A perfect example of two quite different ways of approaching information. One takes what they see around them and tries to make sense of it while the other starts with a premise and tries to make what they see around them fit that premise.
Very well said Neil. Both have their pros and cons. Jordan Peterson was always useful for me because his teachings are PRACTICAL. As soon as I got back on my feet in life, built up my confidence and confronted the world I suddenly began to disagree with him more and more. I realised how distorted his views are, yet I recognise how much they helped me. It’s forever interesting for me.
@TheJthom9 If by that you me we all have prejudices, that would probably be true. However, if you simply take that as a starting position and allow the facts free reign to modify your initial thoughts, then you are still able to move towards a valid conclusion, a conclusion which should be the same as if you hadn't had those initial prejudices. I was referring to those who start from a biased position, often based on incorrect information and/or bigotry who only search for and treat as valid what supports or reinforces the initial position. Anything that does not support or contradicts their predetermined conclusion is either ignored or dismissed as 'fake'.
Stephen Fry is so comfortable in his own skin. He knows what he knows and imparts his knowledge well. He is almost ceremonial in his delivery, which takes in all the skills of History's finest orators. What resonates the most for me about him, is his effortless ability to engage the listener through a constancy and presence of mind over any excess of emotion. I respect and admire him immensely. Thank you for this Joel. Blessings!
@@viviencockle2116 You are so right. I cannot recommend Neil Oliver enough. He really casts a forensic intelligence on the current state of the world. He is an expert on past civilisations and how societies develope. Needless to say it's not looking good.
You're correct about Stephen Fry being comfortable in his own skin. It wasn't always the case though. I recall many years ago, a news story about Stephen which reported that he went AWOL for several days...clearly having some epic internal battle. Pleased that the Stephen we have today won that battle as he is a credit to his nation, his gender, his sexuality and his species.
@@leew6091 I have a vague recollection of that, actually. Maybe he was too comfortable in his own skin he had to withdraw from the world to stay in it? As you say, he is a credit to his nation, his gender, sexuality and his species. Lee, blessings!
It's really heartening to see a young lad like yourself absorbing this kind of material... there may actually be hope for the future after all. Not to sound patronising but Wel Done Pal. Keep digging kidder. Peace and best wishes as ever from the UK.
SUPERB reaction Joel. Really excellent. Shows maturity and openness on your part, and also reveals that you listen to your subscribers and take full note of their comments. Thank you. Really enjoyed this post. So stimulating and thought provoking. There is always hope for understanding and respect when intellects like Fry and Peterson can get together and converse like this. MORE please - I just want to hug them both. Watching this has set me up for the day x
I think that this discussion can be boiled down to one very simple issue, which is where do our moral values come from? One believes that they come from within as part of being human, the other believes that it comes from a divine being in the form of God. You are never going to reconcile those two stances, even though they both agree on the purpose and impact of those moral systems. I side with Stephen Fry on the issue for one main reason. Traumatic brain injuries and drug abuse can change a person's moral values and make them a very different person. If those values were coming from the outside that would not happen. The fact that a physical change to the brain can create a personality change proves to me that personality, and hence morals, are created as part of our material existence.
"one very simple issue, which is where do our moral values come from?" A philosophical debate that has been ongoing since at least the time of Socrates. "What is agreeable to the Gods is Holy. Is it Holy because the Gods find it agreeable? Or do the Gods find it agreeable because it is Holy?" My view - morals are dictated by society; generally for the purposes of "cause the least harm". though sometimes - these "moral actions" can cause harm to one group as a defence of another group. What is "moral and just" is entirely dictated by the time and place and society you inhabit.
It is so refreshing to see an intelligent discussion between intellectuals with you Joel where it wasn’t a points scoring argument of “owning” an opponent but more about mutually respecting an alternate point of view while disagreeing with points for the other to consider. You do this well, it’s why I subscribe
What you are watching is an intellectual conversation, versus someone trying to impose their own view on another person. When people debate they often try to score points by attacking others, this however isn’t the case here, they are simply sharing opposing views.
@@dave24-73 Peterson is well educated but, not an intellectual. He has been accused for using word salad for pushing his egender. Jordan Peterson does not have a strong vocabulary for someone with a PhD. Peterson claims to be an advocate for vulnerable young men but, simply hates women's rights. He will not admit to this claim because he does understand that people are at least as intelligent as he is. Moreover, are able to deconstruct his use of pseudo intellectual linguistic gymnastics and fully understand his point of view. Stephen Fry is a member of the intelligentsia, the clerisy and is a humble man. Fry has a stronger vocabulary than Peterson however, does not toss it around to enthuse the simpleton. Fry is regarded as an intelligent person's intellectual, while Peterson is the intelligent person's intellectual.
One is sharing his own philosophy and worldview and the other is attempting to get his opponent to join his side by dropping names and other people's theories. One of these has authored some really funny and creative novels and the other has put out a bunch of unimaginative self help books.
I studied Richard Dawkins at uni and I found his book the Selfish Gene one of the most thought provoking books I have ever read. The course was the Existance of God theory. Another RUclips worth watching is Stephen Fry and Richard Dawkins in Conversation.
The pain and brokenness in JP's tone is so touching... I'm sure that Stephen Fry felt that. They both have a great respect for each other and have stood together on other debates. Such a good insightful watch.
Do you know why you felt strange during Jordan Peterson's speech? He seemed to be pointless, evasive, uncertain. In contrast, Stephen Fry's speech made us feel comforted, represented, and proud. This is the emotional reaction we should aim for in a debate.
Oh...and I forgot to say....in the interview they talked about Robinson's upcoming "patriotic" march in London, which Peterson seemed happy to publicise. That march took place today and, predictably, the placards read "we want our country back".
Yes! Let’s appriciate how well spoken, respectfull and not the least how educated these gentlemen are! Now, just IMAGINE if our politicians were of this caliber! ❤️
Jordan Peterson often has loads of good points about society and human nature, but once he starts getting all religious common sense just goes out the window.
