Jordan B Peterson on Confronting Value, Meaning, & More | Jordan Peterson on The Origins Podcast
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 май 2024
- This exciting episode of the Origins Podcast features Jordan B Peterson along with host, Lawrence Krauss. They explore Jordan's upbringing and background, the nuances of meaning and value, as well as the difficulties and opportunities of doing research in our current cultural climate. Many viewers will enjoy seeing a unique side of Jordan B Peterson that shines through during this discussion and it is planned to be the first of many, so please consider subscribing and supporting the podcast to receive notifications of upcoming episodes!
Watch Lawrence Krauss on Jordan B Peterson's podcast here: • From the Beginning to ...
Dr. Jordan B. Peterson is a clinical psychologist and professor emeritus at the University of Toronto. From 1993 to 1998 he served as assistant and then associate professor of psychology at Harvard. He spent fifteen years writing Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief (1999; released in June 2018 as a now bestselling author-read audiobook). Maps of Meaning is a scholarly investigation into the nature of narrative and religious thought, the structure of perception, the regulation of emotion, and the motivation for atrocity in the service of ideology. Dr. Peterson also penned the popular global bestsellers Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life & 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, #1 for nonfiction in 2018 in the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, the Netherlands, Brazil and Norway, both translated into some 50 languages. The latter book has sold more than five million copies; the former, released in mid 2021, 750,000.
You can show your support and access exclusive bonus content at / originspodcast
The Origins Podcast, a production of The Origins Project Foundation, features in-depth conversations with some of the most interesting people in the world about the issues that impact all of us in the 21st century. Host, theoretical physicist, lecturer, and author, Lawrence M. Krauss, will be joined by guests from a wide range of fields, including science, the arts, and journalism. The topics discussed on The Origins Podcast reflect the full range of the human experience - exploring science and culture in a way that seeks to entertain, educate, and inspire.
Full Episodes Playlist:
• Ricky Gervais - The Or... 
Наука
J: "We'll do it again."
L: "Let's do it again."
That's the best closing statement of this wonderful discussion. Thanks gentlemen!
Amen! I was so happy hearing them say that!
Wow! that was, by far, the best interview of Jordan Peterson I've ever seen anyone do. This was the most enjoyable and the most stimulating mouse click of 2021. i can't wait for part 3!
Have you seen the transliminal series?
This it closer to the quality of convo I wished JP could have had with Sam Harris.
Y
@joseph deutsch Look it up. A series of interviews where he goes deep into his philophy. The first one is probably the most illuminating Peterson interview and the best in terms of definition of his outlook.
@@kennyfernandez2866 Exactly. Never bettered by anyone
This may be the best podcast duo I have ever heard. These guys need each other. Lawrence challenges Jordan to be clear and Jordan challenges Lawrence's assumptions. They both take each other seriously, listen well, and respond thoughtfully and respectfully.
I've been listening to both of these men for a long time and this is the best I've seen them both. Excellent conversation.
the assumptions krauss.
what might these be?
Thoroughly agree.. I wish these two would do weekly podcasts together.. so much to unpack and 2 hours is just not enough time.
@@superflee12 yes!
I watch both - ironically through Atheism - Sam Harris and Krauss via Dawkins then Peterson via Harris. Jordan’s view of religion through psychology has a place. I somehow never imagined these two hitting it off but clearly wrong. A really friendly vibe when two open and compassionate people put their minds together.
Martin Amis wrote an interesting fiction story, The Zone of Interest, set in and Auschwitz based on different accounts of the camp commander, a German working at the camp related to Martin Borman and a Jewish Sonderkommando (a Jewish person who stays alive by working in the camp).
1:07:30 beginning of inquiry into morality
1:11:30 “beliefs are the world” pushback
1:14:00 what is a value judgement?
1:19:50 material world vs field of potential
1:22:15 censorship as fatal growth inhibitor
1:24:44 challenge to JP’s moral absolutes
1:27:30 defining morality as inversion of evil
1:33:45 Horus & Osiris: honor tradition but pay attention to new information and always be willing to dispense with the old and grow
1:39:50 religious depth & infinite unknown
1:42:00 “it’s completely unrelated to me” (oops)
1:44:00 Mary-serpent-stars symbolism
1:48:40 Einstein vs. Darwin conflict
1:49:50 what is vs how to act
2:00:45 JP argument for elevating attention above reason
Thank you for this! This comment should be pinned
Much needed, thank you. Is there more timestamps?
thanks!
I am coping and recomenting it
*_"_**_1:07:30_**_ beginning of inquiry into morality"_*
So what happened in the first 67 minutes?
{:o:O:}
Thank you
One of the most enjoyable experiences is to watch two well-read intellectuals disagree and challenge each other nicely, politely, but seriously. I really do hope to see these two minds clash and converse again. Thank you for this content.
Iiii
I second that
Compared to the likes of Ben Shapiro, sure, I guess Jordan would be an intellectual.
Yes. Definitely looking forward to part 3. Very few podcast episodes are ones that I finish. But Krauss and Peterson I watched the whole of both.
@@LetsConquerTheUniverseTogether So is Shapiro. I dont agree with anything he says but if you think that somebody who is that articulate and who has become that famous for that reason isnt an intellectual, well then you are just a typical internet warrior. No following or reputation of your own to speak of and yet you have the audacity to judge men who have built enormous reputations out of their proven merit.
My respect for lawrence krauss has hit an all time high. Who would've expected one of JP's best interviews to be with a theoretical physicist? Psychology and Physics may seem like worlds apart, perhaps TOO different to have any meaningful intersections, but these intellectuals have proven to me that the spirit of science which is to be curious and open minded can overcome disciplinary boundaries. Truly humbled to be a listener of this dialogue, thank you Mr.Krauss.
And no thank you for jordan peterson?
Nothing that exists is too far apart from each other
@@wayne4831 'Distinguish the material from the colonial' Is this word salad, or am I just not up on the jargon of Mr Anderson and his ilk?
@Black Lesbian Poet You don't have to bother challenging any of their ideas in that case.
