Sam Harris vs Jordan Peterson | God, Atheism, The Bible, Jesus - Part 4 - Presented by Pangburn
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 ноя 2024
- #samharris #jordanpeterson #christianity #atheism #pangburn #bible #jesus #god
Join us on Discord here: / discord
07/16/2018
This is the fourth time Sam & Jordan appeared live together on stage. They were joined by Douglas Murray. This event took place at The O2 Arena in London, England on July 16th 2018 in front of 6500 people. The event was produced by Pangburn Philosophy.
(No copyright infringement will be tolerated.)
#pangburnlive 
Наука
Watch Sam Harris & Brian Greene on stage FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER ruclips.net/video/5pbHsRz8A7w/видео.html
Ben Stiller has really come into his own as a philosopher.
Ben Stiller has really let himself go.
@@meewarwoowoo Clear eyes
I love that the Ben Stiller joke is always funny!
So true hahahah
Zen Stiller
I love how the announcer for all of these is super enthusiastic like he's opening the super bowl and then these three dudes in suits come out and start speaking in soft tones about philosophy.
Read your comment, so true..thought they were going to walk out with mma gloves on 🤣
Only 2 of the 3 dudes speak in soft tones. Peterson shouts.
@@dbrast That's what being passionate about something looks like. At least he's not organizing genocide and wars like some Islamic organization.
This is exciting stuff bro lol
This is 1000 times better than any Super Bowl. This is very rare thing to see. Two incredibly intelligent and well read individuals Sebring deep topics in a very polite and adult manner. It’s pure gold.
The winner of this debate is anyone who learned something from both of them.
Ah yes, we've been expecting you.
I have this letter here for you
Truth from the heart brother. Thank you.
Would the following qualify? : "Reasons and emotions are the two shoes on your feet, you can travel further with both rather than just one." ... also, you can learn a lot not just from experience but by seeing two very different points interacting with each other and make your own point of view in the process (which is different than saying such and such "won" the debate).
@@daedalusdreamjournal5925 Very good detailed elaboration on a specific perspective. Masha'allah brother!
These 4 discussions are truly incredible. The first time I watched these videos was 3 years ago, and coming back to them now has been an absolute treat. I was able to find so many new insights and also see how my thoughts and perspective have changed over the last few years.
Also can we take a moment to appreciate how these videos have basically no dislikes. This comment section is also really great - everyone sharing their thoughts and ideas in a productive manner. It’s very rare to see comment sections on RUclips that aren’t mostly filled with corrosive arguments, when dealing with such complex topics.
This is an ideal example of how the internet should be used to share ideas and foster discussions.
RUclips disabled the dislikes viewer, I guess that's why we don't see them.
Peterson is great
but he's annoying in this debate.
Peterson is stuck in the micro, the details, and what is.
Harris flies in the macro, the concepts, and what can be.
In Western countries, people are taught to be happy for a reason.
because it makes a great profit
if they tell you you are not good enough, they make you buy more products.
and it's short-term happiness.
In Asian countries such as Thailand and Sri Lanka, they are taught to be happy for no reason.
therefore they experience true freedom and happiness.
These are the happiest countries.
They dont argue with each other, they are not punished for showing emotions and they appreciate each other.
If you show any type of emotion in America, they make fun of you because males are not allowed to be happy they are allowed only to make money, but not be truly happy and have a normal opinion that is not approved by a majority of people.
and women want their partners to feel happiness.
because happy people are more creative and meaningful even though if they earn less.
I was at this event. I came away from it in a state of wonder. I wasn't sure I had heard it right. I just watched this video and it confirms my wonder, that such a thing could happen, in this time. It is nothing short of a miracle. Thank you, three great human beings, proving that such a discussion is possible, in a time when we are so deprived of deep, meaningful thought.
Lol, what? I went to a University where we had these discussions all the time.
Right....among so much meaningless, petty claims, debates and useless rancor that is globally pervasive.
It must have been an amazing experience. I OFTEN wonder what it must have been like to be an observer seeing these intellectual giants talk about these things. Every time I listen to these dialogues I can feel my IQ rising. I am happy for you, both that you were privileged to experience this in person, and that the conversations were preserved so that you can remember the experience. And I am happy to have encountered someone who witnessed this magnificent historical event.
@@Fitplayer66 then you must've had the time to think that most people doesn't have that privilege in their lives. Also why am I responding to a 2 year old comment. Probably ego
If you are deprived of deep, meaningful thought, it is a YOU problem. Don’t project on others.
We are so fortunate to have this available online for free. And so easily accessible, too. Listening to conversations like these are my personal favorite way to learn. I end up questioning myself, rethinking my own positions, learning how to rationalize and REFINE my own positions too. Thank you for these videos!
Same . I grew up Catholic but am now atheist. I feel like this is my two sides of my brain debating on stage.
@@felixestrada8512 haha that's very cool :)
I m a born buddhist and I admire these guys so much. Richard Dawkins is my favourite so far.
Sam makes incredibly complicated things simple, and Jordan makes incredibly simple things complicated.
Sam tries to simplify things that are complicated and fails. I watched all four parts and I still don’t know where an atheist derives their morality from. Best I’ve got is biological and evolutionary chemical impulses. Which is a massive oversimplification of the human condition. That’s the same dead end I hit trying to be an atheist.
Very true.
@@tristan8041 All morality is emergent from the interactions between people in a certain society. From the perspective of an atheist the people that wrote the bible have inserted their own human morality in the stories. Because of religious dogma, and the present perception that the bible contains divine morality, this legitimizes people to base their current beliefs and behaviour on the contents of the bible. I think Sam is somewhat arguing that this could be problematic because we now live in a different era. Jordan indicates however, that the stories of the bible contain many wisdoms that can still be valued today. Sam seems not to directly deny this, but clearly sees more danger in the dogmatic approach of religion in general and the intolerance that goes with it.
@@basrutgers79 well I thought this was a panel about theism vs atheism. Not the Bible vs atheism. It’s easy to point out the flaws of rigid and arbitrary religious dogma. It’s not easy to explain away the possible existence of divinely created metaphysical realities that result in such dogmas. Which is what Peterson seems to be arguing in favor of. Although it is a bit inconsistent that he argues this point from a biblical perspective rather than just admit he’s agnostic.
@@tristan8041 I gathered that his main point seemed to be that morality is derived from suffering, people generally do not want to suffer and can avoid this by not causing suffering to others or have people cause suffering to them and try to avoid causing suffering to themselves. Fairly simple but effective.
I can’t relay how much I appreciate these conversations. I’ve listened to these four discussions like 5 or 6 times - probably come back to them every 6 months or so. Incredibly enjoyable and increasingly interesting. I pray to the highest value in my metaphysical hierarchy that Sam and Jordon continue this conversation throughout the years
That's crazy I watched all four of these and I would rather be here than the Super Bowl Sunday
And I'm 10 years late
Anytime. All the time.
why is that crazy?
👏I thought about it a lot 🤝
Totally agree with Douglas’ statement that the fact we get to dedicate time to a discussion about questions so deeply effecting our culture is a very positive sign.
Remember to subscribe :)
Péter Horváth Will these discussions ever prevent the barbarians from blowing up children at pop concerts, or is that just a fantasy?
The problem is, we should be able to have these discusions anywhere any time one on one as individuals groups whatever. They shouldn't be a privlige of scholars and elites of specialty vocations.
This is part of the current problem within society today. Why shouldn't you or I be able to enjoy a debate in a coffe shop or club restaurant or train plane any public venue at all and why would it be a bad thing for us to disagree and even walk away in disagreement but still maintaing respect for the other to maintain their stance?
It is a problem especially when the world becomes a secret society.
Thoses debates and this commentary make me feel love for people and the world, maybe deep in me I love you all even if you are sickening but maybe i cant help myself to cry with you hug you and tell you that i love you and that i value you
Maybe im just in fantasies who knows nigga
Whoever came up with the matrix chairs... genius.
The Matrix chairs lol !
And I’m quite sure that was an intentional reference.
Nice catch.
The chair designer.
🤣 lol
Thank you Jordan, Sam, Douglas and Pangburn for providing this video.