I don’t think all of his religious stuff is wrong. His early biblical lectures where he interprets the stories in the bible are very good. However the only religious part of the lectures are the fact they stories are from the bible, the interpretations are all very psychological. In all honesty I just don’t really understand religion enough to understand his religious views
I agree. I think JP makes a lot of sense about other stuff (when he’s not trying to distract people away from the subject by trying to define every word in a sentence) but he talks nonsense when it comes to religion. You should check out a video by Cosmic Skeptic where he deconstructs what Peterson has said about religion, and explains why he’s actually an atheist 😂 It’s worth a watch, I’ve got no chance of explaining it myself.
@@MagicMike-n6u Can you read? “I don’t think *all* of his religious stuff is wrong” and “I just don’t really understand religion *enough* to understand his religious views” (asterisks emphasising the words you failed to read correctly) i.e. I understand religion quite well, enough to determine for myself that “I don’t think all of his religious stuff is wrong”. However, his understanding of religion surpasses mine and therefore when he describes his beliefs, parts of it I can’t understand. I don’t contradict myself, reply in a civil manner please.
@@MagicMike-n6u well for a start he is extremely ignorant about atheism, I have seen him many times refer to atheism as a "belief system" Atheism is absolutely not a belief system and if you're going to be that ignorant about the other side of the argument then I'm sorry but I'm not going to listen to a single point you are trying to make.
Fry cuts Peterson off at the end because he knew he had exhausted the conversation. Stephen knew he was wasting his time with him as he was talking shit.
Religion is one of the things Peterson shouldn't be talking about more than necessary. Normally he oozes expertise and knows the ins and outs of every argument, but on religion he never strays from how "useful" it can be, rather than what it actually is. It's not real, and he never deals with that. Which is a shame.
Jordan is suggesting that we should not ask these questions of God, because it's not nice or no good can come of it. This is one of the issues I have with him. He is without doubt a powerhouse intellect and I love *most* of what he says, but the truth does not care about feelings. We should seek the truth, even if we don't like the answer. Feelings have no place in the debate. If there is a God, then he should be asked why he gives Leukaemia to children. In any other debate, Jordan would say the same, I'm sure, but when it comes to his religion, he ring-fences his beliefs and finds way not to apply his own extremely powerful capacity for critical thinking. It's always a problem when you have decided something is true first ...and *then* try to rationalise it. You are not being led by the evidence.
This was great and I love how you are delving into this topic. You are looking at it in a very humanistic way, as can we all just be this way to help our world. I agree. If people could just have conversation without the "who is right...who is wrong" it would be a better world for sure.
I love Stephen Fry for the depth and the art of respectful and yet humorous conversation that has almost been lost these days as people throw around slogans instead of engaging in a fun exchange of ideas and feelings.
One amusing one to watch is Jordan Peterson interview with Cathy Newman. He is a psychologist and was a Professor at Toronto University who came to prominence because he disagreed with compelled speech. Canadian Gov was proposing that you had to use the pronouns etc that someone insisted you use for themselves. He said for good manners he probably would agree but he should not be compelled to do so.
FYI. Some of the results of the UK's 2021 Census, have recently been published which states. For the first time, less than half of population of England and Wales' identify as Christian, at 46.2%. No religion, which includes Atheist, Agnostic etc......is catching up fast at 37.2%. Possibly more if you include 'Religion not stated' at 6%?
I find Peterson difficult to appreciate/ engage with - he talks in an unusually forceful way, almost demanding he is correct in everything he says. I find it hard to believe that someone is right 100% of the time
Weird, the one thing I respect about Peterson is he’s one of the few people who will acknowledge and advertise how weak some arguments are or when he’s wrong. I’ve seen him before making an argument admit “this is a weak argument but I’m not sure what else to think of this” before proceeding to share his view. He also seems pretty shameless on admitting he’s wrong
@@vilebrequin6923 I disagree, he hasn’t made any claims about himself. He studies things, talks about them, and people listen. He doesn’t control the fact people listen nor does he claim he deserves people who listen to him. Just because he lives a life that someone who is egocentric thinks they deserve (people paying to hear what they say) doesn’t mean he’s egocentric. Because if he was being egocentric that doesn’t mean anyone would turn up to his shows. Cause and effect
It's an example of two reasonably smart people having a respectful debate where both feel comfortable in their own perspectives and respect each other enough to understand their differences and don't feel the need to be rude and interrupt each other (like what happens in so many political debates) It's refreshing... I'm not religious, I'm not generally conservative, but I do understand and respect the fact that not everyone in society is going to see this world the way I do, and I'm ok with that The way to have a debate is not to see who can talk the loudest, or cry the most, or look the angriest, but it is an opportunity to present an argument, hear a rebuttal, and then build on the rebuttal from your own perspective. Often in society we look way too much at our differences, that we forget about our similarities
The last part made me chuckle, many years ago, in the summer before I started uni to become a teacher, we were given a book list to read before we arrived. One was Piaget's. I couldn't even pronounce his name. Talk about being daunted, but actually fascinating when applied to children's development.
The only thing JP has going for him,is a very good PR crew,as until a few years ago I never even heard of him;now he roaming the globe,sprouting his well-worn 'clinical psychology' BS on any other subject(even when he has little actual knowledge of the subject under discussion),his gullible audience will accept!
I think there is some truth to what Stephen Fry has to say. I think both are respected intellectuals, and enjoy their individual content. Jordan has moved from believing to not believing and back again, and recent events in his life has drawn him back to faith. But you have to respect Stephen Fry’s view.
We often see Peterson arguing with people that he is able to run circles around intellectual.. It’s very interesting to see him arguing with someone that is at least as intelligent and knowledgeable as himself.. personally I have a lot of respect for both of them
Fascinating. I love to be swayed and bounced around by a good debate. Although few could ever match their awesome intellect and immense learning, we can all learn from their willingness to listen and ability to hear. imo.