I enjoyed this as well.... questions I would have:
Krauss: How would you set about proving that empiricism is the best way to obtain knowledge? Obviously you can't use empirical arguments for this question as this would be circular reasoning (using empiricism to prove empiricism).
Peterson: 1. It seemed that you alluded to a structural system with a fluid center towards the beginning.. I could be wrong but this is what I gathered... this seems very similar to Derrida's Deconstruction theory (that language is representations)... I sense a distinction but can not bring it to the surface.
For both, how do we "value" the different methods of obtaining knowledge? Empirical, heuristics, deductive reasoning, historicity, even faith(which, by definition, requires doubt.. tautology). Is every side simply pointing out the tyrannical possibilities of the other side, in the same way as the tyrant vs philosopher king in narrative? In other words, is the debate on these subjects it's own narrative about the proper way to be(e.g., "Be careful as you may use this method too strongly and miss the mark")?
I watch a few podcasts. I love podcasts of conversations between very brilliant people. This one is fireworks. It stands out among many very good podcasts.
Thank you gentlemen.
Just wanted to say that you did a really amazing job at structuring that interview - asking questions with an 'aim' in mind while allowing for detours where the opportunity presents itself and at the same time not losing track of the path travelled up to that point. That kind of thing might look natural and effortless when it works so well, but it's actually a pretty advanced thing to pull off imo.
thanks.. particularly appreciate this.
@@TheOriginsPodcast Have you now stopped condemning all right,wingers, except ofcourse religious beliefs, looking at the sanity of thoughts on every single aspect?
@@Raydensheraj how about 'Collectivism, structural determinism and racial essentialism are instruments of destruction in the hands of the state', or 'reformation is better than revolution' and 'Freedom without value systems is anarchy'
@@Raydensheraj individual freedom is right wing, the left is collectivist.
@@David-wm8jp Interesting. Maybe collectivist is better since the right wing "individualists" have accomplished absolutely nothing in literature, music, film, architecture, painting, theater, philosophy or any branch of science. ALL these fields and basically all creative activity is the work of liberals. Garbage like Peterson are not even on the map, intellectually.
This was one of the best Peterson interviews since his return. His ideas deserve to be respectfully grilled, and a conversation between two differing, but honest and truth seeking, individuals is always the best. Great job, I'm a happy new subscriber!
Hi, could you give me the 20 word description of JP and his politics, please? Aussie here and my exposure to him is nil.
@@jackmack1061 He is moderately conservative but, in his own admission, he has compassion for social issues. In reality, if you are only willing to accept a 20 word description, you might not ever fully understand him. Listen to a number of his long-form discussions with various folks from all sides of the political spectrum.
He has really made me give a second look to the notion that religion (I am non-religious) is at the core of much of our most bedrock social beliefs and I have much greater appreciation for the role of religion in society because of his discussions with both religious believers and non-believers.
If you only watch the "Peterson Destroys Person X" videos, won't ever get the full depth and breath of his views.
@@jackmack1061 I can try, for the political synopsis he suggests that most people on the individual-level are better off trying to make their own lives as good as they can rather than trying to push for institutional change, and that enough people improving their own lives would help support more large-scale improvements over time in a meaningful way. And he offers real, manageable, advice for those of us who are struggling but don't know how to start making things better for ourselves and those around us, as opposed to people who say "just deal with it." And that unimpeded honesty is the best way to help us all get on the right track. It seems counterintuitive but I''ve found he's absolutely correct with this. He's not particularly left or right, both extreme wings hate him but the left makes it a point to announce their dislike to the public.
For the more religious side of what he says, he's spent his life researching history through a psychological lens and synthesizes the works of philosophers, behaviorists, psychoanalysts, and others with the great stories of old in service of understanding why we believe what we believe. It's hard to follow him at times with so much foundational information necessary to support what he says, it is very much worth the time to check him out though and I recommend watching some of his university personality lectures (he's put them all up on YT), much more grounded and easy to take in. I hope that helped.
@@jackmack1061 Noam Chomsky recommends the article: The Intellectual We Deserve by Nathan J Robinson. Available free online.
The grill never got above room temperature.
This is one of the most wonderful podcasts I have ever listened to. I did not move one inch the whole time. I relistened to some parts, twice and thrice. The discussion just felt important.
Two of my favorite intellectuals. Their first podcast was epic as was this one. 2 hours 21 mins just isn't enough. I could listen to them converse for 5 hours plus. What an absolute privilege. The more they meet up the better.
check out Dr. Stephen C Meyer! Less known but just as intelligent with AMAZING lectures here on RUclips. Hope you do and enjoy!
@@JesusNOTreLIEgion what is he talking about, usually?
Well, what did you learn from this?
Peterson is not an intellectual.
@@nickthaskater Pseudo-intellectual would cover it.
I’m glad to see Jordan through a source I can personally trust to be fair and transparent in a discussion. Thank you Lawrence for setting this up.
Yeah I just wanted to see some comedy why not to listen to that dude give advices.
@@EuDouArteHipHopArtCulture21, kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
yes
Jordan?... Lawrence? I realize the impersonal nature of the RUclips comment section but how did you get your self on a first name basis with both of these gentlemen? 🤔
@@VladSWG Does it matter if we don't know each other? I could adress Jordan B Peterson as Jo and Lawrence Kraus as Law. It's about the context of what the person on a comment section says. He thanked Lawrence Krauss for the neutral set up to enjoy a conversation on various topics in which Jo had problems, because of hostility from many other parties.
Well-meaning, skeptical, honest, humble, and dedicated seekers of the truth, unite!
Well stated. Thank you.
Wow my respect and appreciation for Prof. Krauss shot up so much after watching this! He was respectful and listened quietly but then was also able to ask challenging questions without appearing arrogant. He’s grown quite a bit since the last time I watched him in a discussion like this. Well done!
You know ‘Krauss was a VERY TIGHT friend of Jeremy Epstein’s right?He took many trips with him on Epstein’s private jet,The Lolita Express!Still impressed with this character?
@@socillizt4life in almost all other situations I’ve despised the way Krauss conducts himself. He is a materialist and an arrogant one at that. I’m not surprised that he could be involved in something as immoral as going to Epsteins island. So I guess I should clarify my comment. Krauss was far more presentable in this discussion than he is normally. I cannot honestly say that I respect him. Jordan was just able to help shine him up a bit here.