I think what's crazy is that Jordan never uses the practicing of a religion to think, as far I know. He is indeed using rational and contrary thinking, to justify irrational thinking because it's a way to act in the horizon of uncertainty. But the paradox is that one doesn't get to criticize that embodiment of actions in the traversing of uncertainty even when that then becomes a pattern with a predictable outcome, in at that point not having a criticism of a pattern with a possible negative outcome is to run your self into a brick wall with faith. How about this: Use WISDOM to avoid shit. Use Rationality to predict use criticism to correct. Use good faith to experiment, (meaning YOU DONT KNOW AND CANT CURRENTLY KNOW)
@@Dejonjames You are clearly not a Christian since you wouldn't say that we don't know when we do know enough to act upon our faith. To claim or insist that we don't know the things we do know is suicidal.
The crowdsurfing was a bit excessive and the moshpit was kinda lame, but otherwise, great show.
When Douglas said "MAKE A FUCKING PIIIIIIIIT"
Best part
Is this real or am I getting wooshed
They missed a trick by not doing the wall of death at the end.
Melon?
I like J Peterson’s shoes though.
Fair enough, man, I mean, hey!
Roughly speaking...
as far as I'm concerned.
Because, look, I mean...
Well it depends on what you mean by.....
I mean, you could look at it this way...
I don't usually comment on anything but I wanted to share. Here we have an interesting discussion between 2 radically different interpretations of how human life can be lived to its fullest potential, but that may actually turn out to not be so different after all.
Sam Harris is like a manifestation of the left-brain, an orderly and structured intellect seeking precision. That is why he appears to be dogmatic and rigid to people of the more right-brain type. Namely, he is comfortable with certainty, reason, structure, and analysis. His training in Buddhism, which is fundamentally based on direct personal experience of the potential of one's own mind and the experiences inherent within it along with a deconstruction of the concepts surrounding self, seem to provide a framework via which he can confront the problems of ethics and morality. Buddhism teaches you to use meditation and laser like focus to pierce through the illusions of the ego and confront mind directly. Beneath ego and the myriad elements of the verbally constructed self there lies a wellspring of wisdom, compassion, and love. I think Sam is leading people to tap into that wellspring, which is beyond concepts, stories, and ideas, and to drink deeply of something that lives within us.
Jordan Peterson is like a manifestation of the right-brain, a fluid and hard to pin down level of mind more akin to dreams and visions. That is why he appears to be slippery and confusing to people of the more left brain type. Namely, he is comfortable with a measure of uncertainty. He is trained in psychoanalysis and various theories of mind from the west, as well as his own attempts to follow the path of the Abrahamic traditions back to their original sources in ancient Mesopotamian tribes. This studying of the various stories and mythologies has revealed to Jordan a sort of luminous thread that passes through them, something more akin to archetypes and the subtle aspects of cognition. He thinks these stories are beautiful compositions of the collective wisdom of the species and, really, of Mother Nature and Father Culture, shall we say. As such, he thinks they embody a wisdom that is timeless in its essence and that can be drawn upon infinitely.
Really, I don't think their 2 models of reality are too different, or utterly incompatible. Perhaps they exist on 2 different levels of the same structure, and inform each other, for even Buddhism with its precise rational methods for deconstruction is saturated with profound stories that embody certain attributes of appropriate behavior. If you have your religious stories and your archetypes but you lack direct insight into the nature of your mind and the possibilities it contains (an infinite realm of experiences including the most profoundly spiritual) then perhaps the stories cannot truly come alive and have their deepest power. And if you have insight into the nature of mind and a powerful control of your intellect through meditation and tapping into the deep underlying wellsprings of wisdom and knowledge, but lack a connection to the archetypes and stories of your culture, then perhaps there is no glue via which to bind people together, no area of concepts that people can share and use, especially to help teach the young who are not yet ready to dig deep into the mind via meditation and deconstruction of the ego through direct analysis.
I don't claim to know the answers, but both thinkers have stimulated me over the course of their 4 discussions in this format. I think those that vilify one or the other and are unwilling to accept that they are perhaps 2 sides of the same coin, will ultimately fail to grasp a deeper understanding of the dimensions they were traversing, for both gentlemen surely respect each other and agree on many issues and believed that there might be some value in colliding their different modes of interpretation.
Vladimir Zaitsev beautifully put my man. This deserves way more attention.
Well put. Mesopotomian link clever.
Perfect Dostoevsky inspired analysis, maladetz
Nice Word Salad.................................JK! I think the left-right brain analogy is perfect. This is why we want to see them argue because it elucidates our own internal conflicts. I still have to side with Jordan a bit more because if you watch his MOM lectures he weaves the two sides together better than anyone else I have listened to and it is why he is the more conciliatory of the two.
Vladimir Zaitsev I don’t see how they are compatible. Sam is seeking truth and Jordan is hung up on metaphors.
"It's easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled" - Mark Twain
Man I actually felt sad when the conversation finished, great people
I hope they will do more debates but I have a feeling they will just say the same things.
Jordan: The profound archetypal life of Christ is a representation for imitation to get at the blah blah, Paradise, deep meaning.
Sam: Yes, that's a nice story but blah blah invisible man in the sky, he's supposed to be omniscient, blah blah, dogma won't change.
This is the last video I'm watching and I feel sad to see it end too, I never knew Sam Harris before so I'll be looking into him more.
@@GVSHvids I'm kinda late, but yes, they have dedicated a whole life to refine this ideas, obviously they would defend and even expand their notion of the right path, but you definetly can't constrain all their ideas in a few debates. Which surprises me the most, is the fact that their ideas are so profound, that they are willing to go very deep and tell us a new perspective towards their ideas. The deeper you go into their ocean, the harder it is to convince yourself that is not worth going deeper.
@@kevinmartincossiolozano8540 "The deeper you go into their ocean, the harder it is to convince yourself that is not worth going deeper." On one hand, I understand what you mean and quite like the metaphor. On the other hand, it's a metaphor that clashes with itself somewhat, because the ocean is deep and frightening, especially if you dive into its depths, and it would actually be very compelling to go back and not go deeper, returning to the light and the shore.
There is 1 single great person on that stage I'm afraid. And it's not Peterson or Murray.
The whole segment was astonishing. I just wish that this trend flourish. That what we need. Thank you, anyone, who watched this video with me.
I was sat behind the astrologer. He also called Sam a 'communist prat' and said his suits were boring.
was he kicked out?
No, he kept yelling stuff out until people asked him to stop. I'm pretty sure he was mentally ill.
Lol
Sam was losing the dress battle xD
Charlatans are always the best dressed men around.
The most hopeful thing about these series is not even that so many people start watching this, but that there are Arabic subtitles. That it is not just some (relatively privileged) people in the west take an interest in these discussions, but also from places where free and open debate is generally a lot more scarce.
Good observation!
But why Arab? Why not french, chinese, Spanish?
Who says so?
@@4luganArabic is a mother tongue for a massive amount of multilingual societies.
@@devincordray4582 that’s not a good argument because so is Spanish with all of the Americas, French with parts of Europe, Quebec and much of Africa, and Mandarin/Cantonese obviously hosts a huge number of native speakers.
But it also makes sense that they might do Arabic first because of Islam.
Either way, right now I don’t see any captions for other languages besides English. They took it/them away? Odd.
All four of these were basically just intellectual boxing matches. And i loved it.
The spectators even get to force them to go another few rounds.
I only think so about this one. The first three were take it or leave it imo
Brain ufc!
And peterson had his face smashed in multiple times, avoiding acknowledging sams points, even had a bit of a breakdown and threw a tantrum to try avoid answering a question.
Huge thank you Sam & Jordan for being at the forefront of the public intellectual movement. We are grateful to have you leading these nuance-driven conversations.
indeed i have my opinions but kudos to both for at least attempting a good faith conversation, despite that i think it was kept shallow by stubbornness of a particular side. even so it still came out very impressive and useful
@@garetclaborn which side I wonder?
@@shiskeyoffles welp, if it weren't obvious, i left it vague intentionally as i'm acknowledging the effort
Hear hear
Has anyone noticed that Peterson is wearing a tie with tiny lobsters all over it?