Joel you have done it yet again. Every one of your contributions increases my respect for you and gives me greater hope for the future. I just wish we could clone you. Although I was encouraged to be involved with a church in my youth it left me with more questions than answers. A very good friend of mine expressed my thoughts very simply. He said "Where was God during the Holocaust?" I have known some wonderful people who were christians but I have known too many who professed to be but were incredibly hypocritical. I recently found about Secular Humanism which I think is far more realistic. Please keep posting your material. Everything you post boosts my faith in human nature. You really are a very impressive person.
If you want to see more of Peterson, then probably the most famous video is when he was on Channel 4 news with Cathy Newman where they debated the gender pay gap. 40m views on that so far. Very interesting, and quite unusual to see a new presenter get that flustered!
Where as formal debate has its place discourses like this are a lot more productive and interesting. Having epistemic discussions and examining common ground helps to show where understanding lies. personally Ive a big fan of Socratic questioning as a means to explore values. It sounds like you also value discourse without anger, you may enjoy the "Street Epistemology " community and some of the videos and discussions within that sphere. A lot of the material is about examining why and for what reason people believe things rather than whether what they believe is true, this includes religious claims, political claims, supernatural claims or even basic claims.
I always find that people who speak about their non-belief in a 'higher power' come across a lot more balanced and eloquent, than those who do believe - who try and justify their belief through thoughts rather than theory and fact. Stephen Fry and Ricky Gervais talk about this in a very measured way and become more believable rather than the preacher in the street who cannot handle any kind of come back
I don’t think you can ever ask people if they believe in God without saying what god is. I’ve just recently read a tiny bit about Quantum physics and I am open to the view that something bigger than us could be energy and information. That’s what we are made up of. So why can’t that remain and we go back to the source of that 🤷♀️. But definitely not a biblical wizard in the sky version.
Peterson is so intense in his manner whilst Fry is relaxed and absolutely unperturbed by the intensity of the debate. I think that both respect each others view and agree that it is so refreshing to have this interaction take place without dogma, each able to understand and respect the others view though not agreeing - agreeably. Let's have more, Sheffield South Yorkshire.
The difference between these two is the difference between honesty and fake-ness. Stephen Fry only has to speak a few words to make so much sense. On the other hand, Peterson uses word salads, TOO many words and goes all round the houses to say...nothing.
What a treat to watch two highly educated, fabulously intelligent, good-natured and respectful people having a deep conversation. Thank you for this. I am old now but grew up in a period when this type of exchange was the norm: it is current highly emotional and confrontational exchanges which seem strange and distasteful to me. So pleased you liked it too. Feels like soothing balm for the mind!!! One is English, the other Canadian: does this have any bearing on their behaviour?
Nothing about Jordan Peterson is intelligent, good-natured or respectful. The best description of Peterson I have ever heard is that everything he says is either extremely wrong or extremely basic. He creates an opinion, and then tries to manipulate facts to support said opinion. And when people disagree he gets loud and angry.
If I may, in keeping with what Stephen Fry said of himself, that he goes to bed at night wondering how he can improve on his day to be a better person the next day, to recognise our frailty's is one of our greatest strengths in Life. Indeed, more often than not can a frailty of one kind or another prove our greatest strength, if the will towards Kindness is at our heart's core. I do not doubt that Stephen Fry is as much the self-observer as he is the observer. He would not be such a fine actor otherwise.
You can hear that full discussion on RUclips too. I think from memory it lasted an hour or so. Was a fascinating discussion from 2 people I deeply admire.
I think Fry was more concise in his argument here. It was clear and exemplary wheres Peterson tended to circumvent the main topics of discussion. Just my opinion.
The big issue is that Jordan Peterson says different things to different people. He's insightful and well-behaved in dialog with authors like Fry and Sam Harris. Jordan turns petulant and belligerent in general public/student exchanges. (Note some experts say that excessive hand gesturing reflects inner chaos and loss of control.) He regularly panders to the evangelical right -- Jordan recently blamed environmentalists for Putin (!). He misreads/misquotes/distorts a number of serious thinkers: Jung, Nietzsche and Dostoevsky are good examples. An experienced and effective psychology professor, Jordan was catapulted to media celebrity for his opposition to Canadian gender/trans discrimination legislation in 2016. He thoroughly enjoys this attention and regularly makes pronouncements -- way outside his field and expertise -- that appeal to his right wing and evangelical nationalist admirers. What he really believes shifts depending on his audience. Jordan attempts to present as a renaissance man but falls short. Stephen Fry dwarfs Jordan in any exchange. Jordan is a grandiloquent chameleon at his best, and a good cautionary tale about celebrity.
I've been Hearted by Joel so he definitely does read them! Obviously not every comment even though I am so funny!!! I'm not one for the Religious stuff I think it has caused more problems than it has solved! I believe page one is missing which is the dedication and the legal bit about it baring no similarity to anyone alive or deceased!
Morning Joel, so you have gone from being an idiot yesterday, to a very intelligent conversation today. I was up late last night, watching music videos, so will have to make a mug of rosie, and watch again. Best Wishes, T
Hi Jps, as it's the football world cup, may I suggest you listen to the Welsh football anthem, it's sung in Welsh it is called ''Yma O Hyd' and here is a link to it YMA O HYD - DAFYDD IWAN x AR LOG x THE RED WALL (OFFICIAL CYMRU WORLD CUP 2022 SONG. Welsh passion and pride for such a small nation.
Jordan Peterson Simply tries to confuse the discussion by confounding it using word salad that no one can check. He even will, and this has been pointed out by many, misrepresent scientific conclusions to win his argument. When called out that he is contradicting his earlier views he passes it off as being open minded however I see it as creatively using his wealth of information as a resource simply to counter the argument he's faced with at the moment. That is a bad faith argument style.
At the 15 minutes area of this video, you Joel described what is wrong with the world today in people fighting war. And at the same time , exactly what we need to do to stop war......intellectual debates including mutual respect and an ability to agree to disagree without throwing our toys out the pram. Will we ever learn?.
I hope you've taken note of the authors they mentioned so you can read their books yourself. That's how your vocabulary and understanding will increase. Read anything you can get hold of all your life. Reading doesn't stop when you leave school. It's great that you're looking at both sides of the topic, religion or otherwise.