@@socillizt4lifemost your conservative Christian friends didn’t,t have the money to go on the plane. They got their kids down the street for $30.
@@terrymckenzie8786 What Christian friends? I’m a 44 year old lifelong atheist. I don’t really deal with religious people in my everyday life. Infact I would usually try & avoid them at all costs to be honest, Christian,Muslim,Jew or polytheist.
@@terrymckenzie8786
Serious question. Do you not hold utter depraved humans accountable for their company & actions,just as long as they have the common sense of not believing in myths ?! Is that seriously all it takes for you to let the actions of despicable people slide ?
If so that’s truly as pathetic as Catholic Church ped-(0) priest apologists!
You need to give your priorities a seriously good check over & your moral compass is seriously in need of a repair because it must be pointing South !
Man...seeing podcasts like this gives me goosebumps, please move close to one another, become close friends and do this atleast once per month... ;) it's a delight gentlemen, never stop what you are doing as scientists, it is like Yogi to our Booboo, food for curiosity and mind, defining reality at the highest level, a humble thank you and best wishes! Keep it up!
I really want a weekly or monthly-or even quarterly-podcast with these two talking about whatever they want. Public dialogue is in such a strained position, I’d love to hear more of their thoughts on…everything really. Their differing views of the world makes their discussions that much more enlightening.
Smart people, in friendly dialogue with folks who think differently from one another, is currently in sorely short supply.
Even just two talks a year would be good.
I'm starting to think this might become a huge trend where more people learn that this is where the good stuff is. Most people I've talked to say they've tuned out of mainstream media and are turning to podcasts for their listening. If we can all get back to open discussion and be a little less offended we could really turn discourse around.
No. Once enough.
Always a good SHOW! Always! Yah never know who your meeting on street/store! Acknowledging folks is always good! Huh!
Fantastic interview. Probably the best I've ever seen with Jordan. He's best when his feet are held to the fire. I look forward to more dialogues with you and Jordan.
Ut oh, don’t let the guy from the top comment reply see you wrote “Jordan” and not Dr. Peterson. Us plebes aren’t supposed to reference them by their forenames!
When no-name journalists grill him, he usually attacks. Jordan wouldn't dare flip out at someone more famous than he is.
I agree completely. I love how Lawrence is both compassionate yet also holding Jordan's feet to the fire. And it's clear that he's doing it so he can understand him better, not to score points for a team (which unfortunately many interviews are)
@@mdaddy775 From what I saw he only did that when so called journalists intentionally misrepresent him. Famous example that "so you're saying" lady.
@@mdaddy775 When no-name journalists go after him in bad faith he attacks. Otherwise he is a gentleman.
Thank you for this wonderful conversation. I know that Lawrence's final quote warned against turning life into a game but if this conversation WAS a game and that game happened to be tennis, I feel like JP kept hitting a bunch of tennis balls at Lawrence, all of which he tried to catch and examine. If the ball was tainted by any hint of religion, spirituality, myth or superstition he would stop the game and ask why the hell JP keeps hitting these kinds of balls at someone who doesn't want to play THAT kind of game. I'm not explaining myself all that well - but there was a fascinating dynamic in this conversation and hats off to both men for their humility and willingness to listen and laugh with each other.
Good analysis.
Yes. It's that new atheist hyper sensitivity to all things religious that prevents many others from having productive conversations, and Krauss does very well at conceding. Good sportsmanship.
I think the problem arises from the fact that Peterson attempts to speak to the masses in language that is the most prevalent and relatable, and in atheism school we learn to define that "prevalence" as "pervasive" in many ways. So along with dumping the burden of our traditional faiths we attempt to dump a vernacular that underpins our inevitably colloquial and traditional understanding of the world.
Thats like pretending we can all speak latin now, and there aren't gonna be major hickups. It's cute, and ultimately unrealistic if you're not just indulging the luxury of intellectual parlour games.
If you're actually trying to reach the world beyond your faculty and peers, you have to pay careful attention to adjusting communicative tools so that they may be compatible to the maximum amount of frames of reference.
It is thrilling to watch these guys break new ground like this. Awesome, in fact.
@@Frikzter Add to that the fact that JP is trying to bring together myth, metaphor, science and psychology. It's a potent mix and sometimes difficult to follow because he skips across all of these so easily and then uses one to explain or add to another. LK tries to keep him more in the scientific realm but as you say, shows some good sportsmanship and humility in this conversation.
@@Frikzter
I think it's just because LK is a rigorous scientist and as such he's attracted to the utmost clarity and precision. JP tends to wallow in obscurity which he confuses with depth
@@edwardjones2202 you say that as if it is a bad thing. The roots of our thoughts and emotions are the most obscure things, so one must go there to discover it. Few people are willing, because there is no clear designation for the person who isn't a proponent of "God" and isn't an anti-theist. So people from any camp can throw stones at him and feel safe to do so.
Krauss’s sincerity and forthrightness makes this an absolutely brilliant discussion.
I've an avid Peterson listener. This is one of the very best Peterson interviews ever.
@Renato Johnsson Why?
Why...because Peterson was lightly challenged? He uses obfuscation and overly complicated word salad gobble-de-gook whenever this happens. Lawrence could make mincemeat out of him if he wanted to and, I suspect, things won't go so smoothly for Peterson should they do another podcast together.
Krauss seems to be one of the only interviewers I've heard actually delve deep into Peterson's ideas, respectfully pushing him and forcing him to clarify certain things, all the while bringing that level-headed rational physicists mind to full use, which really helps avoid the metaphorical tangents JP is known for. Great questions!! I love the balance between these two.
Agreed. This is the best Peterson interview by far.
Krauss absolutely brings it from the 'cold equations' aspect I and people like me appreciate.
I liked this one better than the ones with Sam Harris. Nothing against him, but I think that the public setting of those conversations threw them off. One on one podcasts are definitely the way to go.
@@bendavis2234 that, and Sam also is completely blind to the ideas of values, Lawrence only partially so.
