In my opinion Sam was at fault for not moving the conversation forward when it was clear they couldn´t come to a conclusion. Peterson tried on a couple of occasions, but Sam wouldn´t allow it. He seemed emotionally invested and in an almost autistic way couldn´t see the bigger picture in the conversation. Even though you do not completely agree on what is true, you can still have a fruitful conversation about important topics.
They still could´ve talked about for example morality, ethics, religion, marxism etc., and if the ontological and epistemological assumptions would be relevant for a particular disagreement, they could´ve returned to it. Then the discussion would´ve been framed in a much more interesting and relatable context for the listener.
Jane Doe -nailed it Jane, for real Doe. Sam's uses truth of matter as his foundation. Yes, a chair is a chair... but some folks think what we take for truth, or matter... is literally very illusory. Maybe smart fellas too. Everything isn't actually what we think it is? So what is matter or matters for these dudes... I think...life is sorrow. Pain feels real... let's use that as a foundation for what matters, morally. Should we use Sam's foundation for aproximating truth to reliable use a chair? I vote yes. But... what can we use to live well in a family, city, state country or Urf? I dunno, but maybe... maybe they both make points. A stick is a stick, totes. Hyper using your moral compass is swell too. I dunno... they're great men who I'm happy I can learn from. That's all.
I´m not saying it isn´t important or relevant, but you can discuss the differences in the context of something interesting and relatable to the audience. He´s had many guests on who probably makes vastly different philosophical assumptions, and if the differences are relevant it becomes apparent in talking about what the guest is actually interested in. They started the podcast discussing Bill C-16, free speech and gender identity. It was a fruitful 15 minutes :) It worked just fine despite them not being 100% on the same page ontologically and epistemologically. I think when the very technical philosophical discussion hit a wall, move on and talk about something else. If the underlying assumptions becomes relevant in a subsequent discussion, then at least it´s framed in something relatable to us listeners. We can have this discussion in the comments without knowing or 100% agreeing on each others underlying assumptions about reality, it´s not something that must precede every discussion. If it has to for a particular topic and you hit a wall, move on to something else. Sam was unwilling to do that.
I agree. Jordan says up front that he considers scientific truth and religious truth to be different. Sam does not. Clearly neither was going to change his definition, so what was the point of continuing to argue. I wish they had agreed to disagree on word usage and continued on to more productive topics, asking for clarification when necessary. I actually think they have much more in common than this exchange revealed.
I like Sam. I like his intellect and delivery. However, the man has a serious ego problem. I can honestly say he has a hard time not "winning" in every discussion.
MrThundaro I'm a big fan of his and I absolutely agree. He just seems to be intellectually pea-cocking but JP was, to me, too worried about losing face
I could not disagree more. I have yet to to know/hear/watch anyone less egotistical than Sam Harris. I don't think Sam thinks of discussions in terms of winning or losing, I think he is only focused on finding the right answer or the best ideas.
Gil Fiazon this is true most of the time but not in this case. Yes, he won the debate, but it shouldn't have been a debate. I wanted to hear more interesting topics.
RecklessIntent , art is basically "consumed reality", the digestion (admittedly shitty) of pondering the nature of reality. If you were to study the human mind without taking art into account, you run the risk of seeing computer programs everywhere and expecting that reality runs on algorithms. I would argue that machines, programs and mechanisms are a very large subsection of possible things within the universe, but there is no indication that reality is a construct that is 100% based exclusively on newtonian/einsteinian principles. That's that whole newton vs darwin debate that JP and SH were trying to have. I'm not argueing the case for god/religion, but additional principles to better understand reality.
JP: Bricks build houses. Sam: But wait, they can be used for other things - people can use bricks to kill people. JP: Well, I wouldn't call them bricks, I'd call them weapons in that case. Sam: But..If there's a brick sitting there, no-one has touched it, or even seen it - is it still a brick? JP: That depends on what happens when someone gets their hands on it. Sam: So it's a brick until a bad guy touches it, and then it magically becomes a weapon - or rather, despite all objective reasoning it never was a brick to begin with? JP: Yes Sam: So we don't get to define it until we wait around for a while and see what happens? JP: Correct. Rinse and repeat for two hours.
cant everything in existence be used for good/evil? Choice is what defines human nature... I will not let evil people define for me what an object stands for.
True. I couldn't figure out how else to get the fake conversation going. Thanks for taking the time to reply, all the best in your work and I hope you and Sam get together again.
It is my personal opinion that as much as you or Sam might think there was little or no value to the podcast, that is simply not true. I for one had to wrestle within my own reasoning to sharply define a foundation for morality, science and truth. So this disagreement between you two seemed like a projection of an argument inside my head put forth with much more detail and clarity. So thanks for for making me flex some brain muscles.
redcentredoggies maybe if you think truth means 3 of something wouldn't quantitatively be 3 if it didn't serve a hero's tale or some bullshit about being good or attractive to girls lmao
MenO. I agree. I heard the podcast only recently and became consumed with the notion of 'truth.' I had no idea that truth could be considered in Darwinian terms. SH & JP's discussion inspired me to do extensive research which opened my world to metaphysics, pragmatism, existentialism and such like. It's been a fascinating journey all thanks to the podcast!
I did, too! It makes me face memories I didn't think I had to look back at...it really changed my view of my thoughts. I have yet to see improvement though because I just started and I feel kinda low and dark after addressing my memories.
It appears that there's 4 of these self-authoring programs. If I was to do only one, which would you recommend? It would seem to me that the future authoring program is the way to go (?).
Sam talks about truth. You talk about a super-truth which = Sam's truth + morality + outcome. It is confusing when both use the same word for different things. - Rename yours rather than make the whole world rename theirs. x)
I agree that the problem was about two different definitions of the word "truth". However, it is not the case that science can grasp truth in any way. Truth is not a scientific concept as it stands. You need to have your theory of what truth is. And Harris and Peterson have different ones. No-one really has the claim here. And I say that as a theoretical physicist. ; ) I know that many people thing that we know that there is such a thing as reality, and that science tells us, what this reality is, and so whats true about it and what not. But this idea doesn't hold. First of all, we need to assume that there is a common reality. There is no way to proof it in principle, it just appears to be a reasonable assumption. Second, the scientific method makes no statements about reality itself. It's theories make statements about a hypothetical, abstracted reality, with which we attempt to describe the actual reality, and it's experiments falsify (not verify) these theories. One might then be inclined to say that, well, our picture of our abstracted reality gets more and more refined as we find new things, and so it mimics the actual reality ever closer and closer. But thats also not necessarily accurate, as paradigm changes in the history of science have shown, which fundamentally changed our way of viewing the world, e.g. quantum mechanics.
+TejrnarG I think you're not really arguing against what +Fadaouri said. You seem to be saying that science can't ever know for certain that what we believe to be true is actually correct. And that is - as far as we know ;) - of course true. However that does not exclude that there can be something that is actually "true". And that is what we mean when we use the word "true". The only way that it could be different was if we would live in a universe where in fact every statement is true and not true at the same time. But that wouldn't make much sense because than also the statement of everything being true and not true would have to be true and not true... So even if science can't ever be sure to know the truth, Sam Harris uses the word "truth" correctly and Peterson should indeed use a different word.
No. truth-hood is from logic. Its all about being consistent. Truth-hood vs False-hood. Its a binary logic. It IS a tool to evaluate the IS and the OUGHT. It IS Newtonian/Darwinian agnostic. Both Newtonian Physics and Darwinian Evolution, are an IS that have implications to evaluate the OUGHTS. You still need to apply the logic tool!
Julius Sky But if you only remain in the framework of logic, it has no connection to reality, but is purely abstract. Also: there is not just one logic. Certainly, Aristotle's logic seems very reasonable, and allowed mathematics and the sciences to thrive. But from a philosophical perspective I would say its not forbidden to come up, and play around with another logic. Question is if its useful. SufferingAddict I didn't really argue against what Fadaourl said, but merely wanted to point out that in my opinion, science has not the copyright on the word truth. I see your point, and I would agree that it is not useful for peterson to use "truth" in the way he does, and that it would be more helpful, if he used another term. I am not sure if I would go as far to say he uses it "incorrect" though. But anyway. ; ) It would be nice to actually get the conversation between those two further one way or the other.
All other useful rational logics are reducible to a binary logic of true and false outputs. For example, you might have a non-binary logic that needs to choose one of 5 paths. Still, you can say, 4 of them i will choose False and one i will choose True. The connection to reality is when you make decisions (one way or the other) using the output of a utility function such as Darwinian utility (that which will help us evolve). You say, this will help me evolve (True or False). You don't say, this will help me evolve (somewhat, 33%, Pi, sufficient, Jung) and then walk on by. You will die. “To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”--Thomas Paine
I truly thank you for the conversation you had with Sam. If nothing else, the commitment you both have to finding the "truth," however you'd like to define it, is humbling. Also, the honestly of the dialogue was a breath of fresh air. I look forward to hearing the rest of this conversation. Thank you.
Timur Salikov Science is psychological tool we find ourselves in possession of because it is evolutionarily fit at the moment. Science can rapidly become unfit when people possessed by unfit moral truths wield it.
You can't. Peterson's argument is essentially that the usefulness of a scientific discovery can't really be known ahead of time. He doesn't argue against the facts discovered by science, just that their value is determined by the same Darwinian mechanisms that have shaped us. You can think of each scientific discovery and it's application as a mutation of the species, that may or may not prove beneficial to survival. Some may even lead to it's destruction.
Dude, I understand Americans being confused, but your name suggests you should be at least somewhat familiar with Continental philosophy and the ideas of categories. Sam Harris doesn't understand categories and is stuck in a pre-Hegelian (or even pre-Kantian) world. He believes in the reality of "das ding an sich," and our ability to approach some objective reality by a method that is steeped in unexamined assumptions of human thought-categories. You can't escape your own framing of the world, and this the point that Jordan makes - human-ness is the limiting factor in our pursuit of absolute truth and it cannot be otherwise because we cannot be something that we are not.
I think that is quite untrue, Taxtro. There are many things that make sense, but are not easy to understand. Best practices in an engineering field, complex math, germ theory, etc. In fact, the very purpose of teaching is to break complicated ideas that make sense down into smaller, more understandable parts, so they can be built back up into the bigger idea. This can require a lot of effort on the part of the learner. I, for one, am not well acquainted with what an Archetype is in the sense that Prof. Peterson uses the term. He's described Dawkin's meme (an I idea I think I understand) as a simplified version of the Archetype. That intrigues me and makes me want to learn more. If I were to dismiss it by saying "when I must try, I am fooling myself," I'd be missing out on a chance to grow.
Peterson strikes me as decent human being, but he is trying to give the illusions of the human psyche a meaning, while Harris is trying to figure out on the neural level why and how the brain is generating its own psyche. I am not interested to embrace the illusion, I am more invested into Sam Harris's 'how and why'.
***** Atheism isn't "true" by definition. It is the position that the truth-claims of Theists fail to meet satisfactory epistemological standards. It is the refusal to take "facts" on faith alone, with no evidence other than the writings of flawed primates. Some philosophers of science, notably Victor Stenger, claim that you *can* prove the non-existence of a deity. I haven't read his work on the subject so I can't really comment on that.
You probably dont care but if you guys are stoned like me atm you can watch pretty much all the new movies and series on instaflixxer. Been streaming with my brother these days =)
I don't know why people find this simple fact so hard to understand. Peterson was trying to change definitions. People saying Sam came across as condescending need to understand that Peterson was literally arguing that HIS PERSONAL definition of what "truth" is the correct one. To me that is a pretentious claim.
His idea of Truth which, as he said in his first conversation with Sam, he took from Nietzsche is upright Utility and that's that! And Utility is indeed a very important and pretty much fundamental concept, but it's NOT the Truth which is: "correspondence of one's picture of Reality to Reality". And if he mixes Truth and Utility then how can we even trust him? I'm actually quite sure that he means well for the Mankind and each human individually but he might be wrong in important things, so it's not very nice that he has views on Truth which allow him to lie and still kinda stay on a” truthful way”, if he thinks that this particular lie is Useful to Life or whatever.
i might have known why Sam Harris is not a fan of Peterson's approaches to "truth", they actually do share similar definition in terms that they think is of highest order of value. (imo most skeptics would call sophistry, because there is simply isn't convincing evidence to some of the claims that he make along the way). Peterson does claim that truths are sort of the patterns that exist in stories and in real life. He believes that those patterns are of truth or its essences. It's always interesting to listen to Jordan Peterson's approaches to a lot of political issues as well as psychological issues at a personal level. Peterson' is brilliant, there is no doubt about that, he definitely speaks to a lot of people at a deep personal level, but for his claims to be accepted as valuable "truths", it is just not possible at the moment since he doesn't have enough or persuasive evidences to substantiate his claims.
I dont know if id say hes changing the definition, but hes definately expanding it. I mean lets check the definition: 'that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality'. So i guess when your talking about truth your talking about fact and reality, and i guess the problem im noticing is theres debate on whether to consider meta-physical concepts like an archetype as part of reality, which is understandable because reality is mostly associated with that which is tangible. But perhaps reality is alot more complicated than just whats tangible. I mean these archtypes are real in the sense that they remain consistent throughout time and are universally expressed through different cultures around the world. So i guess im wondering if something that significant and relevant to ones life cant be considered true. What do you think?
I hope people can see through John G's manichean bullshit. People derive all kinds of different values and meanings from the myths and symbols they use.
***** He is not slavishly glued to intellectualism. That is why I place him above Harris. And I've read/learned everything there is about Sam(whom I respect).
No, it is a failure of American pre-Kantian philosophy to understand the importance of categories. Your thought, your perception of the world, frames reality, and appealing to an absolute objective truth, das ding an sich, without examining the tools you use to evaluate reality will never reveal Truth. Absolute truth can only be approached by analyzing the categories of human thought because that is the way we frame the world.
I don't think he is 10 times the mind, but he is certainly better at keeping his ego out of the discussion. Probably because Jordan does not have a huge following of starry-eyed, uncritical fans who adore his every word. That sort of thing tends to fuck good men up. Such is the case of Sam Harris.
I really loved the podcast, and this open letter is civil and seems heartfelt. I hope Sam responds. Listening to it while doing chores, the whole truth debate was a bit too esoteric for me , but I like both these guys alot. Omg, can you imagine a flame war between these two?
No. Sam Harris might just write a new book and start a new podcast and make some tweets and write a new book and then write a couple of brief essays and then meditate and then write one more book about it.
As was said in the podcast, both are approaching the same problem from different perspectives. It is rationalist vs intuitionist. The disagreements have a shared element with Harris and Haidts disagreements. Petersons view is that truth is more fundamental than scientific truth, known or unknown, which is why peterson talked about newtonian truth as being nested in darwinian truth. Harris sees it in reverse. However one doesnt deny the other the existence of each type of truth. I think the reason why Peterson is defining his idea of truth in this way now is so he can show Harris how Harris' perception of truth is not compatible with Petersons philosophy of religion and mythology. From how I tend to understand it is that the idea of objective and scientific truth is undeniably subject to subjective thought and impossible to escape from simply due to the limitations of our darwinian designed hardware. There is a different language for exploring truth beyond what science can percieve and thats where things like religion, spirituality and myths come into play. I think understanding and growing science is great but it is possible to go a step further if one desires to explore the deeper truth in reality. btw I understand Harris' position only I think there may be some belief that he is holding onto that is causing him to fail to understand what Peterson is saying. I had several moment where I understood Peterson perfectly and Harris seemed to be completely baffled; and I dont think Im smarter than Harris at all
ben hart Intuitionism is all about the inate attributes of conciousness which determine truth, morality and reality. All other forms of thought are constructed from these inate building blocks. It denies the existence of pure rationality (the materialist or newtonian view) but that rationality itself is a subset of our inate (darwinian) selves. A good read in support of this is Antonio Damasios "Descartes Error".
Truth is that which is in accordance with fact or reality, what Peterson was describing isn't what truth actually is, he was conflating moral truths with the word truth itself. He seems to think that something is either true or not dependant on how it effects us. Here are some examples that I'm surprised Sam didn't use, for starters from what I understand Peterson's definition to be, if I were to go around the earth and shoot everyone in the head and then kill myself then it would not be considered the truth that I did this. Another example, it is true that Pluto exists regardless of whether we know it exists or not and regardless of whether this is beneficial or detrimental to our species survival. Honestly I was 100% with Sam, I was baffled to hear Peterson's position to be honest. I mean for a man who is so popular nowadays for fighting gender pronouns and retaining the accepted meaning of words he has changed the meaning of the word truth and without a working definition of what truth is I don't see how a conversation about anything else can be accomplished. It would be like trying to have a discussion about which building is the tallest and one of the people insists that tall means most spherical.
Crag I doubt it - I legitimately think Sam didn't understand it. Probably because I don't understand it, and I am a smart guy able to understand these sorts of things. I've never encountered a philosophical argument or position I didn't understand, until listening to Peterson talk on that last podcast. And I don't think that's because it's just such a complex, lofty position - I think it's because it's actually not totally logical, and my mind only works logically. I get the same impression about Sam - his mind is almost like a robot, perfectly rational and logical. and whatever you think about Peterson, and how smart he is, his position on this particular point is actually not rational or logical - he's smuggling in some strange things in order to probably lay the groundwork to argue in favor of religion in the future, so he kind of has no choice but to separate from truly logical thinking on this point
Michael L His position is that truth is whatever helps propagate the species in an evolutionary sense, his position is somewhat logical as long as you equivocate the meaning of the word truth. It's similar to how other religious people equivocate the word "faith" to mean belief without absolute certainty. Sam definitely understood what Peterson was saying, he repeated the argument in his own words and Peterson agreed, Sam was just pointing out that using this definition for the word truth would make conversation extremely difficult if not impossible. Peterson's definition allowed for a fact to be both true and false simultaneously, it allows for something that is in fact false to be the "truth", it makes completely contradictory propositions true simultaneously, it makes facts irrelevant to human flourishing neither true or false and it makes the majority of facts regarding humanity remain in a sort of truth limbo until we can determine whether they are ultimately beneficial for the species or not. Truth is roughly defined as something that is in accordance with fact or reality, this is what most people mean when they talk about truth. Peterson was essentially doing what he berates SJWs for doing, he is altering the language to suit his agenda. Again, his argument isn't necessarily illogical as long as you accept his definition although I don't see how that helps his case, an analogy for what he is doing would be like saying "I won the chess match" and when someone asks you about it you say "I define the word win as feeling happy after the game is over". Sure, that is logical and true when using your definition, but that doesn't mean you actually won the chess match according to the normal usage of the word, you may have won by the normal definition, you may have lost or it may have been a stale mate.
You didn't hit an impasse over "truth," you admitted to wanting to redefine it. Right or wrong, Sam consistently tries to establish a parsimonious vocabulary so that an argument can be established fairly. You seem to agree that he does this, and yet consistently muddy everything by stubbornly insisting on your pet theories and jargon. Sam will let you get to these, but you've first got to show some good faith. If you fail to allow any hypotheticals, it shows very bad faith. It makes you seem ill. Your silences during the podcast, while extremely awkward to the listener, do denote that you were trying to be honest and not just pop off a rejoinder. Genuine kudos for this. Please don't take from that, however, that it means Sam has better technique than you do and not that your argument has serious failings, as you seemed to sometimes want to couch things.
