description.
Many people seem to believe that Dawkins’ idea of memes is coherent and has explanatory power. This reveals how poorly they understand the long and sophisticated scholarly debate about how best to grip the problem of explaining culture and cultural enculturation. In a nutshell, culture is not susceptible to a reductionist analysis. Therefore proposing such an approach to culture is wrong-headed. For a sustained critical analysis of Dawkins’ reductionist approach to culture and those like Dennett who have adopted the shallow meme idea as a so-called profound master key to unlock ‘culture’, see: Midgley, M. (2004) The Myths We Live By, London, Routledge. For a demolition job on the same idea, see: Bennett, M.R. & Hacker, P.M.S. (2003) Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience, Oxford, Blackwell, notably Appendix 1, pp. 414-435 - which is devoted to demolishing Dennett’s impoverished thinking, and, by extension Dawkins incredibly crude idea of memes. For an alternative demolition job on the idea of memes, see; Tallis, R. (2011) Aping Mankind: Neoromania, Darwinitis and the Misrepresentation of Humanity, Durham, Acumen, notably pp.163-169.
Dawkins' idea of memes is what Wittgenstein described as 'sick thinking' that needs to be dissolved through good analytical, therapeutic philosophy. The above books do such a therapeutic job on Dawkins' impoverished idea.
This is a very insightful comment, thank you. I will definitely try to read some of those books.
Arent we so intellectual...get real
Dawkins said he came up with the concept of memes just to explain cultural replication of ideas, Dawkins said himself that it was a simple analogy.
Your criticism is quite missplaced, and so is Petersons... The meme idea was never intended to explain or analyze cultural aspects, it is a simple analogy to draw attention to a process which is similar to genetic replication. Whats missplaced and crude here is your attempt at disecting the statement, where you're making assumptions about it's purpose that were never claimed by Dawkins himself.
@@marinodezelak1180 You are wrong. The reason why Dawkins’ analogy is hopeless is that he fails to understand that science, which is limited to dealing with causal explanation, can never explain something as complicated as cultural processes. Dawkins makes this fundamental error for two reasons: 1. He is ignorant of philosophy - for example, he doesn’t even know what is meant by a substance dualism; 2. His obsession with scientism, which is a religious-like belief in the sovereignty of science over all other human disciplines and actions, blinds him to the utter uselessness of his analogy. Dawkins throws dust in his own eyes. You seem to want to do the same. So my original comment stands.
@@lesliecunliffe4450 again... Dawkins never used that analogy to attempt to explain any sociological process, so theres no point in arguing the validity of the analogy on that basis,... why you think he did is beyond me.
it was purely a comparison to genetics and there it is valid.
You don't need to believe in anything unless you do. Simple as that. That's speaking for the self. Pushing ideas on others is psychological discussion based in behavioral evolution. Boils down to, what I think is right is more right if you believe it. Conversely if you don't believe what I do its inherently wrong, something like that.
It's clear that only one person in that room has read the definition from the book, and that's not JP
find the definition of 'Woman' in MW dictionary and voice it out XD
Human consciousness is the crown jewel of evolution. Hopefully this will be the most intentionally biased statement that I make in this diatribe, but it is one that is grounded in observation. One could make the argument that for any species the trait that makes it most adaptable would be the crown jewel for that species, but no other species seems to have accumulated the information that we have thus far. Based on that accumulation our species has been able to frequently adapt itself to different environments then maintain a framework around that adaptation that allows society to form. One of the more productive aspects of human consciousness, our best adaptation system, is that it allows us to establish multiple games and task (Dr. Peterson would use hierarchies) allowing specific individuals to map out their strategy as a viable way forward. Just to lay some groundwork, I am working under the pretense that Human Consciousness evolved and progressed allowing us the ability to adapt to reality, and in certain circumstances alter it. The question that arises from the initial reading of that statement is what is reality? How are we adapted to it? Well, the best example that I have heard as an attempt to frame these questions are as follows: Reality is made of what you know and what you don’t know, and consciousness provides us a pathway to act in a manner accordingly, based on the circumstances we are provided. Given this interpretation Dr. Peterson lays out the world as a place of things (Science, Newtonian presuppositions, left brain thinking) and as a forum for action (Right brain, creative thinking, Art, Drama). It is not my claim that this is completely true, although it completely makes sense, but that this framework of thinking allows for more fruitful pathways forward.
