The Issue With Postmodernism | Sam Harris
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 дек 2023
- Watch the full interview with Sam Harris on our main channel today at 5PM ET www.youtube.com/@JordanBPeter...
Dr. Peterson's extensive catalog is available now on DailyWire+: bit.ly/3KrWbS8
// LINKS //
All socials: linktr.ee/drjordanbpeterson
Website: jordanbpeterson.com
Events: jordanbpeterson.com/events
Twitter: / jordanbpeterson
Instagram: / jordan.b.peterson
Facebook: / drjordanpeterson
Telegram: t.me/DrJordanPeterson
Newsletter: mailchi.mp/jordanbpeterson.co...
// COURSES //
Discovering Personality: jordanbpeterson.com/personality
Self Authoring Suite: selfauthoring.com
Understand Myself (personality test): understandmyself.com
// BOOKS //
Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life: jordanbpeterson.com/Beyond-Order
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: jordanbpeterson.com/12-rules-...
Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: jordanbpeterson.com/maps-of-m...
#JordanPeterson #JordanBPeterson #DrJordanPeterson #DrJordanBPeterson #DailyWirePlus
Dr. Peterson and Sam Harris, on Christmas Day? You have got to be KIDDING me. What a precious precious gift, after all together years you two have been building this friendship!
I’m almost 70 and have traveled for decades. Some of the most moral people I’ve met have never gone to Church. I wish things were so black and white that I could trust anyone who claimed to be a Christian, but of course that’s not even close to true.
Whoa there, settle down there slugger. Holy chit lol
Internet has become contest of who can make the most hyperbolic comments. “You have GOT to be KIDDING me…these two Intellectual Juggernauts have graced us mere plebs with their WISDOM???!?!?!?”
Friendship?
@@jtjones4081 Why do you think Christians are to somehow be above regular human beings? Christians are regular human beings. The whole reason for Jesus Christ being born and being executed was to die for all human sin. No one is above sin because every human being has the capacity for good and evil. As a Christian, I’m no more and no less human than you.
The only difference is I will be forgiven and receive the gift of eternal life with God.
Robert T. Miller in the recent Jan 2024 issue of First Things lays out the best description I've found of what Dr.Peterson & Mr.Harris are describing, and it is the difference between "commonsense morality" & "politicized morality". The first describes a morality that views wrongs as wrong regardless of circumstance, the second rank-orders wrongs according to an instrumentalized politic.
Love to see you two talking together at last. You both have a very unique and important perspective that blend very well with each other’s. I hope you realize how important these conversations are!
The conversations between these two grab my attention more than any other two people talking. Period.
This is why moral and cultural relativism needs to be denounced. People have been trying to contextualize abhorrent acts by taking into consideration the identities of the perpetrators and/or victims. The same applies to the barbarism that's become commonplace in the third world. At some point, we have to be able to put our foot down and call a spade a spade instead of trying to dance around evil in an effort to avoid offending the intolerant and unreasonable.
Agree. And the conversation has to start with the fact that every human being is capable of good and evil. And must end with we each have free will to choose good or evil.
God designed and created us this way for a reason.
Well said
@@dltnsdd God smuggling is not entirely playing fair. Whether or not there is a designer is neither here nor there. Its absence speaks for itself. The problems I see is that there isn't universal agreement on good and evil. In the West, we have our ideas of good and evil mostly born from Judeo/Christian virtues. BTW, not all Judeo/Christian values as prescribed by the holy books are necessarily virtues. One example being the condonation of slavery in the Torah and Bible. Still, the virtues(offering the other cheek, the golden rule, giving to the poor by sharing what you have, etc...)are good in the western eye. Hence Ali Hirsi's recent conversion to Christianity. The challenge I see, and what I think Sam & Jordan are pointing out, is that many other dogmatic religious groups do not see those values as virtues. Indeed, they see them as weakness or evil. What's to be done about it? I have no idea, but it will be an absolute train wreck if we don't come together.