Well being is a hard thing to define. I thought a Netflix account would make me happier, but it just left me indecisively scroll through countless movies, series and documentaries hours and hours on end.
You're arguing for something fairly straightforward that Sam agrees with, you both see that positivist scientific knowledge is not enough as far as a worldview is concerned (not true-enough for "darwinian" reasons in your words, or not enough to maximize human well-being in Harris'), but Harris conceives this as a deficiency that can be aided with things external to that kind of knowledge, like moral facts (which are also somehow nested in that positivist framework, which you take issue with), whereas you see this as a deficiency that can be aided by a better conception of the idea of "true" by having a standard of truth which requires things to be be also good in order for you to be happy to call them "true," which as far as word-choice it seems a bit weird and unhelpful and not the sense in which Harris uses the word, but it's not some kind of logical flaw. Further, you take the view that there are things that are more meaningfully true than correct statements about matter, (and it's not obvious to me that Harris disagrees) which also contributed to your view of things seeming even more alien to a mainstream conception of facts.
Drew Thorsen it was clear from the first hair being odd or even example. You could literally see jordan's view break down with then him deciding that it wont happen and avoiding the example in order to not be wrong. Sam might be wrong but Jordan could not even come close to presenting a good counter argument
Totally disagree. Sam's point makes so many assumptions, in the sense that the ONLY reason the guy kills himself is because his wife cheated on him, and that would be the truth. Peterson is saying that there can/likely are so many other externalities that would factor into the suicide, so concluding it was caused by the cheating can be no more than "true enough". It's Sam who refuses to acknowledge any externalities to his very micro-specific examples that bogged down the discussion. I'm proud that JBP would not concede here (or at any point) because what I believe he has connected about truth and life is far more transcendent than what most of us have ever heard, so it's not surprising to me that *if* more or aligned to Sam Harris...but it doesn't matter...this is not a beauty contest.
Spot on, its a very weird definition of true and extremely unhelpful to start a conversation on that footing. The reason he wouldn't is it undermines his position that there are better truths that can be found in bible stories/mythology. He couldn't row back from this flawed starting position because it undermines his doctrine.
Jane Doe, You're being intellectually dishonest, Peterson doesn't believe the only truths are moral truths, he has explained more than once, that he believes there is more than one truth. As for Sam, he was being short sighted. He believes in more than one truth but is unconscious of it. Sam Harris wasted his own time, along with his viewers and Jordan's.
Thank you both for taking the time to inform, challenge, and entertain us with the podcast. Such a shame that the careful thought and mutual respect found in this exchange is so rare in today's discourse.
I sincerely hope you and Mr. Harris continue to have thought provoking discussions in the future. You are both very respectful in your disagreements and have a true devotion to getting to the root of those disagreements. We need more thinkers like the two of you.
I found a lot of value in their conversation specifically because of the roadblock, but I think we could also garner a lot if they moved past it, maybe came back to it at another time. I don't want this one point to inhibit further conversation on other important topics.
Sam Harris has the openness of mind of Jerry Falwell. Smart cat, but his narcissism inoculates him against anything that challenges his mechanistic crypto-nihilism.
I would be interested in your thoughts on how I interpreted your discussion with Harris. I think an example that tackles the crux of the issue between you and Harris would be the game of chess. In chess, there are certain guidelines that can help you reach your ultimate goal of winning the game, or to be more encompassing and taking draws into account, not getting checkmated (e.g. not dying in real life). Now, for those of you who know chess, you know that there is a value system to pieces (e.g. queen is worth 9 points, rook 5 points, etc.). This value system is meant to help you decide how to act, but it by no means is the sufficient way you should approach the game. In a sense, from the Darwinian perspective, if we only focus on the points aspect of the game, we may still "die" because we are not taking everything into account and there are many cases where you are behind in points but will still be able to win the game. Now in a certain way, it is a factual claim that queen is worth more than a rook, but the way we deal with this fact is entirely dependent upon the context of the game. Maybe it's a good idea to trade your queen for your opponent's rook, because your goal is beyond just saving your queen. To Harris, the difference between the queen and rook's value is separate from the main goal of the game, but to you, it's not, because it influences the outcome. So the scientific mind in a sense could be analogous to the objective value of pieces, let's say, but it is not sufficient because something bigger is at play that is much deeper and at the end of the day, it's all about survival. And if one just limits themselves to the value of pieces and excludes the rest, then that could be fatal. So the "microexample", such as when you trade your rook for a queen (from a short term perspective that's a great move because queen is worth more) can lead to a failure in the "macroexample", such as when you lose the game in the end because you were tricked. So was that initial move "true" given the ultimate goal of the game? No. Because it led to your demise, even though at the microexample level it was great. In other words, it is true that queen is worth more than the rook, but it is not true ENOUGH to help you necessarily win the game.
donuteater Sam Harris's view of truth isn't true enough. That's the problem. If the ultimate goal is to survive and you play your chess pieces according to how valuable the pieces are but it still gets you checkmated. Was the way you played the game true in relation to the end goal, being to survive?
Faraz Honarvar You didn't take the analogy far enough. At a certain level of play material points are weighted by positional advantage. Still one can describe objective elements that are positional advantage like a pass-pawn. A a somewhat higher level of play we speak of elegance. While it is possible there is some rational objective formula to describe elegant play no one has discovered it. All the same skilled players can recognize and agree when a play is elegant and it is more decisive for the outcome than either material or position.
Okay, but given the fact that no code has been created that ensures a 100% win rate, I can reasonably conclude that there is an element of chaos and "irrationality", for the lack of a better word, associated with chess. My initial point was that some factual cases that have to be objective must exclude subjective cases. The piece value system fits perfectly here as an example of an objective statement excluding the subjective context of the game. And furthermore this objective case is not true ENOUGH for survival because of the complexity of the game. What is true ENOUGH is the ultimate goal of not getting checkmated for example, and although objective cases can be helpful in reaching that goal, they certainly could lead you astray and not be "true" depending on the subjective context.
And by value system it could simply be "queen is worth more than the rook". That's a factual claim that is not necessarily "true" if you want to take a pragmatic approach in chess.
He already has a channel in which people wait in anticipation for new uploads. I'm waiting for the new "Personality" lecture; that's why I came here. Hopefully it's up tomorrow. :D
Hope to see you two in many more talks -- I appreciate how frustrating and hard it may be on you both, but you both have a lot of value to contribute and I hope to see you persist. Thank you to both of you.
In Mathematics, demonstrating that a solution to a problem exists is often very valuable information, even if we have no idea what the solution is. Similarly, Sam Harris' proposition on morality based on wellbeing doesn't rest upon a specific measurement of wellbeing or a particular belief system or philosophy. Even without attempting an analytical, scientific solution to the very complex problem of morality, arguing for the existence of objective measures of wellbeing and their necessary impact on morality is a valuable framework. It serves to reject some forms of ideological relativism. I would love to hear a discussion between Sam and yourself, I think it would be productive and enlightening if you get to understand each other's theoretical frameworks. Thank you Prof Peterson.
Sam is 1 patient man . fuck me it was torturous to listen to their discussion. Not trying to be funny but I'd say if he was asked _jordan b peterson is your name.. true or false_? he'd reply with something other than _true or false_. unbelievable
Dr. Peterson, a note for the production in these 'from the computer' videos. A single overhead light casts harsh shadows and produces reflections that can be unflattering and distracting to the viewer. If you have a desk lamp, try pointing it at the wall or roof near you and see how that changes things maybe.
The pursuit of knowledge & truth of this caliber needs to be in public schools. Being a highschool drop out listening to this reminds me how cheated i felt when i left. It's all memorization, busy work & inconclusive tests. the system i opted out from was not preparing me for the world at large or giving me a reason i should care outside my own affairs. I only wish to start again with men such as these at the front of my classroom challenging me to think & act bigger.
Mr. Peterson, I'm a 19-year-old Computer Science student trapped in the heart of social-mental-illness - UC Santa Cruz. You are my hero. I strive every day to one day be as articulate and erudite as you. The esoteric-but-invaluable knowledge I learn from you is the truly the least-wrong. Why is it so difficult for some to recognize Empiricism > Rationalism?
As far as resuming the conversation is concerned, it seems to me that the issue is whether it can proceed in the absence of an agreed upon definition of “truth”. Both Sam and Jordan seem to accept that it cannot. As a result, they have appealed to the audience to identify any deficiency in their respective understandings of each other’s position. The idea seems to be that if a deficiency can be identified, then one of them may be in a position to comprehend the veracity of their interlocutor’s argument. This would result in an agreement concerning the meaning of “truth”, and thus a pre-requisite for resuming the conversation will have been met. I’m not going to weigh-in on either of their claims concerning the nature of truth. I don’t see the point. Resolving seemingly intractable epistemological “problems” is not a pre-requisite to having a conversation. Nobody has proffered an unassailable refutation of the Cartesian skeptic’s claim that our understanding of reality is an illusion. But that hasn’t stopped anyone from talking about the weather. The conversation between Jordan and Sam may proceed in the absence of an ultimate definition of “truth”. In fact, it can proceed in absence of any definition of “truth.” We don’t need a definition of truth to have a conversation - including conversations that involve truth claims. People converse. And like me, they are ignorant of an ultimate definition “truth”. But the conversations they have are meaningful nonetheless. And those conversations probably always involve truth claims -implicit or explicit. If this argument seems difficult to grasp, then you’re probably a philosopher. Everything I’ve said in support of my claim falls squarely within the scope of what a reasonable person would accept. It’s only when you re-situate the concept of “truth” in a lofty, philosophical context that it meaning becomes controversial. The expression “pass the salt” contains a number of implicit truth claims (e.g., that there is salt, that person to whom that expression is directed is capable of passing it, etc.). There is no controversy in deploying that expression, even though we might not have a deep, philosophical understanding of ‘truth’. To be clear: I’m not saying that “truth” is meaningless because it may be deployed in the absence of a definition. I’m saying that not every concept requires a definition in order to be meaningful. If they did, then we’d need definitions for the concepts from which our definitions are comprised, and then we’d need definitions for those concepts…and so on. It seems, then, that some concepts must grasped in absence of definition. We just might simply know what they mean. That knowledge might consist in the ability to do certain things with the word “truth” - to use it in certain ways. I’m not saying that both Sam and Jordan are wrong about “truth”. I’m merely saying that there’s perfectly good, everyday understanding of “truth” that: (a) gets the job done, (b) isn’t freighted with philosophical baggage and (c) appears to be consistent with the claims of both parties. So, if both of them were to accept an everyday, pre-theoretical conception of truth, then perhaps they could defer determining the ultimate nature of truth and get to some of the other issues they intended to talk about. I think Jordan might even agree with what I’m saying. I watched several of his interviews, and you’ve uttered claims like “words are tools”. This chimes with the idea that the meaning of a word may be the patterns associated with its use - as opposed to a definition. I suppose that’s what I’m getting at with respect to "truth". Both Jordan and Sam could use “truth” in accordance with the techniques for applying that term that all competent speakers of the English language have learned. I really look forward this conversation resuming, if it ever does.
That's a very insightful and useful way of approaching things. I agree with it completely, and especially since the discussion got bogged down on a definition of truth, and words may actually be inadequate for that task...
The problem is Sam and most of the listeners know Peterson is not just defining truth in an abstract way and planning to continue conversing in a straghtforward manner like you show here. His intends to use this definition of truth to claim that Christianity is "true". When the definition has such a direct impact on the discussion, I think it does matter. Especially if some people get confused by the whole thing and end up thinking Peterson just really proved that religion is "true" in the standard sense of the word, when all he did was give it a different meaning that nobody uses, particularly not in normal conversations as you examplify.
Sam got the closest to the point when he suggested that "Truth" for Peterson is a conflation into one concept of the True, the Good, and (possibly) the Beautiful. "True" or "Truth" should absolutely not be used, in any English speaking culture, for the conception that Peterson is putting forth.
I deeply enjoy your work, Dr. Peterson, and I hope you're game for round 2, but I side with Sam Harris. I have a hard time not seeing your argument as a bifurcation of the utility of truth from the correctness of truth. Even if you accept Hume's Is-Ought split, the "is" truth stands independently from, say, desires or goals.
Robert Roodhouse That was their fundamental disagreement originally. Sam was fixed on truth as fact, while Peterson was approaching truth as the philosophical ought. It was a failure of language or to correctly define terms that brought the conversation down.
The whole topic is something of a Rabbit hole. Both arguments are correct and complicated as I understand it. I may be wrong but I think JP is arguing that truths start as hypotheses and become 'truths' when tested and crossed referenced over time. Therefore, If you subscribe to the notion that the objective world is interpreted through human consciousness then 'truths' as a result are merely a construct of our subjective observations and always at the mercy of an 'apriori' belief system. Semantic issues are also at play (i.e an arrow flies straight and 'true') but there are deeper philosophical arguments involved also. I enjoyed the podcast and as much as I love Sam Harris I would have liked him to have probed JP more on the philosophy of his position rather than continually trying to discredit his argument with hypothetical situations about small pox.
It seems to me that Jordan is unnecessarily smuggling in the notion of usefulness to the definition of truth. Truth is that which conforms to objective reality whether it is useful or not. Truth should be the bedrock from where we can determine usefulness from. Certain truths may be dangerous but still should be known in order to avoid them. And it seems like he's willing to accept things that are false as long as they are useful, which probably explains his position on religion. Ultimately I think he is sacrificing well being on a grand scale for well-being on local levels. Sam Harris envisions a universe where human beings have a comprehensive understanding of fundamental truth, which would create a point from which we can maximize well-being. Maybe Jordan Peterson thinks that is an unrealistic vision and prefers to maximize well-being on local scales, even at the expense of what is true. But I think the cost of the baggage that comes with that is too high. Islam would be the example that I would use. 1.6 billion people believe something that cannot be verified as true. It may be very useful for certain people in that population but it is wreaking havoc on other people in the same populations and on the rest of the world. Right now most of the world organizes their lives on beliefs that are not true. And I don't understand how Jordan could argue that is useful given the degree of divisiveness and violent tribalism throughout history and in the present day. That said, humanity as a whole has been trending in what I would say a more moral direction that produces greater well-being for more people. And I would argue that there is a direct link between that trend and the trend of our understanding of what is true. We probably will never have a comprehensive understanding of truth. But in the big picture I would argue that the closer we are to that comprehensive understanding the better off we all will be. Lets learn what is true first. And then argue usefulness from there. Any argument about usefulness will be richer and more productive when we know what is true. It seems to me that most of Jordans concern is for Bad actors, people with bad intentions knowing too many true things. But I would argue if those same people knew additional true things it would eliminate their bad intentions. Lets use Islamism again. A group of Islamists know true things about spreading the smallpox virus. This obviously would be very harmful. But let's scale up the amount of Truth the same people possess. If you scale it up enough they will no longer be Islamists and they would no longer be wanting to use their knowledge of smallpox for nefarious reasons. Because the expansion of their truth would eliminate a belief in Allah and the desire to establish a caliphate.
russell d Dude. You have not watched Jordan Peterson's videos if you believe that. He has. Lot to say about religion. You would be wise take note. Believe me, he does not speak well of Jihadis. Islam is not useful if it comes at the cost of beheading live innocent people.
Great points and I will answer your central question about Peterson: it is because: 1. He started out with the idea of framing truth through Darwinism 2. He wants to frame religion as not scientifically true but true in a Darwinian sense 3. He hasn't fully thought those through because he isn't a philospoher 4. He overreached, got found out, didn't backtrack because he felt the pressure of his followers and Sam's huge following. The final point is most damning. No doubt Sam and many people would ask me questions about my beliefs that I would have a hard time defending. The key point is being able to reset and reframe and row back from a position. I would also add that using Islam as an example will divide people (although I fully agree), you are better off using Christianity because more people will nod in agreement without labeling you racist, bigoted etc. E.g how absurd is it that 'Thou shalt not wear condoms' is a Peterson truth because it brings Darwinian advantage!
Truth is not equivalent to scientific fact. Scientific facts are true on a scientific level of analysis, but there are different levels of analysis that are important. These cannot be addressed by science. That's JBP's main point, the scientific realists ignore different levels of analysis or go so far as to suggest that science can encompass all levels of analysis. Truth has been redefined in a restrictive manner nowadays, which is not productive. Scientific fact must not be true on the highest level of analysis, and hence truth cannot be used as a synonym for scientific fact as Harris seems to do. Throughout your comment you use the word truth in the sense of scientific truth in order to prove that truth can be nothing but scientific truth. It's circular reasoning really. Beyond that we do not do science as you suggest. The bedrock of science is the concept of fallibility. We use scientific concepts not because they are true, but because they work according to our collective observations. We do NOT assume a degree of truthfulness to them because they predict outcomes and allow technological advancements; rather we consider them useful/instrumental in achieving outcomes (JBP would say "true enough" to make predictions or achieve advancements). Science really is a pragmatic exercise of effectiveness rather than an exercise that uncovers truth. Even if we theoretically arrive at the ultimate truth, we would not know, for the ultimate truth is indistinguishable in nature from the infinite falsehoods that surround it. This is the central problem discussed in metaphysics really. Sam Harris is an ideologue in his view of the world. He has oversimplified it to a degree that what he envisions does not reflect reality. Your criticism of Peterson is unwarranted in that sense, he is discounting a utopian fantasy and not a realistic view of reality. JBP has a very different view of religion from you and religious fundamentalists. You're as good as religious fundamentalists if you read religion as a doctrine that makes claims in the scientific realm. In the end you misunderstand his views because you do not know his premises of human existence/nature.
russell d But people like Peterson and cognitive scientists like Donald Hoffman say that evolution has selected our ability to see reality. If reality is x, we only see a function on it f(x). So for us that function f(x) is the only fathomable truth.