It's a nod to one of his lectures about inequality.
He's subconsciously expressing the safe word.
And people say he's too serious.
@@thecake03 Lobster hierarchy was actually a central premise of his book as well.
Raising an irrelevant issue. Please go back to the content no matter what side you support.
Jordan can’t stop talking, and probably spoke 75% of this entire discussion. He interrupts Sam constantly. He seems to constantly need to quote and impress you with how well read he is, use twice as many words as necessary to obfuscate his answers, and never really make a point.
Thank you, Sam, for clear elegant speech.
Couldn't agree more. Sam speaks to articulate his perspective of the natural world and the impact of religion on it. Jordan speaks to reassure himself that he is, in fact, as smart as someone once told him he was.
Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris are the left and right brain hemispheres of humanity.
"I suspect that many of you are actually here because you would like to hear the void addressed."
Sonja Nevalainen good observation
holy shit, I read this right as he was saying it
the funny thing is I really was there for that reason( metaphorically speaking)
s dude I was reading your comment when he was saying it 😅
@@sebastiaankampers6651 haha...the void wanted to make sure you were paying attention
This is a truly great series of conversations with the power to shift your place on the spectrum. Please take the time to listen to them all... just listen...
I've listened to all 4 sessions now. Truly love listening to them.
Still, it left me wanting. As far as I know, Peterson was an atheist when he had a mystical revelation. He then tried to make sense of it with the help of Christianity. On one hand this was good because it gave him a framework that was readily available and familiar to him. On the other it put him in a box, so to speak.
I just wish he will realise that this is only a phase and that an even more intuitive, clear, precise but also loving and inclusive framework exists beyond that. One that is dynamic, immediate and free of dogma. One that transcends individual religions and has no need for intermediaries. A framework based on direct personal experience. Such a framework exists and if only Peterson could access that, this discussion would have been truly mind blowing.
I hope you read this Jordan. 😅
You haven’t understood Jordan’s points at all if that’s the question that arises after watching all 4 of the discussions .
@@FightExcellence I doubt you understood my point....
Such a framework exists? Could you elaborate, since I think that was the crux of his argument in debate #2 I believe
@@knightblade87x Yes, such framework exists. Human evolution (and personal evolution) happens in stages, each new stage builds upon the previous one, transcending and including it. I recommend looking into Spiral Dynamics and Ken Wilber for more info on this.
Peterson was at a threshold when he had this experience, but instead of opening up to the next higher level (spirituality as a dogma-free description of reality based on direct experience), he regressed to a previous level (religion as a dogmatic teaching based on faith). Both religion and spirituality, offer frameworks to make sense of the human experience, but do so in fundamentally different ways. The first focuses on faith, ritual and externally imposed morals. The second stresses that spiritual knowledge comes from within, through a journey of Self-discovery by way of daily practice. Direct experience is key.
Maybe this would be a good replacement to “The View”
hahaha true xD
Yes. Lol jajajaj
The only problem with your statement is the maybe
Watching a dog eat its own crap would be a good replacement for "the view"
it would be amazing to have these two team up on tv
Jordan: "Douglas, you were going to say something."
Douglas (looking at Sam): "You were going to ask something"
Sam: "Was I going to ask something?"
Douglas: "Yeah"
This cracked me up more than it should've. 1:16:11
It's funny to me because they had spent 7 hours to that point pretty much never shutting up. Of course he has something to say :p
Remember to subscribe :)
At the end, when they answer the question about hate, you can sense the presence of both speakers. A moment where they become conscious to pay attention to the contents of their minds. That is really captivating.
Yeah and Sam spoke with reference to a philosopher praised by Bin Laden.
@@ezbayt2616 seems like a pretty good thing to talk about when the topic is "Hate" lol
I love all of these guys and listen to all of them individually with so much respect. From listening to Sam speak about religion in the past, it was clear he was really trying to explain things in simple and direct metaphors that could be palatable to most people. Yet it was still at a high level of sophistication. My take on Jordan, who is an intellectual “god” among us mere mortals, was that he wasn’t actually answering any of the direct and simple questions. It was like he had to drive to the supermarket 5 minutes away from his home, but took the back roads through the most beautiful and eloquent landscapes only to never arrive at the destination.
You really think it was high level? I followed alone rather easy. To be honest, I thought they were beating around the bush. They only began to touch on their real debate in the very last 45 minutes or so. Just before the last crowd break and still didn't really get anywhere...
Wish I could do a break down video.
If as you say an "Intellectual god" then why the hell does he fail/dodge points in the debate and speak these strange word combinations?
This was a good discussion. Why? Because it’s a London crowd, which doesn’t interrupt by clapping and whooping every time anyone says anything.
They didnt as much as the Americans but there was still some of that.
Clips on Clips None of the 4 events were in America, and after watching all 4, (Pinchas Kahtan) the beginning of the London event had the longest disrupting heckler. Please watch them before stating blanket statements like “London this.” America that.” that is exactly the opposite of what these events are intended to do. 😅 hope everyone has a nice day!
Except for in parliament
@@jeetkunedojuggernaut Vancouver is in North America
It was a good discussion because the people doing the discussing were good. You find the whooping in America annoying. Ok me too a bit. Your claim is silly and amazing considering the fact that you presumably watched nearly 8 hours of people reasoning.
my first thought? nice chairs!
London has good chairs
lol, i think its the same chairs they used in all the talks
I know, and they seem to keep on getting better as the talk goes on. I wish more people cared about comfort and aesthetics. They look like seer chairs!
FreddysFrets 😂😂😂 my thoughts exactly
ha I would want those with a fireplace and a good drink
That would be a great sitcom “ You, Me, & Marcus Aurelius” moderated by Douglas of course
This debate drove Jordan Peterson to the edge. No surprise. Wisdom comes from pain. More power to him. And, more power to Sam and Douglas too.These guys are here because they want a better world. I hope you do too.
yet JP fought back with all the buzzwords and metaphors he could think of. All while dodging the true matter to each point
I mean Douglas Murray is definitely not looking for a better world. In the UK he is mostly a right wing commentator who rallies against multiculturalism and generally hold fairly intolerant views thinly veiled under a guise of intellectualism.
@@mega4171 Sam Harris also dodging lots of crucial points here.
@@peacefulmind1409 if you had the confidence to specify which crucial points he dodged you would have. Instead you make vague and baseless claims. Specify or prove that you’re intellectually inferior
@@mega4171 Did Sam give an proper explanation on how atheists have an objective foundation of moral ethics? Did he ever explain how atheists have the same level of drive and passion to comply with the moral ethics as theists do? If he did, please specify me when he did it.
I have to say, I have immense respect for both of these men.
I think Sam's outlook is very helpful for people trying to escape the irrationalities of being raised in fundamental religious households, whereas I think Jordan has a very useful and important system of analyzing history and mythology and extracting meaning that can be used in day to day life.
I also see the drawbacks of both approaches. Sam's outlook is mostly critical of the erroneous systems of our past, but he either doesn't provide a suitable replacement, or his proposed replacement is rather esoteric and unlikely to be understood by the common person, whereas Jordan's unwillingness to admit that he speaks in metaphors causes much confusion for people, myself included.
Combined, though, I think both outlooks are very important. I think listening to both of them in tandem (not speaking with each other, but alone on their own platforms) is unbelievably useful in developing a personal pathway and outlook on life. And I think it's rather easy to understand and filter out where both outlooks have their shortcomings.
rationality provides a much more transparent platform for revision, and in turn, growth. whereas stories that require a lot of deliberation to come to a somewhat personal interpretation are very very likely to end horribly. on top of that, people who view the text (in this case, the bible) from the same angle as Jordan's are rare, which also means there are LOTS AND LOTS of "bad" preaching happening everywhere.
I think I can live the rest of my life just fine without ever hearing the word substrate again.
Ville Metsola - to live a fine life through reason and love in essence is the substrate in which we’re all trying to live. ;)
yup. substrate, substructure, hierarchy.
Mushrooms are so good though.
I am *cognizant* of where I parked the car.