I find that Jordan Peterson's views on conscience, discounts learnt and societal lessons in morality and accountability. Your conscience is the breaching of your own standards, a young child does not show conscience and learns their basic morality and value from their parents. Life lessons then expand your views and your moral values expand from there. This isn't any built in need to satisfy a higher power, but an evolutionary tactic to survive and fit in with your pack/herd. Human society has always ostracised and banished those who do not follow societal norms. Your conscience is just a way of your brain ensuring your long term survival in society.
When these two intellectual giants get together, the object of the discussion is the discussion itself. Neither of them is arrogant enough to try and believe that what they think is the right thing, they are both open to changing their position on the subject matter although neither of them will ever move away from where there initial beliefs are founded. There is never any intent to defeat the other.
no time for Peterson he's all mouth, saw him with Richard Dawkins and he said he switches to easily from one subject to another, his mind wonders as if he can't concentrate and he can see the foxhole and starts looking for a way out
7:35 Omitting is when you remove something. What you meant was probably ‘emitting’ or ‘emanating’. Also, wouldn’t we all like to borrow from his vocabulary?
Bless you sir, you seem to be a fan of British culture however people like me have a very different experience of said culture. A working class POV from the Midlands
Jordan Peterson falls flat when it comes to religion. But he's strong with anti-woke. In fact, again, check the monk debates with Stephen Fry who sides with Peterson on the anti-woke debates.
@@MrSinclairn That's a misconception. You should do a little reading. It's the disliking of regression when a half-decent idea goes off the rails. The far-right hate it because it's not far right, and the progressive left dislike it because it's regressive, illiberal, and dogmatic.
Hi Joel, my post disappeared. In it, I pasted a bio of Prof Peterson, which must have had a hyperlink in it. RUclips Comments doesn't like those. Anyway, thank you for such a civil, cerebral, and wonderful way to start the day. Peterson was born in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and is a professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Toronto. He publishes/posts almost daily, so there's a ton a material out there to peruse. I agree with you, I think that those two would go for a beer together after debating. Mutual respect for each other's intellect and civility, plus a willingness to learn from each other. So refreshing after having to listen to childish imbeciles holding high office over the past few years. Have a great day Joel, John in Canada
Hello Joel. This was like QI without the Q. I used to win pub quiz and talk about all sorts down the pub, but these are on another level above another level. My friend that I toured US with did realise after pub discussions that he was clever enough to go to university, studied to get there and is now a teacher. I just find I watch this sort of video on RUclips since lock down, but at least I am not the only one, even if I am home alone.
I think we think to much…. Just try with clear conscience to be better than yesterday. Don’t beat yourself up if you fail. Humans just like everything else is floored. Ciao ✋
I`d reccommend " Fr F.C. Copleston v Bertrand Russell ( a discussion between the two, aired in - I think - somewhere between about 1948 and 1950 ). `Availabe here in YT, of course.
I believe Fry is right about most people wanting to be better then they are. It’s SO weird hearing Fry say that he himself often wanting to be better, when many others go to bed wanting to be more like HIM! 😵💫😃
I mean he has been to prison and he was a pretty rebellious teen, no one is perfect and even the likes of Stephen Fry have flaws. Otherwise there would be no pont in him trying to be better.
A perfect example of two quite different ways of approaching information.
One takes what they see around them and tries to make sense of it while the other starts with a premise and tries to make what they see around them fit that premise.
Very well said Neil. Both have their pros and cons.
Jordan Peterson was always useful for me because his teachings are PRACTICAL. As soon as I got back on my feet in life, built up my confidence and confronted the world I suddenly began to disagree with him more and more. I realised how distorted his views are, yet I recognise how much they helped me. It’s forever interesting for me.
Well said, these people who do this are sociopaths
@@stefannils2032 I would call them ideologues
If by premise, you mean 'a priori intuitions', then yes, but we cannot help that
@TheJthom9 If by that you me we all have prejudices, that would probably be true.
However, if you simply take that as a starting position and allow the facts free reign to modify your initial thoughts, then you are still able to move towards a valid conclusion, a conclusion which should be the same as if you hadn't had those initial prejudices.
I was referring to those who start from a biased position, often based on incorrect information and/or bigotry who only search for and treat as valid what supports or reinforces the initial position. Anything that does not support or contradicts their predetermined conclusion is either ignored or dismissed as 'fake'.
Stephen Fry is so comfortable in his own skin. He knows what he knows and imparts his knowledge well. He is almost ceremonial in his delivery, which takes in all the skills of History's finest orators. What resonates the most for me about him, is his effortless ability to engage the listener through a constancy and presence of mind over any excess of emotion. I respect and admire him immensely. Thank you for this Joel. Blessings!
Try out Neil Oliver the Archeologist and a down to earth practical thinking man that outshines Stephen Fry, his monologues are utterly brilliant!
@@viviencockle2116 You are so right. I cannot recommend Neil Oliver enough. He really casts a forensic intelligence on the current state of the world. He is an expert on past civilisations and how societies develope. Needless to say it's not looking good.
You're correct about Stephen Fry being comfortable in his own skin. It wasn't always the case though. I recall many years ago, a news story about Stephen which reported that he went AWOL for several days...clearly having some epic internal battle. Pleased that the Stephen we have today won that battle as he is a credit to his nation, his gender, his sexuality and his species.
@@viviencockle2116 I will do so, Vivien. Thank you for the recommendation! Blessings!
@@leew6091 I have a vague recollection of that, actually. Maybe he was too comfortable in his own skin he had to withdraw from the world to stay in it? As you say, he is a credit to his nation, his gender, sexuality and his species. Lee, blessings!
This is a great example of taking issue with the issue, NOT the person. Grown up conversation.
EXCACTLY
Well said.
It's really heartening to see a young lad like yourself absorbing this kind of material... there may actually be hope for the future after all. Not to sound patronising but Wel Done Pal. Keep digging kidder. Peace and best wishes as ever from the UK.
Great example of how to kick ass without kicking ass. Fry is a legend!!!