@@Big_DT God doesn’t judge us by “universal agreement.”
God told us by what principles(laws) His creation operates and the consequences of living our lives against the inherent principles.
These conversations between humans, about humans, are likely comedic as well as sinful to God.
As God told Job:
Job 41:11
11 Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me.
@@dltnsdd I really don't care about your god(s), as I view them as a big part of the problem. I care about my family, my neighborhood, my city, my state, my country and our world. I care about my children, grandchildren and future generations on this planet, not some ridiculous afterlife made up by bronze age goatherders and used by countless charlatans to control and grift suckers ever since. None of that is real, but what is real is the suffering taking place on this planet today and a future that looks rather bleak. The question is what should we do. Christianity isn't the answer, it's proven that, Islam isn't the answer as it's currently proving that, Secular Humanism isn't the answer as it leaves too many people wanting, Atheism ultimately leads to a lack of hope and meaning, so how do we get out of this? Sam is suggesting empathy and rational thought, Jordan is saying that we should be able to draw wisdom from Judeo Christian religious traditions and the biblical stories, without regard to their historicity, and focus on the truth that those stories contain. Sam agrees that we should draw the truths from these holy books, but states that religious dogma, along with the fundamentalist view of the holy books being god-breathed, gets in the way of that goal, as some people interpret the books literally and treat them as the infallible word of gods and therefore make it impossible to update them to reflect a more modern view of societal needs. Seriously, slavery is condoned in both the old and new testaments.(See Exodus 21 & 1 Peter 2:18 as a couple of examples) Just like most great works of literature, there are many truths in the Bible, not necessarily facts, but truths. I don't think either of these guys have the complete answer and that's why discussions like this are helpful in generating understanding. If enough smart and caring people think about these problems, then hopefully they'll get solved before it's too late.
Pretty cool he got Ben Stiller on the podcast
To quote a famous postmodernist "There is no good, there is no evil, only power" by Lord Voldemort
Lmao bruh 😂
Glad to see Sam back in the mix. Can't say I agreed with him on a lot the last couple years l, but that doesn't mean I don't value him and he isn't allowed a differing opinion. I've listened to the man talk for a hundred hours and came out of it a better person by all accounts
Very well said.
What you hear from Harris is what someone sounds like when they've realized everything they argued is wrong.
I used to highly respect Sam but he went full on hate mode with 0.000 morals in the past 7 years. It was sad to watch how he justified his hate with a “rationality”.
Well said. Its good to challenge our beliefs.
@@stevenrn6640exactly. It wasn't that it was a " differing opinion " - it belied a total abandonment of principles and rationality which were supposedly his hallmark. Definitely calls into question anything else he has to say
These two are one heck of an intellectual match. I always find myself loving where their conversations lead them. Very fruitful ground indeed.
Not really. Sam stands on quicksand.
"If minds are wholly dependent on brains and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees." -C.S. Lewis
@@DesignRhythmSignificance is something the human mind attributes. So what is significant to us is not an objective metric.
@@TechnoMinarchist Wind in the trees.
@@TechnoMinarchistThat’s the issue I have though. Does it matter if it’s verifiable as objective or not? Really? You have distributed functions across myriad minds and bodies. You can get pretty good data objectively on what and why most people in certain circumstances consider meaningful. That meaningfulness has an objective physiological and cognitive signature, and that it tends to correlate with specific markers in people over the course of time.
Objective? Objective is not necessary because you can actually define what you mean in a multi variable sense. And Peterson spent much of his career doing that. If you want to disagree with the definitions, do it.
Drives me nuts these facts and objective assertions, lack cursory knowledge of how truth can be determined, and to what degree. And what is valid evidence. And how to argue the validity of evidence.
@@chickenmonger123 Considering that there exists no form of valuation outside of what the human mind attributes, it doesn't matter that it's subjective as subjectivity is the most concrete form of existence which valuation can occupy.