Just think. All roads since the Roman's have a substrate. So every time you drive someplace, think substrate. You are welcome.
"You must be an Aries sir", nice
I was hoping to find out what the hell he was shouting
Brilliant!
I appreciate both Jordan and Sam Harris for how much they'd tried to be respectful and diplomatic to each other despite having polar opposite notions
I’m a big fan of Jordan Peterson but Sam is just so freaking articulate and rational
I agree Harris is outstandingly rational and articulate to the core, a very smart individual,.... but JP is a god.
Rational at times but filled with straw man arguments and often misses JP’s points.
@@HbRgamers Jp bases his theory mainly on Carl Jung, whose theory wasn't ever validated by evidence anyway. Sam Harris bases his theory on research and science about the brain specifically, which is on top of that a material thing we can observe
@gbmpyzochwfdisurjklvanetxqmore like a charlatan than an obscuritan
@@YuddhaVeera ofc people like you exist
Great talk. I like them all. I think Sam really drove home a lot of good points in this talk.
“You must be an Aries” - Sam Harris
Essentially, what Harris is saying is "People ought to be smarter and derive morality through a secular and rational lens". Peterson is saying "Most people are very stupid, so the practical thing is to let them play make-believe with false stories to collectively guide themselves from things they learned from their ancestors."
nice summary, i agree with Sam. I consider myself not smart, but i am a thinker. And religion is blocking my thinking, because it's a sin or bad or whatever.
Can't talk with religious people either, because.. well they can't handle it, they are not a free thinker like how i am. So anything i want to discuss, it's per definition bad. Even if it's just a question, because it will be seen as an attack.
I do despise religion for that and i do think it keeps people dumb and a lot of problems we have today i blame it on religion, because religion is a safe space for them and there is no need to think, god (or the bible or your ministerie, whatever) already decided for you, what you should do and can do.
@raidenafc6576fair point, but there were heros before that religious doctrine, which I think Sam is trying to get across. Meaning that it isn't rued to the religious doctrine, someone tied the doctrine to it and it stuck. For instance, a hero looks very different from the Muslim world vs the Christian world. The effect they feel and the motive may be similar, but THAT what Sam is trying to exclude. That said, it's an uphill battle because you have to rectify all the problems at once, or Jordan's "void" will be filled.
Cynical and oversimplified.
@@alaron5698 i think you won on that department. You used 3 words.
@@Daeva83B"the masses" tend to not be exceptionally bright. This is fact regardless as to whether one attends to mundane (materialistic) or supramundane (spiritual) ideals or philosophies. Unfortunately, mundane philosophies do not tend to delve as deep into the psyche as the supramundane and the neither do the religious masses. Harris is an exception to this rule and is pushing the boundaries of his philosophical inheritance and there are some that actually cross those boundaries. It is those that may be considered maverick that push these boundaries, effectively bridging the realms of discourse that are fast pacing human evolution, like Peterson. Even though the religious masses have inherited a wealth of wisdom from their most advanced practitioners that exceeds any level of wisdom in any field of human endeavour, they tend not to be privy to those advancements nor do they attend to the kind of insights or practices that would lead them to partake, in their heart, of those endeavours, hence their inability to defend that of which they have inherited in word but not deed. This is a tragedy, not only for them but for the human race, because if they did, then maybe we'd have more Jordan Petersons.
When asked what does Jordan Peterson deeply hate, and maybe to the degree of the most. He answered.
“Well I would say that I spent a lot of time over the past 30 years trying to understand the part of me that could be deeply satisfied as an Auschwitz prison guard. And I would say that, that part is worthy of hate. I think the best way to overcome it is to recognize it in yourself, and to do everything possible to constrain it, and that’s what given me an overwhelming horror both of the nihilistic void and the catastrophes of totalitarianism.
The reason that I’ve turned towards the degree that I have, to the analysis of religious traditions, while not losing my scientific perspective in the meantime, is because I’ve done everything I could to extract out the wisdom necessary to understand how to deal with that bit of unredeemed evil that every-bit of us possess”.
That hits you slow and hard. Thanks for sharing mate
I am struck by His level of genius.
Absolutely jewel. What a thought to articulate this well.
He just nails that.
Here’s the issue:
He hasn’t turned towards the analysis of religious traditions. He has doubled down on the cult of Christianity. Of all the worlds religions that have stories, older and more profound, he chose the one that has proliferated in the west, which, oddly enough is the religious tradition he was born into. I love his analysis of the conversation. And even though it can be exhausting to define every word in every sentence, it is necessary. I followed him closely until he began to proselytize the desert god.
Sam I do not follow as much. I do not need more of a confirmation bias, or an echo chamber.
I miss Christopher Hitchens, but I'm glad to see how far Sam Harris has come since being a part of the 4 horsemen.
More like the 4 clowns, Dawkins being king clown
I wish he could have been present to answer when Jordan brought up atheism and nazism and stalinism one percieved correlation I think is almost a cheap shot. To say that atheism will lead to gulags or nazi death camps where religion will not is disingenuous as the catholic church blamed judaism for the killing of christ and almost sponsored nazism. I don't think Jordan wants to live in any country that lives rigorously by the word of any creator like North Korea so secular is the only way. It's a sad fact that 1900s Germany and Russia both contained the revolutions, public malcontent, economic ruin and marxist and fascist ideas that allowed strongmen to birth the two most horrible regimes in human history but to make lofty unfalsifiable claims about the atheist subjectivity of Stalin or Hitler and their regimes is ridiculous, no one can make such claims Jordan should know that plus I just gave the knowable facts that we know lead to Nazi Germany and Stalis Soviet Union. The only thing we do know is that when an order fully collapses something worse can rush in to supplant it like ISIS in Iraq, the Terror Reign after the French Revolution 1789 and Napoleon and of course the fall of 1917 Russian empire and the 1933 German Weimar Republic but it has nothing to do with atheism
How do you think Sam Harris has grown since Christopher Hitchens died?
@@kend7597 What makes you say that?
This is my second time going all the way through them. Just as good this time around.
same ! &
i got more the 2nd time , sam is all over it
I kid you not i've gone through these as literally as literally means... 20+ times, all 4, all the way through
These guys deserve more fans than any pop star...
"jesus smuggling" -- someone needs to put that on Urban Dictionary
It's no wonder a Jew - Sam Harris - likes "Jesus smuggling" as a term of condemnation.
funny how antitheists accept that to lift a certain weight, they lack the physical training required. but when it comes to seeing God and requiring the purity of heart to do it, their ego rises its defences. the only one that stops you from seeing God is YOU. because your heart is filled with pride and clouded by its passions. Humility is not an addition but a reduction of baggage. there is a transparent glass between you and God. the only one that casts smoke on it is you. (and the way your family brought you up). and if God were to intervene forcefully He would only harm you cause you are not ready to face Him with an unsaved heart.
Keylanos Lokj That's a strange thing to say, when most problems caused by religion stem from a LACK of humility, most notably in their claim of superiority over others.
Keylanos Lokj I wouldn't recommend comparing physics with spiritualism, it's about as useful as comparing cats to oranges for the purpose of trying to explain what you believe and the value of that belief.
+Serastrasz people tend to carry the passions of their secular past into their spiritual life. just because you turned doesnt mean you overcame all narcissism in a night. they just twist faith to mold it as a vehicle for their ego as you say. in this sense they are in need to remove the huge log from their eye as Christ said, before they remove their brothers' little stick.
Not sure if it’s just me but i REALLY wanna see them do psychedelics together hahaha
The majority of Nazi guards in the camps were raised catholic. To say they didn't think there was a possibility a god was watching may be a bit of a stretch.
They would come to an agreement.
I'd watch an acid movie metaphor filmed inside their tripping heads, like a walk through Mandelbrot's garden with Pinocchio and that wizard mouse doing all the talking, their every detailed branching thought illustrated in glowing paisley curlicues but I think for best effect, I should be tripping too.
REDPUMPERNICKEL You went pretty far out there, buddy. I’ll have what you’re having.
@@yakthemutt9140 Lol. Whatever do you mean?