SUPERB reaction Joel. Really excellent. Shows maturity and openness on your part, and also reveals that you listen to your subscribers and take full note of their comments. Thank you. Really enjoyed this post. So stimulating and thought provoking. There is always hope for understanding and respect when intellects like Fry and Peterson can get together and converse like this. MORE please - I just want to hug them both. Watching this has set me up for the day x
please. Jordan Peterson isn't fit to be in the same room with Stephen Fry. In no way are they equals.
I listened to the whole of this multiple times and it does slap a smile on your face
Fantastic video Joel, yes more please. Lovely to hear a discussion where both sides aren’t just trying to shout each other down 😊
I think that this discussion can be boiled down to one very simple issue, which is where do our moral values come from?
One believes that they come from within as part of being human, the other believes that it comes from a divine being in the form of God. You are never going to reconcile those two stances, even though they both agree on the purpose and impact of those moral systems.
I side with Stephen Fry on the issue for one main reason. Traumatic brain injuries and drug abuse can change a person's moral values and make them a very different person. If those values were coming from the outside that would not happen. The fact that a physical change to the brain can create a personality change proves to me that personality, and hence morals, are created as part of our material existence.
"one very simple issue, which is where do our moral values come from?"
A philosophical debate that has been ongoing since at least the time of Socrates.
"What is agreeable to the Gods is Holy. Is it Holy because the Gods find it agreeable? Or do the Gods find it agreeable because it is Holy?"
My view - morals are dictated by society; generally for the purposes of "cause the least harm". though sometimes - these "moral actions" can cause harm to one group as a defence of another group. What is "moral and just" is entirely dictated by the time and place and society you inhabit.
these two things are in no way mutually exclusive
The full video of this conversation is one of the best videos I've ever seen.
It is so refreshing to see an intelligent discussion between intellectuals with you Joel where it wasn’t a points scoring argument of “owning” an opponent but more about mutually respecting an alternate point of view while disagreeing with points for the other to consider. You do this well, it’s why I subscribe
there's a difference, Stephen Fry is an intellectual, Jordan Peterson is a pseudo intellectual.
What you are watching is an intellectual conversation, versus someone trying to impose their own view on another person. When people debate they often try to score points by attacking others, this however isn’t the case here, they are simply sharing opposing views.
One side is intellectual the other is not.
@@stevenlang7709 care to elaborate
@@dave24-73 Peterson is well educated but, not an intellectual. He has been accused for using word salad for pushing his egender. Jordan Peterson does not have a strong vocabulary for someone with a PhD. Peterson claims to be an advocate for vulnerable young men but, simply hates women's rights. He will not admit to this claim because he does understand that people are at least as intelligent as he is. Moreover, are able to deconstruct his use of pseudo intellectual linguistic gymnastics and fully understand his point of view. Stephen Fry is a member of the intelligentsia, the clerisy and is a humble man. Fry has a stronger vocabulary than Peterson however, does not toss it around to enthuse the simpleton. Fry is regarded as an intelligent person's intellectual, while Peterson is the intelligent person's intellectual.
One is sharing his own philosophy and worldview and the other is attempting to get his opponent to join his side by dropping names and other people's theories. One of these has authored some really funny and creative novels and the other has put out a bunch of unimaginative self help books.
JP you have a lovely train of thought for such a young person, please don't change. Love watching your videos keep up the good content 😊👍
I studied Richard Dawkins at uni and I found his book the Selfish Gene one of the most thought provoking books I have ever read. The course was the Existance of God theory. Another RUclips worth watching is Stephen Fry and Richard Dawkins in Conversation.
Also worth watching is Richard Dawkins in conversation with both Ricky Gervais and Tim Minchin. Both intelligent and insight individuals
The pain and brokenness in JP's tone is so touching... I'm sure that Stephen Fry felt that. They both have a great respect for each other and have stood together on other debates. Such a good insightful watch.
Do you know why you felt strange during Jordan Peterson's speech? He seemed to be pointless, evasive, uncertain. In contrast, Stephen Fry's speech made us feel comforted, represented, and proud. This is the emotional reaction we should aim for in a debate.
Oh...and I forgot to say....in the interview they talked about Robinson's upcoming "patriotic" march in London, which Peterson seemed happy to publicise. That march took place today and, predictably, the placards read "we want our country back".
I could listen to these two chat for hours.
Yes! Let’s appriciate how well spoken, respectfull and not the least how educated these gentlemen are!
Now, just IMAGINE if our politicians were of this caliber! ❤️
Great communication because they're both listening to each other before speaking
Relevant to us in Australia as Jordan Peterson is in the country right now.
Enjoyed that.Stephen Fry is literally a super brain-i love to hear him speak on any subject x
Jordan Peterson often has loads of good points about society and human nature, but once he starts getting all religious common sense just goes out the window.
I don’t think all of his religious stuff is wrong. His early biblical lectures where he interprets the stories in the bible are very good. However the only religious part of the lectures are the fact they stories are from the bible, the interpretations are all very psychological. In all honesty I just don’t really understand religion enough to understand his religious views
I agree. I think JP makes a lot of sense about other stuff (when he’s not trying to distract people away from the subject by trying to define every word in a sentence) but he talks nonsense when it comes to religion. You should check out a video by Cosmic Skeptic where he deconstructs what Peterson has said about religion, and explains why he’s actually an atheist 😂 It’s worth a watch, I’ve got no chance of explaining it myself.
@@yeeticus7206 if you don't understand religion then how can judge whether it's wrong or not? Your words against you, reply in a civil manner please.
@@MagicMike-n6u Can you read? “I don’t think *all* of his religious stuff is wrong” and “I just don’t really understand religion *enough* to understand his religious views” (asterisks emphasising the words you failed to read correctly) i.e. I understand religion quite well, enough to determine for myself that “I don’t think all of his religious stuff is wrong”. However, his understanding of religion surpasses mine and therefore when he describes his beliefs, parts of it I can’t understand. I don’t contradict myself, reply in a civil manner please.