Sam Harris continues to have trouble entertaining anything without first establishing that he is 'right' Here is an extract from a post he wrote addressing his conversation with Peterson "But I feared that if we moved on to discuss the validity of religious faith, the power of myth, the reality of Jungian archetypes, or any of the more ethereal topics for which Peterson has become a celebrated exponent, without first agreeing on how sane and reasonable people can differentiate fact from fantasy, we were doomed to talk past each other with every sentence." He basically admits he couldn't move on with the conversation until Peterson first denied his own worldview/philosophy and agreed with Sam's. By referring to what Peterson has spent his life studying as 'fantasy' as opposed to psychology, theology, mythology etc, he reveals his own inability to expand his mind even if only hypothetically. Even worse he unnecessarily brings the question of sanity into the mix. Unfortunately it is with this same condescension that many of the Harris acolytes have taken to twitter and elsewhere to brand Professor Peterson as a 'loony'. What a shame that this was the result instead of an enlightening conversation that gave equal weight to both points of view. They could have easily discussed a wide range of issues but Sam wouldn't let the conversation develop
Pickle I am also curious as to how Harris cannot grasp what Peterson is saying regarding "Truth". I think that the reason may indeed be due to Sam Harris own personal bias and hatred for organized religion. Although Peterson wasn't arguing for religious ideology or old dogmas in any sense, Harris and his groupies seemed to keep harping on this as the issue. However, in his own life, Harris left Stanford University and traveled to India where he learned about Buddhism and Hindu religions. He even praised Advaita Vedanta and Dzogchen, as "they contain empirical insights about the nature of consciousness that do not depend upon faith." If Harris was to study this and praise these philosophy's outlook on human spirituality and "truth" he would have known and supported what they also believe to he true, don't you think? Well, the term Advaita refers to its idea that the soul (true Self, Atman) is the highest metaphysical Reality. According to Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is the highest Reality, or eternal truth. That which is unborn and unchanging, and "not sublatable". It cannot be superseded by a still higher reality. Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are ever-changing and therefore "maya". But, "Brahman" is Paramarthika Satyam, "Absolute Truth", and the true Self, and this is the only Reality, since It is untinged by difference, the mark of ignorance, and since It is the one thing that is not sublatable. In Advaita, Brahman is the substrate and cause of all changes. Brahman is considered to be the material cause and the efficient cause of all that exists. Brahman is the "primordial reality that creates, maintains and withdraws within it the universe." It is the "creative principle which lies realized in the whole world". So, considering that Sam Harris himself has deeply studied Advaita Vedanta philosophy, and supported it himself, why would he be so insistent on his definitive version of "Truth" which he could only relate to what was relatively true regarding the micro-level of empirical facts and scientific evidence? It seems to me that Sam Harris was almost being willfully deceptive in the debate, for whatever reason, or he was just ascribing to a view of ideological scientism to appeal to his own fanbase, one which is aligned with his political beliefs as well, and doing so rather adamantly only in order to discredit Dr. Jordan Peterson. Possibly doing so since Dr. Peterson is currently making a lot of waves in that sphere of human thinking
Sam was just trying to lay down the rules of the game, bruh. JP was basically setting things up so that he could avoid the factual questions Sam would throw at him. He is trying to replace the meaning of "truth" so that he doesn't need to answer to facts.
"Sam was just trying to lay down the rules of the game" - Why should Peterson have agreed to those specific rules given that he believes they are insufficient? that is the question.
I think you guys got it the wrong way around, Harris is basically objecting to Peterson's equivocation on the word "truth" with very similar reasons to those with which Peterson is objecting to postmodern language. Harris wasn't demanding Peterson adapt his philosophy, he was just saying that the language has to be precise so we don't muddle up our concepts and get into a chaotic mess - that should've resonated with Peterson.
It is my opinion that sam harris cannot accept alternative viewpoints in congruence with his own framework. While he axiomatically accepts that he COULD be wrong about things, he does not in practice allow for the premises to exist in theory that allow this falsifiable ability to be contested in abstract.
Dear professor, that brought tears to my eyes. I've been very grateful to you and Sam Harris for some time for allowing me to listen in on your thoughtful discussions. Both of you engage in open, honest explorations of incredibly important topics. I can't imagine any two people better suited to bring new understanding to light. I'd like to see you two spend a month in a cabin in the woods someplace and publish the conversations that result. :-)
Why is the relationship between ethics and scientific realism necessarily one in which one is nested in the other? Why is it not the case that they merely overlap (or possibly disjoint)?
I'm probably wrong, but could it be that for something to be 'real' or 'true' it will eventually have to be nested in scientific realism. And if it can't be nested that means that scientific realism isn't the final level of analysis, at least for the ethics domain.
Mr. Brayanus as for modern science is concerned, the objective “truth” in indefinitely nested in the scientific realism. Until we find something more, that is the case to be held. Funny thing is even if do find something more, it will grow out of the scientific realism in my opinion.
Because we have to rank things in order to make decisions when things contradict. Petersons argues this point with constant references to hierarchies, rooted in darwinism (biology and history). But my first sentence stated is evidently true anyway (i think) just often not realised. I don't get why Sam is so concerned this truth business. I think the argument is simply whether the definition of truth is JUST factual alone, or if it also includes something greater. Peterson's definition of truth is consistent with religious/faith based definitions of truth, with addition of science as a fact checker to update truth as we move forward through time (a competing hierarchy); while Sam is simply arguing truth is only what can be proven. For example in Sam's world the idea that 'All men are created equal' is not a truth but just an opinion, however in Jordan's world it is a Truth. Both fair points but in my own opinion one definition is definitely more helpful. And it's not like it's a crazy discussion, people have been arguing over the definition of truth forever.
Dr. Peterson: I respect and follow both you & Sam Harris. I watched the discussion that you reference in this video. I suggest there is nothing for the two of you to discuss further. You believe that facts are dependent on morality. He believes there are facts independent of any other variable. In the scientific world, in the world of mathematics, facts exist independent of morality, subjective appreciation or understanding, or of outcome or intent. I believe your desire to reject facts or truth outside of a moral (and Darwinian) construct is based on your religious beliefs and fear for the future of mankind given the polarization of societies, totalitarianism of the left as expressed in the battle over pronouns with which you are engaged, and your belief that we (Mankind) are headed toward armageddon have colored your views about "facts" and "truth" (which is understandable). I am of the opinion that Sam is correct. If you can't establish a base that agrees upon an understanding of basic facts and truths known to science, or the scientific method as a way to revel these truths, then there is no basis for future discussions.
I disagree completely. I think they got caught up in an unnecessary dispute that can only be untangle by debating the tangential subjects. Peterson tried to do this several times and Harris refused stubbornly. Having said that, I disagree with Peterson on his appreciation of why this happened and would recommend him to put more enfasis on an non dual view of truth. I believe he said a couple times, but not enough because is extremely important: in what he calls Darwinian mindframe, something is not necessarily either true or false, it has degrees depending on how proper it is. So if our knowledge of physics cause us to all die, it not that it was false, but that it was not true enough. It is not based on fear, thou he came to it by the horrors of the 20th century, it's based on a criticism of materialism. This has little to no effect in the most important discussion they should be having, which the subject of this video and revolves around morality and science. The reason for this is that Peterson doesn't deny the material utility of the scientific descriptions, so he doesn't deny them a certain degree of being proper; he just questions their metaphysical utility, so they lack in some way, thus not being proper truths.
No, I didn't. He tried at least twice to move on into ethics and science, which is the main subjects most of their listeners wanted them to talk about. Harris, pulled him back, he even recognizes it himself: "But I feared that if we moved on to discuss the validity of religious faith, the power of myth, the reality of Jungian archetypes, or any of the more ethereal topics for which Peterson has become a celebrated exponent, without first agreeing on how sane and reasonable people can differentiate fact from fantasy, we were doomed to talk past each other with every sentence." Is that logic I don't agree with at all. Not only because you can only understand Peterson arguments by diving into the other subjects; and that the hard duality fact-fantasy Harris states in that argument is unnecessary and unproductive; but mainly because it's just not right, people have conversations all the time despite differences in definitions of specific words.
If it is unnecessary and unproductive, then JP should have been able to clearly demonstrate how the duality of fact or fiction was irrelevant and why the resolution of this duality is best determined at the moment of survival or death.
How does this have 30 thousand more views than the video it is supposed to be a response to? I daresay the overly positive mood of the comments here towards Peterson can be explained this way.
I guess those numbers correspond with the total mass of listeners who choose to savour Sam´s podcast in other than youtube-video-form (podcasting app, mp3). Which is actualy much larger than the viewership in here might suggest. P.S.: generaly "positive mood" around this chatty-section towards Jordan is a soothing cherry on top .. :)
Well .. in a "tasty" way? (continuing with my cherry idiom:). It is cosy feeling, when positive/constructive/smart comments (for a change) outweights their poorly thought-out/acid-filled "counterparts".
Also I don't think you get a view if people don't watch a certain percentage of it. Most people would have given up, it was just the same argument for 2 hours!
Exit Humanity Ya I'd say either Harris lacks imagination, or refuses to integrate it into his thinking. Possibly correlating imagination to theism, so he just refuses to go there or entertain the possibility.
I grew up into adulthood in the era of Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens, and Harris. With the beloved Hitchen's gone, a massive void exists in the domain of inquiry and discourse he once filled. Dr. Peterson is the only intellectual since, who captures my attention in a similar way. Brilliant.
I appreciate this video because we are inundated with people flaming others when they disagree. A disgusting past time that causes frustration, concern and solves nothing. It's a pattern humans need to break so I'm grateful when I can watch and learn how it should actually be done. Anyway, wonderful leadership Dr. Peterson, I am sure Sam will respond in kind and I will stay tuned!
I think Sam checkmated Jordan and wouldn't move forward because I think he knew he would loose . I guess you have too see the world as world as constantly evolving and with that truth can change on a micro level but on a macro level is what Jordan wanted to discuss . Sam refused to and it was frustrating because I think Jordan has some real truth and value into what he is saying and its arrogant and ego filled for Sam to behave that way. In my opinion
A total checkmate.. Jordan's response: "I don't like the (valid) micro examples you've presented" instead of rowing back when he saw the flaws in his position he became increasingly defensive, his pitch increased, sentences more hostile and left Harris no choice but to end the conversation.
how sneaky of you to put the word (valid) in there, lol. I think Harris' examples were very artificial and constructed to undermine (not falsify) petersons arguments.
You can't escape your own framing of the world, and this the point that Jordan makes - human-ness is the limiting factor in our pursuit of absolute truth and it cannot be otherwise because we cannot be something that we are not. It's a very logical claim, common to Continental philosophy since Kant. Logic as evolutionary, dialectical, was the major "discovery" of Hegel. Appealing to das ding an sich, as Harris constantly does, is way way outdated.
Jordan, I think I understand what you're getting at. I'd usually strongly support Sam's definition of truth as "whatever fact is technically correct". If I understand correctly, the definition of truth you're trying to convey is more like "whatever facts are technically correct seen within the wider context of knowledge AND beneficial to the continued evolution of our species". In that case, instead of trying to replace the commonly held definition of truth, maybe you should instead coin your own term that contrasts your expanded idea of truth against the commonly accepted one. You could call your expanded definition something like "higher truth", as opposed to those facts that are technically correct but the wider implications are not yet known and are therefore deadly to the human race, which you could term "lower truths". Just my idea on how to resolve the confusion. Huge fan of your work.
I think the word "useful" is closer than "truth". Also it's completely arbitrary to pick the survival of a species. Why not individual? Why not a gene? Why not a nation? Why not the planet? Why not aliens? Why not consciousness in general? Nazis would have loved to define truth to mean "claims, which benefit the survival of the pure race". That wouldn't have muddied the debates at all.
His idea of Truth which, as he said in his first conversation with Sam Harris, he took from Nietzsche is upright Utility (in this case for Life) and that's that! And Utility is indeed a very important and pretty much fundamental concept, but it's NOT the real Truth: "correspondence of one's picture of Reality to Reality". And if he mixes Truth and Utility then how can we even trust him? I'm actually pretty sure that he means well for the Mankind and each human individually but he might be wrong in important things, so it's not very nice that he has views on Truth which allow him to lie and still kinda stay on a ”truthful way”, if he thinks that this particular lie is Useful to Life or whatever.
facts that are technically correct but the wider implications are not yet known and are therefore deadly to the human race, A fact can be deadly, or beneficial, depends on how you use it. I do not agree with the categorising it as "lower truth", implying that it is something less or negative than Peterson's definition.
Cant wait for the second time you get on the podcast. Just please stop trying to come to consensus, it doesn't have to exist. Better that you talk about your ideas like about belief, religion, mythology, depth psychology, etc....
Expecting to find the answer to the question "what is true?" given that its been the central question in all of philosophy since as long as there are records in two hours is foolhardy. However what we were treated to in Sam Harris' podcast was two of the most well studied minds on the question discussing it. There's a difference between saying "Answer me this question" and "Consider this question". Jordan, Thank you again for a wonderful discussion.
I think primary problem of Mr. Peterson is that he is anthropocentric, while Sam has given less anthropocentric view of the problems. Their discussion about objective (scientific) true/facts was loss of time as certainly Sam was right... science is describing objective facts using primarily mathematics and independent measurements (human independent). Mr. Peterson should admit the fact that humans were not here most of the history of the universe and they will not be here in the form as we are now in the future of the universe....That is almost certainty... I think this anthropocentric view of Peterson was the main obstacle for Peterson to get the point of Sam. Anthropocentric view of the universe is long gone......
Petr Skokan , true, that is the key word here, anthropocentric. But it needs to be said that for the first few billion years in the universe there was basically just hydrogen atoms and some traces of helium and lithium. It took the lifetimes of 2-3 supernova-capable stars to first create all the key chemical elements that are important for life. Having said that, it becomes clear that we can more or less neglect the first 7-10 billion years of the universe since even simple lifeformes wouldnt have existed back then. If this reasoning makes sense to you imagine we now extend this to evolution. Of the 3 billion years or so that life exists on this planet, how many millions can we again neglect since we first need complex brain functions capable of high cognitive functions and selfreflection before we can even have AN ACTIVE OBSERVER in this previously "ghost-less" or "soul-less" universe? .. sigh ... I dont even know where I'm going with this... I'm too tired... have a good night everybody.
If he had explained it as a perspective that one can take, it would have been much easier to accept. I think that Sam Harris was more hesitant of letting go of his definition of truth than of accepting Peterson's definition. In his lectures, Peterson seems to switch between the two perspectives but in his discussion with Harris, he seemed to demand that only one perspective should be used.
I've been a Sam Harris fan for quite some time now. I'm glad that you have come into my radar now, I deeply respect your work regarding free speech in Canada. Even though I disagree with your definition of truth, I enjoyed the podcast and hope you will have a part two.
I don't have the english fluency to use elaborate expressions of what I got out of this, but, as simple as I can put it, Dr. Peterson seems to be too focused on the surreal and metaphysical idea of truth, whereas Dr. Harris is clearly always talking about truth being found through scientific fact. In the end, it's kind of like belief versus empirical science.
I'd definitely like to see you two have a second conversation. There's obviously a lot of possible ground that was left uncovered because you were stuck on the definition of truth. For productivity's sake you might do best to leave the question entirely and move on accepting the problems that will come from leaving it.
Is it just me or was the problem of the interaction primarily a semantic one? Don't try to win the argument within semantics. Use the words in a mutually agreed fashion and move on from there. In this regard, I'm sorry to say, I perceived Mr. Peterson to be out of bounds. Which is a shame because I saw tremendous potential in a meeting of those two minds, both of which I respect greatly :/
The most likely conclusion is that Jordan is too attached to being able to say that his religious beliefs are true (according to a non-standard definition of truth) to agree to use the standard definition of truth that does not include his religious beliefs.
Its much more complex then that. I believe it needs more and more logical reasoning to prove each point because both ideologies are based on hypothetical reasoning and judgment and not on actual history chain.
No, Mr. Peterson. The "truth" cannot be defined subjectively upon the whims and feelings of an individual or a group. It is absolute. Otherwise, you contradict your own Pronoun movement as that too is nothing but a subjective definition of ones identity as opposed to their true identity.
Atlashon Peterson s idea of truth is completely subjective also, neither religion or science can lead to objective 'ultimate' truth. The acceptance of this fact makes us view truth a bit more practically and a bit less philosophically, if an ideology comes about one day that can actually demonstrate objectives truth then by all means it should be valued and adhered to but until then every observation of this universe is a subjective one.
Chris P If you spend 10 years in school for a title you should re-evaluate your life choices. Pretty sure Peterson cared more about the knowledge he acquired than some ego massaging title. Get the fuck out of here with your petty shit
"archetypal hero"? What is the relevance to "truth" here? Such a hero is nothing more than a walking assemblage of passing cultural attributes at best, a caricature at worst.
+Yevgeney Simkin, yes, he is offering an ordering principle for ethical behaviour which (in his view) coheres with a "scientific" method. One which influences the behaviour of the individual - family - society. So he turned to psycholigisms. But so called archetypes aren't the primordial figures that psychologist witch doctors want them to be. Peterson too is wrong to rely upon pseudo scientisms like psychology, Piaget especially. An archetype carries no more truth for ethical behaviour than does a celebrity. Both are constructs of cultural standards. Just that the archetype is older, and some like to drape it in mystical attire and then squeeze it into alien scientific method...wrecking both!
I admire both of you greatly I'm still absorbing your conversation. I wonder how much of your lectures Sam has watched. I believe this would really help him to see where you coming from. I suspect he hasn't watched too much. I really hope you both keep this conversation up. I believe it's very important and now more than ever....
Both of you should go on JRE at the same time would be an insane 3 way conversation because joe is very skilled at seeing things from many sides at once and might help to lubricate the conversation or even provide a third point to the brainstorm.
I've now listened to half the Sam Harris podcast, and I honestly think you and Mr. Harris are actually in agreement, EXCEPT you are trying to redefine the word "truth" as it's commonly understood. Having watched many of your videos and read some of your Maps of Meaning book, I feel I'm getting an understanding of your ideas, and I DON'T think your attempt to redefine "truth" is helpful at all. NOR do I think your abandoning it would in any way topple your great mountain of philosophical work. It would simply require you use different language. An easy solution to a glaring problem. Call it "useful truth" or "healthy truth" or "helpful truth" instead of truth and all of your examples and ideas hold up. You're in the chaos a bit now Mr. Peterson, and I think rightfully so. Fear of total annihilation may tempt you to cling fast to the outdated model you held (the tyrannical masculine culture), but if you bravely face the unknown, you may find the dragon beatable, and come out a hero. You may be on the precipice. Proving your humility and bravery by admitting your fault, amending your language, and coming back to Mr. Harris with a renewed argument that is uncluttered by linguistic games, you may provide a much-sought-after glimpse of the relationship between "is" and "ought" that the rationalist world has been desperately waiting for. So I hope Mr. Harris invites you back to the show, but not right away. Not until you can fully answer this question of "truth" in a way people can much more easily comprehend, which may require a lot of writing and introspection on your part, since you seem to hold so dear a connection to this idea. I think it's far less axiomatic to your larger body of philosophy than you seem to think.
It doesn't get any harder than Peterson is equivocating on the meaning of "truth." I note throughout the discussion the consistent use of words like "scientific truth", "moral truth", etc., which simply combine the concepts of "science" and "morality" with a separate and agnostic concept (truth) in order to convey different ideas. This is fundamental and makes an argument clear. However, what Peterson does is conflate "truth" with "moral truth". This is needlessly confusing (and, as it turns out, logically false). Once "truth" is redefined to mean "moral truth," the concept of being "scientifically true" becomes meaningless because it can be made paradoxical (e.g., our understanding of smallpox is true and it results in the destruction of all humanity). Harris intuitively got this and even commented on their mutual need to substitute words like "correct" and "accurate" for "true" in Peterson's framework. Consider it logically: A = Truth B = Morality C = Science As concepts: Moral Truth = AB Scientific Truth = AC To say Truth = Moral Truth is the same as saying A = AB, which by extension means Scientific Truth = (AB)C. Consequently, it is not possible for Peterson to agree that something can be scientifically true, but untrue in terms of the greater moral truth / ultimate truth (viz., our understanding of smallpox is scientifically true but humanity gets wiped out).