The original comment I was responding to was trying to make the claim that there is something other than the human mind which gives valuation which holds a place of existence which is more concrete than that of human valuation.
Significance of value can only be verified insofar as to tally up which minds value what. We can infer all sorts of cause and effect, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter.
Now, we can however, make accuracy claims about some valuation claims. For example, if one values living a healthy life, we can say that valuing healthy foods over unhealthy foods is more inline with the initial valuation and therefore a more accurate reflection of a value that is sane than valuing the opposite. However this of course, hinges upon the person holding the first valuation.
And they said Santa won't bring me gifts.
JP haters definitely got coal for Christmas
Well, I'm looking forward to this one 🙂 By the way, it is typically Jean-François Lyotard who is associated with the "death of metanarratives" concept. He was one of the first to elaborate on a theoretical framework of the postmodern condition. Baudrillard was kind of operating in the same landscape, though.
Learned so much from you both over the years. Love this
I am so glad these two minds have come together! Merry Christmas Dr. Peterson!
Sam Harris hates Christmas & wants others to reject it.
Perhaps it's a superficial point, but why does every podcaster on RUclips now shove a bookcase behind them as if that will make them appear insightful? Seems pretentious to me.
@@dalejames486 Because Sam Harris wants you to see all the books written by Jews like him published by Jewish publishers. “Institutions” he claims.
I just rewatched all the live events of these two over the last couple of days. I thought initially the RUclips algorithm was dicking with me flagging this video but for real they have had a recent interaction!! A real Christmas treat indeed!
Two of my main influences throughout my life - can't wait to enjoy this conversation. Thanks for everything I've learned from the both of you.
Wait... Sam and JP talking bout stuff again..? Hella interesting! Awesome to get this during christmas.
It’s always interesting to have Peterson talk to Harris. He is a very intelligent person who has thought deeply about his views. I am closer to Peterson for my part, but I always feel like there is something interesting to discover in the sounding out of the ideas. However usually the conversations get caught on a bit of nomenclature. And usually it’s the rationalist can’t find his way around what you mean. You can try to use their definition, but usually it’s missing some critical aspects present in yours, for god only knows what reason. Usually there’s no way in hell they’ll even entertain the validity of your definition.
Or that’s a problem I’ve had. And so has the conversations I’ve seen with Harris. Fortunately Peterson is better than me. And so is Harris. It’s not always clearly a productive conversation. The thing worth discovering is not always found, even if it seems likes it’s close. Though that depends on your goal. But it is always interesting.
I've always wanted to see more conversations between you two, glad to see it happening.
I have commented on very few things in my life. I rarely lack the gumption to share my opinion with others simply because; Who am I, and what does my opinion count for? However, in this instance I am beyond compelled to express my long time appreciation of you Doctor Peterson and also Sam Harris whom I also started following after your initial set of debates with Peterson. You two truly bring out the best in each other and your deliberation helps me organize my own thoughts 1000x quicker than I would arguing with myself. Thank you both. You two are titans of our time and ya'll make me grateful to be alive now to bear witness and help me at least bring a vague shadow of ya'lls brilliance and virtue to people I know in my life. Keep going the both of you. Thank you.
There's the Habermas vs. Lyotard debate including the Jameson angle but I'd also remind those who are interested that Whitehead too was a kind of "postmodern constructionist" long before the period and term Postmodern or Postmodernity was being readily used. In fact, Lyotard's designation of it being a condition over a historical period or dogma, similar, I suspect to Latour and his "flat ontology" approach to using endless descriptive means to describe human and nonhuman things as network relations (i.e. "actor-network theory") etc.
It is to me, wonderful, after so much disagreement, that you pair are are still working to understand and resolve your differences and attempt to elucidate exactly what your common ground is; with patience and respect.
bravo.
You two talking together is something I crave. I'm guessing I'm not the only one.
Me too. Two great minds.