@@MagicMike-n6u well for a start he is extremely ignorant about atheism, I have seen him many times refer to atheism as a "belief system" Atheism is absolutely not a belief system and if you're going to be that ignorant about the other side of the argument then I'm sorry but I'm not going to listen to a single point you are trying to make.
Watch Jordan Peterson being interviewed by Cathy Newman on Channel 4 News. It's all on RUclips and it is FASCINATING
You have a very good understanding yourself. We strive to talk like this, education is the key.
Fry cuts Peterson off at the end because he knew he had exhausted the conversation. Stephen knew he was wasting his time with him as he was talking shit.
Religion is one of the things Peterson shouldn't be talking about more than necessary. Normally he oozes expertise and knows the ins and outs of every argument, but on religion he never strays from how "useful" it can be, rather than what it actually is. It's not real, and he never deals with that. Which is a shame.
I love your taking real pleasure in great discourse
Jordan is suggesting that we should not ask these questions of God, because it's not nice or no good can come of it. This is one of the issues I have with him. He is without doubt a powerhouse intellect and I love *most* of what he says, but the truth does not care about feelings. We should seek the truth, even if we don't like the answer. Feelings have no place in the debate. If there is a God, then he should be asked why he gives Leukaemia to children. In any other debate, Jordan would say the same, I'm sure, but when it comes to his religion, he ring-fences his beliefs and finds way not to apply his own extremely powerful capacity for critical thinking. It's always a problem when you have decided something is true first ...and *then* try to rationalise it. You are not being led by the evidence.
This was great and I love how you are delving into this topic. You are looking at it in a very humanistic way, as can we all just be this way to help our world. I agree. If people could just have conversation without the "who is right...who is wrong" it would be a better world for sure.
It's rare to have 2 respectful people debating eachother
I love Stephen Fry for the depth and the art of respectful and yet humorous conversation that has almost been lost these days as people throw around slogans instead of engaging in a fun exchange of ideas and feelings.
One amusing one to watch is Jordan Peterson interview with Cathy Newman. He is a psychologist and was a Professor at Toronto University who came to prominence because he disagreed with compelled speech. Canadian Gov was proposing that you had to use the pronouns etc that someone insisted you use for themselves. He said for good manners he probably would agree but he should not be compelled to do so.
FYI. Some of the results of the UK's 2021 Census, have recently been published which states. For the first time, less than half of population of England and Wales' identify as Christian, at 46.2%. No religion, which includes Atheist, Agnostic etc......is catching up fast at 37.2%. Possibly more if you include 'Religion not stated' at 6%?
I like this conversation a heavy discussion with no one having the need to win
I find Peterson difficult to appreciate/ engage with - he talks in an unusually forceful way, almost demanding he is correct in everything he says. I find it hard to believe that someone is right 100% of the time
Weird, the one thing I respect about Peterson is he’s one of the few people who will acknowledge and advertise how weak some arguments are or when he’s wrong. I’ve seen him before making an argument admit “this is a weak argument but I’m not sure what else to think of this” before proceeding to share his view. He also seems pretty shameless on admitting he’s wrong
If you go deeper into his material you'll find he doesn't think he's right at all.
If you want an alternate view to Peterson try Gabor Mate.
Peterson is thoroughly solipsistic.
@@vilebrequin6923 I disagree, he hasn’t made any claims about himself. He studies things, talks about them, and people listen. He doesn’t control the fact people listen nor does he claim he deserves people who listen to him. Just because he lives a life that someone who is egocentric thinks they deserve (people paying to hear what they say) doesn’t mean he’s egocentric. Because if he was being egocentric that doesn’t mean anyone would turn up to his shows. Cause and effect
It's an example of two reasonably smart people having a respectful debate where both feel comfortable in their own perspectives and respect each other enough to understand their differences and don't feel the need to be rude and interrupt each other (like what happens in so many political debates)
It's refreshing... I'm not religious, I'm not generally conservative, but I do understand and respect the fact that not everyone in society is going to see this world the way I do, and I'm ok with that
The way to have a debate is not to see who can talk the loudest, or cry the most, or look the angriest, but it is an opportunity to present an argument, hear a rebuttal, and then build on the rebuttal from your own perspective. Often in society we look way too much at our differences, that we forget about our similarities
The last part made me chuckle, many years ago, in the summer before I started uni to become a teacher, we were given a book list to read before we arrived. One was Piaget's. I couldn't even pronounce his name. Talk about being daunted, but actually fascinating when applied to children's development.
You're getting into some serious stuff and it's great to see you commenting and arguing. Well done!
The best point you made here, is that if you don’t believe the same things, it doesn’t mean you have to be enemies.
The only thing JP has going for him,is a very good PR crew,as until a few years ago I never even heard of him;now he roaming the globe,sprouting his well-worn 'clinical psychology' BS on any other subject(even when he has little actual knowledge of the subject under discussion),his gullible audience will accept!
These two are role models for humanity.
Your content is so diverse a very compelling watch , well done for being diplomatic about your comment section .
I think there is some truth to what Stephen Fry has to say. I think both are respected intellectuals, and enjoy their individual content. Jordan has moved from believing to not believing and back again, and recent events in his life has drawn him back to faith. But you have to respect Stephen Fry’s view.
Jordan Peterson is an anti-intellectual. or perhaps pseudo intellectual. a favorite of incels and right-wing nuts.
Of course you have to respect Stephen Fry's viewpoint since its 100% correct.
Battle of the name drops
You need to be on a Philosophy course, JPS!😊👍
I find Peterson often uses his voculabulary and various linguistic tactics to obfuscate the point/ argument in question.
"A dumb person's idea of what a smart person sounds like" - He definitely tries to bamboozle whenever he's on shaky ground.
We often see Peterson arguing with people that he is able to run circles around intellectual.. It’s very interesting to see him arguing with someone that is at least as intelligent and knowledgeable as himself.. personally I have a lot of respect for both of them
Fascinating. I love to be swayed and bounced around by a good debate. Although few could ever match their awesome intellect and immense learning, we can all learn from their willingness to listen and ability to hear. imo.