Ali G should mediate the next debate.
well said
Moderate*
Remember to subscribe :)
@@Pangburn get Ali G and I might
Actually I would be willing to wager that Sacha Barron Cohen would probably do a great job.
After watching all 4 of these debates, I’ve concluded that both of them are right. Peterson is clearly correct in his analysis of the archetypal power that mythology and religion has and how vital it is that we don’t scrap them completely. These narratives have a numinosity to them that mere rationality could never foster, and that numinosity is what drives people to act in accordance with the teachings and motivates people to transcend themselves. Harris is correct that archetypal possession on a collective level can be incredibly dangerous considering the vast majority of people are completely unconscious of the fact that they are possessed by an archetype. This leads to fanaticism and dogmatism. The answer lies in educating people about the psychological significance of these stories as well as the danger that comes with becoming possessed by it.
Great comment, I totally agree!
We should scrap them completely
I also think that smart people, people who "think about ideas", overestimate the average individual. If you're smart enough to follow all 4 of these talks, let alone take them in and think about them yourself, then you're likely in the top 5% intellectually. Half the world, by definition, is below-average intelligence and not in a position to actually join the discussion. Jordan makes good points in that domain.
Absolute crap! Peterson seems eager and willing to ignore that religious stories legitimize the medieval and abhorrent ideas of slavery, misogyny, violence and other nonsense in the hearts and minds of their followers and this creates a very dangerous society for everyone else who value reason, empathy, equity and compassion.
Peterson’s points are even more illogical when Sam Harris repeatedly and exhaustively points out time and time again in the previous conversations that the narrative that Peterson so much values in these stories can be preserved through the basis of facts and reason WITHOUT the dangers of religious fundamentalism I outlined above.
How one can consider Peterson to be intellectually honest about his position is beyond me and it seems that people are infatuated by his word salad that he constantly tosses about.
One the best debates was between Peterson and Matt Dillahunty. Unlike Sam Harris, Matt Dillahunty doesn’t tolerate ridiculous word salad and Peterson came undone in that debate and looked like a tool!
@@adas2409 Peterson doesn’t ignore any of that. His main concern is to convince Harris that we can’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Narratives express complex topics that cannot adequately be understood through mere rationality because rationality is devoid of the feeling tone necessary to adequately understand an idea in its totality. That’s why we have fiction, it takes an idea and acts it out in a story so it can not only be thought about, but experienced.
Ben Stiller, Kermit the Frog & Jimmy Carr - London
Lol!!!!
Not sure about Jimmy carr and Douglas . Otherwise 10/10
When I see Sam Harris I think of Raymond. Y'know... from "Everybody loves"?
Ha ha!
thats fucking funny man
Sam Harris is always raising that one eyebrow like "and... your point is???"
i love that
I hate that
@@ChicagoMike85 why because you'd rather live by platitudes and ambiguity than that of pulling up your pants and acknowledging the difference between wishingful thinking and reality?
@@jmike2039 More likely because it gives off an air of superiority than one of mutual respect in the arena of discussion.
So true
I really enjoyed watching the complete four debates, and as a Catholic, I would say this is the degree of discussion we need to overcome our differences and to find agreements in the essential issues of our time. Sam Harris concerns are legitimate, but I feel that Jordan's analysis of the transcendence of traditional stories can give us a base guide, rather than trying to rebuild everything again only with rationality.
I hope this can be subtitled in different languages so I can share it with my friends and family too!.
Sorry, but I dont get what you said. JP evaded the simple question. Do you believe a god exist? Sam pointed out very well that with all the word salad (which you did just like him), he didnt add anything of any real value in his conversation. If something is false, it adds less value than the truth, independent of how inspiring or popular that falsehood is.
Massive respect to these three. The courage and sharp thinking they have demonstrated in these conversations are, as a Christian would say, divinely inspired.
This is my second time thru these and I’m sure there will be a third ma probly a fourth because I’m getting new insights every time. Wonderful and useful conversations. I love this.
"You must be an Aries, sir"... you know, if Sam ever falls on hard times, he'll kill as a comedian.
wrong sign ? :D
Yeah, he's really funny. Or... well, he cracked a joke.
He's not a comedian, though. Anyone can have on the spot wit, cleverness, or gaiety. Hitchens had more of that than Sam, but in the end, even Hitchens was a serious person. Although I must admit, Christopher was both a more comic _and_ tragic figure than Harris; in fact, he was many things: angry/indignant, funny, charming, touching, and much more. He was truly exceptional and very moving in many ways.
While Harris does have much in common with people like Hitchens, who often made audiences laugh every 30 seconds, Harris is far more cold and clinical overall. That's not to say that Sam has no sense of humor or wit at all, but he takes a more sober tone in his public talks than Hitchens, not really striving for emotional response like Hitchens, whether he intended it or not, tended to produce. Dawkins, Krauss, Dennet, and others that have made people laugh to a lesser extent also would be very short-lived comedians "if it came to that", which it wouldn't.
Maybe I could see Christopher Hitchens possibly "killing as a comedian", as a seriously desperate stretch, but I really don't Sam doing that. Sam is closer in temperament to the clinician Jordan Peterson, but even in that comparison, Sam is more reasonable and somber or neutral in tone. And again, even Hitchens was _not_ a comic, in the end these people were and are serious thinkers.
@@mikeisapro - Yeah, Harris is hardly funny at all. Hitchens on the other hand was a legend - intelligent, quick witted and funny as hell.
BeyondSideshow
Hmm 🤔
Not sure about that. I came to the conclusion that comedians are far on the high side of the bell curve of intelligence.
=> Sam Harris would most probably do quite well on the comedy side, IF he chose to spend some time as a comedian. Especially if he found a stage character with a different temperament than his normal behavior...
Brilliant minds all three, One thing missing though, A big ol Hitchslap !
Dead mate... move on
I really miss Hitchen, but I can appreciate Sam getting better in a less flamboyant way.
not brilliant only a waste of time. those discussions are meaningless. protestants are helpless. and western apologists in general. christians should have NO discussions with heretics like antitheists (what we call atheists). as the Apostle said we didnt come to preach logically conceivable things. we came to preach Incarnation, Passion, Ressurection, and the ressurection and divination of the entire human race. God is NOT put under the microscope. want to find God? there is a very simple scientific process called faith to do it. God is revealed to the humble hearts. NOT discovered. such discussions are meaningless adultery and a waste of breath.
Hitch would have ended JP's whole career. You can tell Sam is holding back because of the IDW and the fact that they are developing a friendship outside of these talks so he doesn't get as aggressive as he could, not even as aggressive as JP gets. Hitch cared more about truth than personal relationships and would have flattened JP in 3 hours.
"scientific process called faith"..... Cant be sure you are not just trolling.
I'm hopeful for Part 5 and would like it to be mostly about practical ways these two philosophies can produce positive impacts in the present world.
Very unlikely sadly. Petersen is no longer on the same level then he was during these discussions. He is now a crybaby, who is obsesed with gender issues. It is really sad to see.
It's not exactly what you're looking for, but Jordan and Sam had a discussion on Jordan's channel. It's titled "Questioning Sam Harris". ruclips.net/video/prt9D90BvFI/видео.html
@@TgfkaTrichterSeems like he was right about conservatism
@@TgfkaTrichter cry baby ? He was at risk of having his practice licence taken from him and potentially prosecuted. How many people would brush off being stripped of their livelihood and thrown in jail without a vehement fight?
You know Peterson is going in when he starts playing with his ring
That's filthy
Dank Midget good observation. . hes going for the kill.
He was about to explode when talking about the cathedral dome. Man
He's considering doing what Bilbo did.
Going into unnecessary complexity
you have to give Jordan peterson credit for the compensation of his rambling with his outstanding, superhuman rethorik and gesticulations
absolute gold tier youtube content. thank you for uploading this! subbed
These discussions are fascinating. Tja k you for doing them. Insightful, elucidating and compelling.
"No more roundabout discussions of what makes a good man. Be one!" - Marcus Aurelius
It sounds like a good quote, but what happens when two different people with two different ideas of what it means to be good meet?
Perhaps if 'good is good then the benefit may trickle to social relativisms?