I enjoyed the discussion. I felt myself going back and forth on Sam's and Dr. Peterson's points. I felt Sam Harris would shut Dr. Peterson's analogies down prematurely. I hope they continue the discussion and get to much deeper points/topics. Overall I am happy that these two minds were able to meet!
I still don't understand why Peterson kept demanding that truth could not be separated from the outcome of knowing that truth. Peterson kept using the phrase "not true enough" with Harris, that's suspiciously subjective. Peterson should admit that a piece of information can be true even if knowing that information is detrimental. Harris gave numerous examples of this and Peterson could not sufficiently define his own position. "thinking in patterns" is no excuse.
I felt both sides made good points, but I was kind of disappointed by the examples Sam insisted on using. The shooter/hostage one in particular. He basically said that knowing the correct sequence of numbers was what got you killed because the shooter believed an incorrect sequence, but to me, it makes more sense to say that you died for *not* knowing the sequence the shooter wanted to hear. Not only is that a more comprehensive worldview (Since you get to know the sequence and not die) but it actually increases your odds of survival (Since even if you didn't give the correct answer, there's still a chance you'd just give a different answer that was equally wrong in the shooter's eyes). Now you could get even more arbitrary, and imagine a future where mind reading technology is possible, and simply the act of believing something to be true without expressing it is enough to get you killed by some dictator. That seems to create a paradox that's much harder to resolve, but it's similar to the affair scenario where you could say that the knowledge itself wasn't what killed you, but the beliefs that lead up to that scenario to begin with. The objection Sam made to that point was that meant you never actually got to find out if something was true or not unless you died. The problem is I'm struggling to think of a scenario where that's ever relevant, and I can think of plenty where Sam's definition is simply a hindrance. In pretty much every complex domain there's 'rules of thumb.' As in rules that aren't strictly true at the professional level but are true enough that a beginner should follow them until they're competent enough to spot the exceptions. By Sam's definition, we should be teaching the beginners all those exceptions before they're even able to identify them and at a time where it'll cause more harm than good, else we'll be lying to them. All that's going to do is result in a bunch of extremely overloaded students and extremely frustrated mentors. Without meaning any disrespect to Sam, I think this is what people mean when they say 'you're not wrong, you're just an asshole.'
Yeah, it was like Sam tried to pigeon-hole Jordan, instead of going on a quest with him, interested to learn what a man who has studied totalitarianism for 40 years has to offer. Maybe they should have talked about Pepe The Frog instead, lol
it seems like Jordan is after absolute truth, beyond capacity for humans to truly know, and Sam is defining truth as absolute KNOWABLE truth. that is the distinction it appears to me. Jordan is suggesting truth goes beyond the most fundamental physical and metaphysical concepts: like, why it would exist in the first place? why physical reality exists at all? Sam is searching for the truth within physical reality, where Jordan admits that there must be a cause to physical reality that exists as yet another deeper layer of truth. and down the rabbit hole we go.. but really, but are smart men, i wonder is they have read anything by rick straussman, albert hoffmann, or the McKennas, or better even yet, experienced what they have written about.
His idea of Truth which, as he said in his first conversation with Sam Harris, he took from Nietzsche is upright Utility (in this case for Life) and that's that! And Utility is indeed a very important and pretty much fundamental concept, but it's NOT the real Truth: "correspondence of one's picture of Reality to Reality". And if he mixes Truth and Utility then how can we even trust him? I'm actually pretty sure that he means well for the Mankind and each human individually but he might be wrong in important things, so it's not very nice that he has views on Truth which allow him to lie and still kinda stay on a ”truthful way”, if he thinks that this particular lie is Useful to Life or whatever.
I've thought about taking acid but I was able to understand Jordan Peterson's point of view with the help of another video in response to this first discussion between JBP and Sam without taking acid and my mind feels expanded and more open because of it. I highly recommend watching this video if you didn't understand Jordan Peterson's theory of truth. It is arguably more complex and difficult to understand because we are told all the time that we can discover an objective truth outside of our perceptions and consciousness, whereas Jordan takes reality as an assumption based on our consciousness which makes it impossible to prove whether anything exists outside of our consciousness. Therefore the only thing that we can be sure of is the plans of action that our consciousness can dream up and whether or not they succeed in achieving an ethical standard
I think if I ever take LSD I would only do it once and I might think about microdosing but I think the experience of it should be like a reorientation from a stagnant perception of the world. That's what it seems like to me. What do you think?
Peterson only claims that he's after some absolute metaphysical truth but really he just uses that idea to discredit truth in the objective sense and then defines his own truth (the "darwinian" truth: based on what leads to survival) and shifts to that one as if *that's* the absolute metaphysical truth. The problem is that new definition of truth is also based on a framework (the darwinian context, itself a subcontext within the physical one), which means it's not absolute, and it's also not any better than the scientific truth and frankly just confusing more than anything. The reason he does that shift in definition is so he can say religions are "true", and possibly confuse you along the way in thinking he's proven religions true in te absolute "better than scientific" sense, when again he never actually makes any use of any absolute truth, just a darwinien truth.
Mr. Peterson, as an avid viewer of Sam Harris' material I wanted to say that I loved your conversation over the definition of Truth. I found your position fascinating and I am very interested in your perspective of how science and ethics must co-exist. Thank you for the podcast, and this civil, good-faith effort to further an important conversation.
I welcome your efforts Mr Peterson. I know it is not much help, but if it is in any way, know that I pray that you and your family prosper and live a good life. Your pursuit of truth is truly humbling and sometimes it's lost on many that you are merely a man with all the suffering and hardship that entails. Please look after yourself as you needed to look after the collective mind from the darknesses of the past.
"CHAOS THEORY" ...Sam says you can have "truth" in a closed system. Jordan agrees, but Jordan's point is that there is NEVER such a thing as a closed system and so there is NEVER actually such a thing as "real" truth, especially in our universe which is governed by the uncertainty principle. Sam keeps saying "you have to be able to say...." Jordan says "Why"? Sam is acting like the religious person who wants to know absolutes. Jordan is acting like the scientist by knowing we can not know. Sam is apparently not familiar with "Chaos theory" and is trying to draw lines where lines cannot be drawn. I'm sure Sam is familiar with Chaos theory and that he accepts it, so I'm confused about why he can't understand Jordan's point. I think Jordan is less arrogant than Sam in this discussion. Sam is almost patronizing at times, and Jordan does not retaliate against this.
Excellent awareness of the conversation I agree. In Professor Dr Peterson’s case he is confident because he is much more educated. Why he waste so much time with conversations with those completely out of his league is intolerable. Let them take a few classes first and they pay for his time. It’s hard to listen to Harris’s inability to understand and even articulate.
uwotm8s I am aware of his published degrees, regardless it’s obvious he is lost and way out of his league. I was also making a point that Dr Peterson has 20+ years in education as a Professor. Would you like me to edit it to say “ in the Professor; Dr Jordan Peterson’s case?
The conversation between the two was difficult to listen to. They seemed to be both caught in a maze of abstraction. It makes sense to me that "truth" can have very different metaphysical underpinnings between two people, and I think Sam Harris has a moral imperative to respect that difference between him and a guest he invited on to his show. Sam had a very patronizing tone throughout the entire podcast, and seems to be doing exactly what Peterson describes as attempting to elevate himself to a higher moral plateau by attempting to objectively dissect Peterson's subjective meaning of truth. Sam, I feel it's important to adopt an agree to disagree stance on issues like this going forward. It's really fatiguing for the listeners. Your goal in so many of your conversations seems to be a "my view is right, your view is wrong, and there is no way we can move forward with our fundamental differences between us." It's important to be mature and move on, especially when your moderating a podcast, and especially in conversations that were bound to be dealing with abstraction before you even started the conversation. You knew exactly what you were getting into inviting Jordan onto your podcast.
Kokainuser In one of Peterson's other lectures he makes the point of something along the lines of intellectual "truths" being relative in all cases because of the vast majority of things we do not know about. So something that we can dogmatically understand to be objectively "true", could in turn be very relative to the ideological lens we are operating under, I.e. Science as a dictator of what's "true". Either way, great to hear two intellectual Goliath's rapdancing with each other. Fun times. Seems that the smallest differences with two similar people can create huge divides between them.
I am incredibly grateful to Sam Harris inadvertently turning me on to your work. I found myself arguing aloud with Harris during your talk, only to hear you echo my thoughts with your reply´s. This is a wonderful gift. I really look forward to delving deeper and deeper into your work. Its a pity Sam Harris wont allow himself to understand or entertain Carl Jung, Joseph Campell or even Ken Wilber ( I caught you ´goodness, truth and beauty" quote in the podcast. ) It would shift him beyond the limit of his own castle walls. I hope you do a part 2 and 3 podcast.
Both Sam Harris and Professor Peterson are brilliant thinkers and so essential in our present time, it would be wasted for them to argue over problems they are both well equipped to understand and teach, and they aren't arguing obviously. I find myself in more agreement with Peterson, his noticeably caring, genuine manner and intellectual honesty as well as morality is a breath of fresh air. I just wish there was more people like him.
You Mr Peterson and Sam Harris are two of the classiest guys around. I was not disappointed because you both showed not just skill but also patience and one can see that you are both trying to approach a better understanding of reality, even while not agreeing on some fundamentals of what that reality is. We need more of that! We need more of that class. Thank you very much for helping so many people understand life a little better. Same thanks to Sam.
Jordan: "I don't think that facts are necessarily true. If scientific facts, even if they're true from within the domain they were generated, I don't think that that necessarily makes them true _haha_ (thinking he's onto something there). *And I know that I'm gerrymandering (he really just means changing and was looking for a fancy word) the definition of truth, but (much rather **_and_** not but) doing that on purpose, because **_I'm trying to_** nest truth within the darwinian frame of which I think is a moral framework* (i.e. "I want the word truth to mean something else). He _admitted_ that _he's trying_ to change the meaning of the word truth. That means he _acknowledges_ that that's not what it means. He does this multiple times throughout the conversation, so he's aware of the position Sam is placing him at _and_ agrees with it, but keeps babbling on about how the meaning of truth should be different, because morals are more important than knowledge. The only reason I can imagine him or really anybody say that is religious indoctrination (this is exactly what the vast majority of religious apologists excel at). He lost the argument without any doubt there, because even if that is what he wants the word to mean for whatever reason, it's not what it means. You're guilty of what you're arguing against Jordan. You want to redefine words so they fit your world view and this is exactly why Sam didn't let you off the hook. You _cannot_ do that and still call yourself intellectually honest, because you _need_ to be aware that using the same words as others and imprinting a different meaning on it will _necessarily_ make it _impossible_ for anybody who hasn't read multiple of your books to even _remotely_ understand what you're getting at. Why can't you just call certain truths dangerous (like Sam) for the time being and then make a case with that? Why is that so hard for you to do that you just cannot stray away for a single second from the authoritarian idea that the term truth _must_ be redefined? Are you doing it for emphasis? Well that isn't going to help you when a vast majority of people (especially those you see in the danger zone) have no idea what you're talking about, because you're using the same word but think about something else. You're overcomplicating things for absolutely no reason, because you can _totally_ formulate a coherent sentence that puts emphasis on moral values over scientific knowledge _without_ having to change the meaning of words. This conversation was actually immensely revealing to me. I thought you were an intellectually honest coherent person, but apparently I was wrong. I do have some hope that in the next conversation (if it happens) you somehow get yourself to admit that your idea isn't based on rationality, but emotion (fear).
Feuerbringer Exactly. And Peterson is a sexist full of sterotyped, evolutionary psych pseudo-science debunked over and over due to dudes like Peterson anthropomorphizing animal behavior. It's Jungian projection 101. Peterson PROJECTS his psychology and values ON TO the external world. He would do better to go live in a monastery in the hills somewhere, preferably never coming back, to deprogram the archetypes and myths he has clearly never fully explored knocking around in his item subconscious.
Mihaly, because if someone operates from the framework where they reject the notion of objective reality, it reveals an underlying fundamental irrationality, which you see in nearly all religious people, and makes it difficult to really consider their other points seriously.
I'm sorry but it is nothing but ignorant to quote Dr Peterson saying "even if they're true from within the domain they were generated, I don't think that that necessarily makes them true " and literally a few sentences later state that somehow you have shown he agrees with the position Sam is attempting to place him at. Is that not a direct contradiction?. The whole point of this argument is that Dr.Peterson is aware of the truth Sam is attempting to lay out a foundation with and he disagrees that, that is a sufficient starting point to move forward from. Your direct contradiction essentially sidelines the whole point of the discussion and you do that before you even get to your narcissistic claims of indoctrination against Dr.Peterson. I like that you clearly recognise the reasons behind Dr.Peterson's actions in that he refuses to stray from the point due to the fact that he believes it to be fundamentally important (requiring emphasis), yet can not see or just will not say that the reason it isn't going to help him is not because the majority of people don't know what he is talking about (this can be surpassed by people actually wanting to be informed and so learning what he is talking about) but because possibly the majority of people who listen to and actively engage with Sam Harris are narcissistic Atheists who don't really much care for the benefit of a new deeper conversation with unknown potential but instead simply want to feel like they are indisputably correct in their views. I'm not religious.
I think you two should just use "accurate" and "valuable" and just avoid the term "truth" altogether. I don't think either of you is fundamentally wrong on this issue. It seems purely semantic to me. It seems like you want "truth" to mean "valuable" and he wants "truth" to mean "accurate".
In my opinion Jordan's position can be defined as Truth relativism - the position that truth or that which is true or in accordance with reality does not reflect objective and/or universal state of things as they actually exist, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Sam's position = truth is the quality or state of being true. In Sam eyes there is no degree to certain true things, they are just true. Jordan seems to reject this on a whim (as he smuggles in humanity in the definition of truth by using the notion of archetypes) with social sciences in his mind I suppose, suggesting that truths come in a spectrum as exemplified by his statements that things can be true 'enough' or to a degree. This is well illustrated by the affair example: Sam takes the position that irrespective of the husbands actions the woman cheated. To Sam truth = the claim the cheating happened. Jordan would say yes to the cheating only if we take the husband existence into account (kind of intersectional truth), overcomplicating the issue to no avail. Making the whole conversation impossible to continue... if we cannot agree on what is true/real how can we have a constructive/meaningful debate? Can someone explain to me how JP's position differ from someone who takes the moral relativism position in such way that his actions are only moral depending on his society, culture, historical or personal circumstances. In the end his position will come to this: something is moral depending on god(however you define it)'s caprice. I suggest that JP stop borrowing from other thinkers in faith in order to justify his thinking in pattern! He could concede that certain things are true irrespective of human existence and still claim that there is such things like 'higher truths' and thus enabling the conversation to advance. By refusing to do so he takes an indefensible position no respectable scientist would even try to defend! Correct if I'm wrong but JP seems to take an idealistic/ideological position to reality.
Its as if your definition of truth is one that requires lots of different concepts being pieced together to formulate your finalized idea. One piece on its own might seem to be illogical or unrelated, but within context of everything else it makes sense. Sam seemed to just take the position that if one part doesn't make sense on its own, all of it doesnt make sense. I really hope you guys can work past this and continue your discussion.
In my opinion Sam was at fault for not moving the conversation forward when it was clear they couldn´t come to a conclusion. Peterson tried on a couple of occasions, but Sam wouldn´t allow it. He seemed emotionally invested and in an almost autistic way couldn´t see the bigger picture in the conversation. Even though you do not completely agree on what is true, you can still have a fruitful conversation about important topics.
They still could´ve talked about for example morality, ethics, religion, marxism etc., and if the ontological and epistemological assumptions would be relevant for a particular disagreement, they could´ve returned to it. Then the discussion would´ve been framed in a much more interesting and relatable context for the listener.
Jane Doe -nailed it Jane, for real Doe. Sam's uses truth of matter as his foundation. Yes, a chair is a chair... but some folks think what we take for truth, or matter... is literally very illusory. Maybe smart fellas too. Everything isn't actually what we think it is? So what is matter or matters for these dudes... I think...life is sorrow. Pain feels real... let's use that as a foundation for what matters, morally. Should we use Sam's foundation for aproximating truth to reliable use a chair? I vote yes. But... what can we use to live well in a family, city, state country or Urf? I dunno, but maybe... maybe they both make points. A stick is a stick, totes. Hyper using your moral compass is swell too. I dunno... they're great men who I'm happy I can learn from. That's all.
I´m not saying it isn´t important or relevant, but you can discuss the differences in the context of something interesting and relatable to the audience. He´s had many guests on who probably makes vastly different philosophical assumptions, and if the differences are relevant it becomes apparent in talking about what the guest is actually interested in.
They started the podcast discussing Bill C-16, free speech and gender identity. It was a fruitful 15 minutes :) It worked just fine despite them not being 100% on the same page ontologically and epistemologically. I think when the very technical philosophical discussion hit a wall, move on and talk about something else. If the underlying assumptions becomes relevant in a subsequent discussion, then at least it´s framed in something relatable to us listeners.
We can have this discussion in the comments without knowing or 100% agreeing on each others underlying assumptions about reality, it´s not something that must precede every discussion. If it has to for a particular topic and you hit a wall, move on to something else. Sam was unwilling to do that.
I agree. Jordan says up front that he considers scientific truth and religious truth to be different. Sam does not. Clearly neither was going to change his definition, so what was the point of continuing to argue. I wish they had agreed to disagree on word usage and continued on to more productive topics, asking for clarification when necessary. I actually think they have much more in common than this exchange revealed.
You cannot move forward if someone doesn't agree 1=1 is true
I like Sam. I like his intellect and delivery. However, the man has a serious ego problem. I can honestly say he has a hard time not "winning" in every discussion.
MrThundaro Hey man..he's just trying to change minds and save lives!
MrThundaro I'm a big fan of his and I absolutely agree. He just seems to be intellectually pea-cocking but JP was, to me, too worried about losing face
I could not disagree more. I have yet to to know/hear/watch anyone less egotistical than Sam Harris. I don't think Sam thinks of discussions in terms of winning or losing, I think he is only focused on finding the right answer or the best ideas.
MrThundaro I don't know much about Sam Harris but the description of his ego you gave puts me in mind of Stefan Molyneux.
Gil Fiazon this is true most of the time but not in this case. Yes, he won the debate, but it shouldn't have been a debate. I wanted to hear more interesting topics.
Listening to Harris v. Peterson was like listening to a robot debating a poet on the nature of reality.
CavemanSynthesizer haha, that's pretty good
Not as good as I wanted it to be :(
haha, I'll +1 you big guy. Chin up. ;-)
A philosopher should not take artistic license in a debate
RecklessIntent , art is basically "consumed reality", the digestion (admittedly shitty) of pondering the nature of reality. If you were to study the human mind without taking art into account, you run the risk of seeing computer programs everywhere and expecting that reality runs on algorithms. I would argue that machines, programs and mechanisms are a very large subsection of possible things within the universe, but there is no indication that reality is a construct that is 100% based exclusively on newtonian/einsteinian principles. That's that whole newton vs darwin debate that JP and SH were trying to have. I'm not argueing the case for god/religion, but additional principles to better understand reality.
JP: Bricks build houses.
Sam: But wait, they can be used for other things - people can use bricks to kill people.
JP: Well, I wouldn't call them bricks, I'd call them weapons in that case.