There's no evidence for anything you wrote. The only possible materialist conclusion regarding the nature of consciousness that is consistent with the parsimony of science, is that consciousness is an epiphenomenon - an illusion. That is the position of people like Daniel Dennett, who misguided though they are, do at least understand the implications of what's being suggested.
Ask most materialists how consciousness emerges from unconscious matter, and they'll say by the process of conscious emergence. If you press them they'll emphasise process. If you ask what the process entails, they'll say it's complicated, what, you expect us to know everything?!? It's a wholly promissory stance and an argument from complexity. In other words pseudoscience.
Neuroscience has nothing to say regarding consciousness because it is founded on a misunderstanding of what consciousness represents. There are no conscious and unconscious states, consciousness is unavoidable. There is only conscious volition and non-volition. The most reasonable argument, i.e. one based on reason not reductionist metaphysics, is that consciousness is primary, in other words consciousness is what reality does.
Dr.E.O. Wilsons book Consilence deals with many of the thoughts and questions I mentioned in my opening paragraph. Chapter 6, “The Mind,” starts off as follows: “Belief in the intrinsic unity of knowledge -the reality of the labyrinth - rides ultimately on the hypothesis is that every mental process has a physical grounding and is consistent with the natural sciences. The mind is
extremely important to the consilience program for a reason both elementary and disturbingly profound: Everything that we know and can ever know about existence is created there.” That was the first paragraph.
The key points are: Understanding the brain requires science. Philosophy is knowledge challenged in this matter. There has been a biological evolution of the brain. That evolution focused on survival. In order to see more than survival, it takes knowledge applied in a holistic paradigm. The best quality of knowledge is from science. Other options included myth, self-deception, and ritual. I would add superstition and dogma as lesser qualities of knowledge.
Wilson develops the point the mind is the brain at work. He writes that, “The brain and
its satellite glands have been probed to the point where no particular site remains that can reasonably be supposed to harbor a nonphysical mind.” [p108]
Yes, it assumes materialism to prove materialism. The brain must produce consciousness like a liver produces bile, therefore if we poke around we'll find the appropriate mechanism for any thought. There's no evidence that is the case, in fact the evidence shows the contrary to be most likely.
Clearly the brain has a role in controlling physical functions, but to assume it creates consciousness, and that reality exists exclusively in the head (which is the only corollary), is massively over-reaching and entirely metaphysical. Most of the body is straightforward lever, pumps and valves, but the blob of fat in the head is responsible for everything, ever? I don't buy it. It's more likely that the brain is a kind of aerial or antennae picking up reality in a way analogous to a television. Bash it and it'll go fuzzy, but you won't find the orchestra playing on the screen no matter how hard you look. Therefore I'm predisposed to the conclusions of Idealism far more than materialism.
I'm enjoying this. Thank you for engaging. I assure this is from a place of wanting to understand, not prove what I know...
Couple of things on your response: 1. Our blob of fat is responsible for everything ever in terms of what we know. But how can you interpret/understand/encounter what you do not know?That requires action based on what it is that you do know.
2 The body is anything but straightforward, in my opinion. Yes, you can lay out Gray's anatomy and know all the levers pumps and valves, but to understand their evolutionary structure and function, and to interpret those adaptations in a current circumstance and pretend we can understand that is laughable. Yet, here we are close to being able to create new beings, yet we "know" nothing about Biology or Life. It is laughable.
Then you consider we have people creating new identities for themselves and people consider that more scientific than psychology.
No problem, the issues are complex because the assumptions of materialism are so pervasive. I don't think we're able to create "new beings" as you put it, and I strongly suspect artificial intelligence will prove to be a dead end, though the powers of computers to mimic processes will certainly increase.
I don't have a lot of time to unravel the consequences of mind - matter relationships, but this is a link to a comprehensive talk by Bernardo Kastrup on the subject. There are shorter videos available, especially on the philosophical errors of materialism: ruclips.net/video/AF2uTbmHCMA/видео.html
I should add that I don't find Susan Blackmore a credible authority on the subject: www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/investigating-skeptics/whos-who-of-media-skeptics/susan-blackmore/
Cutting her off just as she enthusiastically challenged JP. Preventing a to and fro where some ideas could be explored properly. Why? To get him to clarify a definition. We just pause and google if theres a word we dont get.
I agree - these kinds of discussions are too deep for 47 minutes, even if portions have been cut down. We want more prolonged and deeper exploration of these ideas and you can tell that both speakers do as well.
exactly; I have had these discussions with friends I largely agree with for like 5 hours and we get no where; these things are so hard to talk about etc.
The idea of correct is incorrect.