Joel you have done it yet again. Every one of your contributions increases my respect for you and gives me greater hope for the future. I just wish we could clone you. Although I was encouraged to be involved with a church in my youth it left me with more questions than answers. A very good friend of mine expressed my thoughts very simply. He said "Where was God during the Holocaust?" I have known some wonderful people who were christians but I have known too many who professed to be but were incredibly hypocritical. I recently found about Secular Humanism which I think is far more realistic. Please keep posting your material. Everything you post boosts my faith in human nature. You really are a very impressive person.
If you want to see more of Peterson, then probably the most famous video is when he was on Channel 4 news with Cathy Newman where they debated the gender pay gap. 40m views on that so far. Very interesting, and quite unusual to see a new presenter get that flustered!
Yeah but if she would have been prepared picking him apart is so easy...
these conversations are the type of conversations that wars are faught over bellieve dont bellieve leave it at that
That was excellent.Loved your inquiring attitude Joel.Your maturity to listen is a wonder to behold.
Where as formal debate has its place discourses like this are a lot more productive and interesting. Having epistemic discussions and examining common ground helps to show where understanding lies. personally Ive a big fan of Socratic questioning as a means to explore values. It sounds like you also value discourse without anger, you may enjoy the "Street Epistemology " community and some of the videos and discussions within that sphere. A lot of the material is about examining why and for what reason people believe things rather than whether what they believe is true, this includes religious claims, political claims, supernatural claims or even basic claims.
Congrats on 70k
Love them both . Highly intelligent , great debaters . You can sense and feel the admiration and respect they have between them ......
I always find that people who speak about their non-belief in a 'higher power' come across a lot more balanced and eloquent, than those who do believe - who try and justify their belief through thoughts rather than theory and fact. Stephen Fry and Ricky Gervais talk about this in a very measured way and become more believable rather than the preacher in the street who cannot handle any kind of come back
I don’t think you can ever ask people if they believe in God without saying what god is. I’ve just recently read a tiny bit about Quantum physics and I am open to the view that something bigger than us could be energy and information. That’s what we are made up of. So why can’t that remain and we go back to the source of that 🤷♀️. But definitely not a biblical wizard in the sky version.
Peterson is so intense in his manner whilst Fry is relaxed and absolutely unperturbed by the intensity of the debate. I think that both respect each others view and agree that it is so refreshing to have this interaction take place without dogma, each able to understand and respect the others view though not agreeing - agreeably. Let's have more, Sheffield South Yorkshire.
The difference between these two is the difference between honesty and fake-ness. Stephen Fry only has to speak a few words to make so much sense. On the other hand, Peterson uses word salads, TOO many words and goes all round the houses to say...nothing.
What a treat to watch two highly educated, fabulously intelligent, good-natured and respectful people having a deep conversation. Thank you for this. I am old now but grew up in a period when this type of exchange was the norm: it is current highly emotional and confrontational exchanges which seem strange and distasteful to me. So pleased you liked it too. Feels like soothing balm for the mind!!! One is English, the other Canadian: does this have any bearing on their behaviour?
Nothing about Jordan Peterson is intelligent, good-natured or respectful. The best description of Peterson I have ever heard is that everything he says is either extremely wrong or extremely basic. He creates an opinion, and then tries to manipulate facts to support said opinion. And when people disagree he gets loud and angry.
You're joking, right? Jordan Peterson is immature, unenlightened, anti-intellectual.
The name of that 15c author of the prince was "Niccolo Maciavelli
They are both equally good speakers!
With age comes wisdom . Keep an open mind and absorb and process all the knowledge life has to offer. You are well on your way.
If I may, in keeping with what Stephen Fry said of himself, that he goes to bed at night wondering how he can improve on his day to be a better person the next day, to recognise our frailty's is one of our greatest strengths in Life. Indeed, more often than not can a frailty of one kind or another prove our greatest strength, if the will towards Kindness is at our heart's core. I do not doubt that Stephen Fry is as much the self-observer as he is the observer. He would not be such a fine actor otherwise.
You can hear that full discussion on RUclips too. I think from memory it lasted an hour or so. Was a fascinating discussion from 2 people I deeply admire.
Jordan has done all the reading, and is humbled by Fry's education.
Fry is extraordinary intelligent. There's been some debates around his IQ but he's not interested in it as far as I understood.
It's worth watching the full version of this in your own time.
I think Fry was more concise in his argument here. It was clear and exemplary wheres Peterson tended to circumvent the main topics of discussion. Just my opinion.
Peterson is known for his circumlocution.😬
The big issue is that Jordan Peterson says different things to different people. He's insightful and well-behaved in dialog with authors like Fry and Sam Harris. Jordan turns petulant and belligerent in general public/student exchanges. (Note some experts say that excessive hand gesturing reflects inner chaos and loss of control.) He regularly panders to the evangelical right -- Jordan recently blamed environmentalists for Putin (!). He misreads/misquotes/distorts a number of serious thinkers: Jung, Nietzsche and Dostoevsky are good examples. An experienced and effective psychology professor, Jordan was catapulted to media celebrity for his opposition to Canadian gender/trans discrimination legislation in 2016. He thoroughly enjoys this attention and regularly makes pronouncements -- way outside his field and expertise -- that appeal to his right wing and evangelical nationalist admirers. What he really believes shifts depending on his audience. Jordan attempts to present as a renaissance man but falls short. Stephen Fry dwarfs Jordan in any exchange. Jordan is a grandiloquent chameleon at his best, and a good cautionary tale about celebrity.
I've been Hearted by Joel so he definitely does read them! Obviously not every comment even though I am so funny!!! I'm not one for the Religious stuff I think it has caused more problems than it has solved! I believe page one is missing which is the dedication and the legal bit about it baring no similarity to anyone alive or deceased!
Spot on.