These two are both on my theoretical short list of “if you could host a dinner with anyone…”
Exactly
Merry Christmas to you both and all us viewers from Newfoundland ❤
Merry Christmas Jordan, and happy holidays! 🎄
The post-modernist Peterson is trying to remember was probably Jean Lyotard. Lyotard popularized a definition of post-modernism as "extreme skepticism of meta-narratives".
What a nice Christmas present! Two great minds hashing out questions of the ages.
Merry Christmas, everyone 🎅
Jordan and Sam. Just what I wanted 🎁 👏⭐️
Thank you for this, and Merry Christmas to you.
My two favorite guys! Can one of you get Thomas Sowell on while he’s still alive? He’s changing my life. I can’t help but notice a lot of overlap between Jordan’s gender studies and Sowell’s race studies.
Thomas Sowell is an amazing man. I have read a number of his books including his new one just released a few months ago. Sowell never fails to say or write things that make so much sense that I find myself actually chuckling at his cleverness. And he has inspired me to delve into the micro when the macro explanations seem a bit odd. And to think he is in his late 80’s or early 90’s and still is an intellectual force to be reckoned with.
Merry Christmas ❤❤
Where can i find the complete conversation?
Best to you both.
Wow. The most coherent I think I have seen JP be in a while. He is good when talk about psychology
11:30 Great point by Dr. Sam Harris where he points out the gap in the level in the fruits of the spirit in a given person, or group of people in relation to the ideal. This is talked about in depth in the bible.
😑
Sam is getting ripped. That neck has grown by at least 20%.
What a treat!!!!
Great discussion but I think we now need to agree on what suffering, well-being and happiness for conscious creatures and minds actually means.
Exactly! They are measurements, but hold no value without foundational principles, goals, or social conditions to measure against.
In the property/individual rights framework, the "knowledge problem" is much better solved. No central planner could ever have the necessary knowledge to maximize happiness or reduce suffering. I've heard someone say (Matt Ridley?) "expertise is diffuse amongst individuals". Even if they come to some wrong conclusions and act against their own interests, most individuals know far more about their own lives and needs than any distant bureaucrat ever could.
@@Individual_Lives_Matter I believe Thomas Sowell said that. I just watched a short video of an interview with him and this was mentioned, along with the problem with central planning as you are describing.
@@Individual_Lives_Matter happiness is subjective
Can’t wait to watch this!
Can u provide notes?
Where can I find the full episode?
The info is listed in the box
Immediately clicked on this video. A treasure, really!
If ‘wrong’ exists it’s difficult to see how it could vary from one situation to the next; a better way to think about it is to include extenuating circumstances, along with always remembering human imperfection.
That being said, people *still* don’t understand postmodernism. Peterson’s criticisms of it aren’t much different to a first year philosophy student.
Omg where is the full episode
Merry Christmas 🎁⛄😁
If Harris and Peterson would become christians it would fill me with joy! Merry Christmas to you all. Its great to see people who disagree digging into each others minds in a civilized way.
A question for Dr. Peterson.
Suffering is what people want to avoid. This suffering is abstract; it's not being able to have kids when you want to because no one would marry you due to poverty.
It doesn't matter whether you call it suffering or X; it's what most people want to avoid. And some things tend to be agreed upon more than others.
Plus, the emergent biological morality that Dr. Peterson talks about in 'Maps of Meaning' & his recent talks (which he will develop in his upcoming book) is good proof of that. Fair play in complex animal societies, including humans, tells us that there's a pattern of being (a spirit) that our biology pushes us TOWARD by making things interesting and AWAY from by making us feel guilty (conscience). We can make an objective claim about that subjective conscience.
What tells me what I ought to do is my conscience, which evolved through natural and sexual selection, like I said before. You might wonder how I would tell others what to do; here's the answer. As long as a social group agrees on a wrong or a right, it won't be a problem. And any person who is a psychopath, lacking a conscience, can't be argued with anyway.
So, I tell you not to steal; stealing is wrong. And I can tie it to causing humans unnecessary suffering. No non-psychopath will disagree with 'causing others unnecessary suffering is wrong.'