"Meme"...absolute horrible word...and usage of, here in this debate and discussion. It's origin is 1970's and taken from a Greek word that means simply "to imitate". Usable yes in gene discussion or the digital world of a static image or symbol reused ad infinitum, however impossible as thought or discussion as it would have totally different relevance to both user and listener each time used. "is my memory of the sky the same as yours?"
Dawkins originally used the example of imitation, which was derived from the greek word 'Mimeme', like you correctly said. But in the same paragraph, also used the french word "Même" which means "memory". The semantics on the words origin doesnt speak to its definition, which he defines on that same page. He simply wanted a word that "rhymed" with 'gene' and had a 'relevant' root. The sky is not an idea that replicates and effects cultural evolution, hence its not relevant in a discussion about memes. I feel like jodans main issue with it is dawkins calls the idea of god a meme when laying out his definition lol.
Where the fuck Sheldrake at?
Ha ha yeah he used to run with Blackmore, but to answer you're question he's right here:
ruclips.net/video/UjegbDhlHLg/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/AJJn7dugSqQ/видео.html
Both are perfectly reasonable and are listening to each other's points. It's what we used to call a "debate". Her claim about religious societies being more violent may be factually wrong, but it seems she would be willing to be persuaded on that if shown convincing evidence.
*worst, she said "worst societies", I interpreted that to mean violent and oppressive.
I can see there are nuances to the application of definitions and context. I’m a big fan of JBP but I can also acknowledge that he redefines definitions without warning. I don’t believe he does it maliciously or even disingenuously - it’s not his mode or goal, but he is actively trying to solve a question. For the other side of the debate this can both confusing and frustrating.
In this instance I think Susan rightly points out research of correlations of violence with a religious “right” indoctrination of “religion”. JBP, as we progress through the talk, actually gets to what he feels is a component of “ religion” being the interplay of MEME/Genetic. So it’s not metaphysical, he doesn’t see religion as a “saviour of would for reward in afterlife”. But he does make a leap to connect the human need for belief in an ideal, as artefacts of this interplay of genetic and memes. I think it’s great...he’s pushing the envelope. I’m okay with some saying this is utterly silly. But if you put it together, he’s putting an explanation for why humans can’t just be reductionist and rational. He’s attempting to put together the missing pieces from a psychological perspective, which I think is noble. It’s meaningful. 😌
I am not sure if I read you correctly, but it is one of JBP's major points that irreligion correlates overwhelmingly with gratuitous, nihilistic, continental-scale violence. Hence the "100 million dead" of 20th-century irreligious ideologies.
If you (by saying "ighly points out"), or Susan, is implying that the correlation ("research of correlations of violence"?) goes the other way, this would seem to be a factual disagreement which could be resolved by just looking into factual evidence.
It seems perfectly clear to me that JBP is right in this. It is meaningless to speak of a "correlation" of religion and violence as long as there was no major non-religious society serving as a control group. Major irreligious societies first arose in the late 18th century, with the French revolution. From day one, the French revolution was bloodier than anything that could previously have been imagined. It wasn't just the astronomical death-toll, it was also the complete nihilism and indifference on the part of the butchers. This pattern has been borne out again and again in the atheist societies that have come and gone since, so I honestly don't think JBP's position is really assailable. But if others think it is, the easiest way would be to just state so explicitly, so the evidence can be laid out.
Why do “non-religious” (quotations because I don’t believe there’s any such thing) intellectuals so easily attribute violence with being religious whilst ignoring the ample historical facts of atheistic ideologies that perpetrated inhumane slaughter? Why the biased hypocrisy? How about this: the human race is suffering from a potentially fatal trait that Christians call sin and the non-religious “intellectuals” simply try to ignore or deny. Just being human predisposes us to the consequences of this fatal trait...whether we adhere to a formal religion or an informal one called “humanism”, which merely substitutes human as god. At least Dr. Peterson acknowledges the obvious. Something is wrong with the human being. If not fixed we shall perish.
well put, this is exactly what I am asking.
I wonder how Blackmore would have reacted if Peterson had called her out on this point, it's a wasted opportunity, he is well equipped to contradict the point, and she seems to have been willing to genuinely engage with contradiction.
I have to hand it to her, I have never before seen a literal blue-haired lady from her ideological camp behave even remotely as reasonably as she did, good for her.
She is as clever as she is beautiful... Her usage of the contents of her head is as natural as the color of her beautiful hair. Her blabbering is so balanced as her 50 cents haircut. In Russia, we call the creatures dogs. How about you, Americans?