@@ericsonofjohn9384 Then the ideas of "what a good person is/does" or systems that support the well-being of the greatest numbers will get bought into, and bad ideas gradually get pushed aside by better ideas.
@@guitarmusic524 why will they? You haven’t accounted for human nature at all there. If the minority or majority can benefit themselves by subjugating those around them. They will.
Christianity is responsible for the belief that all people are of equal worth.
@@ericsonofjohn9384 To survive and thrive is what the vast majority of humans naturally want (or any species). It's natural for immature humans to get selfish, and it's true that subjugation often takes place for periods (sometimes extended periods). I'm looking long-term. Eventually the bad ideas usually get pushed aside. When it takes too long, and if conditions get unbearable, upheaval can occur. It's a matter of human nature (aka, the will to survive and thrive).
Douglas was amazing. Understated, as one would expect with the other two filling the space, but heavier because of the brevity.
1:20:07 - 1:23:21
JP: "Something obviously drove Douglas, I would say, in some sense surprisingly, to make the assumption that one of the things that we need to do to defend whatever it is that we have of value in the West (assuming that we have anything of value) was something like the reincorporation of this religious substructure. So it's not something that I would expect you to conclude, so why did you conclude it"
DM: "Well, partly for the reason I just suggested: the leap into pure rationality has no evidence yet that it's going to work or that it's going to be enough..."
SH: "But give me the precise place that you are worried that it's going to fail"
JP: "Well, you think it's failing now"
DM: "Yes, let me give you one example: We may be in the midst of the discovery that the only thing worse than religion is its absence."
SH: "Where? where are we discovering that?"
DM: "Look at the religions that people are making up as we speak! I mean, everyday there is a new dogma and you and I and Jordan have repeatedly tripped over these dogmas (they usually survive it has to be said), they are stampeding to create new religion all the time at the moment, every new heresy that's invented and they are not as well thought through as past heresies they don't always have the bloody repercussions yet, but you can easily foresee a situation in which they do. I mean a new religion is being created as we speak by a new generation of people who think they are non-idealogical, who think they are very rational, who think they're past myth, past story, and who think they are better than any of their ancestors and have never even bothered to study their ancestors."
SH: "So, can you say that dogmatism is the problem, the generic problem here is dogmatism, a firm belief in the absence of good argument and good evidence"
DM: "Absolutely we can agree that dogmatism of any kind has that danger or will always have that danger, but the void also has a danger. The void that you can create if you throw out all the stories that helped get to were you are also has this danger because people come up with these new stories and every days news is now about this, our politics is basically about this"
JP: "And what's flown in to fill the gaps is something like a new tribalism. Which is exactly what you would expect in some sense if you demolish the superordinate system. You know religion divides people, no doubt, but it also unites people, and so one of the things that arguably unites people above their mere tribalism is their union in an abstract religious superstructure and then if you demolish that, well, then one of the things that does seems to happen is the emergence of reflexive tribalism, because people need a group identity of sorts and the easiest thing to do is to revert to ethnicity and race and gender and sex etc.“
Remember to subscribe :)
It's a shame Douglas is so damn wrong on this point.
He is worried about people being rational because they might end up becoming dogmatic and creating new religions, that are not rational... Which is a contradiction, because then they're not truly being rational.
But people aren't 100% rational, and that's the point. And these pseudo tribalistic religions are emerging in our culture within people that see themselves as pure rational beings, as Douglas addressed so well. Reason is much weaker than we would like to, and most part of our brain is pure unconscious thoughts. We can't be pure reational because that's not our nature. Reason plays a important part in our lives, but that's not the whole story.
@@renatinho_cabeleira The issue is not what he has identified as a problem - people often being irrational and it manifesting through religion - it's his insistance that being irrational in this manner can sometimes be a good thing, and he utterly and completely failed at dmonstrating even a single scenario where it could be. All he could do, as you just did, is appeal to humans not being 100% rational. No shit. Not good enough.
@Abhinavv Arora I guess I, Sam, and everyone else who are reasonable, aren't human then, because we can do just fine without subscribing to identity politics' dogma. We haven't subscribed to any such thing, as your theory of human nature would demand.
Even if I agreed it was in our human nature, which I don't, that doesn't justify enhancing what you agree are awful patterns of thinking. Imagine if we instead of telling guys to restrict themselves from raping every girl they meet, because it's part of their "human nature", we instead told them to embrace it, because otherwise they might commit some other violent crime? The logic makes no sense. It's a false dichotomy. Why would you even suggest not subscribing to a cult, which is all religion is, would somehow force you into some other cult-like behaviour, like joining the KKK?
Q&As are usually boring and provocative at such events so its good that the four instances went without them. Thanks for making the videos public so that the world could witness a discussion of a very important matter led by very profound and bright thinkers of our time
I 100% agree. Very, very rarely will I enjoy a Q&A, and even when I do it's 99% momentary/only for specific questions.
Absolutely agree. I watch these events to see the people on stage elaborate their ideas, not to hear the poorly developed ideas of the audience. Granted, sometimes the questions are good ones. But often they are not. Q&A are perhaps more acceptable when you have one speaker, such as JP, monologuing for a while. But when you have three thinkers on stage such as here, you want to be a fly on the wall, not have the discussion be interrupted by random questions.
I've noticed something in myself that I think is really relevant here. When I'm stone cold sober I agree far more with Sam Harris. What he says just inherently makes sense to me as a spiritual secularist. But after half a blunt, I can really start to understand how what JP says can make sense. The abstract fluidity of his premises just seems finally appropriate after I'm decently baked. The major difference that I've noticed between these two states is that I'm more analytical-minded when I'm sober, so my standard state self (I'm a scientist, btw), while also being noticeably more introspective-minded respectively after a bit of some dank MJ. I've done some research into this and read about the differences between the more analytical people and more introspective people. It's interesting to experience both of those though, or at least what I imagine an introspective mind would be given my predisposition for being more analytical.
your right: with drugs your more in touch with your intuition and abstract concepts; rationalism cannot be used completely to understand the ''spiritual realm''
I'm kindof tired of the perspective of Harris being a cold unfeeling rationalist that hates emotions and artistic beauty.
He's not. He's written entire books explaining exactly how he's not. He's not this machine of science. His argument is that when we come up with a better explanation for something - we should accept that better explanation in the effort to minimize suffering. We shouldn't cling to the old explanation. You can simultaneously recognize the flaws in Christianity and it's historic impact and benefit historically (to a degree).
You can do both. And Sam IS. He's not arguing against art.
thumb up . No , I agree he's not at all arguing against art, and I'm an (agnostic) believer in God and I'm quite a huge fan of Sam Harris. The thing is, I like Sam because he challenges my thinking on needing a God-based spirituality in my life, something I have been already challenging all my life. However more like Jordan, I've had spiritual experiences that have me end up on the side of believing in a spiritual God, experiences which I have tried to (unwisely) explain away as hallucinations, aberrations of experience etc. to the detriment of my wellbeing. As Sam points out, if I had those experiences in a non-religious upbringing I may have understood them completely differently, but because I was not, it is foundationally irreverent to challenge my thinking with something I do not truly believe. I have to take a side of faith, either I'm faithful that these experiences are devoid of metaphysical basis or that they are based in otherworldly experience. Some people will say, "science can prove these 'religious experiences' are not 'religious'", whereas I would retort that unfortunately science cannot yet completely disprove the religious argument so there always remains the mystery due to our limited scientific capabilities. I choose to believe in the unlikely just like the roulette player than chooses the number with lowest odds.
I think the thing that neither of these philosophers have come to really understand is that some humans have a basic psychology that actually may require a 'woo-system' of irrational faith-based belief in order to function rationally. Don't get me wrong, I believe in science, and I study science and place great faith on the documented experimentation of our great thinkers of the past, and while I don't follow a formal religious system to tie me down, I wonder what would happen if I just let go of God altogether. Yes I could survive without a belief in God, but would I be happy if I suddenly tipped over to the other side of agnosticism? My own experiences have told me no I wouldn't at all, and that to me really boils down the need for this kind of artistic/irrational/pseudo-logic thinking to a great deal of our fellow human beings.
