How could we develop morality? Maybe the same way we developed language. We slowly invented a set of rules that contribute to social well being, and most people find it useful to follow the conventions.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but do you really find that answer to be satisfactory? That the only reason you you consider something right or wrong is based on whether or not it serves a society's needs?
@@TrainingFanatic I would say that we can use our critical thinking skills to refine our ideas of right and wrong, and we can base that on accepted values of common good. That’s not to say we will always be correct, but our values can progress, to expand to encompass more beings and better outcomes. What would be a better alternative?
The only constant is change. Objectivity relies on an eternally consistent constant, and therefore only change itself is an objectively objective truth. Lol.
Publicly formulated the first time in January 2013 by Alberto Brandolini, an Italian programmer, the bullshit asymmetry principle (also known as Brandolini's law) states that: The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.
It's crazy how this kind of arguments always start good, like "everything has a reason and a cause, therefore the universe can't exist without a cause" or "man-made morality is completely subjective and can't really be relied on", only to then state that God does the exact thing that they JUST stated to be illogical, but apparentely it's logical now?? Like, okay the universe couldn't just appear from nothing, but what makes it so that it can't, but god can? Like, what's the difference between the universe having no cause and god having no cause? And, okay, man-made morality is subjective, but how is god's morality NOT subjective too?? It's still just some being coming up with its own rules, what makes his rules be objective all of a sudden? They always point out actual illogical facts about the world, and then pretend that it suddenly IS logical when god does the exact same thing!
Yes, it's just special pleading. And you're right re morality - God's law is just his opinion. As PP says, if the Quran/Bible says it's ok to massacre non-believers (which the Quran definitely does), then that's fine.
If humans lost all knowledge and started over from nothing, math, physics and science would eventually be re-discovered and be exactly the same as we know it now. Religion and languages, would be totally different from what we have now
Physics would still exist because it is simply a description of the universe around us, it may be expressed differently though. Math is completely just a human made concept. There is no real thing to anchor it on besides we want it that way, completely different than physics. So there may be some other way to describe physics, as an example, but it may be so different than how we currently do with math it may not be considered math..
@@stachu5049Physics yes, it is just a description of the universe around use. So physics would most certainly reemerge but may be notated differently. There is no reason to think why math would be rediscovered. Math is simply a human construct that we use to help describe things, there is truly no analogue or anchor outside of current human minds. We could come up with something so completely different that it would not be considered math as we know it..
@@lubrew5862 well, our brains are kinda wired to count things the way we do, so I believe math would probably be pretty similar. There are biological reasons for why we use the systems that we use, for example we likely have the system based on 10 because we have that amount of fingers on our hands. However, yes, it's very likely we'd use different symbols and different ways to express the number of some things, but it would still be based around the idea that 1 thing and 1 thing makes 2 things. That's just how our brains view the world. Individual cultures don't make that up, rather, individual cultures get created around the fact that our brains view it that way
@@stachu5049Why is there an inherent way we created math? Do you have anything factual/tested to back that up? We have created several different forms of maths over the centuries and not all were base ten. Mayans, Babylonians, Egyptians to name a few. Egyptians had a base twelve system that predates what we use today. Just based on our own history there is no reason to think we would create math as we use it today or something similar. Physics is anchored on it is how we describe the universe, math is the human concept we decided is useful with no other reason why. There are math mathematicians who have written papers on how base 12 math with slightly different rules is more efficient..
2:01 I'm not sure I would say that the universe operates 'in according' to natural law. I would say that we created the natural law based on the observation of the universe. The universe isn't doing anything in accordance to anything. The universe just does what the universe does and then we define or describe what the universe is doing and we call these definitions laws.