One of the more mercurial RUclips comments I've read. I have no idea what point you're making.
And you will not. It was for those with brain.
I just watched Matt Dillahunty put JP in his place, word trickery and non answers are a smart mans way of deceiving the masses.
I'll give Peterson this: he's good at meaningless waffle. I remember hearing nonsense like this in Arts theory classes at uni.
mymentor completely. Tried to redefine truth the weirdo
I don't know if Peterson would take what you're offering and put it in his pocket, but I'm sure Peterson would be happy to hear your story about meaningless waffle from your Arts Theory class in Uni. Why don't you tell us all here a bit about the kind of waffle you heard? I'd like to hear about it - sounds like even back then you had already solidified your worldview.
"I don't know if Peterson would take what you're offering and put it in his pocket"
I dare say you're right about that. He seems to be disturbingly hyper-sensitive to criticism.
"sounds like even back then you had already solidified your worldview"
You are very much incorrect. Although theory classes did a good deal to concretise my disdain for pretentious psuedo-intellectualism. In hindsight, it's a shame none of my tutors or professors came up with a theory that swirls in ancient Sumarian landscapes indicated they knew about DNA. At least that's funny (albeit unintentionally) as well as being stupid.
I think if you consider anything he says "meaningless waffle", I don't think you're listening.
HeyHerdy - I guess to be more 'precise' I should say he's good at shrill, whiny, humourless, sanctimonious waffle with a handful of trite self-help platitudes thrown in the mix. He is a sub-mediocre intellectual at best, with no significance in the academic community. For any topic he speaks on, it would be an easy task to find dozens of more erudite and accessible public thinkers. Still, he's found a market of mainly (not wholly, to be 'precise') aggrieved young males with both persecution and entitlement complexes and seen a way to make easy money. Have at it. And if you get something from him, good luck to you.
What is " science "?
It is a word.
It means what the English says it means or what the English has been told.
E'lm - عِلْم
It's a word that means what the English call science.
A'llam - عَلَّم
A word that means ( he taught ).
Olim - عُلِم
A word that means ( understood ).
Note that all the three words are Arabic and are all written in the same three letters in the same order therefore there must be a strong connection between the meanings, and there surely is.
That is an example of a language that has been preserved in a book and in that book there is many challenges for who doesn't believe by it.
It is more than 1400 years old.
don't grasp on to religion ....don't grasp on to science .....just BE ! that's it ...there isn't and answer and there isn't a question ......there is just being.....
language is the problem...the series of noises coming out of the hole in your face isn't able to grasp reality in any of its forms
Jordan works way too hard to extract meaning and purpose where none exists.
Nothing new. Dawkins suggests there is an area of the brain that has been evolved to believe in the supernatural - gods, God or some kind of spiritual world. Jordan's archetypes are not a new theory. He is just saying memes are evolved which Dawkins says in another way.
"Nothing new" that's Peterson for you. Philosophy lite. The fast food of speakers.
Actually the idea of archetypes comes from Carl Jung, it's not Jordan's idea and he has never claimed it to be (in fact I'm amazed you wouldn't know that since JBP constantly mentions Jung regarding this topic). So, Dawkins idea is essentially a simpler version of Jung's collective unconscious (which includes the archetypes), based on a cultural natural-selection scenario (which Jung had also pondered decades before as well, while focusing more on the collective unconscious itself and how it manifests). So it was Dawkin's idea that was never really new even if he doesn't even seem to know it. But, more importantly, what's your point?
Is it just me or does Susan look an awful like richard dawkins?
CONSPIRACY THEORISTS STAND UP!
Can Dawkins just sit down with this clown and obliterate his foolish claims?
ruclips.net/video/-f8BlPDNLpQ/видео.html
Dawkins' own idea is essentially just a simpler, surface-level interpretation of Jung's concept of the collective unconscious. Unless Dawkins refutes his own notion of "memes" or somehow has any evidence that it cannot in fact be an unconscious evolutionary trait, he can´t really "obliterate" this idea at all. The first one would be ridiculous and there is no evidence for the second. And keep in mind that neither memes nor archetypes are proven concepts either way, so they're just two theories that are extremely similar (athough Richard Dawkins doesn't seem to know or acknowledge that his own idea was postulated at much greater length and complexity over half a century before him by a psychoanalyst)
He did sit down, and didn't care to "obliterate his foolish claims".
I think of Daniel Dennett's deepity when I think of Jordan Peterson. He talks such utter nonsense in a way that sounds deep and profound.