Sam: But..If there's a brick sitting there, no-one has touched it, or even seen it - is it still a brick?
JP: That depends on what happens when someone gets their hands on it.
Sam: So it's a brick until a bad guy touches it, and then it magically becomes a weapon - or rather, despite all objective reasoning it never was a brick to begin with?
JP: Yes
Sam: So we don't get to define it until we wait around for a while and see what happens?
JP: Correct.
Rinse and repeat for two hours.
cant everything in existence be used for good/evil? Choice is what defines human nature... I will not let evil people define for me what an object stands for.
True. I couldn't figure out how else to get the fake conversation going. Thanks for taking the time to reply, all the best in your work and I hope you and Sam get together again.
Knowledge does not begins in the I and does not begins in the object, it begins in interactions.
wonderful just wonderful ^^
except examples where that doesn't work
It is my personal opinion that as much as you or Sam might think there was little or no value to the podcast, that is simply not true. I for one had to wrestle within my own reasoning to sharply define a foundation for morality, science and truth. So this disagreement between you two seemed like a projection of an argument inside my head put forth with much more detail and clarity. So thanks for for making me flex some brain muscles.
MenO it genuinely was a really challenging podcast
MenO couldn’t agree more - a very valuable argument
redcentredoggies maybe if you think truth means 3 of something wouldn't quantitatively be 3 if it didn't serve a hero's tale or some bullshit about being good or attractive to girls lmao
MenO. I agree. I heard the podcast only recently and became consumed with the notion of 'truth.' I had no idea that truth could be considered in Darwinian terms. SH & JP's discussion inspired me to do extensive research which opened my world to metaphysics, pragmatism, existentialism and such like. It's been a fascinating journey all thanks to the podcast!
I recently purchased the self-authoring pack for my dad and myself. Thanks so much for your work Dr. Peterson!
Me too. Worth every penny.
Jordan B Peterson Dr peterson I was wondering if I only have a smart phone will i still be able to pursue self authoring?
I did, too! It makes me face memories I didn't think I had to look back at...it really changed my view of my thoughts. I have yet to see improvement though because I just started and I feel kinda low and dark after addressing my memories.
It appears that there's 4 of these self-authoring programs. If I was to do only one, which would you recommend? It would seem to me that the future authoring program is the way to go (?).
I just started it yesterday did stage one of the future authoring process. Looking forward to the rest. let me know how it goes with you.
These are facial expressions I've never seen Jordan make.
DJ Spada for real or probably getting head
HE'S GETTING THE SUCC
Arminius der Cherusker I think he's just been up all night putting this together but I do see what you mean, his eyes are crispy !!, LOL
Scotty Nguyen's 80s Mullet libel.
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I had been looking forward to that discussion for a while and now I think I could use a second round!
Yes, Jordan should have a podcast where he hosts Sam Harris and others.
Bagels Truth where can i find their talk? ive been trying to find it
Find Sam Harris's Waking Up podcast on any podcast app or platform.
Hell I want it to go for 10 rounds and a rematch annually.
I would pay for them never to have such a fruitless conversation ever again.
Sam talks about truth. You talk about a super-truth which = Sam's truth + morality + outcome. It is confusing when both use the same word for different things. - Rename yours rather than make the whole world rename theirs. x)
I agree that the problem was about two different definitions of the word "truth". However, it is not the case that science can grasp truth in any way. Truth is not a scientific concept as it stands. You need to have your theory of what truth is. And Harris and Peterson have different ones. No-one really has the claim here. And I say that as a theoretical physicist. ; )
I know that many people thing that we know that there is such a thing as reality, and that science tells us, what this reality is, and so whats true about it and what not. But this idea doesn't hold. First of all, we need to assume that there is a common reality. There is no way to proof it in principle, it just appears to be a reasonable assumption. Second, the scientific method makes no statements about reality itself. It's theories make statements about a hypothetical, abstracted reality, with which we attempt to describe the actual reality, and it's experiments falsify (not verify) these theories.
One might then be inclined to say that, well, our picture of our abstracted reality gets more and more refined as we find new things, and so it mimics the actual reality ever closer and closer. But thats also not necessarily accurate, as paradigm changes in the history of science have shown, which fundamentally changed our way of viewing the world, e.g. quantum mechanics.
+TejrnarG
I think you're not really arguing against what +Fadaouri said.
You seem to be saying that science can't ever know for certain that what we believe to be true is actually correct. And that is - as far as we know ;) - of course true.
However that does not exclude that there can be something that is actually "true". And that is what we mean when we use the word "true".
The only way that it could be different was if we would live in a universe where in fact every statement is true and not true at the same time. But that wouldn't make much sense because than also the statement of everything being true and not true would have to be true and not true...
So even if science can't ever be sure to know the truth, Sam Harris uses the word "truth" correctly and Peterson should indeed use a different word.
No. truth-hood is from logic.
Its all about being consistent.
Truth-hood vs False-hood.
Its a binary logic.
It IS a tool to evaluate the IS and the OUGHT.
It IS Newtonian/Darwinian agnostic.
Both Newtonian Physics and Darwinian Evolution, are an IS that have implications to evaluate the OUGHTS.
You still need to apply the logic tool!
Julius Sky But if you only remain in the framework of logic, it has no connection to reality, but is purely abstract. Also: there is not just one logic. Certainly, Aristotle's logic seems very reasonable, and allowed mathematics and the sciences to thrive. But from a philosophical perspective I would say its not forbidden to come up, and play around with another logic. Question is if its useful.
SufferingAddict I didn't really argue against what Fadaourl said, but merely wanted to point out that in my opinion, science has not the copyright on the word truth. I see your point, and I would agree that it is not useful for peterson to use "truth" in the way he does, and that it would be more helpful, if he used another term. I am not sure if I would go as far to say he uses it "incorrect" though. But anyway. ; ) It would be nice to actually get the conversation between those two further one way or the other.
All other useful rational logics are reducible to a binary logic of true and false outputs.
For example, you might have a non-binary logic that needs to choose one of 5 paths.
Still, you can say, 4 of them i will choose False and one i will choose True.
The connection to reality is when you make decisions (one way or the other) using the output of a utility function such as Darwinian utility (that which will help us evolve).
You say, this will help me evolve (True or False).
You don't say, this will help me evolve (somewhat, 33%, Pi, sufficient, Jung) and then walk on by. You will die.
“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”--Thomas Paine
I truly thank you for the conversation you had with Sam. If nothing else, the commitment you both have to finding the "truth," however you'd like to define it, is humbling. Also, the honestly of the dialogue was a breath of fresh air. I look forward to hearing the rest of this conversation. Thank you.
Sam made more sense to me. How can anyone know that a scientific inquiry might lead to the destruction of humanity in a thousand years.
This is basically natural sciences vs social sciences. Clarity vs obscurantism. Logic vs rhyming.
Timur Salikov Science is psychological tool we find ourselves in possession of because it is evolutionarily fit at the moment. Science can rapidly become unfit when people possessed by unfit moral truths wield it.
You can't. Peterson's argument is essentially that the usefulness of a scientific discovery can't really be known ahead of time. He doesn't argue against the facts discovered by science, just that their value is determined by the same Darwinian mechanisms that have shaped us.
You can think of each scientific discovery and it's application as a mutation of the species, that may or may not prove beneficial to survival. Some may even lead to it's destruction.
Dude, I understand Americans being confused, but your name suggests you should be at least somewhat familiar with Continental philosophy and the ideas of categories. Sam Harris doesn't understand categories and is stuck in a pre-Hegelian (or even pre-Kantian) world. He believes in the reality of "das ding an sich," and our ability to approach some objective reality by a method that is steeped in unexamined assumptions of human thought-categories. You can't escape your own framing of the world, and this the point that Jordan makes - human-ness is the limiting factor in our pursuit of absolute truth and it cannot be otherwise because we cannot be something that we are not.
"An archetype is the ultimate meme."
it makes a lot of sense, I hope Sam is *trying* to understand
When something makes sense, you cannot help but understand.
When you must try, you are fooling yourself.
I think that is quite untrue, Taxtro. There are many things that make sense, but are not easy to understand. Best practices in an engineering field, complex math, germ theory, etc. In fact, the very purpose of teaching is to break complicated ideas that make sense down into smaller, more understandable parts, so they can be built back up into the bigger idea. This can require a lot of effort on the part of the learner.
I, for one, am not well acquainted with what an Archetype is in the sense that Prof. Peterson uses the term. He's described Dawkin's meme (an I idea I think I understand) as a simplified version of the Archetype. That intrigues me and makes me want to learn more. If I were to dismiss it by saying "when I must try, I am fooling myself," I'd be missing out on a chance to grow.
+Jane Doe Please enlighten us as to 'what the truth really is.' Enquiring minds want to know.
it's not about trying to understand it's about whether it is true or false.
Peterson strikes me as decent human being, but he is trying to give the illusions of the human psyche a meaning, while Harris is trying to figure out on the neural level why and how the brain is generating its own psyche. I am not interested to embrace the illusion, I am more invested into Sam Harris's 'how and why'.
"We hit an impasse over the definition of truth".
That was always going to be the problem.
***** Hi there! I knew it, I knew it weeks ago. This was telegraphed from waaaaaay back.
I feel a little bad for Peterson. He seems...all over the place, lately. Am I the only one who has noticed this change?
So he's like a rockstar then.
***** It *seems* that way. Too much, too soon, too fast. Maybe.
***** Atheism isn't "true" by definition. It is the position that the truth-claims of Theists fail to meet satisfactory epistemological standards. It is the refusal to take "facts" on faith alone, with no evidence other than the writings of flawed primates.
Some philosophers of science, notably Victor Stenger, claim that you *can* prove the non-existence of a deity. I haven't read his work on the subject so I can't really comment on that.
I have no idea what home boy is talking about in this one. But at least i'm wise enough to admit it.
It's a heavy subject.
You probably dont care but if you guys are stoned like me atm you can watch pretty much all the new movies and series on instaflixxer. Been streaming with my brother these days =)
@Thaddeus Abram Yup, I have been watching on InstaFlixxer for months myself =)
Its very hard to have a productive conversation when you use completely different definitions of the word 'truth'.
I don't know why people find this simple fact so hard to understand.
Peterson was trying to change definitions. People saying Sam came across as condescending need to understand that Peterson was literally arguing that HIS PERSONAL definition of what "truth" is the correct one. To me that is a pretentious claim.
His idea of Truth which, as he said in his first conversation with Sam, he took from Nietzsche is upright Utility and that's that! And Utility is indeed a very important and pretty much fundamental concept, but it's NOT the Truth which is: "correspondence of one's picture of Reality to Reality".
And if he mixes Truth and Utility then how can we even trust him? I'm actually quite sure that he means well for the Mankind and each human individually but he might be wrong in important things, so it's not very nice that he has views on Truth which allow him to lie and still kinda stay on a” truthful way”, if he thinks that this particular lie is Useful to Life or whatever.
i might have known why Sam Harris is not a fan of Peterson's approaches to "truth", they actually do share similar definition in terms that they think is of highest order of value. (imo most skeptics would call sophistry, because there is simply isn't convincing evidence to some of the claims that he make along the way). Peterson does claim that truths are sort of the patterns that exist in stories and in real life. He believes that those patterns are of truth or its essences. It's always interesting to listen to Jordan Peterson's approaches to a lot of political issues as well as psychological issues at a personal level. Peterson' is brilliant, there is no doubt about that, he definitely speaks to a lot of people at a deep personal level, but for his claims to be accepted as valuable "truths", it is just not possible at the moment since he doesn't have enough or persuasive evidences to substantiate his claims.
AndrewN553 truth is a result of your present epistemological beliefs. Harris and Peterson simply had different epistemic worldviews
I dont know if id say hes changing the definition, but hes definately expanding it. I mean lets check the definition: 'that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality'. So i guess when your talking about truth your talking about fact and reality, and i guess the problem im noticing is theres debate on whether to consider meta-physical concepts like an archetype as part of reality, which is understandable because reality is mostly associated with that which is tangible. But perhaps reality is alot more complicated than just whats tangible. I mean these archtypes are real in the sense that they remain consistent throughout time and are universally expressed through different cultures around the world. So i guess im wondering if something that significant and relevant to ones life cant be considered true. What do you think?
Wouldn't it have been shocking if you didn't hit some kind of impasse in your first conversation? I hope you'll talk again.
Jason Berk I agree. I hope both men take a step back and realize this as inevitable and calmly move forward from there.
I hope people can see through John G's manichean bullshit. People derive all kinds of different values and meanings from the myths and symbols they use.
Jordan, your are 10 times the mind that Harris is. My humble and reasoned observation.
+Jane Doe, Why?
***** He is not slavishly glued to intellectualism. That is why I place him above Harris. And I've read/learned everything there is about Sam(whom I respect).
No, it is a failure of American pre-Kantian philosophy to understand the importance of categories. Your thought, your perception of the world, frames reality, and appealing to an absolute objective truth, das ding an sich, without examining the tools you use to evaluate reality will never reveal Truth. Absolute truth can only be approached by analyzing the categories of human thought because that is the way we frame the world.
I don't think he is 10 times the mind, but he is certainly better at keeping his ego out of the discussion. Probably because Jordan does not have a huge following of starry-eyed, uncritical fans who adore his every word. That sort of thing tends to fuck good men up. Such is the case of Sam Harris.
Josh Randall. You must show us how you got to that number.
I really loved the podcast, and this open letter is civil and seems heartfelt. I hope Sam responds.
Listening to it while doing chores, the whole truth debate was a bit too esoteric for me , but I like both these guys alot.
Omg, can you imagine a flame war between these two?
they wouldnt
where can i watch?
nevermind, its in the description
www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-is-true
No. Sam Harris might just write a new book and start a new podcast and make some tweets and write a new book and then write a couple of brief essays and then meditate and then write one more book about it.
Demention94 Aw that's harsh xD.
I think, whatever else, he's fighting the good fight.
As was said in the podcast, both are approaching the same problem from different perspectives. It is rationalist vs intuitionist. The disagreements have a shared element with Harris and Haidts disagreements. Petersons view is that truth is more fundamental than scientific truth, known or unknown, which is why peterson talked about newtonian truth as being nested in darwinian truth. Harris sees it in reverse. However one doesnt deny the other the existence of each type of truth. I think the reason why Peterson is defining his idea of truth in this way now is so he can show Harris how Harris' perception of truth is not compatible with Petersons philosophy of religion and mythology.
From how I tend to understand it is that the idea of objective and scientific truth is undeniably subject to subjective thought and impossible to escape from simply due to the limitations of our darwinian designed hardware. There is a different language for exploring truth beyond what science can percieve and thats where things like religion, spirituality and myths come into play. I think understanding and growing science is great but it is possible to go a step further if one desires to explore the deeper truth in reality.
btw I understand Harris' position only I think there may be some belief that he is holding onto that is causing him to fail to understand what Peterson is saying. I had several moment where I understood Peterson perfectly and Harris seemed to be completely baffled; and I dont think Im smarter than Harris at all
I would say synthesis vs analysis or Platonic vs. Aristotelian. Intuitionist makes it sound like Peterson's claims aren't rigorously deduced.
ben hart Intuitionism is all about the inate attributes of conciousness which determine truth, morality and reality. All other forms of thought are constructed from these inate building blocks. It denies the existence of pure rationality (the materialist or newtonian view) but that rationality itself is a subset of our inate (darwinian) selves. A good read in support of this is Antonio Damasios "Descartes Error".
Truth is that which is in accordance with fact or reality, what Peterson was describing isn't what truth actually is, he was conflating moral truths with the word truth itself. He seems to think that something is either true or not dependant on how it effects us.
Here are some examples that I'm surprised Sam didn't use, for starters from what I understand Peterson's definition to be, if I were to go around the earth and shoot everyone in the head and then kill myself then it would not be considered the truth that I did this. Another example, it is true that Pluto exists regardless of whether we know it exists or not and regardless of whether this is beneficial or detrimental to our species survival.
Honestly I was 100% with Sam, I was baffled to hear Peterson's position to be honest. I mean for a man who is so popular nowadays for fighting gender pronouns and retaining the accepted meaning of words he has changed the meaning of the word truth and without a working definition of what truth is I don't see how a conversation about anything else can be accomplished. It would be like trying to have a discussion about which building is the tallest and one of the people insists that tall means most spherical.
Crag I doubt it - I legitimately think Sam didn't understand it. Probably because I don't understand it, and I am a smart guy able to understand these sorts of things. I've never encountered a philosophical argument or position I didn't understand, until listening to Peterson talk on that last podcast. And I don't think that's because it's just such a complex, lofty position - I think it's because it's actually not totally logical, and my mind only works logically. I get the same impression about Sam - his mind is almost like a robot, perfectly rational and logical. and whatever you think about Peterson, and how smart he is, his position on this particular point is actually not rational or logical - he's smuggling in some strange things in order to probably lay the groundwork to argue in favor of religion in the future, so he kind of has no choice but to separate from truly logical thinking on this point
Michael L His position is that truth is whatever helps propagate the species in an evolutionary sense, his position is somewhat logical as long as you equivocate the meaning of the word truth. It's similar to how other religious people equivocate the word "faith" to mean belief without absolute certainty.
Sam definitely understood what Peterson was saying, he repeated the argument in his own words and Peterson agreed, Sam was just pointing out that using this definition for the word truth would make conversation extremely difficult if not impossible. Peterson's definition allowed for a fact to be both true and false simultaneously, it allows for something that is in fact false to be the "truth", it makes completely contradictory propositions true simultaneously, it makes facts irrelevant to human flourishing neither true or false and it makes the majority of facts regarding humanity remain in a sort of truth limbo until we can determine whether they are ultimately beneficial for the species or not.
Truth is roughly defined as something that is in accordance with fact or reality, this is what most people mean when they talk about truth. Peterson was essentially doing what he berates SJWs for doing, he is altering the language to suit his agenda. Again, his argument isn't necessarily illogical as long as you accept his definition although I don't see how that helps his case, an analogy for what he is doing would be like saying "I won the chess match" and when someone asks you about it you say "I define the word win as feeling happy after the game is over". Sure, that is logical and true when using your definition, but that doesn't mean you actually won the chess match according to the normal usage of the word, you may have won by the normal definition, you may have lost or it may have been a stale mate.
You didn't hit an impasse over "truth," you admitted to wanting to redefine it.
Right or wrong, Sam consistently tries to establish a parsimonious vocabulary so that an argument can be established fairly. You seem to agree that he does this, and yet consistently muddy everything by stubbornly insisting on your pet theories and jargon. Sam will let you get to these, but you've first got to show some good faith.
If you fail to allow any hypotheticals, it shows very bad faith. It makes you seem ill.
Your silences during the podcast, while extremely awkward to the listener, do denote that you were trying to be honest and not just pop off a rejoinder. Genuine kudos for this. Please don't take from that, however, that it means Sam has better technique than you do and not that your argument has serious failings, as you seemed to sometimes want to couch things.
Well being is a hard thing to define. I thought a Netflix account would make me happier, but it just left me indecisively scroll through countless movies, series and documentaries hours and hours on end.
Herobox 1248 Check out the foreign films
Herobox 1248 Perpetual happiness is impossible
It did not make you suffer, so that's a good start.