From a secular perspective, morality is grounded in reason, empathy, and a concern for the well-being of individuals and society. Ethical standards are derived from philosophical principles, social agreements, and a commitment to human rights and dignity. The goal is to create a framework for behavior that enhances the quality of life for all individuals through rational and compassionate means. I can subscribe to Sam Harris's objective morality. Sam Harris's definition of objective morality hinges on the idea that moral truths exist and can be understood in terms of their effects on the well-being of conscious creatures. This approach advocates for the use of scientific methods and rational inquiry to determine the moral landscape, thereby treating morality as a domain where objective knowledge is possible.
3:45 there's nothing contradictory about an infinite regression. It may be hard to understand or to comprehend, but there's no logical contradiction in infinite regressions existing. All Christians believe in infinite regressions. Logically all Christians have to believe that the mind of God is an infinite regression.
Two plus two equals four only because that is how we define it in base ten math. There is nothing special about it and noting transcendent. If we decided to use base three math then it doesn’t equal four. I am not sure why so many theists think that two plus two is something special, or any maths for that matter, it is literally just how we humans define it. I am not sure why Peterson missed on this so much. Our rules of the English language really don’t have much to do with it.
5:55 when you were four or five, stepping on ants or ripping off spiders legs, where were gods morals? Who actually taught you that you were not "supposed" to kill the neighbors cat, just because it was right there? Who taught you to never eat shellfish, never wear cotton and linen at the same time, who taught you to never shave, and I really personally need to know, am I, or aren't I, supposed to have a foreskin? "OUR" morals, are not all the same, are not all shared, and do not all come from the same place. Loves me some dirty roast pork, and hamburgers.
Two is an article of language, but we could’ve called what two refers to any other name. So your analogy doesn’t get at the underlying question: to what does the word we use (“two”) refers? Are you saying it’s just the concept in our mind? Or someone else’s mind?
Even if morality came from a god, it would be based on that god's own subjective biases. Those who believe in it just accept them as absolute ... absolute =\= objective.
I was wondering, do you use AI art for your thumbnails? If so, would it be possible to not do it? I don't assume everyone who generates AI art does it out of evil, but I personally consider all AI art to be theft.
the difference is that his use of ai art is replacing a job that someone else would occupy if it the ai didnt exist, if the ai didnt exist he likely wouldnt get someone to make them
Starting off with an ad is a huge turn-off, I'd suggest putting it at the end of the video. It will help with folks like me, who generally click away any time a video starts with an ad.
Surely Mr Peterson is fully justified in advertising in his own video? If you knew anything about content creators, they need an income stream to continue to produce "free" content. It may be "free" to you, but it costs them time and money to produce. Are you unable to skip forward? So you "generally click away any time a video starts with an ad"? Cutting off your nose to spite your face is the action of a child, not an adult who wants to be educated and entertained. "Folks like you" are fortunately just you and not the wider public.
@@mojomusica Considering all the other options available to me as a viewer, it's easy to find alternatives who don't start their video with an ad. The beginning of the video is when the first impression is made, if it's an ad then for me that's going to be a somewhat negative impression. I have a hard time believing I'm alone on that opinion, and so I suggested putting it at the end where it won't turn off new viewers. This is what a lot of other creators do, I'm not sure why the idea bothers you. And sure, call me a child if you like, your argument is extremely weak so a personal attack probably seems like your best bet at this point, so have at it. I'm hardly cutting off my nose to spite my face either, I'm not sure you understand what that even means. It would make sense if this creator was the only one available, or if all creators started their videos with ads, but that's not the case. I can just watch someone else, it's really not that hard to find good educational channels on here.
I'm personally uplifted by the idea of subjective morality. Our sense of responsibility to one another is a beautiful thing.
How could we develop morality? Maybe the same way we developed language. We slowly invented a set of rules that contribute to social well being, and most people find it useful to follow the conventions.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but do you really find that answer to be satisfactory? That the only reason you you consider something right or wrong is based on whether or not it serves a society's needs?
@@TrainingFanatic I would say that we can use our critical thinking skills to refine our ideas of right and wrong, and we can base that on accepted values of common good. That’s not to say we will always be correct, but our values can progress, to expand to encompass more beings and better outcomes. What would be a better alternative?