I learned this from Dr. Peterson, from his views on emergent ethics to his interpretation of the Bible. What I didn't learn from Dr. Peterson yet is the need for religion in all this. I know we embody and understand things without being able to articulate it, and most of our understanding comes after embodying. We need it codified to implement into law and need it to stay vague to prevent the lack of change. But we can't do it unless we change the whole concept of religion. Either it's too codified to be argued with or it's too vague to be convincing. What does it mean to "need" religion? I really don't know.
Religion is the substrate that these morals grow from. Like a plant needing the nutrients within soil, our psych has metaphysical prerequisites which need to be fulfilled to generate the proper state for morals and ethic to flourish. I think that's the gist of what he means by "need"
I don't want to avoid suffering. What am I?
as @LizardOnAMushroom said, the existence of the nature of Good and Evil DID NOT EXIST MEANINGFULLY before Christianity. Christianity changed EVERYTHING, from might means right into an idea that grew larger and larger until the adoption of governments that recognized the ability of all people
Suffering should not be the metric by which we decide what is wrong. It's too subjective and too easily abused. Stealing is wrong because you are taking away someone else's time/energy/choices when you steal from them. Individuals are real and they own their body and the fruits of their labor. If they do not hurt you or steal from you, leave them alone. Making someone else do something that they do not want to do, when they haven't hurt anyone else or stolen from them, because you think they are suffering, is just well-intentioned tyranny.
@@Individual_Lives_Matter I think "wrong" isn't an intellectual domain. It's more an emotional domain and you bet is subjective. That's the only way. But if we agree on the subjective, that's all we need. My conscience says stealing is wrong, if you agree come join my society.
Why does my conscience say stealing is wrong, that's an intellectual domain but it doesn't change the FACT that my conscience guides me away from wrong.
Now this is a Christmas gift
Dr. Peterson, I beg you to PLEASE try and get to have a conversation of some sort with Professor Michael Sugrue. That man is an absolute light to the world and has some of the most beautifully enlightening lectures on RUclips on classical and religious literature and history, among others.
I want to see Jonathan Pageau and Sam Harris talk
I love when these two meet. My other favourite combo was JP and Stephen Fry
I value these types of interactions from Jordan much more than the socio-cultural takes he makes. These discussions are more genuine and lay out reality in all its facets as best as the human mind can. The socio-cultural commentaries are lopsided and only focus on the negative side effects rather than also revealing the positive side effects that cultural / social change usually offers humanity. Besides that lopsidedness there is a fair amount of performative modesty which betrays the hubris in all of it. But this interaction is great.
I can argue that Jordan does value Sam's work so much that if it wasn't for Sam, Jordan would have been a full blown religious Christian by now.
Sam is always a joy to listen to.
I finally agree with Peterson on something, and I think it's because he is staying within the boundaries of Psychology. Most times I hear Peterson agreeing with postmodernism and relativism as he trudges through areas he really doesn't understand, yet creates word salads that appeal to many who don't take the time to really listen to, and think through, what he is saying. In this case, he is using Psychology as his base, and he ends up riding alongside Sam, who is one of the most thoughtful thinkers on the planet. A good conversation.
I would suggest to watch the video "What The Prisoner's Dilemma Reveals About Life, The Universe, and Everything" by Veritassium, that shows that being good naturally arises in evolution. Not naive good, but good in a fair sense. The experiments have been done. It clearly shows that morality is needed for increased survival chances.
And thus it's not something that's given to us. It's part of us.
Open your heart to postmodern wisdom. I discovered (c-b)/a scale-symmetry using postmodern methods.
🛼🏳️🌈
Yes!
They are the Socrates and Plato of the modern era, intellectual treasures, governments of the free world should consult them on all major issues
I am here for these comments!
This content… or these comments?
@@johneeeemarry34 Updated. Auto correct has been getting me all day!
Can we have an "The Issue With Sam Harris" podcast?