Morning Joel, so you have gone from being an idiot yesterday, to a very intelligent conversation today. I was up late last night, watching music videos, so will have to make a mug of rosie, and watch again. Best Wishes, T
Hi Jps, as it's the football world cup, may I suggest you listen to the Welsh football anthem, it's sung in Welsh it is called ''Yma O Hyd' and here is a link to it YMA O HYD - DAFYDD IWAN x AR LOG x THE RED WALL (OFFICIAL CYMRU WORLD CUP 2022 SONG. Welsh passion and pride for such a small nation.
Big step forward for you. No turning back🤟
The full discussion is worth watching.
Jordan Peterson Simply tries to confuse the discussion by confounding it using word salad that no one can check. He even will, and this has been pointed out by many, misrepresent scientific conclusions to win his argument. When called out that he is contradicting his earlier views he passes it off as being open minded however I see it as creatively using his wealth of information as a resource simply to counter the argument he's faced with at the moment. That is a bad faith argument style.
Additionally, you should check out their debate on political correctness. It's brilliant!
At the 15 minutes area of this video, you Joel described what is wrong with the world today in people fighting war. And at the same time , exactly what we need to do to stop war......intellectual debates including mutual respect and an ability to agree to disagree without throwing our toys out the pram. Will we ever learn?.
You're doing a great job giving some balance in your subjects.
Top job
❤ from Australia
but admit am a Stephen Fry fan it's the Brit in me 🤣
I hope you've taken note of the authors they mentioned so you can read their books yourself. That's how your vocabulary and understanding will increase. Read anything you can get hold of all your life. Reading doesn't stop when you leave school. It's great that you're looking at both sides of the topic, religion or otherwise.
They were both in a debate [on the same side]too: Political Correctness Debate ft. Stephen Fry, Jordan Peterson, Michael Dyson, Michelle Goldberg
I find that Jordan Peterson's views on conscience, discounts learnt and societal lessons in morality and accountability. Your conscience is the breaching of your own standards, a young child does not show conscience and learns their basic morality and value from their parents. Life lessons then expand your views and your moral values expand from there. This isn't any built in need to satisfy a higher power, but an evolutionary tactic to survive and fit in with your pack/herd. Human society has always ostracised and banished those who do not follow societal norms. Your conscience is just a way of your brain ensuring your long term survival in society.
Wow - fascinating. Thanks Joel!
Just reinforces how little read I am and how brilliant those two minds are.
More please!
Middle Earth awaits. D
When these two intellectual giants get together, the object of the discussion is the discussion itself. Neither of them is arrogant enough to try and believe that what they think is the right thing, they are both open to changing their position on the subject matter although neither of them will ever move away from where there initial beliefs are founded. There is never any intent to defeat the other.
What is amazing is the common ground between them which is their phenomenal level of intelligence and humanity that comes with that intelligence !!!!
no time for Peterson he's all mouth, saw him with Richard Dawkins and he said he switches to easily from one subject to another, his mind wonders as if he can't concentrate and he can see the foxhole and starts looking for a way out
Yes,spot on!👌👍
“Just because I don’t heart something, I don’t see it.” Omg great Merch idea btw.
7:35 Omitting is when you remove something. What you meant was probably ‘emitting’ or ‘emanating’.
Also, wouldn’t we all like to borrow from his vocabulary?
Most people know Jordan Peterson from his famous interview by Cathy Newman. You can start with that.
Bless you sir, you seem to be a fan of British culture however people like me have a very different experience of said culture. A working class POV from the Midlands
I find Peterson overwrought and incoherent. Fry, on the other hand, reasons as easily as he breathes.
Absolutely fascinating.
The man who uses intelligence to obfuscate wisdom versus the man who uses intelligence to convey wisdom.
I wonder if mankind will ever enter an era where we don't have endless debates over whether or not a non-existent being exists.
Jordan Peterson falls flat when it comes to religion. But he's strong with anti-woke. In fact, again, check the monk debates with Stephen Fry who sides with Peterson on the anti-woke debates.
What is 'anti-woke'?
@@SpenceJS87 A catch-all phrase,for anything certain 'right-wingers/reactionaries' don't like,at any specific time! 🤣
@@MrSinclairn That's a misconception. You should do a little reading. It's the disliking of regression when a half-decent idea goes off the rails. The far-right hate it because it's not far right, and the progressive left dislike it because it's regressive, illiberal, and dogmatic.
Hi Joel, my post disappeared. In it, I pasted a bio of Prof Peterson, which must have had a hyperlink in it. RUclips Comments doesn't like those. Anyway, thank you for such a civil, cerebral, and wonderful way to start the day. Peterson was born in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and is a professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Toronto. He publishes/posts almost daily, so there's a ton a material out there to peruse. I agree with you, I think that those two would go for a beer together after debating. Mutual respect for each other's intellect and civility, plus a willingness to learn from each other. So refreshing after having to listen to childish imbeciles holding high office over the past few years. Have a great day Joel, John in Canada
17:08 I really want to teach Joel about Piaget’s Child Development Theory. Let me know when you’d like a free lesson.
Hello Joel. This was like QI without the Q. I used to win pub quiz and talk about all sorts down the pub, but these are on another level above another level. My friend that I toured US with did realise after pub discussions that he was clever enough to go to university, studied to get there and is now a teacher.
I just find I watch this sort of video on RUclips since lock down, but at least I am not the only one, even if I am home alone.
I think we think to much…. Just try with clear conscience to be better than yesterday. Don’t beat yourself up if you fail. Humans just like everything else is floored. Ciao ✋
I`d reccommend " Fr F.C. Copleston v Bertrand Russell ( a discussion between the two, aired in - I think - somewhere between about 1948 and 1950 ). `Availabe here in YT, of course.
I believe Fry is right about most people wanting to be better then they are. It’s SO weird hearing Fry say that he himself often wanting to be better, when many others go to bed wanting to be more like HIM! 😵💫😃
I mean he has been to prison and he was a pretty rebellious teen, no one is perfect and even the likes of Stephen Fry have flaws. Otherwise there would be no pont in him trying to be better.
@@jackwhitbread4583 It is precisely the flaws that make Fry so attractive. He doesn’t try to pretend he is somehow better than others.