You're arguing for something fairly straightforward that Sam agrees with, you both see that positivist scientific knowledge is not enough as far as a worldview is concerned (not true-enough for "darwinian" reasons in your words, or not enough to maximize human well-being in Harris'), but Harris conceives this as a deficiency that can be aided with things external to that kind of knowledge, like moral facts (which are also somehow nested in that positivist framework, which you take issue with), whereas you see this as a deficiency that can be aided by a better conception of the idea of "true" by having a standard of truth which requires things to be be also good in order for you to be happy to call them "true," which as far as word-choice it seems a bit weird and unhelpful and not the sense in which Harris uses the word, but it's not some kind of logical flaw. Further, you take the view that there are things that are more meaningfully true than correct statements about matter, (and it's not obvious to me that Harris disagrees) which also contributed to your view of things seeming even more alien to a mainstream conception of facts.
Drew Thorsen it was clear from the first hair being odd or even example. You could literally see jordan's view break down with then him deciding that it wont happen and avoiding the example in order to not be wrong. Sam might be wrong but Jordan could not even come close to presenting a good counter argument
Totally disagree. Sam's point makes so many assumptions, in the sense that the ONLY reason the guy kills himself is because his wife cheated on him, and that would be the truth. Peterson is saying that there can/likely are so many other externalities that would factor into the suicide, so concluding it was caused by the cheating can be no more than "true enough". It's Sam who refuses to acknowledge any externalities to his very micro-specific examples that bogged down the discussion. I'm proud that JBP would not concede here (or at any point) because what I believe he has connected about truth and life is far more transcendent than what most of us have ever heard, so it's not surprising to me that *if* more or aligned to Sam Harris...but it doesn't matter...this is not a beauty contest.
Spot on, its a very weird definition of true and extremely unhelpful to start a conversation on that footing. The reason he wouldn't is it undermines his position that there are better truths that can be found in bible stories/mythology. He couldn't row back from this flawed starting position because it undermines his doctrine.
BEHAVE YOURSELF nn
Jane Doe, You're being intellectually dishonest, Peterson doesn't believe the only truths are moral truths, he has explained more than once, that he believes there is more than one truth.
As for Sam, he was being short sighted. He believes in more than one truth but is unconscious of it. Sam Harris wasted his own time, along with his viewers and Jordan's.
Thank you both for taking the time to inform, challenge, and entertain us with the podcast. Such a shame that the careful thought and mutual respect found in this exchange is so rare in today's discourse.
Nothing is better than two moral interlocutors having a principled disagreement. Thank you both!
I sincerely hope you and Mr. Harris continue to have thought provoking discussions in the future. You are both very respectful in your disagreements and have a true devotion to getting to the root of those disagreements. We need more thinkers like the two of you.
Thank God the podcast is out! Many thanks Mr. Peterson.
They'd be better off talking about something else.
Fenristripplex huh? What? Even a hung conversation provides value.
I found a lot of value in their conversation specifically because of the roadblock, but I think we could also garner a lot if they moved past it, maybe came back to it at another time. I don't want this one point to inhibit further conversation on other important topics.
Sam Harris has the openness of mind of Jerry Falwell. Smart cat, but his narcissism inoculates him against anything that challenges his mechanistic crypto-nihilism.
I love that this has hundreds of thousands of views in a matter of days. A sign our culture isn't totally dead yet.
I don't care what anybody says: the more you talk, Dr. Peterson, the better I like it!
These guys are having a conversation like adults. I hope the comments will be the same but I will probably be disappointed.
I would be interested in your thoughts on how I interpreted your discussion with Harris.
I think an example that tackles the crux of the issue between you and Harris would be the game of chess. In chess, there are certain guidelines that can help you reach your ultimate goal of winning the game, or to be more encompassing and taking draws into account, not getting checkmated (e.g. not dying in real life). Now, for those of you who know chess, you know that there is a value system to pieces (e.g. queen is worth 9 points, rook 5 points, etc.). This value system is meant to help you decide how to act, but it by no
means is the sufficient way you should approach the game. In a sense, from the Darwinian perspective, if we only focus on the points aspect of the game, we may still "die" because we are not taking everything into account and there are many cases where you are behind in points but will still be able to win the game.
Now in a certain way, it is a factual claim that queen is worth more than a rook, but the way we deal with this fact is entirely dependent upon the context of the game. Maybe it's a good idea to trade your queen for your opponent's rook, because your goal is beyond just saving your queen. To Harris, the difference between the queen and rook's value is separate from the main goal of the game, but to you, it's not, because it influences
the outcome.
So the scientific mind in a sense could be analogous to the objective value of pieces, let's say, but it is not sufficient because something bigger is at play that is much deeper and
at the end of the day, it's all about survival. And if one just limits themselves to the value of pieces and excludes the rest, then that could be fatal. So the "microexample", such as when you trade your rook for a queen (from a short term perspective that's a great move because queen is worth more) can lead to a failure in the "macroexample", such as when you lose the game in the end because you were tricked. So was that initial move "true" given the ultimate goal of the game? No. Because it led to your demise, even though at the microexample level it was great. In other words, it is true that queen is worth more than the rook, but it is not true ENOUGH to help you necessarily win the game.
But we could have a much easier conversation without using the word "true" to mean "good" or "correct" and thats what Sam Harris was saying.
donuteater Sam Harris's view of truth isn't true enough. That's the problem. If the ultimate goal is to survive and you play your chess pieces according to how valuable the pieces are but it still gets you checkmated. Was the way you played the game true in relation to the end goal, being to survive?
Faraz Honarvar
You didn't take the analogy far enough. At a certain level of play material points are weighted by positional advantage. Still one can describe objective elements that are positional advantage like a pass-pawn. A a somewhat higher level of play we speak of elegance. While it is possible there is some rational objective formula to describe elegant play no one has discovered it. All the same skilled players can recognize and agree when a play is elegant and it is more decisive for the outcome than either material or position.
Okay, but given the fact that no code has been created that ensures a 100% win rate, I can reasonably conclude that there is an element of chaos and "irrationality", for the lack of a better word, associated with chess.
My initial point was that some factual cases that have to be objective must exclude subjective cases. The piece value system fits perfectly here as an example of an objective statement excluding the subjective context of the game. And furthermore this objective case is not true ENOUGH for survival because of the complexity of the game. What is true ENOUGH is the ultimate goal of not getting checkmated for example, and although objective cases can be helpful in reaching that goal, they certainly could lead you astray and not be "true" depending on the subjective context.
And by value system it could simply be "queen is worth more than the rook". That's a factual claim that is not necessarily "true" if you want to take a pragmatic approach in chess.
Love the new intro! Consider adding a jingle or music or something.
You may yet end up with a channel people view with anticipation of new uploads.
Jordan B Peterson I hope the intro music will be piano; like in your podcast
Matthew Graystone raises the question: what music does Peterson bump
Wish the highlights stopped being blown out. There shouldn't be "white" hotspots on your face. The image is over exposed.
He already has a channel in which people wait in anticipation for new uploads. I'm waiting for the new "Personality" lecture; that's why I came here. Hopefully it's up tomorrow. :D
Hope to see you two in many more talks -- I appreciate how frustrating and hard it may be on you both, but you both have a lot of value to contribute and I hope to see you persist. Thank you to both of you.
In Mathematics, demonstrating that a solution to a problem exists is often very valuable information, even if we have no idea what the solution is. Similarly, Sam Harris' proposition on morality based on wellbeing doesn't rest upon a specific measurement of wellbeing or a particular belief system or philosophy.
Even without attempting an analytical, scientific solution to the very complex problem of morality, arguing for the existence of objective measures of wellbeing and their necessary impact on morality is a valuable framework. It serves to reject some forms of ideological relativism.
I would love to hear a discussion between Sam and yourself, I think it would be productive and enlightening if you get to understand each other's theoretical frameworks. Thank you Prof Peterson.
Jordan Peterson is a very honest intellectual and a very classy human being.
I didn't know Sam posted this convo. I know what I'm doing for the next two hours
Thank you and Sam Harris.
Sam is 1 patient man . fuck me it was torturous to listen to their discussion. Not trying to be funny but I'd say if he was asked _jordan b peterson is your name.. true or false_? he'd reply with something other than _true or false_. unbelievable
Is it just me, or is this channel growing really quickly?
You rite
You are my hero.
Jordan Peterson is a hero.
Dr. Peterson, a note for the production in these 'from the computer' videos. A single overhead light casts harsh shadows and produces reflections that can be unflattering and distracting to the viewer. If you have a desk lamp, try pointing it at the wall or roof near you and see how that changes things maybe.
The pursuit of knowledge & truth of this caliber needs to be in public schools. Being a highschool drop out listening to this reminds me how cheated i felt when i left. It's all memorization, busy work & inconclusive tests. the system i opted out from was not preparing me for the world at large or giving me a reason i should care outside my own affairs. I only wish to start again with men such as these at the front of my classroom challenging me to think & act bigger.
Mr. Peterson, I'm a 19-year-old Computer Science student trapped in the heart of social-mental-illness - UC Santa Cruz. You are my hero. I strive every day to one day be as articulate and erudite as you. The esoteric-but-invaluable knowledge I learn from you is the truly the least-wrong. Why is it so difficult for some to recognize Empiricism > Rationalism?
Good on you Jordan for keeping the debate open. Please respond Sam.
As far as resuming the conversation is concerned, it seems to me that the issue is whether it can proceed in the absence of an agreed upon definition of “truth”. Both Sam and Jordan seem to accept that it cannot. As a result, they have appealed to the audience to identify any deficiency in their respective understandings of each other’s position. The idea seems to be that if a deficiency can be identified, then one of them may be in a position to comprehend the veracity of their interlocutor’s argument. This would result in an agreement concerning the meaning of “truth”, and thus a pre-requisite for resuming the conversation will have been met.
I’m not going to weigh-in on either of their claims concerning the nature of truth. I don’t see the point. Resolving seemingly intractable epistemological “problems” is not a pre-requisite to having a conversation. Nobody has proffered an unassailable refutation of the Cartesian skeptic’s claim that our understanding of reality is an illusion. But that hasn’t stopped anyone from talking about the weather.
The conversation between Jordan and Sam may proceed in the absence of an ultimate definition of “truth”. In fact, it can proceed in absence of any definition of “truth.” We don’t need a definition of truth to have a conversation - including conversations that involve truth claims. People converse. And like me, they are ignorant of an ultimate definition “truth”. But the conversations they have are meaningful nonetheless. And those conversations probably always involve truth claims -implicit or explicit.
If this argument seems difficult to grasp, then you’re probably a philosopher. Everything I’ve said in support of my claim falls squarely within the scope of what a reasonable person would accept. It’s only when you re-situate the concept of “truth” in a lofty, philosophical context that it meaning becomes controversial. The expression “pass the salt” contains a number of implicit truth claims (e.g., that there is salt, that person to whom that expression is directed is capable of passing it, etc.). There is no controversy in deploying that expression, even though we might not have a deep, philosophical understanding of ‘truth’.
To be clear: I’m not saying that “truth” is meaningless because it may be deployed in the absence of a definition. I’m saying that not every concept requires a definition in order to be meaningful. If they did, then we’d need definitions for the concepts from which our definitions are comprised, and then we’d need definitions for those concepts…and so on.
It seems, then, that some concepts must grasped in absence of definition. We just might simply know what they mean. That knowledge might consist in the ability to do certain things with the word “truth” - to use it in certain ways.
I’m not saying that both Sam and Jordan are wrong about “truth”. I’m merely saying that there’s perfectly good, everyday understanding of “truth” that: (a) gets the job done, (b) isn’t freighted with philosophical baggage and (c) appears to be consistent with the claims of both parties. So, if both of them were to accept an everyday, pre-theoretical conception of truth, then perhaps they could defer determining the ultimate nature of truth and get to some of the other issues they intended to talk about.
I think Jordan might even agree with what I’m saying. I watched several of his interviews, and you’ve uttered claims like “words are tools”. This chimes with the idea that the meaning of a word may be the patterns associated with its use - as opposed to a definition. I suppose that’s what I’m getting at with respect to "truth". Both Jordan and Sam could use “truth” in accordance with the techniques for applying that term that all competent speakers of the English language have learned.
I really look forward this conversation resuming, if it ever does.
That's a very insightful and useful way of approaching things. I agree with it completely, and especially since the discussion got bogged down on a definition of truth, and words may actually be inadequate for that task...
That's a great comment Chris Ambas. Very logical and thorough. You should be a diplomat if you aren't already! More power to you sir.
The problem is Sam and most of the listeners know Peterson is not just defining truth in an abstract way and planning to continue conversing in a straghtforward manner like you show here. His intends to use this definition of truth to claim that Christianity is "true". When the definition has such a direct impact on the discussion, I think it does matter. Especially if some people get confused by the whole thing and end up thinking Peterson just really proved that religion is "true" in the standard sense of the word, when all he did was give it a different meaning that nobody uses, particularly not in normal conversations as you examplify.
Thoughtful comment. 👍
great video, I hope there is a follow up!
It was reassuring to see people can disagree without throwing tantrums.
Sam got the closest to the point when he suggested that "Truth" for Peterson is a conflation into one concept of the True, the Good, and (possibly) the Beautiful. "True" or "Truth" should absolutely not be used, in any English speaking culture, for the conception that Peterson is putting forth.
I deeply enjoy your work, Dr. Peterson, and I hope you're game for round 2, but I side with Sam Harris.
I have a hard time not seeing your argument as a bifurcation of the utility of truth from the correctness of truth. Even if you accept Hume's Is-Ought split, the "is" truth stands independently from, say, desires or goals.
I think part of petersons point is that we can never really attain correctness of truth.
Robert Roodhouse That was their fundamental disagreement originally. Sam was fixed on truth as fact, while Peterson was approaching truth as the philosophical ought. It was a failure of language or to correctly define terms that brought the conversation down.
So true, we only have approximation of truth.
Robert Roodhouse So you have such a hard time with Understanding what true truth is huh
The whole topic is something of a Rabbit hole. Both arguments are correct and complicated as I understand it. I may be wrong but I think JP is arguing that truths start as hypotheses and become 'truths' when tested and crossed referenced over time. Therefore, If you subscribe to the notion that the objective world is interpreted through human consciousness then 'truths' as a result are merely a construct of our subjective observations and always at the mercy of an 'apriori' belief system. Semantic issues are also at play (i.e an arrow flies straight and 'true') but there are deeper philosophical arguments involved also. I enjoyed the podcast and as much as I love Sam Harris I would have liked him to have probed JP more on the philosophy of his position rather than continually trying to discredit his argument with hypothetical situations about small pox.
I look forward to the sam harris discussion. The argument looks to be on a dramatic faultline of society's psyche.
It seems to me that Jordan is unnecessarily smuggling in the notion of usefulness to the definition of truth. Truth is that which conforms to objective reality whether it is useful or not. Truth should be the bedrock from where we can determine usefulness from. Certain truths may be dangerous but still should be known in order to avoid them. And it seems like he's willing to accept things that are false as long as they are useful, which probably explains his position on religion. Ultimately I think he is sacrificing well being on a grand scale for well-being on local levels. Sam Harris envisions a universe where human beings have a comprehensive understanding of fundamental truth, which would create a point from which we can maximize well-being. Maybe Jordan Peterson thinks that is an unrealistic vision and prefers to maximize well-being on local scales, even at the expense of what is true. But I think the cost of the baggage that comes with that is too high. Islam would be the example that I would use. 1.6 billion people believe something that cannot be verified as true. It may be very useful for certain people in that population but it is wreaking havoc on other people in the same populations and on the rest of the world. Right now most of the world organizes their lives on beliefs that are not true. And I don't understand how Jordan could argue that is useful given the degree of divisiveness and violent tribalism throughout history and in the present day. That said, humanity as a whole has been trending in what I would say a more moral direction that produces greater well-being for more people. And I would argue that there is a direct link between that trend and the trend of our understanding of what is true. We probably will never have a comprehensive understanding of truth. But in the big picture I would argue that the closer we are to that comprehensive understanding the better off we all will be. Lets learn what is true first. And then argue usefulness from there. Any argument about usefulness will be richer and more productive when we know what is true.
It seems to me that most of Jordans concern is for Bad actors, people with bad intentions knowing too many true things. But I would argue if those same people knew additional true things it would eliminate their bad intentions. Lets use Islamism again. A group of Islamists know true things about spreading the smallpox virus. This obviously would be very harmful. But let's scale up the amount of Truth the same people possess. If you scale it up enough they will no longer be Islamists and they would no longer be wanting to use their knowledge of smallpox for nefarious reasons. Because the expansion of their truth would eliminate a belief in Allah and the desire to establish a caliphate.
russell d
Dude. You have not watched Jordan Peterson's videos if you believe that. He has. Lot to say about religion. You would be wise take note. Believe me, he does not speak well of Jihadis. Islam is not useful if it comes at the cost of beheading live innocent people.
Islam might be true and useful, untrue and useful, true and useless, untrue and useless. The point is, these two are completely different concepts.
Great points and I will answer your central question about Peterson: it is because:
1. He started out with the idea of framing truth through Darwinism
2. He wants to frame religion as not scientifically true but true in a Darwinian sense
3. He hasn't fully thought those through because he isn't a philospoher
4. He overreached, got found out, didn't backtrack because he felt the pressure of his followers and Sam's huge following.
The final point is most damning. No doubt Sam and many people would ask me questions about my beliefs that I would have a hard time defending. The key point is being able to reset and reframe and row back from a position.
I would also add that using Islam as an example will divide people (although I fully agree), you are better off using Christianity because more people will nod in agreement without labeling you racist, bigoted etc. E.g how absurd is it that 'Thou shalt not wear condoms' is a Peterson truth because it brings Darwinian advantage!
Truth is not equivalent to scientific fact. Scientific facts are true on a scientific level of analysis, but there are different levels of analysis that are important. These cannot be addressed by science. That's JBP's main point, the scientific realists ignore different levels of analysis or go so far as to suggest that science can encompass all levels of analysis. Truth has been redefined in a restrictive manner nowadays, which is not productive. Scientific fact must not be true on the highest level of analysis, and hence truth cannot be used as a synonym for scientific fact as Harris seems to do. Throughout your comment you use the word truth in the sense of scientific truth in order to prove that truth can be nothing but scientific truth. It's circular reasoning really.
Beyond that we do not do science as you suggest. The bedrock of science is the concept of fallibility. We use scientific concepts not because they are true, but because they work according to our collective observations. We do NOT assume a degree of truthfulness to them because they predict outcomes and allow technological advancements; rather we consider them useful/instrumental in achieving outcomes (JBP would say "true enough" to make predictions or achieve advancements). Science really is a pragmatic exercise of effectiveness rather than an exercise that uncovers truth. Even if we theoretically arrive at the ultimate truth, we would not know, for the ultimate truth is indistinguishable in nature from the infinite falsehoods that surround it. This is the central problem discussed in metaphysics really.
Sam Harris is an ideologue in his view of the world. He has oversimplified it to a degree that what he envisions does not reflect reality. Your criticism of Peterson is unwarranted in that sense, he is discounting a utopian fantasy and not a realistic view of reality.