No. Only terminally online internet psychopaths would watch that.
two great legends
Love Sam Harris❤
The horror of these evil systems is that most people in them are not psycholopaths, ut perform evil acts, or facilitates them anyway.
Postmodernism isn’t the rejection of grand narratives like they are saying, it’s casting doubt on grand universal narratives and emphasising the importance of individual experience.
The mix of Sam and Jordan is like vanilla an chocolate. I would only wish for a narrator to lead the conversation, which would give both of them full concentration on the matter discussed. And to ask more provocative and biting questions to the both.
After Sams initial monolog and Jordan with notes and pencil, his first response could have been, "and how does that make you feel?" :-)
Just kidding, nice to see those two discuss.
Ayn Rand (and Aristotle before her) made this all very simple: “good” is that which promotes human flourishing, on an individual level.
Jean-François Lyotard is in fact the French postmodernist who claimed no uniting meta narratives are possible
Voy a empezar con manzanillla, ya tengo lavanda❤
I comprehend everything top to bottom
the statement about logic is simply an appropriate extension of godels theorem to all of logic as it applies to logic and formal reasoning.
You work for 40yrs to have $1m in your retirement, while some people are putting just $10k in a meme coin for just few months and become multi millionaires
This must be an investment with Mr Larry Marshall
He's on tele gram
# LarryMarshall02
I will advise you should stop trading on your own if you keep losing. And i don't trade on my own anymore, I always required help and assistance
This sounds so good and I would like to be a party to this, is there any way I can speak with his?
why is the audio so bad
Anyone or any group that wants you dead, and/or actively pursues your death, should never NEVER be tolerated. Even despite them believing they are just.
There is a time when the purity trip is forgivable…I mean, when the presents are under the tree, who can argue?
(“You haven’t suffered enough..you don’t understand divorce.” - Dad)
They're talking about Lyotard, not Baudrillard
Has either of you esteemed men incorporated, or even heard of, Robert Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality? If not, please read his Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Morals with an eye to how he divides up reality into chaos, inorganic, organic, social, and intellectual realms, in that ascending order of Quality/Morality. Please advise. Thank you.
How Human Nature Works
Human nature is the desire to receive, also called “desire to enjoy,” and it functions by receiving what is beneficial to itself and rejecting what is harmful. Everything in our lives is built upon this calculation where we first try to distance ourselves from harm, and then seek how to draw ourselves closer to what is beneficial.
Human nature also includes a multilayering of systems that work simultaneously on still, vegetative, animate and human levels. One of those systems is our bodily one, which operates involuntarily. If our bodies are healthy, then they know what is good for them and draw that goodness to themselves. After the bodily system, there is the emotional system, which also functions relatively according to instinct. From the emotional system, we move to the mind, and from the mind to the intellect, and so on. That is, we have systems over systems that concurrently work on receiving what is beneficial and rejecting what is harmful.
Such is human nature and the essence of our lives. Our every desire, thought and action operates according to the calculation, “How can we receive what is most beneficial to us and reject what is harmful?”
What the?? Merry Christmas to me!!!!
The full video is not uploaded on the channel. 📣 THE FULL VIDEO IS NOT UPLOADED ON THE CHANNEL
if AI says iam suffering , does it suffer ?
Dr. Harris & Dr. Peterson present delightful insights into human actions and attitudes - BUT the each give me "migraines' (a mild exaggeration) because they make it possible to recognize and understand the evildoers in power around the world … but NO clue on defending against or eliminating their threat!
Maranantha!
Imagine a world in where all world leaders no matter their background, religion, race or sex would communicate with each other this way.
Set
03:24 Lyotard.
Some important points here, but the most important is: they're trying to say things that have already been said but in their own words. None of this is new, and people have sorted it out before. Most prominently would be Leonard Peikoff in his book "The Cause of Hitler's Germany".