The only constant is change. Objectivity relies on an eternally consistent constant, and therefore only change itself is an objectively objective truth. Lol.
Publicly formulated the first time in January 2013 by Alberto Brandolini, an Italian programmer, the bullshit asymmetry principle (also known as Brandolini's law) states that: The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.
It's crazy how this kind of arguments always start good, like "everything has a reason and a cause, therefore the universe can't exist without a cause" or "man-made morality is completely subjective and can't really be relied on", only to then state that God does the exact thing that they JUST stated to be illogical, but apparentely it's logical now??
Like, okay the universe couldn't just appear from nothing, but what makes it so that it can't, but god can? Like, what's the difference between the universe having no cause and god having no cause?
And, okay, man-made morality is subjective, but how is god's morality NOT subjective too?? It's still just some being coming up with its own rules, what makes his rules be objective all of a sudden?
They always point out actual illogical facts about the world, and then pretend that it suddenly IS logical when god does the exact same thing!
Yes, it's just special pleading. And you're right re morality - God's law is just his opinion. As PP says, if the Quran/Bible says it's ok to massacre non-believers (which the Quran definitely does), then that's fine.
Good Show! 😊👍
If humans lost all knowledge and started over from nothing, math, physics and science would eventually be re-discovered and be exactly the same as we know it now.
Religion and languages, would be totally different from what we have now
There would probably be completely different ways to write down and express math and physics, but it would still be the same math and physics
Physics would still exist because it is simply a description of the universe around us, it may be expressed differently though.
Math is completely just a human made concept. There is no real thing to anchor it on besides we want it that way, completely different than physics. So there may be some other way to describe physics, as an example, but it may be so different than how we currently do with math it may not be considered math..
@@stachu5049Physics yes, it is just a description of the universe around use. So physics would most certainly reemerge but may be notated differently.
There is no reason to think why math would be rediscovered. Math is simply a human construct that we use to help describe things, there is truly no analogue or anchor outside of current human minds. We could come up with something so completely different that it would not be considered math as we know it..
@@lubrew5862 well, our brains are kinda wired to count things the way we do, so I believe math would probably be pretty similar. There are biological reasons for why we use the systems that we use, for example we likely have the system based on 10 because we have that amount of fingers on our hands.
However, yes, it's very likely we'd use different symbols and different ways to express the number of some things, but it would still be based around the idea that 1 thing and 1 thing makes 2 things. That's just how our brains view the world. Individual cultures don't make that up, rather, individual cultures get created around the fact that our brains view it that way
@@stachu5049Why is there an inherent way we created math? Do you have anything factual/tested to back that up?
We have created several different forms of maths over the centuries and not all were base ten. Mayans, Babylonians, Egyptians to name a few. Egyptians had a base twelve system that predates what we use today. Just based on our own history there is no reason to think we would create math as we use it today or something similar.
Physics is anchored on it is how we describe the universe, math is the human concept we decided is useful with no other reason why. There are math mathematicians who have written papers on how base 12 math with slightly different rules is more efficient..
2:01 I'm not sure I would say that the universe operates 'in according' to natural law. I would say that we created the natural law based on the observation of the universe. The universe isn't doing anything in accordance to anything. The universe just does what the universe does and then we define or describe what the universe is doing and we call these definitions laws.
From a secular perspective, morality is grounded in reason, empathy, and a concern for the well-being of individuals and society. Ethical standards are derived from philosophical principles, social agreements, and a commitment to human rights and dignity. The goal is to create a framework for behavior that enhances the quality of life for all individuals through rational and compassionate means.
I can subscribe to Sam Harris's objective morality.