Caleb,, you word it nicely when you say methaporical tangents, you could also say pseudo-intelectual garbage that is meant to put you in awe, confuse you, freeze your brain of any response,, man is fraud
What a wonderful thing we have in today's world where conversations like this can be commonplace and easily accessible for intellectuals big and small who crave greater insight and perspective. You two are absolutely brilliant and respectful. It genuinely brings me happiness
The fact that I respected them separately and then I find them together discussing, makes me very happy. Excellent, gents
Thanks you liked my comment. It made my day reading it, one year later. I'm re-watching the interview. Very much worth it.
I absolutely loved this interview. I find I like Jordan's interviews the most when the interviewer hold his feet to the fire, especially in an honest and well intentioned manner.
And particularly, when the push back is an investigation of legitimate grounded differences in thinking and not just based on ideology or tribalism. It's unfortunately rare to find prominent public thinkers in discussion on their disagreements and still both interested in getting to the root of the difference... instead of just trying to score points.
So what you're saying is..
@@michaelmorehouse6027 🤣🤣🤣🤣
To me, this conversation is actually a real achievement. Reconciling two completely different perspectives of the world is an incredibly difficult thing to do, and these two really put a huge amount of effort into trying to understand each other. As somebody interested in explainable AI, I found some of the key issues in this talk really relevant. I cannot be sure of my interpretation of the two perspectives, but here is my take :) The physical world around us appears to "follow" the rules of logic. For this reason, we can use logical formalisms (like mathematics) to make accurate predictions of the behaviors of physical world systems. Therefore according to the Krauss perspective, if you want to understand the world, then you need to use these formalisms. However, this is where somebody in explainable AI encounters a problem - while the world obeys the laws of logic, we do not view the world directly, we view the world from the perspectives of a human being. And our perspective is far from logical (which is why we find things like maths and science hard - as Peterson points out). Rather our perspective is based on evolution over millions of years, with the main drivers being competence and the ability to reproduce, but not necessarily logic. So the Peterson perspective is that you need to take into account human perception when you are formulating an explanation of the world, and not all knowledge about the world is logical (like a story from Genesis is a model of some aspect of the world based on human experience from a human perspective - which is relevant to our understanding of the world and has utility). In terms of explainable AI, the goal is to explain to the user why the computer made a particular inference. The computer uses a completely "logical" set of inferences to derive some model of the world and make predictions, however, this model is typically alien to us humans. Therefore to make AI "explainable", there is a whole extra layer of mapping to try and convert the "logical" computer model into something that humans can relate with.
Wow so deep.
Bravo!
That seems right. There's so much in this conversation that I couldn't absorb it all as I heard it, but a point that struck me from Peterson was the matter of how to act in the world (in the section discussing values, moral absolutes, and the consequences of ignoring such). This gets at the IS/OUGHT relationship, which might be key in understanding the relationship between a physicist and a psychologist. I wish they had delved further into the meaning(s) of reality. I think that idea gets diminished in common parlance.
There just to many presumptions going on here. Decent reasoning sure but based on far to many presumptions.
"while the world obeys the laws of logic, we do not view the world directly, we view the world from the perspectives of a human being"
you're correct but I think the emphasis is slightly off --- the world is the world interpreted through consciousness. It's a weird quirk of our time that we assume there is a different world that operates under different rules. I understand why we think that (science at the quantum and cosmological scale seemingly at odds with our experience at the human scale), but it's still weird to assume the empirical world we experience is "fake" and this theoretical thought experiment of a world separated from human consciousness is real.
I disagree with Peterson about many things, but he comes across much better here than 10 minute interviews on TV. This is a good conversation between two intelligent people who hold different opinions. Respectful and intelligent. Great stuff.
This was excellent Lawrence Krauss. The quality of the conversation was phenomenal, and I think a big part of it is because you've been earnestly thinking about what JP is trying to say. The aromas of confrontation have gone away, and instead you can pick at each others thoughts with mutual respect and such a good tone, even when disagreeing. Thanks for this.
I have seen most of Jordan Peterson' interviews and none compare to the outstanding job Lawrence Krauss did here.
Seeing a great mind enquire and put to the test the ideas of another great mind is like watching the intelectual Olympics.
New subscriber to this channel and cannot wait to explore it.
Outstanding work.
Well done Mr Krauss.
Yeah I think Lawrence did a good job at probing JP’s ideas in a respectful manner. I knew that this podcast would get slightly heated, but IMO that made it better. Both of them had their ideas challenged and scrutinized and I think both did a good job at representing their positions.
Absolutely. Many interviewers just let Jordan Peterson talk on, when they don't understand him, because they think "I'm just not smart enough to understand". That's a disservice to the audience and to Jordan Peterson, because he can make much more sense if he's pushed to do so.
The most striking insight Dr. Peterson revealed here was defining "spirit" to be a disembodied abstraction, because that's so central to Christianity, yet it's never really stated as such: Jesus says to his disciples (paraphrasing), "I must go, so that the Holy Spirit may come to you" -- i.e., when I (Jesus) go away, the *disembodied abstraction of holiness that is presently embodied in me* shall come to you. And it's the Christian's duty from that point forward to take this disembodied abstraction and embody it himself/herself -- hence becoming a "Little Christ" (the literal meaning of "Christian").
I’m a JBP fan but I’m really impressed with Krauss’s humility. He really wants to understand JBP and is very courageous in doing so as it is possible that JBPs stance could very well undermine his. Love these two talking to each other. Let’s have more!
The mental energy this two invested on this podcast, I think can be enough to power a city
Excellent discussion. Krauss gives the best and most constructive challenge to the heart of JP's thinking I've seen. I identify with both sides of this conversation, and this was a fascinating stab at reconciling them. Certainly followup discussions are warranted; the gap that remained here could be better explored and defined. A lot of it boils down to down to semantics, but I'm realizing now how nontrivial that is.
I had been waiting for this conversation for 3 years. I'm looking forward to the upcoming ones. You guys and your honest explorations into each others' minds can disentangle many unnecessary clashes between science and meaning.
So far the collaboration seems very fruitful.