JBP has a very different view of religion from you and religious fundamentalists. You're as good as religious fundamentalists if you read religion as a doctrine that makes claims in the scientific realm.
In the end you misunderstand his views because you do not know his premises of human existence/nature.
russell d But people like Peterson and cognitive scientists like Donald Hoffman say that evolution has selected our ability to see reality.
If reality is x, we only see a function on it f(x). So for us that function f(x) is the only fathomable truth.
Class act sir. Your outro gives me faith in the capability of human interaction. I look forward to round #2. Thanks for all you do Professor Peterson.
Thank you Mr. Peterson, and this is the clear difference between true light, and everything else that which purports to be it.
Definitely glad these two are talking. We need this.
Sam Harris continues to have trouble entertaining anything without first establishing that he is 'right'
Here is an extract from a post he wrote addressing his conversation with Peterson
"But I feared that if we moved on to discuss the validity of religious faith, the power of myth, the reality of Jungian archetypes, or any of the more ethereal topics for which Peterson has become a celebrated exponent, without first agreeing on how sane and reasonable people can differentiate fact from fantasy, we were doomed to talk past each other with every sentence."
He basically admits he couldn't move on with the conversation until Peterson first denied his own worldview/philosophy and agreed with Sam's. By referring to what Peterson has spent his life studying as 'fantasy' as opposed to psychology, theology, mythology etc, he reveals his own inability to expand his mind even if only hypothetically. Even worse he unnecessarily brings the question of sanity into the mix. Unfortunately it is with this same condescension that many of the Harris acolytes have taken to twitter and elsewhere to brand Professor Peterson as a 'loony'. What a shame that this was the result instead of an enlightening conversation that gave equal weight to both points of view. They could have easily discussed a wide range of issues but Sam wouldn't let the conversation develop
Pickle
I am also curious as to how Harris cannot grasp what Peterson is saying regarding "Truth". I think that the reason may indeed be due to Sam Harris own personal bias and hatred for organized religion. Although Peterson wasn't arguing for religious ideology or old dogmas in any sense, Harris and his groupies seemed to keep harping on this as the issue. However, in his own life, Harris left Stanford University and traveled to India where he learned about Buddhism and Hindu religions. He even praised Advaita Vedanta and Dzogchen, as "they contain empirical insights about the nature of consciousness that do not depend upon faith."
If Harris was to study this and praise these philosophy's outlook on human spirituality and "truth" he would have known and supported what they also believe to he true, don't you think?
Well, the term Advaita refers to its idea that the soul (true Self, Atman) is the highest metaphysical Reality. According to Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is the highest Reality, or eternal truth. That which is unborn and unchanging, and "not sublatable". It cannot be superseded by a still higher reality.
Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are ever-changing and therefore "maya". But, "Brahman" is Paramarthika Satyam, "Absolute Truth", and the true Self, and this is the only Reality, since It is untinged by difference, the mark of ignorance, and since It is the one thing that is not sublatable.
In Advaita, Brahman is the substrate and cause of all changes. Brahman is considered to be the material cause and the efficient cause of all that exists. Brahman is the "primordial reality that creates, maintains and withdraws within it the universe." It is the "creative principle which lies realized in the whole world".
So, considering that Sam Harris himself has deeply studied Advaita Vedanta philosophy, and supported it himself, why would he be so insistent on his definitive version of "Truth" which he could only relate to what was relatively true regarding the micro-level of empirical facts and scientific evidence?
It seems to me that Sam Harris was almost being willfully deceptive in the debate, for whatever reason, or he was just ascribing to a view of ideological scientism to appeal to his own fanbase, one which is aligned with his political beliefs as well, and doing so rather adamantly only in order to discredit Dr. Jordan Peterson. Possibly doing so since Dr. Peterson is currently making a lot of waves in that sphere of human thinking
Sam was just trying to lay down the rules of the game, bruh. JP was basically setting things up so that he could avoid the factual questions Sam would throw at him. He is trying to replace the meaning of "truth" so that he doesn't need to answer to facts.
"Sam was just trying to lay down the rules of the game" - Why should Peterson have agreed to those specific rules given that he believes they are insufficient? that is the question.
I think you guys got it the wrong way around, Harris is basically objecting to Peterson's equivocation on the word "truth" with very similar reasons to those with which Peterson is objecting to postmodern language. Harris wasn't demanding Peterson adapt his philosophy, he was just saying that the language has to be precise so we don't muddle up our concepts and get into a chaotic mess - that should've resonated with Peterson.
Fully agree with Pickle
It is my opinion that sam harris cannot accept alternative viewpoints in congruence with his own framework. While he axiomatically accepts that he COULD be wrong about things, he does not in practice allow for the premises to exist in theory that allow this falsifiable ability to be contested in abstract.
Dear professor, that brought tears to my eyes. I've been very grateful to you and Sam Harris for some time for allowing me to listen in on your thoughtful discussions. Both of you engage in open, honest explorations of incredibly important topics. I can't imagine any two people better suited to bring new understanding to light. I'd like to see you two spend a month in a cabin in the woods someplace and publish the conversations that result. :-)
Hi Dr. Peterson,
I recently purchased the self-authoring program. It has been wonderfully helpful. Thank you for all you do.
Why is the relationship between ethics and scientific realism necessarily one in which one is nested in the other? Why is it not the case that they merely overlap (or possibly disjoint)?
That’s a really good question
I'm probably wrong, but could it be that for something to be 'real' or 'true' it will eventually have to be nested in scientific realism. And if it can't be nested that means that scientific realism isn't the final level of analysis, at least for the ethics domain.
Mr. Brayanus as for modern science is concerned, the objective “truth” in indefinitely nested in the scientific realism. Until we find something more, that is the case to be held. Funny thing is even if do find something more, it will grow out of the scientific realism in my opinion.
Because we have to rank things in order to make decisions when things contradict. Petersons argues this point with constant references to hierarchies, rooted in darwinism (biology and history). But my first sentence stated is evidently true anyway (i think) just often not realised.
I don't get why Sam is so concerned this truth business. I think the argument is simply whether the definition of truth is JUST factual alone, or if it also includes something greater. Peterson's definition of truth is consistent with religious/faith based definitions of truth, with addition of science as a fact checker to update truth as we move forward through time (a competing hierarchy); while Sam is simply arguing truth is only what can be proven.
For example in Sam's world the idea that 'All men are created equal' is not a truth but just an opinion, however in Jordan's world it is a Truth. Both fair points but in my own opinion one definition is definitely more helpful. And it's not like it's a crazy discussion, people have been arguing over the definition of truth forever.
Dr. Peterson: I respect and follow both you & Sam Harris. I watched the discussion that you reference in this video. I suggest there is nothing for the two of you to discuss further. You believe that facts are dependent on morality. He believes there are facts independent of any other variable. In the scientific world, in the world of mathematics, facts exist independent of morality, subjective appreciation or understanding, or of outcome or intent. I believe your desire to reject facts or truth outside of a moral (and Darwinian) construct is based on your religious beliefs and fear for the future of mankind given the polarization of societies, totalitarianism of the left as expressed in the battle over pronouns with which you are engaged, and your belief that we (Mankind) are headed toward armageddon have colored your views about "facts" and "truth" (which is understandable). I am of the opinion that Sam is correct. If you can't establish a base that agrees upon an understanding of basic facts and truths known to science, or the scientific method as a way to revel these truths, then there is no basis for future discussions.
I agree with you sir but i also agree with Jordan about the pronouns law, i am a liberal but universities are going too far.
I disagree completely. I think they got caught up in an unnecessary dispute that can only be untangle by debating the tangential subjects. Peterson tried to do this several times and Harris refused stubbornly.
Having said that, I disagree with Peterson on his appreciation of why this happened and would recommend him to put more enfasis on an non dual view of truth. I believe he said a couple times, but not enough because is extremely important: in what he calls Darwinian mindframe, something is not necessarily either true or false, it has degrees depending on how proper it is. So if our knowledge of physics cause us to all die, it not that it was false, but that it was not true enough. It is not based on fear, thou he came to it by the horrors of the 20th century, it's based on a criticism of materialism.
This has little to no effect in the most important discussion they should be having, which the subject of this video and revolves around morality and science. The reason for this is that Peterson doesn't deny the material utility of the scientific descriptions, so he doesn't deny them a certain degree of being proper; he just questions their metaphysical utility, so they lack in some way, thus not being proper truths.
I feel like you got the names mixed up. Specifically, what are the examples of tangential subjects where JP tried to untangle the dispute?
No, I didn't. He tried at least twice to move on into ethics and science, which is the main subjects most of their listeners wanted them to talk about. Harris, pulled him back, he even recognizes it himself: "But I feared that if we moved on to discuss the validity of religious faith, the power of myth, the reality of Jungian archetypes, or any of the more ethereal topics for which Peterson has become a celebrated
exponent, without first agreeing on how sane and reasonable people can differentiate fact from fantasy, we were doomed to talk past each other with every sentence."
Is that logic I don't agree with at all. Not only because you can only understand Peterson arguments by diving into the other subjects; and that the hard duality fact-fantasy Harris states in that argument is unnecessary and unproductive; but mainly because it's just not right, people have conversations all the time despite differences in definitions of specific words.
If it is unnecessary and unproductive, then JP should have been able to clearly demonstrate how the duality of fact or fiction was irrelevant and why the resolution of this duality is best determined at the moment of survival or death.
How does this have 30 thousand more views than the video it is supposed to be a response to?
I daresay the overly positive mood of the comments here towards Peterson can be explained this way.
I guess those numbers correspond with the total mass of listeners who choose to savour Sam´s podcast in other than youtube-video-form (podcasting app, mp3). Which is actualy much larger than the viewership in here might suggest. P.S.: generaly "positive mood" around this chatty-section towards Jordan is a soothing cherry on top .. :)
Fair point.
How is it soothing in your opinion?
Well .. in a "tasty" way? (continuing with my cherry idiom:). It is cosy feeling, when positive/constructive/smart comments (for a change) outweights their poorly thought-out/acid-filled "counterparts".
Also I don't think you get a view if people don't watch a certain percentage of it. Most people would have given up, it was just the same argument for 2 hours!
Exit Humanity Ya I'd say either Harris lacks imagination, or refuses to integrate it into his thinking. Possibly correlating imagination to theism, so he just refuses to go there or entertain the possibility.
I grew up into adulthood in the era of Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens, and Harris. With the beloved Hitchen's gone, a massive void exists in the domain of inquiry and discourse he once filled. Dr. Peterson is the only intellectual since, who captures my attention in a similar way. Brilliant.
I appreciate this video because we are inundated with people flaming others when they disagree. A disgusting past time that causes frustration, concern and solves nothing. It's a pattern humans need to break so I'm grateful when I can watch and learn how it should actually be done. Anyway, wonderful leadership Dr. Peterson, I am sure Sam will respond in kind and I will stay tuned!
I think Sam checkmated Jordan and wouldn't move forward because I think he knew he would loose . I guess you have too see the world as world as constantly evolving and with that truth can change on a micro level but on a macro level is what Jordan wanted to discuss . Sam refused to and it was frustrating because I think Jordan has some real truth and value into what he is saying and its arrogant and ego filled for Sam to behave that way. In my opinion
Sam Colville then it wasn't a checkmate.
James Madden for lack of a better word I guess. But no he wasn't checkmated.
A total checkmate.. Jordan's response: "I don't like the (valid) micro examples you've presented" instead of rowing back when he saw the flaws in his position he became increasingly defensive, his pitch increased, sentences more hostile and left Harris no choice but to end the conversation.
how sneaky of you to put the word (valid) in there, lol. I think Harris' examples were very artificial and constructed to undermine (not falsify) petersons arguments.
You can't escape your own framing of the world, and this the point that Jordan makes - human-ness is the limiting factor in our pursuit of absolute truth and it cannot be otherwise because we cannot be something that we are not. It's a very logical claim, common to Continental philosophy since Kant. Logic as evolutionary, dialectical, was the major "discovery" of Hegel. Appealing to das ding an sich, as Harris constantly does, is way way outdated.
Jordan, I think I understand what you're getting at. I'd usually strongly support Sam's definition of truth as "whatever fact is technically correct". If I understand correctly, the definition of truth you're trying to convey is more like "whatever facts are technically correct seen within the wider context of knowledge AND beneficial to the continued evolution of our species".
In that case, instead of trying to replace the commonly held definition of truth, maybe you should instead coin your own term that contrasts your expanded idea of truth against the commonly accepted one. You could call your expanded definition something like "higher truth", as opposed to those facts that are technically correct but the wider implications are not yet known and are therefore deadly to the human race, which you could term "lower truths".
Just my idea on how to resolve the confusion. Huge fan of your work.
I think the word "useful" is closer than "truth". Also it's completely arbitrary to pick the survival of a species. Why not individual? Why not a gene? Why not a nation? Why not the planet? Why not aliens? Why not consciousness in general?
Nazis would have loved to define truth to mean "claims, which benefit the survival of the pure race". That wouldn't have muddied the debates at all.
His idea of Truth which, as he said in his first conversation with Sam Harris, he took from Nietzsche is upright Utility (in this case for Life) and that's that! And Utility is indeed a very important and pretty much fundamental concept, but it's NOT the real Truth: "correspondence of one's picture of Reality to Reality".
And if he mixes Truth and Utility then how can we even trust him? I'm actually pretty sure that he means well for the Mankind and each human individually but he might be wrong in important things, so it's not very nice that he has views on Truth which allow him to lie and still kinda stay on a ”truthful way”, if he thinks that this particular lie is Useful to Life or whatever.
facts that are technically correct but the wider implications are not yet known and are therefore deadly to the human race,
A fact can be deadly, or beneficial, depends on how you use it.
I do not agree with the categorising it as "lower truth", implying that it is something less or negative than Peterson's definition.
I think 'Empirical truth' and 'Pragmatic truth' would work.
Cant wait for the second time you get on the podcast. Just please stop trying to come to consensus, it doesn't have to exist. Better that you talk about your ideas like about belief, religion, mythology, depth psychology, etc....
I was happy to hear a conversation about a word. The definition of a word. Truth. An important word.
Expecting to find the answer to the question "what is true?" given that its been the central question in all of philosophy since as long as there are records in two hours is foolhardy. However what we were treated to in Sam Harris' podcast was two of the most well studied minds on the question discussing it. There's a difference between saying "Answer me this question" and "Consider this question". Jordan, Thank you again for a wonderful discussion.
I think primary problem of Mr. Peterson is that he is anthropocentric, while Sam has given less anthropocentric view of the problems. Their discussion about objective (scientific) true/facts was loss of time as certainly Sam was right... science is describing objective facts using primarily mathematics and independent measurements (human independent). Mr. Peterson should admit the fact that humans were not here most of the history of the universe and they will not be here in the form as we are now in the future of the universe....That is almost certainty... I think this anthropocentric view of Peterson was the main obstacle for Peterson to get the point of Sam. Anthropocentric view of the universe is long gone......
Exactly! There were truths about the universe long before the first conscious human existed.
Petr Skokan , true, that is the key word here, anthropocentric. But it needs to be said that for the first few billion years in the universe there was basically just hydrogen atoms and some traces of helium and lithium. It took the lifetimes of 2-3 supernova-capable stars to first create all the key chemical elements that are important for life. Having said that, it becomes clear that we can more or less neglect the first 7-10 billion years of the universe since even simple lifeformes wouldnt have existed back then. If this reasoning makes sense to you imagine we now extend this to evolution. Of the 3 billion years or so that life exists on this planet, how many millions can we again neglect since we first need complex brain functions capable of high cognitive functions and selfreflection before we can even have AN ACTIVE OBSERVER in this previously "ghost-less" or "soul-less" universe? .. sigh ... I dont even know where I'm going with this... I'm too tired... have a good night everybody.
"Mr. Peterson is [...] anthropocentric"
No shit, Sherlock. He is a clinical psychologist.
If he had explained it as a perspective that one can take, it would have been much easier to accept. I think that Sam Harris was more hesitant of letting go of his definition of truth than of accepting Peterson's definition. In his lectures, Peterson seems to switch between the two perspectives but in his discussion with Harris, he seemed to demand that only one perspective should be used.
What of observable cases of mutual aid?
I've been a Sam Harris fan for quite some time now. I'm glad that you have come into my radar now, I deeply respect your work regarding free speech in Canada. Even though I disagree with your definition of truth, I enjoyed the podcast and hope you will have a part two.
I haven't heard the exchange, but I expect we have a psychologist and logical positivist talking past one another
Great example of masculine disagreeableness I've seen. Loved that podcast. Learned a lot!
I don't have the english fluency to use elaborate expressions of what I got out of this, but, as simple as I can put it, Dr. Peterson seems to be too focused on the surreal and metaphysical idea of truth, whereas Dr. Harris is clearly always talking about truth being found through scientific fact.
In the end, it's kind of like belief versus empirical science.
I'd definitely like to see you two have a second conversation. There's obviously a lot of possible ground that was left uncovered because you were stuck on the definition of truth. For productivity's sake you might do best to leave the question entirely and move on accepting the problems that will come from leaving it.
Is it just me or was the problem of the interaction primarily a semantic one?
Don't try to win the argument within semantics. Use the words in a mutually agreed fashion and move on from there.
In this regard, I'm sorry to say, I perceived Mr. Peterson to be out of bounds. Which is a shame because I saw tremendous potential in a meeting of those two minds, both of which I respect greatly :/
Good comment. Why doesn't JP just make up a new term for his definition of "truth"? They could have had a good conversation.
The most likely conclusion is that Jordan is too attached to being able to say that his religious beliefs are true (according to a non-standard definition of truth) to agree to use the standard definition of truth that does not include his religious beliefs.
They had different definitions of the word truth, and therefore they could just talk past each others into infinity.
Its much more complex then that. I believe it needs more and more logical reasoning to prove each point because both ideologies are based on hypothetical reasoning and judgment and not on actual history chain.
One is grounded in Reality and other is embedded in Beliefs, yeah. Hypothetical but yeah.
No, Mr. Peterson. The "truth" cannot be defined subjectively upon the whims and feelings of an individual or a group. It is absolute. Otherwise, you contradict your own Pronoun movement as that too is nothing but a subjective definition of ones identity as opposed to their true identity.
Atlashon Peterson s idea of truth is completely subjective also, neither religion or science can lead to objective 'ultimate' truth. The acceptance of this fact makes us view truth a bit more practically and a bit less philosophically, if an ideology comes about one day that can actually demonstrate objectives truth then by all means it should be valued and adhered to but until then every observation of this universe is a subjective one.
Atlashon That's Dr. Petersen. He didn't spend 10 years in Truth Medical School to be called mister
Chris P If you spend 10 years in school for a title you should re-evaluate your life choices. Pretty sure Peterson cared more about the knowledge he acquired than some ego massaging title. Get the fuck out of here with your petty shit
"archetypal hero"? What is the relevance to "truth" here? Such a hero is nothing more than a walking assemblage of passing cultural attributes at best, a caricature at worst.