Although I agree with you, I must say that my "problem" with where Sam seems to come from is such a mainstream idea of god and a rather outdated one at that. Too many people think of god as some sort of a holy father or whatever, but when I took the time to read the bible with the thought that one cannot say something is nonsense without seeing it first hand. The preface details how God is in no way an invisible sky man but refers to an ancient idea of how the universe works from a mechanical prospective. So a lot of the ideas Harris has about abandoning this said mainstream idea is actually a blatant misinterpretation of the term "Tetragrammaton" which is an artistic concept in itself. Combine that with the fact that most names for Christian/Jewish God derive from a 42 letter word for Tetragrammaton, we start to have ourselves an interesting story...
@@InsaneCarville Im personally more into the esoteric and pantheistic interpretation of God, and Sam does acknowledge the esoteric views of God when its discussed. But I think at one point he counters Jordan by saying that it's all well that he has a deeper interpretation of what God is (the understanding of how God links by avatar in many religions for example) but most common interpretations of God still rely on the literal and exoteric interpretation of God, at least perhaps in the mainstream Christian sense. Though most Moslim & Jewish mates I've had the chance to discuss it with tend to agree with me on the Great Mystery interpretation rather than the simpler idea of God, Ive found that most Christian people (Jehovahs Witnesses, Protestants) I've talked to don't really get what you're talking about when you mention it.
@@solaristologist - Harris is being obstinate. He could understand Peterson if he tried. Harris ridicules people who believe in things without evidence that they exist, while Sam believes in many things that don't exist. Scientifically speaking, our world is just a spherical rock, orbiting a star, with seven billion brown and pink blobs of mostly water, wobbling around interfering with the environment. Countries, laws, Her Majesty the Queen, and the rest of civilization are figments of our imaginations, but we believe in them, because these fairy tales are all that distinguish us from savages.
Sam is not taking into consideration what Christianity is. He is clinging to the negativity of how people have used it without admitting that they are in violation of what the belief says. He hasnt truly read the 66 books that make up "The Bible", but he speaks about what the issues that will incite his followers because he knows the effects it has on his career and support.
Great thanks to Pangburn for hosting these four debates. This is some of the highest public intellectual discussion of our age.
I like counter balance of ideas rather than listening to one person's lecture.
As long as it is done with courtesy for one another and good will even within opposing views.
Sam Harris is good at this.
Thank you.
Gotta give it to Peterson for a hell of an intellectual rope-a-dope in this one, only his opponent never seems to fatigue.
There is a reason for that, If you go see how he constructs thinking its a much power requiring methodology than many. He is always trying to read the thing from the other persons psique. The proposition of Harris is really not that complicated, and doesn't involve the complicated interpretation of what is good from our products of evolution on a moral and ethical basis. Only reason basen on reason, is somewhat of a construction that didn't take an effort to construct for the description on the videos on RUclips that Jordan had go through.
The proposal that it has to be a conversation with the what we have from ancestors and reason, but not just a construct from scratch is the void here. The point that Sam makes is of the upmost importance. The risk of starting from scratch secular as an experiment has great probability to catastrophe, while with the bad of what we have with Religions, we can a much firm path from human kind, you just need the logos to be involved, and institutions have already been changing because of this very construct, particularly the Roman Catholic Church with John Paul 2nd's contributions to accept the bad thing the church on its name made on the past especially in the Middle Ages.
Surrrrrre;)
"pharmacological bombardment of the brain to explore"....that's one to put in your back pocket for dinner parties
Trey Rogge gonna do that rn
Remember to subscribe :)
Hahaha. You're hilarious.
"Motivated by love and guided by reason." Thank you, Sam.
So what do you do if love and reason conflict?
@@markgado8782 I can't think of an instance where they would. Can you?
It's not just the words "love" and "reason" that matter here. The words "motivated" and "guided" are also important. If you are motivated by love then your "heart is in the right place". That's a great place to start. From there you can still "put on your thinking cap" and let reason guide you on your way through multiple choices.
@@robinbeers6689 are you serious? Get an imagination. You just proved yourself not worth the time.
@@markgado8782 Wow, such negativity in what started out as a post about love.
@@robinbeers6689 wow, such ignorance in a post that started about REASON.
2 can play silly games..
It's not my job do do your research or thinking for you. Grow up. Think for yourself.
Sad this company didn't survive. Interesting intelligent conversation... the world needs more of this.
Pangburn is absolutely still around. They post near material every week!
I was in that crowd, brilliant evening
How much did it differ emotionally and experientially to be there and watch it online?
Liar
I wish I could go to a beautiful building every Sunday and listen to these discussions.
HOW ABOUT A BAR DOWNTOWN
@@samanthacanales3183???
These guys are basically like Yin and Yang. Two opposite yet complementary forces. I naturally tend to gravitate towards Sam's side of the argument, who I suppose we could call 'Yin' here. However, I still need a good dose of Jordan's 'Yang' in order to help keep myself balanced out.
By pt 3 I was already exhausted by Jordan’s myriad obfuscations but I can never hear enough of Sam even when he has to rehash the same points that Jordan continues to get stuck on
Well, you can always rely on JP to say the word “substrate.”
also known as semigay as a matter of fact.
And “encapsulate”
I just said to my husband “man, he likes that word” 😂
Mute the video and you will see Jordan doing sign language for an hour
Sad that some might actually do this instead of learning a perspective.
I guess if you arent that bright you my as well mute someone like Peterson.
Lol :)
@@dominionofme3462
I love watching both of these geniuses, I love nothing better than to go somewhere quiet and just take in all they have to say, my comment just came to me when I saw Jordan's hand movements. It was a joke, I think you need a "safe place" to cry.
@@stephenharrington1977 His hand movements contain a lot of meaning, he actually talks about the neuropsychological relationship of the language faculty to the hands in his MoM lectures, they communicate synchronously and aren't separate circuits.
Hahahahahaha. Funny comment. Clearly just meant in a lighthearted way👍
I dread coming to the comments and seeing the fanboys arguing over who “won”. For Christ’s sake just learn what there is to learn, it’s 3 intellectuals having an open dialogue. Did you like my Jesus smuggling?
Lol nice
Haha
I smuggled Jesus through the dark forest and past the dragon to get the pot of gold and then he helped me clean my room
so what are you doing in the comments section then?
@@chrisv.noire.6388 talking about Jesus duh
56:20 As a Scandinavian who has been passionately engulfed in Nordic myths my whole life can definitely say that a fear of old gods can be drummed into children with helpful effect as it allows them to see those gods in themselves and others. Some possess the venerability of Odin and we can strive to embody it ourselves and stay away from, or understand, the mischievous trickery of Loki. It's no different than Lord of the Rings but the fact that it evolved over centuries by a whole society which gives it much more depth than what one single person can accomplish in their lifetime. This is where these two seem to have issues finding a common language. Odin is made up by people, but what he represents isn't, and thus he's a symbol of much that stand above even the human at the top of our societal hierarchy. He is subdued by all the mythological and esoteric knowledge and TRUTHS that are woven into many gods across cultures and time.
H really? Just stop. Your whole statement is ridiculous and completely dreamed up by you
Jordan’s monologue on ‘the spirit of the father’ blew my mind! I was a bit disappointed that Sam didn’t at least pause for one second before counter arguing that.
woman of culture right there
I've noticed that Sam does that in these conversations. I'm not saying he isn't a towering intellect, but he doesn't address Petersons ideas directly once he can actually make a full point. I think there were signs from time to time in these 4 conversations that Sam really had no way to argue against Petersons ironclad points, thus pointing out to me that Petersons ideas were strong enough to win most of the time against a well-thought-out, morally secular titan.
@@doubtfultunic8510 If you want a strong conviction, the last thing you want to do is depart from God's knowledge and wisdom:
Proverbs I:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Doubtful Tunic that’s because Sam Harris isn’t a thinker, he simply parrots the atheists that came before him and is good at elaborating those narratives as a public speaker. But when challenged to open his mind to truly think about the points JP is making, he hardens his heart and reverts back to his narrative and clever one liners. To me it’s childish and pathetic.
@@jeffreyheil9542 Those who haven't really study the Bible are the ones making notorious presuppositions...