It's great seeing Jordan needing to return to the roots of his explanations, making his message be more clear to those not yet versed in his existing work.
check out Dr. Stephen C Meyer, just type his name into RUclips I'm sure as a clear intellectual, will greatly enjoy.
I know that I am a year late to this discussion; however, I have gained a lot of respect for both of you because of these discussions and hope that you have more of these later in both your lives. Keep challenging each other! The world will be better because of your discussions. Your differences make for great discussion! Please revisit this now that you both have grown! Love you both!
Repeating what many have said, but this was fantastic. Two brilliant minds asking questions with genuine curiosity and respect. Then answering those questions in an attempt to find clarity for all involved and not any real attempt at persuasion. And no badgering of difference of views only of misunderstandings of views. This is beautiful conversation and I genuinely think both parties and all listeners benefit from them.
"The question is not what is, but how to act". To me this is the most profound argument in the entire debate.
Typically not a fan of Peterson, but this kind of interview is why I ever had interest in him the first place.
Talking about his background, influences, research interests etc. make for a fascinating interview.
Not a fan of Peterson? He’s honest, insightful, and inspired! What don’t you like?
@@smhollanshead he's a conservative who carries water for a lot of trash conservative ideas
@@ubuu7 I’m sure you have all the answers
@@ubuu7 Be specific, dont just barf an incomplete argument so its vague enough for people to challenge you, in my personal experience you can only label peterson anything if you listen to him without a open mind (ironically for an autolabeled liberal like yourself). Sorry for the bad english if its the case.
@@mexkato Kato, liberterian thinktank name, I'm not surprised. The brain rot is fierce there.
Peterson is so often not specific himself, crafting narratives that are the building blocks for conservative conclusions without actually coming out and saying the conclusion much of the time, and so it leaves his audience the easy path of heading there. And when challenged on his behavior, Peterson can motte and bailey retreat and say he never SAID the fel conclusion you suggested. No, he just lead people up a winding mountain path with little other clear pathways to go.
In a more direct case, he tells impresionable young men who are craving direction to work on yourself before you even think of looking outward. That advice is basically a death note to all liberal politics, which is outwardly focused and aimed and fixing systems that are broken. How is fixing individual issues within ourselves going to solve a healthcare structure that is sclerotic in its cost structure?
It won't, but Peterson convinces a bunch of dumb fuck dudes to steer their attention away from such concerns. More than that, such concerns are not even valid unless and until you've gotten your shit together first.
Really? And when willl that be? When will the flawed creatures called mankind figure their shit out to the point where it's op for them to look outward? When you get to Petersons level? Peterson himself got into trouble with anxiety and medicating that caused a cascade of health and mental issues. Should he have shut his fucking mouth and stop agitating against things in the world he disagreed with?
Fucking POISONous mindset.
I'm sure he and other conservatives and libertarian types would just LOVE for the universe itself to tie their hands and let the status quo of conservativism keep us in place or move us backwards.
Fuck that, I refuse to play. His dumb fuck lemmings, not so much.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that these two don't experience a natural affinity toward one another (i.e., that this has been the case not merely intellectually but generally). So what was of particular interest to me was observing how each overcame the numerous palpably awkward moments that arose in the discussion.
They did that by determinedly choosing receptive and open wording, making a point of verbally giving ground wherever possible, not taking any statements personally (at least not overtly), and pressing on. There are excellent lessons here for those looking to engage in such discussions in their own lives productively and without antipathy.
I think some of the 'awkward moments' were only the effect of video delay in their zoom meeting. It always screws little interactions up.
Jordan Peterson habitually redefines words we all use and understand one way,to mean something only he is privy to. Thus every statement has to be thoroughly examined. It must be exhausting to interview him!
This conversation is great. Thank the RUclips algorithm for recommending it to me several times even though I wasn’t subscribed to this channel. Lawrence’s preparation work here is really second to none. I’m only half way through the podcast, but the trajectory and momentum seem well over the runtime. I hope already that this will go into future conversations. Love to you both.
This is one of the best podcasts with JP I've seen in a while, u challenge him at the right times without being overly hostile and ask good questions to help clarify his ideas. Good stuff.
Dr. Peterson never siezes that verbal acrobatics and it's amazing how many people find that profound.
It's not acrobatics....
Wow. This was amazing. I could have sat through 5 more hrs. Obviously these are intense conversations and extremely demanding on both speakers but it was so enjoyable to listen!! Funny, most podcasts I play in the background while performing other activities but this one I couldn't help but be glued to the computer. Very thought provoking. Especially when it is done in good faith. Excited for more conversations between these two great thinkers. WHAT A TIME TO BE ALIVE!
Oh Man! What a phenomenal conversation! Diving deep yet remaining comprehensible, and all the time the spirit of mutual respect presided over the whole thing. It’s rare for these two world views to interact without doing battle. I CANNOT WAIT for their next conversation. What a delight. Thank you Lawrence.
I have seen damn near every podcast Jordan Peterson has been a part of and he has NEVER been questioned like this. I love Jordan and he has been a light in my life, but questioning the often ambiguous nature of his speech is needed, and most are far too uneducated (like me) to ascertain the true meaning of his propositions. Krauss is an open, brilliant mind confronting Peterson's bold claims in a respectful, constructive manner. The best podcast I've seen with Jordan. Thank you, Lawrence! I've gained great clarity on Peterson's positions from this.
The last 40 minutes more or less of this conversation is pure gold. I have to come back over and over… there is a lot to unpack.
What a treat! Thank you to you both. It's really a magnificent time to being alive, having the opportunity to listen and learning from great minds, at the tip of our fingers via this digital world we live in. Thank you Lawrence and thank you Jordan. How I wish more people would be able to speak to each other with the sole purpose of understanding better, not necessarily agreeing on every topic, and if not agreeing demonising the counterpart. Really appreciate these conversations. 1000 thanks.
A physicist meets a psychologist.👌👌👌👌👌👌👍👍👍👍👍
I was there when Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson debated under the moderation of Douglas Murray. I thought that was the best opportunity of reconciliation that could be reasonable hoped for, but this conversation proved me wrong. We need more of this. Such and excellent conversation. Please please do more.