+Yevgeney Simkin, yes, he is offering an ordering principle for ethical behaviour which (in his view) coheres with a "scientific" method. One which influences the behaviour of the individual - family - society. So he turned to psycholigisms. But so called archetypes aren't the primordial figures that psychologist witch doctors want them to be. Peterson too is wrong to rely upon pseudo scientisms like psychology, Piaget especially. An archetype carries no more truth for ethical behaviour than does a celebrity. Both are constructs of cultural standards. Just that the archetype is older, and some like to drape it in mystical attire and then squeeze it into alien scientific method...wrecking both!
I admire both of you greatly I'm still absorbing your conversation. I wonder how much of your lectures Sam has watched. I believe this would really help him to see where you coming from. I suspect he hasn't watched too much.
I really hope you both keep this conversation up. I believe it's very important and now more than ever....
Both of you should go on JRE at the same time would be an insane 3 way conversation because joe is very skilled at seeing things from many sides at once and might help to lubricate the conversation or even provide a third point to the brainstorm.
I've now listened to half the Sam Harris podcast, and I honestly think you and Mr. Harris are actually in agreement, EXCEPT you are trying to redefine the word "truth" as it's commonly understood. Having watched many of your videos and read some of your Maps of Meaning book, I feel I'm getting an understanding of your ideas, and I DON'T think your attempt to redefine "truth" is helpful at all. NOR do I think your abandoning it would in any way topple your great mountain of philosophical work. It would simply require you use different language. An easy solution to a glaring problem. Call it "useful truth" or "healthy truth" or "helpful truth" instead of truth and all of your examples and ideas hold up.
You're in the chaos a bit now Mr. Peterson, and I think rightfully so. Fear of total annihilation may tempt you to cling fast to the outdated model you held (the tyrannical masculine culture), but if you bravely face the unknown, you may find the dragon beatable, and come out a hero. You may be on the precipice. Proving your humility and bravery by admitting your fault, amending your language, and coming back to Mr. Harris with a renewed argument that is uncluttered by linguistic games, you may provide a much-sought-after glimpse of the relationship between "is" and "ought" that the rationalist world has been desperately waiting for.
So I hope Mr. Harris invites you back to the show, but not right away. Not until you can fully answer this question of "truth" in a way people can much more easily comprehend, which may require a lot of writing and introspection on your part, since you seem to hold so dear a connection to this idea. I think it's far less axiomatic to your larger body of philosophy than you seem to think.
It doesn't get any harder than Peterson is equivocating on the meaning of "truth." I note throughout the discussion the consistent use of words like "scientific truth", "moral truth", etc., which simply combine the concepts of "science" and "morality" with a separate and agnostic concept (truth) in order to convey different ideas. This is fundamental and makes an argument clear.
However, what Peterson does is conflate "truth" with "moral truth". This is needlessly confusing (and, as it turns out, logically false). Once "truth" is redefined to mean "moral truth," the concept of being "scientifically true" becomes meaningless because it can be made paradoxical (e.g., our understanding of smallpox is true and it results in the destruction of all humanity).
Harris intuitively got this and even commented on their mutual need to substitute words like "correct" and "accurate" for "true" in Peterson's framework.
Consider it logically:
A = Truth
B = Morality
C = Science
As concepts:
Moral Truth = AB
Scientific Truth = AC
To say Truth = Moral Truth is the same as saying A = AB, which by extension means Scientific Truth = (AB)C.
Consequently, it is not possible for Peterson to agree that something can be scientifically true, but untrue in terms of the greater moral truth / ultimate truth (viz., our understanding of smallpox is scientifically true but humanity gets wiped out).
This, to me, is a brilliant explanation. Very well done! Thank you!
excellent comment.
daddy like
I enjoyed the discussion. I felt myself going back and forth on Sam's and Dr. Peterson's points. I felt Sam Harris would shut Dr. Peterson's analogies down prematurely. I hope they continue the discussion and get to much deeper points/topics. Overall I am happy that these two minds were able to meet!
I still don't understand why Peterson kept demanding that truth could not be separated from the outcome of knowing that truth. Peterson kept using the phrase "not true enough" with Harris, that's suspiciously subjective. Peterson should admit that a piece of information can be true even if knowing that information is detrimental. Harris gave numerous examples of this and Peterson could not sufficiently define his own position. "thinking in patterns" is no excuse.
I felt both sides made good points, but I was kind of disappointed by the examples Sam insisted on using. The shooter/hostage one in particular. He basically said that knowing the correct sequence of numbers was what got you killed because the shooter believed an incorrect sequence, but to me, it makes more sense to say that you died for *not* knowing the sequence the shooter wanted to hear. Not only is that a more comprehensive worldview (Since you get to know the sequence and not die) but it actually increases your odds of survival (Since even if you didn't give the correct answer, there's still a chance you'd just give a different answer that was equally wrong in the shooter's eyes).
Now you could get even more arbitrary, and imagine a future where mind reading technology is possible, and simply the act of believing something to be true without expressing it is enough to get you killed by some dictator. That seems to create a paradox that's much harder to resolve, but it's similar to the affair scenario where you could say that the knowledge itself wasn't what killed you, but the beliefs that lead up to that scenario to begin with. The objection Sam made to that point was that meant you never actually got to find out if something was true or not unless you died. The problem is I'm struggling to think of a scenario where that's ever relevant, and I can think of plenty where Sam's definition is simply a hindrance. In pretty much every complex domain there's 'rules of thumb.' As in rules that aren't strictly true at the professional level but are true enough that a beginner should follow them until they're competent enough to spot the exceptions. By Sam's definition, we should be teaching the beginners all those exceptions before they're even able to identify them and at a time where it'll cause more harm than good, else we'll be lying to them. All that's going to do is result in a bunch of extremely overloaded students and extremely frustrated mentors. Without meaning any disrespect to Sam, I think this is what people mean when they say 'you're not wrong, you're just an asshole.'
Yeah, it was like Sam tried to pigeon-hole Jordan, instead of going on a quest with him, interested to learn what a man who has studied totalitarianism for 40 years has to offer. Maybe they should have talked about Pepe The Frog instead, lol
Very intriguing, you and Sam have incredibly interesting minds.
it seems like Jordan is after absolute truth, beyond capacity for humans to truly know, and Sam is defining truth as absolute KNOWABLE truth. that is the distinction it appears to me. Jordan is suggesting truth goes beyond the most fundamental physical and metaphysical concepts: like, why it would exist in the first place? why physical reality exists at all? Sam is searching for the truth within physical reality, where Jordan admits that there must be a cause to physical reality that exists as yet another deeper layer of truth. and down the rabbit hole we go.. but really, but are smart men, i wonder is they have read anything by rick straussman, albert hoffmann, or the McKennas, or better even yet, experienced what they have written about.
i know Jordan discusses huxley in high esteem, and i think Sam wrote about Terrence McKenna I think in Waking Up.
His idea of Truth which, as he said in his first conversation with Sam Harris, he took from Nietzsche is upright Utility (in this case for Life) and that's that! And Utility is indeed a very important and pretty much fundamental concept, but it's NOT the real Truth: "correspondence of one's picture of Reality to Reality".
And if he mixes Truth and Utility then how can we even trust him? I'm actually pretty sure that he means well for the Mankind and each human individually but he might be wrong in important things, so it's not very nice that he has views on Truth which allow him to lie and still kinda stay on a ”truthful way”, if he thinks that this particular lie is Useful to Life or whatever.
I've thought about taking acid but I was able to understand Jordan Peterson's point of view with the help of another video in response to this first discussion between JBP and Sam without taking acid and my mind feels expanded and more open because of it. I highly recommend watching this video if you didn't understand Jordan Peterson's theory of truth. It is arguably more complex and difficult to understand because we are told all the time that we can discover an objective truth outside of our perceptions and consciousness, whereas Jordan takes reality as an assumption based on our consciousness which makes it impossible to prove whether anything exists outside of our consciousness. Therefore the only thing that we can be sure of is the plans of action that our consciousness can dream up and whether or not they succeed in achieving an ethical standard
I think if I ever take LSD I would only do it once and I might think about microdosing but I think the experience of it should be like a reorientation from a stagnant perception of the world. That's what it seems like to me. What do you think?
Peterson only claims that he's after some absolute metaphysical truth but really he just uses that idea to discredit truth in the objective sense and then defines his own truth (the "darwinian" truth: based on what leads to survival) and shifts to that one as if *that's* the absolute metaphysical truth. The problem is that new definition of truth is also based on a framework (the darwinian context, itself a subcontext within the physical one), which means it's not absolute, and it's also not any better than the scientific truth and frankly just confusing more than anything.
The reason he does that shift in definition is so he can say religions are "true", and possibly confuse you along the way in thinking he's proven religions true in te absolute "better than scientific" sense, when again he never actually makes any use of any absolute truth, just a darwinien truth.
Mr. Peterson, as an avid viewer of Sam Harris' material I wanted to say that I loved your conversation over the definition of Truth. I found your position fascinating and I am very interested in your perspective of how science and ethics must co-exist.
Thank you for the podcast, and this civil, good-faith effort to further an important conversation.
I welcome your efforts Mr Peterson. I know it is not much help, but if it is in any way, know that I pray that you and your family prosper and live a good life. Your pursuit of truth is truly humbling and sometimes it's lost on many that you are merely a man with all the suffering and hardship that entails.
Please look after yourself as you needed to look after the collective mind from the darknesses of the past.
"CHAOS THEORY" ...Sam says you can have "truth" in a closed system. Jordan agrees, but Jordan's point is that there is NEVER such a thing as a closed system and so there is NEVER actually such a thing as "real" truth, especially in our universe which is governed by the uncertainty principle.
Sam keeps saying "you have to be able to say...." Jordan says "Why"? Sam is acting like the religious person who wants to know absolutes. Jordan is acting like the scientist by knowing we can not know. Sam is apparently not familiar with "Chaos theory" and is trying to draw lines where lines cannot be drawn. I'm sure Sam is familiar with Chaos theory and that he accepts it, so I'm confused about why he can't understand Jordan's point.
I think Jordan is less arrogant than Sam in this discussion. Sam is almost patronizing at times, and Jordan does not retaliate against this.
Sam's career rests on it that's why!
Or at least he feels like it does, which he shouldn't as if he let himself into it they could get somewhere amazing!
Great comment. It makes a lot of sense what you say from a closed vs. open system point of view. Didn't think about it in this way before.
Excellent awareness of the conversation I agree. In Professor Dr Peterson’s case he is confident because he is much more educated. Why he waste so much time with conversations with those completely out of his league is intolerable. Let them take a few classes first and they pay for his time. It’s hard to listen to Harris’s inability to understand and even articulate.
uwotm8s I am aware of his published degrees, regardless it’s obvious he is lost and way out of his league. I was also making a point that Dr Peterson has 20+ years in education as a Professor. Would you like me to edit it to say “ in the Professor; Dr Jordan Peterson’s case?
The conversation between the two was difficult to listen to. They seemed to be both caught in a maze of abstraction. It makes sense to me that "truth" can have very different metaphysical underpinnings between two people, and I think Sam Harris has a moral imperative to respect that difference between him and a guest he invited on to his show. Sam had a very patronizing tone throughout the entire podcast, and seems to be doing exactly what Peterson describes as attempting to elevate himself to a higher moral plateau by attempting to objectively dissect Peterson's subjective meaning of truth.
Sam, I feel it's important to adopt an agree to disagree stance on issues like this going forward. It's really fatiguing for the listeners. Your goal in so many of your conversations seems to be a "my view is right, your view is wrong, and there is no way we can move forward with our fundamental differences between us."
It's important to be mature and move on, especially when your moderating a podcast, and especially in conversations that were bound to be dealing with abstraction before you even started the conversation. You knew exactly what you were getting into inviting Jordan onto your podcast.
Kokainuser In one of Peterson's other lectures he makes the point of something along the lines of intellectual "truths" being relative in all cases because of the vast majority of things we do not know about. So something that we can dogmatically understand to be objectively "true", could in turn be very relative to the ideological lens we are operating under, I.e. Science as a dictator of what's "true".
Either way, great to hear two intellectual Goliath's rapdancing with each other. Fun times. Seems that the smallest differences with two similar people can create huge divides between them.
I am incredibly grateful to Sam Harris inadvertently turning me on to your work. I found myself arguing aloud with Harris during your talk, only to hear you echo my thoughts with your reply´s. This is a wonderful gift. I really look forward to delving deeper and deeper into your work. Its a pity Sam Harris wont allow himself to understand or entertain Carl Jung, Joseph Campell or even Ken Wilber ( I caught you ´goodness, truth and beauty" quote in the podcast. ) It would shift him beyond the limit of his own castle walls. I hope you do a part 2 and 3 podcast.
Both Sam Harris and Professor Peterson are brilliant thinkers and so essential in our present time, it would be wasted for them to argue over problems they are both well equipped to understand and teach, and they aren't arguing obviously. I find myself in more agreement with Peterson, his noticeably caring, genuine manner and intellectual honesty as well as morality is a breath of fresh air. I just wish there was more people like him.
You Mr Peterson and Sam Harris are two of the classiest guys around. I was not disappointed because you both showed not just skill but also patience and one can see that you are both trying to approach a better understanding of reality, even while not agreeing on some fundamentals of what that reality is. We need more of that! We need more of that class. Thank you very much for helping so many people understand life a little better. Same thanks to Sam.
Jordan: "I don't think that facts are necessarily true. If scientific facts, even if they're true from within the domain they were generated, I don't think that that necessarily makes them true _haha_ (thinking he's onto something there). *And I know that I'm gerrymandering (he really just means changing and was looking for a fancy word) the definition of truth, but (much rather **_and_** not but) doing that on purpose, because **_I'm trying to_** nest truth within the darwinian frame of which I think is a moral framework* (i.e. "I want the word truth to mean something else).
He _admitted_ that _he's trying_ to change the meaning of the word truth. That means he _acknowledges_ that that's not what it means. He does this multiple times throughout the conversation, so he's aware of the position Sam is placing him at _and_ agrees with it, but keeps babbling on about how the meaning of truth should be different, because morals are more important than knowledge.
The only reason I can imagine him or really anybody say that is religious indoctrination (this is exactly what the vast majority of religious apologists excel at). He lost the argument without any doubt there, because even if that is what he wants the word to mean for whatever reason, it's not what it means.
You're guilty of what you're arguing against Jordan. You want to redefine words so they fit your world view and this is exactly why Sam didn't let you off the hook. You _cannot_ do that and still call yourself intellectually honest, because you _need_ to be aware that using the same words as others and imprinting a different meaning on it will _necessarily_ make it _impossible_ for anybody who hasn't read multiple of your books to even _remotely_ understand what you're getting at.
Why can't you just call certain truths dangerous (like Sam) for the time being and then make a case with that? Why is that so hard for you to do that you just cannot stray away for a single second from the authoritarian idea that the term truth _must_ be redefined? Are you doing it for emphasis? Well that isn't going to help you when a vast majority of people (especially those you see in the danger zone) have no idea what you're talking about, because you're using the same word but think about something else.
You're overcomplicating things for absolutely no reason, because you can _totally_ formulate a coherent sentence that puts emphasis on moral values over scientific knowledge _without_ having to change the meaning of words.
This conversation was actually immensely revealing to me. I thought you were an intellectually honest coherent person, but apparently I was wrong. I do have some hope that in the next conversation (if it happens) you somehow get yourself to admit that your idea isn't based on rationality, but emotion (fear).
nope you're wrong cuz u have no idea of what ure talking about
Feuerbringer Exactly. And Peterson is a sexist full of sterotyped, evolutionary psych pseudo-science debunked over and over due to dudes like Peterson anthropomorphizing animal behavior. It's Jungian projection 101. Peterson PROJECTS his psychology and values ON TO the external world. He would do better to go live in a monastery in the hills somewhere, preferably never coming back, to deprogram the archetypes and myths he has clearly never fully explored knocking around in his item subconscious.
Mihaly, because if someone operates from the framework where they reject the notion of objective reality, it reveals an underlying fundamental irrationality, which you see in nearly all religious people, and makes it difficult to really consider their other points seriously.
I'm sorry but it is nothing but ignorant to quote Dr Peterson saying "even if they're true from within the domain they were generated, I don't think that that necessarily makes them true " and literally a few sentences later state that somehow you have shown he agrees with the position Sam is attempting to place him at. Is that not a direct contradiction?.
The whole point of this argument is that Dr.Peterson is aware of the truth Sam is attempting to lay out a foundation with and he disagrees that, that is a sufficient starting point to move forward from. Your direct contradiction essentially sidelines the whole point of the discussion and you do that before you even get to your narcissistic claims of indoctrination against Dr.Peterson.
I like that you clearly recognise the reasons behind Dr.Peterson's actions in that he refuses to stray from the point due to the fact that he believes it to be fundamentally important (requiring emphasis), yet can not see or just will not say that the reason it isn't going to help him is not because the majority of people don't know what he is talking about (this can be surpassed by people actually wanting to be informed and so learning what he is talking about) but because possibly the majority of people who listen to and actively engage with Sam Harris are narcissistic Atheists who don't really much care for the benefit of a new deeper conversation with unknown potential but instead simply want to feel like they are indisputably correct in their views.
I'm not religious.
I think you two should just use "accurate" and "valuable" and just avoid the term "truth" altogether. I don't think either of you is fundamentally wrong on this issue. It seems purely semantic to me. It seems like you want "truth" to mean "valuable" and he wants "truth" to mean "accurate".
This is exactly the conclusion I came to after listening the podcast.
In my opinion Jordan's position can be defined as Truth relativism - the position that truth or that which is true or in accordance with reality does not reflect objective and/or universal state of things as they actually exist, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Sam's position = truth is the quality or state of being true. In Sam eyes there is no degree to certain true things, they are just true. Jordan seems to reject this on a whim (as he smuggles in humanity in the definition of truth by using the notion of archetypes) with social sciences in his mind I suppose, suggesting that truths come in a spectrum as exemplified by his statements that things can be true 'enough' or to a degree.
This is well illustrated by the affair example: Sam takes the position that irrespective of the husbands actions the woman cheated. To Sam truth = the claim the cheating happened. Jordan would say yes to the cheating only if we take the husband existence into account (kind of intersectional truth), overcomplicating the issue to no avail. Making the whole conversation impossible to continue... if we cannot agree on what is true/real how can we have a constructive/meaningful debate?
Can someone explain to me how JP's position differ from someone who takes the moral relativism position in such way that his actions are only moral depending on his society, culture, historical or personal circumstances. In the end his position will come to this: something is moral depending on god(however you define it)'s caprice.
I suggest that JP stop borrowing from other thinkers in faith in order to justify his thinking in pattern! He could concede that certain things are true irrespective of human existence and still claim that there is such things like 'higher truths' and thus enabling the conversation to advance. By refusing to do so he takes an indefensible position no respectable scientist would even try to defend! Correct if I'm wrong but JP seems to take an idealistic/ideological position to reality.
Its as if your definition of truth is one that requires lots of different concepts being pieced together to formulate your finalized idea. One piece on its own might seem to be illogical or unrelated, but within context of everything else it makes sense. Sam seemed to just take the position that if one part doesn't make sense on its own, all of it doesnt make sense.
I really hope you guys can work past this and continue your discussion.
I hope you are doing better healthwise. Always a pleasure to hear from you.