Sam Harris's definition of objective morality hinges on the idea that moral truths exist and can be understood in terms of their effects on the well-being of conscious creatures. This approach advocates for the use of scientific methods and rational inquiry to determine the moral landscape, thereby treating morality as a domain where objective knowledge is possible.
babe wake up peterson posted right before my lab class
Dude has an EAS alarm when peterson uploads…
3:45 there's nothing contradictory about an infinite regression. It may be hard to understand or to comprehend, but there's no logical contradiction in infinite regressions existing. All Christians believe in infinite regressions. Logically all Christians have to believe that the mind of God is an infinite regression.
Two plus two equals four only because that is how we define it in base ten math. There is nothing special about it and noting transcendent.
If we decided to use base three math then it doesn’t equal four.
I am not sure why so many theists think that two plus two is something special, or any maths for that matter, it is literally just how we humans define it.
I am not sure why Peterson missed on this so much. Our rules of the English language really don’t have much to do with it.
The guy moving heavy stones is Wally Wallington. He pretty much buries "aLee-YuNs BuIlTeD tHeM pIrRyMuDs!"
5:55 when you were four or five, stepping on ants or ripping off spiders legs, where were gods morals? Who actually taught you that you were not "supposed" to kill the neighbors cat, just because it was right there? Who taught you to never eat shellfish, never wear cotton and linen at the same time, who taught you to never shave, and I really personally need to know, am I, or aren't I, supposed to have a foreskin? "OUR" morals, are not all the same, are not all shared, and do not all come from the same place. Loves me some dirty roast pork, and hamburgers.
Two is an article of language, but we could’ve called what two refers to any other name. So your analogy doesn’t get at the underlying question: to what does the word we use (“two”) refers? Are you saying it’s just the concept in our mind? Or someone else’s mind?
💯👍🎯🙏
22 seconds ago... 🔥🔥
also your god is as much a paradox as any origin of the universe
The pen is in Petersons mouth
056
dip thong? I beg to dif on that pronunciation.
Googled it and you're right, it's got a ph
@@planetpeterson2824 Even you cannot know everything ;)
Even if morality came from a god, it would be based on that god's own subjective biases. Those who believe in it just accept them as absolute ... absolute =\= objective.
I was wondering, do you use AI art for your thumbnails? If so, would it be possible to not do it? I don't assume everyone who generates AI art does it out of evil, but I personally consider all AI art to be theft.
Why would anyone care what you consider to be theft?
Is it theft to look at a painting? No?
Then AI art isn't theft.
the difference is that his use of ai art is replacing a job that someone else would occupy if it the ai didnt exist, if the ai didnt exist he likely wouldnt get someone to make them
Starting off with an ad is a huge turn-off, I'd suggest putting it at the end of the video. It will help with folks like me, who generally click away any time a video starts with an ad.
Really?
Surely Mr Peterson is fully justified in advertising in his own video? If you knew anything about content creators, they need an income stream to continue to produce "free" content.
It may be "free" to you, but it costs them time and money to produce. Are you unable to skip forward?
So you "generally click away any time a video starts with an ad"?
Cutting off your nose to spite your face is the action of a child, not an adult who wants to be educated and entertained. "Folks like you" are fortunately just you and not the wider public.
@@mojomusica Considering all the other options available to me as a viewer, it's easy to find alternatives who don't start their video with an ad.
The beginning of the video is when the first impression is made, if it's an ad then for me that's going to be a somewhat negative impression. I have a hard time believing I'm alone on that opinion, and so I suggested putting it at the end where it won't turn off new viewers. This is what a lot of other creators do, I'm not sure why the idea bothers you.
And sure, call me a child if you like, your argument is extremely weak so a personal attack probably seems like your best bet at this point, so have at it.
I'm hardly cutting off my nose to spite my face either, I'm not sure you understand what that even means. It would make sense if this creator was the only one available, or if all creators started their videos with ads, but that's not the case. I can just watch someone else, it's really not that hard to find good educational channels on here.
@@MrRemnantsbro, your whining about an ad at the start of the video. You are a child
Thanks i liked the video.