I would love to see these two continue this literally for years until they either can't stand each other or reach some higher level of understanding.
You can see Lawrence Krauss' background go from light to dark over the course of this podcast. Pretty neat!
Dr. Krauss' two discussions with Mr. Peterson, along with his (Mr. P's) discussion with Stephen Fry, have changed my attitude towards Mr. Peterson. While I still disagree with some of his opinions and theories, I am impressed by his thoughtfulness and knowledge and, surprisingly, humour. As stated by someone else, I appreciated Dr. Krauss' ability to get straight answers in plain language from Mr. Peterson. I have a far better understanding of his theories than I was able to get from any of the other discussions, interviews and lectures I've watched previously. Thanks for this.
Dr Krauss and Mr Peterson? Shouldn't it be Dr Peterson?
What a time to be alive. The internet is the greatest thing that has ever happend to human existence. Being able to watch this within clicks away.. It's truly mind-blowing and cool at the same time. Love educational talks like this.
Much higher quality thought is available in books. What is it about this format that sparks your excitement? I'm not criticising you. You seem to be fired up by the ideas, but JP is not a deep thinker to warrant "greatest time to be alive". His philosophy wouldn't reach the subtlety of GE Moore, never mind Wittgenstein or Russell. His political work has none of the astonishing breadth, clarity, power and detail of Chomsky, nor the latter's searing compassion. As for his professional work, his own head of Department at Toronto described it as merely "solid".
All the rest of it - the eclectic references, the polysyllables, the obscurity: it's just decoration. There's not much behind it. Take away his plucky refusal to bow to screaming woke activists and he wouldn't have his following.
i agree..so much...
Great dialog between the two. Lawrence is having some trouble to pick the right frame of reference to understand Jordan's approach. The example around the 1:42:00 mark is a good one. Jordan is absolutely right that the skies in some way are the infinite unknown. Lawrence does agree to that. Where they differ is that Jordan also finds it representing therefor potential danger, which Lawrence dismisses. But Jordan has a point: an infinite unknown has potential for danger by definition. Anything unknown can harbour good but also danger. I find it odd that Lawrence doesn't get that given that there are plenty of actual dangers which Lawrence himself could probably list even better than Jordan (cosmic rays, sun expanding at the end of it's lifetime, impact with objects moving around, and more far fetched but not impossible by definition alien civilisations finding us). Saying that we become part of that infinite unknown is not really new-age or esoteric, it's a different way to saying we are stardust, the phrase Lawrence has uttered probably hundreds of times in his life. But kudos to Lawrence for really trying and engaging, even though he is wired for a different frame of reference.
Also Jordan meant that Krauss doesn't know what happens after death...he only thinks he knows, but it is actually a belief....for what happens is an unknown....it might be nothing if consciousness is an epiphenomenon, or it might be something if consciousness is primary etc
@@mutedplum465 I tend to agree more with Krauss here. Anything happening is still bound to the limitations of physics. Jordan and Krauss are explaining the world on different levels of abstraction. The narrative explanation is only applicable to human experience. But the human experience is completely irrelevant when looking at the abstraction layer of Lawrence, where everything is just quantum fields. Everything we observe and experience is emerging as no single quantum object is "responsible" for it. Consciousness is emerging and the result of specific interactions at a higher abstraction level than the quantum level. Given that any life completely disintegrates after death, over time, anything from which consciousness emerges will be disintegrated and therefor seize to produce whatever we call consciousness.
It's an argument in the same league as saying Saturn has 0 influence on your personality. In order for Saturn to exert any influence, it needs to propagate in accordance with the laws of quantum mechanica. We know the limits of quantum mechanica very well and therefor are able to completely dismiss this.
Nice to hear which generations you both come from. Helps me to understand your thought process. I, myself follow the decade behind Dr Krauss closer to Jordan's generation. I'm so happy to have lived in "our" time. Fantastic conversation. Thank you both.
I cannot. Believe. Someone interviewing Jordan. Actually read maps of meaning!! Hands down the best interview, and for good reason
Great interview. I get the impression that after the recent health problems he's had, JP can't take many hours of conversation. I hope he knows that we all appreciate his effort in staying active and sharing his thoughts with us. Congratulations Lawrence on the interview. We are all looking forward to the 3rd debate
Don't include me in your appreciation, I definitely don't appreciate it, now hes moved to the Daily Caller any credibility he ever possessed has gone straight down the gurgler.
Peterson always pours himself out, with active listening and beating his words with the fire of the forge, repeatedly sharpening and honing the sword. He is not ready here, for the encounters with the contentious blind hearted, yet. He enjoyed this tiring, lively encounter with Krause. I pray that continues healing, and strengthening. God bless.
Although I've been following Jordan since the beginning, I became aware of an emotional instability, (often presenting as inappropriate crying) and quit following him prior to his sabbatical. I now realize I was particularly judgemental because I had similar emotional issues at one time. Emotional problems I dealt with by self-medicating. Mine led to an even lengthier addiction. Now I'm listening to Jordan again for the first time in years and all I can say is WOW! I try to avoid words that could be mistaken for hyperbole, but this man is amazing. His mind is the answer to the neo-marxist movement plaguing western society. No one has ever been able to help me bridge the gap between my analytical objective mind and the innate need for meaning we all share, except Jordan.
Indeed one of the best podcasts I've listened to recently. Big respect to both men; a perfect example of how discourse should be.
I don't typically enjoy Krauss' interview style due to his frequent difficulty in asking a single, well-articulated question at a time. However, this conversation was the most clarifying I've heard to date regarding Peterson's conceptual framework. It's the closest yet to the conversation I keep imagining Peterson could have with Sam Harris if only Harris could get out of his own way. Krauss did a very good job at pulling Peterson back from his regular habit of premature digression into metaphor (prior to clearly articulating the idea/argument in plain language such that metaphor can provide understandable elaboration) without being argumentative or unhelpfully pedantic.
Second this
Exactly. Amazing discussion & questions, more of this.