The key point not being mentioned is "conceptual polysemy". Polysemy is when you use a word with a different meaning in a different context. "I'm going to see a play tonight." vs "Let the kids play." Same word, different meaning. The same thing is being done with concepts. And people are so unaware and lacking in information and education that they have no idea when this game is being played by ideologists. Hitler used this tactic, as most other ideologues have done. "German folk" was one he used. The average German thought "German folk" meant everyone who lived in Germany. Who else would be "German folk" except German citizens? Of course, to Nazis, "German folk" were a specific subset of German people, not all the citizens, and even more specifically a subset of German people who had a specific worldview. "The Democracy of the German folk" did not mean in any traditional sense "Democracy for the citizens of Germany." but democracy specifically and only for that unique subset of people. If you tried to tell this to a German at the time, they would've said you were nuts, no one speaks like that.
Today, you see it most commonly used in America in regards to "Black folks" (or, in the literature, "Black folx"). It does not mean people with black skin. It means people who are "politically Black" (in the Nicole Hannah-Jones way of saying it). Many Americans use the word "folks" in the normal sense, if you tell them "Black folks" has a different meaning than how they imagine it (and tie to history, slavery, etc.) they think you're some kind of conspiracy theorist. Under this knowledge, "Black Lives Matter" has quite a different meaning. Now imagine an 18 year old, who doesn't want to be racist, has little information, less knowledge and even less wisdom: of course they're for "Black Lives Matter"! They're not racist! They're "anti-racist" (which is a subcategory of racism, it's specifically racism in the "anti" direction, perfectly laid out in the "anti-racist" literature). They're going to be the "opposite" of racist by being "anti-racist" and think "I am a good person. I don't judge people based on their race. White people who don't agree with this are the same thing as Nazis!"
On this note, I would like to leave you with a quote from a deNazified Nazi, written years after her deNazification process and long introspection. She was stated to be "150% Nazi" by her mid teens, and by the time she wrote her book, she had corresponded with Hannah Arendt, who found her to be genuine. Her name was Melita Maschmann, the book is called "Account Rendered: A Dossier on my Former Self". Here is the quote, where she explains what she would tell to a child of a Nazi, after the war, and after everyone knew of the Nazi crimes:
“Your father was a good man. He was good in the same way that many people of all nations are. But he had one weakness which is typically German. He allowed himself to be carried away by romantic ideas of Germany’s future and avoided informing himself sufficiently about politics. That is the only reason why Hitler was able to involve him in his own fanaticism. That was the catastrophe. Even a person of particular integrity and kindliness can be induced by fanaticism to do evil, because the fanatic believes that the end justifies the means. He keeps his eyes fixed on a single goal, as if bewitched, and becomes blind and deaf to everything else. The evil done by people like your father, who were in themselves good, resulted from them blinding themselves to the suffering which Hitler’s brutal power politics inflicted on his enemies, such as the Jews or the Poles. ”
When Sam Harris is pointing out that people who we would genuinely consider "good" can end up doing evil things, this is the case for the vast majority of Germans who became Nazis. The inner circle, the upper echelons, that is a different story. The average dumb anti-Semite also made up a substantial minority within the Nazi party. But the vast, vast, vast majority we're Useful Idiots who knew little, wanted to do good, to be seen as good and were almost totally incapable of understanding anything the regime said. The Woke are another incarnation of the same ideological belief structure, another cult under the broader cult structure that houses Nazism and Communism.
Its Lyotard that said postmodernism is incredulity towards metanarratives.
you should set something up with rabbi Simon Jacobson..
Peterson is more postmodern than anyone I’ve ever listened to.
Faxx
how so?
@@robinsss he's very Jungian, but more than that, he believes in an eisegetical interpretation of literature, not an exegetical interpretation of literature; as in, he promotes the multiplicity of interpretations.
@@robinsss the reply given here is a good example but there are so many more. He rejects a rational approach to morality and progress and uses religious interpretations as his yardstick of human knowledge.