Douglas was like "I'm not moderate enough to be a moderator" (pause for laughter).... okay shit no laughter just keep going.
So cringey.
Ikr😭 i was embarrassed
testing the intellect in the pit i'm guessing
It's cause he got a laugh in the third debate with the same joke.
To give him credit he did get a good sized laugh last time haha
This needs to be redone by the south park guys
fuck yes
Or scrutinized by “the cult of dusty”.
they are above these guys so they wont
Sam - Mr. Masochists and Jordan - Jimmy
The void Peterson talked about, I actually experienced it at a very young age. I started seeking for a replacement and I searched for it for a long time but it never happened. To tell you the truth, it's the best thing that's ever happened to me because now I can think more clearly. It's like what Sam said, no more necessary pain.
i’m right there with you
Hear hear
My takeaway from the whole series is that there is value and worth-of-consideration in both Sam Harris' and Jordan Peterson's propositions. And I mean that genuinely - I _truly_ appreciate both of their arguments. But throughout the entire series, what was playing out was essentially a *mismatch of speaking styles.* Peterson relates ideas in a sort of artistic, organic sort of way that takes a lot of time. Within presentations where he's on his own and gets to relate the length of his arguments, the merit of his ideas is more apparent. Harris' speaking style is like a computer algorithm that happens to be precise, laser-focused, and above all, concise. So what happens is Harris gets impatient and cuts Peterson off before Peterson can get started. And what results is a disjointed, somewhat frustrating exchange.
If you want to see Peterson in disagreement with someone with the same paradigm of artistic, creative speaking, see the discussion between Jordan Peterson and Russel Brand on Russel Brand's podcast.
I agree with your observation about the mismatch in speaking styles which makes the dialogue more difficult, but I dont really agree with your adjectivation for each, specially for Harris. I definitely would never say that his thought process is precise, laser-focused and concised. In fact I would say that, thoughout the whole series, Harris probably took much more speaking time than Peterson, because he speaks in a much more paused manner, much slower, and it gave me the feeling that he was improvising much of the way. Or, in other words, that whenever he would start a sentence, he didn't really know exactly where it would land and had to build it as he went. On the other hand, I would say Peterson is an extremely fast thinker and talker, and always knew exactly the point he wanted to put across from the first moment he would open his mouth. But he is also a great story teller, so he recognizes the value of derrailing a bit and adding in extra details to enrichen and strenghten the narrative - and yea, that does take some time to build, but I think he was conscious of that and that's why he would try to speak fast. I was getting a lot more frustrated about Harris the whole time I was watching.
Thats what is called balance
Harris is levels below peterson intellectually, something I think shocked sam when he sat down with jordan for the first time. so much time was wasted by peterson having to explain over and over again his point about Harris's whole premise resting on an assumption masked as a fact. He can't see that the wish to minimise suffering is not a universal concept. Harris sees the contradictions but realises he has no answer for them. therefore he gets engaged In fallacy after fallacy, the most unforgivable of which being his constant straw man comparisons between post reformation christianity and tarrow cards and astronomy. This even after jordan elegantly breaks down that these stories came after our moral values had been set by millions of years of evolution. other examples of some major problems with Sam's 'style' are his straw manning of Jordan's audience position based on a crude request for people to cheer if they believe in God. another is his misrepresentation of the relationship between Christians and slavery claiming that the bible justified the slavery in the southern u.s states. Peterson, the more worldly man knew that 50 years prior, a reevangialisation of Britain resulted in britain ending slavery in every country except Brazil and America which set the moral and intellectual roots of Americas abolitionist movement. That is a feature of America's grim history not a characteristic of wider world history. Harris continually makes jokes and changes the subject when jordan has him on the ropes. When he looks to include douglas and Bret he seems like a hurt boxer looking to the ref to end the round. I used to respect harris but his arrogance in the face of a superior argument infuriated me especially due to how patient jordan was. He assumed sam was wrong, not lying. Despite the fact I would have liked to have seen sam get called on his bs, I'm glad jordan assumed sam's motivations were pure as it has undoubtedly made his argument that much more effective to those watching these videos at home.
I would say after all of this that a strange thing happens. Sam counter argues a point on some occasions that can be precisely used the exact same way against his own arguments. This leads me to think Peterson is a more advanced thinker. Sam raises good points. Sams logic is from a position of having religion to get to this very day even if he’s not remotely religious. I think he has a problem with that, it’s easy to see why aswell. I don’t think Sams wrong in his thinking. I think Peterson is a future version of Sam given enough time.
@@d.jparer5184 Wow, Sam seemed to dismantle all of Petersons arguments throughout this whole series. Sam exposed the vague obfuscation that peterson likes to do. His definition of god was very telling
They brought the chairs with them from Dublin?
That kind of surprised me as well
Those are the coziest and most comfortable chairs.
xergiok
These chairs were the winners in Dublin. So they brought them here.
Sam was so well spoken in this. Peterson was completely outclassed
I haven't seen so many people clapping the evasion of a question'
-Sam harris
Sam point it out every Jordan Peterson fan who buy their bullshit in that moment, epic.
My takeaway: Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson need each other.
Jordan Peterson looks either like a 1970s British philosophy professor or a 19th century Austrian magician.
When the discussion is so profound, interesting and engaging, one quickly realizes one's own questions can certainly wait. Nay, they must necessarily wait!!
Hence the blessed skippage of the Q&A session! 😼👍
I believe Q&A should be excluded from the agenda altogether in such fora. At least when JP is on the guest list.
This man can take one's mind on such a journey of thought and reflection that is pure unadulterated bliss, as to make one's own feeble excursions into such matters (and the resulting questions) seem almost insignificant.
This is like finding an oasis of cool fresh water in a desert where we have been cluessly wandering around for ages, thirsty for wisdom.
After watching four 2 hour discussions between Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson, I still have absolutely NO idea if Jordan Peterson believes in God.
He gave his idea of God in the second or third debate I can't remember now. It's more a concept than a conscious being.
@@juani2929 exactly. I still have no idea what he thinks about what everyone else calls god.
He said he acts like there is a God. Plus, all of his arguments clearly suggest that he thinks all mythological stories are made up. He's only advocating the necessity and relevance of these stories.
@@tyrionlannister1498 yet when pressed about the objective truth of jesus' resurrection, he refuses to reply with the same conviction and clarity.
@SKULL KRUSHER - I agree. He's struggled with clarity on more than one occasions when asked questions about God. It comes from a place where he's trying to acknowledge a possibility that certain things are beyond humans comprehension and cannot be factually proved, like the resurrection of Jesus. I'd say he's taking the middle ground between atheism and religion. On lot of occasions too, he's admitted that some religious acts were barbaric and had to be shot down, while explaining why he thinks people came up with it in the first place. Like the 'delayed gratification'.
The simplified answer to your question IMO would be - "He WANTS to believe in God"
PS: You have a valid point with this question, so I would like to edit my previous answer a bit here - "He thinks the stories are either inspired or made up or both, and he struggles to decide which is which. And hence he goes with the motto - "I act like there is a GOD."
It is rare to hear Jordan struggling like this. His argument is so difficult to motivate that he has to resort to personal anecdotes. While Sam's basis for an objective morale is by no means perfect, it provides a vastly more stable foundation.
Sam Harris is more courageous talking about difficult subjects and more direct & clear than, say, Jordan Peterson which talks around difficult subjects, like Islam which he avoids.
If you are an Atheist please check out Peterson's work, if you are religious please check out Harris' work. Because no matter where you stand on the creator debate both these men are amazing and cover a hell of a lot more than just this topic. Either side you are on, you can learn a ton from both of them on the way of being. Don't let their stand points put you off checking out their work because you will be doing yourself a ton of deserve. I watch both in these series of debates I tend to sway more towards Harris but I in fact actually consume more of Peterson's work especially his Maps of Meaning lectures. But both have helped me tremendously. Harris' waking up app has always been an amazing tool for me. Don't let your side on this debate stop you from seeking truth and challenge yourself. You will benefit greatly from it. Hats off to this two remarkable gentleman. I'm entirely grateful for their work.