As a deep Peterson fan, challenging Peterson is the best thing you could do for both of you two & for the quality of the conversation itself. Poke Peterson's ideas, because it will inform him to fill the hole with a better explanation (he will do it) & we want that.
We want more precise & understandable communication of the best ideas we can find, very much.
Jordan P was a clinical psychologist, he's dealt with horrendously hard things, he can discern curious from toxic. Well-meaning curious questions from curious sceptics are what is desired above all else.
I'm almost positive Jordan is actively putting some of what he learned in his dialogues with Sam to good use here and even may have hinted at that with asking a question like "well, where does thought come from?" I also think his coming into contact with McGilchrist's work has helped him tremendously in this regard.
So sharp and quick again, so good to see. And Lawrence just grew big in my eyes with the fair but critical questions. That's the way to go, you don't buy it all, but you see what's good.
I gotta hand it to Lawrence. His openness and willingness to fully try & understand JPB’s paradigm was really surprising. This was an AMAZING talk.
I love you both very much, please have more discussions like these, very mind opening
Second that
Mr Krausss, you are good at this. I think this may be the best conducted interview I've witnessed. Which side I'm on makes no difference. Just compelling and well done! Bravo.
The perfect balance with both of these men on an interview setting. Please make this into a yearly series! Who is with me?
'the question isnt what is, the question is how to act'
this is the best summary of peterson he has ever given.
the not noticing that context determines constraints and options.
'they cant answer how to act'
we can. you act inevitably, and ineffably. the reason you dont swim when you jump out a plane is the context. you dont do something which cant be done. and figuring out options of what can be done is derived from understanding what is. it is understanding what the effects can combine, and induce, and cascade networks of concurrent circumstances.
'what is more fundemental: what is, or how should we act?'
can you know how you should act without knowing what is? can you know the global maxima without knowing the underlying function's trend?
does knowing how to act, determine what is beyond our perception?
'there is an impassable gulf between what is and what should be'
there is no what should be. should is wishful thinking and self delusion and self decpetion. it is egoistic projection demanding the universe conform to will without personal competence. it is shameless self pity. it is evil.
if you dont know where you are, you cant start towards a destination. if you dont know how to interact with the world, you dont know your limits created by reality and foisted upon you.
knowing how to act depends on the education you get.
Good education = more knowledge about how to act.
Bad education for the non privileged enough to pay for a good education leads to bad habits, bad training -to NOT knowing how to act.
This was magnificent. I loved the different psychologies of these two men. This is what makes our species great. This is the type of dialogue we should aspire to.
I love Lawrence Krauss, not an atheist, and I have followed him for some time now and really enjoy his work in helping us learn more about what is going on around us. Glad to see him in dialogue with Peterson.
Not an atheist???
@@ergocaustic3473easier way to say I don't believe everything he puts forward and still follow him, read his works, watch his conversations and debates, and wrote a character in a movie based on my appreciation for him.
@@thecircumcisedheartofricha7344 may I ask what is what you disagree with him?
J. Peterson is an example of someone whose clarity of ideas in his speech totally opposes the complete obfuscation of his ideas in writing. He is not the only person who should talk more than he writes.
Thank you for prodding JP, especially in the latter half - this was very much needed as he's given the same answers many times before to similar questions in countless other videos. The prodding allowed for a more realised, experiential insight, uncovering the sheer depth behind JP's statements and answers. A follow up conversation would be most welcome.
I agree. I think for me the teasing out of a more precise language to JBP's concepts - particularly enabling him to pronounce his definitions.
Dr. Krauss, you have the patience of a saint.
Indeed he has.
Please…. Have another discussion! This was such and interesting and deep podcast. Thank you
Got a lot more respect for Krauss during these two hours than from what I got from experiencing of him before. It’s interesting how much more I and probably others tend to like another person if they just occasionally take some time to listen from the heart.
Awesome interview, thanks! 🙏🏻
Delighted to learn I was wrong to prejudge Jordan Peterson; he is indeed a deep-thinking intellectual and not some disingenuous and intentionally vague speaker, as I previously, mistakenly thought. This was indeed a fascinating conversation.
Two great minds enjoying each other's conversation. How fun to watch. A lot can be taken from listening to these two men.
Brilliant conversation. I loved the genuine interest, honesty and generosity in Dr. Krauss' questions, despite having a much different background and views to Dr. Peterson. And Dr. Peterson's own acknowledgment of the necessity and importance of those questions was greatly inspiring. I hope to see you two converse more.
I can't describe how much I enjoyed the mutual receptiveness of this conversation. This discussion was the embodiment of cooperation without settling for consideration. Grill each other, by all means. It was one of the few times I've seen Lawrence smile like he did from stimulus. He still sent silent jabs left and right I noticed towards Peterson, but Peterson, while in a weak state, clearly rebounded effectively. I was glad to see him on his game. As a platform you have to understand we can read you both as you're being respectful, and testing each other, but it's an absolute pleasure to watch you both accumulating. We get to see your faces as something inspires you. Thank you both.
I have to add to my earlier comment. I find that J.P is MUCH clearer in his beliefs when "confronted" with an intellect that is as broad, or broader than his. I noticed the same when he "debated" Stephen Fry. I have deep respect for both of those incredible thinkers (Lawrence & Fry) but STILL wish that The Hitch lived long enough to have a conversation with J.P even if just to hear them debate Orwell. Would have been an absolutely amazing and enlightening conversation.
Jordan's story about "delinquent reading" reminds me of myself. When I was 6 or 7 I had my bookshelves taken out of my room. I would lay at my bedroom door and read from the light that come underneath from the living room. I would read until I passed out from exhaustion.
I've been a big fan of Lawrence Krauss for a long time, and I've only just realised that his forehead would be a wonderful canvas for a beautiful work of art. I wonder if he's ever considered inquiring with a Tattoo Artist.
Internet & our minds are a wonderful place
Psychedelic conversation i can't get enough of both of them, two sessions and they can't get enough of conversation.
Its worth doing again in public audience, Awe inspiring.
1:51:50 Fascinating to watch Peterson's face as parts of Maps of Meaning are read to him. You can tell he labored hard to write it and has to labor hard to try to interact with it well in real time.