His analysis method is also pure postmodernist. When asked recently, _Do you believe in god?_ he gave the most postmodern response to a question I have ever heard - What do you mean by _do?_ What do you mean by _you?_ What do you mean by _believe?_ What do you mean by _in?_ What do you mean by _god?_
Postmodernist think like this.
Awesome! Fits right into my dominant thoughts, of recent.
When two people become parents, the child will forever be a part of them. Sorry for using this, but, nothing and nobody, not even time will ever change that. In truth they will always be connected, unfortunately, not always so with love. In all belief systems, it’s only because of love lost through religion does it seem possible to rewrite truth. If religion allowed for using the proper descriptions for the opposites of truth and love, these would be less prominent.
There was a discussion about power, I find it interesting how people gravitate towards leaders who reinterpret the Bible to allow for their ‘sins’ to be diminished, but hell is still in its interpretation for anyone who dares think for themselves. Hell in it entirety is wrong, it offers no justice or justification, just vengeance.
I believe what drives people to pursue positions of power in belief is because it can be acquired in the above settings, without merit. Without special training or experience.
For one to be a successful leader of a church community, it should be one who can keep it together for the sake of the next generation, putting truth and love as the basis for religion, not the other way around, as currently exists.
No.. the society that permitted it..
Natural selection is of the animal kingdom
Dr Jordan Peterson writing while Dr. Sam Harris is speaking could either give off signal of higherachy. Is he taking notes to his underlying mental state or taking notes on his valid points
Jean Bauldriard, Simulacrum Simulacra.... 3.34
But what about the morality of calling my father on a holiday out of a sense of obligation whereas I call him frequently other times. So a calendar date is moral?
Yes, I would argue. But it begs the question of tenability of any non postmodern view of morality.
What is the difference between manners and morals?
Sounds like two students who just started Intro to Philosophy and have done none of the reading
Sam Harris, waking up podcast, via Jordan Peterson. Hahaha
I've seen the Righteous do Evil and Evil people be Righteous. We are no exception to one another in Gods eyes.
The fact that you can recognize terrible outcomes must mean that there's a foundational plan that is strayed away from by said outcome. For a rational plan to exist there must be an end goal, and is there really an end goal to the universe? The rational argument seems to boil down to something like 'we should avoid pain because pain is self-evidently what we must aim to avoid', but the universe didn't have to reveal that to us for us to know that. We didn't have to carry out scientific research before we understood that we should aim to avoid suffering. Motivations like these are what I believe lay the foundation of the 'rational mode' that follows, and to me that seems quite Godly. It's simply how we were shaped to be; a shape that goes further than defining what right and wrong is into even defining what real and unreal is. In the way that we observe the absence or presence of suffering, or absence or presence of light, we may never come to observe the absence or presence of these foundational motivations, as that would require us to experience something outside the human experience, and what could that entail? The thought of "the undeniable beauty of relief from suffering" as inescapable to me feels like a wonderful realisation, because I think that, to some extent, defines God.
As much as I have love for Peterson, it is difficult to take his him seriously on Postmodernism when he doesn't remember that it was Lyotard who said Postmodernism is an incredulity towards metanarratives. This is 101 stuff.
I'm not a religious person but I fundamentally disagree with Dr Harris that moral and ethics can (must ?) arise from nature and that and conscious being must, "naturally" be of concern. Nature doesn't work that way. The Tennison quote that nature is "red of tooth and claw" is not a philosophical proposition but a simple observation of the really real world. No one who has seen an animal, screaming in pain and fear as it is being torn apart and devoured alive by a pack of predators can doubt the accuracy of this observation. Where is any natural concern for the suffering of that animal ? If nature does not care, what pressing imperative is there for humans to care ? Except for a moral conscience, delivered from...and enforced by...by a higher source, why would humans care ?
How can we be moral when weve lost morale
I don't accept that religion in a specific sense is a requirement for moral or spiritual "health". As has been canvassed, conscience exists independently to religion. On the tolerance question, it's obviously the optimal survival strategy. Motivated by self interest unless supplanted by fanaticism.