What a great conversation, thank you both Lawrence and Jordan, really looking forward to the 3rd conversation and you already have a place to pick it up.
Dr. Krause is the thinkers thinker, a man of substantial grounded logic.
I'm really glad people like you are interviewing Jordan Peterson. I'm a pretty liberal person, I've become disenchanted with politics since trumps arrival. I hadn't really heard anything good about him but I think that goes to show just how tribal and derisive things have gotten. I've watched him on a few different things and I don't see what the problem is. Sure, he has some different views than me, but who doesn't. He seems very thoughtful and genuine and he's doing the best he can to understand the world. Thats all you can ask of someone.
I'm listening to this 8 days after it's release and there are already 1,500 comments, so I doubt anyone will read this. Also, I am a muggke that likes Dr. Krauss from his "4 horsemen" work, and I have issues with Dr. Peterson's points when I've listened to his lectures. Anyway, at a few minutes after the 1st hour the subject of perception involving value judgements comes up. Dr. Krauss makes the point that you could look at the world through an economics frame. Yes, and doing so is a value judgment. Right?
I like when Jordan was on Theo Von's podcast and Jordan was telling about how his father still hunts but he's slowed down now because he's in his 90s. And Theo said, "Yeah, he's using a gun instead of a knife now".
🤣🤣
Never clocked that... Theo is the best at enriching a story like that
Thank you Lawrence!
While I find Peterson to be interesting, I always want him to explain his obscure metaphors.
You asked him the very questions I want to hear him answer.
JP doesn't have clear answers or stances on a lot of topics. He uses misdirection to make himself sound smart and influential, but I have found little substance from any of his talks.
@@captainzappbrannagan boooerns
@@captainzappbrannagan As Jordan was saying to Lawrence you may not be genetically temperamentally wired to understand the depths of what he’s saying, which isn’t an insult. The religious realm is nested in the personality trait openness and most scientist are apropos of being a scientist in the first place, high in consciousness/ low in openness. You embody your religiousity through embodied action, not abstract thought ie. stories
@@captainzappbrannagan His willful misdirection and obfuscation is probably a defense mechanism. It is due to his inability to logically explain and convince people that his ideas have more value, and that he wants to believe they are true, like his christian mythology, but for the most part they are meritless.
@@captainzappbrannagan your gaslighting isn't appreciated.
Two of my favorite people.
"Scientists - You gotta leave them alone. They are weird people".
A weekly deep dive into ultimate questions with both of these men would be gold and incredibly enlightening.
I don't think I took one breath through the entire "conversation". Thank you Lawrence Krauss for being open minded to new ideas from Jordan Peterson. You both have so much brilliance to share. Thank you,
Name 2 "new ideas from Peterson".
@@twntwrs no.
@@twntwrs Peterson never claimed to have new ideas, he just shares what he knows and puts a different spin on it.
@@TheEternalOuroboros: which, in his case, means: take an old conservative fixation and shroud it with mysticism and postmodern (!) gobledygook.
@@rv706 Funny isn't it how Peterson's sycophants can't come up with a single one of his "new ideas", while his critics can. Here's 2 now: 1. Entwined serpents depicted in ancient art represent the DNA double helix. 2. Atheist are actually really Christians.
I ve been waiting for this valued conversation since the last one on Jordan's channel
He’s not swift.
Man, I don't agree with Jordan on all his ideas but holy hell, you truly have to admire how passion that man is. It's inspiring. You could see him literally perspiring. Bravo sir
This is my fav interview of JP and Krauss. Of all the serious academics JP has been talking to the last few months, this is by far the best. I got to learn something new about both men, after having watched a lot of both, something new was revealed here I think!
Lawrence, I want to thank you for opening up such a powerful and enlightening dialog with Jordan. This was among the best interviews of Jordan Peterson, the man himself, that I've seen.
I think the ideas Jordan is trying to present are ideas that we don't quite have the lexicon to describe properly, which requires us to go into the more poetic and esoteric. I think this is true of many of the great philosophers of the past, hence the most well understood of them being great writers as well as thinkers. You respectfully pushing Jordan, gave him an opportunity to describe these ideas in more detail than he usually gets the chance to. I very much appreciate you doing so.
Finally, I want to add this: I've been deeply invested in science and science communication my entire life. But over the past few years, I've lost my taste for the consumption of it, due to the incessant wokeism and ideological exclusivity that has plagued the fields. Frankly, I just assumed you were among that crowd by sheer association. Your rejection of that culture is massively refreshing, encouraging, and inspiring.
We desperately need people like you to be a cultural voice of reason and intellectual inclusivuty among science. If you stand up for that and continue to do so, you will gain a massive following of loyal, appreciative, and inviting fans. You've earned my subscription, and more importantly, my deepest respect. Thank you, Lawrence.
"I think the ideas Jordan is trying to present are ideas that we don't quite have the lexicon to describe properly, which requires us to go into the more poetic and esoteric."
Yes, I think this issue was on display during this podcast. He has some big ideas and trying to articulate them is not easy.
What an excellent discussion thank you.
What a great conversation! Thank you so much to both of you, Lawrence asked so many interesting questions, it was really the thing I wanted to understand better. I can't remember the last time I watched a content of such quality! I'm really grateful for both of you!
Amazing discussion - and SO enjoyable!!! I'll return to this again and again to reflect and study! Thanks!!
Thank you for challenging Jordan on his ideas! This was one of the best interviews because it forces Jordan to explain his thoughts further. It's taken me 3 years to barely understand Jordan's material but so far I have not found anything that isn't DEEPLY grounded.
Oh really? Like his claim that there are GHOSTS in the trunk of his car? 😂
@@phasespace4700 where was this? Hilarious haha
@@tianshou Google Jordan Peterson Ghost Story #2
word he look he really is the type of guy to try and help u. not to say justly that deeper is better but yea i mean mr krauss said it himself hes a long form type of guy.
@@phasespace4700
You're a breath of fresh air.
Did Lawrence say he was 67? Suddenly 45 feels kinda young now.
Edit to add, this podcast is really good
I was surprised. He's in great shape! Expected him to be Jordan's age